Loading...
1982/12/07City Hall, Anaheim California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 7, 1982, 10:00 A.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session° PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pickler, Overhoit (Councilman Overholt entered the Council Chambers at 10:12 a.mo), Bay and Roth COUNCIL MEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William P~ Hopkins CITY CLERK: Linda Do Roberts CITY ENGINEER: William Devitt EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR CCMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Norman J. Priest ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR--ZONING: Annika Santalahti HOUSING MANAGER: Lisa Stipkovich ASSOCIATE PLANNER: Jay Tashiro Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting° INVOCATION: The Reverend David Beadles, Anaheim United Methodist Church, gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilwoman Miriam Kaywood led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 119: PROCLAblATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Roth and authorized by the City Council: National Drunk and Drugged Driving Awareness Week in Anaheim, December 12-18, 1982. Bill of Rights week in Anaheim, December 12-18, 1982. MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular meetings held October 19, October 26 and November 2, 1982. Councilman Bay. seconded the motion. Councilman Pickler abstained from the minutes of October 26, 1982, since he was not present at that meeting. Councilman Overholt was absent. 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 ordinances or resolutions in regular order. Councilman Roth seconded the motion° MOTION CARRIED° FINANCIAL D~MANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of ~3,752,789~24, in accordance with the 1982-83 Budget, were approved. 1043 City Hall, Anaheim California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 7, 1982, 10:00 A.M. CITY MANAGER/DEPAR1]~ENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the following items were approved in accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 82R-580 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. 1. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as recommended: A. Claims denied and referred to Risk Management: 1. Claim submitted by Automobile Club of Southern California, Robert and Audrey L. Lang, Insured, for damages purportedly sustained due to claimant's insured having an accident with a City-owned vehicle at the 1400 block of Anaheim Boulevard, on or about October 7, 1982. 2. Claim submitted by TRW, Inc., for equitable indemnity at H. G. Dad Miller Golf Course when a Mr. Edgerton was thrown from a golf cart and injured, on or about November 4, 1982. B. Claim allowed payment: 3. Claim submitted by John J. McArdle for personal property damages purportedly sustained when a City shuttle bus backed into claimant's car at Anaheim Stadium, on or about October 29, 1982. 2. 105: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: Community Redevelopment Commission--Minutes of October 27, November 3 and 10, 1982. 3. 108: The following applications were granted in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Police: a. Entertainment Permit submitted by Janet E. Blanding for the Crackers, 710 East Katella Avenue, to permit three or four musicians with sing-a-long, fun-type music, from 4:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. daily. b. Dinner Dancing Place Permit submitted by Lorraine McConaughy for McConahay's Restaurant, 2124 East Lincoln Avenue, for dancing 9:00 p.m. to 1:30 a.m. daily. 4. 128: Receiving and filing the Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year ended June 30, 1982. 5. 123: Authorizing the third amendment to an agreement with Dr. Eric Gruver, Ph.D, to include psychological evaluations for jailer applicants in the amount of $200 per candidate evaluated and a one-time payment in the amount of $400 for development of the jailer psychological evaluation program. 1044 City Hall, Anaheim California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 7, 1982, 10:00 A.M. 6. 123: Authorizing an agreement with Biddle & Associates in an amount not to exceed ~25,000, for professional services in connection with a claim arising from the City's current written exam for police officers. 7. 123: Authorizing a first amendment to an agreement with Guthrie Associates in the amount of $51,500, to implement Phase III, consultation services, training classes and materials, of the original agreement for management development training and succession planning for the Public Utilities Department. 8o 160: Accepting the bid of Mills Ford in the amount of $47,392°60 for five each 3/4-ton pickups in accordance with Bid No. 3924. 9. 160: Accepting the bid of Mills Ford in the amount of $10,604.55 for one cab/chassis in accordance with Bid No. 3925. 10. 160: Accepting the bid of San DeSantis Chevrolet in the amount of $27,981.27 for three cargo vans in accordance with Bid No. 3926. 11. 160: Accepting the bid of Mills Ford in the amount of $23,831.87 for three each 1/2-ton pickups in accordance with Bid No. 3927. 12. 160: Accepting the low bid of Ensco, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $25,000, for the disposal and destruction of capacitors containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) in accordance with Bid No. 3929, and directing the City Attorney to prepare the necessary documents. 13. 165: Authorizing Change Order No. 1 to the contract with M & W Construction in the amount of $16,500, to add construction of the first alley south of Cente~ Street between West Street and Walnut Street to the Citron Neighborhood Area Alley Improvement, Phase III, Account No. 25-793-6325-E3620, bringing the original contract price to $129,166.05. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-580: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Arciero Bros., Inc.; Cesario Garcia, et al.) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MMMBERS: Kaywood, Pickler, Bay and Roth NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL M~MBERS: Overholt MOTION CARRIED. The Mayor declared Resolution No. 82R-580 duly passed and adopted. 160: ACCEPTANCE OF BID NO. 3919 - CATERPILLER MOTOR GRADER: City Manager William Talley briefed report dated November 30, 1982, from the Purchasing Agent, Diane Hughart, recommending that the Council accept the bid of Shepherd 1045 City Hall, Anaheim California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 7, 1982, 10:00 A.M. Machinery Corporation, Los Angeles, in the amount of $75,397.80 (including tax and options) for one (1) used caterpillar motor grader in accordance with Bid Proposal No. 3919, as publically advertised. Included was a discussion of the bids received. He also announced that a Mr. Brian Murphy of Hawthorne Machinery was present to address the Council, and he further referred to Mr. Murphy's letter dated December 2, 1982, previously submitted. Mr. Brian Murphy, General Manager, Hawthorne Machinery Company, 2243 Mountain View Road, Escondido, then briefed the Council on the information contained in his letter of December 2, 1982, concluding that they felt their machine was a better value at a substantial cost savings to the City of approximately ~5,000. Councilman Overholt entered the Council Chambers. (10:12 a.m.) City Manager Talley stated after reviewing both o'f the bid proposals, the higher bid of Shepherd Machinery involved a piece of equipment which they believed was in good operating condition. Information provided by Hawthorne Machinery showed some high indications of metal and water intrusion in their unit. As well, the number of hours on the machine was the key. It was their intent that the machine would last in the order of another two decades. Their view, after considering all the facts, made them lean toward the machine proposed by Shepherd. MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to accept the bid of Shepherd Machinery Corporation in the amount of ~75,397.80 for one used caterpillar motor grader in accordance with Bid No. 3919. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay stated that although he liked to see the City accept low bids, it was a matter of accepting the lowest and best bid. In this case, what was best for the City was dependent upon the condition of the equipment and staff's decision was that the Shepherd unit was the best after their inspection. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. 101: ANAHEIM-STADIIiM RELOCATION OF 135-FOOT HIGH ADVERTISING TOWER: Finding and determining that public convenience and necessity require the relocation of the 135-foot high advertising tower at Anaheim Stadium, Account No. 61-985-6325, and authorizing the opening of bids on January 6, 1983, 2:00 p.m. City Manager Talley confirmed that the towe~ was the three-sided billboard located adjacent to the Route 57 Freeway. Councilman Bay asked why the tower had to be moved. He assumed it was due to the fact that there was a 12-foot encroachment into CalTrans property. City Manager Talley answered that was correct. The encroachment was brought to their attention after the City thought CalTrans had given verbal permission to do so. The sign was only six inches closer to the freeway than the one on 1046 City Hall, Anaheim California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 7, 1982, 10:00 A.M. the opposite side in the right-of-way of the railroad, and 50-feet higher. It was felt that the additional six inches versus 50-feet higher would mitigate their moving the sign. However, CalTrans was adamant about the encroachment; therefore, the City agreed to get a fixed fee to see what it would cost to move the sign, since they could be forced to move it eventually. The information was needed to make their case. Mr. Talley then answered questions posed by Councilman Bay on the issue and concluded by reiterating that the City had checked with CalTrans and had verbal permission to place the sign on its present site. There was no intent by the City to intrude into a space where they were encroaching, and they thought they had placed it exactly where they wanted the City to put it. The matter would subsequently again be submitted to the Council. Councilman Bay thereupon offered Resolution No. 82R-581 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. 101: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-581: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETEM~INING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND CCMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVMMENT, TO WIT: ANAHEIM STADIUM RELOCATION OF 135' HIGH ADVERTISING TOWER, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 61-985-6325. (Bids to be opened January 6, 1983, 2:00 p.m.) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL M~BERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth None None The b~ayor declared Resolution No. 82R-581 duly passed and adopted. 169: AWARD OF CONTRACT - BARRIER FREE ANAHEIM NO. 7 STREET IMPROVMMENT: Awarding a contract to the lowest and best responsible bidder, American Construction, in the amount of ~34,788.80, for Barrier Free Anaheim No. 7 Street Improvement, Area bound by Lincoln Avenue, Euclid Street, Ball Road and Santa Ana Freeway, Account No. 24-793-6325-E3630. Submitted was a report dated November 24, 1982, from the City Engineer, William Devitt, recommending the subject award. Mr. Devitt also reported that American Construction had requested that their bid be rejected because of a discrepancy in the bid proposal, resulting in their bid be~g reduced by $1,124.40, as requested in their letter dated November 22, 1982. Mr. Devitt then explained for Councilwoman Kaywood that the recommendation was not to reject the bid, but to award it to American Construction. City Attorney William Hopkins explained the staff recommendation was to award the bid as it was originally proposed and that would require the Company to perform pursuant to their bid. The Council could reject the bid or reject all bids. It would be appropriate to accept the bid without making any change. If they wished to reject the bid of American Construction, that would be' acceptable, otherwise they had no authority to change a bid once submitted. 1047 City Hall, Anaheim California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 7, 1982, 10:00 A.M. Council discussion followed wherein concern was expressed over the quality or timeliness of the work to be done under the contract should the contractor be forced to perform under a contract where an arithmetical error was made. At the conclusion of discussion, Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 82R-582 for adoption, as recommended. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 82R-582: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE BARRIER FREE ANAHEIM NO. 7 STREET IMPROVtl~ENT, AREA BOUND BY LINCOLN AVENUE, EUCLID STREET, BALL ROAD AND SANTA ANA FREEWAY, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 24-793-6325-E3630. (American Construction, $34,788.80) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pickler, Bay and Roth Overholt None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 82R-582 duly passed and adopted. 129/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4380 - PUBLIC DISPLAY OF FIREWORKS: Amending Sections 6.40.050 and 6.40.055 of the Code relating to public displays of fireworks. Submitted was a report dated November 18, 1982, from the Fire Chief, Bob Simpson. Councilman Bay stated that he did not see anything in the ordinance for the right of appeal to the City Council on a denial of an Application for Public Displays of Fireworks. City Attorney Hopkins explained that the amendment involved only one small section of an entire section of the Code dealing with fireworks and there was a provision for appeal provided in the latter part of the ordinance. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4380 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 4380: A2W ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 6, CHAPTER 6.40, SECTIONS 6.40.050 AND 6.40.055 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE BY REPEALING SECTIONS 6.40.050 AND 6.40.055, AND ADDING NEW SECTIONS 6.40.050 AND 6.~0.055 IN THEIR PLACE RELATING TO PUBLIC DISPLAYS. (public displays of fireworks) 127: DECLARING THE RESULT OF THE CANVASS OF ELECTION RETURNS - SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION - NOVEMBER 2, 1982: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 82R-583 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. "RESOLUTION NO. 82R-583: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING THE RESULT OF THE CANVASS OF ELECTION RETURNS OF SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD IN SAID CITY ON NOVEMBER 2, 1982. 1048 City Hall, Anaheim California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 7, 1982, 10:00 A.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim, California, does hereby resolve, determine and order as follows: Section 1. That a special municipal election was duly called and regularly held in said City on the 2nd day of November, 1982, at which election there were submitted to the qualified voters of said City the following propositions, to wit: PROPOSITION B Shall Sections 500 and 1300 of the Charter of the City of Anaheim be amended to change the date of general municipal elections in the City of Anaheim to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of each even-numbered year or to coincide with such other date as may be established by the state legislature for the holding of statewide general elections? PROPOSITION C Shall Sections 1202 and 1203 of the Charter of the City of Anaheim be amended to change the date and time that the City Manager of the City of Anaheim shall submit the budget to the City Council from 60 days to 30 days prior to the beginning of the fiscal year and that a public hearing be held and testimony be received within said period? PROPOSITION D In order to provide a more economical market for the remaining electric revenue bonds authorized by a majority of the voters in 1975 to provide more economical electric service, shall City Council Resolution No. 74R-615 be amended to eliminate from such Resolution the maximum rate of interest (eight percent) which may be paid on such bonds and to provide instead in such Resolution that the City Council shall, at or prior to the time of sale of any such bonds, establish by resolution a maximum rate of interest which may be paid on the bonds then being sold? PROPOSITION E In order to provide a more economical market for the remaining water revenue bonds authorized by a majority of the voters in 1978, shall City Council Resolution No. 78R-533 be amended to eliminate from such Resolution the maximum rate of interest (eight