Loading...
1983/12/06City H.a.ll~ ~n~heim.~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 6~ .1.9~3.~ 10:00 A.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Overholt and Roth COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: James D. Ruth ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti ACTING CITY ENGINEER: Art Daw ASSOCIATE PLANNER: Jay Tashiro Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: The Reverend Gregory Larkin, St. Michael's Episcopal Church, gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Council Member E. Llewellyn Overholt, Jr., led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Roth and authorized by the City Council: Bill of Rights Week, December 11-17, 1983. National Drunk and Drugged Driving Awareness Week, December 11-17, 1983. William Landis, Investigator, Traffic Bureau, Anaheim Police Department, accepted the Awareness Week proclamation. 119: RESOLUTION: A resolution was unanimously adopted by the City Council, wishing the Rams Cheerleaders well on their Christmas Tour of Turkey, Greece, Beirut, Italy and Spain, to be presented at a later date. 119/140/106: PRESENTATION - FRIENDS OF THE ANAHEIM PUBLIC LIBRARY CHECK FOR THE BOOKMOBILE OUTREACH PROGRAM: Mrs. Nancy Manos and Mrs. Marty Campbell of the Friends of the Anaheim Public Library, presented a ~3,0OO check to the Mayor to be used for the Bookmobile Outreach Program. Mayor R0th, on behalf of the Council, the Library Department and the City, expressed his gratitude for the generous donation. MOTION: Coun6ilman Roth moved to appropriate the $3,000 check into Account No. 01-3192. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Councilman Pickler was absent. MOTION CARRIED. MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held November 8, 1983. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Councilman Pickler was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 988 qi.ty. Hal.l.~. An~eim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 6~ .19~3.~ 10..:99 A.'M' WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda, after reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to waiver is hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such ordinances or resolutions in regular order. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Councilman Pickler was absent. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $1,772,019.91, in accordance with the 1983-84 Budget, were approved. P~E. OUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess into Closed Session to discuss litigation with possible action to follow. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Councilman Pickler was absent. MOTION CARRIED. (10:17 a.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present, with the exception of Councilman Pickler. (10:30 a.m.) CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the following items were approved in accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 83R-461 through 83R-467, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. 1. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as recommended: A. Claims rejected and referred to Risk Management: 1. Claim submitted by Bonnie Jean Jones for personal injuries purportedly sustained due to inadequate lighting at the Anaheim Stadium Parking Lot, on or about October 7, 1983. 2. Claim submitted by Cal-Farm Insurance Company, Deborah Stephens, Insured, for property damages to automobile purportedly sustained due to a City technician working on traffic signal at the intersection of Lincoln Avenue and Rio Vista, on or about September 13, 1983. 3. Claim submitted by State Farm Insurance Company, Laura Casper, Insured, for subrogation for property damages to automobile purportedly sustained due to an accident involving a City-owned vehicle on La Palma Avenue, east of Brookhurst, on or about September 8, 1983. B. Claims rejected and referred to Governmental Programs Division/Markel Service, Inc.: 4. Claim submitted by Thomas Neal Thompson for personal property loss purportedly sustained due to actions of Anaheim Police Department on West Lincoln Avenue between Beach Boulevard and Western Street, on or about November 6, 1983. 989 City Hal.l~ ~n~heim, California - COUNCIL MINU~E$ .~ De~gmber 6~ 1983~ 10:00 A.M. 5. Claim submitted by Joe W. and LaQuetta G. Sanders for personal property and personal injury damages purportedly sustained due to actions of the Anaheim Police Officers at 1271 North Tippets Lane, on or about July 25, 1983. 6. Claim submitted by Russell Sanders for personal injury and personal property damages purportedly sustained due to actions of the Anaheim Police Officers at 1271 North Tippets Lane, on or about July 25, 1983. 2. The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: a. 175: Before the Public Utilities Commission, Application No. 83-11-31, Southern California Edison Company for (1) Authority to Increase Rates Effective January 1, 1984 by: Increasing its Energy Cost Adjustment Billing Factors, Decreasing its Electric Revenue Adjustment Billing Factor, Reducing its Base Rates; and (2) Authority to Reduce Rates Coincident with the Implementation of the Major Additions Adjustment Clause Rates by Reducing its Energy Cost Adjustment Clause Rates to Reflect the Fuel and Energy Cost Savings Attributable to San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Unit No. 3. b. 105: Golf Course Advisory Commission--Minutes of November 17, 1983. c. 156: Police Department--Monthly Report for October 1983. d. 140: Public Library--Monthly Statistical Summary for the October 1983. e. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission--Minutes of October 26, 1983. f. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission/Project Area Committee--Minutes of Joint Meeting of November 8, 1983. 3. 123: Authorizing an agreement with Recreation Systems Inc., in the amount of $4,915 for architectural design of a restroom at Ponderosa Park, and ~1,000 for an additional entrance to Martin Recreation Center at La Palma Park, with completion within 8 weeks. 4. 128: Receiving and filing the Monthly Financial Analysis for the three-month period ended September 30, 1983. 5. 170.123: Authorizing a storm drain facilities reimbursement agreement with Castille Builders , Ltd., in the amount of $28,317 relating to Tract No. 9262 located in the Mohler Drive area; and accepting a' partial assignment of interests in the reimbursement agreement from Norman C. Woolley and Mona K. Collins in the amount of ~6,721.80. 6. 123: Authorizing a Lease Agreement with Silveri & Ruiz Construction Company in the amount of $544 to store broken concrete, asphaltic concrete, etc. on City-owned property located on the south side of South Street, approximately 641 feet west of East Street, for a term of one year. 990 City Hall~. Anah.e.im~' California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 6~ 1.9.83~ lp:00. A.M. 7. 123: Accepting the highest bid from Barbara A. Lincoln and Henry C. Zipperian in the amount of $37,550 for certain City-owned real property located at 2504 West Conley Avenue, C.P. No. 270; authorizing a purchase and sale agreement therefore; authorizing execution of a grant deed thereto; and authorizing the Real Property Division to open an escrow for a period not to exceed 30 days. 8. 160: Accepting the low bid of Royal Truck Body in the amount of $10,594.70 for one service body, in accordance with Bid No. 4058. 9. 129: Continuing the award of Fire Station Headquarters Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning Renovation, Account No. 75-252-6201, to December 13, 1983. 164: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-461: 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: WEIR CANYON ROAD SEWER IMPROVEMENT PHASE II, 1656 FEET NORTH OF SANTA ANA CANYON ROAD TO SANTA ANA CANYON ROAD, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 11-790-6325-E0510. (Bids to be opened January 5, 1984, 2:00 p.m.) 165: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-462: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY O? ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: BARRIER FREE ANAHEIM NO. 8 - AREA BOUNDED BY LINCOLN AVENUE, BALL ROAD, EUCLID STREET AND BROOKHURST STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 12-793-6325-E3790. (Bids to be opened January 5, 1984, 2:00 p.m.) 164: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-463: 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: WATER IMPROVEMENTS IN SOUTH STREET, PHASE II, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 53-606-6329-27410-34340. (Brkich Bros. Corporation, contractor) 169: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-464: 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: CONVERSION OF EXISTING STREET LIGHTS FOR HIGH PRESSURE SODIUM LUMINAIRES, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 01-677-6328-1217B-37300. (Sierra Pacific Electrical, contractor) 123: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-465: A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING LEASE PURCHASE FINANCING FOR THE PURPOSE OF REFUNDING AN OUTSTANDING LEASE PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND FOR PROVIDING ADDITIONAL FINANCING TO C-D III FOR CERTAIN PARKING FACILITIES. (for the Anaheim Hilton Convention Hotel) 991 Ci.ty. H.al.1, Anaheim~ ~alif~rni? -.COUNCIL ~.INUTES - December 6, 1983, 10:00. A.M.. 107/000 RESOLUTION NO. 83R-466: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 78R-769 AND ADOPTING A NEW FEE SCHEDULE FOR PLAN CHECKING SERVICES PURSUANT TO THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-467: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Engineered Tools, Incorporated; Tommy L. Lundmark, et ux.) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Overholt and Roth None Pickler MOTION CARRIED. The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 83R-461 through 83R-467, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. 123: MANAGEMENT PAY PLAN - MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: Authorizing a Maintenance Agreement with Sibson and Company in an amount not to exceed $15,000 for consulting assistance for program implementation and on-going administration of the Management Pay Plan, for a term of one year. City Manager William Talley briefed report dated November 29, 1983, from the Human Resources Director, Garry McRae, recommending approval of the subject agreement. Councilman Bay stated he had no problem with the proposal, but during discussions with Sibson, they were to provide an Exceptions Report relative to the exceptions they came up with during their study of the City administration. That report had not yet been presented to the Council. He wanted to know if that report had been furnished to the City administration and, if not, when it was to be expected. Mr. Talley answered that they would ask Sibson whether or not they had submitted the report. He was not aware that it had been submitted; Councilman Bay stated he would like a specific date on when they were going to present that report. MOTION: Councilman Bay thereupon moved to authorize a Maintenance Agreement with Sibson and Company in an amount not to exceed $15,000 for consulting assistance for program implementation and on-going administration of the Management Pay Plan, for a term of one year, as recommended in memorandum dated November 29, 1983, from the Human Resources Director. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Councilman Pickler was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 106: REDUCTION OF PREPARATION TIME IN THE RESOURCE ALLOCATION PLANNING PROCESS: Receiving and filing the report dated November 29, 1983, from the Program Development and Audit Department on modifications to the Resource Allocation planning process and approving the utilization of an Executive Summary Resource Allocation Plan. 992 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 6, 1983, 10:00 A.M. Councilman Bay stated he favored the action taken by the administration to reduce 36 flow days with the idea of more reductions next year. He wanted to be certain the proposal was to support the use of the Executive Summary and he assumed they would not publish the previous thick Resource Allocation Plan (RAP), but the line item tabs would be available if Council wanted them; Mr. Talley confirmed that the line item budget would be available. Councilman Bay continued that his questions had more to do with the budget calendar. Last year he pressed that the Council be brought into the budget process earlier in its makeup on policy matters. They did have a meeting and he was assuming it was the consensus of the Council that that meeting did not accomplish a great deal; therefore, he would not press for it again this year. He wanted to make it clear that since there was no plan within the budget calendar for the Council to be directly involved in the budget process, nor its policy making, he intended to make his opinion known during the budget meeting under Council Comments, since there were certain basic policies about which he had strong opinions. Councilman Overholt stated he felt the modifications were a dramatic step in making the RAP a more useful tool rather than a burdensome process, and staff should be encouraged to take future steps as well. MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to receive and file the report on modifications to the Resource Allocation planning process and approving the utilization of an Executive Summary Resource Allocation Plan, as recommended in'memorandum dated November 29, 1983, from the Program Development and Audit Manager. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Councilman Pickler was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 175.123: CONSULTING ENGINEERING SERVICES - 36-INCH TRANSMISSION MAIN IN SANTA ANA CANYON ROAD: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to authorize the Third Amendment to an agreement with Alderman, Swift and Lewis for consulting engineering services in connection with the 36-inch transmission main in Santa Ana Canyon Road between Mohler Drive and Weir Canyon Road, for additional design work, increasing the fee by ~36,620, as recommended in memorandum dated November 22, 1983, from the Public Utilities Board. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Councilman Pickier was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 108: REQUEST FOR REHEARINC - PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT, JOSE LUIS ACOSTA: Affidavit of Merit in support of a request for a rehearing on the application for public dance permits submitted by Jose Luts Acosta to hold dances on December 3, December 10 and December 17, 1983, from 7:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m., at the City Crew Dance Hall, 3168 West Lincoln Avenue. (The subject applications were denied by the Council at their meeting of November 29, 1983.) City Attorney William Hopkins stated that he had advised Mr. Acosta his rights under the Government Code, which entitled him to a Closed Session. He (Acosta) indicated he would request a Closed Session. Mr. Larry Martinez, 218 Knepp Avenue, Fullerton, interpreting for Mr. Acosta, stated that they were requesting a Closed Session. 993 Cit7 H.al.l~ Anahei~' ~a.l~fornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - Decembe.r 6~ 1983~ 10:00 A.M. RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Councilman Pickler was absent. MOTION CARRIED. (10:48 a.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present, with the exception of Councilman Pickler. (11:21 a.m.) Mr. Martinez stated that Mr. Acosta was requesting to withdraw his applications for the public dance permits. MOTION: Councilman Roth moved ~o accept the request for withdrawal of the applications for public dance permits and the Affidavit of Merit requesting a rehearing on the previous denial of those applications. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Councilman Pickler was absent. MOTION CARRIED. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning Commission at their meeting held November 14, 1983, pertaining to the following applications were submitted for City Council information. 1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2459: Submitted by Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, (Kaiser Foundation Hospital), to expand an existing hospital facility on RS-A-43,000(SC), CO(SC) and CL(SC) zoned property located at 441 North Lakeview Avenue with a Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-210, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2459, and granted a negative declaration status. 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2507: Submitted by Beth Adams, LTC., to permit retail sporting goods sales on ML zoned property located at 131 West Katella Avenue, with the following Code waivers: (a) minimum number of parking spaces, and (b) minimum landscaped setback. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-217, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2507, and granted a negative declaration status. 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2510: Submitted by Nancy and Jack Culp, Jr., to expand an existing contractor's storage yard on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located at 2890 and 2898 East Miraloma Avenue. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-218, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2510~ and granted a negative declaration status. 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2511: Submitted by Alfred A. Holve and Sons, Inc., (House of Catering), to permit on-sale beer~and wine in an existing sandwich shop on CL zoned property located at 1711 West Katella Avenue. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-219, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2511, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination. 994 City Hall~ An~heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December. 6~. 1983,. 10.:00 A.M. 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2512: Submitted by Thomas P. Walker, et al, (Denny's Restaurant), to permit on-sale beer and wine in an existing restaurant on ML zoned property located at 1420 North State College Boulevard, with a Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-220, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2512, and granted a negative declaration status. 6. VARIANCE NO. 3362: Submitted by Santiago F. Rodriguez, to construct a room addition on RS-5000(SC) zoned property located at 286 North Paseo Madero, with a Code waiver of maximum lot coverage. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-222, granted Variance No. 3362, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination. 7. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 83-84-12: Submitted by Collins Foods International, Inc., for a change in zone from RS-7200 to CL, to construct a commercial building on property located at 438 North State College Boulevard. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-223, granted Reclassification No. 83-84-12, and granted a negative declaration status. 8. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2139 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Eric W. Marten, requesting an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 2139, to permit an athletic and body building gym on ML zoned property located at 1340 North Blue Gum Street. The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 2139, to expire November 17, 1986. No action was taken by the City Council on the foregoing items; therefore, the actions of the City Planning Commission became final. VARIANCE NO. 3345: Submitted by Hugo A. Vazquez, to construct an 7-unit affordable apartment complex on RM-1200 zoned property located at 129 South Melrose Street, with the following Code waivers: (a) minimum lot area per dwelling unit, (b) maximum structural height, (c) maximum site coverage, and (d) minimum sideyard setback. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-211, granted, in part, Variance No. 3345, and granted a negative declaration status. A review of the Planning Commission's action was requested by Councilwoman Kaywood and, therefore, a public hearing would be scheduled at a later date. VARIANCE NO. 3350: Submitted by Alfredo Silvo Ceballos, et al, to retain an illegal dwelling unit and to construct a garage on RM-1200 zoned property located at 428 and 428-1/2 South Melrose Street, with the following Code waivers: (a) minimum vehicular accessway, (b) minimum number and type of 995 C.i.t~ ~all~ Ana~m,. Ca.l.i.fornia ~ ~OpNC~L MINU~S' - D~cemb~r. 6~ 1983~ 10:00 A.M. parking spaces, (c) minimum lot area per dwelling unit, (d) maximum lot coverage, (e) minimum floor area, (f) minimum landscaped setback, and (g) minimum sideyard setback. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-212, granted, in part, Variance No. 3350, and granted a negative declaration status. A review of the Planning Commission's action was requested by Councilwoman Kaywood and, therefore, a public hearing would be scheduled at a later date. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 83-84-7 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2499: Submi'tted by Gloria H. Miller and Dorothy H. Hurley, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200, to permit a 79-unit (part senior citizen's) apartment complex on property located at 2620 West Ball Road, with the following Code waivers: (a) minimum building site area, (b) maximum structural height, (c) maximum site coverage, (d) minimum floor area, (e) minimum recreational-leisure area, (f) minimum private recreation-leisure area, (g) permitted encroachments into required yards, and (h) minimum distance between buildings. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution Nos. PC83-213 and PC83-214, granted, in part, Reclassification No. 83-84-7 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2499, and granted a negative declaration status. A review of the Planning Commission's action was requested by Councilwoman Kaywood and, therefore, a public hearing would be scheduled at a later date. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2506: Submitted by Jean K. Fogarty, to permit a temporary trailer for a fish market on CL zoned property located at 2840 East Lincoln Avenue. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-215, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2506, and granted a negative declaration status. A review of the Planning Commission's action was requested by Councilwoman Kaywood and, therefore, a public hearing would be scheduled at a later date. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2342 (READVERTISED): Submitted by Patricia H. Chappell, (L.O.R.D.S. Ministries), to consider modification or revocation of Conditional Use Permit No. 2342, to retain a church and food distribution center on CG zoned property located at 806 and 808 North Anaheim Boulevard, with the following Code waivers: (a) minimum number of parking spaces, and (b) permitted outdoor storage. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-216, revoked Conditional Use Permit No. 2342 (Readvertised); a negative declaration status was previously granted. The Planning Commission's action was appealed by the applicant and, therefore, a public hearing would be scheduled at a later date. 996 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 6, 1983, 10:00 A.M. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2514: Submitted by David and Robyn Ferszt, (Orangeview Convalescent Hospital), to expand an existing convalescent hospital on CL zoned property located at 1720 West Orange Avenue° The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-221, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2514, and granted a negative declaration status. The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Dr. Clyde Vineyard, Agent, and therefore, a public hearing would be scheduled at a later date. Later in the meeting (1:40 p.m.), the City Clerk announced that she received a subsequent request withdrawing the appeal on Conditional Use Permit No. 2514. No action was taken by the Council on Conditional Use Permit No. 2514. PUBLIC REQUESTS - CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Roth, 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: 1. 151/166: Request by Jean Tudor, RB Industries, Inc., to fly a 50- by 45-foot balloon with a banner from the Southwest Exhibition Hall, Anaheim Convention Center, in conjunction with a public sale event to be held December 26, 1983 through January 2, 1984 at the Convention Center, was denied, as recommended by the Zoning Division. 2. 102: ORANGE COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL APPOINTMENT: Orange County Vector Control District, requesting the appointment of a Board Member for the ensuing term ending December 31, 1985. City Council reappointed Judie DePerry in accordance with the recommendation of the Orange County Vector Control District Board of Trustees. Councilman Pickler was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 151/166: REQUEST - RB INDUSTRIES, INC.: Later in the meeting, after the initial Council vote denying the request for approval to fly an advertising balloon (see above), City Clerk Linda Roberts announced that someone was present to address the Council on the issue. Submitted was a report dated November 28, 1983, from the Planning Department, Zoning Division, recommending denial of the request. Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, first 'explained for the Mayor that the height issue was not a problem. The maximum building height in the CR Zone was 75 feet and the proposal was for an overall height of 77 feet. What they were more specifically concerned with was the fact that the balloon was clearly intended for purposes of advertising. It was located at a distance from residential, which for a normal free-standing sign would limit the height to only 43 feet. The size of the balloon would prohibit it from being that low. 997 ~.ity ~all~ A~aheim~. Califo~ni.a - COUNCIL MINUTES - pec~mber 6~ 1.9B3~. 10:00 A.M. Jean Tudor, RB Industries, 2323 Southeast Main Street, Irvine, stated their parent company was RB Furniture and the sale at the Convention Center was expected to be about a $3 million or $4 million sale, kicking off W&J Sloane of Southern California (RB had acquired rights to that name). It was for only an eight-day period during the holiday season and, therefore, they felt it would not be objectionable by their neighbors at that time. The big plus was the direction the balloon would give at the Convention Center to their sale. Miss Tudor thereupon submitted a diagram of their plan (also see letter dated November 28, 1983, from RB Industries, providing additional information relative to the balloon, its height and specific location). Mr. Rich Blackwell, 23261 Via Ronda, Mission Viejo, explained the balloon they intended to display was a cold air inflatable and a few words needed to be substituted on the agenda to make their request clear. Fly should be substituted with display, because no lift source, and thus the balloon could not fly, but would remain on the roof. Hot should be cold and balloon should be inflatable. The balloon itself weighed approximately 100 pounds distributed over a base of ten feet in diameter. Miss Tudor and Mr. Blackwell also reported the following: That the balloon was taken down every night and the display of the balloon would be from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., the balloon itself was 50 feet high and, according to Greg Smith at the Convention Center, the canopy was 27 feet high, if there was a strong wind, it might hurt the balloon, but would not damage the canopy. The balloon was designed so that it would not go anywhere and they would have a qualified operator with the system all the time it was inflated. They also had insurance. MOTION: Councilman Bay moved that the Council reconsider the subject request for approval to fly the advertising balloon. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Councilwoman Kaywood voted "No." Councilman Pickler was absent. MOTION CARRIED. MOTION: Councilman Bay thereupon moved to approve the request to fly a 50- by 45-foot balloon with a banner from the Southwest Exhibition Hall, Anaheim Convention Center, in conjunction with a public sale event to be held December 26, 1983, through January 2, 1984, at the Anaheim Convention Center. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated she was speaking against the motion. Staff's recommendation was to deny the request. Should there be an accident, since the balloon would be on City property, the City could be held liable. If they allowed it for one, they would have to do so for others. They had tried to keep large advertising signs to a minimum and she felt approval would be a very bad thing. Councilman Overholt did not feel that granting the request in this instance would mean that they had to grant every other request. 