Loading...
1982/01/19City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 19, 1982, 1:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour COUNCIL MEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: 'Linda D. Roberts TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer DEPUTY CITY MANAGER: James D. Ruth ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti ASSOCIATE PLANNER: Jay Tashiro ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR: Joel Fick ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY: Jack L. White Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: Paster George Brown, Day Star Christian Center, gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilwoman Miriam Kaywood led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 119: PRESENTATION: Mr. William Erickson made a presentation to the Council relating to the Police Canine Program, consisting of large action photos of the Department's three new police dogs, Cliff, Donner, and Ero, mounted in a wooden and g%assed frame. The Mayor thanked Mr. Erickson on behalf of the Council for the time and labor spent on the memento and indicated it would be appropriate that it be provided to the Police Department for proper display. MINUTES: Approval~of the minutes was deferred until the next regular meeting. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda, after reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to waiver is hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such ordinances or resolutions in regular order. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $904,192.70, in accordance with the 1981-82 Budget, were approved. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL MOTION CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the following items were approved as recommended. a. 182/152: Approving revised guidelines for the Low Interest Rehabilitation Loan Program reflecting a change in the Owner/Investor category, and authorizing the Community Development Executive Director to execute all necessary documenta- tion to administer the program. 72 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 19, 1982, 1:30 P.M. b. 123: Authorizing Lender Operating Agreements with Citicorp Person to Person Financial Center, Inc., Investor's Mortgage Service Co., and Pacific Federal Savings & Loan Association to provide financing for the City's Low- Interest Rehabilitation Loan Program funded under the Community Development Block Grant. c. 160/124: Bid No. 3836--Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to Spellmans Carpet Service, Inc., in the amount of $13,331.85, to furnish labor and materials to carpet the walls in the California Room and connecting areas of the Convention Center. d. : Authorizing the City Manager to submit a grant funding application to the State Office of Criminal Justice Planning in an amount not to exceed $100,000, to implement a Career Criminal Apprehension Program (C-CAP). MOTION CARRIED. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL RESOLUTION CONSENT CALENDAR: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 82R-19 through 82R-22, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-19: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE LOARA STREET STREET IMPROVEMENT, S/O BROADWAY, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 12-792-6325-E2770. (Five States Plumbing and J. I. Langford Plumbing, J.V., $7,553.35) 169: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-20: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE EAST STREET STREET IMPROVEMENT, N/O SANTA ANA STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 12-792-6325-E2800. (Josip Kovac, $6,767.00) 101: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-21: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS ~D EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION, INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: REMODEL HVAC AT ANAHEIM STADIUM, STADIUM CLUB, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 61-950-6340 AND 24-970-7107. (Commerce Air Conditioning Company, $177,584.00) 103: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-22: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DESIGNATING CERTAIN INHABITED TERRITORY DESIGNATED AS SANTA ANA CANYON NO. 9 ~%rNEXATION TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM Ag DEVELOPED/SUBSTANTIALLY DEVELOPED PROPERTY PURSUANT TO THE MASTER PROPERTY TAX TRANSFER AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF ORANGE AND THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. 73 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 19, 1982, 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 82R-19 through 82R-22, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. 139: DETERMINING A POSITION ON AB 781 (LEVINE): Councilman Overholt moved that the Council determine a position of opposition on AB 781 (Levine) Mandatory Insulation Law and that that position be forwarded to the City's State Legislative representatives (see memorandum dated January 13, 1982, from the Intergovernmental Relations office which discussed the bill in detail). Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 152: SMALL CLAIMS ACTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 82R-23 for adoption authorizing certain persons to act on behalf of the City in Small Claims actions and superseding Resolution No. 80R-279. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 82R-23: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING CERTAIN PERSONS TO ACT FOR THE CITY OF ANAHEIM IN CONNECTION WITH SMALL CLAIMS ACTIONS, AND SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION NO. 80R-279. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 82R-23 duly passed and adopted. 105: APPOINTMENT TO .THE COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD: Councilwoman Kaywood nominated Michael Hayes to fill the vacancy on the Community Services Board for the term ending June 30, 1985. Councilman Bay moved that nominations to the Community Services Board be closed. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Michael Hayes was thereby appointed to the Community Services Board for the term ending June 30, 1985. Councilwoman Kaywood requested that the application received from Ronald C. Rodriguez under letter dated January 12, 1982, be kept on file for consideration when another vacancy occurred. City Clerk Linda Roberts explained that all such applications were kept on file. 74 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 19, 1982, 1:30 P.M. 153: PRE-EMPLOYMENT PHYSICALS - JANUARY 1, 1982 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1983: (Continued from the meeting of January 12, 1982--see minutes that date.) Councilwoman Kaywood moved to continue discussion relating to the subject at the request of staff. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 105: APPOINTMENT TO THE GOLF COURSE ADVISORY COMMISSION: Councilman Bay moved to continue the appointment of a member to fill the vacancy on the Golf Course Advisory Commission for one week to January 26, 1982, since the Commission's next meeting was scheduled for January 21, 1982. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 129: PETITION BANNING FIREWORKS: Councilman Overholt moved to communicate the City's opposition to State restrictions on local ability to ban the sale of "safe and sane" fireworks to the Governor should the Senate approve it on a concurrence file without a referral to a policy committee, as recommended in memorandum dated January 13, 1982, from the Intergovernmental Relations office. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Council discussion then followed with the City Clerk relative to the time frame involved should it be decided to place the issue on a ballot to ban the sale and use of all fireworks and firework stands, excluding controlled professional displays (see minutes December 15, 1981, where the matter was discussed and petitions previously submitted), should SB 999 not come to pass. At the conclusion of discussion, it was determined that on February 2, 1982, the matter would be agendized, at which time a decision would be made on whether or not a public hearing would be held on the issue on February 16, 1982, thereby leaving sufficient time for a ballot measure should that be the outcome. 105: REPORT RELATING TO THE STATUS OF THE YOUTH COMMISSION: Mayor Seymour referred to Page 4 of the Deputy City Manager's report dated September 23, 1981, which reflected four alternatives to the current Youth Commission structure. He thereupon moved that they adopt Alternative No. 1--"Reduce the Commission to a Standing Committee status to work to organize a Youth-In-Government Day and to inform the City of youth-related problems." Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Council Members expressed their views, Councilmen Overholt, Bay and Roth speaking in support, Councilwoman Kaywood speaking against since she maintained that if the Commission were reduced to a Standing Committee, that would be the end of it. She was in favor of Alternative No. 4. 75 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 19, 1982, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Roth was hopeful that they could receive input from the School District expressing their views regarding changing the Commission to a Standing Committee; Councilman Overholt thereupon suggested that the matter be continued to give the District an opportunity to respond. MOTION: After Deputy City Manager, James Ruth, confirmed that input had not been solicited from the School District, Councilman Overholt moved to continue the matter for three weeks in order to receive input from the District. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Councilman Bay voted No. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Bay maintained that Alternative No. 1 was a better course of action for the Council to take since he did not feel, because the Commission would be a Standing Committee, they were going to lose the benefits. 115: ANAHEIM CHAMBER OF COMMERCE - REQUEST FOR INSTALLATION OF CIVIC CENTER DIRECTIONAL SIGNS: Councilman Bay referred to report dated January 13~ 1982, from the City Engineer, wherein it is recommended the request for seven directional signs on the freeway be denied due to the lack of minimum criteria, but further recommended approval of eight directional signs on City-controlled public right-of-way. If the Council denied the freeway signs because of the problems with Cal-Trans, he asked if it were possible that the Chamber might want to add six more signs in lieu of the freeway signs, or a total of fourteen signs, at $150.00 apiece, or approximately $2,000 which he assumed would be appropriated from the Council Contingency Fund. Traffic Engineer, Paul Singer, answered yes to the first part of Councilman Bay's question, but relative to the latter, City Manager William Talley answered the recommendation was that the cost figures be accomodated in next year's budget and be a part of the budgeting process. Mr. Les Riddell, President, Anaheim Chamber of Commerce, concurred with the suggestion of fourteen signs. Their subcommittee came up with a total of twenty-one locations, including the freeway signs. He advised he would request the Committee to consider additional locations to replace the freeway signs. 106: MOTION: Councilman Roth stated his direction would be to have the signs installed now and not wait for the budgeting process to take place. He there- upon moved the following at the suggestion of Mr, Talley--that the request for Civic Center Directional Signs be approved and that $2,000 be appropriated from the Council Contingency Funds for eight signs at surface street locations as indicated on the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce list, and for staff to work with the Chamber on the six. additional locations, for a total of fourteen signs. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda: 76 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 19, 1982, 1:30 P.M. 1. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: ao 105: Project Area Committee--minutes of December 8, 1981. b. 107: Public Works Department, Building Division--Monthly Report for December 1981. c. 107: Public Works Department, Building Division--Annual Report for the year ended 1981. MOTION CARRIED. 118/167: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: Councilman Bay, noting the six claims totaling over $1 million, all related to purported traffic light malfunctioning, requested the following: that a report be submitted from Public Works on the quality of traffic light maintenance and how much traffic light malfunctioning exists or does not exist in fact; City Attorney to report on the City's legal position relative to the maintenance contractor sharing any liability of malfunctions of traffic lights. MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to deny and refer to Risk Management the claims filed against the City, Items 1 through 7 of Sheet A. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Claims denied and referred to Risk Management: a. Claim submitted by State Farm Mutual Insurance Company, Mary E. Marlof, Insured, for damages purportedly sustained due to malfunctioning traffic signal at the intersection of Old Lincoln and Olive at 3:25 p.m. on or about October 31, 1981. b. Claim submitted by Warren B. Merriman for injury and damages purportedly sustained when claimant was in an automobile accident caused by improper or incompetent maintenance of traffic control signal at the intersection of Kraemer and Orangethorpe, at 8:19 a.m. on or about August 19, 1981. c. Claim submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Russ Hafdahl for damages purportedly sustained due to a power surge at 558 South West Street, on or about October 28 or 29, 1981. d. Claim submitted by Cherri Mosch for damages and injuries purportedly sustained due to an accident caused by malfunctioning traffic signals at the intersection of Lincoln and Manchester, at 4:30 p.m., on or about November 10, 1981. e. Claim submitted by Jesus Flores Velasquez for injuries purportedly sustained due to a traffic accident caused by malfunctioning traffic signals at Olive and "Old" Lincoln, at 3:25 p.m., on or about October 31, 1981. 77 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 19, 1982, 1:30 P.M. f. Claim submitted by Billy Jarrell Bishop (Estate of) for medical expenses and personal property loss purportedly sustained due to a traffic accident caused by malfunctioning traffic signals at the intersection of East Street and Broadway, on or about September 9, 1981. g. Claim submitted by Betty Bishop; Charles Todd Bishop; Dee Ann Bishop and Christine Barret for loss of society, comfort, attention, services and support of Billy Jarrell Bishop purportedly sustained due to a traffic accident caused by a malfunctioning traffic signal at the intersection of East Street and Broadway, on or about September 9, 1981. 178: REPORT ON SUMMARY ACTIVITIES OF THE ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT (OCWD) FOR THE YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1981: Councilwoman Kaywood referred to report dated January 7, 1982, on the subject submitted by Mr. August F. Lenain, the City's Representative on the Board of Directors of the OCWD. The report was an excellent one and she commended Mr. Lenain. MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved (1) that the report be received and filed with a letter of commendation and thanks to be sent to Mr. Lenain and, (2) that an additional water conservation method be instituted within the City whereby a sticker would be installed near each of the faucets in hotel/motel rooms, asking people to conserve water, the first step being to request a staff report on the best way to proceed. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Before action was taken, Council discussion followed relative to the feasibility of the latter recommendation and the procedure for accomplishing same. At the conclusion of discussion, a vote was taken on the foregoing motion with a separate vote taken, first on part one, and then on part two. Part one of the motion carried unanimously. Part two of the motion failed to carry by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL P[F24BERS: Overholt, Kaywood Bay, Roth and Seymour None CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 82R-24 through 82R-29, both inclusive, for adoption in accordance with the reports, recommendations and certifications furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-24: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Clyde Associates; Kuo's Brothers; Guillermo C. Madrigal, et ux.) 78 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 19, 1982, 1:30 P.M. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-25: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: PERALTA HILLS STREET IMPROVEMENT, AREA W/O CERRO VISTA WAY AND S/O SANTA ANA CANYON ROAD, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 12-793-6325-E3390. (R. J.. Noble Company) 169: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-26: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: INSTALLATION AND RE- LOCATION OF STREET LIGHTING UNITS ON LEMON STREET AND ZEYN STREET SOUTH OF LA PALMA AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 01-676-6329-11900-37300. (Steiny and Company, Inc.) 169: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-27: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: HARBOR BOULEVARD STREET IMPROVEMENTS, S/O BALL ROAD, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 12-792-6325- E2710. (Five States Plumbing, Inc.) 169: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-28: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: STREET LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 1981-1, TRACT NOS. 1516 AND 1653, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 24-676-6329-11520-37300 AND 25-676-6329-11520-37300. (Steiny and Company, Inc.) 169: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-29: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT A_ND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: VIA BURTON AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENT, E/O STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 01-792-6325-E2690. (R. J. Noble Company) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 82R-24 through 82R-29, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. 79 Cit~ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Januar~ 19, 1982, 1:30 P.M. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning Commission at their meeting held December 28, 1981, pertaining to the following applications were submitted for City Council information. 1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2282: Submitted by James P. Edmondson, to permit an 8-story, 69-foot high, 90-room hotel expansion on CR zoned property located at 1380 South Harbor Boulevard, with a Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-271, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2282, and granted a negative declaration status. Councilman Bay asked a question of staff relative to visual intrusion to Disneyland; Mr. Bill Bealer, Director, Maintenance and Construction, Disneyland, clarified Disneyland's viewpoint relative to the proposed project (see letter dated November 6, 1981, from Mr. Bealer). In the final analysis, Disneyland had no objection. 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2283: Submitted by North American Investments, to permit on-sale alcoholic beverages in a proposed restaurant on CL zoned property located at 2424-L West Ball Road. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-272, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2283, and granted a negative declaration status. 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2286: Submitted by Angelo Zaby and Carl A. Zaby, to retain convenience retail sales in an existing service station on CR zoned property located at 1800 South Harbor Boulevard. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-273, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2286, and granted a negative declaration status. 4. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 80-81-1 - EXTENSION OF TIM~: Submitted by Bay Development Corporation, requesting an extension of time to Reclassification No. 80-81-1, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to CL, to construct a commercial office complex on property located on the south and west of the southwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Rio Vista Street. The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Reclassification No. 80-81-1, to expire July 28, 1982. 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2156 - EXTENSION OF TIldE: Submitted by Anaheim Community Church, requesting an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 2156, to permit a church and private educational facilities on property located on the southeast side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, east of Eucalyptus Road. The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 2156, to expire December 15, 1982. 8O City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 19, 1982, 1:30 P.M. 6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1676, VARIANCE NO. 2945 AND VARIANCE NO. 3050 - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: Submitted by Meyer Investment Properties, Inc., requesting termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 1676, to permit an amusement complex, Variance No. 2945, to construct a freestanding sign and Variance No. 3050, to permit a mobile snack bar at a waterslide, on CR zoned property located at 888 South West Street. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution Nos. PC81-274, 275 and 276, terminated Conditional Use Permit No. 1676, Variance No. 2945 and Variance No. 3050. 7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2212 - SOUND STUDY (INFORMATION ONLY): Sound Study submitted relating to Conditional Use Permit No. 2212, to permit a cocktail lounge on CL zoned property located at 945 South Knott Street. 142/143: ORDINANCE NO. 4303 - EXCAVATION AND RECOVERY OF NONFUEL MINERALS AND RECLAMATION OF MINED LANDS: Recommendation by the City Planning Commission that there be an amendment to Section 17.20 of the Code relating to excavation and recovery of nonfuel minerals and reclamation of mined lands. Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4303 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 4303: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING CHAPTER 17.20 OF TITLE 17 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO EXCAVATION AND RECOVERY OF NONFUEL MINERALS AND RECLAMATION OF MINED LANDS. 152/155: PROCEDURES AND REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS: The City Manager, City Attorney, and Assistant Director for Planning answered questions posed by the Council on the subject which was recommended by the City Planning Commission at their meeting of December 28, 1981, and as outlined in the staff report to the Planning Commission of the same date. Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 82R-30 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 82R-30: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES AND REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS PURSUANT TO SECTION 65865 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 82R-30 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 4302: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4302 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. 81 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 19, 1982, 1:30 P.M. ORDINANCE NO. 4302: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay asked if the subject Reclassification had any variances to the current RM-3000 since he had stated his position on RM-3000 some time ago,--that he would not vote for any RM-3000 that included variances. The Assistant Director for Zoning answered tha~ as indicated in the Planning Commission Minutes, the project would be built to code with no variances requested. Councilwoman Kaywood suggested that next time a notation be made accordingly so that it would not be necessary to have to stop and look it up. A vote was then taken on the foregoing Ordinance. AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4302 duly passed and adopted. 149/142: PROPOSED ORDINANCE - NO PARKING ANY TIME - PORTION OF BROOKHURST STREET: Amending Subsection 14.32.190.410 of the Code, No Parking At Any Time-- Streets Designated, to include Brookhurst Street on the east side, from the North City Limits to Crescent Avenue and from Lincoln Avenue to Broadway; and on the west side, from the North City Limits to Crescent Avenue and from Lincoln Avenue to Broadway (continued from the meeting of January 12, 1982--see minutes that date). Mr. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, referred to the posted map of the subject area supplementing the City Engineer's extensive report of January 14, 1982, attached to which was an off-street parking opportunity survey for both sides of Brookhurst Street between Crescent Avenue and the Riverside Freeway, as re- quested by the Council at the meeting of January 19, 1982 (on file in the City Clerk's office). After questioning Mr. Singer relative to certain points in his report, the Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak to the matter (see minutes of January 12, 1982, where extensive input was received). Mr. J. W. Davis, Jr., 1246 North Brookhurst, explained that a group of the residents, including the fifty plus people who signed the petition in opposition to no parking, met to discuss the situation and formulated a proposition for Council consideration, consisting of several alternatives that could be instituted, alleviating the necessity for the proposed No Parking. Mr. Davis then elaborated upon and outlined the proposals by the residents. They were also requesting the same police radar surveillance and speed enforcement in their area as given to the area between Crescent Street and Lincoln Avenue on Brookhurst Street, a matter which 82 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 19, 1982, 1:30 P.M. he broached at the meeting of January 12, 1982. In concluding, he emphasized that their main objection was to the fact that they would not be able to park their vehicles on the street and guests would not be able to visit since they would have no place to park. They felt that technically, no street parking in an R-1 zone could possibly be discriminatory. If the alternatives they proposed did not work after an eight or ten month trial and study, they would concede to the No Parking as proposed. Mr. Dennis Mills, 1252 North Brookhurst, disputed a point made by the Traffic Engineer that left