Loading...
1984/07/31Cit7 Hall~ Anahetm~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Jul7 31~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth COUNCIL MEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY: Robert Franks CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl FLEET MAINTENANCE SUPERINTENDENT: A1 Merriam EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Norman J. Priest ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: Reverend Louis Sheldon gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Council Member E. Llewellyn Overholt, Jr. led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Roth and authorized by the City Council: "Ramaheim Day in Anaheim," August 1, 1984. "Fly the American Flag During the Olympics Days" - July 28 - August 12, 1984 119: RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION: A Resolution of Appreciation was unanimpusly adopted by the City Council to be presented to Mattel Thompson, Assistant Fire Chief on the occasion of his accepting the position of Fire Chief for the City of Orange and in sincere appreciation for over 21 years of service Mr. Thompson devoted to the City of Anaheim. MINUTES: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, minutes of the regular meeting held May 22, 1984 were approved. MOTION CARRIED. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Roth moved to waive the reading in full o£ all ordinances and resolutions o£ the Agenda, after reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to waiver is hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such ordinances or resolutions in regular order. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $3,505,159.68, in accordance with the 1984-85 Budget, were approved. 757 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Jul7 31~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Pickler, the following items were approved in accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Councilman Roth offered Resolution Nos. 84R-293 through 84R-294, 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 for property damages sustained purportedly due to actions of City contractor at Vermont Avenue and Anaheim Boulevard, on or about May 22, 1984. b. Claim submitted by Marjean C. Rosen for personal property damages sustained purportedly due to condition of street on West Street past the intersection of Katella Avenue, on or about May 8, 1984. c. Claim submitted by Margarita R. Foulds for personal property damages sustained purportedly due to improper maintenance o~ tree at 2832 Burn,wood, on or about May 28, 1984. d. Claim submitted by Mark Robert Runyon for personal injury damages sustained purportedly due to actions of Anaheim Police Department at McCullagh Leasing, 633 South East Street, on or about May 23, 1984. e. Claim submitted by Bruce Heath and Joe Joy for personal injury damages sustained purportedly due to actions of Anaheim Police Department at 813 South Hampstead and Metropolitan State Hospital, 11400 Norwalk Boulevard, Norwalk, on or about April 25 - May 1, 1984. f. Claim submitted by Robert Wayne Copeland, TNT Corporation, dba Hollywood A-Go-Go for personal injury damages sustained purportedly due to actions of Anaheim City Council and Police Department, on or about June 26, 1984. e Receiving and filing the following correspondence: (on file) a. 114: City of Garden Grove Resolution No. 6521-84, Urging Reduction of Federal Deficit Spending and Supporting a Balanced Federal Budget. b. 105: Community Services Board--Minutes of May 10, 1984. c. 105: Public Utilities Board--Minutes of July 5, 1984. d. 156: Police Department--Monthly report for June 1984. 3. 128: Receiving and filing the Monthly Financial Analysis for the eleven-month period ending May 31, 1984. 758 Cit7 Hall~ Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Jul~ 31~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. 4. 144: Approving inclusion of proposed developments to be located at 210 West Vermont Avenue and 205-211 South Ohio Street (Embassy Park Development Company) and 127 West Cypress Street (The Addis/Barth Development. Company) in the Orange County Revenue Bond Program and authorizing the Community Development Executive Director to communicate said approval to the County. 5. 123: Authorizing a fifth amendment to the agreement with Eric W. Gruver, PH.D., to conduct psychological evaluations for police officer and Jailer applicants, with rate increase for services as witness in litigation only, of $25 per hour (from $75 to $100), term ending July 31, 1985. 6. 123: Authorizing the third amendment to a rental agreement with Southwest Innovation Group, Inc.,.decreasing their rental fee to $247.25 per month for Office No. 259 in the Civic Center, effective July 31, 1984. 7. 180: Approving payment of $100,000 to Rollins Burdlck Hunter, (Broker of Record), representing the additional premium to maintain the City's blanket excess general liability insurance policy, underwritten by Transcontinental Insurance, in force to July 1, 1985, cost to be shmred by all City departments. 8. 180: Approving an offer of Rollins Burdick Hunter, to place an order for all-risk blanket property insurance coverage, at a net annual premium cost of $240,579, for the period July 1, 1984 through July 1, 1985, with cost to be shared by all City departments. 9. 180: Approving the offer of Rollins Burdick Hunter, to place an order for excess workers' compensation insurance coverage, at an auditable premium cost of $52,706, for the period July 1, 1984 through July 1, 1985. 10. 172: Receiving and filing the report on unimproved parcels Jutting out on arterial highways. Councilman Pickler stated he would like Coonctl discussion on the matter. It was determined by a general consensus of the Council that the matter would be discussed at the Council meeting of October 9, 1984. 11. 117: Authorizing the formation of the 'City of Anaheim Investment Review Committee'. 12. 160: Accepting the low bid of Anaheim Honda-Kawasaki in the amount of $70,596.25 for fourteen 1984 Kawasaki motorcycles, in accordance with Bid No. 4120. 13. 160: Waiving Council Policy No. 306 and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to Stancil Corporation in the amount of $24,777.50 for one multi-channel recorder, Model 203E and associated components, for logging and recording Police telephone calls. 14. 160: Accepting the bid of McGraw Edison Co., in the amount of $10,643.46, for three each, 50 KVA 12000 240/120 volt fused padmount transformers, in accordance with Bid No. 4105. 759 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 31~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. 15. 160: Accepting the low bid of J. L. Enterprises in the amount of $42,195.42 for three brush chippers, in accordance with Bid No. 4118. 16. 160: Accepting the low bid of Uarco Business Forms in an amount not to exceed 352,300 for Computer Printout stock paper, in accordance with Bid No. 4119. 17. 150: Postponing for one week award of contract for Pelanconi Park Erosion Control, Account Nos. 16-809-7103-09SEW and 16-809-7103-09080. 18. 164: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-293: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THAT CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: EAST STREET SEWER IMPROVEMENT, 109 FEET SOUTH OF NORTH STREET TO 137 FEET NORTH OF WILHELM_INA STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 11-790-6325-E0490. (opening of bids on August 30, 1984, 2:00 p.m.) 19. 168: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-294: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CHANGING THE NAME OF THAT PORTION OF MOUNTAIN LOOP TRAIL BETWEEN SCOUT TRAIL AND AVENIDALAVIDA T0 PATHFINDER TRAIL. 20. 142/129/149: ORDINANCE NO. 4524: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING SECTION 1.01.391 TO TITLE 1, CHAPTER 1.01 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO CODE ENFORCEMENT. (Permits Fire Dept. field inspectors to issue citations on vehicles illegally parked in fire lanes) 21. Approving the following applications in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Police: a.' 108: Public Dance Hall Permit, Patricia A. Beveridge, French Quarter, 919 South Knott Street, for dancing from 6:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m., Monday through Sunday. b. 108: Public Dance Permit, Manuel Gomez, for Anaheim Dance Promotion, to hold a dance at the Anaheim Convention Center on August 4, 1984, from 6:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. REJECTION OF CLAIM FILED AGAINST THE CITY - GOLDEN WEST BASEBALL COMPANY: Claim for breach of contract sustained purportedly due to actions of the City of Anaheim on or about March 27, 1984, submitted by the Colden West Base~all Company, c/o Pepper Hamilton and Scheetz, attorneys at law, 606 So. Olive Street~ Los Angeles. City Manager William Talley announced that he understood a Mr. Donald Daucher wished to address the Council. Mr. Donald Daucher, Attorney with the Law Firm of Paul Hastings Janofsky and Walker in Costa Mesa, stated he represented Golden West Baseball Company. He then explained the claim that was filed and before the Council today had to do with the March 27, 1984 letter written to the Golden West Baseball Company by Bill Turner, Stadium Operations Manager, setting forth eleven specific items which had been provided by the City at least during