Loading...
1984/08/21181 Cit[ Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL I~NUTES - August 21~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT ABSENT: PRESENT COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth COUNCIL MF24BERS: None CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ron Thompson AUDIT MANAGER: Bill Smith 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 John Griffin, Anaheim United Methodist Church gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Irv Pickler led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 119: RESOLUTIONS OF COMMENDATION: Resolutions of Commendation were unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to Guillermo (Billy) Sanchez, a City Employee, and Carol Morrison, upon their prompt action in applying Cardio Pulminary Resusitation (CPR) to a senior citizen who stopped breathing due to an intense cardio respiratory reaction to prescribed medication at the Anaheim Senior Citizens Club annual picnic at Pearson Park on June 23, 1984. As a result of their quick and precise actions, the senior citizen's life was preserved. The Mayor, on behalf of the Council and the City, commended both Mr. Sanchez and Mrs. Morrison on their prompt and selfless action in saving a life. 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 all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda, after reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to waiver is hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such ordinances or resolutions in regular order. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARR/F~D. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of 31,337,303.46, in accordance with the 1983-84 Budget, were approved. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Pickler, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the following items were approved in accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Councilman Pickler 844 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 21~ 1984, 10:00 A.M. offered Resolution Nos. 84R-317 through 84R-320, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. 1. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as recommended: Claims rejected and referred to Risk Management: a. Claim submitted by Golden West Baseball Company for indemnity based on Nanette C. Boutte, vs. Golden West Baseball Company, on or about July 2, 1984. b. Claim submitted by Canvas Specialty for indemnity based on Superior Court Case No 41-40-98, Thomas W. Osborn, Plaintiff, vs. City of Anaheim, a public entity, and does 1 through 50, inclusive, defendants, on or about June 20, 1984. c. Claim submitted by Sandra L. Johnson for personal property damages sustained purportedly due to pot hole in street on south side of Ball Road, 100 feet west of Knott Avenue, on or about June 11, 1984. d. Claim submitted by Richard E. Queen for personal injury damages sustained purportedly due to a slip-and-fall accident at Anaheim Stadium, on or about June 17, 1984. e. Claim subm/tted by David G. Tayco for personal injury damages sustained purportedly due to actions of Anaheim Police Department at the Stadium, on or about April 29, 1984. 2. Receiving and filing the following correspondence: (on file) a. 105: b. 105: c. 105: Golf Course Advisory Commission--Minutes of July 18, 1984. Community Services Board--Minutes of July 12, 1984. Senior Citizens Commission--Minutes of July 12, 1984. 3. 123: Authorizing an agreement with Hilton Hotels Corporation to supply a maximum of 500 parking spaces on the North Lot of Anaheim Stadium during the hours of 5:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. at a cost of 5200 per 24-hour period for a term of one year. 4. 123: Authorizing an agreement with the National Center for Municipal Development, Inc. in the amount of 56,461 for FY 1984/85, for representation tn Washington and participation in the Consortium Cities. 5. 123: Authorizing a cooperative agreement with the Orange County Transportation Commission for funding in the amount of 550,000 for a City Elevated Guideway Marketing Feasibility Study. 845 ]79 City Hall~ A~,heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 21~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. 6. 107/140: Waiving the height limitation requirements relative to installation of a lift to provide handicap access at the Carnegie Library Building. 7. 123: Authorizing an amendment to an agreement with Thirtieth Street Architects for professional consulting services associated with rehabilitation of the Carnegie Library, to combine Phase I and Phase II work and extend the term through June 30, 1985. 8. 101/123: Approving the annual maintenance costs for Anaheim Stadium Scoreboard submitted by Stewart Warner Corp., in the amount of $78,000, for the term March 1, 1984 through February 28, 1985. 9. 160: Accepting the bid of C.G.I. Systems in the amount of $38,838 for the fabrication and delivery of one each service entrance panel and motor starter for Well No. 40, in accordance with Bid No. 4114. 10. 160: Accepting the bid of Byron Jackson Pump Division in the amount of $62,631.32 for one set consisting of turbine pump and motor assembly for Well No. 40, in accordance with Bid No. 4116. 11. 160: Accepting the bid of Kuhlman Electric Company in the amount of $61,522.40 for twenty each, 75 EVA switched transformers, and ten each, 75 EVA unswitched single phase subsurface U.R.D. transformers, in accordance with Bid No. 4122. 12. 160: Accepting the bid of Retail Merchandising Service Automation, Inc., in the amount of $101,000 for the sale of one IBM #4341-M2 Central Processing Unit, in accordance with Bid No. 4125-S. 13. 164: Authorizing Change Order No. 1 to the contract with A & A Pipeline, Inc., in the amount of $33,325.72 for additional work required for construction of the La Palma Avenue Relief Sewer, Account No. 11-790-6325-E0480. 14. 164: Authorizing Change Order No. 1 to the contract with Changing Times Enterprises, Inc., in the amount of $19,327.95 for additional work required for the South Street Water Improvements at Santa Ama Freeway, Phase IIB, Account No. 53-606-6329-17350-34360. 15. 175: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-317: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE CONDUIT INSTAI,IATION AT ASHINGTON IANE-PALAIS ROAD; CHALET AVENUE-FRPIRE STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 55-489-6340-08620-59300. (bidder, Changing Times Enterprises, Inc.) 16. 175: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-318: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINAIJ.Y 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 AIJ, WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: LA PALMA 3 M.G. RESERVOIR, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ROOF REHABILITATION, 846 180 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 21~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. ACCOUNT NO. 51-479-6329-17260-75600. (DeB Enterprises, Inc., contractor, and authorizing filing of the Notice of Completion, therefor) 17. 