percent) which may be paid on such bonds and to provide instead in such Resolution that the City Council shall, at or prior to the time of sale of any such bonds, establish by resolution a maximum rate of interest which may be paid on the bonds then being sold? 1049 City Hall, Anaheim California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 7, 1982, 10:00 A.M. PROPOSITION F In order to permit the City the flexibility to finance its water and electric systems at lower interest costs, shall the Charter of the City of Anaheim be amended to permit the issuance by the City (without additional authorization by the voters) upon such terms and conditions as the City Council shall determine of (i) electric and water revenue bond anticipation notes in anticipation of revenue bonds authorized by the voters, (ii) electric revenue anticipation notes in aggregate principal amount outstanding not to exceed 25% of the gross revenues of the City's electric utility for the immediately preceding fiscal year and (iii) water revenue anticipation notes in aggregate principal amount outstanding not to exceed 25% of the gross revenues of the City's water utility for the immediately preceding fiscal year? Section 2. That the returns of said election have been duly and regularly canvassed by the Registrar of Voters as provided by law, and all absentee ballots, if any, returned have been canvassed as provided by law. Section 3. That the total votes cast at said election for and against said propositions and upon said propositions are all as shown on the Certificate of Registrar of Voters to Result of the Canvass of the General Elections Returns, attached hereto as "Exhibit A." Section 4. That the votes of more than fifty percent of all the voters voting at said election upon Proposition B, Proposition C, Proposition D, Proposition E, and Proposition F were cast in favor of the adoption of said Proposition B, said Proposition C, said Proposition D, said Proposition E, and said Proposition F and said Proposition B, said Proposition C, said Proposition D, said Proposition E, and said Proposition F are hereby declared to have carried at said election. Section 5. That the City Clerk of the City is hereby directed to enter this resolution in the minutes of the City Council, which entry shall constitute the City Clerk's statement of the result of the election. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Anaheim this 7th day of December, 1982. MAYOR OF THE CI5 EIM ATTEST: CITM CLERK OF TH~5,_CITY OF ANAHEIM 1050 City Hall, Anaheim California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 7, 1982, 10:00 A.M. CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRAR OF VOTERS TO RESULT OF THE CANVASS OF THE GEHERAL ELECTION RETURNS STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ) ss. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, A. E. Olson, Registrar of Voters of Orange County, do hereby certify the following to be a full, true and correct Statement of the vote of the election listed below, consolidated with the General Election held on November 2, 1982. CITY OF ANAHEIM MEASURE "P," YES 45,928 NO 15,334 MEASURE "C" YES 34,630 NO 25,031 MEASURE "D" YES 35,625 NO 23,423 MEASURE "~" YES 35,303 NO 23,500 MEASURE "F" YES 32,837 NO 26,493 'r0~At V(IfES CAST: 69,'f28 105l City Hall, Anaheim California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 7, 1982, 10:00 A.M. ] hereby certify that the number of votes cast for al~d against the measures as are set forth above appears 'in tile Certified AbstracL of Statement of the Vote entered in the Records of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Orange. WITNESS my hand and Official Seal this 15th day of November, 1982. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL M~BERS: COUNCIL M~4BERS: COUNCIL M~MBERS: Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 82R-583 duly passed and adopted. 114: AMENDING COUNCIL POLICY NO. 111, SELECTION OF A MAYOR PRO T~M: On motion by Councilman Pickler, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, Council Policy No. 111 was revised as follows: "It is the policy of the City Council to reorganize the Council and select a Mayor Pro Tem on the third Tuesday of November in odd-numbered years and in even-numbered years, on the Tuesday following the declaration of the result of the canvass of election returns of the General Municipal Election." MOTION CARRIED. 105: APPOINTMENT TO THE PROJECT AREA C(I~MITTEE: Appointing a member to fill a vacancy on the Project Area Committee for the term ending June 30, 1983 (Beeson; continued from the meeting of November 30, 1982). Councilman Bay recommended that the proposed action be tabled indefinitely. He continued that the Project Area Committee was, in effect, operating without portfolio, since the Committee was not renewed by the Council in June of 1982. There was no legal requirement for the Committee and there had been some question as to the future need of that Committee. 1052 City Hall, Anaheim California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 7, 1982, 10:00 A.M. MOTION: Councilman Bay thereupon moved to table the subject appointment indefinitely and directed staff to investigate the matter, including discussion with members of the Project Area Committee relative to the possibility of sunsetting that Committee° Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. CITY PLANNING CfMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning Commission at their meeting held November 15, 1982, pertaining to the following applications were submitted for City Council information. 1. VARIANCE NO. 3292: Submitted by William C. and Cynthia Lynn Taormina, to construct a commercial office building on CG zoned property located at 327 North Anaheim Boulevard, with a Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Request for Variance No. 3292 was withdrawn by the petitioners, and the City Planning Commission granted a negative declaration status. 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2392: Submitted by Raymond G. Spehar, et al, (Anaheim Hills Motor Inn), to permit an auto rental agency in an existing motor inn on CL(SC) zoned property located at 5710 East La Palma Avenue, with the following Code waivers: (a) permitted signing, (b) maximum size and location of wall signs, and (c) prohibited sign lighting. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC82-209, granted in part, Conditional Use Permit No. 2392, and granted a negative declaration status. 3. REQUEST FOR SPECIFIC USE: Submitted by Pauline Sink, requesting approval of a beauty shop in an existing singleufamily dwelling located on RS-7200 zoned property located at 721 South Magnolia Avenue. No action was necessary by the Planning Commission. Councilwoman Kaywood stated the subject was on a street of custom homes with one-acre lots and the area behind it was all residential. She viewed the use as a frightening type of spot zoning. She was very much opposed to any approval being given on this particular location. Annika gantalahti, Assistant Planning Director--Zoning, stated that the option in this case was to operate under the restrictions of the Home Occupation Permit (HOP) which restricted the maximum number of people who could enter the property daily and the employee had to be a resident of the home. The owner was prepared to live with the restrictions of the HOP procedure, allowing a maximum of eight people on the premises in a 24-hour period. Councilman Bay asked the Council's alternative in dealing with the matter. He had the same concerns as Councilwoman Kaywood at that particular location for the proposed use. 1053 City Hall, Anaheim California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 7, 1982, 10:00 A.M. City Attorney Hopkins explained that the item was something considered to be a ministerial duty. If the applicant came to the Planning Department and met all the criteria for a Home Occupation Permit, then the Planning Department must grant the permit. Neither the Planning Commission nor the Council had any authority to reverse that if they met the requirements. He recommended that no action be taken by the Council. Councilwoman Kaywood moved to deny the request; City Attorney Hopkins stated there was no request before the Council, nor was there one before the Planning Commission. If the Council wished to change the ordinance, it could be done, but there was no provision at this time for denial if the applicant met the criteria of the Home Occupation Permit. Councilwoman Kaywood expressed an additional concern that the subject site was on the corner of Stonybrook Drive, which was a dangerous corner in any case when cars were parked there. Councilman Bay stated he was more interested in finding out from staff exactly how the HOP policy read at present in regard to commercial operations or similar uses being allowed in homes. To him, a beauty shop was a commercial operation. He felt that their action should be for the Planning staff to furnish a report to the Council on the present policies and status of the Home Occupation Permit procedure so that they could understand it. Miss Santalahti then reported that November 15, 1982, was the date the issue went to the Planning Commission, and the Home Occupation Permit was issued on the basis that the operator was prepared to live with the regulations. The Mayor asked if anyone was present in the Council Chambers who wished to speak to the matter; no one was present. The City Attorney was directed to review the Ordinance governing Home Occupation Permits, and subsequently submit a report to the Council. 