Loading...
1980/12/2380-1643 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 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 CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts CITY ENGINEER: William Devitt Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: Reverend Paul Keller (Retired), First Presbyterian Church, gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Don R. Roth, led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. The Invocation and flag salute took place at the opening of the Senior Citizens Christmas Party preceeding the Council meeting. 119: RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION: A resolution of appreciation was unanimously adopted by the City Council to be presented to Mr. Thornton E. (Thorny) Piersall, on the occasion of his retirement from 22 years of public service with the City of Anaheim and commending him on his most distinguished career, with the appreci- ation of Anaheim's 215,000 citizens and with best wishes for a most deserving and rewarding retirement. 119: RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION: A resolution of commendation was unanimously adopted by the City Council to be presented to Rocco "Lou" Fiore, an Anaheim florist, who risked his own life to come to the rescue of one of his female employees. MINUTES: Approval of the minutes was deferred to the next r~ular meeting. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda, after reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to waiver is hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such ordinance or resolution in regular order. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $4,979,133.74, in accordance with the 1980-81 Budget, were approved. 174/106: REPROGRAMMING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FUNDS: Council- woman Kaywood moved to transfer $137,660 remaining in the 1978-79 Community Development Block Grant Water Systems Replacement Program into the 1980-81 Community Development Block Grant Contingency Fund, as recommended in memorandum dated December 16, 1980 from the Executive Director of Community Development. Council- -- man Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. City Hall, Anaheim, ..~alifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 23~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M... 158: ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY - LOT 22 - GRESSWELL SUBDIVISION: Mr. Norm Priest, Executive Director of Community Development, first clarified question posed by both the Mayor and Councilman Roth. Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 80R-567 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated December 16, 1980 from the Executive Director of Community Development, authorizing an agreement for the acquisition of real property known as Lot 22 of the Gresswell Subdivision. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-567: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT FOR THE ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. 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-567 duly passed and adopted. 160: PURCHASE ORDER FOR OVERHAUL EQUIPMENT - BID SPECIFICATION NO. 3722: ON motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilman Roth, the Purchasing Agent was authorized to issue a purchase order in the amount of $21,126.76, to Truck Hydraulics Equipment Company, for overhaul of two digger derricks, four aerial manlifts, and one truck-mounted hydraulic derrick, in accordance with Bid Specification No. 3722, as recommended in memorandum dated December 16, 1980 from the Purchasing Agent. MOTION CARRIED. 150: CONTINUATION OF AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR PERALTA CANYON PARK PLAY IMPROVEMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to continue to December 30, 1980 the award of contract for the subject improvement, Account No. 16-805-7103, as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated December 17, 1980. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 167: AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH STEINY AND COMPANY FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINTEN- ANCE: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, a first amendment to an agreement with Steiny and Company, Inc., was authorized in the amount of $98,062 for traffic signal maintenance, as recommended in memorandum dated December 17, 1980 from the City Engineer. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Roth explained that he had been concerned about the traffic signal at Santa Ana Canyon Road and Anaheim Hills Road which had not been functioning for three or four days. He called the Traffic Engineer's office, and Ms. Shirley Meredith handled the matter. He appreciated staff's quick response in correcting the situation. 180: CITY BLANKET PROPERTY INSURANCE RENEWAL 1981: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve (I) blanket fire insurance coverage, effective January 1, 1981, with Allendale Mutual Insurance Company, in accordance with their proposal of December 5, 1980, at an annuai premium of $82,585 and (2) accepting Marsh & McLennan's offer for All Risk coverage, effective January 1, 1981, for Stadium 80-1045 Cit~ Hall., Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 23~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. and Convention Center with 5 percent deductible, in accordance with their letter of December 12, 1980, at an annual premium cost of $108,480, as recommended in memorandum dated December 15, 1980 from Risk Manager Jack Love. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 123: CONTRACT AMENDMENT - CIVIC CENTER ARCHITECTURAL COSTS: Mr. Jim Armstrong, Assistant to the City Manager, first clarified questions posed by Councilman Roth relative to the subject costs and services. On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Bay, a second amendment to an agreement with Dan L. Rowland and Associates, Incorporated, in the amount of $2,580, for architectural costs relating to additional services in conjunc- tion with the Anaheim Civic Cen=er, as recommended in memorandum dated December 16, 1980 from the City Manager's office, Engineering Division and Public Utilities Department. MOTION CARRIED. 123: LEASE AGREEMENT FOR FUEL CONSERVATION EQUIPMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-568 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated December 17, 1980 from Assistant Director of Finance Irwin Bornstein, authorizing a lease agreement with United California Bank to lease fuel conservation equip- ment for 100 City vehicles at an interest rate of 9 percent and necessary docu- ments therefor. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-568: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS OF A FUEL CONSERVATION EQUIPMENT LEASE AND OPTION AGREEMENT, INTERIM RENT AGREEMENT AND LEASE ORDER.("THE AGREEMENTS") WITH UNITED CALIFORNIA BANK AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENTS FOR THE LEASE OF SAID EQUIPMENT. 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-568 duly passed and adopted. 132: ALCOHOL CONVERSION FACILITY: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, staff was authorized to participa=e in submitting joint grant applications to the State Energy Commission and the State Solid Waste Management Board, on behalf of the City, to study the feasibility of constructing an alcohol conversion facility in Orange County, as recommended in memorandum dated December 15, 1980 from the City Manager's office. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 123/124: RELOCATION OF EDISON COMPANY EASEMENT - ANAHEIM CONVENTION CENTER BETTERMENT II EXPANSION: On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilman Overholt, an Indemnification Agreement was authorized in connection with the relocation of the Southern California Edison Company easement for the Convention Center Betterment II expansion, as recommended in memorandum dated December 15, 1980 from the City Attorney's office. MOTION CARRIED. 