Loading...
1982/02/16City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 16, 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 DEPUTY CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR FOR PLANNING: Joel H. Fick PUBLIC UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER: Gordon W. Hoyt ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER/POWER RESOURCES: Dale L. Pohlman ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika M. Santalahti TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: Invocation. Pastor George Brown, Day Star Christian Center, gave the FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Ben Bay led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Seymour and authorized by the City Council: "Wellness Week" - February 22 to 26, 1982. "National Children's Dental Health Month" - February 1982. MINUTES: Approval of the minutes was deferred to the next regular meeting. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda, after reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to waiver is hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such ordinance or resolution in regular order. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $1,465,597.26, in accordance with the 1981-82 Budget, were approved. CITY ~b'HqAGER/DEPARTMENTAL MOTION CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilwoman Kay"wood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the following items were approved as recommended. a. 106/177: Revising the Resource Allocation Plan for Housing Assistance, Fiscal Year 1981-82, by $502,618, to include an additional 121 Section 8 Existing units, 67 Moderate Rehabilitation units, 34 State Aftercare units and the Shared Housing Program. 153 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 16~ 1982~ 1:30 P.M. b. 101/123/173: Authorizing execution of a letter of commitment and necessary lease documents to acquire lease-purchase financing from Security Pacific National Bank for the two Theme Tower signs at the AMTRAK station site. c. 123: Authorizing the renewal of the City's lease of Horace Mann School building located at 900 North Harbor Boulevard, with the Anaheim City School District and authorizing the renewal of the sublease for use of the building and grounds with the Anaheim Foundation for Culture and the Arts. d. 150: Authorizing the bid and award dates to be extended to March 11, 1982, 2:00 p.m., and March 23, 1982, respectively, for the Schweitzer Park Building Development. Account No. 16-817-7105. e. 123: Authorizing the extension of a Scoreboard Sponsor Agreement with Continental Air Lines, Inc., extending the term of the original agreement to include the first twenty-six (26) home games, including exhibition games, played by the California Angels in Anaheim Stadium in the year 1991, without additional cost to Continental Air Lines. MOTION CARRIED. REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: The City Attorney requested a Closed Session to discuss potential litigation. Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (1:40 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (1:54 p.m.) 118: CLAIM OF STEVEN ALVARADO: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Bay, the City Attorney was authorized to settle the claim of Steven Alvarado for the sum of $4,000. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilman Overholt offered Resolution Nos. 82R-80 through 82R-86, 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. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-80: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF A~AHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT WILLIAM KYLE IS DISABLED WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT LAW FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES IN THE POSITION OF SENIOR JAILER. (Effective September 15, 1981) 153: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-81: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT ALLAN L. HATFIELD IS DISABLED WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT LAW FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES IN THE POSITION OF POLICE OFFICER, MASTER PATROLMAN ADVANCED. (Effective January 8, 1982) 154 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 16, 1982, 1:30 P.M. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-82: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT ROBERT SEVERE IS DISABLED WITHIN THE ME~ING OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT LAW FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES IN THE POSITION OF DETECTIVE. (Effective June 10, 1980) 123: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-83: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ~NAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH THE ANAHEIM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. 123: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-84: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE LINDA VISTA RESERVOIR REROOFING PROJECT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 53-619-6329-26410-34200. (Penco Builders, Inc., $229,933) 150: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-85: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE PONDEROSA PARK COMMUNITY BUILDING, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 25-818-7105. (Jess A. Minghelli Company, $154,032, including Alternate Nos. 1, 2 & 3) 150: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-86: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE RIVERDALE PARK IMPROVEMENTS, 4545 EAST RIVERDALE AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 16-822-7103-2202C AND 16-822-7103-22150. (T. J. Crosby Construction ~ Company, Inc., $390,639.65, including Alternate Nos. 1 & 2) 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-80 through 82R-86, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. 153: DISABILITY RETIREMENT APPLICATION OF DENNIS ALLEN: Determining the disposition of the industrial disability retirement application for Dennis Allen. Memorandum dated January 29, 1982, from the Safety Employees' Disability Retirement Committee recommended that the disability retirement application of Police Officer Dennis Allen be denied. Mr. Seth Kelsey, attorney representing Mr. Allen, stated in reviewing the subject memorandum submitted by the Chairman of the Safety Employees' Disability Retirement Committee, W. T. Hopkins, to the City Manager/City Council, he noted two items, (1) that the medical reports were not clear or were somewhat ambiguous, and (2) the medical reports were not clear as to whether the condition, permanent or not, was substantially job related. 155 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 16~ 1982, 1:30 P.M. As to the first issue, he did not know if the Safety Committee had all of the medical reports. He thereupon relayed the dates of the reports and the names of the doctors involved, all of whom indicated that Mr. Allen's disability, whether due to his psychological problem, ortho- pedic problem, or his high blood pressure and seizure disorder, prevented him on a permanent basis from returning to work as a police officer. In concluding, Mr. Kelsey reiterated that many of those same medical reports from a Worker's Compensation point of view indicated a temporary condition which had yet to reach maximum improvement. However, those doctors did not deny, as far as law enforcement, that Mr. Allen could not return to it. He, therefore, requested that because of the pendency of the Worker's Compensation case, the attorney representing the City, Robert Cagle, indicated that further medical evaluation was going to take place on Mr. Allen to resolve the dispute, not only as to the extent of the disability, but also as to whether or not Mr. Allen was permanently disabled. Agreed medical examiners were going to be selected and Mr. Allen sent to those doctors. Since the Worker's Compensation case had not been concluded, and since the medical reports were in a state of flux, he requested that any decision await the finality .of those agreed medical examinations which presumably would take place within the next month or two. He felt it would be premature for the Council to make a determination at this time, but if they intended to do so based on the medical reports which he had itemized, along with Mr. Allen's testimony, which he would request to present, he believed that the findings should be that he was disabled but that any determination as to whether it was industrial or not be left up to a further appeal process. Mayor Seymour did not believe the Council was in a position to render a decision until they had heard fully from Mr. Kelsey, as well as his client, as to whether or not they would defer a decision. Mr. Kelsey thereupon asked to present the testimony of Mr. Dennis Allen; City Clerk Linda Roberts administered the oath to Mr. Allen that the testimony he was about to give was true and correct to the best of his belief and knowledge. The sworn testimony given by Mr. Allen in answer to questions posed by Mr. Kelsey was to substantiate his contention that he was disabled to the extent that he could not return to his law enforcement duties. At the conclusion of Mr. Allen's testimony, Mayor Seymour asked to hear from the Chairman of the Safety Employees' Disability Retirement Committee, Mr. William T. Hopkins, who confirmed that the Committee did, in fact, review all of the medical reports that both Mr. Kelsey and the Committee received. 