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. 2390: Submitted by Pulliam Properties, Inc., (The Ungambling Casino), to permit on-sale of beer and wine in an existing school for gambling instruction on CL zoned property located at 3456 East Orangethorpe Avenue, with Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC82-208, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2390, and ratified the City Planning Director's categorical exemption determination. Councilwoman Kaywood requested a review of the Planning Commission's decision on Conditional Use Permit No. 2390. 1054 City Hall, Anaheim California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 7, 1982, 10:00 A.M. 139: COUNTY BILLBOARD USE PERMIT 82-67P AND VARIANCE 82-11P: Miss Santalahti reported that they had received a request from the Orange County Planning staff asking that the City of Anaheim take a position on a billboard proposal that was going to the County Planning Commission on December 14, 1982, involving property located at the southwest corner of Cerritos Avenue and the Orange Freeway. The billboard consisted of two panels, each 1200 square feet in size, and 75 feet in height. The County variance was being sought for the height and setback from the freeway. If the application were being filed in Anaheim, three waivers would be necessary--permitted location, which was not at the intersection of two arterial highways, maximum display area, the City permitted 300 square feet and they were proposing 1200 square feet, and height, the City allowed 36 feet, and they were proposing 75 feet. Mayor Roth asked if this involved Mr. Day's property (see minutes October 26, 1982--Resolution 82R-520--Cerritos Freeway Annexation); Miss Santalahti answered "yes." Councilman Bay stated that the County was interested in knowing the City's position on the variance, which would ultimately end up on property to be annexed to Anaheim. He was personally opposed to the County granting the variance. MOTION: Councilman Bay moved that the Council oppose the Orange County Planning Commission's granting a variance on property that would eventually be annexed to Anaheim. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Mayor Roth stated he was going to oppose the motion, citing examples where the City had signs that were higher than allowed and close to the freeway, such as the large sign off the freeway at Anaheim Stadium. Further, he was concerned about the action previously taken on October 26, 1982, when they approved the Cerritos Freeway Annexation, which encompassed Mr. Donald Day's property, wherein he (Mr. Day) had requested a continuance of the subject annexation for 180 days. He reiterated he could not support the motion, because standards appeared to be different for government than for the citizen. Councilman Overholt stated he was going to support the Mayor, because he had mixed feelings relative to signing in that area. He also agreed with the Mayor's philosophy on the matter. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL M~MBERS: COUNCIL M~4BERS: COUNCIL MSMBERS: Kaywood, Pickler and Bay Overholt and Roth None MOTION CARRIED. 1055 City Hall, Anaheim California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 7, 1982, 10:00 A.M. 129: APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC FIREWORKS DISPLAY: Councilman Bay moved to approve the Application for Public Fireworks Display Permit submitted by Astro Pyrotechnics on behalf of Cabot, Cabot and Forbes to discharge fireworks at Anaheim Stadium on December 14, 1982, at approximately 9:00 p.m., in accordance with the recommendation of the Fire Marshal. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 108/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4378 - TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX: Adding 2.12.045 and amending 2.12.070 of Title 2 relating to the Transient Occupancy Tax, to include provisions for the imposition of interest on the late payment of taxes due, and a penalty therefor subject to appeal. (See minutes of November 16, November 23, November 30 and December 7, 1982, wherein the matter was previously discussed.) City Clerk Linda Roberts announced that Mr. Bill Erickson wished to address the Council on the subject. Mr. William Erickson, 301 East North Street, then read a prepared statement, the essence of which was his request that the Council not make a hasty decision in requiring an additional interest penalty on hotel and motel owners, as well as a four-fifths vote to approve a waiver, since he considered it to be an outrageous tax grab by the elected officials. Councilman Overholt again offered a motion, as he had the previous week but which failed to carry, providing for a majority vote of the Council, instead of a four-fifths vote requirement, for the granting of a refund or a waiver on penalties assessed on late Transient Occupancy Tax payments, requiring only a resolution of the City Council, which could be approved by a three-vote majority. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt then reiterated his reasons for again offering the amendment to the proposed Ordinance (see minutes November 16, November 23, November 30 and December 7, 1982); Councilman Roth stated that he wholeheartedly agreed with Councilman Overholt in his opposition to the four-fifths vote requirement, as he did at the previous meetings. Councilman Overholt also added that if his motion did not pass, he was going tO support the ordinance, since he felt it important to provide a process where the Council would have the power to give relief from the imposition of a penalty in a ~ituatlon where that ~hould b~ dono. Council Members Bay and Kaywood then spoke against the motion for reasons previously given in prior discussions on the issue. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion and failed to carry by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL M~BERS: COUNCIL M~BERS: COUNCIL M~MBERS: Overhoit and Roth Kaywood, Pickler and Bay None 1056 City Hall, Anaheim California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 7, 1982, 10:00 A.M. Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4378 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4378: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING NEW SECTION 2.12.045 AND AMENDING SECTION 2.12.070 OF CHAPTER 2.12 OF TITLE 2 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX. (to include provisions for the imposition of interest on the late payment of taxes due, and a penalty therefor subject to appeal) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL M~iMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt and Bay Roth None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4378 duly passed and adopted° 179/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4379: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4379 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4379: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (80-81-22, RM-2400) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MM~BERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MM~BERS: Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4379 duly passed and adopted. 