Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1979/05/15
79-529 Ci~ty Hall,.__Anj~heim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May. 15~ 1979~ 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: L~nda D. Roberts PURCHASING AGENT: Richard Jefferis PUBLIC UTILITIES ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER: Edward G. Alario DEPUTY CITY M~NAGER: James D. Ruth ASSISTANT PLANNER: Robert Kelley ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR: Phil Gardner DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY: Robert O. Franks TRAFFIC ENCINEER: Paul Singer Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: Reverend ~arles Hughes, First Baptist Church of Anaheim, gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilwoman Miriam Kaywood led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 119: RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION: A resolution of commendation was adopted by the City Council and presented to Mrs. Eleanor Kott on behalf of Dr. William Kott, for his services rendered to the City while serving on the City Council. 114: OATH OF OFFICE - BEN W. BAY: Councilwoman Kaywood first moved to accept the resignation of Mr. Ben Bay from the Community Redevelopment Commission. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (Jif ~, Clerk Linda R~bert.~ announced that Mr. Bay had filed a declaration of assets and interest witt~in the Redevelopment Project Alpha in accordance with the Health ar, J ~afety Co,:ie of the i-~ate of California. ~I'i~e City Clerk then administered the oath of office to Mr. Ben W. Bay to serve as a member of the City Council. The Mayor then welcomed him to the Council and asked if he wished to make a statement. Councilman Bay thanked Mayor Seymour for his nomination to fill the seat left vacant by Dr. Kott, as we]l as the whole Council for their unanimous support to take the seat, as well as all the friends who called before and after the decision was made. Councilman Bay then introduced his wife Eleanor and stated he wanted to publicly announce that the opinions expressed by his wife, an independently thinking woman, were her own and did not necessarily reflect his. 79-530 {:ji__tJ~_H, al 1, Anaheim, C,-~_[j_t?_~?:a _q__C_Od__N_Ci_j:~ _~_~,_L_JL_r.~_S_- May 15_~ 1979, 1: 30 P .M. In concluding, hc stated that he knew each member of the Council and considered all of them his fri~,nds. He knew they all had one thing in common, a love for the City of Anaheim. Riley would surely have their honest disagreements because that: was part of' the process. He, for' one, would work toward expressing those ;:liffercnce,... without rancor or personal attack and would dedicate his efforts t.. a u:~ity of purpose on the Council to do what was best for the whole City RECESS: Courcilwoman Kaywood moved to recess to the Redevelopment Agency and Housing Autl,~¢r:-~>.- meeting. Councilman Overhol. t seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (1:42 P.H.) AFTER RECESS: M.~y ~r Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (2:£)2 i~9: ?ROCLAMATiONS: The following proclamal:ions were issued by Mayor Seymour and approved by' the City Council: "Poppy Days in Anaheim" - Veterans of Foreign Wars - May 18 & 19, 1979 "Pvppy Day:.; In A~ahei_m' - American Legion Auxiliary - May 18 & 19, 1979 The prociama:'ion o:; behalf of the vFW was-.' accepted by Commander Robert C. Grave and on behalf of thc: American Legion by Irene Rarick. MINUTES: Approval of the minutes was deferred for one week. !.!Ar',?ER OF R'~ADI_N_!_!._--_ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to ~aive the reading, in full, of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent to the waiv~er of reading is hereby given by all Council Members unless, after rt'aczinE of thc title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the read- lng of such ordinance or resolution. Councilman Roth seconded the motion MOTION '.]ARR ! ED. · '~.I,%N( '.AL I)!(MA'.,IDI-; A(;AINST ['HF CITY in thc amount of $1 409 174.13, in accordance ; '~, b.~! 1978-]q f~u,,i.~;e~ , were appr(~ved. 2,:t:_T_') FDkNAGEL DEFAiCfMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the following actions were authorized as recommended by the Purchasing Agent: (Items a through c) and the General Manager ~i Public Uti titles (ltmn d): i60: Bid No. 35?9 -- Seven (7) 1/2-ton Pick-Ups--Award to Southland dhevrolet, $39,'57~';. ~. !00: Bid No, 1527 $": , 242.04, (4) 3/4--t(m Pick-Ups--Award to McCoy Ford, c, !.60: Bid No, 3531 $757761, 12. Eighteen (18) Sedan cars--Award to Southland Chevrolet, 79-531 d. i75: Permf. t No. 79--110556-FE - To install, operate and maintain a 69 kv ~verhead line across the Sat:ta Aha River at the Imperial Highway Bridge to serve the proposed substation ~n ~he Canyon Area, and authorize the General Mau~ec ,.,f the Public Utilities l)epartment to execute said pe~it. '-IUTif;N CARRi El}. 160: PURCHASE et: EQI!IPMENT - 30 CHANNEL RECORDER/REPRODUCER - BID NO. 3525: City Manager Wilil]am Talley noted that because of the unusual nature of the award, a staff report was; submittt'd dated May 8, 1979 which not only recommended .'.he ~ward to Magnasync/Movtola, but also included a discussion relative to the .iuc:~ion raised bx ',~tct.~ph~n~, (oi~ ft[e in the City Clerk's office). :it... Manager Iai], v e×plai~ed tot C,mncilman Roth that the recorder was used to r~-,.,,~d convers.itious on telephones concerning the Utilities Customer Service, inquiries and di.%patche:~. 'lima, if there were any questions about conversations that took plate and what was said, this was part of an ongoing process to insure that all members of staff serving the public were conscious of their efforts. ~x. !id A].ario, Assistant (:,mern! Manager of P,~blic Utilities, explained in more det.~il the function ~.~t the pr,~po'~ed :~ystem for the Mayor. In concluding, the Mayor stated he supported the item relative to how it was going to be put to use but, in his opinion, he did m,~ think it was good public relations to use a recorder on people calling in to get the electricity turned on or off. He felt the citizen would feel uno, asr and distrustful in that case. People did ~ot like to be recorded in their conversations. It was his understanding the rea>;on they wanted the -;ystem was to improve service in the Utilities Depart- mcmt. by knowing what cmpl,~yecs were ~<a+'ing to the public and if the public was treated rudel~ , t}~e', w(~ul_d }~ave a :~]arto ausw,.r,~d {hat w.~>; , t,.o t~l th~, main functions of the system and also chat the ~.~>i~v~,r~4ation was being recordt, d would make the employees more !te pei~onally l,.2t they ',',,rt, doing a "super" job, but with as many calls I~:?t.t, i,~,,d, th,,v ii~1 t tt~e recommended system was the way to proceed. ~ey ,~s,~ checkiu,.; ,,~h~'- ut ilitie~; ~o see how they handled the situation. ! . t,t tiscu~4s, N)u iol It,wed l~etw~,en the Mayor and Mr. Alario, at the conclusion _,[ vlsi-h, (iLv Manager !':11 Icy stat<'d bel~re they installed the recorder, they would pr ~,lde the (7otmci! wtti, a report o,~ what other utilities were doing. If the c~ut~cil then did not waist the rec~,rd,:r installed, they would not do so. However, i~ t..e past the}' t~,id con~,tant representation from customers over what took place ,>t~ t:!2t, telepht~ne and t~,c {'.ity employees ie]t they were blamed unfairly. He rcit,,rated, a report would first be subm[tt'ed to the Council before the recorder w:,~ 5nstalLed, but it th,' {totnlctl did ,~ot wish to have it installed, they Mavct- Seymour stated with the m~d~rst;mding that it would not be installed bei~e the Council reviewed it, he would i-aw)r the purchase. OI~ l:~otlon ~}y ~;omR:timau R~th, secondcd I>,,' t;om~,'i, lwoman Kaywood, the low bid :~ 'q;~g,aasync/Moviola was ;~ccepte. d alld purr:base authorized in the amount of $!~,833.03 iuciud~ng tax, ;is recommemted by the Purchasing Agent in his memof andum dated May 8, 15)79. MOTION CARRIED. 79-532 _Cit~: [_jall~ Anahexm, CaJ/___l.c. rj!l_!_Z _COUNCIL IdlNOIES - May 1_5__,_..779~ 1:30 P.M. i58: USE OF 6. 13 ACRES O_l!_qjff)fi~,~[~N!~;_f~9_pEt<TY AS Alq RV STORAGE AREA: (West side of the Santa Aha River, south of Lincoln Avenue) Councilman Roth asked relative to the subject proposed use, ~f screening from the residential area would be required end, if so, who would pay for that screening. bep~.ty City Manager Jnm.:s Rut-h r~tated the inLe~t was to have a public hearing in that area ~o obtain leedba,..i.~ lc,~,n th~_ residents and based on that, subsequently submit specific recommondatiouo to the City Council to be included in the lease agreement. Res.!dent~ ',~',_~re located ~o ~h~:, west and there would have to be some screening and landscaping ~o be required as a condition. The City would not pay for auything, anti the cost wo~ld be required of the developer. C, ouncilman Rotb '.,'~.,cc. J ti~,l, provD~o., i.c!mled to be considered at the time of negot iati,ou~. MorioN: Coum ilw~;a.u~ Kay~od .~ov~,d ~ au~h,~rize the Parks, Recreation and Com- munity Services Ia-p:~'tmeut to ,.,ego~iate a ]ease with Richard L. Ivey for the use of 6.13 acre,..: ,;:' City-own,'_d property located on the west side of the Santa Aha River~ south of L~r,,:'oJn Avenue a,' :: ~ecreation vehicle storage area. Councilman Roth se, ended the Before a vote wa~. taken, Coum~'Llman Ov~rhol. t noted the proposal indicated that the ~equired impr<;vcmenas instal[ed would be credited against rental payment. He wanted to know ii- that included paving, capping, landscaping, fencing, etc. Mr. Ruth answered "yes" md f[ wa:; similar- to the lease negotiated with Anaheim Memorial Hospit~J for t~mporary us.~' of land as a parking lot. :~,;uu:'i]man Overlu, lt n,~t:'ed I~,,)we,~,r Ln l[IJs case the City would end up with an t-.year old p,~:L~ng ~ot, and he q,m~:tioned what condition it would be in k',r. luth st;'.tod Ll~ex w.~uld ~ uc 1 udc ~ r;q,~J remunt ill be lease agreement so ~(), L it WOt'iii l~, UlZ~!:IIfIiII£'C ~li ,tIl ;ir'CeDI d~le level. _]man (~v,_'~'ir,~it '::t,lted that ;~II imt;ro,',,mept.s were going to be paid for by C~ty as a ('r~,dtt aL..ain.~;t tt~e land. 5177. Ruth stated it could be viewed in :.l)~t. manner. They would need to have it a~pl'x,:~ised to a~'3cerlain the w~l~e t;f the !and and what the anticipated improvement costs were going t~ b,... They did m~t want to get Leo far into the matter until they obtained a rcactic~ from the v'o~mnunJty. If they were receptive, they would come hack to the Cour..cil w!th the ,'~)nditio.,~.~4 and with the appraised value of the ~and. Council. man Over'hoJ. ':tat.;d his ,.o~, r:~ w,':..~, that it ,should be something that would ultimately be beneficial ~o ti~e City. He did not equate the Anaheim ,~k,morLal parking p~oblem with the part i. cular transaction at hand. Hi. Ruth sta(e,t tl~at in tim future ,', '~ wa~ted to see the Five Coves area develop for recreational purpo.,xes. ~n ~he master planning of that project, the area under discussion was specified i. or the pa,~king area and thus a part of :1 C~ty recreation;Il amenitv. 79-533 '~__LC;__ ti__a_l t~2___.,.~z_d_~i:J~m_,_..i;J~J,il ornia - (~}UNC] L MINUTES - May 15, 1979, 1: 30 P.M. Councilman Bay st,.~ted ti~at although he had already discussed the matter with ~lr. Ruth b5 teleph,~n~, i;{. want'ed to know, when the public hearing or public [~,~rmation meetings; wer',' held, i~ c'tt~ ~na}orlty of the people who lived directly ~,~ ~r~d the ar~a ~ ~' west ~'er"~.: In opposit, ion, would the City then not proceed ,r would tw~o r:r tl~-,,, im:.{,ti~tgs 1>7' h~'ld to make certain all the affected residents 51r~ Nuth s:!_;~t~d rt~,,_,ir i~t,,n~ was (o distributu information to all residents with- in ~ reasonable ra¢tiu,'~ ,~t the proposed lease property. They would set a meeting dar,.: for public informat'[on and a~cept whatever comments, recommendations, cri~ ic[$ms there might ~)t~ and attt~mpt. Lo mi[igate concerns as best they could. Ir ~i cer assess;~,~i3 ali that information they believed it to be a viable project, ~i~:i ~hey could miliga[e [m~.?;[ of thc concerns, they would return to the Council wlti a ]:ccommcr~d:~; ion l~r ,~pproval~ and !hey would also identify those concerns A vote was th~,n :aken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. 1~>: ,;ENERAL MOTC, RS ,zNf.},£,~ ASSES!4MENT PROGRAM: Councilman Se~ur moved to ~pl,r(,w~ the C i Ly'':; part ic ipat ion as lead agency in the General Motors sponsored D,~,,~;y ,k~sessment }'r~gram as ~,commended in memorandum dated May 9, 1979 from tht, t'ity Manager'~ ot'fi<'e. Co,m(:ilwoman Kaywood seconded the ration. a vote wa~; 1. ak,q~, Lin' Mayor ~;tated it was his understanding that they have a membt~r of the Counc-i 1 represented on the project, and he wanted (Muncil~man Bay i! he would a,'<'ept that assignment. >I~~ ?altey expiai~e~ th.~t ti,cr+t w~,uld be two meetings outside the City and the cut:re pro.jt~ct was c'.%t ~mat~d to bt, between 9 and 12 months duration. The other met~t ~ngs would hc ~aking pla~c wil:hin Orange County. Thus, time-wise, it should m~t be [~o hurd~n,.~om,.. Other than the two outside meetings, it would require motion, and Councilwoman Kaywood accepted, !h,~.~cil's representative on the project. was t!~,~ t,;ken :,:~ ti'~t l,)rego[ng mot. ion. MOTION CARRIED. .................. ¥©biPENSA{i~}N ~)~+__3i151~I'7CIED_ POI~ICt'.; CAPTAINS ~D LIEUTEN~TS WO~ING AT ~EIM ROCK (XPNC}CRT iCV}:TNTS: (7ouu< ilman Roth offered Resolution No. 79R-267 for as recommended in memt)raudum dated May 9, 1979 from the Human Resources/ P~i~,?e/Conv{[zl i~){~ C(~nt<.{ , 5radium :md (;{~1 f Departments providing for compensa- ch, r~,~ul~r ~+o~: lv rate :,t i~,~7 for selected Police Captains and Lieuten- w)~JLe ,m~agt',i [:t ~ ,'t~+m~l %, -[:city for ?~naheim Stadium rock concert events. RI_(S<~LUT1ON NO. 79M-267: A liESOLt?I'ION O1? THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 77R-801, PERSONNEL RULE 6, PREMIUM PAY, TO PROVIDE FOR COMPENSATION AT THE }IECUI~SR HOURLY RATE OF PAY FOR SELECTED POLICE CAPTAINS AND LIEUTENANTS W~tlLE ENt:A(;[~D [N INTERNAI, SECURITY FOR ANAHEIM STADIUM ROCK CONCERT 79-534 C__ity Hall~ Anaheim __Cj}_l_ii~ornia - COUNCIL MINUTES__.