Loading...
1980/07/0180-847 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 1, 1980~ 1:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL M_EMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour COUNCIL MEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts PUBLIC UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER: Gordon W. Hoyt PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ronald L. Thompson CITY ENGINEER: William G. Devitt ASSISTANT TO CITY MANAGER: James Armstrong Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: Reverend Rick Gastel, Melodyland Hotline Center, gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Ben Bay led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 119: PRESENTATION: Mrs. Lisa Sarabyn presented a plaque to the Mayor and Council on behalf of the 4,500 members and the Board of Directors of the Phoenix Club, extending their best wishes and congratulations on the opening of the new Anaheim Civic Center and as a token of their friendship. 119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Seymour and authorized by the City Council: "Remember Entebbe Day" - July 6, 1980 The proclamation was accepted by Steve Edelman of the Orange County District Counsel of Jewish War Veterans of the United States. 119: RESOLUTION: A resolution commemorating the anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence and calling for the ringing of bells from churches and other buildings at 10:00 a.m. on July 4, 1980, was adopted by the Council. MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular meetings held April 22 and April 29, 1980, subject to typographical corrections on the meeting of April 22. Counci]mmn Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 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 $9,643.50, in accordance with the 1979-80 Budget, were approved. 80-848 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 1, 1980, 1:30 P.M. 128: MONTHLY FINANCIAL STATEMENT FOR ELEVEN MONTHS ENDED MAY 31~ 1980: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the Monthly Financial Statement for the eleven months ended May 31, 1980, was ordered received and filed, as recommended in memorandum dated June 25, 1980 from Director of Finance George Ferrone. MOTION CARRIED. 160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - THREE-PHASE PADMOUNT TRANSFORMERS - BID NO. 3655: On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilman Roth, the low bid of McGraw Edison, Westinghouse Electric Corporation and General Electric were accepted and purchase authorized in the amounts of $51,260.54, $23,738.70, $18,119.64 respectively, including tax for seven 150 KVA and five 225 KVA, Item Nos. 1, 2 and 3, five 300 KVA, Item No. 4, and three 500 KVA, Item No. 5, respectively, as recommended by the Purchasing Agent in his memorandum dated June 24, 1980. MOTION CARRIED. 150: REJECT ALL BIDS - PERALTA CANYON MULTIPLrRPOSE BUILDING: Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 80R-292 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated July 1, 1980 from the City Engineer, rejecting all bids received on the subject building because they were inordinately higher than the architect's estimate. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-292: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REJECTING ALL BIDS RECEIVED UP TO THE HOUR OF 2:00 P.M. ON THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 1980, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PERALTA CANYON PARK MULTI-PURPOSE BUILDING, ACCOUNT NO. 47-805-7105-80514. 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-292 duly passed and adopted. 123: MASTER PLANNING OF THE GOLF COURSES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to authorize a letter agreement with the Ronald Fream Partnership, in an amount not to exceed $10,000, to prepare a Master Plan for the City's golf courses, as recommended in memorandum dated June 25, 1980 from the Stadium-Convention Center-Golf General Manager. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 177/137: RESIDENTIAL REHABILITATION MORTGAGE REVENUE BONDS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-293 for adoption, authorizing the City to issue $40,000,000 of Residential Rehabilitation Mortgage Revenue Bonds as explained earlier in the Redevelopment Agency and Housing Authority meeting by Executive Director of Community Development Norm Priest. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-293: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF $40,000,000 PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF THE RESIDENTIAL REHABILITATION MORTGAGE REVENUE BONDS OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING AND PURCHASING MORTGAGE LOANS TO PROVIDE FOR RESIDENTIAL REHABILITATION. 80-849 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 1, 1980, 1:30 p.M. 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-293 duly passed and adopted. 175: ANAHEIM-LOS ANGELES INTERRUPTIBLE TRANSMISSION SERVICE AGREEMENT: Council- man Roth moved to authorize the Anaheim-Los Angeles Interruptible Transmission Service Agreement with the Department of Water and Power of the City of Los Angeles and authorizing the General Manager to execute same, as recommended in memoranum dated June 20, 1980 from the Public Utilities Board. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 175: LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH STORER CABLE TV FOR POWER POLE CONTACTS: Mayor Seymour noted that the agreement was a lengthy one and asked if anything would happen if they continued the matter for one week. Public Utilities General Manager Gordon Hoyt stated that he believed the answer to be "yes". He then explained that the matter was presented to the PUB on June 19, and since there was some question relative to the amount of fees pro- posed to be charged, it was delayed to June 26 when it was again presented and the Board agreed with the original recommendation (see memo dated June 27, 1980 from the PUB). He had been told if they did not move the agreement along, they might be holding up Storer. Councilman Bay wanted to know if the subject agreement was a variance to the original contract; Jim Armstrong, Assistant to the City Manager, confirmed that it was not a variance to the contract. Mr. Dick Hammond, Project Manager, Storer Cable TV, stated their problem was due to the fact that they had located their earth stations and head-in site at 914 East Katella (Lewis and Katella), and he had to bring the signal from that point out to the Canyon area before he could service the Canyon. They had an agreement with the Telephone Company and they were currently rearranging their poles, but the few poles in between were holding them up. Councilman Roth asked the time frame in getting cable TV service to the Canyon area where it was really needed. Mr. Hammond reported that they had as of today completed 52 miles of underground duct structure. Considering the rains, it was excellent progress and there was still an outside chance of getting signals out to some portions of the Canyon in September. He also confirmed for Councilma~Roth that they could be on station at least by the first of the year. Councilman Roth noted that the City had received many complaints relative to the restoration of sprinkler systems and lawns. He wanted to know if that situation was now under control. Mr. Hammond answered "yes". He had to compliment the contractor because in putting in 52 miles of trench, the complaints were very low. 80-850 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 1, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Overholt stated that he did not like the idea of a 21-page agreement being dropped on them at the last minute, but he had briefly reviewed the per- tinent provisions stating that Storer would have to remove the installation from City poles within 30 to 140 days, there was also a hold harmless clause the City, and the agreement had been approved as to form by the City Attorney. From his brief review, he did not see any problems. Since he was concerned that Storer not be impeded in their efforts to get television reception in the Hill and Canyon area, he would support the proposed resolution. Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 80R-294 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated June 27, 1980 from the PUB, authorizing a license agreement between the City and Storer Cable TV, Inc., for power pole contacts, approving the application and rental fees and authorizing the Public Utilities General Manager to execute said license agreement. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-294: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TEMI{S AND CONDITIONS OF A LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH STORER CABLE TV, INC., AND AUTHORIZING THE PUBLIC UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID LICENSE AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. 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-294 duly passed and adopted. 112: SAFEWAY STORES~ INC. VS. COUNTY OF ORANGE AND CITY OF ANAHEIM, ET AL: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Bay, the Orange County Counsel was authorized to defend the City of Anaheim in litigation regarding Safeway Stores, Inc., vs. County of Orange and City of Anaheim, et al, relating to property taxes, as recommended in memorandum dated June 25, 1980 from the City Attorney's office. MOTION CARRIED. 