115: ENCLOSURE OF RAMP FROM PARKING STRUCTURE: Councilwoman Kaywood stated that they all received a report on the cost estimate to cover the pedestrian 80-1k'mt6 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -.December 23, 1980, 1:30 P.M. bridge to the Civic Center leading from the parking structure to the second floor of the new building. She moved that they proceed with enclosing the pedestrian access bridge with funds to be allocated from the Civic Center funds. She believed that $40,000 was left in that fund and the cost of the enclosure was $36,000. Councilman Roth questioned the need for such an enclosure. Councilwoman Kaywood explained that on windy days a wind tunnel was created, and also, although they had not experienced a heavy rain as yet, she noted in looking from the inside of the building out, it dipped forward. She was concerned that in a heavy rain, water would be inside the building and create a lot of damage. Mayor Seymour stated if there was a drainage problem, they should fix that, rather than building an expensive addition. He also did not see the value in such a proposal. He did not feel it was a reasonable expenditure of taxpayer funds and would rather see that expenditure allocated to the program they had talked about, making the building more accessible to the handicapped. Councilwoman Kaywood felt that would also help the handicapped because they would be parking on the fifth level of the structure and coming across the ramp and if covered, they would not get soaked. Mayor Seymour stated it was just a matter of setting priorities and if Council- woman Kaywood wanted to offer a motion, that would be the way to direct staff to proceed. Councilwoman Kaywood suggested that they wait a couple of weeks to look at the matter again. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Bay, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda: 1. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims weft denied and referred to the City's Claims Administrator: a. Claim submin~ed by Enrique Medero for vehicular damages purportedly sus- tained as a result of claimant's parked vehicle being struck by City vehicle at Broadway and Gain Streets, on or about October 27, 1980. b. Claim submitted by Felicia Robinson (Second Amended Claim) a minor, Helen Thompson, parent/guardian, for personal injury damages purportedly sustained as a result of recreational activities supervised by employees of the City, on or about October 1, 1980. c. Claim submitted by R. V. Tedesco for property damages purportedly sus6ained as a result of surge of power caused by high voltage power lines falling across secondary lines to apartment at 1300 W. Lido Place, Apt. B, on or about November 16, 1980. d. Claim submitted by Kaleidoscope Home Owners Association for damages purpor- tedly sustained as a result of Fire Department truck attaching to fire hydrant at 1381 Walnut, south alley, causing excessive pressure which blew out an 8-inch water pipe on or about October 11, 1980. City Hall, A~.aheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 23, 1980, 1:30 P.M. e. Claim submitted by Patricia M. Bickers for personal injury damages purpor- tedly sustained as a result of claimant being thrown the length of an Orange County Transit District Bus due ~o driver applying brakes in a sudden manner, at Euclid and Romneya Streets, on or about October 1, 1980. f. Claim submitted by Republic Indemnity Company of America for reimbursement of Worker's Compensation benefits paid to two employees of the claimant's in- sured purportedly sustained as a result of exposure to "PCB" spilled on vehicle towed by insured, on or about August 13, 1980. g. Claim submitted by Velda J. Miller for personal injury damages purportedly sustained as a result of accident on Canyon Rim Road at Kite Drive, caused by design and construction of roadway, on or about October 31, 1980. h. Florence M. Monfore for personal injury damages purportedly sustained as a result of accident on Canyon Rim Road at Kite Drive, caused by design and construction of roadway, on or about October 31, 1980. i. Claim submitted by George Monfore for personal injury damages purportedly sustained as a result of accident on Canyon Rim Road at Kite Drive, caused by design and construction of roadway, on or about October 31, 1980. j. Claim submitted by Maurice McClun for property damages purportedly sustained as a result of cement splashed onto claimant's vehicle during sidewalk and drive- way repair by City crews at 1441Kiama Place, approximately in mid-August, 1980. 2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: a. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission--Minutes of December 3, 1980. b. 105: Community Services Board--Minutes of November 13, 1980. c. 105: Senior Citizen Commission--Minutes of November 10, 1980. 3. 108: PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT APPLICATION: In accoradance with the recommendation of the Chief of Police, a Public Dance Permit was approved for the Vietnamese Dance Club, for a dance to be held January 3, 1981, 8:30 p.m. to 1:00 a.m., at the Anaheim Convention Center. (Chu Ba Le, applicant) 4. 124: CONVENTION CENTER NORTH EXHIBIT HALL ELECTRICAL UPGRADING,. CHANGE ORDER NO. 1: In accordance with the recommendation of the City Engineer, Change Order No in the amount of $1,368.47 was authorized, increasing the original contract price to $16,305.47, for the Convention Center North Exhibit Hall Electrical Upgrading; Mel Smith Electric, Inc., contractor. MOTION CARRIED. 169: INSTALLATION AND REPLACEMENT OF INCANDESCENT LUMINAIRES IN CENTRAL CITY NEIGHBORHOOD STRATEGY AREA I, CHANGE. ORDER NO. 1: Request for authorization for Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $9,792, was submitted. Mayor Seymour first explained ~hat he was not opposed to the Change Order because he felt it was appropriate; however, it gave the opportunity to share a very 8o-I6<8 City. Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 23, 1980~ 1:30 P.M. serious concern he had, one which he had already shared with Mr. Ed Alario, Assis- tant Utilities General Manager. The subject replacement of the lighting fixtures and the bulbs with the low-sodium type replacing mercury vapor was, in his opinion, going to cause a valid concern from citizens particularly in the down- town area, the likes of which they had not heard for some time. He read the reports and was totally familiar with the recommendation made by staff. The facts were--in going into those neighborhoods, which he had done for a couple of hours the previous evening around Zeyn Street, and in looking at the dif- ference between the lighting the neighborhood received from the new low-sodium, as opposed to that received from the mercury vapor, the old lights on the smaller standards, there was no comparison whatsoever. On one block of Zeyn Street where the job was supposedly completed, he saw ~wo low-sodium street lights serving the same geographical area that ten of the incandescent had been serving before. The front yards and side yards were dark. One thing most of those people around Pearson Park had been happy with, was the amount of lighting they had received in their neighborhood after dark. The Council was well aware of the problem of crime and the rest of the concerns expressed by the citizens relative to their safety. On one hand, while a well meaning program was instituted to conserve energy, they were, on the other, going to see a rising crime rate and if not that, they were at least going to see some very unhappy citizens. He had received a number of complaints and the Council had also seen such complaints on the hotline. He felt it was time in the conversion program to say