Loading...
1984/06/05City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 5~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRE SENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth COUNCILMEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White CITY CI.m~K: Leonora N. Sohl ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer CIVIL ENGINEER: Arthur Daw ASSOCIATE PLANNER: Jay Tashiro ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF PLANNING: Joel Fick WATER ENGINEERING MANAGER: Ray Auerbach UTILITIES ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER: Darrell Ament Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: Reverend Louis Rohrs, Trinity United Methodist Church, gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Ben Bay led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 119: RESOLUTION: A Resolution was unanimously adopted by the City Council extending the happiest of birthday wishes to the world-beloved character Donald Duck on the occasion of his 50th Birthday, acknowledging that Donald had made his home in Anaheim for more than 29 years. 119: RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION: A Resolution of Appreciation was unanimously adopted by the City Council commending Disneyland for its outstanding civic participation over the past 29 years not only in the City of Anaheim but throughout the County of Orange. Mrs. Mary Jones, Director of Community Affairs at Disneyland, accepted the Resolution. 119: RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A Resolution of Congratulations was unanimously adopted by the City Council Congratulating the organizers and sponsors of the Third Annual International Music Olympics commending them for their dedicated efforts which resulted in an extremely successful and enjoyable event for all participants. Cappy Brown and JoAnn Stanton accepted the resolution. 119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Roth and authorized by the City Council: 'Management Week in Anaheim", June 3-9, 1984 The proclamation was accepted by Jim Dom, President, Rockwell International Chapter of the Management Association. 56O 6,2 City N, 11~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 5~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. 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. Counct/man Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of 31,029,862.39, in accordance with the 1983-84 Budget, were approved. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, 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; Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 84R-199 through 84R-203, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. 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 Southern California Gas Company (C.E. Beckman) for property damages sustained purportedly due to actions of City at 6535 Pasco Diego, Anaheim California, on or about March 24, 1984. b. Claim submitted by United Pacific Reliance Insurance Company for property damages sustained purportedly as a result of traffic light malfunction, at intersection of Brookhurst Street and Katella Avenue on or about March 19, 1984. c. Claim submitted by Beverly Clabaugh for damages sustained purportedly as a result of power surge at 623 South Claudina Street on or about March 5, 1984. d. Claim submitted by Dorothy Watrous for personal injury damages sustained purportedly as a result of accident due to traffic light malfunction at intersection of Brookhurst Street and Katella Avenue, on or about March 19, 1984. e. Claim submitted by Elmer Pool for personal injury damages sustained purportedly as a result of accident due to traffic light malfunction at intersection of Brookhurst Street and KatellaAvenue, on or about March 19, 1984. f. Claim submitted by Gerald L. Norton for property damages sustained purportedly as a result of power surge at 627 South Claudina Street on or about March 5, 1984. 561 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 5; 1984, 10:00 A.M. Claim filed against the City - Recommended to be rejected (Indemnity): a. Claim submitted by Ringling Brothers Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows, Inc. for indemnity in lawsuit of Alice Lorraine Samford, served on or about January 30, 1984. Application for Leave to present a Late Claim - Recommended to be Denied: a. Application for Leave to Present a Late Claim submitted by Christine Robin Teeter for damages to vehicle purportedly sustained due to condition of roadway on or about November 9, 1983. Claim recommended to be allowed: a. Submitted by M. Lorena Collado for property damages sustained as a result of actions of City Tree Trimming Crew, on or about April 3, 1984. 2. Receiving and filing the following correspondence: (on file) a. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission--Minutes of May 9, 1984. b. 114: City of Garden Grove, Resolution No. 6492-84, regarding Expenditures by the State Legislative Contingent Fund. c. 173: Pacific Coast Sightseeing Tours, Route Change issued by California Public Utilities Commission, Decision 84-04-071, Application 83-12-20. 3. 139: Opposing AB 3683 (Floyd) pending State Legislation to amend and repeal labor code relating to public works wages and authorizing the Mayor to communicate said support to the City's legislative representatives. 4. 153: Authorizing the Human Resources Director to execute a Request for Group Insurance Amendment with Standard Insurance Company to increase the maximum insured earnings to $7,000 per month for long term disability effective June 29, 1984 with an overall premium cost increase of approximately $2,750 for the first full year. 5. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-199: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: CENTRAL CITY STREET IMPROVEMENT, AREA BOUNDED BY SYCAMORE STRR~T, SABRINA STREET, CYPRESS STREET AND ANAHEIM BOULEVARD, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 25-793-6325-E3780 AND 51-606-6329-17540-34310. (opening of bids on July 5, 1984, 2:00 p.m.) 6. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-200: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 84R-184 NUNC PRO TUNG. (correcting the salary schedule for Police Front Counter Operations D Classification to Schedule 1538 A-E) 562 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 5~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. 7. 104/169: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-201: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE REPORT OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF STREETS FOR CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS TO BE MADE BY THE CITY UNDER THE STREET LIGHTING ACT OF 1931. (For proposed reformation of Street LightingAssessment District No. 1977-1, comprised of property abutting Lenz Drive in Tract No. 1404.) RESOLUTION NO. 84R-202: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO MAKE CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE STREET LIGHTING ACT OF 1931, DESCRIBING THE IMPROVEMENTS TO BE MADE, NAMING THE STREETS UPON WHICH THE IMPROVEMENTS ARE TO BE MADE, REFERRING TO THE REPORT OF THE suPErINTENDENT OF STREETS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK, FIXING THE PE/LIOD OF TIME FOR WHICH THE IMPROVEMENTS ARE TO BE MADE, AND SETTING A TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING PROTESTS. (Five-year period commencing on or about July 1, 1984, and setting July 3, 1984, 1:30 p.m., as date and time to hear protests.) 8. 158/170: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-203: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING AN IRREVOCABLE OFFER OF DEDICATION OF PROPERTY. (Tract No. 9864, in connection with Nohl Ranch Road, Meats Avenue, Fairfield Street, Aberdeen Street and Westfield Court) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None Pickler and Roth The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-199 through 84R-203 duly passed and adopted. MOTION CARRIED. 105: APPOINTMENT TO THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION: Appointment to the Community Redevelopment Commission for the term ending June 30, 1986 ( Mr. Herb Leo). This matter was continued from the meetings of April 17, April 24, May 1, May 15 and May 22, 1984 (see minutes those dates). Mayor Roth stated that since he had been on vacation during the past week, he had not an opportunity to review the documentation. He, therefore, asked the Council's indulgence in continuing the appointment for one week to give him an opportunity to be fully apprised of the situation. MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to continue the appointment to the Community Redevelopment Commission for one week. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 108: AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT - REQUEST FOR REHEARING - HOLLYWOOD A-GO-GO: Affidavit of Merit in support of a request for a rehearing submitted by Robert Wayne Copeland in connection with the denial of an Entertainment Permit Application for Hollywood A-Go-Go, 508 South Knott Street, at the Council meeting of May 15, 1984. This matter was continued from the meeting of May 22, 1984 (see minutes that date). The Mayor asked to hear from the appellant. 563 Cit7 Hall~ Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 5; 1984~ 10:00 A.M. MarilynW. Mirano, Law Office of Elaine K. Bunzel, representing the ~pplicant, Robert Wayne Copeland stated she was present to ask the Council to reconsider the petition of Mr. Copeland to have an Entertainment Permit at Hollywood A-Go-Go and if they were not inclined to do so, request that a full hearing and a review of the denial of Mr. Copeland's application be made. She believed there were possible due process violations. Mr. Copeland formerly had an Entertainment Permit and it was denied based primarily upon a police investigation, the facts of whichwere not clear. Under the circumstances, she requested that a full hearing be granted giving Mr. Copeland an opportunity to confront any witnesses and interrogate for the purpose of re-establishing his credibility in the neighborhood. Mr. Copeland did not receive timely notice of the hearing that resulted in the denial of the application. He would need time to investigate and prepare his case. The present evidence given to her indicated that perhaps there might be a personal vendetta precipitated by a neighboring business person who instigated certain complaints being submitted to the Police Department. Those complaints needed to be investigated prior to a complete evaluation of the petition. In concluding, she reiterated they were requesting either a reconsideration and granting of the petition or, in the alternative, additional time to present evidence for a full and complete hearing on the matter. Councilman Overholt explained that in the affidavit one of the reasons given for the request was that there was collusion by several people. Mr. Copeland was present at the May 22, 1984 meeting and was asked if he would like to elaborate on that reason but he stated he wanted to wait until his Counsel was present. Councilman Overholt asked that she elaborate. Ms. Mirano answered that she was unprepared to elaborate but would do so at a full hearing. A line of questioning was posed to Ms. Mirano by Councilman Overholt relative to Mr. Copeland's absence when the matter was first heard and denied by the Council and his reasons for being unable to attend. Assistant City Attorney Jack White also responded to questions by Councilman Overholt revolving around the testimony by Ms. Mirano that Mr. Copeland did not receive notice of the previous hearing. City Clerk, Leonora Sohl, reported however that notice was sent to Mr. Copeland 0nM ay 9, 1984. At the conclusion of discussion, Ms. Mirano stated if the notice was mailed on May 9, 1984, it was probably not received until May 10 or May 11 giving only 5 days to respond. Mr. Copeland informed her that he was in Texas due to a family emergency. She felt it reasonable to grant an extension for purposes of preparing his side of the hearing. Mr. White then stated that if the Council granted a rehearing, these were administrative proceedings and did not have all the formality of courtroom testimony. Each side would present its own evidence, but there would not be formal cross examination as in a court proceeding. 564 7OO City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 5~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. Mayor.Roth asked for confirmation if the request was denied that the appellant would have recourse through the courts; Mr. White answered if denied, there were two possible courses - (1) challenging the denial of the request for the rehearing itself and the other challenging the denial of the permit on its merits. MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to deny the request for a rehearing submitted by Robert Wayne Copeland in connection with the denial of an Entertainment Permit Application for Hollywood A-Go-Go at 508 South Knott Street. Councilman Roth seconded the motion for the purpose of discussion. Councilman Overholt stated he was going to vote "no" because regardless of how one might feel about Hollywood A-Go-Go, based upon Mr. Copeland's representation that he did not receive notice of the hearing, he would rather that the hearing take place. He also asked Ms. Mirano if Mr. Copeland was operating presently with the dancing girls; Ms. Mirano answered, absolutely not. MOTION: After a brief discussion relative to the time frame for a rehearing, Councilman Roth withdrew his second to the previous motion of denial. Councilman Overholt thereupon moved that a rehearing be granted to Robert Wayne Copeland in connection with the denial of an Entertainment Permit Application for Hollywood A-Go-Go at 508 South Knott Street and that it be set for Tuesday, June 26, 1984, at 10:00 a.m. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Councilman Pickler voted "no". MOTION CARRIED. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning Commission at their meeting held May 14, 1984, pertaining to the following applications were submitted for City Council information. 1. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 83-84-30 AND VARIANCE NO. 3401: Submitted by Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, for a change in zone from PC-D and RM-1200 to CO on Parcel A, approximately 2.5 acres at the northwest corner of Broadway and Clementine Street, and to construct a commercial office complex and parking garage on Parcel B, approximately 2.2 acres on the north side of Broadway, east of Harbor Boulevard. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-89 and 90, granted Reclassification No. 83-84-30 and Variance No. 3401. EIR No. R-2 was previously certified on November 8, 1983. 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2573: Submitted by Chao, Inc., to permit an auto rental agency on CG zoned property located at 510 West Ball Road. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-92, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2573, and granted a negative declaration status. The Assistant Director for Zoning and the Traffic Engineer answered questions posed by Councilman Pickler for purposes of clarification relative to the subject CUP. 565 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 5~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2569: Submitted by Charles and Irene Vermeulen, (Carl's Jr. Restaurant), to permit the expansion of a drive-through restaurant on CL zoned property located at 313 East Katella Way, with Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-94, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2569, and granted a negative declaration status. 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2572: Submitted by Rose C. Fukuda, (Gilmore's Coffee Shop), to permit on-sale beer and wine in an existing restaurant on CL zoned property located at 1909 East Lincoln Avenue, with Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-95, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2572, and granted a negative declaration status. 5. TENTATIVE TRACT NOS. 10983 and 10984 - WAIVER OF HILLSIDE GRADING ORDINANCE: Submitted by James E. Crosby Engineers, Inc., requesting waiver of the requirement of the Hillside Grading Ordinance relating to the locating of a lot line at the top of slope for side slopes 5' in height and less, in Tract No. 10983 located south of Santa Ana Canyon Road and west of Weir Canyon Road, and in Tract No. 10984 located south of Santa Ana Canyon Road and east of Weir Canyon road. The City Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract Nos. 10983 and 10984. See public hearing on waiver of the Hillside Grading Ordinance for these Tracts which took place later in the meeting. 6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2326: Submitted by Antranik 0zbag, requesting an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 2326, to permit a veterinary hospital on CL zoned property located at 116 South Magnolia Avenue. The City Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 2326. TENTATIVE TRACT FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 30~ 1984: 7. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 9821 - REVISED PLANS: Submitted by Alan D. Trider, requestimg approval of revised floor plans and elevations for Tentative Tract No. 9821, to establish a 21-lot, ES-HS-10,000(SC) zoned subdivision located south of NohlKanch Road, west of Solomon Drive. The City Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract No. 9821. Councilwoman Kaywood noted on the last page of the staff report to the Planning Commission dated May 30, 1984, where density was discussed that there was an error. The figure indicated in Item No. 7 instead of 28 should be 2.8; this was corrected by staff. 8. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2564 (READVERTISED): Submitted by Steven D. and Lea Anne Heinrich, to permit a day-Care center for a maximum of 12 children on RS-7200 zoned property located at 613 South Bruce Street, with 566 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 5~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. Code waiver of required vehicle loading and unloading area for children. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-87, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2564, and granted a negative declaration status. Councilman Pickler posed questions to staff relative to whether or not the people applying for day-care had a background in that field; Jack White Assistant City Attorney explained that the City looked at the zoning aspects of the permits, and the qualifications of the individuals running the establishment were governed solely by the State. In granting or denying the Conditional Use Permit, the City did not have the prerogative to determine whether or not the individual had the qualifications because the State pre-empted the City. After further discussion and questioning of staff, Councilman Pickler requested a review of the Planning Commission's decision on Conditional Use Permit No. 2564 and, therefore, a public hearing would be scheduled at a later date. 9. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2570: Submitted by Glenn F. and Joan M. Lukenbill, to expand a day-care center to permit a maximum of 12 children on RS-7200(SC) zoned property located at 4307 East Alderdale Avenue, with Code waiver of required vehicle loading and unloading area for children. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-88, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2570, and granted a negative declaration status. Councilman Pickler requested a review of the Planning Commission's decision on Conditional Use Permit No. 2570 and therefore a public hearing would be scheduled at a later date. 10. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2571: Submitted by Cosmo V. and Arlene Taormina, (Anaheim Truck Depot), to permit on-sale beer and wine in an existing restaurant on ML zoned property located at 1231 North Blue Gum Street. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-91, denied Conditional Use Permit No. 2571, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination. The Planning Commission's action was appealed by the applicant and, therefore, a public hearing would be scheduled at a later date. 11. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2187 (READV.): Submitted by R. H. Siegele, to consider revocation or modification of the conditions of approval of Planning Commission Resolution No. PC82-62 approved in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit 2187, to permit a recycling facility and recreational vehicle storage yard on ML zoned property located at 919 E. South Street, with the following Code waivers: (a) minimum landscaped setback, (b) maximum fence height, (c) required enclosure of outdoor uses, (d) minimum number of parking spaces. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-93, revoked Conditional Use Permit No. 2187. 567 City Hsll~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 5~ 1984~ 10=00 A.M. The Planning Commission's action was appealed by the applicant and, therefore, a public hearing would be scheduled at a later date. 12. VARIANCE NO. 3396: Submitted by Purushottamdas R. and Nila P. Patel, (Convention Center Inn), to construct a freestanding sign and an illuminated roof sign on C-R zoned property located at 2017 South Harbor Boulevard, with the following Code waivers: (a) maximum area of freestanding sign, (b) permitted location of freestanding sign, (c) maximum area of roof sign, (d) permitted location of roof sign, (e) maximum height of illuminated roof sign. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-96, granted in part, Variance No. 3396, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination. Councilwoman Kaywood asked if permission was given to use the name Convention Center Inn because she felt it was confusing and misleading; Councilman Roth asked if Anaheim had exclusive rights to the use of the name Convention Center. Assistant City Attorney Jack White answered not to his knowledge. It would be only if Convention Center were a trade name. The City had exclusive right to the use of their logos but he did not believe they had any legal right to preclude anyone else from using the words "Convention Center". Relative to using Anaheim Convention Center Inn as posed by Councilman Overholt, Mr. White stated that would be getting closer to confusion with a City of Anaheim sponsored or operated business or function and his office might well take a look at the right to avoid that confusion in such an instance. Councilwoman Kaywood requested a review of the Planning Commission's decision on Variance No. 3396 and, therefore, a public hearing would be scheduled at a later date. 13. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2029 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Allan Lobel, Canex Investments, requesting an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 2029, to permit an automobile sales agency on CG zoned property located at 619-631 North Anaheim Boulevard. The City Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 2029. The Planning Commission's action was appealed by the applicant and, therefore, a public hearing would be scheduled at a later date. 14. GENERAL PIANAMENDMENTNO. 194: To consider an amendment to the General Plan Text, for an update and consolidation of the elements of the General Plan. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-97, recommended adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 194, and granted a negative declaration status. MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to set the date and time for a public hearing on General Plan Amendment No. 194 on Tuesday, July 3, 1984, at 1:30 p.m. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 568 City Hall; Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 5~ 1984; 10:00 A.M. 15. MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Planning Department, requestihg approval as a Master EnvironmentalAssessment, of a body of materials consisting of Atlas exhibits and related summaries, files and micro-computer data bases which together comprise an ongoing technical inventory of City-wide physical, biological, social and economic characteristics. MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to consider the subject Master Environmental Assessment in conjunction with General Plan Amendment No. 194 to Tuesday, July 3, 1984, at 1:30 p.m. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 179: PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT: Adding new Section 18.61.050 to the Code, pertaining to private clubs, lodges, fraternities and sororities. First reading of the ordinance scheduled for reconsideration at the request of the Elks Lodge. The proposed ordinance was denied by the City Council at their meeting of May 15, 1984 (see minutes that date). Mayor Roth noted that Mr. Sram Pawlowski who wished to speak to the issue was in the Chamber audience but had to leave. However, there were other representatives from the Anaheim Elks Lodge 1345 still present relative to the previously proposed ordinance which was denied by the Council. The ordinance would have permitted the Elks to utilize the La Cabana Restaurant for their organization. The Elks wanted to address the Council to ask for reconsideration. Councilman Overholt referred to a letter dated May 21, 1984, from James Avary, Board of Trustee Chairman of the Anaheim Elks Lodge, and his impression was that there was not sufficient grounds given for granting a rehearing; one reason was the Elks were not present at the May 15, 1984 Council meeting and the other was that staff was to be criticized for not submitting two letters to the Council and Planning Commission. If there was some misunderstanding about the hearing date and that was the reason why the Elks were not present that would be a good ground or if there was new evidence to present. Mayor Roth noted that the letters were addressed to the Planning Commission but not forwarded to the Council in their agenda packet. He did not believe that the Council was aware that the Elks were involved; both Councilman Overholt and Councilwoman Kaywood commented that they were aware that the Elks were involved noting that it was indicated in the ~taf£ report which showed that Planning Commissioner Gerald Bushore abstained because he was a member of the Elks and there were other references to the Elks in that report. Councilman 0verholt stated he was not opposed to the hearing but he felt there should be proper grounds; Councilman Roth was supportive of giving the Elks an opportunity to state their case. He asked Mr. Espy to speak to the issue. Mr. James Espy, Member of Anaheim Elks Lodge 1345, 1600 South Clementine Street, stated that Mr. Bob Crisenti, agent for the seller, (see minutes of May 15, 1984 where Mr. Crisenti addressed the Council) approached the Planning Commission inquiring as to the possibility of usage by the Elks Lodge of the subject property and was informed that a Conditional Use Permit would be the only requirement. The Elks subsequently entered into escrow and submitted an 569 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 5~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. application for a CUP with the Planning Commission. That application and checks had been returned apparently because of an ordinance. One of the letters addressed to the City Council dated June 1, 1984, requested reconsideration because the Elks had no opportunity to speak since they received no notice of the meeting where they might have been able to answer questions or possibly give new evidence for Council consideration. The Elks Club hoped to provide a service to the community as well as providing lunches to the industrial area and to use the building the rest of the time for their own lodge activities in the evenings. Historically the building had not been able to substantiate itself as a restaurant mostly because of the total lack of evening trade. They hoped that the Council would reconsider their previous action. MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved, based on the presentation, that the Council reconsider the ordinance previously proposed. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Assistant City Attorney Jack White clarified that it would not technically be a hearing but a legislative decision of the Council whether to give first reading and subsequent adoption to the ordinance. It could be advertised as a first reading and at that time, the Council could have a full discussion both by the public and the Council. Councilman Overholt clarified that his motion was at the request of the Elks to reinitiate the process. He emphasized it was with the understanding that there was no commitment one way or the other as to the outcome. Councilman Bay also emphasized that the issue had nothing to do with the Elks; the issue was protection of the northeast industrial area. The ordinance was created with exceptions that could not be given even with conditional use permits in an attempt to protect the very little industrial property left in the City. He had no problem having a meeting to discuss a possible change in the ordinance but that notification be sent to those interested since the Redevelopment Commission, Project Area Committee and Industrial Development Board were not supportive of the proposed change. The issue was one of whether the Council was going to open up the industrial area to clubs, lodges, fraternities and sororities or to churches and other organizations as well. If they were going to have the hearing, he would like information on the side effect relative to a precedent for other organizations if the ordinance was changed. Councilman Overholt stated he presumed that the same ordinance as the previous one was going to be offered because if it was tailored to allow the Elks to locate in the industrial area, he would be opposed; Mr. White stated he would have difficulty in legally supporting an ordinance directed solely to the organization. Mr. White confirmed that the ordinance to be offered for first reading would be identical to the previous ordinance and that all concerned and interested organizations would be notified as done in the past. 570 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 5, 1984~ 10:00 A.M. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion clarified as follows: That first reading of the proposed ordinance be scheduled for reconsideration at the request of the Anaheim Elks Lodge on Tuesday, June 26, 1984, at 10:00 a. m. MOTION CARRIED. 114: COUNCIL POLICY MANUAL REVISIONS: City Manager Talley briefed the Council on memorandum dated May 15, 1984, from Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, a participant in the Administrative Loan Program (ALP) responsible for the proposed revisions. He also explained that inquiries had been received from Councilwoman Kaywood and he understood there were further questions. Relative to the two proposed ordinances, one pertaining to the display of privately owned art objects on City property and the other pertaining to zoning, those could be introduced today without finally acting upon the motions relating to deleting or amending Council policies. Councilman Pickler suggested that the subject revisions be continued; Councilman Roth recommended, however, that they act on the two proposed ordinances giving the first reading and then the whole issue could be considered and finalized in one week. Councilman Roth offered Ordinance Nos. 4510 and 4511 for first reading. Refer to Ordinance Book. 142: ORDINANCE NO. 4510: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING TO TITLE 1, CHAPTER 1.04, SECTION 1.04.495 PERTAINING TO ART OBJECTS. 179: ORDINANCE NO. 4511: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING TO TITLE 18, CHAPTER 18.22, 18.23, 18.24, 18.25, 18.26, 18.27 NEW SECTIONS 18.22.068, 18.23.068, 18.24.068, 18.25.068, 18.26.068, 18.27.068, AND REPEALING TITLE 18 CHAPTERS 18.31, 18.32, 18.34, SECTIONS 18.31.068, 18.32.068, 18.34.068, AND SUBSECTIONS 18.31.068.022, 18.34.068.022, AND ADDING TO TITLE 18, CHAPTERS 18.31, 18.32, 18.34, OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO ZONING. Councilwoman Kaywood felt that all the questions had been answered regarding the proposed deletions and amendments. She stated that relative to the ordinance on the display of privately owned art objects, the Anaheim Art Association had been placing art in the Civic Center which included the price. She did not know where sales took place and if the proposed ordinance would discourage the display, the City would be the loser. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer and Member of the Administrative Loan Program, stated that he did not believe that was the case. He felt that Chris Jarvi, Director of Parks, & Recreation and Community Services would not have recommended the proposal if it endangered the program with the Art Association; City Manager Talley added that they would ask Mr. Jarvi just to be certain. MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to continue the remaining Council Policy Manual Revisions (deletions, amendments, and Council Policy No. 122) for one week. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 571 City Hall; Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 5; 1984~ 10:00 A.M. 142/102: ORDINANCE NO. 4508: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4508 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. 0RDINANCE NO. 4508: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY 0FANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 8, CHAPTER 8.08 AND SECTION 8.08.010 AND ADOPTING A NEW SECTION 8.08.010 SUBSECTION 8.08.010.010 AND 8.08.010.020. (County animal regulations) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Overholt, Pickler and Roth NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bay The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4508 duly passed and adopted. 170/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4509: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4509 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4509: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION 17.06.290 OF CHAPTER 17.06 OF TITLE 17 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RF3.ATING TO GRADING, EXCAVATIONS AND FILLS IN HILLSIDE AREAS. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4509 duly passed and adopted. 179: ORDINANCE NO. 4512: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance Nos. 4512, 4513 and 4514 for first reading. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4512: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (70-71-15(Z), ML(SC) 5455 East La Palma Avenue) ORDINANCE NO. 4513: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OFANAHEIMAMENDING THE ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (82-83-29, RM-3000 949 North Citron Street) ORDINANCE NO. 4514: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIMMUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (80-81-14, KM-3000 CL 831 South Beach Boulevard) COMMENTS ON THE PASSING OF MICKEY CAMPBELL: Councilwoman Kaywood commented on the Resolution drawn up for Mickey Campbell not only upon her retirement from the Community Services Board which she so diligently served over the years but also to extend to Mickey the Council and City's sincere appreciation for her efforts to make the Anaheim community a better place to live for all citizens. The Resolution was presented to her by Council Members Pickler, 572 City HallI An-helm, Califo.rnia - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 51 1984~ 10:00 A.M. Kaywood and Overholt at the hospital. said it was a high point in'her life. following day. Mickeywas in very good spirits and She passed away at 10:00 a.m. the Councilman Overholt stated he was glad they were able to rush the Resolution and photograph to present it to Mickey. He noted that her humor, under the circumstances, was inspirational and she would be missed but her spirit would be felt in the City forever. Mayor Roth wanted to second all the things said about Mrs. Campbell as well as extending their sympathies to her husband Ray and the family. 114/179: UNIMPROVED PARCELS JUTTING OUT ON ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS AND POSSIBILITY OF CITY JOINING CONFERENCE OF MAYORS: Councilman Pickler asked, after budget sessions, to discuss unimproved parcels of land Jutting out on some of the streets in Anaheim. He wanted to know what they could do about those if anything. Also, he would like to again discuss the possibility of the City Joining the United States Conference of Mayors. City Manager Talley asked if he wished to have the items discussed as part of the budget deliberations. If so, the rights-of-way issue could be discussed as part of the Engineering budget scheduled for next week. Relative to the United States Conference of Mayors which would normally have been discussed as part of the Council budget could be considered on the final day when the budget was to be adopted. 175: REFUND TO UTILITY CUSTOMERS: Councilman Bay stated he was concerned over the utility refund recently discussed by the Council (see minutes of April 24, 1984) and he was not certain it was the intent of the Council to inadvertently delay the refund by some long studies on the question of method of refund. He did not feel there was any doubt that a credit to the billing would probably be less costly than refunding by a separate check. He was opposed to taking any time to research the matter because it would only delay the refund. City Manager Talley stated he would respond to Councilman Bay later in the meeting. His impression was that Council asked the cost difference between sending a check or issuing a credit. Later in the meeting (6:45 p.m.) City Manager Talley briefed the Council on memorandum dated June 5, 1984, from the Public Utilities Assistant General Manager, Management Services, Darrell Ament relative to the disposition of the Southern California Edison Company wholesale rate case refund requested earlier in the day by the Council. The recommendation was that the Council approve the distribution of the Southern California Edison Company refund of $8,781,110.47 (including interest to June 15, 1984) as a one-time credit on the bill of customers of record as of May 31, 1984. Page 2 of the report outlined the procedure recommended, basically that the distribution of the refund be made as a one-time credit on the bill of customers of record as of May 31, 1984 who had been billed at least once on or before that date. MOTION: After Mr. Ament answered questions posed by the Council relative to the refund, Councilman Bay moved to approve the distribution of the Southern 573 City Hall~ Anabelm~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 5~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. California Edison Company refund of 38,781,110.47 including interest to June 15, 1984 as a one-time credit on the bill of customers of record as of May 31, 1984 as outlined in Page 2 of staff report dated June 5, 1984. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 144: APPOINTMENT TO ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION: Mayor Roth reported that before the Orange County League of Cities regular meeting Thursday night, June 7, 1984, a vote was going to take place on the appointment to the Orange County Transportation Commission to replace Don Holt. The Council had received three letters soliciting support for appointment from Clarice Blamer, Mayor Pro Tem, Brea, Linda LeQuire, Council Member~ Fullerton and Henry Wedaa, Mayor, Yorba Linda (letters on file in the City Clerk's Office). He wanted an expression from the Council to assist him in his voting. After a brief discussion by the Council on the three candidates, the Council consensus was as follows: Clarice Blamer - Council Members Kaywood, 0verholt, Pickler. Linda LeQuire - Council Members Bay and Roth. 114: NO SMOKING BY COUNCIL MEMBERS AT COUNCIL MEETINGS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved that there be no smoking by Council Members at the Council meetings. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion for the purpose of discussion but then withdrew it stating he felt the Council could work the matter out. Councilwoman Kaywood stated it had been five years and she felt it was time to do something about it; Mayor Roth asked if there was a second to the motion. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion for discussion. He then stated he did not think they needed a motion. There was an area in the Council Chambers designated for smoking. He was for no smoking in the area where the Council sat because it bothered him occasionally as well. He did not realize they had four rows in the back of the Chambers where people could smoke. He felt smoking should be allowed in the Chambers but if they had those four rows, smoking should be restricted to that area. Councilman Overholt stated he was going to oppose. He considered it an affront to Councilman Bay and he was not prepared to make such an affront. was something they should be able to work out amongst themselves. It A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion and failed to carry by the following vote: Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pickler NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Bay, Overholt and Roth ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: The Assistant City Attorney requested a Closed Session to discuss pending and potential litigation with no action anticipated. 574 City Hall; Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 5~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session and a lunch break. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (11:42 a.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (1:40 p.m.) 179: CONTINUED REHEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2461: Application submitted by Riviera Mobilehome Parks, to amend conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2461, to permit two 14-story, 200-foot high office complexes on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located at 300 West Katella Avenue. Environmental Impact Report No. 262 was certified by Council at the meeting of January 24, 1984 as being in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act along with the statement of Overriding Considerations. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-18, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2451 subject to certain conditions and the City Council at their meeting of March 27, 1984, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2461 subject to all City Planning Commission conditions including additional conditions as stipulated in Resolution No. 84R-124 (see minutes of March 27, 1984). A rehearing was requested by the Attorney for the applicant relating to the imposition of certain conditions and the request for a rehearing was granted by the Council at their meeting of April 3, 1984 and continued from the meeting of May 15, 1984 to this date. City Clerk Leonora Sohl announced that letter dated May 24, 1984 had been received from Mr. Floyd Farano, Attorney for the applicant requesting a continuance of the public hearing to July 10, 1984. Mayor Roth asked if anyone was present in the Chamber audience to speak to the matter. Ruby Gordon, 300 West Katella Avenue, stated although she had no objection to a continuance, they would like to get the matter settled. MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to continue the rehearing on Conditional Use Permit No. 2461 to Tuesday, July 10, 1984, at 1:30 p.m. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Mr. Floyd Farano, Attorney for Riviera Mobilehome Park, stated they were moving forward and hoped to be ready by July 10, 1984; however, he wanted to address portions of his May 24, 1984 letter requesting the continuance and the response he received dated June 4, 1984. His request concerned Conditional Use Permit No. 2460 and 2462 as well since those two Use Permits also contained conditions similar to those being considered and in Conditional Use Permit No. 2461. He spoke with Assistant City Attorney Jack White last Friday and was told that Conditional Use Permit No. 2460 and 2462 could be considered in conjunction with the present hearing but he would have to pay filing fees equivalent to fees for a new conditional use permit application. He then explained the circumstances of the issue revolving around a question concerning a condition in those applications requiring Riviera to execute a development agreement 83-01. In concluding, Mr. Farano stated that they felt when Conditional Use Permit No. 2461 was reconsidered, 575 City ~.11~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCILMINUTES - June 5~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. that because of the fact that the conditions in 2460 (Condition No. 23) and 2462 (Condition No. 18) were identical, that that particular condition ought to be reheard or considered by the Council as to all three applications at the same time. Apparently the City was willing to accommodate them but the information from Mr. White was that they were to pay filing fees equivalent to the original Conditional Use Permit and he felt that was not fair but excessive. Mr. White explained that the Council could hear all three applications relating to that one provision but that was not the issue. The current fee structure as set by the Council identified three types of fees - for new applications, appeals, and rehearings. There was no separate fee currently identified for amendment of conditions of an existing permit. It was his belief this was a new application. After lengthy discussion and questioning between the applicant, Council Members and staff relative to the fee issue, Councilman Overholt stated if the applicant wanted an appeal from the decisions made the applicant should pay the fee. Mr. White explained that the Council could by motion determine that the appropriate fee for applications to amend conditions of approval of existing permits shall be set at one-half of the existing application fee which was the same as that existing for appeals and that had been done in the past. l~ss Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, explained that the amount of the fee was $350 for each petition plus $20 an acre or 50 percent of what they paid for the original filing fee. City Manager Talley interjected and stated he would be on vacation July 10, 1984, and inasmuch as this was the fourth continuance request that the matter be continued until July 24, 1984 when he could be present; Mr. Farano stated that was agreeable to him. Councilman Roth amended his motion as follows: That the public hearing on Conditional Use Permit No. 2461 be continued to July 24, 1984, at 1:30 p.m. at which time amendment to Condition No. 23 of Conditional Use Permit No. 2460 and Condition No. 18 of Conditional Use Permit No. 2462 would be considered with the appeal fee to be paid as articulated by staff and due on both of those applications. Before a vote was taken, Mr. Farano stated they would notify anyone who wanted to be put on notice of any changes in the hearing if the City Clerk gave them the names and addresses. Ruby Gordon stated she would like to go on record that there were several residents in the park who had gotten together and hired an attorney who found several breaches in what the owners were supposed to do for the tenants. Councilwoman Kaywood asked if their questions had to do with relocation; Ms. Gordon answered "yes". 