126: DISNEYLAND REQUEST FOR CHANGES IN MEDIAN ISLAND ON HARBOR BOULEVARD AT EMPLOYEE ENTRANCE: To consider financing of the closure of the median on Harbor Boulevard (continued from the meeting of June 17, 1980--see minutes that date). City Engineer William Devitt stated that Mr. Gair was in the audience and prepared to address the Council and that he ~Devitt) felt they had reached an amicable agreement (see June 27, 1980 memorandum from the City Engineer). Mr. Bill Gair, Chief Engineer,. Disneyland, stated that in working with the Traffic Engineering group, they had come to a joint recommendation that the cost of the median closure be shared on a 50-50 basis between Disneyland and the City. Such an arrangement was agreeable to Disneyland, and they felt it would solve the safety problem which Disneyland addressed. The Mayor thanked Mr. Gait and Disneyland. Councilwoman Kaywood asked if Disneyland was willing to put money up front and subsequently the City would reimburse them. 80-851 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 1, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Gair explained that he had not discussed that with management. In a draft memorandum, one option was to take the money from the Council Contingency Fund to fund the City's portion of the closure. That was their first preference, the second being Item "a" of the June 27, 1980 memo from the City Engineer--"Post- pone construction until 1981-82 fiscal year and include in budget at that time." In another communication, he noted an option "c". Mr. Devitt explained that the project was not budgeted at the time and there were no available funds unless they delayed another project. Further discussion followed wherein both Councilwoman Kaywood and Councilman Overholt expressed their concern that it be done as quickly as possible con- sidering that a safety factor was involved. Councilman Overholt emphasized he would like to see the project completed before the 1981-82 summer season and if it required $20,000 from the Council Contingency Fund, Re would support that. MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood stated that was her point, if it were all right with Disneyland to proceed with the matching $20,000, she would make a motion now to approve the allocation of $20,000 from the Council Contingency Fund so that the project could proceed. Before action was taken, Mr. Gair stated that they would like to see the summer rush go by and perhaps in September start construction so that by this time next year, they would not have the same problem facing them again. Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the plans, specifications and bidding process were completed in two months as Mr. Devitt had explained, how long thereafter would it take to construct the median closure; Mr. Devitt answered within 30 days. Mayor Seymour stated that since Disneyland had agreed to pick up one-half the cost of the public safety improvement, to either delay them for another fiscal year or tQ ask them to work the City's cash flow was unreasonable. On the other hand, he was not convinced that the money had to be appropriated from the Council Contingency Fund. He did not know how many millions of dollars were involved in public improvement projects, but since they were only talking about $20,000, he suggested that Mr. Devitt come back to the Council and let them select what alternatives they might find other than appropriating the money from the Council Contingency Fund. Councilman Roth noted that in finalizing the budget, the Council allocated additional funds for street repair, a portion of which could be utilized for this project. The Mayor asked since the Mecca and Tropicana Motels might be affected by the safety improvement, if there were any representatives present from those estab- lishments. Mr. Ernie Medallion, owner of the Tropicana Motel, stated that he had received a telephone call to come to the meeting, but they were never told they were going to be affected by the change. They were told they were going to close the south entrance of Disneyland in front of the Sands and the Carousel Motels. 80-852 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 1, 1980, 1:30 P.M. The Tropicana and Mecca Motels were not mentioned before. By closing the subject median, vehicles would have to go all the way down to Freedman Way and make a "U" turn go go north on Harbor Boulevard to get to all the motels on the east ~%de of Harbor Boulevard. As well, he questioned how pedestrians were going to get to Disneyland from the motels on that side of the street all the way up to Howard Johnson's. They would not be able to walk and thus would have to take their cars and cause more congestion. Mayor Seymour referred to Paragraph five of the City Engineer's report of June 10, 1980, "While no pedestrian collisions have been recorded along this portion of Harbor Boulevard, Disneyland would propose to install a chain link fence and "No Ped Crossing" sign along the east side of the median island. This will reduce the number of jay-walkers that attempt to enter the park via the employee entrance." Mr. Medallion emphasized that now people would not be able to walk to Disneyland because of the distance involved; the Mayor asked why it was any further to walk than at present. Mr. Medallion answered because they were able to cross the street without having to walk down to Freedman; the Mayor pointed out in that case they were jay-walking and to tell the people residing at his motel to cut across Habor Boulevard was "crazy". Mr. Medallion suggested that a crosswalk be installed somewhere along the way to allow crossing. It was important for their businesses that there be some solution. It was unfair because they were closing everybody off and also they were going to create more traffic. Mayor Seymour asked the trade-offs to traffic safety; Miss Shirley Meredith, Assistant Traffic Engineer, explained that at the Disneyland exit, they had forced a right turn movement so that employees could no longer make a left turn to go to the freeway. The opening they were presently using was 270 feet from their exit. Those people desiring to go northbound were having to attempt to make the "U" turn in the near bay, thus causing a weaving problem in trying to get across. There was not a long time at the speeds traveled to get across the lanem and prepare for a "U" turn. Mr. Devitt stated that they concurred with Disneyland that the median closure would eliminate a hazardous condition. Mr. Bob Kimoisha, Manager, Mecca Motel, stated it would appear that only two motels would be affected by the proposed action but in reality all would be affected--the Sands, Carousel, Desert Inn, Denny's, Tropicana, Marco Polo, Twin Dragon, Chao's and Mecca. People could be told where to cross, but in finality they would do their own thing. He relayed the details of accidents that had taken place relating to jay-walking. Closing the median would also cause a great deal of congestion at the light at Freedman Way. He then explained why he felt that would be so. His suggestion was to install a pedestrian cross-walk or install a signal that would only activate when Disneyland employees left work or have employees exit out onto West Street or Ball Road. He was in opposition to the closure of the median. 80-853 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 1, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Bay asked if they could work out a solution to 'the vehicular problem, would he (Kimoisha) agree that something had to be done to stop the jay-walking. Mr. Kimoisha answered that if they tried to stop people from looking for an easier way to get to Disneyland, it could never be done. Councilman Overholt asked if Mr. Kimoisha's real thrust was he did not want cars going south on Harbor to have to go all the way down to Freedman Way, make a "U" turn and travel north to his motel; Mr. Kimoisha answered affirm- atively, noting that the present median access was directly across from his motel. He also explained futher that they did not recommend to their patrons that they take their cars to Disneyland but that they either walk down to the signal at Freedman Way or obtain free passes to ride a Fun Bus. If the median were fenced, vehicles would then have to take a right turn from his establish- ment and travel north to Howard Johnson's and make a "U" turn at the bottom of the hill which would cause problems as well. Councilman Roth noted that Mr. Medallion felt it was too far for people to walk to Freedman. They were trying to correct the situation and save lives; Council- woman Kaywood stated her concern had also been the safety of the motel patrons as well. She felt that the proposed closure would be a safety factor for the motels, Disneyland, and the City. Mr. Frank Kirksby, Manager of Sands Motel, stated that he had seen four people hit in that area. His establishment had only a small parking lot and people tried to park in their lot which they had to police to keep people from doing so and subsequently walking across the street. They wanted to go the shortest distance into the park and they were going to do so in any event. If the closure was going to take.place and they left part of the median open in front of his motel, between there and Disneyland, people were then not even going to have a center median on which to wait, but they. would still walk across the street and there would be no way to stop them. To have a policeman at that location would be even more expensive than to install a pedestrian light which would not tie traffic up as much as the proposed closure. Mayor Seymour asked why Disneyland did not direct the employees to use the Ball Road or West Street exits. Mr. Gair explained that they did direct their employees to use the various exits. There were three basic exits--Winston Road on the West Street side, Ball Road on the north side of the park, and the Harbor Boulevard exit. Depending on which division of the park an employee worked in, they would exit at one of those three exits. The whole issue was one of safety and although they did not feel they would solve all problems with the median closure, they felt it was a reasonable measure to take a percentage of that problem away from them and those who were responsible for the people involved who crossed in that area. Extensive discussion and questioning followed between the Council and Mr. Gair during which Councilman Bay suggested some possible alternatives for pedestrian entrances into the park. At the conclusion of discussion, Councilwoman Kaywood amended her motion as follows: that closure of the median be undertaken immed- iately and staff to report where they would find the $20,000 as the City's half share of the project cost. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. 80-854 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 1, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay stated he was not going to support the motion. The proposed median closure was only a partial solution and would not solve the whole problem. With more study, detailing and looking at a few more alternatives, there could be a better solution than the present one. Mayor Seymour agreed with Councilman Bay that the solution would not solve all the problems but at the same time, the majority of the Council believed it would (1) solve some of the problem, and (2) it was an action they could take within reasonable fiscal constraints to begin to get a handle on the situation. He was supportive to the degree that Councilman Bay was interested in asking staff to study additional measures and also appropriate costs. At least initially, they were willing to address one of the most severe and dangerous problems in the area. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Bay voted "no". MOTION CARRIED. The Mayor then stated if there was no objection, he would direct the Traffic Engineer and staff to study where other improvements for safety and circulation might be considered for that area in the future and report back with the cost for same. RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (3:40 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (3:50 p.m.) CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 3137: Application by Conrad J. and Josephine M. Letter, to construct a 7-unit apartment complex on RM-1200 zoned property located at 1260 East La Palma Avenue, with a Code waiver of maximum structural height (continued from meetings of April 8 and May 20, 1980 to allow the Planning Commission to evaluate the 150-foot setback standard). The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-49, declared that the subject rpoject be exempt form the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, since there would be no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact due to this project and further, denied Variance No. 3137. The decision of the Planning Commissimn was appealed by the applicant and public hearing scheduled April 8, 1980 at which time testimony was received (see minutes that date), at the conclusion of which, the public hearing was continued to May 20, 1980 with the request that the Planning Commission evaluate the site development standard of the City's 150-foot setback. At their meeting of May 5, 1980, the Planning Commission continued evaluation of the 150-foot setback standard to their meeting of June 2, 1980. In letter dated May 16, 1980 from the applicant, they requested a continuance of the hearing to sometime after June 2, 1980, and accordingly, public hearing was continued to this date. Mr. Ron Thompson, Planning Director, first described the location and surrounding land uses. He also reported that for the last several weeks, the Planning Commission had been cQnsidering various standards in the multiple family zones as to how they 80-855 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 1, 1980, 1:30 P.M. could be amended in order to increase the City's sale and rental housing. Yesterday (City Planning Commission meeting of June 30, 1980) the Commission directed staff to prepare amendments to the Multiple-Family zone that would allow for two story construction where there was land use indicated on the General Plan for other than single-family purposes and where the property was under some type of resolution of intent for a more intense future land use. They also felt that the two-story, 150-foot height restriction could also be relaxed where an apartment unit was facing a street with single-family homes also facing the street on the opposite side. They felt that the 150-foot was primarily a line-of-sight visual intrusion and that the single-family structure would actually block views into the rear yards and patio areas of single-family dwellings that were facing towards the street, rather than rearing on a street or up to an apartment project. The Planning Commission looked at several ways they might increase affordable housing and felt basically that any piecemeal modification of the Code as they presently existed would perhaps only escalate the value of the land, rather than accomplishing the goal of increasing the amount of affordable rental or sale housing. They did feel, however, that a density bonus should be per- mitted where the developer would enter into an agreement with the City to provide either affordable rental or sales housing. That could best be accom- plished by processing projects of that nature under a CUP and the density bonus could be achieved by having the developer work with Planning staff to design a particular project so that it would fit into a neighborhood where the characteristics ~of the project would best match the tenants or occupants of that project, for example, as was the case in the recent Barisic condominium project. With respect to the subject project, in view of the Planning Commission's decision yesterday, they did consider granting waivers from the properties both to the east and west of the property, and to the north across La Palma. They did not feel that the project should visually be permitted 62 feet from where it would over- look the rear yards of single family dwelling units and that appeared to be the major problem with the proposal now before the Council. He also noted if the 150-foot ruling were not granted, it would permit the building of 0nly six rather than the requested seven units. They might wish to review the plans of the project because, from a practical standpoint, the buildings were oriented both to the east and west and the one window that would visually intrude on the rear yards of the residential area to the south was a hall window, rather than a window from a living area. Mr. Thompson confirmed for Councilman Roth that on the subject project, the Planning Commission was still holding to the 150-foot setback to the single- family homes to the south of the property. Councilman Roth first commended staff on the report they prepared for the Planning Commission. He considered it to be an excellent document and the survey of the surrQunding cities contained therein was a strong indication to him that Anaheim was one of the few remaining cities adhering to the 150-foot requirement. The Council was committed to providing additional housing inventory to preclude blanket rent controls. He was extremely interested in not only protecting the integrity of single family homes from the intrusion of a two-story structure, 80-856 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 1, 1980, 1:30 P.M. but also in providing additional housing. He pointed to cases where construction leap-frogged from one parcel to the next with long narrow lots in between. It was time to look at that situation and he was disappointed that the Planning Com- mission had not done so in order to establish a compromise in such cases. Before concluding, Councilman Roth also noted that Anaheim was receiving very few requests for building permits at present. On question by Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Thompson explained that as Councilman Roth stated, the residential development in the City was off substantially this year, one of the major reasons being high interest rates although they antici- pated a turn around in the Fall or Winter. Apartment requests were down and had been for a number of years, the problem there being that they showed a negative cash flow and thus, financing became more difficult. Councilman Bay asked if the Planning Commission's decision of the subject development was based on the window on the southern portion or were they adamant about not relaxing to the 62 feet. Mr. Thompson stated he just wanted the Council to know the configuration. The Planning Commission directed staff to come up with a policy to achieve a 25% density bonus for any developers who would enter into an agreement to build either rental or sales units, and those would be judged at the time staff was to work with the developer when he processed his development plans to waive those development standards. Councilwoman Kaywood asked if there were to be no waivers on the project, how many apartments would be permitted. Mr. Thompson answered probably only five, but the way the Planning Commission considered it yesterday, they were primarily concerned with the southerly two story building because it was within 62 feet. They did