stop and take a look at what they were really doing and question if they were going to have to go back over all the neighborhoods where they installed the new lights and correct them at a tre- mendous cost. He was not saying stop if there was work that needed to be com- pleted, but stop the program until staff had an opportunity to take a look at the situation to see what they were creating relative to that program. He could not even begin to properly express in words the difference felt relative to safety with regard to the new lights. There was nothing wrong with low- sodium and he felt they were "super" perhaps on the highway, because the street itself was well lit, but in moving back to the sidewalk or front yard compared to what the residents had, they now had nothing. ~- Councilwoman Kaywood stated that one of the intentions of the new program was also to increase the lighting while saving on energy; Mayor Seymour emphasized that it did not do that. He reiterated he wanted to take the opportunity to bring the matter to the Council's attention so that they would be aware of the problem which, if unchecked, citizens would fill the Council Chambers, and in order to get a head start on that program. Mayor Seymour thereupon asked that staff come back with a report relative to the concerns expressed on behalf of some of the citizens living in those neighborhoods. He urged the Council, anytime after dark, to take a drive through the neighborhood lit by the old standards, then those lit by the mercury vapor and then those lit by the low-sodium, and they would discover three levels of lighting on a decreasing basis. Councilman Bay noted that the intent of the program was to cut down the electrical usage, but not lighting as Councilwoman Kaywood had mentioned. 80-1649 · City Ha!l~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 23, 1980, !:30 P.M. Mayor Seymour agreed and that was why the Council voted approval. He told the residents that they wanted to provide as much or more lighting at a cheaper cost. In concluding, the Mayor asked that the City Manager to provide a report in a couple of weeks and if necessary, have staff go out into the neighborhoods to note the difference. MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to authorize Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $9,792, increasing the original aontract price to $114,492, for the instal- lation and replacement of incandescent luminaires in the Central City Neighbor- hood Stra=egy area; Smith Electric Supply, contractor. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilman Roth offered Resolution Nos. 80R-569 through 80R-575, both inclusive, for adoption in accordance with the reports, recommendations and certifications furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda. Refer =o Resolution Book. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-569: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (The Roman Catholic Bishop of Orange; Magic Lantern, Inc.; Braille Institute of America, Inc.; Douglas Browne) 174: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-570: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: UTILITIES SERVICE CENTER MATERIAL STORAGE AREA IMPROVEMENTS, W/O EAST STREET AND S/O SOUTH STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 51-699-6329-0958M-3710A, 55-699-6329-0958M-3900A, 51-699-6329-0957M-3710A, 55-699-6329-0957M-3900A; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALEI~ROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened January 22, 1981, at 2:00 P.M.) 174: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-571: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: FAIRMONT BOULEVARD ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION AND LEWIS STREET ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION, IN T~E CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 55-665-6329-75800-36100 AND 55-665-6329-8034A- 35300; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened January 22, 1981, at 2:00 P.M.) 164: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-572: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: OLIVE HILLS AND EASTRIDGE RESERVOIR STORM DA}IAGE REPAIR, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 51-484-6329-0707E-76100 AND 51-479-6329-0519E-76020; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID 8o-~o CitZ Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 23, 1980, 1:30 P.M. PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLIC A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened January 22, 1981, at 2:00 P.M.) 167: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-573: 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: TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATION AT THE INTERSECTION OF LINCOLN AVENUE AND SUNKIST STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 01-795-6325-5200. (Steiny and Company, Inc.) 103: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-574: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ANNEX- ATION OF CERTAIN UNINHABITED TERRITORY DESIGNATED AS JEFFERSON-ORANGETHORPE NO. 2 ANNEXATION. (uninhabited, approximately 18.75 acres located on the west side of Jefferson Street, north of Miraloma Avenue between the boundaries of Anaheim and Placentia) 131: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-575: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REQUESTING THE COUNTY OF ORANGE TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE ARTERIAL HIGHWAY FINANCING PROGRAM CERTAIN HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS. (1981-82, $951,400) 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-569 through 80R-575, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning Commission at their meeting held December 1, 1980, pertainin~ to the following applications, as listed on the Consent Calendar, were submitted for City Council information. 1. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 80-81-19~ VARIANCE NO. 3178 (TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11320): Submitted by Ned Hutchinson, et al, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-3000, to establish a one-lot, 22-unit condominium subdivision on property located on the south side of Ball Road, west of Magnolia Avenue, with various Code waivers. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Rasolution No. PC80-214 and PC80-215, granted Reclassification No. 80-81-19 and granted, in part, Variance No. 3178, respectively, and granted a negative declaration status. 2. VARIANCE NO. 3177: Submitted by Abbey Services Corporation, to establish a two-lot subdivision on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located at 2303 South Manchester Avenue, with Code waivers of minimum lot area and minimum rear yard setback. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-212, granted Variance No. 3177, and granted a negative declaration status. 80-16~1 City Hall~ .A~...a~e.'.mm~..California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 23, 1980, 1:30 P.M. 3. VARIANCE NO. 3179: Submitted by Mongkolkit Corporation, to expand an exist- ing motel on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located at 1820 South West Street, with Code waivers of minimum number of parking spaces and minimum landscaped setback. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-220, granted Variance No. 3179, and granted a negative declaration status. 4. VARIANCE NO. 3180: Submitted by Randall William and Candace L. Blanchard, to retain a free-standing sign on CG zoned property located at 503-531 West Chapman Avenue, with a Code waiver of permitted location of a free-standing sign. The City Planning Commission, pursuant =o Resolution No. PC80-221, granted Variance No. 3180, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemp- tion determination. 