998 City Hall~ Anaheim,. Cal.i.fornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 6~. ~98.3~. 10:00 A'M' Mayor Roth asked the City Attorney if they needed a hold harmless agreement; City Attorney William Hopkins felt that it would be desirable, and insurance should also be provided. He recommended that the applicant stipulate that they would give the City a hold harmless agreement sent to the City Attorney, and to provide insurance as specified by the Risk Manager of the City. Miss Tudor so stipulated. She stated that they had already provided evidence of liability insurance to the Convention Center. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion, including the stipulation as agreed to by the applicant. Councilwoman Kaywood voted "No." Councilman Pickler was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 172: STRENGTHENING OF SAFETY PRECAUTIONS - TRUCK TRAFFIC: Councilman Overholt stated that he was glad to see efforts were being made to try to strengthen safety precautions, not only in Anaheim but also in Orange, to avoid the type of truck-traffic accident which resulted in the death of Sgt. Ed Haslam. The rigs holding the kind of material being hauled were very large and it seemed to him they traveled through residential areas quite frequently. In fact, there were a number he had seen parked in parking lots in the City, obviously a bootleg job, because he was certain the owners of the parking lots would not permit truck parking. Whatever could be done to assure the residents that they would be spared the horror that occurred at Nohl Ranch Road and Santiago Boulevard would be beneficial. 147: SLUDGE DEPOSIT - ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS 2 AND 3: Mayor Roth reported on the meetings he had been attending at the Orange County Sanitation District and the problems confronting Districts 2 and 3, which included Anaheim. Throughout the years, due to the stiffer requirements of the Environmental Protection Agency, they had improved the outflow, i.e., the liquids going out into the ocean, which meant an increase in the amount of sludge accumulated in Orange County. The sludge was being disposed of in Coyote Canyon in Irvine, which was about full, and within two to three years, the County was going to have to take some radical action relative to the problem. One of the proposals was called co-combustion, a very controversial process, wherein sludge would be burned along with the trash somewhere near a disposal plant, which again happened to be close to Fountain Valley. The cities of Fountain Valley and Huntington Beach were "up in arms" over the prospect. They saw ~ome horrendous problems that would affect Anaheim and its future growth. He arranged to have a presentation made to the Chamber of Commerce, City/Government Committee last week and the Council would undoubtedly be hearing more about the issue. REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: The City Manager requested a Closed Session ~o discuss labor relations with no action anticipated. The City Attorney requested a Closed Session to discuss litigation and potential litigation with no action anticipated. Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session and a lunch break. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Councilman Pickler was absent. MOTION CARRIED. (11:51 a.m.) 999 City Hall, An.aheim~. Ca.lifornia - COpNC~. MINpTES - December .6., 1.9~.3~ 10:00' A.M. AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present, with the exception of Councilman Pickler. (1:40 p.m.) 176: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 81-30A: In accordance with application filed by Michael G. Mack, Orange County Transit District (OCTD), public hearing was held on proposed abandonment of a portion of Baxter Street between the Carbon Creek Channel and Via Burton, pursuant to Resolution No. 83R-146, duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance with law (public hearing scheduled and continued from the meeting of May 10, 1983). Report from the Engineering Division, dated April 6, 1983, had recommended approval of the abandonment, subject to two reservations. Mayor Roth asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and satisfied with the recommendations of staff; a gentleman from the audience answered "Yes." The Mayor then asked to hear from those who wished to speak, either in favor or in opposition. Mr. Fredrick Mason, attorney representing the ALS Corporation, 1200 North Main Street, Santa And, stated he was present to urge the Council to consider the proposal by ALS set forth in their letter dated November 30, 1983, by John W. Morse, Vice President and General Manager (on file in the City Clerk's office along with attachment (1), a preliminary drawing of how they planned to utilize the section of Baxter Street proposed to be abandoned, and attachment (2), listing pertinent sections of the Streets and Highways Code), which would require that Baxter Street not be abandoned at this time. He then briefed the contents of the letter, the essence of which was as follows: ALS proposed that they be allowed to lease from the cities of Anaheim and Fullerton the area currently set aside for the extension of Baxter Street. ALS would improve the property for parking at their expense, with paving, installation of lighting and landscaping in accordance with City requirements, and installing a gate at the entrance of the property for the protection of the adjacent land owners. For the right to lease the proposed street property, they were offering to pay a total of $10,000 per year for a term of six years, and at the end of six years OCTD would be in full operation and the abandonment could then be reconsidered. The Mayor then asked the applicant to respond. Mr. Michael Mack, Manager of Engineering, OCTD, reported that the Transit District had put the facility in operation in September of 1983, and they presently had approximately 117 buses in operation out of that facility. When they prepared their environmental analysis of the site, they took into consideration the entire facility at capacity and overlayed that to the existing traffic situations on State College Boulevard and Via Burton. The graphics posted on the Chambers wall showed existing traffic, hourly figures, on those two streets in 1980 (red) and superimposed in green was their 1000 C~.t~ Hal.l~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Decemb~r..6.~..1983~ 10:00. ~'M' facility at full capacity. Their peak period of operation did not coincide with the peak periods of the arterials, and that was the point they had been making over the years. The facility had been in operation and there were no traffic impacts in the area. Projections would show, even with additional vehicles up to the ultimate capacity, there would be no traffic impact. As far as their intended usage of the abandoned street, should it be granted, they had not developed a definite proposal as to what they would do with that property. The offer made by ALS seemed to be an irrelevant issue to the abandonment issue before.them today. Mr. Mack then explained for Councilman Bay that in February, they were proposing to put 150 more buses into service that would represent an increase of 33 vehicles on top of their present 117. With the projections they had to date, they would add 15 vehicles per year up to a capacity of 240 within a six- or seven-year period of time, but 240 would be the maximum, and there were also other restrictions that had been placed on the facility as outlined previously (see minutes October 14, 1980). Councilman Bay felt that the ALS proposal was germane to the hearing, especially if Anaheim decided not to approve the abandonment and looked seriously at the ALS proposal, noting that action by Fullerton was dependent on Anaheim's action. Thus far, he had heard nothing to convince him not to look at the proposal seriously. He had no argument with the traffic projections, but the impact on the parking availability in that industrial area was a different subject. Questions were then posed to Mr. Mack by Council Members wherein he explained that if the abandonment were approved today, it would give the two adjoining property owners an ability to put it to a higher and better use and that would have to be defined by the property owners and submitted to the appropriate jurisdictions for their approval. Councilman Bay stated if it did not occur today, the decision on the higher and better use would be up to the Cities of Anaheim and Fullerton. The issue today, as he saw it, was whether there really was a parking problem and if the proposal was a solution to that problem. In concluding, Mr. Mack stated that during the construction of the facility, they put in an emergency exit. Should something occur on State College that would prohibit ingress and egress to the site from that street, as well as access for the Fire Department, the emergency exit onto Baxter Street was needed and there still continued to be a definite need. Mr. Warren Brackensiek, Corporate Secretary and Attorney for the Carnation Company, 5045 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, stated that they were the other adjacent property owners and the major issues were as follows: At the last hearing before the Council, the issue dealt with the traffic to be generated by OCTD, but the results of the study Mr. Mack discussed could go a long way in dispelling fears that there would