Loading...
1984/08/14159 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 14~ 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 (Councilman 0verholt entered at 10:09 a.m.) COUNCIL MEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White CITY CL~RK: Leonora N. Sohl UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER: Gordon Hoyt ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer SERGEANT VICE DETAIL: James Brantley Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: Reverend Carl Moyer, Chaplain, Walnut Manor gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Miriam Kaywood led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 119: RESOLUTION OF CONDOI,ENCE: A Resolution of Condolence was unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to the family of Dr. Maxwell Roston (Mrs. Roston, and daughter Elana and son Daniel). Expressing sympathy on behalf of the Council and the City at the untimely passing of Dr. Roston. 119: RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A Resolution of Congratulation was unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to George and Kae Colouris acknowledging the 30th Annual Southern California Home and Garden Show to be held at the Anaheim Convention Center August 18 through 26, 1984, the past 30 years of successful home shows having been due to the talents and abilities of Mr. and Hrs. Colouris, the Founders of the event. Councilman Overholt entered the Council Chambers. (10:09 a.m.) 119: PRESENTATION - EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT AWARD WINNERS: Since the revised Employee Involvement Program was initiated in April 1984, more than 90 suggestions were submitted by 66 City Employees. The following employees were honored for havln$ their ideas implemented and presented with a Certificate of Achievement by Mayor Roth and congratulated by each Council Member on behalf of the City. Each Of the employees also received a monetary award ranging from $30.00 to $1,000: RECOGNITION Mary E. Beardman, Finance Department Donald L. Foland, Plann/ng Department Rod Hallock, Streets and Sanitation Division 818 160 City Ha11~ Anahetm~ California - COUNCIL KINUTES - August 14~ 1984, 10:00 A.M. Barbara Harlow, Human Resources Department Gordon McConnell, Police Department Michael D. Nash, Public Utilities Bill Rice, Public Utilities Gerald Ritter, Public Utilities Gloria Simonson, Building Division Loule Vecchione, Streets and Sanitation Division Mark A. Villegas, Parks, Recreation, and Com. Services 119: SPECIAL RECOGNITION: Special Recognition was given to Bryan Mulberry, Facility and Event Electrician in the Maintenance Department (Convention Center) who was awarded $1,000. Mr. Mulberry designed and built remote control dimmer packs and utilized the existing microphone cables as DC control lines to the dimmers via a patch bay system. As a result, the incandescent lighting in the California Room can be controlled from a remote control location. The cost to the City for Bryan's idea was $2,000 as opposed to $35,000 to use an outside electrical contractor. Savings to the City: ~33,000. MINUTES: Approval of the minutes was deferred to the next regular meeting. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Pickler moved to waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda, after reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to waiver is hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such ordinances or resolutions in regular order. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST TH~ CITY in the amount of $2,879,955.68, in accordance with the 1984-85 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-309 through 84R-314, 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 Andrea Kim Baggett for personal injury damages sustained purportedly due to unsafe condition of road on West Street, approximately 500 feet north of Katella Avenue, on or about June 21, 1984. b. Claim submitted by Lois M. Turner, Automobile Club of Southern California, insured, for property damages sustained purportedly due to an accident in which a City-owned vehicle and City driver were involved on La Palma near Brookhurst, on or about June 6, 1984. 819 157 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 14~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. c. Claim submitted by Flor and Sergio Huerta for personal injury damages sustained purportedly due to actions of Anaheim Police Officers at Ninth and Cerritos in the Alley, on or about June 3, 1984. Claim filed against the City - recommended to be allowed. d. Claim submitted by Rene Vizcarra for property damages sustained purportedly due to an accident in which a City-owned vehicle and City driver were involved on Anaheim Boulevard, on or about April 27, 1984. 2. Receiving and filing the following correspondence: (on file) a. 107: Planning Department, Building Division--Monthly Report for July 1984. b. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission--Minutes of July 18, 1984. c. 105: Public Utilities Board, Minutes of July 19, 1984. 3. 150/106: Accepting a Land and Water Conservation Fund grant in the amount of 525,400 for purchase of an approximately .22 acre parcel adjacent to the Little People's Park with City 50/50 match of funds and authorizing a 5400 appropriation increase in Program 16-856. 4. 160: Accepting the low bid of Pirelli Cable Corp., in an amount not to exceed 561,331.60 for 100,000 feet of URD Primary 15 KV alumin,,mwire, in accordance with Bid No. 4111. 5. 180: Approving an application for a Public Dance Permit submitted by Evangelina Islas, Pyramid Productions, to hold a dance at the Anaheim Convention Center on August 25, 1984, from 8:00 p.m. until 1:00 a.m. 6. 183: Filing the application of Sanders Association, Inc., for equipment for the manufacturing of digital plotters as certified by the Secretary of the Industrial Development Authority. 7. 183: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-309: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHELMAPPROVING PROJECT OF SANDERS ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BOND FINANCING AND THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS THEREFORE. (financing of equipment for the manufacturing of digital plotters to be located at 2411 West La Palma Avenue) 8. 183: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-310: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CALLING HEARING ON ISSUANCE OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF ANAHEIM INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BONDS AND PROVIDING FOR NOTICE THEREOF. (setting a date for the public hearing - suggested date: September 4, 1984, 1:30 p.m.) 9. 156: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-311: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCEAND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: 82O 158 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 14~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. ANAHEIM POLICE PROPERTY ROOM SHELVING, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 01-991-7121. (opening of bids on September 6, 1984, 2:00 p.m.) 10. 103: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-312: A KESOLUTION OF APPLICATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM INITIATING A PROPOSAL FOR A MUNICIPAL REORGANIZATION DESIGNATED AS REORGANIZATION NO. 69 AND APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION IN CONJUNCTION THEREWITH. 11. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-313: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. 12. 156/109: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-314: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A GRANT FRON THE CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE PLANNING FOR IMPLEMENTING THE ANAHEIM CAREER CRIMINAL APPREHENSION PROGRAM, AGREEING TO PROVIDE REQUIRED MATCHING FUNDS, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ALT. NECESSARY DOCUMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH SAID GRANT. (amount of $165,727, City match of $89,238, for the third and final funding of the Career Criminal Apprehension Program) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMB~S: Kaywood, Bay, NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None Overholt, Pickler and Roth The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-309 through 84R-314 duly passed and adopted. MOTION CARRIED. 179: ORDINANCE NO. 4533 - SELF STORAGE - MINI-WAREHOUSE FACILITIES: Amending Title 18, by adding Subsection 18.45.050.293 to the Code, to allow self-storage or mini-warehouse facilities in the CG zone in connection with a conditional use permit. City Manager William Talley announced that a Mr. Richard Brown wished to address the Council on the matter. Councilwoman Kaywood first stated that she had many questions relative to the proposed ordinance. She was amazed that a good prime 10-acre parcel would be considered for just mini-storage. She questioned why and how many storage units were contemplated and if that was the only use that could go into the commercial-general zone. Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, answered that the C-G zone permitted all the uses by right allowed in the CO and CL zones in the City which were generally retail activities and offices. The primary difference in the subject zone was the fact that there were no site development standards other than two-thirds of the property shall be left open for parking which was quite stringent. Other than the subject site and the Anaheim Plaza Shopping Center site on Euclid Street, there was no other C-G zoning in the City. There used to be such sites in the downtown area as well as on arterials leaving downtown. 821 155 City Hall~ Anahe/m~ California - COUNCIL HINUTES - August 14~ 1984, 10:00 A.M. Councilman Bay asked if it was possible that the City left self-storage out of commercial in order to aim the storage use towards industrial zoning. There seemed to be a tendency lately to start broadening ordinances eventually making everything possible in any zone. He was concerned from the standpoint that they were coming up piecemeal. If it was time for the Planning Commission and Council to relook at rezonings due to changes that had occurred over the last 20 years, perhaps a workshop was needed. He then asked if storage was a temporary use and if the City could set time limits on a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) knowing eventually the storage was going to be removed and replaced by something else. Hiss Santalahti answered "yes" to the latter. It was expected to be temporary but that could mean 25 years. A typical mini-warehouse building was designed specifically for that use. Hr. R/chard Brown, 1562 Kensing Street, Santa Ana, stated it was not his intention to speak to any one parcel of land but it was obvious that he had one parcel in mind. In general, neighborhood storage or self-storage was located in the industrial area. It was felt it would be spot zoning if they requested industrial in the specific area. They pursued the matter based on the merit of the request in and of itself and that it appeared self-storage was not manufacturing of any kind, or industrial. It was the retail selling of space relative to longevity, it was likely to involve a minimum of 10 years and perhaps 15 to defray the cost of installation. With commercial next to residential zoning, commercial became an exemplary neighbor providing au absolute minimum of traffic and a highly secure area which answered one of the main objections of the residents in the zoning of the area. It would not impact schools, or the infrastructure. The most appropriate zoning would be in commercial rather than industrial. Councilman Bay stated he understood Hr. Brown's logic on this specific request and did not disagree, but the problem of opening up C-G was the other C-G throughout the City and what that change might create. He was not concerned with Mr. Brown's specific needs in the subject location since they went Through the hearing process at great length (see minutes of April 14, 1984). He felt, however, there must be a better way to proceed for the subject property. He asked staff for suggestions. Miss Santalahtt stated the general plan designation on the property was multiple family and any zoning action to other than that designation would require another General Plan Amendment; Councilman Bay surmised then that each CUP would be treated individually. Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance No. 4533 for first reading. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4533: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18, CHAPTER 18.45, SECTION 18.45.050 BY ADDING SUBSECTION 18.45.050.293 TO THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO ZONING. 175: REFUND FROM SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY: Public Utilities General Manager Gordon Hoyt reported that a refund of $7,745,510.54 had been 822 156 City H, 11~ a--heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 14~ 1984, 10:00 A.M. received from the Southern California Edison Company as a result of overcharges which that Company made in the City's wholesale electric power count for the period of August 16, 1979 through July 15, 1981. Assuming Council Policy was the same now as in the past, his Department was prepared to refund those funds to the ratepayers some time in September. He pointed out that through the Council's efforts in supporting litigation with Edison over the years, in 1984 alone, the Utilities Department had been able to refund Just under $16.5 million to the City's ratepayers. 175/123: CUSTOMERRELATIONS REFRESHER PROGRAM: Councilman Roth moved to authorize the Public Utilities Department to purchase a Customer Relations Refresher Program from Kaset, Inc., in the amount of 36,500 as recommended in memorandum dated August 3, 1984 from the Public Utilities Board. Councilman 0verholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning Commission at their meeting held July 23, 1984, pertaining to the following applications were submitted for City Council information. 1. CONDTIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2551 (READVERTISED): Application submitted by Harold K. and Karen L. Oertle, (Mild Ta Wild: Goldwing Productions, Inc., and Chuck's Unlimited), to retain three automobile customizing shops on ML zoned property located at 1251 North Red Gum Street, with Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-146, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2551 and granted a negative declaration. 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2599: Application submitted by Commonwealth Financial Corporation, to permit a /-story, 212-room hotel complex and restaurants with on-sale of alcoholic beverages on proposed ML zoned property located on the southeast corner of Frontera Street and Glassell Street, with the following Code waivers: (a) minimum number of parking spaces, (b) maximum structural height adjacent to single-family zoning. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-147, granted in part, Conditional Use Permit No. 2599 and granted a negative declaration. 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1142 (EEADVERTISED): Application submitted by Bob BabaJian, et al', (Anaheim Truck Depot), to amend certain conditions o~ approval of Planning Commission Resolution Nos. PC69-229 and PC69-265 pertaining to the expansion of an existing non-conforming transit and transportation equipment storage yard, including the establishment of an enclosed restaurant on }iL zoned property located at 1231 North Blue Gum Street, with Code waiver of enclosure of outdoor uses. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-150, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 1142 and granted a negative declaration. 4. VARIANCE NO. 3411: Application submitted by Hawaiian Village Recreation Club, to construct two single-family residences on RS-7200 zoned property located at 1253 and 1257 Brookhurst Street, with the following Code waivers: 823 City Ha11~ Anahetm~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ausust 14~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. (a) minimum front yard setback, (b) orientation of buildings adjacent to arterial highways. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-151, granted Variance No. 3411, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination. 5. VARIANCE NO. 3414: Application submitted by Georgia Rose Williams, to construct a self-storage facility on ML zoned property located at 1225 No. East Street, with Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-152, granted Variance No. 3414, and granted a negative declaration. Councilwoman Kaywood expressed her concern that this was not the usual storage facility in that it was two stories and the parking waiver requested was the worst the Council had ever seen providing only nine spaces. Traffic Engineer Paul Singer explained all of the studies that his office received thus far dealing with mini-storage parking were for approximately six percent of Code. Also, the traffic generation on the average 200-unit storage facility was so Iow, 12 to 14 trips a day not related to the caretaker or resident, that even six percent seemed to be much too high. He did not foresee any problem unless the use should change. Miss Santalahti explained that any conversion of use would violate the Zoning Code; Jack White, Assistant City Attorney, reported if there was a conversion to a different use, that new use would have to meet the parking requirement for that use as established in the Zoning Code. 6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2361 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Application submitted by Hepatha Lutheran Church, requesting an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 2361, to permit a private day-school (Grades K through 8) with a maximum enrollment of 370 children on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located at 5900 East Santa Ana Canyon Road. The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 2361, to expire August 9, 1985. 