Loading...
1980/03/2580-316 C%t~ Hall,. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 25~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour COUNCIL MEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts CITY LIBRARIAN: William J. Griffith PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ronald L. Thompson CITY ENGINEER: William G. Devitt ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti DATA PROCESSING OPERATIONS MANAGER: Don McGregor Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: Reverend Terry Hutchison, Melodyland Hotline Center, gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilman E. Llewellyn Overholt, Jr., led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Seymour and authorized by the City Council: Day of Reverence--Good Friday - April 4, 1980 The proclamation was accepted by Mr. To~...y Thomason, Chairman of the YMCA Good Friday Breakfast. 119: RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION: A resolution of commendation was unanimously adopted by the City Council.and presented to Coach Don Johnson on behalf of the Cypress College Chargers upon winning the California Community College State Basketball Championship. 119: RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION: A resolution of commendation was unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to Mr. Bob Metz, Principal, on behalf of the Esperanza High School Girls Basketball Team upon winning the CIF 2A Cham- pionship. 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 ordinance or resolution in regular order. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $1,285,397.40, in accordance with the 1979-80 Budget, were approved. 80-317 City Hall.p Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 25, 1980~ i:30 P.M. 160: PURCHASE OF .~QUIPMENT - 50~000 FEET OF 15KV URD CABLE - BID NO. 3632: On motion by CoUncilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the low bid of General Electric Supply was accepted, and purchase authorized in the amount of $40,179.30, including tax, as recommended by the Purchasing Agent in his memorandum dated March 18, 1980. MOTION CARRIED. 123: EXTENSION OF THE MAGNOLIA AVENUE STORM DRAIN PROJECT: 'On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Bay, an amendment was authorized to an agreement with Berryman & Stephenson, Inc., to provide an additional $14,876 to extend the Magnolia Avenue Storm Drain project to Dale Avenue, as recommended in memorandum dated March 19, 1980 from the City Engineer William Devitt. MOTION CARRIED. 140/109: GRANT APPLICATION - MAJOR URBAN RESOURCES LIBRARIES (MURLS) PROGRAM: On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City .Manager was authorized to submit a proposal of not less than $3,469, to the Major Urban Resources Libraries Program (MURLS), as recommended in memorandum dated March 18, 1980 from William Griffith, City Librarian. MOTION CARRIED. 123: LIBRARY CIRCULATION SYSTEM EXPANSION: City Librarian William Griffith first clarified questions posed by Councilman Bay relative to the subject system. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-12! for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated March 19, 1980 from the City Librarian, authorizing a computer lease agreement with United California Bank for lease of computer equipment for the Library Circulation System in the amount of $78,436.82, and directing the City Librarian to execute the necessary documents. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-121: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS OF A COMPUTER LEASE AGREEMENT WITH UNITED CALIFORNIA BANK AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY LIBRARIAN TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCU- MENTS TO COMPLETE THE TRANSACTION FOR THE LEASE OF COMPUTER EQUIPMENT FOR THE LIBRARY CIRCULATION SYSTEM. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-121 duly passed and adopted. 123: JOHN MARSHALL PARK - CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS: Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 80R-122 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated March 18, 1980 from James Ruth Deputy City Manager, authorizing an amendment to the agreement with Berryman & Stephenson, Inc., in the amount of - $15,600, for the completion of construction plans and specifications for the design of the John Marshall Park. Refer to Resolution Book. 80-318 City Hall~..Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 25~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. RESOLUTON NO. 80R-122: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENTS FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WITH BERRYMAN & STEPHENSON, INC., AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. (John Marshall Park) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-122 duly passed and adopted. 123: CANYON PARK SITE II - CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-123 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated March 18, 1980 from the Deputy City Manager, authorizing an amendment to the agreement with Saito/Sullivan Inc., in the amount of $13,600, for the com- pletion of construction plans and specifications for the design of Canyon Park Site II. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-123: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH SAITO/ SULLIVAN ASSOCIATES, INC., AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT. (Canyon Park Site No. 2) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-123 duly passed and adopted. I55: SANTAANA CANYON II PARK SITE (~/S SANTA ANA CANYON DRIVE~ E/0 QUINTANA DRIVE)- EIR -NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilwoman KaywOod, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council finds that this project will have no signi- ficant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact since potential envirornnental impacts have been mitigated in the design, and the project is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. 150; POLICE PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY INSURANCE: On mo:ion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the offer of the Great Atlantic Insurance Company of Delaware was accepted to provide police professional liabiltiy insurance as stated in the letter of February 5, 1980 by Bayley, Martin & Fay, Inc., of San Antonio, Texas, at an annual premium of $98,532, as recommended by Risk Manager Jack Love in his memorandum dated March 19, 1980. MOTION CARRIED. 112: CARTER HAWLEY HALE STORES~ dba BROADWAY DEPARTMENT STORES VS. COUNTY OF ORANGE AND CITY OF ANAHEIM, ET AL: On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the Orange County Counsel was authorized to defend the City of Anaheim in litigation regarding Carter Hawley Hale Stores, dba Broadway 80-319 City Hall.,..Anah.e. im., California - COUNCIL MINUTES -March 25.~. 1980~ 1:30 P.M. Department Stores vs. County of Orange and City of Anaheim, et al, relating to property taxes, as recommended in memorandum dated March 17, 1980 from the City Attorney, William P. Hopkins. MOTION CARRIED. 179: COMMERCIAL ENCROACHMENTS INTO INDUSTRIAL AREAS: Request of staff for di- rection relating to commercial encroachments into the industrial area, was sub- mitted. Mr. Ron Thompson, Planning Director, briefed the Council on his six-page report dated March 20, 1980 (on file in the City Clerk's office), recommending that the City Council direct the Planning staff to: A. Enforce the zoning in such a manner that the existing "illegal" commercial uses in the City's industrial areas are provided an opportunity to phase out their operations within a reasonable time frame (this might be accomplished either by an agreement or through zoning actions with the specific program to be established by the City Council). B. Vigorously enforce the City's ordinances on any new illegal land use violators in Anaheim industrial areas. C. Work closely with the industrial community (Anaheim Economic Development Corporation, Anaheim Chamber of Commerce, Community Redevelopment and Planning Commissions) to ensure that both the long- and short-range goals and objectives set.forth in the Anaheim General Plan, as well as the City's land use ordinances, are in the best economic, environmental and social interests of the community. Mr. Thompson also worked from exhibits posted on the Chamber wall showing the extensive nature of the Code enforcement problems in the northeast industrial area. One 6f the.exhibits was an aerial view of a specific section of the area and the other showed all areas of