The URL can be used to link to this page

1980/09/2380-1191 City Hall, Anahe%m~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 23, 1980, 10:30 A.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in adjourned regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt (arrived 11:00 A.M.), Kaywood (arrived 11:01 A.M.), Bay, Roth and Seymour COUNCIL MEMBERS: None LIBRARY BOARD: Schultz, Pickier and Dahl LIBRARY BOARD: Stanton and McLean DEPUTY CITY MANAGER: Jim Ruth CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts CITY LIBRARIAN: William Griffith LIBRARIAN: Berrie Vandiver Mayor Seymour called the adjourned regular meeting to order, with a quorum present. Chairman Dahl called the Library Board to order. 140: I. DEVELOPMENT PLANS - CENTRAL LIBRARY VICINITY: Chairman Dahl stated that the Library Board had become aware of plans for development in the area surrounding the Central Library and wished to express its concerns about the types of development and their potential impact on the Library. Mr. Pickler summarized that the main concern for the Central Library is the fact that the growth of the downtown area will augment the Library's existing parking problems. As the downtown area grows, the parking situation at the Library will become worse, and the Library building itself might get to the point where it is too small. Additionally, they have read of the possibility that multiple story buildings might be built on the Fremont School site. Ail of this growth potential indicates an impact on the Library's capabilities to serve and the parking spaces available. Mayor Seymour advised that the Council is also concerned with what happens to the Fremont School Site as are many interest groups such as cultural arts groups, Library and Police, neighbors and the School Board. There is even a proposal to use the building as a performing arts theater. He advised that the Council will weigh all of these potential uses and try to come up with the best plan for use of the site. The Mayor acknowleged that the Brashears proposal will also impact the Central Library even to the extent of the type of service provided. In this connection, he questioned whether any investigation had been undertaken into what would be involved in a controlled parking situation for the Library with validation stamps. Clearly whatever occurs, the Central Library will experience a con- tinuing parking problem which should be addressed. Mr. Griffith related that the Police Department is formulating plans for expan- sion as well, which will impact the Central Library, and that they are investi- gating the process because of major parking impacts at this time, both the Police Department itself and the public seeking use of the Police facility. He advised that the consultant's study on the parking situation indicated they were at about 80-1192 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 23~ 1980~ 10:30 A.M. capacity and projected a problem sometime in the eary 1980's. He stated that although the need for augmented parking is not critical at this time, they are at about capacity. Further, future developments such as the Brashear's proposal, would increase the number of people in the area during the daytime and would increase the kinds of services the Library would be requested to offer. He agreed that you can always impose controls on the available parking, but this would also have an impact on the Library population. Mr. Griffith summarized that he and the Board realized they cannot stop progress, but were concerned that they approach it in an orderly fashion so that the negative impacts are lessened. Mayor Seymour indicated he could see no way to protect the Library parking spaces, even if these were increased, unless some form of controlled parking situation were installed. He suggested that (1) the Board and Council get an idea as to when the mini-mall would be closing down and then review the consultant's study as to how this property might be converted into parking; and (2) consider a controlled parking environment for the Central Library sometime in the future. Councilman Bay voiced the opinion that the mini-mall Rroperty may be important t~ the City not only for parking, but also for possible expansion of facilities. He noted that the Police Department is getting larger and the problem may be more eminent there than for the Library. He advised that he was hopeful the City would be able to acquire part of the Fremont Junior High School athletic field to add to parking or for expansion of the Police Department or the Library, but did not think this possible because of the regulation that the use for the school site be open space or affordable housing. Mr. Dahl assured Council Members that the Board realizes the practical economics of the situation and is therefore not looking to acquire amenities such as green belts or fountains. He offered the Board's assistance in bringing about the planning necessary for the best results. Councilman Roth commented that he felt it was premature to make any planning decisions at this time as the City doesn't yet know whether it will acquire the Fremont School property. Mr. Norm Priest, Community Development Director, entered the meeting and briefly summarized the status of the mini-mall project. He reported that some of the tenants have already closed out and the schedule indicates there are some leases which expire at the end of January 1981. He anticipated that the Center could be completely vacated by mid-1981. Councilman Overholt entered the meeting. (i1:00 A.M.) Mayor Seymour asked Mr. Priest whether anyone had looked at the economics and considered selling the Library portion of the City's property in an attempt to generate sufficient cash to rebuild it at another location. Mr. Priest stated that this had not been investigated. (Councilwoman Kaywood entered the meeting, 11:02 A.M.). 80-1193 City Ha!l, Ana_~eim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 23, 1980, 10:30 A.M. With respect to the potentials of the Fremont School Site, Mr. Priest advised that if this proves to be extremely valuable, the Council might consider development of air rights. He further clarified that the allowed open space and affordable housing uses were valid only for the first 60-day period the property was offered. Once this time period was up, the City or any other purchaser may bid on the property, and it could be used for whatever the City Council and Planning Commission permit under the existing zoning laws. The two uses cited are to be given priority consideration for the first 60 days only. 140: II. SERVICES FOR THE CANYON HILLS LIBRARY: Mr. Dahl introduced the subject indicating that the Board's concern is that appropriate services be provided to supply the need of the people in that community. Mrs. Schultz noted that the Canyon Hills Library will be a much welcomed City facility. She advised that within the next few months the Board will be de- termining the best areas of service to be provided at the new Library, and in particular, there are year-round school schedules which need to be considered. Councilman Roth suggested that the Board contact Superintendent Ingwerson of the Orange Unified School District (OUSD) and the School Board since from his recent experience on a bus tour of OUSD facilities with them, interest was expressed in the new Library facility, as well as their desire to offer co- operation and support. Councilman Roth stated that there should be an attempt to generally increase communications between the City and the OUSD and certainly it would be very wise to communicate with the OUSD Board of Trustees for input in planning to coordinate library and school hours. Councilman Roth explained that the OUSD Board is also concerned about the dis- position of the adobe house and adjoining cafe located at Santa Aha Canyon Road and Fairmont Boulevard. They were forwarding a letter to the Orange County Board of Supervisors indicating their concerns regarding the use of the cafe as a place for hanging out by juveniles and requesting some security for the adobe building. Mrs. Schultz advised that the new owners of subject property are very interested in saving the adobe house, and a meeting on this subject would be held during the first part of October, and invitations have been sent to Dr. Ingwerson and to all the School Principals. After conclusion of discussion, Mr. Dahl stated that the Board hopes they will have the latitude to meet the special needs of that community with relation to book collection, hours of operation and other ways the Library serves the community. Mayor Seymour advised that he would be looking forward to receipt of the Board's recommendations as to how they will see that the Library needs of the Canyon Hills Library community will be met. 140: III. PROGRAM AND PLANS FOR COMMUNITY INTERACTION WITH CANYON HILLS LIBRARY: Because of the Library Board's concern about their relationship with the new Library community, they have undertaken an outreach program described by Mrs. Schultz as follows. 80-1194 Cit~ H~ll,. ~.naheim~ C~lifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 23, 1980,. 10:30 A. M. The Board has made personal visits to each of the service clubs in the area and all have indicated interest in the new facility and the desire to be part of ito In particular she noted the Canyon Junior Women's Club is conducting a "Buy a Book" campaign and has raised $2,300 for the book collection which was presented at the ground breaking ceremony. This is an on-going activity and they hoped to raise even more money. The Kiwanis Club of Anaheim Hills has undertaken a project of raising funds to buy trees and shrubs for the new facility. The Library Board is actively working at forming an Anaheim Hills Branch of "Friends of the Library". The Lioness Club of Anaheim Hills has undertaken a project to raise funds for the Library as well. Mrs. Schultz concluded that the Library Board would keep the Council informed as to their progress in this community outreach venture and asked the Council to forward any suggestions they might have as to people in the community with whom the Board could communicate on this subject. Mayor Seymour suggested that the Anaheim Hills Corporation be contacted. Councilman Roth suggested use of the excellent quarterly publication put out by Anaheim Hills which is very well read and would provide some worthwhile advertising for the new Library and its activities. Councilwoman Kaywood suggested that the Board contact the new Mercury Savings and Loan regarding their luncheon program for non-profit organizations as it was an easy and effective fund raiser. At the conclusion of discussion, Mayor Seymour assured the Board that the Council would support their efforts and further added a promise of his own personal support. 140: IV. OTHER: Under the last section of the agenda, reserved for other comments, Council and Board Members discussed appropriate memorial for Leo Friis. A bust which would appear to be made of bronze and which could be prepared from a photograph at a not unreasonable cost was suggested by Mayor Seymour. The Board and Council felt it would be appropriate to have such a memorial placed in the Mother Colony History Room. The Library Board was requested to assist the Council in coming up with some appropriate suggestions as to what might be done. There being no further business to come before the Library Board, by general consent, the Board adjourned its meeting. Mayor Seymour thanked the Board for their continuing outstanding job thay wara doing in the community. ADJOURNMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to adjourn. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Adjourned: 11:28 A.M. LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK 80-1195 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 23, 1980, 1:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour COUNCIL MEMBERS: None DEPUTY CITY MANAGER: James D. Ruth CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts CITY ENGINEER: William G. Devitt TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR PLANNING: Joel Fick ASSOCIATE PLANNER: Junior Tashiro Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: Lt. Alan Robinson, Salvation Army, gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Don R. Roth led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 119: RESOLUTION OF CONDOLENCE: A resolution of condolence was unanimously adopted by the City Council to be presented to the family of Leo Friis, Anaheim's Honorary Historian Laureate, a 54-year resident of the community, on his passing, bringing to a close a legacy of knowledge and research unparalleled by any other individual in Anaheim and Orange County, having provided numerous writings to document the rich and cultural heritage of the community. 119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Seymour and authorized by the City Council: YMCA Day in Anaheim - September 28, 1980 Anaheim Bicycle Safety Week - September 29--October 4, 1980 Escrow Month in Anaheim - October 1980 United Way Month in Anaheim - October 1980 Diana Sands accepted the YMCA proclamation; Orvel B. Woods, the Escrow Month proclamation and Lt. Alan Robinson the United Way Month proclamation. 119: RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A resolution of congratulations was unan- imously adopted by the City Council and presented to Dr. Zuska and Paula Jones, who accepted on behalf of St. Joseph Hospital, on their 5th Anniversary as a Center for the treatment of chemically dependent persons and their families. MINUTES: Approval of the minutes was deferred to the next regular meeting. WAIVER OF RE~ING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda, after reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to waiver is 80-1196 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 23, 1980, 1:30 P.M. hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such ordinance or resolution in regular order. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $665,418.44, in accordance with the 1980-81 Budget, were approved. 123/174: APPROVAL OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANT AGREEMENT WITH MELVYN GREEN & ASSOCIATES: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, an agreement with Melvyn Green & Associates, Inc., was authorized in an amount not to exceed $20,000, to provide technical assistance to the City for Historic Preservation and Housing Rehabilitation, as recommended in the memorandum dated September 17, 1980 from Executive Director of Community Development Norm Priest. MOTION CARRIED. 123/177: TERMINATION OF LOW INTEREST REHABILITATION LOAN AGREEMENTS WITH CROCKER NATIONAL BANK: On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilman Bay, the Mayor was authorized to sign a letter terminating the three agreements with Crocker National Bank relating to low interest rehabilitation loans, as recom- mended in memorandum dated September 17, 1980 from the Executive Director of Community Development. MOTION CARRIED. 160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - SIX 1981MALIBU PATROL VEHICLES - BID NO. 3692: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the low bid of Southland Chevrolet was accepted and purchase authorized in the amount of $53,537.46 as recommended by the Purchasing Agent, Richard Jefferis, in his memorandum dated September 16, 1980. MOTION CARRIED. 180: SELF-INSURANCE FOR WORKERS' COM]PENSATION FOR THE CETA PROGRAM: On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilman Roth, self-insurance for Worker's Compensation for the CETA Program was authorized as recommended in memorandum dated September 16, 1980 from Risk Manager Jack Love. MOTION CARRIED. 123: ANAHEIM STADIUM EMPLOYEE PARKING: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, a license agreement was authorized with Stadium Properties for the use of property located at the southwest corner of Orange- wood Avenue and Rampart Street for Anaheim Stadium employee parking during certain events at the rate of $1,500 for each use of the land, as recommended in memorandum received September 17, 1980 from Stadium Manager Tom Liegler. MOTION CARRIED. 169: AWARD OF CONTRACT - SLURRY SEAL APPLICATION: Account No. 01-232-6340- 00002. Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 80R-422 for adoption, awarding a contract as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated September 15, 1980. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-422: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: SLURRY SEAL APPLICATION, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 01-232-6340-00002. (Pavement Coating, $69,890) 80-1197 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 23~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Roth noted that the situation appeared to be a unique one, since only one bidder was listed in the City Engineer's report. City Engineer William Devitt explained that proposals did go out to other accep- table bidders, but no other proposals were received in answer to the call for bids. Councilman Roth stated that in the past, the names of the other companies to whom the bids were sent had been listed so that Council was aware of the com- panies who were contacted. He preferred that procedure. City Engineer Devitt concurred and stated that in the future, all of the names would be listed. A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-422 duly passed and adopted. 