7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2093 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Application submitted by Robert Sanchez, requesting an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 2093, to permit retention of an aviary on RS-7200 zoned property located at 911 South Sylvan Street. The City Pla~!ng Commission approved an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 2093, to expire June 30, 1986. 8. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2473 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Application submitted by West Anaheim Community Hospital, requesting an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 2473, to expand an existing hospital facility on CL zoned property located at 3033 West Orange Avenue, with Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. 824 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Au$ust 14~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 2473, to expire August 8, 1985. 9. RECLASSIFICATION 80-81-18 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2144 - EXTENSIONS OF TIME: Application submitted by Community Development Department, requesting extensions of time to Reclassification No. 80-81-18 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2144, proposed CL zoning, to permit a performing arts theater with on-sale beer and wine on property located on the north side of Broadway, west of Philadelphia Street. The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Reclassification No. 80-81-18 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2144, to expire November 17, 1985. 10. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2597 AND REMOVAL OF SPECIMEN TREES: Application submitted by Texaco Anaheim Hills, Inc., to construct a 46-foot high, 131-room senior citizens retirement facility on CL(SC) zoned property located at 380 South An-heim Hills Road, with removal of 9 (nine) specimen trees, with the following Code waivers: (a) minimum number and type of parking spaces, (b) required site screening. (deleted) The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-148, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2597 and granted a negative declaration. Councilwoman Kaywood expressed her concern relative to parking and could not imagine only 30 parking spaces for 131 rooms for a Senior Citizen Retirement Facility. It was not an apartment or convalescent home. It did not seem reasonable since the age established for senior citizen projects at the workshop with the Planning Commission and Senior Citizen Commission was 62. She was also concerned with the size of the units with a proposed minimum of 304 square feet. To her recollection, it was decided at the Work Session that 500 square feet would be the minimum size. She felt the project needed to' be reviewed. The City needed such facilities but they needed to be quality. Councilwoman Kaywood requested a review of the Planning Commission's decision on Conditional Use Permit No. 2597 and, therefore a public hearing would be scheduled at a later date. 11. VARIANCE NO. 3407: Application submitted by Cinderella Motel, (Candy Cane Motel)~ to expand a motel complex on CE zoned property located at 1747 South Harbor Boulevard~ with Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-149, granted Variance No. 3407 and granted a negative declaration. Councilwoman Kaywood expressed her concern that the subject Variance was not advertised correctly. In reading the Planning Commission minutes, it seemed they were demolishing and rebuilding and that was different from adding on. Miss Santalahti explained they were going to be adding 129 new units and retaining 76 for a total of 205. Currently there were approximately 100 units. 825 City Hall~ Anaheim~ Califoru/a - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ausust 14~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. Councilwoman Kaywood noted there was also a 2,261 square-foot coffee shop serving breakfast, lunch and dinner. She did not see anything but trouble coming from a waiver of parking. Councilwoman Kaywood requested a review of the Planning Commission's decision on Variance No. 3407 and, therefore, a public hearing would be scheduled at later date. 150/000/142: ANAHEIM PARK DEDICATION ORDINANCE REVISIONS: Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department, requesting amendments to various Sections of 17.08 and repealing and adding Sections thereto, pertaining to park in-lieu fees. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the requested amendments. MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to refer the matter back to the Parks, Recreation and Community Services staff for further study. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 152: APPOINTMENT TO THE PRIVATE INDUSTRY COUNCIL: Appointment to the Private Industry Council (PIC) for the term ending August 1, 1987. This item was continued from the meeting of August 7, 1984 (see minutes that date). Councilman Roth nominated Robert Kuznick. Councilman Pickler suggested that the appointment be continued. He thereupon moved to continue the appointment to the Private Industry Council for one week. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Befor~ a vote was taken, Councilman Bay asked if the nomination by the Mayor would stand; Jack White, Assistant City Attorney, explained one name had been placed .in nomination. If continued, that name would still be in nomination unless the nomination was withdrawn. The Mayor stated he would let the nomination stand. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion of continuance. MOTION CARRIED. 108: APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC DANCE PERMITS -ANAHEIM RECREATION CENTER: Application submitted by Larry Milo Blngham, for Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints to hold public dances at the Anaheim Recreation Center, 1041 North Shepard, on August 18, and September 8 and 15, 1984, from 8:30 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. This matter was continued from the meeting of August 7, 1984 (see minutes that date). Councilman Pickler moved to approve the subject applications. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion for the purpose of discussion. Before any action was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated the neighbors were unhappy with the situation since the Anaheim Recreation Center did not have ample parking. They also charged for parking resulting in vehicles parking in Rockwell's lot and all the industrial areas in the vicinity. The situation 826 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ausust 14~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. was discussed at the time the Recreation Center was permitted, that they would not be impingin~ upon the industrial area but would be good neighbors. However, it did not sound like that was the case. The Council had received several letters of opposition. She asked to hear from the Police Department; Councilman Overholt also asked if the Police Department's recommendation was different now than last week. Sergeant James Brantley stated the Police Department's concerns were the same. They were looking for mutual cooperation from the applicant and surrounding businesses but apparently after viewing two or three of the letters in opposition, that was not the case. Therefore, the Police Department's position was the same as last week, i.e., recommending denial of the applications. MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to deny the applications for public dance permits to hold public dances at the Anaheim Recreation Center, 1041 North Shephard Street, August 18, September 8 and 15, 1984 from 8:30 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. Before any action was taken, Councilman Overholt withdrew his second to the original motion. Councilman Pickler withdrew his motion of approval. Mayor Roth referred to the letters received in opposition (letter dated August 8, 1984 from Dale Fowler, Dale Fowler Real Estate Investments, letter dated August 13, 1984 from Fred B. Kenney, Golfland, letter dated August 14, 1984 from Karl Sator, S & S Investments) noting there was deep concern by the immediate property owners in the area relative to the parking situation, using their lots and the operating of dances in the past without permits. The purpose of the continuance from the last meeting was to see if some of the problems could be resolved with the adjoining industrial properties. Mr. Larry Bingham, Director of Promotion in Group Sales for the