156 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 16, 1982, 1:30 P.M. Mayor Seymour then asked Mr. Hopkins, given the testimony of Mr. Allen and the presentation of Mr. Kelsey, if he heard anything new and/or different and felt that his recommendation from the Committee would be different as a result of the testimony. Mr. Hopkins answered that there were two items that the attorney broached that the Committee did not hear. In the course of cross-examination of Mr. Allen, he brought out additional information that was not relayed to the Committee at the time of the hearing, and the second part was the additional medical evidence being requested of the applicant. That had not come forth to the Committee. Mayor Seymour moved that, based upon that information, he felt it appropriate that the matter be referred back to the Committee to further deliberate the information brought forth in the hearing and again make a recommendation to the City Council. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 103: BALL-FREEWAY NO. 3 ANNEXATION: City Manager William Talley briefed the Council on memorandum received February 11, 1982, from the Planning Department initiating annexation proceedings and establishing the date and time for public hearing. He also referred to the letter received today from the law firm of Paone and Haldeman, dated February 11, 1982, submitted on behalf of the Southern Pacific Railroad. Mr. Joel Fick, Assistant Planning Director for Planning, stated he had reviewed the subject letter in which the Southern Pacific Railroad expressed their opposition to the annexation filed by the adjacent property owner directly with LAFCO and approved by LAFCO at their November 25, 1981, meeting. The action before the Council today was to merely set the annexation for a hearing pursuant to the Municipal Reorganization Act in order to permit each of the property owners to voice their opinions. In accordance with the request of the Southern Pacific Railroad, staff would notify their attorneys of the date and time of the hearing. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 82R-87 for adoption, initiating annexation proceedings for Ball-Freeway No. 3 Annexation to the City, consisting of approximately 34.731 acres of land located southeast of the intersection of Ball Road and the Orange Freeway (Route 57) and establishing March 23, 1982, 3:00 p.m., as the date and time ~or the public hearing, pursuant to Section 35220 of the Government Code of the State of California. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 82R-87: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM INITIATING ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS FOR BALL-FREEWAY NO. 3 ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND FIXING A TIME, DATE AND PLACE OF HEARING ON SAID PROPOSED ANNEXATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 35220 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. 157 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 16, 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 No. 82E-87 duly passed and adopted. 175: MEAD-PHOENIX DC INTERTIE PROJECT FINANCING DOCb/~ENTS - PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POWER AUTHORITY: (Continued from meeting of February 9, 1982 - see minutes that date) The City Clerk referred to letter dated February 16, 1982, from the President of the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce, indicating that the Executive Committee of the Chamber, acting as the Board of Directors, had voted to take no position on the subject issue. Mayor Seymour left the Council Chambers. (2:17 p.m.) Mr. Gordon Hoyt, Public Utilities General Manager, then made a presentation on the subject project to answer the questions raised by the Council at the previous week's meeting relative to the Public Utilities Board recommendation that the Council approve the Mead-Phoenix DC Intertie Project Financing Document and the execution of the Project Development Agreement (see memorandum dated February 3, 1982, from the Public Utilities Board, Mead- Phoenix DC Intertie Project Financing Documents, attached to which was a briefing document on the project, draft of December 15, 1981, and multi-page document with covering page, 1980 Sources and Distribution of Income~- on file in the City Clerk's office). Mr. Hoyt's presentation was supplemented by slides, which slides were copies of a part of the documentation presented, including preliminary cost estimates, 1988-1995, preliminary costs estimates, sample year 1991-1992, and others, as well as an overview of major transmission centers, transmission options from Mead to Anaheim, alternatives, etc., with Mr. Dale Pohlman, Assistant General Manager, Power Resources, giving the presentation on the latter. The extensive presentation was followed by Council questions posed for the purpose of further clarification of the data presented. Mayor Seymour entered the Council Chambers. (3:12 p.m.) MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to approve the City's participation in the Mead-Phoenix DC Intertie Project. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Roth stated that he doul~ not support a $1.5 million expenditure at this time that would undoubtedly be over $50 million. Although they talked about the possibility of how they were going to get power from Mead to Victorville, in his estimation, that was an entirely new frontier involving more dollars which the Council would have to wrestle with at a later time. There were too many uncertainties and thus, he was going to oppose the motion. 158 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 16, 1982, 1:30 P.M. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Roth voted "no." MOTION CARRIED. ORDINANCE NO. 4309 AND ORDINANCE NO. 4310: Councilman Overholt offered Ordinance No. 4309 and Ordinance No. 4310 for First Reading. ORDINANCE NO. 4309: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POWER AUTHORITY AND THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AND DELIVERY OF SAID AGREEMENT BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. ORDINANCE NO. 4310: ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF NOTES BY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POWER AUTHORITY. RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 20 minutes (3:25 p.m.). AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present (3:45 p.m.). CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2276 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application by Banner Sheet Metal, Inc., to permit a metal recycling center on ML zoned property located at 2860 and 2870 East Miraloma Avenue, with a Code waiver of maximum fence height (continued from the meeting of January 12, 1982 - see minutes that date). The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-250, 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, and further, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2276, in part, subject to certain conditions. The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Louis A. Banner, Agent, and public hearing scheduled and continued from the meeting of January 12, 1982. A Negative Declaration status on the project was approved by the Council at their January 12, 1982, meeting. Th~ Mayor a~kad to haar from tha applicant; Mr. Louis Banner, 219 §outh Lemon Street, recounted that at the meeting of January 12, 1982, he requested a 15-foot setback with an eight-foot block wall and the Council suggested he look at a compromise. He reviewed his plan and operation and at this point, he would be willing to accept a 30-foot setback from the curb with an eight-foot block wall that would screen all traffic and parking from the street, along with a grassy berm and magnolia trees planted in front. 