150: AWARD OF CONTRACT - GEORGE WASHINGTON COMMUNITY CENTER: Account No. 25- 848-7105-84808. Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 80R-423 for adoption, awarding a contract as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated September 15, 1980. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-423: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: GEORGE WASHINGTON COMI~UNITY CENTER, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 25-848-7105-84808. (Builders West, $307,000) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-423 duly passed and adopted. 164: RELOCATION OF METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT PIPELINE TO CLEAR PROPOSED MAGNOLIA STORM DRAIN: Councilman Overholt moved to authorize the Finance Director to issue a warrant in the amount of $10,000 to the Metropolitan Water District (M.W.D.) for the preparation of plans for the relocation of their 43- inch West Orange County Feeder pipeline, in preparation for proposed Magnolia Storm Drain Construction. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. 80-1198 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 23~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay asked how long the interference problem was known; Mr. Devitt answered, for at least one year. He explained that the posture of the City was that it was necessary to relocate the line and that it was the M.W.D.'s responsibility to relocate it. They would concur with that were the relocation in the City of Anaheim; however, the actual relocation was in Buena Park. The M.W.D. was taking the position, therefore, that since it was not in Anaheim, that Anaheim did not have the right to require them to relocate the line. The City Attorney's office has indicated that even though the facility was in Buena Park, Anaheim still had the right to require relocation. Since there was a difference of opinion between M.W.D.'s and the City's attorney, they (M.W.D.) indicated as long as such a difference existed, they would not consider any plan preparation for that relocation until Anaheim put up a deposit of $10,000 for the relocation costs. It was the City's intent after the work was completed to recommend to the City Attorney's office that appropriate action be taken to recover the $10,000. Councilman Bay questioned the cost of construction and moving the line if in the meantime they had not settled the lawsuit and they ended up paying for the movement of the line; Mr. Devitt explained $10,000 was the estimated cost for the relocation. He also confirmed that Buena Park had no direct interest in the matter. Councilman Bay then asked if the situation was precedent or unprecedented. City Attorney Hopkins stated that they had researched the matter and there were several cases which they felt upheld their opinion on the issue. His opinion at this time was that they would have a good chance of winning any suit. Councilwoman Kaywood stated the way she read the report, it called for $10,000 as a deposit and then a second deposit would be necessary equal to the estimated construction cost as indicated in the first paragraph of the City Engineer's September 16, 1980 report. Relative to the next paragraph, "...relocation must be performed this winter to coordinate with our storm drain construction and M.W.D.'s delivery schedule to water supply agencies," she wanted to be sure the work was coordinated, precluding any necessity for having to dig the street up twice. Mr. Devitt explained that they intended to submit to the Council, perhaps the next week, a resolution to proceed with construction on the basis of the dis- cussions with M.W.D. that they would participate with their activities as soon as they received the deposit. They indicated once they prepared the plans, they would come in with another estimate and hopefully that would be $10,000 or less and no additional monies would be involved. If upon final estimate, it was found necessary that there be additional cost, they would expect an additional amount of funds from the City. It was his understanding that the present preliminary estimate was $10,000 and they were asking for that deposit now. The $10,000 was not considered in the original estimate because it was presumed this was a cost that would be borne by the M.W.D. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. 80-1199 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 23, 1980~ 1:30 P.M. 123/158: APPRAISAL OF 71 PARCELS - ANAHEIM BOULEVARD FROM BROADWAY STREET TO VERMONT AVENUE: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to authorize an agreement with Thomas M. Pike, dba Booth, Crosbie & Pike, M.A.I., appraiser, at a cost of $58,650, for the appraisal of 71 parcels of land located on each side of Anaheim Boulevard from Broadway Street to Vermont Avenue, as recommended in memorandum dated September 17, 1980 from the City Engineer. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay noted that the estimated cost of the appraisal covered 42 residential and 29 commercial buildings, averaging out to approximately $826 per parcel. He questioned, if the appraisal was for the widening of Anaheim Boulevard, why they would not estimate one side or the other--why both sides. Mr. Devitt answered, over the past three or four years, they had numerous infor- mational meetings with propery owners all along Anaheim Boulevard and it had been proposed to widen the Boulevard basically from Broadway to Cerritos with a uniform take on both sides of the street. In all of the meetings held, it was their unanimous view that was the manner in which it should be done. Councilman Bay stated that he attended one of the informational meetings, but was not aware of the fact that the decision had been made to take equally from both sides of the street. He asked if that was an economically based decision. Mr. Devitt answered "yes". There was a committee established from the group in terms of what the section would be and what was agreeable to the people involved. They did develop a section with that committee and then went to the main body, and they concurred. The project had been in process for well over one and one-half years and there had been a great deal of consensus among the people on Anaheim Boulevard that the improvement was vital and necessary to the community and to their own personal needs. It would eventually create a new image route off the Santa Ana Freeway coming into Project Alpha. It was in- tended that consideration be given ultimately to the street widening of Anaheim Boulevard all the way to the Riverside Freeway so that there would be a complete newly constructed street from the Riverside Freeway to the Santa Ana Freeway. The Mayor asked Mr. Devitt to expand on Councilman Bay's question relative to the economics of taking from both sides of Anaheim Boulevard, rather than one side or the other. Mr. Devitt explained that the centerline and right of way had been established for many years and that these had been based on the premise of a centerline for many years. Wherever development occurred over the past recent years, that dedication had been required as a matter of course in the development of the property so that much of the property along Anaheim Boulevard was not affected by widening. There were many parcels that through the years had dedicated on the basis of the present alignment. Mayor Seymour then asked for confirmation that someone had, therefore, done some cost estimates and concluded that it was more economical for the City and the taxpayer to take on both sides of the street rather than one; Mr. Devitt answered affirmatively, confirming the Mayor's understanding. 80-1200 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 23, 1980~ 1:30 P.M. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. 123: REDESIGN OF AIR CONDITIONING, HEATING AND VENTILATING SYSTEM (PHASE II) - CENTRAL AND HASKETT LIBRARIES: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, an agreement was authorized with Carter Engineers in an amount of $12,190, for professional services in the preparation of mechanical and electrical construction documents for the modification of the air conditioning system at Haskett Branch Library (Project I) and Anaheim Central Library (Project II), as recommended received September 17, 1980 from the Facilities Maintenance Superintendent John Roche. MOTION CARRIED. 153: DETERMINING ~HE DISPOSITION OF DISABILITY RETIREMENT APPLICATION FOR ROBERT G. SEVERE: Deputy City Manager James Ruth briefed the Council on report dated September 10, 1980 from the Safety Employees' Disability Retire- ment Committee recommending that the Council grant a non-industrial disability retirement to the applicant, Robert G. Severe, effictive June 10, 1980. Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 80R-424 for adoption, granting the subject disability retirement application as recommended in report dated September 10, 1980 from the Safety Employees' Disability Retirement Committee. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-424: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT ROBERT G. SEVERE IS DISABLED WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT LAW FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES IN THE POSITION OF POLICE OFFICE - MASTER PATROLMAN. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-424 duly passed and adopted. 153: DETERMINING ~HE DISPOSITION OF DISABILITY RETIREMENT APPLICATION FOR JONATHON BETEAG: Deputy City Manager James Ruth briefed the Council on report dated September 15, 1980 from the Safety Employees' Disability Retire- ment Committee recommending that the Council deny the application of Jonathon Beteag for disability retirement. Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 80R-425 for adoption, denying the subject application for disability retirement, as recommended in report dated September 15, 1980 from the Safety Employees' Disability Retirement Committee. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-425: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE SAFETY EMPLOYEES' DISABILITY RETIREMENT EVALUATION COMMITTEE TO DENY THE APPLICATION OF JONATHON BETEAG FOR DISABILITY RETIREMENT AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND THE CITY CLERK TO CERTIFY SAID DETER- MINATION TO THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM. 80-1201 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 23, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-425 duly passed and adopted. 153: DETERMINING THE DISPOSITION OF DISABILITY RETIREMENT APPLICATION OF MARIA BLASCO: Deputy City Manager James Ruth briefed the Council on report dated September 15, 1980 from the Safety Employees' Disability Retirement Committee recommending that the Council deny the application of Maria Blasco for industrial disability retirement. Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 80R-426 for adoption, denying the subject application for industrial disability retirement, as recommended in report dated September 15, 1980 from the Safety Employees Disability Retirement Committee. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-426; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE SAFETY EMPLOYEES' DISABILITY RETIREMENT EVALUATION COMMITTEE TO DENY THE APPLICATION OF MARIA BLASCO FOR DISABILITY RETIREMENT AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND THE CITY CLERK TO CERTIFY SAID DETER- MINATION TO THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-426 duly passed and adopted. 123/150/161.123: REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR CERTAIN MODIFICATIONS TO THE SENIOR CITIZENS CENTER: Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 80R-427 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated September 17, 1980 from Executive Director of Community Development Norm Priest. Refer to Resolu- tion Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-427: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS AND APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-427 duly passed and adopted. 175: AUTHORIZATION TO ]iSSUE PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT IN CONNECTION WITH THE $84 MILLION ELECTRIC REVENUE BONDS, ISSUE OF 1980: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Bay, issuance of the Preliminary Official State- 80-1202 Ci. ty Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 23~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. ment in connection with the $84 million Electric Revenue Bonds, Issue of 1980, substantially as set forth in the August 21, 1980 draft was approved, as recom- mended in memorandum dated September 17, 1980 from Public Utilities General Manager Gordon Hoyt. MOTION CARRIED. 153: CREATION OF A 2.5% PAY UPGRADE FOR POLICE FIELD TRAINING OFFICERS: Council- man Overholt offered Resolution No. 80R-428 for adoption, amending Resolution No. 77R-801 which established premium pay provision and amending Personnel Rule 6, premium pay, by adding Section 6.45 which provides for a 2.5% pay upgrade for Police Field Training Officers, effective August 29, 1980, as recommended in memorandum dated September 17, 1980 the Human Resources Director Garry McRae. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-428: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 77R-801 WHICH ESTABLISHED PREMIUM PAY PROVISIONS AND AMENDING PERSONNEL RULE 6, PREMIUM PAY, BY ADDING SECTION 6.45. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-428 duly passed and adopted. 139/106: ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT AWARD FOR INNOVATIVE RATES PROGRAM: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-429 for adoption, authorizing Bill Morgan or Sandi Horwitz (Consortium Cities representatives) to accept a grant award from the U.S. Department of Energy relating to the City's application for an Innovative Rates Program; and appropriating said funds into 50-412-3429, as recommended in memorandum dated September 22, 1980 from Deputy City Manager James Ruth. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-429: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING BILL MORGAN OR SANDI HORWITZ TO ACCEPT A GRANT AWARD FROM THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY FOR THE INNOVATIVE RATES PROGRAM. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-429 duly passed and adopted. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2015 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Request submitted by Lanikai Management Corporation, for an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 2015, to permit a commercial office complex on CR zoned property located at 1211 South Harbor Boulevard. On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Bay, the subject request for extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 2015 was approved, as rec- ommended by the Assistant Director for Zoning, to expire October 16, 1981. MOTION CARRIED. 80-1203 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 23~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. 