576 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 5~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion of continuance and the fee issue. MOTION CARRIED. 179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2543 (READVERTISED) AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application submitted by Project Anaheim, Anaheim Town and Country Motel, to permit a 46-space recreational vehicle park in conjunction with an existing motel on CL zoned property located at 2740 West Lincoln Avenue, with the following Code waivers: (a) maximum structural height, (b) minimum landscaped setback, (c) required site screening, (d) maximum fence height. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-53, 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, and further, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2543, subject to the following conditions: 1. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans on file with the Street Maintenance and Sanitation Division. 2. That prior to issuance of a building permit, appropriate water assessment fees shall be paid to the City of Anaheim, in an amount as determined by the Office of the Utilities General Manager. 3. That the owner of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim a fee for street lighting along Lincoln Avenue in an amount as determined by the City Council. 4. That prior to issuance of a building permit, the appropriate traffic signal assessment fee shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in an amount as determined by the City Council for each new recreational vehicle space. 5. That the existing most easterly driveway on Lincoln Avenue shall be removed and replaced with a standard curb, gutter sidewalk and landscaping. 6. That the existing two most westerly driveways shall be redesigned with ten (10) foot radius curb returns to the satisfaction of the City Traffic Engineer. 7. That the driveway width between the existing poolside canopy and the managers unit and motel building shall be increased from 18 and 14 feet to 20 feet. 8. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer. 9. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities. 10. That the owner of subject property shall submit a latter requesting termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 1720 to the Planning Department. 577 City Hall~ Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 5; 1984; 10:00 A.M. 11. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1 through 3 (Revision No. 1); provided, however, that a six (5) foot high solid masonry wall shall be constructed on the east property line beginning eight (8) feet from the sidewalk along Lincoln Avenue and extending southerly one hundred forty-four (144) feet (adjacent to the existing wholesale plant nursery) and that an eight (8) foot high solid masonry wall shall be constructed southerly from that point for the remainder of the east property line and (adjacent to the four existing single-family residences); and that minimum 15-gallon Cypress trees shall be planted on five (5) foot centers alone the 8-foot high block wall on the east property line. 12. That prior to the commencement of the activity authorized under this resolution, or prior to the time that a building permit is issued, or within a period of one year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 3 and 10, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 13. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 11 above-mentioned, shall be complied with. 14. That the maximum stay at the recreational vehicle park shall be limited to one (1) 29-day period per vehicle. 15. That wheels shall not be removed from any recreational vehicle or trailers nor shall any skirting be installed nor shall any temporary or permanent structures be placed on any individual recreational vehicle spaces. 16. That prior to issuance of a building permit, a revised on-site circulation plan, including the driveways to Lincoln Avenue, shall be submitted to and approved by the City Traffic Engineer. A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilman Pickler at the meeting of April 24, 1984, and public hearing scheduled and continued from the meetings of May 15 and May 22, 1984, to this date. At its meeting of May 15, 1984, the Council granted a negative declaration status for the project. Discussion and input took place at that meeting and a further continuance requested allowing the applicant to submit revised plans. The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present. Mr. Joe Kitashima, Architect for the applicant, recounted at the last meeting they requested that the hearing be continued primarily to show the Council exactly what the owner planned to do as far as remodeling and relandscaping the front portion of the existing motel and other structures. He referred to the elevation drawing posted on the Chamber wall and described the structures. The Cabana wa8 in disrepair and they were proposing to demolish it and build a new one and push it back approximately 10 feet behind the existing front setback. They redesigned the new Cabana building and they also had to widen the driveways on each side as requested by Paul Singer, Traffic City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 5; 1984~ 10:00 A.M. Engineer. They retained a landscape architect and the plan showed a revised landscape plan. The owner had reviewed the plans and agreed to make them a part of the conditions in order to obtain approval of the RV Park. Councilman Pickler stated he still had concerns about the traffic on Lincoln Avenue. He asked if staff had an opportunity to review the plans and, if so, their comments. Miss Santalahti stated that the plans were submitted at the end of last week. Also posted on the Chamber wall were photographs they had taken that morning. She then briefed the Council on the specifics of the new revised plan and after doing so stated, if the Council acted favorably, she suggested two changes to conditions prior to the issuance of a building permit - that Condition No. 11 pertaining to development in accordance with plans, be modified to read, "Revision No. 1 of Exhibit Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Exhibits Nos. 4 and 5; including (a) replacement of the existing Cabana, (h) provision of an additional four parking spaces, (c) construction of a new patio trellis as shown on Exhibit No. 4; provided, however, that only two driveways on Lincoln Avenue shall be installed." Further that a new condition be added as follows: "That prior to the issuance of a building permit, a revised on-site circulation plan, including the driveways to Lincoln Avenue, shall be submitted to and approved by the City Traffic Engineer." Councilwoman Kaywood reported that she visited the site and while slowing to make a turn into the driveway, a vehicle was following her too closely. Had it been an RV trying to enter, she felt there would have been a bad accident. Mr. Singer explained that was why they recommended that the driveways be widened to minimum 24-foot wide with 10-foot curve returns which would expedite movement of traffic in and out of the project. Mr. Kitashima stated relative to Mr. Singer's comments regarding the driveway they added on, it was likely his (Kitashima) oversight. He was not aware the resident manager had his carport on the left hand side of the existing office building. In talking to him, he requested they retain his carport. The Mayor closed the public hearing. Traffic Eu6ineer Paul Singer then explained for Councilman Pickler that although he had concerns relative to the proposal, if the conditions as Miss Santalahti articulated, were included, that the circulation plans be reviewed prior to any construction or approvals, he felt they could accommodate the necessary circulation, ingress and egress, to make it as safe as possible. Whatever happened to the property would have to be an improvement. They were closing one driveway and widening two. Overall the City would be getting a plus for traffic safety. Councilman Pickler reiterated that he did not feel the property was appropriate for an RV Park. He thereupon offered a Resolution denying Conditional Use Permit No. 2543 reversing the findings of the City Planning Commission. 579 City Hall; An-helm; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 5, 1984~ 10:00 A.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood and Pickler Bay, Overholt and Roth None The proposed Resolution failed to carry. Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 84R-204 for adoption, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 2543, subject to City Planning conditions as well as modification of Condition No. 11 and adding a new condition as previously articulated by staff. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 84R-204: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2543~ Before a vote was taken, Councilman 0verholt noted that the bottom line was the fact that the RV Park would not be developed unless the improvements were made. A vote was then taken on the foregoing Resolution. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: 0verholt, Bay and Roth Kaywood and Pickler None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-204 duly passed and adopted. 179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2547 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application submitted by Ann Prentice, (Mobil Service Station), to construct a convenience market with gasoline sales and off-sale beer and wine on CL zoned property located at 2500 East Lincoln Avenue. (continued from the meeting of May 22, 1984) The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-63, 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, and further, denied Conditional Use Permit No. 2547. The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by the applicant and public hearing scheduled and continued from the meeting of May 22, 1984, (see minutes of May 22, 1984). The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent. Mr. Don Robbins, Real Estate Representative, Mobil 0il Corporation, P. 0. Box 2211, Tustin, first countered several items stated in the staff report to the Planning Commission. He clarified that this was not an existing service 58O City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 5; 1984; 10:00 A.M. station but that they were proposing to build a new facility, that iT would be Just as easy to purchase beer and wine in the market across the street or the liquor store down the street, that it would not be setting a precedent, that the size of the property was average for the proposed use, that the traffic generated would not be significant as evidenced by studies they had made, their landlord did speak against the proposal and the reasons were discussed previously at great length (see minutes of May 22, 1984) he then relayed some statistics they had gathered relative to Anaheim. There were 107 major oil companies and 15 independents in the City. According to staff records, in the last four years, there were 10 out of those 122 who submitted an application for dual use, five had been granted and as of today five out of those 22 sold beer and wine. The City was not inundated with the concept. In answer to the Mayor, Mr. Robbins reported that the attorneys for Mobil and the landowner had discussed the matter and the position of Mobil Oil was the same. They held a long term lease, it was not prohibiting and general enough to allow them to do what they wanted to do. He also clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood that they did have a public restroom at present and it was their intent to have one afterward as well. The Mayor asked to hear from those who wished to speak either in support in opposition. Ann Prentice, 1101 South Reseda (property owner), stated that she was opposing the conditional use permit again because she was not able to work out differences with her tenant. When the lease was written it was for the selling of gasoline and oil. If Mobil Oil wanted to change the situation, she would have something to say about it because of the terms of the lease which ended in June of 1985, at which time it would have to be renegotiated. There being no further people who wished to speak, the Mayor asked Mr. Robbins to make his s-mm~tion. Mr. Robbins explained that he sent a copy of the lease to the City as requested at the Last meeting, for clarification regarding the point Mrs. Prentice raised. They had three five-year options and they did not have to go back and negotiate. Councilman 0verh01t reported that had spoken with the Assistant City Attorney Jack White who had an opportunity to review the lease. It was his (White's) opinion it was not of concern to the Council today in making its decision. Mr. White added that it was his opinion that the current dispute between the landlord and the tenant as to whether there was a right to conduct the use could be further explored between the two parties. The mere fact that the City may grant a permit to use the property and that the zoning laws did not in and of itself indicate that there was authorization to conduct that use on the property. Councilwoman Kaywood, referring to Item No. 7 on the first page of the staff report relative to restrooms asked if there was an existing restroom that would not be affected by this. 581 Ctt~ I-I~11~ Anahetm~ California - COUNCIL }EI~UTES - June 5, 1984, 10:00 A.M. Miss Santalahti answered that in reviewing the exhibit it indicated an employee restroom; Councilwoman Kaywood assumed that there were no public restrooms. Mr. Robbins explained that the public restroom was in the back. The employee restroom was for the safety of the girl who would be working at the facility so that she would not have to go outside the building but that there was an additional restroom in the rear. Councilwoman Kaywood asked that Mr. Robbins point that out to Miss Santalahti working from the posted plan. She also wanted to know if there was a requirement in the Code that service stations must have a public restroom; Miss Santalahti stated she would have to check relative to the latter. Mr. Robbins stated every city was different but Anaheim did not require restrooms in a service station for the public but they would build one if desired. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she wanted to see whatever was required to be done to be sure every service station in Anaheim required a public restroom. Traffic Engineer Paul Singer stated that Condition No. i recommended that the driveways closest to the intersection both on Lincoln and Sunkist be closed and only one driveway on each street be permitted. Mr. Robbins stated they were aware of that and it was a part of the staff report dated April 2, 1984. They had four driveways now and they felt two driveways on Lincoln were necessary although the two on Sunkist were not necessary. They planned to close the one on Sunkist nearest Lincoln. The Condition stated that they had to close two driveways but they did not agree with that. He clarified for the Mayor that they wanted that Condition amended. Further questions were posed to Mr. Robbins by Council Members during which Councilwoman Kaywood expressed her concern over the fact that with only one employee on the premises at a time and considering the Fire Department requirements, that person could not handle problems on the grounds with the employee having to be stationed inside the facility in a cubicle. The Mayor closed the public hearing. Councilman Overholt stated that he, too, was concerned that there were no restrooms for the public and he felt that should be included; Miss Santalahti clarified that the posted exhibit showed only an employee restroom. However, if the Council acted favorably, they could modify Condition No. 11 to include that a public restroom or two public restrooms, one for each sex, shall be provided and available to the public during business hours. Councilman Pickler wanted to be certain there were no service bays; Miss Santalahti suggested that they include, there shall be no automotive service on the premises. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Pickler, the City Council approved the 582 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 5~ 1984, 10:00 A.M. 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. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Kaywood offered a resolution denying Conditional Use Permit No. 2547 upholding the findings of the City Planning Commission. She was concerned over the proliferation of dual uses and did not feel it was in the City's best interest. As Mr. Robbins pointed out, there was a market across the street as well as a liquor store down the street. Dual uses were putting supermarkets out of business and were taking away the servicing of automobiles which was the proper function of service stations. Further, if she had not broached the subject of restrooms, none would be included. Before any action was taken, Mayor Roth first stated that he did not see any problem in the number of dual uses the Council had thus far.allowed; however, he did have problems with the subject proposal since the applicant did not want to close the driveway closest to the intersection on Lincoln and Sunkist. Further, in the future, he was going to support the idea that there would be two separate restrooms for the public. Councilman Overholt stated he was going to oppose the resolution because they could impose the condition that both driveways closest to the intersection be closed. He did agree that it was imperative that there be two restrooms. He would support a resolution of approval with conditions attached as cited by staff. Further, Ralphs market was going to be moving and the proposed market would be a real convenience for people living in the area. A vote was then taken on the Resolution of Denial and failed to carry by the following vote: Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood and Roth NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bay, Overholt and Pickler ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None Councilman Pickler thereupon offered Resolution No. 84R-204 for adoption, granting Conditional Uze Permit No. 2547, rever~ing the finding~ o£ the City Planning Commission and subject to the following Conditions: 1. That sidewalks and driveways shall be installed along Lincoln Avenue as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with standard plans and specifications on file in the office of the City Engineer. 2. That the existing most northerly driveway on Sunkist Street and the most westerly driveway on Lincoln Avenue shall be removed and replaced with a standard curb, gutter, sidewalk and landscaping. 3. That the owner of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim a fee for street lighting along Sunkist Street in an amount as determined by the City Council. 583 City ~ll~ Anaheim~ California- COUNCIL MINUTES - June 5~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. 4. That street lighting facilities along Lincoln Avenue shall be installed as required by the Utilities General Manager in accordance with specifications on file in the office of Utilities General Manager, and that security in the form of a bond, certificate of deposit, letter of credit, or cash, in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim, shall be posted with the City to guarantee the satisfactory completion of the above-mentioned improvements. Said security shall be posted with the City of Anaheim prior to approval of building permits. The above-required improvements shall be installed prior to occupancy. 5. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans on file with the Street Maintenance and Sanitation Division. 6. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities. 7. That any proposed parking area lighting fixtures shall be down-lighted with a maximum height of 12 feet. Said lighting fixtures shall be directed away from adjacent property lines to protect the residential integrity of the area. 8. That the owner of subject property shall submit a letter requesting termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 1146 to the Planning Department. 9. That 15-gallon trees planted on 20-foot centers, with appropriate irrigation facilities, shall be maintained along the south and east property line(s). 10. That in accordance with the City Fire Marshal, the following minimum standards shall apply: a. That dispensing devices shall be located a minimum distance of ten (10) feet from a property line and so located that all parts of a vehicle being serviced will be on private property. b. That dispensing devices shall be located not less than ten (10) feet from any building which is not fire resistive construction. Such devices shall also be located so that the nozzle, when hose is fully extended, shall not reach within five feet (5') of any building opening. C. That dispensing devices shall be protected against physical damage from vehicles by mounting on a concrete island a minimum of six inches in height. Alternate methods of providing equivalent protection may be permitted when approved by the Chief. d. That dispensing of gasoline into the fuel tank or into a container shall at all times be under the supervision of a qualified attendant. e. That the attendant's primary function shall be to supervise, observe and control the dispensing of gasoline. f. That the dispensing of gasoline shall not be into portable containers unless such containers are of approved material and construction, 584 City Hall~ Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 5~ 1984; 10:00 A.M. having a tight closure with screwed or spring cover, so designed that the contents can be dispensed without spilling. g. That it shall be the attendant's responsibility to control sources of ignition and immediately handle accidental spills and fire extinguishers if necessary. h. That emergency controls shall be installed at a location acceptable to the Fire Department, but controls shall not be more than 100 feet from dispensers. i. That instructions for the operation of dispensers shall be conspicuously posted. J. That remote preset-type devices are to be in the "off" position while not in use so the dispenser cannot be activated without the knowledge of the attendant. 11. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1 through 4; provided, however, that public restrooms (men's and women's) shall by provided and shall be available to the public during business hours. 12. That prior to the commencement of the activity authorized under this resolution, or prior to the time that a building permit is issued, or within a period of one year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 3 and 8, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 13. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 11, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. 14. That there shall be no service bays and/or automotive servicing on the premises except for the sale of gasoline and motor fuels as permitted herein. Including the closing of the two driveways closest to the intersection, that there be n0 service bays and that dual restrooms (men's and women's) be provided for the public. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 84R-205: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2547. Roll Call Vote: AYES: N0E S: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth Kaywood None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-205 duly passed and adopted. 585 City Hall; Ana. he:~m~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 5~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. 179: CONTINUED PUBLIC REARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2324: Application submitted by Killingsworth, Strickler, Lindgren, Wilson & Associates Architects, to amend certain conditions of approval, in particular Condition No. 11 of Resolution No. 82R-385, that the proposed hotel shall comply with all si~ning requirements of the CR zone and that no portion of any exterior sign constructed on the hotel shall be located at a height exceeding 116 feet above grade, of Conditional Use Permit No. 2324, to permit a 15-story, 139-1/2 foot high, 500 room hotel with accessory uses, with Code Waiver of minimum parking spaces on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located at 1701 So. West Street. Environmental Impact Report No. 243 was certified by the City Council to be in compliance with City and State guidelines in the State of California Environmental Quality Act at their meeting of July 20, 1982. The City Planning Commission at their meeting of April 30, 1984, recommended that the request for deletion or modification to Condition No. 11 of City Council Resolution No. 82R-385 be granted on the basis that the subject sign would not be an illuminated sign and would not be detrimental to Disneyland. This item was continued from the meeting of May 22, 1984, to allow the City Council to personally investigate the situation (see minutes that date). Mayor Roth noted that the applicant's agent was present. He explained that the City Council Members went to Disneyland to view the potential sign intrusion. The applicant was aware of the City's desire to keep the integrity of Disneyland intact relative to encroachment of signage around the park. Mr. Stan Sakamoto reported they were at Disneyland yesterday and it was their understanding when they designed the hotel, the height guideline was based on ground level elevation. There was only one area in Disneyland where their proposed signing was visible, on the exit to the Big Thunder Mountain ride and that was only 2 feet in width. It was their opinion that one would have to try very hard to look in that direction and spot the sign on the hotel. The elevation of the exit was raised relative to the ground level of the ride itself. The conditions of the height guidelines were met. They did not wish to hurt the concept of Disneyland and they had an alternative proposal to alleviate the situation. In that one spot, the owner had agreet to pay for landscaping or additional rock work to cover that 2-foot spot. If agreeable to the Council and Disneyland, they would like to put forth that amendment. He had not spoken with the Disneyland representative. Mr. Bill Bealer, responsible for maintenance and construction at Disneyland, asked that the Council deny the request for amendment to Condition No. 11 as he did that the meeting of May 22, 1984. Before speaking to the proposed alternative, he again reiterated Disneyland's concept of a show as he had at the previous meeting. They found the alternate proposal unacceptable because there was more than one spot involved and it could not be handled by the addition of landscaping in the area. Disneyland was requesting denial of the request for deletion or modification of Condition No. 11 as well as the proposed alternative. 586 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 5~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor asked Mr. Sakamoto to make his summation. . Mr. Sakamoto did so by reiterating his reasons why their request should be granted. The Mayor closed the public hearing and after doing so reiterated his philosophy relative to Disneyland, Its relationship with the City and the importance of precluding any intrusion into the park which would deteriorate the concept of the Magic Kingdom. He felt it was imperative that they uphold Condition No. 11 of Conditional Use Permit No. 2324. Before concluding, however, he highly commended the Emerald Hotel and its organization for bringing such a fine facility to the City. Council Members then commented on their visit to Disneyland which was for the specific purpose of determining the degree of intrusion into the park as posed by the sign at the top of the Emerald Hotel. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 84R-206 for adoption denying the deletion or any modification of Condition No. 11 of Conditional Use Permit No. 2324. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 84R-206: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF'THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DENYING ANAMENDMENT OF CONDITIONS IN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 2324. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Overholt, Pickler and Roth NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSTAINED COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bay ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-206 duly passed and adopted. Before closing, Mr. Sakamoto stated that he agreed with all of the comments made today. When they came into the City they tried to follow the guidelines and they did so. He asked for future developers that the City make the height standard stricter by making it impossible for any building to be seen from Dtsneyland because, as stated, it would destroy the concept of Disneyland. 170: PUBLIC HEARING - WAIVER OF HILLSIDE GRADING ORDINANCE TENTATIVE TRACT NOS. 10983 and 10984: Application submitted by James E. Crosby Engineers, Inc., requesting waiver of the requirement of the Hillside Grading Ordinance relating to the locating of a lot line at the top of slope for side slopes 5' in height and less, in Tract No. 10983 located south of Santa Ana Canyon Road and west of Weir Canyon Road, and in Tract No. 10984 located south of Santa Aha Canyon Road and east of Weir Canyon road. Approval of the request was recommended by the City Planning Commission at their meeting of May 15, 1984. Also submitted was a report of the Acting City Engineer dated April 25, 1984, recommending approval. 587 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - CO. UNCIL MINUTES - June 5~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. The Mayor asked if the applicant was present and satisfied with the ' recommendation; a gentlemen in the audience acknowledged the Mayor and indicated that he was satisfied. The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to speak; there being no response he closed the public hearing. Before any action was taken, Art Daw, Acting City Engineer answered questions posed by Council Member Pickler for purposes of clarification. MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to approve waiver of the Hillside Grading Ordinance on Tentative Tract Nos. 10983 and 10984 as recommended by the City Planning Commission and the Acting City Engineer. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (3:27 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (3:37 p.m.) 134: PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 188 AND EIR NO. 265: To consider an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan, alternate proposals of ultimate land uses including, but not limited to Hillside Estate Density Residential, Hillside Low Density Residential, Hillside Medium Density Residential, General Commercial, and General Open Space for an area of approximately 600 acres bounded on the north by the Wallace Ranch, east and south by the Irvine Company property and west by the Texaco-Anaheim Hills Inc. property. At their regular meeting held May 15, 1984, the City Council set this date and time for a public hearing on the subject General Plan and Environmental Impact Report. Mr. Jay Taskiro, Assistant Planner, gave a synopsis of the extensive and detailed staff report to the Planning Commission dated April 30, 1984, relative to the subject property, an owner-initiated General Plan Amendment. The owner was proposing to develop a mix of housing densities (estate, low and medium) as well as neighborhood commercial, a school site, and an open space system includin8 a park and equestrian trails. The General Plan Amen&nent alternative would theoretically permit from zero to 3,677 dwelling units; however, the applicant indicated that a maximum of 2,400 dwelling units would be proposed in mixed residential densities and that a subsequent submittal for a Planned Community (PC) zone would address a maximum of 2,400 dwelling units. Before concluding, Mr. Tashiro referred to Page 19-z of the report, the first line of which indicated a 260 percent increase in density which he corrected to 160 percent. Mr. Jerrod Ikeda, Ida Inc., 18002 Cowan, Irvine, then gave a narrated slide presentation illustrating the conditions of the site which included arterial views, property boundaries, various orientations, topographic features, etc. Mr. Ikeda was assisted in the presentation by Mr. Jim Denehy, General Partner Oak Hills Ranch. Included were slides describing their plan for development 588 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 5~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. as well as slides showing other kinds of development that could occur which had been developed in other areas of Anaheim Hills and Orange County. What they were asking for at this time was a General Plan Amendment setting the overall number of units that could be accommodated in the area. They saw the Community as being an extension of Bauer Ranch. A mixture of the different densities illustrated in the slides and in their plan would be done in a manner that would enhance the qualities of the hillside and be a credit to the Community. There was a concept that high density was not compatible with Hillside Development but Mr. Denehy felt that the quality developments shown were evidence that it could be done if done properly. The question was not density but the quality of the density. Mr. Denehy then referred to his six- page letter dated Hay 31, 1984, which indicated that their proposal had raised a number of questions indicated in the subject staff report to the Planning Commission. The purpose of the letter was to document the discussions they had with staff end--Planning Commission as well as their responses to the questions raised. The letter outlined their key points which were as follows: (letter made a part of the record) Density increase in steep hillside area; Grading; water capacity cumulative impact on increased densities; City acquisition of reservoir site to meet proposed needs; relationship of proposed development to Weir Canyon Regional Park, and relationship of proposed development to Eastern Transportation Corridor. Mr. Denehy also briefed the Council on the model of the plan which was set up in the central area of the Chambers further elaborating on the mix of uses that could be derived. ddv / At the conclusion of his presentation, Councilwo~nKaywood asked why they increased the number of dwelling units proposed~r~m 921 to 2,400; Mr. Denehy answered that they first submitted a plan with ~2,$CC units but when they looked at the alignment for the road, they realized it was not practical. They then decreased the number to 2,700 and realized that also was too high. They subsequently found they could live comfortably with 2,400 on the proposed site. The 921 was the original concept under the General Plan in 1977. Since that time, the market place had changed drastically and as stated in his letter, it was not a realistic figure. It was difficult to take such a large piece of property and build 921 units since today it would not be economically feasible to do so. Hr. Dexter Wilson, Wilson Associates, 3138 Roosevelt, Carlsbad, then spoke to the water issue (see Page 4 of the May 31, 1984 letter from Mr. Denehy where the issue was addressed). They were not proposing at thie point to split the reservoir into two but they were proposing to work with staff to find a compatible solution to a problem now facing the City. The City needed reservoirs on the subject site but those reservoirs would not provide water directly to the site. They needed additional reservoirs to meet their water needs. These were terminal reservoirs for the City's master system. Since a great deal of the engineering work had already been done, it was a complicated issue to change locations of those reservoirs. They wanted to work with staff to try to split them into two reservoirs on two separate sites if possible. Their site could get by on 2 million gallons of storage and there was roughly fifteen times more storage on their site than they needed. 589 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 5~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. Mr. Ray Auerbach, Water Engineering Manager, explained that they had done preliminary studies in the area and their reservoir capacity had been determined as 30 million gallons to service the entire Santa Ana Canyon area. The site location needed to be an integral part of whatever development plans took place in either the Oak Hills or Wallace Ranch. The City basically had no major problem with the concept of splitting a 30 million gallon reservoir, which was Just a concept, into two 15 million gallon reservoirs. In the overall plan, he felt they would not build 30 million gallons at one time because it would not be needed until the rest of the canyon developed. The City would probably build two 15 million gallon reservoirs, but he reiterated that they had not indicated it was a fact that they would build two reservoirs on different sites. The Mayor then asked if anyone wished to speak. Mr. George Mason, 380 Anaheim Hills Road, Anaheim Hills, stated he was representing Texaco Anaheim Hills, the owner of the property to the west of the Oak Hills Ranch. The net density within the residential tracts that had been developed or tract maps approved to date was approximately 2.45 units to the acre based on 4,644 units including many of the higher density units shown in the presentation. The subject request was for approximately 7.5 to 8 units per acre or three and a half times the density overall that was evident in Anaheim Hills today. He based that on approximately 600 acres of gross area with Oak Hills from which he had deducted commercial, schools and open space. After further elaboration Mr. Mason emphasized if the development to the east (Oak Hills) did, in fact, come in at densities in the range of 7.5 to 8 units to the acre, the marketing of the remaining property in the Anaheim Hills Development with the City of Anaheim at the substantially lower densities was going to be virtually impossible. It would be necessary to request higher densities to be able to compete. He then further elaborated upon the attendant problems with higher densities. Relative to the 30 million gallon reservoir, the tank would be located in pressure zones substantially below the 960 and 1,120 zones at which the reservoirs were located within Anaheim Hills and from which they got their pressure so that the construction of a 30 million gallon reservoir would do no good for Anaheim Hills because it would be in a pressure zone substantially below that needed for their developments. Hr. Frank Elfund, 1313 Newport Avenue, Tustin, representing Kaufman and Broad (K & B) developers of the East Hills project, stated he was present to give K & B's position on the subject project. The company had no formal position. They had reviewed the EIR, staff report and Planning Commission meetings and the only comment they had was with respect to traffic and circulation generated from cumulative developments. The result of the analysis considering the different developments (Wallace Ranch, Oak Hills, S.A.V.I., Bauer Ranch, Irvine Company) showed an acceptable level of service at the intersection of Santa Ana Canyon and Weir Canyon. In reviewing the current proposal they noticed that without the implementation of the Eastern Transportation Corridor that that intersection would operate well in excess of capacity. It was that concern K & B asked him to express and that the Council consider in evaluating the proposal. 590 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 5~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. Mayor Roth asked the Traffic Ensineer if he had data to substantiate the effect of the cumulative densities as expressed by Mr. Elfund. Traffic Engineer Paul Singer stated it became obvious that traffic volumes due to increased densities around the intersection of Weir Canyon and Santa Ana Canyon Roads would be in excess of design capacity. It was projected that with the development of Oak Hills Ranch and Bauer Ranch, the capacity would be 103 percent and that with the development of Wallace Ranch it would be 113 percent of capacity which was not tolerable. The entire concept was predicated upon the General Plans. They now had to take into account the Eastern Corridor which was the major relief valve for that area. If not constructed, there would be severe problems. They were recommending that the project as developed and as approvals were obtained be continuously measured against the matrix provided in the EIR to determine what the impacts at arterial intersections were going to be and limit the construction or development of any units that intersections could not accommodate or if the Eastern Corridor were not constructed, that an additional arterial street be developed with an interchange with the Riverside Freeway. If the Eastern Corridor were constructed it would provide adequate capacity in the area. The Eastern Corridor was critical in this case. Questions were then posed to staff by Council Members Pickler and Kaywood relative to density and other issues pertinent to the development. Mr. Joel Fick, Assistant Director for Planning, referred to Page 19-t of the staff report which s,,m,mrized the various General Plan Amendments already approved in the area, which summary comparison suggested that the subject General Plan Amendment for the Oak Hills Ranch (Exhibit A) would have the highest projected density of the major General Plan Amendments in the hill and canyon area since the adoption of the canyon area General Plan in 1977, at 7.5 dwelling units to the acre. Further, the technical issues raised in the staff report such as Water and Traffic needed to be addressed and solved by the developer prior to implementation whatever the designation approved. In addition staff felt the Council should have a high degree of confidence in the developer in granting a General Plan Amendment of the subject nature and giving the design flexibility they would be giving, but that they would not be authorizing the developer either grading waivers or development waivers in order to achieve the upper end. Further discussion followed between Council Members and Hr. Denehy wherein Councilwoman Kaywood stated she had a problem, not necessarily with project itself, but how Oak Hills could propose a 160 percent density "bonus" without having the next project ask for the same. The Council could not look at one project but at the cumulative affect. The Mayor then asked Hr. Denehy to make his s,,mm~tion. Mr. Denehy counted the points and concerns expressed by Mr. Mason such as the fact that traffic problems in Anaheim Hills were not the same as in Weir Canyon, that in areas 9 and 10 adjoining their property there was an approximate 257 percent in density and thus the precedent for approving increasing density was already there, the question being could density be increased while maintaining a quality development and making it work. He 591 City Hall~ Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 5~ 1984, 10:00 A.M. hoped they had demonstrated that there could be a significant increase in density if done in a quality fashion. Councilman Bay stated that every developer who addressed the Council assured them they were going to build quality. He was more concerned with the taxpayers of Anaheim not subsidizing one cent of new development in the Hill and Canyon area and with the negative fiscal impact on those taxpayers as a result of residential development in the Hill and Canyon area. The impact of a very high increase in overall density had to impact the cost related to it that in turn would relate to a deficit in the overall tax structure. Even after spending