the three years 760 tit7 ,Hall~ Anaheim~ California - CODNCIL MINDTES - Jul7 31; 1984; 10:00 A.M. immediately preceding March of 1984 at Anaheim Stadium pursuant to the lease which existed between the City of Anaheim and the Golden West Baseball Company. The eleven items included, among other things, a policeman stationed in each dug-out during each Angel's Game and a second ambulance stationed at the Stadium for the purpose of transporting anyone who might be injured to a medical facility. He briefed the items reiterating that the eleven items listed in Mr. Turner's letter had always been provided by the City under an arrangement whereby the City was paid a per capita amount from each ticket sale, presently .64~ on each ticket. Mr. Turner stated that the City was no longer going to provide those items unless Golden West Baseball paid for them separately because the City did not feel they were covered in the lease. Golden West Baseball maintained they were covered by the lease. His purpose in being present was to describe what he saw as a somewhat dangerous escalation of a very substantial difference of opinion existing between the City with respect to the parking area which was presently in litigation and which would be resolved in litigation or by a settlement. In the meantime, they needed to determine how they were going to conduct themselves with respect to the other business matters between the City and the Baseball Club and if they were going to resolve the substantial controversy regarding the parking area on a high road and avoid, if at all possible, fighting about the issues. City Manager Talley asked to respond maintaining if Mr. Daucher wanted to start a relationship between his firm and the City on a higher plane, in each and every instance where the differences between the City and the Baseball Club had become a public event, it was at the instigation of the Angels. The Angels had adopted a stance where they tried to go before some media such as today and put the City in a posttionwhere it appeared it was being unreasonable. The difference of opinion was that as a result of the 1981 amended, restated lease agreement between the Golden West Baseball Company and the City where the City very carefully reviewed the items that were to be provided by the per capita and anything outside of that would be the subject of separate charges. Mr. Talley noted probably because Mr. Daucher was a newcomer, he was unaware that the Angels Executive Vice President Mr. Bavasi, for a number of years encouraged the City to reduce its expenses wherever it could. The City had conveyed to Mr. Bavasi a number of services which the City believed were not included in the per capita and they thought they should reduce partly in concert with Mr. Bavasl's request. Mr. Talley then spoke to each of the eleven items which basically involved the services of City personnel to perform duties which the City maintained were specifically for the benefit of the Angels and the City should not be paying for those services. All of the items were good faith disputes and could be handled by negotiations if the Angels wanted to. The City appointed the City Manager in these negotiations and he (Talley) told the Angels he was always available to meet with them at any time. He personally did not believe their problems were going to be resolved by the Angels making media events out of good faith disputes. Both parties should sit down and put the disputes behind them. The items at issue did not have anything to do with current litigation on use of the Stadium parking lot. Until litigation started, those types of 761 City Hall~ Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 31~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. differences were settled between Mr. Bavasi, Mr. Liegler and himself, quietly. He could not let Mr. Daucher make some of the statements he had made today as an attorney when the dispute was being handled by a private concern, not present today, and if they were, would probably be reluctant to go before the microphone to argue the case before the City Council. He urged the Council to reject the claim and let it take its proper place as all other claims against the City. Mr. Daucher then addressed some of the points made by Mr. Talley but concluded whereas Mr. Talley stated the items had nothing to do with the parking lot dispute, he believed that, in fact, they did and that was the nature of his appeal, that they take a higher path. If the items were not a part of the lease, they should sit down as Mr. Talley suggested and he (Daucher) was willing to do that at any time, place or in any way convenient to Mr. Talley and the City's attorneys. Mr. Talley stated Mr. Daucher gave the impression that he was now the authorized representative of the Angels to settle such matters; Mr. Daucher confirmed that he was and he (Talley) was welcome to contact him and he would be more than happy to meet with him. Mr. Talley stated the reason he was asking was the fact that Mr. Schrater stated he was the only one authorized to negotiate on behalf of the Angels and he had conveyed that to him (Talley) personally. He Just wanted to make it clear that the City would deal with whoever the Angels wanted them to deal with. Mr. Talley stated if Mr. Daucher was the man the City should see, he would call him today. MOTION: Mayor Roth stated the City's attorneys had analyzed the lease between Golden West Baseball Company and the City with respect to services before a notice was given to Golden West and, in accordance with the advice of its attorneys, he thereupon moved that the claim be rejected. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. Before action was taken, Assistant City Attorney Robert Franks, in answer to Councilman 0verholt stated in order to start the statute of limitations, which was six months, the claim had first to be rejected and notice given to the Golden West Baseball Company that the claim had been rejected. Councilman 0verholt thereupon moved to postpone action on the subject claim for one week. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion for the purpose of discussion. Before a vote was taken, Mr. Franks explained that the postponement would merely delay the statute of limitation for that period and, in his opinion, it would not prejudice the City in any way if they did so. Councilman Overholt stated his reason for moving for a continuance was to give him an opportunity to review the claim since he had not yet reviewed it. 762 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 31~ 1984~ ,!0:00 A.M. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion of continuance. MOTION CARRIED. 160: ACCEPTING THE BID OF SHEPARD MACHINERY FOR ONE WHEEL LOADER: City Manager Talley announced that a Mr. Phil Smith wished to address the Council. Mr. Phil Smith, Newport Beach representing Whitney Machinery asked why the staff was recommending the purchase of a machine other than the low bid. Mr. A1 Merriam, Fleet Manager, explained in evaluating the bids, a very important feature was the guaranteed "buy back". He felt this was the correct machine for its intended use but, if not, he wanted to be assured that at the end of three years, the City could return the machine back to the vendor at the guaranteed price. He then explained the differences between the bids (Whitney and Shepherd) in detail. Mayor Roth asked Mr. Smith if he was satisfied; Mr. Smith stated he understood the reason, but urged the Council if the City was not sure whether the machine was going to work, instead of investing $70,000, it might be wise to rent the equipment for a few months to determine if it would do the Job. MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to accept the bid of Shepherd Machinery in the amount of $70,750.76 for one wheel loader, in accordance with Bid No. 4117 and staff recommendation as outlined in memorandum dated July 23, 1984 from the purchasing agent. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 112: REPRESENTATION OF ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT (OCTD) IN THE CASE OF LUTZ VS. CITY OF ANAHEIM: Authorizing Rourke and Woodruff to continue representation of OCTD in case of Lutz vs. City of Anaheim (continued from the meetinEs of July 3 and 10, 1984). This item was continued from the meetings of July 3 and July 10, 1984 to this date (see minutes those dates). Robert Franks, Assistant City Attorney, reported that he was informed by Rourke and Woodruff that the firmhad now referred the subject case to another firm. The matter was, therefore, moot and staff was withdrawing the item from the agenda. Mr. Watts of Rourke and Woodruff who had asked for approval felt in this case there was no conflicting interest pursuant to State Bar since there was no relationship between the work he was performing for the City and work that another member of the firm would be performing in connection with the case. Mr. Franks also referred to memorandum dated July 27, 1984, subject: Consent for outside Law Firms to represent other Clients whose interests may be adverse to the City of Anaheim, containing data which the Council had requested. Councilman Bay commented that he was not interested only in the fact that there was no tangible conflict, he was interested even when there was an image of a conflict because he did not feel there should be either. Council Members Roth and Overholt commended Mr. Franks on his report; Councilman Overholt referred particularly to one case cited where a federal court had declared that a lawyer who would sue his client, "...is leaning on a slender reed indeed." That was the essence of his (Overholt's) concern in raising the issue in the first place. 