108: ANAHEIM HEALTH SPA - REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF ABATEMENT PERIOD: Request submitted by Richard P. Sullivan, Attorney, on behalf of Anaheim Health Spa, 1771 West La Palma Avenue, for an extension of the abatement period pursuant to Code Section 18.89.040 relating to Adult Entertainment. The Mayor asked if the applicant or his representative was present to speak to the matter. Mr. Richard Sullivan, Attorney for the applicant, stated that the applicant, Dave Saller, was present and could answer any questions. The situation came down to an economic hardship and if the applicant was required to close his doors in December, he would be financially ruined. He had sold his home and invested all the proceeds into the health spa. If he was required to close his doors, he would lose a great deal of money. Councilman Overholt asked if he would permit his client to be sworn and to testify to the expenses as submitted (see letter dated September 19, 1980 for Mr. Sullivan) under oath. Mr. Sullivan answered "yes". Relative to the letter, he just returned from vacation and was unable to contact Mr. Saller to verify all the information contained therein. There was one mistake, that being that the lease expires in December of this year instead of September. As to the improvements, he believed those were all basically sound and true. Councilman Overholt asked if the lease had an option to extend; Mr. Saller answered "yes", provided that the Council approved the extension for abatement. Councilman Overholt, speaking to Mr. Saller, then stated that his attorney indicated he would have no objection in being sworn to testify to the expenses under oath. He asked Mr. Saller if he had any objections. Mr. Sailer answered, "none whatsoever". The City Clerk thereupon administered the oath that the testimony Mr. Saller was about to give in the matter was true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief; Mr. Saller answered "yes". Councilman Overholt asked Mr. Saller if he was acquainted with the letter from Mr. Sullivan dated September 19, 1980 addressed to the Council listing certain expenses he claimed to have made; Mr. Saller answered "yes". Councilman Overholt then questioned Mr. Saller relative to some of the improvements listed therein, such as remodeling the west side of the building at $4,500; sign repair work, $900; whirlpool reconstruction, $450; drapes, $800. He wanted to know when those expenses were incurred. Mr. Saller explained that when he first took over the building, only about two- thirds was usable at that time. It had been a health spa previously, but shut down due to the Red Light Abatement Act. He obtained all approvals and put time, effort and money into remodeling and that was where the money was spent. The other one-third of the building was remodeled to provide adequate use of it. The expenses were incurred initially within the first year of business between approximately September of 1977 and into September of 1978. He also remodeled the front of the building in such as manner so as to alter its com- mercial look, which cost approximately $2,000. He opened for business approxi- 8O- 1204 City Hail, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 23~ 1980, 1:30 P.M. mately toward the end of 1977 after having gone through the City Attorney's office and proven satisfactorily to him and the Police Department that it was going to be run as a legitimate massage establishment and not a massage parlor. Councilman Overholt noted that furnishing were listed at $1500. He asked what those furnishings entailed; Mr. Saller answered, massage tables, lamps, couches and chairs for the lobby area and chairs for the lounge area for the employees, washer, dryer, etc. He also stated that he might have even neglected to list the expenditure for sauna rework, since they had to put money into the heater since it was not working properly. Councilman Overholt asked if the furnishings were usable at any other location operated by Mr. Saller. Mr. Saller answered that massage tables, lamps, couches, etc., could be, but moving the sauna and whirlpool would be an impossibility. Further, it was not his in- tention to stay in the business, but he wanted to stay in to at least get some of his original investment back. He wanted to get into something a lot less controversial. At this point, if he wanted to obtain a loan, he could not do so. This was his only location and it was not his intention to utilize the two years, if granted, to try to conform to the new ordinance and find a new location, but to eventually go into something else. Councilman Overholt then asked when the $1800 expense for carpeting was incurred and if the air conditioners were permanent or portable units. Mr. Saller first answered that the carpeting was installed a year after he opened, towards the end of 1978. Relative to the air conditioners, there were two, three- ton group units affixed to the structure. They were working, but in time had to be replaced. The first one went out after a year, and the second, six to eight months later. Councilman Roth asked the hours of operation; Mr. Saller explained that the ordinance under which they operated stated an opening time from 7:00 a.m. to Midnight. His business was open from 10:00 a.m. until Midnight five days a week and on Saturdays from 10:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m., and they were closed on Sundays. Mayor Seymour asked Mr. Saller if he understood the terms of the lease when he took the massage parlor over from the previous owner and did he understand it would expire in December of 1980. Mr. Sailer answered "yes" to the first question and then explained, relative to the latter, that his lease expired on July 31, 1980 and that Mr. Sailer had been incorrect in his previous statement. At present, he was operating on a month- to-month basis with the owner of the building until December 21, 1980, which he believed was the date of the abatement. Under the ordinance, the owner agreed if he (Sailer) could get approval from the Council, he would give him a new two-year lease. The Mayor asked if he knew the lease expired on July 31, 1980, was there any question in his mind as to the renewability of that lease. 80-1205 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 23, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Saller answered that he had an option for a new lease for another two or three years and it was written in the lease that he had that option. Since the original lease, the building was sold and the new owner indicated to him that he would like to give him a new two-year lease if an extension were granted by the Council. The Mayor asked if he had a unilateral right to renew the lease, i.e., would it take the approval of the landlord or anybody else to extend the terms of the lease; Mr. Saller answered there was an agreement between himself and the landlord. Mayor Seymour wanted to see a copy of the lease; neither Mr. Saller nor the City Attorney's office had a copy on hand. Mr. Sullivan explained that Mr. Saller understood that he could renew the lease when it expired and the only thing contingent upon the renewal was that he and the landlord would agree upon the monthly rent for the premises. When he executed the lease and put in all the improvements, he was under the impression when it expired, he was going to be able to reach a reasonable rental fee and remain on the premises. Both Mr. Saller and the lessor used good faith in arriving at a reasonable rent per month. If there was no agreement, he guessed the lease would terminate. Mayor Seymour stated that Mr. Saller made the investment knowing there was a possibility that the lease might not be renewed and, if so, he made a financial commitment knowing that the investment would expire with the lease. Mr. Saller answered, saying it like that, it was true, but at the same time since he developed a friendship with the owner of the building, he had no reason not to feel he would be fair relative to increasing his rent proportionately to taxes and income and that he had no reason to doubt he would be able to acquire a three-year extension. He also confirmed for the Mayor that he made most of his capital investments prior to the change of ownership of the building. Mayor Seymour then explained the reason for his questioning was due to the fact that they were trying to determine if a hardship existed. In his opinion the hardship did not have a great deal to do with whether Mr. Saller had been able to run his business profitably or not, but if the capital improvements made represented a hardship. It seemed that if the terms of the lease set forth to expire July 31, 1980 unless those terms provided he had a unilateral right to extend that lease, he was taking a risk regardless of whatever ordinance the City had on the books in making those capital investments. He wanted the City Attorney to review the terms of the lease. Mr. Saller stated that now he understood--80 or 90% of the capital investments he put in were made prior to the change of ownership of the building and at that time, he had no reason to doubt that he would not get a renewal lease. Mayor Seymour reiterated that he wanted to have the City Attorney review the lease to receive his comments relative to the extension privileges of that lease; Mr. Saller asked if a decision was contingent upon the lease having a unilateral option. Mayor Seymour answered that he had not decided personally as one member of the Council whether or not that was the only factor to be considered. Obviously 80-1206 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 23~ 1980, 1:30 P.M. one of the factors to consider was that there must have been some right relative to the capital investment being made that would be lost. If the capital invest- ment was "up for grabs" on July 31 of this year, he found it less plausible to find undue hardship. Mr. Sullivan stated it was "up for grabs"; however, Mr. Saller could renew the lease if the ordinance had not gone into effect or if he was granted an extension on the abatement. Councilman Overholt also indicated that he too wanted to review the lease. Mr. Saller explained that he could provide it within a short period of time. MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to continue consideration of the subject extension until later in the meeting when Mr. Saller's lease for the Anaheim Health Spa could be provided. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Later in the meeting, Mr. Saller presented his lease to the Council, along with a statement on the facts of his operation. Councilman Overholt first reminded Mr. Saller that he was still under oath. He noted that he had presented a written statement of one and one-half pages enum- erating the facts of his operation. He asked if they were true and correct; Mr. Saller answered absolutely. That document was then made a part of the record. City Attorney Hopkins stated that he had now reviewed the lease submitted by Mr. Saller. It was a lease for a three-year period ending July 1, 1980. There was a clause of tenant's right of first refusal to purchase the property, but Mr. Saller had not been able to do that, since there was no option or provision to do so. However, he indicated that Mr. Pearlman verbally agreed to sign a new lease if the City Council approved the extension. Mr. Saller explained this was his first venture into owning a business of his own. He got into it through a friend of his who started it in the first place. He (Saller) helped him labor-wise, time-wise and on weekends to get the business started. He did not put any money into it until he was convinced that he could get the license and permits from the City to open it. As time went on and they worked with the business, they developed a rapport with the owner of the building that led them to believe, and Mr. Parsons at this time would als0 verify, ther~ was no reason why he would not give him a new lease as he was a good tenant. When he indicated that he wanted to sell the building, he tried to get the money to buy it, but could not do so. After that, Mr. Pearlman bought the building and when he discussed the matter of a future lease, Mr. Pearlman in- dicated there would be no problem and there was no reason why he would not consider giving another one. Subsequently, a year ago, the new ordinance came into effect and that was where the situation stood. If he closed his doors in December, he would have nothing. If they gave him a two-year extension which was allowed in the ordinance, it would permit him to get some of his money back and then to close his doors, as the ordinance required, and that was what he was asking for. Mayor Seymour asked in talking about a two-year extension in recouping his in- vestment, was it his intention to sell the business or to continue to operate it himself and thereby through the operation, recoup his investment. 80-1207 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 23, 1980~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Saller explained that his intentions were the latter. He believed the ordinance denied him the right to sell it even if he wanted to. Mayor Seymour asked if the Council were to grant the two-year extension, how he would feel about a condition or a stipulation stating that in the event of a violation, his extension would be automatically terminated. Mr. Saller stated he would feel that was a reasonable request because he was certain they had a report from the Anaheim Police Department indicating there had not been one violation at his place of business. If there was such a violation, however, that that violation be well researched. That stipulation was more than acceptable, with the understanding that he did his best to see that the girls who worked at his establishment had their diplomas, licenses and permits. Obviously, he could not be in the room with them, but he did talk to Vice. He had six masseuses, three per shift. His clientele was made up of independent business owners. As mentioned, he had a sauna and whirlpool. His customers would get a legitimate one-hour massage and the use of the whirlpool and sauna. Mayor Seymour noted that his hours were 10:00 a.m. to Midnight Monday through Friday, and 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday and closed Sunday. Mr. Saller explained the main reason for those hours was the fact that on Saturday night there were a lot of individuals looking for something they could not find at his business. The Mayor then asked if the Council were to approve the extension, would it weaken their position if they did so with the stipulation, (1) in the event of violation the extension would be terminated and (2) that the hours of operation would be as stated by Mr. Saller. City Attorney Hopkins stated he saw no problem if Mr. Saller voluntarily so stipulated. Mr. Saller stated he felt it was fair in light of the fact that it was more or less the way he was operating at the moment. Councilman Overholt stated he was going to oppose a full two-year extension and support a one-year extension. They had a number of cases before them and allowed an extension of seventeen months to the existing lease. He~ felt that Mr. Saller had shown hardship and that he legitimately showed a $15,000 investment that he could not transfer to another business. There was no question as to the legitimacy, but to approve a full two-year extension even with the conditions the Mayor suggested be attached was not consistent with actions they had taken with other applicants. He felt kindly towards Mr. Saller because he had invested everything he had. His inclination would be to give him one year to try to recoup as much as he could of his investment, because he really had no lease at present. Councilman Roth stated his personal feeling about Mr. Saller's clean record, he was one of the fortunate people who had the recommendation of the Chief of Police. He would be dismayed if they approved the extension and then to find out later that he had been cited. He was a supporter of the free enterprise system and thus was supportive of some type of extension, but he was going to watch to see that Mr. Sailer kept his operation clean. 80-1208 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 23, 1980, 1:30 P.M. MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved that an extension to the abatement period, pursuant to Code Section 18.89.040 relating to Adult Entertainment, be granted to the Anaheim Health Spa, 1771 West La Palma, for a period of one year, to December 20, 1981, and in the event of a violation, that the extension be terminated and that hours of operation would be as stipulated by the applicant. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt stated he guessed that Mr. Saller would have the opportunity to appeal before the Council should there be a violation to determine whether or not that were so. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Bay voted "no". MOTION CARRIED. 108: L.E.S. ENTERPRISES~ INC.~ dba SHANGRI LA - REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF ABATE- MENT PERIOD: Request submitted by Gregory L. Parkin, Attorney, on behalf of L.E.S. Enterprises, Inc., dba Shangri La, 1065 North Harbor Boulevard, for an extension of the abatement period pursuant to Code Section 18.89.040 relating to Adult Entertainment. The Mayor asked if the applicant or Mr. Parkin were present; there was no reply. He asked again if Mr. Parkin or anyone having to do with Shangri La Modeling Studio was present; no one was present. The Mayor then asked if the Council would like to continue the matter and also if notification had been sent that the subject was going to be discussed today. City Clerk Linda Roberts confirmed that notification had been made. MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to deny the request for an extension of the abatement period, pursuant to Code Section 18.89.040 relating to Adult Enter- tainment, for L.E.S. Enterprises, Inc., dba Shangri La, 1065 North Harbor Boule- vard. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion and asked to make a statement. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt stated that he was going to support the motion to deny. This was the fourth such request received from massage businesses and all of the applicants, even Mr. Saller (see preceding matter) had offered testimony under oath as to the expenses involved that were not recoverable, creating undue hardship on them. He found the evidence pre- sented, not under oath by the applicant, as being totally inadequate and, therefore, would support the motion to deny. Councilman Roth noted they had a recommendation from the Chief of Police to deny the request. Councilman Overholt stated he respected the recommendation from the Police Chief but felt the issue was relative to whether or not there was undue hardship. On that issue, they had no sworn testimony and the people involved were not present to testify. He found no evidence to support a finding of undue hardship and reiterated he would, therefore, support the motion to deny. 80-1209 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 23, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Mayor Seymour added that neither Shangri La, nor their legal counsel Mr. Gregory Parkin, had seen fit to submit any information relative to the ownership or leasing of the premises, and he found it totally inconclusive as far as the information presented to try to make a decision as to whether or not a hardship existed and thus, he could only assume that it did not exist. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 20 minutes. (2:50 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (3:10 P.M.) 170: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10807: Submitted by Pacific Terrace Apartments, to establish a 348-1ot, 347-unit, mobile home park subdivision on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located at 5815 East La Palma Avenue (continued from meetings of December 4, 1979, April 1 and July 15, 1980). The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-202, stated that a negative declaration for an environmental impact report was approved for the subject project in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 2014 on August 27, 1979, and approved Tentative Tract No. 10807. City Attorney Hopkins stated that staff recommended the tentative tract be denied without prejudice so that it could be readvertised upon refiling, unless the Council decided to approve it. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak; there being no response, he closed the public hearing. MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to deny Tentative Tract No. 10807 without pre- judice. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Before concluding, Councilwoman Kaywood asked if they had any idea when the matter might again be coming up. Assistant Director for Zoning Annika Santalahti reported that they had not had any contact with the developer in the last few months. She did know that they had been working with tenants to some extent and felt that within about two months staff would at least hear from them. Mayor Seymour recalled that financing was their problem and without that, the developer could not be specific as the Council wished them to be. They were probably going to have to wait until the financial market settled down, if ever. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2082: Application by Orange County Transit District, to permit a bus transit facility on ML zoned property located at 1717 East Via Burton Street, with a Code waiver of maximum fence height in front setback. The OCTD, lead agency for the project prepared an Initial Study of environmental impacts and determined that the project would not cause significantlenvironmental impacts and subsequently prepared a negative declaration. The Anaheim City Plan- 80-1210 C.~ty Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 23, 1980, 1:30 P.M. ning Commission received, reviewed and considered the environmental effects of the project to permit a bus transit facility in the ML (Industrial. Limited) zone with said Code waiver and denied said declaration, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-131, and further, denied CUP No. 2082. The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by the Orange County Transit District (OCTD) and public hearing scheduled this date. Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, described the location and surrounding land uses. She outlined the findings given in the staff report which was submitted to and considered by the City Planning Commission. The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant. Mr. James Reichert, General Manager, OCTD, 11391 Acacia Parkway, Garden Grove, stated that they were appealing the decision of the Planning Commission to Council because they believed there had been a misunderstanding of facts. As they were aware, transit was becoming a popular item within Orange County. They evaluated 11 different sites and the subject site was chosen because it would minimize the cost to the taxpayers of Orange County. There was a public hearing at the time the land was acquired in 1978, and they were the current owners of the land. For a short period of time, 1975 through 1978, they did operate at that facility with minor maintenance and some storage. They had gone through comprehensive analysis regarding the site and although there was some question about the condition of the soil, their soils report indicated there was no problem in that regard. The major problem with which the Planning Commission had difficulty revolved around traffic. It was the position of OCTD that their operations would take place during off-peak hours. To illustrate his point, Mr. Reichert referred to two charts posted on the Chamber wall (street capacity--time of day--one for Via Burton and one for State College Boulevard). The Planning Commission's major concern was with the traffic on Via Burton. Initially there was an indication that there would be less traffic on Via Burton, but they had since agreed that all buses entering or exiting the site would use State College Boulevard, and all automobile traffic generated by the project would use Via Burton. (See letter dated August 28, 1980 from 0CTD to the City Clerk listing the reasons why the subject application should be approved--also, see, Anaheim Division CUP Application--Executive Summary, regarding the matter--both made a part of the record). He pointed out that relative to Via Burton, they took a couple of peak hours from 7:00 a.m to 8:00 a.m., indicating on the chart that additional traffic generated would be 448 vehicles, while with an industrial park, it would amount to 831 vehicles. They also took an hour in the afternoon peak showing that additional traffic generated from their project would be 283 vehicles and an industrial park, 661. The report included that a bus terminal would be substantially less of an impact than an industrial park or industrial use. The question was either to develop or not develop the property. If so, they should look at minimizing the impact because they were greatly concerned about that as well. They felt the use would be compatible with the zoning requirements and looking at the total facility, they would be providing a minimum impact. 80-1211 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 23, 1980, 1:30 P.M. They had a similar facility in Garden Grove and initially that City had many of the same concerns when they first talked to them. He referred to a letter dated September 17, 1980 from Delbert Powers, City Manager of Garden Grove, which he submitted to the Council and read aloud. The letter indicated there had been no appreciable negative impacts upon the area because of the maintenance facility; that minor traffic improvements constructed during the early stages of the project and the off peak traffic generation from the facility combined to mitigate any potential negative impact on the flow of traffic in the area, and that they were proud to have the OCTD maintenance facility in their community. Mr. Reichert stated that Anaheim would still be proud of the proposed $10 million facility. It was an investment in the community and additional jobs would be provided not only during construction, but also during operation. The City would also benefit from sales tax as a result of sale tax revenues from equip- ment that would be purchased by the OCTD. They wanted to be a good neighbor and cooperate. He reiterated that the question was to develop or not develop property and also to minimize any impact if it were developed. They recognized their responsibility to the County in providing transit and asked the Council to approve that important project for them. Councilman Roth noted that Mr. Reichert was now saying that ail bus traffic would ingress and egress from State College; Councilman Bay pointed out, how- ever, that change was made prior to the last Planning Commission hearing (August 25, 1980--see Planning Commission minutes that date) before the vote of the Commission to deny it. Thus, it was not a change that occurred in the proposed development since the Planning Commission decision. He then asked Mr. Reichert relative to the jobs that would be generated, where the hiring office was located and also, regarding sales tax on equipment delivered to the facility, would they normally buy buses from out of state. Mr. Reichert answered that the hiring office was in Garden Grove and that they did buy their buses from out of state, but it would not nullify any sales tax benefit for the area because it would come to the County in which the vehicles were delivered. However, it was different from the 1% sales tax figure that the City normally received. .If vehicles were purchased outside of the state, the City would receive a prorated share thac would come into the County and thus it would not be the same as if buses were bought in the state. He also clarified for Councilman Bay in talking about a $10 million investment, it included just the facility. Councilman Bay then asked if any estimates or studies were done on public sector occupancy versus an estimate of normal ML zoned industrial tax revenue to the City or County; Mr. Reichert stated they had not done so. Councilman Bay also asked when OCTD acquired the land in 1978 if they used eminent domain to do so; Mr. Reichert answered that they used it on a portion, but it was a "friendly" condemnation. The final deal was made in 1980. Mayor Seymour then asked where all OCTD's locations of operations were in the County at present. Mr. Reichert reported that their administrative headquarters were in Garden Grove; they had a maintenance and operation facility in Irvine at the Santa Aha Freeway and Sand Canyon Road where they would be operating approximately 80-1212 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 23, 1980, 1:30 P.M. 250 buses out of that facility. They had another operational facility just off the Garden Grove Freeway in Garden Grove at the intersection of Harbor Boulevard, as previously mentioned, with 230 vehicles, and both were a similar type of operation as they proposed in Anaheim. They were looking at each of their facilities to accommodate 240 to 250 vehicles because at that figure, they could operate best economically. He then explained at the request of the Mayor the types of uses surrounding the facilities in Irvine and Garden Grove and that there had been no complaints from surrounding property owners at either facility. The Mayor then asked first to hear from those in opposition to the subject proposal. Mr. Larry Sierk, President of the Chamber of Commerce first explained when the matter was heard before the Planning Commission for the first time, it was ob- vious that there was going to be considerable discussion. He stepped into the role of trying to get the businesses of the area together with OCTD and Anaheim. The first meeting was delayed because of questions that needed to be answered. He called a meeting at the Chamber office which included representatives of OCTD who clearly stated their development project. The City Traffic Engineer, a rep- resentative of the Planning Commission, as well as ten business firms in the area, were present, and it was obvious that that meeting right after the Planning Commission granted a delay that it was going to be a tremendous problem to solve. There were some things the Planning Commission asked for and at the second meeting of the Commission 30 days later, some of the questions had not been answered, and another delay was granted by the Planning Commission. After that meeting, he arranged for a meeting of representatives of the area to meet with Supervisor Ralph Clark. They met in his office on August 5, 1980 and the Council had a copy of the letter summarizing what took place. The matter again was heard before the Planning Commission (August 25, 1980) when he was on vacation and as a result of the items covered--i.e., the exit State College Boulevard, no buses on Via Burton, as well as to improve the radii on the corner of Via Burton and State College. The third time it came before the Planning Commission, it was turned down by a vote of 5-0. Since then, the Chamber had held meetings again with their Transportation Committee, City/County Government Committee, as well as representatives of the City and OCTD. The position that the Chamber adopted at the board meeting stated that they were in support of the OCTD main- tenance yard contingent upon the City of Anaheim and other governmental agencies being responsible for the extension of Baxter Street, now a proposed cul-de-sac, north through to 0rangethorpe to relieve further traffic congestion of Via Burton and State College Boulevard (see letter dated September 19, 1980 from the Chamber to the Mayor and City Council--made a part of the record). The position was based on the traffic that would be created, and Via Burton could not support that traffic. Councilwoman Kaywood noted that the staff report stated if the property were developed as an industrial park, there would be more traffic at peak hours than the proposed project would create. She asked if they would be requiring the extension if OCTD were denied and another industrial use proposed. Mr. Sierk answered, if an industrial use, they could all agree it would be on the tax rolls of the City. The other consideration was the fact that there would be 243 oversize vehicles involved, and it was a matter of movement. When 80-1213 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 23~ 1980, 1:30 P.M. they began looking at that property for development, it could very well be that they would have to consider the extension of Baxter to Orangethorpe and the same reasons would prevail. Via Burton and State College had to be considered as a bottleneck and the extension would have to be accomplished. Mr. Sierk, in answer to the Mayor, then reported the attendees in addition to himself at the August 5 meeting with Supervisor Clark. There were four or five people representing the industrialists in the area, three from Fluid- master, another gentlemen, and two representatives from Mr. Clark's office as well. From the audience, Mr. Ira Newman stated that he was at the meeting. The Mayor then asked if it was his understanding (Sierk's) the agreement had been reached relative to the installation of the facility. Mr. Sierk stated that sounded like the case when he went on vacation. However, when the people got back to the area and talked to other people involved, perhaps there were other discussions relative to the use of that land. The Chamber's position was again stated to the Planning Commission and undoubtedly there was a change because whatever was presented to the Planning Commission at the time did result in a 5-0 vote to deny the project. Mr. Tom Fleming, representative from Fluidmaster, 1800 Via Burton, first asked if the Council received copies of the document--"Area Residents' Response To Orange County Transit District's Appeal RE: Maintenance and Operations Facility, 1717 East Via Burton--September 22, 1980--submitted by eleven area resident firms (made a part of the record). Councilman Roth stated that some Council Members received the lengthy document just before the meeting. Mr. Fleming then stated that they perhaps could take the matter under submission rather than statements made by both sides and make a decision at a later date. He asked if there were any questions on the statements made by the residents which contained a summary of the residents' position under Section B, eight grounds of opposition under Section C, area residents recommendation, Section D, and conclusion, Section E. The statement also contained attachment Exhibit "A" listing four alternate sites which they felt were more ideally suited for the proposed use. Councilman Bay stated he read the document at lunch and found it interesting because it obviously disagreed with some of the statements they heard already on potential traffic impact if developed into light industrial development, specifically the information on Page 11, Item 5--the relative impact of alternate uses. He asked Mr. Fleming if he consulted with City staff when he obtained those figures. Mr. Fleming answered "no". The experience they referred to was the experience of Fluidmaster. The statistics came from the Society of Industrial Realtors indicating that was a rule of thumb. Relative to the posted charts, he felt that one of the questions that begged an answer was, if the property were developed as an industrial park, was there going to be access to Orangethorpe Avenue. He agreed with Mr. Sierk that whatever was going on the property was going to have to have access other than State College and Via Burton. He felt that one of the misunderstandings was relative to what Mr. Reichert said--either 80-1214 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 23, 1980, 1:30 P.M. to develop the land or leave it vacant. He (Fleming) did not think that was the question, but rather where should they put the use, what should they do to make it as little an impact am possible on the surrounding property owners. As the Chamber recommended, as they proposed, and what the