Loading...
1982/02/23City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 23, 1982, 1:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PP~SENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overhoit, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: William T. Hopkins CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins DEPUTY CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Norman J. Priest HOUSING MANAGER: Lisa Stipkovich ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika M. Santalahti FIRE MARSHAL: Garthe Menges TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, POWER RESOURCES: Dale L. Pohlman Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: The Reverend Tom Favreau, Melodyland Hotiine Center, gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Don R. Roth led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 178: PRESENTATION - STATE WATER ACT AND PERIPHERAL CANAL: Mr. Gordon Elser, Information Officer, Orange County Water District, gave a verbal presentation supplemented by slides explaining the State Water Act, the first part describing the proposed peripheral canal and its ultimate benefits. Mr. Elser emphasized that the 1980 State Water Act, Water for California's Future, on the June 8, 1982, ballot, as Proposition 9, involves more than the peripheral canal which was only twenty percent of the total value of the package. He emphasized that the need for more water resources for all of Southern California was apparent. The Mayor, on behalf of the Council, thanked Mr. Elser for his informative presentation. Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 82R-98 for adoption, urging a yes vote on Proposition No. 9. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 82R-98: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM URGING THE CITIZENS OF ANAHEIM TO VOTE "YES" ON THE PERIPHERAL CANAL PROPOSITION 9. 183 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 23, 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. 82R-98 duly passed and adopted. 119: RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION: A Resolution of Commendation was unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to Supervisor Ralph Clark, commending him for his continued support of the issues that concern Anaheim, and for his dedication to the County of Orange. 119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Seymour and authorized by the City Council. "Red Cross Month in Anaheim" - Month of March 1982 The Proclamation was accepted by Yvonne Alderdice, who also presented a Red Cross Flag to the Mayor to display at the Civic Center for the month of March. She also presented a limited-edition print of the Red Cross House on West Street to hang in an appropriate place in City Hall; The Mayor thanked Ms. Alderdice on behalf of the Council. MINUTES: Councilman Overholt moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held September 22, 1981. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated she had a problem with one sentence that she could not get a second to correct, and thus, would have to abstain. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. AYES: NOES: ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Roth and Seymour None Kaywood and Bay MOTION CARRIED. 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 Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 184 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 23, 1982, 1:30 P.M. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $2,677,759.49, in accordance with the 1981-82 Budget, were approved. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL MOTION CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Bay, the following items were approved as recommended. a. i23: Authorizing an amendment to the Parking Lease Agreement with Dan Heil and William Stookey to establish February 23, 1982, as the commencement of the term. (Parcel 15) b. 160: Bid No. 3841--One Electrical Line Truck. Award to Western Mobile Equipment, $122,430. c. 170: Waiving the requirement for an additional.filing fee of $275 for a new tentative parcel map, replacing 80-279, for a 2.007 acre parcel of land located on the east side of Anaheim Boulevard, south of Katella Avenue. d. 158: Authorizing payment of $19,224 to Craig Adams, et al, for modifications to their building located at 406 South Anaheim Boulevard, pertaining to the widening of Anaheim Boulevard, from Broadway to Ball Road. Account No. 13-792-7101-E2580. (R/W 2800-31) MOTION CARRIED. 177: ACCEPTANCE OF STREET LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS AND PARKLAND DEDICATION IN LIEU OF FEES FOR PATT STREET PILOT PROJECT: Assistant City Manager William T. Hopkins briefed the Council on staff report dated February 22, 1982, from the Executive Director of Community Development, Norman Priest (on file in the City Clerk's office), which was a revision to report of February 16, 1982. MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to accept the street lighting improvements and land dedication in lieu of street lighting and park fees for the Patt Street Pilot Housing Project (Parks and Recreation fees in the amount of $1,747.20 and street lighting fees of $1,282) as recommended in memorandum dated February 22, 1982, from the Executive Director of Community Development. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 123: AMENDMENT AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT FOR 649 BEACH BOULEVARD - SUNDAY & COMPANY: Executive Director of Community Development, Norman Priest, briefed the Council on his detailed memorandum dated February 17, 1982, relative to the subject request, which involved a sixty-unit development (on file in the City Clerk's office). Councilwoman Kaywood noted this was a similar situation to the one hundred percent affordable project with a 144 percent density bonus which was already built. The subject project was not under construction yet and the exemption for the affordable controls meant that instead of the 53 percent and 28 units, only 18 units would be affordable. She did not know whether the Council would have approved the project with such a change, but she could not vote approval at this time. 185 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 23~ 1982~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Priest explained that this was the same situation as they faced before (see minutes January 26, 1982 - Padilla Development, and Moh-Tal, Inc.) where neither the developer nor his (Priest's) Department contemplated such a change by the federal government. The alternative for the project, if the amendment were not approved, would be not to go forward at all, resulting in foreclosure. Mr. Jim Barisic, Barisic Company, partner with Mr. Tom Matlock, Sunday & Company, 18002 Sky Park Circle, Irvine, explained the dilemma with which they were faced, some of the difficulties they were experiencing relative to financing, and the adverse impact it would have on the subject project should the amendment to the agreement not be approved. He, along with Mr. Tom Matlock, Sunday & Company, also answered additional questions posed by the Council relative to the project. Extensive discussion and questioning followed during which Mr. Priest explained for Councilwoman Kaywood that he was not aware of any more such situations that would be coming in; Councilwoman Kaywood stated she presumed, in that case, if she voted yes, it would not be setting a precedent. However, she would look carefully at future projects of this kind. Mr. Priest stated he did not consider it a precedent. MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to amend the Affordable Housing Agreement between the City and Sunday & Company, to exempt any lender and any subsequent buyers receiving title to the procedure of foreclosure from resale controls and that the agreement be amended to include all of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation's requirements, and to provide for the sale of those units exempt from resale controls to low and moderate income persons; and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said amendment on behalf of the City Council, as recommended in memorandum dated February 17, 1982, from the Executive Director of Community Development. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilman Bay offered Resolution Nos. 82R-99 through 82R-101, 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. 150: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-99: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR 1980 STATE GRANT MONEYS FOR THREE PARKS AND RECREATION PROJECTS. (John Marshall, La Palma and Olive Hills projects) 123: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-100: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE STATE PERSONNEL BOARD, RELATING TO TECHNICAL PERSONNEL SERVICES AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION THEREOF BY THE HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR. (Term ending February 27, 1985.) 123: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-101: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING A SERVICE AGREEMENT CONTRACT NO. W-7466 WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. (Testing of traffic signal controllers, area bounded by State College Boulevard, Katella Avenue, and Orangewood Avenue) 186 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 23, 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-99 through 82R-101, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. 156/129: STAFF RESPONSE RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION: (Continued from the meeting of February 16, 1982.) Mr. Louis Dexter, Public Safety Coalition (PSC), 305 North Ranchito, first stated that he had not received a copy of the report from the Fire and Police Chiefs (see report dated February 10, 1982, from the Assistant City Manager and Fire and Police Chiefs); he was thereupon provided with a copy of the report. He then elaborated upon his request as outlined in his letter to the Council, dated February 16, 1982 (on file in the City Clerk's office), that a Public Safety Commission be established in Anaheim. During his presentation, he emphasized the one area in the City where they did not have any forum for people to speak was to the matter of public safety. If there was such a forum, he felt they might be surprised about the efficiency of the Police Department. There should be some expertise built up to take the heat off the Council such as did the present boards and commissions. He felt there was a vacuum which could be filled by Public Safety Commissioners devoting their time to fire, emergency evacuation, earthquakes, public health and the like. Before concluding, Mr. Dexter wanted to know Anaheim's conviction rate on misdemeaners. At the conclusion of Mr. Dexter's presentation followed by comments and questions by Council Members, Mayor Seymour stated he felt the Council had been very responsive and had provided Mr. Dexter repeated occasions to address the public, through the media, of his very strong position. He (Seymour) did not feel that he was prepared to buy his recommendations, although that could change in the future, considering the present process of government. He reiterated that for now, he was not willing to accept Mr. Dexter's recommenda- tions. He was convinced that Anaheim had one of the finest police department's in the state and he was proud of their record. He maintained, that in his opinion, all the concept of a police review board would accomplish, would be to create an environment that would be unsettling and lead to a less effective and less efficient department. It would create a threatening environment to the pursuit of professional police work in the community. Mr. Dexter interjected that the matter of public safety was being changed to a police review board which was only a small facet of his recommendation, and that the Council would be the body to issue guidelines. Mayor Seymour continued that in his review of the report received from the Chiefs and the examples Mr. Dexter brought to them, in each and every instance, in his opinion, it had weakened law and order, and he believed in strong law and order. That was what they were trying to achieve in the community and he was going to continue to support that concept. 