Loading...
1985/08/06City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 6~ 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, 0verholt and Roth COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: Ron Bates CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl CIVIL ENGINEER - DESIGN: Arthur Daw ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR 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 Don Dexter, First Presbyterian Church, gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Ben Bay 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: Naming the City "Ramaheim" on August 8, 1985. 119: RESOLUTION OF WELCOME: A Resolution of Welcome was unanimously adopted by the City Council to be presented to Lance Fergeson and his family on their visit to Disneyland, and best wishes on his 10th birthday on August 5th. MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held July 23, 1985. Councilman 0verholt seconded the motion. Councilman Bay abstained since he was not present at that meeting. MOTION CARRIED. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: ~ouncilwoman Kaywood moved to waive the reading in full of all ordinances ang.~esolutions 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 tttle~ specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such ordinances or resolutions in re&ular order. Counc~iman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $3,003,984.48, in accordance with the 1985-86 Budget, were approved. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Pickler, seconded by Councilman 0verholt, the following items were approved in accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed onthe Consent Calendar; Councilman Pickler 598 City Hall; Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 6~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M. offered Resolution Nos. 85R-342 through 85R-344, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance No. 4635 for first reading. 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 Mub-mmad Shahankary for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about June 21, 1985. b. Claim submitted by John and Deborah Janton for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about June 12, 1985. c. Claim submitted by Danette Stryker for property damage and bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about May 18, 1985. d. Claim submitted by Mr. Bug Inc. for indemnity and contribution against the City of Anaheim. Claim is purportedly due to actions of the City on or about May 24, 1984. e. Claim submitted by Anaheim Foundation for Culture and the Arts for indemnity against the City of Anaheim. Claim is purportedly due to actions of the City on or about July 12, 1983. Application for leave to present late claim - recommended to be rejected: f. Leave to present late claim submitted by Perkin-Elmer Corp., Buford Meyers for personal injuries and property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about March 11, 1985. g. Leave to present late claim submitted by Arthur Roy for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about September 21, 1984. Claims filed against the City - recommended to be paid: e. Claim submitted by John D. Carlyle for property d-m-ge due to actions of the City on or about June 14, 1985. 2. Receiving and filing the following correspondence: (on file) a. Public Utilities Board--Minutes of June 20, 1985. b. Project Area Committee--Minutes of July 9 and 24, 1985. 3. 150/109/106: Accepting State Grant funding in the amount of $318,000 to be used for Oak Canyon Nature Center ($40,000), Peralta Canyon Park Recreation Center Improvements (550,000) and Imperial Park general development (5228,000) 599 65 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 6~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M. and increasing the appropriation of Program 16-823-7103 and the offsetting revenue account (No. 16-823-3150) by the amount of $228,000. 4. 123/180: Authorizing Rollins Burdick Hunter, Broker of Record, to order aviation liability insurance (police helicopters), underwritten by Southern Marine and Aviation, Inc., at an annual premium cost of $37,373.94 for coverage on a per occurrence basis for the period July 1, 1985 through July 1, 1986. 5. 123/180: Authorizing Rollins Burdick Hunter, Broker of Record, to extend and amend the City's excess workers' compensation insurance coverage, underwritten through Employers Reinsurance, at an auditable premium cost of $55,000 for Statutory coverage limits in excess of a $250,000 per-occurrence self-insured retention, for the term July 1, 1985 through July 1, 1986. &: 17~/123: Approving a reimbursement agreement with King's Meadow Associates for special water facilities to serve Tract No. 10975 in the A~aheim Hills area, in accordance with Rule 15-B of the Water Rules. 7. 123: Authorizing an agreement with the Orange County Job Training Partnership Agency in an amount not to exceed $155,000, to provide funds for program operations under the JTPA for the term July 1, 1985 through June 30, 1986, and authorizing the City Manager to execute same and any modifications thereto. 8. 160: Waiving Council Policy No. 306 and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to Advanced Control Systems, in the amount of $142,328, for one lot HPM-7085 Master Station peripheral support equipment, five each HPM-7000 color graphic CRT(s), four each FX-80 printers and one lot system generation and on-site installation for the Lewis Substation Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition System (SCADA). 9. 175: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-342: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINAI3.Y ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT ANDALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPOKTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF AIJ, WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: CONSTRUCTION OF WATER IMPROVEMENTS IN WEIR CANYON ROAD IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. (Account No. 54-605-6329-00512, Albert W. Davies, Inc,, contractor, and authorizing filing of the Notice of Completion therefor) 10. 139: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-343: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM SUPPORTING S. 1434 TO EXEMPT STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS FROM THE OVERTIME PROVISIONS OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT. (Supporting United States S 1434 (Wilson) to exempt State and local governments from the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and authorizing the Mayor to communicate this position to the City's elected representatives in Washington) 11. 139: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-344: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. 12. 158: ORDINANCE NO. 4635: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 14, CHAPTER 14.40, SECTIONS 14.40.050, 14.40.070 OF THE 600 66 City H~]]~ A-~beim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 6~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M. ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO STREET SPEED LIMITS IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Pickler, Overholt and Roth NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 85R-342 through 85R-344, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. End of Consent Calendar. 155: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION - CONSTRUCTION OF SANITARY SEWER - TIMKEN ROAD: City Clerk Leonora Sohl announced that a letter had been received from Mrs. J. E. Mc_Names regarding the subject but there had been no request from anyone to speak. Art Daw, Civil Engineer - Design, stated he had reviewed the letter received that morning (see letter received August 5, 1985 from Mrs. J. E. McNames). He then briefed the need for the subject improvement. MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to approve a negative declaration for the construction of a sanitary sewer within and adjacent to Timken Road between Mohler Drive and 489 feet southeast of Mohler Drive. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, the Mayor recognized a person from the audience who wished to speak. Mrs. Audrey Day, 329 Timken Road, referred to a letter previously sent by Carlotta Yorba Hansfield relative to the issue; the Mayor stated the Council had not received the letter. Mrs. Hansfield had expressed great concern as had other neighbors. They did not know where the sewer was going or how it would impact the residents. There is no real road for access to the rear as had been explained by Mr. Daw. The property owners do not have a clear idea of the project. The had not contacted the City Engineer. The letter sent to them was not clear as to what was being done and why. It was her understanding the sewer was going to be constructed on Coyote. Mr. Daw explained that the Engineering Department received a request from the property owner who was going to be building a home that he be provided sewer service. The letter referred to from Mrs. Hansfield had been received in the Engineering Division and not by the City Council. Her concern primarily was that she did not receive a notice and that was an inadvertent oversight of the Engineering Division. Mrs. Day confirmed that the residents were concerned as to where the sewer was going, and nobody knew other houses were going to be built. Another issue was the fact that when water lines were installed, the road was never repaired correctly. Every homeowner had paid to have the road resurfaced but it always 601 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ausust 6~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M. broke down in the area of the water lines and nothing had been done by the Engineering Department. Mayor Roth recommended a continuance so that Mrs. Day could take information back to the residents after discussing the matter with Mr. Daw. He also suggested that the Engineering Department make an additional mailing to the residents who will be inconvenienced as a result of the improvement. MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to continue the consideration of a negative declaration for the construction of a sanitary sewer on Timken Road to Tuesday, August 20, 1985. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. John Carusillo, 315 South Mohler Drive. The City is requesting an easement along approximately 200 feet of his property to the rear for the sewer project. His concern in talking with the Engineer's Office in the past is the fact that there is a natural and tranquil gully behind his property. He is not opposed to helping a neighbor but most concerned with the end result of the aesthetics of the sewer pipeline so that there will be the least impact possible. Mayor Roth asked that Mr. Daw meet with the two citizens and the two-week continuance would provide an opportunity to disseminate more information amongst the residents. 179: AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT - REQUEST FOR KEHEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2648: Submitted by Jay Cowan on Conditional Use Permit No. 2648, to expand a recreational vehicle park on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located at 2760 West Lincoln Avenue, with Code waiver of required setback in special areas, (7-11 Motel and Trailer Park), granted by Council on June 25, 1985, with certain stipulations. MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to grant the request for the rehearing. 'Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Before action was taken, Jack White, City Attorney, explained for Councilman Overholt the petitioner in his request for a rehearing stated it was to amend Condition No. 11 of Council Resolution No. 85R-262 to delete the 35-foot setback for the fence and to permit the fence to be constructed 10 feet from the sidwalk. To his knowledge, the only reason for the rehearing was to allow the fence to be 10 feet from the sidewalk. Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, stated as she understood, the Council approved the fence to be at 35-feet to screen the trailers that were to be at least 35 feet back. She did not understand 10 feet to be acceptable. The Planning Commission approval was different from what Council approved. The Commission approved the fence at 10 feet. Councilman Overholt stated the applicant was petitioning for a rehearing representing what the Planning Department understood and apparently the applicant was in error. Planning understood the fence was going to be set back 35 feet. He questioned why the rush for a rehearing. Apparently the applicant wanted the fence 10 from the sidewalk but he did not get it. 602 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 6~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M. Mr. Jay Cowan, petitioner, explained that he met with Miss Santalahti following the Council meeting. His drawings showed the wall at 10 feet from the property line which drawings were posted on the Chamber wall and he had not changed anything. During the hearing he heard no discussion about moving the wall from the location as shown on the drawing which was 10 feet from the sidewalk which made sense because at that point it would screen all cars and all trailers. It made no sense at 35 feet. The new evidence was the fact that the evidence was not understood. Mr. White stated after listening to the discussion, it was his belief that the applicant had chosen the wrong remedy for the situation. Mr. Cowan felt he had not received a fair hearing; therefor, he would have the right to request an amendment of the conditions without presenting any new evidence. Once a rehearing was granted, it would open up the entire process and the City Council would have the right not only to amend Condition No. 11, but also any other condition and/or deny the application altogether. The applicant might instead want to file an amendment which would come directly to the Council because the Council had taken the final action. Councilman Bay stated it was his opinion that the form itself for a request for a rehearing tended to make people single out which areas to check in order to get the rehearing and that it needed to be analyzed further. Mr. White stated it did not address the threshold which is that rehearings are available in only limited circumstances and some other vehicle was necessary to explain to potential petitioners that the rehearing process was not the cure-all and that there were other avenues available that needed to be utilized in certain instances. He would look into the matter and report back to the Council. Councilman 0verholt stated he was going to support the request but favored the City Attorney looking at the present procedure relative to rehearings. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion to grant the rehearing with the public hearing to be scheduled Tuesday, September 10, 1985, at 1:30 p.m. MOTION CARRIED. 105: APPOINTMENTS TO THE LIBRARY BOARD: To fill term expiring June 30, 1985 (Schultz and Dahl). Councilman Roth moved to continue the appointment to the Library Board to Tuesday, August 13, 1985. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 105: APPOINTMENT TO THE SENIOR CITIZENS COMMISSION: To fill two three year terms expiring June 30, 1988. Councilwoman Kaywood nominated Muriel Nelson to fill Irving Willing's seat; Councilman Pickler noted that Mr. Willing was not resigning. Councilwoman Kaywood stated Mr. Willing had a poor attendance record on the Commission and first decided he did not want to be considered as a candidate for reappointment and subsequently changed his mind. 603 61 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 6~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M. Councilman Roth nominated Estella Nichols; Councilman Pickler nominated Irving Willing. Councilman Roth moved to close nominations. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. A Roll Call Vote was then taken on the nomination in the order in which they were made: Muriel Nelson -Ayes: Kaywood, Bay, Overholt and Roth Noes: Pickler Estella Nichols -AllAyes. Muriel Nelson was appointed to the Senior Citizens Commission for the term ending June 30, 1988 and Estella Nichols was reappointed to the Senior Citizens Commission for the term ending June 30, 1988. 105: APPOINTMENTS TO THE PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE: City Clerk Sohl announced that there were still two vacancies on the Committee but no letters had been received from citizens who wished to serve on that Committee which had certain qualifications. MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to table appointments on the Project Area Committee with the matter to again be placed on the Council agenda at the time that letters of interest had been received from those qualified to serve on that Committee. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 105: MOTHER COLONY HOUSING ADVISORY BOARD: To discuss terms, membership, and vacancies on the Mother Colony House Advisory Board. Councilman Overholt moved to continue the subject discussion to Tuesday, August 13, 1985. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 144: APPOINTMENTS TO THE ORANGE COUNTY HEALTH PLANNING COUNCIL (0CHPC): To appoint a delegate and an alternate delegate, on the Orange County Health Planning Council. Councilwoman Kayw00d nominated Dr. David Rlggs as delegate and Jane Ward as alternate. Councilman Pickler moved to close nominations. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman 0verholt moved to cast a unanimous ballot for Dr. David Riggs as delegate and Jane Ward as alternate to the Orange County Health Planning Council. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 108: APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT - EMPRESA FRIAS: Councilman Pickler moved to approve an application for a Public Dance Permit submitted by Jesus Munoz Frias for Empresa Frias, to hold a dance at the Anaheim Convention Center on August 10, 1985, from 6:00 P.M. to 1:00 A.M., in accordance with the 6O4 62 Cit~ Hall~ Ana.heim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 6~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M. recommendations of the Chief of Police. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 108: APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT - EL TORITO: Councilman Bay moved to approve an application for a Public Dance Permit submitted by Raul F. 0rtiz for E1 Torito, 2020 East Ball Road, to hold a dance on August 10, 1985, from 9:00 P.M. to 1:00 A.M. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 144/106: EASTERN CORRIDOR FEE STRUCTURE - PUBLIC HEARING DATE: To set a public hearing date on the Eastern Corridor fee structure and supporting documents and appropriating an amount not to exceed 33,400 to cover the cost of advertising said public hearing from the Council Contingency Fund into Account No. 01-132-6101. Councilman Bay explained he was advised by staff last week since there were technical problems in not having the enabling ordinance in place before setting the public hearing, the action today should be to instruct the City Attorney to work on an enabling ordinance to be submitted to the Council. Joel Fick, Assistant Director for Planning confirmed that staff was advised by County Counsel that an enabling ordinance should first be in place. The City Attorney's Office reviewed the County's work and agreed with that opinion. MOTION: Councilman Bay moved that prior to setting a public hearing date on the Eastern Corridor fee structure and supporting documents that an enabling ordinance first be submitted to the Council for action. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 144/114: BEACH BOULEVARD "SUPER STREET PROJECT": Councilwoman Kaywood, speaking from her position on the Beach Boulevard Super Street pilot project, asked if Council would be interested in an approximate 15 minute study session relative to that important project at the Council meeting of August 20, 1985 where Mr. A1 Hollinden, Consultant, and a member of his staff would make a presentation. By general Council consent, the study session was scheduled for August 20, 1985. 144/114: BOTTLENECK STUDY MEETING - AUGUST 15~ 1985: Councilman Pickler referred to the notification received from the Orange County Transportation Commission on the subject meeting. Councilman Bay reported he had discussed the letter with staff who was of the opinion that the matter could be handled with technical staff attending those meetings which will take place across a 13 or 14 month period, the City's interest being in where the Eastern Corrider may intersect I-5 and/or the problem of the bottleneck area which might include a connection with the Garden Grove freeway which had been discussed. If it eventually becomes necessary that a Council member attend those meetings, staff can report back to the Council and representatives designated accordingly. 