Loading...
1984/03/27City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 27, 1984, 10:00 A.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: AB SENT: PRE SENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Overhoit, Pickier and Roth COUNCIL MEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti ACTING CITY ENGINEER: Arthur L. Daw Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: Gordon St. George, Anaheim Friends Church, gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Miriam Kaywood 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: Angel Day in Anaheim, March 30, 1984. Volunteer Recognition Month in Anaheim, April 1984. National Fair Housing Month in Anaheim, April 1984. Mr. Jack Kudron, Assistant Director of Parks and Recreation and Community Services, accepted the Volunteer Recognition Month Proclamation. 119: RESOLUTION OF COMENDATIONS: A Resolution of Commendation was unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to Mr. Clarence Nishigu to recognize the lasting contributions and accomplishments of the Japanese Pioneers who settled in Orange County as early as 1893. 119: RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A Resolution of Congratulations was unanimously adopted by the City Council to be presented on April 11, 1984 to CAL COMP on the occasion of their 25th Anniversary in the City of Anaheim. 114: INFORMATIONAL PRESENTATION - SISTER CITY RELATIONSHIP - BRUHL, GERMANY: Mr. Bill Riley, Chairman of the Sister City Committee, explained that because of the many requests from the citizens of Anaheim and because of Anaheim's German heritage, the Sister City Committee for the past two years had been investigating possible cities in Germany as a Sister City. At this time, the Committee was suggesting Bruhl Germany, located Midway between Cologne and Bern near the Rhine, the general area where many of Anaheim's ancestors originated. Bruhl and its surrounding area was approximately the same size and population as Anaheim and also had a tourist attraction similar to Disneyland call Fantasialand, a Disneyland and Knotts Berry Farm combined. It was an excellent choice and "shone" above the rest. The Anaheim Sister City Committee was, therefore, respectfully requesting permission to enter into negotiations with the City of Bruhl to establish a Sister City affiliation. 366 CitT. Hall., Anaheim, .California - COUNCIL MINUTE. S - March 27, 1984, 10:00 A.M. Mayor Roth asked for confirmation that they were merely asking permission to enter into negotiations at no cost to the City; Mr. Riley confirmed that was correct. He saw no outlay of money whatsoever. The Sister City Committee for the first time had become self-supporting and could carry through without additional monies from the City. Councilman Pickier wanted to know if it was going to be possible to carry two Sister Cities or if that would create a problem. Mr. Riley answered that he did not think so. He felt that the relationship would be established because of Anaheim's heritage and also that he would get more help on this project as well. He saw no extra burden and noted that there were other cities the size of Anaheim who had up to four Sister Cities and managed the situation. Councilwoman Kaywood wanted to know who suggested the City of Bruhl and also if there was interest on the part of that city. Mr. Riley stated the first recommendation came from Mr. Horst Schor and also, former Police Chief Harold Bastrup spent a great deal of time in that area. He did not know if there was a firm interest from Bruhl but felt there was because there had been very informal preliminary discussions. MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to grant permission to the Sister Cities Committee to enter into negotiations with the City of Bruhl to establish a Sister City affiliation. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. MINUTES: Approval of the minutes was deferred to the next regular meeting. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to waive the reading in full of ail 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 Pickier seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of ~2,205,817.24, in accordance with the 1983-84 Budget, were approved. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the fOlio'wing items were approved in accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Councilman Overholt offered Resolution Nos. 84R-117 through 84R-123, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. 1. 118: The following claims filed against the City were rejected and referred to Risk Management: 367 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 27, 1984, 10:00 A.M. a. Claim submitted by Helen Yules for personal property damages sustained purportedly due to negligence on the part of the City in providing security at Washington Community Center, 250 East Cypress, on or about January 21 through January 23, 1984. b. Claim submitted by Kona Motel, Gerald Wang, for property damages sustained purportedly due to golf ball from Dad Miller Golf Course breaking window at 331 North Brookhurst Street, on or about January 29, 1984. c. Claim submitted by William H. Brauberger for personal property damages sustained purportedly due to failure of City to inspect sewer lateral installation from 1975 to February 3, 1984 at 6195 Calle Pantano. d. Claim submitted by Jane M. Dominguez for personal injury and personal property damages sustained purportedly due to an accident caused by a malfunctioning traffic signal at the intersection of Walnut and Ball, on or about November 11, 1983. 2. The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: a. 105: Golf Course Advisory Commission--Minutes of February 16, 1984. b. 105: Community Services Board--Minutes of February 9, 1984. c. 105: Public Utilities Board--Minutes of February 16, 1984, and March 15, 1984 (unapproved). 3. 123/135: Authorizing an agreement with Joseph A. Hennessey in an amount not to exceed $6,000 to appraise surplus property at Anaheim Hills Golf Course. 4. 123/177: Authorizing a Client Service Agreement with R. P. Martin in an amount not to exceed $9,500, to provide Housing Repair Instructor/Trainer services for the Housing Repair Program, for the period of March 28, 1984 through June 30, i984. 123/177: Authorizing a Client Service Agreement with Glenn A. Catherwood in an amount not to exceed $9,500, to provide Housing Repair Instructor/Trainer services for the Housing Repair Program, for the period of March 28, 1984 through June 30, 1984. 5. 129: Approving, in concept, a shared cost formula for an improved County-wide Fire Communications System, and authorizing the Mayor to execute a letter so advising the County. 6. 165: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-117: 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: DIAMOND STREET/CARLETON STREET ALLEYS; ILLINOIS STREET/CHESTNUT STREET ALLEYS ALLEY RECONSTRUCTION, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 26-793-6325-E3740 A~D 26-793-6325-E3750. (and opening of bids on April 26, 1984, 2:00 p.m.) 368 7. 167: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-118: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: INSTALLATION OF FLASHING BEACONS WITH STOP SIGNS AT ROMNEYA DRIVE AND WEST STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 25-794-6325-E4260. (Signal Maintenance, Inc., contractor) 8. 167: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-119: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: MODIFICATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND SAFETY LIGHTING AT STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD AT SANTA ANA STREET/WESTPORT DRIVE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 49-795-6325-E5330. (Signal Maintenance, Inc., contractor) 9. 123: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-120: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ESTABLISHING RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR UNREPRESENTED PART-TIME JOB CLASSIFICATIONS, AND SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION NO. 83R-267 AND AMENDMENTS THERETO. (effective March 23, 1984) 10. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-121: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Jack Elwood Klement, Joseph Cholak, Marshall N. McFie, Marshall N. McFie, Anaheim Redevelopment Agency) 159/i23: CENTRALIZATION OF MAINTENANCE FUNCTIONS AND REBUILDING OF TWO FIRE STATIONS - APPRAISAL AND ENGINEERING SERVICES: City Manager William Talley, upon questioning by Councilman Pickler, gave a historical overview of the subject plan which was the result of an action taken by the Council in 1976 after they had considered recommendations of the Citizens Capital Improvement Committee and the Arthur Young Management Consulting Firm Study. (see extensive and detailed report dated March 14, 1984 from the Maintenance Department) Councilman Pickler moved to approve in concept Centralization of all Maintenance Department functions at 400 East Vermont Avenue, except Fleet Maintenance to be at 500 East Vermont Avenue; reconstruction and moving of Fire Station 2 from 610 North Brookhurst Street to corner of Crescent Avenue and Valley Street; reconstruction of Fire Station 3 located at 1563 South Manchester Avenue; accepting the proposal of John C. Donahue, M.A.I., in the amount of $i2,000 to appraise surplus property created by above consolidations/relocations, and authorizing execution of a letter therefor; waiving Council Policy 401, accepting the reappraisal fee submitted by Cedric A. White, Jr., M.A.I. in the amount of $3,500 for update of a previous appraisal of 7.38 acres of surplus property located at Lincoln Avenue, west of the Santa Ana River and authorizing execution of a letter therefor, and authorizing an agreement with Shamma Enterprises, Inc., in the amount of $17,500, for architectural and engineering services to update previous 369 City Hall., Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 27, 1984, 10:00 A.M. findings concerning a new Street Maintenance facility and a new study regarding Maintenance Department centralization as recommended in the March 14, 1984 report. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 123: CANYON CORPORATE CENTRE~ LTD. INSTALLATION AND CONTINUING MAINTENANCE OF A TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT THE MAIN ENTRANCE TO THE CANYON CORPORATE DEVELOPMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood, referring to the signature of the principal On' the subject agreement, stated that for clarity and recourse in the future, on an agreement or contract she felt that the name of the signer should be typed under the signature line since signatures were usually illegible and in years to come, no one would know who signed the document. Councilman Overholt explained the problem with such a recommendation was that they usually did not know which general partner was going to sign such agreements. Councilwoman Kaywood explained it was not just the subject agreement, but she was talklng about all agreements. (She later clarified that the signature on the proposed agreement was that of Richard Macklin, General Partner). She then questioned the status of the Canyon Plaza Shopping Center access. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated he had been in contact with Mr. Rinker and Shantz and they hired an engineering firm to prepare preliminary plans to provide the "ultimate" solution. Things were proceeding, but at a snail's pace. Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 84R-122 for adoption authorizing an agreement with Canyon Corporate Centre, Ltd., for the installation and continuing maintenance of a traffic signal to be installed on La Palma Avenue approximately 1000 feet west of Imperial Highway, at the main entrance to the Canyon Corporate Development, with City reimbursing Canyon Corporate in an amount not to exceed $100,000 from the Traffic Signal Assessment Fee Fund, as recommended in memorandum dated March 16, 1984 from the acting City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book. 123: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-122: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH CANYON CORPORATE CENTRE, LTD. AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS CONCERNING TRANSFERS OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL ASSESSMENT FEES. 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. 84R-122 duly passed and adopted. 175/123: AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO INTERIM SAN ONOFRE UNIT 2 OPERATING AGREEMENT: Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 84R-123 for adoption authorizing the execution of Amendment No. 1 to the Interim San Onofre Unit 2 Operating 370 City Hall~ Anahe.!m,' C~lifornta - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 27, 1984~ 10:00 A.M. Agreement, and authorizing the Public Utilities General Manager to take ail necessary and appropriate actions thereunder, as recommended in memorandum dated March 20, 1984 from the Public Utilities Board. 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. 84R-123 duly passed and adopted. 123/149: LEGAL SERVICES TO ESTABLISH A PARKING AND TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY: Councilman Roth moved to authorize the City Attorney to execute a letter agreement with Rutan and Tucker to provide legal services to establish a parking and transportation authority, as recommended in memorandum dated March 21, 1984 from the City Attorney's Office. Councilman Overhoit seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning Commission at their meeting held March 5, 1984, pertaining to the following applications were submitted for City Council information. 1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2542: Submitted by Grace Pearl Preston, et al, (Subaru Of Anaheim), to expand an existing automobile dealership on CH and CG zoned property located at 1221 North Harbor Boulevard, with Code waiver of required site screening. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-44, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2542, and granted a negative declaration status. 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2508: Submitted by Equitec 80 Real Estate Investors, (Stadium Baseball Card Shoppe), to permit a retail baseball card shop on ML zoned property located at 1973 South State College Boulevard, with Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution PC84-45, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2508, and granted a negative declaration status. 3. VARIANCE NO. 3383: Submitted by Kent Land Company, to permit a temporary freestanding tract sign on CL zoned property located on the west side of Weir Canyon Road, north of Santa Ana Canyon Road, with Code waivers as follows: (a) Maximum square footage, (b) Maximum height. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-46, granted Variance No. 3383, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination. 4. VARIANCE NO. 2194 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Herbert Meyers, requesting an extension of time to Variance No. 2194, to permit outdoor storage uses with waiver of required enclosure on ML zoned property located at 1511 and 1521 North Miller Street. 371 City Hall,. Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 27, 1984, 10:00 A.M. The Planning Commission, to expire August 20, 1986. 5. ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT - CONFORMANCE WITH GENERAL PLAN: Orange County Flood Control District, requesting determination as to conformity with General Plan of proposed leasing of land for five years for the storage of potted plants and/or a "cut and choose" Christmas tree farm on property located on the south side of Frontera Street, west of Glasseii Street. The Planning Commission determined the activity was in conformance with the General Plan. 6. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 9602 READV: Submitted by Gunston Hail Company, Inc., to re-establish a 49-1ot, RS-HS-iO,000(SC) zoned single-family subdivision on property located on the south side of Nohl Ranch Road, west of Andover Drive. The City Planning Commission certified EIR No. 203 (supplemental to EIR No. 80) as being in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and approved Tentative Tract No. 9602. i79: REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON RECLASSIFICATION 83-84-i7 AND VARIANCE 3374: City Clerk Linda D. Roberts announced that a letter dated March 23, 1984 'had been received from Irene Jennings, President, and Kathy Ellis, Secretary/Treasurer, of the South Anaheim Neighborhood Council requesting a continuation of the public hearing on the subject reclassification and variance which was scheduled for April 3, 1984. She explained for Councilman Pickler that the decision of the Planning Commission denying both the reclassification and variance was appealed by the applicant on March 15, 1984. Councilman Overhoit noted that they were also requesting a night hearing. He suggested instead that it be scheduled as the last hearing on April 17, 1984, since one of the purposes of having Council meetings start earlier in the day was to avoid meetings later in the evening. Councilman Overhoit moved to grant the request that the public hearing scheduled for April 3, 1984 on Reclassification No. 83-84-17 and Variance No. 3374 and Negative Declaration therefor to Tuesday, April 17, 1984, denying the request that it be an evening hearing but setting it as the last public hearing on that day. Before any action was taken, discussion followed relative to the other public hearings scheduled for April 17, 1984 and the fact that it would be difficult to indicate any specific time when the subject public hearing might be heard on that date; Councilman Overholt subsequently withdrew his motion. MOTION: Councilman Pickier, thereupon, moved that the Council determined that the public hearing scheduled for April 3, 1984 at 1:30 p.m. at that time be continued to April 17, 1984 at 1:30 p.m. but that it be scheduled as the last public hearing on that date. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 372 ci. ty. Hail,.. Anah.ei.m~ Calif,oFnia - COUNCIL MI.NUTES - March 27, 1984, i0:00 A.M. 170: FINAL MAP TRACT NO. 11924: Developer, Robin Hill Development Company; Tract is located southwesterly of Imperial Highway north of Big Sky Lane and contains forty-six proposed RSHS 10,000 (SC) zoned lots. On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood seconded by Councilman Bay, the proposed subdivision together with its design and improvement was found to be consistent with the City's General Plan, and the City Council approved Final Map Tract No. li924 as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated March 1984. MOTION CARRIED. 179: REQUEST FOR CONFIRMATION OF CARPORT REQUIREMENTS: Councilwoman Kaywood asked for some clarification on th~ new carport requirements where a minimum of 50 percent closed area was required. She was not aware of that change and did not believe anyone else was. The one they were discussing did not comply even with the new ordinance because it was completely open on three sides (proposed development at 2620 West Ball Road, Reclassification 83-84-7, Conditional Use Permit No. 2499 - Wm. Pene, G. G. P. Associates and intended to be only one-half closed on the rear initially. She asked to have a report so that there could be some discussion on the issue and perhaps a change. She also wanted to know the rationale behind why it was discussed to be changed. 172: TRAFFIC PROBLEMS - LOARA - DOGWOOD AREA: Councilman Overholt referred to a letter he had read from a resident in the Loara Street area who was concerned about some rumor that Loara Street was going to be closed and it was going to be a double cul de sac at the Carbon Creek channel. Today he also received a letter from the Postmaster indicating grave concern about anything along that line being considered. He wanted to express his concern as well. His personal opinion was that closing anything off was the wrong way to go and the thing to do was to open it up. Mr. Art Daw, Acting City Engineer, stated they had money included in the budget for the current fiscal year for a study and preparation of an environmental document to look into the traffic conditions in the Loara-Dogwood area. Concern was expressed by citizens in that area that they were getting too much traffic through their neighborhood from outside sources. They held a citizen's meeting with property owners in the area in which the total problem was discussed and the potential of some alternatives that might help give some relief. At the conclusion of that meeting, there were thirteen property owners selected as a committee to work with staff to take a look at other alternatives and solutions that might be acceptable. After several meetings with staff, the committee felt that the optimum alternative was the closing of Loara at the Flood Control channel. This was not considered as an ultimate solution as far as City staff was concerned. Last Wednesday, another meeting was held and since the closing of Loara would have a greater impact than just the Loara-Dogwood tract, they expanded their mailing for concerned citizens to a larger area. At that meeting, the Anaheim Plaza Center appeared in opposition, as well as the Post Office, YMCA, and the owner of the small market south of the channel. Approximately 90 percent of the citizens were also opposed, as well as a percentage of citizens within the tract, due to the inconvenience it would cause, since the only way to get in and out would be to go to La Palma Avenue at Dresden and try to make left-hand 373 CitY Hall., Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 27, 1984, 10:00 A.M. turns or to go out onto Euclid and be forced to make left-hand turns there. At that time, the final resolution of a majority of the people was to attempt to put stop signs at Loara and Dogwood for the northbound traffic on Loara and the eastbound on Dogwood and also a stop sign at westbound Dogwood at Dresden. That would also include in the northbound Loara at Dogwood, the red flasher to give warning. It was their understanding that the residents living at Loara and Dogwood were still not happy with this solution. Councilman Pickler stated in looking at Loara, he was thinking of the possibility of extending Loara through to La Palma and understood that was a possibility. Mr. Daw answered that was an alternative and the estimate to extend it and put a signal at Loara was ~400,000. It was generally felt this would tend to make Loara more of a "race track", increase speeds and compound the problem. Councilman Overhoit asked if there was a report available with that cost estimate, as well as the pros and cons of different alternatives; Mr. Daw stated there was such a report. Councilman Pickier asked that a copy be provided to the Council. That was a "band-aid" solution to a problem created by bad planning years ago. There was a real problem in the area. Councilman Bay was glad that Councilman Overhoit broached the subject since he recalled the Council discussing the situation in the past and wanting to look into the extension of Loara through to La Palma Avenue since there was a vacant lot on La Palma Avenue at the end of Loara. He was suprised to hear, after the fact, about ail the activity that had been going on in that neighborhood. He was certain there were many people who were concerned about what happend to Loara relative to access for the post office and to avoid some of the jams on Euclid. He agreed with Councilman Overholt that it was not a small problem and it was going to have to be looked at extensively. It was the first time he heard a $400,000 estimate on the cut-through and he also wanted to see the report that was generated. He agreed that a "band-aid" approach would not suffice in that area. 175: LIFELINE RATES - ELECTRICITY AND WATER: Mr. Bill Erickson, 301 East North Street, read his letter to the Council dated March 13, 1984 (on file in the City Clerk's office), the thrust of which was his concern that there was no real response to the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee established in late 1982 by the Council to study the issue of lifeline rates for electricity and water. His letter explained that after months of deliberation, a majority and minority report was submitted to the Public Utilities Board (PUB) at that time, it was the unanimous opinion that their committee or any such committee to follow could do nothing to improve the proper working of the lifeline rate problem until there was a Charter Amendment giving the Council the right to set lifeline rates based on age, health and ability to pay. He felt that now was the time they should be working on such a charter amendment. As noted in his letter, "A request had also been made that the wording for age/income be written to be put on the ballot. Sufficient time should be allowed so that the voting public will be adequately informed." He wanted a response to the majority and minority report submitted by the committee. 374 City Hal!., Angheim., .Califo.rn.i9 -.COUNCIL MINUTES - March 27, !984.,. 