Planning Commission seemed to favor was access to Orangethorpe which would solve a lot of the problems if the Council elected to overturn the Commission's decision. He could not under- stand why the Transit District was resisting that recommendation and Mr. Reichert did not even mention it in his presentation today. Their reasons for so doing were (1) physical structures were in the way making it impossible to provide access and (2) it was going to be too expensive since they claimed it would cost $700,000 to extend the two-lane road. Relative to the first, the only structure involved was an abandoned single-family residence and as to the second, he did not know where they got such a figure. He contended the street could not be that expensive to extend. Mr. Fleming then touched upon zoning which OCTD indicated was not a problem and the effect on surrounding property values wherein they had an expert at the Planning Commission meeting who indicated it would have adverse affect on those values, but would have the same effect as if an industrial park were located there, a statement with which they did not agree. He then referred to the other four properties which they felt were superior than the one proposed for OCTD purposes (see Exhibit "A" of the aforementioned area residents' statement and attachments A-1 through A-4). In concluding, Mr. Fleming stated that the Planning Commission considered the matter o~ three separate occasions, giving the Transit District three oppor- tunities to convince them that the bus facility was the highest and best use for the property. All three times the District told them the same story which was the same the Council heard today. The District had not proposed any concrete solutions to the problem in the area. It was their position that they did not belong on that piece of property and they were hoping that the Council would uphold the decision of the Planning Commission. However, if they did not do so, they were appealing that approval be contingent upon gaining access to Orange- thorpe Avenue, because without it, they felt it would be disastrous. Councilman Roth stated it appeared in Mr. Fleming's testimony that there were a number of properties available. He challenged that because as he understood, most of the property owners refused to sell, the railroad was also holding some · of the property for certain types of operations, etc. It was not just a matter of looking for a piece of property where the 0CTD could go in and purchase it. In his opinion, it would take police action to acquire the property. Also relative to traffic during peak hours, when people were going to work between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m., OCTD was on the road picking up passengers. Two hundred fifty bus drivers would not be going to work~ the same hours as employees fromFluidmaster and other industrial sites, but at 4:00 or 5:00 in the morning. He asked Mr. Fleming if he would agree. Mr. Fleming answered that one of the recommendations they made to the Planning Commission if they were going to grant the CUP, was that they do so contingent upon OCTD being tied to the schedules they projected. However, the District refused to go along with that because they claimed they did not know what was going to change in the future. 80-1215 City Hall, Anaheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES - September 23, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood then asked Mr. Fleming if he had seen the Garden Grove facility and then questioned him regarding the cars parked bumper-to-bumper on Via Burton. Mr. Fleming first answered that he had only seen an aerial photo of the Garden Grove facility and it appeared to have none of the unique congestion problems they had on Via Burton. Relative to the number of cars parked on Via Burton, he suspected that was due to the way the area had developed and some of the residents had need for more parking. It was a symptom of the fact that this was a crowded area. He also confirmed that it was a practice of Fluidmaster to have employees park on the premises. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that the area involved a ten-acre parcel and if any industrial use were to come in, she understood Mr. Fleming to say it should not be used unless there was access to Orangethorpe Avenue. Mr. Fleming stated the other option was to extend Via Burton through to Acacia. Something was going to have to be done to alleviate the congestion problem on Via Burton and State College. He supposed that a private developer would pay for that if he bought that property. Councilman Overholt noted that the residents' statement indicated that they wanted all ingress and egress of the project traffic on Orangethorpe Avenue. He read the Chamber recommendation to suggest that the project be approved contingent upon the extension of Baxter or Orangethorpe, but not that all project-related traffic exit and enter from Orangethorpe Avenue. He wanted to know Mr. Fleming's understanding. Mr. Fleming stated he was at the meeting and Councilman Overholt was right, it did not read that way. It was the consensus of the poeple there that it did not need to be in there because that was the reason for it. Councilman Overholt also noted that they received a letter dated September 19, 1980 from Fred Schmuck, Vice President/Sales of Fluidmaster, who urged that they adopt the Chamber's recommendation. It did not say anything about prohibiting all traffic from Via Burton. Mr. Fleming had not seen the referenced letter and he indicated the latter was his suggestion and not the suggestion of his Company. Councilwoman Kaywood asked if any thought had been given to realigning Via Burton, a situation that seemed to be causing a great deal of the problem. Mr. Fleming answered that was one of the biggest safety problems and it was a very dangerous intersection. They had discussed that with the City Traffic Engineer and his conclusion was that it was simply not feasible and that there were no plans or proposals for that to be done. He then reported at the request of the Mayor that Fluidmaster presently occupied 20,000 square feet and had 53 employees. Mr. A. J. MacDonald, Industrial Consultant of Fluidmaster, stated that he had followed the program since its inception. He wanted to clarify one point, the meeting at Supervisor Clark's office was not a public meeting, but by invitation to a few of them. They could not speak for the balance of the industry and did 80-1216 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 23, 1980, 1:30 P.M. not intend to, and they assumed that what went on was for the purpose of a proposal to the Planning Commission. Anything and everything brought out today was only a rehash of what happened in meetings prior to today. He referred to the OCTD and to their methods of operation which he felt to be the reason they were present and the reasons for the industries in the community opposing the operation. When the eminent domain took place on the proposal in their organization to purchase the property was discussed, by the virtue of good neighborship, they never at any time contacted one of the industries surrounding the property. They suddenly became aware of the activity in the industry when industry opposed their project. That was the crux of the matter and what the whole situation was all about. Relative to taxation, Mr. MacDonald did not know how they could breathe that word when the United States Government was paying for the land and government agencies had given them the license of eminent domain to permit them to do any- thing they wanted to do. The reason the industrial people of the City in that location, the employees, the Chamber of Commerce and those interested were op- posing the project was because they had to live in the City. They believed that eminent domain under the U.S. Constitution did not allow an organization to use it for the purposes of curtailing taxes within the City. He also felt that the posted graphs were not true because circumstances could change. Further when they purchased their property they relied on it being an industrial park. He also noted the apartment house in the area located within 300 feet of the proposed project. They were merely asking people in the administration of the City to look at the situation on an even balance--the OCTD and what they wanted vs. the future of the City and what was necessary for the City as far as taxation. Both Councilwoman Kaywood and Councilman Overholt then posed a line of questioning to Mr. MacDonald in which he revealed the following: He had seen the OCTD facility in Garden Grove and considered it to be a fine installation, but there was no comparison with that location and the one proposed on Via Burton; they would not be able to expand the vacant space Fluidmaster owned in the future if the proposed use were allowed and any industrial land in that area that was boxed in would decrease in price; the extension of Baxter Street would be a great service to the City. With that condition and ingress and egress of buses allowed only on State College Boulevard, that would answer a lot of problems. Mayor Seymour then questioned Mr. MacDonald relative to the August 5, 1980 meeting that took place in Supervisor Clark's office. There seemed to be agreement at the conclusion of that meeting which he (MacDonald) attended and every indication was given that the project was okey. Now Mr. MacDonald was speaking strongly in opposition. He was trying to understand what transpired between August 5 and today that prompted Fluidmaster's position moving from one end of the spectrum to the other. Mr. MacDonald stated they did not accept what took place. He was not saying what Supervisor Clark and Mr. Sierk said were untrue. They did not agree to the points, except for the purpose in which they were offered. They did not have anything in writing, but there was concurrence in conversation that they received four of the points they wanted, but they needed seven and thus left the meeting on the grounds that they would go back and talk to the people and have another meeting, which they did. After additional discussion and questioning relative to the meeting and the final outcome, Mr. MacDonald stated that there never had been a change in position by Fluidmaster. 80-1217 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 23, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Mayor Seymour asked for clarification that he was saying, they had discussions back and forth but only Fluidmaster in no way shape or form said that they concurred. If, in fact, the various public bodies could find those acceptable, they certainly would not object to the proposal. Mr. MacDonald answered "no", but that they opposed it and also there was another gentleman from the service station who opposed it. He reiterated their opposition and also that no one agreed to a contractual arrangement or a promise of a con- tractual arrangement or a promise of political clout or anything else. He repeated their position was, the four points were highly acceptable, and they would take those and go back and see what the others thought of them, plus they were standing on firm ground that they wanted the rest of the deal--the Via Burton-Baxter Street extension, which had always been made clear in every meeting. Mayor Seymour then wanted to know if Mr. MacDonald would have a similar recom- mendation as that of Mr. Fleming, if the property developed into some industrial use that Baxter Street go through to Orangethorpe Avenue. Also, if there was any other additional development in the area, or if Fluidmaster should sell off or develop its vacant property, would they be willing to extend Baxter Street to Orangethorpe Avenue. Mr. MacDonald first answered if the property developed into industrial use where the whole property could be and would be used and the investment made, he would say definitely. Under any conditions any increases should bring the extension about because of what was depicted on the so-called graphs from OCTD. Relative to the cost for extension, Fluidmaster was nowhere near Baxter Street but Baxter Street should be extended. He imagined that the area could support more develop- ment without the extension of Baxter Street. If they constructed a building on their vacant property with 15 cars and 35 employees, they would not put a street through to Orangethorpe Avenue at a cost of $500,000 or $600,000, because the street could take that minor impact. However they were not talking about that. He did not know how much more development could take place in his pro- fessional opinion, because he had not studied the situation. Mr. Adolf Schoepe, President of Eluidmaster, stated that Supervisor Clark at the meeting asked him if they conceded the things discussed, would he (Schoepe) get off his back, He told Supervisor Clark "no he would not." He then confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood that he had received a copy of the letter summarizing what occurred, but that he did not call to disagree because there was nothing tO disagree with. They could live with the situation as Fluidmaster, but they could not speak for the rest of the people; however, in his opinion it was not right. If they only had car traffic on Via Burton instead of buses, they could get around and if the OCTD stayed on the same hours as indicated. Councilwoman Kaywood then read a part of the August 18, 1980 letter from the OCTD and asked if Mr. Schoepe found it to be a faithful summation of what took place; Mr. Schoepe answered affirmatively. Councilwoman Kaywood noted, however, that nothing was mentioned in the letter about a cut through on Baxter or about the hours. Mr. Schoepe answered that they suggested that and he (Clark) said he was prepared to make those concessions. 80-1218 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 23, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Overhoit, attempting to clarify Mr. Schoepe's position, asked first if he would rather not have the proposed facility in the area, but if it had to be there, would the extension of Baxter Street ease the burden. Mr. Schoepe answered emphatically to the first question that he would certainly not want to have the facility in his area, but if it were that, the extension of Baxter Street would ease the burden not only on Fluidmaster but all of the area. The extension of Baxter Street would make quite a difference. Employee traffic could easily be put on Baxter Street instead of Via Burton. He also clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood if another use were to go in on that 10-acre site, Fluidmaster would have no objection to the property beHng developed and they would have to live with it as best they could. Further, he objected to the buses and the fact that he considered it to be a wrong use of the property. It did not make sense to put a heavy use on that property. Mr. Tom Walker, resident of Corona Del Mar, stated that he purchased the old Ponta Prino orange grove between State College Boulevard and Placentia, 23 or 24 years ago and sat down with the City planners at the time. He donated the right of way for Via Burton, and they all agreed that the area should be developed as an ML zone. Everybody who had built a building had complied with that ordinance, with a few exceptions, and those exceptions were to a higher grade use. He ow-ned Denny's on State College, the Standard Oil Service Station (Newman's Chevron) at the corner of State College Boulevard and Via Burton and 22,500 square feet of industrial buildings just east of the motel. Those properties were paying sub- stantial taxes to the County. They were maintained as light industrial properties and he had been very careful in selecting tenants that fit the zoning. He had no contact with Fluidmaster and had never attended any of the meetings. He had made no commitments and considered it shocking that the application had gone this far. He was not concerned about Via Burton; however, State College Boulevard was heavily traveled, even now large buses would impede State College Boulevard to no end and would work to the detriment of all properties. Nobody in the area had ever asked for any serious deviation to the zoning and it would be a shame if the Council prostituted that area of the City. The OCTD was not going to pay one penny and he was astounded over all the talk about sales tax. Mr. Ira Newman, 1300 North State College Boulevard, stated the sales tax generated from his Chevron Station (which he leases) was approximately $3,700 a month and from his Texaco Station (which he owns) on the northwest corner of Via Burton and State College Boulevard, approximately $2,500 a month. He was at the meet- ing with Supervisor Clark and confirmed what Mr. Schoepe had said. They were told to "get off their backs" which he did not think was proper. Relative to the soil condition in the area, he was instructed to get a soils test with regard to the building he was presently constructing and he then relayed what he was required to do since his lot was part of a dump site (see testimony given at the Planning Commission meeting of July 28, 1980). Relative to the concrete dividers, if OCTD was given approval and concrete dividers put in, it would cut his po- tential business 50%. Mr. Clark agreed with that because of his own personal experience in the service station business and he (Clark) indicated that he would not advocate them or want them. He would like to sell people things and he did not see himself selling anything to the proposed use. He might get some business from office personnel, but he would get much more business from an industrial complex with a lot of smaller vehicles. 