Loading...
1980/11/1280-1450 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 12, 1980, 1:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Ka~ood, Bay, Roth and Seymour (entered at 2:44 p.m.) COUNCIL MEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPb~NT: Norman Priest PUBLIC UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER: Gordon Hoyt ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR PLANNING: Joel Fick ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti TRAFFIC ENGINEERING ASSISTANT: Shirley Meredith ASSOCIATE PLANNER: Jay Tashiro Mayor Pro Tem Overholt called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: Reverend Charles Hughes, First Baptist Church of Anaheim, gave the Invocation. FLAC SALUTE: Councilwoman Miriam Kaywood led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 119: PROCL~\TION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Pro Tem Overholt and authorized by the City Council: "Operator Appreciation Week - November 17 to 22, 1980 Mrs. Sue Sedota and Mr. Cy Jackson from Pacific Telephone Company accepted the proclamation. 164: PASSAGE OF PROPOSITION "C" - STORM DRAIN BOND ISSUE: Councilwoman Kaywood first ~ted that she was extremely proud of the citizens of Anaheim who did something that not many other cities had done in California and it spoke very highly of them--68% of the voters approved Proposition "C", the Storm Drain Bond issue. However, State Proposition 4, enabling legislation, was defeated. It was the opinion of many people that the ballot wording was extremely mis- leading and led~to the cause of that failure. She thereupon directed the City Attorney to investigate Statewide other local elections with measures that passed with a 2/3 vote, who found thems&lves in the same position as Anaheim. Possibly with the League of Cities, some joint action or challenge could be taken to allow the local jurisdictions to prevail. When 68% of the vote was affirmative, it should be taken as a real mandate from Anaheim citizens not to be thwarted by Sacramento. She recalled at the time that Howard Jarvis spoke at the Convention Center before Proposition 13 passed, a gentleman in the audience asked the question, what would happen in local areas. Mr. Jarvis answered, all that was necessary was a 2/3 vote at the local level, and it was possible to get what they wanted. At this time, she wanted to see to it that statement was true. Mayor Pro Tem Overholt asked if the City Attorney needed Council direction or could he take that request from one member of the Council. 80-14S! City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 12, 1980, 1:30 P.M. City Attorney Hopkins stated he could take the request, investigate and report back to the Council with a recommendation. Mayor Pro Tem Overholt stated he would join in the request that the City Attorney advise them as to the impact of Proposition 4 and what had occurred relative to the same circumstances in other local elections. Councilman Bay also did not have any objection. Councilman Roth stated he did not have any objection but wanted the City Clerk to research the matter and advise what it cost to put Proposition "C" on the ballot. Before concluding, Councilwoman Kaywood asked that the Council join her in asking for resolutions of appreciation to the Citizens for Storm Drains Committee. The~e were 12 leading volunteers who made the 68% passage a reality and she felt that the gratitude and thanks of'the City should be given to them publicly. MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular meetings held August 12 and August 19, 1980, subject to typographical correc- tions. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Bay 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. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL D~MANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $9,144,804.24, in accordance with the 1980-81 Budget, were approved. 174(CDBG)/177: PATT STREET NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT - PRIORITY STATUS FOR FAMILIES RESIDING WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES WHO WISH TO PURCHASE AFFORDABLE HOUSING: Mr. Norm Priest, Executive Director of Community Development, first clarified a question posed by Councilwoman Kaywood relative to the subject pro- gram. MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood thereupon moved to approve the establishment of the Patt Street Neighborhood Improvement Project and adopting priority status for families residing within the boundaries who wish to purchase affordable housing in the project, as recommended in memorandum dated November 5, 1980 from the Executive Director of Community Development. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 123/174(CDBG): CONTRACT WITH ECOS MANAGEMENT CRITERIA - CONSULTING SERVICES-- PATT STREET NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Bay, a contract was authorized with ECOS Management Criteria in the amount of $8,000 for consulting services in connection with the Patt Street Neighborhood Improvement Project, as recommended in memorandum dated November 5, 1980 from Neighborhood Development Coordinator Norm Priest. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 80- 1452 City ~all.~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 12, 1980, 1:30 P.M. 128: MONTHLY FINANCIAL STATEMENT FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1980: Councilman Bay referred to the subject statement, Control Center 45, Human Resources Capital, noting that that account had already expended 223.1% of its annual budget. He asked again, as he had done in the past, (see minutes September 30, 1980) when he was going to receive an explanation on that over- run. City Manager William Talley stated he belived that matter was already addressed. He explained, however, that it would continue to be reflected. The Human Resources Capital was for the payroll/personnel project which did run over budget and was completed in the period ending September 26. Human Resources was the lead agency although the expenditures were primarily incurred by the Data Processing Department. They had directed the Data Processing Department to balance their total program by the end of the year to cover that overexpenditure, but it would continue to show as an overexpenditure until June. On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the monthly Financial Statement for the three months ended September 30, i980 was ordered received and filed. Councilman Se~our was absent. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Seymour entered the Council Chamber. (2:44 P.M.) 123/175: INCREASE IN CONTRACT A~MOUNT--R. W. BECK AND ASSOCIATES: City Manager Talley first stated that on the next three agenda items regarding Public Utilities matters, under date of November 12, 1980, they had received com- munications from the Secretary of the Public Utilities Board (PUB) noting the actions taken by the Board at its meeting of November 6, 1980. He also con- firmed for Councilwoman Kaywood that the Board recommended approval of all three items. MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to authorize an amendment to an agreement with R. W. Beck and Associates dated July 18, 1978, to provide for an increase in the amount of $55,700, in connection with various rate matters and Edison- related litigations and negotiations, thereby increasing the maximum contract amount to $264,200, as recommended in memorandum dated November 3, 1980 from Public Utilities General Manger Gordon Hoyt. Councilwoman Ka~ood seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay asked if they were going to be seeing increases for the rest of the year, perhaps every couple of months. Public Utilities General Manager Gordon Hoyt answered that they would see one more increase. They had hoped to have a new contract in place with Beck by this time, but it was still being negotiated. He then briefed the Council on his memorandum of November 3, 1980 giving the background related thereto. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. 175/106: REPLACEMENT OF ELECTRICAL CAPACITORS ON THE ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to authorize the transfer of $500,000 from the Electric Revenue Fund Renewal and Replacement Account No. 55-2406 to the Electric Revenue Fund, Account No. 55-1001, and appropriating said amount for the purpose of replacing all capacitors on the Electrical Distribution System which are accessible to the general public and which contain polychlorinated City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 12, 1980, li30 P.M. biphenyls (PCB), as recommended in memorandum dated November 5, 1980 from the Public Utilities General Manager. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Mr. Hoyt answered questions posed by the Council for purposes of clarification. Mayor Seymour then asked the additional risks involved if the capacitors insul- ated with PCB were left in place to go through their natural life, as compared to the risks of taking them down. Mr. Hoyt answered that they would have a risk relative to the material itself in the cost associated with disposing of the material if they failed in service. It would not only be costly, but also frightening to the customer with respect to the procedure they must follow, which he. explained. There was also the problem of material just being released perhaps even unknowingly into the environment. Primarily his concern was the problem that customers would have relative to clean-up. Mayor Seymour then asked the hazards in taking the capacitors down before serving their useful life. Mr. Hoyt answered essentially none, as long as they were handled carefully. After further discussion between the Mayor and Mr. Hoyt, the Mayor stated he was trying to ascertain whether or not the present decision and the decisions that might follow, if the $500,000 allocation would be the entire expenditure for the purpose of replacement, so that next year he would not be back saying it was going to be a million dollars and thus, he would need another $500,000. Mr. Hoyt answered "no", but added that he would be back sometime in the near future to discuss with the Council and the Board his recommendations as to what they should do with the capacitors currently in the substation areas which were generally inaccessible to the general public--whether they should remain in place to the end of their useful life or not. To that end, he assumed they would review the capacitors they took down and they might want to establish a program where they could place the newer ones at some of the substations to extend their useful life. The requirements of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to date were to let them run their normal useful life, and he felt they could do that safely in substations, but he would want to take a further look at that. Councilman Bay suggested relative to the substation capacitors, he just recently read an article where a device was about to be produced that would tell the probability of cracks or damage in a capacitor. If Mr. Hoyt could get more information on that device and perhaps acquire one, substations could be checked in order to determine which capacitors they should replace first. Relative to the motion and removal of the capacitors accessible to the public, as far as he was concerned, there was no choice and the sooner the replacements were made, the better. Further, if they did not get their orders in for the capacitors quickly, the prices would escalate, as Mr. Hoyt had explained. 80- 14S4 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 12, 1980, 1:30 P.M. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. 160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - SEVEN HUNDRED 150 KVAR CAPACITORS - BID NO. 3708: On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the low bid of General Electric Company was accepted and purchase authorized in the amount of $251,538, as recommended by the Purchasing Agent in her memorandum dated November 5, 1980. MOTION CARRIED. 175: RESIDENTIAL CONSERVATION SERVICE (RCS) PLAN: Councilwoman Ka~vwood offered Resolution No. 80R-501 for adoption, approving Anaheim's Residential Conservation Service (RCS) Plan, as amended, and authorizing the Public Utilities General Manager to resubmit the plan to the Department of Energy (DOE) for approval. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-501: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING AND APPROVING ANAHEIM'S RESIDENTIAL CONSERVATION SERVICE (RCS) PLAN AS AMENDED A~ AUTHORIZING THE PUBLIC UTILITIES GENERAL P~NAGER TO SUBMIT SAID PLAN TO THE DEPARtmENT OF ENERGY (DOE). 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-501 duly passed and adopted. RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for 20 minutes. (3:00 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (3:20 P.M.) 134: PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 160 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: To consider alternate proposals of ultimate land uses, Single-family and Multiple- family Residential and Commercial Office, and combinations of these, for an area of approximately 7.6 acres located north of Center Street, extending on both sides of Coffman and Cypress Streets. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-174, recommended disapproval of General Plan Amendment No. 160, Land Use Element since the evi- dence presented did not substantiate the need for an amendment to the Anaheim General Plan at this time and further, recommended that a negative declaration from the requirement to prepare an EIR be approved on the basis that there would be no significant individual or cumulative environmental impact due to the approval of the negative declaration. Mr~ Jay Tashiro, Associate Planner, briefed the staff report to the Planning Commission dated October 6, 1980. The subject was a City-initiated General Plan Amendment to consider alternate proposals of ultimate land uses including, but not limited to, low density residential, low-medium density residential and medium density residential designations. The existing General Plan allowed for commercial, professional and low density residential. Considered were alternate Exhibit "A" for one acre, commercial-professional, and 6.6 acres of low-medium density residential and, Exhibit "B", one acre of commercial- professional, 2.5 acres of medium density residential and 4.1 acres of low- 8O- l~s CitM Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 12, 1980, 1:30 P.M. medium densit~y residential. Both Exhibits were posted on the Chamber wall to which Mr. Tashiro referred. The Mayor then opened the public hearing and asked to hear from those who wished to speak on the matter. Mrs. Carrie Coykendall, 15332 East La Palma, stated that she had attended the Planning Commission meeting and they discussed Exhibit "B". In her opinion, if Coffman Street were to be rezoned at this time for ultimate land use, she felt the choice for all parties concerned should be for the highest land use value. Coffman Street was so located to have access to most business places, medical, offices, a freeway, etc., making it a very valuable piece of property. Mr. James Taylor, 200 North