consider granting a waiver on the mmrtherly-most two-s~ry building. Thus, based on wh~t the Commission did, six units would be permitted, and they were requesting seven. The Mayor then asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous of being heard. Mr. Walt Bowman, 7936 Cerritos Avenue, Stanton, representing Mr. and Mrs. Conrad Letter ~Letter's address 3102 West Vallejo Drive, Anaheim), explained that they had already done their research as far as what other Orange County cities had done when they appeared on April 8, and the Council also asked staff to conduct a study. He reiterated the results as follows: 16 cities had a zero setback and three of those reviewed each plan; one city had a 25-foot setback, another 30 feet; three cities had a 50-foot setback and one, 70 feet. The farthest setback for a two-story in Orange County was 70 feet. Based on that data, staff recommended to the Planning Commision that the setback be changed to 100 feet. During the course of recommendations that staff made to the Planning Commission, they had come up with several ideas as to how buildings could be oriented on a lot. They (~he plans. One was relative to no windows facing the R-1 property. The balconies faced to the east which was already zoned RM-1200 and the patios faced to the 80-857 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 1, 1980, 1:30 P.M. west, also already zoned RM-1200. Another recommendation made by the Planning Commission at a previous meeting was a step approach as far as first having a one-story and then going to a two-story building when approaching single- family. As noted on their plans, they had a one-story apartment in the rear backing up to R-1 and then 62 feet away, they started with a two-story structure. Another recommendation made by the Planning Commission at their June 30 meeting, when considering allowing a one-story within 100 feet of R-l, they stated there would be a 25-foot height limit. On their plans, the roof line for the two- story building was 24½ feet. Therefore, they felt they were within the realm of what would be agreeable in the City. They also felt they had salient points in their favor, one being the traffic pattern. Their property was on La Palma Avenue, and, therefore, all ingress and egress would be to La Palma Avenue whereas the single-family neighborhood to the south had ingress and egress to East Street, precluding any mingling of traffic. Mr. Bowman then reiterated some of the points made in his presentation on April 8 (see minutes that date), specifically that in the opinion of the expert appraiser they engaged to settle the question of the project being detrimental to the neighborhood, that, in fact, there would not be any detriment to the market value of adjoining properties. In summary, Mr. Bowman noted that yesterday the Planning Commission approved the two-story apartment house on the corner of Webster and Orange Streets and the building looked out over a single-family lot across the street approximately 85 feet from the apartments. As far as Orange County cities, it appeared that the 150-foot setback was way out of line. In listening to the reason why the City was not getting new building permits, he felt it was due to the fact that in looking at property available in the City, not Anaheim Hills, but in field lots, almost without question, there was one portion of those lots that was going to be affected by single-family residences. In view of the data the Council had before it, the Council could approve their request for a variance. Councilwoman Kaywood, Councilmen Roth and Seymour then posed a line of questioning to Mr. Bowman for purposes of clarification. Mr. Bowman noted during the dis- cussion, upon questioning by Councilman Roth, that they had been in process on the subject project since approximately October or November of last year. Mayor Seymour stated that perhaps they had been deliberate in processing the variance, but it was their privilege to do so. Mr. Bowman was aware of what the Council had been wrestling with, and it was not just relative to the subject property. Whatever decision they made on the property would likewise affect the other properties and in a much broader sense, it would affect standards for the entire City. Councilwoman Kaywood recalled that she had asked Mr. Bowman at the last meeting whether a land assembly would be possible because very long narrow lots were involved where the possibility of planning a very nice project would exist. She asked his answer to that. Mr. Bowman stated that they had assembled the next three lots to the west of the subject property at 1242, 1250 and 1254 East La Palma Avenue. The architect on that project did meet with him and a couple members of staff at the suggestion of the Planning Commission. However, Mr. Letter planned on living on the property and as far as including him on any kind of assemblege, he would not be interested in that. 80-858 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 1, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she had a problem in that she was concerned with the entire City of Anaheim. The problems that they had in Anaheim resulted whenever apartments moved into single family residential areas, and she was not looking to create more problems in the City. Mr. Bowman stated as far as La Palma Avenue was concerned, there were already apartments in the area and he reiterated the project would not impact the neigh- borhood to the rear with regard to traffic patterns. After further Council discussion with Mr. Bowman, the Mayor asked to hear from those in support of the requested variance. Mr. Norman Keup, 2327 East Puritan Lane, stated that he owned the property at 1250 East La Palma Avenue since the early 1940's. He favored a 50-foot setback from the property line because most houses in back of his property line were less than 50 feet away and the height of some were at least 25 feet from ground level. In all fairness he should be able to build a structure 25 feet high with a 50-foot setback with the side of the building facing residential not having any windows. He had been at some Planning Commission. meetings and heard the remark that Anaheim was unique because of the 150-foot setback, but he did not believe that. He had lived in the City since 1919 and the credit should go to former City forefathers whom he named. He felt it would be wrong to retain the 150- foot setback. He was not for change for the sake of change, but believed they were long overdue in not expecting their neighbors to provide so much open space for their view and privacy. He would suggest they might have a 20-foot high building which could be two-story. With an 8-foot ceiling on both stories, it would not go over 25 feet. He recommended a 25-foot height from 50 to 100 feet; a 35-foot height building structure, 100 to 150 feet; a 45-foot height, 150 to 200 feet, and 75 feet and higher at 200 feet and beyond. Mr. Clifford Beckler, 1242 East La Palma Avenue, explained he had lived at that address for 34 years and it was next door to Mr. Keup's property. So as not to repeat, he stated that he agreed with everything Mr. Keup had said. He did not want to hurt his neighbor, but by the same token, he could not afford to provide a beautiful view for him any longer. The Mayor then asked to hear from those in opposition; no one was present in opposition. The Mayor thereupon closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Kaywood asked the City Clerk if the surrounding neighbors had been notified of the public hearing because there was opposition at the first hearing in April. City Clerk Linda Roberts stated that was correct and the public hearing was continued to a date and time certain, with no further notification made once the original public hearing was noticed. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council finds that this project would have no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact 80-859 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July I, 1980, 1:30 p.M. due to the approval of the negative declaration since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property for medium density residential land uses, commensurate with the proposal, that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the proposal and that the initial study submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts and is therefore exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 80R-295 for adoption, reversing the findings of the City Planning Commission, allowing a 62-foot setback with the understanding that there be no windows on the second story of the southern portion of that building, and subject to the following Interdepartment Committee Conditions: 1. That the owner(s) of subject property shall deed to the City of Anaheim a strip of land 53 feet in width from the centerline of the street along La Palma Avenue for street widening purposes. 2. That sidewalks shall be installed along La Palma Avenue as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with standard plans and specifications on file in the Office of the City Engineer. 3. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim a fee, in an amount as determined by the City Council, for street lighting along La Palma Avenue. 4. That the proposed trash area shall be located to the satisfaction of the Office of the Director of Public Works upon improvement of the ultimate right- of-way of La Palma Avenue. 5. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities. 6. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer. 7. That the owner of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to be appropriate by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building permits is issued. 8. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay the traffic signal assess- ment fee COrdinance No. 3896) in an amount as determined by the City Council, for each new dwelling unit prior to the issuance of a building permit. 9. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2. 10. That Condition Nos. 1 and 3, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to the commencement of the activity authorized under this resolution, or prior to the time that the building permit is issued, or within a period of one year from date hereof, whichever occurs first, or such further time as the Planning Commission may grant. 11. That Condition Nos. 2, 5, 6 and 9, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-295: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NQ. 3137. Before a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour speaking to the resolutions stated that the quality of the units being proposed did not offer any detriment to the residential community to the south. With 1100- and 1300-square foot units, they 80-860 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 1, 1980, 1:30 P.M. may be comparable in size to some of the single-family residences in the neigh- borhood to the south. There was no possible traffic conflicts, ingress and egress was all taken from La Palma Avenue, and the neighborhood to the south had its own ingress and egress. Relative to visual intrusion, if they built one single- family residence on the entire lot, that could be built within the City's setback as required of 25 feet. A two-story home could be built with windows within 25 feet of that setback from the single-family residences. The proposed project would be 62 feet with no windows. The Mayor continued that he did not think it appropriate to be constantly picking away at how long a person owned the property or the profit involved in the pro- spective development. He did not think that length of citizenship or property ownership had anything to do with good planning and zoning. He was beginning to lose patience with how that impacted a planning and zoning decision. He believed it would be a fine project. In order to finally work out what specific changes they would make to the City's ordinances, they needed a work session with the Planning Commission and although they had come a long way, the Commission needed the input of the Council to finalize their decision-making. He personally felt it was time to change the 150-foot setback unless the Council was prepared to talk out of both sides of its mouth, on one side saying that they wanted to build more apartment houses, and on the other saying no, they were not willing to offer any incentives whatsoever to building apartments in the City. They could not afford to adopt that political posture. In reviewing the other cities in the County, he did not know what had been so bad about some apartments built in Fullerton or Orange and their environment seemed well protected. It was time that they consider a change in standards, and he looked forward to a meeting with the Planning Commission in a work session forum to determine that. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that as noted last week, the crime rate in every other city in Orange County was higher than Anaheim's and perhaps the setback had something to do with it. When the City was planned, it was through many public hearings on the General Plan with the entire public present or those who were interested in giving their input that the 150-foot setback was deter- mined. It was done through a good process and for a very good reason. For the Mayor to say he was losing patience with the impact of how long a person owned their property and how much profit they were making, she would say that was talking ont of two sides of the mouth, and they could not have it both ways. Were they talking about affordable housing, or the landowner simply getting more money for the land with no difference in the cost of the rents for the apartments? Rents were going to be as high as all the others, so there would be nothing affordable. She felt perhaps there was a conflict of interest with the realty profession that the City of Anaheim was coming second instead of first. She was proud to say, that with her, the City of Anaheim was first and would remain first. In speaking to the matter, she stated that as she recalled in his first campaign in 1974, it was on the basis of caring about the residents, those who were in the City and not those who were coming at some future unforeseeable time. She still cared about the residents and was very much concerned about the quality of life in Anaheim. The issue was not just a matter of two additional units relative to the subject project. If he was talking about changing it here and creating a precedent for everyone else to start storming the doors, he was talking about something that would be done without input from the people and she was very nervous about that. 80-861 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 1, 1980, 1:30 P.M Mayor Seymour stated that Councilwoman Kaywood suggested that perhaps a crime rate could be lower if the setback were 150 feet. If she checked the statistics, she would find that those cities in Orange County that had been studied by staff offering smaller setbacks had a lesser crime rate than the City of Anaheim. If she had some statistics that would support her position, he would be happy to hear them. Relative to the question of profit and affordability, he felt it was in direct opposition to the free enterprise system when she, as an elected official, began to stick her nose into the business of the private sector telling them what profit they will or will not make. Relative to affordable housing, anything they could do in Anaheim or any other city to increase the supply and availability of rental and ownership housing, they would be making a contribution. Even creating housing in the upper price range permitted others to move up, thereby creating a vacancy somewhere down the ladder. Relative to his conflict of interest, that was a term that should apply to some type of decision that an elected or appointed official would make that would benefit their pocketbook. If she had any information, and she has known him now serving in an appointed or elected office since 1970, that in the last decade he had made any decision in the City that had benefitted his pocketbook, as determined by the Conflict of Interest laws, he demanded that she make it public, rather than throw allegations around. He was concerned also for the citizens of the City, those people today living in apartments and receiving continual rent increases because of such a shortage of apartment houses in the City. If she were also concerned about those people, she would begin to vote in order to increase the supply of apartments, thereby offering relief to those tenants faced with unbearable conditions of continued rent increases. Further discussion and debate followed between the Mayor and Councilwoman Kaywood at the conclusion of which, Councilwoman Kaywood stated they should proceed very carefully and very slowly with public hearings and input from the people when talking about changing the General Plan and the setback for the entire City of Anaheim. Mayor Seymour stated he agreed with Councilwoman Kaywood totally on the last statement, go slowly and hold public hearings. Councilman Roth stated he first wanted to compliment the Mayor and commend him for his foresight and understanding of the whole problem and his strong support for providing housing, not only in Anaheim and Orange County, but also all over California. This was a typical example of an action he (Seymour) had been recommending up and down the State and it was outstanding. Relative to the crime rate, according to Councilwoman Kaywood's concern when building 1100- to 1300-square foot apartments, meaning that someone was going to pay rent anywhere from $500 to $800 a month and if those people who paid those rents were the crime element in the City, it was a sad state of affairs. He felt that the biggest crime was that they did not provide enough housing for citizens. 