80-1219 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 23, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Merris Vanags, operator of Unilite and the Ivar Company on the east side of State College Boulevard agreed with Mr. Newman about the installation of concrete dividers in the roadway. If they were denied southbound access off State College Boulevard, it would deny access to everybody from College Glass, Home Craft, Unilite, the Ivar Company and the auto parts store. He did not think it was fair for the City to take people who had been paying taxes and been good citizens for seven years because someone else wanted to come along and make a nuisance of themselves in the neighborhood and materially effect their business. Baxter Street should perhaps be the only access for the pro- posed facility both for buses and automobile traffic. The employees would be working on shifts and buses would be coming and going all day long. Councilwoman Kaywood asked if there was no concrete divider, how would the use otherwise effect the business. Mr. Vanags answered the problem would be if the buses were backed up on State College Boulevard there would not be much left turn access for any of the bus- inesses for the people heading southbound on State College Boulevard. Councilman Overholt stated his understanding was the buses would leave in the morning and the driver who picked it up for the second shift would pick it up out in the field. That should relieve some of Mr. Vanags concerns. Mr. Dick Darbo, Executive Director of the Anaheim Economic Development Corporation (AEDC), stated that their Committee supported the Chamber's position in supporting the OCTD facility contingent upon the extension of Baxter Street to Orangethorpe Avenue. Their position was stated in the letter submitted dated September 23, 1980, signed by Mr. Mel Miller, Chairman of the Executive Committee. Mr. Darbo then emphasized that they were pressed for industrial sites in Anaheim and cited a recent case in trying to locate an industry; they could not come up with the five acres needed. He asked the Council for personal consideration in supporting the Planning Commission in the recommendations that they had been giving to the Council relative to the difficulty and ensuing problem of finding industrial sites in Anaheim as they were very close to build-out. Before concluding, Mr. Darbo noted that everyone seemed to be concerned about the buses coming onto State College Boulevard. He was wondering if they had considered prohibiting buses from making an east turn onto State College Boule- vard and having them go west on Orangethorpe Avenue. Councilman Roth stated that Mr. Darbo substantiated the statement he made earlier relative to the fact that it was not easy to find 14 or 15 indus- trial acres in order to move the site. RECESS: BY general consent, the Council recessed for 20 minutes. (5:20 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (5:40 P.M.) Mayor Seymour then gave Mr. Reichert an opportunity for rebuttal. 80-1220 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 23, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Reichert first read from the Anaheim Municipal Code the permitted uses in the area under present zoning to point out that there was no conflict. He also stated that they did contribute to the sales tax and in a current grant they had pending, they made a quick calculation and Anaheim would be receiving some $25,000 in sales tax. There were comments relative to their being on a dump site. He felt that issue had been resolved from a Planning Commission stand- point. They had detailed core samplings from 20 to 30 feet down and detailed reports with which staff was familiar. The site they were planning to build on was not on the old dump site. Those were the key points he wanted to make. The one obvious issue was the traffic problem and how much that would contri- bute in modifying existing traffic patterns. The Transit District would be happy to participate in a solution that the Council would consider. From the standpoint of providing businesses to the area, the local businessmen in Garden Grove were very happy because of the business given to them by their people. Councilman Roth questioned Mr. Reichert on the recommendation made for the extension of Baxter Street. Mr. Reichert answered that City staff, their consultant traffic engineer and his own staff indicated the engineering estimate to extend Baxter Street would be $500,000 to $700,000 for a two-lane road. It was difficult for him to go back to his Board and recommend an expenditure in that amount when he had three different staffs telling him it was not needed because of the impact they were placing on the property. Councilman Roth asked the distance from the northern edge of their property to Orangethorpe Avenue; City Traffic Engineer Paul Singer answered, 600 to 700 feet. Councilman Overholt asked for clarification if, (1) relative to the Baxter Street extension proposal, they felt it would be too expensive and could not be justi- fied to the Board; (2) if they were required to provide the extension, had they made any independent investigation as to its feasibility, understanding that part of the extension would be in Anaheim and part in Fullerton. Mr. Reichert stated he believed Fullerton would be the major question. He had preliminary discussions with the City Manager and Traffic Engineer in Fullerton, and Anaheim staff did as well. Fullerton was opposed at the present time. Based upon all the discussions, extending Baxter Street would be benefi- cial to the whole area, but as to their particular project taking the brunt of that extension, that was the question in his mind, as well as in terms of looking at the effect on the whole area and the taxpayers' expense of $600,000 to $700,000. Councilman Overholt asked if the Council were to accept the Chamber recommendation contingent upon the extension of Baxter Street, what impact that would have on their grant. Mr. Reichert answered it could delay it. They tried to work with the local entities and get cooperation from the parties involved. He would be quite concerned if that was a condition, because it was very difficult to say what the City of Fullerton would do. Based upon their present schedule, they had a good investment in the property now and new buses would soon be arriving in 80-1221 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 23, 1980, 1:30 P.M. the County, and it would give them a problem. He did not know if it would kill the project, but from his standpoint, he personally would not recommend it to his board. They may want to consider that expenditure, and he would recommend a participation in a solution, and he felt that was what they were looking for. After further questioning of Mr. Reichert by Councilwoman Kaywood and Councilman Bay, Councilman Roth asked, relative to the need for the site, would he (Reichert) say increased ridership or increases in prices of gasoline were forcing people to use public transportation. He wanted to know the actual need for the terminal. Mr. Reichert stated at the present time they were looking for their fourth and fifth maintenance facility. A projection made in the multi-modal transportation study currently taking place in the County was that in 1976, there were 4½ mil- lion daily trips taking place in Orange County. By 1995 that was expected to rise to approximately 9.5 million daily trips and that was forcing them to improve their service. There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public hearing. Mayor Seymour then questioned Mr. Newman relative to the proposal made by the City's Traffic Engineer (see diagram--street improvement--State College Boulevard and Via Burton) which they discussed. At the conclusion of discussion, Mayor Seymour noted that Mr. Newman indicated he would'lose a driveway under the proposal. Traffic Engineer Paul Singer stated he had two driveways now on the north side and they would somehow have to be combined, but he was certain they could arrange it in such a way where it would be possible and acceptable. Mr. Newman stated he disagreed. The other driveway was behind his building and customers would not go to that location to purchase gasoline. Also when people left his station they traveled directly north. They would then have to go around the right side of his building on the north side to exit if that driveway were closed, or out onto State College Boulevard. That would create a burden for people and they did not like to be inconvenienced. Also, if that were closed, he could not park cars on the north side of his building where there was presently space for six vehicles. He also asked the Traffic Engineer if there would be a divider. Mr. Singer answered there was no divider at all proposed at Mr. New-man's location. They never talked about a divider south of Via Burton, but north of that street. The divider in no way could possibly affect his property. Mayor Seymour then asked now that Mr. Newman understood the situation a little better if (1) since neither of his properties would be impacted by the divider and (2) if the proposal were implemented and he would not lose an access point, he asked his original question--did he see the proposal impacting his property adversely. Mr. Newman stated it would not adversely affect his Chevron Station, but the biggest concern and his life's investment was the Texaco Station across the street. If they did not put a divider there, as a personal property owner, he did not care. 80-1222 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 23, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Mayor Seymour, speaking to Mr. Reichert, asked if the project were approved and the City were to construct a median at the access points on State College Boule- vard on their property only, thereby prohibiting any left-turn egress or left- turn ingress, would he find that acceptable and if not, to what degree would it adversely impact the project. Mr. Reichert stated that would give them problems because if they were not able to meet those types of turns, they would have to redirect the bus traffic, thereby increasing mileage of the buses and increasing operating costs at an approximate cost of two dollars per mile. The Mayor then proceeded to calculate what that cost then might be if it caused 250 buses in and out daily to travel in extra miles; Mr. Reichert interjected and stated it was difficult for him to tell the mileage impact, but anything that would increase his operating budget would be of concern to him. Mayor Seymour then asked Mr. Singer to clarify for the businesses as well as the audience, if they were to construct left-turn medians specifically, who that would impact. Mr. Singer, working from the posted map, explained that in order to screen left- turn buses into and out of the property, they would have to provide a separate median that would extend from the north curb of Via Burton to past the property line of the OCTD proposal. That would provide a short left-turn pocket at the intersection of Via Burton and would immediately go to a screen (providing a positive area within which the bus could wait its turn to make a left turn and actually protect it on one side by a raised median) area for storage of buses waiting to make a turn into the property. This would provide a screen for buses entering and exiting the property in a separate acceleration lane until they could attain the speed on the street. Without the construction of the median, they would have the conflicting turn movements caused by the driveway and waiting buses would have the tendency of blocking the adjacent traffic lanes. Mayor Seymour asked if constructed in the fashion he just described, would that not adversely impact access to Mr. Newman's service station and across the street to the foreign car parts business. Mr. Singer answered that it would and all of the properties would be adversely affected with that type of median. Mayor Seymour asked if, on the other hand, it were right turn only, what would occur; Mr. Singer stated that it would not impact anyone except for one drive- way of the Office Products Company, but they had another driveway for left and right turns. Thus, it would affect one driveway, but no properties. Councilman Bay asked the consequences if there were only a turning lane in the middle of State College Boulevard. Mr. Singer explained that most likely buses entering the property would be queueing on State College Boulevard. Any turning movement made at the same time would have to wait in a through lane, thus causing a back up in the through lane and possible exposure to a rear-end collision. 80-1223 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 23,.1980, 1:30 P.M. Mayor Seymour then stated that although he did not care to delay the matter any longer, he felt they needed to have more information. He did not oppose the establishment of the operation on the subject property, but he was concerned on the one hand with building medians that were going to hurt some businesses already established. That then raised the question of the economic impacts to the operation by permitting right turns only, ingress and egress. He was trying to get a handle on the transition road improvement relative to if sometime in the future the City were to determine, or jointly they were to determine, that there was a need as a result of the proposed operation, how that might be accomplished financially. There had been fears expressed by many in the area that, in his opinion were probably unfounded. On the other hand, he was extremely sensitive to the investments that had been made and felt an obligation to protect them. He was of a mind to approve the project, but was looking for some insurance so that in the event the fears were not unfounded but a reality, that the City had the ability to say they approved the proposal on what the Transit District indicated the impacts would be, and they were not. Therefore, what was now needed was a right turn only with a median, for example, or that the transition road be built. It was unfair to ask them to commit one way or another on those aspects today, but he did not know what else to do. He reit- erated, he was looking for insurance policies for the people and those who owned and developed properties in that area. Without those, he was reluctant to approve the use. The Mayor suggested that the Council continue the matter for another Cwo weeks subject to OCTD's input unless they could do so now. Councilman Bay, wishing to express his opinion, stated he would want more than that. When he looked at all of the pluses and minuses for the particular development from the City of Anaheim's view, not forgetting the need for bus transportation in the City and County, the benefit to Anaheim citizens as stated in all the reading material and all he had listened to in the Planning Commission hearings and today, when he reviewed the pluses, they said: Save taxpayers' money for OCTD operation--he did not think that properly maintained depots would save tax money in their operation. Additional jobs for the community--he did not feel that would be significant since the hiring was being done in Garden Grove. Sales tax on equipment delivered to the facility--he felt that such tax would be insignificant as far as the tax base revenue for the City. Investment by 0CTD in Anaheim--that was all tax money and came from the people all over the country. It may be an investment having its worth in helping transportation in the county, but that was the District's job. As far as having no impact on peak traffic, that was debatable. The shift hours could not be locked down and not being able to do so, he could also understand industry's concern over what might happen in the future. He could not ignore the businessmen's opinions or differences of opinion or logic or studies that had been made on both sides of the question. On the negative aspects, 10.5 acres of rapidly disappearing industrial land would be lost in Anaheim; no property tax revenues; use of fire and police services; Anaheim's infrastructure; the question as to the definition of ML zoning and light industry and a heavier use than what was intended; air pollution, noise, etc., that would be generated from a bus maintenance facility, gasoline and diesel fuel storage; and adverse impact on property values. He was concerned whether the traffic impact penciled out on the graphs and numbers presented 80-1224 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 23~ 1980, 1:30 P.M. because when he read the description of the activity in that area now, partic- ularly on Via Burton, even taking the buses in and out on