605 59 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 6~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M. 172/114: AFFIRMING SUPPORT OF THE NORTHEAST ORANGE COUNTY CIRCULATION STUDY (NEOCCS): Mayor Roth referred to the activity occurring in Anaheim Hills, Orange and Tustin area to put the arterial highway program and particularly the extension of Imperial "on ice" and not carry on is shown in the NEOCCS Study that was approved by the Council when it was presented in 1978. He recommended that the Council initiate a resolution affirming their positive support for the NEOCCS Study and arterial highway program as they had done in the past emphasizing the fact that Imperial Highway needed to line up and connect with the roads coming out of Orange. The plan was approved long before residents moved into adjacent areas, the claim being they had no idea Imperial would be continued on over the hill. Councilman Overholt asked that the Council be given a review relative to the NEOCCS Study particularly for Councilman Pickler who was not a Council Member at the time the Study took place and approved. RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Mayor Roth announced that a Closed Session would be held for the following purposes: To confer with its attorney and designated representative regarding labor relations matters pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6. bo To consider such other matters as are orally announced by the City Attorney or City Manager prior to such recess unless such motion to recess indicates any of such matters will not be considered in closed session. Ce Pending litigation (54956.9A) - B-1 Enterprise vs. City of Anaheim; Martin Jaska vs. City of Anaheim; City of Anaheim vs. State of California; significant exposure to litigation (54956.9B1). Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session and a lunch break. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (11:12 a.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (1:38 p.m.) 129: PUBLIC HEAKING - 1984-85 WEED ABATEMENT ROLL: To receive a report from the Fire Chie~ on the cost o~ abatement o~ weeds ~or each individual lot where work was performed under the 1984-85 Weed Abatement Program and to hear any objections from property owners liable to be assessed for the abatement. Report dated July 15, 1985 was submitted by the Fire Marshall. Mayor Roth asked if any property owners were present liable to be assessed for the abatement objecting to such assessment; no property owners were present objecting to the assessment. City Clerk Leon. fa Sob/ reported that no written objections to the assessment had been received. Councilman Roth, by motion, declared that no written or oral objections had been received relative to assessment under the 1984/84 Weed Abatement Program. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 606 6O Cit~ N~11~ An~heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ausust 6~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M. Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 85R-345 for adoption, confirming the written report of the Fire Chief and authorizing the County Auditor to enter each assessment on the County tax rolls. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 85R-345: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CONFIRMING THE WRITTEN REPORT OF THE FIRE CHIEF REGARDING THE COST OF WEED ABATEMENT, AND DIRECTING THE FILING THEREOF WITH THE COUNTY OF ORANGE. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS COUNCIL MEMBERS COUNCIL MEMBERS Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 85R-345 duly passed and adopted. MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to combine the two following public hearings, the first on Variance No. 3481 and negative declaration and the second on the Street Closure - Cypress Street since the first was dependent upon the second. Before a vote was taken, the City Attorney confirmed that the Council could legally receive public testimony in one combined hearing and act on the matters individually. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. 179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 3481 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND PUBLIC HEARING ON STREET CLOSURE - CYPRESS STREET: APPLICANT: Jessie C. Bonner P.O. Box 4241, Anaheim CA. 92805 ZONING/LOCATION/REQUEST: To construct an 8-unit apartment complex on RS-7200 zoned property located at'220 North Coffman Street, with Code waiver of maximum structural height, and to consider closure of Cypress Street in the 1800 block, east, at the intersection of Cypress Street and Evelyn Drive. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC85-112 granted Variance No. 3481, approved EIR - negative declaration. HEARING SET ON: Review requested by Councilman Pickler at the meeting of May 21, 1985 and continued from the meeting of June 4, 1985, to this date. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in Anaheim Bulletin May 24, 1985. Posting of property May 24, 1985. Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - May 24, 1985. PLANNING STAFF INPUT: See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated July 31, 1985 from the Public Works Engineering Department. 607 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 6, 1985~ 10:00 A.M. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT: Gary Masciel, 420 South Euclid. Proposed is an 8 unit apartment complex with a request for Code Waiver of maximum structural height as discussed at the previous meeting (see minutes of June 4, 1985). PUBLIC DISCUSSION - IN FAVOR OF STREET CLOSURE: Lou Weimer, 173 Evelyn Drive. Appearing on behalf of his neighbors to express support for the proposed street closure. Pedestrian traffic takes place in the street and additional traffic will be a danger. There are no sidewalks or street lights on Evelyn Drive. The lots on Cypress Street and Coffman Street do not render themselves to single-family dwellings. Concern is relative to additional traffic with multiple-family units being constructed on Coffman Street which will foster similar requests. It should not be incumbent upon the residents to live with multiple-family dwellings. They are asking for the street closure which will protect their residential area and that it be constructed on the property line. Ron Clenney, corner of Evelyn and Cypress Street. He prefers the closure at the intersection itself approximately 110 feet east of the actual intersection on Evelyn. His home and that of Mrs. Way face Evelyn Drive but their driveways are on Cypress Street. He is in favor of the apartments only if the street closure takes place. (He submitted a statement relative to the issue and a drawing of how he believes the closure should be effected). It was determined by a show of hands at this point that approximately 12 people were present in favor of the closure. PUBLIC DISCUSSION - IN OPPOSITION: Daniel Torres, 1909 East Cypress (across from the proposed apartments). His house is 25 feet from the curb and his bedroom and bathroom are located at the front of his house. A two-story structure across the street will have visual access to those front rooms. He is opposed to the two-story structure and the closure of Cypress Street. In case of an emergency, his family could be Jeopardized because of the time lost in gaining access through the area even if a breakable barrier is used for the closure. If the streets are widened and properly redesigned (Cypress and Coffman), he would still be opposed to the closure. Mr. Gallagher, 169 Evelyn Drive. Opposed to the street closure because the barricade would border on discrimination. If a disaster occurs on one street or the other, the only way to exit the area is on foot or through someone's back yard. The triangle bordered by Center Street, State College and Lincoln where several small businesses are 608 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 6~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M. located could not be accessed easily by those on Evelyn Drive. Ingress and egress would be hampered and safety Jeopardized. Susan Hunter, 153 Evelyn Drive. Traffic is a concern because of the many children on Evelyn as well as the activity from the Village Inn whose patrons drive through and check out the Evelyn Drive area. The residents do not oppose the development if the street is closed. Ruth Motley, 203 Evelyn Drive (Cypress and Evelyn). On State College, there is an entrance between two buildings that goes into the property which could be opened up and used for access (from State College through to Coffman). C. A. Barnwell, 132 Evelyn Drive. The development on Cypress would be undesirable and a large monetary setback as far as improvements on the street because there is no access without major improvements relative to access from Lincoln Avenue. He did not see how there could be improvements on Coffman without major street changes with regard to Coffman Street itself because the entrance and exit for Coffman onto Center Street is extremely difficult. He would like to see Evelyn Street closed off. Mrs. Lester W. Way, 189 Evelyn Drive. The development will increase density and vehicular traffic. It is difficult to get out of Coffman and easier to use Evelyn Drive. If a disaster occurred the density on Coffman Street will pour onto Evelyn Drive making it difficult for the residents on Evelyn to exit the area. The solution should not be at the expense of residents on Evelyn Drive. Because of the nature of Evelyn Drive children do play in the street and older people walk in the street. If development takes place, leaving Cypress Street open will endanger those on Evelyn Drive. SUMMATION BY APPLICANT: Gary Masciel. The developer is concerned about the type of closure and the safety of the people. The widening of the Street has always been the recommendation and they are willing to adhere to the widening for their portion. The widening of Cypress and Coffman was something previously discussed with the City Engineer. STAFF INPUT: Jack White, City Attorney. Before Council can approve the closure, it is necessary to make a finding the street is no longer necessary for through traffic. If closed by cul-de-sac means, he saw no legal problem provided Council is able, based upon the evidence, to make a finding that the street is not needed for through traffic. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer. The closure could be designed in such a manner that it would be 609 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 6~ 1985, 10:00 A.M. accessible to emergency vehicles. The Fire Department could always get through. COUNCIL CONCERNS/DISCUSSION: Councilman Overholt. The Police Department finds the closure not in their best interest because it would make preventive patrol more difficult and raise problems relative to area evacuation. However, the Police Department would be equally as capable of gaining access in an emergency as the Fire Department. Councilman Pickler. Circulation in the area should not be hindered and the street should not be closed. It is not fair to the people in Cypress Street and will create a situation not beneficial to all concerned. Councilwoman Kaywood. She finds the proposal for a two-story structure at 39 and 1/2 feet, 65 feet and 95 feet from single-family residential to be totally unacceptable. Further, relative to the Village Inn, if anything illegal was taking place there, it should be investigated and acted on. Councihnan Roth. He is supportive of the closure of Cypress. He would prefer to encourage development along Coffman Street. This is the first development and it is necessary to make it favorable for the private sector to do something rather than making it necessary for government to redevelop the area. There was no testimony today that did not point to the fact that some positive improvements were necessary on Cypress Street. Councilman Bay. If there was going to be transitional development on Coffman Street, it was going to be necessary to close Cypress, widen Coffman and do it starting with the first developer, get the dedication to widen Coffman and do what had to be done. If Cypress.is closed it would also be necessary to get the minimum amount of radius necessary for a cul-de-sac on Cypress for turn around. (The Traffic Engineer then clarified questions posed by Councilman Bay on the technical aspects of the closure, cul-de-sac radius necessary for turnaround, street radius to facilitate trash trucks, street sweeping, fire equipment, etc.) MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to order the closure of Cypress Street at Evelyn Drive to through traffic and approving the recommendations of staff in report dated July 31, 1985 (Page 2): a) that Coffman Street be widened, as development takes place to 40 feet curb to curb and dedication be made 30 feet to centerline of the street and b) that a modified cul-de-sac be constructed on both ends of Cypress Street. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Councilman Pickler voted "no". MOTION CARRIED. 610 56 City M~!i~ An~heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 6~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M. COUNCIL CONCERNS RRTATIVE TO VAILIANCE NO. 3481: Councilwoman Kaywood. That there is only 39 and 1/2 feet from the proposed two-story structure to the existing single-family dwelling to the east. Councilman Bay. Assumed granting the variance includes the changes involved for the street closure, dedication etc. STAFF INPUT: Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning. Relative to the single-family dwelling to the east, the 39 and 1/2 feet is from the proposed apartment building to the property line and not to the single-family dwelling. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer. He did not tell the developer that the City will pay for the street closure. The first developer will pay for the closure and get a pro rata share as new developers come in. The closure to the east will be the responsibility of the subject developer and the closure on the west side would be pro rated. Jack White, City Attorney. First explained the mechanism of the reimbursement agreement method which is used often where developers are reimbursed by subsequent developers for certain improvements. In this case there was no mechanism in city ordinances to set up a pro rata share in connection with the construction of the cul-de-sac. However, he would prepare the appropriate mechanism where reimbursement can be made from subsequent developers. It will become an issue only when subsequent developers came in and money had to be collected. EXHIBITS, MATERIALS SUBMITTED: Statement by Ron Clenney and drawing of how the closure should be affected. CHANGES TO PROPOSAL AS A RESULT OF COUNCIL DISCUSSION: That prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall prepare plans and specifications for the closure of Cypress Street between Evelyn Drive and Coffman ~treet, maid clo~ing to include modified cul-de-sacs at both ends of Cypress Street. Said plans and specifications shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval and a bond shall be posted with the City of Anaheim to guarantee the installation of said improvements prior to final building and zoning inspections. COUNCIL ACTION: Mayor Roth closed the public hearing. Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 85R-346 for adoption, finding that Cypress Street is no longer needed for through traffic and authorizing its closure at its current intersection with Evelyn Drive with a proper modified cul-de-sac to be installed at that point. Refer to Resolution Book. 611 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 6~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M. RESOLUTION NO. 85R-346: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING THAT CYPRESS STREET IS NO LONGER NEEDED FOR THROUGH TRAFFIC AND AUTHORIZING ITS CLOSURE. Roll Call Vote: AYES'. NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Overholt and Roth Pickler None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 85R-346 duly passed and adopted. Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 85R-347 for adoption, granting Variance No. 3481, subject to City Planning Commission conditions including the condition as noted above. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 85R-347: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 3481. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth Kaywood None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 85R-347 duly passed and adopted. Councilwoman Kaywood voted "no" because of the two-story structure 39 feet from single-family which will become a precedent. RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for five minutes. (3:12 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (3:21 p.m.) 169: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED MEDIAN ISLAND IN HARBOR BOULEVARD: Gerald K. Grotle and Marcus S. Metzler, to consider the proposed median on Harbor Boulevard between Vermont Avenue and South Street which would permit left-turn into Harbor Gateway Plaza and remove parking from one side of Harbor Boulevard. This matter was continued from the meeting of July 16 and July 30, 1985 where extensive input and discussion took place. Submitted was report dated July 8, 1985 from Public Works, Engineering recommending that the Council approve the removal of parking on the East side of Harbor Boulevard. STAFF INPUT: Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer. Discussion at the July 30, 1985 hearing revolved around the necessity of a minimum median island at the intersection of Ball Road and Harbor Boulevard as it will affect Traveler's World. He would eventually want a median island from Vermont Street to Ball Road with only a left turn egress to Traveler's World. The 612 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Auzust 6~ 198~t ,!0:00 A.M. two sketches he submitted with his report (see report dated August 2, 1985 - one sketch - minimum requirement, second sketch - preferred alternative). In either case, Traveler's World will have left turn access from Harbor Boulevard. Councilman Bay. Preferred the minimum median north of Ball Road as shown on the first sketch (minimum requirement) and not to take the median to Vermont due to the businesses on both sides of Harbor in that area. To the north, he felt the median should start at Santa Aha Street and continue north to Broadway which would give an entrance into downtown redevelopment without creating the same type of business problems that would occur on Harbor Boulevard between Santa Ana Street and South Street. PUBLIC INPUT: Frank Lowry, Attorney, Farano and Kieviet appearing on behalf of Traveler's World. The Traffic Engineer's report received late Friday was discussed with his client that morning. He asked for time relative to the issue of the median at Ball Road and Harbor Boulevard since on first examination Traveler's World would lose 30 parking stalls and it would require several hundred thousand dollars to make the proposed changes and improvements that will be necessary to accommodate the turn. He asked for three or four weeks to analyze the matter with his client's Engineers. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer. Confirmed for Councilman Bay that the minimum requirement left turn median as shown on the first sketch would have absolutely no effect on the driveway to or from the proposed Traveler's World entrance. Further, he recommended consideration of a median island south of Vermont be considered at the time the environmental document was prepared for the project which was not going to be constructed until 1988 or thereafter and thus a continuance of the matter was not necessary at this time. COUNCIL ACTION: Mayor Roth closed the public hearing. Councilman Bay moved that the proposed median between Broadway and Vermont on Harbor Boulevard be reduced to a median from Santa Aha Street to Broadway only. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. STAFF INPUT: Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer. Requested that the median be approved for construction all the way from Broadway to South Street rather than terminate at Santa Ama Street. There was no objection received to that and if a median could be installed at this time, it would eliminate problems in the future. Businesses are located in that area but no objections registered to having the median constructed in that portion of Harbor Boulevard. 613 51 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 6~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M. Councilman Pickler offered an amended motion that the proposed median be installed from Santa Aha Street to South Street. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Councilman Bay voted "no" on the basis if there was no justification for a median from South Street to Vermont, he questioned justification for a median from Santa Ana Street to South Street. MOTION CARRIED. A vote was then taken on the main motion to install a median on Harbor Boulevard from Broadway to South Street only with no median to be constructed between South Street and Vermont as amended. Councilman Bay voted "no." MOTION CARRIED. 179: PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 84-85-32(READV.)~ VARIANCE N0. 3487 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: APPLICANT: Severiano J. and Ruth Ann Perez 3153 West Ball Road Anaheim, California 92804 & Arthur P. and Beverly A. Lane 3157 and 3163 West Ball Road Anaheim, California 92804 ZONING/LOCATION/REQUEST: For a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200, to construct a 52-unit apartment complex on property located at 3153, 3157 and 3163 West Ball Road, with Code waiver of maximum building height. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC85-144 approved Reclassification No. 84-85-32 and PC85-145 granted Variance No. 3487. Approved EIR-negative declaration. HEARING SET ON: Review requested by Councilwoman Kaywood at the meeting of June 25, 1985. This item was continued from the meeting of July 30, 1985, to this date. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in Anaheim Bulletin on July 18, 1985. Posting of property, July 18, 1985 Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - July 18, 1985. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT: Magdy Hanna, 4000 Harbor Boulevard, Newport Beach. He met with Mr. McGaughy and had solved the problems regarding the height limit shown in Scheme No. 1 posted on the Chamber wall. A single-story structure building only will be constructed to the rear and the setback average is approximately 77 feet. In one area the setback is 68 feet from single-family, 90 feet in the middle and at the end of the building 74 feet. The swimming pool was moved approximately 50 feet away from the single family. There are apartments on the east boundary with an existing block wall fence. He asked the Council to consider waiving the requirement of building another wall on the east boundary and use the existing wall instead of building another 614 52 Cit7 H~ll~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL N/NOTES - August 6~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M. wall right next to the wall that is already there. He asked the manager of the apartments who was present and was told they could increase the height of the wall to bring it up to 6 feet from the grade level. Mr. McGaughy requested a 10-foot wall on the north boundary and the applicant will be happy to provide STAFF INPUT: Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning. The Code requirement for the block wall fence is 6 feet maximum and minimum and that was the height that was considered. A variance would be required if higher than 6 feet. PUBLIC DISCUSSION: Mel McGaughy, 910 Western Avenue. He met with the developer and they worked out a compromise. The developer agreed to a setback of 74 feet on the east side and 68 feet on the west side and even though it was under what he wanted, he agreed to go along with that. The Developer also agreed to delete all the windows and balconies facing his property. He (McGaughy) also agreed to a 10 foot wall which is from the finished grade. He wanted the wall 10 feet from the finish grade on the subject property (developer's side). He also wanted to hold the developer to 10 feet even if he had to get a variance to do so. The property to the west was approved on the basis of the developer providing a 10-foot fence. Mr. Hanna. He is willing to provide a 10-foot fence. They are about 3 and 1/2 feet above the grade level from the street and their property will be higher than Mr. McGaughy's which will mean building a fence 13 and 1/2 to 14 feet high. Myrtle Slumsky, manager of the apartments to the east. She does not have the authority to say that the wall could be used and/or added to but would have to speak with her owner, Mr. Sara. He did not want the swimming pool moved closer to the apartments but apparently residential zoning had preference. STAFF INPUT: Jack White, City Attorney. Council could amend conditions to provide that the fence be a minimum of 10 feet measured on the low side and if necessary the applicant would apply for a variance to accomplish that purpose. A condition could be added that the applicant would apply for a variance and a 10-foot high fence would be required upon obtaining the variance. The request is that the fence would be 10-feet in height measured on the low side of the fence which would be on the applicant's side and if the fence can be so constructed so that it does not require a variance by not being more than 6 feet on the high side, it would be permitted as a matter of right. If the variance is required, the 615 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 6~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M. applicant will be required to obtain a variance through the City prior to obtaining building permits. Relative to the fence to the east, he suggested the Council impose a 6-foot high fence requirement on the east side where the apartments are located and allow the applicant to either construct a new fence adjacent to the existing one or if he gets permission, to add to the one already existing as long as it is engineered properly. A~ntka Santalahti. The reason why a 10-foot wall was allowed on the project to the east was due to the fact that the project did have an advertised waiver for the fence height. There was a condition that included a 10-foot block wall fence on the north side. It had been readvertised to include a fence waiver. CONFIRMATION OF STIPULATIONS MADE BY THE APPLICANT: Magdy Hanna. He agreed to delete the windows and balconies on the north side. He will do whatever is required of him by the Council but he does not want to go through another public hearing in order to construct a 10-foot wall. If he had to do so, he would not have a project at all. COUNCIL ACTION: Mayor Roth closed the public hearing. CHANGES TO PROPOSALS AS A RESULT OF COUNCIL ACTION/DISCUSSION: That a minimum 6-foot high block wall shall be constructed along the east property line; that no windows or balcony shall face the westerly 150 feet of the north property line; that the wall to be constructed on the north property line be the maximum height permitted by Code. Councilman Roth offered Variance No. 3487 for adoption, subject to City Planning Commission conditions and the additional amendments as articulated. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 85R-348: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 3487. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, 0verholt, Pickler and Roth None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 85R-348 duly passed and adopted. 