5. VARIANCE NO. 3181: Submitted by Kar Ding David Hsu, et al, to permit the expansion of an existing medical building on CL zoned property located at 3400 West Bali Road, with a Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-222, granted Variance No. 3181, and granted a negative declaration status. 6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2145: Submitted by Ivy K. Ong, et al, to permit on-sale beer and wine in a proposed restaurant on CL zoned property located at 1210 South State College Boulevard, with a Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. The City Planning Commission, pursuant =o Resolution No. PC80-216, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2145, and granted a negative declaration status. 7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2146: Submitted by Humble Oil and Refining Company, to retain a travel and ticket sales agency on ML zoned property located at 2100 South State College Boulevard. ,. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-217, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2146, and granted a negative declaration status. 8. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2149: Submitted by Melodyland Christian Center, et al, to permit the construction of recreational facilities in conjunction with an existing educational institution on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located on the north side of Katella Avenue, east of Harbor Boulevard. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-218, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2149, and granted a negative declaration status. 9. REMOVAL OF SPECIMEN TREES IN TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 9594 (REVISION NO. 1) (READVERTISED): Submitted by Burnett-Ehline Company, for the removal of forty-seven specimen trees within Tentative Tract No. 9594 on RS-HS-43,000 zoned property located on the east side of Henning Way, south of Arboretum Road. The City Planning Commission approved the removal of specimen trees in Tentative Tract No. 9594, and granted a negative declaration status. City ~a.ll~ Aqaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 23, 1980, 1:30 P.M. 10. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1766 - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: Submitted by Jessie Baker/Velvet Knights, Inc., requesting termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 1766 to permit a private club with bingo on ML zoned property located at 1515-H South Sunkist Street. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-223, terminated Conditional Use Permit No. 1766. 11. VARIANCE NO. 1893 - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: Submitted by Larry R. Smith, requesting termination of Variance No. 1893, to permit the construction of a brake shop, trailer and van rental, and a storage facility having outdoor storage in an existing shopping center on CL zoned property located at 919 South Knott Street. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-224, terminated Variance No. 1893. 12. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1501 - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: Submitted by Bernard Nagby, requesting termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 1501, to permit truck and trailer rentals in conjunction with an existing service station on CL zoned property located at 1020 East Lincoln Avenue. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-225, terminated Conditional Use Permit No. 1501. 13. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1063 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by R. A. McNees, requesting an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 1063, to establish a hall for variety shows, lectures, meetings, dances, etc., with an on-sale liquor establishment in an existing structure on CR zoned property located at 1721 South Manchester Avenue. The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 1063, to expire October 7, 1981. 14. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1671 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by William R. and Barbara L. Whitla, requesting an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 1671, to permit on-sale beer and wine in an existing restaurant on CL zoned property located at 1527 East La Palma Avenue. The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 1671, to expire December 6, 1982. 15. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10474 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Anacal Engineering Company, requesting an extension of time to Tentative Tract No. 10474, to establish an lI-lot, 10-unit subdivision on RS-HS-10,000 zoned property located on the west side of Villa Real Drive, south of Nohl Ranch Road. The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Tentative Tract No. 10474, to expire January 31, 1982. 16. VARIANCE NO. 2643 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Timothy W. Wallace, requesting an extension of time to Variance No. 2643, to permit the outdoor storage of used automobile supplies and parts on CG zoned property located at the northeast corner of Center Street and Manchester Avenue. 80- ~ ~33 Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 23, 1980, 1:30 P.M. The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Variance No. 2643, to expire on October 30, 1981. 17. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 78-79-32 AND VARIANCE NO. 3078 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by David Whitehead, requesting an extension of time to Reclassification No. 78-79-32 and Variance No. 3078, proposed RS-HS-22,000(SC) zoned property, to establish a 3-lot subdivision on property located at 21082 Santa Ana Canyon Road, with a waiver of minimum lot area. The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Reclassification No. 78-79-32 and Variance No. 3078, to expire on February 26, 1981. No action was taken on the foregoing items; therefore the actions of the City Planning Commission became final. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 80-81-14, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2121 (TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11305): Submitted by Bank of California, N.A. Trustee, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-3000, to permit a 2-lot, 99-unit condominium subdivision on property located at 2170 South Harbor Boulevard, with various Code waivers. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-208 and PC80-209, granted Reclassification No. 80-81-14 and granted, in part, Conditional Use Permit No. 2121, respectively, and granted a negative declaration status. Councilman Bay requested a review of the Planning Commission's action on the subject Reclassification and Conditional Use Permit, with public hearing ten- tatively set for January 20, 1980, at 7:00 p.m. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2122 (TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11286): Submitted by Lewis L. Wright, Jr., et al, to permit a 1-lot, 156-unit, 66 percent affordable condo- minium conversion on RM-1200 zoned property located at 2633 East La Palma Avenue, with various Code waivers. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-210, granted, in part, Conditional Use Permit No. 2122 (Tentative Tract No. 11286), and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination. Councilwoman Kaywood requested a review of the Planning Commission's action on the subject Conditional Use Permit. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2150: Submitted by James P. and Phyllis J. Crawford, to expand an existing trailer park and tent facility on CR zoned property located at 1336 South Walnut Street. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-219, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2150, and granted a negative declaration status. Councilwoman Kaywood requested a review of the Planning Commission's action on the subject Conditional Use Permit. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2117: Submitted by Nicholas and Mary Ursini, to re- tain an Adult Entertainment Business in connection with a backgammon and chess operation on proposed C-R zoned property located at 401 West Katella Avenue, #C. 80-10,54 City Hall, Anaheim~ California- COUNCIL MINUTES - December 23~ 1980, 1:3.0 P.M. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to R~solution No. PC80-213, denied Conditional Use Permit No. 2117, and ratified the Planning Director's cate- gorical exemption determination. The City Clerk reported said CUP had been appealed and would be set for public hearing. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2145: Submitted by Abbey Services Corporation, to permit a mortuary on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located at 2303 South Manchester Avenue, with a Code waiver of minimum landscaped front setback. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-211, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2141, and granted a negative declaration status. The City Clerk reported said CUP had been appealed and would be set for public hearing. 170: FINAL MAP - TRACT NO. 10940: Developer, Baldwin Co. Ltd.; tract is located west of Nohl Ranch Road and both north and south of Camino Grande and contains 68 proposed RS-5000 zoned lots. On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilman Roth, the proposed subdivision, together with its design and improvement, was found to be consistent with the City's General Plan, and the City Council approved Final Map Tract No. 10940, as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated December 17, 1980, that the CC & R's be approved by the City Attorney, with recordation of same with the tract map. MOTION CARRIED. ORDINANCE NO. 4201: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 4201 for adoption. Refar to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4201: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (79-80-24, RM-1200) 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. 4201 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 4202: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 4202 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 4202: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-50, RM-3000, Tract No. 10437) 140: MICHAEL L. ROSTON WRITING CONTEST AWARDS CEREMONY: Councilman Overholt reported that the Michael L. Roston Writing Contest was again going to culmin- ate in an awards ceremony on April 29, 1981 and Disneyland again, thanks to Marry Sklar, was going to put on what was a fantastic program last year. He was hopeful that they could have a good showing of the Council at that ceremony and to assist in any way to promote the event. He would see to it that they received plenty of advance notice on the event. 8O- City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 23, 1980, 1:30 P.M. 114: EXPRESSION OF APPRECIATION: Councilwoman Kaywood stated on behalf of her family she wanted to thank everyone who sent condolences, cards, flowers, their prayers and their love on the passing of her son. 156: RESOLUTIONS FOR POLICE DEPARTMENT RETIREES: Councilman Roth explained that last Saturday night, December 20, 1980, three members of the Council attended the retirement of three police officers and for some unknown reason, the Anaheim Police Association forgot to ask for resolutions for those officers on their departure. He asked for Council concurrence to have resolutions for each of the officers prepared and mailed to them; the Council was unanimous in their concurrence to authorize the three resolutions. 105: REMOVAL OF GOLF COMMISSIONER: Councilman Bay referred to the recent letter received from Mr. Louis Dexter, regarding a Golf Commissioner. He thought they cleared that situation up at the last meeting and wanted to know if the commissioner had been removed or resigned. Mayor Seymour stated that he talked with the Chairman of the Golf Course Advisory Commission on Friday, and discussed the matter with him and explained that the City Clerk was forwarding a letter to Mrs. Zibell, The Chairman indicated that she (Zibell) was embarassed and that she misunderstood and would be more than willing to resign from the Commission. She apologized for any discomfort caused the Council. The Commission felt they should first receive the request sent by the Council along with the City Attorney's opinion. He expected at their next meeting they would have a regretful resignation. At the same time, they sent a letter to the Golf Course Commission asking their recommendations for a re- placement, with copies of both letters to Mr. Dexter, so that he would know what action they had taken. On the other hand, he felt in reading Mr. Dexter's letter (dated December 15, 1980) that he wanted more than that, he wanted to publicly and openly discuss the matter and thus he (Seymour) felt they should honor his request. RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess into Executive Session. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRLED. (2:15 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (4:00 P.M.) PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2127: Application submitted by Atlantic Richfield Company, ~o permit a convenience market with gasoline sales on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located at 1037 West Ball Road. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-190, declared that the subject project be exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act since there would be no significant individual or cumulative adverse en- vironmental impact due to this project and further, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2127 subject to the following conditions: 1. That the existing structure shall be brought up to the minimum standards of the City of Anaheim, including the Uniform Building, Plumbing, Electrical, Mechanical and Fire Codes as adopted by the City of Anaheim. 2. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans on file with the Office of the Executive Director of Public Works. City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 23, 1980, 1:30 P.M. 3. The exact method of gasoline dispensing shall be approved by the Fire Depart- ment and may be required to consist of an automatic closing type of dispensing nozzle with an attendant on duty at all times. 4. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit No. 1; provided, however, that the most southerly driveway on West Street shall be removed and replaced with a standard curb, gutter sidewalk and a landscaped planter. 5. That Condition Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections. A review of the Planning Commission's action was requested by Councilwoman Kaywood at the meeting of November 25, 1980, and public hearing scheduled this date. Mayor Seymour asked if the Council had any questions relative to the staff report. Councilman Roth asked for clarification that no one was present at the Planning Commission in opposition to the Conditional Use Permit; Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, answered that was correct. There was no opposi- tion or support present at the hearing. Councilman Roth noted that when a change was made from a full-service gas station to an AM-PM Mini-Market with self-service gas pumps, there was a tendency for people not to stop at the station any longer than to buy gasoline. There were more people who wanted full service. He wanted to know if they took into con- sidera~ion that there was actually less use when there was self-service, rather than a full-service station. Miss Santalahti answered that they had not had any evidence presented to staff or the Planning Commission substantiating that, but it had been mentioned at the Commission. The Mayor then asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous of being heard. Mr. Thomas Goodman, representing Arco, stated that he had nothing further to add but would be happy to answer any questions. The Mayor then asked,.if anyone was present who would like to speak in opposition to the proposal; no one was present. Councilwoman Kaywood then asked when Arco Stations had gone to the Mini-Mart concept, how much less gas they were pumping than when full servic~ Mr. Goodman stated his understanding was that they projected that they would lose approximately 30% of their existing gasoline gailonage. That did not concern them, however, because there was a trade-off involved that was two- fold. They picked up additional profit from the convenience items sold and secondly, instead of having four, five or six employees at the station at all times, they were now able to handle the operation with only two employees, one to man the pumps and one to take care of backroom stocking. Their net profit actually increased because of their decrease in overhead. 