be a major negative traffic impact from OCTD. Secondly, the City Planning Commission of Fullerton, the Council and 1001 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 6, 1983, 10:00 A.M. the City staff of Anaheim, all recommended abandonment. Thirdly, there had been letters of support for the abandonment from the most immediate adjacent land owners, as evidenced by the posted diagram. They had experienced vandalism from Baxter Street. The anticipated use after abandonment would be for further storage on the property. As part of the closure, the curbing on Via Burton would be improved. Relative to the ALS proposal, it was a surprise to them and he had a question relative to legality. It appeared ALS was requesting to convert the property for essentially private use and benefit. He also questioned if Baxter Street was necessary for road purposes. Councilman Bay asked the City Attorney if the ALS proposition were taken seriously, did it mean that the two cities had to condemn the property and take the land; City Attorney Hopkins stated relative to the information he was given, the City only had an easement over the property and did not own it in fee. Thus, some means of acquiring fee title would be necessary if they were to go along with the proposal. He agreed there was no reason why the abandonment could not be completed today. Councilman Overholt asked to hear from Mr. Mason relative to the question of the easement; Mr. Mason stated that while he believed it to be legal, based on the research he had done, he felt in the long run it would be to thebenefit of the two cities and the benefit of the companies in that area if there was more parking available. Relative to the easement, he was surprised when he looked into that because the original condition was that of a dedication of a fee. The information they received from the title company would indicate that the cities only had easements for street purposes and did not have a fee. If it was made clear it was a temporary closing under the Vehicle Code, the fee would not revert back to the adjacent land owners and it would be available for the two cities to use on a t~mporary basis for this interim use. He again urged the Council not to complete the abandonment today. Councilwoman Kaywood stated the original concern expressed by ALS was a through street. Fullerton made it clear they would never be interested. The flood control channel was also there, and it would not be feasible. She felt that the proposal was a new item and use that would be extending the property for parking for ALS that no longer had anything to do with the traffic impact. Councilman Bay stated if the proposal required Eminent Domain action by the City, then he would not support it. If there was a legal way to do it without Eminent Domain then he wanted to know staff's opinion. City Attorney Hopkins stated they could study the matter further, but he did not see how they could lease an easement. The property would have to be acquired by the City in fee. Mr. Art Daw, Acting City Engineer, reported that the actual wording in the use permit that was originally granted required the deeding of the property for street widening. It had always been Engineering's opinion that deeding was by easement and not fee title, and that was a standard procedure. He also clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood that he would stand by the original recommendation of staff to abandon the street and did not see any merit in delaying action today. 1002 City. Hall.l, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 6.~ 19~3~. 10:00 A.M. The Mayor closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Kaywood offered a resolution to approve Abandonment No. 81-30A. Before any action was taken, Councilman Bay stated he felt there was a possibility of the ALS proposal becoming a reality and perfectly legal, and it would not hurt to continue the abandonment hearing for some period of time, so that the City Attorney and Planning staff could research the issue. He was not interested in only the benefit of the possible revenue to the. City, but also the benefit to the area in additional parking. In previous hearings, one of the major problems discussed was the problem of parking. MOTION: Councilman Bay thereupon offered a motion to continue the public hearing on Abandonment No. 81-30A for a period of four weeks, so that two things could happen: (1) a thorough study by all authorities involved of the ALS proposal, not only by staff but also by the other companies in the area as well, and (2) to ensure that the other companies in that area were aware of the ALS proposal. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood, speaking in opposition, stated that the proposal would make one wonder whether the original concern expressed by ALS was not to the through street or traffic circulation at all, but they were instead looking to use someone else's property to their benefit. If they were looking to delay the abandonment for six years, she was concerned at that time there would be an additional request for six years. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion of continuance, which was clarified as January 10, 1984, at 1:30 p.m. Councilwoman Kaywood voted "No." Councilman Pickler was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 179: PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 3359: Application by Max and Joyce Rogers, to retain an outdoor basketball backstop on RS-7200(SC) zoned property located at 5960 East Marsha Circle, with Code waiver of minimum structural setback. The Planning Director, or his authorized representative, determined that the proposed project falls within the definition of categorical exemptions, Class 3, as defined in the State EIR Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. The Gi~y Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-205, denied Variance No. 3359. The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by the applicant and a public hearing scheduled this date. The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent. 1003 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 6, 1983, 10:00 A.M. Mr. Max Rogers, 5960 East Marsha Circle, stated his original request before the Planning Commission was to retain the outdoor basketball stop for his children, wherein they would be playing in the street. Mr. Rogers then narrated a slide presentation in order to more clearly illustrate his original intent and what he had done since that time relative to the design of the current backstop. Whereas the backstop was originally on a pole with a swivel base in his front yard, it was now positioned permanently oriented to his driveway only. Seventeen neighbors signed a petition stating it would not be offensive or a hazard and it was only because of one neighbor he was present today. If Council approved the variance, he assured the backstop would not be in the street and his boys would be playing in the driveway. He also submitted a letter in favor from a neighbor (Elaine Borin) who could not be present today. Mayor Roth asked if he was stipulating that the basketball backstop would be used for play only in his driveway and not in the street and it would be entirely within the 25-foot setback, thereby not encroaching upon the City right-of-way; Mr. Rogers answered "yes." Councilwoman Kaywood asked the Traffic Engineer if there was a problem if the backstop was on Mr. Rogers' driveway; Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, answered not as far as he was concerned, but the way it was mounted previously encouraged playing in the street. Councilman Bay asked if it violated Mr. Rogers' CC&R's the way it was proposed; Mr. Rogers answered that the Homeowners Association had approved it. Councilman Bay stated his concern was the precedent, if approved, for what would come in next in the front of a home in an area where there were no CC&R's. He felt strongly about that and, therefore, could not support a' resolution of approval. Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 83R-468 for adoption, granting Variance No. 3359, subject to the stipulations that the backstop to be used for play in the driveway only as a one-half court concept, and that it be entirely within the 25-foot setback and not encroaching on the City right-of-way. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 83R-468: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 3359. Before a vote was taken, discussion followed relative to the foregoing issue which was presently pending in the courts as a criminal matter; Joanne Rocks, attorney for Mr. Rogers, 6200 East Canyon Rim Road, confirmed that they had a full jury trial scheduled on the criminal calendar for December 15, 1983. A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution. 1004 City Hall, Ana~eim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 6~..19.83~ !0:00 A.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Overholt and Roth NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bay ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-468 duly passed and adopted. 179: PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 83-84-11 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2503: Application submitted by Darrell L. and Esther M. Clardy, for a change in zone from RS-7200 to CL, to permit commercial use of a residential structure to establish a self-defense school with caretaker's quarters on property located at 809 South Magnolia Avenue, with the following Code waivers: (a) minimum landscaped setback, and (b) minimum sideyard setback. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-199, 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 Conditional Use Permit No. 2503 and Reclassification No. 83-84-11, subject to certain conditions. A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman Kaywood at the meeting of November 8, 1983, and a public hearing scheduled this date. The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present. Mr. Darrell Clardy, 809 South Magnolia, was present. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she was very concerned with the use of the existing house and adding on to the front of it. On the two homes that were changed to commercial, the houses were removed and new buildings built that complied with Code. On Magnolia Avenue from Ball Road to Rome, they went through a General Plan Amendment in 1961 with an intent to commercial. There was no street parking permitted and it was a very fast and heavily traveled arterial with no sidewalks. If it was going to be changed to commercial, she was concerned that it be done properly and in accordance with Code. Mr. Clardy stated they were going to move the house six feet on the back end, and he was building a brand new commercial building across the front. The Building Division stated it was fine for the house to be there as long as the commercial building was built up to commercial standards. There was also public parking 75 yards southeast and 75 yards northwest and being in a self-defense business, his patrons were very active and would not mind walking a distance. 1005 ~ity. Hall,. Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTE~ - Dec~Mbe.r 6~..1.983~ 10:00 A.M. Mr. Clardy then answered a line of questioning posed by Councilwoman Kaywood wherein he reported the following: He had seven parking spaces, classes would be on a split schedule with 15 students per session, one-third of which would be children who would be dropped off by their parents and a couple between 10 and 16 that did not drive, he did not have any business going on at the present time, but he had friends over who worked out in the garage, not a class. He was told by the City that he needed a conditional use permit, but he maintained that he did not need one, since under the regulations he could build a commercial building and have a residential structure on the property as long as the commercial building was up to Code. He requested that his money be refunded for the Conditional Use Permit. Miss Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, explained if the property wer~ developed with a wholly commercial building, he could have simply filed a reclassification action and that specific drawing could have been shown. The submittal that was made indicated it was a residential structure and he was adding on an addition, but there was still a residence involved. It was evaluated as a residential conversion. If he wanted to convert the whole thing to commercial, he had to meet all commercial requirements, and she was not sure he could do so, but if he could, it would be more expensive. Under the CUP, if there was concern on the part of the Council on the specific use of the property or potential parking problems, they would have control over the CUP and be assured that would be the activity on the premises until some other kind of hearing were held. With the exhibits they had on file, he would need a CUP, and even if it were terminated, it had been advertised and they did not refund the fee after they had gone to that extent of advertising. Councilwoman Kaywood wanted to know specifically what he was going to do in the front portion of the property; Mr. Clardy answered he would like to develop a whole new commercial building and he would have to tear down the garage. The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to speak. Mr. Dale Holtz, 2432 Paradise Road, speaking from a security guard standpoint, it required a certificated school for certain jobs. Parking would not be a problem as Mr. Clardy stated, because students could walk. He knew of other schools in Garden Grove and Westminster where there was a residence behind the building, but from the front, the residence was not visible. There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public hearing. Councilman Bay then asked staff the ultimate width of Magnolia Avenue; Miss Santalahti answered 106 feet overall. Mr. Clardy was being asked to make an irrevocable offer of dedication, because it was questionable whether that dedication would ever be taken and ultimate improvements made. She confirmed that his building, as planned, would be within nine feet of the ultimate width. 1006 City. Hall.~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 6, 1983, 10:00 A.M. Councilman Bay stated the reason he was concerned about setbacks was because he knew what it was costing the City to widen Anaheim Boulevard, and the Council should always look at future ramifications of giving away setbacks. As he understood, they were giving away one foot of setback from the Code in this case. Councilwoman Kaywood stated her concern was that there were fourteen other homes on that street and if any were approved without being a true commercial building, the Council was going to be responsible for doing the kind of thing done on North Brookhurst, because they did not build according to Code. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to disapprove the environmental impact report, finding that there is substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Before any action was taken, someone from the audience asked to be heard; Councilwoman Kaywood asked to hear from her. Esther Clardy, 809 Magnolia Avenue, stated they were aware of what she was talking about on Brookhurst, but theirs was to be the type of building Councilwoman Kaywood mentioned at Magnolia and Rome Avenues and Magnolia Avenue at Ball Road. They planned to build a brand new building on Magnolia Avenue. That street should not even be residential, because it was dangerous and traffic would be hazardous for any children living on that whole block. There was no second to Councilwoman Kaywood's motion disapproving the negative declaration status. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Bay, the City Council having 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, approved the negative declaration. Councilman Pickler was absent. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Kaywood stated if they had some specific plans that could be tied in with a picture or rendering as to what was to be built on the ?roperty~ her fears might be allayed. 8he questioned if approval could be subjec~ to a rendering being approved by either the Planning Commission or the Council; Miss Santalahti answered that she thought it could. Councilman Bay questioned Councilwoman Kaywood's tendency to get into architectural control by the Council. He would recommend that the Council discuss the Area Development Plan (No. 56) made in 1961, review it and change it accordingly. Councilman Roth offered resolutions for adoption, approving Reclassification No. 83-84-11 and granting Conditional Use Permit No. 2503. 1007 City..Ha.ll, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 6~ 1983~. 10:00 A.M. Before any action was taken, Councilman Overholt stated he was going to support the resolutions for the reasons Councilman Bay stated, that they were getting too deeply into the specifics. Councilman Bay stated he did not intend to vote for the resolutions approving the Reclassification and granting the Conditional Use Permit and, therefore, that would automatically result in a delay for full Council action. He was interested in going back and looking at some of the Area Development Plans on changing neighborhoods in the City. He had never been a proponent of strip commercial. They had a number of Area Development Plans all over the City and perhaps it was time the Council took a look at those plans, including Area Development Plan No. 56, which was presently under discussion. He agreed with Councilwoman Kaywood when she stated she did not want to see development along Magnolia Avenue in the subject area take on the look of North Brookhurst. If the majority of the Council agreed that there had been a development change, maybe it was time to look back at how they controlled those changes and not add to the strip commercial they already had in the City. A vote was then taken on the resolutions offered by Councilman Roth approving the Reclassification and granting the Conditional Use Permit. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt and Roth NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood and Bay ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler Mayor Roth stated that because of the tie vote, the public hearing would have to be continued to the next meeting when a full Council would be present; City Clerk Linda Roberts clarified the date and time certain would be December 20, 1983, at 1:30 p.m. The Mayor then emphasized for Mr. Clardy that he could not do anything on the property until that time and anything he could do to get a rendering to supplement the basic plan he had already submitted would be helpful. 