179/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4381: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4381 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 4381: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (80-81-8, RM-1200) 114: AMTRAK STATION GROUNDBREAKING: Councilwoman Kaywood reported on her attendance at the Amtrak Station gr0undbreaking which took place at the Anaheim Stadium site on Thursday, December 2, 1982, noting that it was the culmination of eight years' work. She was looking forward to the grand opening of the station which, when accomplished she maintained, would exceed all of the ridership expectations. She commended staff for all their efforts, especially Pam Lucado, Associate Planner, who had been working on the project for six years. Other Council Members also commented on the historic occasion. 1057 City Hall, Anaheim California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 7, 1982, 10:00 A.M. 128: ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT - JUNE 30, 1982: Councilman Bay stated he read the 1981-82 Financial Report and felt it in order to extend his compliments to City Manager Talley on what he thought was an outstanding statement by him in that publication on the excellent review of the progressive actions taken by the City in the past year, reminding everyone of the good things that were happening in Anaheim. 114: POSSIBLE ADDITIONAL SANCTIONS ON CALIFORNIA BY THE ENVIROBIMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA): Councilman Roth reported on the Friday, December 3, 1982, meeting of the South Coast Air Quality Management District Board where he was alarmed at statements made by a representative from the Environmental Protection Agency that the South Coast Board, along with other Air Quality Boards in the State, were not doing enough to curtail certain pollutants and, therefore, were again recommending that the Federal government adopt sanctions against California effective the first of January. He (Roth) asked the representative if it would have an effect on revenue to be returned to California when the five-cent a gallon tax on gasoline to maintain the country's highways was instituted. He was given an affirmative answer. In view of the foregoing, Mayor Roth directed that a letter be sent to the Orange County Congressional Delegation asking their aid in preventing further sanctions, especially relative to the gasoline tax revenues. RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: The City Manager requested a Closed Session to discuss labor relations and personnel matters with possible action anticipated; the City Attorney requested a Closed Session to discuss litigation and potential litigation with no action anticipated. Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (12:00 Noon) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (6:04 p.m.) RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed to 7:00 p.m. to conduct scheduled public hearings. (6:04 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (7:20 p.m.) 174: PUBLIC HEARING - NINTH YEAR C~MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM: To consider the Ninth Year (1983-84) Community Development Block Grant Program Application in the amount of $1.8 million to be submitted for A-95 review (the State of California and Regional Clearinghouse Agency review process). Submitted was a report from the Community Development Department dated November 30, 1982, recommending that the Council approve the 1983-84 program and budget as recommended by the Community-wide CDBG Citizen Participation Committee, together with modifications (see Attachment 1 to the report, Page 1--Summary of CDBG Committee Recommendations), if any were warranted by 1058 City Hall, Anaheim California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 7, 1982, 10:00 A.M. supplemental testimony, for a total allocation of approximately ~1.8 million. A report was also submitted by the Library Department dated November 30, 1982, recommending approval of appropriation of CDBG funds for operation of the Library Outreach Bookmobile Program for Fiscal Year 1983-84. Mr. Priest reviewed the process followed this year to develop recommendations presented to Council this date and the changes in the law since last year. He also reviewed for Council the five recommendations formulated by the Communitywide CDBG Citizen Participation Committee and listed in his staff report dated November 30, 1982 (on file in the office of the City Clerk), as well as Committee recommendations for the base $1,800,000 and the additional $227,300 in back-up activities recommended in priority order. It was noted that requests for funding had been received from Hope House, Catholic Social Services, Christian Temporary Housing, the Fair Housing Council, and the Legal Aid Society. Additionally a request for $76,000 in CDBG funds was received after the Committee hearing from the Anaheim Public Library to fund the Bookmobile program for 1983-84. With respect to the recommendation made by the CDBG Participation Committee for a youth gang worker, Mr. Priest noted that a recommendation has been received from Parks, Recreation and Community Services Director Chris Jarvi to use seven to ten thousand dollars of the CDBG funds the Committee allocated to this purpose for a three-month study to ascertain whether this would be the most effective way to address this problem. The Mayor opened the public hearing, and the following persons representing requests received for funding from various agencies presented their justifications: Steve Jiminez, Community Services Board and Elizabeth Schultz, Anaheim Library Board, each addressed the Council in support of the written recommendations already submitted by their respective Boards. Additionally, Rosemary Lynch, the Bookmobile Librarian, described the services provided by the Bookmobile. Mr. Gene Scorio, Executive Director, Orange County Fair Housing Council, addressed the Council in support of his original request which was for $38,000, whereas the CDBG Participation Committee recommended $20,000 be allocated. Carlotta Durazo spoke on behalf of the Catholic Social Services funding request, to be used in the Casa Guadalupe Project. She introduced Esteban Manriquez who attested to the services provided him and his family through this organization. Mr. Robert Cohen, Director, Legal Aid Society of Orange County, described increases in activity realized by their organization over the past year, and described the levels of service being provided at the George Washington Community Center which he indicated justified their request for $40,000. 1059 City Hall, Anaheim California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 7, 1982, lO:O0 A.M. Ms. Annette Dodge, 9236 Rosebay, Anaheim, Administrator of Hope House described the alcohol and drug rehabilitation program; the improvements to the structure she intended to accomplish if the funds requested were granted; and introduced one of the current residents who described to Council his experiences with the Hope House Program. After hearing from the various agencies requesting funds, the Council received the following input from the public: Kris Tenpas, Patrick Henry Neighborhood Council, Nancy Renzo, 114 East Wilhelmina, Central City Neighborhood Council, Pamela Robinson, 400 North Vine Street, Apartment B, Central City Target Area, Marge Conway, 1310 Ortega Place, Patrick Henry Target Area, and Sheri Pignone, Chairperson, Patrick Henry Neighborhood Council, 1181 Crown Street, all urged the Council not to use Block Grant funds so urgently needed in the target areas for requests received from non-profit organizations, since those organizations could go elsewhere in their quest for funds, while the target areas could not do so. Mrs. Pignone also stated that the Patrick Henry Council supported the Community Wide Committee's final decisions and recommendation and urged that their legitimacy and credibility be maintained by the Council's approval of the 1983-84 budget as presented intact. Mrs. Jeanne Blackwell, 507 Plymouth Place, Anaheim, President, Anaheim-Garden Grove League of Women Voters, also supported the Committee recommendation that the funds be confined to use in the four target areas, as the need was greater in those particular areas. Mr. Elmer Holthus, Executive Manager, Christian Temporary Housing Facility, 131 East Collins Street, Orange, briefed the information contained in his letter dated December 2, 1982 (on file in the City