two hours on the issue today, he was not at the point where he was ready make a decision on the number of dwelling units proposed in the subject General Plan. Mr. Denehy then gave additional commentary in answer to Councilman Bay's concerns. He felt the fiscal impact was important to look at but the base for Judging it was very difficult to compare. He also mentioned the importance of the proposed regional shopping center as well as other services to be provided. City Manager Talley then pointed out that relative to the new fire station it was currently manned by two people. When the population and number of dwelling units got big enough, they were going to have to staff it with four and when there were enough houses in the east area of the Canyon, the City would probably have to build yet another fire station. The number of people generated calls for service and by moving out eastwardly, the area generated the need for additional patrol units. When talking about adding 6,000 new people, the developer ought to take credit for it because they were going to cause the services and the cost which would require a subsidy from somewhere. The higher the density, the greater the subsidy. Anytime a developer asks for anything over 900 units, it added to the overall cost of City government. The Mayor closed the public hearing. Councilman Pickler stated that his concerns were the same as Councilman Bay's and he, too, was not ready to act on the matter today. Councilman Bay stated he was interested in the impact of the net acre deficit with a build-out of the program from staff's viewpoint. He did not know if he was looking at £igures dealing with the original 900 units, or 2,400 units. As Councilwoman Kaywood mentioned, if they did not look at the whole picture and if they were not establishing controls at the General Plan level, he did not know how they were going to calculate on a cost benefit study whether they would end up in a deficit position in supporting services for the whole area or what front monies were going to be on the infrastructure. MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to continue public hearing on General Plan Amendment No. 188 and EIR No. 265 until July in order to able to obtain the information needed to make a decision on the matter. Before action was taken, discussion took place between Council, staff and Mr. Demehy relative to time frames. During discussion, City Manager Talley commented that a matter broached although not related was relative to the Regional Shopping Center. He felt it would also be appropriate to receive a 592 94 City Hall; Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 5~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. current expression from the proposed Shopping Center Developer and ~ouncil might wish to instruct staff to give an update on that project. If they were moving forward in an expeditious manner, his thinking on the subject project would be different than if they said they were a substantial time away from developing. He felt that part of the review might be to schedule a meeting of the Regional Shopping center Developer so the Council could have that information as well. Councilman Bay then clarified his motion of continuance that the public hearing be continued to July 24, 1984, at 1:30 p.m. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt stated he would like staff to comment on density being an element of quality. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. 123: ENGINEERING SERVICES - WOODSIDE/KUBOTAAND ASSOCIATES: City Manager Talley briefed the Council on memorandum dated June 5, 1984, from the Golf Operations Manager Don Marshal recommending a letter agreement with the subject firm due to the fact that City well No. 24 originally installed in 1934 located at the Dad Miller Golf Course had collapsed and Utility Personnel were unavailable for reassignment at this time due to major construction projects presently underway. MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to waive Council Policy No. 401 and authorize the Stadium/Convention Center Golf General Manager to execute a letter of Agreement with the firm of Woodside/Kubota and Associates Inc., Consulting Engineers for services in the amount not to exceed $16,000 as recommended in memorandum dated June 5, 1984. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2557 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application submitted by Robert K. Walker, et al, (Mobil Service Station), to permit a convenience market with gasoline sales and off-sale beer on CL zoned property located at 100 South Magnolia Avenue. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-64, approved the negative declaration upon findi~ 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, and further, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2557, in part, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the existing most northerly driveway on Magnolia Avenue and the existing most westerly driveway on Lincoln Avenue shall be removed and replaced with a standard curb, gutter, sidewalk and landscaping. 2. That the owner of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim a fee for tree planting purposes along Lincoln Avenue and Magnolia Avenue in an amount as determined by the City Council. 593 City Hall~ Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 5m 1984~ 10:00 A.M. 3. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance w~th approved plans on file with the Street Maintenance and Sanitation Division. 4. That the owner of subject property shall submit a letter requesting termination of Variance No. 2467 to the Planning Department. 5. That in accordance with the requirement of the City Fire Marshall, the following minimum standards shall apply: a. That dispensing devices shall be located a minimum distance of 10 feet from a property line and so located that all parts of a vehicle being serviced will be on private property. b. That dispensing devices shall be located not less than 10 feet from any building which is not fire resistive construction. Such devices shall also be located so that the nozzle, when hose is fully extended, shall not reach within $ feet of any building opening. c. That dispensing devices shall be protected against physical damage from vehicles by mounting on a concrete island a minimum of 6 inches in height. Alternate methods of providing equivalent protection may be permitted when approved by the Chief. d. That dispensing of gasoline into the fuel tank or into a container shall at all times be under the supervision of a qualified attendant. e. That the attendant's primary function shall be to supervise, observe and control the dispensing of gasoline. f. That the dispensing of gasoline shall not be into portable containers unless such containers are of approved material and construction, having a tight closure with screwed or spring cover, so designed that the contents can be dispensed without spilling. g. That it shall be the attendant's responsibility to control sources of ignition and ~mmediately handle accidental spills and fire extinguishers if necessary. h. That emergency controls shall be installed at a location acceptable to the Fire Department, but controls shall not be more than 100 feet from dispensers. i. That instructions for the operation of dispensers shall be conspicuously posted. J. That remote preset-type devices are to be in the "off" position while not in use so the dispenser cannot be activated without the knowledge of the attendant. 6. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1 through 3, including separate public restrooms for men and women. 594 City Hall~ Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 5~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. 7. That prior to the commencement of the activity authorized under this resolution, or within a period of one year from the date of this resolution, whichever comes first, Condition Nos. 1 through 6, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 8. That the approved use shall consist of the sale of "snack" items and there shall be no sale of beer and wine or other alcoholic beverages of any kind on the premises. The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Mobil Oil Corporation Agent and public hearing scheduled this date. The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent. Mr. Larry Hilton, 7226 Alverstone Avenue, Los Angeles, stated they were requesting an amendment to the plan approved at the Planning Commission meeting. They were asking for consideration of the denial of beer and wine and the closure of two driveways closest to the intersection. He also confirmed for the Mayor that he did not stipulate to the elimination of beer and wine. The Mayor pointed out that the precedent of recent approvals included the closing of the two driveways closest to the intersection. Mr. Hilton reported that ten years ago they built and designed the station for the very purpose they were requesting, a convenience market. The only thing they were going to do was add two refrigerators and some shelves. With a structure that was not being rebuilt and the drive flow could not be redirected, then it might interfere with the traffic flow. They were basically adding snacks which would give the dealer some profitability but which would have no effect on the traffic. They were not adding anything else to the station. Because they were not adding or deleting, he did not think the closure of the driveways was necessary. He reiterated they were adding two refrigerators and shelves to carry the snack items and they wanted beer and wine as well. They were not a convenience store. Councilman Pickler asked if the applicant did not get beer and wine would they still proceed, Mr. Hilton answered that they would do so but he que~tioned whether it would be profitable. Mayor Roth noted that the application was to permit a convenience market with gasoline sale; Mr. Hilton stated his said snack shop. It was not a convenience store as he previously pointed out. They carried items that could be consumed immediately, classified as "Junk food" and if they carried milk or bread it would be in very limited quantities. He also confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood that they had restrooms. The viability and profitability of the station was dependent on the customers getting into the station in an easy way and not hampered by closures of driveways not imposed on other stations in the area. 595 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 5~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. Traffic Engineer Paul Singer then confirmed for the Mayor that he was still recommending that the driveways be closed. Hr. Joseph Sass, 100 South Magnolia, stated he was the dealer at the Mobil station and h/s situation at that corner was very difficult. At present, he sold only gas, it was a self-service station and he had been there for two years. There was no way to survive except to have a snack shop in the station. He had been working 15 hours a day and people asked why he did not have beer and wine or snacks. He had a piece of paper signed by all those customers who wanted a snack shop and convenience market with beer and wine (petition submitted and made a part of the record). Councilman 0verholt stated he was concerned that the applicant had to sell beer and wine to make money in the gasoline business. He felt Mobil Oil's pricing structure was the real bottom line. The Mayor closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Pickler, seconded by Councilman Overholt, 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. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 84R-207 for adoption denying Conditional Use Permit No. 2557 reversing the findings of the City Planning Commission; Councilman Overholt stated that he could not support a resolution denying even what the Planning Commission granted. Councilman Pickler then confirmed that he was offering Resolution No. 84R-207 for adoption granting, in part, Conditional Use Permit No. 2557, upholding the findings of the City Planning Commission denying the sale of beer and wine and requiring the closure of the two driveways closest to the intersection. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 84R-207: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING, IN'P~RT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2557. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth COUNCIL MEMBERS: None COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-207 duly passed and adopted. RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for five minutes. (6:00 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: being present. The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members (6:07 p.m.) 596 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 5~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. 179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2552 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application submitted by N. Aretta Merket, et al, to convert an existing accessory structure to a second-family (granny) unit on RS-7200 zoned property located at 3430 West Brady Avenue, with Code waiver of minimum rear yard setback. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-67, 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, and further, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2552, subject to the following conditions: 1. That due to the change in use and/or occupancy of the structure, plans shall be submitted to the Building Division showing compliance with the minimum standards of the City of Anaheim, including the Uniform Building, Plumbing, Electrical, Housing, Mechanical and Fire Codes as adopted by the City of Anaheim. The appropriate permits shall be obtained for any necessary work. 2. That the owner(s) of subject property shall restrict the occupancy of the granny unit to one or two adults, both of whom are over sixty (60) years of age, both of whom are related to the owner(s) of the subject property by blood or marriage; no rental of said dwelling unit shill be permitted; and the owner(s) of the subject property shall record a covenant against the property so restricting the occupancy of said unit. Said covenant shall be be submitted to the Planning Department for transmittal to the City Attorney's Office for review and approval prior to recordation and that proof of recordation shall then be submitted to the City. 3. That prior to issuance of a building permit, primary water extension fees shall be paid to the City of Anaheim, in an amount as determined by the Office of the Utilities General Manager. 4. That prior to issuance of a building permit, the appropriate traffic signal assessment fee shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in an amount as determined by the City Council for each new dwelling unit. 5. That prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant; shall present evidence satisfactory to the Chief Building Inspector that the residential units will be in conformance with Noise Insulation Standards specified in the California Administrative Code, Title 25. 