Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1981/07/07
81-944 City Hall, Anaheim, California -COUNCIL MINb'iES -0uly 7, i9~1, ~:30 P.~l. The City Council ct t~e City ok Anaheim met in regular session. PRESEt%: A~SENI: PRESEN%: COUNCIL M~i~iBARS: Over~olt, Kaywooc, ba~, Rot~ and Seymour COUNCIL MEMBERS: None CI%Y I~iANAGER: William O. Taiiey ASSIS%ANT CI2Y MANAGER: William 1. Hopkins CI2Y A%k©R~EY: ~illiam ?. Hopkins CI%Y CLERK: Linca D. Roberts S%ADIbM, COI~VE~%IO[~ CENTER, GOL~ Gm~ERAL ~A~.iAGgR: %om Lzegler TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer ASS1S'IA~i PLAN[~±NG LIRECiO~,--ZCNING. Annika Santalahti CIVIL ENGIi~EER--DESIGN: Art Daw DE~E~% I~z: Oim War,ins Mayor Seymour called t~e meetin~ to or~er an~ ~velcomed those zn attenaance to tree Council meeting. I~VOCAilO[~: Reverent Jovan k. baville, retired, ~t. ~ichaei's Episcopal Church, gave tme Invocation. FLAG SALbIE: :ounczlman Don k. Roth led t~e assemOly :n :~e Plecge ct Allegiance to the Flag. t19: RESOLbTIO~ OF CGI,J,IENDAIION: A resolution of commendation was unani- mously adopted by the City Council to be presented to the Canyon Hills Junior Women's Club for their outstanding effort and support of che new Canyon Hills Library. ~IlNgiES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes o~ ~ne regular meeting held April 21, 1981, subject to typographical corrections. Councilman Bay seconde~ the motion, hO%lO~i C~iRIED. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLU%iONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to ~aive the reading in ~ull of all ordinances and resolutions ct the Agenca, after reading oY the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to waiver is hereby given by all Council ~.~embers, unless niter reading o~ne title, specific request is made by a Council MemOer for the reading of such ordinances or resolutions in regular order. Councilman koth secondec ~he motion. MO%ION CARRIED. ~II~Ai~CIAL DIAIANLS AGAIi~S% %HE ~I%Y in the amount o~ $Z,07'~.56 ~or ,~he peric~ ending June 30, 1WS1 and $1,421,967.~2 tot the period ending July 2, 19Ol, in accordance with the 1~80-81 Budget, wer= approved. 129: WEED ABAIEME~% CONTRACT ~ISCAL YEAR 1980-~1 ~I~AL PAYhE~'I: Councilman Ba~ o~ere~ ~esolution ~o. $i~-313 ~cr acoption, acceptzns the ~or~ acne ~ Edwin Webber, Inc., as compiete in compliance with Weed Abatement Comtract ~o. 79R, as recommended zn memoran~ura ~ated June 2~, 1981 ~rom ~z~e b~arsmai Gart~ £.ienges. Refer to Resolution Boo~. 81-945 Citer Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - 3uly 7, 1981, l:30 F.M. RESOLUTION NO. 81R-313: A RESOLUTION OF THE ClriY COUNCIL OF THE CITY O5 ANAHEIh FINALLY ACC~P~iING %HE CO~IPLEIION ANL 2HE ~URNIbHi~G OF ALL LABOR EQUIPMENT TO CUT AND REhOVE RUBBISH, REFUSE AND DIRT UPON ~2~Y PARCEL OR PARCELS OF REAL PROPERTY OR ANY PUBLIC STREET IN 'IHE CiTY O~' ANAHEIM, ~S DIRECTED BY TH~. C~IE~ OF Tag FIRE ~EPART~m~, ACCOUNT NO. 01-20~-6~0 (l~80-Sl). Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSEN%: COUNC IL ME~iBERS: COUNCIL MEhBERS: COUNC IL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywoo~, Bay, ~oth and Seymour None None lhe Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-313 duly passed and a~opted. 164/174: AWAtLD OF CONTRACT - PATT STREET NEIGHBORHOOD AREA STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS: Account No. 25-7 91-6 325-E1~10 . Councilwoman Kaywood o[fered Resolution No. 81R-314 for adoption, awarding a contract as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated 3une 30, 1981. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 81R-314: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CIIY OF ANAHE~i ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND A~ARDING A CONTRACT ~O IHE ~G~EST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLAN%, L~J6OR, SERVICES, P~TER1ALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND IRANSPORTAIiON iNCLUDING POWEk, fUEL AND WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE FGLLOklNG PUBLIC ~IPROVEMEN%: PATT STREEi NEIGHbORkOOD AREA S'iO~.~ DRAI~ IMPROVEMENTS, IN THE CIIY OF ANA~ELM, ACCOUNT NO. 25-791-6325-E1210. (Kelley- Moran, $123,502~ Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSEAI: COUI~6 IL biEhBakS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: 6OPNbIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, bay, ~iotn an~ ~eymour None None The ~.~ayor declared Resolution No. 61r,-314 duly passe~ and adopted. 159/152: ACTING CITY ENGINEER: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 81R-315 for adoption, appointing Art Daw, oesign Engineer as Acting City Engineer, due to the extended illness of the City Engineer William Devitt as recommended in memorandum dated July 7, 1~81 lrom nne Deputy City manager. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 81R-315: A kESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL O5 2HE CiIY O~ ANAHELM APPOINTING ARTHUR L. DAW AS ACTING CITY ENGINEER OF THE CIIY OF ANAHEIM. 81-946 City Hall, Anaheim, California - GoUNCzL M1NU'IES - July 7, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBgRS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNt IL bLEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, ~ay, Roth and ~eymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. ~iR-315 ~uly passed and adopted. 123/101: AMENDED A/~D RESTATED LEASE AGREEMENT WITH %HE GOLDEN WEST BASEBALL COMPANY ("ANGELS"): City Manager ~illiam Talley announced t~at at 9:30 a.m. today, Tom Liegler, Stadium, Convention Center and Golf General Manager, submitted an agreement which the City staff had worked on tor 1~ months, the amended and restated lease agreement with the Golden West Baseball Company, the California Angels. His (Taliey's) seven-page report dated July 7, 1981 explained the changes between that and the existing lease agreement and occupancy agreement. ~e thereupon distribute~ copies o~ ~he report to t~e Council and provided copies for the press. He recommended that the Council consider the lease and occupanc~ agreement and at a later time ~oday, accept the agreements. Mayor Sekmour statea the Council might oe in a posit~on ~o renaer a aecision at 7:00 p.m. this evening, at the start of the night hearing a~ter they had an opportunity during the course of the Gay to read the ~ocumentation presented. He asked, however, relative to the amended agreement with the Angels if there could be any provision in it that woula improve the City's plight as a result of the present baseball strike, or a future strike. The City Manager stated that he would aefer to tae City Attorney, but the existing agreement contained a force majeure clause. They were attempting not to better the position of either party, but to set ~ortn the actual practices that had existed since 1964. There were major areas where no changes in wording were possible because neither side wanted to permit any type o~ an advantage on behal~ of the other. The Mayor surmise~ then that their work had nothing to ao with the basic contract and lease agreement, but with reducing to writing certain verbal understandings and agreements making those contractual. Mr. Talley confirmed that it brought the 1964 agreement to 1981 without injuring either party. It had nothing to ~o with the strike. City Attorney William Hopkins clarified that there had been no change in the force majeure or other provisions of tr~e basic contract regarding insurance. The Mayor asked what the City Manager's impression would be if they were to attempt to renegotiate the iorce majeure clause relative to the strike. Mr. Talley answered that the 19 months of e~fort would have been for naught. He was positive that Golden West Baseball would not impose an) kznancial burden upon themselves which they were not required by law to do. 81-947 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUIES - 3uly 7, 1981, 1:30 P.M. The Mayor stated they would receive the City Manager's recommendations and take them under consideration and if they concluded the afternoon meeting early enough, they would take action at 7:00 p.m. Later in the meeting (7:15 p.m.) the hayor announcea that the ~ouncii~had an opportunity to review the subject agreements and he thereupon defe~ to the City Manager to present his recommendations. City Manager Talley briefed the Council on his extensive report dated July 7, 1981 recommending the ~ollowing: (1~ approve the Amenae~ an~ Restated Lease Agreement with Golden West Baseball Company; and (2) approve the form for the Occupancy Agreement and authorize the Stadium General Manager to execute the same on an as-needed basis. The report outlined in some detail major changes between the 1964 agreement and the amendments, so that the Council might be aware of each of the areas where staff believed progress had been made and ~or which changes were recommended. Sixteen areas were outlined in the report and elaborated upon by the City Manager. At the conclusion of his presentation, Mr. ~alley expressed mis compliments to Mr. Tom Liegler, the leader of the negotiations through the 19-month period, BuzzieBavasiof the California Angels, assisted by ~rank Leary and Red Patterson, but also more importantly to Jack White, Assistant City Attorney, who ~or the last 8 or 9 months had gone through a score o~ agreements having to educate several attorneys for the Angels because they changed frequently. He brought them to a point yesterday where hr. Autry signed the agreement, he urged the Council to pass the recommended actions. Mayor Seymour asked Mr. Liegier if there was anything he carea to add. Mr. Tom Liegler, Stadium, Convention Center and Golf General Manager, state~ the only addition he woul~ like to make was the ~act nnat they could not over- look Mr. Talley's negotiating abilities. They were outstanding for the entire 19-month period, keeping in mind that the Calitornia Angels were a major tenant and had to be treated as such and still, in the ~est interest of the taxpayers of Anaheim, provide a uocument that would continue t~e present ongoing relationship, as well as a long-term future relationship. The Mayor stated, in essence, what the Council was being presented with to~ay was the culmination of 19 months of difficult negotiations. On behalf of the Council, he commended Messrs. Talley, Liegler, White and staff who t~ad the tenacity to see the negotiations through. It was interesting to note that for 15 years, although they ha~ a basic lease agreement, they conducted business with the Angels on present matters with a handshake. He felt that spoke very well of Mr. Liegler, City Management and the Angels. It was important to emphasize, howev~, that the impacts of the current baseball strike were not a matter of negotiati~. 81-948 City Hall, Anaheim, Calitornia- COUNCIL MINUTES - ouly 7, 1961, 1:30 P.M. MO%ION: Councilman Seymour moved to approve the Amended and Restated Lease Agreement with the Golden West Baseball Company, authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute same; approving the form for the Occupancy Agreement and authorizing the Stadium General Manager to execute the same on an as-needed basis. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MO%ION CARRIED. 142/108: PROPOSED AblEND~ENT I0 ORDINANCE - Ah0SEMENT DEVICE ARCADES: Continued from the meetings of biay 19, June 2, 9 and 30, 1981--see minutes those dates. City Attorney Hopkins noted that last week the Council requested his office to revise the ordinance that he had prepared concerning amusement devices. A revision was prepared which basically still gave the Chief of Police responsibility for investigating the applications for a permit on amusement devices and added a provision whereby the Planning Department would investigate the zoning. They would also send out written inquiries to the residents and occupants within 300 feet of the premises in wnich an arcade would be proposed. If both Planning Director and the Chief of Police con- curred, the License Collector would then issue a permit without reference to the City Council. There was also a right of appeal to the Council in the event that the application was turned down by either the Planning Director or the Chief of Police. For less than five machines, only the Chief of Police approval would 0e required as at present, it more than ~ive, ~t would oe an arcade and that would trigger the Planning Director's inquiry to the residents and occupants within 300 ~eet. %nose were the basic changes ne felt were directed by the Council last week. ORDINANCE NO. 4239: Councilwoman ~aywood offered Crdinance ~o. 4239 for ~irst reading. ORDINANCE 50. 4239: AN ORDINANCE O~' IHE bITY OF ANAHE~ A%ENDIgG SEC%IONS 3.24.030, 3.24.040 ~D 3.24.050 OF CHAlk%ER 3.24, ADDING NEW SECTION 3.24.045 IO CH~kPIER 3.24, AND ~E~DING SEC%ION 3.28.0i0 OF CHAP%ER 5.28 C~ %IILE 3 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO AMUSEmeNT DEVICES. Mayor Seymour noted the second and ~inal reading of the ordinance next week would provide an opportunity for any member of the Council to comment or offer an amendment to the proposal if they decided. 114: TAPE RECORDINGS OF PUBLIC MEEIINGS: Proposed amendment to Council Policy No. 107 and rescinding Resolution No. 80R-379 relating to procedures for the use, duplication and transcription of tape recordings of public meetings, was submitted. City Attorney Hopkins briefed his report aated June 30, 1981 recommending that the Council adopt the propsed resolution amending Council Policy No. i07 in order to conform to the Attorney General's Opinion No. 80-106 ~ated April 17, 1981. The City Attorney then explained tor Counci£woman kaywoo~ that the basic policy provided the City Clerk prepared a tape of the Council meeting solel3 for the purpose of aiding her in preparing the official minutes o~ t~e meeting. As soon as the Council approved those minutes, the City Clerk woul~ then be directed and ordered to ~estroy or erase that tape. 81-949 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 7~ 1981, 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she was thinking in terms where on occasions they just received the minutes and the Council then approved them subject to any corrections which might take a couple of weeks. City Attorney Hopkins stated if the Council directed the minutes to be subject to corrections, then until the corrections were made, the Clerk would not erase or destroy the tape. The City Clerk would keep the tape until the minutes were finalize~, whatever time was required. Councilman Roth offered a resolution amending Council Policy No. 107 and rescinding Resolution No. 80R-379 relating to procedures rjr the use, ~uplica- tion and transcription of tape recordings of public meetings. Bezore action was taken, Councilman Bay wanted to clarity taat the intent o£ the law which subjected them to storing the tapes as soon as the minutes were complete was to sustain the fact that the tapes were only ma~e rjr the purpose of initiating the minutes. City Attorney Hopkins clarified that was correct. 1~ they were kept rjr any other purpose, then the applicable laws would require that they be kept for two years and destroyed pursuant to a resolution of the Council. Councilman Bay suggested then that they no longer approve minutes with the statement on them, "with corrections." I~ they had to wait another week to approve the minutes, then they would approve them once and for all. He felt it would be a much clearer and cleaner ~unction. Usually when they modified the approval motion by saying '~ith corrections", it was because they did not have time to study or read the minutes. Councilman Overholt stated his understanding of the motion frequently ma~e By Councilwoman Kaywood where she moved to approve subject to corrections was that those corrections would not be substantive matters. I~ they were, then they would be brought back to the Council. Therefore, the corrections were typographical or grammatical in nature. Councilman Bay stated he was merely trying co clarify the exact timing.on when the City Clerk would be told to destroy the tapes. The intent of the law was~ to justify destruction of the tapes by saying that they ~ere only going to be used to prepare the minutes. Mayor Seymour state~ he ha~ concern with the entire process. %he minutes of the meeting to the best of the Clerk's ability were a synopsis of what was said. %~e problem he had zn the past wita the corrections was with w~at me considered to be in some cases substantive, wherein the synopsis of the actual words of the tape, the meaning and expressions were changed. I~ the price to be paid with the continuation of tapes was that they must be kept for two years, he suggested that was well worth the accuracy of what actually took place,at the meetings. He questioned the system of destroying the tapes at ail, and unless there was some strong reason given by the City Attorney or a member of the Council, he opposed the proposed resolution. He would prefer to 81-950 City Hall, Anaheim, Cali£ornia - COUNCIL MINUIES - july 7, 1981, 1:30 continue with the synopsis of the meeting but then as a back up, if a member o~ the public or a member of the Council wanted to 0e very specific in their information as to who said what and with what inflection, they should be provided that opportunity. I~ they had to pay a price tor storage and main- taining the tapes for two years, he was prepared to pay that price in order to have the pure objectivity contained in the tapes. Councilman Overholt asked what would prevail; City Attorney Hopkins answered that under current interpretations, the tapes would be the best evidence of what was said by the Council Members and they had used them in court. Rela- tive to the action taken, it would be the resolution or the minute entry o~ the order of the Council. Councilman Overholt stated he thought that was where he ran into a problem with the City Attorney once before, where the language of the resolution he felt did not correctly set forth what was said, and he tOverholt) took the position that the resolution once passed prevaile~, so that the public could rely on that action of the Council. Councilwoman Kaywood stated inasmuch as the minutes were a synopsis and she did not feel that they wanted to make t~em any more lengthy, if they were to destroy the tapes so quickly, they would have to have longer minutes. She reitereated she did not feel they wanted to Go that. Yhe City Clerk then clarified ~or 6ouncilwoman Kaywood that at present sme ~as keeping the tapes of the meetings for two years. Councilman koth thereupon withdrew ~is resolution. MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved that they continue to maintain the tapes o~ City Council meetings for a period of two years. Councilman bay secon~e~ the motion. Betore action was taken, Councilman Overholt asked the City Attorney the disadvantages of passing the foregoing motion. City Attorney Hopkins answered that he could not see any ~isadvantages other than the Clerk had to retain a file of tapes for that period of time, as well as the expense of buying tapes; City Clerk Roberts indicated other than storage of the tapes, there was no other disadvantage. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MO%ION CARRIED. Councilman Overholt wanted to be certain the Council was satisfied with the motion made by Councilwoman Kaywood relative to approval of t~e minutes which included, "subject to corrections." Mayor.Seymour stated he was satisfied to the cegree that he mele the City Clerk responsible to inform the Council i~, in her opinion, there were substantive c~anges. If she was asked ~y any Council member, zt was her responsibility to inform the entire Council. 81-951 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL i~INUTES - 3uly 7, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Roth felt that many times corrections were a very minor nature which he concluded must take time and energy to correct. He questioned if there was any value to the minutes being "pure". Perhaps the hours spent making such corrections could De used to bring the minutes up to Gate. Questioning of the City Clerk followed by Council Members relative to the mechanics of making corrections to tee minutes which in [inality was ~eter- mined to involve approximately five hours a week for making City Clerk correc- tion to a set of minutes such as that approved to~ay ~Council meeting ox April 21, 1981--18 pages). Additional corrections necessitated a playout on the word processing unit of the entire page involved, approxzmately five minutes a page. Mayor Seymour concurred with Councilman Roth that typographical errors were a waste of money; Councilman Roth added that they would also have the tapes for two years to clarziy such errors. Councilwoman Kaywood disagreed in that if there was a misspelling oI a name and there was no one able to verify the accuracy, they should have that accuracy initially. MOTION: At the conclusion of further discussion, Councilman Seymour moved that in the future, the minutes be approved with all corrections at the time they were presented by the City Clerk. Councilman koth seconaed the motion. Before action was taken, the Mayor explained the intent of the motion provided that they would no longer approve minutes subject to corrections. If there were corrections the Council wanted to approve, those must be submitted at the time the minutes were submitted. %ne intent would be an elimination of a dotting of the "i's" and crossing of "t's" and carrying on with the spirit of the minutes representing a synopsis of the actions o£ the City Council, the tape being the actual record. Councilman Overholt stated he was suppor[ive of the motion because he ~elt they should not be approving minutes until they had read them. The Mayor stated they were saying, (13 if they did not aave an opportunity no· read the minutes, they would not approve them for another week but then, (2) if the types of corrections going to be asked ~or were a crossin~ ot t's, grammatical change, a spelling change, then it would be the spirit and the intent of the motion that they no longer do that. 1~ there were necessary substantive changes, he would be the first to vote that those corrections be made. Councilwoman Kaywood expressed her concern that the minutes would ~e approved with errors or misspelled words. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilwoman kaywoo~ voted "no". MOTION CARRIED. 81-952 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 7, i981, 1:30 P.M. City Attorney Hopkins asked for clarification as to whether the Council desired the same policy to be applied to City Boards and Commissions as nad just been set forth for the Council. The Mayor asked that the City Attorney submit a report relative to the other Boards and Commissions and the Council would address their policy at that time. The City Attorney stated they would prepare a revised Policy No. 107 that would include all the details. 108: AMDSEMENT DEVICES PERMIT - NUMERO UNO PIZZERIA: Application by Wayne Eugene Smith, 3010 West Lincoln Avenue for 24 various amusement devices. Mayor Seymour stated the Council would appreciate hearing from the applicant as to why he would be injured if his request was not acted upon until the proposed ordinance on amusement devices was finalized, the second reading for which would take place in one week. If there were no changes, that ordinance would become law in 30 days. Mr. H. A. Franken, 17561 Bonnet Drive, Santa Ana, explained that the arcade was part of the restaurant and there was no outside accessibility to the room. In building the restaurant at 3010 West Lincoln, there was 800 square feet of space that was not going to be used at all. The landlord made a proposal that if they wanted to use it, he would make a special rental concession. In doing so, they contacted Mr. Tabb ~or the machines. They were presently under construction relative to improvements inside the restaurant and at this point could not complete it unless they had a '~es" or "no"--either wall off the 800 square feet and forget it, or proceed and restore all the electrical equipment they would need. Mr. Edward Tabb, 3700 Plaza Drive, Santa Bna, explained that they were in a position as the operators of the equipment where they had quite a long lead time especially in furnishing the number of pieces of equipment required. They had a tentative agreement from the distributor to set aside the pieces, but if for some reason the permit was not granted, those pieces were going to go to other operators. If that came about, it would take them some ti~e in order to be able once again to put together that number of machines. The Mayor suggested that if in the next week they could go out and solicit the opinions, "yes" or "no", relative to what they were planning to do with regard to the amusement devices from all tenants and property owners within a radius of 300 feet of the establishment and bring that information back to the Council next week, he felt the Council would be in a position to say "yes" or "no" at that time. They did not want to take a favorable action today, ~or example, and then have Mr. Franken's business or residential neighbors coming to City Hall asking why they let the arcade center go in. He could not approve the request without knowing how the other businesses in the center felt. 81-953 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - ouly 7, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Tabb asked, assuming they were able to get that information to the Council by the meeting next week, what was the time frame after that for them to establish the business. Mayor Seymour indicated if the Council approved, it would be instantaneous; the City Attorney clarified that was correct. The Council's decision would implement the matter and the License Division would issue the permit. MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to continue consideration of the application for an Amusement Devices Permit submitted by Mr. Wayne Eugene Smith, Numero Uno Pizzeria, 3010 West Lincoln Avenue, for one week. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 148: ALTERNATE TO THE ORANGE COUNTY HEALTH PLANNING COUNCIL (CRPC): Appointing an alternate to the Orange County Health Planning Council (continued from the meeting of June 23, 1981). Since there were no nominations, the Mayor suggested that the matter be continued for two weeks. MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to continue consideration of the appoint- ment of an alternate to the Orange County Health Planning Council for two weeks and that the delegate be contacted to solicit ~is recommendation for an alternate. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 166: REQUEST FOR SPECIAL SIGN DISPLAY - blACCO PETROLEUM: Request by Tony Garibay Jr., Vice President of Marketing for Macco Petroleum Corporation, for the use of barrels as a sign display and for a permit to install a 65-foot flag pole to accommodate a 20-x 30-foot American Flag at the Amigo Gasoline Station located at 1680 West Lincoln Avenue, was submitted, together with a report by the Zoning Division recommending denial. Mr. Tony Garibay Jr., 1041 Terrace 49, Los Angeles, introduced the President of the Macco Petroleum Company, Mr. J. C. Smith. Mr. John Calvin Smith, 17327 Peradura, Pacific Palisades, ~irst asked for clarification that they did not need a permit for the flagpole to fly the American Flag; the Mayor confirmed that was correct as was stated in staff report dated June 7, 1981 from the Assistant Planning Director for Zoning. Mr. Smith continued then that the item of contention was the request for approval to use barrels for a sign display advertising a drawing to give away 50 gallons of fuel per week as a sales promotion ~or three to six months. They were brand new painted barrels and photographs of the display had pre- viously been provided. He then described what they did at their otaer stations. He emphasized that they wanted to be competitive as an independent dealer. Their prices were competitive being equal to or sometimes lower than service stations within a two-mile radius. Councilwoman Kaywood felt if their prices were lower, that was all they would need. 81-954 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 7, 1981, 1:30 P.M. The Mayor stated while he felt that Mr. Smith's was a good idea, on the other hand, if they granted his request, it was not unreasonable to expect the station across the street to come in and ask for barrels stacked twice as high advertising whatever programs they might have available. Subsequent to that, other stations in the City would have the right to make a similar request. His inclination was to deny the request although he was with the spirit of anything Mr. Smith could do as an entrepreneur to reduce the price of gasoline. After further discussion, Mr. Smith submitted to the Council an award he had just received for his service stations for landscaping, signing, etc. It was one of three they had received. The Mayor then explained for Mr. Smith the function of the Anaheim Beautiful organization, which organization gave annual awards. He assured him that the Council would submit his station (Lincoln and Euclid) as a possible contestant for the award in Anaheim. MOTION: Councilman Seymour thereupon moved to deny the subject request ~or the use of barrels as a sign display. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Bay stated as a member of Anaheim Beautiful, he would nominate the Amigo Station for one of the Anaheim Beautiful awards because it was such a beautiful gas station. 381/106: ANAHEIM ARYS COUNCIL: Request by Ms. Eileen Anthony, President, that the City accept an initial payment of $3,000 toward the purchase of an Artmobile and for the City to appropriate the additional ~unds to purchase the vehicle at this time, to be repaid by the Arts Council over a three-year period, was submitted. Ms. Eileen Anthony presented a check ~or $3,000 to the Council for the subject purpose; Mayor Seymour accepted the check on behalf of the Council and the City and expressed their ~eep appreciation to the Arts Council for their con- tinuing contributions to the City. Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 81R-316 for adoption, accepting the donation offer of $3,000 from the Anaheim Arts Council for the purchase of an Artmobile at a cost not to exceed $12,000; approving :uture appropriations by the Anaheim Arts Council for the balance of the purchase cost to be repaid to the City in three equal annual payments, and appropriating $12,000 to Program 270 for the purchase of the vehicle and appropriating $1,000 for 1981-82 maintenance and operation costs, as recommended in memorandum dated June 23, 1981 from Deputy City Manager James Ruth. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 81R-316: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING AN APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FROM THE ANAHEIM ARTS COUNCIL AND APPROVING FUTURE APPROPRIATIONS TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ~OR THE PURPOSE OF ACQUIRING AN ARTMOBILE. 81-955 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Jul7 7, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNC IL ~EMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNC IL M_EMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-316 duly passed and adopted. 156: POLICE OLYMPICS XV, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA, JULY 22-26~ 1981: Detective Jim Watkins, Police Olympics Coordinator, requesting use of City business time for the Anaheim Police Olympics Team to compete at the XV Annual California Police Olympics in Sacramento between July 22 and 26, 1981. MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to approve the request for use of City business time for the Anaheim Police Olympic Teams to participate in the sub3ect Olympics. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywooa asked the cost to the City as well as the liability involved and also how many cities in California and in the United States funded such participation. Detective Jim Watkins stated that someone zrom the City Manager's office had prepared the cost factors; Councilwoman Kaywood commente~ that Polly Conrad, Senior Secretary in the Police Department, indicated that the cost was approximately $3,500. Detective Watkins stated that would be the maximum figure if everybody went for the full length of time of their competition. Realistically it would be less that that. With regard to the number of cities funding participation, he kept trying to do a survey and it changed every year. It was very difficult to get answers. He knew of instances where very large cities would adjust schedules indicating people were away for training. It was not a City business day but they were still getting paid as being on the job. It was done administratively only. He believed he was one of the first officers from California who approached any City Council with such requests. They had their Chief's support. Detective Watkins then briefed portions of his detailed report to the Council, subject: Police Olympics XV, Sacramento, California, July 22-26, 1981. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MO%ION CARRIED. Before concluding, City Manager Talley asked if before Detective Watkins left they could get a clarification. Last year the Council asked the Poiice Olympics Committee to explore a method whereby the City liability would not be jeopardized and nothing had come of that in a year. Councilwoman Kaywood interjected and asked if it were called training, would that Rake any ~i~ference. 81-956 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 7, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Talley answered "no" and stated what they had done was not only assumed liability for the days when they were c ompetzng, but also ~or the days they were in transit. Last year the Council suggested giving the Anaheim Police Association an amount wherein they could compensate the participants and have it done under the aegis of the Anaheim Police Association. They had not heard anything back and he wanted to know if the Council wished any instruction at all on the matter. Were anything to happen, the City was probably going to be liable from the moment they left for the Olympics until they returned. Also, they did not treat the Fire Department accordingly. That Department had more people attend, but they did not come to the Council to ask for anything. Lastly, there was some $3,000 in work hours involved. If they could do it any other way, at least there would not be an exposure. While the Council ~ad voted on the matter for the 15th year, he asked again if they wanted to give any instructions that might say, unless they were willing to look at some alternate measures, not to come back. Otherwise, was it to be Council Policy that they did not wish them to explore alternatives. Detective Watkins stated the results of some of the inquiries that he made, anytime they were approved as City delegates, there was no waiver they could sign. He was looking into signed waivers where no one would be held respon- sible, but by law they could not do that anytime they were authorized by the City to perform a business function. By authorizing City time, it would be a business function. Further if a dollar amount were granted to an association who in turn would give it back to the police officers, that might make them professional athletes and the Olympics was an amateur event. Councilman Bay stated it might also constitute a gift of public funds. Further discussion then followed at the conclusion of which the Mayor stated they were interested in eliminating the potential liability involved as a result of an accident and possibly having the event covered by insurance purchased by the APA. City Attorney Hopkins explained that the Workers Compensation laws covered the type of activity involved. If it was something sponsored by the City or done on City business time and if there was an injury, it would subject the. City to a Worker's Compensation claim. If other insurance were available, that might' help, but the law was quite clear that anything sponsore~ or ~one on City business time would be subject to the Worker's Compensation law and, there- fore, the City would be liable. Mayor Seymour asked if there was some way they could encourage participation in the Police Olympics by awarding bonus pay which would be equivalent to the number of days it would take to participate, thereby precluding the liability of the City in the event of an injury. The City Attorney stated that would raise the question as to public funds being.used for that type of activity. As well, he was still of the opinion that if it was something the City authorized or condoned, the Worker's Compensation law would make the city liable. 81-957 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 7, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Mayor Seymour then asked, given another week, they could immediately pursue whatever creative methods they could find to answer the question of liability. If they had some misfortune where one of the officers were so injured, resulting in a permanant disability retirement and further, that retirement equated over its life to the tune of $100,000, he did not know what he would tell the taxpayers. ~ Councilman Bay stated he assumed the intent was now to continue the decision on liability coverage for one week. He would be glad to second such a motion and would also like to know if the City could buy insurance covering all of these matters separately from Worker's Compensation and the rest, as well as the cost of doing so. MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to continue consideration of the subject request for one week so that the liability aspects could be investigated in the interim. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (3:00 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (3:10 P.M.) PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 80-81-33, VARIANCE NO. 3211 AND NEGA%IVE DECLARATION: Application by Ronald Timothy and Kathi Ann Short, for a change in zone from RS-7200 to RM-2400, to construct a 4-unit apartment complex on property located at 124 North Coffman Street, with the following Code waivers: a. minimum building site area b. maximum structural height The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-95 ~eclared 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 Reclassification No. 80-81-33 subject to the following conditions. 1. That sidewalks shall be installed along Coffman Street as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with standard plans ans specifications on file in the Office of the City Engineer. 2. 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 street lighting along Coffman Street. 3. 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 Coffman Street. 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 deter- mined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to commence- ment of structural framing. 81-958 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 7, 1981, 1:30 P.M. 6. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities. 7. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satis- factory 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 the owner(s) of subject property shall pay the traffic signal assess- ment 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. 10. Prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject property, Condition Nos. 2 and 3, above-mentioned, shall be completed. Ihe provisions or rights granted by this resolution shall become null and void by action of the Planning Commission unless said conditions are complied within one year from the date hereof, or such further time as the Planning Commission may grant. 11. That Condition Nos. 1, 4, 6 and 7, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-105, granted Variance No. 3211 subject to the following conditions: '1. That this Variance is granted subject to the completion of Reclassification No. 80-81-33, now pending. 2. 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. A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman Kaywood at the meeting of May 26, 1981 and public hearing schedule this date. Councilwoman Kaywood asked staff to clarify that the proposal would be proper for three units, but not for four as requested; Annika Santalahti, Assistant Planning Director for Zoning answered that was correct. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she was concerned with both of the waivers- requested--asking for four units when only three were permitted and having a two-story building 11 feet and 25 feet from RS-7200 single-family. The applicant, Mr. Ron Short, first explained that they wanted ~our units because it was so close per square feet for the four units; Councilwoman Kaywood stated it was 13% more. Mr. Short continued that relative to the height, the surrounding area looked terrible and thus they would not be offending anybody. On the south side of the proposed units there were no windows facing down onto the residences. On the north side of the units there was a storage yard and the owner had no intention of cleaning up that area. He also clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood that he did not live on the property and he had owned it for over a year. He also was interested in upgrading the area and was the first one 81~959 ~ City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 7, 1981, 1:30 P.M. trying to do so. If the neighbors were objecting to his proposed apartment units, he would not mind going to townhouses or condominiums. In viewing the plan, the units were large, approximately 13,000 square feet. (Councilwoman Kaywood interjected and indicated they were 11,055 square feet.) His architect, Wayne Siu, also made provisions in the plan for two more parking spaces to co~nform with the Code for townhouses or condominiums. Since enough parking was Provzded, the neighbors would not have a complaint about traffic. He was willing to work out whatever the neighbors wished. However, it seemed that they were objecting to anything that would be built to improve the property. He was not trying to build a future slum area. He could have asked to build the minimum square footage for apartments or condomimiums and used cheap construction, but that was not his intent as evidenced by his plans (which were posted on the Chambers wall). Mayor Seymour stated for clarification, Mr. Short's request was for apartments and he continued to interchange condominiums and townhouses with apartments. If the project were approved, it would be for apartments and not condominiums which involved a different set of standards. He did not want Mr. Short to confuse the two. Mr. Short was aware of that. He was saying that if the neighbors were objecting that much, if he had to go through all the paperwork again and resubmit the project to make them happy at his expense, he would do so and construct townhouses or condominiums. Mayor Seymour then asked to hear from those either in favor or in opposition to the proposed project. Mr. Mike Garan stated he lived in Yorba Linda, but owned property in the area two doors away, as well as a commercial piece of property on Lincoln Avenue. He was present today because he thought the situation was "cut and dried" from the last meeting involving a change of zone from RS-7200 to RM-2400 with a maximum of 15 units per acre. Mayor Seymour stated that action had been taken but on the other hand, under those site development standards which impacted the new zoning that was applied to the neighborhood, apparently the greatest number of units under those standards that Mr. Short would be permitted to develop would be three. He was asking for four and in that process, he created the need to ask for two variances. That was the reason for the hearing. Mr. Garan stated that he felt RM-2400 would be good for the area--anything would be good for the area since it was a transition area. He felt it would be wise to let Mr. Short capture some of the land costs back and put the money into his building, so that he could construct four units and make it a better investment. He reiterated he was for the development of the area. There were going to be some considerable 9hanges in that area within the next couple of months upon which he elaborated. He was supportive of the plan for four units and also, he did not think they needed as much parking as the City was requiring, since the area was close to bus stops and markets and people would not need to use a vehicle. 81-960 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 7, 1981, 1:30 P.M. The Mayor then asked to hear from those in opposition. Margaret Ennis stated she was the owner of the property at 118 Coffman Street, adjacent to Mr. Short's property. She did not want the property to be rezoned because if apartments were allowed, the height would intrude on her property. Also many times there were problems associated with renters. Mr. Short had not improved the property at all since he owned it. The older people living on the street were going to have to move elsewhere. She questioned why they should have to move when people bought property for an investment, thereby forcing the residents out. It was not fair. If people did not want to live beside an apartment house, there was nothing else to do but move. If the units were owner occupied, it would not be so bad. The Village Inn behind them was also a terrible place and there were all kinds of trouble there. She suggested that he construct a one-family dwelling on the lot. There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor asked Mr. Short to come forward and answer Mrs. Ennis' objection. Mr. Short then relayed the following relative to Mrs. Ennis' concerns, as well as answers to questions posed by the Council: Even putting five units on the property was not going to pencil out; ii the City turned down his plan, he would submit a plan for condominiums; at this point, he did not know how much the units would rent for--he was not building them to make money. %he project was going to be a good tax write-off for him; however, if he was going to rent them out to make money, he would probably have to rent for $600 to $700 a month. Although it would be a good tax shelter now, 10 years from now if he had four units instead of three, it would be a good income for him; when he said he would not live in the area, he meant that he would not live in the home that was presently on the property because it was a "dump"; he had talked to Mr. DeLeon, the owner of the storage yard about land assembly. He (DeLeon) was not interested in selling and felt that the area was not ready to be developed for about 10 years; he did not believe there were any windows on the side of the units facing Mrs. Ennis. Miss Santalahti confirmed that the submitted plans did not show any windows on the south side of the units on the second floor. The Mayor closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council finds that subject project will have no significant individual or cumulative adverse environ- mental impact due to the approval of this negative declaration since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property for low-medium density 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 environ- menta~ impacts; and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. 81-.961 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COSNCIL MINUTES - July 7, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood offered a resolution denying Reclassification No. 80-81-33 and Variance No. 3211. Before any action was taken, Councilman Bay stated when he reviewed the notes on the General Plan Amendment (GPA) meeting before the Council, there were a number of questions. At that time, the Council agreed on a maximum density of 15 dwelling units per acre. They did not discuss two-story within 150 feet, which in this case was within 11 feet of single-family on one side and within 20 feet on the other, working out to a net of 20 units per acre. To him, that automatically violated the 15 units per acre of the GPA agreed to by the Council. Further at the time, it was determined as they let development occur within that 15 per acre maximum, they also had to plan on closing Cypress Street. If the development was within 15 per acre net and it created none of that impact, it might be a good start in revitalizing the area. Ail they would then have to consider was when they were going to pay to close Cypress Street. However, the proposal was a poor example to start improving that area and thus, he could support the resolutions to deny. Councilman Roth asked if it was true that the four units would be 20 dwelling units per acre. Miss Santalahti explained the General Plan designation, which made a specific top of 15 units was per gross acre and the project did comply with that. That was counting the public street that might belong to the property, as well as the on-site driveway not being subtracted from the land area. The net figure was 18 point something per unit and thus, that complied with the General Plan designation. The Cypress Street closure was being worked on by the Engineering Division and would be coming to the Council in the future for consideration. At the last Planning Commission meeting, they approved a resolution of intent to RM-2400 over all the properties along Co~fman Street, as well as a section of Cypress belonging to the area. That was still within the 22-day appeal period, and if the action had been final, the issue of the two-story waiver would no longer have been an item of consideration. Councilman Roth surmised then that the two-story waiver was technical in nature until the appeal period was over. He felt that if any area of Anaheim needed the type of development Mr. Short was trying to accomplish, it was the' Coffman Street area. He did not have a serious problem with it. He did not want to go on record opposing a project that he felt was necessary in cleaning up the area. He empathized with the people living on Coffman Street and particularly next door, realizing that change would affect one's lifestyle to some extent. However due to the size of the lots, it would be an impossi- bility to make economic sense by putting a single-family kome on one lot. He felt the Planning Commission moved in the right direction and would continue to do so by reclassifying the whole street. Councilwoman Kaywood emphasized the fact remained it would be permitted for three.units and Mr. Short was asking for four and he also stated he would come back in with condominiums if desired, which was something the people on the street would like. 81-962 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 7, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Mayor Seymour stated there was no conflict relative to density. Relative to the setbacks, staff indicated if, in fact, the recent action of the Planning Commission was upheld, there was no need for variances. He had no intention at this time to appeal the Planning Commission's action. There would then be no variances needed as far as height; Miss Santalahti clarified there would be no variances needed if they had the hearing after the appeal period. The Mayor continued that Code required 350 square feet per dwelling unit to be devoted to recreational-leisure area and Mr. Short was devoting 938 square feet. Relative to density as it pertained to site development standards on building coverage--Code required 45%, 38% proposed; gross density, 15 dwelling units to the acre, maximum required, 15 dwelling units to the acre proposed; net land area per dwelling unit--2400 square feet required, 2122 square feet proposed. There was no visual intrusion into Mrs. Ennis' property, as long as the plans that would be approved would be as submitted, because there were no windows facing south on the second floor. On the other hand, if Mrs. Ennis' request were approved, then only a single-family residence would be developed on that lot; there was no Code requirement prohibiting a two-story residence being built with all windows on the second floor which would result in more intrusion. He felt they should take advantage of what was before them. He opposed the resolutions to deny and would support the Planning Commission in their recommendation. Councilwoman Kaywood noted that the Mayor stated the proposal was above the proposed square footage per dwelling unit. The Code requirement was 2400 square feet and the proposal was for 2122, a 13% deficiency. Three units were permitted and he wanted four. Mayor Seymour stated under other criteria, he would be permitted a gross density of 15 per acre; Councilwoman Kaywood stated they had not gone to that gross. They did that under the RM-3000, but not under the RM-1200 or RM-2400. The Mayor stated staff had already suggested that it was the intent as expressed by the City Council for this neighborhood to go to 15 units to the gross acre. Councilman Bay stated that was a problem of semantics and memory. His memory' of that General Plan Amendment hearing was 15 as a maximum density and he was not sure gross or net was discussed at the time. What concerned him greatly when talking about those semantics was, that he had a strong feeling that the changes to the RM-3000, where they went to gross to increase the density under that Code, was being taken for granted by some members of the Council and the Planning Commission an~ that they were going to go to gross density on all the other RM's. That was not the intent of the ordinance change at the time. Mayor Seymour asked for clarification from staff. Miss ~antalahti stated the proposed project had low-medium density designation which was 18 units to the acre on any other piece of land unless the Council or Planning Commission specifically set an even lower density maximum unit figure per acre. The only other example she could think of where that happened was the Anaheim Shores project. It was also approved for low-medium density with a maximum dwelling unit count of 11.3. 81-963 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 7, 1981~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Bay surmised, even though the project was coming in under RM-2400 when Miss Santalahti was referring to maximum density, she was doing so with regard to the General Plan, whereas that was why they still had a waiver when it involved building site area on RM-2400. Whether or not it was the intent of the rest of the Council at the time of the General Plan Amendment hearing, when he was talking about 15 per acre, he was talking about meeting the Code of RM-2400 or 15 dwelling units net. Ihey were again into the net/gross problem and that was merely semantics. If the majority of the Council felt that they were going to go to gross density under the General Plan and apply that to any of the zonings, that could have a great effect over the City. Councilman Overholt stated he was going to oppose the resolutions of denial. He was particularly concerned for Mrs. Ennis and her mother and their concern that Mr. Short had done nothing with the property since he owned it. He felt today when they now learned that there would be no visual intrusion into their property that would ease their concerns somewhat. Having sat through the hearings regarding the particular neighborhood, it was his belief that Mr. Short's project was the type that would eventually improve the entire area. His project was well thought out and would be an improvement for the neighbor- hood. Councilwoman Kaywood stated if he had the three units instead of the four, then she could agree with what Councilman Overholt said. She felt Mr. Short had indicated a total feeling of disregard for the existing neighborhood. A roll call vote was then taken on the proposed resolutions to deny the reclassification and variance and failed to carry by the following vote: AYES: Kaywood and Bay NOES: Overholt, koth and Seymour Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 81R-317 for adoption, approving Reclassification No. 80-81-33 and Resolution No. 81R~318 for adoption, granting Variance No. 3211, both in accordance with the findings and recommendations of the City Planning Commission, including the stipulation that the second story as it faced south would have no visual intrusion-as a result of the windows as shown on the submitted plan. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 81R-317: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED. RESOLUTION NO. 81R-318: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AN~J{EIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 3211. Befor~ a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated she was going to oppose the resolutions. Approval would fly in the face of the Code and would give a higher density against the Code. 81~964 City Hall, Anaheim, California -COUNCIL MINUTES -July 7, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Bay stated he was not concerned about the quality of the development. With the square footage proposed, it was obviously going to be quality. However, it was not on enough land and he was very concerned with the continual rationalization of the majority of the Council in slowly but surely eroding the ordinances on the control of density in the City. A vote was then taken on the resolutions of approval. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Roth and Seymour Kaywood and Bay No ne The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 81R-317 and 81R-318, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 3212 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application by Jee D. and Lillian Chang, to construct a 16-unit apartment complex on RM-1200 zoned property located at 655 South Webster Avenue, with the following Code waivers: a. minimum building site area b. maximum structural height The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-97, 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 Variance No. 3212 subject to the following conditions: 1. That all engineering requirements of the City of Anaheim along Webster 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 Webster Avenue shall be installed as required by the Office of the Utilities General Manager, and in accordance with specifications on file in the Office of the Utilities General Manager; and/or that a bond, certificate of deposit, letter of credit, or cash, in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim shall be posted with the City to guarantee the installation of the above- mentioned requirements prior to occupancy. 2. That 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 Webster Avenue. 3. Th. at trash storage areas s~all be provided in accordance with approved plans on file with the Office of the Executive Director of Public Works. 4. 2'hat 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. 81-965 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 7, 1981, 1:30 P.M. 5. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities. 6. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer. 7. That the owner 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. 8. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay the traffic signal assess- ment 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. 9. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1 through 4. 10. That Condition Nos. 1 and 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. 11. That Condition Nos. 3, 5, 6 and 9, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections. A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman Kaywood at the meeting of May 26, 1981, and public hearing scheduled this date. In response to Councilman Bay relating to the net density, Miss Santalahti answered that the net density permissable on the site was 36 dwelling units per acre and the proposal was for 41. The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant agent's was present and desirous of being heard. Mr. Jee D. Chang stated he was the owner and although the density looked like there was a great difference, if they looked at the project from the gross point of view, they could still meet the requirement of 1200 square feet. The density variance request was a result of the other variance with regard to the structural height. The additional unit would be put on the second floor which was approximately 108 feet away from the real property line. There was also a 12-foot high wall at the carport and thus there was no visual intrusion. By allowing them to build on the second story, it would be possible to get two more units without sacrificing anything else. They met or exceeded the requirements for the recreation area, as well as parking, living space, land- scaping, setback, etc. Ail ~hmt was lost was air space. In answer to Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Chang explained that the parking was in the back and along the side, and it was not subterranean. He planned to remain the owner of the units and he owned the 18 units next door as well. The M~yor asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition; there being no response, he closed the public hearing. 81-966 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTgS - 0ul¥ 7, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood again expressed her concern if they were going to 41 units to the acre, they were making a very substantive change, and with the new math, if they were packing in the density and saying it was okey, everyone ought to know about that. The minimum site requirements were 1200 square feet and the proposal was four at 1,056 square feet. There was a maximum 14 units permitted and the proposal was for 16 units. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council finds that subject project will have no significant individual or cumulative adverse environ- mental impact since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property from medium density residential land uses cormmensurate 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. Councilwoman Kaywood offered a resolution denying Variance No. 3212 and would hope that they would have future building coming in in accordance with Anaheim Codes. Councilman Bay spoke for the resolution on the basis that again they were going to gross interpretation which apparently had caught on relative to all the Codes and not just the R>I-3000. He was strongly opposed to that move to increase density in all the Codes based on the landmark decision which was made on the RM-3000. Councilwoman Kaywood also commented that Webster Street was highly impacted having the highest number of apartments throughout the City. At any time of the day, there was bumper-to-bumper parking on the street. Mayor Seymour asked Miss Santalahti if the project met the parking standards; Miss Santalahti answered "yes", for apartments. The Mayor stated that the worst that could be said about the project was that instead of 14 units they were asking for 16. Looking at all the other-areas that measured the quality of life for apartment house living, the proposal exceeded the standards, upon which he elaborated. After further discussion and debate between the Mayor and Councilwoman Kaywood relative to the project, a vote was taken on the resolution of denial, which failed to carry by the following vote: AYES: Kaywood and Bay NOES: Overholt, Roth and Seymour Councilman Seymour thereupon offered Resolution No. 81R-319 for adoption, granting Variance No. 3212 in accordance with the findings and recommendations of the City Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 81R-319: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHE~i GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 3212. 81-967 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 7, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Roth and Seymour Kaywood and Bay No ne The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-319 duly passed and adopted. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Counciln~an Roth, seconded by Council- woman Kaywood, 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 Claims Administrator and the Application for Leave to Present Late Claim was denied: a. Claim submitted by Keith L. Andrew, for personal property damages to car paint job purportedly sustained when sprinkler system at the Anaheim Municipal Golf Course was turned on and mottled the car's paint, on or about June 17, 1981. b. Claim submitted by Joan Berlin for personal property damages purportedly sustained as a result of power failure causing their refrigerator compressor to burn out, on or about June 15, 1981. c. Claim submitted by Marvin William Blemker for personal property damages purportedly sustained as a result of power failure causing refrigerator compressors to burn out at 636 Westhaven Circle, on or about June 15, 1981. d. Claim submitted by Camille Castillo for personal property damages purportedly sustained as a result of City tree branch falling on claimant's car while parked at 549 Sherwood Drive, on or about June 15, 1981. e. Claim submitted by Betty A. Olsson for personal property damages purport- edly sustained as a result when sprinkler system at Anaheim Municipal Golf Course was turned on, causing damage to claimant's car windshield, on or about June 17, 1981. f. Claim submitted by Mrs. Rae Wilshire for personal property damages purportedly sustained as a result of power outage followed by a strong power surge burning out refrigerator compressor at 3141 Parkview Circle, on or about June 15, 1981. g. Claim submitted by Forrest Best for personal injuries purportedly sus- tained as a result of leaning against a light standard pole located at the northwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Orange Avenue, which moved, causing claimant to fall, on or about April 11, 1981. 81-968 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 7, 1981, 1:30 P.M. h. Claim submitted by H. B. Blodgett for personal property damages purport- edly sustained as a result of power surge damaging two television sets at ~406 Hukee Avenue, on or about June 14, 1981. i. Claim submitted by William P. Cody for personal property ~amages purport- edly sustained as a result of molten metal sparks from the high tension wire burning holes in a fabric diving boar: cover at 1911Jacalene Lane, on or about June 28, 1981. j. Claim submitted by Mrs. James L. Erickson for personal property damages purportedly sustained when a power surge damaged claimant's appliances on or about May 27, 1981. k. Claim submitted by Reza Esmaili and Mohammad Tabrizi for real property damages purportedly sustained when power lines fell and started a fire at 950 North Anaheim Boulevard, on or about May 16, 198i. 1. Claim submitted by Marry Lucas for property damages purportedly sustained as a result of power outage, causing air conditioner con~ensor to burn out, on or about June 15, 1981. m. Claim submitted by Carroll H. Purinton for personal property damages purportedly sustained as a result of power lines rubbing together with a tree resulting in burned-out appliances at 1407 East Gary P£ace, on or about June 14, 1981. n. Claim submittea by Pauline R. Odam ior personal property damages purport- edly sustained when power lines were being changed ~rom one pole to another at 501 South Laxore Street, causing aamage to appliances, on or about March Z0, 1981. o. Claim submitted by Ruben James Edwards, Jr., by Ruben E~wards, parent, for personal injuries purportedly sustained when claimant was hit by a car while in a crosswalk; the signal was not set to allow enough time to cross the street at Brookhurst and Crescent, on or about May 21, 1981. p. Claim submitted by Donald B. Wiebe for personal injuries and persohal property damages purportedly sustained as a result of claimant's bicycle hitting an abutment caused from repair of street at Santa Ana Canyon Road and Fairmont Boulevard, on or about May 24, 1981. q. Claim submitted by Marlo G. and Accuricia Alardo for real property aamages purportedly sustained as a result of parkway tree falling on property at 1025 West Broadway, on or about March 13, 1981. r. Claim submitted by Accurcia Alarado for property damages purportedly sustained as a result of parkway tree falling in front of 1025 West Broadway, on or about March 13, 1981. 81-969 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES 3 July 7, 1981, 1:30 P.M. s. Claim submitted by Ricardo Y. Yoshizaki for personal injuries purportedly sustained as a result of trip-and-fall accident on the soutn side of Bali Road near Beach Boulevard, caused by raised portion of sidewalk, on or about March 6, 1981. t. Claim submitted by Dorothea E. Divers for personal property damages purportedly sustained as a result of malfunctioning traffic light causing a three-car accident at the intersection of Magnolia and Lincoln Avenues, on or about April 9, 1981. u. Claim submitted by Randy L. LlOyd for personal property damages purport- edly sustained as a result of a power surge at 1401 Gary Places causing damage to appliances, on or about Oune 15, 1981. v. Application for Leave to Present Late Claim was submitted by John A. Petras, ~or Jonas Petras, deceased, for ~eath of-claimant's son purportedly caused by City negligence in providing adequate lighting and warning in the vicinity of Crescent Avenue near the intersection oS Euclid and Brookhurst where decedent was in an automobile accident with a train, on or about February 1, 1981. 2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: a. 105: Park and Recreation Commission--{vlinutes of May 27, 1981. b. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission--Minutes of June 3 and 17, 1981 3. CHANGE ORDERS: Ihe following change orders were approved in accordance with the recommendations of the City Engineer: a. 164: Pelanconi Park Streambed Improvements: Change Order No. 1: Authorization for Contract Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $20,000, bringing the original contract price to $14i,600; J. W. Mitchell Company, Contractor. b. 169: Conversion of ~ncandescent Luminaires to High Pressure Sodiu~ Luminaires, Change Order No. 1: Authorization for Contract Change Order No. ~1 in the amount of $13,252.50, brznging the original contract price to $55,143.50; Hi-Sodium Conversion Company, Contractor. c. 169: Loara Street an~ Storm Drain Improvement, Contract Change Order No. 2: Authorization for Contract Change Order No. 2 in the amount of $21,841.33, bringing the original contract price to $246,348.13; Mark Dakovich, Contractor. 4. 151: ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NO. 80-5E: In accordance with the recommenda- tions of the City Engineer, the License to Encroach requested by Northrop Corporation to allow the encroachment of three five-inch diameter steel conduits to be installed under and across the rzght of way between 30i and 400 East Orangethorpe Avenue, was authorized. 81-970 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUIES - July 7, 1981, 1:30 P.M. 5. 151: ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NO. 80-6E: In accordance with the recommenda- tions of the City Engineer, the License to Encroach requested by Fixture Design & Mfg. Co., dba Combined Properties & Associates, to allow the encroachment of a P.V.C. duct to be installed under and across the right of way at 1280 and 1282 Talt Avenue, was authorized. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 81R-320 through 81R-322, 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. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-320: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL' UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC ~PROVEMENT, TO WIT: STREET LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 1980-3, TRACT 1097, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 24-676-6329-11270-37300 & 25-676-6329-11270-37300. (Steiny and Company, Inc.) 169: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-321: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND IRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: LOARA STREET AND STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT - FROM 203' N/O WESTMONT TO WILSHIRE STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 12-793-6325-E3360 (1980; ACCOUNT NO. 12-791- 6325-E1200 AND 51-606-6328-26860-34340 (1981). (Mark Dakovich, Inc.) 176: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-322: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE AND ABANDON CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS AND ALLEY AND FIXING A DATE FOR A HEARING THEREON. (80-13A, public hearing set for July 21, 1981 at 3:00 p.m.) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Ruth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 81R-320 through 81R-322, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. 159: VIA BURTON AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENT: 190 feet east of State College Boulevard, to State College Boulevard. Account No. 01-792-6325-E2690. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she had received a number of complaints relative to the embossed concrete in the Redevelopment area. She asked if that was proposed to be used on the sub3ect project. 81-971 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 7, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Art Daw, Acting City Engineer, answered "yes". It was to be in a small median used as a transition area for traffic. It was more of an aesthetic value not to be walked on or traveled on by vehicles. The cost was approxi-J mately $1.50 more a square foot for the embossed concrete and the area was not over approximately 150 square feet. He clarified for Counilwoman Kaywood that they could solicit bids with or without the embossing. Mayor Seymour stated that he felt aesthetically that the "stamped out" masonry was very attractive and an excellent buy. He did not see why now they would want to change the policy. Councilman Seymour thereupon offered Resolution No. 81R-323 for adoption, based on (1) the continuing aesthetic aspects, and, (2) the cost differential being minimal, while rebidding would probably be result in less quality. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 81R-323: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: VIA BURTON AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENT, E/O STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 01-792-6325-E2690; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PRO- FILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRDCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; A/~D AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION IHEREOF. (Bids to be opened on August 6, 1981, at 2:00 p.m.) Before action was taken, the Mayor continued that the entire area in question had been plagued with public works projects much too long and to do anything to further delay the subject project was not in the best interest of the property owners in the area. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she would agree if rebidding was involved, but this was to be an opening bid. Councilman Overholt stated another reason was the fact that the sur~ac~ involved was not a walking surface. A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Bay, Roth and Seymour Kaywood None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-323 duly passed and adopted. Councilwoman Kaywood explained her "no" vote was not against the resolution, but against not bidding it both ways. 81-972 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 7, 1981, 1:30 P.M. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning Commission at their meeting held June 15, 1981, pertaining to the following applications were submitted for City .Council information. 1. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 80-81-28 AND VARIANCE NO. 3205 (TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11463): Submitted by Terra Firma Properities, for a change in zone from CG to RM-3000, to establish a l-lot, 14-unit condominium subdivison on property located on the south side of Wilken Way, east of Harbor Boulevard, with various Code waivers. The City Planning Commission granted a negative declaration status, and Reclassification No. 80-81-28 and Variance No. 3205 were withdrawn by the petitioner. 2. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 80-81-36 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2217: Submitted by Speech and Language Development Cen~er, Inc., c/o Margaret Watkins, W. H. Daum and Staff, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to ML, to permit an automobile storage facility on property located at 135 South Loara Street, with various Code waivers. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-128, granted Reclassification No. 80-81-36 and pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-129, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2217, in part, and granted a negative declaration status. 3. VARIANCE NO. 3221: Submitted by Robert P. and Evelyn E. hall, to construct two free-standing signs on CH zoned property located at 2025 South Manchester Avenue, with various Code waivers. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-131, granted Variance No. 3221, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination. 4. VARIANCE NO. 3224: Submitted by Dale R. and Muriel E. %hayer, to retain and existing garage conversion on RS-5000(SC) zoned property located at 7870 Samantha Circle, with a Code waiver of minimum number and type of parking spaces. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-132, denied Variance No. 3224, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination. 5. VARIANCE NO. 3225: Submitted by Ben and Mary Lou Hathaway, to permit an outdoor advertising vehicle on CR zoned property located at 1060 West Katella Avenue, with a Code waiver of prohibited signs. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-133, granted Variance No. 3225, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption dete~ination. 81-973 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 7, 1981, 1:30 P.M. 6. VARIANCE NO. 3228: Submitted by Ronald W. and Jean C. Bedwell, to retain a fence on RS-5000(SC) zoned property located at 131Paseo Rio Moreno, with a Code waiver of maximum fence height. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-136, granted Variance No. 3228, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination. 7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2219: Submitted by Neal E. Clark, to permit the commercial use of a residential structure on CO zoned property located at 872 South Harbor Boulevard, with various Code waivers. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to P~esolution No. PC81-130, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2219, in part, and granted a negative declaration status. 8. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2222: Submitted by Harry S. Ferguson, to permit truck and trailer rentals in an existing service station on CL zoned property located at 2083 South Harbor Boulevard. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-139, denied Conditional Use Permit No. 2222, and granted a negative declaration status. 9. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2225: Submitted by Bryan-La Palma Industrial Park, to permit retail sales of statuary on ML zoned property located at 1119 North Kraemer Boulevard. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-140, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2225, and granted a negative declaration status. 10. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2226: Submitted by Lynn E. Thomsen, et al, to permit a commercial office building on ML zoned property located on the east side of State College Boulevard, south of Katella Avenue. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-141, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2226, and granted a negative declaration status. 11. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2227: Submitted by Lakeview Plaza Investment Co., Ltd., to permit on-sale alcoholic beverages in an existing restaurant on CL(SC) zoned property located at 444 North Lakeview Avenue, with a Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-137, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2227, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination. 12. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2228: Submitted by Edwin J. and Dorothy E. Tyrem~n, to permit a private junior and senior high school for a maximum of 150 students on CL zoned property located at 1006 West La Palma Avenue. 81~974 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 7, 1981, 1:30 P.M. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-142, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2228, and granted a negative declaration status. 13. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 80-81-6 - EXTENSION OF T~IE: Submitted by Leoncio T. Laurel, requesting an extension of time to Reclassification No. 80-81-6, for a change in zone from RS-10,000 to CL for property located at 1575-1595 West Katella Avenue. The City Planning Commission approved an extension ~f time to Reclassification No. 80-81-6, to expire August 25, 1982. ~ 14. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10617 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Anaheim Hills, Inc., requesting an extension of time to Tentative Tract No. 10617, to permit a 27-1ot, 25-unit planned unit development, on RS-HS-10,000(SC) zoned property located on the east side of Imperial Highway, south of Nohl Ranch Road. The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Tentative Tract No. 10617, to expire July 29, 1982. No action was taken on the foregoing items, therefore the actions of the City Planning Commission became final. 155: REVISION TO EXHIBIT NO. 7 OF THE SANTA ANA CA2~YON ROAD ACCESS POINTS STUDY: Setting a date and time for public hearing to consider a revision to Exhibit No. 7 of the Santa Ana Canyon Road Access Point Study in order to provide access to 6.6-acre commercial site located at the southwest corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Fairmont Boulevard, was submitted. City Clerk Roberts announced that letter dated July 7, 1981 had been received from Mr. Floyd Farano, attorney representing the Kobayashi's interest, requesting that the hearing be set on or after August 18, 1981 as well as a verbal request from Mr. Mike Engle, Vice President of Langslet, asking that the hearing be set August 4 or 11. There was also a request for an evening hearing from area residents. Councilman Roth felt that there should be a compromise and thereupon moved that August 11, 1981 at 7:00 p.m. be the date and time set for a public hearing, since the Traffic Engineer wohld also be available at that time. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, discussion ensued amongst the Council Members rela- tive to the proposed date and other dates as well. A representative from Mr. Farano's office was present who indicated that Mr. Farano would not be avail- able August 11, 1981. Councilman Roth withdrew his motion and Councilwoman Kaywood, her second. The M~yor asked Miss Santalahti to contact the applicant to ascertain a date that would be acceptable, either August 18, 1981 or thereafter. 81-9.75 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 7, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Later in the meeting (after the evening public hearings) City Clerk Roberts announced that the applicant would like the hearing as soon as possible. They preferred August 4, 1981; August llth was also acceptable. If they waited until August 18, they would have a problem with vacations. Miss Santalahti stated that upon contacting the applicant, he insisted the llth of August was the latest they wanted the public hearing. After a brief discussion amongst the Council relative to setting a aate, Councilwoman Kaywood suggested in view of the late hour, that they continue the matter one week to discuss it at that time. MOTION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, consideration of the setting of a public hearing relative to a Revision to Exhibit No. 7 of the Santa Ana Canyon Road Access Points Study was continued one week. MOTION CARRIED. 170: FINAL MAP - TRACT NO. 10694: Developer, Brookhurst Village Development; subdivision is located on the east side of Brookhurst Street, south of Ball Road and contains a l-lot, 228-unit RM-1200 zoned subdivision. On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Bay, the proposed sub- division, together with its design and improvements, was found to be consis- tent with the City's General Plan, and the City Council approved Final Map, Tract No. 10694, as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated June 30, 1981. Councilwoman Kaywood voted "no". MOTION CARRIED. 142/182: ORDINANCE NO. 4237: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4237 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4237: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING THE NEED FOR THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT, AUTHORITY OF ANAHEIM AND THAT THE AUTHORITY SHALL FUNCTION. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None No ne The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4237 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 4238: Councilman Overholt offered Ordinance No. 4238 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4238: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (80-81-17 and 80-81-35, RM-laQ0) 81-976 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 7, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None No ne The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4238 duly passed and adopted. 142/129: ORDINANCE NO. 4240: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4240 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 4240: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHE~! AMENDING SECTION 6.40.060 OF CHAPTER 6.40 OF TITLE 6 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO TEMPORARY FIREWORKS STANDS. The City Attorney also clarified that the Code p~ovided that a person had to be 18 years of age or older either to buy or sell fireworks. RECESS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess to 6:30 p.m. for a Closed Session requested by the City Manager relative to a personnel matter with no action anticipated. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (5:05 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (7:15 P.M.) It was at this point in the agenda that discussion and consideration of the Amended and Restated Lease Agreement with Golden West Baseball Company took place, but included as part of the afternoon discussion for better continuity, see page 3 of this set of minutes. 169: PUBLIC HEARING - CLOSURE OF OLD BRIDGE ROAD IO THROUGH TRAFFIC: 1o consider petitions for an against the closure of Old Bridge Road, generally located south of Santa Ar~a Canyon Road, east of Del Georgio Road and Fairmont Boulevard and west of Country Hills Road. Mr. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, briefed the Council relative to the back- ground of the request. He also referred to the memorandums received from the Fire Department and the Police Department both dated May 6, 1981 (made a part of the record). In the Public Works Department, they were recommending against the closure based on the fact that the street provided an alternate access and circulation to and from E1 Rancho Junior High School. He found no reason to Close the street other than it being the desire of the neighborhood to isolate their area from the school traffic which was understandable. Mayor Seymour then announced the ground rules that would be ~ollowed at the hearing and asked first to hear from those in favor of the proposed closure. 81-977 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 7, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Robert Hartstein, 291 South Old Bridge Road, stated he was the official representative and spokesperson for the Old Del Georgio Homeowners Association. He thereupon read in its entirety the extensive presentation (eight pages) prepared to cite their case in favor of the closure of Old Bridge Road (see report dated July 7, 1981--presentation to the City Council of Anaheim by the Old Del Georgio Place Homeowners Association--in ~avor of the closure of Old Bridge Road--on file in the City Clerk's office, attached to which was letter dated June 18, 1981 to the City Engineer and memorandum dated May 6, 1981 from the Traffic Engineer from Lt. Stan Kantor, Traffic Bureau Commander). At the conclusion of his written report, Mr. Hartstein continued that as a representative of the entire Association, their petition was circulated to each and every homeowner. On the other hand, ae did not even see the petition in opposition until he obtained a copy from the City. No other homeowner who had been vocally pro street closure was given an opportunity to see the petition. He was told the latter petition was not pre- sented as a "yes" or "no" choice on the street closure, but that the only thing asked was--should there be a search for an alternate to the closure. He then elaborated upon what he thought alternatives might be: il) a permanent daily patrol; (2) little traffic bumps in the street used to indicate to a driver that he was crossing over a double line; (3) speed bumps, although they would create more of a liability than an assist; (4) a one way street, and the last alternative (5) a closure at the top of the street rather than the bottom as presented by the Fire Department. He (Hartstein) felt that a closure at the top would inhibit slightly any services they might receive from Fire Station No. 9 on Nohl Ranch Road. Relative to the trash pick-up, a closure at the top of the hill would cause a great problem relative to those services since it would cause the trash truck to have to back down the street. In concluding, Mr. Hartstein stated he had been advised that exiting at Del Georgio and Mohler was the safest way to leave the tract. The only reason he could think of that somebody would say that would be, because a vehicle would have to make a right-hand turn onto Fairmont Boulevard instead of Del Georgio Road. It was his understanding that in the 1982-83 budget, there was going to be a signal at Fairmont and Santa Ana Canyon Road. If that was the case, they would be trading a right-hand turn which was infinitely more safe than a left- hand turn for a stop light and a controlled left-hand turn off of Fairmont which would make that the safest turn in the area. Mr. Hmrtstein then presented a film illustrating the traffic which traveled down Old Bridge Road, which film was taken over two mornings, a Tuesday and Thursday, by two residents on the street. The film was narrated by Dave and Carol Rudat, 281 Old Bridge Road, who pointed out the curvature and steepness of the street, the area where children had to walk on their way to school as they were not bussed, the speed at which traffic traveled especially as the vehicles approached the curve in the road and the narrowness of the road which did not allow for two cars to pass if a car was parked on the road. They stressed their concern and the.need for the safety of their children. At the conclqsion of the film, Mrs. Rudat stated that the City should never have allowed the street to be designed in its present configuration and asked that they not allow future developments to be built without sidewalks and with narrow roads. 81-978 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 7, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Hartstein also submitted a folder of photographs entitled--The Old Del Georgio Homeowners Association Inc.--Presentation For Road Closure On Old Bridge Road, which photographs further depicted the problems as outlined by Mr. Hartstein and was illustrated in the film (on ~ile in the City Clerk's office). Councilman Bay then posed questions to Mr. Hartstein relative to the mechanics of the way he took the vote to obtain, the majority opinion of the homeowners association followed by questions from the Mayor concerning the number of signatures on the petition. Relative to the latter, Mr. Hartstein deferred to Norm Wozniak, the President of the Homeowners Association. Mr. Norm Wozniak, 7361Stonecreek, President, stated relative to the count on the vote for the street closure, there were 32 replies, 28 for an unquestion- able closure. Those represented homes, 28 for, 2 against and 2 desired more input on the situation. Mayor Seymour asked if at the time the petition was passed were those 28 homes represented out of 43 homes or 46 homes. Mr. Wozniak stated there were at least three homes he was aware of that were not occupied at the time; the Mayor surmised then, at a maximum it was 43 homes, 28 out of 43. Councilman Bay stated he thought he heard 32 homes totally polled--yes, 28: no, 2; and abstained, 2; out of a potential totalling 46 dwellings in the Association; Mr. Wozniak stated that was correct, one of the ~omeowners owned two homes. After further discussion and questioning by Council Members relative to some confusion surrounding the petition, the Mayor stated the point he was trying to illustrate was that he did not know from the information provided whether there had been a change of heart amongst the residents as a result of more information and was trying to determine if Mr. Wozniak and the leadership of the Association represented the homeowners interests; Mr. Wozniak stated that 32 people did not have any problem deciding on which to choose. He also explained that about one or two wanted closure at the top and the balance wanted closure at the bottom. The Mayor then asked for a show of hands of those present in the Chambers audience who were in favor of the closure; approximately 17 people raised their hands. There being no further persons who wished to speak in favor due to the thoroughness of the foregoing presentation, he asked to hear from those in opposition. 