turns could not feasibly be installed, as recommended in Mr. Davis' presentation, at Huntington, and he referred to several examples of similar situations. Mr. Singer then answered Mr. Mills, as well as additional questions posed by the Council. At the conclusion of discussion and questioning, Councilman Bay stated he would like to explore any other off-street parking that might be available, but if he had to decide now, relative to the amount of potential off-street parking versus the safety problem in that area, he would have to go with adding the left turn lanes and cutting the parking. The Mayor was in support of statements made by Councilman Bay but had yet to be satisfied that a sincere attempt had been made to identify alternative off-street parking, particularly in the alleys. He was not going to support the recommendation until he was afforded another week to walk those alleys himself. MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to continue consideration of the proposed Ordinance for one week. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for ten minutes (3:40 p.m.). AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present (3:57 p.m.). CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 81-82-3, VARIANCE NO. 3238 AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11637: Application submitted by The Fieldstone Company, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-3000 to establish a 2-lot, 105-unit condominium subdivision on property located at the northwest corner of Romneya Drive and Coronet Avenue and at the southeast corner of Medical Center Drive and Coronet Avenue, with a Code waiver of minimum lot area per dwelling unit. This matter was continued from the meeting of January 5, 1982, when extensive discussion and input was received (see minutes that date). Jack L. White, Assistant City Attorney, acted as City Attorney for this portion of the meeting as Mr. William P. Hopkins had announced a conflict of interest. 83 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 19, 1982, 1:30 P.M. Ms. Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, submitted to the Council four sheets of data; the first page titled "Anaheim Shores Planned Community--As of January 13, 1982," the first page containing statistics; the second, a map of the community as of January 1982; the third, statistics on Reclassification No. 73-74-36 and the fourth, a map of the Anaheim Shores Planned Community under that reclassification. The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent. Mr. Peter Ochs, President of Fieldstone, then made a presentation which included a brief background on their proposed project from its inception, as well as the background with regard to density, an issue which arose at the January 5, 1982, meeting, and which took them by surprise. His presentation was supplemented by two transparencies, the first entitled - Anaheim Shores - Matrcyek Homes - Land Use and Population Element; the second, an overlay showing the property as it existed today. In concluding, Mr. Ochs explained that they had looked at the matter f~fteen or twenty different ways to see if the density they were requesting was somehow not consistent with the General Plan as approved and as shown on the map, with comments made by the Council at that time, and in no way did they find that they were inconsistent. They also sought out the man who probably knew more about that plan than any other, Mr. Jim Christiansen, who was working for Matreyek in 1974 and personally handled all staff, Planning Commission, and City Council meetings, and meetings with local neighbors, as well as other negotiations and details involved with the approval of the project. He thereupon introduced Mr. Christiansen and asked that he give his understanding of what the approvals entailed at that time. Mr. Jim Christiansen, 3822 Campus Drive, Newport Beach, then reported on his understanding relative to the ultimate approval of the planned community of Anaheim Shores which took place in 1974. In the final analysis, and as was recorded in the minutes, the'overall density was 11.3, but due to changes, they were on%y going to end up with a density of eight to nine units on the first phase. The important issue was the fact that it was all one package--selling the park to the City at a reasonable rate, installing the extensive flood control measures, etc., that were an integral part of the whole project. It was a master-planned community of Anaheim Shores which he understood allowed the developer to have no more than 11.3 units to the acre. There was no given density for each individual area, as long as they did not exceed 11.3 for the overall density of the project. It did not appear to him that the Fieldstone Project exceeded the 11.3 unit~ to the acre overall. Extensive discussion and questioning followed between Councilman Bay and Mr. Christiansen, mainlY revolving around the density issue. Mr. Ochs then reported that since the meeting of January 5, 1982, they had spent time with the homeowners to try to get as many of their concerns on paper as possible to determine what they could do to alleviate those concerns so that the resultant community would be the best possible. Mr. David Langlois had handled those discussions. He thereupon asked Mr. Langlois to make a summary report. 84 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 19, 1982, 1:30 P.M. Mr. David Langlois, 12422 LaBella, Santa Ana, briefed the Council on discussions that had taken place and also reiterated some of the points made in his presentation of January 5, 1982 (see minutes that date). They went back to September when negotiations started and made a list of every concern of the residents out of which came a nine-point proposal, which he delivered to the Board of the Anaheim Shores Owners Association (ASOA) at their meeting last night. He then submitted a copy of the proposal (made a part of the record--see letter dated January 18, 1982, to the Board of Directors, ASOA, from David Langlois, Vice President). If the property were developed as condominiums, the nine points would go a long way to mitigate the concerns expressed. The steps outlined would add a total cost to Fieldstone of between $200,000 to $250,000; however, it was crucial to them that they maintained the proposed density. Relative to the fence (Item 1), they still felt strongly that it was not a good idea, but conceded that if that was what it would take to get the project accomplished, they would provide it. An alternative they wanted to offer, in the event the project was approved at the density requested, and if the Board felt the fence was not a good idea, was to offer the cost of that fence to use as they saw fit, an amount of