the Anaheim canyon industrial area. One exhibit contained red dots and green dots, the red showing the location of the illegal uses, i.e., commercial uses in the industrial area, and the green dots indicating legal uses permitted by a conditi6nal use permit. Councilman Bay asked when Irvine allowed some commercial development as reported by Mr. Thompson in his presentation, where did they concentrate those businesses. Mr. Thompson answered that they tried to locate them near their road systems and network which was an asset to those commercial businesses from the standpoint of visibility and also to minimize traffic problems. Councilman Bay stated it was his understanding that they started out by planning those small commercial areas in support of industrial close to the entrance points of the industrial area and that proved not to be successful relative to circula- tion and traffic. They had since revised their plan and moved those businesses into the interior of the areas. Councilman Roth felt that there was some misunderstanding about an area being "pure" whether industrial or residential, because variances were also given in residential areas. He was interested in maintaining a healthy environment for the industrial area, but had a problem with the ordinance previously discussed 80-320 City Ha.!l,. Anaheim., California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 25~ 19.80~ 1:30 P.M. and voted upon (Ordinance No. 4050). He had voted for it with the understanding that as an elected official, he would still have the right to make judgments further downstream. Now he was told that the ordinance embodied a "pure" con- cept with no leeway provided and ~hat no variances Could be made to it. He reiterated, as an elected official, he did not feel that he could give up his right to have someone come forth and ask for a CUP or variance, so that he would then have an opportunity to make a judgment at that time. That was the only argument he had with the entire complex problem. Mr. Thompson then clarified for Councilman Bay that the green dots shown in the exhibit indicated those uses which had been approved by a valid CUP and where the business was being run in conformance with all conditions of the CUP. The red dots symbolized those uses that appeared to be in violation. There were 101 such businesses involved as noted on page 2 of his report. They had been moving against those uses in the industrial area where it was certain they were in violation and which were located in the industrial zone without the benefit of a CUP. Councilman Overholt stated that he had difficulty differentiating between what was termed the ordinance and what was termed enforcement. He understood enforce- ment to mean the actual enforcement of the ordinance or the CUP as granted by the Planning Commission and the Council. He asked if they were talking about enforcement being the problem, or the ordinance being too restrictive for some Council Members and not others. Mr. Thompson answered that they were talking about commercial encroachments, and the Planning staff was seeking direction from the Council with respect to how they would like the ordinance enforced or modified. Councilman Overholt then suggested that they hire sufficient staff to see that operators complied with the zoning or were operating under a conditional use permit and complying with its terms. Mr. Thompson emphasized that they had sufficient staff, but what they needed was clear direction from the Council as to how they wished them to proceed. Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director of Zoning, stated that the Zoning standards were not being enforced the way they should be, across the board. Councilman Overholt then surmised that staff was speaking of having the Council back up the ordinance relative to enforcement; Miss Santalahti answered, "yes". Mayor Seymour explained that relative to the recently adopted ordinance, they specifically became concerned with Section .605 regarding those commercial ~ales businesses being permitted or not permitted which primarily served and were compatible with industry. The ordinance was currently worded so that the Council was precluded from considering that type of activity, whereas prior to that, the Council could do so. Councilmen Roth, Overholt and he had indicated that they did not understand that it precluded the opportunity of considering a business which primarily served or was compatible with industrial businesses and that was the issue. 80-321 City_Ha!l, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 25~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. The Mayor then .referred to Mr. Thompson's mention of the Cities of Irvine, Costa Mesa, Santa Ana, Tustin and Fountain Valley wherein quasi-commercial development had taken place along freeway arteries much like that at Kraemer Boulevard and the Riverside Freeway. He wanted to know what difficulties had arisen in those cities as a result of the approval of those quasi-commercial uses in such areas. Mr. Thompson repor~ad that he had spoken with several people affiliated with the Irvine Company, as well as the City of Irvine, and the conversations revealed mixed feelings and divided opinions. Some of the City staff felt sufficient traffic and circulation problems were involved so as to preclude them from continuing on the same path. Some developers felt there were no problems at all, but in finality there was no true consensus. Mayor Seymour then concluded from Mr. Thompson's explanation that the concept of permitting quasi-commercial or industrially oriented commercial type uses along freeways and at large intersections had been done, and there was no clear- cut position one way or the other. He continued that he was referring to those businesses such as Sofa Warehouse and Distributors, dining room and furniture outlets, unfinished furniture, etc., quasi-commercial types, not a Thrifty Drug Store, Ralphs Market, a clothing store or the like. Mr. Thompson stated that he was talking about the same types of business and not the full range of retail sales. Miss Santalahti then reported that some of the kinds of businesses approved by conditional use permit, represented by the green dots, were a lumber yard, commer- cial recreational facilities, contractor storage yards, stationery store, furniture related outlets, etc. The most typical complaints received involving the green dots were (1) outdoor storage type activity, and (2) flags and banners or adver- tising that could be seen from a distance. The types of uses represented by the red dots were much the same kinds of businesses. Mayor Seymour stated the point he was trying to make was the fact that typically there was no difference between the uses represented by the green and red dots, other than the fact that the red dots knowingly or unknowingly violated the process. Miss Santalahti stated that was correct, the primary difference being that the businesses represented by green dots had made the necessary street dedications, installed the necessary improvements, drainage, paid acreage fees, etc., whereas the red dot businesses may not have done so. Mayor Seymour noted as the red dots were investigated and brought to the Planning Commission and the Council under the CUP process, unless the Council were to change the procedure, they would be forced to make the proper improvements and turn into "green" businesses. Councilman Bay then clarified what he felt the real issue to be. First, the word "purity" was used by the Anaheim Bulletin and not by him. As far as trying to make the zoning "pure", he was not quite that idealistic. The professional planners 80-322 Ci.ty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 25~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. tried as much as possible to conform to the General Pian.. They tried to look ahead and lay out a plan best for the City in the long range. The intent of the ordinance was not to make the industrial area "pure". What had been brought out through the many hearings, meetings, workshops and already in today's meeting, was to define the problem and the ordinance was an attempt to put a hold on that problem until they could find out more facts to see what the potential impact could be on the long-range and even short-range planning in the City. Section .605 of the ordinance meant that a CUP could still be obtained if the business met the qualifications. When the ordinance was first written, it was a little more "pure" and much more exacting. What the issue came down to was that in looking at the green