81-979 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 7, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Orville Dunn, 7471 East Millstream Circle, member of the Del Georgio Homeowners Association, stated he was the primary spokesman for the opposi- tion. He further stated that because of the material presented by the propon- ents, he felt it necessary to first give a chronology of events that had taken place in order to clarify the confusion he felt would arise when comparing the two stories. During his explanation, he pointed out that the ballot which had been circulated was the one which the Board of the Association had previously agreed should be deleted from any formal action on the part of the Associa- tion, since it included irrelevant material (see example on file in the City Clerk's office, the top portion of which was a letter to the homeowners by Norm Wozniak). It did not address all the possibilities which Councilman Roth had indicated earlier. They did not believe there was a traffic problem. One car every two minutes on average in their way of thinking was not a traffic problem. If there was a problem and also one of downhill speed, closing the road at the bottom would not stop the downhill speed. People dropping their children off at school would travel down the street, turn around in the cul-de-sac and go back up the hill thereby doubling the traffic. He emphasized that they did not want closure at either end of Old Bridge Road. Such a closure would cause many more serious problems relative to fire, police, evacuation, etc. The City's objections were basically the same as theirs. In concluding, he reported that 51 homes were opposed to the closure (22 homes in the Association--29 homes in the John Lyttle tract), 11 homes were known to be nuetral, leaving 17 homes maximum that could actually be voting for a closure. Trish McCarthy, 221 Old Bridge Road, explained that in October of 1980 when Mrs. Hartstein first presented the is'sue of a traffic problem on Old Bridge Road, it was aimed at eliminating some of the approximate 22 school buses using their street. Thanks to Mrs. Hartstein and others on her Traffic Committee, as well as the Orange Unified School District (OUSD) Transportation Department, the problem was greatly reduced as the only buses using Old Bridge Road now were servicing their local elementary school children. The traffic problem then escalated to the Anaheim Hills people who were using Old Bridge Road as a thoroughfare to deliver and pick up their youngsters from E1 Rancho Junior High. She suggested a possible alternative to the problem at the January 13 Homeowners Association meeting, her alternative being a street sign which read--no right turn, Monday through Friday, 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m--2:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.--to be located at the top of Old Bridge Road at Fairmont and at the bottom of Millstream Circle at Del Georgio. The comment on her alter- native was that the Junior High School was used by the Catholic Church on Sundays now, creating a weekend traffic problem. She replied that the Church would discontinue use in February when their Church would officiallly open on Santa Ana Canyon Road. After discussing other alternatives, she could not get the Traffic Committee to seek alternatives. 2heir objective was a street closure. She felt the street closure a drastic move to correct a problem and should only be a final step taken after at least some alternatives had been tried. The f~llowing people also spoke in opposition and a summation of their concerns listed below: 81-980 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINDTES - July 7, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Paul Brown, 231 Old Bridge Road, expressed his concerns relative to accessi- bility and the restrictions that would be placed upon emergency services should the street be closed; that if the closure were approved, a dangerous precedent would be set since there were many other Anaheim residents who would like to close their street to through traffic, streets which were much more heavily traveled; when residents purchased their homes, they knew the street was open at both ends, that there were no sidewalks, and that E1 Rancho Junior High was already there. Sharon Massack, 395 South Old Bridge Road, who lived at the top near Fairmont Boulevard, relayed an incident which occurred in April of a medical emergency nature. The paramedics responded very quickly; however, she was concerned that if response was to the bottom of the hill where there was a barricade, it would take at least four minutes to get around Santa Ana Canyon Road to Fairmont Boulevard to her home. That could be crucial and life-threatening. John Prager, a new resident of the John Lyttle tract homes, stated he was for safety, but against the closure of the road especially one which appeared to be premature. No one had yet considered the effect the closure might have on Stonecreek Lane and 440 Ridgeview Drive where he lived. Fairmont Boulevard provided the closest, easiest and most direct access to the John Lyttle homes. It would be detrimental to close Fairmont at Del Georgio for them and for the homeowners of the Del Georgio Homeowners Association. He was also opposed'to the closure of Del Georgio Road at the bottom of the hill because as had been mentioned previously, it would double the traffic with people traveling down the road and back up again. Until he was convinced that there was a traffic problem affecting all the residents in the area, he was opposed to the closure of the road. He believed there were a number of viable alternatives including prohibiting turns at designated times during the day. Those alternatives should be explored by the Traffic Department prior to the drastic action of closing the road. If any action was to be taken by the Council tonight for or against the closure, he recommended that some kind of EIR study be done before jeopardizing the whole area by closing or even not closing the road. Richard McCarthy, 221 Old Bridge Road, expressed his concern relative to the traffic situation that would result if t~e closure was accomplished at- Millstream and Del Georgio Road and elaborated upon the consequences of such closure. In light of the several reasons that had been presented by other speakers, the added traffic safety problem that would be created on Fairmont at Old Bridge and the unanimous recommendation of various City departments, including not only the Police and Fire Department but also the Sanitation Department and Public Works, he respectfully requested that the Council deny the petition to close Millstream Circle at Del Georgio. The Mayor then asked for a show of hands of those in the Chambers audience who were present in opposition to the closure; there were approximately 13. The Mayor closed the ~ublic hearing. Councilman Bay asked Mr. Hartstein if the present proposal for closure was at Del Georgio and Millstream or up the middle of Old Bridge Road. 81-981 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 7, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Mrs. Cynthia Hartstein stated she was not representative of the Association. She was Co-Chairman of the Safety-Traffic Committee and thus the Board could better speak to the question. Her primary concern was for the safety of hers and everyone else's children and also with the increased traffic that would be generated by the John Lyttle homes. She asked that they consider the problem to see what they could do for them to help their community. Mr. Hartstein stated the proposal was to close the street at Del Georgio Road and Millstream Circle. He then proceeded to continue with the statement he felt compelled to make. Mayor Seymour stated if it was in rebuttal, he was going to rule him out of order, since he had agreed to the ground rules at the outset. Traffic Engineer Paul Singer then relayed the following information in answer to Council questioning: Old Bridge Road was built to a 28-foot width with a travel way of 26 feet. They calculated the capacity of the street based on 1500 vehicles per lane per "green" time which translated to a large number over a 24-hour period. He estimated that approximately 6,000 to 7,000 vehicles could travel on a 28-foot roadway in a 24-hour period at capacity. He then basically briefed the report submitted relative to Fire, Police and Sanitation Services. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she had a real concern about closing the street. At the time the people bought their homes, the street was open on both ends. The photographs presented pointed out some areas where steps could be taken immediately to cut down on some of the dangers. She felt it to be common sense not to park at or before a curve. Perhaps they could paint some of the curbs red at the curve, so that there would be no parking on a curb even for residents. Someone made the suggestion that a sign be placed at the top of the hill--no right turn--Monday through Friday, 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. She felt that was worth a try. She would also suggest a sign saying--steep hill--no passing--slow--put at the top of the hill not in the middle. Those were things that could be done immediately which would probably have a very good effect. She would also hope that every- one who lived there would think more carefully and that they would drive more slowly and carefully. Councilman Overholt felt that he must give an opportunity to Mr. Hartstein to point out errors he felt had been stated, but limiting him to two minutes. Subsequently, if Mr. Dunn wished, he should also be allowed to speak two minutes. Mr. Harstein wanted to make t~ree points: (1) It was pointed out that the Catholic Church was moved out of E1 Rancho and opening their new Church on Santa Ana Canyon Road. However, there was a new church going to be open (Canyon Hills Church) as evidenced by letter dated May 4, 1981 which he submigted; (2) Re believed there was a great deal of drive-through traffic on the road and avoiding some of that traffic was another of their goals. Part of the through traffic was the bus traffic. It was brought out that through 81-982 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 7~ 1981, 1:30 P.M. the work of the Traffic Committee that the bus traffic on Old Bridge Road had been alleviated. That was not correct. The only reason the bus traffic on Old Bridge Road stopped this year was because he exercised what influence he had with the School District to stop it. He was the Classified Personnel Director for the Orange Unified School District and the bus drivers were his people. The Director of Transportation was also a Classified Personnel. Come September, there were going to be 25 buses on Old Bridge Road once again, through bus traffic; the Mayor interjected and indicated that Mr. Hartstein's time had expired. Mr. Dunn stated with regard to the new church, he was told it was a small congregation. Relative to the bus traffic, he referred to the letter from OUSD which he felt was clear (see letter dated May 21, 1981--on file in the City Clerk's office and a part of the package Mr. Dunn submitted earlier). There was discussion about an accident that had occurred on Camino Manzano where a barricade had previously been requested ~nd approved. That accident was caused by one of the neighbors in the area and not through traffic. With regard to the through traffic, 100 cars over a 24-hour period was not a traffic problem. Mayor Seymour then stated the issue was a highly emotional one, but in moving off the emotionalism, it was easy for him to make a decision although it would not be a popular one, since there was almost a 50-50 split amongst the resi- dents. He had not heard anything that would indicate to him that there was a serious traffic problem. It was clear that Old Bridge Road was a shortcut to the school. To the degree that there was a greater school population to the north, there would be more traffic, but before he would vote for a solution to what was truly a neighborhood problem, the neighborhood would have to "get its act together." There was no way that government should become involved. Without a 70 to 80% consensus of the residents, he did not believe it appro- priate that the Council move ahead to solve a neighborhood problem. Council- woman Kaywood touched upon some suggestions the residents had made and gave her input as well. %hey would be happy to try anything the residents felt would help. As long as they were so divided, however, there was no way to win. Merely from a logical standpoint, if they wanted to stop the people from Anaheim Hills using their neighborhood street as a thoroughfare to school, he did not know how they could ever consider placing a barrier anywhere else but' at the top of the hill. MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to deny the petition of request for closure of Old Bridge Road without prejudice. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt stated it seemed that the secret to the solution of the problem was to get behind their Association and to use the Association as a medium through which they could solve the problem. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion of denial. MOTION CARRIED. 81-983 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 7, 1981, 1:30 P.M. MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood then moved that they immediately proceed to paint the curbs red at the curves; that there be signs at the top of the hill stating--no right turn--Monday through Friday, 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m.--2:30 p.m to 3:30 p.m.--and a sign stating--slow--curves--no passing. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion for the purpose of discussion. Councilman Bay asked how a rolled curb could be painted 'red; the Traffic Engineer stated that they still painted curbs red; however, they had never painted rolled curbs, but he was certain they could devise such a method. Mayor Seymour expressed concern with the motion in that he was interested in having the Homeowners come back to the Council and if they wanted to suggest exactly what Councilwoman Kaywood outlined in her motion, he might vote favorably even if the Traffic Engineer advised against it. He was interested in hearing from the Homeowners and not having government dictate how it felt the solution should be accomplished. For that reason, he was going to oppose the motion. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she disagreed in the fact that she felt there was a problem now not that there may be one in the future. Councilman Overholt stated that Mr. Singer's comment and recommendations would be available to the Association and 'perhaps through that dialogue a recommen- dation would be forthcoming. Speaking then to Councilwoman Kaywood, if she withdrew her motion, he would withdraw his second. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she would not like to withdraw her motion; Councilman Overholt thereupon withdrew his second. The motion subsequently died for lack of a second. Mayor Seymour felt that the thrust and spirit of the Council was understood clearly. He urged the residents to continue working with the staff in their Homeowners Association meeting and also to try to develop a true consensus of opinion as to how they wanted to address the problem, and the Council would then be prepared to address it aggressively. Mr. Singer offered his assistance to the Homeowners Association. RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (9:35 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (9:45 p.m.) PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2195 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application by M. J. Brock & Sons, Inc., to permit a hospital parking lot on RM-2400 zoned property located on the south side of Romneya Drive, west of Euclid Street, with a Code waiver of maximum fence height, was submitted. 81-984 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 7, 1981, 1:30 P.M. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-92 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. 2195 in part, subject to the following conditions: 1. That appropriate water assessment fees as determined by the Office of Utilities General Manager shall be paid to the City of Anaheim prior to approval of a final tract map. ~ 2. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and deter- mined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to commence- ment of the intended use of the property. 3. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities. 4. That a modified cul-de-sac, or other configuration as approved by the City Engineer, shall be constructed at the easterly terminus of Outrigger Way (Parcel 1 and Parcel 2), and that a bond in an amount and form approved by the City of Anaheim shall be posted with the City of Anaheim prior to approval of the final parcel map to guarantee the construction prior to beginning the intended use of the property. 5. That street names be reassigned as approved by the Planning Department prior to approval of the final parcel map. 6. In the event that subject property is to be divided for the purpose of sale, lease, or financing, a parcel map, to record the approved division of subject property shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim and then be recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder. 7. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1. 8. That Condition Nos. 3, 4, and 7, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections. A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilman Bay at the meeting of May 26, 1981, and public hearing scheduled this date. Mayor Seymour then briefed the Chambers audience on the ground rules that would be used for the hearing. Miss Santalahti described the location and surrounding iand uses. She out- lined the findings given in the staff report which was submitted to and con- sidered by the City Planning Commission. The Mayor then asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous of being heard. Before continuing, Mr. Bernard Greenberg, President of the Anaheim Shores Homeowners Association, asked that the Mayor reverse the rules and permit the opposition to speak first and ~he applicant second. 