164: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-319: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINAT3~ ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT ANDALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORKNECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: OLIVE HILLS RESERVOIR STORM DRAIN CHANNEL REPAIR, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 51-479-6329-17280-70810. (Steve Pandza Construction, contractor, and authorizing filing of the Notice of Completion, therefor) 18. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-320: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Dupre, Sanderson - J. Ray Development, Mark C. Johnson) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-317 through 84R-320 duly passed and adopted. MOTION CARRIED. 179: REQUEST FOR REHEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2574: Affidavit of Merit in support of a Request for Rehearing on Conditional Use Permit No. 2574 submitted by Carlos R. and Leonor Conant to consider expansion of a day care centeA to permit a maximum of 12 children on RS-7200 zoned property located at 1321 North Moraga Street. (A public hearing on Conditional Use Permit No. 2574 was held on July 24, 1984 and continued to August 14, 1984 for full Council action. The conditional use permit was subsequently denied - see Council Resolution No. 84R-316). MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to grant the subject request for a rehearing. Counci/man Pickler seconded the motion. Before action was taken, Councilman Bay noted that at last week's Council meeting when the public hearing was held, the Council did not have any petition data concerning Coronet Street. The information presented in support of the request for rehearing involved counts and some other signatures, and suggestions that all customers of the day care center would enter only on Coronet Street (see Affidavit of Merit in support of Request for Rehearing and attachment with a new diagram showing those in support and those opposed on Moraga Street and signatures from those utilizing the services of the day care center affirming that they would drive to and from the address using only Coronet). Councilman Bay stated he did not favor the request for a rehearing since he did not see any real change other than suggesting that customers use Coronet Street where the Council did not have any information from the people on Coronet Street. The key issue stated by Councilman Overholt at the last hearing (see minutes that date) was that there was a significant number of 847 177 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ausust 21~ 1984, 10:00 A.M. residents opposed and he did not see any change in that significant number on Moraga Street. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that the noes were now yeses and only one neighbor was objecting and that neighbor owned a nursery school (nursery school located on Anaheim Boulevard). Councilman Overholt stated he did not interpret the affidavit to say there was only one neighbor on Moraga Street who was opposed; Councilman Bay stated he did not see any petition re-signed by those against stating that they were now in favor. Mr. Carlos Conant, 1321 North Moraga, then explained that he had previously submitted a petition with 98 signatures including 18 people in favor going towards Coronet Street. Of the 36 homes on Moraga, there were 12 people against, one house was vacant and two other homes could go either way, but there were 21 in favor. He confirmed that there were still 12 opposed on Moraga Street. Councilwoman Kaywood asked if some of the opposition were opposed because they were afraid there would be other day care centers on the street; Hr. Conant answered he spoke with all 12 on Moraga who indicated they would sign in favor if they knew only one home on Moraga Street would be granted a license for 12 children. Councilman Overholt asked if he spoke with the person who was operating the day care center across the street; Hr. Conant answered "yes". He also confirmed that as of right now, it was not her intention to apply for an expans.ion of her day care center. She had a license for six but he did not know her future plans and he could not speak for her. Additional questions were posed to Mr. Conant by Council Members for purposes of clarification followed by additional discussions and comments surrounding the issue at the conclusion of which Councilman Overholt stated he did not feel there was sufficient evidence to grant a rehearing at this time, but Mr. Conant could obtain a letter from the operator of the day care center across from his home that she had no intention of coming to the Council to ask for an expansion to 12 children, that would be significant to him as well as to the people who were opposed. If the lady subsequently came in and asked to be treated the same as the Conants, the Council would be in a position to point tO the fact that she confirmed that she would not do so. Councilman Bay also felt the Council should consider that there had been no survey of people on Coronet Street relative to the suggestion that all customers of the day care center drive in and out on that street. He also directed staff to contact the County to ascertain how many other day care centers up to six children there were in the immediate area west of Brookhurst Street, north of La Palma Avenue, south of the freeway. Further, at the meeting of July 24, 1984, the County Representative mentioned there were 12 or above approved and operating in the City and that figure did not match the number of CUPs issued by the City which were about two or three. He wanted 848 178 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL HINUTES - August 21~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. to know where those were and if they were operating with 12 children without a CUP. After Council discussion on the pending motion granting a rehearing and then subsequent motions proposed for continuance, Councilman 0verholt moved to deny the request for a rehearing with the caveat that if Mr. Conant came back to the Council within a reasonable period of time, he (0verholt) would be receptive to a new request for a rehearing if there was substantive evidence to support the request. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Councilwoman Kaywood voted "no'. MOTION CARRIED. 