dots, they were the exceptions to the General Plan and had been permitted and built up in the industrial zone, representing the breaking of a promise or an obligation to the industrial developers in that zone based on the General Plan that stated the area was going to be an industrial park with natural barriers. The red dots, the illegal uses, and the degree of their illegality was not what he was concerned about, nor the individual cases of violations. His concern was with all of the dots--the green ones because they were there and they were there. to stay approved by past actions and supplying a goodly amount of commercial encroachment in that area. The red ones, not legally approved, would be the first, second or third step in the proliferation of many more dots all over that area if somewhere they did not call a halt to that type of encroachment which was caused primarily by treating individual variances and CUP's on an emotional, .one-at-a-time basis when they came in and gave their plea. He was talking about the pressure of economics on the area. He considered it the duty of the Council and the Planning Commission to defend the integrity of that zone because it was an obligation to the original and future industrial developers and to the citizens of the City not to allow a planned industrial zone to turn into strip commercial at the expense of job-producing industries that they had in the City. now and might have in the future. He emphasized that the job-producing capacity of industry vs. the economic expediency of commercial was the issue. He hoped that the Council would agree with him that they had worked hard trying to fully define the problem. He did not want to misdefine it when they made a decision as to what was best for the City. If the ordinance was too tight, then perhaps it should be loosened a little. He cautioned, however, that every degree of loosening would open up the opportunity for another exception that would even- tually lead to a proliferation of exceptions to the rule, reaching a point where they would not have any control at all. He felt they were reaching that point. He further hoped that today in their discussions that they try to settle on the standard that they really wanted for the area. Mayor Seymour stated he felt the issue went beyond what Councilman Bay had artic- ulated. He (Bay) was suggesting that something was black and white--it never had been and never would be. It was too idealistic to try to plan, organizing control to the degree Councilman Bay was suggesting. To think that they were going to be able to pass some ordinance decreeing that they were now going to have a "pure" industrial area was sheer folly. To tell the red dots they were going to have to move with no place to move to, even having approved green dots which were the same uses, was the area where he differed with Councilman Bay. He did not think 80-323 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 25~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Bay's concept was realistic because there were going to be quasi- commercial uses seeking a location in an industrial area. He would prefer to give them the opportunity of locating in a particular geographical area only, giving them the opportunity of prohibiting the proliferation of CUP's throughout the area. He felt that was the real issue. The best thing they could do was to set aside an area for those uses and limit the area to those uses only. He believed there were enough examples of such a concept in Southern California to denote that it was a successful one. The Mayor then opened discussion to public input. Mr. Larry Sierk, Executive Vice President, Anaheim Chamber of Commerce, stated that he felt the Chamber should take the blame for all discussion that had taken place on the subject because it was the Chamber who over the years had appeared before the Council asking that the industrial area remain without intrusion. It appeared that they now wanted to redo the ordinance that was written, approved and put together by work comi~tees, including meetings with the Planning Commission and the City Council. Before they did so, he suggested that they again go back to the group to see if the section of the ordinance about which the Mayor and Councilman Roth were speaking could be rewritten in the manner they felt it should be. In concluding his remarks, Mr. Sierk reit- erated that before redoing the ordinance, that they go back through the Planning Commission and the Chamber to give both an opportunity to review the six-page report which contained some items that had not previously been reviewed by either group. As well, they were going to have to do something about the red dots. Discussion then followed between the Mayor and Mr. Sierk as to what the Chamber's position would be relative to the illegal uses coming before the Council asking for a CUP because they were now willing to conform. Mr. Sierk conceded that was a very tough problem to have to face; however, the Chamber would have to revert to their original position, that they were opposed to intrusion into the industrial area. He then clarified a matter that both the Planning Commission and the Council had questioned as to where were the Chamber's representatives in opposing such uses. Mr. Sierk stated that in order for them to do so continually, they would have to have people sitting in the audience week after week, top flight executives, which would keep them away from their businesses. .Mayor Seymour asked where the Chamber was going to be when those businesses (red) approached the Council to ask for treatment equal to that of green dots, considering that the Chamber was saying they wanted to keep intrusion out and that the Council should deny all CUP's and put them out of business. Mr. Sierk answered that they would not know that until they were investigated. He again emphasized the Chamber's two main points: (1) do not redo the ordinance before sending it back through the process, and (2) address the red dots. The issue was one of the most difficult problems the City had to face. ~80-324 .~ity.Ha.ll~ ~n~heim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 25, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Mr. David Collins, Realtor, stated that they had to Speak in terms of needs relative to those busine%ses--they needed a place to locate. He felt that one of the errors made in the canyon area was that it was under-zoned for' commercial. There was very little commercial available and there was a great need as the population grew for the kind of service commercial that was found along some of the City streets. There was need for that kind of function in real estate and the City ought to provide for that need. Further, instead of islands, the commercial businesses needed exposure and the best place to get that exposure was along the main arterials and not be buried back where they had to wave flags or put up balloons. 'That issue needed to be addressed in the ordinance and an exception made whereby they could allow for service commer- cial not ~equiring foot traffic to be successful. Commercial businesses also furnished jobs, sales tax, etc. Relative to the traffic involved with those businesses, it would be generated on weekends when there was no industrial traffic. Therefore, they were not increasing the traffic problem and maybe decreasing it to a certain extent. He then touched upon the cost of rental for commercial square footage, approximately $1 a square foot vs. that of industrial at approximately 40¢ a square foot. Councilwoman Kaywood expressed her concern that industrial square footage taken up by commercial uses would eventually make it more expensive for the industrial use because prices would be driven upward. Mr. Bob Gall, representing his employer, Rockwell International, stated he wanted to supplement what Mr. Sierk had said and explained the attitude of his corporation: (1) to protect the value of their investment in the area, and (2) to make it possible for their employees to get to and from work easily and to have a plea- sant atmosphere in which to work. They were always comfortable with the old classic zoning ordinance which talked about retail sales in terms of selling a product made on the premise being an adjunct to that, or a retail sale that supported the industrial community. That worked quite well over the years, but there was always the possibility of some retail sales use being approved that did not really fit either of those definitions. Something that did bother many large landowners was not knowing exactly what was going to happen next in his neighborhood. To see what was going to happen in the immediate future would be a valuable adjunct in a zoning ordinance. The Mayor asked which of the uses in the ordinance Rockwell would be opposed to that had been in the past and presently could be included under a conditional use permit process; Mr. Gall answered none. The list of uses was somewhat archaic and included everything that was in the zone at the time the ordinance was written. Councilwoman Kaywood asked if Rockwell would take exception to something like a strictly retail furniture sales store where the merchandise was not manufac- tured on the premises. Mr. Gall answered that they had been present at Council meetings in the past and objected to that type of use, the feeling being that it did not support the industrial community. The Mayor asked if they were in support of or in opposition to the Cathy Rigby Gymnastics Academy; Mr. Gall answered that they opposed that use before the Planning Commission. 