Huish Family Fun Center, stated after briefly reviewing the letters referred to by the Mayor and just handed to him, what he did not understand was that when he met with his neighbors they told him the problems he had to solve, he would give them the solutions, and then nobody would tell anybody he had made that offer. He gave the Planning Commission the same recommendations: (1) The Center would not charge for parking, but the reason they did so was to slow down the problem of "cruising". (2) The church would inform their members to carpool which would cut down a great number of cars. Two other areas discussed related to parking and trash, the Center talked to each of their neighbors and told them they would pick up the trash and at Mr. Sator's place they would have to find out what trash he was talking about. Mr. Kenney said he would take care of Mr. Fowler's location and the Fun Center would take care of Sator. Regarding loiterers they offered to send a security guard through the area. He then explained the situation involving a car club that came through the area starting at Carl's Jr. Restaurant which caused a considerable amount of trash. The problem was ongoing, something that the dances did not affect. He had approval of the owner of the Company, Mr. Huish. They were trying to work with their neighbors and the City. They would like to get the first dance permit and put the other two on hold. If something did not go the 827 Cit7 Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 14~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. way he expected with the first dance, then the City could deny the other two applications, otherwise he could not prove his point. Mr. John Huish, owner, Anaheim Recreation Center, stated he had been at the subject location for 8 or 9 years and had been through the same problem. He was before the Planning Commission many times and each time Mr. Kenney and his family (Golfland) opposed the Fun Center in every way. He was going to try to provide everything requested and as the owner he would provide and pay the expenses. There was a need today in the market for young people to enjoy themselves. Mayor Roth asked if he had been aware that dances were held without permits in the past; Mr. Huish stated they had dances without problems. He was not in charge of promotions and did not know if dances were held without permits, Councilwoman Kaywood then gave an overview of the past history concerning the Fun Center and problems that had occurred. She emphasized the fact that dances were held in the past without permits and maintained if the Center did not have permission to use the property for dances, it was not usable. A prime industrial area of the City was involved. Mr. Bingham explained the problem occurred every night of the week with people loitering at all three locations. It was necessary to understand they were submitting the applications because they had been requested by the church to hold the dances. The church had its own standards to live by as well as their own security people. Councilwoman Kaywood reiterated the property was not zoned for dances, the Center did not have permission to hold dances, the request had been denied in the past but yet the dances were held without permission or permits. The Mayor asked if anyone was present from Golfland or S & S Investments and, if so, did they want to change their mind in view of what they heard today. Mr. Kenney from Golfland and Mr. Sator from S & S Investments were present in the Chamber audience and both indicated "no". Councilman Pickler seconded the foregoing motion of denial. Before a vote was taken, Assistant City Attorney Jack White recommended that the motion include the finding that the proposed public dances would be detrimental to the public welfare due to the lack of adequate parking. Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the Fun Center continued to hold dances in spite of the discussion today and the motion of denial, what would occur. Mr. White answered it would be in violation of the Anaheim Municipal Code and those engaging in sponsoring that activity would be subject to arrest or citation by the Police Department. 828 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 14~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion of denial of the dance applications including the finding as articulated by the Assistant City Attorney. MOTION CARRIED. 108: FIRST CLASS ENTERPRISES: Juan Chavez and John Nahavandi, requesting a permit to operate taxi, limousine and tour services within the City. Submitted was a report from the Zoning Division dated August 6, 1984, recommending denial. The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present. Mr. Nicholas Thompson, Attorney, speaking on behalf of the applicant stated he bad reviewed the recommendation for denial and the discussion which was included. There were other pertinent points that should be raised. He did not have the Certificate of Insurance at the time the application was submitted but did so now reflecting the required $300,000 coverage for two vehicles. (Mr. Thompson submitted the certificate). There were also certain basic business like procedural requirements that had been satisfied. The dba had been sent out for filing and the business license application was filed this morning. The matters stressed by Code Enforcement did not have anything to say with respect to Mr. Chavez who was an employee of the County of Orange for eight and a half years, a four year resident of Anaheim who owned his own home and assured that he could get a line of credit in excess of $10,000. He wanted to establish himself as an entrepreneuer in the City of Anaheim. Considering the growth of Anaheim, there was a need for guests coming to the City to be transported from one place to another. To think that one Taxi Cab Company was sufficient to service all those needs was ludicrous and the Council should consider the fact that the Yellow Cab Company had a monopoly in the transportation industry in the City with the exception of one other business. Yellow Cab had an interest in upholding that monopoly and that was where the complaints against Mr. Nahavandi had come from. There had been no convictions against Mr. Nahavandi or Mr. Chavez. With respect to the allegations against Mr. Nahavandi regarding moral turpitude, there had been no convictions. Relative to the publicconvenience and necessity aspect, he did not believe the degree of proof should be that severe. A business such as that being proposed, i£ given the opportunity could succeed by reason of demand. Councilwoman Kaywood asked if there was a sealed meter in Mr. Nahavandi's taxi cab and had it always been sealed; Mr. Thompson answered, to his knowledge, "yes"; however, he could not swear under oath because he had not seen it. He could only rely on what Mr. Nahavandi told him but he was not qualified to know if a meter was sealed. He had not examined a meter but could assure the Council of affirmative proof by bringing the cab to the City to be examined. Councilman Bay asked if there was any pending litigation involving Mr. Nahavandi with the City; Mr. Thompson stated he was aware there was litigation but did not know of the specifics. RECESS: Councilman Bay moved to recess to Closed Session to discuss pending 829 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 14~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. litigation. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (11:35 a.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (11:53 a.m.) Councilwoman Kaywood posed a line of questioning to Mr. Thompson which he answered as follows: There were two cabs proposed at present and realistically because of the size of the City with only two cabs, it would be impossible to service the entire City. The business would be supplementing the current service. They could service any given area. The intent was to service the City with two cabs and at a point in time, to acquire an additional two to four cabs if the Council felt that would adequately service the community. The cabs did not have radio controls at the present time and had been in operation without radio controls within the City of Los Alamitos. In terms of a base for the cabs, it would be the current Santa Aha address. The service would essentially be provided on a 24-hour basis. They did intend to service the Disneyland Hotel and Grand Hotel but in terms of establishing those as taxi stands at the present time he did not believe they would be doing so. The cabs would be driving within the City of Anaheim and often-times the greatest demand came when people tried to flag a cab. Contact would be done by the old method of flagging the cab. At the present time there was no dispatch. Mayor Roth asked Mr. Thompson if there were any other individuals he would like to testify on their behalf; Mr. Thompson answered "no". Councilman Roth moved to deny the request for a permit to operate taxi, limousine and tour services within the City submitted by First Class Enterprises. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Mayor Roth asked the City Attorney to read the findings on which the denial was based. Before doing so, Councilman Overholt asked Mr. White if the document submitted by Mr. Thompson was a Bond or Policy of Insurance. Assistant City Attorney Jack White answered "no". It was a Certificate of Insurance. The Code required that a Bond or actual Policy of Insurance be submitted to the Council which was not received. Mr. Thompson, in answer to Councilman Overholt, stated he was not prepared to submit a Bond or Certificate of Insurance at this time. Mr. White then stated, based upon the testimony and oral and documentary evidence, he would recommend that the following finding be incorporated in the motion of denial: 1. That the applicant has not submitted proof demonstrating good moral character and specifically that the applicant John Nahavandi has been operating a taxi cab in the past without a City license and permit and has been using an unsealed taxi meter. 830 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 14~ 1984, 10:00 A.M. 2. The applicant has not furnished proof of Bond or copy of Policy of Insurance as required by Code. 3. The applicant has not proved that public convenience or necessity require the operation of such taxi cabs within the City. 4. The applicant has not submitted adequate proof of financial ability to provide the service intended. 5. The applicant does not have a sufficient number of taxi cabs to currently serve the entire City. 6. That the vehicles proposed for operation are not currently radio equipped for dispatch as required by the Anaheim Municipal Code. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion of denial including the foregoing findings. MOTION CARRIED. 179: ORDINANCE NO. 4525 - FAST FOOD AND DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANTS IN THE CE-ZONE: Amending 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 CE zone. This matter was continued from the meeting of August 7, 1984 - see minutes that date. Mr. Randy Houston, Attorney representing Gordon Grey and McDonald's stated he was present in support of the adoption of Ordinance No. 4525 which would add drive-thru restaurants to the uses permitted with Conditional Use Permits in the CE zone of the City. He had provided materials to the City Council (see letter dated 7/10/84 from Dennis Fletcher, Real Estate Manager McDonald's Corporation attached to which are traffic analysis and traffic reports - made a part of the record). Mr. Grey was present as well as the Senior Real Estate Representative from McDonald's in the southern California area to answer questions. Councilman Pickler asked Mr. Grey if he did not have a drive-thru would he proceed with the project. Mr. Gordon Grey, owner of two McDonald's in Anaheim, stated the Corporation installed the restaurants and he leased them and it would be up to McDonald's to make the decision. He felt their decision would be to put in the restaurant if that were the only way it could be done. Mayor Roth asked the Traffic Engineer if in his opinion a drive-thru would add additional traffic on Harbor Boulevard, i.e., would it actually increase the number of vehicles using that street. Traffic Engineer Paul Singer answered 'yes~. There would be a slight increase of traffic on Harbor Boulevard of approximately 1.2 percent of the existing volume and that relative to stacking, he could not visualize any problems of stacking of vehicles on the street. Also, exit onto Harbor Boulevard when leaving the property would be by right turn only. He was not recommending denial because of traffic problems or hazards but was recommending that the 831 City Hsll~ Ansheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 14~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. median island be closed at such a time that the City was to reconstruct the median. Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. Grey if he would be willing to proceed with approval for one year to see if the use would cause a traffic impact; Mr. Grey stated that would be the least desirable action inasmuch as they had such a great deal of research in background information available not only from their own restaurant but also Carl's Jr. Restaurants. Their record could speak for itself and Mr. Singer and he often did not see eye to eye but in this case they both agreed. Councilman Overholt asked Mr. Singer if he agreed completely with the traffic study submitted by McDonald's; Mr. Singer answered that he did because the information submitted by McDonald's was based on a Barton-Aschman report and that particular firm carried a great deal of weight because they were quite expert in their field. Councilman Overholt stated it seemed the significant number in the report was the difference in traffic impact between having a non-drive-thru restaurant and a drive-thru restaurant .15% and thus the difference would be insignificant. Mr. Singer stated that was correct. Their report also indicated that only one-third of the traffic was new traffic. The majority of the traffic entering and leaving a facility such as a drive-thru restaurant was already on the street and making a pass or taking advantage of an existing use. Mr. Grey pointed out that the information was based upon 25 years of experience and extensive research done on 5,000 restaurants in the United States. Councilman Pickler stated he had no problems with McDonald's but with traffic in the area and that was his main concern whether a small percentage increase or not. He was also concerned about the cumulative effect of allowed uses. They needed to find remedies for the traffic on that stretch of Harbor Boulevard before allowing more; Mr. Singer stated no matter what use would be allowed on the property would generate traffic and 419 trips was not a high generator. Discussion then followed between Councilman Bay and Mr. Singer regarding the closure of the median. It was intended that ~he median be closed for southbound left turns and only remain open for northbound left turns. The closure was included in the Five-year Capital Improvement plan to be included either in this fiscal year's budget (1984/85) or the next fiscal year (1985/86). He also clarified for Councilman Bay considering that vehicles would only be permitted a right turn only, proceeding north on Harbor Boulevard it was possible to make a U-turn at Manchester Avenue to travel south. It was an unprotected turn but it was not a dangerous one. He also clarified that in exiting to the right that it was possible to avoid Harbor Boulevard entirely by turning right on Manchester to the motel area on Katella and other areas to the south, an area which Councilman Bay considered to be a prime area of users of the proposed McDonald's. Councilman Bay suggested that a formal map provided by McDonald's would be of great assistance to customers in directing them back to the south instead of 832 City Hall~ Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 14~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. making a U-turn on Harbor Boulevard; Mr. Grey stated if he bad to, he would personally direct them back himself. Mr. Singer then clarified for Councilman Pickler that at the present time it was possible when traveling south on Harbor Boulevard coming from the Santa Aha Freeway to turn left across Harbor into the proposed site since the median was presently open for both north and southbound across from the Disneyland Employee Entrance. He reiterated, however, tbat the median was scheduled to be closed for southbound traffic either during the present fiscal year or the next; Councilman Pickler was interested in it being closed immediately. In answer to Councilman Pickler, Mr. Grey stated he would bave an objection to closing the median now because it was for the convenience of business on either side. It was for any business, not necessarily McDonald's. He felt that there was an exaggeration of the danger tbat might be involved and explained that there was a similar situation at a McDonald's facility in Tustin. As long as the median cut was there, they would like to use it and when it was closed it was being done for the good of the City. They might not like it from a business standpoint but would live with it. Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4525 for adoption. 