10:00 A.M. Councilman Bay stated the way he understood, Mr. Erickson was asking the Council to put a Charter Amendment on the ballot to change the concept of life line rates in the City from being a relief to all residential users to one of a selective nature, or relief to the needy. Mr. Erickson stated he had a letter that the Utilities Department received which would explain the situation, and also that the issue be put on a referendum for age and income. The majority report recommended the status quo and he had a minority report. Councilman Bay stated, in effect, he was quoting the minority report from the committee that worked on the lifeline rates; Mr. Erickson confirmed that was correct. Councilwoman Kaywood stated the cost of changing over the data processing system in Anaheim was previously explained. The City did not function the same as Los Angeles and from her recollection, it would be mulitiple millions of dollars to do so. Mr. Erickson stated he had a letter from Los Angeles noting that the cost was minimal and it would be less for Anaheim because they had a lesser population; Councilwoman Kaywood reiterated that Anaheim had a different system. Mayor Roth asked Mr. Erickson to submit his letter to the City Clerk so that a response could be obtained from staff. REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: The City Manager requested a Closed Session to discuss public security, current litigation and a personnel matter with no action anticipated; the City Attorney requested a Closed Session to discuss litigation and potential litigation with action anticipated. Councilman Roth moved to recess into closed session and a lunch break. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (11:15 a.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order all Council memebers being present. (1:40 p.m.) 179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2522 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application submitted by Mahmoud R. E. L. KanaWey, to permit a convenience market with off-sale beer and wine and gasoline sales on ML zoned property located at 1175 No. East Street. The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution PC83-248 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 chat there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant affect on the environment and further, denied Conditional Use Permit No. 2522. The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Talat Radwan, appellant, and public hearing scheduled and continued from the meeting of February 7, 1984 to this date. 375 City Hall, Anaheim, Calif0rnia - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 27, 1984, 10:00 A.M. City Clerk Roberts announced that a verbal request had been received from the applicant asking for a continuance of the public hearing. The Mayor asked if anyone was present to speak of the matter; there was no response. MOTION: Councilman Pickier moved to continue the public hearing on Conditional Use Permit No. 2522 and negative declaration therefor to Tuesday April 17, 1984 at 1:30 p.m. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2461: Application submitted by Riviera Mobilehome Parks, to permit two 14-story, 200-foot high office complexes on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located at 300 West Katella Avenue. Environmental Impact Report No. 262 was certified by the Council at their meeting of January 24, 1984 as being in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, along with a Statement of Overriding Considerations. The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-18 granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2461 subject to the following conditions: i. That the owner of subject property shall irrevocably offer to dedicate to the City of Anaheim a strip of land of variable width as required by the City of Anaheim for the construction of Clementine Street from Katella Avenue south to the southerly property line of subject property. 2. That all engineering requirements of the City of Anaheim along Clementine Street, including preparation of improvement plans and installation of all improvements such as curbs and gutters, sidewalks, street grading and pavement, sewer and drainage facilities, or other appurtenant work shall be complied with as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with specifications on file in the Office of the City Engineer; and that security in the form of a bond, certificate of deposit, letter of credit, or cash, in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim, shall be posted with the City to guaramtee the satisfactory completion of said improvements. Said security shall be posted with the City prior to approval of improvement plans or issuance of a building permit, whichever occurs first, to g~arantee the installation of the above-required improvements prior to occupancy. 3. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer. This shall include construction of a storm drain in Clementine Street, which drain will permit the travel lanes to remain unflooded in a 10 year design storm. Said storm drain shall extend south from Kateila Avenue through subject property and continuing across the property located directly south of subject property to the existing drain north of Orangewood Avenue. 4. That in the event subject property is to be divided for the purpose of sale, lease, or financing, a parcel map to record the approved division of subject property shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim and then be recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder. 376 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 27, 1984~ 10:00 A.M. 5. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities. 6. That prior to commencement of structural framing, fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department. 7. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans on file with the Street Maintenance and Sanitation Division, including the installation of on-site waste compactors. 8. That this Conditional Use Permit is granted subject to the completion of Reclassification No. 66-67-61 and Reclassification No. 82-83-26, now pending. 9. That prior to issuance of a building permit, appropriate water assessment fees shall be paid to the City of Anaheim, in an amount as determined by the Office of the Utilities General Manager. 10. That the proposed office towers and above-grade parking structures shall be sprinklered. 11. That prior to issuance of a building permit for the offices the developer shall extend Clementine Street from Katella Avenue to Orangewood Avenue providing a minimum 40-foot wide roadway with a 60-foot wide right-of-way. 12. That prior to issuance of a building permit for the offices the developer shall extend Convention Way from Harbor Boulevard to Clementine Street providing a minimum 40-foot wide roadway with a 60-foot wide right-of-way. 13. That the proposed offices shall comply with all signing requirements of the "CR" (Commercial, Recreation) Zone, unless a variance is approved by the City of Anaheim. Further, no sign or other advertising devices shall be place so as to exceed the height permitted by the Height Standard Guideline, or to exceed the height of the proposed office structures (200 feet maximum proposed for each building). 14. That the developer shall provide and maintain a television antenna or cable system, without charge to residents, to assure satisfactory television reception to any residences which are unable to receive a satisfactory level of television signals as a result of interference caused by the project structures. 15. That no permits shall be issued by the City of Anaheim for the exercise of this conditional use permit except following the exercise and compliance with all conditions of Conditional Use Permit Nos. 2460 and 2462. 16. That prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall pay the traffic signal assessment fees minus the cost of traffic signal modifications made at Katella Avenue and Clementine Street. 17. That ali off-site real property interests necessary to comply with the requirements set forth in this resolution shall be acquired and dedicated to the City of Anaheim within the times otherwise required in this resolution. 377 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 27, 1984, 10:00 A.M. 18. That a standpipe delivery system, emergency on-site water storage and fire control rooms be provided as reviewed and approved by the Fire Department. 19. That the developer shall contribute a pro-rata share of costs associated with the development of a new fire station site, a fully equipped fire station and appropriate apparatus to equip said station. Said pro-rata share of the total costs to be determined by the Anaheim Fire Chief pending completion of a study. 20. That the developer shall install a distribution main in the Clementine Street right-of-way and through the project as reviewed and approved by the Water Engineering Division. 21. That the developer shall supply, if needed, an additional source of water to meet anticipated fire flow requirements as reviewed and approved by the Water Engineering Division. 22. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay its proportionate share, and shall execute and record an agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney's Office obligating owner(s) to pay its proportionate share, of the cost of certain off-site public improvements and services pursuant to that certain assessment district or benefit area to be hereinafter established by the City of Anaheim, pursuant to the requirement of Development Agreement No. 83-01 between the City of Anaheim and Anaheim Stadium Associates. 23. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1 through 6. 24. That prior to the commencement of the activity authorized under this resolution, or prior to the time that a building permit is issued, or within a period of one year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 17, 19 and 22, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 25. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 3, 5, 7, 10, 14, 18, 20, 21 and 23, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilman Pickier at the meeting of February 28, 1984 and public hearing scheduled this date. The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present. Mr. Floyd Farano, Attorney for the applicant, 100 South Anaheim Boulevard, was present. He stated that they did not have a presentation to make as to the office structures in view of the prior presentations on the overall project (see minutes of January 24, 1984). They were prepared to answer questions; otherwise, the only discussion would be directed toward three conditions they would like to discuss with the Council. 378 City Hall, A~aheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 27, 1984, 10:00 A.M. Councilman Pickler then stated one of the things he was concerned with was relative to the progress regarding Ciementine Street. At the last hearing, Mr. Fujishige, the property owner to the south mentioned that no contact had been made with him. Re asked the status of that situation. Mr. Farano explained they had contact with Mr. Fujishige and his attorney since the last public hearing on Phase I and Phase II of the project. He agreed to dedicate the easement for the storm drain that was going to run from Katella Avenue to Orangewood Avenue. They anticipated in the near future commencement of studies and engineering work that had to be done in preparation for the storm drain. As part of the public hearing, Mr. Farano stated the items he would like to discuss involved Conditions No. 11, 12, i7, and 22 of Planning Commission Resolution No. PC84-18. In the early presentations and the actions of the City Council, they agreed with the City to construct a street from the southern boundary of the Riviera property to easterly extension of Convention Way. He was aware the conditions stated otherwise. Relative to Condition No. 12, they agreed to construct a street from Clementine westerly to Harbor Boulevard. They would do so and had no problem with that. Condition No. 17 required that the applicant acquire a property interest and dedication of that interest to the City as a portion of building the streets. They wanted to address that and, lastly, Condition No. 22 related to the execution of an agreement in the nature of Development Agreement 83-01. At the last public hearing on Phase I and Phase II he raised the question before the Council as to exactly how the development agreement entered into between the Anaheim Stadium Associates and the City had a bearing on his client's project. The Council directed staff to do a study on that which was contained in report dated February 1, 1984 to the Council and City Manager which was forwarded to him as well. Throughout the conditions on Conditional Use Permit No. 2460 and No. 2462 as well as No. 2461, the developer agreed to numerous off and on site improvements. In reviewing the EIR, particularly with regard to Condition No. 22, it appeared that with respect to traffic, and that was the most significant impact, the Anaheim Stadium project primarily was going to impact the area east of the Santa Aha freeway. The Riviera project would impact the area west of the Santa Aha freeway. It also appeared that the Anaheim Stadium project was required to provide for impacts as a result of that development. Their conclusion was that the two developments were in two distinct areas. As a result, neither of the impacts, in their opinion, were related. It also appeared that the City was "carving" Riviera from one impact, Harbor and Katella, and placing it into the Anaheim Stadium impact area and through the development agreement set forth in 83-01 would require the Riviera project to make contributions as part of an assessment district for off-site improvements that may be necessary as a result of the stadium project. They questioned that and felt the Riviera was being overburdened as the City was intending to combine the two impact areas into one assessment district that should include other developers and businesses as well. If that was to be undertaken, Riviera should be relieved of the financial and off-site development obligations under Conditional Use Permit No. 2460, 2462 and potentially 2461. The City should require them to do one or the other, but not both. 379 City Hall,. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 27, 1984, 10:00 A.M. In reviewing the February 1, 1984 memorandum and the Stadium Development Agreement, it appeared that there were no certain dates or the areas had not been defined. It was potentially an open check book situation. And so far as development of Clementine beyond Convention Way reflected in Condition No. 11 and insofar as Condition No. 17, there were significant traffic congestion problems in the general area of Harbor and Katella. The EIR for the Riviera project as well as the one for the Anaheim Stadium project stated there would be additional traffic loads by no less than six additional traffic generators or businesses that had developed in the area. The Riviera project would primarily affect two intersections - Katella - Ciementine and Katella - Haster. Their conclusion, as they interpreted the EIR, was they were being requested and asked to assume responsibility they were not creating but rather created by other developments. They realized there were other problems in that area but their EIR noted they were not responsible for them. To require Riviera to obtain the title for land and pass it on to the City by dedication and to construct the Clementine extension was far above and beyond its share. They would be willing to do their share in the area and to mitigate the impact. They were requesting that Condition No. 11 be amended to delete the southerly extension of Clementine beyond Convention Way, that Condition No. 17 in its entirety be deleted, and Condition No. 22 be deleted in its entirety. Councilwoman Kaywood asked if Condition No. i2 was satisfactory; Mr. Farano answered "yes." Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that at the prior hearing, Mr. Farano stipulated to Conditon No. 22. Mr. Farano stated he agreed with it but with the reservation of rights. The Council recognized that the February 1, 1984 memorandum was going to be developed and would give them, as well as the Council, data as to what was involved and giving them the right to raise the question at a later time. Pam Lucado, Associate Planner, in answer to a question posed by the Mayor, explained that Condition No. 22 put the property owner on notice that the City intended to enter assessment districts. The condition covered ail forms of assessment districts, not Just parking or the Convention Center or Stadium area. It had already been done with other developers in the area and in the Disneyland area, the Emerald Hotel and Regency Hotel properties. Mayor Roth wanted to know if there was any indication of cost to the developers; Ms. Lucado answered that the covenant they asked the property owner to enter into simply put the property owner on notice of the City's intent to form a district. It reserved unto that property owner the right to contest the boundary, the fee, or whatever actions would be involved. Traffic Engineer, Paul Singer, stated that the assessment district was intended to encompass not only new properties coming in, but also would include the properties now in the area that had been constructed. It was a form of taxation and had the same type of connotation. 380 City Hal.