- May 15, 1979, 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MF24BERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared R,~solut ion No. ?qR-267 duly passed and adopted. 180: AMENDMENT ~3 LONG TERM DISABILITY INSURANCE, GROUP POLICY NUMBER 384412: Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 79R-268 for adoption as reconnnended in memorandum dated May 8, 1979 from the Human Resources Director Garry McRae, approving an amendment to the Long Term Disability Insurance, Group Policy Number 384412, wi~h Standard Insurance Company. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 7c~R-768: A RESOLUFION OI, '!'HE C!TY COLPNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAItEIM APPROVING TttE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN ~&~,ENDMENT TO THE CITY'S LONG TE~ DIS- ABILITY POLICY COVERED BY Si'~DA~) INSU~CE CO~A~ ~D AUTHORIZING ~D DISC- TING THE HU~ RESOURCES DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE SAID ~END~NT. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL blEMBER~;: COUNCIL HEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None The Mayor dec!ared Rest~lution No. 79R-268 duly passed and adopted. 174: URBAN FOREST RECOVERY PRO~;PekM: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No, 79R-269 for adoption as reconm~ended in memorandum dated May 4, 1979 from 3ames Ruth, Deputy f',itv Manager, approving an application for HEW Environmental Education Program Funds for the Urban Forest Recovery Program. Refer to Res- olut ion Book. RESOLUTION :qO. 79R_--2_0.?__: A I<E~;OLUTiON OF TItE CiTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHIEM A,t;PROV!NG THE APPLICATION FOR HEW ENVIRONMENTAI, EDUCATION PROGRAM FUNDS FOR THE URBi~ i:ORESF RECOVI,H{Y t"ROt:!,iAM AND AUTHOI:IIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID 7, PPLiCATION ON BEIIAI.F O? TtiE CITY OV ANAHEIM. RolI Call Vott~: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEblBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ovc~r-hott, l<aywooct, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The ,,a.7or declar,.d Ros,2lt~ti,m Iq~,. ,'~l~ 2f~l du]v passed and adopted. 123/161: REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OFFICES FOR THE COMMUNITY SERVICES DIVISION OF THE PARKSt RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 79R-270 for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated May 8, 1979 from the Deputy City Manager, approving a Rental Agreement with the RedeveJopment Agency for 1,798 square feet of the second floor of the E1 Camino Bank. but]ding to be used as offices for Community Services Division of the Parks, Recreation and Community 5(,rvzces Department, with rental in the amount of $755 monthly, effective April 10, 19/9' . Refer to Resolution Book. 79-535 Git,/ Hall~ ~aheim, C;tl ilornia - COUNCIL MINU_T_E~ - MgY 15, 1979, 1:30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. ]9R--210: A RESOLUTION O1: THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN A(iREEMENT WITH ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND AUTttOR1ZIN(; AND DIRECTING THE Mb~YOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCII., ,MEHBERS: COUNCIl, MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ovcrholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None Thc' Mayor declared t,',,,solution No. 79R-270 duly passed and adopted. 1 2 3: WORK-STUDY hMI'I,?)'_Mt:j_N_'J'_ j??_C__~__ff_H_I~O__US;j_i_C__AL!F0. R_NIA S_____T_A_T__E UNIVERSTIY, LONG BEACtt AND FULLERTON: (;ouncilmm~ Overholt offered Resolution No. 79R-271 and 79R-272 for adopt ion as reconm~ended in memorandum dated May 3, 1979 from the Deputy City Manager, approving an agreement with California State University Long Beach and California State University Eullerton for the employment of students in a work-study employment program. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-271: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND CALIFORNIA STATE UNIV}.]R~fTY IA)NC BEACH FOR THE EF[PLOYMENT OF STUDENTS BY THE CITY, AND AUT}tORIZIN(] THE bLAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-272: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS ()}: AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY FULLERTON FOR 'ritE EMPLOYMENT OF STUDENTS BY THE CITY, AND AUTHORIT1N(; T}tE MAYOR ANt) CITY Ci,ERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. Roll Cai1 Vote: tis: E S: COUNCIl, MEMBERS: COUNCIl, MI:.MBERS: COUNCIl blE['IBEi{E: Ow~rholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour Norlo Mayor declared Rcsolut [on Nos. 79R-271 and 79R-272, duly passed and adopted. I[)13: LAKEVIEW-ORANt,ETttORPE NO. 4 ANNEXATION: Request to the Local Agency For- mat ion Commission to commence proct.cdings on proposed uninhabited Lakeview- orangethorpe No,. ', Annexatiou, 7.0001 acres located on the east side of Lakeview ,',venue, nortl~ of Ora,gcthorpe Avenue, was submitted. Councilman 15av u,',t{?d in the stat f report that 106 apartments were proposed on 7.06 acres, or a ~,,ros~; den:-:tty of 15 per acre. He wanted to know if there were a~y figures that would indicate thut was low or moderate income housing. Mc. Bob Kelley, Assistant Planner, stated that the applicant had not yet submitted detailed plans on the project to the Planning Department so they did not know precisely what the situation would be. The application for annexation was sub- mitted at this time because normally the time frame required to complete the annexation was Ioni,,cr than the time ,ceded for approval of apartment projects. 79-536 Cit, y Il.all, Anaht'imz _(?I i.l,!~it[!a _¥ (j_()Jl~J;lI, MINUTES - May ~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. Therefore, plans for the apartment project would be submitted in the near future at which time more information would be available. Councilman Bay stated he understood and that it would speed it up to LAFCO, but it was going without a ,:o,':;t revenue data study for the project. He assumed that the urgency was brought on by th~ implication in the staff report that this would add to the possibJI[ty of dew, loping low and moderate income housing. How- ever, when the gross density was 15 per acre, he was trying to figure out how it could lead to low and moderate income housing. He was merely trying to follow the logic of the urgency in moving for annexation before receiving a cost revenue data study. Mr. Kelley ~tated h~¢ ~:ould m>l answer' tht. question presently but if the Council desired, they could postpone the application for annexation until after the cost revenue study had been prepared. Mayor Seymour stated relative to that study, if no backbone system of utilities was installed, such a study would be appropriate, but water, sewer, electricity, etc. were already installed. It was in those areas where no backbone structure was in existence that they were concerned relative to the revenue study. He had no doubt if the study were dom~, it would prove cost effective. He was certain they had a positive tax flow in this case. Councilman Roth noted that they had gone on record that they were trying to increase the City's hottsing stock to prevent the pressures of rent control. In the subject annexation, since utilities were already installed, they were more or less obligated to approve the request. He viewed approval as increasing the housing stock. Cc~unci.lwoman Kaywood ollcrc, d Rt~soluti,~n No. 79R-273 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dat(~d bl,~v 2, 1979 f~'~m the Planning Dc, partment, requesting the Local Agency Formati~,n (]r~mmissi~m t~> ~'ommen~:c proceedings on proposed uninhabited l.ak,.view-Orangethorpe Nr~. 4 Annexation, 7.0601 acres located on the east side ,,~ Lakeview Avenue, north of Orangeth~rp~, Avenue. Refer to Resolution Book. I~*2::O[UTION Nt!. 79R--27'3: A RESOIAITION OF TUE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAItEIM, CAJ~IFORNIA, REQUESTING 'F}tE CObIMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN UNINIq2~BITED TERRITORY DESIGNATED AS LAKEVIEW-ORANGETHORPE NO. 4 ANNEXATION. Call Vote: AY ES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCi]~ MEMBI,LRS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour No n e The Mayor declart.d Res~ [ut ion No. 79R-273 duly passed and adopted. i23: CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS IN PROJECT ALPHA: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 79R-274 for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated May 9, 1979 from thc Executive DSr~ctor of Community Development Norm Priest, approving the amended and consolidated Cooperation Agreement with the Redevelop- ment Agency for construction of public improvements in Project Alpha. Refer to Resolution Book. 79-537 .:.)i~ HaLl, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL HINUTES - May 15, 1979, 1:30 P.M. i~t:5OLUTION NO. 79R-274: A RESOL/:T1.ON OF TIlE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPgOVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE MASTER COOPERATION AGREEMENT WITH THE ANA}IEIM REDEVELOFblENT AGENCY. !~ott Ca[.l Voit.: AB S LN T; COI;NCII.. HEMBERS: COUNCII~ MEMBERS;: COUNCIL HEMBERS: Orr. tho!t, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour ii~ Mayor- dectarcd Resolutior'~ Nc,, 79R-274 dt}ly passed and adopted. i~0/101: TEMFORARY SCOREBOARD FOR ANAtlEIM STADIUM: City Manager Talley briefed Council on menwrandum dated May 10, 1979 from the Finance/Purchasing Division~ r'ecommeuding waiving the need for advertised bidding on the subject temporary ~.coreboard and authorizing the issuance of a Purchase Order to Stewart-Warner the amount of $50,O69.10 for the purchase of a temporary scoreboard for Stadium. He then clarified questions posed by Councilman Bay relative to scoreboard instal latiou time frame. · .*u motion by Couu,'ilm,-l}~ [<oth, ~econded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the need ~d,.t rtising bidding was_; wa tw~d for a temporary scoreboard for Anaheim Stadium :t~,~c the Purchasing Agent authorized to issue a Purchase Order to Stewart-Wa:chef in th,,, amount of $50,069.10. MOTION CARRIED. !'23: ANAHEIM SENIOR CITIZENS CLUB - I~P~SE OF PROPERTY AT 222 EAST CHARTRES STREET FOR BINGO GAMES: Counc£1woman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 79R-275 for adoption as reconmtended in the memorandum dated May 14, 1979 from the City :,~ ~,,rney's office approving the lease of premises and facilities located at 222 i;a?;t Chartres Street. Refer to Resolution Book. i,i;~-~[)I,UTION NO. 79R-275: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM :k} P?OVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS t)F A t,EASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF '?46!iEIH AND DiE ANAttEIN SENIOR CITIZENS' (RAIB, INC., AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR CiTY CLERK 'i'~ EXECIrTE SAID A~;REEMENT~ (;all Vote: COUNCIl, ~!EMBE~xS: COUNCIl. blEMBEi<S: COUNC r, Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour Mayor de~ lar~d R~':~iut ion No, 79R-275 duly passed and adopted. ANAHEIM FOUNDATI()N FOR CULTURE AND THE ARTS - EXTENSION OF THE LEASE FOR DiE HORACE MANN SCHOOL: (Continued from May 8, 1979) Councilman Roth moved t~, ~pprove the request of Bernard I.~ Smith, President of the Board of Directors:, ~,,,~aheim Foundation fo~ (:ulture and the Arts, extending the lease for the Horace :'l~,.'-~n School for usu as a Cultural Arts Center for another ten-year period. ::t,tmcJlman Seymour set,reded the ~m~tlon. 79-538 C_ity_Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May lp~ 1979, 1:30 P.M. Before a vote was tak,u~, Councilman Overholt stated he had some questions of Mr. Smith. He first explained that as Mr. Smith was aware, the only lease involved was the lease from th~ Anaheim City School District to the City o~ Anaheim and that tl~e legal arrangement between the City and the Foundation was the license, tie wanted to know what, if anything, the Foundation had done to inform the Anaheim City School Distri. ct as to the progress and activities taking place at Horace Mann School. Mr. Bernard Smith, Pr~ident of the Board of Directors of the Anaheim Foundation for Culture and the Arts, stated that there had been an omission in that area which would take approximately two days to correct. Councilman Overholt askt~d if the matter was continued for two weeks, would that give Mr. Smith a chance to meet with the School. Board and inform them what was happening and t.o obtain their blessing, tie explained he was on the School Board at the time they held the demolition of the Horace Mann School in abeyance for more than a year to give the people culturally motivated an opportunity to develop a program whereby an old school building no longer suited for classrooms could be used by the C~tv as a cultural arts center. There was great pressure placed upon them to have the building demolished, but the School Board and civic leaders got together and d~ci.ded it would be a good site for the Cultural Arts Center, and thus a lease was finally negotiated. Subsequent to that, there was a long period during which the School District had little or no information as to what was goi~g on. His concern was that the Council had the legal right to exercise th~, option to extend the lease for another ten years when it expired in two and one-half years. He wanted to see the Anaheim City School District Board of Trustees wholeheartedly behind the project, fully informed and equally as enthusiastic now in what was transpiring at the Center, as they were seven and one-half years ago. He believed if the Foundation had omitted to keep thrum I~formed, he would not vote on an exercise of that option until he was certain that the Board of Trnstees had been fully informed and w~re as equally sympathetic with the Foundation's efforts to raise money. Mr. Smith indicat.