State College Boule- vard would still leave an increase of 46% in traffic on Via Burton, or 1230 daily trips added to the current 2690, totalling 3,920 ADT. He felt if there was any truth at all to the existing problems on Via Burton, that was going to add to it. The 450 buses and 1230 automobiles would add 1680 trips to State College Boulevard which was at 25,400 daily trips at present. That was also going to add a percentage of buses onto the Riverside Freeway. There was no question there would be an impact, but the question was the degree of impact and how much would be relieved with the Baxter Street extension. Looking at all the negative against the positives, he had to come to the con- clusion that he was in agreement with the Chamber of Commerce that a strong contingency be put on the approval of the location--that Baxter Street was a necessity to be extended out to Orangethorpe Avenue. What he would want if there was a continuance was to know if OCTD was ready to come back and determine how they were going to extend Baxter Street to Orangethorpe Avenue. Mayor Seymour stated, in his opinion, that extension was a political impossibility. If they were to require the extension of Baxter Street, even if Mr. Reichert's Board were to override his recommendation of not extending, he could not see the Fullerton City Council accepting an extension of that street. He based that on the opinion of the report they heard from their (Fullerton's) City Manager and City Engineer. He was saying, he understood the fears of the property owners and business people in that area, but based upon the data, it appeared that those fears were unfounded. He reiterated he was looking for an insurance policy if the fears were true and the data incorrect, that they had a way to go to protect the area businesses. Councilman Roth stated he had a deep concern for the private sector, as well as the responsibility to look at the situation and do what was necessary to support OCTD. The Mayor stated there was a possibility that they could work out a change or compromise with OCTD and he would accept that concept. He would support the proposed motion to continue the matter as articulated. Similar concerns relative to traffic were expressed with regard to the Rams moving to Anaheim, but because of good planning and thinking, the problems were worked out and he felt that the same outcome would be true in this case. Councilman 0verh01t stated he was supportive of the May0r'~ pogition. HQ, too, would like to see Baxter Street extended, but he felt the Mayor was correct in saying it was probably a political impossibility. He maintained that one of the most significant pieces of evidence relating to the matter was the letter received from the City Manager of Garden Grove who indicated there was no appreciable negative impacts upon the area as a result of the OCTD. The Mayor was proposing a continuance in trying to work out the problems to give assurance that companies such as Fluidmaster would not be impacted, and he supported that position. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she too was going to comment on the letter from the City Manager of Garden Grove. They had similar fears, concerns and objec- tions and those proved to be unfounded, and the facility there was an advantage to the City. She inspected the area personally and what she saw was a nice surprise, a clean and attractive facility. She felt that the Mayor's idea of 80-1225 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 23~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. postponing a decision and clearing up whatever needed to be done was the way to alleviate some of the fears. MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to continue the public hearing on Conditional Use Permit No. 2082 for three weeks and during the interim that City staff and OCTD work together to develop alternatives so that if in the opinion of the City adverse traffic conditions were created as a result of the operation, those alternatives could be implemented to help mitigate such conditions, more specifically: (1) the transition road and (2) a median allowing right turns only and/or others to insure that the businesses/industries in the area would suffer no appreciable impacts. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt asked Mr. Reichert if the contin- uance was going to cause any problems. Mr. Reichert answered they understood and there were no problems. The Mayor then asked him if he thought within that three-week period, there was a possibility that such alternatives could be created; Mr. Reichert answered, "yes". A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Bay voted "no". MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Sierk asked if there was some way that the industrialists and business people in the area co~id be kept abreast of the situation so that they would not be surprised. The Mayor asked that staff notify them as to what had been developed. RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess into Executive Session. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (6:50 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (7:35 P.M.) The Mayor first reported that he had received a request that the public hearing on General Plan Amendment No. 159 be heard first since it did not appear that it would take a great amount of time to consider. He asked the applicant on General Plan Amendment No. 158 if that would be acceptable, and he agreed. The Council therefore considered General Plan Amendment No. 159 at this point. 134: PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 159 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: To consider a proposal to delete the Santiago Trail (backbone trail) from the Trails Element of the General Plan; said trail is proposed to extend in a northwesterly direction from the Ridgeline Trail to the Weir Canyon Trail, a distance of approximately 9,400 feet. Mr. Jay Tashiro, Associate Planner, briefed the August 11, 1980 staff report submitted to the Planning Commission regarding the backbone trail deletion from the Trails Element of the General Plan. Pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-130, the City Planning Commission recommended adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 159--Trails Element and approved a negative declaration from the requirement to prepare an EIR on the basis that there would be no significant individual or cumulative adverse impact. 80-1226 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 23, 1980, 1:30 P.M. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition. Cecile Keller, 6841 Eucalyptus Drive, a representative from the Trails Committee, stated that they were in accord with the requested General Plan Amendment. They had been told there womld be another trail provided. The trail proposed to be deleted was in an undesirable location. Their concern was that such occurrences would not be continued where trails would be arbitrarily moved as desired. Councilwoman Kaywood noted that according to the staff report, the deletion was requested by the Riding and Hiking Trails Committee. She thought when the hearing was set there was an objection. Mr. Hank Rivera, 6283 East Rio Grande, explained that the confusion came up during the last hearing when it was not known at the time that there was going to be a one-for-one trail replacement. He concurred with the recommendation. There being no further persons who wished to speak either in favor or in opposition, the Mayor closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council finds that this project would have no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact; that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the proposal and that the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 80R-430 for adoption, approving General Plan Amendment No. 159, Exhibit "A", as recommended by the City Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-430: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATED AS AMENDMENT NO. 159, EXHIBIT "A", RELATING TO THE TRAILS ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-430 duly passed and adopted. 134: PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 158 AND EIR NO. 237: To con- sider alternate proposals of ultimate land uses including, but not limited to, single and multiple-family residential development for approximately 13.4 acres located on the south side of Rio Grande Drive approximately 420 feet west of Fairmont Boulevard. Mr. Jay Tashiro, Associate Planner, briefed the August 11, 1980 staff report to the City Planning Commission relative to the subject General Plan Amendment. Pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-129 the Planning Commission denied General 80-1227 C~.t~y Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 23, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Plan Amendment No. 158--Land Use Element, Exhibit "A". The EIR Review Committee also found that the draft EIR was in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the City and State EIR guidelines. The subject was a property owner/City initiated General Plan Amendment to change the current Hillside-Estate Density Residential and Hillside Low Density Residential designation to Hillside Low Density Residential. The Planning Commission recommended denial on the basis that the majority of the property had been under resolution of intent to RM-7200 since 1973. The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous of being heard. Mr. Richard Rafanovic, Vice President and General Manager, Orangecrest Corporation, 1360 South Anaheim Boulevard, stated that staff recommendation and their letter of September 16, 1980 (made a part of the record) summarized the background leading to the hearing before the Council. Their current request was expressed in their letter. He added that the parcel in question was unusual in shape, configuration and terrain and would require special consideration. He then passed to the Council an aerial photograph of the property to assist in viewing the terrain and surrounding development. They owned the parcel for over two and one-half years and made various attempts to develop it under the existing land use, but it became physically and practically impossible to do so. Pursuant to that, they approached the City and asked that they be granted a change in land use. At the time, they wanted to maximize the development and take ad- vantage of clustering that was permitted. They did not prepare specific plans because they did not have the land use which allowed it, and it was a considerable economic risk to take without the benefit of such land use. They had presented generalized plans, which were posted on the Chamber wall, stemming from the previous Planning Commission meeting. They did not want to bring them into the picture in terms of the condominium concept that was so much opposed, but as a reference in order to show terrain and limits of land that could be used. They were asking for the opportunity to try to prepare a specific plan pursuant to the Council's consideration of a land use that would allow them to do that and present it to the Planning Commission with other appropriate public hearings for the Planning Commission, Council and public perusal to see that what they were proposing to do would fit into the environment, that it was pleasant, and they would be a good neighbor. He also had some photographs of the existing land site and some of the surrounding development that pictorially would help to show the existing conditions at present. He also presented other pictures which were only examples and not to be construed as anything they would do, because they were not going to try anything until they had approval of the land use consistent with what could be done. He wanted to show how a nice hillside development could be constructed. They also had their consultant present to speak to the preparation of the technical data that had been sub- mitted in the EIR. The EIR had been prepared by experts who were impartial so that they did not carry the bias of the developer. In concluding, Mr. Rafanovic requested that the Council consider all those things and he would very much appreciate their review and granting consideration for a change in land use to Low Hillside Density. 80-1228 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 23, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Roth stated that the site was surrounded with RS-HS-IO,000 and RS-HS-22,000 lots at the present time. Mr. Rafanovic stated that the development just to the east and west was RS-HS-10,000 and to the south there were half-acre lots so that they would not in any form or manner impact or be impacted by the development. They were totally internal-- those were down in the Canyon, and they were on top. Councilman Roth countered that what Mr. Rafanovic was trying to do would cer- tainly increase the density between two tracts with RS-HS-10,000- and RS-HS-22,000- square foot lots. He could not see any justification for the intrusion of what the developer was trying to attempt to do. Mr. Rafanovic, working from the posted map, showed the location of the RS-HS-10,000 and 22,000 tracts in relation to his property and the terrain involved. Councilwoman Kaywood asked for clarification that they had purchased the property two and one-half years ago and also asked if they were aware of the zoning at that time. Mr. Rafanovic stated they owned the property for over two and one-half years, and he did not believe it had zoning applied to it at that time. It had a land use, but not zoning. Councilwoman Kaywood then asked if the terrain had changed in the time since the property was purchased; Mr. Rafanovic answered "no". Councilwoman Kaywood then surmised that they then knew what they were getting at the time it was purchased. She asked if the pictures submitted were existing homes they had built because she did not know why they had been submitted. Mr. Rafanovic stated that homes were not built by them but by others. He wanted to show the types of structures that could be built and the pictures submitted were taken in Escondido. Mayor Seymour then stated that he had been asked by the Council for a show of hands of those present in opposition to the proposed GPA. There were approximately 50 people present in opposition. The Mayor then asked to hear first from those in opposition; the following people spoke in opposition for the below listed reasons which highlighted their presen- tation: Mr. Hank Rivera, 6283 East Rio Grande, President of Peppertree Hill Homeowners Association. After reading the September 18, 1980 letter from Orange- crest Corporation, he was totally confused. He heard the developer say that they owned the property for over two years. Since he lived in the area for almost two years they had pleaded with the developer and real estate people to clean up the lots, but had no confrontation with them at all, the point being if they did not have any concern with a neighbor from that level, what consi- deration could they expect in the future. He stated that they did not oppose development, but wanted only development that would at least be compatible to the surrounding area. He also pointed out that although the property to the south and southeast was RS-HS-22,000, the property to the left was also RS-HS-22,000. 80-1229 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 23, 1980, 1:30 P.M. At the Planning Commission hearing he also addressed various segments of the EIR, such things as, "it would not be a precedent-setting move," with which he disagreed. The Council had seen the petition he presented to the Planning Commission of 280 plus signatures and also the letter from SACPOA and the President of the Canyon Estates just above them which were all RS-22,000. They were also greatly concerned. Their's was a planned community and he would hate to see a change now in their thoughts and plans he hoped that the Council would take those items into consideration. Mr. William Brown, 6290 East Rio Grande, explained that his property was right in the middle of the subject property. He was not a petitioner in the matter, but his property was completely surrounded by the subject of the petition. He was not part of the study area and yet he would be materially affected by the Council's decision tonight. He was aware that there were tax ramifications on the highest land use. He also pointed out that the type of topography surrounding his property was basically a couple of box canyons, and he felt the land use proposed would be too crowded. Mr. Floyd Pepperell, 157 South Donna Court, stated that he too was surprised. The developer owned the property for the last two and one-half years and had only now come to the conclusion that there were problems in developing that property. It was the developer's responsibility at the outset to determine whether or not the property could be adequately developed. He also felt, regardless of the economic cost of planning, it was incumbent upon the developer to tell them what he planned to do and his letter did not do so. He considered it to be slipshod and poorly prepared, and he wondered why they were all present tonight. He then reported some of the traffic problems in the area at present. In concluding he stated it would be foolish to approve the type of zoning requested. Mr. Ralph Mendehlson, 106 Donna Court, first thanked the Council for holding the evening session. The developer had tried to amend and amend his plan hoping that the homeowners in the area would lose their fight. When he moved into the tract almost two years ago, he knew the zoning on his parcel. was zoned, it had been zoned, and it should remain zoned as it was. It Mr. Red Moltz, 6631 Canyon Hills Road, stated that he owned an architectural firm in Irvine. He was certain they had heard of destroying property values. When he purchased his home in December 1979, he verified the existing zoning with the City, walked the subject site, inspected the pads and then purchased his house which was in direct line of site contiguous to the subject property. All his rear windows faced that property. At the time, he decided that no more than six or eight homes would infringe on the privacy of his rear yard. He made a decision to accept that situation and purchased the property. He did not anticipate that the number of homes would be increased by a zone modification. Thus, he had a financial interest involved, as well as a professional one. He also relayed his experience with other developments he had designed. He felt that under the proposed program, there would be no natural place for rain and water run-off and there were going to be tremendous erosion problems because there would not be enough open space to dissipate that water along with soil and stability problems that could create landslide type situations. 