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 THEANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked if approved, could a time limit be placed on it so there could be a record of experience to see how it was working with McDonald's and if not successful, no other such uses would be granted. Miss Santalahti answered tbat the difficulty in doing so was the fact that the facility would be specifically designed for drive-thru. If the Council or the Planning Commission did not wish to look at any other CUPs until they received evidence of the traffic situation, they could do that but other requests could be quite different. It would always have to be done by CUP and all departments received copies of plans ahead of time. Councilwoman Kaywood then asked the length of the stacking lane; Mr. Singer answered approximately twice what was required by Code - 320 feet with 150 feet required. The stacking length could bandle 116 vehicles. Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. Grey if he would be willing to have a time limit; Mr. Grey answered he would prefer not to have a time limit. Their experience based on past performance on their restaurants and other such restaurants in the area was good and he felt they were talking primarily about drive-thru. The drive-thru had not been a problem with Carl's and others. Councilwoman Kaywood stated it was exiting of the facility that concerned her. If traffic was so heavy tbat a vehicle could not exit, that was going to bave an impact. 833 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 14~ 1984, 10:00 A.M. A vote was then taken on the foregoing Ordinance. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bay, 0verholt and Roth NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4525 duly passed and adopted. Jack White clarified for the Mayor that the CUP submitted by McDonald's had been approved by the Planning Commission and would be coming before the City Council on the Planning Commission Informational Calendar on August 28, 1984. 142/149: ORDINANCE NOS. 4527 AND 4528: Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance Nos. 4527 and 4528 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4527: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 14, CHAPTER 14.32, SECTION 14.32.190 BY ADDING THERETO SUBSECTION 14.32.190.2110 TO THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO PARKING. ORDINANCE NO. 4528: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 14, CHAPTER 14.32, SECTION 14.32.153 BY ADDING SUBSECTION 14.32.153.040 TO THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO PARKING. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth None None The Mayor declared Ordinance Nos. 4527 and 4528 duly passed and adopted. 142/149: ORDINANCE NO. 4529: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4529 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4529: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHIEM KEPEALING TITLE 14, CHAPTER 14.32 SECTIONS 14.32.040, 14.32.060 AND 14.32.070 AND ADDING SECTION 14.32.040 TO THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAININC TO PARKING-LOADING ZONES. 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. 4529 duly passed and adopted. 142/175: ORDINANCE NO. 4530: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4530 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. 834 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ausust 14t 1984t 10:00 A.M. ORDINANCE NO. 4530: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA AMENDING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF ORDINANCE NO. 4415 OF THE CITY COUNCIL. (Water Revenue Bond Anticipation Notes) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: C0UNCILMEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, None None 0verholt, Pickler and Roth The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4530 duly passed and adopted. 179: ORDINANCE NOS. 4531 AND 4532: Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance No. 4531 and 4532 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4531: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (81-82-6, CO, 805 North Harbor Boulevard) ORDINANCE NO. 4532: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY 0FANAHEIMAMENDING THE ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RRTATING TO ZONING. (83-84-6, CO, east side of Anaheim Boulevard, south of Stanford Court) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth None None The Mayor declared Ordinance Nos. 4531 and 4532 duly passed and adopted. REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: The City Manager requested a Closed Session to discuss pending litigation with no action anticipated; The City Attorney requested a Closed Session to discuss pending litigation with no action anticipated. Mayor Roth announced that a Closed Session would be held to consult with the City's Attorneys concerning pending litigation. Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed gession and a lunch break. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (12:45 p.m) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (1:55 p.m.) 134/155: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 188 AND EIR NO. 265 (OAK HILLS RANCH): 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 835 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 14, 1984, 10:00 A.M. by the Texaco-Anaheim Hills Inc. property. (continued from the meetings of June 5 and July 24, 1984) This item was continued from the meetings of June 5 and July 24, 1984 (see minutes those dates). At their meeting of June 5, 1984, where extensive discussion, questioning and input were received (see minutes that date), the Council moved that the public hearing be continued to July 24, 1984, in order to be able obtain additional information which they felt was needed to make a decision on the matter. City Clerk Leonora Sohl announced that letter dated August 14, 1984 had been received from Jared Ikeda, Vice-President representing Oak Hills Ltd., requesting that the matter be continued to Tuesday September 4, 1984. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak to the matter; there was no response. MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to continue the public hearing on General Plan Amendment No. 188 and EIR No. 265 to Tuesday September 4, 1984 at 1:30 p.m. as requested by the applicant. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 3400: Application submitted by San Roque, Inc., to retain an existing block wall and swimming pool on RS-HS-22,000(SC) zoned property located at 6899 Avenida de Santiago, with Code waivers as follows: (a) maximum fence height, (b) minimum front yard setback. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-103, reported that the Planning Director or his authorized representative has determined that the proposed activity falls within the definition of categorical exemptions Section 3.01, Class 5, as defined in the State EIR guidelines to the requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and is therefore categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR and further, denied Variance No. 3400. The decision of the City Planning Commission was appealed by the applicant and public hearing scheduled and continued to this date. The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent recalling that several things were to be done as a result of the last hearing, one being to provide three sets of plans to the Homeowners Association. Mr. Kirt Hansen, 16730 Maple, Fountain Valley, representing San Roque Inc., stated he was not present at the last meeting and did not know if anyone said they would have three sets of plans for the Association inasmuch as the applicant did not have three sets of plans. There was to be a meeting between San Roque and the Homeowners Association last Friday, August 10, 1984. He had spoken to Susan Naples by telephone and stated it was unlikely that they would have the plans by Wednesday which was the day Ms. Naples indicated she wanted them. He and two others showed up at the meeting on Friday and found out the meeting had been cancelled. He believed the reason they were present today was not whether or not the item conformed to the Homeowners Association's 836 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 14, 1984, 10:00 A.M. CC&Rs and standards, but a zoning variance which was separate and distinct from the requirements of the Homeowners Association. Mayor Roth asked Mr. Hansen to speak to the fact that the Planning Commission denied the maximum fence height and minimum front yard. His company appealed that denial asking the Council to reverse the decision on the fence height and the setback. Mr. Hansen stated relative to the wall, it was only a matter of a few feet. Since a building permit was originally issued showing the wall, size and location, the variance should be approved so that the property owner could use his property to its maximum benefits as long as it was not infringing on anyone else's rights, If the variance were not allowed, the wall would have to be torn down and the pool would also have to be changed. Miss Santalahti, answering the Mayor, reported that no permit was issued for the wall; Mr. Hansen reiterated that the'wall was shown on the plans that were issued for the building permit for the