153: APPOINTMENT TO THE PRIVATE INDUSTRY COUNCIL: Mayor Roth first referred to letter dated August 17, 1984 from the Chamber of Commerce reporting that they had selected additional candidate for Appointment to the Private Industry Council (PIC) but did not withdraw any of the existing names. He asked the status of the recommendations. City Manager William Talley explained the Chamber preferred to leave their original two selections as previously submitted but if the Council felt that either name was not acceptable, that Mr. Patterson would be an alternate. He reiterated, the Chamber preferred that the Council consider the original two names. Councilwoman Kaywood nominated Richard McMillan; Mayor Roth stated that Robert Kuznik had already been nominated at the meeting of August 7, 1984. Councilman Bay nominated Pat Patterson. Councilman Overholt moved that nominations be closed. seconded the motion. Councilman Roth Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay stated he had a problem as to whether or not the Council was breaking precedent relative to the ground rules set up at the time the PIC was instituted. He personally could support any or all three candidates and they were excellent selections. He was not sure, however, that the Council was clear on the precedent problem. MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to trail the subject appointment until after Closed 9ession. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Later in the meeting, (3:22 p.m.) the Mayor asked for a roll call vote on the foregoing nominations in the order in which the nominations were made. Robert Kuznik: Ail ayes. Mr. Kuznik was thereby appointed to the Private Industry Council for the term ending August 1, 1987. 108: HEARING - BROADWAY MOTEL - APPEAL OF TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX: Appeal by Pradip Naik, Broadway Motel, appealing the decision of the Hearing Officer denying abatement of the. tax assessment per Audit No. 83335 on the Transient Occupancy Tax due on the Broadway Motel. 849 i75 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 21~ 1984, 10:00 A.M. Submitted was a report dated August 13, 1984 from the Audit Manager and Hearing Officer recommending that the Council uphold the findings of the City internal auditors and the City Hearing Officer assessing the subject Motel Management the additional tax, penalty and interest of ~1,500.48, which amount was paid under protest by the appellant on May 31, 1984. Hr. Pradip Naik, owner of the Broadway Hotel, briefed the Council on the basic point of his appeal, that being the City Code required tenants staying at a motel for a month or more to pay occupancy tax unless there was an agreement between the operator and the tenant that they intended stay for a month or more. He agreed there was a technical error on his part that he did not sign an agreement with some of the tenants who stayed longer than a month. When he obtained his license in 1977, he was not given any information or told how to collect the tax. (See Mr. Niak's letter of June 22, 1984 outlining his appeal in detail - made a part of the record). He felt there was no violation on his part of the intent of the City Code. His error was technical and since even though he was an integral part of the City's tax collection system, the City had failed to keep h/m informed. Therefore, the City should be lenient to h~m. His business had been down in June, July and August which were usually busy months and to pay the penalty would be a hardship for him. Mr. Ron Thompson, Planning Director, and the Hearing Officer for the City in the matter explained that it was necessary to have a formal written agreement with the tenant if the tenant was going to stay at the motel 30 days or longer. In Mr. Naik's case, he developed an agreement and while it did not meet a literal interpretation, it was felt by the City's auditors to meet the intent of the Law. Because of that agreement, the auditors allowed Mr. Naik a 59 percent penalty waiver (also see letter dated July 13, 1984 to Mr. Naik from the Hearing Officer - made a part of the record). Mr. Bill Smith, Audit Manager, then briefed the various provisions of the Code which were pertinent to the subject case and answered questions posed by the Council for purposes of clarification. MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to uphold the findings of the City internal auditors and the City Hearing Officer thereby assessing the subject motel management the additional tax, penalty and interest of ~1,500.48 thus denying the appeal of Mr. Naik. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 179: ORDINANCE NO. 4533: Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance No. 4533 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4533: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18, CHAPTER 18.45, SECTION 18.45.050 BY ADDING SUBSECTION 18.45.050.293 TO THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO ZONING. (Self storage or mini-warehouse facilities in the CG Zone by CUP) Councilwoman Kaywood stated she would still like some consideration relative to the fact that this was a prime ten acre parcel to be used Just for storage. (See minutes of August 14, 1984 where the matter was previously discussed). There was no response. 85O 176 City Ha11~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ausust 21~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. A vote was then taken on the foregoing Ordinance. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bay, 0verholt, Pickler and Roth Kaywood None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4533 duly passed and adopted. REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: The City Manager requested a Closed Session to discuss labor relations and current and pending litigation with action anticipated on labor relations; The City Attorney request a Closed Session to discuss litigation with possible action anticipated. Mayor Roth announced that a Closed Session would be held to consult with the City's Attorneys concerning pending or potential litigation. Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session and a lunch break. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (11:30 a.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (1:38 p.m.) 153: CONTRACT - ANAHEIM FLREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION: Human Resources Director Gary McRae recommended that the City Council by resolution adopt the wages hours and other terms and conditions for employees in classifications assigned to the Fire Employees Unit which action would put into place a 51 month contract (Memorandum of Understanding) extending retroactively from October 7, 1983 through January 8, 1988. Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 84R-321 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 84R-321: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ESTABLISHING WAGES, HOURS AND OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT FOR EMPLOYEES IN CLASSIFICATIONS ASSIGNED TO THE FIRE EMPLOYEES UNIT, REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 83R-486. Before a vote was taken, the Mayor commended Mr. McRae and his staff for bringing the matter to fruition wherein negotiations had come to successful conclusion for both sides in meeting some respective goals. A vote was then taken on the foregoing Resolution. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, None None Overholt, Pickler and Roth The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-321 duly passed and adopted. 851 173 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 21~ 1984, 10:00 A.M. 179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 83-84-35; VARIANCE NO. 3409 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application submitted by David S. and Marion Graaf Collins, for a change in zone from RS-7200 to CR, to permit a 17-unit bed and breakfast motel on property located at 1077 West Ball Road and 942, 946 and 952 South Flore Street, with the following Code waivers: (a) minimum number of parking spaces, (b) maximum structural height, (c) minimum structural setback, (d) maximum wall height. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-129, granted 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, and further, denied both Reclassification No. 83-84-35 and Variance No. 3409. The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by the applicant and public hearing scheduled and continued from the meeting of July 24, 1984 to tkis date. The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent. Mr. David S. Collins, 1077 West Ball Road explained their proposal was one that would continue to maintain the residential character of the area since it adjoined residences across and down the street. It would make a good transition from the CR Zone immediately to the east and south to the R-1 area. The unit on the corner which had served as his office would need some partitioning and addition of bathrooms. The second unit was where he and his wife had lived would be used as the headquarters. The kitchen would be brought to Code with Health Department requirements. The livimg room would be used as a social gathering place for the residents and the dining area used to serve breakfast to the residents. No meals would be served to anyone from the outside. He did not feel the Code requirement of parking spaces for the dining area was necessary and that was the reason for the requested waiver. He then elaborated on the proposed plans for the remainder of the buildings and the reasons for the requested waivers relative to structural height, structural setback and wall height. Mr. Collins stated that there was some apprehan~ion by Member~ of the Plannins Commission and some voted against the project because it would turn into a boarding house. They were going to spend between 5300,000 and 5400,000 on the improvements and there was no way a boarding house could be run economically after that kind of investment. (He submitted copies of the artists rendering of the project). Relative to parking spaces, the 32 required included space for the dining room, which, as stated would serve only those already at the facility and already parked, which was also true of the conference room. There were 17 bedrooms and 21 parking spaces which gave enough for all the residents plus staff. They circulated a petition to all the neighbors within 300 feet and every neighbor on their street but one signed the petition. Some of the people on the other street signed as well and some were not available. No one appeared at the Planning Commission hearing in opposition. 852 174 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ausust 21, 1984, 10:00 A.M. Councilman Overholt noted that the Planning Commission minutes stated one person indicated his presence in opposition; Mr. Collins acknowledged that was correct and he was the manager of the motel next door who said there were too many motels in the area. Councilman Overholt noted that there was reference in the staff report, to signatures in opposition. Mr. Collins stated he did not believe there was a petition in opposition and that was a clerical error which he thought had been corrected after he called the City to indicate it was an error. Councilman Overholt noted the file contained a petition with 21 signatures in favor of the project. Later in the meeting, Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, clarified that, in fact, the petition received with 21 signatures were in favor of the project and no petition had been received in opposition. Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the same situation had ever occurred where one side of the street requested a rezoning without a General Plan Amendment; Hiss Santalahti answered it was considered in this particular project specifically for the reason mentioned, that it was half the street. If that were an appropriate path to be taken, the whole area should be considered, but there was no indication from anyone else that should be done. She was not aware of any other such applications. Councilman Bay then posed questions to Mr. Collins relative to the distinctions between a Bed and Breakfast Inn and Bed and Breakfast Motel. Councilman Bay surmised technically what the Council was looking at was the changing of zoning from RS-7200 to CR and a motel; Mr. Collins stated that was correct except they were going to use the existing structures. Barbara Van, Manager of the proposed facility, stated that the project would be called "The Cottages". She then described the project, its amenities, uniqueness and the fact that the ambience of the Inn would project a country feeling and rooms would be beautifully appointed. There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Hayor closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Kaywood then posed questions to Miss Santalahti for purposes of clarification relative to the precedent setting nature of the request wherein Councilwoman Kaywood expressed concern that if the neighbors submitted a similar request as the proposed project, that would then become the new boundary for commercial from residential. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Pickler, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council approved the negative declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative declaration together with any comments received during the public review process, and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any 853 t71 Cit7 Hall~ Anahetm~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 21~ 1984, 10:00 A.M. comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Kaywood then asked if the dining area and conference room were excluded, would the 21 parking spaces still require a waiver. Miss Santalahti answered that the Code was based on rooms as well as employees and it probably would not require a waiver. If that were modified, it would reduce or eliminate the traffic count. Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 84R-322 for adoption, reversing the findings of the City Planning Commission and subject to the following conditions: 1. That completion of these reclassification proceedings is contingent upon the granting of Variance No. 3409. 2. That the owner of subject property shall submit a letter requesting termination of Variance No. 1218 to the Planning Department. 