159 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 16~ 1982, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Benner then clarified for Councilman Roth that he talked to Mr. Dick Darbo of the Anaheim Economic Development Corporation (AEDC) by phone with regard to his plan, and Mr. Darbo stated that the AEDC had no opposition to what he was trying to do, but did not make a stand either way. There being no further persons who wished to speak, either in favor or in opposition, the Mayor closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Kaywood referred to page 14-c (3) of the Staff Report to the Planning Commission, dated January 25, 1982, Stem No. 17 which read, "On January 11, 1982, the Anaheim Economic Development Corporatzon presented to Planning Commission a report outlining proposals for generating and encouraging high quality industrial land uses in the Anaheim Canyon Industrial Area. Included was a recommendation that marginal land uses such as outdoor storage yards and recycling centers be discouraged because they do not promote the highest and best use of the land." She maintained that the Planning Commission made their concern clear and the reason the Council sent it back was to clarify that. There was a misunderstanding on the amount of the setback. Councilwoman Kaywood offered a resolution granting Conditional Use Permit No. 2276, in part, as recommended by the City Planning Commission which would not permit less than a fifty-foot setback. Before action was taken, Councilman Roth stated he was going to oppose the resolution, even though there was a statement made by the Planning Commission relative to the integrity of the industrial area; Mr. Benner went to the AEDC and they agreed with him (Benner) and with the Traffic Engineer re- garding the thirty-foot setback from the curb. Councilman Bay stated when they sent the matter back to the Planning Commission after the last hearing (January 12, 1982), it was clear they voted to deny the appeal on the basis that the Code stated sixty-two feet from the curb, in this case, and initial twelve feet and then fifty feet from the property line. They were talking about sixty-two feet versus thirty feet, or fifty feet versus eighteen feet. He was looking for, not sixty-two feet, but something better than thirty feet. He asked Mr. Benner what was the maxi- mum setback from the curb he could accept so that his trucks could still turn around within the property and head back out; Mr. Benner clarified it would have to be a thirty-foot setback from the curb, otherwise he would have to move his parking to the front. Councilman Overholt stated he was going to oppose the resolution. A primary objection of a speaker at the previous hearing was the lack of visual screening. If the Council were to permit the thirty-foot setback with an eight-foot wall, it would provide that screening and also eliminate the necessity of trucks having to back out onto Miraloma. 160 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 16, 1982, 1:30 P.M. A roll call vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution and failed to carry by the following vote: AYES: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Bay, Roth and Seymour Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 82R-88 for adoption, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 2276, subject to the following Planning Commission conditions; permitting an eighteen-foot setback with an eight-foot block wall, or a thirty-foot setback from the curb line; no structure to be built in the normal setback area; berming and planting of magnolia trees to be accomplished in the front area as stipulated. 1. That sidewalks shall be installed along Miraloma Avenue as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with standard plans and specifications on file in the Office of the City Engineer. 2. That the owner(s) of subject property shall submit a letter requesting the termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 2079 to the Planning Department. 3. That the existing structures shall be brought up to the minimum standards of the City of Anaheim, including the Uniform Building, Plumbing, Electrical, Mechanical and Fire Codes as adopted by the City of Anaheim. 4. That all on-site circulation for customers' vehicles and vehicles delivering salvagable materials shall be clearly indicated on the site. 5. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities. 6. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer. 7. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay the traffic signal assess- ment fee in the amount of $500.00 per acre within a period of sixty (60) days from the date herein. 8. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay appropriate drainage assessment fees to the City of Anaheim as determined by the City Engineer within a period of sixty (60) days. 9. That appropriate water assessment fees as determined by the Office of Utilities General Manager shall be paid to the City of Anaheim within a period of sixty (60) days. 10. That fire hydrants shall be installed on subject property as required by the Fire Marshal. 11. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans on file with the Office of the Executive Director of Public Works. 161 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 16, 1982, 1:30 P.M. 12. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit No. 1, provided, however, that revised plans shall be submitted to and approved by the City Traffic Engineer and Planning Department as complying with the conditions hereof and stipulations of the owner. 13. That Condition Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11 and 12 above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to the commencement of the activity authorized under this resolution, or prior to the time that the building permit is issued, whichever occurs first, or such further time as the Planning Commission may grant. 14. That Condition Nos. 7, 8, and 9, above-mentioned, shall be completed within a period of sixty (60) days of approval by the Planning Commission or no later than January 30, 1982. 15. That no trucks, containers, or other vehicles that haul or contain trash shall be permitted to be parked outside the perimeter of the yard. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 82R-88: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2276. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MBMBERS: COUNCIL MBMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overhol:, Ro:h and Seymou: Kaywood and Bay None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 82R-88 duly passed and adopted. REHEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2278 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application by Shiow-Ing Lin and Pang-Ling Liao, to permit commercial use of a residential structure on CL zoned property located at 3347 West Ball Road, with a Code waiver of minimum number of parking places. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. P¢81-244, declared the subject project to 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, and further, gran:ed Conditional Use Permit No. 2278, subject to certain conditions (see minutes December 29, 1981). A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Council- woman Kaywood at the meeting of December 8, 1981, and public hearing scheduled December 29, 1981. At that meeting, the Council approved a negative declaration, but denied Conditional Use Permit No. 2278, reversing the findings of the City Planning Commission. Subsequently, a request for rehearing was submitted by the applicant which was granted and the re- hearing scheduled this date. 162 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 16, 1982, 1:30 P.M. City Clerk Linda Roberts announced that a letter dated February 10, 1982, had been received from the owner of the property at 3333 West Ball Road in support of granting Conditional Use Permit No. 2278. Councilman Bay noted that in reading the information submitted, it spoke about one doctor. It was his understanding it was a two-doctor office. He wanted to know how it was possible to control a Conditional Use Permit on a piece of property as to whether or not it was going to be occupied by one doctor or two. Miss Annika Santalahti, Assistant Planning Director for Zoning, stated that they could impose a condition requiring that there never be more than one doctor on the premises at one time or that only one doctor be licensed on the premises to operate the business. Ms. Shiow-Ing Lin, 426 West Ball Road, applicant, clarified that two doctors would be alternating, the only change being that Dr. Hurria had now secured a permit from the Anaheim General Hospital anthorizing him to park in the hospital parking lot and also, that parking would be available for his overflow patients. Previously, when the Conditional Use Permit was denied, it was mainly due to the concern that it was going to create a parking problem. Now, according to a letter dated February 4, 1982, from Gary Fybel, Administrator of Anaheim General Hospital, the parking problem could be solved. There being no further persons wishing to speak, either in favor or in opposition, the Mayor closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Kaywood noted that the intent was that the two doctors would be working one at a time, but there could be a serious parking problem if both were to work together, considering the number of examination rooms, X-ray rooms, waiting rooms, etc. It would be difficult to check to see if only one doctor was working at a time. Further, if the Conditional Use Permit went with the land and the Shiow-Ing Lin's left, it would then be open to any two doctors at any time. Also, she did not believe that any patient was going to cross Ball Road at that point to use the Anaheim General Hospital parking lot if parking was not available at the subject property. She also recalled that there were neighbors who were concerned because the only place to park would be on the residential streets and those streets would be used instead of the hospital parking lot; later in the meeting, Traffic Engineer Paul Singer clarified that the number of lanes involved to cross Ball Road consisted of four through lanes, and a turn lane in the center. Parking was permitted on both sides, except at the intersections. Mayor Seymour suggested that the Conditional Use Permit be approved for three years and at the end of that time, the property owner would have to return to the Council for a further extension Councilwoman Kaywood maintained that three years would be too long for the neighborhood to have to live with the problem should one arise. Councilman Roth stated he could support the idea of a two-year review and further, in the event a problem arose during that time, they could request an Order to Show Cause Hearing. 