187 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 23, 1982, 1:30 P.M. MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to receive and file the report from the Police and Fire Chiefs and that the City Council go on record in opposition to the creation of either a police review board, public safety manager, or other recommendations made by Mr. Dexter; further, look to a report of the Police and Fire Chiefs as to what program they might recommend in opening up their departments one week out of the year so that the public could view first hand the type of facilities and programs the City had relative to the Police and Fire Departments. Before further action was taken, Mr. Dexter asked if they did not want to consider a public safety plan as well. The Mayor answered that he believed the City had such a plan and perhaps they would want to get it updated; Mr. Dexter asked if the plan were called a public safety plan and wanted to know if he could obtain a copy; the Mayor answered that he (Dexter) could get a copy of any public record in the City. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. Earlier in the discussion, Mr. Dexter confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood that he was the only member of the Public Safety Coalition at this time. 114: ANAHEIM SISTER CITIES COMMITTEE: Mr. Hal Parker, Chairman, requesting (1) the establishment of a limited two-year Friendship and Cultural Exchange Program with Pescia, Italy, and authorizing the Mayor to forward a letter to the Mayor of that City proposing the exchange program, and (2) requesting the establishment of a Sister City relationship with the city of Bielefeld, West Germany, and authorizing the Mayor to forward a letter of interest to the Mayor of Bielefeld. MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to continue consideration of the subject items to March 9, 1982, as requested by Mr. Parker. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for ten minutes. (3:10 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present, with the exception of Councilman R0th. (3:20 p.m.) 129: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - 1979 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE: To consider adoption of the 1979 Edition of the Uniform Fire Code with amendments thereto, and amending Chapter 16.08 of the Anaheim Municipal Code (continued from the meeting of January 12, 1982). ' MOTION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Bay, Public Hearing on the 1979 Edition of the Uniform Fire Code was continued to March 30, 1982, at 3:00 p.m., as requested by staff. Councilman Roth was temporarily absent. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Roth entered the Council Chamber. (3:22 p.m.) 188 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 23, 1982, 1:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2284 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application by Joseph Di Ruggiero, et al, to permit a cocktail lounge on CL zoned property located at 2230 West Colchester Drive, with a Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC82-1, 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. 2284 subject to the following conditions: 1. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans on file with the Office of the Executive Director of Public Works. 2. That the owner(s) of subject property shall submit a letter requesting the termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 1662 to the Planning Department. 3. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2. 4. That C-1 deed restrictions limiting uses on subject property to commercial and professional business offices shall be rescinded. The owner(s) of subject property shall submit any necessary documentation to the city to process the rescission. 5. That Condition Nos. 2 and 4, 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. 6. That Condition Nos. 1 and 3, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to the final building and zoning inspections. 7. That in order to determine whether any adverse effect will result from the granting of the proposed use, the Planning Commission grants said use for a period o£ one year, a{ter which time and upon w~ritten request by the petitioner, consideration may be given as to whether or not the use should be extended. 8. That any live music shall be limited to a pianist. The Mayor asked to hear from the lessee, Judy Vaughan. 