763 City Hall; Anaheim~ California - COONCIL MINUTES - July 31~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning Commission at their meeting held July 9, 1984, pertaining to the following applications were submitted for City Council information. 1.VARIANCE NO. 3386: Submitted by Bernard J. Stahl and Bill J. Nickel, to construct a 26-unit apartment complex on RM-1200 zoned property located at 1668 South Nutwood Street, with Code waivers as follows: (a) maximum structural height, (b) minimum structural setback. Variance No. 3386 was withdrawn by the petitioner. 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2577: Submitted by La Jolla Associates, to permit an automobile repair facility with incidental retail sales of automobile parts and accessories on ML zoned property located at 1464 North Hundley Street, with Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Conditional Use Permit No. 2577 was withdrawn by the petitioner. 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2589 (READVERTISED): Submitted by Roy D. Taylor, to permit a 15-bed residential alcohol detoxification center in an existing single-family residence on CG zoned property located at 523 West Victor Avenue. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-136, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2589, and granted a negative declaration status. 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2594: Submitted by Standard 0il Company of California, (Chevron Service Station), to permit a convenience market with gasoline sales and off-sale beer and wine on CL zoned property located at 3450 West Lincoln Avenue. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-137, granted in part, Conditional Use Permit No. 2594, and granted a negative declaration status. 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2586: Submitted by N. Bruce and Barbara E. Ashwill, (Eliminator Service Center), to retain an automobile and boat repair and restoration/upholstery facility on ML zoned property located at 1061 North Grove Street, with Code waiver of minimumnumber of parking spaces. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-138, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2586, and granted a negative declaration status. 6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2593: Submitted by David C. D'urso and Nikki L. Mandell, to permit a retail plant nursery on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located at 1547 East La Palma Avenue, with Code waiver of required number of parking spaces. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-139, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2593, and granted a negative declaration status. 764 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 31~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. 7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2588: Submitted by Arthur H. Kaplan, et al, to permit a billboard on ML zoned property located at 2020 East Estella Avenue, with Code waivers as follows: (a) permitted location, (b) maximum display area. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-140, denied Conditional Use Permit No. 2588, and granted a negative declaration status. 8. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2596: Submitted by California/Orange Enterprises, Inc., (East Anaheim Center), to permit on-sale alcohol in a proposed restaurant on CL zoned property located at 2156 East Lincoln Avenue, with Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-141, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2596, and granted a negative declaration status. 9. VARIANCE NO. 3412: Submitted by California/Orange Enterprises, Inc., (East Anaheim Center), to construct eight freestanding signs on CL zoned property located at 2008 East Lincoln Avenue, with Code waiver of minimum distance between signs. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-142, granted in part, Variance No. 3412, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination (Class 11). 10. RECLASSIFICATON NO. 84-85-2 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2595: Submitted by Vista Nohl Plaza, Ltd., for a change in zone from CL-HS(SC) to CL(SC), to permit a 46-foot high commercial complex including a semi-enclosed restaurant with on-sale alcohol on property located at the southwest corner of Nohl Ranch Road and Villa Real Drive, with the following Code waivers: (a) permitted sign content, (b) maximum number of sign display surfaces, (c) required sign placement, (d) maximum sign area, (e) maximum building height, (f) required site screening. The City Planning Comm~ssion, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-143 and 144, granted Reclassification No. 84-85-2 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2595, and granted a negative declaration status. 11. VARIANCE NO. 3405: Submitted by Michael S. Samm0ns and Debble A. Sammons, to construct a room addition to a single-family residence on RS-5000 zoned property located at 3196 East Radcliffe Avenue, with Code waiver of maximum lot coverage. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-145, granted in part, Variance No. 3405, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination (Class 5). 12. CONSIDER ELIMINATION OF THE CL-HS(SC) (COMMERCIAL~ LIMITED-HILLSIDE~ SCENIC CORRIDOR OVERLAY) ZONE DESIGNATION: Submitted by staff requesting consideration of elimination of the CL-HS(SC) (Commercial, Limited-Hillside, Scenic Corridor Overlay) zoned designation. 765 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 31, 1984, 10:00 A.M. Approved by the City Planning Commission. TENTATIVE TRACT FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 23~ 1984: 13. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10980 - SPECIFIC PLANS: Submitted by Kaufman and Broad, for review and approval of specific plans for Tentative Tract No. 10980, to establish a 163-1ot (plus 2 open space lots), RS-5000(SC) zoned subdivision on property located southwest of the intersection of Santa Ana Canyon Road and the proposed southerly extension of Weir Canyon Road. The City Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract No. 10980. 14. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 83-84-28 AND VARIANCE NO. 3397 (READVERTISED): Submitted by Richard James and Kathleen Dianne Beliakoff, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200, to construct a 21-unit apartment complex on property located at 3208 and 3216 West Orange Avenue, with the following Code waivers: (a) maximum structural height, (b) maximum fence height. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-134 and 135, granted Reclassification No. 83-84-28 and Variance No. 3397, and granted a negative declaration status. A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman Kaywood and, therefore, a public hearing would be scheduled at a later date. 179: ORDINANCE 4525 - PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT: Amendment to Subsection .200 of Section 18.48.050 of Chapter 18.48 of Title 18 of the Code pertaining to fast-food and drive-through restaurants in the CR zone. Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4525 for first reading. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4525: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SUBSECTION .200 OF SECTION 18.48.050 OF CHAPTER 18.48 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RF3.ATING TO ZONING. Councilman Pickler expressed concern over the proposed ordinance to permit drive-thru restaurants and in this case as he understood, it was mainly for the purpose of a proposed McDonaldts restaurant to be constructed across from Disneyland. He asked if there were any drive-thru restaurants on Harbor Boulevard; Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, stated drive-thrus were not permitted in the CR Zone. Staff received an inquiry from a developer and in this instance, staff had no particular problems. Councilman Pickler stated he had a problem and would like to discuss the idea of eliminating drive-thrus in that area. Miss Santalahti explained in connection with the Parking Code which was modified two and a half years ago, there were standards set up both for parking as well as for the length of drive-thru lanes which eliminated the typical problems that drive-thrus might have. If the Code was not amended, a conditional use permit could not be processed. 