163 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 16, 1982, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 82R-89 for adoption, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 2278, subject to the following Planning Commission conditions, for a two-year period, to be reviewed at that time, and with the further stipulation that only one doctor at a time utilize the premises. 1. That the existing structure shall be brought up to the minimum standards of the City of Anaheim, including the Uniform Building, Plumbing, Electrical, Mechanical and Fire Codes as adopted by the City of Anaheim. 2. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay the traffic signal assessment fee (Ordinance No. 3896) in an amount as determined by the City Council, for commercial buildings prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans on file with the Office of the Executive Director of Public Works. 4. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2. 5. That Condition Nos. 1, 3 and 4, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 82R-89: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2278. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Bay, Roth and Seymour Kaywood None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 82R-89 duly passed and adopted. PUBLIC NEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2295 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application submitted by gon{arrel, Inc., to permit a televigion trangmiggi0n station with a 250-foot high broadcasting tower on ML zoned property located on the north side of Miraloma Avenue, east of Red Gum Street. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC82-10, 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, and further, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2295, subject to the following conditions: 164 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 16, 1982, 1:30 P.M. 1. That all engineering requirements of the City of Anaheim along Miraloma Avenue including preparation of improvement plans and installation of all improvements such as curbs and gutters, sidewalks, street grading and paving, drainage facilities or other appurtenant work, shall be complied with as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with specifications on file in the Office of the City Engineer; that street lighting facilities along Miraloma Avenue shall be installed as required by the Office of Utilities General Manager, and in accordance with specifications on file in the Office of Utilities General Manager; and/or that a bond, certificate of deposit, letter of credit, or cash, in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim shall be posted with the City to guarantee the installation of the above-mentioned requirements prior to occupancy. 2. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans on file with the Office of the Executive Director of Public Works. 3. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to commencement of structural framing. 4. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities. 5. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer. 6. In the event that subject property is to be divided for the purpose of sale, lease, or financing, a parcel map, to record the approved division of subject property shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim and then be recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder, prior to issuance of a building permit. 7. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay appropriate drainage assessment fees to the City of Anaheim as determined by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit. 8. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay the traffic signal assessment fee (Ordinance No. 3896) in an amount as determined by the City Council, for industrial buildings prior to the issuance of a building permit. 9. That appropriate water assessment fees as determined by the Office of Utilities General Manager shall be paid to the City of Anaheim prior to the issuance of a building permit. 10. That the design and location of vehicular access from Miraloma Avenue shall be approved by the City of Anaheim Traffic Engineer. 11. That the owner(s) of subject property shall submit a letter requesting the termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 1171 to the Planning Department. 165 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 16, 1982, 1:30 P.M. 12. That the owner(s) of subject property shall submit written evidence to the Planning Department that the Federal Aviation Administration has approved the 250-foot high broadcasting tower. 13. That the existing catch basin at the driveway shown on the submitted exhibits on the west side of the parcel shall be relocated to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 14. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2. 15. That Condition Nos. 1, 10, 11 and 12, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to the commencement of the activity authorized under this resolution, or prior to the time that the building permit is issued, or within a period of one year from date hereof, whichever occurs first, or such further time as the Planning Commission may grant. 16. That Condition Nos. 2, 4, 5, 13 and 14, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections. The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Storer Cable TV in order to complete the transaction within the period of time outlined in the escrow agreement on the subject property, and public hearing schedule this date. The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present. Mr. Ron Bauman, Storer Cable TV, 914 East Katella Avenue, explained that the subject project was a microwave facility with a 250-foot tower which was the height they needed to reduce their amplifier cascade, and also to open up their two-way communications in the City. After posing technical questions to Mr. Bauman for purposes of clarification, Councilman Bay stated he was only concerned about how much transmission was going to be done from that location and the potential of microwave interference with the surrounding industry in that area. He assumed that situation had been researched and they saw no interference problems. Mr. Bauman stated that was correct, and, as well, they had to make a formal filing with the Federal Communications Commission and they also had applications in with the Federal Aeronautics Administration relative to the tower. There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public hearing. 166 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 16, 1982, 1:30 P.M. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council finds that this project would have 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 impact, and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 82R-90 for adoption, granting Conditional Use Permit No'. 2295, in accordance with City Planning Commission conditions and contingent upon FAA approval. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 82R-90: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2295. 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-90 duly passed and adopted. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2288 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 251: Submitted by the City of Anaheim, to permit an il-story, 160-foot high, 1600 room convention hotel and accessory uses with on-sale alcoholic beverages, on PR zoned property located on the south side of Katella Avenue, west of Harbor Boulevard, with a Code waiver of minimum number and design of parking spaces. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC82-16, having considered Environmental Impact Report No. 251, finds that it is in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and with City and State EIR Guidelines, and has reviewed and considered the information contained therein prior to approval of the project and, further, ad0ptad a §tatament o£ 0verriHing Considerations as outlined in the resolution, and further, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2288, subject to the following conditions: 1. That a qualified archeologist and/or paleontologist shall be retained on-site, as needed, to monitor grading operations on subject property. 2. That the traffic signal assessment fee for commercial buildings shall be paid in an amount determined by the City Council (Ordinance No. 3896). 167 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 16, 1982, 1:30 P.M. 3. That a bond, certificate of deposit, letter of credit or cash in the amount of forty-thousand dollars ($40,000) shall be posted with the City of Anaheim to guarantee improvements at the intersection of Katella Avenue and Harbor Boulevard. Said improvements shall include turn lane storage facilities, signing, channelization and removal of on-street parking on Katella Avenue. 4. That the number, type, and location of replacement parking spaces for the Anaheim Convention Center shall be subject to the review and approval of the Anaheim City Council. 5. That a Development Phasing Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Convention Center Authority. Said plan shall set forth an acceptable schedule interfacing construction activities with Convention Center activities. 6. That a Parking Security and Control Program for operation of the proposed parking structures (proposed hotel and Convention Center replacement parking) shall be submitted to the City Police Department for review and approval. 7. That an Emergency Access Plan shall be submitted to the Fire Chief for review and approval. 8. That a detailed Traffic and Parking Operations Plan shall be submitted to the City Traffic Engineer for review and approval. Said plan shall address location of construction fencing, haul routes, parking access, traffic restrictions, temporary median access and lane closures, modi- fication of bus routes, emergency access, location of flagmen and construc- tion signing and marking. 9. That a construction truck routing plan for the construction phase of the hotel, hotel parking and Convention Center replacement parking shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. 10. That a comprehensive Signing Plan for vehicular and pedestrian circulation shall be submitted to the City Traffic Engineer for review and approval. 11. That the design and location of all taxi and bus loading and unloading areas shall be subject to review and approval by the City Traffic Engineer. 12. That an on-site secondary water system shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Utilities Department. 13. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans on file with the Office of the Executive Director of Public Works. 168 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 16, 1982, 1:30 P.M. 14. That the developer shall confer with the City to construct the necessary sewer line improvements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 15. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibits No. 1 through 21 provided, however, that all parking spaces designated as "standard" shall have minimum dimensions of 8 1/2' x 19'. 16. The proposed hotel shall comply with all signing requirements of the CR (Commercial, Recreation) Zone. No sign or other advertising devices shall be placed so as to exceed the height permitted by the Height Standard Guideline for such zone (156 feet at subject location). 17. That appropriate water assessment fees as determined by the Office of Utilities General Manager shall be paid by the developer to the City of Anaheim prior to the issuance of a building permit. 18. That prior to the issuance of building permits the developer of subject property shall submit a letter requesting termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 2130. 19. That Conditions No. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 12, above- mentioned, shall be complied with prior to the commencement of the activity authorized under this resolution, or prior to the time that the building permit is issued, or within a period of one year from date hereof, whichever occurs first, or such further time as the Planning Commission may grant. 20. That Condition No. 10, 13, 14, 15, and 16, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections. 21. That the developer shall provide and maintain a television antenna or cable system, without charge to the residents, to assure satisfactory television reception to any residences which are unable to receive a satisfactory level of television signals as a result of interference caused by the project structures. Miss Annika Santalahti, A~sistant Planning Diractor £or Zoning, described the location and surrounding land uses. She outlined the findings given in the Staff Report which was submitted to and considered by the City Planning Commission. She then gave a listing of the documents that had been received and made a part of the record: 1. "Draft EIR No. 251 - Anaheim Hilton Hotel Project" - CD III/Hilton Hotels Joint Venture prepared for the City of Anaheim by Ultrasystems, Inc., Irvine, California. 169 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 16, 1982~ 1:30 P.M. 2. "Response to Written Comments Received on Draft EIR for Anaheim Hilton." 3. "Response to Comments Received During the Public Hearing of January 25, 1982, on the Proposed Anaheim Hilton Hotel" - prepared by the City of Anaheim and Ultrasystems, Inc. 4. "Amendment to Response to Comments Addressing January 25, 1982, Public Hearing." 5. Ultrasystems letter February 11, 1982, to Pam Lucado. 6. Map for Conditional Use Permit No. 2288. 7. "Anaheim Hilton Hotel Justification for Waiver of Parking Requirements" dated January 1982, prepared by PRC Voorhees. 8. Letter from Law Offices of Marlene Fox dated February 5, 1982, to the Planning Commission. 9. Letter from PBR dated February 2, 1982, to the Planning Commission. 10. Letter from Disneyland dated December 23, 1981, to Pam Lucado. 11. Two Letters from C-D Investment Company, both dated January 22, 1982, to W. O. Talley. 12. Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 8, 1982. 13. Minutes of Planning Commission January 25, 1982, hearing. 14. Draft Minutes of Planning Commission February 8, 1982, hearing. 15. Resolution No. PC82-t6 16. Two draft resolutions: (1) Granting Conditional Use Permit No. 2288 with a waiver of minimum off-street parking requirements in conjunction therewith; (2) Certifying final Environmental Impact Report No. 251; making certain findings in connection therewith; and adopting a statement of overriding consideration. 17. Market report "Anaheim Hilton Hotel and Expanded Anaheim Market Potential" prepared by Hilton Hotel Corporation. 18. Revised Cost/Revenue Section for EIR No. 251. 19. Memorandum from Mr. Talley, City Manager, to the City Council, dated February 16, 1982, and titled "Financial Impact of the Anaheim Hilton." 170 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 16, 1982, 1:30 P.M. City Manager William Talley then gave a chronological history of the events which had taken place relative to the City's efforts to obtain a major Convention Center hotel starting in July of 1978, to the present, which included an overview of the subject proposal. ' The b~yor then asked to hear from the applicant. Mr. Bruce Gelb, Legal Counsel, C-D Investment, who in cooperation with Hilton Hotels Corporation, was proposing the development of the subject 1600-room Convention Center hotel, stated their proposed project was being submitted to the Council for review in furtherance of their lease and development agreement executed by the proposed developer and lessee, C-D III, in accordance with the Exclusive Right to Negotiate, approved by the Council on October 6, 1981 (see minutes that date). Mr. Gelb first introduced the members of their development team who were in attendance: Mr. Naftalie Deutsch, General Partner, C-D Investments; Mr. Jim Philon, Senior Vice President of Real Estate and Development, Hilton Hotels; Mr. Cliff Larson, Director of Corporate Marketing. Consultants: Mr. Don DeMars, Vice President, Ultrasystems, and director of their Environmental Studies Division; Mr. Larry Greer, Greer and Company, Parking and Traffic Analysis; Mr. Dick Kaku, Vice President of PRC Voorhees (Justification for Waiver of Parking Requirements); Mr. Rick Peterson, Economic Research Associates (ERA) Consultants who supplemented the EIR with an economic discussion of the impact of the hotel; Mr. Doug Holm, C-D Investments, MAI Appraiser. Mr. Gelb explained that the