616 5O Cit~ Hall~ ADaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 6~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M. 179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2696 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: APPLICANT: Thrifty Oil Co. 10000 Lakewood Boulevard Downey, California ZONING/LOCATION/REQUEST: To permit a convenience market with gasoline sales and off-sale beer and wine on ML zoned property located at 3101 East La Palma Avenue, with Code waiver of minimum landscaped setback. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution PC85-173 denied Conditional Use Permit No. 2696, approved EIR - negative declaration. HEARING SET ON: Hearing set after Planning Commission's decision was appealed by the applicant. This matter was continued from the meeting of July 30, 1985, this date. tO PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in Anaheim Bulletin July 18, 1985. Posting of property July 19, 1985. Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - July 18, 1985. PLANNING STAFF iNPUT: See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated July 8, 1985. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT: A1 Johnson, Construction Coordinator, Thrifty Oil. Their proposal is a full service convenience store selling limited amount of grocery items, snack items, beverages including beer and wine and a continuance of the self service gasoline business. Relative to the traffic issue, 92 percent of their business is from people already on site to buy gasoline with very little resultant traffic generation. They eliminated one driveway on La Palma and agreed to construct a median strip down Kraemer to divide traffic to preclude any left turns into the station and also agree to relocate the driveways on Kraemer. It is a large lot with good circulation and 12 parking spaces. Relative to a concern about loitering on the site, Thrifty had a professional security force as well as an "in store" manager. Being privately owned, their business is run with consideration for the neighborhood and the people in it. Trash and clean up would be done at the beginning of each shift. The number of employees is determined by the amount of business. During busy hours with a successful business they always have two people on duty. They are a 24-hour operation and in the very late hours, there would be one employee on duty. COUNCIL CONCERNS: Councilman Pickler. There will be an increase in traffic. The total parcels should be utilized which would make for a more efficient use. He 617 47 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 6~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M. recommended a continuance to give the applicant an opportunity to revise his proposal to include utilization of the unimproved adjacent areas which belonged to Thrifty. Councilwoman Kaywood. There was unanimous denial of the proposal not only by the Planning Commission, but also the Project Area Committee and Redevelopment Commission. It is located in the northeast industrial area where the Council has been diligent in not allowing any uses that would encourage public intrusion. It would set a precedent. The Fire Department requirements are being abused by such projects which will require additional supervision and enforcement by the City. If there is only one employee, it is not possible for that employee to be inside and outside at the same time. It is a fire hazard to which the City should not be exposed. Councilman Overholt. Mr. Johnson stated he would not be willing to delete the request for beer and wine. He (0verholt) feels this is the real problem with the'project for some members of the Council. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Roth, 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. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 85R-349 for adoption, denying Conditional Use Permit No. 2696, upholding the findings of the City Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 85R-349: ARESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2696. R011 Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay and Overholt COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler and Roth COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 85R-349 duly passed and adopted. 179: PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 3493 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: APPLICANT: Bradmore Realty Investment Company, Ltd., 721 Santa Monica Blvd. Santa Monica, CA. 90401 ZONING/LOCATION/REQUEST: To establish an industrial vocational school on ML zoned property located at 270 East Palais Road, with Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. 618 48 City M~11~ A-~heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 6~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC85-161 granted Variance No. 3493, approved EIR - negative declaration. HEARING SET ON: Review requested by Councilman Pickler at the meeting of July 16, 1985. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication ln Anaheim Bulletin July 25, 1985. Posting of property July 26, 1985. Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - July 26, 1985. PLANNING STAFF INPUT: See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated June 24, 1985. COUNCIL CONCERNS: Councilman Pickler. His only concern is that 1,068 parking spaces are required and 252 were being proposed. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT: Jeoffry Middleton, agent. There are 300 available spaces and the amount of students they will have on the property will not be more than 300 at any one time and perhaps 250 or 260. It is a privately-owned vocational school and there are three shifts of students with classes starting at 7:00 a.m., 12:30 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. with different students attending each session. Councilman Bay. In the staff report (Page ll-a Item No. 6) petitioner indicates there will be a maximum of 120 students at any one time and a maximum of 11 employees at any one time or a total of 130. He did not see how there could be a parking problem when the applicant is committing to 252 spaces on site and 48 off site spaces, CHANGES TO PROPOSALS AS A RESULT OF DISCUSSION/COUNCIL CONCERN: That maximum student enrollment shall be 300 and that at any given time there shall be no more than 252 students and employees on the premises. Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 85R-350 for adoption, granting Variance No. 3493, subject to City Planning Commission conditions and the above stipulation relative to the number of students and employees on the premises at any one time. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 85R-350: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 3493. Roll Call Vote: 619 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 6~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, 0verholt, Pickler and Roth None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 85R-350 duly passed and adopted. ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (5:00 p.m.) LEONORAN. SOHL, CITY CLERK 620