80- 1657 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 23, 1980~ 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood stated then that they were not concerned with the business of gasoline or how people's cars were being serviced, or whether they were dgiving around without service. Mr. Goodman stated he would not say that. He had presented a memorandum to the Council in the recent past relative to the matter indicating that the backroom service station had been unable to compete. Such businesses as Sears and Mark C. Bloome were getting into that backroom business and because of their volume and desire to overwhelm ~he competition, were offering a much lower price than the individual garage dealer could possibly compete with. Councilwoman Kaywood expressed her concern that when stations initially went to self-service that there were going to be less places for people to get needed service and that situation had been borne out. She questioned where drivers were going to get that needed service. Mr. Goodman stated that they were not talking about making every service station into a mini-mart concept. As he indicated at the Planning Commission meeting, it was the desire of his client to utilize the dual use concept at three selected locations in Anaheim. To his knowledge, he knew of no other major oil companies who had gone into the field of mini-marts in such a way as Arco. He referred to a recent proposal that had been presented to the Council for a type of dual use, but he felt what they wanted was a disguised liquor store and this was not Arco's concept at all. Councilwoman Kaywood asked if they would be selling liquor. Mr. Goodman stated, beer and wine, but Arco did not permit in its franchise agreement, the sale of liquor. Councilwoman Kaywood asked how profits would be without the sale of beer and wine. Mr. Goodman stated that he could not answer that. Most convenience markets did sell beer and wine, but he was not familiar enough to know the profit margin. He ~hen confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood that their stations would be strictly for pumping gas. They would have air and water although not located on the pump islands themselves, but out of the way. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that there were over 50,000 deaths a year from traffic accidents and while many were caused by drinking drivers and excessive speeding, there were also many caused by not enough care for the vehicle it- self. She was very concerned over having a service station become less of a service s~atio~ and also concerned with the dual use, because it was seeking a privileg~ other businesses did not have and it would set a precedent. The concept was one reminiscent of the middle-west where there was a little store with a pump in front of it. She could not see the City benefitting from such a concept. Mr. Goodman did represent Arco and she had discussed the situation with him. They also discussed the particular location which he considered to be a bad one. There was a great deal of traffic at that location and making a left turn would be extremely difficult. Mr. Goodman stated his understanding of left-turns, obviously they were going to have problems with them on any busy arterial highway. There was a problem when Disneyland let out, but that was rather limited. 80- I558 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 23~ 1980, 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood stated another concern was the fact that there were no residents in the area whatsoever. She also wanted to know if notices had been sent to hotels and motels in the area; Miss Santalahti stated notices were sent to the property owners rather than the actual businesses. Councilwoman Kaywood then stated it was possible that the existing businesses did not know anything about the proposal and the first time would be when it was actually in use. Miss Santalahti agreed ~hat was possible although she knew that when the motel to the north was expanded, they did have Sheraton present and they apparently had noticed the posting of the property. Councilwoman Kaywood also felt there was going to be unfair competition with the existing restaurants and hotels and motels in the area by having a dual use given to a single use station. They would be getting a double benefit that others would not get. Mr. Goodman explained the reason he felt this was a good location for the proposed use from a free enterprise standpoint was the fact that there were a number of RV parks in the area as well as motels and hotels. The mini-mart was a 24-hour concept and would allow people in the area, specifically tourists and travelers, to utilize the services provided. With respect to the concept of competition, he did not see where they were in such competition with the hotels and motels. Councilwoman Kaywood stated if they were selling something they were not origin- ally licensed to sell, that h~tels and restaurants sell, they were in competition. Further discussion, debate and questioning followed between Mr. Goodman, Council- woman Kaywood and Councilman Roth at the conclusion of which, Councilman Roth emphasized that the purpose of the hearing today was consideration of a CUP and land use. It was not a fair trade hearing which was not within their scope. Councilwoman Kaywood then asked Mr. Goodman how he would guarantee that they would not have a situation similar to the business on East Katella in Orange where ~signs were plastered all over it; Mr. Goodman answered that they had stipulated to comply with all of the sign ordinances of the City. Councilwoman Kaywood then asked the hours of operation; Mr. Alfred Volpe, 11001 Garden Drive, Garden Grove, stated that his father was the present lessee of the business and their hours of operation were from five or six a.m. until mid- night and sometimes 1:00 a.m. depending on traffic. There was a lot of traffic from the industries further east on Ball Road. On Sundays they closed earlier. Since the paperwork was posted on the hearing, he spoke with his normal customers to let them know about the hearing and thus they had knowledge of what was taking place. He had not heard any of his regular customers say that they were opposed to the request. Councilwoman Kaywood noted that in the past, the Planning Commission and Council had turned down any such requests based on a small site, 150X150. The subject station was substandard even by current service station standards, being only 123 feet by 136 feet. She asked for comments from staff's point of view. City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 23~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. Miss Santalahti explained if this were coming in as a service station today, they would have to comply with the 