thrust of their presentation regarding request for the Council to certify EIR 251 and grant the application for a Conditional Use Permit had already been submitted to the Council in the form of documentary evidence which the City Planning Staff had introduced into the record through Ms. Santalahti. Since the reports submitted were quite extensive, they required a comprehensive review by the Council. Instead, they asked the consultants present to be prepared to respond to any questions the Council might have on any issues raised throughout the hearing which needed some clarification. Mr. Gelb then introduced Mr. Philon. Mr. James Philon, Senior Vice President of Real Estate and Development, Hilton Hotels Corporation, Wilshire Boulevard, Beverly Hills, then made a presentation on the hotel itself. He then presented a series of ten charts which he displayed on the Chamber wall and briefed the Council on each, which con- sisted of the site plan ("footprint" of the hotel), Anaheim Convention Center parking (top deck plan - replacement parking), lobby level plan, basement plan, second level plan, mezzanine level plan, typical third and fourth level plans (recreation decks and guest rooms), typical fifth through twelfth level plans, exterior elevations and sections (which included the description of the facility). He then presented a rendering of the finished facility 171 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 16~ 1982, 1:30 P.M. which architecturally and design-wise they felt increased the quality of the environment. In concluding, he stated that the cooperation of the City and Planning Staff had made it possible for Hilton, along with their associates, C-D III, to design a hotel which they were confident would not only expand the convention market in Anaheim, but also would give them the opportunity to expand Anaheim's identity around the world. Mr. Cliff Larson, Director of Market Development, Hilton Hotels, then addressed the marketing concepts they contemplated for the new facility. Mr. Gelb then spoke to the issue of parking wherein their design called for 3,266 spaces, representing approximately ninety-four percent of Code requirements (see report prepared and submitted by PRC Voorhees, "Anaheim Hilton Hotel Justification for Waiver of Parking Requirements," January 1982, and also the Lindscott, Law and Greenspan Parking Study). He added that as a mitigating measure, two letters were introduced by City staff that were written by the developers stating in the event there were parking deficiencies, additional parking would be provided. Also, at no cost to the City, they would engineer the proper footings and columns to handle additional floors being added to the replacement parking structure. There were other areas of concern which they believed had all been adequately answered in the written reports and response to comments. Councilman Bay left the Council Chamber. (5:35 p.m.) In concluding his presentation, Mr. Gelb asked that the Council approve the resolution granting Conditional Use Permit No. 2288 and that EIR No. 251 and Statement of Overriding Considerations be certified. He questioned, however, Condition No. 21, Page nine of the Draft Resolution, requiring the developer to maintain a TV antenna and cable system, without charge, to the residents to assure satisfactory TV reception to any residents unable to receive a satisfactory level of signal. They had spoken to some of the residents who had complained and they (Hilton) were willing to have as a condition, that they provide television reception, whether it be cable or some other kind of antenna. He had spoken to Mr. Philon who had stated he would try to get some of the in-house movies to the surrounding neighbors. Condition No. 21 was somewhat open ended, and if they could tighten it to a certain radius, perhaps within one-quarter of a mile or so, or contiguous to the project, they would feel more comfortable with it. Mr. Gelb confirmed for the Mayor that this concluded the Hilton-C-D Investment presentation. Mayor Seymour then asked to hear from Mr. Stevens of the Wrather Corporation, opponents of the project as proposed. 172 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 16, 1982, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Richard S. Stevens, Vice President, Wrather Corporation, first stated that they considered the proposed project to be a detrimental one to Anaheim as a City and a disaster to Wrather's investment in the Inn At The Park. He thereupon requested that the hearing be continued, or referred back to the Planning Commission prior to taking their testimony. In support of that, as recent as Friday night, they received additional agenda material from the City via a messenger, which they were able to work on over the weekend, but not to the extent the situation warranted. Even today, there was a memorandum from the City Manager to the Council containing numbers and facts that on the surface were inaccurate, typifying, in his opinion, the entire process they had been subjected to. Further, they did not feel that complete public testimony was allowed and given at the Planning Commission level. Not only were there inadequate responses to traffic and economic questions, but also there were many errors and omissions. Further, the Planning Commission failed to carry out their proper role in analyzing the EIR. Wrather also received a report that the Planning Commission Chairman quoted that the Commission was a land-use body and not an economic body and he concluded that they need not deal with the numbers, and yet, the EIR stated the primary reason for ignoring the no-project option was economic. Should the Council not be willing to continue the matter or refer it back, they were prepared to proceed with their testimony. Mayor Seymour stated they appreciated Mr. Stevens' request, but wanted to assure him and the applicant, and any other member of the public, a full, complete and total public hearing. He was going to first ask for a recess and then have Mr. Stevens proceed with his presentation, as complete as he wished to make it. If the Council subsequently wanted to refer the matter back to the Planning Commission, continue the matter, or make a decision, they could take action more appropriately at that time. RECESS: By general consent of the Council Members present, the Council recessed for ten minutes. (5:50 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present, with the exception of Councilman Bay. (6:30 p.m.) Mr. Stevens stated they were not against Hilton Hotels having a hotel in Anaheim, or against more hotel rooms in Anaheim. They objected to a hotel on Parcel A and B from the outset and Wrather had not changed its position since the beginning. Working from a miniature model encompassing the subject area, Mr. Stevens imposed a model of the proposed Hilton Hotel in place to emphasize its visual impact, the present project being entirely different from the original proposal (also see Mr. Stevens extensive testimony given at the Planning Commission meeting of January 25, 1982, pages 82-34 through 173 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 16, 1982, 1:30 P.M. 82-37). In concluding, Mr. Stevens stated their basic summary objections were as follows: The speed and haste to which the project had been subjected; the proposal was a planning disaster; they disputed the economic facts presented, and the transient occupancy tax issue was an erroneous one. Ms. MarteneA. Fox, Attorney representing the Wrather Corpoz'ation, Law Offices of Marlene A. Fox, 567 San Nicholas Drive, Newport Beach, submitted extensive documentation in a black binder entitled - "Appeal to the Anaheim City Council of EIR 251, Parking Variance and CUP No. 2288 - Written Presentation Submitted on Behalf of Wrather Corporation - Hearing Date: Tuesday, February 16, 1982" (made a part of the record). The first document, a sixteen page letter dated February 15, 1982, - Letter of Objection to Planning Commission Approval of Draft EIR, Waiver of Code Provisions and CUP - addressed to the Mayor and members of the City Council, summarized the thrust of their concern and objections. Following the letter was an Index of Attached Exhibits~ listing the ten items contained therein. She stated she would have liked to have submitted those documents to the Council prior to this date since none of them had an opportunity to read the book. Since they were back to the City only eight days after the Planning Commission granted the waiver of parking with only four business days afforded them, it made it impossible to put together the information just submitted any earlier. She first pointed out that when the list of materials the Council had received was read into the record by Ms. Santalahti, it did not include letters from her office, one a nine-page letter dated November 6, 1981, in response to the notice that the EIR was being prepared, and a thirty-page letter dated January 7, 1982, giving their comments and analysis (both were previously made a part of the record - letter dated January 7, 1982, included Attachments A and B). Ms. Fox then elaborated upon the objections of her client to Draft EIR 251 and the proposed Anaheim Hilton Hotel, which information was contained in the previous testimony given by Ms. Fox at the Planning Commission hearing of January 25, 1982, pages 82-26 through 82-34, and further, presented in the foregoing documents. During her presentation, Ms. Fox also posed several questions to staff to which she requested answers, such as the amount of square footage approved or in the planning process for the Anaheim Stadium area and the uses involved, clari- fication as to whether the subject site was within a C-R or P-R Zone, question relat~.ve to the applicant's statement that they had agreed to install footings and columns to allow for expansion of the garage, the dis- position of Convention Way and if it was going to dead end, what would happen to the traffic, as well as other questions raised regarding issues outlined in a number of their letters. 