81-985 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUIES - July 7, 1981, 1:30 P.M. The Mayor explained with all due respect, having served on the Planning Commission for four years and on the Council for seven, traditionally the applicant was allowed to speak ~irst and he saw no reason at this time to change the process. He again asked to hear from the applicant or agent. Mr. Terry Belmont, Chief Executive Officer, Martin Luther Hospital hedical Center, first explained that the presentation would include Mr. Bob Mickelson, Planning Consultant, Dr. Stan Kerkhoff, Chief of Staff, Dr. Wallace Stout, Former Chief of Staff and member of the Foundation Board, Mr. Dennis Hardin, member of the Foundation Board, and Mr. Chuck Wiggins, Attorney and member of the Foundation Board. Councilman Bay interjected and stated he understood the applicant to be M. J. Brock. He asked Mr. Belmont if he was representing that company. Mr. Belmont answered "yes". He then briefed the'Council on the historical background of the Martin Luther Hospital and outlined the extent of its services. He also described the parking problem presently existing necessi- tating the subject request. The purpose of the request was for parking only and not to construct a high rise structure. At the conclusion of his presentation, Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she had heard rumors that what the hospital really wanted was to acquire more land so that they could build more high-rise buildings and then go to a parking structure. Mr. Belmont stated they did not have any such plans. Relative to hospital expansion with regard to in-patient beds, there was one vacant floor in the hospital, the seventh floor, where they wanted to add approximately 36 patient beds. They already had space problems in terms of their ancillary services, out-patient, radiology, laboratory and departments serving in-patients. They would have to expand the hospital into buildings that would be adjacent to and connected to the Hospital. They were looking primarily at expansion to the east, a three- to four-story building which would be attached to the Hospital but some three to ten years hence. Mr. Bob Mickelson, 1717 West Orangewood, Suite E, Orange, then discussed some of the planning considerations and elements that had gone into the project. He first commented on Councilwoman Kaywood's question noting that the Conditional Use Permit procedure gave the City the upper hand. If they granted the use permit for the parking lot, that was what would be constructed. If it were changed at a later date, a new and complete public hearing would have to take place. They were asked at the Planning Commission about the parking lot and why not a parking stucture. As an alternative, from the Hospital's point of view, it was extremely expensive, two and one-half to three times the cost of the land. Perhaps more important to the neighborhood would be where the structure wpuld be put, the visual impact, and parking efficiency on the site. The best place Willdan Engineering found for the structure was immediately to the south between them and the existing multiple-family residential, the optimum size that could fit there being a 130- by 300-foot structure, netting about 150 spaces. 81-986 City Hall, Amaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 7, 1981~ 1:30 P.M. Relative to the project itself, when they considered constructing the lot, they attempted to buy all the lots all the way over to the existing streets as outlined on the posted plan entitled Martin Luther Hospital--Parking Facility. As a result of the meeting with the homeowners of the area, they agreed to draw the line at Ballast Avenue and to leave one row of homes in the existing tract as a buffer to give the feeling of a tract of homes across the street and not a parking lot. In addition, extensive landscaping was proposed, far more than would be expected in a normal parking situation. The existing traffic circulation with the parking lot would be retained and no driveways were proposed westerly on Romneya Drive. The lot was proposed to be used only for day-time parking, the critical time and thus, there would be no night-time problem. Relative to the staff report, Page 3c, since the plan had been changed to reduce the wall from eight feet to six feet, there was no longer a variance needed; therefore, the finding in Paragraph No. 20 was no longer applicable. Mr. Mickelson then read the findings of fact "a" through "e" and elaborated upon those as they pertained to the proposed plan. In concluding, he stated that they were in agreement with the Planning Commission's decision and urged the Council to make the same decision. Questions were then posed to Mr. Mickelson by Council Members relative to some of the technical aspects of the proposed parking lot plan which included a discussion regarding the proposed cul-de-sac which did not allow for trash truck turn-around. Dr. Stan Kerkhoff, Chief of Staff, 1655 West Broadway, stated he represented approximately 650 employees, 450 medical staff, 49 Board members, 100 members of the Guild and the Heartbeats, and approximately 20,000 out-patients and 22,000 in-patients per year. He was speaking for those people who were impacted by what they were discussing tonight and he was also speaking for people who were unable to be in attendance. He thereupon submitted a resolution from the medical staff outlining their reasons for supporting the project (made a part of the record). He also submitted a letter dated July 6, 1981 from W. R. Tincher, Chairman of the Foundation Board and a Board member of the Governing Board of the Hospital, who was unable to be present and another letter dated July 7, 1981 from Jeannette Banaczi, President of KNOB, a member of the Hospital Board (both made a part of the record) which letters urged approval of the requested CUP. Another group of documents he submitted were petitions signed by in excess of 400 of the Hospital's employees (made a part of the record) requesting that the CUP be approved in order to obtain the critically needed parking for employees and patients families. ~he Hospital was giving quality care to people of all ages. %heir Governing Board members were an unusually conscientious and caring group of people and were totally supportive of what the Hospital was requesting. He respectfully requested approval of the request. 81-987 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - 0uly 7, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Dennis Hardin, General Manager of Hardin Oldsmobile, stated he was also a Foundation Board member and in that capacity had worked on the parking problem which was of great concern to him. It was in the best interest of the City to provide as much off-street parking as possible. As he looked toward the future, he could see the parking problem getting worse. He urged the Council to support the Planning Commission's recommendation that they issue a CUP. he then confirmed for Councilman Bay that, to his knowledge, the Executive Board of the Chamber of Commerce had not met and voted on the subject. It was announced that Dr. Stout who was to speak was called away to the Hospital a few minutes ago. Mr. Charles Wiggins, Attorney associated with Musizk, Peeler & Garrett, 4000 MacArthur Boulevard, Newport Beach, after opening remarks to preface his presentation, stated that the public interest must prevail. That introduction was most appropriate because there was a strong public interest involved in the otherwise apparent narrow application pending before them. Martin Luther Hospital was a private, non-profit hospital corporation existing solely and exclusively to meet its responsibility to provide for the health care needs of the citizens of the Anaheim community and adjacent areas within its broader service area. The bulk of patients were from Anaheim. %hey were talking about an important community asset in Martin Luther Hospital. Thousands of citizens of the community were served by the Hospital each year. The Hospital could not perform the responsibility it ~ad undertaken to perform, namely to meet the health care needs of the community, unless there was a place to park for those who must work, be treated and who visited the Hospital. Parking was not a matter of choice, but a matter of absolute necessity. The problems were going to be more acute and if the application was denied, the problem was not going to go away. It was an act of responsibility by his client to anticipate that need now. He hoped that the Council would view the issue as it really was--that the public interest of Anaheim was involved and that their decision would be strongly impacted by their perception of that public interest. Before concluding, he wanted to dispel a notion that might exist on some of the people present, namely that the choice was between a parking lot or homes. That was not the choice. It was true that Mr. Brock or the Brock Company was the applicant, but that was wholly fortuitous. The Hospital had entered into' a binding contract to purchase the property, and it was subject to no conditions--zoning was not a condition. %hey were going to buy the property and the Hospital was going to be the owner of the property in a few weeks, he did not wish them to unRerstand that houses would spring up if the application were denied because that would not occur. The Hospital would own the land and hold it if necessary and make a case at a later time if it was not able to persuade the Council this evening. The demand was there and it must acquire the property while it was available and in an undeveloped condition. Councilman Overholt, referring.to Mr. Wiggins' last statement, asked if he was representing that the existing escrow was not contingent upon the approval of the CUP; Mr. Wiggins confirmed that was correct. They intended to buy the property and Brock intended to sell. 81-988 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 7, 1981, 1:30 P.M. The Mayor then asked to hear from those in opposition to the granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 2195. Mr. Bernard Greenberg, 1132 North Voyager Lane, President of the Anaheim Shores Homeowners Association, stated they were present to oppose Conditional Use Permit No. 2195 which would allow Martin Luther Hospital to acquire and build a parking lot on 2.9 acres in a portion of Tract No. 8796, part of a planned residential development in Phase IV of Anaheim Shores. %he residents and members of the Anaheim Shores Homeowners Association opposed any changes to the planned development of the community for the following reasons: Expansion by Martin Luther Hospital would ultimately have a detrimental effect on their property values and also possibly on the surrounding community as well. It was felt that the parking lot was but a smoke screen to hide for the time being, the Hospital's intention to not only expand up, but to also eventually expand outward necessitating the acquisition for more land already designated as part of the planned residential development. They also believed that the current seven-story office building was indicative of the Hospital's expansion policy. The proposed parking lot was in excess of current needs, particularly in light of the fact that many automobile owners were going to be driving compact cars. %he Association would stand to lose thousands of dollars annually in income, but with no decrease in expenditures which would ultimately result in higher monthly assessment fees to each and every nome- owner. The noise from the parking lot would affect homes in the immediate area particularly during shift changes. As well, the parking lot had the potential to offer an unsupervised gathering for undesirable outside elements. They already had enough problems in their area, vandalism as well, and they did not need anymore. The rerouting of streets to accommodate the parking lot would cause some residents to have to carry their garbage or trash 50 to 100 feet to a main street. There was also the concern relative to emergency vehicles where no turning radius was available. In concluding, Mr. Greenberg stated that Anaheim Shores was pleading with the Council not to allow Martin Luther Hospital to acquire the land because if they were allowed to do so, there was no telling where it would end. The Hospital had enough of their own available land where they could have . installed a parking lot and they still had room on their immediate area to build a multi-level structure without infringing elsewhere. They did not want to be pawns or victims of the Hospital's shortsightedness. To further justify the feelings of the community, he then submitted petitions containing approxi- mately 172 signatures from Anaheim Shores residents representing approximately 103 homes in the community. Mrs. Helen Carter, 1945 Ba~shore Drive, stated they purchased a nome in Anaheim Shores four years ago. It was quiet and beautiful, but they were worried that their planned community was being infringed upon by outside sources even though for very good reasons. There was a great deal of undeveloped land left to be developed and how that would be handled in the future was of great concern. They were concerned over the resultant vandalism, noise and an increase in their Homeowners Association dues, due to the loss of the home sites (see letter dated July 2, 1981 from Joe and Helen Carter). 81-989 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 7, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Bob Dajeanis, 1148 Boatswain Circle, stated what the Hospital was trying to do to them was unfair and unnecessary, lhey would not be present tonight if they did not have 15% interest rates. The Anaheim Shores project would have been finished a long time ago if it were not for that. Further, land was expensive and it was necessary to use it to its fullest by multi-tier parking structures. He was not convinced that the Hospital could not provide parking at their present location which would be adequate for their future needs. It was not fair for them to have to bail the Hospital out because of bad planning. They were not against the Hospital, but they believed they were trying to get out cheap with cheap land right next to them to make up for some of the mistakes they made in the past which the Homeowners Association was going to have to pay for. Mr. Bob Herman, 1199 Voyager Lane, Public Accountant, stated that he had done a financial analysis of the impact 25 homes would bring to the present and future residents of Anaheim Shores opposed to letting the land be used as a parking area. They would lose $15,600 per year. They were talking about large numbers when projected over a period of 30 years. He then elaborated upon the loss to Anaheim as well, relative to tax revenues. He also felt that the Hospital used very poor planning and short sightedness, since they had ample opportunity previously to build a parking lot on land that they owned. He questioned why the Council should now go back on its word and subject the existing homeowners to the whims of the Hospital because of their short sight- edness. Mr. Clifford Harper, 1975 Bayshore, emphasized that the Homeowners Association was united in their opposition, he believed to the extent of 90% in support of a position of opposition. He also commented on what he considered to be the Hospital's poor planning. The best planning available today did not support the case for expansion of the facilities. Orange County an~ Anaheim in particular were well provided with hospitals and physicians and the situation was improving. He thereupon quoted from the Orange County Health Planning Council, the organization responsible for planning the health care require- ments in the area. Statistics published in 1980 showed bed occupancy rate of 58.1% for the seven large hospitals in the area--for Martin Luther it was 62.4%. The three largest hospitals in Anaheim--Anaheim Memorial, Martin Luther and West Anaheim Community all had reserve bed capacity. Also, the Health Planning Council's data projected to 1985 showed in Orange County, in excess of 1500 beds and in the local area, 398 excess beds of all types. Their presentation could be summed up in two statements--no community need existed for Martin Luther Hospital to build a new parking lot in Tract 8796. Secondly, the community of Anaheim Shores opposed the intrusion into their living space witnessed by their petition signed by a substantial majority of the owner occupants and many of the non-resident owners. By a show of hands at their last membership meeting in a room with at least as many people as in the Chambers audience tonight, all hands were raised, save two, one a physician in the employ of the Hospital. He asked that the Council consider those,two facts carefully and to vote in support of the community position and not the big business position. 81-990 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 7, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Jay Wray Murray, 1195 Voyager Lane, rather than reiterate his concerns, resubmitted his letter of June 22, 1981 in order to enter it into the record (see letter dated June 22, 1981--made a part of the record). He felt that the fact the property would be owned by the Hospital was irrelevant. They ought to look into the intentions of the Hospital as to what they were planning to do with the land. It was important to maintain credibility as a City to the people who had bought their homes in Anaheim Shores, homes which they purchased with a planned development in mind. At the conclusion of Mr. Murray's presentation, Councilman Bay pointed out that a key issue involved was the right of a property owner to sell his property and the right of someone to buy it. Mr. Greenberg then s,,mmed up by reiterating that they were pleading with the Council not to allow the Hospital to acquire the land. They were a small community with limited resources and could not a~ford expensive lawyers and high pressure people such as the Hospital had pitted against them. They understood the need, but did not feel the Hospital should take advantage o~ the homeowners to satisfy that need. Councilwoman Kaywood asked ir there were to be a proviso in the CUP that absolutely no structure would be built on the property, would that alleviate some o~ the homeowners fears. Mr. Greenberg stated for his part, he would have to think about it. Their fears would be alleviated if they felt they were not misrepresented, but they felt that they had been and had to ~ind out the hard way. It was a matter of not knowing what the future would hold for the co,unity with the Hospital infringing upon them. They were concerned about expansion, and he reiterated that they felt there was misrepresentation on both sides, by Brock and the Hospital upon which he elaborated at the request of Councilwoman Kaywood. Councilman Overholt asked Mr. Greenberg how he would feel if there was a restriction placed upon the Hospital so that the property could not be used for anything other than a parking lot; Mr. Greenberg stated that he did not want to answer that on behalf of the homeowners. Councilwoman Kaywood asked if there were to be a parking lot, did he feel the plan presented was a good one. Mr. Greenberg answered "yes". However, he would make sure that the one street was such that the homes were situated where the homeowners would not be incon- venienced with having to carry their trash out to be picked up and also that it not cause problems for emergency vehicles. Further he would like certain assurances from the Hospital that i~ they put in that particular type of parking, that it be landscaped well with the proper berm depth. Councilwoman Kaywood asked if that was a condition of approval, would it alleviate their fears; Mr. Greenberg answered '~es". 