Evelyn, stated the problem he saw evolving was traffic. There were only two entrances into the area--by way of Evelyn Drive and Coffman Street. There were no through streets. He questioned what would happen to all the traffic that would be generated. Evelyn Drive was a circular drive with no sidewalks and children playing on the street. Traffic would be horrendous. Mayor Seymour asked staff to respond relative to traffic if, for example, Exhibit "B" were approved. Mr. Joel Fick, Assistant Director for Planning, reported that the Traffic Engineer reviewed the request based upon the number of dwelling units that would be permitted within the area and there did not appear to be a traffic or circu- lation problem. He commented, however, that dependent on the type of multiple- family use, it may be appropriate to post "no parking" signs on portions of the property. Mayor Sey~mour stated, assuming the worst case situation, low-medium and medium density, what would the traffic situation be in that event? Mr. Fick answered that estimated traffic trips for Exhibit "B" could range as h~gh as 770 trips ADT. The current ADT, if all the properties were developed single family, could be as high as 540. Exhibit "A", however, based upon the gross dwelling units per acre and the type of traffic generation associated with development, could permit some higher trips up to 1,020. Exhibit "B", low-medium and medium density, would be the 770 figure. The Mayor asked for confirmation that Exhibit "A" represented 1,020 trips, Exhibit "B", 770, and current full development, 540; Mr. Fick confirmed that was correct. Councilman Roth then relayed the background and reason leading up to the consi- deration of a change in the General Plan for the area, basically to the concern over storage yards located therein, since they were not in keeping with residen- tial neighborhoods (see minutes May 13, 1980). He had received calls from residents on Evelyn Drive expressing their concern over high density. Also the questionnaires that were sent out to citizens residing in the area were to determine alternate land uses (see staff report ~o the Planning Commission dated October 6, 1980, Page 8-d for results) so as to prevent the whole area from converting to storage yards. 80- 1456 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MI~YUTES - November 12, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Taylor commented, however, that the Village Inn was a very large establish- ment and one of the greatest problems the neighbors had. They did not want to see the area go all that way either. Mr. Terry Wyle, stated that he owned property on Cypress Street. What he had in mind was also an alternative. He owned a house in the area and on the east side there were two full-size vacant lots and on the west side, three such lots. With a small, approximately 50-foot, eastward extension of Cypress Street, there was room for 24 condominiums with adequate parking. The whole neighborhood would not have to be changed, and there would be no large traffic problem. It would raise the density but without raising a problem. He would like to see a change in the area. Councilwoman Kaywood asked if he favored Exhibit "B"; Mr. Wyle answered basically, "yes". Mrs. Susie Hunter, 153 Evelyn Drive, stated she moved to the area because it was a quiet neighborhood and they liked it as it was; however, they presently had a traffic problem even under the present circumstances, since Evelyn Drive was a circular drive, and two major accidents had already occurred. Their children played in the street and there was also a great deal of traffic from the Village Inn. She could not imagine even 24 more families driving through the area because it was going to be dangerous. It was their fecling that Evelyn Drive could be blocked off where Cypress intersected into it and that would make everyone happy. At present, they were against any changes. Councilman Roth asked for confirmation relative to the closure; Mrs. Hunter stated they would like to see Evelyn Drive blocked off or barricaded at Cypress Street. Mr. Robert Gallagher, 169 Evelyn Drive, first asked questions relative to the current zoning in the area under discussion and if any interest had been expressed by a developer as to what might happen on Coffman Street. Both the Mayor and Mr. Tashiro answered the questions posed. In concluding, Mr. Gallagher stated, in answer to the Mayor, that he felt the neighborhood was not best suited for storage yards and that type of thing. He personally would like to see it zoned for condominiums. Further, he doubted if too many people would agree with closing Cypress Street leaving only one entrance to Evelyn Drive. Such a closure personally would not affect him, but he could share the feeling of the other people living on the street in wanting to see it closed. Councilman Bay asked Mr. Gallagher, if he were sitting as the Council and had a petition in front of him signed by a heavy majority of the people in the area stating they did not want any change to zoning, would that affect his decision? Mr. Gallagher stated he would like to see the situation settled where the zoning ~ould be one thing or another. It would be in the best interest of the people to have the area settled with permanent planning without variation, so that people would be able to count on specific zoning. Mr. Andy Toth, stated he took care of his grandmother who lived in and o~ed the property at 310 Coffman Street. He wanted to know if they tore the house down to build condominiums, what he was supposed to do with his grandmother. 80. ],457 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 12, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Mayor Seymour clarified that no one was going to tear her property down. What- ever action the City would take today, it would not be of eminent domain. It was not a redevelopment project. Mr. Toth continued that his grandmother was concerned because she did not speak English and if building took place around her, devaluating her property, and some- one made her an offer when he was away, she might take it. He could not be present all the time and he did not want her being pushed out of her property. Mayor Seymour first stated that he would encourage Mr. Toth to talk to an attorney, but relative to the concern expressed that her property would be devaluated, it was his opinion that whatever the Council decided, with orderly zoning that would lead to orderly development, such a change could only increase the value of his grandmother's property. Mr. Michael Garan, 5761 Parkhurst, Yorba Linda, stated he owned three pieces of property in the area, one of which was a storage yard, but he had cleaned up that piece of property. He was aware of the problems of the people in the area. The lots involved were exceptionally deep and narrow, not conducive to single-family dwellings. Since rapid, transit was now available on Lincoln Avenue and State College Boulevard, it was a real core of close-in, easily accessible transportation for people going in and out of the area if they were living in condominiums. He observed that a lot of people in the area walked to public transportation and more and more buses were available. Thus, there was no need to be concerned as much with heavy traffic. It would be a higher and better use of the property if a decision on zoning could be made and adhered to. Once there was something to count on, people would not have to sell and move out. However, they would receive a nice profit if they wished to sell. Parcels could also be assembled to make a nice project as another alternative. He