189 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 23, 1982, 1:30 P.M. Judy Vaughan, 1421 Scarborough Lane, explained that she wanted the subject location for a cocktail lounge, the same type of operation currently existing, except hers would be a public instead of a private operation. She was concerned relative to the condition of the Planning Commission that she be limited to a pianist only since she would like to have the option of adding three or four pieces. Although, as pointed out by Councilman Bay that the condition was added as a stipulation to the Planning Commission's Resolution, she (Vaughan) did not stipulate to that and did not even know the final decision of the Planning Commission until the next day when she called for clarification. She asked for a piano bar but she did not know if that was misinterpreted as a piano. She clarified that she planned to have a neighborhood cocktail lounge with a piano bar. Further, she needed the Conditional Use Permit not just for a one-year period, but for five years, since her lease was for five years with a five-year option. She clarified, however, that the lease agreement was contingent upon the approval of the Conditional Use Permit. The Mayor then asked to hear from those either in favor or opposition. Mrs. William Fleischman, explained that she and her husband, Dr. William Fleischman, own the professional building across the street at 2223 West Colchester Drive. It was her understanding that there was a deed restriction on the subject building which allowed only a commercial or professional business. There were two existing bars in the neighborhood, which was significantly residential in nature. When the bar on the corner held its functions, the parking was all taken up. She then reiterated some of the points contained in their letter of opposition dated January 22, 1982 (previously made a part of the record). She hoped that after the Council reviewed the existing conditions, they might question the granting of the Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Lloyd Ballentine, Governor of the West Anaheim Moose Lodge, stated relative to the music and noise factor, the lodge had been in the same location for five years and had only one complaint during that time relative to noise, which was corrected within an hour. Mr. Christi DiRuggiero, explained that his father was the owner of the subject property but that he could not be present today. They had bought the building for an investment and did not want anything to deter them from selling in the future. He then explained the present uses of the tenants and also attempted to answer some of the concerns expressed by Mrs. Fleischman. Relative to the deed restriction, he explained that was inherited by them and that they had no knowledge of it when they purchased the building. He wanted to know what would happen in that regard; after a brief discussion with the City Attorney on the matter, the Mayor stated their present concern was relative to the Conditional Use Permit and the deed restriction was s~he~uled to be discussed later as a separate agenda item. There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor gave Mrs. Vaughan an opportunity to make a summation. 190 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 23, 1982, 1:30 P.M. Mrs. Vaughan stated she did not anticipate there would be any problems relative to the parking lot. She tried to do what was right and that was what she anticipated doing with her business, just as with her other location in Stanton. She would undoubtedly sell that if this location were approved since it was so close to her home. ENVIRONMENTAL IF[PACT R~PORT - NEGATIVE DECLAiIATION: On motion by Councilwoman Kas~wood, 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 medium density residential land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the proposal, and that the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CA/tRIED. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 82R-102 for adoption, denying Conditional Use Permit No. 2284, reversing the findings of the City Planning Commission on the basis of the deed restriction and opposition from the existing business across the street, the already existing bars, and the closeness of the residential area. The location was also the back entrance to the Brookhurst Shopping Center which was not intended to be a major entrance. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 82R-102: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DEN~fING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2284. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: A~SENT: COUNCIL biEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The M~yor declared Resolution No. 82R-102 duly passed and adopted. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2285 ~ NEGATIVE DECI~TION: Application by The Southland Corporation, to permit a convenience market with gasoline sales on CL zoned property located at 2403 West Ball Road. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC82-2, 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, denied Conditional Use Permit No. 2285. The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Paul Mula, Agent, and public hearing scheduled this date. 191 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 23, 1982, 1:30 P.M. The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent. Mr. Bob Johnson, 7882 James Circle, Huntington Beach, representing The Southland Corporation (7-11 Food Stores), first submitted photos of their existing dual- use units located in Orange (made a part of the record). He then stated one of the primary reasons for denial of the requested Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission was relative to the size of the parcel, indicated as 135 feet by 135 feet, in Stem 2, page one of PC82-2. He stated that was an erroneous figure as the size of the parcel was 150 feet by 150 feet with a fifteen foot radius and the size was adequate to accommodate the dual use they were proposing (gasoline sales added to their already existing 7-11 store). He had surveyed other types of dual-use businesses approved in Anaheim within the last two years which were located on parcels 145 feet by 140 feet, and 120 feet by 110 feet. He then spoke to several other items broached during the Planning Commission meeting and further explained that Southland, who