174 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 16, 1982, 1:30 P.M. In concluding her presentation, Ms. Fox stated that the matter should be continued so that everybody might have a full opportunity for participation, Council, staff, affected property owners, neighboring property owners, Wrather being a neighboring affected property owner. She then introduced Mr. Bera to speak to the economics of the situation since that had been cited as the primary reason for the overriding social concerns and justifications for acceptance of the adverse environmental impacts. Mr. Randall Bera, Principal in the firm of Hospitality Partners, Inc., 4000 MacArthur. Boulevard, Newport Beach, first gave his extensive background and credentials dealing with hotel development, the travel industry market, and financial analysis. He then read a prepared statement which he subse- quently submitted (see sheets 1 through lO--February 16, 1982--Randall A. Bera, Proposed Anaheim Hilton--made a part of the record). Since Mr. Bera's testimony concluded the Wrather Corporation presentation, the Mayor asked next to again hear from the applicant. Mr. Bruce Gelb then responded in rebuttal to many of the points raised by the Wrather Corporation and to several aspects of their presentation with which they did not agree. In concluding, he maintained that there was an attempt on the part of the opposition to play with facts. They (Hilton) were only asking that the Council consider the merits of their proposal and to consider the facts as they were, not in sympathy for Wrather or Hilton or anyone else. He reiterated that they were asking that the Council consider the matter strictly on its merits and not on emotion or past performance by any individual. The b~yor then asked if any other member of the public wished to be heard. Mr. Bill Bealer, Director, Maintenance and Construction at Disneyland, stated he was not present to object to the development, but Disneyland's only concern was relative to visual intrusion inside the park. He asked the developer if there were any northerly facing signs on the elevator and mechanical equipment room that rose twenty-five feet above the one-hundred-thirty-five- foot level of the hotel itself. Mr. Philon answered, if there were and they represented a visual intrusion, the signs would be relocated. They had no intention o violating any of the Codes or the intent of the Code as far as Disneyland was concerned. Mr. Bealer then stated if there were no signs that would intrude, i.e., any- thing that could be read from Main Street in the park, they had no objection to the proposal. No other member of the public wished to speak. 175 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 16, 1982, 1:30 P.M. Mayor Seymour then stated he felt it would be appropriate for the Council to digest the new information presented today, both verbal and written, and particularly the information contained in the black binder submitted by Ms. Fox. They should take a period of time to review that material as well as to ask staff to review the testimony given today to determine if there were new questions that needed to be answered that may not have been answered at the Planning Commission hearing. MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to continue the public hearing to March 2, 1982, at 3:00 p.m. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, the Mayor clarified that the intent of the motion, if passed, was not to close the public hearing, but that it remain open zm allow new and different information to be presented, not necessarily to repeat all the testimony given today. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Bay was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 108: PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT APPLICATION: Councilman Roth moved to ratify the Public Dance Permit submitted by Elaine A. Arana, E1 Torito's Who-Song & Larry's Cantina, 2020 East Ball Road, held February 13, 1982, from 9:00 p.m. to 1:30 a.m. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Councilman Bay was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 156: STAFF RESPONSE RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A "PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION": Continued from the meeting of February 9, 1982 - also see minutes of the meeting of January 5, 1982, and January 12, 1982. Councilman Seymour moved to continue discussion of the subject for one week which was agreeable by both Mr. Dexter and staff. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Councilman Bay was absent. MOTION CARRIED. Deputy City Clerk Lee Sohl announced that Mr. Dexter had submitted a written report earlier in the meeting which he wanted entered on the record this date - see letter entitled Council Agenda Item Number 2a, Unfinished Business, Anaheim City Council, February 16, 1982, from Mr. Lewis Dexter, Director-Treasurer, Public Safety Coalition (PSC) PAC No. 811571 - on file in the City Clerk's office. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, 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: 1. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and referred to the City's Risk Manager or Bayly, Martin and Fay/San Antonio: 176 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 16~ 1982~ 1:30 P.M. Claims denied and referred to Risk Management: a. Claim submitted by Steven K. and Vicky D. Zinser for property damages purportedly sustained due to tree roots from the City parkway invading claimants' sewer and creating plumbing problems on or about June of 1978 to present. b. Claim submitted by Rochelle Lance for damages purportedly sustained due to incomplete plumbing job on claimant's house, on or about June 1 - July 17, 1981. Claimant does not feel she should repay 1/3 of the loan she received from the City unless or until her plumbing is repaired, and the house is brought up to completion of the original contract with the City. c. Claim submitted by Mrs. Mary Saeman for property damages purportedly sustained due to broken electrical wire, at 1780 West Castle Avenue, on or about October 1981. d. Claim submitted by Five States Plumbing for reimbursement of funds spent to pump water out of a storm drain due to Anaheim Water Department cutting in Gate Valves on Lincoln Avenue, State College to East Street, on or about October 20, 1981. e. Claim submitted by Sherwood Village-Anaheim Homeowners Association, care of Jerry Morrison, Management Service Company, for damages purportedly sustained due to actions of City crew, at 2050 June Place, on or about December 29, 1981. f. Claim submitted by Nell M. Woodward for personal injuries purportedly sustained due to an accident at the Anaheim Stadium during a Rams Game, at approximately 4:14 p.m., on or about November 23, 1981. g. Claim submitted by B-1 Enterprise Corporation for monies owed on construction work for which claimant was low bidder. Completion of work was accepted by the City on October 13, 1981. Claim denied and referred to Bayly, Martin and Fay/San Antonio: h. Claim submitted by Rose Marie Arellando for damages purportedly sustained due to actions of Anaheim police officer, across the street from Twila Reed Park, at 12:30 a.m., on or about January 5, 1982. 2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: a. 107: Public Works Department, Building Division--Monthly Report for January 1982. b. 105: Project Area Committee--Minutes of January 26~ 1982. c. 156: Police Department--1982 Part I Crime Analysis Report. d. 156: Police Department--Monthly Report for December 1981. 177 Cit7 Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 16, 1982, 1:30 P.M. 3. 108: APPLICATION: In accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Police, the following application was approved: a. Dinner Dancing Place Permit: Joseph William Bilotta, Mugsy Malone's, 1731 South Harbor Boulevard, for dancing from 7:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m., seven nights a week. 4. 