3. That prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject property, Condition Nos. 1 and 2, above-mentioned, shall be completed. The provisions or rights granted by this resolution shall become null and void by action of the Planning Commission unless said conditions are complied with within one year from the date of this resolution, or such further time as the Planning Commission may grant. Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 84R-323 for adoption, reversing the findings of the City Planning Commission, granting Variance No. 3409, subject to the'following conditions: 1. That prior to issuance of a building permit, the appropriate traffic signal assessment fee shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in an amount as determined by the City Council for new commercial buildings. 2. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer. 3. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans on file with the Street Maintenance and Sanitation Division. 4. That street lighting facilities along Flore Street shall be installed as required by the Utilities General Manager in accordance with specifications on file in the Office of Utilities General Manager, 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 An-heim, shall be posted with the City to guarantee the satisfactory completion of the above-mentioned improvements. Said security shall be posted with the City of Anaheim prior to approval of building permits. The above-required improvements shall be installed prior to occupancy. 854 172 City Hall; Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 21~ 1984, 10:00 A.M. 5. That a parcel map, combining the four existing lots shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim and then recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder. 6. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities. 7. That the owner of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim a fee for tree planting purposes alone Ball Road and Flore Street in an amount as determined by the City Council. 8. That gates shall not be installed across any driveway or private street in a manner which may adversely affect vehicular traffic in the adjacent public streets. Installation of any gates within a distance of forty (40) feet from said public street rights-of-way shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 9. That all air conditioning facilities shall be properly shielded from view, and the sound buffered from adjacent properties. 10. That due to the change in use and/or occupancy of the buildings, plans shall be submitted to the Building Division showing compliance with the minimum standards of the City of Anaheim, including the Uniform Building, Plumbing, Electrical, Mechanical and Fire Codes as adopted by the City of Anaheim. The appropriate permits shall be obtained for any necessary work. 11. That the proposal shall comply with all signing requirements of the CR Zone, unless a variance allowing sign waivers is approved by the Planning Commission or City Council. 12. That a 6-foot high masonry block wall shall be constructed along the north property lines. 13. That any proposed parking area lighting fixtures shall be down-lighted with a maximum height of 12 feet. Said lighting fixtures shall be directed away from adjacent property lines to protect the residential integrity of the area. 14. That this Variance is granted subject to the completion of Reclasslficati0nN0. 83-84-35, now pending. 15. That a 210-foot long, 4-foot wide raised median island shall be installed on Ball Road extending easterly from the beginning of the curb return on Flore Street. Said median shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the City Traffic Engineer. 16. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2. 17. 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, 855 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ausust 21~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. Condition Nos. 1, 5, 7, 10 and 14, 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. 18. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 2, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15 and 16, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 84R-322: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING RECLASSIFICATION NO. 83-84-35. RESOLUTION NO. 84R-323: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 3409. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: C0UNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth Kaywood None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-322 and 84R-323 duly passed and adopted. Councilwoman Kaywood explained her 'no" vote was based on her concern regarding encroachment into residential neighborhoods. The subject property at present was a buffer from commercial and if that buffer were moved, it would keep moving. The City needed homes and housing. The housing was already in existence and now it was going to be changed. 176: PUBLIC HEARING -ABANDONMENT NO. 83-17A: In accordance with application filed by Jeffrey W. Maxson, a public hearing was held on proposed abandonment of a public utility easement dedicated to the City for electrical purposes located north of Romneya Drive, east of Catalpa Avenue, at 2161 West Romneya Drive. Pursuant to Resolution No. 84R-283 duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance with Law. Report of the City Engineer dated June 28, 1984, was submitted recommending approval of said abandonment. Mayor Roth asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no response he closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: The City Engineer also determined that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 5, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 84R-324 for adoption, approving Abandonment No. 83-17A. Refer to Resolution Book. 856 170 City Hall; Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 21, 1984, 10:00 A.M. RESOLUTION NO. 84R-324: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM VACATING A PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT LOCATED NORTH OF ROMNEYA DRIVE, EAST OF CATALPA AVENUE, AT 2161 WEST ROMNEYA DRIVE. (83-17A) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-324 duly passed and adopted. 