766 City Ha11~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL HINUTES - Jul), 31~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. Councilwoman Kaywood stated considering the problems involved on Harbor Boulevard where traffic at times literally did not move at all, to welcome something like this coming in would open such a Pandora's box she did not even know how it came about. The reason they allowed other restaurants in the area was due to the fact that they were walk-ups and not drive-thrus. Miss Santalahti explained that the project was scheduled before the Planning Commission next Monday, August 6, 1984. She also reported that the ordinance was drafted at the request of the applicant (McDonald's). Councilman Bay clarified that would allow a request for a CUP that was not allowed as a use under the ordinance prior to that, and would not open the door for any automatic approval of drive-thrus but an applicant would have to come through the process on a CUP; Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that the request was the same as the Elks Lodge request previously presented to the Council. Councilman 0verholt questioned where the encouragement was coming from and could such items slip through unnoticed unless a Council Member raised a question. Councilman Pickler felt that staff should call attention to such items; Councilman Overholt agreed that a procedure be established so that the Council would be aware of such items. Miss Santalahti stated the Traffic Engineer's recommendation in the staff report was that the Harbor Boulevard median be extended to preclude a left hand turn. Mayor Roth did not withdraw the first reading of the ordinance since the Council would have a report next Tuesday after the Planning Commission's action on Monday. 179/114/170: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2391 AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11766 - WAIVER OF COUNCIL POLICY NO. 542: Robert D. Mickelson Planning Consultants, Inc., requesting waiver of Council Policy No. 542 pertaining to Sound Attenuation in Residential Projects in con~ection with Conditional Use Permit No. 2391 and Tentative Tract No. 11766, to permit a 21-lot, 97-unit affordable condominium conversion with Code waivers of minimum 10t area, maximum site coverage, and minimum number and type of parking spaces on RM-1200 zoned property located on 0rangethorpe Avenue, between Kellogg Drive and Post Lane. (Villa Apartments) At their meeting of July 23, 1984, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the waiver of Council Policy No. 542 pertaining to exterior sound levels only. MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to approve the waiver of Council Policy No. 542 waiving the exterior Sound Attenuation in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 2391 and Tentative Tract No. 11766 as recommended by the City Planning Commission. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 767 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 31, 1984, 10:00 A.M. 179: CLARIFICATION OF CONDITION OF APPROVAL OF VARIANCE NO. 3387: Norman P. Gluth, requesting clarification of Condition No. 3 of Resolution No. 84R-192 granting Variance No. 3387, to retain an illegal apartment unit (garage conversion) at 1777 West Glencrest Avenue. At its meeting of May 22, 1984 (see minutes that date) the Council granted Variance No. 3387 subject to certain conditions. Mayor Roth acknowledging Mr. Gluth in the Chamber audience first clarified that there was no question that the Council at their meeting of Hay 22, 1984 retained and upheld the Planning Commission's recommendation granting Variance No. 3387, including Condition No. 3 which was Mr. Gluth's point of contention. He also clarified that his statement at that meeting that Mr. Gluth had won a partial victory was referring to the fact that both at the Planning Commission and Council level, the illegal unit was being allowed to remain until a future time when he (Gluth) might sell the property and at that time, the illegal apartment unit would have to be converted back into a garage. Mr. Norman Gluth, 8441 Fox Hills, Buena Park, stated that the difference was a small one, but very important to him, and in deference to what the Mayor Just said, he believed the motion approved by the Council at the meeting of Hay 22, 1984 was not the one that was published and stated in the minutes. The word "conveyance' was substituted in the written document for the word 'sold" which was used in the Council Chamber and the Council granted the Variance subject to automatic expiration upon the sale of the property as opposed to conveyance. He had no argument with that. It was never intended that the variance be granted in a vague or ambiguous manner, i.e., the resolution was specific and recited to the Council just prior to the vote. The resolution that was written was not specific and referred to a covenant that was not before the Council. He maintained that the Council could not have intended to adopt a resolution by referring to a covenant drafted at the author's pleasure. The Mayor then recited the conditions of the resolution and made no reference to any covenant present or future and used the word sold instead of convey. It was clear to him that there was an error and he respectfully requested that the Council correct it. He was given 60 days to comply and he had complied by performing all of the actions within his power. If the error was not corrected, he did not know how to proceed in order to satisfy the stated intent of the Council. Councilman Bay asked if Mr. Gluth's problem with Condition No. 3 was the difference between the word conveyance and sold and if he was conveying ownership of the property or changing it without selling it; Mr. Gluth answered that was a very large part. There were many reasons why one would convey. For instance, if tax laws changed from time to time one might change from Joint ownership to community property or that type of thing representing a conveyance. As he read the resolution, that would trigger the reconversion. Conversely what the City wanted to avoid was retention of the unit upon sale of the property. He felt that sale was what the Council meant and that would help him (Gluth) a great deal. Mayor Roth emphasized that was not the intent. It was sale, convey, exchange, trade, gift, etc., of the property. Subsequently, the illegal unit would have to be converted. He meant every single phase or change in ownership. He also 768 Ctt7 Hall~ Anahetm~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 31~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. reiterated that was specifically and unequivocally what he meant. The Mayor also reiterated his statement relative the point of contention concerning the 'partial victory". Mr. Gluth conceded that he misunderstood why the Mayor had said that and he took it to mean something different. He then asked about the covenant that needed to be signed and he also had questions regarding items contained therein about which he had spoken to the City Attorney's Office. He reiterated that the 60 days he was given had expired and he was going to have to have time to finalize the covenant. He had not discussed the proposed covenant with the City Attorney's Office. The Mayor suggested that an appointment be made with the City Attorney's Office as soon as possible and that the covenant be signed and turned into the City. If it was not done, there would be some penalty downstream for failure to comply. Assistant City Attorney Franks stated that Mr. Gluth could go directly to the City Attorney's Office and speak with Mr. Slaughter with regard to the covenant. The Mayor reconfirmed the Council's intent regarding Condition No. 3 that it was in full force and effect and the applicant was required to comply as a condition of approval. 108: HEARING - ARCADE APPLICATION NO. 84-3~ VAN'S MINI MART: To consider an appeal of the decision of the Planning Director submitted by Ta Trung Nguyen denying an Amusement Arcade Application for Van's Mini Mart, 1067 North Harbor Boulevard, for 40 amusement devices. Mr. Nguyen was present in the Chamber audience. The Mayor asked Mr. Nguyen if he was familiar with the ordinance governing arcades and the procedure used by the Planning Department in polling businesses and occupants within 300 feet of proposed arcade locations, noting that in this instance 60.9 percent of those polled were opposed. Mr. Ta Trung Nguyen stated he was a resident of Orange and his business was at 1067 North Harbor Boulevard. He also answered "yes" to the questions posed by the Mayor. He stated, however, that at the same time a petition was being circulated on a fifteen-bed ResidenttalAlcoholic Rehabilitation Center which was hein~ proposed near his store and some people were confused. He did not get a petition from those surrounding his business in support but he would do so if the Council wished. He also clarified that he had four amusement devices at present. Councilman 0verholt asked how much time Mr. Nguyen would need to circulate a petition, suggesting that he could use the same names and addresses that were on the petition of opposition. Councilwoman Kaywood noted that petition clearly stated that the residents were opposed to approval of 40 arcade devices and did not have anything to do with alcohol. They were concerned that the mini-mart would, "become a hang-out for youth gangs that do exist in neighborhoods." 