approximately $20,000. Mr. Ochs maintained that there were a number of items on the list that were over and above the project requirements. They went to the maximum not only to meet the objections with the interface, but also, the concerns that the committee had to make it a better community. They had gone through an exhaustive process of reexamining the density issue and looking at all the City documents, all the recollections of staff, all the published reports, the maps, and the recollections of the individual who presented it. It was very clear what they were proposing was very much in keeping with the original approvals and they were not asking for anything beyond that. They hoped to build an attractive project that would be an asset, and respectfully requested approval of their request incorporating the nine-point proposal. Councilwoman Kaywood recalled that two weeks ago, the reason the Council did not deny the proposal was to permit the developer to go back and look to see how he could redesign the project to result in lower density; Mr. Ochs stated that was not his understanding. They wanted an opportunity to reexamine the situation since there was a great deal of confusion related to the numbers. The Mayor then asked to hear from those who wished to speak: Mr. Clifford R. Harper, 1975 Bayshore, confirmed that the nine-point proposal was presented to the Board at their meeting last night. He noted in Item 1, where it stated "Coronet Avenue to the Lake," that it was perhaps meant to say "Romneya." (This was confirmed by the developer from the audience.) He then expressed his concern over what would occur to the property on the western boundary of the lake if the subject project were approved at 105 units. He then asked to have a copy of the material submitted to the Council by staff. 85 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 19, 1982, 1:30 P.M. At present, there were 175 dwelling units in their community. If Fieldstone Condominiums were built, as well as those to the south (Wellington Group), that would add another 175 units. If another 300 were built west of the lake, they would have an incredible condominium city built around them which they did not anticipate and never envisioned as a part of the plan. He would agree with Mr. Langlois that the Fieldstone Company had still not alleviated the primary concern, especially of those people who must now look out at a different community than they were led to believe would be there when they bought their homes. That was essentially the concern of the Association. Mr. Harper then explained for Councilwoman Kaywood that relative to the nine points, they would not ask to approve or disapprove the proposal, but it was presented as a "consolation prize." In discussing it with some of the people, there was still not unanimity that the developer had done everything they had wanted. At the last hearing, the Mayor commented if it were the will of the Anaheim Shores people that the development not be associated with the lake, he would allow them to build it out as a wall. There were still people in the Association that would prefer that. He would like to retain the option of the wall if the Mayor had not changed his mind. He later clarified for Councilman Overholt that as one member of the Board, the 105 units with the agreement was better than 105 units without it. Mayor Seymour clarified that. what he intended was the construction of a fence that would prevent direct access to the shore of the lake. The following people then spoke and expressed the below listed concerns: Rudy Hutchinson, 1866 West Surf; Helen Carter, 1945 Bayshore Drive; Mary Hill, ASOA Board Member; Ron Beckman, 1874 West Surf. They held title to the common area and paid for it; in retrospect, there was a lack of credibility when they bought their homes as to what would occur on the property; the development would interfere with the privacy of the existing residents, and the residents in the proposed project would be sharing in the amenities of Anaheim Shores which was supposed to be reserved for the residents who bought homes in the community; the high density was objectionable. The Mayor then asked Mr. Ochs to make his summation; Mr. Ochs spoke to the concerns expressed stating that there were some they could meet and others they could not. He then expanded upon the development, which in finality, he maintained, would be a credit to the community. He also confirmed, for Councilwoman Kaywood, that relative to the minimum number of units that could be built still resulting in a viable project were the 105 units as proposed. He emphasized that the nine- point proposal had addad on,-quarter million dollar~ to their co~t~, over and above where they were after being approved by the Planning Commission. Those were dollars they did not feel they could recoup in their sales price. The Mayor closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Kaywood offered a resolution to deny the reclassification and variance, stating she could not accept a net density of 19.6 for the 105 units proposed. 86 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 19, 1982, 1:30 P.M. Before further action was taken, extensive discussion, debate and questioning followed between the Council and staff revolving around the issue of density, the intent at the time the General Plan on the Anaheim Shores project was adopted, and the figures contained in the new data presented by staff (a partial verbatim transcript from the closing of the public hearing to the end of the hearing is on file in the City Clerk's office). The Mayor stated he was going to oppose the resolution to deny and enumerated his reasons. He could not go back on his word of 1974 when he was on the Council and a party to the decision made at that time. He agreed with Mr. Christiansen's recollection of what occurred in 1974. Relative to the variance, the Code calls for 3,000 square feet and what was being asked for was 2,937 square feet of land area, or a 2.1 percent difference. Further, although he was opposed to the resolution, if there should be support on the Council to hold Fieldstone to what they reduced to writing in their proposal, he could support that. Relative to the property on the western boundary, he recommended that they take whatever action was necessary as a Council to hold to the densities already approved. Councilman Overholt stated he was going to oppose the resolution since he felt what was going to develop out of the hearing would be a project compatible with the Anaheim Shores community. He did not hear any residents say outright that they could not live with a project that had any more than 80 units but that there was concern over privacy, the use of the