179: PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 83-84-33~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2582 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application submitted by Atlantic Richfield Company, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to CL on Portion A, approximately 0.2 acre on the north side of Lincoln Avenue and west side of Gilbert Street, to permit a convenience market with gasoline sales and off-sale beer and wine on Portion B, on the 0.5 acre located on the northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Gilbert Street (111 North Gilbert Street). The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-124, 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, and further, granted Reclassification No. 83-84-33, subject to the following conditions: The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-125, 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, and further, denied Conditional Use Permit No. 2582, subject to the following conditions: The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Wallace R. Davis, Attorney for the applicant and public hearing scheduled this date. The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent. Mr. Wallace R. Davis, Attorney for the applicant, Cohen Stokke Davis, 540 North Golden Circle Drive, Santa Aha, first stated that his client did not want the reclassification which was approved by the Planning Commission unless the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) were also approved. He then referred to the packet of material previously submitted for each Council Member explaining their position which included a traffic study from Kimmel and Associates as well as a petition signed by over 800 local residents in favor of the proposal. (Documents made a part of the record - see Appeal to City Council - Addendum - subject: To permit a convenience market with gasoline sales). He also announced the names of those who were in the Chamber audience from Arco, Kimmel and the property owners to answer questions. 857 167 City Hall~ Anaheim} California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 21~ 1984, 10:00 A.M. The proposal for the reclassification was to add sufficient land to the corner to make it the appropriate size for adequate development of the service station site as proposed. They were also requesting approval of the CUP to permit a convenience market with gasoline sales and off-sale beer and wine. Relative to the driveways, staff required closing of both driveways closest to the intersection on Gilbert Street and Lincoln Avenue. After a review by all of the Engineers involved, it was agreed that the driveway on Gilbert Street closest to the intersection would be closed, the reason being that Gilbert Street was narrow street. Providing two driveways on Lincoln Avenue would provide the best internal flow and relief that would prevent any unsafe turns on Gilbert Street and allow the flow. The difference of opinion was relative to the driveway closest to the intersection on Lincoln Avenue. The applicant saw no logical reason to require the closing of that driveway. He again referred to the traffic study previously submitted and relayed some of the facts presented in that study. He urged approval of the CUP. Traffic Engineer Paul Singer then briefed the Council on the problems that would be encountered should the driveways closest to the intersection remain open and the reasons why he was going to stand by his recommendation that those driveways be closed which in the final analysis was for safety in the streets. Since the station was brand new, he recommended that the applicant rearrange it in such a way as to provide free movement on the property so that circulation demands were on the property and not on the street. Councilman Pickler expressed his concern over the situation in the general area of the proposed station as well as ingress and egress noting that he had lived close by for 29 years and was fully aware of the problems involved. He felt it was necessary for the applicant to provide more room to develop the station and mini market. He was not fighting the mini market but maintained more work had to be done. He believed that somehow or other Arco should provide the additional space on site as suggested by the Traffic Engineer. He also expressed concern over the lack of a sidewalk where children had to walk because of the close proximity of the school located in the area. He wanted to look at the possibility of installing a sidewalk all the way up to the homes to the north. He was thinking of safety, circulation and traffic more than anything else. Of the 800 signatures, he was certain there were none from those on his street, Mall Avenue. He could see the facility going in but felt that more work had to be done in concert with staff. Mr. Davis stated that he and Councilman Pickler had previously discussed sidewalks and it was an issue that should be addressed regardless of the subject application; however, that situation was not the fault of his client and as he mentioned previously they were going to be improving the situation by widening the street and providing the sidewalk on the one lot. If his client owned the other lot (immediately to the north) they could talk about what could be done in conjunction with all the rest of the property, but that Was not the case. Councilman Pickler stated perhaps Arco could not solve the problem but he was saying that they should take more time to analyze the matter closer and that should be done between the City, Arco and the residents in the area. 858 168 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 21, 1984, 10:00 A.M. There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Kaywood reiterated her concerns relative to supermarket closures and her view that dual and triple uses were an impact on existing businesses and further expressed her ongoing concern that with millions of cars on the road and the millions of tourists visiting Anaheim each year less service was being provided making it difficult to maintain vehicles in a safe fashion. It was necessary to stop and consider where such service was going to take place. Councilman Pickler suggested that the decision on the subject proposal be continued for three weeks since he felt there were problems that needed to be worked out and if resolved would enhance the total area; Mayor Roth surmised then that Councilman Pickler was recommending a continuance of three to four weeks to work with Mr. Singer to see what could be done relative to enlargement of the lot, evaluate the driveway situation and to talk to staff about sidewalks. Mr. Singer asked if by sidewalks the Council meant full improvements on Gilbert Street; Councilman Pickler clarified that he meant full improvements. At the suggestion of Councilman Overholt, the Mayor asked Mr. Davis if his client would support a continuance in order to solve some of the problems as discussed by Councilman Pickler. Mr. Davis first asked for clarification that Mr. Singer was not talking so much about expanding the site but moving the station so that the bays would be appropriate for two larger driveways farther away from the corner; Mr. Singer answered that was essentially correct, improving the on-site circulation. Mr. Davis stated he saw Councilman Pickler's point regarding his concerns. He (Davis) personally walked the area and conceded that he would not want any of his children walking down that street and something should be done. Mr. Kyle (Arco Representative) had explained to him the project had been in progress for some time and time limits were involved. If the matter could be resolved one way or the other within the given three weeks, he recommended that they meet to discuss the issues but he wanted a commitment that they would look at the situation and get it resolved. Council Member Pickler and Overholt assured Hr. Davis that would be the case. MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to continue public hearing on Reclassification No. 83-83-33 and Conditional Use Permit No.2582 for three weeks to Tuesday, September 11, 1984 at 1:30 p.m. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 179: RECLASSIFICATION NO. 83-84-28~ VARIANCE NO. 3397 (READVERTISED) AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application submitted by Richard James and Kathleen Dianne Beliakoff, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200, to construct a 21-unit apartment complex on property located at 3208 and 3216 West Orange Avenue, with the following Code waivers: (a) maximum structural height, (b) maximum fence height. 859 City Hall} Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 21~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-134, 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, and further, approved Reclassification No. 83-84-28, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim a fee for street lighting along Orange Avenue in an amount as determined by the City Council. 2. That the owner of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim a fee for tree planting purposes along Orange Avenue in an amount as determined by the City Council. 2. That prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject property, Condition No. 1 and 2, above-mentioned, shall be completed. The provisions or rights granted by this resolution shall become null and void by action of the Planning Commission unless said conditions are complied with within one year from the date of this resolution, or such further time as the Planning Commission may grant. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-135, 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 tb~t the project will have a significant effect on the environment, and further, granted Variance No. 3397, subject to the following conditions: 1. That prior to issuance of a building permit, appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in an amount as determined by the City Council. 2. That prior to issuance of a building permit, the appropriate traffic signal assessment fee shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in an amount as determined by the City Council for each new dwelling unit. 3. That all driveways shall be designed as required by the City Traffic Engineer. 4. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer. 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. 86O 166 City Ha11~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL HINUTES - August 21~ 1984, 10:00 A.M. 7. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans on file with the Street Maintenance and Sanitation Division. 8. That prior to issuance of a building per.it, primary water ~ain fees shall be paid to the City of Anaheim, in an amount as detern~tned by the Office of the Utilities General Hanager. 9. That prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall present evidence satisfactory to the Chief Building Inspector that the proposed project is in conformance with Council Policy Number 542 "Sound Attenuation in Residential Projects~. 10. That a 6-foot high masonry block wall shall be constructed along the westerly, southerly and easterly property line(s) with the exception of the southerly 117 feet of the westerly property line which shall be developed with a 7-foot high masonry block va11, as approved by Variance No. 3397. If not approved, a 6-foot wall shall be constructed in place of said 7-foot wall. 11. That this Variance is granted subject to the completion of Reclassification No. 83-84-28, now pending. 12. That gates shall not be installed across any driveway or private street in a manner whichmay adversely affect vehicular traffic in the adjacent public streets. Installation of any gates within a distance of forty (40) feet from said public street rights-of-way shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 13. That prior to issuance of a building permit, an on-site vehicular circulation plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Fire Marshall, City Traffic Engineer and the Streets and Sanitation Department. 14. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2. 15. 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. l, 2, 8, 9, 11 and 13~ 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. 16. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7, 10 and 14, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman Kay~ood at the meeting of July 31, 1984 and public hearing scheduled this date. The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent. Mr. Sterling Carlson, Agent and present landowner, 447 East l?th Street, Costa Mesa stated at the public hearing before the Planning Commission one neighbor 861 City Ha!l~ ~-~heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 21~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. expressed concerns over privacy and subsequently the matter was continued to allow him to address those concerns. He met with the neighbor and made over a dozen changes to the site plan. He then briefed the changes made and reiterated they were done to protect the privacy and security of the neighborhood without sacrificing quality. He asked the Council to approve the project. Councilwoman Xaywood explained her main concerns were the three-stories and the idea of tandem parking in a tuck-under parking situation. She asked if the latter was included in the new Parking Code. Miss Santalahti answered "yes". It increased the amount of parking for apartment projects to the same as condominiums but also permitted tandem parking as long as it was not on opposite sides of the same driveway. Kr. Carlson explained that two parking spaces in tandem would be assigned to one unit; Miss Santalahti clarified that was required by Code. Councilwoman Eaywood stated she had been asking to see the parking study since April although she had read it, there seemed to be new situations arising that she never heard of. She was very concerned with tandem parking and doubly with tandem tuck-under and wanted to review that again. Councilwoman Kaywood then asked if the City was permitting the three-stories; Miss Santalahti answered "yes" in a few instances but that involved the line of sight issue and window alignments. Staff had seen a few applications particularly when it was over garage parking. In this project the density did comply with the Code. Mr. Carlson explained for Councilwoman Kaywood that relative to the three-story, the definition of a level evolved around whether the first level was four feet or more below grade for SO percent or more of the perimeter of a building. On this particular site, three of the four buildings