81-991 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 7~ 1981, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Overholt asked Mr. Belmont if there would be any interest to consenting to a deed restriction on the acquisition of the subject property that would limit the use by the Hospital to a parking lot, the reason being, the people wanted some assurance that thet were not going to come back to another Council in two years asking to put a tower om the property. The CUP process did not give that assurance; Mr. Belmont stated he would discuss that with Mr. Wiggins. Councilwoman Kaywood asked with regard to the landscaping for the parking lot, was that at grade level, lower or higher than the homes; Mr. Mickelson answered, it was at the same grade level. There was not a berm all around, but a six-foot block wall for a solid view obscuring to that height and then hedgerow-type landscaping with broad headed trees to create a visual buffer above that. They would be willing to work with the homeowners on that plan to establish a landscape plan with a landscape architect who could assure them that certain trees would grow to certain heights~of maturity, etc. He also confirmed that there would be no opening onto Romneya Drive, and they would not propose one. There was also no direct access from the parking lot into the Planned Community. Councilman Bay asked, if the Council decided they would like to change the lot plan along Leeward Street, was there someone present in the Chambers who could speak for Mr. Brock. Mr. Mike Conlen, Senior Project Manager with M. J. Brock, tirst stated that Martin Luthern Hdspital was the authorized agent for his company at the hearing. Relative to the lots on Leeward, from a good planning standpoint, they probably should be turned out, but there was a problem. They did not own the frontage on the street. It was owned by the Homeowners Association and it was a private parkway. It was a parcel in a prior tract and not a part of Tract No. 8796. Their attorneys told them even if they Association agreed to sell them that land so the lots could be turned, they could not transfer title due to the way the by-laws and the Association were set up. Councilman Bay stated, assuming the Council was going to allow the parking lot, he was concerned with the modified cul-de-sac with the three lots.going north and south vs. the three lots going east and west with the short stub street. He would suggest that if they did not have any street there at all, they could still have three lots running east and west back from L~eward. They would still have the same number of homes and yet do away with the "stub" problem in the design. He wanted to know who would have the authority, if that became one of the contingencies on their decision tonight, to say that they could do that. , Mr. Conlen stated that the three lots would fit, but he reiterated they did not own the frontage on Leeward, so there would be no access if they were turned. Their attorneys told them that the Homeowners Association could not transfer fee title to the common open space to their company. He then repeated for the Council what a gentleman from the audience (Joe Carter~ had indicated, that being, the Association would widen the street and what was now a greenbelt area would become right-of-way which would give those homeowners access to the street and an exit out of the tract. They would be willing to sit down and discuss it. 81-992 City Hall, Anaheim, Calitornla - COONuiL Mi~'~UiES - 3ul~ 7, IWS1, 1:30 P.h. Miss Santalahti stated this was a point that was ~iscussed earlier. Sme dzc not see any pro01em from the Planning Department's point or view and felt it was not a bad solution to the problem. Mr. Belmont, after having consulted with Mr. Wiggins relative to Councilman Overholt's question on a deed restriction, stated he did not think the Hospital would be willing to consent to a deed restriction, iney did not know what was going to be happening to the homeowners in the future or what would happen at all in the future in any way, shape or form. 'Ihey nad no surrepti- tous plans. Councilman Overnolt surmised then they were unwilling to commit to a parking lot; Mr. Belmont answered "yes". Mr. Wiggins stated, to answer the question directly whether they would be willing to consent to a deed restriction or not,. it would be a matter that would have to be considered by the Boara because they would be giving away a very valuable property right. They were being asked to make that decision tonight aha his recommendation to the Board would be absolutely not. he ~elt it was almost unfair to ask of a property owner to encumber his property in perpetuity with a commitment that the lan~ woul~ not ke use~ lor another purpose. Nobody else was making that commitment around the community as tar as he knew. He hope~ ~nat the Council woui~ not press t~at point. Councilman Overholt stated his feeling was that if they were willing to commit to the proposed use ok the property, t~e homeowners woui~ Ieei ~i£terenciy about what was taking place. Mr. Wiggins stated the homeowners ha~ their statement that the Council or their successors would control the use o~ the property, the same kin~ o[ control that every other property owner in the City had, and [ney were willing to submit to that. Councilwoman Kaywoo~ asked if they were agreeable to having a conditional use permit with the condition that there be no structure erected on the property and that it be used as a parking lot; hr. Wiggins answered, absolutely, it was the deed restriction they were objecting to because of the perpetual and inflexible nature of it. Mr. Belmont then spoke to the vandalism and noise issues, n~ey nad stated previously that the lot was only going to be used for aay parking and no night parking whatsoever. %ney would have a security patrol ~o ~hich they were committed to try to avoid vandalism, etc., and they were still committed to that. Daytime use woul~ involve usage of the lo[ by employees ~ho s[arte~ at 7:00 a.m., culminating anywhere from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m. He confirmed tor Councilman Overholt that they were willing to accept such a stipulation. 2he lighting would be something similar to what they had now. They would be more tnan willing to shield the lighting to accommodate any o[ the concerns o~ the homeowners. 81-993 City Hall, Anaheim, ~alzfornia - COUNui~ MIhUIgS - Jul7 7, lW6i, 1:30 P.M. Miss Santalahti stated if the Council wished, if they approved the request, they might want to zncluoe a conGition specifying the maximum aeignt ct the lighting fixtures. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she presumed they were going to i]ave a group of the homeowners involved in the planning for the parking lot and that the lighting woul~ be included; Mr. Belmont answered that they continuea to hol~ that offer open. The Mayor closed ~he public hearing. Mayor Seymour explained that he haO an opportunity to visit the Hospital and meet with Mr. Belmont and another member of the staff so as to be given an explanation on what the Hospital would be presenting this evening. %ney also discussed what possible alternatives there might be. One of the alternatives was a parking structure in the general location of the southeast area of the property. Another was, due to the fact that the professional building to the north and the parking lot were on leased land to the Hospital, that perhaps there could be a possibility of a parking structure on that lot. He then asked Mr. Belmont to elaborate on those two other potential alternatives in addition to the cost aspects and why they felt those opportunities were fore- close~ to them. Mr. Belmont's explanation was ~ollowed by questioning o~ hr. aickelson for further clarification as to why those alternatives were impractical during which ~r. Jim Farley, Willdan an~ Associates, also relayed znzormation rela- tive to the Hospital power plant which contained all the utilities and water. He confirmed ~or the Mayor t~at t~at si~e was preclu~e~ ~rom a parking struc- ture because of the power plant. ~iayor Seymour stated in view o~ the [oregoing, it was oOvious ~ha~ the sout~ was not a good location for the parking lot, as well as the southeast, and the current west parking lot. %ney needeo a nigh rise protessionat building to house staff but in those deliberations, he questioned why the Hospital's demano ane requirement for ~uture parking ~io not override the need £or the office facilities created to the north. Mr. Setmcnt answered at the time the negotiations began ano the Boaro identified the need, the Hospital was struggling to make ends meet. In 1979 when things were starting to come around in terms of a more stable ~inancial situation, the Board was able to direct its attention to long-range planning at wnich time the present situation came about. Mayor Sey~nour, speaking to Mr. Greenberg, stated that he would be interested in knowing his response to the statement given in previous testimony that if something was not done to assist in the solution to the parking problem, it woul~ not go away ano what they would eventually see was a situation similar to that with regard to St. Joseph's Hospital in Orange--traffic in the resi- dential neighborhooc, parking in the streets, vandalism, etc. 81-994 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 7, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Greenberg telt that Anaheim Shores was caught in the middle, and they were going to get it from both ends no matter what happened. If a parking problem resulted in the future, there was no doubt there woula be parking along Romneya Drive and then eventually into their private streets which could have repercussions. If the parking lot were approved, the Association must have assurance that the parking area would be contained and that the landscaping would be conducive to the area. he reiterated, they were caught in the miadle. Councilwoman Kaywood recalled a similar situation which occurred at Anaheim Memorial Hospital where the sing le-lamily resiaents were impacted oy parking from the Hospital. Homeowners had to be displaced, causing a very difficult situation. By comparison, the subject situation was easy. %me land under consideration was undeveloped and if the project were done right, it could be an asset to the neighborhood. S~e would want to see controls and conditions that would insure a good living environment ~or the Anaheim Shores development. Mayor Seymour, speaking to Mr. Belmont and Mr. Wiggins aske~ the following: In trying to pursue another way to provide assurances to the homeowners that they were not going to 0e raced with a public aearing one or two years from now requesting either a multi-story parking structure and/or an office building, woul~ they be wiilzng to enter into an agreement stating t~at if in the future Martin Luther Hospital needed a multi-, any-type, of parking struc- ture, that the next 300 spaces would either come out of other real estate purchased or parking structures not on the Brock property. That would provide at least the assurance t~at for the next 300 spaces which should carry their needs for at least another 10 years would give 10-year protection. Mr. Belmont answered, he personally did not have a problem with the idea that for 10 years they were set. He believed they were set for 25 years. That was wnat ne knew to~ay, but he dia not know ~ow he woula be advise~ in terms o~ a ten-year commitment. Mayor Se~vmour clarified that he saw the need :or a hospital parking structure with or without the subject property in the next ten years. He wanted some assurance for ~he homeowner that that parking structure would not be con- structed on the subject property. He again asked if they would be willing to agree that the parking structure would first be built either on the south quadrant, the southeast quadrant or what was currently the west quadrant. Mr. Wiggins stated ne would like to give the City and the homeowners all of the assurances that were reasonable. %here were no plans to do anything with respect to the property other than what they were representing, he was now being asked where for the next 10 years would they specifically commit on their existing property without maving the bene£it of an engineering or teasi- bility study. That did not ma~e sense to him. Mayor Seymour stated he would be more than happy to continue to w~atever time certain he would like to permit a~equate time for that to be resolve~. How- ever, me coulc not make a decision witaout some assurance other than that already given, as to what was going to happen in the lize of the property in the next rive or ten years, he was surprised that the did not plan that far out into the future. 81-995 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 7, 1981, 1:30 ~.M. Mr. Wiggins stated that the acquisition of the Brock property gave the Hospital some ~lexibility tRat made good planning sense, it was difficult ~or him or Mr. Belmont to indicate where in their buffered area would be the right place. They were taikins about a long time and many variables, and they hag no intention whatsoever to do anything other than what was indicated on the posted plan an~ ~ae Council could limit them to that. ~he question was, now- ever, should they limit the next City Council as well; Mayor Seymour stated that Re Ielt t~e answer to that was "yes" The Mayor then stated he felt five to ten years was not too long-range plan- ning. Asking ~or a commitment of that time with ten years at a maximum was not asking too much. The Hospital was saying that they did not need multi- level parking structures ann he was saying he oelieved they di~. He was trying to provide in a longer range plan how they would get there if they needed it, that way woul~ be to develop a multi-parking structure on their buffered property. If they were willing to commit to that within a period of ten years, he was prepared to move ahead and ask the homeowners to work with them to see that the plan became a reality in solving the other planning type problems of access into the three lots, etc. Mr. Belmont stated he did not think he could commit the Board to that. The Board had approved a long-range master plan that did not involve any kind of new structures other than adjacent to the Hospital ~or years. He believed the Board might go along with that contingency. The Mayor stated if they were to get an approval and attach that contingency to the approval, an~ subsequently if the Board said they coula not live with it, prior to their pulling a permit, they could come back and request another pnblic hearing to Cebate that particular point. The Mayor asked for confirmation that he (Belmont) would agree, subject to the Board of bzrectors approval, that i~ they needed multi-structured parking they would first utilize their own buffered property before coming to the City to ask for an additional CbP to go multi-structured on the brock property; b~r. Belmont answered, "yes". EbVIROi,MEN2AL ~PACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLA~ATIO~: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council finds that subject project will have no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property ~or low medium density residential land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the proposal; that the Initial Study submitted Oy 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 Seymour offered Resolution No. 81R-324 for adoption, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 2195, subject to the recommendations of the City Planning Commission and additional conditions as follows: %hat there be an agreement with Martin Luther Hospital that if in the next 10-year period they 81~996 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 7, 198i, 1:30 P.M. should seek multi-parking structures, those would be developed on their buffered property, other than the Brock property, prior to coming to the Council for an additional use permit for a parking structure on the Brock property; that the proposed plan be refined through a cooperative effort of the Hospital and representatives from the homeowners relative to the land- scaping treatment as well as in concert with Brock, the street treatment for the 3 lots immediately to the westerly extension of the property line on Leeward. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION ~O. 81R-324: A ~ESOLUTION OF THE CIIY LO0~CIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING, IN PART, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2195. Before a vote was taken, Mr. Wiggins asked if he understood one of the conditions to be that the granting of the CUP would be subject to an agreed plan of improvement, the parties to the agreement being the homeowners, Brock, etc. They could bring people together, but could not force them to agree. Ihe Mayor stated me respectea that aha they should not 0e requlre~ to be hung up on a long process. Out of the hearing, obviously the homeowners, as well as the Hospital, ha~ a clear understanding of the spirit ot the City Council. In that regard, he would think that the homeowners, Brock or the Hospital would not act as a stumbling Dlock. I~ one occurred and there coulu De no agreement of the parties, he would expect whatever plan they had at that stage, taat it would be brought back to the Council and without another public hearing involving a lengthy advertising period, they would send out a mailer to the Homeowners Association in[orming them that since there was no agree- ment, the Council was going to make a decision, and they should be present. Hopefully that would not occur. Councilman Bay then asked Mr. Greenberg, in his opinion, did the [oregoing sound like a favorable solution to him; Mr. Greenberg answered "no, absolutely not". The Association could not stand idly by even with the assurances from Martin Luther Hospital and watch a parking lot be constructed. They felt they needed more than that. The Association did not want to be in the middle. They wanted what they felt was part of their motive for moving into the community and what they felt everyone of them was entitled to. If they were going to lose, they wanted more than what was going to be offered to them. One of the primary problems they were faced with was the loss of revenues, an~ they wanted to be compensated in some way as well. Mayor Seymour stated me for one could not participate in that. He ~as concerned, after hearing what he (Greenberg) just stated, over what their a~titude would be like in trying to refine the plan. if negative, he questioned why they should waste anyone's time. They could just set another time when they would come Oack with a final plan and then the Council woulo either amend, turn down or approve it. He asked Mr. Greenberg if they were going to deal in good faith in trying to ~evelop the proper landscaping, berming and intelligent planning that should go through on the three lots or not. 81-~997 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINU2ES - July 7, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Greenberg stated they felt the Association had always dealt in good faith and there should be no question as to whether they would deal in good faith or not. A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSEgI: CO01~CIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: LOUNC IL ~v~EMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, hay, Roth and Seymour None No ne The Mayor aeclared Resolution mo. 81R-324 ~uly passed an~ adopted. ADJOURNMENI: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to adjourn. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CAkRIED. (1:20 a.m. on 3uly 8, i981)