Loading...
1989/05/09City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 9, 1989, 1:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Daly, Ehrle, Pickler, Kaywood and Hunter ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: Bob Simpson CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl OPERATIONS DIVISION CHIEF: Tim Riley ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Annika Santalahti TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was posted at 2:30 p.m. on May 5, 1989 at the Civic Center kiosk, containing all items as shown herein. Mayor Hunter called the meeting to order at 12:00 noon. REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION; City Attorney Jack White requested a Closed Session to consider the following items: a. To confer with its attorney regarding pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a), to wit: Golden West Baseball Co. vs. City of Anaheim, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 40-92-46; City of Anaheim vs. Anaheim Hotel Partnership, O.C.S.C.C. No. 46-96-59. b. To discuss labor relations matters - Government Code Section 54957.6. c. To discuss personnel matters - Government Code Section 54957. d. To confer with its Attorney regarding potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(1). e. To consider such other matters as are orally announced by the City Attorney, City Manager or City Council prior to such recess unless the motion to recess indicates any of the matters will not be considered in Closed Session. AFTER RECESS; The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present, and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. (1:47 p.m.) INVOCATION; Dr. Bryan Crow, Garden Church of Anaheim Hills, gave the invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Tom Daly led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 119: PRESENTATION - INTRODUCTION OF NEW CITY EMPLOYEES: City Clerk Leonora Sohl stated that there are a number of employees participating in the new 446 City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES - May 9, 1989, 1:30 P.M. orientation program who are present in the Chamber audience. New employees will be introduced and after their names are announced, will be asked to stand and remain standing until all have been introduced. At the conclusion of announcing the names of the new employees, they were welcomed by the City Council. 119: PRESENTATION - EMPLOYEE DAY IV - MAY 10, 1989; Dave Morgan, Human Resources Director, publicly invited the Council to attend Employee Day IV tomorrow, May 10, 1989 from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. at Anaheim Stadium. It is an annual event to recognize all employees and also to present information on the unique services and programs offered employees and the community that make Anaheim special. "T" shirts, penants and buttons were also presented to the Council. 119: PRESENTATION - CERTIFICATES OF ACHIEVEMENT - EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT PROGRAM: The following employees were presented with Certificates of Achievement issued by the Employee Involvement Program Board of Directors along with monetary awards of $30 to $1,230: LeNorah Ertel, Secretary; Paul Swans, Construction Inspector; Carole Cain, Data Entry Operator; Terri Doyle, Office Specialist; Robert Wilson, Water Service Crew Supervisor ($1,230); Lucinda Ferguson, Accounting Technician; Jeanne Bancroft, Senior Office Specialist; Martine Micozzi, Transportation Systems Specialist and Royce Inglis, Park Maintenance Worker II. The suggestions submitted will either save City costs, improve service to the public, or prevent possible hazards. Mayor Hunter and Council Members congratulated each employee who was present for their contributions. 119; PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Hunter and authorized by the City Council: Poppy Days in Anaheim, May 1989, The Day of the Teacher in Anaheim, May 10, 1989, Transportation Week in Anaheim, May 14 20, 1989, Police Week in Anaheim, May 15 - 19, 1989. Pat Schaffner, Debbie Randels and daughter Jessica Randels accepted the Poppy Days proclamation; Paul Miller accepted the Day of the Teacher proclamation; Frank Rose accepted the Transportation Week proclamation and Lt. Steve Brace accepted the Police Week proclamation. 119~ DECLARATION OF CONGRATULATIONS; A Declaration of Congratulations was unanimously adopted by the City Council congratulating Mr. John L. Curci, on receiving the 1989 Orange County Spirit Award for his dedication to the many programs sponsored by the American Red Cross and commending him for his outstanding achievements for Orange County. 447 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 9, 1989, 1:30 P.M. 119: DECLARATION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A Declaration of Congratulations was unanimously adopted by the City Council congratulating Michael M. Schreter, Executive Vice President of the California Angels on being inducted as a member into the distinguished Alumni Honor Society of the University of Bridgeport (Connecticut). MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the adjourned regular meeting of April 11, 1989 (held April 18, 1989) and the regular meeting held April 11, 1989. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $6,662,117.88, in accordance with the 1988-89 Budget, were approved. WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTIONS: The titles of the following resolutions on the Consent Calendar were read by the City Manager. (Resolution Nos. 89R-169 through 89R-175, both inclusive, for adoption) Councilman Pickler moved to waive the reading in full of the resolutions. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Pickler, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the following items were approved in accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar. Councilman Pickler offered Resolution Nos. 89R-169 through 89R-175, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. Al. 118: Receiving and filing minutes of the Senior Citizens Commission meeting held March 9, 1989. 105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Community Services Board meeting held March 9, 1989. 105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commission meeting held March 29, 1989. 105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Golf Course Advisory Commission meeting held March 30, 1989. 107: Receiving and filing the Building Division Statistical Report for the month ending March 31, 1989. 105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Public Utilities Board meeting held April 6, 1989. A2. 167: Awarding the contract to the lowest and best responsible bidder, Signal Maintenance, Inc., in the amount of $125,940, for Weir Canyon Road and La Palma Avenue Traffic Signal and Interconnect Installation. A3. 170/123: Approving the Final Map of Tract No. 12701, subject to the approval of two covenants: parking restrictions to facilitate street 448 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES May 9, 1989, 1:30 P.M. sweeping, and establishment of a responsible entity for maintenance of slopes, parkways and medians associated with the property; and approving the Subdivision Agreement with the Presley Companies for Tract No. 12701. Said tract is located on the north side of Canyon Rim Road, the west side of Serrano Avenue and the east and west sides of The Highlands. A4. 170/123: Approving the Final Map of Tract No. 12702, subject to approval of Tract No. 12701; and approving a Subdivision Agreement with the Presley Companies for Tract No. 12702. Said tract is located on the westerly side of Serrano Avenue, the southerly side of Sunset Ridge Road and the northeasterly side and northwesterly side of The Highlands. A5. 170: Approving the Final Map of Tract No. 12990, said tract being located south of Santa Ana Canyon Road and east of Weir Canyon Road. The developer is Woodcrest Development and engineering is provided by Hunsaker and Associates. The tentative map was filed in conjunction with Sycamore Canyon Specific Plan No. 88-1. A6. 