would qualify actually as a two-story building because they would be below grade. The fourth building would also be below grade with its parking but the parking sides were longer than the two other adjacent sides. Ail four of the buildings were within the SS-foot, two-story height limit. For all practical purposes, the building would appear and function as a two-story building even though one portion was technically qualified as a three-story. He also explained that to the west of the single family, the building was between 14 feet and 20 feet away from the adjoining property. They met with the neighbor to the west and removed the building closest to them that did have windows towards their unit. At the current time, there are no windows at all looking toward the neighbor single family home. That neighbor was present today and they had gone over the plan numerous times to make sure that they had protected her privacy. Councilwoman Kaywood noted that City Code in the past required a 150-foot setback and then 50 feet over her protest and now it was 14 to 20 feet. She wanted to know how Mr. Carlson could Justify that; Mr. Carlson stated he had a list of six projects that were approved within 9 feet of the property line. 862 164 Cit~ ~a11~ Anshet~ Califorala - COUNCIL ~NUTES - August 21~ 1984, 10:00 A.M. Councilwoman Xaywood emphasized that he (Carlson) had Just proved her point, everyone was quick to refer to the list of precedents and his would be added to it. She had a lot of problem with that. There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public hearing. Discussion followed between Councilman Bay and Councilwoman Xaywood relative to the setback and height wherein Councilman Bay noted that the Council had heard about the need for apartments in the City and the buildings in the proposed project were all within the 35-foot limit, which was about the only limit to two-story residential in single family. To bring up the 150-foot setback as a debate on height of multiple, going into something already zoned for intent to more multiple, he could not follow the logic any longer despite the fact that he started out from the same point as Councilwoman Kaywood, and argued the same way at the time the setback was changed. There had been so many changes since then, the arguments were not valid. Councilwoman X~ywood maintained that adding a second-story onto a single family home within four feet or eight feet with a roof overhang, was not the same thing as 21 apartments which could bring about a large change in the quality of life for the single family residents. The policy had been for a 20-foot heavily landscaped setback in between any of the multiple apartments to single family which did not exist in this case. This would be a case of prezoning and forcing someone into a situation they may not want to be in. She could not support the proposal. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NECATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilwoman ~aywood, 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. 84R-325 for adoption, approving Reclassification No. 83-84-28, subject to the City Planning Commission conditions. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 84R-325: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING RECLASSIFICATION NO. 83-84-28. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-325 duly passed and adopted. Councilwoman Eaywood offered a Resolution denying Variance No. 3397 (readvertised) reversing the findings of the City Planning Commission on the 863 161 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ausust 21~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. basis that proposed project was overbuilding the property, that she believed 16 tandem parking spaces were never intended in the Parking Code and that the distance of 14 to 20 feet to the adjoining property was not enough and would not enhance anything. The Resolution failed to carry by the following vote. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: C0UNCILMEMBERS: Kaywood Bay, 0verholt, Pickler and Roth None Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 84R-326 for adoption, granting Variance No. 3397 (readvertlsed), upholding the findings of the City Planning Commission and subject to all conditions. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 84R-326: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 3397. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth Kaywood None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-326 duly passed and adopted. 179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2597 - PERMITTED USES IN THE CL ZONE AT 1660 AND 1664 WEST BROADWAY - ANAHEIM DOCTORS INVESTMENT COMPANY: Councilwoman Kaywood reported that she had asked staff to provide a list of permitted uses by right in the commercial zone and specifically those permitted on the subject property. (See minutes of August 7, 1984 - public hearing Conditional Use Permit No. 2597 were extensive input and discussion took place). The Council received a copy of memorandum dated August 20, 1984 from the Planning Department Zoning Division listing those permitted uses. She read the list of uses as stated in paragraph 3 of the subject memorandum. A meeting was being held this evening at the Broadway Preschool and another meeting at the high school offices tomorrow night. She requested that somehow that list be made available for those two meetings. 148: ORANGE COUNTY LEAGUE OF CITIES - SECOND VICE-PRESIDENT: Councilwoman Kaywood announced that at the Thursday, August 16, 1984 meeting of the Orange County League of Cities, Councilman Pickler was elected Second Vice-President. She also reported on other matters that were considered at the meeting. 101: FREEDOM BOWL: Mayor Roth commented on the Freedom Bowl and the fact that the City was finally successful in bringing that football game to Anaheim Stadium scheduled to take place on December 26, 1984. He recounted the events leading up to the successful completion of negotiations which started back in 1981 and the people involved and responsible, specifically the publisher of 864 1.62 City Hall~ Anahetm~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 21~ 1984~ 10:,00 A.M. the Anaheim Bulletin Karl Wray, as a result of a column written by John Hall in the Register. After much time, effort and dedication by a group of men who were committed to bringing the game to Anaheim, it was finally brought to fruition. The next hurdle was to sell 67,000 tickets as well as to negotiate a television contract. He encouraged all citizens of Orange County and particularly Anaheim to endorse and support the Freedom Bowl which he reiterated would be played in Anaheim Stadium on December 26, 1984, at 5:00 p.m. RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (3:35 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (4:24 p.m.) ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (4:25 p.m.) LEONORAN. SOHL, CITY CLERK 865