80-1230 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 23, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Bob Young, 181 South Donna Court, stated when he bought his house, he looked at the General Plan and used that as his deciding factor to purchase or not. He also looked at the school situation. At present, they were on year-around schooling and at this time they were at the saturation point. They could not keep up with the growing number of students and the plan proposed was for a change from 15 or 20 units to 65. He felt at that rate, they might as well start putting the children on year-around and double-day sessions immediately. Mr. Gene Hezel, 6266 Rio Grande, stated he also objected to the traffic, the high density and the school situation. He was concerned about the fact that even as they lived there now, the City had not seen fit to give them adequate protection as far as police services, fire department and road and street maintenance. His home was approximately one and one-half to two blocks west of the site, and he was concerned about the traffic situation that would result. He also thanked the Council for the opportunity given to register his objection. He hoped that the developers would see fit to possibly make the area what he heard it might have been a couple of years ago, a green belt or a park. The Mayor then asked if anyone else wished to speak; there being no response, he gave Mr. Rafanovic an opportunity to rebut. Mr. Rafanovic stated that he appreciated that everybody's home was their castle and he could understand that and had no response to it. What they wanted was the opportunity to build homes equal to the neighbors and that would require consideration of a low hillside density land use. They were really not in disagreement with anyone, but wanted to have the opportunity to try professionally and with proper background information to submit things that would be specifically viewed, rather than spoken of in generalities. The Mayor closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 237 - CERTIFICATION: Environmental Impact Report No. 237 having been reviewed by the City staff and recommended by the City Planning Commission to be in compliance with City and State guidelines and the State of California Environmental Quality Act, the City Council acting upon such information and belief does hereby certify, on motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, that Environmental Impact Report No. 237 is in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and City and State guidelines as recommended by the City Planning Commission. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 80R-431 for adoption, denying General Plan Amendment No. 158, Exhibit "A", upholding the findings of the City Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-431: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DISAPPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATED AS AMENDMENT NO. 158. EXHIBIT "A". Before a vote was taken, Councilman Roth stated the integrity of the surrounding residential area must be held. The proposal was squeezing too much into an area of RS-HS-10,000- and 20,000- square foot lots and that was his reason for offering a resolution of denial. 80-1231 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 23~ 1980.~ 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood explained when Anaheim Hills started, she was on the Planning Commission and then the Task Force that did the planning where they received two and one-half years worth of developer, homeowners, Council and Planning Commission input. It was a very serious planning effort and they planned the area for a certain specific number of units. The subject area was approved for 25 units and for the developer to come in without "batting an eye" for 64, she was amazed and found it incredible. It should be noted that the Diemer Intertie was built with the 25 units in mind with the entire General Plan coordinated throughout the County for all services needed. To be in an area surrounded with half-acre lots with the smallest being 10,000 square feet for a developer to come in and request RM-3000, she found it amazing and there was no way she could support any thing like that° Mayor Seymour added his support to Councilman Roth's resolution denying the General Plan Amendment. He understood that the General Plan was just that, general, and not set in concrete. Given certain conditions and changes, General Plans could be and were amended. However, he had not heard a shred of evidence or information by the applicant that could justify in his mind a decision to increase the density on the property. He could understand that the property was difficult to develop and that was one of the risks of being in the private sector. The General Plan as it affected the particular piece of property was a good one when it was created by the Task Force, it was a good one today, and he felt that tomorrow it was going to be a good one. Thus, he was in support of the resolution to deny. Councilman Bay stated that on future density requests going as high as 30 and 35 to the acre in the flatland$, he was going to remind Mayor Seymour and Councilman Roth what they said about general plans. The Mayor answered that in his statement he said that the plan was a general one and it pertained to a particular piece of property. He did not want Council- man Bay to misconstrue his remarks. Councilman Overholt stated he was also supportive of the denial. Perhaps the developer now had a better sense of the way the community, Council and Planning Commission felt and that a solution to the problem could evolve. He saw no reason for amending the General Plan in this case. A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution of denial. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-431 duly passed and adopted. Before concluding, Councilman Roth stated that he lived in Anaheim Hills and in many Council meetings, he expressed his concern with the dumping taking place at the corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Fairmont Boulevard. Approx- imately a week ago, City crews had removed some of the debris. He had pride 80-1232 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 23~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. in the Hill and Canyon area and he knew that the people present tonight had pride in their neighborhood and homes. He was therefore soliciting their support in trying to stop dumping. He had asked the School District to clean up the opposite side of Fairmont Boulevard and the new owner of the shopping center was going to clean up as well. However, they also must do something about the situation and if they saw people dumping, there they should either call the police and supply the license plate number or call him at his office, and he would handle the matter accordingly. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda: 1. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and referred to the City's Claims Administrator: a. Claim submitted by Omar Danny Guerra for personal injuries purportedly sustained as a result of City's failure to provide proper supervision at Clara Barton School, 1926 Clearbrook Street, Anaheim, on or about May 27, 1980. b. Claim submitted by Linda Marie Ireland for vehicular damages purportedly sustained as a result of improperly maintained street, Santa Ana Street at railroad tracks (between Claudina and Olive Streets), on or about July 12, 1980. c. Claim submitted by Johnna Jean Fleischman for personal injury damages pur- portedly sustained as a result of traffic signal malfunction at the corner of State College Boulevard and Ball Road on or about June 8, 1980. d. Claim submitted by Richard J. M. Rosas for personal injury and property damages purportedly sustained as a result of traffic signal malfunction at the corner of State College Boulevard and Ball Road on or about June 8, 1980. e. Claim submitted by Paul L. Edwards for damages purportedly sustained as a result of activities of City crew during transformer cleaning near claimant's residence at 1211 South Harbor Boulevard, Space 14, on or about August 4, 1980. f. Claim submitted by Bruce W. Moore for vehicular damages purportedly sustained as a result of City truck striking claimant's parked truck in front of 858 North Lemon Street on or about August 6, 1980. g. Claim submitted by Trig Lovsto for personal injury damages purportedly sustained as a result of treatment during arrest proceedings at Anaheim Police Department on or about June 11, 1980. 2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: a. 175: Before the Public Utilities Commission, Application No. 59929, in the matter of the application of Southern California Gas Company for a determination that applicant acted reasonably in buying certain volumes of gas from Pacific Interstate Transmission Company and to decrease revenues to offset changed gas costs under its approved Purchased Gas Adjustments procedures resulting from adjustments in the price of natural gas purchased from Transwestern Pipeline Company, E1 Paso Natural Gas Company, Pacific Interstate Transmission Company 80-1233 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 23, 1980~ 1:30 P.M. and Pacific Gas & Electric Company; and to adjust revenues under the Supply Adjustment Mechanism to reflect greater than anticipated collection of revenues due to increases in natural gas supplies. b. 105: Anaheim Golf Course Advisory Commission--Minutes of September 8, 1980. c. 105: Senior Citizen Commission--Minutes of August 11, 1980. d. 105: Community Services Board--Minutes of August 14, 1980. 3. 108: DINNER DANCING PLACE PERMIT APPLICATION: In accordance with the recommendation of the Chief of Police, a Dinner Dancing Place Permit was approved for Le Brochette, 1001 North Euclid Street, for dancing seven nights a week, 7:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. (Mohamad O. Trad, applicant) 4. CERRITOS AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENT., CHANGE ORDER NO. 1: In accordance with the recommendation of the City Engineer, Change Order No. 1 was approve in the amount of $1,895.59, was approved; Hardy & Harper Inc., contractor, for the Cerritos Avenue Street Improvement, east of Euclid Street; thus bringing the total contract price to $11,565.84. 4. 170: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11158 - REMOVAL OF SPECIMEN TREES: Submitted by Castille Builders, Ltd., to establish a 9-lot, RS-HS-22,000 subdivision on approximately 4.6 acres on the south side of Martella Lane, southeast of Santa Ana Canyon Road. The City Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract No. 11158 and granted a negative declaration status. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilman Roth offered Resolution Nos. 80R-432 and 80R-433, for adoption in accordance with the reports, recommendations and certifications furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-432: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Corcoran Manufacturing Co.; Emma H. Nichols, et al; Max Wills, et ux.; Daniel Cerda, et ux; Bert A. Arnold, et al; Raymond Baker; William David Prichard, et al; Canyon Pointe; and Gil Rodriquez, et al) 169: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-433: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: CERRITOS AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENT, E/O EUCLID STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 47-792- 6325-2330. (Hardy and Harper, Inc.) 80-1234 City Hall.~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 23~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 80R-432 and 80R-433, duly passed and adopted. 124: ORDINANCE NO. 4162 - FOURTH AMENDMENT TO SITE LEASE AND COMMUNITY CENTER SITE FACILITY LEASE: City Attorney Hopkins stated that last week the Council approved the first reading of the ordinance with respect to the Hilton-Wrather Hotel lease and Community Center Authority Series D Revenue Bond Issue. At a meeting on September 18, 1980 with the attorneys for Hilton-Wrather, there were very minor changes made relating to the division of proceeds payable in eminent domain and the subordination of the hotel's leasehold interest to the bondholders' rights. He had furnished the Council with a copy of the revised Page 4 and the only change was in the last sentence indicating, "...charges or incumbrances relating to or arising out of expenses or charges of the type described in this Section 6..." It was a technical change but required an amended first reading of the ordinance. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4162 for amended first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 4162: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM (A) APPROVING A FOURTH AMENDMENT TO COMMUNITY CENTER FACILITY LEASE DATED FOR CONVENIENCE AS OF OCTOBER 1, 1980, BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE COMMUNITY CENTER AUTHORITY, (B) APPROVING A FOURTH AMENDMENT TO SITE LEASE DATED FOR CON- VENIENCE AS OF OCTOBER 1, 1980, BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE COMMUNITY CENTER AUTHORITY, AND (C) AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AND DELIVER SAID FOURTH AMENDMENT TO COMMUNITY CENTER FACILITY LEASE AND SAID FOURTH AMENDMENT TO SITE LEASE. ORDINANCE NO. 4163: Councilman Overholt offered Ordinance No. 4163 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4163: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANA/qEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (78-79-40, RM-3000) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4163 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 4164 THROUGH 4166: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 4164 through 4166, both inclusive, for first reading. 149: ORDINANCE NO. 4164: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 14, CHAPTER 14.32, SECTION 14.32.145 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING THERETO SUBSECTION .030 RELATING TO TWO-HOUR PARKING. (two-hour parking between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays excepted, Lemon Street, on the e/s from Adele Street to Cypress Street) 80-1235 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 23, 1980, 1:30 P.M. 149: ORDINANCE NO. 4165: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 14, C?~PTER 14.32, SECTION 14.32.190, SUBSECTIONS 14.32.190.300 AND 14.32.190.410 AND ADDING A NEW SUBSECTION 14.32.190.2000 RELATING TO NO PARKING AT ANY TIME. (relating to no parking along Lincoln Avenue, Brookhurst Street, and Olive Street, at certain designated locations) ORDINANCE NO. 4166: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (79-80-7, RM-3000, Tract No. 10794) 115: SOUND SYSTEM IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER: Councilman Roth questioned how long they were going to have to wait for the contractor to do something about the subject sound system which he found to be getting worse every week. He suggested that pressure be put on those responsible for seeing that the system was operative and that staff should provide a report in one week. 105: REDEVELOPMENT LIAISON COMMITTEE MEETING: Councilman Bay reported that yesterday afternoon, he and the Mayor attended a Redevelopment Liaison Committee meeting with Commission Members Leo and Oseid. They reviewed and looked at a concept as presented on the Collins-Drabkin development for Project Alpha. ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Adjourned: 8:32 P.M.