769 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 31~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. Mr. Nguyen then clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood that although he indicated 40 amusement devices, at present it would only be 20 to 25. He would be expanding into the adjacent unit and the arcade area would be separate but doors would be constructed from one unit to the other for access. Councilman Pickler asked if the application were denied, could Mr. Nguyen still return if he had a favorable petition; Miss iantalahti answered that he could and Planning would have to renotify those within 300 feet and go through the whole procedure again. It would be easier if the matter were continued. Councilman 0verholt noted that it was not without precedent to give the applicant an opportunity to try to see if his neighbors would change their minds. Mr. Hal Rich, 502 West Victor, across the street from the proposed arcade, stated that relative to the possibility of confusion, a woman from the Patrick Henry area did circulate two petitions, one having to do with an Alcoholic Rehabilitation Center which was proposed about four or five houses down the street and the second petition had to do with the arcade. He chose not to sign either petition. He was a resident in the location for eight years. The youth gang activity did concern him. There used to be a union hall in the same area as the mini-mart where dances were held and there was drinking in the parking lot and windows broken in the stores. He had trouble with graffiti on his wall which he removed three times. As a resident, he was concerned about anything that would be a magnet for youths to come into the area. It was an area prone to youth problems and he was concerned over any escalation in activity. He clarified that the person circulating the petition came to the door and explained the situation. She mentioned the Alcoholic Rehabilitation Center but did not mention alcohol in terms of the arcade. Miss Santalahti then clarified for Councilman Bay that the Planning Department advised the applicant in the past at the outset and, as well, before the issue went to the Council that it would be wise for the applicant to seek favorable petitions reversing the opposition. She would reconfirm that with staff; Councilman Bay stated that would save a great deal of time so that the applicant could seek a petition possibly reversing some of the opposition to approval before coming to the Council. Councilman 0verholt stated he was not goln~ to offer a motion to continue because Mr. Rich indicated he was not con£used by the dual circulating of the petition. Since there was no confusion, he saw no reason to further delay the matter. MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to deny the appeal of the Planning Department's decision denying an amusement arcade application for Van's Mini Mart, 1067 North Harbor Boulevard for 40 amusement devices. Councilman 0verholt seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay stated he offered the motion with the caveat that if the applicant wanted to change the decision, that he get an agreement of that neighborhood, a good majority in favor, and then come back to the Council and reappeal; however, there was no basis for the appeal today. 770 tit7 Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Jul7 31~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion of denial. MOTION CARRIED. The Mayor confirmed for Mr. Nguyen that the application was denied and he could not presently establish an arcade but that he could try to obtain a majority of signatures in favor. 123: STATUS OF BUS SHELTERS IN THE CITY: Councilwoman Kaywood referred to her prior request relative to the subject and again asked the status of the Bus Shelter program in the City, if any more had been built, were more being planned, etc. She directed staff to submit a status report. 123: CANYON PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER: Councilwoman Kaywood referred to the fact that the City was to receive regular reports regarding the temporary ingress into the subject center from Imperial Highway. She also wanted to know if the access to the land locked parcel to the north of the center had been resolved between Mr. Rinker and Katella Realty. Miss Santalahti stated relative to the land locked parcel, she thought the property was presently in escrow. The principals were aware of the access situation and were apparently beginning negotiations or discussions with Mr. R~nker. They were also aware of staff's concerns and the type of access staff would expect to see. Councilwoman Kaywood commented that there would not be any way to close escrow ~rlthout some kind of access; Miss Santalahti confirmed the principals were fully aware if they close escrow on that parcel without having gained access, they would have a "pig in a poke" on that property. Councilwoman Kaywood requested a report within four weeks. 179: ORDINANCE 4521: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4521 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4521: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING AND AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS AND SUBSECTIONS OF VARIOUS CHAPTERS OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (Relating to dedication and improvements - general) 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. 4521 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 4522 AND 4523: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4522 and 4523 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4522: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIMAMENDING THE ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE ~RIATING TO ZONING. 771 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 31~ 1984, 10:00 A.M. (77-78-1(1) RS-RS-10,000 (SC) southeast corner of Nohl Ranch Road and Meats Avenue, Tract No. 9864) ORDINANCE NO. 4523: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIMMUNICIPAL CODE RRT,~TING TO ZONING. (77-78-1(2) RS-HS-10,000 (SC) southside corner of Nobl Ranch Road and Meats Avenue, Tract No. 9602) 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. 4522 and 4523 duly passed and adopted. 142/112: ORDINANCE NO. 4526: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4526 for first reading. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4526: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING TITLE 1, CHAPTER 1.01, SECTION 1.01.380 AND ADDINGNEW SECTIONS 1.01.380 AND 1.01.385 TO CHAPTER 1.01 OF TITLE 1 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO PRISONERS AND REIMBURSEMENT OF THE CITY COST IN CERTAIN CRIMINAL ACTION. 175: POWER OUTAGE: Councilman Bay reported that on Sunday, July 29, 1984 a serious electrical outage occurred in the northwest part of Anaheim at La Palma Avenue and Brookhurst Street lasting from 9:35 a.m. to 4:45 p.m. He asked for a report from staff on the cause of the outage. 175: POWER COST ADJUSTMENT BILLING FACTOR: Councilman Bay referred to a memorandum from the Public Utilities General Manager discussing a potential increase in power cost adjustment billing factors which Mr. Hoyt was going to delay until August 8, 1984 so that Council could review the matter on August 7, 1984. The Public Utility Board's recommendation was that the increase in the power cost adjustment be delayeduntil October to track a few estimates. Councilman Bay requested more information if possible prior to the August 7, 1984 meeting on the reasons Mr. Hoyt felt the billing factor should be increased on August 8, 1984 rather than holding off until October. 114: NEW MAYOR OF MITO; JAPAN: Mayor Roth reported Mayor Wada had resigned his position as Mayor of Mito Japan, Anaheim Sister City and a new young Mayor was scheduled to be sworn in on August 1, 1984. Mito had an election and the opposition party gained enough seats to take control of its 30 to 40 Member Council and because of that, Mayor Wada resigned. Mayor Roth did not believe that the change would affect the excellent relationship Anaheim had with Mito. 181: XXllLRD OLYMPIAD LOS ANGELES - JULY 28 THROUGH AUGUST 12, 1984: Ail Council Members acknowledged the Olympiad presently being held in Los Angeles commenting specifically on the spirit of patriotism and nationalism which 772 CitE Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COONCIL MINUTES - Jul7 31~ 1984, 10:00 A.M. seemed to be generated by having the games in the United States which was especially noticeable in the enthusiasm of the Torch Relay all across the country and through Anaheim as well. Especially noted were the exciting and memorable Opening Ceremonies at the Los Angeles Coliseum, the excitement of the games already under way, and the honor of having the Wrestling Matches of the games held at the Anaheim Convention Center wkich would further expose the City to national and international prominence. REgUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: The City Manager requested a Closed Session to discuss a personnel matter with no action anticipated; the City Attorney requested a Closed Session to discuss pending and potential litigation with no action anticipated. Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session and a lunch break. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARtLIED. (12:01 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (1:34 p.m.) 176: PUBLIC HEARING -ABANDONMENT NO. 83-19A: In accordance with application filed by Psomas and Associates, public hearing was held on proposed abandonment of public utility and access easements, located over Lot 1 of Tract No. 10476, north of Chapman Avenue, west of Willowbrook, pursuant to Resolution No. 84R-265 duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance with law. Report of the City Engineer dated June 20, 1984 was submitted recommending approval of said abandonment. Mayor Roth asked if anyone wished to address the Council, there being no response he closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT KEPORT - CATEGOR/CAL EXEMPTION: The City Engineer also determined that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 5, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 84R-295 for adoption approving Abandonment No. 83-19A. RESOLUTION NO. 84R-295: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM VACATING PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS LOCATED OVER LOT 1 OF TRACT NO. 10476 NORTH OF CHAPMAN AVENUE, WEST OF WILLOWBROOK. (83-19A) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-295 duly passed and adopted. 