80-325 City Ha%l.,...Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 25, 1980~ 1:30 P.M. A brief discussion then followed between Councilman Roth and Mr. Gall at the conclusion of which, Mr. Gall emphasized that a land owner needed to have some feeling of security about what was going to happen on adjacent land. Mr. John Flocken, 1320 South Hacienda, representative of the Anaheim Economic Development Corporation (AEDC), stated that the Corporation was as concerned about commercial development in the City as they were about industrial because there was a need for a balance. It was a challenge to the City and the AEDC to provide adequate areas for commercial to serve the citizens, as well as industry, but another question needed to be addressed, and he did not have the answer to it. He would be concerned if a furniture store was in an industrial area at a lower rate than he would be paying, because that was an economic inequity as he viewed it. He questioned why one operator would have to be in an industrial area and another in a commercial area considering the differences in rental costs and, therefore, competitiveness. In looking at the "purity" question, he favored the idea of islands, but he heard that they could nog be "pure"; they could not completely maintain the integrity of the General Plan in the industrial East Anaheim area for industrial businesses; they could not draw a line and have any blacks and whites, but yet they were going to create islands and then draw the line. He was concerned over whether or not they were ever going to draw the line. In viewing the situation at this point, there was still a number of questions that had to be addressed. They had to have some guidelines for plan- ning to do a good job and they needed specific indicators for the developer and the prospective user so that they would have a reasonable idea of what was going to happen. If so, it might relieve many of the problems faced by the Council in confronting the conditional use permits. He recommended that before the Council would take any action to revise existing ordinances or looked at alternatives, that the matter be referred back to the committee who handled it originally. Otherwise, he would feel uncomfortable making any recommendations one way or the other today, and at this point it would be premature. In concluding, Mr. Flocken stated that Anaheim was fortunate to have a very competent Planning Department and he woUld stack it and the Planning Commission against any other. Mr. Fldyd Farano, Attorney, submitted a ten-page report, "Quasi-commercial Uses In the Industrial Area" (on file in the City Clerk's office), containing some of the mater~al previously presented in zoning actions particularly concerning the property at Kraemer and La Palma owned by Fred and Ruth Sacher. He believed the report contained som~ answers relative to the problem under discussion. As well, they conducted a survey consisting of discussions with 39 business people in the industrial area, 31 of which were true industrialists, 8 of which were true legitimate commercial businesses. Out of those 39, there were only 2 who had any objection to the rezoning of the Sacher property at Kraemer and La Pa]ma, one because he did not like the way the site development standards had been carried out and the other because of the typical objections brought forth by the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce Industrial Committee. Some of the comments they received were: "The City is hurting the little guy." "I did not know the difference." "As long as it is compatible, they should be allowed to stay." Mr. Farano clarified that the survey involved the area between Kraemer, White Star, La Palma and the Riverside Freeway. Those to whom they spoke were Presidents 80-326 City Hal~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 25~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. and General Managers o£ industrial corporations and he had the names of all the individuals. He would again be referring to that survey when the public hearing on the Sacher property took place in April. Relative to the cost of square footage between industrial and commercial, he questioned why a business should not try to get a price advantage, Since that was what free enterprise was all about. Mr. Sacher received 5¢ above industrial rates for his property. He stated the material he submitted represented a step that the Council could take and it established a criteria. He would never say that they should open the door entirely because that would not be right. If a business was going to be allowed in the commercial or industrial area, there should be some criteria which he set forth on page 5 of the report, The Necessity-Conflict Method, and he suggested that the Council consider the use of such criteria. As well, as indicated on page.2, based upon their research, studies and experience, they recommended that the ordinance suggested on page 3 of the March 20, 1980 staff report be adopted by the Council because it would treat all types of industry fairly. He noted that 90% of the area between La Palma, Riverside Freeway, Kraemer and White Star was already zoned for commercial type uses and to deny Mr. Sacher when his hearing came up, or to consider that area in any other light than being an area that might be devoted to commercial uses, would almost be discrimination. He then proposed that the staff consider a General Plan Amendment that would turn that area from an industrial designation to commercial and felt that that should be a definite consideration. MY. Farano then referred to the traffic studies attached to his report which had previously been submitted and discussed at former hearings giving the traffic flow in the area during certain periods and showing the very low traffic gen- eration emanating from the Sacher property. He felt that the area had to be considered as prime for a conversion and a more modern use. The Council now had before it materials and criteria, which although not perfect were the tools that would give everybody what they really needed to have, and to perform a service that the City needed badly. Discussion then followed between Councilwoman Kaywood and Mr. Farano wherein Councilwoman Kaywood asked if he felt that violators should receive favored treatment; Mr. Farano answered that he did not think anybody ought to receive favored treatment whether a violator or non-violator. Councilwoman Kaywood agreed. MY. Fred Brown, 1531 Minerva, stated the most important issue the Council had to face was the fact that they were charged with effectively keeping the books balanced for the City and to make certain they made the right decision at the right time. There was a plan adopted for the industrial area some time ago ahd a great deal of research had taken place before the plan was adopted. Since then, many things had changed, especially in the area of merchandising. There had also been exceptions to the rules since the plan was adopted. One of the most important things, as the Mayor had mentioned, was the realistic possibility of having the best.of both worlds, commercial and industrial, without any en- croachment. That could be the best alternative because it was not possible to 80-327 City Hall, .Ana~%m~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 25~ 1980~ 1:30 ~.M. go back and undo what had already been done in the area. The Council should insist on the zoning requirements that were there presently and enforce compliance by those individuals or companies in meeting the codes and not play favorites, re- gardless