Clerk's office), requesting $100,000 of the needed $740,000 to purchase a site in Anaheim containing 20 apartments, so that Christian Temporary Housing could begin its operations in the City. Phillip Aquilar, resident of Olive Street, urged that however the CDBG money was spent, that it be used in the area of crime prevention, such as for the Youth Outreach Worker. The Mayor closed the public hearing. In answer to the Mayor, Mr. Priest stated it would be their recommendation that th~ mcb~dula b~ muppl~manted by the addition of the Bookmobile Program for $76,000 and the remainder of the storm drains in the Central City area. Those would be priority funded items if they received additional funds above the ~1.8 million, as they felt they would. They would know about the additional funding in January or February of 1983. Councilwoman Kaywood again broached the issue of storm drains which were so badly needed in the City, and the fact that 48,000 citizens voted for a $10 million storm drain bond issue in 1980, which was subsequently unable to be implemented. She also recounted that her recent proposal to raise the 1060 City Hall, Anaheim California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 7, 1982, 10:00 A.M. property tax by five cents to finance storm drains failed to get a majority vote of the Council. She felt it was time now to dialogue the issue once again and to receive public input, as was previously suggested by Councilman Bay. She wanted to see the Council address that problem. Extensive Council discussion followed, including questions to staff. During the discussion and deliberation, each Council Member gave their input and thoughts relative to the recommendations of the CDBG Citizen Participation Committee on the allocation of the $1.8 million as well as the $227,300 in back-up activities if funding became available (see Attachment 1-Page 1 of the November 30, 1982, staff report). Council Members also stated their priorities, the outcome of which resulted in the following motion: MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to approve the Ninth Year 1983-84 Community Development Block Grant Program Application in the amount of $1.8 million to be submitted for A-95 review encompassing the recommendations of the CDBG Citizen Participation Committee, Page l, Attachment 1, of report dated November 30, 1982, from the Executive Director of Community Development, with the following changes: (1) Outreach Worker--reduce that amount from $45,000 to ~35,000; (2) Traffic signal in the Patrick Henry Area to be placed under back-up activities should the entitlement be greater than $1.8 million; (3) Pearson Park Play Area--placed under back-up activities or to be funded through Redevelopment; (4) Removal of the following items from back-up activities and placed with those items to be funded from the ~1.8 million: Hope House, $12,300; Catholic Social Services $5,000; Christian Temporary Housing, $20,000; Legal Aid Society, as much of the $40,000 amount that could be funded from the $1.8 million; (5) Bookmobile Outreach Program, $76,000 added to those items to be funded from the $1.8 million. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Councilman Bay voted "no." MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Bay stated that he did not agree in principal with approximately 80 percent of those items taken from back-up activities, such as Christian Temporary Housing, and placing those with the items to be funded from the $1.8 million amount. He had previously stated that he was in total agreement with the Citizen Participation Committee when they made the statement that non-profit organizations should raise their money elsewhere. He personally felt that Block Grant funding activities, in its truer sense, should be concentrated in the four target areas and be as tangible as possible in what those ~unds produced. We also reiterated, as he had in the past, that he believed it presumptuous of the Council to donate public tax funds to charity on the basis that they made every citizen and taxpayer a donor whether they wanted to be a donor or not. ~CESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for ten minutes. (10:10 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (10:20 p.m.) 1061 City Hall, Anaheim California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 7, 1982, 10:00 A.M. 134/179: PUBLIC HEARINGS - GENERAL PLAN AMENIMENT NO. 179 AND RECLASSIFICATION NO. 82-83-9, VARIANCE NO. 3301 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: To consider an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan to change the current general commercial designation to medium density on approximately 9.8 acres located south and west of the southwest intersection of Lincoln Avenue and Rio Vista Street. Mr. Joel Fick, Assistant Planning Director--Planning, briefed the staff report to the Planning Commission dated November 15, 1982, relative to the subject property, an owner initiated General Plan Amendment to change the current general commercial designation to medium density residential. The owner proposed to develop a 274-unit apartment complex on the property. The Planning Commission, in their Resolution PC82-205, recommended approval of Exhibit "A", designating the entire area for medium density residential and, further, recommended approval of the negative declaration from the requirement to prepare an Environmental Impact Report on the basis that there would be no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts due to the approval of the negative declaration, since the Anaheim General Plan designates the property for general commercial land uses commensurate with the proposal, that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the proposal, and that the initial study submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 82-83-9, VARIANCE NO. 3301 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application by Central Capital Corporation, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200 to construct a 274-unit apartment complex on approximately 9.8 acres located south and west of the southwest intersection of Lincoln Avenue and Rio Vista Street, with the following Code waivers: (a) maximum structural height, (b) minimum floor area, and (c) required enclosure of carports. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC82-206, declared that the subject project be exempt from the requirement to prepare an Environmental Impact Report on the basis that there would be no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact due to the approval of this negative declaration, since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property for 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 due to this project, and further, granted Reclassification No. 82-83-9, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner(s) of subject property shall deed to the City of Anaheim a strip of land 45 feet in width from the centerline of the street along Rio Vista Street for street widening purposes. 1062 City Hall, Anaheim California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 7, 1982, 10:00 A.M. 2~ That all engineering requirements of the City of Anaheim, along Rio Vista Street and Lincoln 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 Rio Vista Street and Lincoln Avenue shall be installed as required by the Office of Utilities General Manager, and in accordance with specifications on file in the Office of the Office of Utilities General Manager and/or that security in the form of 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 satisfactory installation of the above-mentioned improvements° Said security shall be posted with the City prior to approval of building permits. The above-required improvements shall be installed prior to occupancy~ 3o That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim a fee, in an amount as determined by the City Council, for tree planting purposes along Rio Vista Street and Lincoln Avenue. 4. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans on file with the Office of the Executive Director of Public Works. 5. 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. 6. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities. 7~ That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer. 8~ That the owner of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to be appropriate by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building permit is issued. 