lake, vagrants, etc. He agreed with the Mayor that as much control as possible be exercised on the further development of the remaining parcels so that it would be developed consistent and compatible with Anaheim Shores. He would also like to see, as a condition of approval, a commitment by the developer that he would do any one, or all, of the things promised, subject to the approval of the ASOA. He was also going to approve the variance because it was what he deemed diminimous. A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution of denial which failed to carry by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood and Bay Overholt, Roth and Seymour None Councilman Seymour offered Resolution Nos. 82R-31 and 82R-32 for adoption, the first approving Reclassification No. 81-82-3, and the second, granting Variance No. 3238, subject to the Planning Commission recommendations and conditions, and subject to the additions arrived at during extensive Council discussion following the offering of the resolutions and as stipulated to by the applicant, to wit: that approval include the nine-point proposal contained in letter of January 18, 1982, from the Fieldstone Company, David R. Langlois, Vice President, which letter was directed to the Board of Directors of the Anaheim Shores Owners Association; Item 1 to be corrected to change Coronet to Romneya and striking the word easement with reference to lake access rather than easement thereafter; the Anaheim Shores Owners Association shall be provided reasonable time, not to exceed two months, in order to poll their membership to determine which, if any, of the nine points covered in the agreement are acceptable or any they might wish to "exchange." Refer to Resolution Book. 87 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 19, 1982, 1:30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. 82R-31: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED. (Reclassification No. 81-82-3) RESOLUTION NO. 82R-32: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 3238. Earlier in the meeting, Councilman Bay had expressed his reasons for support of the resolutions to deny, and thus, his reasons for opposition to the resolutions of approval. Speaking to the variance, there was no way he could vote for any waiver or variance to the current RM-3000 zone as he had expressed several times in the past, and consistent with the firm stand he took at the time of its adoption. With regard to density, his concern not only revolved around the impact that the proposed density would have on the people presently living in the community, but also the impact such a decision would have on the western section of the community, backing up to an R-1 where an owner might sell to a developer wanting to use up the rest of the housing count on that property and the resultant impact to that whole area. Relative to the southern property (La Palma and Romneya) and the requested change from commercial to residential (i.e., the Wellington Group proposal and request for a General Plan Amendment), that was a different and separate issue since it was not an original part of the whole planned community. A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolutions with the additional conditions as stipulated. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Roth and Seymour Kaywood and Bay None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 82R-31 and 82R-32, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to approve Tentative Tract No. 11637, subject to the conditions as listed at the outset of the previous hearing which took place on January 5, 1982 (see minutes that date). Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Council Members Kaywood and Bay voted No. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to direct staff to prepare a General Plan Amendment impacting the property on the western boundary to reflect the existing approved density. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay stated he agreed with the motion but he wanted to be certain that they would not only hold to the density, but also, voice their intent to hold to some of the setbacks and the two stories agreed to as the Plan went through the last process. He was hoping that the intent of the Council was to keep those as close to the Plan as possible. 88 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 19, 1982, 1:30 P.M. Mayor Seymour stated, as he understood, a tentative tract map had been approved and if he (Bay) or any other member of the public wanted to see on paper the intent of his motion, they merely had to review that map. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED unanimously. 176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 81-19A: In accordance with application filed by the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, a public hearing was held on proposed abandonment of a portion of dedicated right-of-way of Claudina Street, Lincoln Avenue, and a portion of dedicated public alley, all located approximately at the northeast corner of Old Lincoln Avenue and Claudina Street, pursuant to Resolution No. 81R-589, duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin, notices thereof posted in accordance with law. Report of the City Engineer, dated January 6, 1981, and a recommendation by the Planning Commission, were submitted recommending approval of said abandonment. Mayor Seymour 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 Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council ratified the determination of the Planning Director 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 Environmental Impact Report. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 82R-33 for adoption approving Abandonment No. 81-19A. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 82R-33: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM VACATING PORTIONS OF OLD LINCOLN AVENUE, CLAUDINA STREET, AND AN UNNAMED PUBLIC ALLEY. (81-19A) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 82R-33 duly passed and adopted. 134: PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 173 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CLOSURE OF PATT STREET, N/O LA PALMA AVENUE: Submitted by the Community Development Department and Engineering Division, to consider an amendment to the Circulation Element of the General Plan to change the current designation of Patt Street between Commercial Street and La Palma Avenue from a secondary arterial highway to a local street, and also to consider the closure of Patt Street at a point 655 feet north of La Palma Avenue, pursuant to Section 21101 of the Vehicle Code of the State of California. 