of the people involved. There was not much land left to be developed in that industrial area and they had to assure that the property was used to its highest and best use and in the interest of the community for today and tomorrow. They had to be concerned with a great deal of different subjects to arrive at the decision that they had to make. He then explained for Councilwoman Kaywood what he meant by the highest and best use, noting that to be whatever the' current times were dictating and 'that the Mayor's concept relative to an island approach would not be detrimental to the integrity of the industrial comx~unity, but would enhance it. Councilman Bay stated that the highest and best land use for the good of the whole City was the essence of the differences of opinion on the issue. He referred to all of the studies that had been done since the issue was first raised in 3uly 1974, and maintained if they proceeded in accordance with the information provided by the professionals, i.e., the QED study, the studies of the AEDC, Chamber Industrial Committee, Planning Commission, staff professionals, which were all in agreement, they would be using the land to its highest and best use in the northeast industrial area, which was for Job-producing industry. That was not to say that was the only thing, but he did not agree that they should get sidetracked to one specific need, that of the warehouse furniture store. Ail the green dots between Kraemer, White Star and the Riverside Freeway were more or less centered around the furniture outlets already located there legally. In his opinion, that was a fair share of some very important land already legally set aside for those uses. If they took one need under consi- deration~ they would have to start taking in all needs, and he reiterated they were getting sidetracked talking about one specific need because of the new furniture merchandising method. Mr. Brown stated that the key issue was not so much that they altered the ordinance in that area so drastically as to not permit any type of quasi-commercial ventures, but that they specifically set aside given locations where that type of business could thrive and still maintain the integrity of the industrial portion of the community. He further suggested, upon questioning by Councilman Overholt~ that they rewrite the ordinance or loosen it so that it would be amenable to Rockwell and would protect their interest, while at the same time taking care of the smaller businessmen who had no choice but to seek land in that part of the community, but in a specific area only. He was definitely in support of the island concept. Mr. Cliff Lotzenheiser, representing Anaheim Extrusion Company, 1330 and 1340 Kraemer, stated they were penned in by the Water District on the north and east and a display unit to the south, and they did not like it. They wanted to buy that property but were unable to negotiate. When the three pieces of property, representing approximately 2 acres were developed, a building was constructed that could be used for either commercial or industrial use. They had several opportunities to expand their business in manufacturing, refinishing and recy- cling aluminum, but such operations would not be going on the site, and thus Anaheim would lose 40 to 50 potential employees. They were not on the per- iphery, but in the center of the industrial area, and the building next door to 80-328' City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 25, 1980~ 1:30 P.M. them was an interior decorating display firm. In concluding, ke confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood that they would have expanded if they had all the contiguous property and that they did resent the commercial use located next to them. Mr. Bill Lee, 33422 Cockleshell, Laguna Niguel, President of Lee & Associates, a commercial real estate firm, stated that he owned industrial buildings in the City of Anaheim and had been doing business with the City for 10 years. He had sold over 200 industrial acres and had located industrial tenants either by sale or lease in Anaheim which tenants employed over 1,000 people. He was supportive of the island concept of retail use. Industria~ land prices in the City now exceeded $5 a foot and smaller pieces were closer to $6.50 and $7 a foot. There were very few manufacturing companies that could afford to locate on property that was that high priced. He then explained one of the few ways they could do so, representing a combination of industrial and commercial, which brought in additional income and revenue because of the mixed use concept which also attracted jobs. The Mayor asked Mr. Lee to speak to the question of how to make quasi-co~nercial compatible with industrial. He also asked if he had experience with that concept in other cities. Mr. Lee explained that his office was located in the Irvine Complex East, 1200 acres of industrial land and the only industrially owned land the Irvine Company had left. Their Master Plan for those 1200 acres incorporated the concept whereby within the industrial acreage, islands of commercial were created, both retail and fast foods to support the industry working there during lunch hours and after hours to shop. That was the new concept in industrial real estate. There were examples of the same in Anaheim across the street from the ballpark where businesses took advantage of the Katella frontage and put in many retail outfits. Located in the interior were distribution buildings where distribution firms were established. He could point to areas all through Anaheim as examples. If they were not responsive to the need for CUP's, it would be a setback to the developer and to the City. Councilman Roth then asked Mr. Lee relative to the change in merchandising where outlets needed a large warehouse and a portion for retail, if he had any experience as to how those businesses affected traffic in the industrial ~ area. Mr. Lee answered Fountain Valley at Euclid and the San Diego Freeway was an eXample, and he did not know of any traffic problems in that area. He did not see that such businesses created any additional traffic. He then stated that relative to traffic, the Council and the Planning Commission were going to have to address themselves to the R&D (Research and Development) user as the north- east industrial area developed, because that was probably the only type of man- ufacturer that could afford the land in that area, as opposed to moving eastward to Corona, Riverside and San Bernardino County, and such users would generate a great deal of traffic. Mr. Lee then explained for Councilwoman Kaywood that land having exposure to a major street was more valuable than that in the interior and thus the land value had a higher price in total cost. A user would pay more for identity and exposure along frontages. 80-329 ~itY Hall., Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 25~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood was interested in knowing if there was a possibility the commercial would overrun industrial because they would be willing to pay a higher rental. Mr. Lee answerad, "no". In the northeast zone, commercial uses would locate only at those locations where people could see them, otherwise there would be no interest for them to be there. Mr. Bruce Burkland, President of Discovery Properties, commercial-industrial management and leasing firm, stated that Mr. Sacher's property was one of 'the projects they had handled now for about 2½ years. He was a certified property manager and as such had to conform to professional ethics and a code of ethics. The situation they observed over the last two years at Kraemer Place in partic- ularly had not-had a.negative impact on the operation of the property and the status of the area, and they had not seen a detrimental situation in parking. The people located on the property were in that gray area where they did some manufacturing, wholesaling and some retailing which placed them in a difficult position in terms of the economics of their business operation. They simply could not afford the cost in the range of $1 per square foot and up for "pure" retail use, and the types of profit margins many of the merchants were working with would not sustain those kinds of rents. The important thing to consider was the impact, and they had not seen 'any negative impact on the City or the other uses in the area. Mayor Seymour stated if they represented the Sachers, the question uppermost in everyone's mind was why there were so many red dots in that sector. Mr. Burkland stated that the leases