house. Mr. William Anthony, 16902 Bolsa Chica, Huntington Beach, explained that they submitted their plans to the Homeowners Association in 1979 and the wall was shown on those plans. They had to have plan approval by two Homeowners Associations prior to submitting them to the City for plan check and approval and they had done so. Plans were submitted to the City but building permits were not pulled and construction did not commence with the full knowledge of Texaco-Anaheim Hills. He was not aware until now that a separate permit had to be obtained for the block wall even though it was shown on the plans. Relative to the meeting they were to have with the Homeowners Association to resolve the issue, they were present but the meeting was cancelled because' they did not have three sets of stamped, approved plans. At the time the plans were approved, no stamp was in existence. The plans were signed and the City kept a copy and they did not get three sets back. The Mayor interjected and asked Mr. Anthony to concentrate on the issue - why the Council should reverse the Planning Commission's denial of the fence height and setback. Mr. Anthony stated the fence height should be allowed due to the City requirement that the fence had to be that high in order to have the swimming pool in that location. Relative to the wrought iron, they did not have an objection to replacing the top portion of the wall, whatever was necessary, in order to not obstruct the view. He was not opposed to compromise, i.e., take two feet of the block wall and replace it with wrought iron, but he was opposed to eliminating the fence because it would also eliminate the pool. Mayor Roth asked if he ever had an inspector inform him that he was commencing with illegal construction and secondly was the garage converted to another use. Mr. Anthony answered #no# to the first question and, relative to the garage, there was a two-car garage used as a garage and a one-car area that he wanted to use as a gym. 837 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Auzust 14~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak. Mr. Tallis Hargrave, 6503 Serrano Avenue, explained the situation surrounding the meeting they were to have with the applicant and why it did not take place, the main reason being, no plans were submitted. Nothing at all had been accomplished in the past three weeks. Mr. Charles Cundiff, 6951 Via E1 Estrelio, first referred to letter dated December 23, 1980 from Donald Williamson, President Anaheim Ridge Estates Owners Association, Item No. 4 Page 2. "Please remember to submit your plans for any contemplated fences or walls, and landscaping. There will be no exceptions made to the rear native slope "no encroachment" policy regarding landscaping or yard improvements. The plan posted on the Chamber wall did not show any block wall fence or any landscaping and that plan apparently was one that was approved at the last meeting. Mayor Roth asked for clarification from staff. Miss Santalahti explained that the posted plan (with yellow tag) was the building permit site plan that was submitted for the construction of the house and that did not show anything in the area of the pool or the block wall. After Mr. Cundiff's testimony, additional discussion and questioning followed between Council Members, Mr. Anthony and staff at the conclusion of which Mr. Anthony stated if the variance was approved, they would take the top off the block wall fence and replace it with wrought iron. After an explanation from staff relative to alternatives Mr. Anthony would have, Councilman 0verholt stated if the Council were to deny the variance, Mr. Anthody could then do exactly what he offered to do by replacing the top of the block wall with wrought iron so that there would be no interference with the view. Subsequently, whatever problems there were with the Homeowners Association would have to be handled accordingly. Miss Santalahti confirmed Mr. Anthony would still need a building permit for the six-foot wall; Councilman Bay noted that he must meet the height limit on the block portion but he could go above that with the wrought iron without a variance. He also asked if the wrought iron, as long as it did not block the VieW, was still sufficient to secure the pool for safety purposes; Miss Santalahti answered "yes". The Mayor closed the public hearing. Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 84R-315 for adoption denying Variance No. 3400 upholding the findings of the City Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 84R-315: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DENYING VARIANCE NO. 3400. 838 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 14~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERs: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, 0verholt, Pickler and Roth None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-315 duly passed and adopted. 179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2574 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application submitted by Carlos R. and Leonor Conant, to consider expansion of a day care center to permit a maximum of 12 children on RS-7200 zoned property located at 1321 North Moraga Street, with Code waiver of required loading and unloading area for children, and revised plans. (continued from the meeting of July 24, 1984) The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-98, 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. 2574, subject to certain conditions. Mayor Roth stated that the continuance was necessary due to a tie vote and today it could be acted upon with a full Council, Councilman Overholt could ask for an additional amount of testimony or whatever was necessary. Councilman 0verholt stated he had conferred with the City Clerk and also personally with Council Members Bay, Pickler and Kaywood and briefly with the Mayor.' Some additional information had been received since the original hearing in terms of calls and petitions. He would not be adverse to any Member of the Council inquiring regarding that additional information. He understood that at the previous hearing, it was brought out there was another residence on the street presently operating a day care center. M/ss Santalahti stated she checked with the Business License Division and they had no business license on the subject block for any child care facility; Assistant City Attorney Jack White explained, however, that State Law did not require a business license for day care centers of six or less children. Councilman Bay stated that staff was saying there was nothing in City records documenting there was a second day care center on the street but County records would reflect that because they had to approve them. Councilman Overholt asked if the County Representative at the last hearing verified the existence of a second day care center; Miss Santalahti stated she did not believe that the representative commented on the existence of a second center. Councilman Overholt asked if perhaps a resident could comment; Mr. J. D. McIlhenny, 1262 Moraga Street, stated that at the prior meeting, he did verify the existence of a second day care center but did not have his notes with him 839 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 14~ 1984, 10:00 A.M. at this time. He and his wife owned a Pre School in Anaheim at 1715 No. Anaheim Boulevard and were in contact with the County. The County verified that there was a day care center licensed for six children across from the subject address and at the last meeting he had given the expiration date of that license which was a part of the record. City Clerk Leonora Sob/ clarified that the record would reflect the day care center as identified by Mr. McIlhenny as part of his testimony given at the meeting of July 24, 1984. Councilman Overholt stated that he was a great advocate of child day care centers as something needed and to be encouraged especially in this case where it catered to infants. On the other side of the issue were the concerns of the neighborhood and if significant representation of neighbors did not want a business going on in their neighborhood, he was very sensitive to their feelings. His tendency was to deny the application on the grounds that there was a significant number of neighbors on Moraga Street who were not interested in an expansion of day care centers and on the second ground that there was another day care center close to the residents and if the Council were to grant the application, it would be his bet that the other center would be in shortly asking for similar treatment and there would then be two Centers across from each other handling 12 children each. If the Conant's day care center was not going to have significant impact, the two together would and he was not sure he wanted to inflict that on the neighborhood. Councilman Pickler referred to the data sheet they had received from