~,d that two weeks would be ample time to inform the Board of · !'¢, ,;.:tivities off the ~<~ndation. He also explained that it was not necessarily :~ ~ission, but th~, situation aro~' a~ a result of input they received from ?ot¢,ntial donets that the least, was o~ such short term that it was necessary ~io a~.:quire an t~xtension b~,fore they could commit funds that would enhance public property. From that standpoii~t, h~· rushed forward without informing the School ~oa rd. No a~'tlon was taken on Clue foregoing motion at this time. Conncilman (>verhol t the~{'upo~ mov~.d that motion offered by Councilman Roth be continued for two weeks to g~vt~ M~-. Smith and his Board an opportunity to inform the ~M~aheim City School l)istrict Board of Trustees of the progress at the Horace Mann School, so that when the Council took action, it would not come as a complete surprise to the Board. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Rotb questioned what part the School District bad in regard to the extension of the lea£~_, agreement. 79-539 ;alltorni;~ - COUNCIL M1NUTES - May 15~ 1979, 1:30 P.M. C.~tvHails.. /maheim, _: Councilman Overho] t explained there were a number of provisions in the lease that could result in the termination of that lease that had to do with what was going on at the Cultural Arts Center. They were the landlord and leased the facility to the City. If the Foundation had not kept them informed, it was ,tnfair to exercise an option without giving them an opportunity to be assared everything was going the way they and the City had anticipated. He wanted to see a good reeling of coopt-ration particularly in view of the efforts of Mr. Smith for a renewed vigor in the Foundation. Mayor Seymour as;ked if Councilman Overhoit knew of a concern on behalf of the School Board th;~t they did not know about. Cotmcilman Ovt..rho] t explained that ,>n one occasion there was a report made to the Board by a m~mtber of the stat! in which the attttude was expressed that it was none of the S~hool Board's business as to what was transpiring, and he wanted to ~urn that around. After a further brief discussion, Mayor Seymour stated it was important to under- stand who had the authority to do what. In reading the report relative to the option (April 25, 1979 memorandum from the City Attorney's office), all the City needed to do was notily the 5,'hool District that they were going to exercise their option and take no further action. The Board did not have the authority to preclude an exercise of that opt:ion. City Attorney Hopkins confirmed that was the way the agreement was written. were certain other provisions, as Councilman Overholt mentioned, that if the School Board was unhappy in other ways, such as the property not being cared f~,~, they might terminate the lease; Councilman Overholt commented that he he!ped draft the Iease. There Tht~ Mayor stated that being tim case, Councilman Overholt should know that the city could exercise the optior~ without approval of the School District. He itad no objection to tI~c centinuanct., but if there was a hidden agenda of which the ~.]~mcil was mot aware, l~e wanted to go on record as saying he was going to support · i~, extension of th~ !~.:~se, as well as the Foundation, in the use of that facility. :~:, '..ensed that Councllm;m Overholt was saying that there may be bad will and !i~at perhaps the .qchool District did not like the Foundation or their activities. in going through that ¢'.ent~r, if their slightest concern might be upkeep or main- :.~nance of the facility, it was now a monument compared to the rubble that was [cdsed to the City. tx~uncilman Overholt stated the agenda was on the table. He stressed that the :~ta[f at. the Foundation had not kept the School Board informed of their activities ~nd he was requeqting that they do so before they exercised an option extending t. ht~ use of the building. Councilman Bay st ~ted he would add to the need for continuance for a completely diflerent reason, that beJng he was completely uninformed of the progress made by the Foundation up to now, and he would want to have that information before voting on an optit~n to extend the [ease for another ten years. 79-540 City Hall, Anaheimz California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 15~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Smith stated he was prepared to favor Councilman Bay with that information. Councilman Roth stated he was going on record as supporting the ten-year exten- sion, however, he would withdraw h~s motion to approve at this time. A vote was then taken on the motion for a two-week continuance. MOTION CARRIED. RECESS: By genera] consent, the (~ouu~il recessed for ten minutes. (2:55 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayo~~ Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (3:05 PUBLIC HEARING - (~ONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. ]923 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application by Frederick R. and Ruth E. Sacher, to permit the sales of home furnishings on ML zoned property located at 1040 Kraemer Place. The City Planning Comm~iss~on, p~rsuant to Resolution No. PC79-18, declared that the subject property be exempt from the requirement to prepare an Environmental Impact Report, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, and further denied Conditional Use Permit No. 1923. The decision of the P]~uning Commission was appealed by Curtis Kindred, Agent for the applicant, and publi~ hearlng scheduled and continued from March 27, 1979 and May 8, ]979, to today's date. Miss Santa]ahti 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 if tht, applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous cf being heard. Mr. Uloyd [rarano, attorney repre~;entIng the applicant, 2555 East Chapman Avenue, Fu!lerton, first submitt~d to the (founcil some exhibits he was going to be referring to ir, his presentation (made a part of the record). He continued that the appli- ~:::'_~ and public hearing was going to be substantially more encompassing than th~: one isolated business to which M~ss Santalahti referred. He then referred to ti~e plan posted on the Chamber wall depicting the subject area and explained that the original application and p,abllc hearing involved Curtis Furniture, Bull[ding No. 1 on th~~ map, and sub.~,:~qu~nt]y four other tenants in that center were cited by the Zoning Enfor~ement Officer for similar violations of the Zoning Code. Since th~~ application was advertised as the entire parcel, they thought it appropriate to .~ave th~? City time and expense by requesting that all four (later clarified ,~s five) businesses be heard at one time instead of filing separate ~ppl i~a~ ton~. All the bu.~in~sses involved dealt with home furnishings and thus raised the sam~~ problem and questions. That was also made known to the staff when they discussed the possibility of filing separate applications. He stated he would proceed with that understanding. The subject was betore the Council as a result of zoning enforcement action regarding outdoor signs, balloons, and various other violations that were occurring. }lowev,~r, the issue dt~alt basically with alleged encroachments into 79-541 City Hall~..Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 15, 1979, 1:30 P.M. the industrial area by co~nercial users, which matter had been studied by the Planning Commission, Chamber of Commerce and other groups, as well as the Community Redevelopment Commission, all of whom had substantial interest in the situation. He believed that he could show the Council by his presentation information that would be of value to the City in deciding future applications involving retail type activities in the industrial zone. Mr. Farano then proceeded to relay facts relative to the home furnishings business and how that business had changed in recent years in its method of selling to the consumer. Councilman Bay interjected and asked the City Attorney if he was correct in his understanding of the following: that the proposed Conditional Use Permit No. 1923 was the matter they were hearing today having been duly advertised covering one particular retail sales business, But on the other hand, Mr. Farano stated he was bringing four other businesses into the hearing to settle whether or not CUPs would be granted in advance. Mr. Hopkins stated that was not his understanding. Mr. Farano did not agree with the City Attorney's view. He explained when the application for Curtis Furniture was advertised, it encompassed the entire parcel of property as depicted on the site plan and the entire parcel was before the Planning Commission when it was originally heard. Subsequently four additional tenants on the same premises and parcel were also cited for identical violations. In discussing the matter with staff and various people involved, they felt that instead of filing separate applications and holding separate hearings, that all issues could be heard and decided by the Council at one hearing. No new issues were introduced, and he believed that staff agreed on that procedure. It was his impression it would be a perfectly legal procedure if not a preferred approach. Thus if the City Council today decided in favor of the applicant, it would, in effect, be permitting five businesses to continue retail type sales at that location - Curtis Furniture, Orange County Furniture Gallery, Mooney Carpet, Ron's Bars and Stools, H & R. Johnson. RECESS: By general consent, the City Council recessed as a result of a potential emergency. (]:25 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (4:00 P.M.) Mr. Farano then briefed the Council on his 23-page presentation, which was subsequently submitted to the City Clerk under letter of May 18, 1979 and made a part of the record and which encompassed the issues involved in detail and upon which he elaborated. At the conclusion of his extensive presentation, Mr. Farano stated there was also a possibility that there might be an additional variance involving a sign and while it was not part of their application, he wanted to inform the Council now so they would not be wondering what was coming next. The sign had been approved by the tenants and lessor and measured 350 feet square 79-542 City Hall~. A_naheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 15~ 1979, 1:30 P.M. proposed to be placed at the location which he pointed to on the site plan. Furniture Village was an agreed name because the tenants in that area had consolidated their efforts in trying to create a home furnishings center to assist the customer. They were also proposing to install a small replica of the sign for tie-in purposes so that customers would know when they reached the location they were at the right place. Councilwoman Kaywood then asked for confirmation that Mr. Farano stated that all businesses combined spent $250,000 to $350,000 a year for advertising. Mr. Farano answered that it was in excess of $300,000, and it was the only source of advertising utilized. Considering their sales volume, there was approximately $100,000 worth of sales tax returned to the City as a result of their activity. Councilman Roth asked if in their hours of operation they were willing to stipulate 10:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. as the maximum number of hours, and no more balloons. Mr. Farano so stipulated. The Mayor asked if anyone further wished to speak either in favor or in opposition; there being no response, he closed the public hearing. Councilman Roth commended Mr. Farano on all the facts, figures and additional data which he presented. The issue was not a new one because they had previously discussed warehousing and furniture sa]es. He agreed that the furniture market was quite different now than several years ago, and the buyers wanted their merchandise immediately, thus the need for warehouse facilities on the premises. His position had been clear in the past, and he was supportive of the Chamber's position relative to commercial in industrial areas. However, he felt they were compatible commercial uses along the perimeter of industrial areas where the hours of operation would be stipulated to assure that there was no conflict with work-hour traffic. He could see the merit of that concept and was supportive of it. Councilman Bay first commended Mr. Farano on what appeared to him to be a public hearing on a conditional use permit in defense of a citation for failure to meet the Codes of the City. He had never seen anyone turn a defensive position into an attack so cleverly. The hearing as he understood ~t was to determine whether or not Curtis Furniture was in violation of the zoning ordinances. Normally commercial within an in- dustrial zone was based on the positive factor of whether it supported the industrial zone or not. In what he heard, it had been turned around as an economic necessity and instead of defending commercial operations encroaching upon industrial functions, they were attempting to be put in a position of defending why they should not have commercial and industrial in an industrial zone. He personally had nothing against any one of the businesses involved. They were all fine businesses and there had to be a place for them in the City. What was involved was the issue of the basic principle of zoning and long range planning in the City. 79-543 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 15, 1979, 1:30 P.M. Before continuing, Councilman Bay asked staff to briefly review the history of Curtis Furniture from the point the City thought they started business to the point, by dates, when they discovered they were in violation; the co~plain~B when they acquired their business license, and other history germane to ~he subject. He maintained the subject was whether or not they were commercial operations in violation of the zoning ordinances and business license. Miss Santalahti explained that the first complaint received related