170: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11740: Submitted by Sunset Homes of California, Inc., to construct a 3-lot, 64-unit condominium subdivision on proposed RM-3000 zoned property located at the northeast corner of La Palma and Romneya Avenue. (Submitted in conjunction with Reclassification No. 81-82-12 and Variance No. 3252 which will appear on the March 2, 1982, agenda under Planning Commission Consent Calendar.) The City Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract No. 11740; Environmental Impact Report No. 113 was previously approved. Councilman Bay was absent. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilman Roth offered Resolution Nos. 82R-91 through 82R-97, 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-91: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A CERTAIN DEED AND ORDERING ITS RECORDATION. (Manoranjan Dutt, et ux.) 158: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-92: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING AN EASEMENT DEED CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FOR AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES. (R/W #2800-11, Anaheim Boulevard Widening) 158: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-93: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING AN EASEMENT DEED CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FOR AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES. (R/W #2800-56, Anaheim Boulevard Widening) 158: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-94: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING AN EASEMENT DEED CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FOR AN EASEiiENT FOR ROAD A~ PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES. (R/W #2800-64, Anaheim BOulevard Widening) 178 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 16, 1982, 1:30 P.M. 167: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-95: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: ANAHEIM STADIUM TRAFFIC CONTROL IMPROVEMENTS, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 24-795-6325-E5260 & 49-795-6325-E5260, APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened on March 18, 1982, at 2:00 p.m.) 175: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-96: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE TIlE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: FAIRMONT SUBSTATION, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 55-665-6329- 75800-36200, APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS AND SPECI- FICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened on March 18, 1982, at 2:00 p.m.) 176: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-97: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS, HIGHWAYS AND SERVICE EASEMENTS. (81-18A, utility easements, west side of Rio Vista and south side of Lincoln Avenue, public hearing to be held March 9, 1982, at 3:00 p.m.) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bay The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 82R-91 through 82R-97, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. CITY PI~Ai~NING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning Commission at their meeting held January 25, 1982, pertaining to the following applications, as listed on the Consent Calendar, were submitted for City Council information. 1. VARIANCE NO. 3248: Submitted by Loara Street Partnership, to permit medical office uses in an existing office building on CG zoned property located at 351 North Wilshire Avenue, with a Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Variance No. 3248 was withdrawn by the petitioner. 179 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES ¥ February 16, 1982, 1:30 P.M. 2. VARIANCE NO. 3253: Submitted by Philip A. and Thelma Scuka, to retain an existing room addition and fence on RS-7200 zoned property located at 2110 West Sunset Avenue, with the following Code waivers: a) minimum side yard setback; b) minimum rear yard setback; c) maximum fence height. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC82-7, granted, in part, Variance No. 3253, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination. 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2289: Submitted by Robert L. and Ethel Wetzler, to permit on-sale beer and wine in an existing restaurant on CL zoned property located at 2952 West Ball Road, with a Code waiver of maximum size of wall signs. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC82-6, granted, in part, Conditional Use Permit No. 2289, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination. 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2294: Submitted by Robert K. and Mary L. Wong, to permit on-sale beer and wine in a proposed restaurant on CL zoned property located at 2632-34 West La Palma Avenue. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC82-8, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2294, and granted a negative declaration status. 5. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 80-81-34 AND VARIANCE NO. 3215 - APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLANS: Submitted by Jere Kepenek and Sevim Maxson, requesting approval of specific plans to construct a single-family dwelling on proposed RS-7200 zoned property located at 1572 West Orangewood Avenue. The City Planning Commission approved Reclassification No. 80-81-34 and Variance No. 3215. No action was taken by the City Council on the foregoing items; therefore, the actions of the City Planning Commission became final. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2291: Submitted by Raymond T. Troll, to permit general offices and retail sales on ML zoned property located at 1400-1450 North Lakeview Avenue, with a Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC82-9, denied Conditional Use Permit No. 2291, and granted a negative declaration status. The Planning Commission's action was appealed by the applicant, and, therefore, public hearing will be scheduled at a later date. 180 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 16, 1982, 1:30 P.M. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1564 - APPROVAL OF REVISED PLANS: Submitted by Family Fun Centers, Inc., requesting approval of revised plans for Conditional Use Permit No. 1564, to establish an outdoor recreation center to include a roller slide on ML zoned property located at the southwest corner of Carpenter Avenue and Shepard Street. The City Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 1564. Councilwoman Kaywood requested a review of the Planning Commission's decision on the subject approval of revised plans for Conditional Use Permit No. 1564. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2276 - REPORT FROM PLANNING COMMISSION: (Item submitted for information purposes.) Mr. Louis Benner, requesting a rehearing to consider approval of revised plans for Conditional Use Permit No. 2276 to permit a contractor's storage yard on ML zoned property located at 2860 and 2870 East Miraloma Avenue. A denial of a Waiver of Code requirements was recommended by the Planning Commission, reaffirming their decision made at the Planning Commission meeting of November 30, 1981. (See Continued Public Hearing, Conditional Use Permit No. 2276, heard and acted upon earlier in the meeting.) FINAL MAP - TRACT NO. 11583: Developer, Warren Development; tract is located on the east side of Webster Avenue, south of Orange Avenue, and contains an eight-lot, proposed RM-1200 zoned subdivision. On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the proposed subdivision, together with its design and improvement, was found to be consistent with the City's General Plan and the City Council approved Final Map, Tract No. 11583, as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated February 9, 1982. Councilwoman Kaywood voted "no." Councilman Bay was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 179/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4308: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4308 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4308: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTIONS 18.86.010 AND 18.86.020 OF CHAPTER 18.86, TITLE 18, OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (Types of property included in PR zone.) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour None Bay The Mayor declared OrdinanceNo. 4308 duly passed and adopted. 181 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 16, 1982, 1:30 P.M. ADJOURNMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to adjourn. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Councilman Bay was absent. MOTION CARRIED. (8:27 p.m.) LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK LEONORA N. SOHL, DEPUTY CITY CLERK 182