presently operated nine 7-11 stores in Anaheim, along with the proposed location at Gilbert and Ball Road, would be interested in adding gasoline to possibly another three or four of the units if the size of the parcels, traffic flow, etc., were in their best interests. The service stations of the past were now not an economical use for prime corners in any city. In concluding, Mr. Johnson stated they had met all the site development standards set forth and felt they were justified in obtaining a Conditional Use Permit since theirs was a permitted use with a Conditional Use Permit in that location. He also confirmed for the Mayor that they had agreed with the Traffic Engineer to close and curb the most easterly driveway on Ball Road should the use be approved. The Mayor asked to hear from those who wished to speak, either in favor or in opposition. Mr. Herb Eggett, 904 South Bruce, stated he lived five doors away from the proposed use and he had been unofficially delegated to speak for the neighbors who could find no opposition to the installation of gas pumps at that location, and would, in fact, welcome them. They were also interested as to whether or not water and air would be available; Mr. Johnson answered that they did not have plans for water and air but if the Council wanted to submit that as a condition to their application, they would entertain it. In concluding, Mr. Eggett stated that they had a continuing trash problem in the area, and they would like, as part of the agreement, that tha gubj~ct area be tept reasonably clean. Otherwise, the proposed use would fill a need in the neighborhood. He would have no objections and was surprised it was denied by the Planning Commission. There being no further persons wishing to speak, the Mayor closed the public hearing. 192 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 23, 1982~ 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood asked to hear from the Fire Marshal relative to his opinion on free-standing pumps; Fire Marshal Garthe Menges stated they had not experienced much trouble with the several that were in the City. They were concerned that an attendant be on duty to observe the dispensing of gasoline, and with the length of the hoses. Both areas of their concern were mitigated by the Southland Corporation's plans. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council finds that this project would have no significant individual or cumulative~adverse environmental impact since the Anaheim General Plan designates subject property zoned for general commercial land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the proposal, and that the initial study submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 82R-103 for adoption, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 2285, reversing the findings of the City Planning Commission subject to Interdepartmental recommendations, as follow, including the closure of the most easterly driveway on Ball Road, that water and air service be provided, and that there be conformance with the Fire Ordinances of the City. Refer to Resolution Book. 1. That the most easterly driveway on Ball Road shall be removed and re- placed with a standard curb, gutter and sidewalk. 2. That the owner(s) of subject property shall submit a letter requesting the termination of Variance No. 645 to the Planning Department. 3. That an attendant shall be on duty at all times for the purpose of dispensing gasoline. 4. That the proposed Convenience Market with gasoline sales shall comply with all signing requirements of the CL zoning. 5. 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. 6. That Condition No. 2, 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. 7. That Condition Nos. 1, 4 and 5, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections. 193 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 23, 1982, 1:30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. 82R-103: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2285. Before a vote was taken, the Mayor stated the Council's responsibility was to ensure that the activity that was going to take place was a safe one, and he was convinced that there were adequate safeguards, especially relative to traffic. Councilwoman Kaywood expressed her opposition to the proposed Resolution, maintaining that it was an unsafe use and a precedent that would be a disaster in the City, and, further, allowing a dual use that for years had not been permitted. If people were going to be hanging around the pumps, there was no way that one employee in the store was going to be able to monitor the situation. It would not work and it would be a reversal of good planning in the City. If this were approved, it would set a precedent for the others that would be coming along. She voiced her opinion that the unit in Orange was not attractive, and added nothing to the City. Councilman Overhoit stated he was going to oppose the Resolution since, when he asked Mr. Johnson directly the primary purpose for. dispensing gasoline, he answered that it was to remain competitive. He was not convinced that Southland would be prejudiced by the two ARCO stations in the City that were approved for a dual use, but he was concerned if the Resolution passed that they would have applications on many, if not all, convenience markets in the City wanting the same thing. He saw many problems with that, such as in- compatability of neighborhoods, and safety. When the previous applications were before the Council, they were very specific with the proponents that such approval was not to be the opening of a new era in Anaheim, where every gas station had a convenience market. Councilman Bay asked, since ARCO did not have its third mini-mart/gasoline sales unit as yet and they promised they would