Mr. Conant and on Moraga Street alone there were 19 residents who were in favor and 12 opposed. On Falmouth and Minor, 52 were in favor vs. 12 against. The total area had to be considered. He was concerned with the number of child day care centers and if he were faced with another coming in for approval, he would not approve it. In future cases, he wanted to know how many other centers were in the immediate area. Mr. Carlos Conant, 1321 North Moraga, stated that on August 3, 1984, he submitted to the City Clerk's Office a packet of data for the Council containing 80 signatures of neighbors and friends within the area stating they were not opposed to 12 children. He also obtained an additional ntunber of signatures of citizens of Anaheim bringing the total to 98 which he had with him. He had Just submitted a copy of a map of the streets and houses in the area (which was distributed to the Council) showing that there were 53 homes that did not object to 12 children or the traffic involved and only 12 families objected (this was the map referred to by Councilman Pickler). The day care center was not a school but a family day care center which they wanted to expand to 12 children. However, it would mean only 9 other children coming to their home because they had three children of their own which would, therefore, represent 9 cars and not 12. Mr. Conant then refuted some of the testimony given at the previous hearing. In concluding, he stated that the lady across the street was licensed for six but she had two children of her own which meant it would involve only four additional cars. Mrs. Leonor Conant then stated that of the 9 children she cared for, six were from the Anaheim area. 84O Ctt7 Hall~ Anahe~m~ California - C0~CIL ~/NUTES - August 14~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. Councilman Bay referred to and commented on the map submitted by Mr. Conant noting that those homes marked with triangles meant that those residents did not object. The petition that was walked did not say that those signatures were for it, but they had no objection to it. He also asked if the people were informed that there was a second day care center across the street; Mr. Conant answered "yes". Mrs. Conant answered "yes". She explained to them what she was going to do and what her neighbor was doing. Almost 60 percent of the people had been living in the neighborhood for some 20 years. They were older people and retired and they agreed with her and signed the petition after she explained everything to them. Mrs. Conant then clarified for Councilman 0verholt that she had three children of her own and had nine other children she was caring for; Councilman 0verholt surmised then that she was not operating with permission from the City. Mrs. Conant stated she had a letter from the City stating that she had a one year permit expiring in 1985; Councilman Overholt stated unless she received favorable action from the Council today she was only allowed six children; three of which would be her own. If they took favorable action, she would then be authorized to increase the number by six. Discussion then followed between Council Members and Mrs. Conant as to the allowable number of children she could care for in her home under City permits and the number allowed by the State. At the conclusion of discussion, Assistant City Attorney Jack White explained the following: Under the City Zoning Code, the Code provided day care was a permitted use in any residential zone for up to and including six children. That did not include the number of children in the family. An operator would be allowed to provide professional day care for six other children. The discrepancy arose in the fact that the State Law defined a small day care facility to be six or fewer children, including children in the immediate family. While an operator could be licensed under State Law to provide day care for six or less, the City's historical interpretation of the Zoning Code interpreted six as not including children in the family. Councilman 0verholt asked if that meant Mrs. Conant was presently permitted to have 9 children including her own. Mr. White answered under the City Zoning Code~ she would be allowed to have her own children plus six additional children. Councilman 0verholt stated that was different from what he had been told and if that were the case, Councilwoman Kaywood was correct in what she stated previously. Mr. White confirmed if Mrs. Conant had a license from the State to operate with 12 children, she was allowed to have a maximum of 12 including her own children. 841 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 14~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. Councilman Overholt stated that Hrs. Conant was then complying with City Code if she had not more than six who were not her children; Mr. White stated she could have 9 children there now including her three children. He expressed further that as of the first of the year, new state regulations would come into play and they were going be coming back to Council with suggestions in order to make City regulations conform with State Law. The recommendation they were going to bring back was that the City bring City definitions into accord with State definitions so that an applicant would not have a problem trying to determine the City's regulations vs. the State and would not have to worry about counting their own children. As of today, however, City Code allowed six children in addition to the children in the family. Additional discussion and Council questioning followed during which Mr. Conant gave the various arrival and departure times for delivery and pick up of the children. Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 84R-316 for adoption denying Conditional Use Permit No. 2574 reversing the findings of the City Planning Commission. RESOLUTION NO. 84R-316: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2574. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Pickler stated he felt there was an overwhelming majority in favor rather than opposed. A vote was then taken on the foregoing Resolution. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bay, Overholt and Roth Kaywood and Pickler None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-316 duly passed and adopted. Before concluding, Councilman Overholt stated if the neighborhood feeling against the increase should shift substantially his vote would be different. A significant number of residents did not want it to happen and he was respecting their rights to live the way they were living if the Conants were successful in turning the neighbors around, they should come back to the Council. His greater duty was to project the interest of the residents. 181/119: XXlllRD OLYMPIAD - JULY 28 THROUGH AUGUST 12, 1984 - LOS ANGELES: Council Members commented on the subject Olympics that came to a close on Sunday, August 12, 1984, and reported on some of the events and related functions they attended especially with regard to Olympic Wrestling held at the Anaheim Convention Center, another honor for the City, exposing Anaheim further not only nationally but internationally which the Council Members felt would have a long lasting positive effect on the City. It was noted that the traffic problems predicted during the two-week period throughout Los Angeles and outlying areas where Olympic events also took place never materialized even though record breaking attendance was experienced at all of the events. 842 C ©© Cit7 Hall~ A--heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Auzust 14~ 1984, 10:00 A.M. It was agreed that Peter Ueberroth, Director of the Los Angeles Olympic Organizing Committee more than deserved the glowing accolades accorded to him due to ackteving the outstanding success of the Games. The Olympic Games which were preceded by the carrying of the 01ympic Torch throughout the United States initiated a new wave of patriotism and nationalism as evidenced by the crowds that followed it which included a relay run through the City of Anaheim. Councilman Pickler requested that a Resolution be prepared commending Mr. Tom Liegler, Stadium, Convention Center/Golf General Manager and his staff, especially those at the Convention Center, the Police Department, Public Information Office and Szabo Foods. 156: CITING ON PRIVATE PROPERTY: Mayor Roth stated he received an inquiry and also something he observed himself relative to a new law permitting Police Officers to go on to private property to ticket automobiles with for-sale signs on them. He wanted to know if, in fact, there was a new State Law permitting such ticketing on private property such as gas stations. Assistant City Attorney Jack White stated he would research the matter and inform the Council accordingly. ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (3:40 p.m.) LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CI,F. RK 843