~, .Anaheim, .Ca!iforni.a - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 2.7, 1984, iO:00..A.M.. Mr. Farano stated they had a copy of the agreement that was signed and he had information only on two properties that had signed the agreement, both of which were in the Stadium area - one at Howell and Katella and the other at Orangewood and Santa Cruz. If the Regency and Emerald had signed, they had done so since he checked the records. The agreement stated, we shall not contest the formation of a district. It was a recorded document and as they read the law, what he thought was intended in the formation of an assessment district was that the City had to obtain aprovai of fifty percent of the property owners in the area. The legal effect if they wanted to contest the formation of an assessment district was they may not do so under the document. They were not even objecting to it, but were saying they did not think it was right to get two bites out of the apple by the off-site improvements and expense they were going through in complying with the conditions of all three Conditional Use Permits and the agreement as well. Mr. Singer stated he saw the formation of an assessment district as an aid to the developer as opposed to an addition. He visualized if the district was properly formed, it would include the extension of Clementine and Convention Way. It was not a doubling of the developers requirement, but it could be that the entire improvement required would include the extension of the two street arteries. It was also obvious as indicated in the EIR that the project could not be constructed without the extension of Clementine and Convention Way. Councilman Pickler stated he felt the opposite of Mr. Farano in saying that the Anaheim Stadium and Riviera project had no connection. The Riviera development was going to impact an area that was at its peak right now. The development was going to impose a hardship relative to traffic and circulation in the area. Mr. Farano stated they were willing to pay their fair share, but were concerned about "double taxation". He felt an answer, if the Council agreed, was in the event the assessment district were formed and assessment levied against the Riviera and other projects in the area, that they be given credit against any assessment impact of the off-site improvements. Ron Thompson, Planning Director, stated he (Farano) was of the opinion that more than just the Riviera project would benefit by the extension of Clementine and Convention Way. It could benefit the Marriott, the ~ilton and other developments yet to come and that type of improvement that would benefit a large area would be different from the off-site improvements immediately adjacent to Mr. Fujishige's project. Councilman Overhoit stated it was necessary to define what type of public improvements and benefits were to be in the assessment district and, if they were paying one hundred percent, they should be given credit accordingly. Mayor Roth left the Council chamber. (2:28 p.m.) Mr. Singer reiterated that without the improvement, the extension of Clementine and Convention Way, the project could not be built and that was the impact. There were going to be benefits of the extension to other properties 381 City Hall, Anaheim,..California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 27, 1984, 10:00 A.M. and other businesses, but the bottom line was that the project would have to wait for a long time until the City through an assessment district could construct it. If the Riviera developer would like to develop now, they were responsible for extending it. That portion of the benefit would then be assignable and then a study on an assessment district would address the impacts and be able to assess the properties individually. Without a question, there were certain off-site improvements that would benefit only the subject property and make it sole beneficiary, i.e., the median islands along Kateila Avenue, and the improvements on Clementine within the property of the Riviera was wholly for the benefit of the development. The extension from the south of the property of Clementine and Convention Way was to be determined at the time the district was assessed and the specific benefits. Councilman Overholt clarified for Mr. Farano that when the district was formed it would be determined at that time the extent to which the off site improvements benefited other developments. In allowance for that, a credit to his project would be given in the formation of the assessment district. Mr. Farano sur~u[sed then that when the assessment district was formed, if the Clementine extension benefited their project ten percent and someone else's ninety percent, they would get reimbursed ninety percent; Mr. Singer stated that he would not want to quote the percentages, but essentially that was correct and it would be decided by an independent study and the developer could have input into that study. Councilwoman Kaywood stated from the beginning at the Planning Commission hearings, it seemed to her the reason the project was separated was because it was made clear that the improvements would have to go in before they could begin the office project, because that was going to have the largest impact. Mr. Farano stated that was correct. It was recognized and stated that before the office towers could be constructed that the road would have to be in place. It was because of other problems and allowing time to solve those problems. He also wanted the Council to address Condition No. 17, the essence of which was to compel Riviera Mobile Home park to acquire the title to real property to build the road which involved approximately eight acres of land. Councilwoman Kaywood stated once again it would not be necessary without their project; Mr. Farano stated that he could not buy that and quoted a section from the EIR indicating that it would have a relatively minor impact. Councilwoman Kaywood stated for anyone to presume that an 852-room hotel would not have an impact on Katella Avenue and Harbor Boulevard and that many of those people would not be going to Disneyland or the Convention Center was pure fantasy. Mr. Farano was saying the overwhelming burden should go to the City and she could not accept that. Mayor Roth entered the Council chamber. (2:36 p.m.) Mr. Singer stated that time was of the essence and he believed the street could not be constructed on right-of-way that they did not have. It was essential that the developer acquire the right-of-way and construct the street 382 City ~1~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 27~ 1984, 10:00 A.M. unless the City would assume the burden for acquiring the right-of-way which he did not believe was in order. After further discussion between Council, Mr. Farano and staff, Mr. Farano stated rather than continuing, he would like to request the Council to also add a condition that to the extent that off-site improvements were undertaken by Riviera, that they be subject to a reimbursement agreement. That was especially true relative to the storm drain. Mr. Singer stated those improvements dealing with the extension of Clementine and Convention Way only would he recommend, because the others were required under the conditions for the condominium complex and the hotel. They had nothing to do with the office buildings so they should be excluded on the Fujishige property only. Mayor Roth asked for clarification if he was talking about off-site improvements subject to reimbursement with what exclusions. Mr. Singer answered with the exclusion of the median lsland on Katella Avenue, the improvements required at Clementine on the property owned by Riviera, and the traffic signal at the intersection of Clementine Street and Katella Avenue. Mr. Farano agreed. The Mayor then asked if anyone wished to speak. Judith Graham, Riviera Mobile Home Park, 136, asked whether an ordinance had already been adopted rezoning the property. City Attorney William Hopkins, stated that the resolution had been adopted covering the Riviera Mobile Home Park and they had certain provisions relative to reimbursement to the various tenants. There was an ordinance covering the Mobile Home project subject to the procedure of reimbursement. He believed Mrs. Graham had discussed the matter with Mr. Farano and there were certain conditions she had been asked to comply with such as signing a waiver and release. Mayor Roth asked if it was a legal question between her and Mr. Farano or if the City was involved. Mr. Hopkins answered that it was between Mr. Farano and the owner of the property to work out whatever they could concerning the reimbursement agreement that was provided for in the resolution that was adopted. The City merely approved certain documents that were submitted after ail the tenants had made their final arrangements. As far as individual payments, that was between the owners, their attorney and the tenants. Mrs. Graham stated the reason she asked whether an ordinance had been adopted was due to the fact that the wording of the resolution in three cases mentioned that the relocation benefits must be paid. One was prior to the adoption of an ordinance rezoning the property opon which the subject mobile home park was located. 