9. That a modified cul-de-sac shall be provided at the easterly terminus of Puritan Place subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 10. That prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject property, General Plan Amendment No. 179 shall be adopted by the City Council placing the property in the medium density residential land use designation on the Anaheim General Plan - Land Use Element° 11. 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 each new dwelling unit prior to the issuance of a building permit. 1063 City Hall, Anaheim California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 7, 1982, 10:00 A.M. 12. That a raised median island shall be constructed on Lincoln Avenue adjacent to subject property as required by the City Traffic Engineer. 13. That no vehicular entrance gates shall be permitted unless approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 14. That all dwelling units located on dead end driveways (driveways without turnaround areas) or located a distance of more than 150 feet from the main loop driveway shall be sprinklered as required by the Chief of the Fire Department. 15. That prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall present evidence satisfactory to the Chief Building Inspector that the proposed project is in conformance with Council Policy No. 542, Sound Attenuation in Residential Projects. 16. That the owner(s) of subject property shall submit a letter requesting termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 1885 to the Planning Department. 17. That subject propertY shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Revision No. 1 of Exhibit Nos. 1 through 4. 18. 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. 19. That prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject property, Condition Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 16, above-mentioned, shall be completed. The provisions or rights granted by this resolution shall become null and void by action of the Planning Commission unless said conditions are complied with within one year from the date hereof, or such further time as the Planning Commission may grant. 20. That Condition Nos. 4, 6, 7, 9, 12, 14 and 17, above-mentioned, shall be complied with'prior to final building and zoning inspections. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC82-207, granted Variance No. 3301, subject to the following conditions: 1. That this Variance is granted subject to the completion of Reclassification No. 82-83-9, now pending. 2. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Revision No. 1 of Exhibit No. 1, and Exhibit Nos. 2 through 4. 3. That Condition No. 2, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections. 1064 City Hall, Anaheim California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 7, 1982, 10:00 A.M. The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent. Mr. John Bussy, Vice President of Development, Go C. Properties, Inc., 2152 Dupont Drive, Suite 200, Irvine, explained that Central Capital Corporation was the owner of the property with G. C. Properties as their agent and developer, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Central Federal Savings and Loan. They proposed to build 272 apartment units on the 10 acres of property, consisting of four different floor plans upon which he elaborated. They were requesting a General Plan Amendment from limited commercial to medium density residential, a reclassification to RM-1200 zoning, and three variances which they felt made the project a more viable one and actually enhanced it. They had been working with the Planning Department on the project for three months, as well as working and meeting with the residents adjoining the property on two occasions~ As an outgrowth of those meetings which were attended by approximately 15 people, each meeting, as well as their presentations to the Planning Commission, they had agreed to the following: 1o Since there was a rodent population on the property, they would call in a professional exterminator before starting the project. 2. Since there was a major concern by the adjoining single-family residents because of the proximity of their houses to their rear property lines, they agreed to construction of an eight-foot high masonry wall in lieu of a six-foot wall required by ordinance. 3. Also at the request of the Planning Commission, who were responding to the residents' requests, they did modify a portion of their site plan adjoining the single-family residential. There were some single-story units that were within 20 feet of the property lines which had now been relocated and in all cases, from the property line of the single-family residential, they had the 20-foot required landscape buffer strip, some parking, a road and then the units. Thus, their closest unit was 70 feet. They also reduced the number of junior one-bedroom units below 25 percent. 4. At the request of Mr. and Mrs. Carson, they moved some car spaces to maintain the 20-foot buffer strip and also stipulated that their decorated pavement area would not contain cobblestones or any rough material. 5. At the request of Mr. and Mrs. Bereznay, they relocated some trash enclosures so that they would be more removed from their residence. At the conclusion of the last Planning Commission meeting when their project was approved, he believed the lingering concerns of the adjoining residents was the density of the project. As he explained to the Commission, they were asking for 272 units where, by Code, they could build 315. Relative to building coverage, they were at 38.6 percent and under the ordinance would be allowed 55 percent. They were providing 42 percent of the site in open landscape and hardscape areas. Recreational and leisure area provided was 637 square feet and by Code, 200 square feet was required. Relative to the 1065 City Hall, Anaheim California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 7, 1982, 10:00 A.M. proposed construction of two-story units within the 150 foot buffer strip, they would show cross-sections that would depict the impact of the eight-foot high wall and the location of those units. In concluding, Mr. Bussy stated they had their working drawings in plan check with the Building Division and were anticipating being able to obtain a building permit based on the Council's decision this evening and further, anticipated starting construction in January. Mr. Pete Pitassi, Architect, Kiyotoki Associates, first reviewed the proposed plot plan of the project, which they had revised to remove units to alleviate concerns expressed. That process resulted in the net loss of two units, which was the reason they now had 272 units instead of 274, as indicated in the staff report. He also presented slides of the project which assisted in describing the circulation system through the project, as well as ingress and egress, and slides showing line of sight, proposed elevations, floor plans, carports, etc. He also reiterated, as Mr. Bussy previously indicated, that they had eliminated any openings which faced the single-family residential, with the exception of two entry balconies which were on the south side of two buildings facing 528 Cardiff. The Mayor then asked to hear from anyone who wished to speak in favor of the project; there was no response. The following people then spoke in opposition and expressed their major concerns: Merle Williams, 2710 Puritan Place; Paul Siegal, 2736 East Virginia; Frank Bereznay, 528 Cardiff; Edward Jiblits, 2719 Puritan Place; Henry Kuba, 2711 Puritan Place; Ed Carson, 2725 Puritan Place. Major concerns expressed were relative to the creation of a traffic hazard both on Lincoln Avenue and Rio Vista, the density of the project was too high, such apartments tended to draw low-income families which, in turn, deteriorated property, variances should not be granted so that the developer could make money at the cost of the people who had already invested their money in an area, the project was not one that would blend well with the surrounding single-family residential community, the City's ordinances should be adhered to and variances not granted, and the size of the apartments were too small. The City Clerk also announced that a letter of opposition had been received this date and copied £or Council £rom F. Zanlch, 2806 Virginia Avenue. Mr. Bereznay was particularly concerned over the two, two-story units that were 70 feet away which would cause visual intrusion into his back yard. He wanted those two-story units reduced to one-story to maintain the privacy he had when he bought his home. The Mayor then gave Mr. Bussy an opportunity for rebuttal. 