also owned property on Evelyn Drive and he, too, was concerned as were the residents living there. If there was a way of putting another exit on that street out to Sycamore, that would also be another alternative. Relative to Exhibit "B", he did not see that as a valid consideration for two-story on one side and single story on the other. In concluding, Mr. Garan stated he felt there should be a General Plan .Amend- ment adopted indicating a higher de~sity for better use of the land to bring the tax base up and to bring more people to that end of town since the prop- erty was accessible to many things. Councilman Roth stated it was not so t,;uch the people on Coffman Street, but on Evelyn Drive, who were concerned about having a lot of apartments built in the area. The highest and best use was not ~toraga yards. He leaned to a single- story duplex concept throughout, which would enhance the neighborhood. Mr. Garan stated he felt if they turned ir into a duplex lot, it would hurt the people and their dollar value. The lots were approximately 12,000 square feet average and figuring the cost for a duplex, the cost would be prohibitive. It was all a matter of economics and unless the land was selling for $500,000 an acre, if the duplex £ots were put in, they would be restricting the price people could get for their land and demolishing the houses. The Mayor asked Mr. Garan of the alternatives, Exhibit "A" or "B", which would he prefer; Mr. Garan answered that he would prefer "A" and then "B". 80- 14'55 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 12, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Taylor then commented that he disagreed with Mr. Garan relative to the traffic impact. He did not believe that people would be riding the bus and since he (Garan) did not live in the area, he did not see all the cars as did the residents. Mrs. Fern Robinson stated she was interested in the property at 223 Coffman. One thing that was never ~tressed or mentioned at the Planning Commission meeting was the raise in tax rates that would result from rezoning. She asked what type of tax rate would result. 'Mr. Fick answered that after Proposition 13, there would be no change whatsoever to the tax rate on any of the parcels until the property would process some type of building permit or subdivision. Mrs. Robinson also stated it was mentioned that they would need a change of roadways and electricity, and she wanted to know when those projects would start. Mr. Fick explained that the Electrical Division felt that service to that area was adequate to handle the extra increase in density. The requirement on new projects, however, was that overhead lines be plsced under~round. Also, Coffman Street was presently constructed to a 30-foot width on a 50-foot right-of-way, and the Traffic Engineer had not requested any additional right-of-way, just the comment that, depending on the intensity of use, it may be necessary to post "no parking" signs on the street at some ultimate development point. Further, some of the parcels might not be at their ultimate dedication and at such time that they would undergo further development, they may have to add the addi- tional dedication. Councilwoman Kaywood stated in talking about undergroundings, she wanted to clarify the cost would not affect the existing residents. The developer would be paying for undergrounding. Mr. Eick confirmed that was correct. Councilman Bay also emphasized, quoting from the staff report to the Planning Commission of October 6, 1980, they should be aware that on-street parking would probably be prohibited if they went to the highest density. Councilman Roth then asked Mrs. Robinson what she wanted done with the property or if she preferred to have it remain as is. Mrs. Robinson answered "no", but that she felt it should be developed with some definite zoning stipulated. The area had no plan at present and there needed to be some organization relative to its development. She added that if Coffman Street were upgraded, as a result Evelyn Drive and the whole area would be upgraded. There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public hearing. The Mayor then asked staff if Exhibit "A" were adopted, what impact, traffic- wise, would be created by the closure of Cypress Street to the west. Mr. Fick answered, with respect to traffic circulation, the impact would probably be minimal because it was recognized that Coffman Street was the primary access to that area. .Police and fire typically, when looking at such areas, were desirous of having two access points for their emergency vehicles, and t~ash trucks as well. 80- 1~S9 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 12, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Mayor Seymour stated, in the event they made no decision at all and left the neighborhood as is, they would be doing a real disservice to that neighborhood and also the Evelyn Drive neighborhood, and the City. Given no direction as at present, it was his opinion in not too many years, they would be looking at another redevelopment project in that area. Then the concerns, such as expressed by Mr. Toth, would become a reality. They should take some action that would encourage a change in land use and orderly development in the neighborhood. He also felt that all low density would result in no action because he did not think the land use would bear the brunt of the cost of development. He had not made up his mind, however, if they should consider medium density on the east and low-medium on the west and north, or low-medium throughout. At the same time, if it was possible without disrupting to any great degree police and fire, if they could protect the neighborhood to the west, Evelyn Drive with a crash gate or cul-de-sac, whatever the technique might be, then he felt the fears of the neighbors could be calmed. With the type of development in "A" or "B", Evelyn Drive was not needed as additional ingress and egress from a traffic standpoint. The price they would pay for a cul-de-sac would be a little slower response time by police and fire and an inconveniece to trash. He felt those trade-offs were well worth protection of a very nice neighborhood. He felt they should take some action and he favored Exhibit "A", as well as a closure in one form or another of Cypress Street as it fed into Evelyn Drive. Councilman Bay stated he would speak in opposition to changing the General Plan from its present status. The Council initiated the action by asking the Planning staff to initiate a study of the area which they did. They took it to the Planning Commission where a hearing was held and during that hearing, he quoted, "...approximately 25 persons were present at said public hearing and the majority expressed the desire to see no change in land uses at the present time." The Planning Commission on a 5-0 vote subsequently disapproved General Plan Amendment No. 160, recommending that no change be made to the current GPA. If a majority of the people did not want to change, they were telling the people who lived in the area that they did not understand the problem. They responded by saying they did not want to change but wanted to retain single-family, low density residential, and the Planning Commission lis- tened to them and voted accordingly. In looking at what happened in the past, going back as far as the time the property was annexed to the City, there were exceptions through a grandfather clause allowing the retention of some storage yards. Since then, changes had occurred by CUP's that allowed additional storage yards. He was not saying there should not be changes, but they could be handled on an individual basis through CUP requests coming to the Planning Commission and the Council. Each of those cases should stand on its own merits. In his opinion, when a majority said that they did not want a change, he saw no reason why the Council should force change. He was in total agree- ment with the Planning Commission's decision. Mayor Seymour stated if he (Bay) believed that the direction that the neighbor- hood had taken over the last five to ten years was a positive one, he would agree with his position. However, the direction it had taken was downhill. He also questioned how he could take each on a case-by-case basis under the CUP process when, in essence, that was how the neighborhood found itself in its present position. He felt a decision to do nothing would only lead to a further deterioration of the area, and they had a responsibility to create to the best degree possible orderly zoning and development. 