383 Cit~.Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 27, 1984~ 10:00 A.M. Miss Santalahti explained the ordinance removing the Mobilehome Park Overlay Zone had not yet been, and would not be, adopted until they received from the developer satisfactory proof that ail tenants had accepted the relocation benefits. Mrs. Graham stated that was what she was questioning. She did not think any new conditional use permits should be issued in this case, because they came under the Overlay Zone and the park had not complied with the requirements of the resolution. The resolution stated prior to the termination of tenancy, the amounts must be paid in order to allow someone to move. Mayor Roth asked if the action they were taking today related to that finalization. Miss Santalahti stated a condition of the use permit stated, "that they shall have finalized the C-R zoning and removed the Mobilehome Park Overlay Zone." Mayor Roth stated if the Council took an action today it was then subject to those things happening otherwise they could not build. Extensive discussion and questioning followed with Mrs. Graham, Council and staff relative to her concerns. In concluding, Mrs. Graham reiterated that she could not move from the park until they gave her money to move with. City Attorney Hopkins stated that he had reviewed the matter with Mrs. Graham and Mr. Farano and Mr. Farano's requirement was that she sign a waiver and release. If she was not willing to do so, then she should consult a private attorney because it was a private matter between the owner and the attorney. As far as the legal requirements of the City, Mr. Farano was correct in his position on the matter. Mrs. Graham stated Mr. Farano was not doing what the City ordered him to do and ail she was asking was that they make him do it. Mr. Richard Miller, 1855 E1 Paso Lane, Fullerton, stated he was present to speak for his mother, Margaret Miller, who had lived at Riviera Mobile Home Park for twenty-one years. They were confused relative to the relocation allowance. People who had already moved out that had the same kind of home as his mother received the ~3,500 allowance. He had not talked to Mr. Farano but to a Mr. Chang and Grace Baumann, who said she was the manager of the park. They were told they were not getting the allowance because his mother's coach was classified as a travel trailer. Both Mayor Roth and Councilman Overhoit suggested that Mr. Miller contact either Mr. Farano and/or the City Attorney and he was thereupon supplied with telephone numbers for both. It was pointed out that the hearing today was relative to CUP No. 2461 and not relocation allowances as that aspect had been covered in past hearings. Mr. Bill Kumer, Chief Engineer, Disneyland, reiterated the necessity they had for a visual intrusion test because of the height limitation in that area in order to comply with the ordinance. 384 Cit.y Hall, .Anaheim, Caiiforpi. a - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 27. t 198.4,.' z0,:p,p,,A,.,M. Miss Santalahti suggested an added condition that, prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer shall conduct a balloon test in cooperation with Disneyland. Said test to show there shall be no visual intrusion of amy part of the proposed buildings or signage into Disneyland. Mayor Roth stated if approval was given today, that condition would be added. The Mayor closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Kaywood asked staff with regard to the concluding paragraph, what would have been permitted on the property without any CUP; Miss Santalahti explained that the office uses proposed in connection with the use permit were not permisible uses in the C-R zone without a CUP. Otherwise only motel-hotel type uses and restaurants would be allowed. The condomimiums would not have been allowable and the height limitation on the hotel would have been 75 feet. Councilman Pickler offered a resolution for adoption granting Conditonal Use Permit No. 2461. Before any action was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood noted that Mr. Fujishige was in the Chambers audience and wanted to know if he wished to speak. Mr. Fujishige, 1848 Margie Lane, stated they had one or two meetings but nothing definite had come up. Mr. Farano had made no offers. Construction of the project was six or eight years in the future and he did not know what would happen by then. He had no comments to make. Councilman Overholt asked what they decided on Condition No. 11, the extension beyond Clementine to Orangewood; Miss Santalahti stated she did not think the Traffic Engineer wanted to extend Clementine Street from Convention Way southerly. Mr. Singer stated the entire extension should be taken from Katelia Avenue to Orangewood and from Harbor to Clementine. Councilman Overholt wanted to know if it was something they would get credit for if an assessment district were established. Mr. Singer answered it was not intended to be a loss to the developer but a benefit; Councilman Overholt asked how many acres were involved in the extension south of Convention Way. Mr. Singer did not know, but the ultimate road would be of a secondary arterial nature, and he believed approximately eight acres were involved in the entire package. Councilman Bay asked if the off-site storm drain would be reimbursable as well; Mr. Singer answered, "no." Mr. Farano stated his impression was that the construction of the storm drain was reimbursable, at least the portion constructed across the Fujishige property, in connection with the hotel and condominium development. 385 Ci.ty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 27., 1984~ 10:~p. A.M. Miss Santalahti stated it was required in connection with those. Her understanding was that the Fujishige property would also drain into the storm drain, but the City Engineer would have to comment on that. Those were the only two beneficiaries of that storm drain. Councilwoman Kaywood surmised then that the portion required at this point was the full responsibility of the developer. Miss Santalahti clarified it was his responsibility to construct it from the very beginning, because it was necessary immediately, but the Fujishige property would benefit ultimately as well. Councilwoman Kaywood asked for clarification that the conditions Mr. Farano wanted deleted were not being deleted and Condtions No. 11, 12, 17 and 22 would remain just as granted by the Planning Commission. Councilman Overholt stated except that Condition No. 22 had an explanation with respect to the possibility of including certain off-site improvements. Councilman Pickler stated they had added another Condition to No. 22; Councilman Overholt asked if it was another separate numbered condition which impacted No. 22. Miss Santalahti answered "yes". Councilman Pickier, thereupon, offered Resolution No. 84R-124 for adoption subject to ail City Planning Commission conditions including the following as discussed and as recommended by staff; That if an assessment district is formed and it includes subject property, the developer's cost to construct off-site improvements specified in the said district shall be reimbursable to the extent that said improvements are proportionally not due to the proposed development herein. The reimbursable costs shall not include the following; (a) cost to construct a raised median in Katella Avenue, (b) cost of any improvements in the future extension of Clementine Street through subject property and, (c) cost of the traffic signal modification at Katella Avenue and Clementine Street. That prior to issuance of a building permit, the 'developer shall conduct a balloon test in cooperation with Disneyland, said test to show that there shall be no visual intrusion of any part of the proposed buildings or signage into Disneyland. Add to Condition No. 3: If said storm drain is an improvement identified in the assessment district discussed in connection with Condition No. 22 herein, this developer shall be proportionally reimbursed to the extent that said storm drain serves the Fujishige property to the south at the time development of the Fujishige property takes place. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 84R-124: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2461. 386 City Hall, ..Ana. heim, California - COUNCI.L MINUTES - March 27~. 19.~4.t .10:00 A.~. 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. 84R-124 duly passed and adopted. 