conformed to the City requirements in terms of use clauses. What had occurred was, the tenants would gravitate into addi- tional retail uses and would find, because of their location, a lot of retail traffic in addition to their wholesale activities. Mayor Seymour then asked if he was saying that an illegal use existing on that property today went in there without their knowledge or under the guise of being something else and then changing their mode of operation to something that ended up in conflict and in violation with the City's ordinances. Mr. Burkland answered'that the uses were in there either under CUP or use clauses that were in conformance with the City. The Mayor again asked if he was stating that to the best of his knowledge the tenants that he brought into the center conformed to the City's requirements; Mr. Burkland answered that was correct at that time, the bottom line, being that the use clauses did conform, it was not a clear black and white situation, but a gravitational situation where the tenant moved more and more into retail. The control over the tenanancy was not always as complete as implied. Councilman Bay asked if he was saying that Curtis Furniture was a wholesale operation when it opened its doors; Mr. Burkland "yes" and that was the way in which that operation began, on paper. Councilman Bay stated he did not disagree that it opened that way on paper, but in reality he would disagree completely, because Curtis had been a retail furni- ture set-up since it located in that center. It had been illegal and proven 80-330 City Hall~. An~heim.~ .California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 25~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. illegal under the zoning ordinances :hat were there long before any of them were changed. Councilwoman Kaywood questioned Mr. Burkland further relative to Curtis Furniture who initially s~ated they were wholesale and started in immediately as a retail business. She wanted to know if that was his responsibility since the Sachers or anyone else did not seem to have the responsibility. Mr. Burkland stated if there was a violation of use, it was the tenant's respon- sibility. They were advised of the Code requirements and what type of business operation was permitted. They acknowledged that by their signature on the lease and if they chose to vary from that, it seemed clear that it was a tenant responsibility, in this case Curtis Furniture or whoever the given tenant might be. Discovery Properties had no responsibility beyond that. When the use clause was clearly stated.in the lease and the tenant signed that lease, it was as binding as anything could be. Mr. George Kilichek, Warner Lambert, 5115 East La Palma, stated that Anaheim did not have much land left that had not already bemn developed. An important res- - ponsiblity rested on the shoulders of the Council to decide how now and forever- more Anaheim was going to use the very limited and precious resources left to them. They were told through the experiences of other cities, by the Planning Department, the AEDC and various consultants hired by the City that industrial land and its users were very sensitive to what was known as non-compatible uses. Echoing some of the sentiments of the gentleman from Rockwell--it was important for an industrial user to have some kind of reliance on the City's planning process. Industrialists made commitments for a very long period of time and hoped to have some stability in what they were doing for a period of 10, 20 or more years, so that their investment could pay for itself. He emphasized it was important in an industrial area to be able to rely on the stability of the planning process. The biggest problem they had to face at the moment were the violations. They needed to be addressed and dealt with before one could intelligently deal with some of the other issues. He urged the Council to address the question of violations first, solve that problem, and once ~hey knew that they either could or could not deal with the people who violated the law, make a decision aslto how they wanted to spend the last invaluable resource of the City. Mayor Seymour presented the same question to Mr. Kilichek as to others--how would they answer those violators when they approached the Council asking them to grant a CUP for the same uses that were adjacent to or across the street from them. Mr. Kilichek stated he could only give a personal view. Those who came forward with a request for a CUP in accordance with the law should be accorded every opportunity to present their case, and it should be issued if the best interests of the community dictate. He personally would not give that same privilege to someone who knowingly violated the law and invested his money in the area. That would be his prejudice. 80-331 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March ,25~ 1980~ 1:30 P;M. Mayor Seymour asked if Mr. Kilichek was saying that continued proliferation of what was in the area now would be endangering a very scare natural resource. On the other hand, if as elected officials they would give the stability and assurance that they were going to draw a line, the industrialists could find some security in that. Mr. Kilichek answered "yes"--the quintessential being for the industrialists to be able to plan and rely on something. There were obviously some kinds of land use plans that were more acceptable and easier to live with than others, but as compared to the current situation, having something they could truly rely on, not just a piece of paper, would be a substantial improvement. Further discussion and questioning followed between Council Members Kaywood, Roth, Bay and Mr. Kilichek at the conclusion of which, Mayor Seymour stated that he believed what the industrialists were looking for transcended the Council. They were looking for the honor of ensuing Councils to carry out the philosophies of the City Councils that had been sitting there since the time the Stadium and Convention Center were built. Each Council, although they may have disagreed with the previous Council, had seen fit to carry out a philosophy that had said to a visitor and convention business, come to Anaheim because we have a consistent policy here. What Mr. Kilichek and Rockwell were saying, give us consistency so that your Council colleagues that follow you, can also live with what you create. Mr. Louis Dexter, 305 North Ranchito, stated he wanted to address himself to the long-term aspect. If they were going to get investment money out in the industrial zone, those businesses wanted to have some assurance that their investment would pay over the years. When talking about retail and commercial, they-were talking about a great deal of turnover. A plant moving into the City having invested millions of dollars did not want to move. He had the fear that another redirection was coming up, and they were going to redirect something ir- replaceable. He did not want to see them move away from industrial orientation. The Mayor then thanked all who gave their input and for taking the time to par- ticipate relative to the important matter at hand. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that Anaheim from 1857 was the first planned community in the State. It was something new and different and a real departure. Anaheim was the result of excellent planning, although it did not mean that mistakes were never made or would not be made in the future. The basic planning was very good and served the City well, and they §hould be careful before making any changes. Relative to red dots, she believed it unconscionable that somebody could knowingly start a business, knowing that a permit would be denied if they proceeded legally to set up that business, without conforming to any of' the City co,es, pay fees or fulfill the necessary requirements that every honest business had to deal with. For them to go unpunished and, in fact, rewarded, she found that very hard to live with. If they could be made legal, that was one thing, but to say as long as you are in there, having made an investment, you can stay to the detriment of everybody who had conformed to City requirements, was something that the Council should not do. There would be a resentment on the part of every businessman who had met up his business legally. Those who were there illegally were saying, "I dare you--I'm going to do it anyway." 