170/123: Approving the Final Map of Tract No. 12994 (for condominium purposes) and the Subdivision Agreement with Wallace Ranch 450 Associates, Ltd., said tract being located at the southwesterly corner of the intersection of Serrano Avenue and Canyon Creek Road. The developer is Woodcrest Development and engineering is provided by Hunsaker and Associates. The tentative map was filed in conjunction with Sycamore Canyon Specific Plan No. 88-1. A7. 170/123: Approving the Final Map of Tract No. 13155 and the Subdivision Agreement with Woodcrest Development, said tract being located at the southerly boundary of the Sycamore Canyon development. The developer is Woodcrest Development and engineering is provided by Hunsaker and Associates. The tentative map was filed in conjunction with Sycamore Canyon Specific Plan No. 88-1. AS. 144/152/150/139: RESOLUTION NO, 89R-169; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AND FILE A BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES CLAIM APPLICATION FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1989-90 WITH THE ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PURSUANT TO PUBLIC UTILITY CODE SECTION 99233.3. Ag. 158; RESOLUTION NO, 89R-170; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS, EASEMENTS AND/OR FACILITIES HERETOFORE IRREVOCABLY OFFERED FOR DEDICATION. (Peridot Place; domestic water system and appurtenances, easement for equestrian trail purposes, Coral Circle, Twin Peak Circle and Sapphire Lane as an easement for water and public utility purposes, and a 6.00 foot wide public utility easement - Tract No. 10973) Al0 176: RESOLUTION NO. 89R-171: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS, HIGHWAYS AND SERVICE EASEMENTS. (88-11A) (Setting a date for public hearing to consider abandoning that certain public utility easement located north of 449 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES May 9, 1989, 1:30 P.M. the terminus of Courson Drive - 805 South Courson Drive - suggested date is June 13, 1989, at 3:00 p.m.) Ail. 106/127: Appropriating from Council's Contingency Fund, the amount of $21,396 to Program 01-133-5105 to cover the shortfall from the amount budgeted for the November 1988 election. Al2. 153; RESOLUTION NO, 89R-172: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM WHICH ESTABLISHES RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR CLASSES ASSIGNED TO THE GENERAL UNIT REPRESENTED BY THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION. (To create the position of Neighborhood Programs Coordinator, effective April 28, 1989) Al3. 153; RESOLUTION NO, 89R-173; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING A LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, GENERAL UNIT. (To amend Article 17, Salary Relationships, and Appendix "A" Wages of the Memorandum of Understanding dated December 9, 1987) Al4. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 89R-174: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN REAL PROPERTIES OR INTERESTS THEREIN. Al5. 117/152: Approving the revised Deferred Compensation Plan for City Employees, and authorizing the City Treasurer as Plan Administrator to execute all participation agreements on behalf of said employees and all other eligible officials and officers, except that any agreement for the City Treasurer shall be executed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk. Al6. 173/144: RESOLUTION NO. 89R-175; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM URGING THE AIRPORT SITE COALITION TO STUDY AIRPORT SITES LOCATED WITHIN ORANGE COUNTY. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Daly, Ehrle, Pickler, Kaywood and Hunter None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 89R-169 through 89r-175, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. End of Consent Calendar. 129/000; HEARING - INCREASING PARAMEDIC FEES; To consider increasing paramedic fees to be charged by the Fire Department: $36 per year per residence, business or industry for the voluntary subscription fee; $150 per call for basic life support (if voluntary subscription fee not paid); and $250 per call for advanced life support (if voluntary subscription fee not paid). Submitted was extensive report dated April 19, 1989 from Fire Chief Jeff Bowman, recommending adoption of the proposed resolution, increasing the 450 City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES May 9, 1989, 1:30 P.M. voluntary paramedic subscription fee and the paramedic fees for service effective 3uly 1, 1989. Tim Riley, Operations Division Chief/Fire Department. He encouraged the Council's support of the proposed increase in the subject. He then gave a brief history of Anaheim's paramedic response system in the City from its inception to the present. Today the Fire Department responds to over 20,000 calls for emergency service annually. Approval of the fee increases will bring the Department closer to the goal of providing a paramedic engine company in every one of the City's ten stations. He then answered questions posed by Council Members during which he explained the new billing cycle going from a one-time annual payment of $36 to six bi-monthly payments ($6.00 each) which will lessen the impact of subscribers and increase the number of people who subscribe, the program already established to assist those on Housing Assistance, and the methods to be used to inform citizens of the program and the changes. WAIVER OF READING RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was read by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 89R-176) Councilman Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Hunter offered Resolution No. 89R-176 for adoption, amending Resolution No. 85R-196 pertaining to paramedic fees to be charged by the Fire Department of the City of Anaheim. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 89R-176; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 85R-196 PERTAINING TO PARAMEDIC FEES TO BE CHARGED BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Daly, Ehrle, Pickler, Kaywood and Hunter None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 89R-176 duly passed and adopted. 105; RECOMMENDATION APPOINTMENT OF YOUTH COMMISSIONER; Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the recommendation of the Youth Commission declaring John Moselina's term expired and appointing Manuel Ontiveros Youth Commissioner. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. B1. 179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO, 2871 - EXTENSION OF TIME: REQUESTED BY: IDAJO G. HEPFER, CORNELIA CONNELLY SCHOOL, 2323 W. Broadway, Anaheim, CA 92804 LOCATION: 2323 West Broadway Petitioner requests an extension of time (retroactive to February 17, 1989) to expire on February 17, 1990. Conditional Use Permit No. 2871 is for the expansion of a private educational institution on RS-A-43,000 zoned property. 451 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 9, ~989, 1;30 P.M. Councilman Hunter moved to approve the requested extension of time to expire February 17, 1990, as recommended in staff report from the Planning Department dated April 11, 1989. Councilman Daly seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 179; ORDINANCE NO, 5028 - ADOPTION; Amending Title 18 to rezone property under Reclassification No. 88-89-46 at 1944 E Redwood Avenue from the RS-7200 zone to the CO zone. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCE; The title of the following ordinance was read by the City Clerk. (Ordinance No. 5028) Councilman Daly moved to waive the reading in full of the ordinance. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Daly offered Ordinance No. 5028 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO, 5028: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Daly, Ehrle, Pickler, Kaywood and Hunter None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 5028 duly passed and adopted. 