89 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 19, 1982, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Jay Tashiro, Associate Planner, briefed the Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated December 14, 1981, relative to the subject proposal, requested by the Community Development Department and Engineering Division, to change the current designation of Part Street between Commercial Street and La Palma Avenue from a secondary arterial highway to a local street. The Planning Commission, in their Resolution No. PC81-264, recommended approval of Exhibit "A" (which was posted on the Chamber wall), designating Part Street between Commercial Street and La Palma Avenue as a local street and, further, declared that the subject project be exempt from the requirement to prepare an Environmental Impact Report, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, since there would be no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact due to this project. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak. Mr. John Ybarra, 1025 North Part Street, stated that they were in complete accord with the closure. Mr. William Erickson, 301 North Street, stated his only concern was relative to the property in the industrial area. They had been using the street for a number of years and he wanted to know if they had been contacted and were they agreeable to the closure. Mr. Joel Fick, Assistant Director for Planning, explained that they had been contacted and that the Community Development Department had been working with both the industrial tenants in the area as well as the homeowners. Mr. David Vidadich, 191 Alice Way, Plant Manager, Stepan Chemical Company, stated that his firm was in favor of the closure of Patt Street. They had numerous meetings With Community Development on this issue. Representatives from two other plants were present earlier, and as far as he knew, they were also in accord. There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council finds that this project would hav~ no ~ignificant individual or cumulatiw advar~ ~nvir0nm~ntal impact due to the approval of this Negative Declaration since no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the proposal; that the initial study submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact, and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an Environmental Impact Report. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 82R-34 and 82R-35 for adoption, the first approving General Plan Amendment No. 173, Exhibit "A" as recommended by the City Planning Commission, and the second, approving the closure of Patt Street, north of La Palma Avenue, as recommended. Refer to Resolution Book. 9O City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 19, 1982, 1:30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. 82R-34: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATED AS AMENDMENT NO. 173, EXHIBIT "A". RESOLUTION NO. 82R-35: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE CLOSURE TO THROUGH VEHICULAR TRAFFIC OF PATT STREET, N/O LA PALMA, PURSUANT TO SECTION 21101 OF THE VEHICLE CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 82R-34 and 82R-35 duly passed and adopted. 142/149: PROPOSED ORDINANCE - NO PARKING ANY TIME, AVENIDA DE SANTIAGO: Amending Subsection 14.32.190.2010 of the Code, No Parking At Any Time-- Streets Designated, to include Avenida de Santiago, on the south side, from Hidden Canyon Road to, and including, its entire western c~l-de-sac. The Mayor asked if anyone was present to speak to the proposed Ordinance. Mr. Cliff Springmeyer, 16119 Avenida de Santiago, was opposed to the No Parking, as proposed, because there was no reason for anyone from a true traffic standpoint to be on the street unless they were an owner or visitor. There was a problem relative to the cul-de-sac at the top of the road where there were no homes but where kids tended to congregate. He was requesting that "No Parking, No Loitering, No Stopping" be posted at the top of the hill, but to have no parking on the street, either side, did not make sense. Mrs. Oscar Martin stated her husband was president of the Anaheim Ridge Estates Homeowners Association and she drew up a petition that was previously submitted. They wanted the "No Parking" signs removed from both sides of Avenida de Santiago but at the cul-de-sac, they wanted to have "No Parking, No Loitering," etc., to prevent to problems they were experiencing with the youth utilizing that cul-de-sac to congregate. Traffic Engineer, Paul Singer, explained that he had no objection to the request just presented and recommended that the parking ordinance be rescinded, that the curbs be painted red in the cul-de-sac, and "No Loitering" signs be in- stalled; City Attorney Hopkins felt that the red curbs and "No Parking" signs would be sufficient, but that the "No Loitering" signs would be questionable. 91 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 19, 1982, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Roth requested that the last half-block area leading to the cul-de- sac, as well as the cul-de-sac, be signed. Mayor Seymour directed, with Council concurrence, that action be taken to rescind the ordinance restricting parking on both sides of Avenida de Santiago, and that signing measures be used to reduce the loitering problem in the cul-de-sac. ORDINANCE NO. 4304: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4304 for First Reading. ORDINANCE NO. 4304: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (81-82-2, CO, 1501 East Orangewood Avenue) 164: OAK STREET STORM DRAIN - ALL-RIVER PLAN: Councilman Roth reported that as a follow-up to their action last week (see minutes January 12, 1982), the Oak Street Storm Drain had now been included in the All-River Plan for the Santa Ana River, as requested in their telegram to the Corps of Engineers. REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: The City Manager requested a closed session to discuss a personnel matter with no action anticipated; the Mayor requested a closed session to discuss potential litigation; the City Attorney requested a closed session to discuss litigation with action anticipated. RECESS: Councilman Bay moved to recess into closed session. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED (7:04 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (8:30 p.m.) 112: ACCEPTANCE OF CALIFORNIA SURF PROPOSAL: Councilman Seymour moved to authorize the City Attorney to accept the proposal of California Surf as set forth in letter dated December 14, 1981, signed by George W. Peterson, Attorney. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn; Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED (8:31 p.m.) LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK 92