1066 City Hall, Anaheim California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 7, 1982, 10:00 A.M. Mr~ Bussy then answered each of the concerns expressed by those who spoke in opposition. Relative to Mr. Berezney and the two units which he felt would intrude into his back yard, they had stipulated there would be no windows facing his back yard and they were also planning to screen the entry ways consisting of a solid wall. There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public hearing. Mr. Jim Dahlquist, Madole and Associates, then answered questions posed by Councilwoman Kaywood on ingress and egress to the project~ ENVIROblMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION - GENERAL PLAN AMENI1MENT NO. 179: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Pickler, the City Council finds that subject project will 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 commercial land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the proposal; and that the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts; and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 82R-584 for adoption, approving an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan designated as Amendment No~ 179--Exhibit "A". Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 82R-584: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELMMENT OF THE ANAHEIM GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATED AS AMENEMENT NO. 179, EXHIBIT "A.'~ Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 82R-584 duly passed and adopted. Councilwoman Kaywood then asked if there was a way to have the developer stipulate that they were, in fact, planning to own and also manage the apartments; Mr~ Bussy stated that was their intent, to build, own and manage the apartments, but they would hesitate to give a guarantee~ ENVIRObMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 82-83-9, VARIANCE NO. 3301: On motion by Councilman Pickler, seconded by Councilman Bay, the City Council finds that subject project will have no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact due to the approval of this negative declaration since the Anaheim General Plan 1067 City Hall, Anaheim California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 7, 1982, 10:00 A.M. designates the subject property for medium density residential land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the proposal; that the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts; and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Pickler offered Resolution Nos. 82R-585 and 82R-586 for adoption, the first ~pproving Reclassification No. 82-83-9 and the second granting Variance No. 3301, subject to the conditions of the City Planning Commission and, further, that there be no sight intrusion on those single-family homes adjacent to two-story units within 150 feet. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 82R-585: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ~AHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED. (82-83-9) RESOLUTION NO. 82R-586: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 3301. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MMMBERS: COUNCIL MMMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth None None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 82R-585 and 82R-586 duly passed and adopted. 153: SALARY RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Pickler offered Resolution Nos. 82R-587 through 82R-593, both inclusive, for adoption, as recommended by the City Manager. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 82R-587: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 82R-506 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR CLASSES DESIGNATED AS SUPPORT AND SUPERVISORY MANAGEMENT. RESOLUTION NO. 82R-588: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION NO. 81R-502 AND AMENII~ENTS THERETO AND ADJUSTING RATES OF CCMPENSATION FOR CLASSIFICATIONS DESIGNATED AS EXECUTIVE MANAGMMENT. RESOLUTION NO. 82R-589: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION NO. 81R-501 AND AMENBMENTS THERETO AND ADJUSTING RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR CLASSIFICATIONS DESIGNATED AS AIM INISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT. RESOLUTION NO. 82R-590: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING PERSONNEL RULE 16, VACATION AND AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 81R-151. 1068 City Hall, Anaheim California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 7, 1982, 10:00 A.M. RESOLUTION NO. 82R-591: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING PERSONNEL RULE 17, SICK LEAVE, AND AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 81R-151~ RESOLUTION NO. 82R-592: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 82R-589 AND ADJUSTING RATES OF CCMPENSATION FOR CLASSIFICATIONS DESIGNATED AS AI1MINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT. RESOLUTION NO. 82R-593: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 82R-589 AND ADJUSTING RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR CLASSIFICATIONS DESIGNATED AS AEMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL M~MBERS: COUNCIL MMMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pickier, Overholt and Roth Bay None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 82R-587 through 82R-593, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. 159/116: APPOINIMENT OF JOHN H. ROCHE AS DIRECTOR OF MAINTENANCE: City Manager William Talley announced 'his appointment of John H. Roche as Director of Maintenance. The action, Phase II of a management streamlining program, would combine the Facility, Mechanical and Street Maintenance functions into the new Maintenance Department, with Engineering being transferred to the Planning Department. Ail maintenance functions were thereby realigned into a single department. MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to ratify the appointment by the City Manager of John H. Roche as Director of Maintenance. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Overholt moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (11:45 p.m.) LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK 1069 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 14~ 1982~ 10:00 A.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MtlMBERS: Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth COUNCIL MEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts FINANCE DIRECTOR: George P. Ferrone ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY: Jack L. White ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR--PLANNING: Joel Fick ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR--ZONING: Annika Santalahti TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer ASSISTANT PLANNER: Mary McCloskey Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: The Reverend Tom Favreau, Hotline Help Center, gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Ben Bay led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 119: RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A Resolution of Congratulations was unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to Coach Ron Smeltzer of the Servite Friars football team for winning the CIF Championship. Coach Smeltzer was accompanied by the Principal of Servite, Father Motsko, as well as nine players of the team. Ail were personally congratulated by the Mayor and the Council on behalf of the City. MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held November 9, 1982. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. 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 ordinances or resolutions in regular order. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL D~MANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $2,790,174.11, in accordance with the 1982-83 Budget, were approved. CITY MANAGER/DEPAR%MENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the following items were approved in accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 82R-594 through 82R-601, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. 1070