to the type of advertising being utilized by Curtis Furniture and that was on February 28, 1978. They subsequently received a business license in May of 1978 for furniture warehousing, shipping and receiving. The petition was actually filed later and considered by the Planning Commission at the beginning of the year. During the hearing, it was revealed that there were several other businesses in the center that were also retail sales primarily, and as a result, during January 1979, they issued notices of violations to those businesses, and those were the other four that Mr. Farano was discussing, Mooney's, Ron's Bars and Stools, Orange County Furniture Gallery, H & R Johnson. Councilman Bay noted from the history that the need for a CUP as determined at this late date was because there were notices of violation filed against the businesses. As early as July of 1978, he (Bay) wrote a letter to the Council because of his concern over the problem of commercial functions that had appeared for years and started to grow in the entire industrial area. He thereupon read a portion of the letter because it later became a resolution from the Community Redevelopment Commission expressing their concerns regarding the intrusion of commercial uses in the Canyon industrial area. He then con- tinued that anyone familiar with zoning operations and ordinances in the City knew there were good reasons for CUPs, variances and waivers, but he did not believe the intent of those was to undermine and defeat the long-term planning for the best land uses for the good of the whole City. He felt when CUPs and variances were in direct opposition to the intent of the General Plan, depending on quantity and density in an area, they could wipe out the industrial area that was suppos~d to provide, industry and jobs for the City requiring the ]east amount of services with the best revenue sources, not only for the City b~t also for the Redevelopment Agency. The resolution was presented to the City Council in a joint meeting with the Community Redevelopment and Planning C~mmissions (December 19, 1978), one of many meetings he attended on the subject. Industry was trying to c~ome to Anaheim at present and one in particular involving "clean" manufacturing and looking for 20 acres in the industrial area with the potential for 2000 jobs. It is one of the most important things for the people iu the City. In reviewing what had occurred in the City over the last two years, if a requested CUP was granted to all five businesses, it might be a landmark step. He was concerned with the impact it would have on whatever vacant land remained in the industrial area. He was also concerned over what would happen when elected officials in the City made decisions to go on with CUPs and variances that were outside the realm of the General Plan without taking into consideration the effect on the whole industrial area of the entire City. It would, in fact, be saying that they did not have any planning in the City, or zoning control, or ordinances that had any "teeth". They would end up with commercial wherever economically feasible without regard to the effect 79-544 _City Hall, ~a~aheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 15~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. on the industrial potential. Estimates now revealed that the City had close to two years of land available in the industrial zone, down from 4 and 5 years. In his opinion, the reason why a company could not find 20 acre~ to buy was due to the fact that owners were holding their property and watching what the Council was going to do on questions such as the one before them. They would question why they should sell their land to industry when, if they held on to it, the way th~ngs were proceeding, if it was going to go commercial, they would receive more money for their land. Councilman Bay emphasized that somewhere the CUPs and variances had to stop, and he was sorry that he considered the subject case a key place to stop it because he sympathized with the tenants in that industrial complex. However, there was a place for them to go because last December the La Palma Business Park, a 21-acre project, was approved by the Council. It contained 320,000 square feet of floor space and out of that, approximately 85,000 square feet was predetermined for industrial. The balance of the space in the area immed- iately west of the area now under discussion which Mr. Farano indicated was going to be quasi-commercial, included 112,000 square feet of furniture-related commercial space, plus there were other build-to-suit sites. In concluding, Councilman Bay relayed the traffic problems that were evident in the area from firsthand experience. It was pointed out at a Planning Commission workshop meeting that commercial trade drew 12 to 1 the traffic drawn by industrial. He reiterated his concern over the serious precedent that would be set and maintained it would be just beginning unless somehow the Council could draw given lines and state that they were going to master-plan the area and indicate a stopping point. Councilman Bay stated there was no way he could vote for CUPs and the added co~nercial impacts that they would cause. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she agreed with Councilman Bay and as indicated in the letter from the Chamber of Commerce dated May 15, 1979 (on file in the City Clerk's office), the Chamber also opposed commercial encroachment into the indu~otrial area. She recalled the feeling she had some years ago when she was on the Planning Commission, that it was necessary to protect the remaining indus- trial area in the City because the only other place in Orange County was Irvine and that was filling up fast. She had not changed her feeling on that issue. ~1'o call the subject-area a buffer zone would indicate to her that it was ~ot s~itable for indus~'~-Jal and in no way did she believe that. She still wanted to preserve the industrial area and opposed encroachment. Councilman Overholt stated he supported the Chamber's position which was well stated in the letter° Mayor Seymour was of the opinion that the easy thing to do was to adopt that position. He was well aware of Councilman Bay's strong feelings on the issue some time back and although he respected the position, he did not agree with it. Consistent with the presentation today, there must be a place for the type of use under discussion. He felt ~t would be interesting to look at the economic comparison of the alleged $100,000 sales tax revenues paid to the City, 79-545 C~ty Hall, Anaheim? Cal_i_fprj~_!_a_~_~-__(?_U__N?~IL MINUTES - May 15~ !_979~ 1:30 P.M. as well as the appropriate property taxes in relation to the same economic benefit that might be made off that property industrially. However, that was not the key point relative to his feelings which were that modern day development di~ctated a type of quasi-commercial use with identity along freeways that would not disrupt ~ndustr~al sectors. He did not see or hear anything in the presentation today that would cause him to believe if the operation as outlined were to continue that, in fact, it would hamper, hurt, hinder, or not mix well with the industr~al community. A~s~ relative to traffic, he chose to accept the facts provided by Mr. Farano. Hc did see the need for the Council to draw the linc and a ~ard line dividiug quasi-commercial from industrial and cons£stent with the (hamber's pbilos~q~h¥, they had to protect the integrity of the industrial zone. The issue howev6r was to identify the industrial zone, and he believed that zone was north of La Pa]ma Avenue and not between La Palina Aveuue and the Riverside Freeway. He could be supportive of the proposal with the requirement that had bee~ recommended. The Mayor then asked Mr. ~'arano if the CUP were granted, what would prevent what they would ctmsider ,q rt,ta~l operation from moving into any one of those stores. He wanted to know how they' could be assured it would remain a quasi- COlnmerc iai use and ru~! [li ~1[', mo ~ t'. Mr. [:arano stated ,~[hcr than thc ,~ses; discussed today, no other uses could go into that location. The (:UP woul,i .~pecifically be worded to indicate the type of uses that would be permitted in that area. Miss Santalahti explained that the CUP resolution, if approved, would read "home furnishings" sp,:~cil-i~,'lllv ~,~d ;~I~,,, ii G~,mcil were interested in restricltag th,. square footage, as Mr. i.~:~n~, mt~ti~)ned, it could identxfy the /O,OO~ s~quare foot maximum lo~ re,thC Itir~li~,i~ings w/th the remainder to be standard industrial uses. City Attorn(.y [h~pkins stated the conditions would be the key and that subsequent occupant~; would have to comply with the conditions ~,bich could bc quite restrictive as explained by Miss Santalahti. ?,,,'. Farano stated that the', would stipul_ate that uses similar to those Thc ~qayor asked statf '~,,hat t-e:;tri,:ti,ms they could apply to the CUP to insure that they would have tt,ta] c~,utrol from the fear that it would deteriorate into a iu[ly commercial opcr~tiou. Fli_~s Santalahti reitcra.'.ed that they could do what was previously done where the applicant was requir,.d ~o stipulate .%pecilic uses, for example, "that home furnishings shall consist of the t~llowing," and those would then have to be listed. As well, they could requi~-~ a certain square footage allowable with the balance devoted to indusl rial u~e~. The only issue remaining would be thc signing, and '.'arian,~. ~!~-. ~'a~-,-m~, ~,le~-red to, dealing with the location o~ a free-standing sign which inwolved a setback problem. They stipulated a requirement that signing shall compl, y with the underlying ~ zoning which was more restrictive than con~ercial a~d as spelled out in Item 2, Inter- departmental Co~ittee :-ec~mmendation~, }'age 2-c of staff report dated Janua~ 29, i979. 79-546 ~ity Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 15~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. Mayor Seymour asked Mr. Farano if it would be of value to the applicant if the CUP were approved with the conditions that had been discussed. He emphasized also that would include the fact that they would say no to any variances on the signing; Mr. Farano stated that would be acceptable. Councilman Bay asked staff if the current signing on the walls of the structures exceeded 20% coverage as allowed in the ML zone. Miss Santalahti answered that the lettering applied to the walls did comply and they needed a building permit to do that. Councilman Bay continued he was concerned about Curtis Furniture because he saw signing on the north wall and all the way across the east side over the show windows and, from memory, he was certain there was a large wall sign on the south side. He would guess they were very close to 20% of the allowed coverage. He wanted to know, therefore, if the free-standing signs and other signs would than be added to the square footage total under ML. Miss Santalahti answered "no" since the Code allowed wall signs, plus free- standing signs. Mr. Farano interjected that in his haste to complete his presentation he ne- glected to mention the arrow on the south side of the street and striping on the building. His client agreed to remove the arrows and band of color. He believed there was some question as to those being construed as a sign and in order to eliminate any possibility of misunderstanding, they would stipulate to eliminating the arrow and the striping. In concluding, Mayor Seymour stated be was prepared to offer a resolution of approval of the request with the conditions and requirements recommended by staff, as discussed, in order to answer Councilman Bay's concern, the Council through the Planning and Community Redevelopment Commissions had to draw a line, but they should provide room ~n the C~ty for quasi-commercial uses which he had seen tastefully done without becoming all out commercial uses. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NECATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Se>~our, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council finds that this project would have no signif£cant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property for general industrial land uses commensurate with the proposal; that sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the proposal, and that the initial study submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Seymour offered a resolotion to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 1923 subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations and the following addi- tional conditions recommended by staff and the applicant, and stipulated to by the applicant: a listing of specific furniture and furniture related uses, a square footage limitation condition as outlined by the Assistant Director for Zoning, no sign variances to be granted, and that the arrow on the south side of the street and striping on the building be removed. 79-547 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES- May 15~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. Before any action was taken, Mr. Farano requested that they add one further stipulation - that the places of business as presently constituted would not be further divided into smaller areas with additional businesses brought in to occupy those areas. Councilman Roth asked if he would also stipulate to hours of operation from 10:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M.; Councilman Bay asked if that would include trucking in and out prior to opening. Mr. Farano so stipulated. Councilman Bay stated that although he sympathized with the tenants as he men- tioned previously, he did not sympathize with the balance of the property nor the way it was designed or the way Jt was leased the same as with other indus- trial developments up and down Kraemer Boulevard that consistently had show windows in them with the intent of circumventing the zoning in that area for future commercial. The Chamber stated the problem and submitted recommendations that something be done. Staff responded with their professional advice to the Planning Commission. It was his feeling that they should listen to the pro- fessionals and start doing something about the way the City's ordinance and zoning laws were written. The analysis that came back on the Chamber's sug- gestions as to what to do should be taken up not only by the Planning Con~nission and Community Redevelopment Co~nission, but also looked at by the Council because they were the final word. Without some encouragement to straighten those ordinances out so that they were fair to the developer, the tenants and the City in the future, they would never solve the problem. He still could not vote for the CUP and the variance, but wanted to see a real effort put forth so that they would not haw~ the ever recurring problem on prostituting the zoning ordinances ~n order to make them practical. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she d£d not know what good would come from putting conditions and stipulations on the use when in the first place it was obviously an industrial building and the conditions were very clear at the outset. It was a case of the applicant being ~n violation and because they were there and with all their arguments, the Council was being asked to now make them legal. She could not go along wittz that. Mayor Seymour stated he considered the matter differently. If the land were bare and the application came before the Council to utilize the land for what was presently existing on the property, he would vote for it. If he did not feel strongly it was an appropriate use for the land, he would tell them to move tomorrow. Mr. Farano then stated because of the serious nature of the matter and because be sensed that Councilman Bay ~greed this one item was not going to decide the issue, that he wanted to ask ft,r a continuance and requested that the public hearing be re-opened at a later date, during which time they would present some additional evidence not just for the subject application, but the problem as a whole. 79-548 City Hall, ~aheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 15, 1979, 1:30 P.M. ]]~. Mayor reminded Mr. l?arano that the hearing had been closed and that he was totally out of order at this point. After additional Council discussion, Councilman Seymour called for a vote on his resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 1923 including the addi- tional conditions and stipulations and a reversal of the findings of the Planning Commission, which failed. AYES: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Roth and Seymour. COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood and Bay. Councilman Bay then o£fered Resolution No. 79R-276 for adoption denying Conditional Use Permit No. 1923, upholding the Planning Commission rec- ommendation. Roi'et to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-276: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1923. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated if they allowed someone to come in illegally and then indicated it was acceptable, a precedent would be set telling everybody that it did not matter in Anaheim, that they could do as they pleased, and the Council would take care of them. Councilman Overholt noted that four of five of the Planning Commissioners present voted to deny the CUP. t[e presumed the hearing at the Planning Commission level was lengthy and issues totally aired. Although this may not be the end of the issue, at this time, he would support the Resolution for denial. A vote was taken on the foregoing Resolution. Rol] Ca~l Vote: AY ES: NOES: COUNCIL M!'].MBF, RS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIl. MEMBEllS: Overholt, Kaywood and Bay Roth and Seymour None Tt',e .~yor declared Resolution No. 79R-276 duly passed and adopted. RECESS: By gew~ral c,.msc, t thc Council recessed for five minutes. (5:40 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called t:he meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (5:45 P.M.) PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1955 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application by Bcdcon Bay Enterprises, Inc., to permit the retail sales of records and tapes on ML zoned property located at 1385 Knollwood Circle. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-61, declared the subject project ,.~xempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report and further denied Conditional Use Permit No. 1955. 79-549 City Hall, A~aheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 15, 1979~ 1:30 P.M. The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Richard McCloud, Distri- bution Manager, Stop 'N Co Markets, and public hearing scheduled this date. Miss Santalahti described the location and surrounding land uses. She outlined the findings given £n the staff report which was submitted to and considered by the City Planning Commission. The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous of being heard. Mr. Richard McCloud stated the reason for their attempting to permit retail sales was due to the fact that they had a number of people in the complex approach them and ask if they could purchase albums and tapes out of their warehouse. There were also other people in the complex who sold to the public that were retail operations and there were four at the beginning of the complex on Woodland Drive. There was one company approximatley 150 to 250 feet from them who sold tires only on Saturdays. He questioned why other businesses were able to have retail sales, and they could not, and if perhaps it was because they were at the far end of the complex. During the original hearing before the Planning Commission, one of the Commissioners indicated that they would not have much bus,ness because they were the last building in the complex, and another indicated retail sales would bring too many cars into the complex, which was confusing to him. Yesterday he talked to some people in the complex and asked their thoughts, and they signed a petition as being in favor of the request. He asked for a better explanation regarding the matter and why the one business was apparently allowed to be open to the public one day a week, and asked would that be allowed for them. Miss Santalaht~ explained that retail sales were permitted as an accessory type of nse when the product was manufactnred on the premises, which was not the case in the subject business. ~[he Mayor asked il anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition; theft, being no response, be closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL i~R~ACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Rot-b, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council finds that no significant individual or cumulative adverse enviromental impacts are involved in the proposal since the Anaheim (~eneral Plan designates the subject property for general indus- trial land uses commensurate with the proposal and that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved and is, therefore exempt, from the requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 79R-277 for adoption denying Conditional Use Permit No. 1955, upholding the decision of the City Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-277: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1q55. 79-550 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 15, 1979, 1:30 P.M. Before a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour stated he would support the Resolution because he viewed the request as being a purely retail use rather than quasi- commercial. 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 Tile Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-277 duly passed and adopted. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1956 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application by Foodmaker Commissary, Inc., to permit a drive-through restaurant on C-R zoned property located at the northeast corner of Katella Avenue and Harbor Boulevard with code waivers of: (a) minimum number of parking spaces and (b) minimum drive-through lane length. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-63, declared that the subject property be exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and further granted Conditional Use Permit No. 1956, in part, subject to the following conditions: (1) That street lighting faci]iti, es along Harbor Boulevard and Katella Avenue shall be insta]led prior to tile final building and zoning inspections unless otherwise approved by the Director of Public Utilities, and in accordance with specifications on file in the Office of the Director of Public Utilities; and/or that a bond, certificate of deposit, letter of credit, or cash, in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim shall be posted with the City to guarantee the instal]ation of the above-mentioned requirements. (2) That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans on f~le with the Office of the Director of Public Works. (3) ~at the o~xer(s) of subject property shall pay the traffic signal asses- smcnc fee (Ordinance No. 3896) in an amount as determined by the City Council for commercial buildings prior to the issuance of a building permit. (4) That the proposed restaurant shall comply with all signing requirements of the CR zoning. (5) That subject property shal] be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1 through 3; provided, howevec, that a minimum of 71 parking spaces may be provided and that the drive-through lane length shall comply with Zoning Code requirements. (6) That a revised plan showing drive-through lanes conforming with the Zoning (:ode shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. (7) That Condition No. 1 above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to the commencement of the activity authorized under this resolution, or prior to the time that the bnilding permit is issued, or within a period of one year from date hereof, whicheve occurs first, or such further time as the Planning Commission may grant. (8) That Condition Nos. ? and 5, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections. 79-551 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 15~ 1979z. 1:30 P.M. A review of the matter was requested by Councilwoman Kaywood at the April 17, 1979 meeting, and public hearing scheduled this date. The Mayor stated unless there was opposition, they would forego the staff presentation. He then asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present. Mr. Bill Gilson, 5100 So~th Eastern Aw~nu~~, City of Commerce, representing Foodmaker Commissary, Inc., was present and asked if the Planning Commission's approval was being appealed; the Mayor explained that was correct and that Councilwoman Kaywood had set the matter for a public hearing. Mr. Gilson continued that they were proposing to construct a new restaurant adjacent to an existing ttamburger House restaurant which they operated at the corner of Harbor and Katella. Councilwoman Kaywood then posed a lin~ of questioning which Mr. Gilson answered as follows: Foodmaker Inc. ow~,ed Hamburger House and the property as well. The new restaurant proposed was going to be a Jack-in-the-Box and the staff would be employees of Foodmaker, and it wa.~ not a franchise. Councilwoman Kaywood expressed her concern that the subject location was the entry to the Convention Center and Disneyland area. If it was not the busiest corner in the City with the highest accident rate, then it was second, and the congestion was such that to her the proposal was madness. While they might get customers into a drive-through .la,'k-in-the-Box, it would not be possible to get them out. She then relayed the serious traffic problems she encountered in the area as it presently existed. In answer to further quc~tioni:~g by C~uncilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Gilson stated the reason they decided to build the second restaurant on the parking lot was due to the fact that one of the life bloods of fast food was traffic. To the best of their market rese,'~rcl~, there was a definite need for a fast food restaurant at or near the subject location which was surrounded by motels. The Hamburger Uouse did double the volt,me in s~mmer titan in w~nter, and it was a sit-down restaurant. The proposed restaurant would be an alternative to that, whereby patrons could walk to the location, a,d they anticipated they would do so. Relative to aesthetics at that key location, Mr. Gilson submitted booklets for Cotmcil perusal depicting the proposed restaurant which was a departure from the existing Jack-in-the-Box restaurants. The Mayor asked if anyon~~ wished to speak either in favor or opposition; there being no response, he closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Kaywood asked the Traffic Engineer to relay statistics relative to the traffic count on the corner of Katella Avenue and Harbor Boulevard and how it ranked in comparison with the City as a whole. Mr. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated that the recent EIR in connection with the Convention Center expansion addressed the intersection of Katella and Harbor. After the expansion of the Convention Center and the construction of the Marriott Hotel, it was projected that existing traffic volumes during the four-hour peak 79-552 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 15~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. period would be at service level "E", which was essentially failure, requiring a 44-second delay per vehicle projected to a 51-second delay per vehicle after the aforementioned expansion. It was perhaps one of the busiest intersections in the City, carrying approximately 34,000 cars on Harbor and 33,000 on Katella. Peak-hour volumes exceeded the capacity of the street for approximatley four hours a day. One of the recommendations made was to install two left turn lanes onto ~tella Avenue from Harbor Boulevard south bound into the Convention Center which would then crowd the lanes on Katella, and it would require reconstruction of the median islands from Harbor Boulevard easterly for a considerable distance. That was the only method recommended on how to partially mitigate the traffic. That action would reduce delays from 51 seconds down to 34 seconds, which was already operating ~ a failure, mode. Councilman Roth questioned why the Planning Commission gave unanimous approval of the project; Mr. Singer stated that the EIR was not available at the time. Councilwoman Kaywood stated they asked for a study in the area relative to poor circulation and it was incredulous that they were proposing a second structure on a parking lot. If the Marriott were to come in later indicating that their parking lot was empty and requested to place something else on it, she would say "no". In this case, the applicant wanted to build a Jack-in-the-Box on their parking lot. The Mayor stated the ?lanning (]ommission took that into consideration and they approved a varian~e ou parking. Councilwoman Kaywood countered that they had the second item first and they forgot what they were doing. She had spoken to two of the Commissioners and they said it was a m~s~ake. The Mayor stated that the situation had no logic, i.e. to refuse a restaurant on the basis it would cause traffic on Harbor and Katella. They were approaching the problem in the wrong way by saying it would get worse with more development. Councilwoman Kaywood wanted to do away with double development and was opposed to a request to build a second str~cture on an existing parking lot. If the restaurant was allowed, they wo~ld subsequently discover they made a mistake. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NECATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council finds that there would be no significant individua! or cumulative adverse environmental impact as a result of the proposal since, the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property for Commercia]/R~creat~onal land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the proposal and that the initial study submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant indivi- dual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. 79-553 City Hall~ ,Anahe,im~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 15~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 79R-278 for adoption granting Conditional Use Permit No. 1956, in part, upholding the decision of the City Planning Commission, subject to all recommendations and conditions. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-278: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1956. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay asked if when the applicant agreed to delete requested waiver (b) and were going to furnish the required drive- through lane length, did that cut the parking down any further. Mr. Gilson answered "yes". They had originally requested 76 spaces and the required was 89. It was approved at 71 and there was one stall behind the buildings so that had 72 parking stalls under the revised plan. Councilman Bay assumed that the 89 spaces required were to support the Hamburger House and the drive-through. When they went to the long lane, four more spaces were cut which resulted in 17 spaces less than the required number. Thus the actual CUP was necessary because they were short 17 parking spaces against a requirement for 89. Miss Santalahti stated they needed a CUP for the drive-through regardless. Councilwoman Kaywood wanted to know how they were going to prevent someone who wanted to turn Jcft from blockfng thrt~e traffic lanes. She explained if a motorist wanted to travel south on Harbor having exited from the drive-through onto Ka~ella, there was no space or room to do so. She reiterated her concern in creating an additional hazard on a corner that was already a hazard and putting a second use an exist£ng parking lot. A vote was then taken on the foregoing Resolution of approval. Roll Call Vote: ~,'~' U.S: NOliS: ABSENT: COL~qCII, MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL Mb~BERS: Overholt, Roth and Seymour Kaywood and Bay None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-278 duly passed and adopted. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1957 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application by Foodmaker, Inc., to expand an existing drive-through restaurant on CL zoned property located at 2793 West Ball Road with waivers of: (a) minimum number of parking spaces and (b) mtnimum drive-through lane length. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-62, declared the subject property exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental i~act report pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and further granted Conditional Use Permit NO. 1957 subject to the following cond[tions: (1) That trast~ storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans on file with the Office of the Director of Public Works. 79-554 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 15, 1979~ 1:30 P.M. (2) That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay the traffic signal assessment fee (Ordinance No. 3896) in an amount as determined by the City Council, for com- mercial buildings prior to the issuance of a building permit. (3) That the proposed restaurant shall comply with all signing requirements of the CL zoning. (4) That subjct property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1 through 3; provided, however, that some means acceptab~ to th~ City Traffic Engineer, shall be provided to restrict exiting vehicles to right turns only at the driveway on Ball Road located closest to the intersection of Ball Road and Dale Avenue. (5) That the owner(s) of subject property shall submit a letter requesting ter- mination of Conditional Use Permit No. 1646. (6) That Condition Nos. i and 4, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections. The Mayor stated unless there was an objection they would forego the staff report. He then asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present. Mr. Bill Gilson again came forward and stated what they were attempting to do was to enclose the existing outdoor seating at the Jack-in-the-Box at the subject location. He again referred to the booklet of pictures showing the proposed structure. There was no inside seating in the present structure. They were also going to eliminate the "Jack in the sky" concept as questioned by the Mayor. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she was familiar with the location and the picture submitted showing the proposed improvements was beautiful. However, it was a very small corner, and it was overly impacted at present. They were not only going to enclose the unit, but also were going to add 750 square feet to the approximate 5001square feet already existing and no parking would be available. One item the Planning Commission d~d not discuss when the project was considered and approved on a 4-~ vote, was that Dale Junior High School was located right next to the site, and traffic was very bad. They were going to cut down their, parking spaces which would result in seven fewer spaces and while more than doubling the size of the building. There was no street parking at that location. She f~lt it would be beneficial if they could buy the house next door to the facility. Mr. Gilson answered that they had tried to purchase either one of the properties adjacent to them but had not been able to do so. Mr. Giison explained there would be less seating, from 36 to 32 and some of the additional size was devoted to storage including dry storage. That would mean they could send a truck out a fewer number of times. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition; there being no response, he closed the public hearing. Mayor Seymour felt that the proposed plan was a vast improvement over what now existed. Although he would like to see it with no waivers, it was a matter of opting for the improved situation or having it remain as is. With the recommendations of the Planning Commission and the beautiful facility proposed, it would be an improvement and that was a positive trade-off. 79-555 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL M1NUTES - May 15, 1979~ 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood questioned where the patrons would park if there were no spaces available; Mayor Seymour reiterated it was a matter of trade-offs and if the project were fresh on the ground, he would vote "no". Councilwoman Kaywood agreed that the building was 100% better. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council finds that no significant, individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts are involved in the proposal and that the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property for general commercial land uses commensurate with the proposal and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. Cooncilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 79R-279 for adoption granting Conditional Use Permit No. 1957 upholding the City Planning Commission decision, subject to all restrictions and conditions. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-279: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1957. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overho]t, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-279 duly passed and adopted. 107: PUBLIC HEARING - HOUSE MOVING PERMIT: Requested by Dolores M. de Saucedo, to move a single family structure from its present location at 124 North Philadelphia Street to 330 East Julianna Street. The Mayor asked if th~ applicant was present and desirous of being heard; there was no response. The Mayor then asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or opposition; there being no response, he closed the public hearing. E_~Nv'IRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman Ro[h, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council ratified the determination of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Sectlon 3.0l, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file and EIR. MOTION CARRIED. Couucilman Roth offered Resolution No. 79R-280 for adoption approving the requested House Moving Permit, ~qubjec't t~ th~ following findings: 1. That the house, bu~ldJng or structure proposed to be moved into the city shall be comparable in value, sizt~, quality, design and appearance of houses, buildings or structures in the area into which it is to be moved; and 2. That it will not be detrimental to, nor diminish the value of property in the area; and 3. That less than a majority ot the property owners in the area object to the moving of the house, building or structure onto the property where it is pro- posed to be moved; then a special permit may, in the discretion of the Council, be granted. 79-556 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 15, 1979, 1:30 P.M. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-280: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING A HOUSE MOVING PERMIT TO DOLORES M. DE SAUCEDO TO MOVE A DWELLING FROM 124 NORTH PHILADELPHIA STREET TO 330 EAST JULIANNA STREET, ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Ruth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-280 duly passed and adopted. 107: PUBLIC HEARING - HOUSE MOVING PERMIT: Requested by Jess O. Ybarra to move a five-unit apartment building from its present loccation at 206 North Claudina Street to 328 South Vine Street. The Mayor asked if Mr. Ybarra or his agent was present; no one was present. The Mayor then noted there were a number of people in the Chamber audience. There were approximately eight citizens who were opposed to the requested permit and all were property owners on the street. The Mayor then asked to hear from those in opposition. Mrs. Ricardo Felice, 400 South Vine, stated that her mother and sister live on the street. The property on which the applicant wanted to move the apartment building on to was next to their property. They were against the request because parking was bad at present. As well, with apartment houses, people kept moving in and out. They preferred to see a house moved on to the property. Mary Perez, 324 South Vine, stated that the structure presently on the premises had no windows; it was all broken down and it rained more inside than it did outside. If Mr. Ybarra took care of the present structure which he owned for ~_~ven or eight years in that fashion, how could he be expected to take care of the moveon. She had called him several times to ask him to cut down the weeds, but he had not done so. The property was in a deplorable state, and it would be worse with a larger structure. Patricia Mesa, 325½ South Bush (directly in back of the subject property), stated she had lived in the area for 25 years. There was a great deal of traffic through the alley and there was no parking available. She was concerned that Mr. Ybarra was trying to move in a five-unit apartment and the building was not even new. If they were building a new home or apartment that would be different. She would like to see new apartments at least, if anything at all, but something that would upgrade the property and the area. She did not believe the area was zoned for more than two or three apartments and would prefer not to have more than that number of units; the Mayor interjected and explained zoning was such that Mr. Ybarra could build up to five units. Mary Adias, 411 South Bush, stated she lived in the area for 34 years and did not want to see apartments moved on. There was a lot of traffic and people, and there was no parking. She owned two houses in the area. 79-557 City Hall, Anaheim, Cali£ornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 15, 1979, 1:70 P.M. Mr. Phil Gardner, Neighborhood Development Coordinator, Community Development Department, explained that the applicant would be receiving funding through the multi-family rehabilitation program. The five units would be on 10,000 square feet of property and the current house would be torn down and the family living there would receive relocation benefits through the CDBG Program. They had taken into consideration the problems existing in the area and were working with Mr. Ybarra. He now had zoning approval for his plot plan without any waivers. The Mayor noted that with the zoning presently existing on the property, Mr Ybarra could come in tomorrow without a public hearing, or without going to the Planning Conma£ssion or tht~ City Council, and build five apartment units on the property if he tore down the old house and if he met every building code ' and ordinance on the books. Mr. Gardner confirmed that was ~'orrect and parking requirements as well. The Mayor stated that the question for the Council and the neighborhood to decide was whether or not a rehabilitated used structure should be placed on the property or a new structure. Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. Cardner if when somebody offered to purchase a moveon, did they check that person's track record; Mr. Gardner answered not necessarily. Councilwoman Kaywood then continued that she had a serious problem with the request. Mr. Ybarra had owned that property for a number of years and rented it without performing any maintenance. It was an eyesore in the neighborhood and undoubtedl7 a health hazard. There was nothing to prevent him from doing exactly the ~amc~ thing with any moveon whether five apartments or anything else. Mu-. Gardner stated t~nder tht' at, ltl-family rehabilitation program, he was obligated to offer the units to the Section 8 program and yearly inspections were required. C:ouncilman R~th stated M~-. Ybarra .~hould have been advised that 51% of the l:eof~]~~ on th~~ ~tr~_'t could ~]~,ny tt~e mov~n if they were opposed to it. He recommended that the neighbors be ¢'ontacted in order to sell them on the idea that something positive was going to be done. They needed Section 8 housing in the community, but not if 51% of the neighbors were in protest. Further discussion foil. owed betwe~'n th~~ (]ouncil and staff and additional questions wt~rc raised from the audien~:e, at the ~:¢~n~lusion of which the Mayor suggested a two-week continuance so that duri~g that time the neighbors would receive full information since it was obvious to him that no one had talked to the neighbors. Perhaps both staff and Mr. Ybarra had t~ go to the neighborhood and explain what the situation was al! about. Otht~rwise, he sensed that the Council would not approve the permit. MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to ~'~ontinut~ public hearing on Mr. Ybar'ra's request for a House Moving Permit for two weeks and during that time infor- mation would be supplied to all th~' nt'ighbors relative to the concerns they expressed. Councilman Overholt sc~:onded the motion. 79-558 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 15, 1979~ 1:30 P.M. Before a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour confirmed for the public exactly what would take place as a result of the proposed motion. He also requested that Mr. Gardner take the names and addresses of the women in the Chamber audience who spoke in opposition so that they could be contacted personally. Councilwoman Kaywood asked that in two weeks the matter be set as the first public hearing at 3:00 P.M. She also requested that the Zoning Enforcement Officer be directed to inspect the present house at 328 South Vine Street for existing violations. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. 107: PUBLIC HEARING - HOUSE MOVING PERMIT: Request by City of Anaheim, Com- munity Development Department, to move a single family structure from its present location at 213 East Broadway to 700 North Pauline. On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the request of the Neighborhood Development Coordinator to withdraw the application for a House Moving Permit was approved, as recommended in memorandum dated May 8, 1979 to the Chief Building Inspector. MOTION CARRIED. 121: HEARING - CONDEMNATION: To consider the finding and determination of public interest and necessity for acquiring and authorizing condemnation of certain real property located on the southeast corner of Anaheim Boulevard and Broadway Street (Lots 1 and 2 in Block "N" of the Center Tract, Bank of America N.T. and S.A.), as required for public road and utility purposes, for the widening of Anaheim Boulevard. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak to the subject condemnation; there being no response, he closed the p~b]ic hearing. Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 79R-281 for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated April 30, 1979 from the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-281: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY FOR ACQUIRING AND A~JTHORIZING THE CONDEMNATION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY. (BANK OF AMERICA N.T. & S.A.) Roll Call Vote: AY ES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-281 duly passed and adopted. 79-559 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 15, 1979, 1:30 P.M. 175: PARTICIPATION IN STUDY OF CALIFORNIA COAL PROJECT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON: Recommendation from the Public Utilities Board that the Council approve the Letter Agreement with Southern California Edison Company for participation in study of California Coal Project, appropriating $37,500 from Electric Revenue Bond funds to finance the study and authorizing the Utilities General Manager to execute said agreement, was submitted. Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 79R-282 for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated May 4, 1979 from the Public Utilities Board. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-282: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS OF A LETTER AGI~EMENT WITH SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY IN CONNECTION WITtt T}tE CALIFORNIA COAl, PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE PUBLIC UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID LETTER AGREEMENT. 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. 79R-282 duly passed and adopted. 144: DECLARING TUSTIN AVENUE A COUNTY HIGHWAY DURING CONSTRUCTION PROJECT: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 79R-283 for adoption as requested by the Orange County Board of Supervisors declaring a portion of Tustin Avenue at the Santa Aha River to be a County highway during construction of the Tustin Avenue Bridge widening project, as recommended by the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-283: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CONSENTING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF PORTION OF TUSTIN AVENUE WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF ANAHEIM AS A COUNTY HIGHWAY FOR HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PURPOSES. Vote: AY ES: N()ES: ABSENT: COUNCIL b~;MBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-283 duly passed and adopted. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On ~tion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Bay, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda: 1. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and referred to the City's self-insurance administrator: 79-560 City Hall~ Anahe.im~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May .15,. 1979, 1:30 P.M. a. Claim submitted by Jodyne Roseman, Trustee of property at 114 E. Lincoln, for damages to real property purportedly sustained as a result of demolition of adjacent building, exact date unknown. b. Claim submitted by Deborah Maxine Jones for personal injuries purportedly sustained as a result of actions of City employees on or about January 23, 1979. c. Claim submitted by Anatoly Nosow for personal injuries and damages purpor- tedly sustained as a result of accident involving City driver on or about April 2, 1979. d. Claim submitted by Mary Ellen Ward for personal injuries purportedly sustained as a result of Ms. Ward falling on La Palma Avenue near Blue Gum Street, on or about January 15, 1979. e. Claim submitted by Mrs. Helen Blanchard for personal injuries purportedly sustained as a result of incident at Anaheim Stadium, on or about April 21, 1979. f. Claim submitted by Robert L. Reagan for damages purportedly sustained as a result of accident involving a City-owned vehicle on or about April 27, 1979. g. Claim submitted by Jennie F. Soler for personal injuries purportedly sustained as a result of slip-and-fall accident at the Senior Citizens Club on or about March 10, 1979. h. Claim submitted by Marie D. Landers, Administratrix of Estate of Dorothy Lee Weiss, for damages sustained purportedly as a result of an accident involving on-duty emergency vehlcles on or about January 24, 1979. 2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: a. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission - Minutes of April 25, 1979. 105: Project Area Committee - Minutes of March 8, 1979. 156: Police Department - Monthly Report for April 1979. d 107: Planning Department, Building Division - Monthly Report for April 1979. e 105: Public lltilittes Board - Minutes of April 19,. 1979. f 105: Youth Commission - Minutes of April 25, 1979. g 105: Housing Commission - Minutes of April 4, 1979. h 105: HACMAC Committee - Minutes of April 24, 1979. 3 108: APPLICATIONS: The following applications were approved in accordance w~th the recommendations of the Chief of Police: 79-561 Ci~__H~Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 15, 1979~ 1:30 P.M. a. Public Dance Permit requested by Diamond Productions, for a public dance to be held June 8, 1979, from 9:00 P.M. to 12:00 Midnight, at Brookhurst Community Center. (Monty Lee Cradduck, applicant) b. Amusement Device I'ermit requested by Tic Toc Market, East and Sycamore Streets, for two pinball machines. (James bl. Mathew, applicant) MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 79R-284 through 79R-285, both inclusive, for adoption in accordance with the reports, recommendations and certifications furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-284: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Howard D. Anderson, et al.; Warren Development; and Jeral D. Stanley, et al.) 165: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-285: 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: BARRIER REMOVALS, AREA BOUNDED BY WEST STREET, KATELLA AVENUE, SANTA ANA FREEWAY AND ORANGEWOOD AVENUE, IN TIlE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 13-793-6325-3210. (NDL Construction) Roll (]all Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEblBERS: COUNCIL blEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ow~rholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None N O g e Mayor declared Resolut ion Nos. 79R-284 and 79R-285, duly passed and Cli',' PLANNING COMbllSS[ON ll'EblS: The following actions taken by the City Planning Commission at their meeting he-ld April 23, 1979, pertaining to the following applications, as listed on the Consent Calendar, were submitted for City Council information. 1. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 78-79-42 AND VARIANCE NO. 3091: Requested by City of Anaheim, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200, to construct a 4-unit apartment building on proposed RM-1200 zoned property located on the south side of an alley, southwest of the southwesterly cu]-de-sac terminus of Floyd Avenue, east of Beach Boulevard, with a waiver of maximum building height. The City Planning Commissiot~,pursuant to Resolution Nos. PC79-78 and PC79-79, granted Reclassification No. 78-79-42 and Variance No. 3091, and granted negative declaration status. 79-562 City Hall~ Anaheim~ ~.l~fornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 15~ 1979~ !.:30 P.M. 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1947: Requested by A. G. and Doris K. Richter, to permit the on-sale of alcoholic beverages in a proposed restaurant on CL zoned property located at 2011 East La Palma Avenue with a waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-80, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 1947, and granted negative declaration status. 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1948: Requested by Robert M. Tepper, to permit an animal hospital on CG zoned property located at 1604 North Lemon Street. The City Planning Co~ission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-81, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 1948, and granted negative declaration status. 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1953: Requested by Emkay Business Center, to permit three commercial office buildings on ML zoned property located (Portion A) north side of Orangewood Avenue, west of State College Boulevard and (Portion B) at the northeast corner of Orangewood Avenue and Santa Cruz Street with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-77, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 1953, and granted negative declaration status. 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1960: Requested by Emkay Business Center, to permit a sports and entertainment complex with dancing and the on-sale of alcoholic beverages on ML zoned property located at the northeast corner of Orangewood Avenue and Santa Cruz Street. rfhe City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-76, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 1960, and granted negative declaration status. 