134/179/155: PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 1.77., RECLASSIFICATION NO. 83-84-9 AND EIR NO. 259: To consider an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan to change the current General Open Space designation to Low-Medium Density Ra~id~n~ial Land U~e~, and a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-2400, on approximately 6.38 acres located on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, east of Rio Vista Street. Mr. Jay Tashiro, Associate Planner, briefed the staff report to the Planning Commission dated October 17, 1983, relative to the subject property, consisting of approximately 6.4 acres owned by the City of Anaheim and designated as open space on the General Plan. Because of its location and surrounding land uses, the site was considered to be suitable for development as low-medium density residential. The amendment to the General Plan was necessary in order for the City to use, sell or lease the land for that purpose. 1008 City Hall~.Agaheim~. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 6~ 1~.83.~ 10:00 ~.'M.' __ Exhibit "A" proposed low-medium density residential designation, which typically permitted an apartment complex not to exceed 18 dwelling units per acre, as well as condominiums, townhouses, and detached single-family dwellings, which designation was typically implemented by the RS-5000, RM-3000 and RM-2400 Zones. After extensive review and analysis of the subject amendment, it was staff's opinion that the proposed low-medium residential would represent a more realistic land use designation than the present general open space designation. Mr. Tashiro then outlined the reasons for this opinion. Further, considering that the subject property was owned by the City and would one day be sold as a surplus parcel of property, the City and the citizens would both receive benefit in the future if the study area was designated for residential land use permitting flexibility of land use types. He then elaborated on the potential benefits of such actioh. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-193, after considering EIR No. 259 for proposed General Plan Amendment No. 177, Land Use Element, and reviewing evidence both written and oral presented to supplement Draft EIR No. 259, found that adequate soils engineering tests were not conducted to determine the depth and quality of the fill material used to fill the dumpsite; therefore, based on such information, denied certification of EIR No. 259, and further, denied the General Plan Amendment and Reclassification No. 83-84-9 (PC83-194). A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman Kaywood at the meeting of November 8, 1983, and a public hearing scheduled this date. Mayor Roth asked if there was a timetable as to when the property would be sold as surplus; Mr. James Ruth, Assistant City Manager, reported that there was a study just about complete for the Manager's review and consideration that would indicate they would like to dispose of that property sometime within the next fiscal year. Councilman Bay wanted to know on RM-2400, what the maximum number of dwelling units would be; Mr. Jay Tashiro answered the staff report indicated 86 units. They had done a study whereby they had looked at all the RM-2400 developments in the City and on the average for a 6.4 acre site, development would be approximately 86 dwelling units. Councilman Bay surmised then that under the General Plan Amendment, the average, if they went to the maximum, would be 86 new dwelling units. He wanted to bring out those numbers, because he felt there were people present from the public that were interested in the change. He reiterated he wanted them to fully understand that the maximum dwelling units would be around 86, not necessarily what would be on the property. Mr. Tashiro stated that the 86 was the average, but looking at that particular site with single-family residential development to the west, he would think that there would be some site development constraints, such as two-story within 150 feet of single-family, etc., and, therefore, the dwelling units could possibly be lower than that. 1009 Ci,ty ,Hall~ Anaheim,~ ,California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Decembe,r.,6,, 198,3,~ 10:00 A.M. The Mayor then asked if anyone wished to speak. The following people spoke in opposition for the below listed reasons: Mr. Dean Bellinger, representing Mr. and Mrs. Henry Schinhoften, challenged the EIR report, since the deepest core sample they took on the property was 15 to 20 feet. His father-in-law, his mother, himself and the children had lived on the adjacent property since 1926. They were aware that the subject property was filled with miscellaneous concrete and in some instances they had seen trash dumped on the site. He was concerned as to what was going to happen downstream if they put buildings on the property and did not know exactly what was underground. Councilwoman Kaywood interjected and explained that the previous EIR was done for a mobile home park and any other use that would be proposed would require an additional EIR and they would have to go to a deeper level, depending on what was proposed. Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, clarified that relative to an additional EIR, it would not be exactly that, but a soils analysis would have to be done for purposes of building permits. If further CUP's were filed, it was then conceivable that more environmental analyses would have to be done. C. M. Thomson, 2912 Collier, stated if they sold the property to somebody based on the assumption that they were going to get a number of units on it, he wanted to know if the City would decrease the price for the property, because the developer was going to have to excavate thousands of yards of garbage to be able to build. He was concerned if they did sell at a reduced price, and the development sank into the riverbed, would the City be liable. His point was that the property should be developed as a park or some other non-habitable use. Mr. Ruth confirmed that there were no plans by the City, County or State to develop the property into a park site. Paula Martinez, Property Manager, Orange County Water District (OCWD), stated that the City owned the 6.38 acres, but the 1.8-acre parcel in white, as shown on the posted plan, was owned by the Water District. It was currently leased to a nursery and south of the parcel was the property known as the Burris Pit, which was filled with water. For a number of years, the County, City of Anaheim and the Water District looked at developing some sort of regional park with an idea toward water oriented recreatiom; however, funding was no longer available through the State. At this point, the OCWD Board of Directors authorized them to develop requests for proposals for the recreational use of the Burris Pit, the South Street to Ball Road area. They had tried on numerous occasions to get the City of Anaheim interested in doing something with their parcel in conjunction with some recreational development and they would still be interested and willing to do so. 1010 City Hal.l.,. Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINpT~S -..Dec.ember 6~ 1983~ 10.:pp 6..M. Carol Cruzen, 2842 East South Street, stated she represented East Anaheim Citizens for a Better Community and they were concerned about the use of the property. Their first option would be that the property remain as open space. There was a petition in the City with 500 signatures objecting to the rezoning of the property (previously made a part of the record). Their major concern if the property was rezoned, that they not reclassify it at this time, because they wanted the opportunity to look at each individual development so that they could speak to the specifics of traffic, access, height, etc. They did not feel the property was a developable area and she encouraged the Council to act upon what Mr. Thomson said, so that they could all save their time. Councilman Bay asked, on the petitions collected where it mentioned her organization, i.e., the 500 signatures that were against the proposal, he wanted to clarify when he obtained those signatures if it was against the temporary mobile home park concept or basically against the General Plan change; Mrs. Cruzen stated it was against the mobile home park, however, the use of South Street was also one of the major concerns. Councilwoman Kaywood then posed questions to staff, at the conclusion of which she asked that it be made very clear that if there was approval on the items before them today, it would not give anybody any right to come in and build anything. There would have to be further hearings on what could be put on the property. William Anderson, Westgate Drive, stated the access from Lincoln Avenue versus the access from South Street was uppermost in their minds and they favored the Lincoln Avenue access. Further, on Westgate Drive where their backyards abutted the subject property, he mould much rather see it as a dump than some of the other things they talked about. They would look much more favorably on something being built if they knew what type of structures or barrier there might be between the development and their backyards. Mayor Roth clarified, as was pointed out by Councilwoman Kaywood, nothing would be built until they had an opportunity to speak to any such development at a public hearing. Benson Blach, 279 East South Street, stated he agreed with Mr. Bellinger. Many studies had been made and a great deal of money spent. There was a large amount of trash on the property and it would be expensive to excavate. He felt they should leave the property as is, open space. Kevin Burton, 2836 East South Street, urged the Council to consider traffic when considering the amendments. South Street was a small street with many small children and they were extremely concerned about traffic. The Mayor closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 259 - CERTIFICATION: The City Council, after considering Environmental Impact Report No. 259 for proposed General Plan Amendment No. 177, to designate the 6.4-acre site located on the south side of 1011 City Hal.l~ Anaheim~ C~lifo~nia - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 6~...1.9.8.3.