80-862 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 1, 1980~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Roth thereupon requested a verbatim transcript of the portion of the meeting from the time the motion on the EIR finding was first made and seconded. (A verbatim transcript is on file in the City Clerk's office covering the portion from the EIR motion to the end of the subject.) Councilman Bay stated, looking at the subject case without regard to precedent and to the overall workshop problems they were still talking about, those issues were separate from the particular development. He had always heard and he would still say that granting waivers and CUP's did not establish precedent. Otherwise, if all the CUP's and waivers ever given in the City were used as precedent and they stuck as precedent, they would wipe out almost every zoning ordinance in the City. He was going to support the resolution on the subject waiver, but wanted it clearly understood that that would not set a precedent in his thinking or put him in a position of reducing the 150-foot ordinance or piecemeal any other ordinances without thorough study. On the argument that was brought into the hearing that, in his opinion, had nothing to do with the matter, but since the subject of profits was broached when talking about development, the way he heard stated goals in the past from the Council was to provide more affordable sales and rental housing units in Anaheim. As long as the word affordable was used and debate arguments were used to increase density by waiver or CUP in order to make it more economically feasible to provide more housing in the City, then dollars and cents and profit did become a part of the subject, and it was a two-sided question. If they were going to talk about what it cost and what was feasible to get a developer to put in more housing, then they could not ignore whether they were going to control or not control or have something to say about what he charged for the use or sale of that housing. Councilman Bay then spoke to the negative cash flow aspect regarding apartments that was broached earlier and in the final analysis, it was his opinion that it was possible to deal with a negative cash flow on apartments and still make a good profit on an investment. After further comments and in concluding, Councilman Bay stated if they were going to use those arguments in producing housing, they were going to have to consider some controls, and he was not too happy about having to consider some of those controls when they started piecemeal modifications of the City's ordinances to make it cheaper to build by increasing the density or lowering some of their standards. They had to keep their priorities in sight and his priorities were as follows: (1) to protect the existing residents in the City from undue tangible impact, in this case, he did not see any tangible impact, (2) More available housing since that was the answer to more affordable housing, and (.3) More affordable housing. If they were going to start giving bonuses and reducing their standards to affect the economy and encourage the building of more dense housing, then they would also have to take up the problem of making sure it was affordable just as in the Barisic project. He agreed that they needed a workshop, and they were going to have to approach all those subjects. 80-863 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 1, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Overholt stated that in this case, he agreed with the Mayor and Councilman Roth 100%. In the polls he had seen taken of citizens at large in the community, housing was the top of their concerns. Unless the leaders of today provided that housing, the leaders of tomorrow were going to have much more serious problems to deal with. He pledged that he would deal with facts as they were today and not as they were yesterday. In this case, they were dealing with lots of great depth on a busy street, and they had to face the fact where there was no intrusion, and there was none on the single-family residents just south, particularly with the Mayor's stipulation that there would be no windows in that exposure, to utilize that property to the best advantage, they would have to change their thinking. He did not, however, think it should be changed as much as Mr. Bowman suggested, i.e., for Anaheim to go along with 64% of the cities and have no setback requirement. He did not see that happening with the present Council, but that they would want to extend some kind of guidelines. He felt that the workshops proposed would set those guidelines, and he was convinced that those guidelines would not be along the lines of 150 feet which had been in the ordinance for many years. After further comments, Councilman Overholt stated he was glad to support the resolution. A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Bay, Roth and Seymour Kaywood None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-295 duly passed and adopted. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she wanted her "no" vote to stand as a protest and an obvious "no precedent setting decision." 176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 79-19A: In accordance with application filed by General American Life Insurance Company, public hearing was held on proposed abandonment of an existing ten-foot wide public utility easement located 150 feet, plus or minus, northeast of Howell Street and 200 feet, plus or minus, north of Katella Avenue, pursuant to Resolution No. 80R-260, duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance with law. Report of the City Engineer dated May 27, 1980 and a recommendation by the Planning Commission were submitted recommending approval of said abandonment. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no response, he closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council ratified the determination of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 5, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. 80-864 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 1, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-296 for adoption, approving Abandonment No. 79-t9A. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-296: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ORDERING THE VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF A CERTAIN PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENT. (79-19A) 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-296 duly passed and adopted. 105: APPOINTMENTS TO COMMISSIONS AND BOARDS: Appointments due to vacancies or expiration of terms. Mayor Seymour stated that in discussion of the subject appointments individually with some members of the Council, he found there was no consensus relative to the remaining appointments on the Redevelopment Commission, Community Services Board, Planning Commission and Youth Commission. He asked that they consider carrying the appointments over for one week. On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilman Overholt, appointments to various City boards and commissions was continued one week. MOTION CARRIED. 166: REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY WAIVER OF SIGN RESTRICTIONS: John F. Stein, Jr., requesting a temporary waiver of sign restrictions relating to property located at 705 South State College Boulevard. Mayor Seymour referred to staff report dated June 26, 1980 regarding the subject and recommending the Council deny the request. He asked if Mr. Stein was present and, if so, was there anything he would care to add. Prior to Mr. Stein taking the podium, Mayor Seymour advised he would refrain from discussion and voting on this matter since Mr. Stein does business with a company of his. Mr. John Stein, Jr., 311 South Old Ridge Road, explained that he was in the process of selling the subject property at present. At the time he installed the signs, he believed they were legitimate and that was about six months ago when he first heard there was any question relative to their being legal. At that time, he considered filing for a variance and also to change the signs. However, other things came up and he decided to go ahead and sell the property and move his office. The property had not yet sold and the Planning Department had been "super" in cooperating as to his request for extensions. Inasmuch as he was selling the property, he did not want to have to take the signs down at this time when he was only going to be operating there for another three or four months and having to go through the expense of having new signs made for the short period of time. He would like to have four additional months' extension if possible. Councilman Roth indicated he would be favorable in granting a maximum of 90 days and after that period, there would be no further extensions even if the property was not sold. 80-865 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 1, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Bay noted Paragraph 1 of the staff report of June 26 indicating that on January 10, 1980, Mr. Stein was issued a notice of violation for commercial office signing which exceeded the permitted size. As well, the Code specified that a residential structure being used for commercial purposes in the CO zone may have only one eight-square foot sign, whereas he had five wall signs, totalling more than 20 square feet in size. His question in even considering an extension revolved around the fact that signs had been up for one and a half years, certainly since January 10, 1980, illegally and Mr. Stein had been notified that they were illegal. Since there were five wall signs, he asked if he (Stein) could reduce them to two, if given a 90-day extension. Mr. Stein answered that definitely one of the signs could be removed. He then showed pictures of the signing to the Council. Subsequent discussion and questioning followed between the Council, staff and Mr. Stein during which he (iStein) explained that there were now only two businesses in the building and that three signs were required, two advertising the remaining businesses, with the top sign being an identification sign for the building itself. At the conclusion of discussion, Councilman Overholt stated that he would be in favor of Councilman Roth's approach to give Mr. Stein 90 days to comply, otherwise the signs would have'to be removed. MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to approve the subject request granting an exten- sion of the signing for a maximum of 90 days after which the signs were either (1) to be removed, or (2) complied with the sign ordinance, or (3) a variance requested. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated that six'months ago Mr. Stein was first issued a notice of violation, and in the interim staff had worked closely with him and asked him to file a variance. They were then unwilling to go any further and she, too, would be unwilling to go any further. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilwoman Kaywood voted "no". Councilman Seymour abstained. MOTION CARRIED. Before concluding, Councilman Bay asked that Mr. Stein advise any new owner the story on signage; Mr. Stein indicated he would do so. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman 0verholt, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda: 1. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and referred to the City's Claims Administrator, and the Application for Leave to Present Late Claim was denied: a. Claim submitted by the Automobile Club of Southern California (Harold R. and Alice Matson, Insured) for vehicular damages purportedly sustained as a result of accident caused by malfunctioning traffic signal at the intersection of Katella Avenue and Claudina Way, on or about March 15, 1980. b. Claim submitted by Insurance Company of North America (Conmec, Inc., Insured) for vehicular damages purportedly sustained as a result of accident in the Stadium parking lot involving City employee and vehicle, on or about May 11, 1980. 80-866 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 1, 1980, 1:30 P.M. c. Claim submitted by Mark A. Luszcz for vehicular damages purportedly sustained as a result of accident involving City vehicle in a private parking lot off Ball Road and Anaheim Boulevard, on or about April 16, 1980. d. Claim submitted by Maria Medina for vehicular and personal injury damages purportedly sustained as a result of accident involving on-duty emergency vehicle at Lincoln Avenue and West Street, on or about March 10, 1980. e. Claim submitted by Michael Duane Morris for personal injury damages purpor- tedly sustained as a result of slip-and-fall accident at Anaheim Stadium on or about May 9, 1980. f. Claim submitted by Motors Insurance Corporation (Eddie Hopper Chevrolet, Insured) for vehicular damages purportedly sustained as a result of malfunc- tioning traffic signals at the intersection of Lincoln and Rio Vista, on or about April 11, 1980. g. Claim submitted by Southern California Gas Co. for damages purportedly sustained as a result of damage to gas main during fire hydrant installation at 1236 North Magnolia Avenue, on or about May 7, 1980. h. Claim submitted by Thomas Suharik, Jr., for personal injury damages purpor- tedly sustained as a result of slip-and-fall accident on steps at Anaheim Stadium, on or about June 15, 1980. i. Claim submitted by Marian Wallmeier for vehicular damages purportedly sustained as a result of golf ball striking window of vehicle parked in lot at 421 North Brookhurst Street, on or. about June 6, 1980. j. Claim submitted by Brian D. Wight for vehicular damages purportedly sus- tained am a result of accident caused by City vehicle, on or about May 27, 1980. k. Claim submitted by Jacqueline Holmes for property damages purportedly sus- tained as a remult of power surge during a power failure, on or about April 11, 1980. 1. Claim submitted by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Dan Pinedo, Insured) for vehicular damages purportedly sustained as a result of accident caused by malfunctioning signal lights at Haster Street and Katella Avenue, on or about May 7, 1980. m. Application for Leave to Present Late Claim and claim submitted by the Automobile Club of Southern California (James L. Gibbons, Insured) for vehicular damages purportedly sustained as a result of car striking hole in Magnolia Avenue near La Palma Avenue, on or about Janaury 18, 1980. 2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: a. 175: Public Utilities Department, Customer Service Division--Monthly Report for May 1980. b. 114: City of Santa Aha, Resolution No. 80-100, supporting Assembly Bill 2376, authorizing the County Auditor to apportion property tax revenues according to a fixed formula. 80-867 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 1, 1980, 1:30 P.M. 3. 108: APPLICATIONS: The following applications were approved in accordance with the recommendation of the Chief of Police: a. Public Dance Permit: Vietnamese Dance Club, for a dance to be held July 19, 1980, 8:30 p.m. to 1:00 a.m., at the Anaheim Convention Center. (Chu Ba Le, applicant) b. Private Patrol Permit: Orange County Canine and Patrol, 1038 North Tustin Avenue, to supply security patrol and guard dog service. (Kelly C. Duffin, applicant) 4. 161/123: DOWNTOWN PROJECT ALPHA--PH~.SE I~ CHANGE ORDER NO. 5: In accordance with the recommendations of the City Engineer, Change Order No. 5 was authorized in the amount of $97,210.61, increasing the original contract price to $8,132,027.26, Steiny and Company Inc., contractor. MOTION CARRIED. 115: ANAHEIM CIVIC CENTER - CHANGE ORDER NO. 7: Authorization for Change Order No. 7 in the amount of $335,113; Del E. Webb, contractor. Councilwoman Kaywood referred to memorandum dated June 25, 1980 from the City Manager indicating the total cost of the Civic Center of $12,440,816 with which she was very pleased. The Mayor asked how much under budget the project was going to be; City Manager Talley stated that they still anticipated a $700,000 surplus at the conclusion of the project. On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, Change Order No. 7, in the amount of $335,113, Del E. Webb, contractor was authorized, bringing the original contract price to $12,440,816. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 80R-297 and 80R-298, for adoption in accordance with the reports, recommendations and certifications furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-297: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Anaheim Memorial Hospital Association) RESOLUTION NO. 80R-298: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM TERMINATING ALL PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1828 AND DECLARING RESOLUTION NO. 78R-381 NULL AND VOID. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 80R-297 and 80R-298, duly passed and adopted. 80-868 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 1, 1980~ 1:30 P.M. 142/156: ORDINANCE NO. 4142 - AMENDED FIRST READING: City Attorney Hopkins explained that relative to the subject proposed ordinance introduced at the meeting of June 24, 1980, the Police Department would prefer to have the telephone number changed to 999-1900. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4142 for amended first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 4142: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION 4.75.090 OF CHAPTER 4.75, TITLE 4, OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO VEHICLE IM- POUNDS. ORDINANCE NO. 4143: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4143 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4143: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (78-79-45, RM-2400, Tract No. 10738) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and~ymour None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4143 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 4144: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 4144 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4144: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (79-80-36, CL) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4144 duly passed and adopted. 105: ORDINANCE NO. 4145: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4145 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 4145: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION 13.04.010 OF CHAPTER 13.04, TITLE 13, OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION. (membership and terms of office) ORDINANCE NO. 4146: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 4146 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 4146: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (79-80-17, CO) 80-869 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 1~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. 164/137: STORM DRAIN BOND ISSUE: Councilwoman Kaywood stated that a subject she had brought up before and wanted to discuss again in the hope that they would put a storm drain bond issue on the November 1980 ballot. There were already two issues on the ballot and, therefore, it would not be costing any more to add another. The City had gone through three consecutive rainy seasons and while it may be stated that November was not the best time to place the subject issue on the ballot, if the issue already on the November ballot passed, there would be no more April elections for Anaheim. Then, the next possibility of placing storm drains on a ballot would be June of 1982. There would only be a June and November election without setting a very costly special election. It was essential to protect the investment wherein the Council approved in the recent budget an additional $500,000 for public works for street maintenance and resurfacing. The number of potholes over all the City had proliferated in the past year. The asphalt was unable to cope with the constant amount of storm water, as well as water drained off regularly from ~esidential use. Continuing erosion of the streets was a costly and expensive waste of taxpayer funds to everyone. She had asked for a report which was issued in March indicating that there was a deficiency of $20 million for storm drains throughout the City. They would not need a bond issue for that amount, but perhaps a $10 million bond issue, the paint being if they had some money, there was an advantage when County or State funds came along for matching funds, thus