have three in the City, if there had been any move by staff to set up basic rules on parcel size in order to draw some lines. He was concerned and agreed with Councilman Overholt that if the present request were approved, they would subsequently receive a rash of such requests. He wanted to see some minimum standards set with limitations on parcel size so that they would not be receiving requests from every small 7-11 or liquor store in the City on totally inadequately sized parcels, thus wasting their time and the City's time. Ms. Santalahti stated that only two parcels on which the dual use was requested had 150 feet by 150 feet or larger, whereas typically, they had seen sub- standard sites. They could look at some design criteria as to how the use could be combined without adverse effects. It would take approximately two months to get back to the Council with such standards, first having gone through the Planning Commission. Councilman Bay stated he was going to support the resolution. 194 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 23, 1982, 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood asked the Mayor if he would be willing to place a one-year time limit on the Conditional Use Permit to see if any problems developed during that period; the Mayor stated he was not willing to do so, but agreed with the suggestion that at the appropriate time, that Planning Commission and Staff be directed to look into the matter relative to stacking of vehicles, ingress and egress, etc. Councilman Overholt felt it would be more intelligent to first have the report before they ruled on the subject issue; the Mayor stated he would agree; however, in this case, he had not heard one staff member say that the site was unsuitable or unsafe and that it was one of the most generous-sized sites. Councilman Overholt then posed questions to the Traffic Engineer, the Fire Marshall and the Assistant Director for Zoning, asking, having in mind what they would recommend with regard to standards for future sites with the combined use, would the present site comply with those standards; all answered affirmatively. Councilman Overholt then stated, based upon his inquiries, he was going to support the Resolution but was extremely concerned about avoiding a rash of requests and would be interested in seeing standards set. A vote was then taken on the foregoing Resolution offered by Councilman Seymour. 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-103 duly passed and adopted. MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to direct staff to start work relative to the recommendation of minimum standards for the establishment of future dual use gasoline/mini-mart concept, specifically relative to parcel size, including input from the Fire Department, Police Department, Traffic Engineer and Planning Staff and that those recommendations be submitted to the Planning Commission and subsequently presented to the City Council as soon as practical. Council- man 0verholt saconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 81-21A: In accordance with application filed by Ralph, Simpson and Foster, public hearing was held on proposed abandonment of a former Southern California Edison Company public utility easement acquired by the City, as successor, located on the west side of Dale Avenue, south of Lincoln Avenue, pursuant to Resolution No. 82R-64, duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin, and notices thereof posted in accordance with law. 195 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 23, 1982, 1:30 P.M. Report of the City Engineer dated January 15, 1982, and a recommendation by the Planning Commission, were submitted recommending approval of said abandonment. Mayor Seymour asked if anyone wished to address the Council. Mr. Robert Irino, Agent for the owners of the property, 2546 East Diana Drive, spoke in favor of approval of the subject abandonment. There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Bay, 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 EIR. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 82R-104 for adoption, approving Abandonment No. 81-21A. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 82R-104: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM VACATING A FORMER SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT LOCATED WEST OF DALE AVENUE AND SOUTH OF LINCOLN AVENUE. (81-21A) 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-104 duly passed and adopted. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 59-60-20 - CANCELLATION OF DEED RESTRICTIONS: Request of Joseph Di Ruggiero for removal of C-1 Deed Restrictions imposed on property located at 2230 Colchester Drive, and recorded in 1959, Orange County, in Book 4963, at Pages 312-314, as required in conditions set for Conditional Use Permit No. 2284 (see Public Hearing held earlier in the meeting, Conditional Use Permit No. 2284). Report from the Planning Department/Zoning Division, dated February 17, 1982, recommended removal of the deed restrictions. After Council questioning of both staff and Mr. Christi Di Ruggiero relative to present uses, permitted uses if the deed restrictions were cancelled, etc., Councilman Seymour moved that the deed restrictions be cancelled as recommended by staff in memorandum dated February 17, 1982. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 196 City Hall~ Anaheim California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 23, 1982, 1:30 P.M. CONSENT CALENDAR STEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Bay, 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 allowed payment. Claims denied and referred to Risk Manager: a. Claim submitted by Scott Hamilton for personal property damages purportedly sustained due to a palm tree from the parkway falling on claimant's car, in front of 619 North Anaheim Boulevard, on or about January 8, 1982. b. Claim submitted by Manuel, Obdulia, Victor, Silvia, Leticia and Sonia Mendoza for wrongful death purportedly caused when David Mendoza was electrocuted by a high voltage electric line owned, maintained and operated by the City of Anaheim at 952 South McCloud Street, on or about October 1, 1981. The following claim was allowed payment: c. Claim submitted by Pacific Telephone, Case No. H245-0004, for property damages purportedly sustained when Utilities Department, while rewinding a 25 pair communication cable damaged the sheath of a 50 pair Pacific Telephone cable, at the northeast corner of Vermont and Olive, on or about January 11, 1982. 2. 108: APPLICATION: In accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Police, the following application was approved. a. Public Dance Permit: Elaine A. Arana, E1 Torito's Who-Song & Larry's Cantina, 2020 East Ball Road, for a dance to be held March 17, 1982, 9:00 p.m. to 1:30 a.m. 3. 151: ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NO. 81-3E: Requested by Stadium Properties, to allow the encroachment of a small sign structure, consisting of two standards and a single-faced sign located parallel to, and within a small portion of, City right-oft ~y cn the south side of T0wne Center Place. Encroachment Permit No. 81-3E was approved in accordance with the recommendation of the City Engineer, and was declared categorically exempt from filing an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. 197 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 23, 1982, 1:30 P.M. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 82R-105 through 82R-107, 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. 113: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-105: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CITY RECORDS MORE THAN TWO YEARS OLD. (Risk Manager records) 113: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-106: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CITY RECORDS MORE THAN TWO YEARS OLD. (Purchasing records) RESOLUTION NO. 82R-107: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM TERMINATING ALL PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1065 AND DECLARING RESOLUTIONS NO. 68R-745 AND 69R-90 NULL AND VOID. 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-105 through 82R-107, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. 170: FINAL MAP - TRACT NO. 10410: Developer, Robin Hill Development Company; tract is located at the southwest corner of Imperial Highway and Nohl Ranch Road, and contains thirty-eight proposed RS-HS-10,000(SC) zoned lots. 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. 10410, as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated February 17, 1982, subject to three conditions; (1) payment of fees for Tract 10410; (2) posting and approval of tract improvement bonds; (3) Approval of tract C.C. & R's by the Engineering Division. MOTION CARRIED 175: ORDINANCE NO. 4309 AND ORDINANCE NO. 4310 - MEAD-PHOENIX DC INTERTIE PROJECT: Authorizing a Project Development Agreement with the Southern California Public Power Authority and authorizing the execution and delivery of said agreement; authorizing the issuance of notes by the Southern California Public Power Authority in the estimated maximum a~gregate principal amount of $15 million, relating to the Mead-Phoenix Intertie Project. 198 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 23, 1982, 1:30 P.M. The Deputy City Clerk announced that, received this date shortly before the meeting, was a request from a number of Anaheim citizens that the subject item be removed from the agenda, the reason being for a restudy by the Public Utilities Board (PUB) and the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce (on file in the City Clerk's office - see letter dated February 23, 1982, signed by six residents). The Mayor asked if there was anyone present in the Chamber audiance who would like to speak to the matter; no one was present. The Mayor then asked what would occur if the request were honored. Mr. Dale Pohlman, Public Utilities Assistant General Manager Power Resources, stated he did not know what further delay would do except to point out that this project and other projects like it were not running on a schedule that could be controlled by the City of Anaheim. They were not a big percentage owner, and he would submit that they would run the risk of losing out on participation in the project with any significant delay. Discussion then followed between Councilmen Roth and Overholt revolving around the timing and presentation of the matter to the Executive Board of the Chamber of Commerce and the City-County Government Committee, as well as the timing of the initial presentation to the City's Public Utilities Board and finally, the censure of the Public Utilities General Manager by the Chamber Board for failure to present the information to them sooner. Councilman Overholt expressed his concern over the censure issue and further, did not consider thirty-eight days notification as being a last-minute notice since the project was first presented to the PUB on January 14, 1982. Councilman Roth took issue with the fact that sufficient time was afforded the Chamber to study the matter and further expressed his concern relative to engaging in the project as he did at the meeting of February 16, 1982 (see minutes that date). Councilman Bay commented that he saw no one present from the Chamber this date requesting a delay, including the Executive Board, no one from the City- County Government Committee, and no one present from The PUB, nor had he heard from them requesting that the matter be delayed or studied further. Mayor Seymour s~ated that he could support the Ordinances but had a real concern over the appearance and perception of one "railroad" after another coming out of the Public Utilities Department. In his opinion, it was critical that the Utilities maintain credibility with the community through communication. He felt they needed to slow the process down, or start the process sooner and communicate with the people. 