Loading...
1983/07/26City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26~ 1983~ 10:00 A.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: AB SENT: PRE SENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt (entered at 10:17), Bay and Roth COUNCIL MEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER: William O. Tailey CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins ASSISTANT CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ronald Thompson CIVIL ENGINEER: Arthur Daw Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: The Reverend Tom Favreau, Hotline Help Center, gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilwoman Miriam Kaywood led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Roth and authorized by the City Council: Ostomy Awareness Month in Anaheim, August 1983. The proclamation was accepted by Barbara Conway, President, Orange County Chapter, Ostomy Association. 119: RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A Resolution of Congratulations was unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to Mary Franks, the recently retired principal of the Anaheim Union High School District, for her many years of dedication to the education of the youth in Anaheim. 119: AWARD: Mayor Roth presented George Ferrone, Finance Director, with an award of Financial Reporting Achievement presented by the Municipal Finance Officers Association. A Certificate of Conformance in Financial Reporting was also received by the City from the Association. George Ferrone, Finance Director, accepted the award, but with particular appreciation to the accounting staff who, he stated, was ultimately responsible for it, especially his Assistant Finance Director, Allen Murphy and his staff. MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular meetings held May 31 and June 28, 1983. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Councilman Overholt was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 621 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26, 1983~ 10:00 A.M. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda, after reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to waiver is hereby given by ali 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. Councilman Overholt was absent. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $1,814,779.96, in accordance with the 1983-84 Budget, were approved. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Pickler, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, 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 Pickler offered Resolution Nos. 83R-301 through 83R-305, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. 1. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as recommended: A. Claims rejected and referred to Risk Management: 1. Claim submitted by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Dennis McGrath, Insured, for property damages to car purportedly sustained due to condition of street 100 feet west of Lindsey on Lincoln Avenue, on or about March 4, 1983. 2. Claim submitted by Cheryl A. Vaught for personal injury damages purportedly sustained due to a slip-and-fall accident at Anaheim Convention Center, on or about April 1, 1983. 3. Claim submitted by Edward D. Aquilar, et al, for personal property damages at various addresses in Anaheim purportedly sustained due to the overflow of the Raymond Retarding Basin, on or about March 1 and 2, 1983. 4. Claim submitted by Diana M. Link for personal property damages to car purportedly sustained due to a malfunctioning traffic light at Lincoln and Manchester, on or about April 11, 1983. 5. Claim submitted by Charles E. Cox for personal injury damages purportedly sustained due to construction of seats in the Anaheim Convention Center, on or about March 21, 1983. 6. Claim submitted by Walter M. Ycoy for personal property damages to car purportedly sustained due to an accident in which a City-owned vehicle was involved on the 91 East Artesia Freeway approaching the onramp to 5 Santa Ana Freeway, on or about June 9, 1983. B. Claim for indemnification rejected and referred to Risk Management: 622 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26~ 1983, 10:00 A.M. 7. Claim submitted by Razee Ahmed for indemnification based on an accident which took place on or about November 30, 1982, at the intersection of Orange and Brookhurst, purportedly sustained due to a malfunctioning traffic signal. C. Claims allowed payment: 8. Claim submitted by Octavio Bernal for personal property damages to car purportedly sustained due to an accident in which a City-owned vehicle was involved at Ball Road and West Street, on or about April 21, 1983. ($58.45) 9. Claim submitted by Julie Lynn Stroud for personal property damages to car purportedly sustained due to an accident in which a City-owned vehicle was involved in front of 1561 West Juno, on or about June 6, 1983. ($131.20) 10. Claim submitted by Mary Bernice Granato for personal property damages to car purportedly sustained due to an accident in which a City-owned vehicle was involved in the parking lot at Broadway and Philadelphia, on or about June 17, 1983. ($31.23) 11. Claim submitted by Cynthia Thomas for personal property damages to car purportedly sustained due to an accident in which a City-owned vehicle was involved on a private drive to Lincoln Park, on or about May 16, 1983. ($225.21) 2. The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: a. 105: Park and Recreation Commission--Minutes of May 25, 1983. 3. 108: Approving the following applications in accordance with the recommendations of the Acting Chief of Police: a. Public Dance Permit submitted by Edgar A. Mixon, to hold a dance at Annex RV, Inc., 2025 South Manchester Avenue on August 27, 1983, from 8:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. b. Entertainment Permit, Donald R. and Nancy L. Hoy, The 20's, 1827 West Katella Avenue, 1 costumed dancer, seven days a week £rom 6:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. 4. 140/106: Accepting reimbursement from the State in the amount of $5,086.67 for interlibrary loans and appropriating said amount to the Library Department, Account No. 01-173-4180. 5. 123: Authorizing a non-residential lease with the Agency in the amount of $480 per month for City use of a building at 206 North Olive Street as a site office for the Preservation Division, on a month to month basis. 623 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26, 1983, 10:00 A.M. 6. 128: Approving the 1982-83 write-off of uncollectible miscellaneous accounts receivable totaling ~63,611.35. 7. 123: Authorizing an agreement with Seamark Associates in the amount of ~9,500 to conduct productivity improvement training for City staff. 8. 128: Receiving and filing the Monthly Financial Analysis--Eleven Months ended May 31, 1983. 9. 123: Authorizing extending the lease agreement with Magnolia School District allowing the City use of 8 1/2 acres adjacent to Mattie Lou Maxwell School for public park purposes (Maxwell Park) for an additional term of 25-years. 10. 123: Amending the Joint Exercise Powers Agreement for the Orange County Manpower Commission with the cities of Santa Ana and Garden Grove and the County of Orange, to allow restructuring the composition of the Commission during the close out period and authorizing the County of Orange to administer said close out. 11. 123: Authorizing a license agreement with Presley of Southern California to allow grading of a portion of City property in connection with development of Tract 10490 located in the City of Orange. 12. 160: Accepting the low bid of Ail American Uniform Rental Company in the amount of $16,099.20 plus name changes, emblems, loss and damage charges in accordance with Bid No. 3991. 13. 160: Accepting the low bid of Norco Delivery Service in the amount of ~22,560 for furnishing mail delivery service in accordance with Bid No. 3993. 164: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-301: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REJECTING ALL BIDS RECEIVED UP TO THE HOUR OF 2:00 P.M. ON THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 1983 FOR THE LENAIN FILTRATION PLANT SEWER, AND READVERTISING THE OPENING OF BIDS THEREON, ACCOUNT NO. 53-619-6329-90210-33100. (Bids to be opened August 25, 1983, 2:00 p.m.) 169: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-302: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE ROMNEYA DRIVE STREET IMPROVEMENT, W/O HARBOR BOULEVARD, IN THE CITY OF ANAREIM, ACCOUNT NO. (Sully-Miller Contracting Company, ~34,966.30) 113/153: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-303: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CITY RECORDS MORE THAN TWO YEARS OLD. (Personnel records) 139: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-304: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM SUPPORTING ENAC~4ENT OF SENATE BILL 752 AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES BILL 2790 TO INCREASE THE CONTROL OF SALINITY IN THE COLORADO RIVER. 