6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1967: Requested by Business Properties Partnership No. 29, to permit a dr~ve-througb restaurant on CG zoned property located at the northeast corner of Chapman Avenue and Harbor Boulevard. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-82, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 1967, and granted negative declaration status. 7. VARIANCE NO. 3086: Reqoested by Ping C. Wu and Norma S. Wu, to construct a tenni~ court on RS-HS-43,000(SC) zoned property located at 567 Peralta Hills Dr~ve with a waiver of minimum side-yard setback. The City Plannin~ Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-83~ granted Variance No. 3086, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination. 8. VARIANCE NO. 3089: Requested by Carl and Margaret Karcher, to construct a free-standing sign on C-R zoned property located at 1168 West Katella Boulevard with a waiver of maximum sign height. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-84, granted Variance No. 3089, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination. 79-563 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May .15, 1979~ 1:30 P.M. 9. VARIANCE NO. 2349 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1408 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Requested by David S. Collins, for an extension of time to Variance No. 2349 and Conditional Use Permit No. 1408, to permit the sale of handcrafted art objects and related merchandise with food sales, on ML zoned property (Portion A) located at 1514 West Broadway, and (Portion B) located at the southwest corner of Broadway, Street and Adams Street. The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Variance No. 2349, to expire April 17, 1981, and Conditional Use Permit No. 1408, to expire May 28, 1981. 10. VARIANCE NO. 2694 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Requested by Howard Farrand, for an extension of time to Variance No. 2694, to permit the outdoor storage of sh~ipping containers on ML zoned property located at 518-526 South Rose Street, with waivers of mi~imum front setback and required enclosure of outdoor uses. The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to expire April 28 1981. , il. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 78-79-]3 - REQUEST TO AMEND RESOLUTION NO. PC79-48 NUNC PRO TUNC: Requested by the C~ty Planning Commission, to amend Resolution No. PC79-48, nunc pro tune, to correct a clerical error. The City Planning Conunission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-75, amended Resolution No. PC79-48, nunc pro tunc, in relation to Reclassification No. 78-79-33. No action was taken on the fore,going items, thus the actions of the City Planning Commission became final. 142: ORDINANCE NO. 4004: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4004 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4004: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3974, NUNC PRO TUNC RELATINC TO DEPARTMENTAL ORGANIZATION. Rol! Cal.] Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overho]t, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bay ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4004 duly passed and adopted. ORDIN~dqCE NO. 4005 THROUt;H ORDINANCE NO. 4007: Councilman Overholt offered Ordinance No. 4005 through Ordinance No. 4007, both inclusive for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ' 79-564 ~City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May !5, 1979~ 1:30 P.M. 149: ORDINANCE NO. 4005: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 14, CHAPTER 14.32 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING SECTION 14.32.145 RELATING TO TWO-HOUR PARKING RESTRICTIONS. (No Parking during school ho~t~ Lomita Street, both sides, from La Palma Avenue to Claredge Drive, and Lomita Place, both sides, from its easterly terminus to Lomita Street.) 173: ORDINANCE NO. 4006: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 4, CHAPTER 4.72, SECTIONS 4.72.010 AND 4.72.020 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO TAXICABS. 149: ORDINANCE NO. 4007: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 14, CHAPTER 14.32, SECTIONS 14.32.320 AND 14.32.330 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO CITATIONS FOR VIOLATION OF TITLE AND IMPOUNDING UNLAWFULLY PARKED VEHICLES RESPECTIVELY. Roli Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bay ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ~Ihe Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4005 through 4007, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. 142/156: ORDINANCE NO. 4008 - NEWSRACKS: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4008 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 4008: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING CHAPTER 4.82 OF TITLE 4 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADDING NEW CHAPTER 4.82 TO TITLE 4 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO NEWSRACKS ON PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. Councilman Roth explained for purposes of clarification that on Page 3 of the proposed ordinance, second to last paragraph it stated, "No newsrack shall .~eed 5 feet in height, ~0 inches in width, and 2 feet in thickness." He d~scussed that aspect at great length with staff and the City Attorney. It had to do with Sunday editions of newspapers which were voluminous, especially The Register and Los ~geles Times. He did not want those papers to feel they were trying to curtail the amount of newspapers and the 5-foot limitation wo~!d permit stacking of up to three or four racks to accommodate the Sunday edition. He was being very cautious so that they would stay within the Glendale ordinance, while at the same time accommodating the local daily press. He felt the proposed ordinance was an excellent one and commended the City Attorney's Office, particularly Bob Franks, and staff who worked with him. The thrust of the ordinance was not against pornography, but being able to walk along sidewalks and exiting from a vehicle safely and without being obstructed, for example, in front of the Broadway-Anaheim Boulevard Post Office. He was pleased that the Supreme Court had upheld the Glendale ordinance in that regard. 79-565 Ci~. Hall, Anaheim, (:alitornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 15, 1979, 1:30 P.M. Deputy City Attorney Bob Franks then clarified some aspects of the Ordinance for Councilwoman Kaywood, at the conclusion of which Councilwoman Kaywood noted on Page 10 of the ordinance under Hold Harmless, seventh line, she preferred that "Councilmen and employees" be changed to Council Members. Councilman Overholt asked that on Page 2a, (1) the word "proposed" be inserted at the beginning of the sentence after, "the". The other question he had dealt with the May 8, 1979 memorandum from Mr. Franks indicating that an ordinance might be drafted narrowly enough, "to prohibit the depiction of nudity which has sexual arousal, gratification, or affront as its purpose or effect." He wanted to know why they did not do that. Mr. l;ranks explained that was dictum in the Carl case, but it was not the holding in the case. The St~cond District Court of Appeals struck the Los Angeles ordinance dow~ because of its prohibition with respect to nudity and certain sexual explicit material. The judge said if that were done, it might pass constitutional muster, but that was not holding in the case. Councilman Overholt stated he raised the question because the new ordinance contained nothing that would prevent that type of display. Mayor Seymour stated that was the point he wanted to make. He did not want those members of the public who found a great deal of disgust with sexual exploitation through newsracks to get the idea that the Council was preventing that from happening, but that the amendment was tightening the ordinance as much as possible without taking the risk that it would be thrown out of court on constitutional grounds, l~e problem was in the courts and the public should be aware of that fact. Councilman Overbolt stated he thought the Attorney's memorandum was encouraging that an ordinance could be drafted to include that language. }lr. Franks explained there was a Penal Code and statute prohibiting any newsrack witl~in 500 met~_.rs of a school or playground from displaying certain sexual , >.~1 i,.5t material uaming ~ix specific sexual acts that were prohibited. If they ~;an~c:d to try to draft some language which would expand on that language, he would be glad to do so. Cou,u, i]man Roth ruff, fred to Page 5, paragraph h of the proposed ordinance i~d£cating that, "oo more than eight newsracks shall be located on any public right-of-way within a ,'~pace of 200 feet in any direction within the same block of the same street; provided, however, that no more than 16 newsracks shall be allowed on any one block." That was the premise Glendale used which was suc(:essful. Mr. ~ranks pointed out one of the reasons the Glendale ordinance was upheld was that in the language of the court, there was a statement which said that the First Amendmeut did not require the community to tolerate a public nuisance regarding the blocking of sidewalks with newsracks. 79-566 City Ha_l_l~__An.a.h¢~im, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 15~ 1979, 1:30 P.M. ORDINANCE NO. 4009 AND 4010: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4009 and 4010 for first reading. 149: ORDINANCE NO. 4009: AN ORDINANCE OF TIlE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING SECTIONS 14.32.400, 14.32.410 ~ND i4.32.420 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE AND Ai~NDING TITLE 14, CHAPTER 14.32 BY ADDING THERETO NEW SECTION 14.32.500 RELATING TO PARKING RESTRICTIONS TO FACILITATE STREET SWEEPING. 166: ORDINANCE NO. 4010: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 4, CHAPTER 4.04, BY ADDING THERETO SECTION 4.04.135 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SERVICE STATION SIGNS. ~56: BLOCKAGE O1: DRIVEWAYS BY VEHICLES IN GAS LINES: Councilman Overholt inquired as to action taken on the complaint of Mrs. Daniels, Fitzgerald's Restaurant, Katella and State College Boulevard, relative to gas lines blocking her driveway. As well, there were many examples of that same problem where gas lines were effectively closing off access to businesses. Mayor Seymour stated he had spoken to the Chief of Police yesterday regarding the problem, and he was working on it. 108: COST OF MONITORING BINGO: Councilman Overholt stated he appreciated receiving a copy of the City Manager's report indicating that the estimated cost of monitoring Bingo in the City was $114,687 per year, and the City's taxpayers were paying that cost. In line with discussions during the Bingo hearings, it seemed there might be a better way of handling that situation. He only made mention of the matter now but would discuss it again later. 114: SOUND BARRIERS - ROUTE 57 FREEWAY: Councilwoman Kaywood referred to the update they received relative to the sound barriers on the Route 57 Freeway. She was happy to report that the bid had been awarded and construction was scheduled to start May 2i, 1979 along with some minor drainage work. The wall would be installed f~r~t on the east side and then concluded on the west side. .4: LIAISON COMMITTE!£ MEETING WITH HACMAC AND PLANNING COMMISSION: Councilwoman ~'a~wood stated that she and Mayor Seymour had attended the subject meeting held ~rsday, May ~0, 1979 at 7:30 A.M. as liaison Council Members. She then reported the many items of discussion that took place at the meeting. CO:-~ENTS ON FIRST GOUNCIL MEETING AS A COUNCIL MEMBER: Councilman Bay stated that his first meeting was a fairly good "baptism under fire." It was fas- cinating and interesting and there was an entirely different view sitting as a Council Member~ He also commented that relative to the Route 57 Freeway sound barriers, he wrote the first petitions for that and it was more than four years ago when they gathered 1200 signatures asking for the Council's help. The wheels of justice moved very slowly. 79-567 City__H_~j~z Anaheim, Cjalifo. rn__ia -~_..CO. UNC.I_L MINUTES - May 15, 1979, 1:30 P.M. 125: LIAISON COMMITTEE MEETING - DATA PROCESSING DEPARTMENT: Mayor Seymour reported on the liaison committee meeting which he and Councilman Overholt attended, along with the City blanager and the Data Processing Director, Tug Tamaru, wherein they discussed generally the conditions in the Data Processing Department. Council would recall that they received recommendations from the Blue Ribbon Committee to engage the services of a consultant. The bottom- line of the meeting was to ask the City Manager to draft recommendations for the Council's consideration to engage a consultant to evaluate the future of Data Processing in two ways: (1) the continuation and expansion of the MI)S effort and evaluating that from a financial analysis standpoint, meaning in- creased costs of personnel, equipment, and hardware, as well as software programs. (2) the other alternative financial analysis to be submitted and a recommendation from the City Managcr would be to eliminate the MI)S contract at the point where they reached capacity on existing hardware, ~ncluding personnel costs mhd hard- ware costs. RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: Councilman Roth moved to recess into Executive Session. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (7:10 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (7:55 P.M.) 112: LOUIS J. COOPER VS. CITY OF ANAHEIM: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Attorney and Kinkle, Rodiger and Spriggs were authorized to settle the case of Louis J. Cooper vs. City of Anaheim (Superior Court Case No. 27-09-98) for an amount not to exceed $5,000. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT: Counci]woman Kaywood moved to adjourn, Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Adjourned: 7:55 P.M. ~INDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CIH~;RK