199 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 23, 1982, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Overholt suggested that the Chamber suggest how timing could be changed in order to have adequate time to study such matters. When the one- week continuance was granted, the Chamber was totally satisfied. He agreed with the Mayor that some system should be set up so that adequate time would be afforded but he felt to say in this instance they did not have adequate time, the facts did not support that position. Mr. Pohlman stated, for the Council's information, one action they had already taken was to be sure, as a bare minimum, the Chamber was on the distribution list for the PUB agenda as they had not been on that list previously. Councilman Overholt offered Ordinance No. 4309 and Ordinance No. 4310 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. 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. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay and Seymour Roth None The Mayor declared Ordinance Nos. 4309 and 4310 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 4311: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4311 for First Reading. ORDINANCE NO. 4311: AN OILDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAiREIMAlv[ENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (70-71-47(28), ML) 114: REQUEST PERMISSION TO LEAVE THE STATE - COUNCILMAN OVERHOLT: On motion by CounCilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Bay, Councilman Overholt was granted permission to leave the state for thirty days to attend the National League of Cities Conference in Washington D.C., February 27, 1982, to March 2, 1982. MOTION CARRIED. INTENTION TO CONSIDER A MOTION TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2288 (HILTON HOTEL): Mayor Seymour asked that the Council consider a one week continuance from March 2, 1982, of the subject hearing since both he and Councilman Overholt were not expected to be present at next week's meeting. He asked that when the matter was heard at the next meeting that they consider a continuance to March 9, 1982, or if the Council wished, they could decide the issue since a quorum would be present. 200 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 23, 1982, 1:30 P.M. City Attorney Hopkins advised that an indication be made that it would be the Council's intent to move for a continuance, but that the participants be advised of such intent. Councilman Roth moved that due to the possible absence of two Council Members at the March 2, 1982, meeting, the Council intended to consider a motion to continue the public hearing on Conditional Use Permit No. 2288 (Hilton Hotel) to March 9, 1982, at 3:00 p.m. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 114: REQUESTING THE MAYOR PRO TEM TO ASSUME LIAISON DUTIES OF THE MAYOR AND DISCUSSION REGARDING DESIGNATION AND TERM OF THE MAYOR PRO TEM: Mayor Seymour stated since he was to be a Candidate for the State Senate in the Special Election to be held April 13, 1982, assuming a victory, he could be taking office April 20 or 21, 1982, in which event he would be resigning as the Mayor. In that event, he requested that the Mayor Pro Tem (Roth) assume his (Seymour's) liaison responsibilities in order 'to keep the system moving on important projects such as the Convention Center Hotel, the development at Anaheim Stadium, the Superbowl, etc.; no objection was expressed. Councilman Overholt then stated it was his understanding they would then have the election of the Mayor Pro Tem for the next one-year period. City Attorney Hopkins explained the Charter provided, in the case of a vacancy in the office of the Mayor, the Council shall select the Mayor from the eligible Council Members to fill the vacancy. The Charter was silent as to when. Councilman Overholt stated it was his understanding April 20th was the day for the election of the ~yor Pro Tem; City Attorney answered that was a Council Policy that could be changed at any time. After further Council discussion of the matter and clarification from the City Attorney on certain aspects of the issue, Councilman Roth suggested that the City Attorney research the minutes of the meeting wherein the Council discussed the election of a Mmyor Pro Tem which was at the same time they discussed changing the elections to June. REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: The Assistant City Manager requested a Closed Session to discuss potential litigation with action anticipated; the City Attorney requested a Closed Session to discuss litigation with action anticipated. By general consent, the Council recessed to Closed Session. (5:40 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (6:00 p.m.) 201 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 23, 1982, 1:30 P.M. 112: HILLEBERT VS. WASIK~ ET AL: Councilman Seymour moved to authorize the City Attorney and Kinkle, Rodiger and Spriggs to settle Orange County Superior Court Case No. 29-42-21 (Hillebert vs. Wasik, et al) for the sum of $15,000. MOTION CARRIED. 103: OPPOSITION TO DELAY OF SANTA ANA CANYON #10 ANNEXATION: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council adopted a position strongly opposing any delay of Santa Aha Canyon #10 Annexation. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (6:02 p.m.) LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK BY DEPUTY CITY CLERK 202