~. 10:00 A.M. Lincoln Avenue, west of the Santa Ana River as low-medium density residential and reviewing evidence, both written and oral presented to Supplement Draft EIR No. 259, does hereby find that adequate soils engineering tests were conducted to determine the depth and quality of the fill material used to fill the dumpsite and therefore, based upon such information, does hereby certify, on motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth that Environmental Impact Report No. 259 is in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and City and State Guidelines, reversing the findings of the City Planning Commission. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay stated if they were going to approve the EIR, he wanted it clear and in the record that any development that would occur on the property would be subject to subsequent soil testing requirements. He felt it should be part of the motion certifying the EIR. Mayor Roth asked staff if they were in agreement; James Ruth answered "yes" and stated he had talked to the Planning Director, Ronald Thompson, earlier and the soils tests that were taken were just taken on the basis of using the property as open space or a mobile home park. It was their intent all along, if they ever had other developments, they would go to comprehensive soils testing. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she had no objection to stating it, but wondered if it would even be necessary; Bob Kelley, Associate Planner, explained that the requirement for an extensive soils test was included as one of the mitigation measures in the EIR, and thus included. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Pickler was absent. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 83R-469 for adoption, approving General Plan Amendment No. 177, Land Use Element, Exhibit "A," reversing the findings of the City Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 83R-469: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE ANAHEIM GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATED AS AMENDMENT NO. 177, EXHIBIT "A." Roll Call AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Overholt and Roth NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-469 duly passed and adopted. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 83R-470 for adoption, approving Reclassification No. 83-84-9, subject to the requirement that prior to any development on the property, that the Planning Department, Planning Commission and Council would need to approve any specific project. Refer to Resolution Book. 1012 C.i.ty Hall~ Anaheim~ .California - COUNCIL MINU%ES - December 6~ 1983~. 10:00 A.M. RESOLUTION NO. 83R-470: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT TITLE 18 OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED. Before a vote was taken, Mayor Roth confirmed that public notice would be given and residents would be advised of the hearing; however, such action would not take place until the City decided at some time in the next fiscal year that the property was no longer required. Councilman Bay stated he had a problem the way the resolution was stated; it had to be more clear. He felt all that needed to be stated was that the City Council had to approve any development on the property and that there must be public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. Miss Santalahti suggested that it be subject to public hearings before the Planning Commission and when the matter appeared on the Council Agenda under Planning Commission items, if the Council had a problem, they could act accordingly. Councilwoman Kaywood noted that was the normal procedure. A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Overholt and Roth None Pickler The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-470 duly passed and adopted. 134: PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 186: Oak Hills Ranch, (formerly Douglass Ranch), to consider an amendment to the Circulation Element of the General Plan for modifications to proposed highways as follows: (a) realignments of Weir Canyon Road, Serrano Avenue and Monte Vista Road, (b) deletion of E1 Rancho Road as a Hillside Secondary Arterial Highway, (c) inclusion of the Eastern Transportation Corridor Study Area, and (d) renaming a major portion of Monte Vi~a Road to Oak ~ill~ Drive. The City Planning Commission, at their meeting of October 17, 1983, and pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-192, approved the negative declaration upon finding that it had 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 was no substantial evidence that the project would have a significant effect on the environment, and further, recommended adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 186--Circulation Element--Exhibit "A" (later in the meeting, it was clarified that the Planning Commission recommended Exhibit "B" at a subsequent meeting). 1013 City Hall~ Anahei~.~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 6~ !983~ 10:p0 A.M. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak, either in favor or in opposition. Mr. Gordon Ruser, 1221 South Sycamore, Santa Ana, speaking on behalf of the Sierra Club, stated that with regard to GPA No. 186, the Sierra Club's position was that Alternate "B", Figure 4, was an improvement over Alternate "A", Figure 3. They hoped that the County of Orange Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors would approve a regional park in Weir Canyon early next year. They believed General Plan Amendment No. 186 provided much greater flexibility and that Exhibit "B" would allow possible exclusion in the future of arterial highways from Weir Canyon at the north end. Mayor Roth noted that the recommendation listed on the Council Agenda was Exhibit "A"; Mr. Jay Tashiro, Associate Planner, explained that on October 17, 1983, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Exhibit "A", but at that meeting there was discussion relative to the southerly extension of Weir Canyon Road; the Sea and Sage Society and Sierra Club were very much opposed to showing that extension. Subsequent to that meeting, they had meetings with Oak Hills Ranch, Irvine Company, Sea and Sage, the Audubon Society, the Sierra Club and the County relative to whether the City of Anaheim's Circulation Element should show the extension of Weir Canyon into the City of Orange as their Sphere of Influence. The consensus at the time was that they should not show that extension. The staff, therefore, made a minor modification, Exhibit "B", just showing an arrow substituted for the line going south. They did present that to the Planning Commission on November 28, 1983, and the Planning Commission concurred with the minor modification, now Exhibit "B". Further, the Circulation Element only identified the general location and extent of the major roadways and specific alignments would be identified at the time the affected property owners prepared detailed land use plans for their respective properties. Mr. Ruser then stated if Exhibit "B" included with GPA No. 186 was acceptable and approved by the Council today, that sometime within the next few months, the General Plan Map posted on the Chambers wall be changed to show the revisions to the General Plan. Councilwoman Kaywood explained that automatically, as time permitted, the permanent General Plan Map of the entire City referred to by Mr. Ruser was updated on a regular basis. Mr. Dave Dmohowski, representing the Irvine Company, stated that they were in concurrence with the Planning Commission recommendation and supported Exhibit "B" of GPA No. 186. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council approved the negative declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative declaration together with any comments received during the public review process, and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Councilman Pickler was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 1014 City Hall~ An~beim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 6~. 1983, 10:00 A.M. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 83R-471 for adoption, approving General Plan Amendment No. 186, Exhibit "B", as recommended by the City Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 83R-471: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH EXHIBIT "B". (General Plan Amendment No. 186) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Overholt and Roth None Pickler The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-471 duly passed and adopted. RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Councilman Pickler was absent. MOTION CARRIED. (4:23 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present, with the exception of Councilman Pickler. (4:38 p.m.) 112: FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE VERSUS CITY OF ANAHEIM: Councilman Roth moved to authorize the City Attorney and Ruston and Nance to settle Orange County Superior Court Case No. 38-56-94, Farmers Insurance Exchange vs. City of Anaheim, by payment of a contribution of a sum not to exceed $450,000. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Councilman Pickler was absent. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT: the motion. Councilman Pickler was absent. Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilman Overholt seconded MOTION CARRIED. (4:39 p.m.) LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK 1015