624 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26, 1983, 10:00 A.M. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-305: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A CERTAIN DEED AND ORDERING ITS RECORDATION. (Ox Road General Partnership) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pickler, Bay and Roth None Overholt MOTION CARRIED. The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 83R-301 through 83R-305, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. 114/169: COUNCIL POLICY NO. 702 - STREET PAVEMENT CUTS: Mayor Roth referred to memorandum dated July 12, 1983, from the Director of Maintenance, John Roche, recommending the adoption of Council Policy No. 702, requiring all street pavement cuts to be permanently repaired within forty-five (45) days after project completion. He disagreed for two reasons: (1) Forty-five days was too long and should be reduced to fifteen days, and (2) he felt they should be able to do the work in-house instead of augmenting City forces with private contractors. Mr. John Roche, Director of Maintenance, stated they picked forty-five days after consultation with the various utilities, such as the Gas Company and Pacific Telephone. They asked if it could be done in thirty days and were told that requirement could not be met and thus, fifteen days would be very difficult to meet. The main reason for going to private contractors was due to the fact that they had other commitments on street repair work and those were permanent cut repairs, not temporary. His plan, however, was to try to repair the pavement cuts with City forces in forty-five days. Councilma'n Overholt entered the Council Chambers. (10:17 a.m.) Councilman Bay stated that forty-five days was going to be a lot better than in the past and he commended Mr. Roche for taking action to set up deadlines, since pavement cuts had been a common problem. Councilman Roth thereupon moved to adop~ Council Policy 702, requiring all street pavement cuts to be permanently repaired within forty-five days after project completion, as recommended in memorandum dated July 12, 1983, as follows: "It is the policy of the City Council that street pavement cuts for utility purposes or other purposes are to be permanently repaired within forty-five (45) days after project completion. If work is not done within the specified time frame, City forces or a private contractor hired by the City will complete the work. Payment for this work will be taken from bonds posted during permit phase." Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 625 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26, 1983, 10:00 A.M. 175: 1982-83 WRITE-OFF OF UNCOLLECTIBLE UTILITY ACCOUNTS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the 1982-83 write-off of uncollectible Utility Accounts totaling $542,771.30, as recommended in memorandum dated June 22, 1983, with the understanding that staff continue to try to collect on those accounts. Councilman Pickier seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 175.123: MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT TRAINING AND SUCCESSION PLANNING - PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to authorize a Second Amendment to an agreement with Guthrie Associates in the amount of $75,000 for the second year implementation of Phase III, for management development training and succession planning for the Public Utilities Department, term ending on or about June 30, 1984, as recommended in memorandum dated July 18, 1983, from the Public Utilities General Manager. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 175.123: COMMUNICATIONS PROGRAM - PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPART}~NT: Councilman Pickler moved to authorize an agreement with Jacqueline Scharr Associates and The Marketing Consortium in an amount not to exceed $19,840 for Phase I in assisting the Public Utilities Department in the development and implementation of a communications program, as recommended in memorandum dated July 19, 1983, from the Public Utilities General Manager. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 148: VOTING DELEGATE AND ALTERNATE - ANNUAL LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES CONFERENCE: Mayor Roth stated in the past, the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem were designated Voting Delegate and Alternate for the subject Conference. Councilman Pickler moved that Mayor Roth be the Voting Delegate and Mayor Pro Tem Bay be the Alternate for the League of California Cities Conference to be held October 2 through 5, 1983. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 108: REQUEST FOR REHEARING - ENTERTAINMENT APPLICATION - HOLLYWOOD A GO-GO: Affidavit of Merit in support of a request for a rehearing submitted by Robert Wayne Copeland in connection with the denial of an Entertainment Permit Application for Hollywood A Go-Go, 2810 West Lincoln Avenue, at the Council meeting of July 12, 1983. The Mayor asked to hear from the petitioner. Mr. Robert Wayne Copeland, 2902 West Ball Road, stated he was unable to attend the meeting of July 12, 1983, when the Entertainment Application was denied. It was his understanding it was denied because of previous problems at the business since 1972. He had just purchased the business and planned to spend ~50,000 to ~60,000 to refurbish it to make it a better place. Relative to his past record, he had no problems in the last fifteen years since he had been working there. He did not feel he should be denied an Entertainment Permit on someone else's past record. The business had an entertainment permit, it went out of business and had not been in operation for almost a year. There was a business one block east and one block west that both had Entertainment Permits.~ 626 Cit~ Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26, 1983, 10:00 A.M. After further questioning of Mr. Copeland by both Councilwoman Kaywood and Councilman Pickler, Councilman Overholt asked for confirmation if the request today was for a rehearing to be heard at a future date or if the matter was to be heard today. City Attorney Hopkins stated it could be reheard at some future date or today if the Council so desired. Mr. Copeland stated he understood that he was present today to request a rehearing, but if the Council wished to make a decision today, that would be agreeable with him, or if they wanted to hear the matter in one week, that also would be acceptable. He was anxious to be granted the Entertainment Permit. MOTION: After further discussion, Councilman Overholt moved to grant a rehearing in connection with the denial of an Entertainment Permit Application for Hollywood A Go-Go, 2810 West Lincoln Avenue, at the Council meeting of July 12, 1983, to be heard on August 9, i983. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, it was determined that businesses and residences within 300 feet would be notified of the rehearing, as requested by Councilwoman Kaywood. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. 123: ANAHEIM BULLETIN CONTRACT EXTENSION FOR LEGAL ADVERTISING: Councilman Bay moved to authorize a contract with the Anaheim Bulletin to provide legal advertising at a rate of ~4.75 per column inch for first publication of a notice and ~3.75 per column inch for each subsequent notice, commencing August 1, 1983 and ending July 31, 1984, as recommended in memorandum dated July 20, 1983, from the City Clerk, Linda Roberts. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 105: APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: Appointments to Boards and Commissions due to expiration of terms or vacancies, to expire June 30th of the following years: Mayor Roth declared nominations open. Assistant City Clerk Leonora Sohi first announced that a letter was just received from Kathy Walden, indicating her desire to be reappointed to the Community Services Board and memorandum dated July 26, 1983, was received from the Community Development Department relative to the selection of a Housing Authority Tenant Commissioner (on file in the City Clerk's office). Community Redevelopment Commission, terms endin~ June 30, 1987: Councilwoman Kaywood nominated Dr. Robert Dory and Dan Martinez. Councilman Pickler moved to close nominations. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 627 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26, 1983, 10:00 A.M. Councilman Overholt moved to cast a unanimous ballot reappointing Messrs. Doty and Martinez to the Community Redevelopment Commission. MOTION CARRIED. Community Services Board, terms ending June 30, 1987: Councilman Bay nominated Judy Olsen to fill the vacancy on the Board and subsequently nominated Steve Jiminez, Eileen Anthony and Kathy Walden for reappointment to the Board. Councilwoman Kaywood nominated Norm Cook and Rick Gastil to fill the vacancy and Steve Jiminez and Eileen Anthony for reappointment. She commented further that Kathy Walden had not been attending Board meetings and could not even be reached and, therefore, she felt that someone else should be appointed. Councilman Bay moved to close nominations on the vacancy. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. Motion carried. A roll call vote was then taken on the nominations to fill the vacancy in the order in which they were made: Judy Olsen: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None Councilwoman Kaywood thereupon changed her abstention to a "Yes" vote to make the appointment unanimous. Councilman Pickler moved to reappoint Steve Jiminez and Eileen Anthony to the Community Services Board. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Roth then asked for a roll call vote on the nominees for the remaining open position on the Board, those being Kathy Walden, Norm Cook and Rick Gastil, with a vote on the incumbent Walden to be taken first. Before any action was taken, Councilman Bay reported that he had talked to Ms. Walden that morning and her letter also arrived explaining the reason for her absences durin~ the last term due to business cor, r, itments. She now had an assistant and explained that she would have adequate time to serve on the Board the way it was intended. She also explained that she had sent an earlier letter which was not received. Councilwoman Kaywood felt that Ms. Walden had an opportunity to explain the situation but did not do so. Further, it was a 15-member Board and 12 were women and she felt they needed better balance. A roll call vote was then taken on Kathy Walden: 628 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26~ 1983, 10:00 A.M. AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None Kathy Walden was thereupon reappointed to the Community Services Board. Before concluding, Councilwoman Kaywood stated that relative to that Board, there was a real problem getting enough people to attend the meetings. Some members called and said they were not going to be attending and that was considered an excused absence, even though they had not attended for many months. Councilman Bay stated in the past when the subject had come up, they generally left the discretion to the Commission or Committee, and certain Committees had rules in their bylaws relative to absenteeism. After further discussion on the issue, Councilwoman Kaywood moved that they receive a recommendation from the Community Services Board relative to the attendance record of the members of that Board who had not been attending meetings. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion for the purpose of discussion. After additional discussion on how attendance might be monitored, Councilman Bay stated that he found absenteeism across all boards and commissions; Councilwoman Kaywood stated if they wanted to have absenteeism monitored for all, she would be agreeable. Council Members Pickler, Overholt and Roth also gave input on how attendance might be monitored, one suggestion being that the Chairman of the respective board or commission submit a report on attendance to the Council semi-annually. In the final analysis, the foregoing suggestion, which had been offered by the Mayor, was agreeable to Councilwoman Kaywood in her motion, and to Councilman Pickler in his second. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion, clarified as follows: That the respective chairmen of all boards and commissions provide semi-annually (January and June) a report to the Council relative to the attendance of their members. It was also determined that those reports need not cover past attendance, but begin as of July 1~ 1983. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Housir~ Commission, terms ending June 30, 1987 and June 30~ 1985 (Tenant Commissioner): Councilwoman Kaywood asked that they continue appointments for one week, since they just received a report from Community Development. Mayor Roth noted that the report only involved the tenant commissioner position which was necessary because there were so many who expressed an interest. He felt that they could fill the Housing Commission positions and only continue the Tenant Commissioner; Councilwoman Kaywood was still desirous of continuing all three appointments one week, since they had received only one letter expressing interest to serve. 629 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26, 1983, 10:00 A.M. Councilwoman Kaywood moved to continue appointments to the Housing Commission (two), including the Tenant Commissioner, for one week. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. A vote was then taken on the motion and failed to carry by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood and Overholt Pickler, Bay and Roth None Councilman Pickler thereupon nominated Norm Cook to serve as Housing Commissioner; Councilman Roth nominated Ed Garda; Councilwoman Kaywood nominated Joe White. Councilman Bay moved that nominations be closed. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. Council Members Kaywood and Overholt voted "No." MOTION CARRIED. A roll call vote was then taken on the nominations in the order in which they were made: Norm Cook: Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pickler, Bay and Roth Overholt None Ed Garda: Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler, Bay and Roth Kaywood and Overholt None Mr. Cook and Mr. Garda were thereupon nominated to the Housing Commission. Councilman 0verholt moved to cast a unanimous ballot for Messrs. Cook and Garda. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Roth moved to continue the appointment to the Housing Commission for a Tenant Commissioner for one week to allow evaluation of the report submitted by staff. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Industrial Development Board~ terms ending June 30~ 1987: Councilman Bay nominated John Flocken. Councilman Bay nominated Robert Risteen to replace George Kilishek, who indicated he did not wish to be considered for reappointment at this time. Councilman Pickler moved to close nominations. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 630 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26, 1983, 10:00 A.M. Mr. Flocken and Risteen were thereby unanimously appointed to the Industrial Development Board. Librar~ Board, term endin~ June 30~ 1987: Councilman Pickler nominated Mr. Michael Ambrosi. Councilman Overholt moved to close nominations. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Ambrosi was thereby unanimously reappointed to the Library Board. Plannin~ Commission~ terms endin~ June 30, 1987: Councilman Overholt nominated Mr. Glenn Fry and Mrs. Charlene LaClaire. Councilman Roth moved to close nominations. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Fry and Mrs. LaClaire were thereby unanimously reappointed to the Planning Commission. Project Area Committee~ terms endin~ June 30~ 1985: Councilman Pickier moved to continue appointments to the Project Area Committee for two weeks in order to receive additional input and since only one letter had been received expressing a desire to serve. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Kaywood noted that Mrs. Fern Jackson expressed an interest in being appointed to the Committee; Mayor Roth suggested that she submit a letter expressing her desire to serve. Public Utilities Board, terms endin~ June 30, 1987: Councilman Bay nominated Mr. Joe White and Mr. Carl Kiefer. Councilman Pickler moved to close nominations. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Kaywood asked that each nominee be voted on separately. Council~n Roth asked for a roll call vote om Mr. Joe White. AYES; NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS; COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler, 0verh01t, Bay and R0t.h Kaywood None Mr. White was thereupon reappointed to the Public Utilities Board. Councilman Roth asked for a roll call vote on Mr. Carl Kiefer. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth None None 631 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Jul~ 26, 1983~ 10:00 A.M. Councilman Overholt then moved to cast a unanimous ballot for Mr. White. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Councilwoman Kaywood voted "No." MOTION CARRIED. Messrs. White and Kiefer were thereby reappointed to the Public Utilities Board. Senior Citizen Commission, terms ending June 30, 1986: Councilman Pickler nominated Mr. John Shanahan; Councilman Roth nominated Herman Siegmund. Councilman Pickler moved to close nominations. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Messrs Shanahan and Siegmund were thereby unanimously reappointed to the Senior Citizen Commission. 112: AUDIT LIAISON COMMITTEE REVIEW - CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE: Councilwoman Kaywood recalled that on June 28, 1983, the Council directed the Audit Liaison Committee to recommend a neutral third party, such as Price-Waterhouse, to study the City Attorney's office, the members of that Committee being the Mayor and Councilman Bay. She wanted to know who they chose, since the study was to be completed in 30 to 45 days. Councilman Bay stated he did not recall a time limit; after further discussion on the issue, Councilman Overholt stated in his recollection, the Liaison Committee was going to get together to make a recommendation. Mayor Roth stated that he and Mayor Pro Tem Bay would have a meeting within the next week or two and proceed. There was no time limit and they would do it as soon as time was available. At the request of Councilman Overholt, the Assistant City Clerk read the motion that was passed by the Council on June 28, 1983: "A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion by Councilman Bay clarified as follows: Approving immediate funding adding one Prosecuting Attorney and one Intermediate Typist Clerk to the North Orange County Court totalling $50,450 (to be appropriated from the Council Contingency Fund); in the meantime, the matter is to be referred to the Audit Liaison Committee to select an appropriate neutral third party to implement a review of the activities in the C~ty Attorn~y'~ office." 105: PROPOSED LIMITATION OF APPOINTMENTS ON BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: *KAYWOOD: I would like to bring up one other item and I should have done it before we finished on appointments. I would like to move that we limit appointments on boards and commissions in the future to one term so they won't be perceived as lifetime appointments, that automatic renewals are not healthy for the City. There is no incentive to serve well particularly when statements are made that it takes great political courage to remove anyone and the Council has to stand for election every four years, the Mayor every two years. That is not automatic. There can be two terms for outstanding service and this would not be retroactive but for the future. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. *See minutes of September 27, 1983. 632 ~Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ju~ 10:00 A.M. Before action was taken, Councilman Pickler stated it was perhaps something they should think about, but he was not ready to vote in favor of such a proposal today. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion and failed to carry by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None 179: CO_NDI~ION~. ~_U_S_~ PERMIT NO. 2049 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Sherry Bennett, Gannett Outdoor Advertising7 ~e~uestin~ an extenston~-~ Time to Conditional Use Permit No. 2049, to retain an existing billboard on ML zoned property located on the north side of Katella Avenue, east of Douglass Road. (continued from the meeting of June 7, 1983.) Sherry Bennett, representing Gannett Outdoor, 1731 Workman, Los Angeles, stated she was present to respectfully request a 3-year extension of time for a billboard at the corner of Katella Avenue and Douglas Road. She then relayed the b~ckground relative to the board and the reasons why they felt they should have the requested extension of time and since they also felt it was an excellent area for a board. Councilwoman Kaywood noted that Miss Bennett stated it would not interfere with any other billboards and the reason for that was the fact that it was illegal to have the board at that location. Miss Bennett agreed that was true, but when the board was built it was legal and conforming but since then, the Code had changed- Councilwoman Kaywood stated it was only approved for one year at the time it was built; Miss Bennett stated she thought there were one-year extensions from 1975 on and then a CUP granted in 1980. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that the one-year extensions ended in 1975. Miss Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, answering Councilwoman Kayw00d, stated that was her understanding from the record that further extensions were not sought until 1980. Miss Bennett then submitted a letter dated June 13, 1983, from Paul L. Setzer, owner of the property on which the board was located, again requesting the extension of time (on file in the City Clerk's office). Councilman Roth stated he had no problem with the board, it did not offend anybody and there was no correspondence in opposition. He would support an extension- Councilwoman Kaywood referred to the letter of opposition received from Phillip Quarre of the Hartmann Corporation and also at the time they were 633 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26, 1983, 10:00 A.M. discussing boards, there was an objection from a Mr. Kiley. This area was the entrance to Disneyland; Councilman Pickler stated that Mr. Kiley did not object to the subject board, but the one on the south side of the street. Discussion between Councilwoman Kaywood and Miss Bennett followed wherein Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that the location involved was a scenic highway and it was strictly against the City's Code to have a billboard at that location. The board was constructed originally in 1970 and approved for 5 years and that was 13 years ago. It was in place without anyone remembering there was no approval on it. With that discovery in 1980, a request was made for a 3-year extension and approved on a 3-2 Council vote. She also recalled in the discussion at that time that there was to be no further request and she felt there was no question that the board by now had been amortized. MOTION: Councilman Pickler stated the board was not offensive and did not affect the area. He might even consider allowing one to be constructed if it was not there at present. He thereupon moved to approve the requested extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 2049 for three years, to expire March 11, 1986. Before action was taken, the Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak; there was no response. Councilman Overholt stated he felt the issue was whether or not the board should come down. Mr. Quarre was not present and although he agreed with his (Quarre) philosophy with respect to boards on scenic corridors, his feeling was that they should allow the board to remain for three years and by that time they would have the question of billboards answered. He was supportive of the extension at this point. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. A vote was then.taken on the foregoing motion. Councilwoman Kaywood voted "No." MOTION CARRIED. 108: WEARING - AMUSEMENT ARCADE APPLICATION NO. 83-12, C.G.'s AMUSEMENT ARCADE: Gary R. Bystedt, Billie Thompson and Dr. Richard N. Gubler, D.D.S, to consider an appeal of the decision of the Planming Director approving an. Amusement Arcade Application for C.G.'s Amusement Arcade, 1210-J South State Collese Boulevard, ~or 30 amusement devices. The Mayor asked to hear from those who were appealing the decision of the Planning Director. Mr. Gary Bystedt~ 10502 Jennie Lane, Garden Grove, explained that his concern was over the lack of information the Planning Director had in making his decision based on an error of ommission on his (Bystedt) part. He owned the K-Docque Tavern next door and he had games in that location. Up until last September, he had four games but he now had ten. He was not aware that any number over five or more constituted an arcade and he had not made an application for those additional games. That had since been corrected and an 634 Cit~ Pall, Anmheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26, 1983, 10:00 A.M. application was presently pending. If the Planning Director was aware of that information, he felt he would not have allowed two arcades adjacent to each other. He reiterated his was primarily a tavern and pizza business and not an arcade. Along with that, they had a problem with parking density in the area. He had to submit for a parking variance when he applied for his business application but was told no application for a variance was requested or considered by the