179: REOUEST FOR REHEARING VARIANCE NO, 3812 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Request by Alimad Jtlanchi and Parvaneh Jilanchi, 2037 Port Bristol, Newport Beach, CA 92660, for a rehearing on Variance No. 3812. The property is located at 716 N. East Street. The request was to allow certain waivers in order to construct a 3-unit condominium complex. The Planning Commission approved Variance No. 3812 under Resolution No. PC89-40 and also approved a request for Reclassification. The City Council at public hearing held April 11, 1989, approved the Reclassification to the RM-3000 zone but denied the Variance and granted an EIR Negative Declaration status on the project. Councilman Daly. He asked the grounds for a rehearing noting that the Council received only a brief letter dated May 1, 1989. City Attorney White. The Code on rehearings provides that Council's decision is based on the affidavit presented. The grounds stated in the affidavit state, "That there was relevant evidence which, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced by the petitioner, or which was improperly excluded by the City Council, at the hearing." The letter received from the petitioner in support of a rehearing stated," . based on the recent changes evolving from Council/Commission joint work-shop which in my belief could help change the outcome of the rehearing in my advantage." One 452 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES May 9, 1989, 1:30 P.M. of the other alternatives if the rehearing request is denied, would be for the applicant to reapply based upon the new standard when those become effective. It is up to the Council. Councilman Ehrle. He voted against the project originally but is willing to grant a rehearing if the applicant feels he has more information and especially because of the changes discussed in Joint Workshop with the Planning Commission. Councilwoman Kaywood. She is speaking against the request. The hearing held before the Council was a very thorough one. The applicant is overbuilding on the property with five waivers requested. MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to approve the request for a rehearing on Variance No. 3812. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. Council Members Daly and Kaywood voted no. MOTION CARRIED. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: No items of public interest were addressed. 144/114: 20-YEAR M~kSTER PI~ OF TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS: Councilman Pickler reported that at the May 8, 1989 Orange County Transportation Commission (OCTC) meeting, the Commission approved the 20-Year Master Plan of Transportation Improvements which was presented to the Council on April 25, 1989 (see minutes that date). Staff feels it will be a positive plan for the City of Anaheim. The Council will be receiving additional information to analyze for subsequent action. RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed until the time of public hearings. (2:35 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (3:04 p.m.) 130; PUBLIC HEARING - EMPIRE CABLE TELEVISION, INC., ~ND NEGATIVE DECI2%RATION; To consider granting a non-exclusive cable television franchise and installation of an underground television system with microwave antenna to Empire Cable Television, to be located in the East Anaheim Hills area, namely The Summit, The Highlands and Sycamore Canyon developments. At the meeting of April 11, 1989, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 89R-115 declaring its intention to grant a non-exclusive franchise for cable television to Empire Cable Television, to be located generally in the area of Weir Canyon Road in the Santa Ana Canyon, south of the Riverside Freeway. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENT MET BY: Published in the Anaheim Bulletin April 26, 1989. City Attorney White. The City has received certain documents relating to the subject that have been placed before the Council in connection with today's hearing and they are part of the record of the hearing. 453 City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES - May 9, 1989, 1;30 P.M. He then read the following exhibits into the record so that those in the audience interested in the application will know of the documentation Council has received in the order in which they have been listed as exhibits (all documents made a part of the record): Exhibit No. 1; Application for Cable Television Franchise in the City of Anaheim, California - April 26, 1989 - submitted by Empire Cable Television, Inc. Exhibit 2; Staff report to the City Manager/City Council dated May 1, 1989 from the Intergovernmental Relations Officer, Kristtne Thalman, which included attachments Exhibits A through E. Exhibit 3: 2-page letter dated May 19, 1989 to the Mayor and City Council from Farano & Kieviet, attorneys Re: Empire Cable Television Franchise with two attachments Briefing Paper and Economic Feasibility of Anaheim overbuild, both dated May 3, 1989. Exhibit 4: 3-page letter dated May 2, 1989 to the Anaheim City Attorney, Jack White, from Farano & Kieviet - Re: Proposed Franchise for Empire Cable Television, Inc. Exhibit 5: 15-page letter dated April 4, 1989 to the Anaheim City Attorney from Wiley, Rein & Fielding, Washington D.C. Re: Empire Cable Television, Inc. Exhibit 6: 5-page letter dated May 3, 1989 from George Ferrone, Finance Director, City of Anaheim, to Floyd Farano, Farano & Kieviet - subject: Empire Cable Television Proposal. Exhibit 7: City of Anaheim Negative Declaration and Initial Study of Environmental Impact dated April 14, 1989. Exhibit 8: Memorandum Dated May 8, 1989 from George Ferrone, Finance Director to Mac Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney - subject: Empire Cable Television Proposal together with 5 1-page attachments. Exhibit 9; 5-page letter dated May 8, 1989 from Reins & Price, Sacramento, California, to the Anaheim City Attorney - Re: Empire Cable Television, Inc. Franchise Application. Exhibit 10; 1-page letter dated March 24, 1989 from Farano & Kieviet, to Kristine Thalman and Mac Slaughter - Re: Empire Cable Franchise with three attached memoranda. Exhibit 11: 9-page letter dated May 8, 1989 from Farano & Kieviet (received today, May 9, 1989) to Kristine Thalman, Intergovernmental Relations Officer - Re: Empire Cable Franchise. 454 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 9, 1989, 1:30 P.M. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT: In addition Mr. White stated there may be additional exhibits submitted by those who wish to testify on the matter. Those will be marked and introduced in evidence at that time. Floyd Farano, Attorney, Farano & Kieviet, 100 So. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, representing Empire Cable Television. The proposal before the Council is one by Empire to serve the Presley, Woodcrest and Baldwin Ranches in Anaheim Hills. Empire Cable TV is owned by a joint venture consisting of FKC Partners and Shapell Industries. He then gave the company background, who they serve at the present time and the applications pending. (See background and ownership information Page 1 of application). The point from which their signal eminates is in the City of Yorba Linda which he pointed to from the posted map. The signal will be beamed by microwave across the canyon to a proposed site (which he also pointed to). At build-out of the three Ranches, they will serve between 3,000 and 5,000 homes to be built within 5 to 10 years. Mr. Farano then briefed the information contained in attachment to his letter dated May 5, 1989 entitled - Briefing Paper prepared for the Anaheim City Council by Empire Cable TV, Inc. which answered the questions on what Empire Cable is proposing to do, how Empire's system differs from that of Multivision (ML Media - the City's current Franchisee) and what that means for Anaheim Gable subscribers, customer service issues, basic cable costs, why Empire does not want to provide service to the entire City, trench access, overbuilds and comments as to why Anaheim should grant Empire a Cable Television Franchise. (An additional attachment to the letter of May 5, 1989 is a document entitled - Economic Feasibility of an Anaheim overbuild. All exhibits and additional documents were made a part of the record and are on file in the City Clerk's Office). During this portion of the presentation, Mr. Farano submitted photographs which were received as Exhibit 12 showing both an Empire Cable and a Multivision underground subscriber installation. He also showed the type of connector used. At