773 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Jul7 31~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. 179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2575 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application submitted by Earl L. Singleton and James Clayton Peacock, (ARCO M.P.&G.), to retain convenience retail sales in an existing service station on CL zoned property located at 301 South Euclid Avenue. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-120, 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. 2575, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim a fee for street lighting along Euclid Street and Broadway in an amount as determined by the City Council. 2. That the owner of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim a fee for tree planting purposes along Euclid Street and Broadway in an amount as determined by the City Council. 3. 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. 4. That the approved use shall be limited to the sale of #snack" items only; and there shall be no sale of beer, wine or other alcoholic beverages of any kind on the premises. 5. In accordance with recommendations 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 any property line and shall be located so that all parts of any vehicle being serviced are on subject property. b. That dispensing devices shall be located not less than 10 feet from any bulldln& which is not of fire resistive construction. Such devices shall also be located so that the nozzle, when hose is Gully extended, shall not reach within 5 feet of any building opening. c. That dispensing devices shall be protected against physical damage from vehicles by being mounted on a concrete island a minimum of 6 inches in height. Alternate methods of providing equivalent protection may be permitted if approved by the Fire Chief. d. That the dispensing of gasoline into vehicle fuel tanks or into any 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. 774 Cit~ Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Jul7 31~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. 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 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 such controls shall not be located more than 100 feet from the dispensers. i. That instructions for the operation of gasoline dispensers shall be conspicuously posted. J. That remote preset-type devices are to be in the "off" position when gasoline dispensers are not in use so that said dispensers cannot be activated without the knowledge of the attendant. 6. That Condition Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5, above-mentioned, shall be completed within a period of ninety (90) days from the date of this resolution. The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by the attorney for the applicant relative to certain conditions imposed and public hearing scheduled this date. The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent. Mr. Wallace Davis, Cohen Stokke and Davis representing the applicant and owners and operators of the property, stated he was present to appeal some of the conditions that were added to the approval of the CUP by the Planning Commission, specifically Conditions Nos. 1, 2, and 3, (see above-mentioned). He also referred to an Appeal Addendum previously submitted under his letter dated July 26, 1984 (made a part of the record) outlining the issues and detail, the point of contention being that those three conditions, in view of the very slight change in use, were uncalled for based on the facts stated in the Addendum. He emphasized this was not a request for total reconstruction but merely that snacks be allowed to be sold out in open racks rather than vending machines. He then submitted a photograph showing standard racks used for the snack items. The ordinance allowed the sale of snacks; however, by its wording, it stated that the allowable use be vending machines. In concluding, he reiterated the request did not involve any structural change, merely a rebuilding of the area and "beefing up" of the tune-up operation. He urged the Council not to impose the three conditions. Councilman Pickler asked when the fees for street lighting and tree planting were usually imposed; Miss Santalahti answered that the Code required both fees either be paid in connection with a Building Permit or Zoning Action on the property. They were one time fees imposed on every parcel of property in the City. For whatever reason, those fees on the property had not yet been collected. Relative to snack items, she explained that her department had 775 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 31~ 1984~ 10:00'A.M. looked at the ordinance to limit square footage within the service station where the owner woulW be allowed to sell snack food items whether or not in vending machines. Councilman Bay stated in asking for a conditional use permit, the applicant was usually looking for a dual use. He was ~m~zed that Arco would go through the present process over the simple difference of an open rack and vending machines and questioned their motives if they did not have something in mind in the future. Perhaps the Council should look at drawing a new line on dual use. Councilman Overholt felt the Council should look at the ordinance and if they did not want certain things sold, those could be stated. Mr. Davis stated that a dual use was not an issue in this case but he felt it was in order to clarify the ordinance by limiting it to an area and to those items. In view of the very technical change, the conditions were not fair. Discussion followed with staff relative to the dollar amounts that would be owed for street lighting and tree planting fees determined to be approximately $2,130. Councilman Overholt asked Mr. Davis if he was still objecting to those fees (Condition Nos. 1 and 2); Mr. Davis answered that he still had a problem since all they were doing was asking for relief from a technical interpretation of the ordinance. Mayor Roth felt the Council should be as rational as possible to maintain the subject type of operation because it was important for citizens to be able to get their car tuned-up and now to have a smog control inspection. Councilman Bay stated if they could change the ordinance where a Conditional 'Use Permit (CUP) would not be required for the minor change being proposed, he would not have a problem with that. He was concerned that this was a CUP and the City's benchmark for imposing street lighting and tree planting fees was a liability concerning every development in the City. He could not vote to waive Condition Nos. 1 and 2 because this was a CUP. Hiss Santalahti stated their records showed that the fees were never paid but if for some reason they had been paid and they were able to show receipts that the fees had been paid, that would be acceptable; Mr. Davis stated that would be in order. Councilman 0verholt asked Mr. Davis if that would then be acceptable as a condition, that the payment of those two fees would be due if there was no evidence that they had been paid; Mr. Davis answered "yes". The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition; there being no response he closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Bay, 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 776 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 31~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment, MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 84R-296 for adoption, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 2575 in accordance with City Planning Commission conditions but deleting Condition No. 3 relating to driveway closure. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 84R-296: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2575. Before a vote was taken, discussion followed between Council Members and questions posed to the Traffic Engineer, Paul Singer, relative to access to the station and the ramifications of closing the driveways closest to the intersection. A vote was then taken on the foregoing Resolution. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-296 duly passed and adopted. 134/179/179: PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 193 (READVERTISED) - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 83-84-15 (READVERTISED) - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2525 (READVERTISED) - AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Request by WCS International, to consider an amendment to the Land Use Element, to change the current map designation from General Open Space to an alternative use including, but not limited to General, Industrial and to the General Plan Text, applicability of Redevelopment Plan, on approximately 2.8 acres located on the south side of Frontera Street, east of Glassell Street. At their meeting of July 3, 1984, the City Council set this date and time for a public hearing on General Plan Amendment No. 193. The City Planning Commission in their Resolution No. PC84-104, recommended approval of Exhibit "A" designating the entire area~ (Part I) for general industrial land uses and amending the text of the land use element and redevelopment element of the General Plan as they related to the redevelopment plan and General Plan consistency and flexibility and, further, 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. 