Planning Department and he felt that should have been done. The number of students attending the computer school located in the office building which also shared the property varied considerably. Also, other types of businesses in the area had meetings consistently and, therefore, the parking density varied drastically from day to day, which made it difficult for the people who were in the building he was in currently to provide adequate parking facilities for their customers. In concluding, he asked that the Council consider the fact that the number of games already in the area for the number of people who participated was more than adequate. E1 Torito Restaurant had them, Star Liquor and his business. Mayor Roth emphasized that they had to deal with land use rather than a competitive market. Councilman Bay asked Mr. Bystedt if he had made an attempt to circulate a petition to reverse the vote within 300 feet that now was only 24 percent against the permit. Mr. Bystedt answered that he had not circulated a written petition, but he had contacted people in the area and most of those he contacted were in opposition. Those who did not object were indifferent. Councilman Overholt left the Council Chambers. (11:38 a.m.) The following people then spoke in opposition to the Planning Director's approval of the Amusement Arcade Application Permit: Richard Gubler, D.D.S., 9882 Ludwig, Villa Park, office, 1210 South State College Boulevard, Pacific Plaza Building, Suite G (also see his letter dated July 11, 1983, listing his reasons for opposition to the proposed arcade--on file in the City Clerk's office); Jack Barton, 8617 Canterbury, Van Nuys, business, 1240 South State College Boulevard, Sand Dollar Financial Plaza; Paul Fitzgerald, 3220 Courts Lane, Fullerton, General Manager, E1 Torito Restaurant located in the subject center. Reasons for opposition were as follows: Since there were schools in close proximity, the arcade would contribute to truancy, there was a potential for loitering, there were a sufficient number of arcade games in that area at present without the addition of a 30-game arcade. The major point of opposition emphasized by all of the foregoing speakers was the parking problem, the consensus being that parking was inadequate for the present businesses in the small center, as well as the office building located in the plaza. Parking was further aggravated by the fact that a computer learning center occupied a portion of that building. The Mayor then asked to hear from the applicant. 635 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26, 1983, 10:00 A.M. Mr. Ed Arden, 400 North Jersey Lane, Placentia, first submitted copies of five letters from various business establishments located or adjacent to an arcade he owned and operated in a shopping center in Yorba Linda (on file in the City Clerk's office). He then gave the background of the arcade they presently owned, how it was run and the excellent reputation they had in the community and the shopping center. He also answered the concerns and objections raised by those in opposition. In concluding, he stated his proposed arcade met all of the City's requirements, it was within a commercially zoned center, it was not within 600 feet of a public school and it was accepted by approximately 76 percent of the businesses and/or residences contacted by the Planning Department. He respectfully requested approval of the application. Councilman Overholt entered the Council Chambers. (11:55 a.m.) Councilman Bay stated that they heard over and again about the parking problem. He asked relative to the parking requirements, whether there were waivers or deviations to the Code in that particular area by square footage for the required parking for the shopping center. Miss Santalahti stated her recollection was that there were waivers on a part of the property and if the project had been built under the current ordinance, there probably would have been an even higher parking requirement than when it was constructed because of the two free-standing restaurants. Councilman Roth added that the problem was also due to turning the office building into a computer school, as well as the extremely successful restaurant operations in that plaza. Councilman Overholt explained that although he was not in the Chambers itself for a period of time, he heard the testimony given over the public address system, and he felt there was no question Mr. Arden had excellent credentials. The question, however, was whether an arcade was compatible in the subject center. Mr. Arden stated that usually concern was more so when an arcade was requested to be established in residential area. However, this location seemed to be the perfect place for an arcade, because it was commercial. It would be an adult arcade in an adult area. They would not attract more than seven cars at any one time and that was in the evening hours when there were plenty of parking spaces available. MOTION: Councilman Overholt stated he was convinced that the arcade was going to create substantial problems and he thereupon moved to deny the Amusement Arcade Application for C.G.'s Amusement Arcade, 1210 J South State College Boulevard, for 30 amusement devices. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Mayor Roth stated if the permit was denied, a finding should be made that approval of the permit would be contrary to the public interest, health, safety, morals or general welfare of the City of Anaheim. 636 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26, 1983, 10:00 A.M. Councilman Overholt made that a part of his motion and Councilman Pickler accepted it in his second. Councilman Bay then stated he would speak against the motion on the basis that whether or not the arcade was allowed would have little or no effect on the parking problem. There might be more impact, but he felt the real cause of the problem resulted from the deviations or waivers the City allowed in the first place. Since Mr. Arden explained in detail the estimated maximum probable number of cars, he would say that the arcade would be the least of impacts on that commercial center on those parking problems during daylight hours. He would oppose the motion to deny on the basis of the evidence heard today. A roil call vote was then taken on the foregoing motion reversing staff approval. Councilmen Bay and Roth voted "No." MOTION CARRIED. REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: The City Manager requested a Closed Session to discuss labor relations, personnel matters and potential litigation with no action anticipated; the City Attorney requested a Closed Session to discuss litigation and potential litigation with no action anticipated. Councilman Bay moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (12:10 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (2:00 p.m.) 121: CONDEMNATION HEARING: To consider the acquisition of property owned by Ted Guerra, Administrator of the Estate of Sabina M. Guerra and Marcelo Guerra located at 322 East Julianna Street. In answer to the Mayor, Lisa Stipkovich, Housing Manager, explained that approximately 20 residents had signed the petition asking the City to acquire the property and develop it for low/moderate income housing which was submitted seven or eight months earlier. The Mayor asked if anyone was present protesting the proposed condemnation; no one was present. Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 83R-306 for adoption~ finding and determining the public interest and necessity for acquiring and authorizing the condemnation of certain real property (322 East Juliana Street) and authorizing the law firm of Oliver, Stoever & Laskin to proceed (Ted Guerra, Administrator of the Estate), as recommended in memorandum dated July 18, 1983, from the Community Development Department. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 83R-306: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY FOR ACQUIRING AND AUTHORIZING THE CONDEMNATION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY (322 E. JULIANA STREET). 637 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES'- July 26, 1983, 10:00 A.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth None None .The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-306 duly passed and adopted. 179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2428 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Larry R. Smith, to permit a billboard on CL zoned property located on the north side of Ball Road, west of Knott Street, with the following Code waivers: (a) maximum display area, and (b) maximum height. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-63, declared that the subject project be exempt from the requirement to file an Environmental Impact Report pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act on the basis that there will be no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact due to the approval of this negative declaration, since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property for general commercial land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the proposal; and that the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts; and further denied Conditional Use Permit No. 2428. The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Foster and Kleiser, Agent, and public hearing scheduled and continued from the meetings of May 10 and June 7, 1983, to this date. The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent. Mr. Rob Verman, 1515 West Washington Boulevard, Los Angeles, representing Foster and Kleiser, stated that they wanted to build a single pole, painted bulletin on the subject location and would be willing to remove their two other structures on the southeast corner of Ball Road and Knott Avenue. They felt since the ordinance allowed eight signs per intersection and their application would be the ninth, it would only be right to remove the existing two signs and then they would only have one structure at that intersection. A vacant parcel was involved and they assumed in a few years it would be developed and their sign would then be taken down. They had worked out an arrangement with the tenant on the property~ who was in opposition at the first couple of meetings, but is no longer opposed. He also stipulated in answer to Councilwoman Kaywood that they would not come to the City for a cost for removing the sign and even if the property were to be developed next year, they would take the sign down. He also requested a condition that if they did take their signs down on the southeast corner, that no other outdoor advertising structure be allowed on that corner. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak. 638 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Jul~ 26, 1983, 10:00 A.M. Mrs. Joyce Keeter stated that she owned the property on the corner (3501) and had been quite concerned with that undeveloped piece of land. Mr. Verman stated he would take down the two signs existing there at present which replaced the two she had removed from her property in July of 1981. She agreed it would help if those two signs were removed. However, she did not think it was particularly advantageous to have a monstrosity 48 feet long, approximately 52 feet from her property line. She talked to Ron Belle that morning, the representative from the racquet ball club, and he said that he was still very much opposed to the sign, because they had no assurance what might be developed. There being no further persons who wished to speak, either in favor or in opposition, the Mayor asked Mr. Verman to make his summation. Since he (Verman) had nothing further to add, the Mayor closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she had received calls from residents in the area who were very concerned. The proliferation of signs and the uses that had gone in on that corner were so bad that they were very concerned over something else that would further deteriorate it. Council Members then questioned Mr. Verman on the size of the boards that he proposed to remove and whether that was offered at the Planning Commission hearing, which he reported was not. During the discussion, Miss Santaiahti also clarified Council questions relative to what was allowable under the City's signing Code. She also stated if Council wished to approve the proposed board subject to removal of other signs, and that those signs not be reconstructed, she believed it would be the property owner who would record an agreement stating they would not construct any billboards on their property unless the billboard under discussion today were removed. The property owner was the person who had the right to put whatever he wished on his property. If the boards were 300 square feet, they would comply with Code, but if larger, they would have to have a conditional use permit. Councilman Pickler noted that even though Mr. Verman stated they would remove the other two signs, someone else could come back in and put two up. Until he could be guaranteed he would have less signs than now, he could not go along with the request. Mr. Verman asked how he would feel about continuing the matter until after the 90-day period when some decision was going to be made relative to billboards; Councilman Pickler stated he would have no problem with that. Councilwoman Kaywood asked to hear again from Mrs. Keeter; Mrs. Keeter then recounted the five meetings she had attended since the matter went to the Planning Commission in March, and now if a three-month continuance were granted, it would be heard again in approximately October and she would be unavailable at that time. She asked that it be set for some time in November. She then explained further that she had spoken to Mr. Belle just that morning and he was still opposed. 639 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26, 1983, 10:00 A.M. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she had a real problem with the situation. Mr. Verman made the statement that Mr. Belle was no longer opposed. She did not feei they should delay any longer. MOTION: Councilman Pickler thereupon moved that the public hearing not be considered closed on Conditional Use Permit No. 2428 and that it be continued to November 22, 1983, at 1:30 p.m. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Councilwoman Kaywood voted "No." MOTION CARRIED. 179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2438 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: La Palma Business Park, to permit a billboard on ML zoned property located at the northeast corner of White Star Avenue and Armando Street, with the following Code waivers: (a) maximum display area, and (b) maximum height. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-95, declared that the subject project be exempt from the requirement to file an Environmental Impact Report pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act on the basis that there will be no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact due to the approval of this negative declaration, since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property for general industrial land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the proposal; and that the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts; and further denied Conditional Use Permit No. 2438. The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Robert D. Mickelson, Agent, and continued from the meeting of July 7, 1983, to this date. The Mayor asked to hear from Mr. Mickelson. Mr. Bob Mickelson, 3823 Glassell, Orange, stated he would like to start by asking for a similar continuance to that just granted Mr. Verman of Foster and Kleiser. He felt it might be appropriate to continue the matter to approximately that same date and particularly after Miss Santalahti's explanation of the procedure that would have to be followed in the event there was an amendment to the Code. However, he did have two slides of the subject site taken from the freeway and they had an artist superimpose the billboard they wanted to construct on that site to Show ~t~ or~antation and Since the presentation was to be very brief, Mayor Roth allowed Mr. Mickelson the opportunity to show the slides wherein he (Mickelson) explained that the proposed billboard would meet all the criteria set forth in Mr. Robert Reed's presentation made to the Council at the meeting of July 19, 1983, with the exception of the ~5,000 fee, which he (Rged/Regency Outdoor Advertising) suggested be paid for each board. The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to speak; there was no response. 640 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26~ 1983, 10:00 A.M. MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to continue the public hearing on Conditional Use Permit No. 2438 and negative declaration to November 22, 1983, at 1:30 p.m. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 103: PUBLIC HEARING - LAKEVIEW-ORANGETHORPE NO. 6 ANNEXATION: City of Anaheim, to consider the annexation of approximately 20 acres located on the east side of Lakeview Avenue, north of La Palma Avenue. Submitted was a report from the Plannin§ Department dated July 18, 1983, recommending that the Council make a finding regarding the value of written protests filed and not withdrawn. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak relative to the subject proposed annexation. Mr. Wesley Collier, 18111 Orangethorpe Avenue, stated he did not protest the · proposed annexation, but wanted to know what subsequent City actions might be. He had four billboard signs and a mobile home on his property and he did not want to lose those. Mr. Ronald Thompson, Planning Director, explained that the billboards and mobile home would be a non-conforming use. If zoned for commercial sometime in the future, it was technically possible that the billboards might be a legitimate location under the City's existing ordinance. Mr. Collier would not have to take the billboards down or remove the mobile home. He reiterated these would be legal, non-conforming uses. Assistant City Clerk Leonora Sohl announced that no written protests had been received on the subject proposed annexation. The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to speak; there being no response, he closed the public hearing. Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 83R-307 for adoption, ordering the territory annexed known as the Lakeview-Orangethorpe No. 6 Annexation, and that no written protests had been filed by owners of land and improvements owning not less than 50 percent of the total assessed value of land and improvements within the territory. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 83R-307: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM MAKING A FINDING REGARDING THE VALUE OF WRITTEN PROTESTS FILED AND NOT WITHDRAWN IN ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS FOR LAKEVIEW-ORANGETHORPE NO. 6 ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND ORDERING THE TERRITORY ANNEXED PURSUANT TO SECTION 35229 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-307 duly passed and adopted. 641 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26, 1983, 10:00 A.M. 176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 82-15A: In accordance with application filed by R. C. Gilbert, Agent, Barisic Company, public hearing was held on proposed abandonment of a portion of Hayward Street to conform to a cul-de-sac designed for Tract No. 11820, located north of Rome Avenue, pursuant to Resolution No. 83R-274, duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance with law. Report of the City Engineer, dated June 21, 1983, was submitted recommending approval of said abandonment. Assistant City Clerk Leonora Sohl announced that a petition had been received today and submitted to the Council, containing approximately 157 signatures in opposition to a variance of a cul-de-sac condition at the end of Hayward Street, proposed Abandonment No. 82-15A (on file in the City Clerk's office). Opposition to the proposed abandonment was based on the following: (1) Traffic congestion; (2) loss of one lane of parking and/or turning; (3) unsafe conditions, such as requirements for backing in or out to complete a turn; (4) increased parking on residential streets. The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present to speak to the issue; no one was present. He then asked to hear from the person who passed the petition. Mr. Wally O'Reilly, 727 South Hayward, explained that the petition was a neighborhood group effort. He continued that he was a resident of Hayward Street for 3 1/2 years and when he purchased his property, he was advised it was going to remain a residential community. Since that time, a high-density condominium was built 75 yards away, but the property totally drained onto Hayward Street. Following that, there were two residential lots across the street from his house which later were rezoned for c~mmercial and he now had a three-story, 100-unit plus motel located there. Last year they had flooding because of the other situation and now they had to contend with 100 additional units. The 100 units had been graded from Beach Boulevard to Hayward Street, involving an approximate 40-inch fall, all concrete, and the drainoff was all going to Hayward. He then relayed other problems they had experienced since the units had been developed relative to vehicles exiting onto their residential community on Hayward Street. Today, they were concerned about the request for the proposed abandonment. It would be a broadening of the terminus of Hayward for nothing more than a high-density unit development being built next to him and the water from that project was also going to drain onto Hayward. He then explained what would happen to his driveway if the abandonment were allowed. No vehicle was going to be able to make a turn-around without using his driveway to go up and back. He felt it was a moral obligation for the Council, if possible, to make an on-site inspection to see exactly what was going to take place. The development next door was going to generate approximately 70 more vehicles a day. He maintained there were going to be many ~ore trips than that and it would be a thoroughfare. There were children and people in the neighborhood that had to be considered. 642 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26~ 1983~ 10:00 A.M. The Mayor noted that Mr. O'Reilly posed several questions relative to drainage, curbs, driveways, etc., which he asked the City Engineer to answer° Mr. Art Daw, Chief Design Engineer, then answered some of the questions raised by Mr. O'Reiily regarding the effect of the proposed abandonment on those points of concern. After additional questions posed to Mr. Daw by the Mayor and Councilwoman Kaywood, Councilman Bay asked if the real issue on the abandonment was not the shifting of the cul-de-sac 12 to 15 feet to the south and by that shift, the developer was picking up a certain radius of useable property on his development. Mr. Daw answered that the area being shifted was beyond his private street. He doubted the developer was acquiring any additional useful property. The basic reason for the abandonment was to gain easier access into his private street. Councilman Bay stated he understood the developer was trying to move the cul-de-sac south, which then put the problem of the radius of the turn into Mr. O'Reiliy's driveway. If the street were left as it was originally set up, he asked if there would still be the same problem. Mr. Daw answered that the cul-de-sac would still begin slightly into his driveway, but would not have the same total effect of steepening his approach. The radius would not not change whether constructed at the original location or the new location. It would be four feet or so into the driveway, but it would be a very minor change as far as any approach slope was concerned. If the abandonment were to be denied, the developer's plans would have to be revised to show it as originally set up. He reiterated if that were done, it would not then adversely affect the slope of Mr. O'Reilly's driveway. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she was very concerned that for the benefit of a developer coming in what impact it would have on what was already existing in the area. She was also concerned that the recommendation was to approve and if they did so, finding after the approval that it was not going to work for the existing residents. Mr. Steve Wozney, 818 South Hayward, stated that they had been to meetings with the developers before and the developers were trying to get one concession after ~he other. Nothing had ever been said about people driving through the cul-de-sac. He requested that the Council deny the abandonment today. Mayor Roth stated what they needed to do was to request an additional amount of data from staff regarding the flooding about which Mr. O'Reilly spoke and they also needed to have input from the developer and his engineers. He recommended that the matter be continued for two weeks. 643 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Jul~ 26, 1983~ 10:00 A.M. MOTION: Councilman Pickier moved to continue the public hearing on Abandonment No. 82-15A to August 9, 1983, at 1:30 p.m. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Before any action was taken, Mr. Ralph Agnello, Attorney, stated he had been hired by the Valley Five Homeowners Association to represent them. The total problem was the whole development approved under a CUP and a negative declaration status granted relative to the environmental impact. There was a definite environmental impact based on traffic patterns, which were not considered, as well as hydrology. They were asking the Council to look at the abandonment, but in totality to look at the total tract and to actually rescind the conditional use permit previously granted. He was willing to submit a petition asking that this be done. The Valley Five Homeowners Association were not adverse to the development of the project and it would be of benefit to them to have a good neighbor. What had occurred, however, was something had been driven down their throats. Not everybody had notice of the public meetings. The Council had petitions signed by various residents of the "geographic" area. He suggested that they consider all of them and he would be willing to file a petition to be placed on the Council agenda relative to the conditional use permit. Mary Tenney, 725 South Hayward, asked if they were going to study the hydrology that they not confine that study to the Barisic property only, but also to conduct such a study relative to the motel on 727 Beach Boulevard. Councilman Bay asked if construction could start on the project prior to abandonment, why was it necessary to have the abandonment before it started; Mr. Daw answered if they wanted to design a cul-de-sac to provide for the dedication as it presently existed, they could proceed on that basis, but as the plans were drawn at the present time, they could not proceed. The item was then trailed to la~er in the meeting to ascertain whether or not the developer was at the permit stage; before trailing, Barbara O'Reilly, 727 South Hayward, explained that yesterday afternoon Mr. Barisic had two subcontractors at the property at the terminus of Hayward Street. They were beginning to prepare to remove the drain and they said next week they would be ready to start tearing down the houses in order to start construction on the units. Later in the meeting, Miss Santalahti explained chat in terms of zoning, Tract No. 11820 had been recorded and the zoning finalized on the property. The Building Division informed her that other than grading that needed to be resolved, they could issue permits quickly. The major portion of Rayward street was already abandoned, allowing Tract No. 11820 to come into existence in the first place. The permits could potentially be issued within the next two weeks, but had not been issued as yet. Extensive discussion took place between staff and Council Members relative to the ramifications of either continuing the public hearing or denying the abandonment, wherein the City Attorney also explained that if the original 644 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26~ 1983, 10:00 A.M. plans as submitted were to be followed by the developer, there would be no problem with his proceeding if the abandonment request under consideration today were denied. Councilwoman Kaywood again expressed her concern that she did not want to see something irrevocable take place against the Council's intent at this time. If the Council were to deny the abandonment and the developer appealed, and if it were going to be done with all the questions answered to everyone's satisfaction, it could be reheard without prejudice. Therefore, to be on the safe side, that was the action Council ought to take and she was prepared to offer the resolution of denial. Councilman Overholt again asked, as he had earlier, if they continued the public hearing, would the effect of the decision in two weeks be prejudiced by the issuance of any permits or the commencement of any construction within the two-week period. If the answer was no, he was not prepared to deny the abandonment at this time. Miss Santalahti answered that Mr. Barisic was not present to comment and he was requesting the abandonment. The drawings that were seen by the Planning Commission and City Council did not involve this specific scheme. If the abandonment were not granted, Mr. Barisic was not getting what he wanted. Councilwoman Kaywood questioned if they could continue it for two weeks on the agreement that there would be no action taken by Mr. Barisic or his company in the meantime; there was additional discussion between staff and Council Members on that issue with no conclusion. Councilwoman Kaywood then asked for a show of hands of those present on the item; 15 were present. A vote was then taken on the motion for a two-week continuance. Kaywood voted "No." MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Before concluding, a person from the Chambers audience requested that it be an evening hearing; after discussion between Council Members on the request, it was determined that the hearing would not be held in the evening. 176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 82-16A: In accordance with application file by the City of Anaheim, public hearing was held on proposed abandonment of a former Southern California Edison Company public utility easement acquired by the City, as successor, located on the east side of Halliday Street, north of Holly Drive, pursuant to Resolution No. 83R-275, duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance with law. Report of the City Engineer dated June 20, 1983, was submitted, recommending approval of said abandonment. 645 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26, 1983, 10:00 A.M. Mayor Roth asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no response, he closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman Pickler, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council ratified the determination of the City Engineer 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. 83R-308 for adoption, approving Abandonment No. 82-16A. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 83R-308: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM VACATING A FORMER SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY EASEMENT LOCATED EAST OF HALLIDAY STREET, NORTH OF HOLLY DRIVE. (82-16A) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-308 duly passed and adopted. 176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 82-18A: In accordance with application filed by Edward Lord, Attorney, public hearing was held on proposed abandonment of an alley located west of Anaheim Boulevard and north of Water Street, pursuant to Resolution No. 83R-276, duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance with law. Report of the City Engineer, dated June 17, 1983, recommending approval of said abandonment, subject to the following reservations: 1. That a public utility easement be reserved over the easterly 5.00 feet of the proposed abandonment area for electrical purposes. 2. That a public utility easement be reserved unto the Pacific Telephone and Telegraph .Company over the easterly 5.00 feet of the proposed abandonment area to accommodate exlsttn~ £aeilitie~ together will all raa~onable rt~ht~ o£ ingress and egress. Said reservation to said Telephone and Telegraph Company to be subject to prior rights of the City of Anaheim reservations as stated above. Mayor Roth asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no response, he closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council ratified the determination of the City Engineer that the proposed activity falls within the 646 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26, 1983, 10:00 A.M. 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 EIRo MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 83R-309 for adoption, approving Abandonment No. 82-18A, subject to the two foregoing reservations. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 83R-309: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM VACATING AN ALLEY LOCATED WEST OF ANAHEIM BOULEVARD AND NORTH OF WATER STREET. (82-18A) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-309 duly passed and adopted. 179: ORDINANCE NO. 4444: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4444 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4444: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING SUBSECTION .135 TO SECTION 18.41.050 OF CHAPTER 18.41 AND AMENDING SUBSECTION .031 OF SECTION 18.84.062 OF CHAPTER 18.84 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (Conditional Uses and Structures in the "CO" zone, and Building and Structural Height Limitations in the "SC" Overlay Zone) Roll Caii Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4444 duly passed and adopted. CYPRESS COLLEGE 9THANNUAL COMMUNITY AND AMERICA~NA AWARDS NIGHT: Mayor Roth asked that Council Members submit to him by next Tuesday any recommendations they might have for a recipient of the subject award. RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (3:22 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (6:11 p.m.) 123: AGREEMENT WITH ANAHEIM BULLETIN: Councilman Roth moved to strike the word "printed" from Page 1, Line 18, of the agreement between the City of Anaheim and the Anaheim Bulletin approved July 26, 1983. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 647 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 26~ 1983, 10:00 A.M. ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (6:12 p.m.) LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK Councilwoman Kaywood seconded 648