this point departing from his presentation, Mr. Farano stated one of the most "excruciating" problems they had to deal with with City staff was the interconnect problem. As an official public offer, Empire will make Yorba Linda (Empire) TV available to ML beginning as soon as possible in the event the application is granted. It is not being overly generous because it is required in the Franchise Agreement if approved and is presently required in the ML Franchise that the Cable TV companies will pursue contact with Cable TV companies in surrounding communities in an attempt to interlock those communities and bring their TV into Empire and Empire into theirs. Further, they will make all programming they do in and for the City of Anaheim available through ML or any other cable company that 455 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES May 9, 1989, 1:30 P.M. serves the City. Service will be available as homes are complete. All equipment and material used by Empire will equal or exceed the highest industry standards. Mr. Farano then continued his presentation regarding problems Empire wishes to address as outlined in the staff report (see staff report dated May 1, 1989 from the Intergovernmental Relations Officer - Exhibit 2). His remarks are either further explanations, clarifications or disagreements. (Also see letter dated May 8, 1989 from Mr. Farano to Kristtne Thalman, IGR - Exhibit 11 - answering each of the concerns addressed in the May 1, 1989 staff report numbered 1 through 20). Relative to public access, Empire has never had any deal with any of the three Ranches for an advantage over anybody else. Relative to the studio, Empire is obligating itself to offer a studio to the residents of Anaheim in the same manner in which the franchise makes it obligatory on ML. Relative to the free use of production facilities, the user is going to get exactly the same thing with Empire as with ML. Relative to furnishing a microwave link to City Hall for live telecasting, Empire has stated in their agreement that they will provide that link if ML also does the same. Relative to the major issue of interconnect, if ML will interconnect with Empire, then all the other paragraphs and pages they went through in order to provide some kind of alternative solution are moot because they would not apply. The contract in Section 10 states that "in the event ML will not agree to interconnect with them, Empire will provide, without charge, cameras and equipment - whatever is necessary for the City of Anaheim to prepare the programs they desire." Empire has not offered staff assistance. Staff time should be offset against the franchise fee. Empire is stating they will try every possible way to effect an interconnect. If there is no interconnect effected, it will not be Empire's refusal. Relative to the overbuild situation, staff report of May 1, 1989 includes a paper utilized in litigation in connection with Group W vs. the City and County of Santa Cruz. (See Page 7 and 8 of Exhibit "C" attachment to the staff report subparagraph 5, page 7, "Generally those situations where competition has been sustained for any period of time involved very small markets with extremely high penetration, or areas where one of the cable television operators served a larger adjacent area. .") The map on the wall shows high penetration adjacent to an existing market. Empire is going to expand their existing 456 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 9, 1989, 1:30 P,M. system rather than adding a new one. The situation as described on the map is one of the exceptions. Relative to a level playing field, it is necessary to look at a comparison of ML and Empire. Empire has been in business for 11 years in Yorba Linda. ML has only been in the media TV business not quite 3 years. He then submitted a document the City Attorney designated be marked Exhibit 13 entitled, ML Media Partnership LP, which represented excerpted portions of a prospectus of the partnership. Mr. Farano then briefed the portions that were outlined in red on the first page, page 6, 7, 41 and 42. Empire has proven by its history that it is here for the long stay. ML is not here for the long stay. It is also necessary to look at contractual obligations rather than the extent to which one company is offering "freebies" or additional services over and above those contractually required. They are not opposed to doing things and contributing services to the City; however, they do not think extra-contractual obligations should be the measuring stick solely for determining a level playing field. Mr. Farano concluded that the contractual obligations of ML and Empire are almost identical. Empire is assuming greater obligations than ML did at a similar level of growth; Council should look upon the two contracts as being virtually identical. Mr. Farano then introduced Mr. John Bala who has 10 years of experience in the media field especially the financial aspects. He will give a presentation on the reconciliation of the two financial feasibility studies. John Bala, 415 1/2 Golden Rod, Corona Del Mar, Consultant for Empire Cable. He first gave his background emphasizing that he has had an opportunity to see many such franchise agreements. Empire has gone through a great effort to come up with an agreement that is fair to all parties. Overbuild is an issue of concern to cable operators; however, there are more second franchise awards by cities today than in the past. The best way to assure cable operators will be more responsive to community needs is to nurture and promote competition. Three key questions need to be asked - is a Citywide overbuild economically viable. If so, the case could be made that Empire should be applying for a Citywide franchise. Secondly, is a limited overbuild such as the kind Empire is proposing economically viable. Thirdly, would a limited overbuild by Empire in the Ranches materially jeopardize ML's ability to serve the rest of Anaheim. With regard to the first question, a Cttywide overbuild in Anaheim given today's construction costs and technology is not viable. It is unreasonable to expect Empire or any other cable company to come in and overbuild the City and it is not possible in today's costs. It is physically possible but economically not viable. That is also the conclusion of ML's study. 457 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES May 9, 1989, 1:30 P.M. Relative to whether a limited overbuild confined to the Ranches is economically viable, the Kane Reis report dated May 2, 1989 (made a part of the record) as well as other materials presented cites numerous studies concluding that overbuild can rarely be sustained and that consumers are likely to be worse off after the overbuild ends than before it was approved (see Kane Reece report Economic Impact of a Second CATV Operator Overbuilding in Anaheim, California or parts there of - May 2, 1989). What is not made clear, all the studies deal primarily with Citywide overbuilds. What the Kane Reis report does not mention that many of these same studies also conclude there are conditions under which overbuilds do work. He quoted one of the Kane Reis' studies to support his statement. Overbuild is viable and they are willing to put their money where their mouth is. The final question of whether an overbuild in the Ranches would jeopardize Multivision's ability to provide for the needs of its subscribers in the west portion of the City, he feels the answer is on the last page of the Kane Reis report (page 32) which has a proforma financial statement on it. He briefed the Council regarding the figures on that page concluding that Multivision is still projected to generate enough cash to pay for all projected capital expenditures of $25 million and yet will have another $43 million left over after 10 years to pay back to their limited partnership investors. Those are Multivision's numbers. In closing, Mr. Bala stated by granting Empire a franchise, the City has an opportunity to bring to Anaheim a cable operator that has long ties with Orange County, a good standing service record and one of the lowest cable rates in the County. Economic concerns raised by Multivision and