8O-14~0 City. Hall, ~aheim, California - COUNCIL MI~N~U?E$ -November 12, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Relative to who were they to decide something different, from what he could see in the petition and his feelings as to what the people said today, he did not think there was opposition Co what he had suggested, Exhibit "A" and the closure of Cypress Street. Relative to lot sizes of ten to twelve thousand square feet, to think that those would be developed into a single-family residential neighborhood was Fantasy Land because it would not occur and thus, they would be badly wasting a very limited resource, land. The sales price of such dwellings would have to be $180,000 to $225,000 and a developer would go bankrupt trying to sell them. Councilman Bay stated that low-medium density allowed 18 dwelling units per acre and medium density allowed 35. Mayor Seymour stated he was talking about low-medium density or a maximum of 18 to an acre and more typically 15. Councilman Bay stated, if he was talking about Exhibit "A" or approximately 15 to the acre, from what he saw coming from the Planning Commission now as affordable housing on land already zoned low to medium density, as long as the developer claimed over 25% would be affordable, some were as high as 30 and 34 per acre. While he did not hold to the argument of single-family on 12,000-square foot lots, at the same time, Councilman Roth mentioned duplexes, perhaps even tri- plexes or fourplexes, but not to where low-medium or medium density would lead to the development of apartments and/or affordable condominiums, which were apartments called condominiums. If they were trying to tell the people by going to low-medium, they would hold at 14 or 15 per acre, he did not believe that. The Mayor suggested that perhaps they should do just that. If it were possible to structure the zoning in the area limiting density to a maximum of 15 per acre, he would vote for that immediately. He did not want to see it go to 36 to the acre. I~f there was some way they could zone the property and limit it to 15 to the acre, he would have no objection to that. Councilwoman Kaywood expressed her concern over the fact that a cul-de-sac or closure was not even addressed at the Planning Commission hearing. Mayor Seymour pointed out that he asked staff what impact there would be in implementing either Exhibit "A" or "B" with the cul-de-sac, and staff indicated there would be little or no impact. He also did not see that it would create a barrier for fire or police. Discussion then followed with staff relative to the technicalities and feasibility in providing a cul-de-sac as previously discussed. Councilman Roth stated he was supportive to giving the people the opportunity to do something with their real property. He was fearful of too high a density and considered a maximum of 14 or 15 units to the acre to be appropriate. The objective of the people who lived on Coffman was to have their area cleaned up. The opposition from the neighbors was to increased traffic on Evelyn Drive. However, he did not feel those neighbors were in opposition to an orderly plan for improving another community. It would have a positive $O~-'146 ! City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 12, 1980, 1:30 P.M. financial effect and improve the properties on Evelyn Drive as well. Thus, he was going to support the ~yor's recommendation, provided that they could limit the units per acre with a closure of Cypress Street to eliminate any traffic impact. Mr. Garan, in answer to questions posed by Councilwoman Kaywood, pointed to the three pieces of property he owned in the area. Further, if he did own an interior lot, he felt the best use would be for building condominiums or units on it. He also felt that the installation of the cul-de-sac would be much better for a turn- around area, rather than blocking it off. The Mayor then asked if they were to approve Exhibit "A" but did not want the density to exceed 15 units to the acre, how that could be accomplished. City Attorney Hopkins stated this was merely a General Plan Amendment and there would have to be a condition specified that would prevent the excessive density. The Mayor then asked for confirmation that the Council could approve Exhibit "A", subject to a density not to exceed 15 units to the acre; the City Attorney stated he believed that could be worked out. Councilman Bay asked if the Council chose to deny the entire Amendment, could they then make it known some way that on a CUP or combining of lots for a development up to that density, could they still do so by a CUP even though they did not change the General Plan at all. Mr. Hopkins answered that the minutes of the meeting would reflect any comments that the Council may desire to express, and it could be requested that that be put in the minutes. Councilman Overholt stated, but for the proposed closure of Cypress Street which he felt was essential to the action going to be taken, he would support the Planning Commission's position, primarily because of the people's comments, i.e., the citizens in the area were concerned about higher density and how it would impact them. He had to consider the petition and the names contained therein. The closure was not raised at the Planning Commission hearing and one-half of the people who signed the petition lived on Evelyn Drive. If Cypress were closed, then one-half of the people on the list would not be impacted by the higher density on Coffman Street because nothing would pass through their neighborhood, and it would preserve Evelyn Drive forever. If the Planning Commission had considered the closure of Cypress Street, the 25 people who attended the hearing might have reacted differently than they did to the proposed change, and the Planning Commission might have taken a different tack. He felt it was a good solution to the problem. He was not that concerned about limiting density specifically, but it expressed the view of the Council as to how they felt development should occur. In finality, he was supportive of the resolution that apparently was going to be offered. Councilwoman Kaywood then asked for a show of hands of those who were present from the neighborhood; there were six people. Councilwoman Kas{wood then asked who would object to Exhibit "A" with a limit of 14 or 15 units to the acre, but with no other change; five were opposed. She then asked, if Cypress Street were to be closed and Exhibit "At' adopted which would allow condominiums up to the maximum of 14 or 15 to the acre, who 80-1462 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 12, 1980, 1:30 P.M. would be in opposition; no one indicated opposition. Councilwoman Kaywood continued that she was concerned over the fact that there were 25 people at the Planning Commission hearing but they were not present today; from the audience, it was indicated that some of the people were under the impression they would be sent another notice. It was also revealed that the subject of the barricade was broached at the Planning Commission hearing. It was the last discussion, and if it were barricaded, they would not mind, but they did not want a lot of apartments. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLA~ATION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council finds that this project would have no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact due to the approval of the negative declaration since no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the proposal and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 80R-502 for adoption, approving Gen- eral Plan Amendment No. 160, Exhibit "A", subject to all conditions and the following stipulations: that a cul-de-sac be created at the westerly boundary of Cypress Street; that the density not exceed 15 units to the acre. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-502: A RESOLUTION OF THE CI2~Y COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATED AS AMENDMENT NO. 160, EXHIBIT "A". Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked if they could receive a written report from Paul Singer prior to the closure; Shirley Meredith, Assis- tant Traffic Engineer, answered "yes" and that it would be recommended to initiate such a report and also to contact fire and police and to further advise the citizens. Councilman Bay stated he wanted to be certain he was very clear on one aspect. Working from the present dimensions, were they going to have to acquire property on the north and south side of Cypress in order to make the cul-de-sac turn- around on the end of Cypress2 Miss Meredith answered, if a full cul-de-sac, that would be correct, but the report would addres~ any alternatives. The Mayor asked with a 56-foot right-of-way, could they achieve within that 56 feet a modified cul-de-sac, if necessary, without using the power of eminent domain or acquiring additional right of way; Miss Meredith answered "yes" Mayor Seymour noted the amendment was a general plan and not something in concrete. Thus, to be overly concerned at this point with specifically how to insure that the germain point of prohibiting traffic for entering Evelyn Drive, those specifics could be worked out in a specific proposal. The intent was to insure that a barrier, in whatever form, would be installed. A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution. 80- C~.ty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 12, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour Bay None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-502 duly passed and adopted. 134: PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 161 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: To consider alternate proposals of ultimate land use of General Commercial for approximately 5.0 acres of land located on the west side of Rio Vista Street, approximately 270 feet south of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-175, recommended approval of General Plan Amendment No. 161, Exhibit "A", and further recommended that a negative declaration from the requirement to prepare an EIR be approved on the basis that there would be no significant individual or cumulative envi- ronmental impact due to the approval of the negative declaration. Mr. Jay Tashiro, Associate Planner, briefed the staff report to the Planning Commission dated October 6, 1980. The subject was a property-owner initiated General Plan Amendment to change the current Iow-density residential designa- tion to General Commercial. The property owner proposed to develop a commer- cial office complex which would be subdivided and sold as condominiums. Exhibits of both the current and proposed land use were posted on the Chamber wall to which Mr. Tashiro referred. The Mayor then opened the public hearing and asked to hear from those who wished to speak to the proposed General Plan Amendment. Mr. Kirk Evans, Sand Dollar Development, 16371 Beach Boulevard, Huntington Beach, stated he was present to answer any questions. They concurred with the staff report. Councilman Bay then posed a line of questioning to Mr. Evans. Mr. Evans indi- cated that they owned the property at present and their intent for development was for an office condominium and a dinner house in the area fronting on Lincoln Avenue, with the possibility of a very small savings and loan building. They already had an approved site plan. There was nothing over two stories anywhere on the projec~ and it was well within Code. They met with the homeowners in the area and they all agreed with the plan. Councilwoman Kaywood asked if they would be asking for a parking waiver with the restaurant. Mr. Evans answered, at this time he did not know and they did not have a par- ticular restaurant in mind. If ~hey needed the waiver, it would be based upon reciprocal parking easements because an office and restaurant would not be operating on the ssme hours. At the present tizne, they could fill the proposed restaurant without a parking waiver. There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public hearing. 80-1464 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 12, 1980, 1:30 P.M. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council finds that this project would have no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact due to the approval of the negative declaration since no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the proposal and is, therefore, exempt from the require- ment to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-503 for adoption, approving General Plan Amendment No. 161, Exhibit "A", as recommended by the Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-503: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN ~MENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATED AS AMENDMENT NO. 161, EXHIBIT "A". 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-503 duly passed and adopted. 155/123: ANAHEIM HILTON EIR NO. 238: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, consideration of Environmental Impact Report No. 238 was continued to November 18, 1980 to be considered in conjunction with the development and lease agreements for the Anaheim Hilton Hotel, as recommended in memorandum dated November 6, 1980 from Planning Director Ron Thompson. MOTION CARRIED. 123: TRAFFIC CONTROL SERVICE FOR MELODYLAND - AGREEMENT WITH BONAFIDE SECURITY SERVICES, INC.: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-504 for adoption, authorizing an agreement with Bonafide Security Service, Incorporated, to pro- vide traffic control service at the Melodyland premises adjacent to Freedman Way, as recommended in memorandum dated November 7, 1980 from the City Attorney. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-504: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT AUTHORIZING BONAFIDE SECURITY SERVICE, INCORPORATED, TO DIRECT TRAFFIC AT MELODYLAND PREMISES ADJACENT TO FREEDMAN WAY AND AUTHORIZING THE P~YOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL M~BERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-504 duly passed and adopted. 