179: RECLASSIFICATION NO. 83-84-15 (READVERTISED) AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application submitted by WCS International, (Orange County Steel/Salvage, Inc.), for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to ML, to expand a resource recovery and recycling operation including an automobile dismantling business 777 City Hall~ Anahetm~ Caltformta - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 31, 1984, 10:00 A.M. with wholesale and retail sales of auto parts, on approximately 1.85 acres on the south side of Frontera Street, east of Glassell Street. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-105, 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 Reclassification No. 83-84-15, subject to the following conditions with'the further recommendation that the Council review the Reclassification in conjunction with General Plan Amendment No. 193: 1. That street lighting facilities along Frontera Street 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 within a period of 30 days from the date of this resolution. The above-required improvements shall be installed within a period of 90 days from the dated of this resolution. 2. That all engineering requirements of the City of Anaheim along Frontera Street, including preparation of improvement plans and installation of all improvements such as curbs and gutters, sidewalks, street grading and pavement, sewer and drainage facilities, or other appurtenant work shall be complied with as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with specification on file in the Office of the City Engineer; 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 said improvements. Said security shall be posted with the City within a period of 30 days from the date of this resolution to guarantee the installation of the above-required improvements within a period of 90 days from the date of this resolution. 3. That the appropriate traffic signal assessment fee shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in an amount as determined by the City Council for an outdoor (open space) use. 4. That primary water main fees shall be paid to the City of Anaheim, in an amount as determined by the Office of the Utilities General Manager. 5. That completion of these reclassification proceedings is contingent upon the approval of General Plan Amendment No. 193. 6. That prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject property, Condition Nos. 3, 4 and 5, above-mentioned, shall be completed. The provisions or rights granted by this resolution shall become null and void by action of the Planning Commission unless said conditions are complied with 778 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 31~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. within 90 days from the date of this resolution, or such further time as the Planning Commission may grant. 179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2525 (READVERTISED) AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application submitted by Holly W. Davidson, (Orange County Steel/Salvage, Inc.), to expand a resource recovery and recycling operation including an automobile dismantling business with wholesale and retail sales of auto parts, on ML zoned property located at 3200 East Frontera Street. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-106, 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. 2525, subject to the following conditions with the further recommendation that the Council review the Conditional Use Permit in conjunction with General Plan Amendment No. 193.: 1. That this conditional use permit is granted subject to the completion of Reclassification No. 83-84-15, now pending. 2. That trash storage areas shall be provided iu accordance with approved plans on file with the Street Maintenance and Sanitation Division. 3. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer. 4. That the proposal shall comply with all signing requirements of the }iL Zone, unless a variance allowing signwaivers is approved by the Planning Commission or City Council. 5. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit No. 1 (Plan A): provided, however, that subject property may be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit No. 2 (Plan B) upon a finding by the City Attorney's Office that the petitioner has submitted adequate proof for vehicular access and parking rights on a~andoned Newkirk Road. 6. That all outdoor storage areas, except as otherwise approved in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 1703, shall be enclosed with chain link fencing interwoven with redwood or cedar slats, solid masonry block walls and/or an earthen berm or any combination thereof; the height of said enclosure to fully screen said outdoor storage. 7. That the owner/petitioner shall pay the cost (approximately $3,336.00) of installing a barricade, rumble strips and signs in Frontera Street to control traffic access. 8. That Condition Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, above-mentioned, shall be completed within a period of ninety (90) days from the date of this resolution. 779 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 31~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. 9. That this conditional use permit shall be effective only upon the approval of the use by the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency. 10. That no outdoor storage shall project above the enclosure fencing. The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent. Hr. Phillip Anthony, 15842 Villa Nova Circle, Westminster, stated he was representing the applicant who was the owner and operator of the Recycling and Recovery Center. The first two items, the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change, referred to two new lots the applicant purchased adjacent to the existing operation. The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change were essentially to bring the two new parcels into the general industrial limited land use designation and zoning. The CUP request combined the new lots with the existing operation into one new revised comprehensive use permit to allow the use of the two new lots for the identical operation going on on the existing property. The new CUP clarified some of the terms and conditions of the old permit and simplified and clarified what would be allowed. He requested favorable action on all three items. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition; there being no response, he closed the public hearing. The Mayor asked if staff wished to present their report; Mr. Jay Tashiro, Associate Planner, stated that Mr. Anthony adequately covered the project. He then explained for Councilman Bay that the project was presented to the Redevelopment Commission and they made a recommendation that if the proposal was acceptable to the Redevelopment Agency, the Commission would concur. Councilwoman Kaywood asked with regard to retail sales of auto parts, was there any problem relative to traffic or the number of vehicles entering and exiting the facility. Traffic Engineer Paul Singer stated they had received complaints from the Building Materials Yard regarding parking in front of their gates and up and down the street. His Department was in the process of proposing an ordinance removing parking on Frontera Street on both sides; Mayor Roth noted that sales were made at the far eastern portion of the subject facility and thus people were parking a distance from the Building Materials Yard. Those parking in the area of that yard were employees of that activity. Mr. Singer stated that was correct. He also reported at the time of the Planning Commission hearing, discussion centered around barricades or building a cul de sac on the street and it was determined that a barricade would be less costly. The City installed that barricade and invoiced WCS International for $3,335.41 and, in turn, received a letter of refusal to pay the bill. Mr. Anthony stated he felt the barricade was a separate issue which they should resolve with the City. It would be appropriate to work with staff to come to an acceptable disposition of the bill and if they had an obligation, it would be paid. 780 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 31~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. Council discussion followed relative to the issue of the unpaid bill wherein the Mayor suggested that payment be made a condition of approval. Traffic Engineer Singer also confirmed that the bill was for the initial barricade and had nothing to do with any barricade that was destroyed by a vehicle hitting it as reported by Mr. Anthony. At the conclusion of discussion, Mr. Anthony reiterated that the issue of the unpaid bill and barricade was a separate topic but they would accept the requirement to pay the bill as an extraordinary condition. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Om motion by Councilman Pickler, seconded by Councilman Roth, 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 (General Plan Amendment No. 193, Reclassification No. 83-84-15 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2525) will have a significant effect on the environment and is therefore exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 84R-297 through 84R-299, both inclusive, for adoption approving General Plan Amendment No. 193 Exhibit Reclassification No. 83-84-15, and granting Conditional Use Permit No. 2525 respectively subject to City Planning Commission conditions and the payment of $3,335.41 for the barricade previously installed by the City. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 84R-297: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVINGANAMENDMENT TO THE MAPAND TEXT OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT ELEMENT OF THE ANAHEIM GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATED AS AMEND~ NO. 193, EXHIBIT "A." RESOLUTION NO. 84R-298: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED. RESOLUTION NO. 84R-299: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHIEM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2525. 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-297, 84R-298 and 84R-299 duly passed and adopted. 179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2590 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application submitted by Athanasios Nick and Effie A. Foskaris, (Prime Burger), to permit on-sale beer and wine in an existing drive-through 781 City Ha11~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Jul7 31~ 1984, 10:00 A.M. restaurant on HL(SC) zoned property located at 4477 East La Palma Avenue, with Code waiver of minimu~number of parking spaces. The City Planning Commission recommended that negative declaration be approved upon finding that it has considered the proposed negative declaration together with any comments received during the public review process, and further finding on the basis of the in/tis1 study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. A public hearin~ before the City Council on Conditional Use Permit 2590 was required due to a tie vote at the City Planning Comm/ssion meeting of June 25, 1984. (Vote of the Planning Commission - Ayes: Commissioners Fry, K/ng, LaClaire - Noes: Commissioners Bouas, Bushore, Herbst - Abstained: Commissioner Mc Burney). The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant~s agent. Mr. John Doris, 2022 Royal Oak Court, Yorba Linda, representing the owners stated that the Planning Commission approved the negative declaration status and the parking variance. He explained the situation relative to parking which involved the medical clinic now under construction on the property (also owned by the applicant) and referred to the parking survey they had done by Berryman & Stephenson showing that even at the busiest times, there would still be surplus parking of 19 spaces. However, the beer and wine issue was included in the CUP and thus two separate issues were involved. Relative to the beer and wine the restaurant was brand new and had a seating capacity for 117 people. It was also a drive-thru. Mr. Doris then named the restaurants or sandwich shops located with/n one half mile in either direction that served beer and wine. Theirs was a very nice restaurant and it was important that they be permitted to sell beer and wine. Mr. Doris then explained the traffic circulation pattern in and out of the development off Lakeview and La ?alma Avenue as well as the parking arrangements, working from a plan posted on the Chamber wall; Mr. Athanasios Foskaris also clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood that beer and wine would be served with food only. It would not be sold through the drive-thru. Councilman Bay asked if there was a median, a physical obstruction in the middle of Lakevlew and La Palms Avenue opposite the two driveway entrances; Mr. Doris answered "yes". Councilman Bay stated that was what concerned him primarily and he had no problem with the project as long as the medians were there. Councilwoman Kaywood asked the tenor of the Planning Commission in the split Vote~ Kiss Santalahti explained that it came down to the alcoholic beverages and if the use included beer and wine it might increase the need for parking on the premises. The parking was set out about as efficiently as the applicant could do it. 782 City Hall; Anaheim, California - COONCIL MINUTES - July 31~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the applicant would be willing to have the CUP approved on a one-year trial basis; Mr. Foskarts answered #yes'. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition; there being no response, he closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Bay, 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. Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 84R-300 for adoption, granting Conditional Use Permit No 2590 subject to all interdepartmental committee recommendations as follows: 1. That the sale of and dispensing of beer and wine shall not occur via the drive-throughwindow. 2. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans on file with the Street Maintenance and Sanitation Division. 3. That the proposal shall comply with all signing requirements of the ML(SC) Zone, unless a variance allowing sign waivers is approved by the Planning Commission or City Council. 4. 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. 5. 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 occurs first, Condition Nos. 2 and 4, 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. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Pickler expressed his concern with a one-year review since he had personally inspected the property and saw no problem with the proposal. After a brief discussion on the issue of the one-year review, the Mayor noted that the applicant had stipulated to a one-year review and was confident that there would be no problem. A vote was then taken on the foregoing Resolution including a one-year review. RESOLUTION NO. 84R-300: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2590. 783 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 31~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COb~ClL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-300 duly passed and adopted. 179: PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 83-84-14: Application submitted by Century American Corporation, to consider amendment of a condition of approval, Condition No. 20 of Resolution No. 84R-39 and corresponding Condition No. 16 of Ordinance No. 4490, that a 6-foot high masonry block wall shall be constructed along the easterly, westerly and northerly property lines, and along the southerly property line abutting the 1S-foot wide landscaped area adjacent to Alameda Avenue, for a proposed change in zone to RM-3000, to construct a 136-unit condominium complex on property located south of Crescent Avenue, west of Muller Street. A negative declaration status on the project was previously approved by the Council at their meeting of January 24, 1984 (see minutes that date). The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent. Carolyn Robinson, representing Century American, 1428 East Chapman, Orange, explained they were requesting the amendment primarily due to the fact that the grade difference was 45 feet between the existing apartment complex and their townhome development. There was already a 45-foot block wall with a 5 to 6 foot chain link fence. They had worked with their landscape architect and came up with more upgraded landscaping. They would also add vines that would 'eventually fill in the chain link which would be more aesthetically pleasing both to the residents of the townhome development and the apartment complex. They checked with the Planning Department and found that the Code did not require a masonry wall but they were still going to construct the masonry wall around the other boundary lines. Miss Santalahti confirmed what Ms. Robinson stated was correct. Two conditions would be amended - No. 20 in the Resolution and No. 16 in the Ordinance to delete term westerly. The Planning Department staff had no problem with the proposed amendment. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to either in favor or in opposition; there being no response, he closed the public hearing. Assistant City Attorney Robert Franks recommended that the Council by motion direct staff to prepare an amendment to the ordinance and resolution deleting those particular conditions. MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to direct staff to prepare an ordinance and a resolution to amend the Condition (No. 20 and the resolution No. 20 in the Planning Commission Resolution and No. 16 in the ordinance) pertaining to a block wall required in Reclassification No. 83-84-14. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 784 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 31~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. ADJOURNMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to adjourn. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (2:48 p.m.) LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK 785