others are unfounded. If the City acts in Empire's favor, it would have a long lasting and favorable impact on cable TV service in Anaheim. PUBLIC DISCUSSION- IN FAVOR: None. PUBLIC DISCUSSION- IN OPPOSITION: John Merritt, Multtvision ML Media Cable TV. ML has provided service in Anaheim and continues to provide it. Their method of cabling is identical to what the Council has seen today. Their signal is delivered by microwave. Located 1/2 mile from the proposed developments, their cable reaches within 70 feet of the construction trailer on one of the sites. That cable could be available and installed tomorrow. Mr. Merritt then addressed some of the points raised by the applicant, a summary of which follows: ML provides 37 channels of basic service, the same the applicant has proposed. If the 458 City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES - May 9, 1989, 1:30 P.M. demand were there, ML could increase the capacity to 60 to 80 channels within a few weeks. ML provides billing, service, installation and technical repair until 9 p.m. daily. Empire has proposed to bring Anaheim progr-mmtng to Yorba Linda. He (Merritt) cannot figure out how that would be done. Relative to interconnect, it appears that the applicant's understanding is equivalent to ML Media providing resources for cable, a studio, many local programs and giving them to the applicant. That is not the proper definition of interconnect. ML has not seen any programs in the City of Yorba Linda or in the south county where Empire also operates. ML provides unlimited usage of local programming facilities at zero cost. Their obligation is to serve all residents on an equal basis. The applicant proposes to commit no staff time whatever - no personnel - no people behind the cameras. ML does not have to hide behind provisions of Federal Law. They are providing those services because they feel it is the right thing to do. Failure to provide interconnect will not be because of ML's refusal to do so it will be because of the failure of Yorba Linda cable to commit any resources toward local programming such as Anaheim has seen for the past two years. Relative to ML's financial structure, the company was originally formed by Merrill Lynch. As a limited partnership, they looked at the Storer properties which they felt had a good opportunity for improvement. Although the partnership can roll over in 5 to 8 years, it does not require that the system be sold. He then highlighted the commitments/services provided to Anaheim even though those services are not a requirement in their franchise agreement. He reiterated they provide those services because they believe it is the right thing to do in Anaheim. Mr. Merritt also briefed the Council relative to the information given to them that an exclusive agreement had been reached with Yorba Linda cable providing for payment to the developer of the Ranches for access to the properties. It was an exclusive agreement, thus preventing ML from fulfilling its franchise obligations to serve all the citizens of Anaheim. ML staff made many attempts to gain access but to no avail. The terms of the agreement were kept secret even from the City and then it was presented that no such agreement was ever written. Only after written demand from the City Attorney did the developers allow ML onto their property. Before concluding, Mr. Merritt also addressed the local programming issue, studio, etc. He then stated that their ability to continue to provide a high quality product will only be impaired by allowing "cream skimming" and "cherry picking" and "red lining" and serving only those areas the company (Empire) finds most profitable. He and the principals in the 459 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 9, 1989, 1:30 P.M. company have been in cable 10, 12 and 15 years. Overbuilds do not work - they do not result in lower rates, improve service or expanded programming but have the opposite effect. He called the Council's attention to Exhibit C prepared in part by the City's outside consultant and quoted some of the statements contained therein. Absent a staff recommendation, ML believes the preponderance of evidence before the Council supports the contention that Anaheim residents will best be served by allowing the City's cable company - ML - to continue to provide the best possible cable TV service and programming to Anaheim. SUMMATION BY APPLICANT: Floyd Farano. He rebutted comments made by Mr. Merritt, The feasibility study states it is not financially feasible for Empire or ML Media to serve the whole City. Relative to the statement quoted from Exhibit C, there is no substance to that because the case was lost. He understood Mr. Merrttt to say that they will cooperate in an interconnect and if such an attempt fails, it would be because of Empire. Interconnect by the terms and definition of both ML's franchise agreement as well as Empire's is that they (Empire) make the public educational and government programs available to each other by a phyiscal interconnect between the two systems. Under their agreement, they are going to pay for that physical interconnect. It obligates both to seek out programs from other communities to air in Anaheim. He also emphasized and reiterated there is not an agreement and there never was an agreement between Empire and the developer. ML is going to have to produce such an agreement. John Bala. Mr. Merritt's story is one he has heard before - what ML has done for the community. Ail of these things happened since Empire applied for a franchise. Relative to "cherry picking" the entire cable industry would like to have it both ways. They want protection from competition as though they were a utility but are not willing to be re-regulated again as to rates. Congress has said cable TV is not a utility and there must be competition. Empire wants a chance to compete. COUNCIL ACTION: Mayor Hunter closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Kaywood posed questions to Mr. Bala who reported that Empire had 11,000 subscribers in Yorba Linda, there are a few private streets Empire is not now serving since it is a matter of getting access, they do not have a studio because it is not required by the City of Yorba Linda, many cities do not want public access but instead low rates and good service, there is presently no local programming. 460 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 9, 1989, 1:30 P,M. MOTION: Councilman Hunter moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (4:45 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (5:15 p.m.) Councilman Hunter moved to deny the Environmental Impact Negative Declaration status on the grounds that there could be a significant effect on the environment and that an EIR process may be needed. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. Council Members Daly and Ehrle voted no. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Hunter moved, without prejudice, that the application of Empire Cable TV, Inc., for a non-exclusive cable TV franchise for a certain area of the City of Anaheim be denied for reasons set forth in the City staff report and all the Exhibits presented today and that the City Attorney prepare written findings of fact conforming with this decision which findings shall be submitted to the Council for approval and that this applicant and the Council would be amenable to consider another application that would be affecting a Citywide franchise. Councilwoman Pickler seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Ehrle stated that he feels both are capable cable companies and to him the issue is not which will deliver the best services or anything else. The issue to him is one of rights. He feels to deprive a company from providing service is contrary to the American concept of free enterprise. Councilwoman Kaywood interjected and moved for a Closed Session. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (5:21 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (5:25 p.m.) Councilman Ehrle. He reiterated to him the issue is one of free enterprise, competition and the free market place which will determine the success of a venture. The people should have an opportunity to choose which cable company they would like to serve them. Councilman Daly. He would prefer to see an application for Citywide service from Empire but nevertheless, he feels some competition is better than none. Therefore, he supports Empire's application. Councilman Pickler. His concern is the fact that with this application, it is dividing the City. Empire knows of his concerns. If a company is going to provide service, he feels it must be provided to the entire City and not just certain areas. Councilwoman Kaywood. She agrees with Councilman Pickler. She cannot see providing a certain service to only one area of the City. It is unfair. 461 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 9, 1989, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Hunter. He, too, feels the entire City needs to be served. The issue is overbuild. He emphasized for purposes of the audience and the press that the application submitted by Empire is only for a particular area of the City and not for the entire City. He is very much in favor of the free enterprise system but to come in and "cherry pick" and "cream skim" he believes is wrong. The evidence is overwhelming in this case. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion to deny the application without prejudice: Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler, Kaywood and Hunter Daly and Ehrle None 179: PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 88-89-44, VARIANCE NO, 3912 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: APPLICANT: OWNERS: Victor M. Vazquez and Terry H. R. Vazquez 2240 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 217 and 223 North Coffman Street. The request is for a change in zone from RS-7200 to RM-3000; to construct a 2-story, 8-unit, condominium complex with waiver of maximum fence height. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Reclassification No. 88-89-44 was granted by the Planning Commission, under Resolution No. PG89-65; Variance No. 3912 was granted by the Planning Commission, under Resolution No. PC89-66; approved EIR Negative Declaration. HEARING SET ON: A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilman Daly and Councilwoman Kaywood at the meeting of March 21, 1989, and public hearing scheduled this date. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in Anaheim Bulletin April 27, 1989. Posting of property April 27, 1989. Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - April 28, 1989. PLANNING STAFF INPUT: See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated February 27, 1989. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT: Victor M. Vazquez, Jr., Real Estate Agent, present on behalf of his parents, the owners, Victor and Terry Vazquez, 1302 West Center Street, who were also present to answer questions. 462 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES May 9, 1989, 1;30 P,M, COUNCIL CONCERNS: Councilwoman Kaywood. She referred to Page 3, Item No. 9 of the Planning Commission resolution, stating that plumbing will be located on the exterior of the building and properly screened, and Item No. 12, that 10, 15-gallon trees are to be planted along the easterly property line as stipulated. However, it did not say anything about the landscape being maintained. She was also concerned that there are 24 bedrooms in the project consisting of 3 bedrooms and some 2 bedroom units but only 20 parking spaces which he feels means a shortage of parking. Councilman Pickler. He noted no parking waivers are being requested; Councilwoman Kaywood referred to the recent workshop and discussions relative to parking according to bedrooms. That along with the other items she mentioned are her concerns. Councilman Daly. Those are his concerns as well. Annika Santalahtt, Zoning Administrator. The condition relative to outdoor plumbing was added incorrectly to the staff report. It is only included in deck housing projects and typically has to do with rain gutters. Anything that looks like plumbing pipe shall be adequately screened by architectural devices or building materials. It probably is not an appropriate condition for this project. If the Council acts favorably, they may wish to add a condition that the installation and maintenance of the landscaping be as required by Code in addition to the trees along that property line. Councilman Daly. He asked if the City normally requires the landscape be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department; Miss Santalahti answered that was correct. No landscaping plans have been submitted. Mr. Vazquez. They have not gotten to that point as yet but they will be submitting landscaping plans. Councilman Daly. A concern he had when the project was appealed, the landscape plans called for trees along the eastern border with the remainder of the site consisting only of turf. The conditions by the Planning Commission made no mention that the landscape plan had to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. Victor Vazquez. He has no problem with that. 463 City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES May 9, 1989, 1:30 P.M. Annika Santalahti. They can add a condition requiring that a landscape plan be supplied to the Planning Department and if the applicant is not satisfied, he can appeal to the Planning Commission and Council. A discussion followed relative to parking wherein Councilwoman Kaywood reiterated her concern that considering the recent discussions and ordinance, she feels there is a shortage of parking on the project. City Attorney White. The new standards are not yet in effect and, therefore, the existing standards apply. There is a request for a variance and in considering whether or not the variance be granted, one of the fact as the Council can take into consideration is that the Code is in the process of being amended. He confirmed that the variance before the Council has nothing to do with parking. By condition, the Council could require additional parking but would have to be able to find a relationship between the variance being requested and the need for additional parking. Councilman Pickler. The reason the applicant is before the Council today is because he is trying to comply with the wishes of the neighborhood who want an 8-foot instead of a 6-foot wall, thus necessitating the request for a variance. Otherwise, he would not be before the Council today. He does not feel it is right to deny the applicant because the new parking ordinance may require more spaces. PUBLIC DISCUSSION- IN FAVOR: None. PUBLIC DISCUSSION- IN OPPOSITION: None. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer. Relative to the recent ordinance changing the parking requirement for multiple units, the basic change is not adding parking but provides better definition relating to bedrooms rather than square-footage of units. After further discussion between Council and staff, the following actions were taken: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION; On motion by Councilman Pickler, seconded by Councilman Hunter, the City Council approved the negative declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative declaration together with any comments received during the public review process, and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received 464 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 9, 1989, 1:30 P.M. that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED. WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTIONS: The titles of the following resolutions were read by the City Clerk. (Resolution Nos. 89R-177 and 89R-178) Councilman Pickler moved to waive the reading in full of the resolutions. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 89R-177 for adoption, approving Reclassification No. 88-89-44 and Resolution No. 89R-178 for adoption, granting Variance No. 3912, including the stipulation that a landscaping plan be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Division for review and approval. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO, 89R-177: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING RECLASSIFICATION NO. 88-89-44. RESOLUTION NO. 89R-178: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 3912. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Daly, Ehrle, Pickler, Kaywood and Hunter None None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 89R-177 and 89R-178 duly passed and adopted. 179; PUBLIC HEARING - WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3114 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION' APPLICANT: OWNERS: Pierre Ces and Claudia Ces 385 Bayshore Drive North, Long Beach, CA 90803 LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 1809 West La Palma Avenue. The request is to permit a 4,966 square-foot commercial retail center with waiver of minimum interior yard setback. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Conditional Use Permit No. 3114 was granted by the Planning Commission, under Resolution No. PC89-86; Waiver of code requirement was granted by the Planning Commission; approved EIR Negative Declaration. HEARING SET ON: A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilman Pickler and Gouncilwoman Kaywood at the meeting of April 18, 1989, and public hearing scheduled this date. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in Anaheim Bulletin April 27, 1989. 465 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 9, 1989, 1:30 P.M. Posting of property April 27, 1989. Mailing to property owners within 300 feet April 28, 1989. PLANNING STAFF INPUT: See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated March 27, 1989. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT: Phillip Ces, 575 West 19th Street, Costa Mesa. His parents are also present and are available to answer any questions. COUNCIL CONCERNS: Councilman Pickler. His main concern is that too much is being proposed for the site as well as putting additional traffic on La Palma in that area which is already heavy at times. Perhaps just the laundromat being proposed would take care of the needs in the area. Phillip Ces. They considered the laundromat as an option and also the two smaller shops. The size of the lot accommodates the size of the building and appropriate off-street parking. All parking is on the site. They are not requesting a parking waiver. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator. Relative to the waiver of minimum interior yard setback, it is required adjacent to the west property line since that property is residentially zoned with underlying CL zoning. There is a 10-foot setback requirement at this time. She believes the zero proposal was the anticipation that the two remaining single-family homes will eventually develop commercially. If it were commercial property, the setback would be zero. There is a general plan designation on the property to commercial. Councilman Daly. That portion of La Palma at present is not the most attractive strip. If the City continues to allow waivers of landscaping and allowing parking in the area behind shops, it will ruin residential neighborhoods. He suggests that they not allow the landscape waiver. Phillip Ces. The waiver is for the lO-foot setback for the property to the west. They do have the 3-foot landscaping required in front of the property all the way to the property line. It is just a matter of the building being constructed on the westerly property line with no setback. Councilman Daly. The Code requires a setback and that setback shall either be landscaping or a combination of landscaping and parking. The City is getting neither in this case 466 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES May 9, 1989, 1:30 P,M. Councilman Pickler. Since Mr. Ces also owns the adjacent car wash, he asked why he did not combine the two properties. He also reiterated he can live with two stores but not three which will give an opportunity for landscaping. Otherwise, it is too small a lot to accommodate all that is being proposed Phillip Ces. Their intent is to keep both businesses and lots separate because the line that separates the two lots is on the westerly most property line of the buildings. The two projects would be separate in that they would suffice for their own parking separately. The intent is to keep them segmented and separated so the laundry parcel has its own parking and the carwash its own as well. There is just an access agreement but there is no reciprocal parking agreement in place at this point. Councilwoman Kaywood. She is concerned about parking off the alley which she considers not to be safe. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer. When the item came before the Planning Commission, he made a comment regarding parking from the alley that there was a way to arrange the two small businesses immediately adjacent to the larger unit and provide parking to the side of that business with a backup space onto the carwash property. There still would only be a reciprocal access agreement without having to have a reciprocal parking agreement. The two properties would use the same driveway for access and circulation but not for parking. The concern that the Planning Commission expressed about parking in the alley was the safety of the female customers to the carwash because of the nature of the alley and the type of area the alley covers. PUBLIC DISCUSSION- IN FAVOR: None. PUBLIC DISCUSSION- IN OPPOSITION: None. Mr. Ces, answering Councilwoman Kaywood, stated that there were no prospective lessees for the other two units at this time but they are anticipating something along the lines of an automotive parts store, any type of business that would fit the CL zoning application. They are not anticipating any food type uses for those spaces. COUNCIL ACTION: Mayor Hunter closed the public hearing. 467 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES May 9, 1989, 1~30 P.M. Councilman Pickler. He cannot support the project and feels that two units instead of three is more appropriate. Too much is being proposed on the site. Phillip Ces. It is necessary to talk about size of the building vs. parking because the only difference between three units vs. two units is a demising wall. The intent originally was to have two units but looking ahead just in case they were not able to find tenants of that size, they proposed three units. The intent is to allow three tenants on the site vs. two tenants. With two tenants a CUP is not required. If one of the tenants is still the laundry and the other tenant is a similar type use, the traffic might even be heavier because it is larger. He does not think the size of the units comes into play. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Daly, seconded by Councilman Pickler, the City Council approved the negative declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative declaration together with any comments received during the public review process, and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED. WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was read by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 89R-179) Councilman Daly moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Daly offered Resolution No. 89R-179 for adoption, denying Conditional Use Permit No. 3114. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 89R-179; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3114. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Daly, Ehrle, Pickler, Kaywood and Hunter None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 89R-179 duly passed and adopted. RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for ten minutes. (6:17 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (6:25 p.m.) 468 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 9, 1989, 1;30 179: PUBLIC HEARING WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3109 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: APPLICANT: OWNERS: Shell Oil Company Attn: R. H. Meyers, Sr. 511 North Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, CA 92803 AGENT: Wesco Attn: P. Kumar 536 W. Arrow Highway, Suite 208, Covina, CA 91722 LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 601 West Ball Road. The request is to permit a convenience market with gasoline sales, fast-food and off-sale of beer and wine, and with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Conditional Use Permit No. 3109 was denied by the Planning Commission, under Resolution No. PC89-87; Waiver of code requirement was denied by the Planning Commission; approved EIR Negative Declaration. HEARING SET ON: A letter of appeal was submitted by the Agent, P. Kumar, and public hearing scheduled this date. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in Anaheim Bulletin April 27, 1989. Posting of property April 27, 1989. Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - April 28, 1989. PLANNING STAFF INPUT: See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated March 27, 1989. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT: Bernie Smith, Shell Oil Company. Shell has over 100 service stations in Orange County and Southern Orange County offering excellent service. The company is requesting approval to allow them to rebuild at Harbor and Ball with a food mart along with off-sale beer and wine for off-premises consumption. Caltrans put them out of business by condemnation on Ball Road. They made all the revisions as suggested by the Planning Commission but on the basis of the request for beer and wine, the application was rejected. In three public hearings before the Planning Commission, there was no public opposition to the request. There are several existing convenience markets in the immediate area two of which sell gasoline and each provides closer access to purchasing beer and wine from car to store door. Shell's facilities probably do not provide the quickest service to make purchases due to 469 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 9, 1989, 1:30 P.M. gasoline customers and generally do not offer the best prices. They do not feel that beer and wine sales is justification to deny the application. They are only about 1/2 the size of a typical convenience market and stock only the fast moving impulse items which will ideally fit in the CR area. Their food items consist of only four - hotdogs, popcorn, fountain drinks and nachos. The rest are all prepackaged. The project will include dedication to the City of 19 feet on Harbor Boulevard to bring it into compliance with the Critical Intersection Program. It is a reasonable, good and timely project for the location and they request approval as submitted. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer. He explained for Councilman Daly that with this development the dedication for the critical intersection is included and will constitute the ultimate widening. He confirmed that the landscaping being proposed will, therefore, be the landscaping that will be in place for a number of years. It will be 7 feet at the minimum and 15 feet at the widest point. PUBLIC DISCUSSION- IN FAVOR: None. PUBLIC DISCUSSION- IN OPPOSITION: None. COUNCIL ACTION: Mayor Hunter closed the public hearing. Councilman Pickler. He is not opposed to convenience markets and has no problem with the sale of beer and wine but he does have a problem when the particular location will affect traffic and circulation. He does not have a problem with the service station but at this location with a convenience market, selling food, beer and wine it is going to create a situation that will be prohibitive. It is inundating an area that is at present an extremely busy intersection, as bad as Katella and Harbor in the commercial recreation area, and it is not going to get better. It is also only 92 feet by 122 feet which is to accommodate three uses, gasoline, food and beer and wine and it also leads directly into the Disneyland area. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer. So that the Council is aware, this is the Ball Road second bridge and widening of the intersection. It is a. project that was authorized and with the help of OCTC they managed to get the widening through. The cap on the project is $6 million and it has already been reached. Anaheim is responsible for any costs exceeding $6 million. Should the applicant not get his permit 470 City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES May 9, 1989, 1:30 P,M. today, Caltrans will be required to purchase the entire property, Anaheim would not get the title to the property but would be required to pay any amount in excess of $6 million to Caltrans for the entire total project. It is information he believes the Council should have. He emphasized he is not speaking for or against the project. The proposed use will be a busy one but looking at the improvements that will be done, those improvements, if not exceeded, will at least mitigate the use. The use will mitigate its impact. Councilwoman Kaywood. The use that was existing was a gas station and that is what she would favor. To add all the other uses on a small site would be a nightmare as far as safety is concerned. Mr. Smith explained for Councilman Ehrle that the gas-only unit was only a transitional outlet. It does not have any popularity. They would not consider building another gasoline station. Mayor Hunter. He believes this is a good project as it stands with fast-food, off-sale beer and wine and gasoline. He is in favor but one concern is relative to signage. There is a study in progress regarding signage in the Disneyland CR area which will be calling for monument signs. The area also includes the Ball and Harbor area. The proposed sign for the subject station is not a monument sign. He asked Mr. Smith if monument signs are required, would he still build the project and if so would he stipulate at this time to constructing a monument sign. Mr. Smith answered yes on both counts. They will construct a monument sign at the outset if the project is approved. They will redo their plans and bring them back to Planning. Councilwoman Kaywood. This was a gas-only station and the request is to add additional uses to this tiny parcel that is completely substandard. She is extremely concerned about this proposal. The waiver of the parking is not two spaces but seven because it requires five additional spaces for fast-food; Traffic Engineer Singer clarified that the request for waiver of two parking spaces includes the five spaces. It is only a waiver of two spaces. Councilman Pickler. This is one of the City's busiest corners and one of the most critical intersections. It is necessary to weigh what they will be doing. It will be a detriment to the City. 471 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES May 9, 1989, 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood. She again expressed her ongoing concern relative to the message given to young people when allowing the sale of beer and wine with gasoline sales. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION; On motion by Councilman Hunter, seconded by Councilman Ehrle, the City Council approved the negative declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative declaration together with any comments received during the public review process, and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Councilwoman Kaywood voted no. MOTION CARRIED. WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION; The title of the following resolution was read by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 89R-180) Councilman Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution. Councilman Ehrle seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Hunter offered Resolution No. 89R-180 for adoption, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 3109, but that the freestanding signage shall be limited to a monument type sign and that the applicant must follow City guidelines with regard to such signage. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO, 89R-180: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3109. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Daly, Ehrle and Hunter Pickler and Kaywood None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 89R-180 duly passed and adopted. RECESS - TO CLOSED SESSION: By general consent the Council recessed to Closed Session. (6:50 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (8:30 p.m.) ADJOURNMENT; Councilman Hunter moved to adjourn. seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (8:31 p.m. ) Councilwoman Kaywood LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK 472