6. That prior to issuance of building permit, the applicant shall present evidence satisfactory to the Chief Building Inspector that the proposed project is in conformance with Council Policy Number 542 "Sound Attenuation in Residential Projects." 7. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City ofAnaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1 through 3. 597 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 5~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. 8. That prior to the commencement of the activity authorized under this resolution, or prior to the time that a building permit is issued, or within a period of one year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 1 and 2, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 9. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition No. 7, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. 10. That the use authorized by the conditional use permit shall terminate and this permit shall be deemed null and void upon the sale, transfer or conveyance of ownership of the subject property, or any portion or interest thereof. The Mayor first asked the City Attorney to brief the Council relative to State Law concerning granny units after which he asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present. Mrs. N. Aretta Merket, 3434 West Brady Avenue, was present to answer questions. Councilwoman Kaywood first expressed her concern over the precedent that would be set in the area since all the lots were deep. She then posed a line of questions to Mrs. Merket who reported the following: That no one was now living in the garage and it was used to park vehicles; the structure in the back was permitted as a storage shed and had been used as a craft area, sewing room and for storage. No one had ever lived there and it was the intent to turn it into a living unit for her mother-in-law whose husband was very ill. Her mother-in-law did drive and she owned a vehicle. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition; there being no response he closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Kaywood stated if the use were to be approved only for Hrs. Merket's mother-in-law for as long as she needed to live there and not be used as a separate rental later, she would not object. However, she had grave problems in the fact that the Apollo Junior High School property was directly across the street where approximately 200 condominiums were going to be built. As noted by the Mayor a letter was sent by a man who said he had no objection but she did not know if that person wanted to be able to do the same thing. Since such large lots were involved, if the same were done up and down the street, a tremendous problem would be created. With 300 square feet, she felt the use had to be limited to one person and the specific relative. Another vehicle would be involved and there was no condition requiring additional parking. Miss Santalahti then confirmed for Councilman 0verholt that the size of the unit as indicated in the staff report was 304 square feet. If they looked favorably on the request, they could limit occupancy to one person rather than two. In answer to further questions by Council Members, Mrs. Merket stated that the unit would be occupied by only one person but if her father-in-law became so 598 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCILMINUTES - June 5, 1984~ 10:00 A.M. ill before he passed away they might have both. She felt, however, that there was definitely room for a double bed; it was unfair to condition approval on her mother-in-law only living in the unit. The intent was to have a home for her mother-in-law when her husband passed away. There was only one car on the property at present and the request would increase parking by one car but there was sufficient parking on the property. Council Members Bay, Kaywood and Overholt then posed questions to the Assistant City Attorney revolving around precedent and also control relative to such request. Mr. White reported in the past on some occasions the Council had limited approval to the current owner so that if the property changed hands or was sold it would then be void. He did not know of a case where there had been a specific ruling on that point but there was case law precedent that if the owner accepted a permit subject to limitations and exercise that permit with those limitations attached, even though the limitations might not otherwise be enforceable, by exercising the permit, they were bound by those otherwise unenforceable limitations. He felt they would have a good chance of defending that type of condition in court. Further, if they wanted to impose a condition that the use be for a family member 60 years of age or older, that would require the owner of the property to record a covenant with those limitations in it. After further discussion, Mrs. Merket stated that 10 years from now when her mother-in-law passed away, they had two more elderly grandparents and if not restricted to one person, they could use it for succeeding family members. The space would be adequate for two as well as one. She then asked if the use were approved and the property later sold, would that use pass along with the ownership of the property. Councilman Bay answered "no", the idea being that one of the precedents Councilwoman Kaywood was concerned about, as well as himself, if allowing granny units became a way of improving the price of property, they were going to see a proliferation of such units. He wanted to set up conditions that would allow the use to Mrs. Merket but not become permanent. Therefore, subsequent owners would have to apply for the same permit if they wanted the same use. Councilman 0verholt asked if this was a covenant that would run with the property; Mr. White explained they would record a covenant against the property which would run with the land and a subsequent owner would be entitled to the same provision but he heard the Council indicating they would like to see a covenant written in such a way that the use of the second unit would terminate on sale or conveyance of the property. If Council wished that to occur, he felt they were looking at some innovative approaches without precedent which he felt his office would attempt to defend. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Pickler, 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 599 City Hall; Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 5; 1984~ 10:00 A.M. comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the pro~ect will have a significant effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Kaywood offered a Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2552 limiting it to one person over 60 years of age, that there be no rental and that a covenant be recorded against the property and such use would terminate on sale or conveyance of the property. Councilman Bay stated if Councilwoman Kaywood would limit the use to two people over 60 he would not have any objection to the other conditions. Councilwoman Kaywood reiterated her concern over the square footage which she considered to be too small for two people. A vote was then taken on the foregoing Resolution and failed to carry by the following vote: Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood Bay, 0verholt, Pickler and Roth None Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 84R-208 for adoption, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 2552, upholding the findings of the City Planning Commission but modifying Planning Commission Condition No. 2 to require a recorded covenant with the following restrictions: (1) Occupancy limited to 2' persons related to the family living in the main dwelling, both persons to be over 60 years of age, (2) not to be a rental, (3) use to terminate when current property owner sells or otherwise transfers the property. RoLl Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-208 duly passed and adopted. 179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2558 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application submitted by James Kenneth and Mmrion Evelyn Dempster, to construct a second-family (granny) unit on RS-7200 zoned property located at 2121Nyon Place, with Code waiver of minimum rear yard setback. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-68, 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, and further, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2558, subject to the following conditions: 600 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June $; 1984~ 10:00 A.M. 1. That due to the chan~e in use and/or occupancy of the building, plans shall be submitted to the Building Division showing compliance with the minimum standards of the City of Anaheim, including the Uniform Building, Plumbing, Electrical, Housing, Mechanical and Fire Codes as adopted by the City of Anaheim. The appropriate permits shall be obtained for any necessary work. 2. That the owner(s) of subject property shall restrict the occupancy of the granny unit to one or two adults, both of whom are over sixty (60) years of age, and both of whom are the owner(s) of the subject property no rental of either dwelling unit shall be permitted; occupancy of the main dwelling unit on the subject property shall be limited to persons related to the owners of the subject property by blood or marriage; and the owner(s) of the subject property shall record a covenant against the property so restricting the occupancy of said units. Said covenant shall be submitted to the Planning Department for transmittal to the City Attorney's Office for review and approval prior to recordation and that proof of recordation shall then be submitted to the City. 3. That prior to issuance of a building permit, primary water extension fees shall be paid to the City of Anaheim, in an amount as determined by the Office of the Utilities General Manager. 4. That prior to issuance of a building permit, the appropriate traffic signal assessment fee shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in an amount as determined by the City Council for each new dwelling unit. 5. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2. 6. That prior to the commencement of the activity authorized under this resolution, or prior to the time that a building permit is issued, or within a period of one year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 1 and 2, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 7. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition No. §, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. 8. That the use authorized by this conditional use permit shall terminate and this permit shall be deemed null and void upon the sale, transfer or conveyance of ownership of the subject property, or any portion or interest thereof, or upon the failure of the owner(s) of the subject property to occupy said second dwelling unit, whichever occurs first. The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent. Mr. Ken Dempster, 2121 Nyon Place, explained that his wife was 65 and he was 68 years of age and their primary purpose in requesting the granny unit was to be near help and care when needed. He understood the Council was concerned 601 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 5~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. about parking. They had a two car garage with a 65-foot driveway which could accommodate four cars. The unit was approximately 604 square feet which was adequate for their needs. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she understood they were building the unit for themselves and their children were living in the main house now. That was not clear and the reason she set the matter for a public hearing. If the Council were to grant approval subject to Mr. Dempster and his wife living in the granny unit and that their children would be living in the main house, she assumed the applicant would have no problem with that. Mr. Dempster answered that was their intent and it was agreeable to them that they would live in the granny unit and their children would live in the main house. Councilman Bay questioned the City Attorney on how he would handle that situation; Mr. White stated they were limiting the use now to specific people by name and that was going to be very difficult. He suggested that they handle it in the same manner as the previous request, that neither the main unit or so called granny unit shall be rented out and in addition that the owner of the property shall occupy one of the two units. If the Council wanted to limit it to the granny unit he could possibly defend that. Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. Dempster if that was agreeable to h~m; Mr. Dempster answered "yes". The Mayor closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Pickler, 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. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 84R-209 for adoption, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 2558 with the following restrictions: That the new unit not be occupied by more than two people 60 years of age or older, that neither unit would be rented out and that the owner would occupy one of the two units. Mr. White asked if Councilwoman Kaywood would also want a condition that the use would terminate on sale, similar to the prior approval; Councilwoman Kaywood answered "yes~. Before any action was taken, Councilman Overholt felt that there were problems connected with the restrictions as articulated especially with regard to the rental restriction on the main house. He asked Mr. Dempster if he was willing to have the permit teminate when the granny unit was vacated by him and his wife or when Mr. Dempster no longer owned the property. 602 :..:/i Ctt7 Hall~ Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 5~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. Mr. Dempster answered that he planned to spend the rest of his days there and he confirmed that he planned to deed the property to his son. Councilman 0verholt pointed out if he was going to deed the property to his son, it could not terminate on transfer of the property. If he chose to 'gift# the property to his son then they would not want it to terminate automatically. Mr. White suggested deleting that condition if that was the intent. After further discussion and questioning, Hr. White added that the permit for the granny unit would terminate upon subsequent lease or transfer of the property or failure of the present applicant to occupy the granny unit. Mr. Dempster could rent out the main house, but the way the conditions were currently worded, that would automatically terminate the right to the granny unit and he would have to vacate that unit. Councilwoman Kaywood stated her intent was that if they had the reverse situation and still ended up with two houses on every lot, a single family neighborhood lot, the City would be in big trouble. A vote was then taken on the foregoing Resolution. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 84R-209: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2558. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCLLMEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-209 duly passed and adopted. ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (6:55 p.m.) LEONORA N. ~0HL, CITY CLERK 603