173: OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST OF YELLOW CAB COMPANY FOR JITNEY SERVICES IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM: City Attorney William Hopkins referred to the proposed draft of a letter dated November 10, 1980 to the Public Utilities Commission (PUC), City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 12, 1980, 1:30 P.M. along with a resolution of protest with respect to the application of Yellow Cab Company for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to operate automotive passenger service from the Disneyland area to the City of Orange. It would authorize the City Attorney to file the letter with the PUC if the Council so desired. Councilman Roth asked the basis of the protest. City Attorney Hopkins explained that the document that the Yellow Cab Company filed was filed with the City on October 6, 1980 (see letter dated September 30, 1980 from Yellow Cab Company attached to which was application to the PUC listing routes for the proposed shuttle service from the Disneyland area to the Crystal Cathedral in Garden Grove and the City Shopping Center--on file in the City Clerk's office). He was informed that the PUC also received the application on October 6; however, he was further informed by the San Francisco office of the PUC that they could submit the proposed letter in opposition for their consideration even though the 30-day period for doing so had elapsed. Councilman Overholt noted that Mr. Larry Slagle, Vice-President of Yellow Cab of Northern Orange County, was present and perhaps would like to speak to the matter. He (Overholt) understood the letter was going to go forward to the PUC even before the meeting and as a courtesy to him and with the City Attorney's knowledge, he advised Mr. Slagle something was going to happen. Mr. Larry Slagle, first explained that generally an item such as this would not come to the City unless it directly offset a comparable service from Point A to Point B. Part of the reason they filed an application was due to conversations they had with the Church (Reverend Schuller's Crystal Cathedral in Garden Grove) and because of the proximity to the City Shopping Center in Orange, they incor- porated that destination point as well. The Church, prior to its dedication, indicated they would have about 450 visitors a day. As an effort to provide some type of transportation, Yellow Cab suggested the item proposed (see cer- tificate of convenience and necessity referred to previously) be incorporated into a program called the City Shopper, but the Church's name would also be identified. Councilman Roth explained that he received a call recently indicating that the City Council should oppose the application because, in effect, they would be taking people from the Anaheim area to the City Shopping Center instead of to Anaheim to spend their dollars. Mr. Slagle stated since the Anaheim Plaza initiated their own effort and adver- tising campaign and since they were closer and had a better, faster route, he did not think there was going to be an impact and, in any event, they were substantially better off than they were prior to the initiation of the trans- portation and advertising program than in the past. Discussion and questioning then followed between Mr. Slagle and Council Members Kaywood, Overholt and Bay relative to his proposed route, ultimate destination, fees for services, etc., during which Councilman Bay noted the two proposed routes each made many stops in Anaheim with the final two stops being the Crystal Cathedral and the City Shopping Center. 80-~1~66 C±tZ HalZ, Anahe±m, Cal±forn±a - COUNCIL MIIq-UTES - November 12, 1980, 1:30 Councilman Roth asked for clarification relative to the protest; City Attorney Hopkins stated that the proposed letter of opposition was suggested by several Council Members and the draft was being presented for Council consideration. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she had a problem with Yellow Cab's proposal in that it would be steering people ou[ of Anaheim and the Anaheim Plaza Shopping Center to Orange. She would expect such a request to have been initiated from someone in the City Shopping Center. She recalled that Anaheim Plaza was in trouble until the jitney serv.ice started and if they were now going to acquaint people with another center with more stores not that much farther away, she felt they would be doing a disservice to Anaheim. Inasmuch as there was no problem with Yellow Cab's individual taxis going to the City, they were not depriving anybody of service. She would, therefore, have to oppose their application for the pro- posed service. Mr. Slagle explained it was more of an idea that if they did not do something now, they would have no involvement at all, whereas they might have a say at present. They were protecting what they felt was an operation no different from existing tour operators taking local people away from Disneyland to perhaps Universal Studio, Knott's Berry Farm or any place else. Councilwoman Kaywood asked if he would object to having the route go to the Crystal Cathedral without going to the City Shopping Center; Mr. Slagle in finality answered that they had to try to make the route as attractive as possible. Councilman Bay expressed one of his concerns was in the fact that he was not aware that jitney services, per se, merely because they crossed City lines, would not have to go through the City for approval. They only had to obtain PUC approval of the route, whereas those within the City had to obtain approval for routes, stops, change of routes, etc. He reiterated, he was quite surprised that merely because a line was crossed, a jitney service did not even have to come to the Council. Miss Monica Keppel, Plaza Transportation Company (Anaheim Plaza Express Shuttle), stated she was opposed to Yellow Cab's proposed service. Ail Plaza Transpor- tation did was take people to Anaheim Plaza and last year they transported between 35,000 to 40,000 visitors to the Plaza. They now had three vans and a mini-bus. It was almost a year ago that the Council approved the jitney permit to Mr. Slagle on a charge per person basis, and she had yet to see one of his vans. Mr. Slagle stated in his presentation that the main purpose of the application was to take people to the Crystal Cathedral. However, his brochures were already in the hotels and it was indicated in big, bold letters, the City Shopper, which included his schedule, within minutes of the Anaheim Plaza Transportation schedule. Also, about two or three months ago Mr. Slagle called her partner and offered to buy their business. It seems he did have the City Shopping Center in mind and that was why he got the vans in the first place. She maintained that Mr. Slagle was adversely affecting their business. Mayor Seymour stated, however, if what had been said by Mr. Slagle and Councilman Bay was true, a jitney service located in Orange could likewise come into Anaheim and pick up and take passengers back to Orange. He asked how they could help her in that respect. 