80-332 Cit~Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 25, 1980~ 1:30 P.M. In order to offer some direction, Mayor Seymour stated he was of the personal opinion that the advice they received today from the industrialists and.other specialists in that area, they were best advised to take. He did not think they Should a~tempt today to make a specific hard and fast decision, but he also did not'believe they should continue to spend time studying the matter. Council- man Bay started the activity last summer at the Chamber of Commerce Annual Planning Conference and if they had not been able to resolve enough research and data in that pgriod of time, he suspected they might never do so. He was suggesting ~hat they should attempt to conclude some general direction to be specified at a later time through a process of more public hearings, if necessary, thought, contemplation, debate back and forth as much as it took place today, and then conclude. MOTION: They had to offer some direction both as it pertained to the illegal business uses, as well as, conceptually, where they were going in the future. In that regard, he offered a motion that would cause the City Attorney to draw language in an ordinance and cause that to be evaluated by the City Planning Commission through the hearing process that, in fact, would embody the %sland concept. His thrust was to take a direction, not a final action, so that at least the majority was moving in the same direction, and that they stop taking "purity" or "non-purity" type polls. SecOndly, he would include in that motion to direct staff to immediately enforce or, through the enforcement process, bring to them those businesses that were located illegally in the industrial area through the conditional use process, so that they could start to take some direction with those businesses .rather than letting them continue or leaving any sign to the general public at large that they could do what Councilwoman Kaywood suggested--go in, defy and then plea. That would have to be cut off immediately. The motion would be two-fold: (1) direct the City Attorney to prepare and have the Planning Commission consider an ordinance that would create an island concept or a concept similar to that described on Page 3 of the staff report and have the Planning Commission, through the normal process, deliberate with the clear under- standing that they were talking about an island concept or the acceptance of some type of quasi-commercial along at least the main arterial of the Riverside Freeway and perhaps others. From there, he felt they could begin to boil it down into an intelligent well thought out decision. The bottom line being, he wanted for the industrial community that credibility and certainty of policy setting that they could count on. He did not think that was achievable given the current course of events, nor was that stability achievable if they were to ignore the existing political and public process. Elected officials needed an option when one of their constituents came to them and made a plea. He suggested with the island concept or a concept similar to that, they would have such an option. Councilman Overholt stated he would second the motion if the Mayor would add the word predictability to it. Councilman Bay stated he would speak against the motion on the basis that the island concept was discussed through all the hearings and workshops in the past. They talked about the freeway frontage concept and also about going back to where they started. In his opinion, they were reverting to step one by going back to conditional use permits because the CUP's put those dots on the map 80-333 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March .~5~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. in the first place. If they went to the island concept, they were saying, they were going to take the most desirable intersections and key interest points into that industrial area, draw a circle around them, and make a commercial island. He felt by doing so, they would be giving up on the problem. He could see taking an area already heavily green-dotted and if that area were 80% commercial now, perhaps draw some lines around that. With the islands, however, they were dis- counting all the work that had been done over the last year to try to control commercial activity in that area. Mayor Seymour stated for purposes of clarification, for his par~, he wanted to remain flexible. Councilman Bay felt that they first should take the step recommended by the many people who came forward today and do something about the red dots. Everybody agrees that they did not know specifically what was represented by those dots. He felt some of the best advice given to them today was to start that action and as they did so, they would receive more and more information and finally define the problem, and subsequently they could start the additional steps. Mayor Seymour confirmed that the island concept and/or the concept on page 3 of the Planning Department report was the direction. Discussion and debate then followed between the Mayor and Councilwoman Kaywood relative to the Mayor's motion, with which she did not agree. At the conclusion of discussion, Councilman Overholt stated it appeared that everyone agreed on the portion of the motion directing staff to commence en- forcement against the red dots. He referred to the word "knowingly" used by · Mr. Kilichek and felt that very few would admit that they knowingly did some- thing wrong. He emphasized that they should start working on the red dots. Relative to referring the drafting assignment to the City Attorney, the direction was for the City Attorney to draft an ordinance, and i= was not a commitment by the Council at this time. He then complimented Councilman Bay for spearheading the issue from the start and he (Bay) should not consider that he lost the battle because they were asking the City Attorney for a view other than his own. Councilman Roth stated he wanted it clear that he was not trying to loosen the ordinance, but he was concerned with an ordinance that did not give someone the right to address the Council. He was going to support the Mayor's motion, not that he had ever suggested an island approach, but it would give an opportunity to see if such a concept would work. Councilwoman Kaywood requested that the motion be broken down into two separate motions. The Mayor was agreeable and then clarified the two motions as follows: (1) Directing the City Attorney to prepare language in an ordinance and cause that to be evaluated by the Planning Commission through the hearing process that would embody the island ~oncept or a concept similar to that described on Page 3 of Staff report of March 20, 1980, with the understanding that the island concept consider the acceptance of some type of quasi-commercial along at least the main arterial of the Riverside Freeway and perhaps others; and (2) Direct 80-334 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 25~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. staff to immediately, through the enforcement process, bring those businesses located illegally in the northeast industrial area through the conditional use process. A vOte was then taken on the first motion. AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Roth and Seymour NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood and Bay. MOTION CARRIED. A vote was then taken on the second motion. AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None MOTION CARRIED. RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (5:35 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (5:45 P.M.) 107: HOUSE MOVING PERMIT: Application by Dale R. and Michelle D. Jacobs, re- questing to move a single-family structure from its present location at 213 East Broadway to 722 South Lemon Street. The City Planning Commission reported that the Planning Director has determined that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01 of the City of Anaheim guildines to the requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR, and further recommended that the request be approved, subject to alley dedication. The Mayor first noted that the applicants were in the Chamber audience. He then asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition; there being no response, he closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the City Council ratified the determination of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01 of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for an Environ- mental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 80R-124 for adoption,.as recommended in memorandum dated March 10, 1980 from the Planning Department. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R~124: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM PERMITTING A HOUSE MOVING PERMIT. 80-335 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 25~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL M~BERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-124 duly passed and adopted. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2052 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Ap- plication by California Services Corporation, to expand an existing automobile auction and reconditioning facility on ML zoned property located at 1320 North Tustin Avenue. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-26, declared tht the subject project be exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmenal Quality Act since there would be no significant individual or cumulative adverse environ- mental impacts due to this project, and further granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2052, subject to conditions. A review of the Planning Commission's action was requested by Councilwoman Kaywood at the March 4, 1980 meeting and public hearing scheduled this date. A letter from Floyd Farano, Attorney for the applicant dated March 24, 1980 was received, requesting a continuance of consideration of the above application to April 1, 1980. Mr. Farano was present in the Chamber audience. After a brief Council discussion relative to setting a time for continuance, Councilman Roth moved to continue public hearing on Conditional Use Permit No. 2052 to April 8, 1980, 3:00 p.m., which was agreeable with Mr. Farano. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Age~da: 1. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and referred to the City's Claims Administrator: a. Claim submitted by Evelyn I. Florio for damages purportedly sustained as a result of vehicle towed away from 2140 West Cerritos Street by Anaheim Police, on or about January 29, 1980. 2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: a. 156: Police Department--Monthly Report for February 1980. b. 175: Before the Public Utilities Commission, Application No. 39608, Advice Letter No. 1206, Southern California Gas Company, to increase revenues to offset changed gas costs under its approved Purchased Gas Adjustments Procedures resulting 80-336 City Hall~ Anah~im,...California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 25~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. from adjustments in the price of natural gas purchased from Transwestern Pipe- line Company, E1 Paso Natural Gas Company, Pacific Interstate Transmission Company and Pacific Gas Electric Company; and to adjust revenues under the Supply Adjustment Mechanism to reflect greater than anticipated collection of revenues due to increases in natural gas supplies. c. 105: Community Services Board--Minutes of February 14, 1980. 3. 108: APPLICATIONS: The following applications were approved in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Police: a. Private Patrol Application submitted by Ray Eugene Frazier for Guard Systems Inc., 2275 West Lincoln Avenue, to provide security guard services for industrial and business office facilities. b. Public Dance Permit submitted by Cruz Munoz Frias for Empresa Frias, for a dance to be held April 5, 1980, 7:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m., at the Anaheim Convention Center. c. Public Dance Permit submitted by Felipe Jesus Guerena for the Cinco de Mayo Fiesta, for a dance to be held May 2, 1980, 7:00 p.m. to 12:00 midnight, at Martin Recreation Center, La Palma Park. MOTION CARRIED. 158: DEEDS OF EASEMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-125 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO, 80R-125: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Raymond A. & Raymond J. Masciel; Gordon L. Slater; Norman E. Keup; Clifford O. Beckler and Doris Jean Beckler; Jose D. Hernandez and Martha L. Hernandez; Chester Peterson and Beverly Ann Compton; Howard Industries) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL M~BERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour COUNCIL MEMBERS: None COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-125 duly passed and adopted. 170: FINAL MAP - TRACT NO. 10800: Developer, Birch Rfdge Estates; Tract is located on the northwest and southeast sides of Silver Spur Trail, east of Covered Wagon Trail and contains 47 proposed RM-3000 zoned lots. On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the proposed subdivision, together with its design and improvement, was found to be consistent with the City's General Plan, and the City Council approved Final Map Tract No. 10800, as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated March 18, 1980. MOTION CARRIED. 80-337 qity Hall~ .~nah.eim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 25~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. 142/149: ORDINANCE NO. 4114: Councilwoman Kaywood referred to the staff report from the City Engineer dated February 21, 1980, stating, "The Police Deparment expressed concern regarding ability to adequately enforce parking restrictions between midnight and 6 a.m." City Engineer William Devitt explained that the Police were concerned relative to. the times involved--between 12 midnight and 6 a.m. They would have to send someone out at night on a complaint and they were concerned about their ability to enforce the ordinance. Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 4114 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 4114: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 14, CHAPTER 14.32, SECTION 14.32.158 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING THERETO SUBSECTIONS .010, .020, .030 AND .040 RELATING TO PARKING RESTRICTIONS. (Chestnut Place; Cypress Street, N/S, Bush to Santa Fe Railroad right of way and on the S/S, East Street to Railroad right of way; Rose and Vine Streets, both sides, Cypress to Lincoln Avenue) Mrs. Pat Clancy, 303 North Bush, stated that the citizens realized that the police could not be there every night, but whenever they should have the time and opportunity to do so.. Councilman Roth stated he would have to abstain because he believed Bush and Lincoln were involved (business office located there), and secondly he wanted to know if the citizens of the area were advised of the change. Mr. Devitt stated they had received a petition signed by many persons requesting the change. ORDINANCE NO. 4115: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 4115 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 4115: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (63-64-62(23 & 24), RM-1200) ~I54: APPOINTMENTS TO BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF AEDC: Councilman Bay referred to a letter he had from Mr. John Flocken reminding them of two vacancies on the Board of Director~ of AEDC. He wanted to ask the AEDC .to give them some rec- ommehdations relative to the filling of those vacancies. Councilwoman Kaywood suggested that the Council be prepared to offer names to fill those vacancies since they involved Council appointees. By general consent, appointments to the AEDC Board of Directors to fill the two existing vacancies were set for April 15, 1980. 180: FIRST AND SECOND QUARTER SAFETY SUMMARY: Councilman Bay referred to the City's first and second quarter Safety Summary under the Risk Manager's Safety Program and complimented staff on the job all the people in the City had done to reduce losses and salary costs under the new Safety Program. 80-338 City Ba. 11~ Anah. eim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 25~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. 110: PRE-CENSUS REVIEW: Councilman Bay referred to the letter received from the State of California Governor's Office of Planning & Research indicating the elimination of the pre-census review, with the possibility of the 10-day post census review being eliminated as well. Cities and counties had spent thousands of dollars for a pre-census review and, in essence, the Census Bureau changed the rules in the last stages .of the game. He asked that staff report back relative to.the impact on investments already made by the City to accomplish the review. RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess into Executive Session. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (5:55 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (6:05 P.M.) ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Seymour moved to adjourn. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Adjourned: 6:05 P.M.