enabling them to double the amount at that time. Councilwoman Kaywood asked that the City Attorney draw up wording for a storm drain bond issue to be placed on the November ballot. Mayor Seymour asked what amount she was recommending; Councilwoman Kaywood stated if they had a $10 million issue to be spread over the next five years, from it which would mllow them to be able to use matching funds to finance 40 urgent projects. Councilwoman Kaywood moved to direct the City Attorney to prepare language for Council consideration for a 10 million dollar bond issue for storm drains to be placed on the November 1980 ballot, the proceeds of which to be spread out over a maximum 5-year period. Before any action was taken, Councilman Overholt asked the recent history on approval of storm drain bond issues. Councilwoman Kaywood reported that in 1954, 1960 and 1963, storm drain issues were passed. Since 1963, there were two that were defeated. She contended, how- ever, i~ the issue did not appear on the ballot, there was no opportunity for the people to vote on it at all. Streets with proper drainage had a life of 15 to 20 years, but without proper drainage, the life could be as little as 5 years; City Engineer William Devitt confirmed that those figures were correct. Mayor Seymour stated that he recognized the need for storm drains as well, but his sense of the community was that they would not support such a bond issue, although he could be wrong. However, he was totally willing to have the matter go before the voters since they should have the right to make that decision. He asked Councilwoman Kaywood if she would be willing to lead the citizen effort to attempt to pass the bond issue; Councilwoman Kaywood was emphatic in her affirmative answer. 80-870 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 1~ 1980, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Seymour thereupon seconded the foregoing motion. Councilman Bay asked the City Engineer approximately how many miles of storm drains could be built for $10 million. City Engineer Devitt stated approximately 10 miles of major storm drains. As an example, the drain on Broadway from Euclid to Brookhurst to his recollection was in excess of $1 million when talking about storm drains 66 inches to 90 inches in diameter. Many could be smaller, 36 to 48 inches, and, therefore, greater mileage would be involved. Councilman Bay then asked if they were going to try to sell a bond issue, was $10 million a good figure or should it be $20 or $30 million. Mr. Devitt felt that $10 million was a good figure because the need was to get leverage. With $10 million they could build $20 million worth. Councilman Bay stated that he had always been concerned about storm drain bonds in the Fall. It would be much better to have such an issue on an April or even a June ballot but that would be clear into 1982. He wanted to know what they had to lose if the issue did not pass in November, and he questioned if June of 1982 would be too soon to try again. The Mayor stated he would personally have to assess the voters as to whether it was defeated narrowly or by a large margin. If the latter, June of 1982 would be much too soon. Councilman Roth first stated there would still be an expense to put anything on the ballot. He read the mood of the people as saying, before doing anything else, that more of the downtown area be completed. They were shouting that some- thing be done and he felt it was first necessary to get further down the road in Redevelopment. Also, he had not received any public outcry that something be done about flooding. The citizens wanted tax cuts and less government expen- ditures. It was going to take very active citizens to put, a bond issue together, and he did not think there was enough time to do so between now and November. He felt it was out of line at this time and that the public was not going to buy it. The Mayor stated that never would there be a less expensive time and further that Councilwoman Kaywood committed hersalf to what would be necessary to launch such a campaign. The people should be given the choice at a time when it would cost the least. Councilman Overholt stated that he would support the motion to ask the City Attorney to draw the necessary enabling documents, but he would like to reserve his decision on whether or not they should proceed until they acted on those documents. He shared some of the concerns Councilman Roth expressed and if they did proceed, he would like to see the Council 100% behind the issue as with IPP. If they did not have a reasonable probability of its passing, they should then think very carefully before committing Councilwoman Kaywood and her effort with a citizens committee to try to sell it if it was not saleable. 80-871 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 1, 1980, 1:30 P.M. City Attorney Hopkins indicated that he could have the documentation prepared in two weeks and that the last time Council would have to act to place the issue on the ballot would be approximately August 19, 1980. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Roth voted "no". MOTION CARRIED. 114: ANAHEIM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIAISON REPORT: Councilman Bay reported that he attended an AEDC meeting, Thursday, June 26, 1980, and announced that the Corporation had elected new officers--President, Mel Miller; Vice-President, Bob Risteen; Secretary-Treasurer, Alan Hughes. A question that was broached was whether the Council was being fully briefed on the current actions of the AEDC. He (Bay) explained that was his task as Liaison, but that he did not always take the time to brief the Council during Council comments due to the length of the Council meeting and other pressing work they had. He suggested that AEDC do a one-page status report, headlining the activities of their monthly meetings, which could be submitted to all Council Members to be read at their leisure and if there were any additional questions, he could give more detail. 181: APPOINTMENTS TO AD HOC HISTORIC PRESERVATION REVIEW COMMITTEE: Mr. Norm Priest, Executive Director of Community Development, reported that they had just received word that morning on Block Grant approval and as part of that approval, a question had been raised by some of the local people who were interested in historic preservation, specifically, Diann Marsh, relative to whether or not they had totally complied with historical findings on the Thomas Reeves Study. As a result, HUD put a hold on their next year's Central City funding. He there- fore urged that they appoint a committee today. Mayor Seymour stated that he did not want the Council to get the idea that the Mayor (Seymour) created the idea, nor did he offer or recommend the names listed in his June 17 memorandum. Mr. Priest and his staff put those names together based upon what they thought would represent a well-balanced Historic Preservation Review Committee; Mr. Priest confirmed that was correct. Mayor Seymour stated that they should then proceed with making the appointments; Councilwoman Kaywood asked if those would be the six people listed in the memo. Mayor Seymour answered that is what he was recommending because those were the people Norm Priest and his staff were recommending. On the other hand, after Mr. Priest talked to the Council individually, he guessed there were names added to that list and he would therefore open nominations. They needed six people. Mr. Priest explained that there was no specific number but they felt there should be a group small enough to be a working group, because they would have to narrow down a sizable list and also represent the significant bodies that they were aware of, representing historical preservation or restoration. Councilman Overholt nominated the six people that staff recommended as follows: Alan Clendenon, Architectural History, Anaheim Historical Society; Mildred Taggert, Local History, Mother Colony Household; Alfred R. McDaniel, Building Code/Engineering; William Darlin, Environmentalist, Anaheim Beautiful; Jane Oseid, Herb Leo, alternate, Redevelopment Commission; Lewis Herbst, Planning Commission. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the nominations. 80-872 City. Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 1, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Bay, noting the names in the memorandum of June 18, 1980 under the same subject, asked for clarification that those were not names that were added after the six were selected, but were a part of the total volunteer list of names that came in and that the six were selected from that, plus the list on the second page. Mr. Priest confirmed Councilman Bay's understanding and further explained that they did get 12 or 13 names which represented a rather narrow spectrum of the community. They did not find for example environmental factors such as Anaheim Beautiful represented or technical representation, and they sought to broaden that. He confirmed for the Mmyor that the six nominated were the six they recommended. They had been contacted and were willing to serve. The Mayor asked if there were any other nominations; there were none. Councilwoman Kaywood moved to close nominations. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The six aforementioned people nominated by Councilman Overholt were unanimously appointed to serve on the ad hoc Historic Preservation Review Committee. ADJOURNMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to adjourn. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Adjourned: 6:05 P.M. LINDA D. ROBERTS, CItY CLERK