150X150 ignoring the fact that they would have the convenience market attached. The one other convenience market-service station that was approved was a similarly small site, but it did abut an alley so it had another means of access. The subject station was not adjacent to residential uses and if it had been, they would have felt very strongly about installing the buffer landscaping along the north and west boundaries which currently had no landscaping whatsoever. It was in the C-R area and the commercial uses abutting the property were now required to have landscaping on their side and thus, they did not feel it was necessary to go after the landscaping although she would like to see it. Councilwoman Kaywood stated the fact that this was the C-R area and a gateway to Disneyland, she found it distressing that there was no landscaping. In the event that there was to be any writing on the windows whatsoever, even if some- how in the ordinance that was permitted, she felt it would be a total down- grading of the area. The one on East Katella in Orange was an eyesore. Mr. Goodman reiterated that they were perfectly willing to comply with any ordinance required by the City. As far as scenic beautification, he could not think of anything less scenic than a greasy lube rack or a car with its hood up. They were improving on such a situation. Councilwoman Kaywood emphasized, however, that it was a service station; Mr. Goodman felt they had a difference in philosophy. Councilwoman Kaywood had made the point that they were going to set the precedent. His understanding of the reason for a CUP was to e~mmine each individual proposed use on a case- by-case basis. It was also his understanding that if a property owner wished to devote his property to a particular use and that use did not conflict or impinge upon a valid City interest, that request should be favored. He did not seriously see how converting three gas stations in the City, which must have at least 200 stations, was going to raise the specter that no one was going to be able to get service any place. Councilwoman Kaywood stated having sat on the Planning Commission and Council for ten years, hers was a different perspective. What she saw happening was that they were asking for a privilege no one else was getting and, therefore, it would make it difficult to tell the next person that they could not have a dual use on their property. There being no further persons who wished to speak either in favor or in opposition, the Mayor closed the public hearing. Councilman Bay noted in reading the staff recommendations when the matter was heard by the Planning Commission, that they recommended closing the most southerly driveway on West Street. He understood that was agreed to and stipulated to. Staff also suggested the most easterly driveway on Ball Road and that was not in the agreement. He asked what happened in that respect at the Planning Commission meeting. Miss Santalahti stated the basic objection in closing that one was due to the fact that to get the trucks to put the gasoline in the underground tanks on the property and not have them back onto West Street, they would need that particular exit to get out. 8o-~6o citY Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 23~ 1980.~.. 1:30 P.M. Councilman Bay stated he was not concerned over the competition aspect, but a CUP in his mind was a precedent because they had been stated as precedents over and over. Reading the Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations and looking at the fact that this would establish an undesirable precedent, he assumed that the Planning Commission took that into consideration because they had that problem for many years in service stations selling non-automobile related goods. It was his opinion that this was a precedent making decision and if the CUP were granted at this location, that would open the door for the sale of non-automobile related goods in possibly every service station in the City. Thus, he did not agree with the applicant's position that a CUP was not a precedent. He personally could not support the subject CUP primarily on the basis that he agreed with staff that this was an undesirable precedent. He did not know that this particular station or the way Arco would handle it may not be as undesirable as some of the ones that would follow. He felt the effect of the decision would certainly create an undesirable precedent for things to happen all over the City in gasoline stations. He was also con- cerned that there would be intensifying land use particularly on a lot that was below the minimum in the first place for a normal service station. They were going to be doubling the access on that property considering the traffic problems already existing, and he did not feel this was a good move for the City, looking at what would follow. Councilman Roth stated in looking over what the Planning Commission had to say, one of things they found that was traffic generated by the use would not impose an undue burden on the streets, a fact which had to be considered. Certainly, there was a different type of situation today with new types of merchandising to fit the changing market. He was prepared to look to change and innovation concepts that would come to pass. Therefore, he had no objection to the requested CUP. Relative to appearance, it would be a refreshing one as opposed to a station with cars and tires stacked up. He also did not feel it would set a precedent. Precedents were set only by a majority vote of the Council. Councilwoman Kaywood noted that they had gone through two gasoline shortages where long lines were experienced at the gas pumps. They were now told they were going to have shortages again. If they were going to cut the use of existing gas stations, the 30% less that they would be handling in gas, she questioned if they were saying they would have to build new ones on more of the City's corners to take care of the people who were going to be needing gas. In picturing the. baCk-up of traffic that would occur on Ball Road or West Street, there was no way to make a left turn at any hour of the day now, she could envision what that would create by putting in a mini-mart double use. ENVIRONMENTAL II~PACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council finds that this project would have no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property for commercial/ recreational land uses commensurate with the proposals; that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the proposal and that the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. C%.ty ..Ha~l~ Ana~gim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 23, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood thereupon offered a resolution denying Conditional Use Permit No. 2127. Before any action was taken, Mayor Seymour stated he had been quiet all through the hearing and frankly he was appalled at what he heard. The hearing was to render Judgment as to whether or not a conditional use permit should be issued on land use. What he heard was that they were going to dictate how an indivi- dual was going to run his business and one would think the Arco station and convenience market combination was an illegal or immoral business with the line of questioning that had taken place. He felt it was unconscionable to attack the free enterprise system the way he heard in this hearing. At a time in the economy when they needed less regulations, he was hearing a case for more regulations. The proposed combined use was going to save gasoline for the consumer. He did not see a thing wrong with the business and felt it would be an improvement. The people in the residential, area immediately to the west would be well served by the combined business as weii as those in the travel trailer park almost immediately adjacent to the property. He saw only positive reasons why the Council should approve the CUP. Relative to the aspect that they were setting a precedent, he did not feel that was so. Councilwoman Kaywood made one further point, that this was an on-ramp entrance to the Santa Ana Freewa~ and if people 'thought this was a s~rvice station but were only able to get gas and then proceeded on to the freeway in an unsafe condition, that was a serious concern for everyone. Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. Goodman if he would stipulate there would be no further requests for conversions of Arco Stations other than the three contem- plated; Mr. Goodman stated he would stipulate that he would not personally make any. Arco was basically the only company that had put together such a concept. The idea that every service station was going to do the same was ridiculous. Councilman Overholt was opposed to exacting any such stipulation from Mr. Goodman; Councilman Bay stated that should not be a stipulation because it was not germane to the subject. ~- A vote was then taken on the resolution of denial. The resolution failed to carry by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood and Bay Overholt, Roth and Seymour None Councilman Roth thereupon offered Resolution No. 80R-576 for adoption, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 2127, subject to the City Planning Commission con- ditions. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-576: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2127. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked if that would include land- scaping; Councilman Roth stated that was part of the staff recommendation. 80-~.2 CitZ .~11,. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 23, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that it was not. It was staff's recommendation but not the Planning Commission's; Miss Santalahti explained that the Planning Commission recommendation was closing the one southerly driveway on West Street and replacing that with a three-foot wide planter. The comments she made earlier were relative to internal planting, trees on 24-inch centers along the internal property line north and west. Mayor Seymour felt it would be absurd to impose such a requirement. The prop- erty was surrounded by the Stardust Motel and the recommendation was a require- ment that they usually placed on such uses when abutting residential areas. A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution of approval. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Roth and Seymour Kaywood and Bay None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-576 duly passed and adopted. 153: ADJUSTING RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR CLASSIFICATIONS DESIGNATED AS ADMINI- STRATIVE MANAGEMENT AND EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT: City Manager Talley then intro- duced two proposed resolutions adjusting rates of compensation for classifica- tions designated as Administrative Management and Executive Management. He explained that they basically approved an 11% increase for most classifications in the administrative and executive management categories with the exception of those that had been recommended for an additional increase because of the people that they supervised being raised above what he considered the baseline. It would exclude the Data Processing Director who was employed with the under- standing that his annual evaluation would not take place until the 1981-82 Budget had been submitted. Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 80R-577 and 80R-~f8 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-567: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION NO. 79R-590 AND AMENDMENTS THERETO AND ADJUSTING RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR CLASSIFICATIONS DESIGNATED AS ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-578: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION NO. 79R-338 AND AMENDMENTS THERETO AND ADJUSTING RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR CLASSIFICATIONS DESIGNATED AS EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT. Before a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour stated it was his understanding the proposal was an 11% pay increase for all management level personnel. He was going to support the resolutions because that action would be consistent with actions of the past relative to how management had been treated in relationship to settlements that had occurred with labor organizations. In this particular case, settlement had occurred with those organizations, except for the IBEW. They had settled with the Anaheim Fire Association, Anaheim Municipal Employees Association and the Anaheim Police Association as well as the miscellaneous and unrepresented employees with an 11% package. He could support that although at the same time he would point out to the Council and publicly that what was coming was a clear departure of a historical pattern that the City Council had established since 1976. 80-166~ City Hall~..$naheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 23, 1980~ 1:30 P.M. At that time, it was the first time that the Council suggested what they would be willing to do rather than granting pay raises across the board to management, i.e., equal raises to all management level positions. The plan was to take an amount of money equal to the percentage increase and create a pool. Out of that pool, some management personnel might be compensated less than the 11% and on the other hand, some people in that pool because they had done an outstanding and meritorious job, would receive more than the 11%. Subsequently all of the increases in pay to management people would not be in excess of 11%. Mayor Seymour stated it was his understanding as a result of a report from the City Manager that now there was an intent to recommend greater than that pool. The particular resolution of 11% was to be followed by some recommendation of the City Manager relative to further increases for management personnel over and above that percentage would amount to bonuses or fringe benefits yet to be determined. Although not only did he support in the past the pooling concept as long as it did not exceed in total the percentage increases granted to labor, now it would appear it would be taken one step further and he could no longer support that type of activity. In this day and age when 11% to a $60,000 salary job meant an increase of pay, $6,600 whereas to a $20,000 a year job it meant $2,200, to have a disparity even greater than that because they were now going to consider bonuses and additional fringe benefits, was, in his opinion, going too far. He reiterated, although he intended to support the resolutions, in the future if proposals were recommended by the City Manager relative to additional bonuses on top of the 11% or fringe benefits, he intended to oppose those at that time. Councilman Overholt stated he respected the Mayor's opinion and if and when they did receive an incentive program, at that time the debate would be full and complete on the justification for that program. A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: 0verholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-577 and 80R-578 duly passed and adopted. 148: LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY: Council- woman Kaywood stated she received an unexpected announcement in the mail~ that she was appointed to the Committee on Environmental Quality by the President of the League of California Cities. However, she explained that she would not be able to serve and before she called to so inform the League, she wanted to know if anyone else on the Council would be interested in serving; there was no response from the remaining Council Members. ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (5:02 P.M.)