179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2538 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:' Ap~lic~'tion submitted by Robert L. Wetzler and Ethel L. Wetzler, to permit a convenience market with gasoline sales and off-sale beer and wine on CL zoned property located at 934 South Beach Boulevard. The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution PC84-28 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 the initial study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant affect on the environment and further, denied Conditional Use Permit No. 2538. The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Robin Oil Company, agent, and public hearing scheduled this date. The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent. Mr. Tony Bristol, 1903 North Durpee, Los Angeles, General Manager, Robin Oil stated he would like to present to the Council photographs of existing service bay areas which they proposed to convert to a mini market in connection with the gas station (made a part of the record). He also presanted a rendering showing what the proposed project would look like. As they could see from the photographs, the existing building was in desperate need of repair and upgrading. The northeast corner of Beach Boulevard and Ball Road was the last to be upgraded and their other three locations had already been completed. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, in answer to Councilwoman Kaywood, reported that Beach Boulevard had an average daily traffic (ADT) count of 46,000 vehicles and Bail Road, 23,000. He recommended.closure of one driveway closest to the intersection on Ball Road. Mayor Roth asked Mr. Bristol if he would accept that; Mr. Bristol answered, "yes". He stated, in addition, the Planning Commission also specified that they wished installation of a street light on the Ball Road side of their property which they also agreed to. Mayor Roth stated one of the things he had asked several weeks ago, due to the fact that they had several of the subject operations in the City, he wanted to know what had been generated relative to complaints either from the neighborhood, police department or in general. Miss Santalahti answered that they had nothing in writing. The only kinds of violations had to do with signage on the property. Apparently with a mixed use of this type, some of the on-site managers put up too many signs but that was all. 387 Cit~ Hall,. Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 27., 1984, 10:00 A.M. Councilwoman Kaywood reiterated her ongoing concerns relative to such proposals that if automobiles were no longer serviced at stations as in the past, that there would be more accidents, as well as her concern with dual uses and triple uses interfering with existing businesses. What they would see would be more people going out of business. She was very much opposed to that. Councilwoman Kaywood posed a line of questioning to Mr. Bristol relative to the operation wherein he (Bristol) reported that relative to the sale of beer and wine that, although they had not made a decision as to whether or not they would be willing to have the operation without beer and wine, that it would be doubtful, that there would be a minimum of one person on duty at all times and two at peak times, that someone would oversee the situation so that no gasoline would be dispensed into portable containers, that there would be sandwiches or coffee to eat on the premises and that the attendant would be monitoring the disposal of cups, napkins, etc. The Mayor asked to hear from anyone who wished to speak. Mr. John D. Witt, President of Robin Oil, first clarified as discussed earlier that the property was 147 by 150 feet and they had additional easements beyond that property that made it larger. Mayor Roth interjected and noted that the plot map showed it to be 125 feet by 125 feet although he realized they had some additional amount of driveway because of the adjacent restaurant. Mr. Witt continued that they felt the proposal was a positive upgrade for the service station at that location and urged approval of the permit. He also confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood that Robin Oil had been the tenant at that location since 1972. Mr. Robert L. Wetzler, 926 South Beach Boulevard, stated that relative to what Councilwoman Kaywood stated earlier relating to the number of cars at that intersection, a few years ago the station was pumping between 100,000 and 130,000 gallons of gasoline per month, the point being with the traffic situation during that high peak, they never had any problems with traffic. With the new mini-convenience market, it would reduce the traffic tremendously and that in itself was a plus. The proposed location was an ideal spot for the traveler and those in the immediate area. It was good for the community and surrounding area. Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. Wetzier if he owned the Beach-Ball corner, Lyndy's restaurant and the motel; Mr. Wetzler answered "yes". The Mayor closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Pickler. The 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 388 Ci.t~ Hall~ Anahetm.~ California - CgUNCIL MINUTES - March 2.7~ 198.4., 10:00 A..~ .~ that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a signific%~ effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 84R-125 for adoption approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2538, reversing the findings of the City Planning Commission, and subject to all Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 84R-125: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2538. Before a vote was taken Councilwoman Kaywood asked the Mayor if he wanted to stipulate that there be no written or paper signs on the windows. Mayor Roth answered that he was asking the applicant to stipulate to the sign ordinance of the City which was automatic. City Attorney Hopkins stated that the requirement would be on anyone to obey the ordinances of the City whether stipulated to or not, and the City would take action against any violator. Mr. Bristol agreed that they would not violate the sign ordinance. Miss Santalahti stated that one modification to the conditions need to include that all the improvements prior to any commencement of the activities approved, specifically the convenience market and off sale liquor sales, i.e., that Condition No. 8 be deleted, No. 7 be renumbered No. 6, and No. 6 be renumbered No. 7, and requiring that all of the conditions herein shall be satisfied prior to commencement of the activity herein approved. Councilman Roth clarified that his resolution included the forgoing amendments as articulated by Miss Santalahti; Mr. Bristol agreed to those as well. A vote was then taken on the forgoing resolution including the modification. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bay~ Overholt~ Pickler and Roth Kaywood None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-125 duly passed and adopted. 108: APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT - ANAHEIM DANCE PROMOTIONS: Councilman Pickler moved to approve an application for a Public Dance Permit submitted by Anaheim Dance Promotion for a dance to be held Saturday, March 31, 1984, from 6:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m., at the Anaheim Convention Center, as recommended by the Chief of Police. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 389 Cit~ ~Hm, ll, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 27, 1984, 10:00 A.M. 108:3mAPPLICATION FOR PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT - FINA MARIE TOVAR: Councilman Pickler moved to approve an application for a Public Dance Permit submitted by Fina Marie Tovar for a dance to be held Friday, March 30, 1984, from 8:00 p.m. to 12:00 midnight, at the George Washington Community Center as recommended by the Ckief of Police. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess into Closed Session, Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (3:50 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order ail Council members being present with the exception of Council Members Kaywood and Pickier. (6:05 p.m.) 112: CITY OF ANAHEIM vs. URETHANE ROOFING: Councilman Roth moved to authorize the City Attorney to settle Orange County Superior Court Case No. 34-76-51, City of Anaheim vs. Urethane Roofing Company, et al, for the sum of $25,000. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Council Members Kaywood and Pickier were absent. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURN~NT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Council Members Kaywood and Pickler were absent. MOTION CARRIED. (6:06 p.m.) LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK 390