Loading...
1985/01/29City Hall~ Anaheimw California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 29~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Pickler, Overholt and Roth COUNCIL MEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl GENERAL MANAGER CONVENTION CENTER/STADIUM: Tom Liegler ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF ZONING: Annika Santalahti TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: Reverend Raymond Wade, Grace Lutheran Church, gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Council Member E. Llewellyn Overholt, Jr. led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Roth and authorized by the City Council: "Senior Health Care Week" in Anaheim, January 27 through February 2, 1985 "Literacy Volunteer Week" in Anaheim, February 3 through 9, 1985 Mr. Stewart Byer and Joann Martinez accepted the Senior Health Care proclamation. 119: PRESENTATION - KOREAN TEEN LIFE SINGERS: Doctor Paul Park, Korean Church of Orange County presented 37 members of the Korean Teen Life Singers (young ladies from 11 to 16 years of age) visiting from their native town of Seoul, Korea where all attended a girls high school (population of the high school 5,100) which was established by a woman American missionary 98 years ago. The young ladies then sang two selections for the Council and audience. The Mayor and the Council, on behalf of the City, welcomed the delegation and expressed their great delight and appreciation in having them visit Anaheim and the Council at their regular meeting. Small token gifts were exchanged to serve as reminders of their visit. MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular meetings held January 8 and January 15, 1985. Councilman Pickler abstained on the minutes of the meeting held January 15, 1985 since he was not present at that meeting. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The Council commended City Clerk Sohl on the new minutes format and the timeliness of their submittal for approval. 65 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 29~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda, after reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to waiver is hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such ordinances or resolutions in regular order. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $2,272,146.79, in accordance with the 1984-85 Budget, were approved. 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. 85R-47 through 85R-49, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. 1. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as recommended: Claims rejected and referred to Risk Management: a. Claim submitted by William M. Barner and Delbert N. Palmer for indemnity based on Superior Court Case No. 40-15-82, Nancy Joan Hammett, Lisa Dawn Smith vs. City of Anaheim, Southern California Edison, Delbert N. Palmer, William M. Barner, Robert Wasserman, Robert Calhoun, Building Designers and Engineers and Does 1 through 500, inclusive. b. Claim submitted by William M. Barner and Delbert N. Palmer for indemnity based on Superior Court Case No. 39-86-85, Lance Connor, Robert House, Charles Rinehart, Donald Will, Melanie Will, Donald Will as Guardian ad Litem for James Will, a minor, vs. City of Anaheim, Southern California Edison, Delbert N. Palmer, William M. Barner, Robert Wasserman, Robert Calhoun, Building Designers and Engineers and Does 1 through 500, inclusive. c. Claim submitted by Gary G. Morgan and A1 D. Manessee for indemnity based on Superior Court Case No. 39-86-88, Henry J. Kent, Mary Smithson and Steven Campbell vs. City of Anaheim, Southern California Edison, Delbert N. Palmer, William M. Barner, Robert Wasserman, Robert Calhoun, Building Designers and Engineers and Does 1 through 500, inclusive. d. Claim submitted by Andrew Thomas Migliozzi for personal injury damages sustained purportedly due to actions of Anaheim Police Officers at Harbor Boulevard and Santa Ana Street, on or about September 30, 1984. e. Claim submitted by Julie A. Damiano for personal property damages sustained purportedly due to actions of Anaheim Police Officer northbound on Harbor at the Intersection of North Street, on or about December 3, 1984. 66 City Hallt Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 29~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M. f. Claim submitted by Willard and Bonnie White for wrongful death sustained purportedly due to actions of Anaheim Police Officers in Anaheim, on or about October 4, 1984. 2. Approving the following application in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Police: a. 108: Public Dance Permit, Manuel Gomez, Anaheim Dance Promotion, to hold a dance at the Anaheim Convention Center on February 2, 1985, from 6:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. b. 108: Entertainment Permit Application, Harvey Salem Owen, Godfathers Services, Inc., Harvey's Bar and Grill, 3020 East Coronado Street, to permit a disc jockey and girls dancing, Monday through Sunday, 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 a.m. 3. 160: Accepting the bid of Westinghouse Electric in the amount of $153,553.72 for four each 300 K.V.A., ten each 500 K.V.A. and three each 750 K.V.A. and three phase padmount transformers, in accordance with Bid No. 4168. 4. 123: Authorizing a contract with ComCo Management, Inc. for the period February 1, 1985 through January 31, 1987, at an annual cost not to exceed $128,500 for the first year and $111,300 for the second year, to perform contract services for the administration of the City's Workers' Compensation Claims Program. 5. 164: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-47: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: CORONADO-VAN BUREN STORN DRAIN IMPROVEMENT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 46-791-6325-E1420. (Opening of bids on February 28, 1985, 2:00 p.m.) 6. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-48: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: KATELLA AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENT, FROM 467 FEET WEST OF HARBOR BOULEVARD TO 322 FEET WEST OF WEST STREET IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 24-799-6325-E9010. (Opening of bids on February 28, 1985, 2:00 p.m) 7. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-49: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. Roll Call Vote Resolution Nos. 85R-47 through 85R-49: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Pickler, Overholt and Roth None None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 85R-47 through 85R-49, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. End of Consent Calendar. MOTION CARRIED. 67 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 29~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M. 175/123: FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT - WILDAN ASSOCIATES - ENGINEERING SERVICES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to authorize the First Amendment to Agreement with Willdan Associates increasing the contract total by $71,149 to $201,723 for an increased scope of work in connection with engineering services on 6 water projects, 1 additional project and 1 modified project as recommended in memorandum dated January 22, 1985 from the Public Utilities Board. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 101/124: PURCHASE APPROVAL - COMPUTERIZED FACILITY MAINTENANCE SYSTEM - ANAHEIM CONVENTION CENTER/STADIUM: City Manager William Talley briefed report dated January 21, 1985 submitted to the City Manager/City Council from Tom Liegler, General Manager Convention Center/Stadium, recommending the following: 1. Authorize the City Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order for the acquisition of the "Show-Times" computerized facility management system software from the Trident Data Systems Corporation for a total price of $21,200.00 2. Authorize the City Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order for the acquisition of Hewlett-Packard Computer Hardware and software to be installed at the Anaheim Convention Center and Stadium. Cost of acquisition is placed at $198,800.00 3. Authorize staff to proceed with financing arrangements for computer hardware and software costs referenced in items %1 and %2 via Certificates of Participation. He then deferred to a representative from Trident Data Systems for a video presentation on how the Convention Center/Stadium saw the operation being implemented. Mr. Ron Toman, Business Manager, Software Products Division, Trident Data Systems representing the produce "Show-Times" introduced the video presentation and at its conclusion, answered questions posed by Council Members. Tom Liegler, General Manager Convention Center/Stadium, explained staff had been working on the system for over five years. It would Greatly aid in providing a better service program and eliminate some of the overlaps at both the Stadium and Convention Center. MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to authorize the Purchasing Agent to issue purchase orders for the acquisition of the "Show-Times" computerized facility management system software from the Trident Data Systems Corporation in the amount of $21,200 and Hewlett-Packard computer hardware and software to be installed at the Anaheim Convention Center and Stadium in the amount of $198,800; and authorizing staff to proceed with financing arrangements to fund said systems by Certificates of Participation as recommended in memorandum dated January 21, 1985. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay stated he had no problem with the management system nor the projected savings predicted from its use, the need, 68 City Hallt Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 29~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M. or system selection but with the recommended funding of the system under Certificates of Participation (C/P). The funding should have been worked into the budget for this year or brought up as a potential budget item. Further, there was no alternative funding proposed. He had a problem in principle with C/P although he had previously voted for some which were used for specialized needs. He was concerned that they were now being promoted as a means of deficit funding for operational needs in the City and was concerned on where lines were going to be drawn with the City spending monies ahead of revenues. He felt there should have been a heavy search back through the budget for funds first. He also did not like being put in a position where there was a time press on something that had been worked on for five years and the first he heard about it was when he picked up his agenda on Friday. City Manager Talley emphasized if the Council did not wish to act on the matter today there was no time press involved and if the Council wanted, it could wait until the next budget session. He then explained the position he had taken in the past when approached with request for significant capital expenditures, the bottom line being, his preference was to take capital expenditures and make them earn their savings wherever possible and use those savings to pay off the expenditure. Councilman Bay stated he would like very much to have a reserve for cost saving purposes. Then when such opportunities came along, it would be possible to take advantage of them. He reiterated his concern that there must be a line drawn somewhere relative to Certificates of Participation since it represented deficit spending. City Manager Talley stated the City had an outstanding financial management team and he then explained the procedure used in deciding to recommend C/P, the criteria being, could the City use its funds by investing them at a greater amount than the Certificates would cost. If not, staff would recommend using existing funds. It was expected that the Certificates could be issued at a lower net interest cost than the interest the City was presently investing. Consequently if City funds were used, it would cost the taxpayer more money than if Certificates of Participation were issued and for that reason it was recommended to use debt to make such large expenditure. He did not consider that to be deficit spending. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Bay voted "no." MOTION CARRIED. 186: CREATION OF ANAHEIM IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION: Authorizing the creation of the Anaheim Public Improvement Corporation, a California non-profit corporation, with the members of the City Council to serve as the Board of Directors, and authorizing each member to execute the articles of incorporation therefor. City Attorney William Hopkins briefed his report dated January 21, 1985, recommending approval of the Corporation. Jack White, Assistant City Attorney, briefed the reason for the proposed creation of the Corporation. The City's Bond Counsel suggested that it might be advantageous for the City Council or at least three members to act as a Board of Directors in creating a non-profit corporation that could serve in 69 City Hallt Anaheimt California - COUNCIL. MINUTES - Januar~ 29~ 1985t 10:00 A.M. the capacity as owner and lessor of the capital improvements not only in connection with the current proposed issuance of Certificates of Participation to finance capital improvement Project B (see memorandum dated January 25, 1985 from the City Attorney) but also in connection with any other Certificates issued in future years. Relative to timing, it was much easier for the Council to deal with itself than with other bodies. It was not legally required that the Council act in this capacity but there were advantages. Councilman Overholt, anticipating that Councilman Bay was going to have concerns as previously expressed relative to Certificates of Participation and thus vote against the proposal, asked if was feasible to provide that no less than three and no more than five serve on the Board and that those members be City Council Members. Mr. Philip Lee, Partner with Jones Hall Hill and White, Bond Counsel, answered that he saw no problem in doing that. Councilman Bay stated the general trend of using C/P while it may save some money to him was treading on a principal related to deficit spending. He had not heard public input or opinions on C/P and was not certain the public understood what they were or the way they were being used. They were fine for a few special ad hoc cases but not as a general tool. He not only intended to vote against the motion to set up the Corporation, but also he absolutely did not want to serve on the Corporation. MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to authorize the creation of the Anaheim Public Improvement Corporation, a California non-profit corporation, with the members of the City Council to serve as the Board of Directors, and authorizing each member to execute the articles of incorporation therefor, modifying the organizational documents so that the number of directors would be no less than three nor more than five and that those directors be members of the City Council, the latter having been suggested by Councilman Overholt. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Mr. White stated if the Corporation was formed today and the articles of incorporation could be filed this week, they would bring back at a special meeting of the Board of Directors next Tuesday the by-laws for adoption and in those by-laws would be indicated who the Board of Directors are, the number etc. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she had a problem with less than all the Council joining. She could see it as having an adverse effect. Being able to make statements that were inaccurate did not necessarily get an accurate answer. It would give power to Councilman Bay or whoever might be a holdout and on that basis, she was going to vote against the Corporation. Councilman Pickler clarified that his motion was recommending that the entire Council be part of the Corporation. Mr. White then explained for Councilman Overholt that if Councilman Bay did not want to serve, while the motion was that all five serve as part of the Board, when filing the articles of incorporation, no one could force a Member 70 City Hallt Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 29t 1985~ 10:00 A.M. of the Council to sign a document and if any Council Member did not wish to sign, he would need to know the motion was meant to include those who did sign and not to be contingent on all five serving. Mayor Roth noted that the action today was to place the Corporation into effect and it could very well be that it would never be used. In any case, it did not automatically authorize any expenses and further the Council would have an opportunity to speak to the issues as they were presented. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Bay voted "no," Councilwoman Kaywood abstained. MOTION CARRIED. 105: RATIFICATION OF APPOINTMENT TO THE PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE: Councilman Roth moved to ratify the appointment of Mike Brown as an elected member to the Project Area Committee, filling the unexpired term of Midge Taggart, (June 30, 1986). Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning Commission at their meeting held January 7, 1985, pertaining to the following applications were submitted for City Council information. 1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2614: Application submitted by Lucille M. Perryman, to permit a 36-unit senior citizens apartment complex on property located at 210 West Vermont Avenue. The City Planning Commission approved a negative declaration status. The applicant withdrew Conditional Use Permit No. 2614. 2. VARIANCE NO. 3445 (READV.): Application submitted by Richard H. and Ruth C. Spencer, to retain 30 rabbits on RS-HS-10,000(SC) zoned property located at 303 Black Oak Road, with the following Code waivers: (a) minimum setback for rabbit hutches, (b) maximum number of rabbits. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC85-02, denied Variance No. 3445 (Readv.), and granted a negative declaration status. 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2642: Application submitted by Larry R. Smith and Judith I. Smith, (Riehi~), to permit on-~al~ alcoholic beverages in a proposed restaurant on CL zoned property located at 951 and 959 South Knott Street. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC85-03, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2642, and granted a negative declaration status. · 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2641: Application submitted by Anaheim School District of Orange County, (Formerly Francis Scott Key Elementary School), to retain a private educational institution in an existing school facility on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located at 2000 West Ball Road, with Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC85-04, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2641, and granted a negative declaration status. 71 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 29~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M. 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2647: Application submitted by William and Mary E. Snow, to permit an office use in a residential structure on RS-7200 zoned property located at 140 West Ball Road. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC85-13, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2647, and granted a negative declaration status. 6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2649: Application submitted by Ju-Tsuing Lee, et al, to permit on-sale alcoholic beverages in a proposed restaurant on CL zoned property located at 518 South Brookhurst Street, Unit 7. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC85-14, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2649, and granted a negative declaration status. 7. VARIANCE NO. 3449: Application submitted by Stewart, Green Associates, Inc., Jolly Roger Restaurant, to expand a restaurant with on-sale alcoholic beverages, on CL zoned property located at 2250 East Lincoln Avenue, with Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC85-15, granted Variance No. 3449, and granted a negative declaration status. Councilman Pickler stated he had no problem with the Conditional Use Permit but noted that 2,244 parking spaces were required in the subject shopping center and those spaces were now down to 1,666. It was necessary that the situation be monitored to avoid problems. Councilman Roth asked for staff report on the widening of the street in front of the shopping center and the calling of the bond on the firm that was the low bid on the project including all of the problems surrounding that project. He clarified that the report should be in addition to the one already submitted. 8. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2645: Application submitted by Angelo Casella and Rose Mary Casella Ulivi, to retain an automobile repair facility in a service station on ML zoned property located at 3093 East Miraloma Avenue. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC85-18, Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2645 for 2 years, and granted a negative declaration status. 9. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2650: Application submitted by Airport Services, Inc., to permit an outdoor non-emergency ambulance storage and maintenance facility on ML zoned property located at 1420 South Allec Street, with the following Code waivers: (a) required improvement of parking areas, (b) required lot frontage. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC85-19, granted for 1 year, Conditional Use Permit No. 2650, and granted a negative declaration status. 10. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2293: Application submitted by Elbert L. and Lida L. Smith, (Avis Rent-a-Car), requesting an extension of time to 72 City Hallt Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 29w 1985~ 10:00 A.M. Conditional Use Permit No. 2293 or deletion of Condition No. 2 of Resolution No. PC82-12 pertaining to required time extensions, to retain an automobile rental agency on property located at 1400 South Harbor Boulevard. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC85-20, deleted Condition No. 2 of PC82-12. 11. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 83-84-27 AND VARIANCE NO. 3395--TERMINATION: Application submitted by Chaparral Development, Inc., requesting terminations of Reclassification No. 83-84-27 and Variance No. 3395, proposed RS-A-43,000(SC) to RS-5,000(SC) change in zone, to construct a 25-1ot subdivision, with various Code waivers, to proceed with development under Reclassification No. 78-79-25 and Conditional Use Permit No. 1935. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC85-21, terminated ReclaSsification No. 83-84-27 and Variance No. 3395. 12. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2156--EXTENSION OF TIME: Application submitted by Raymond C. Salmi, (Anaheim Community Church), requesting an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 2156, to permit a church and private educational facilities on property located on the southeast side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, east of Eucalyptus Road. The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 2156, to expires December 15, 1985. 13. REQUEST FOR DIRECTION REGARDING TEMPORARY DISPLAY OF BALLOONS AND OTHER INFLATABLES: Report on request submitted by City of Anaheim Planning Staff to the Planning Commission for direction in formulating a new ordinance to regulate the display of balloons and other inflatibles. Staff directed to prepare new ordinance for consideration by Planning Commission. 14. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 80-81-9--EXTENSION OF TIME: Application submitted by The Gunston Hall Co., Inc., requesting an extension of time to Reclassification No. 80-81-9, proposed change in zone from RS-A-43,000(SC) to RS-HS-22,000(SC) on property located at the southwest corner of Avenida de ~an~iago and Hidden Canyon Road. The City Planning Commission approved an extension to Reclassification No. 80-81-9, to expire October 6, 1985. 15. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 84-85-16 AND VARIANCE NO. 3451: Application submitted by Lauretta Emmaline Maahs, et al, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200, to construct a 60-unit affordable apartment complex on property located at 3233 West Lincoln Avenue, with Code waiver of minimum building site area per dwelling unit. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC85-07 and PC85-08, granted Reclassification No. 84-85-16 and Variance No. 3451, and granted a negative declaration status. 73 City Hall~ Anaheim. t California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 29~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M. 16. VARIANCE NO. 3438: Application submitted by Robert A. and Rosemarie Smith, (U-Store), to construct a concrete block fence on ML zoned property located at 1431 South Sunkist Street, with Code waiver of maximum fence height. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC85-01, granted Variance No. 3438, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination (Class 3). A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman Kaywood and, therefore, a public hearing would be scheduled at a later date. 17. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 84-85-18 AND VARIANCE NO. 3453: Application submitted by Arthur and Marjorie Stahovich, proposed change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-2400, to construct an 8-unit apartment complex on property located at 3639 West Savanna Streeet, with Code waiver of maximum structural height. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC85-05 and PC85-06, granted Reclassification No. 84-85-18 and Variance No. 3453, and granted a negative declaration status. A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman Kaywood and, therefore, a public hearing would be scheduled at a later date. 18. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2653: Application submitted by Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, to construct a 165-unit senior citizens' retirement facility on CL zoned property located on the north side of Medical Center Drive, west of Euclid Street, with the following Code waivers: (a) required lot frontage, (b) required type of parking spaces. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC85-09, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2653, and granted a negative declaration status. Councilwoman Kaywood expressed her concern with Condition No. 16, Page 4 of Planning Commission Resolution No. PC85-09, in that as previously discussed in a joint workshop, that the tenancy in each subject unit be restricted to persons 62 years of age or older for both persons, not one, as indicated in that Condition. A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman Kaywood and, therefore, a public hearing would be scheduled at a later date. 19. VARIANCE NO. 3447: Application submitted by Florence E. Heffern/Mitchell, to establish a 4-lot, RS-10,000 single-family subdivision on property located at 626 No. West Street, with Code waiver of minimum lot width and frontage. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC85-10, granted Variance No. 3447, and granted a negative declaration status. A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilman Pickler and, therefore, a public hearing would be scheduled at a later date. 74 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 29~ 1985~ 10:0O A.M. 20. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2651: Application submitted by L. C. Smull, to permit an il-story, 128 1/2 foot high hotel with on-sale of alcoholic beverages and accessory uses, and a 12 and 15 story, 182 foot and 222 1/2 foot high commercial office complex on ML zoned property located at 2400 East Katella Avenue, with the following Code waivers: (a) minimum structural setback, (b) required site screening. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC85-17, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2651, and previously certified EIR No. 266 on April 16, 1984, addendum attached. Councilman Pickler expressed concern that a chain link fence was being proposed instead of a block wall fence. A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilman Pickler and, therefore, a public hearing would be scheduled at a later date. 21. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 84-85-15 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2646: Application submitted by Joe Pershing and Catherine Hilda Addle Lemons, proposed change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to CL, to permit commercial use of a residential structure on property located at 441 South Euclid Street, with Code waiver of required location of parking spaces. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC85-11 and PC85-12, granted in part, Reclassification No. 84-85-15 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2646, and granted a negative declaration status. The Planning Commission's action was appealed by the applicant and, therefore, a public hearing would be scheduled at a later date. 22. VARIANCE NO. 3448: Application submitted by Ben and Mary Lou Hathaway, (Tiffy's Restaurant), to expand a restaurant on CR zoned property located at 1060 West Katella Avenue, with Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC85-16, denied Variance No. 3448 and granted a negative declaration status. The Planning Commission's action was appealed by the applicant and, therefore, a public hearing would be scheduled at a later date. 23. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 913 - AMEND CONDITION OF APPROVAL: Application submitted by Stewart Green Associates, (Jolly Roger), requesting amendment to Condition No. 2 of Resolution No. 67R-92, of Conditional Use Permit No. 913, to permit on-sale liquor in a proposed restaurant at 2250 East Lincoln Avenue. The City Planning Commission recommended approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 913. Public hearing to be held February 12, 1985, at 1:30 p.m. necessitated due to requested modification of original conditions of approval by the City Council. 75 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 29~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M. End of City Planning Commission informational Items. WAIVER OF COUNCIL POLICY NO. 543--VARIANCE NO. 3451: Application submitted by Lauretta Emmaline Maas, et al, requesting waiver of Council Policy No. 543 pertaining to density bonuses in connection with Variance No. 3451, to construct a 60-unit affordable apartment complex on property located at 3233 West Lincoln Avenue. Approval of the waiver was recommended by the City Planning Commission at their meeting of January 7, 1985. MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to waive Council Policy No. 543 in connection with Variance No. 3451. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 179: PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT - BANKS AND RECYCLING/RESOURCES RECOVERY TRANSFER FACILITIES: Amending Section 18.61.050 of the Code adding Subsections .075 and .375 pertaining to banks and recycling/resources recovery transfer facilities in the ML zone. Approval of the Proposed Code Amendment was recommended by the Planning Commission at their meeting of January 7, 1985. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4574 for first reading. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4574: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING NEW SUBSECTIONS .075 AND .375 TO SECTION 18.61.050 OF CHAPTER 18.61 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. 179: PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT - GROUND-MOUNTED ANTENNAE: Adding new subsections .065 to Sections 18.21.030, 18.26.030, 18.27.030, 18.31.030, 18.32.030 and 18.34.030 of the Code, pertaining to ground mounted antennae (including satellite dish-type antennae). Approval of the Proposed Code Amendment was recommended by the Planning Commission at their meeting of January 7, 1985. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4575 for first reading. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4575: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING NEW SUBSECTIONS .065 TO SECTION 18.21.030 OF CHAPTER 18.21, SECTION 18.25.030 OF C~APTER 18.25, SECTION 18.26.030 OF CHAPTER 18.26, SECTION 18.27.030 OF CHAPTER 18.27, SECTION 18.31.030 OF CHAPTER 18.31, SECTION 18.32.030 OF CHAPTER 18.32v SECTION 18.34.030 OF CHAPTER 18.34, ALL OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE, RELATING TO ZONING. 170: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10975 (REV. 2): Application submitted by Anaheim Hills Development Corporation, requesting approval of specific plans to construct an 83-1ot, 83-unit, RM-2400(SC) zoned condominium subdivision 76 Cit~ Hall~ Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Januar~ 29~ 1985t 10:00 A.M. located southwesterly of the southwest intersection of Nohl Ranch Road and proposed Stage Coach Road (Area 19 - Anaheim Hills). The City Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract No. 10975 (Rev. 1). The item was submitted for informational purposes only. No action was taken by the Council. 179: ORDINANCE NO. 4567 - SENIOR CITIZENS APARTMENT PROJECTS: Amending Chapter 18.94, and amending and repealing various subsections and sections of Title 18 of the Code pertaining to the development of Senior Citizens' apartment projects. This matter was continued from the meetings of January 8, 15 and 22, 1985 (see minutes those dates). Councilwoman Kaywood expressed her concern over the wording, Page 9 (.013), "...that temporary residency by a person less than forty-five (45) years of age for a cumulative period of sixty (60) days in any calendar year shall be permitted." Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, clarified she understood that to mean that each person less than 45 years of age could stay for 60 days. Mr. Neil Singer, Calmark Development, explained that the 60-day temporary residency was mandated in SB1553. However, the ordinance also provided that not more than two persons could reside in a one-bedroom unit and he felt that a visitor would fall under that scrutiny. Councilman Bay asked if the Council wanted to change the 60 days to 30 days could they do so; City Attorney Hopkins stated he would check the State Law in that regard. Councilman Bay stated he intended to submit the ordinance as an amended first reading today on the basis if they found a majority of the Council wanted to change the 60 to 30 days they could do so next week after an opinion by the City Attorney. Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4567 as an amended first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 4567: AN ORDINANCE OP THE CITY OP ANAHEIM ADDING CHAPTER 18.94 TO, AND AMENDING AND REPEALING VARIOUS SUBSECTIONS AND SECTIONS OF CERTAIN SPECIFIED CHAPTERS OF, TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. 108: HEARING - GRANADA INN APPEAL OF TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX: Steven C. Nock, Attorney for Ankir, appealing the decision of the Hearing Officer denying abatement of the tax assessment due on the Granada Inn, per Audit No. 84252, on the Transient Occupancy Tax due. Submitted was report dated January 23, 1985 from the City's Hearing Officer Bob Simpson. MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to continue the subject hearing to March 5, 1985 as requested by the Hearing Officer in his memorandum dated January 23, 77 City Hallt Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 29t 1985~ 10:00 A.M. 1985 and concurrence given by the petitioner in letter dated January 24, 1985. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 108: TAXI PERMIT FIRST CLASS ENTERPRISES: Request for permit to operate a taxi service in the City: Nicholas S. Th6mpson, Law Firm of Thompson & Cavallo, representing Juan Chavez and John Nahavandi, First Class Enterprises, requesting a permit to operate a taxi service within the City. Submitted was a joint report from the Business License/Zoning Divisions dated January 21, 1985, recommending the denial of the application for said permit and a report from the City Attorney dated January 23, 1985, also recommending denial unless the applicant submitted the necessary application information required by Chapter 4.72 of the Anaheim Municipal Code as listed in the report. Mr. Nicholas Thompson, 2721 East Pacific Coast Highway, Corona Del Mar, 92625, stated the only amendments to the application previously before the Council would be in modifying the language that if the Council were to request installation of meters, they would be so installed, i.e., certified meters would be installed upon the granting of the permit as well as radio equipment. He also had a letter received from Consolidated Communications of Los Angeles specializing in two-way radios and meters for taxi cabs and indicating that there was an agreement with First Class Enterprises to install those meters and other related items. He (Thompson) suggested that was sufficient to satisfy that particular requirement. He asked the Council to consider the type of expenditures that had to be made by a company wanting to get started and if there were some assurances by the Council that a permit would be issued, it would give the company an opportunity to get into business as a small businessman and put some competition into the market. Presently, there was only one taxi cab company operating in Anaheim, Yellow Cab. He had information that there was a total of 75 cabs spread out in the 36 cities where Yellow Cab was operating, 20 of which where Yellow Cab was the only cab company thus limiting the number of cabs that company would have available in the City of Anaheim to serve its needs. Anaheim is the hub of Orange County with respect to tourist trade and the need for adequate transportation services in the City was apparent. Mr. Thompson then read two letters, one from Dr. Anita Del Rio of the League of United Latin American Citizens, far west region, National Vice President and another from the Peter Pan Motor Lodge in Anaheim signed by Mr. Patel, expressing support for the request of First Class Enterprises and the need for additional taxi services. In closing, he clarified that the logo on the cab would read First Class Enterprises and it would not be a copyright logo. A line of questioning was then posed by Councilwoman Kaywood and Council Bay to Mr. Thompson relative to the number and type of vehicles involved and also whether or not Mr. Thompson had read the staff report submitted. Mr. Thompson stated that First Class Enterprises had two vehicles although he could not explain why only one was listed in the application as pointed out by Councilwoman Kaywood. The second vehicle was a 1976 Monaco station wagon. He also had not read the reports but in briefly reviewing the January 23, 1985 report from the City Attorney's Office felt that he had addressed the points 78 Cit~ Hallt Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 29t 1985~ 10:00 A.M. raised and that the requirements under the local ordinances had been satisfied. He provided the Council with the description, the name and insignia and there had been no request for taxi stands. The evidence that the cabs would be radio equipped had been satisfied and the statement that there had to be affirmative proof of need and necessity had been shown by the letters illustrated in addition to the other facts and circumstances existing in the City. City Attorney Hopkins stated in reviewing the file, and as indicated in his report, there were certain items missing. They did not have the necessary information to back up the manufacturer, engine and serial numbers and license numbers, the monogram or insignia, the street and exact location or place where the applicant proposed to stand the taxi and evidence that all vehicles were radio equipped and dispatched. His office had also previously telephoned Mr. Thompson and advised him of the defects in the application and requested that he supply such evidence. Mr. Thompson stated he had not complied with that request but he was making an oral amendment today. It was Assistant City Attorney Jack White who had made the suggestion that he modify the language to state that upon issuance of the permit the radio equipment and meters would be installed. He felt that was not unreasonable and felt the issue was being skirted, i.e. whether or not a new taxi cab company could be viable in the City and whether or not additional transportation services would be beneficial to the people utilizing the City as residents and tourists. Councilman Bay stated Mr. Thompson was asking that the Council approve the request without adequate information presented in the application and instead saying he would supply all the information after the permit is granted. The ordinance did not work that way as explained by the City Attorney. MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to deny the request of First Class Enterprises for a permit to operate a taxi service within the City of Anaheim and upholding the recommendation of the Business License/Zoning Divisions and the City Attorney for the reasons stated in reports dated January 21 and January 23, 1985 respectively. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 130/142/179: ORDINANCE NOS. 4572 AND 4573: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance Nos. 4572 and 4573 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4572: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE RATES TO BE CHARGED BY STORER CABLE TV, INC. ORDINANCE NO. 4573: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AS SET FORTH IN ORDINANCE NO. 3435 RELATING TO ZONING RECLASSIFICATION PROCEEDINGS NO. 74-75-26. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Pickler, Overholt and Roth None None 79 City Hallt Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 29~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M. The Mayor declared Ordinance Nos. 4572 and 4573 duly passed and adopted. 179: ORDINANCE NO. 4576: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4576 for first reading. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4576: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (78-79-25 RS-HS-10,000(SC) east side of Imperial Highway, south of centerline of Nohl Ranch Road) 107: CODE ENFORCEMENT POLICY DISCUSSION: Mr. Bill Erickson, 301 East North Street, stated due to the number of people interested in the subject as discussed at the Council meeting of January 22, 1985 (see minutes that date) Sheri Pignone called Councilman Overholt and asked that the discussion on Code Enforcement to be held February 5, 1985 be an evening meeting. Councilman Overholt moved that the discussion on Code Enforcement scheduled during the regular February 5, 1985 Council day meeting be rescheduled to a 7:30 p.m. night meeting. Councilman Roth seconded the motion for purposes of discussion. Before action was taken, Councilman Pickler stated relative to the Council's previous discussion (see minutes of January 22, 1985). The discussion scheduled for February 5, 1985 was for the Council to decide what their future policy was going to be on Code Enforcement. It was to be a discussion amongst the Council Members and not a public hearing where there would undoubtedly be a repeat of what was heard in prior public hearings on the issue. Councilman Bay stated he had no problem with an evening meeting when it was determined that the Council wanted public input. However, he felt the Council should proceed with having its own discussion on February 5, 1985, the intent for doing so being clarification of policy since he felt there were doubts in the mind of some Council Members whether the policy was being interpreted properly. He felt it would be much more productive for the Council to have its agendized discussion on clarification of the policy, and subsequently if there was an indication by the Council that they wanted public input, to set a formal public hearing so that everyone would be aware that it was going to be heard. To take a meeting intended to clarify policy and turn it into a quasi-public hearing, without advertisement, would tend to pack the audience in one direction and he did not think that would give a true objective look at the issue. He would not support the motion primarily because he did not believe the timing was right; Councilwoman Kaywood agreed. Councilman Roth withdrew his second to the motion for the reason stated. Councilman Overholt stated in his discussions on February 5, 1985, he was going to urge that the Council hold a meeting when the public could be heard. The Council needed to be exposed to the different points of view of citizens with respect to Code Enforcement and out of that would come a better program. REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: The City Manager requested a Closed Session to discuss labor relations with no action anticipated; the City Attorney 8O Cit~ Hallt Anaheimw California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Januar~ 29t 1985w 10:00 A.M. requested a Closed Session to discuss pending litigation and initiation of litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 549564.9A, with no action anticipated, and 54956.9B with action anticipated. The Mayor announced that a Closed Session would be held to consult with the City's Attorney on the foregoing matters. Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session and a lunch break. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (12:58 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (1:45 p.m.) 179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2607 (READVERTISED): APPLICANT: Anaheim City School District, 890 So. Olive Street, Anahiem CA. 92805 ZONING/LOCATION/REQUEST: RM-1200 zoned, 412 East Broadway, to construct a church facility with a code waiver of minimum landscape setback. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution PC84-248 granted Conditional Use Permit, recommended adoption of EIR - negative declaration. HEARING SET ON: Appeal by Charles Beck, Project Group Inc., Agent PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in Anaheim Bulletin December 27, 1984 Posting of property December 26, 1984 Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - December 26, 1984. STAFF INPUT: City Clerk Sohl announced that the Attorney for the applicant was present to request a continuance. Mr. Frank Lowry, of the law firm of Farano and Kiviet, requested a two-week continuance to give an opportunity to settle two remaining problems relative to the subject application. ACTION BY COUNCIL: The Mayor asked if anyone was present to speak to the issue; no one was present. MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to continue the public hearing on Conditional Use Permit No. 2607 (Readvertised) to Tuesday, February 12, 1985 at 1:30 p.m. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING VARIANCE NO. 3441 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: APPLICANT: Charles F. and Eleene Mass 1185 Tropical Avenue, Pasadena CA. 91107 81 Cit~ Hallt Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Januar~ 29t 1985t 10:00 A.M. ZONING/LOCATION/REQUEST: RM-1200 zoned, 514-516 E. South Street, to construct a 21-unit apartment complex with code waivers of (a) permitted encroachment into side yards, (b) permitted location of open parking spaces, (c) maximum site coverage, (d) maximum number of bachelor units, (e) minimum front landscaped setback, (f) minimum structural setback. HEARING SET ON: Council meeting of December 18, 1984, review requested by Councilwoman Kaywood. PUBliC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in Anaheim Bulletin December 27, 1984. Posting of property December 26, 1984. Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - December 26, 1984. PLANNING STAFF INPUT: See Staff Report dated November 26, 1984. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT AND ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS POSED BY COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ray Khan, Kahn Associates, 1540 North Tustin, Suite 227 Santa Ana, CA. 92705. The proposed 21-unit apartment project is in conformance with the general plan for the area. The reason for the requested variances is to be able to enjoy the same use of the property as other property owners in the area and in order to have a very pleasant project. They are minor exceptions to the zoning ordinances. Project is well within the maximum density allowed for 21 units. He is an officer in the Century Capital Development Corporation, the present owner of the property. Councilwoman Kaywood reiterated her concerns about the project as expressed at the meeting of January 8, 1985 (see minutes that date) relative to overbuilding the property, encroaching of balconies and exterior stairways into the setback area, tandem parking etc. Mr. Kahn did not believe that the project was violating any ordinances of the City relative to parking or the parking structure. Tandem parking is not in violation since it is allowed by the City. They are allowing more open space and landscaping than the minimum standards required by the City because of the irregular shape of the lot and the restriction on the depth of the driveway, they had to jog the building in a fashion where they were encroaching. The building structure itself is not encroaching into the setback. The balconies and stairs are open structures. In open space they are providing 250 square feet per unit vs. 250 square feet required including the balconies. He was not saying they could build 21 units without variances. They would be able to build the project with less units, but economically it is not feasible. STAFF INPUT: Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning. A parking space, whether covered or opened, assigned to the same 82 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 29~ 1985w 10:00 A.M. occupant can be provided tandemly if desired but the Planning Commission or Council may or may not approve a project that includes such parking. The counted open space may include the balconies and any yards excluding street side setbacks when the side yards are 10 feet or greater in depth in any given direction. Relative to balconies or outside stairways, they are only permitted to encroach a certain number of feet into a required side yard. In this instance, they are not permitted to encroach at all. They are encroaching further than the distance permitted by Code. EXHIBITS, MATERIALS SUBMITTED: None PUBLIC DISCUSSION OPPOSITION: Rita Auffrey, tenant in the house on the rear of the property, was glad that the ownership of the property was established. She wanted an extension of time to move out since she was having a difficulty finding a place to live. She was opposed to the project being built beside a school. She did not think there should be bachelor units built beside an elementary school. Gaylen Compton, 2304 Cliff Parkway. He was present only to clarify discussion that took place at the hearing of January 8, 1985. He knew Mrs. Offrey and gave her assistance regarding a rental. There were approximately 7 people interested in renting the unit in which she lived. He was the listing broker but knew that it would take several months, a year or longer for a transaction to take place on the property but it happened quickly unfortunately for Mrs. Auffrey. Relative to the project, he was not speaking in favor or in opposition, but speaking as a real estate broker, he felt it was a nice project. The problem was in providing rentals for moderate and low income people. Mayor Roth then clarified for the record that he and Mr. Compton dissolved their partnership when he (Roth) became Mayor approximately 2 1/2 years ago and that he had no financial interest whatsoever with the sale of Mr. Compton's properties. IN FAVOR: NO one was present to speak in favor. FINAL SUMMATION BY APPLICANT: Mr. Kahn. (1) They were not asking for a variance regarding tandem parking since the City Code allowed such parking. (2) They are not creating a ghetto and are providing more green space than the Code required. (3) Relative to encroachment, the reason it was approved by the Planning Commission is due to the fact that on the east side of the property is an alley. The reason for the setback is for Fire Department access. The residential units are not too close to each other since there was an alley in between. They compromised with the neighbor next door in 83 City Hallt Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 29~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M. order to get access to the units. Those units had not been repaired or painted in the last 10 to 20 years. They were painting the adjacent property and in return they were allowing the easement to get access to the subject property. They were also paying to pave all of the alley and no City funds were being expended to do so. They were not increasing the density but the set of the project is such that they cannot get the balconies they wanted to have so they put the balconies on the outside. They are not overcrowding the project. The reason for the encroachment is for the facility orientation. SPECIAL CONCERNS OF CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS: Councilwoman Kaywood: The proposed property is overcrowding the small parcel and if permitted this time and on other such requests, it will cause an overcrowded situation all over the City. Councilman Pickler: If the developer can build without the waivers he should do so. Otherwise it is over crowding the property. CHANGES TO PROPOSALS AS A RESULT OF DISCUSSION/COUNCIL CONCERNS: None COUNCIL ACTION: Mayor Roth closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, 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. Councilwoman Kaywood offered a resolution of denial. Before action was taken, Councilman Bay stated in looking at the proposal vs. the requirements, most of the waivers were technical, putting him in a position where he must oppose the action to deny the variance; Councilman Roth stated the subject area was deteriorating and the proposed project might be a catalyst for other properties in the area to upgrade, and he agreed with the Planning Commission that the project had merit. A vote was then taken on the proposed resolution of denial and failed to carry by the following vote: Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood and Pickler NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bay, Overholt and Roth ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None 84 City Hallw Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 29t 1985w 10:00 A.M. Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 85R-50 for adoption, granting Variance No. 3441, upholding the findings of the City Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 85R-50: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 3441. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bay, Overholt and Roth Kaywood and Pickler None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 85R-50 duly passed and adopted. 176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 84-6A: In accordance with application filed by Seaboard Engineering Company, to abandon former easements for road and public utility purposes over Artis Court and Seaboard Court, located south of Orangethorpe Avenue, east of Kellogg Drive, pursuant to Resolution No. 85R-10, duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance with law. Report of the City Engineer dated December 5, 1984 was submitted recommending approval of said abandonment. Mayor Roth asked if any one wished to address the Council; there being no response he closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: The City Engineer determined that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 5, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 85R-51 for adoption, approving Abandonment No. 84-6A. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 85R-51: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM VACATING ARTIS COURT AND SEABOARD COURT. (84-6A) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Pickler, Overholt and Roth None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 85R-51 duly passed and adopted. 176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 84-8A: In accordance with application filed by Republic Engineering Co., Inc., to abandon slope and drainage easements located along the north side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, east of Weir 85 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 29~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M. Canyon Road, due to realignment of Santa Ana Canyon Road, pursuant to Resolution No. 85R-11, duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance with law. Report of the City Engineer dated December 5, 1984 was submitted recommending approval of said abandonment. Mayor Roth asked if any one wished to address the Council; there being no response he closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: The City Engineer determined that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 5, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 85R-52 for adoption, approving Abandonment No. 84-8A. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 85R-52: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM VACATING CERTAIN SLOPE AND DRAINAGE EASEMENTS NEAR WEIR CANYON ROAD. (84-8A) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Pickler, Overholt and Roth None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 85R-52 duly passed and adopted. 176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 84-9A: In accordance with application filed by Joe Walthour, Business Properties, to abandon existing sewer easements located between Katella Avenue and Sinclair Street, east of Howell Avenue, to facilitate sewer realignment, pursuant to Resolution No. 85R-12, duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance with law. Report of the City Engineer dated December 3, 1984 was submitted recommending approval of said abandonment subject to the following conditions: 1. Grant of easement for new sewer alignment. 2. Construction of the new sewer line by the applicant. Mayor Roth asked if any one wished to address the Council; there being no response he closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: The City Engineer determined that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 5, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for an 86 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 29~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M. Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 85R-53 for adoption, approving Abandonment No. 84-9A, subject to the conditions of the City Engineer in report dated December 3, 1984. RESOLUTION NO. 85R-53: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM VACATING EASEMENTS FOR SEVEN PURPOSES EXTENDING NORHTERLY FROM KATELLA AVENUE EAST OF HOWELL STREET. (84-9A) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Pickler, Overholt and Roth None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 85R-53 duly passed and adopted. 176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 84-10A: In accordance with application filed by Redevelopment Agency, to abandon portions of Helena Street, Chestnut Street and Third Street, and all utilities within these streets, for inclusion in Anaheim City Center Project in downtown Anaheim, pursuant to Resolution No. 85R-13, duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance with law. Report of the City Engineer dated December 10, 1984 was submitted recommending approval of said abandonment subject to the following conditions: 1. Ail utility removals to be coordinated with Anaheim City Center Project. (Bids to be received December 20, 1984). 2. Existing electrical facilities to be removed. 3. Completion of new sewer in Clementine Street. 4. Relocation of existing sewer on Helena Street. Mayor Roth asked if any one wished to address the Council; there being no response he closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: The City Engineer determined that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 5, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 85R-54 for adoption, approving Abandonment No. 84-10A, subject to the conditions of the City Engineer in report dated December 10, 1984. RESOLUTION NO. 85R-54: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM VACATING PORTIONS OF HELENA STREET, CHESTNUT STREET AND THIRD STREET, 87 City Hallt Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 29~ 1985w 10:00 A.M. AND ALL UTILITIES WITHIN THESE STREETS, FOR INCLUSION IN ANAHEIM CITY CENTER PROJECT IN DOWNTOWN ANAHEIM. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Pickler, Overholt and Roth None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 85R-54 duly passed and adopted. RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for five minutes. (3:00 p.m) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (3:07 p.m) 179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2634: APPLICANT: Douglas E. Jones, et al, (Regency Hotel) 2045 So. Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim CA. 92805 ZONING/LOCATION/REQUEST: CL zoned property located at 2045 South Harbor Boulevard, to permit a 318-room hotel with accessory uses including a restaurant, outdoor eating area and on-sale alcoholic beverages on with Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC84-258 granted the Conditional Use Permit with approval of addendum to EIR No. 254 which was previously certified. HEARING SET ON: Review requested by Councilwoman Kaywood on January 2, 1985, Item 2 from the addendum to the City Council meeting of December 18, 1984. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUEST MET BY: Publication in Anaheim Bulletin January 17, 1985. Posting of property January 18, 1985. Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - January 18, 1985. PLANNING STAFF INPUT: See Staff Report dated December 10, 1984. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT AND ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS POSED BY COUNCIL MEMBERS: Walter Hong, 2045 So. Harbor Boulevard. They accepted all conditions set forth by the Planning Commission. The parking indicated as 61 percent of that required is misleading. They are asking for a 24.5 percent reduction as requested on a previous conditional use permit. Ninety more parking spaces have been added with a reduction of 6 rooms, those 6 rooms to be used for conferences. They eliminated some of the rooms adjacent to the banquet room and expanded approximately 25 percent larger. They have not added any more square footage but were shifting the use of the floor 88 City Hall.t Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 29~ 1985t 10:00 A.M. space. The situation has been improved by adding the 90 additional spaces. He had discussed the matter with the Traffic Engineer who had advised him that the proposal is more than adequate because of the addition of parking spaces. STAFF INPUT: Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer. Staff had been working with the applicant who submitted a parking study (see Supplemental Report for parking requirements - Anaheim Regency Hotel - Conditional Use Permit October 12, 1984) showing that the number of parking spaces indicated on the plan are adequate to serve the facility. Should it prove not adequate following the opening of the hotel, the developer is bonded to construct additional parking. There is adequate area on the site to provide the additional parking. The Traffic Department monitored such situations closely and if there is non-compliance it would have to come back to the Council. PUBLIC DISCUSSION: Delight Nease, 701 Lamark, west of the hotel site. If in the future a parking structure is required, she wanted assurances there will be a public hearing to provide an opportunity for the neighbors to give their input in view of the past experience in their area with the construction of hotels. Previous experience with the building of the Marriott was that construction starting time was before 7 a.m. and there was a lack of mitigation measures in keeping the dust from the construction site down. OPPOSED: None IN FAVOR: None EXHIBITS, MATERIALS SUBMITTED: None CHANGES MADE AS A RESULT OF COUNCIL CONCERN: Condition was added that public hearing will be held if a parking structure becomes necessary. COUNCIL ACTION: Mayor Roth closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - APPROVAL OF ADDENDUM: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Bay, the City Council finds that Environmental Impact Report No. 254 was previously certified by the City Council on May 11, 1982 in conjunction with the original approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2322 (permitting a six-story 68-foot high 480 room hotel on subject property) and that the petitioner has submitted an addendum to Environmental Impact Report No. 254 for Planning Commission consideration; and that after considering the addendum to the Environmental Impact Report No. 254, hereby approves said addendum on the basis that it is in compliance with the 89 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Januar~ 29~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M. California Environmental Quality Act and the City and State CEQA guidelines and there are no significant environmental impacts identified. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 85R-55 for adoption, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 2634, subject to City Planning Commission conditions including the following: That prior to issuance of a building permit for a parking structure, if required to be provided in accordance with Condition No. 15a herein, a public hearing with public notification in accordance with 18.03.060, shall be conducted to consider and approve design of said parking structure. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 85R-55: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2634. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Pickler, Overholt and Roth None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 85R-55 duly passed and adopted. RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for ten minutes. (3:32 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (3:57 p.m.) 179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2274: APPLICANT: Ron Christian, Lorton Truck Services, 1124 North Richfield Road. REQUEST: Extension of time and/or deletion of Condition No. 7, of Resolution NO. 84R-591, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 2274, pertaining to the use being granted for one year subject to possible time extensions by the City Council, to permit a truck and heavy truck and heavy equipment storage yard on RS-A-43,000(SC) zoned property located at 1124 North Richfield Road. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUEST MET BY: Publication in Anaheim Bulletin January 17, 1985. Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - January 18, 1985. PLANNING STAFF INPUT: Report dated January 8, 1985, recommending granting a one year extension of time for Conditional Use Permit No. 2274, to expire December 31, 1986. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT: Ron Christian, Lorton Truck Services, 1124 North Richfield Road. He was beginning his fourth year of operation. No changes were being requested. He originally applied for a five-year conditional use permit but the Council granted the permit on a year-by-year basis. He was requesting that they waive the one 90 City Hall, Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 29t 1985r 10:00 A.M. year review. His lease expires in two years and he would be happy to come back at that time for an extension. PUBLIC DISCUSSION: Frank Bristing, 1170 North Richfield. He had no complaint, with Mr. Christian parking his equipment at the subject location but with the heavy equipment traffic back and forth on Richfield. His company moved in 15 months ago and it was felt that the traffic posed a dangerous situation. Richfield narrowed as it approached La Palma. The employees of his company, Currency Counting Consultants, traveled through the office park because of the danger on Richfield Road. They had called the Traffic Department a number of times to monitor the truck activity along Richfield Road. At one time they installed a "Right Turn Only" on Richfield Road (this signage was agreed to by Blair Paving at a previous public hearing). There were a few trucks that traveled down the road at an excess rate of speed. They had to double insulate all exterior walls in their building because of the noise up and down Richfield and dust was also a problem. The road was watered down periodically but it only lasted a matter of hours. He did not have a recommendation relative to the traffic. OPPOSED: None IN FAVOR: None APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO CONCERNS EXPRESSED: Ron Christian. He had 17 trucks that left the plant and were on the job at 6 a.m. before Mr. Bristing could ever see them. There were two other industrial users on Richfield Road where activity was generated. There was a new development on the northwest corner of Richfield. All businesses paid a fee for a traffic signal and he assumed that the situation would be improved. It is a problem corner although no accidents had occurred thus far and with the new development hopefully the situation would be mitigated. His company paved the road, utilized water trucks to prevent dust and did everything they were asked to do and would continue to do so. COUNCIL ACTION: The Mayor closed the public hearing but requested that staff be directed to monitor the subject intersection and propose recommendations to ensure its safety. Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 85R-56 for adoption, approving the extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 2274 to December 31, 1986, the date of lease expiration. Refer to Resolution Book. RE~OLUTION NO. 85R-56: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2274. 91 City Hallt Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 29~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Pickler, Overholt and Roth None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 85R-56 duly passed and adopted. 114/000: PARK IN-LIEU FEES: Councilwoman Kaywood reported on her attendance at the Park and Recreation Commission meeting Wednesday, January 23, 1985, where she discussed Councilman Pickler's request to have park in-lieu fees reviewed. The Commission was in the process of preparing a response which would be submitted shortly. 114/175: UTILITY BILL INSERT ON DISASTERS: Councilman Pickler noted that at the previous meeting he suggested that there be an insert in utility bills to inform citizens of the City's Code Enforcement procedure. He also felt that an insert would be useful on what to do in case of an earthquake or major disaster; Mayor Roth recommended that staff look into the matter. RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session to discuss matters as previously stated. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (4:20 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (5:31 p.m.) ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (5:32 p.m.) LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK 92