80-i467 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 12, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Miss Keppel answered she did not know, but it seemed they should have to go through the City first. Mayor Seymour concurred. Furthermore, Plaza Transportation had done a super job and his first inclination would be to say "no," they did not want to see a new jitney service created to the Garden Grove Community Church and the City Shopping Center, but the same could happen in reverse. Miss Keppel explained that they would not go to Orange. They had also been approached by Fashion Square and the Cerritos Shopping Center. She reit that somehow they should be protected. Councilman Bay stated a letter to the PUC and a resolution were the only steps they could take, i.e., when the subject request was nade.to the PUC that the City take a position against them. They might also look into the possibility of initiating an ordinance within the City requiring City permission to set up jitney stops within the City. City Attorney Hopkins explained that they already had a jitney ordinance, but if service was going to be inter-city, the PUC jurisdiction preempted that ordin- ance. The procedure then would be, upon notification that there was going to be a new service, file a protest if the City did not desire to have that new service. Councilman Overholt then stated he felt the protest was in order. It put them on record as being concerned. He felt that the second to last paragraph in the letter dated November t0, 1980 (File No. 5990) from the City Attorney, was the most important--"The City of Anaheim desires to send a representative to attend any Public Hearings to be conducted on the above matter as an interested party." He also found it difficult to believe, where Anaheim had this very attractive target for business interests outside of Anaheim, that they were unable to exert some influence on the service to that target. He questioned if it were inter-city when, in fact, the service would make 20 stops in Anaheim and then jumped across the border to a church in Garden Grove. He felt there were a lot of questions involved. Thus, he was in favor of the resolution and the letter because it would give them the opportunity to be present to voice their concerns when required. Councilwoman Kay-wood felt such action would also put the PUC on notice should there be further requests coming from Orange and other cities. City Attorney Hopkins reported that there was a procedure now that required ali_ cities to be notified of such activity. Councilman Overholt thereuon offered Resolution No. 80R-505 for adoption in the spirit which he just stated. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-505: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM OPPOSING THE REQUEST OF YELLOW CAB COMPANY OF NORTHERN ORANGE COUNTY FOR JITNEY SERVICES IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Roth stated he felt there was just too much government regulation and everytime they turned around they got trapped again. He felt this was a typical example of today's maze of bureaucratic red tape between City government, the PUC and other agencies. 80- I:~68 City Hall, An.aheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 12, 1980, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Overholt stated that the resolution would give Anaheim representation at the PUC and that was the spirit in which he offered the resolution. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that nobody was being precluded from going to Reverend Schuller's church. According to Mr. Slagle's testimony, if four people used a cab, it was the same $4 as if they were taking a bus or jitney and if there were more members in their family, they were going cheaper in a cab than the $1 per person charge on a jitney. Mayor Seymour stated he concurred with the spirit of Councilman Roth's state- ment. He would like to see no regulation at all, but on the other hand, he had not heard from anybody that they were prepared to totally deregulate public transportation in the City. Each time someone came in and asked to provide additional service, they were opposed by the other purveyors. It was a complex situation, but otherwise they had to ask whether they were willing to deregulate entirely. He was, therefore, going 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, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour Roth None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-505 duly passed and adopted. MOTION: On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilwoman Kay-wood, the City Attorney was authorized to file a letter of protest with the Public Utilities Commission and to execute and file protest forms. Councilman Roth voted "no". MOTION CARRIED. 105: APPOINTEE TO THE PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION: Councilman Overholt moved to approve the appointment of Mr. Albert Peraza to the Park and Recreation Commission, representing the Anaheim City School District, to fill the unexpired Commission term of Jerry Wood, ending June 30, 1981, the effective date of appointment being December I, 1980, as recommended in letter dated October 30, 1980 from the Anaheim City School District. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 173: EXPANSION OF JITNEY SERVICE - PLAZA TRANSPORTATION COb~ANY: Councilman Seymour moved to grant the request submitted by Monica Keppel, Plaza Transpor- tation Company, for expansion of the route of the Anaheim Plaza Express to include stops at the Quality Inn, 616 West Convention Way, and the Conestoga Inn, 1240 South Walnut Street, as requested in a letter received October 20, 1980. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 173: APPLICATION FOR TAXICAB PERMIT - ORANGE COUNTY CAB COMPANY: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to continue consideration of the subject application for one week as requested by Mashar Fuad Said. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay asked if they received a reason for the requested delay; City Clerk Linda Roberts answered that none was given in the November 12, 1980 letter from the applicant. 80-1469 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 12, 1980, 1:30 P.M. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. 129: PUBLIC FIREWORKS DISPLAY PER>iIT: On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilman Roth, application for a Public Fireworks Display Permit submitted by Pyro Spectaculars, Inc., on behalf of Anaheim High School, to discharge fire- works on November 14, 1980, at 8:30 p.m., at Glover Stadium, was approved, as recommended by the Fire Marshal. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Council- woman Kaywood, 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: CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY: The claim submitted by Mrs. Velma C. Heidt for return of $10 paid to North Orange County Municipal Court for a parking citation, damages sustained purportedly as a result of no visible signing of the parking regulation, on or about September 19, 1980, was denied and referred to the City's Claims Administrator. 2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: a. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission--Minutes of October 15, 1980. 3. 108: ~MUSEMENT DEVICES PERMIT APPLICATION: In accordance with the recom- mendations of the Chief of Police, an Amusement Devices Permit was approved for Katella Car Wash, Inc., 350 West Katella Avenue, for one electronic amusement device machine. (William Donald Cole, applicant) MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 80R-506 through 80R-508, both inclusive, 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-506: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS A~N-D ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Robertshaw Controls Company; Glenroy Partners, et al.; Redwood Investment Associates II; Delcon Company) RESOLUTION NO. 80R-507: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 0¥ THE CITY OF ANAHEIM TERMINATING ALL PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH RECLASSIFICATION PROCEEDINGS NO. 76-77-37 AND DECLARING RESOLUTION NO. 77R-251 NULL AND VOID. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-508: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM TERMINATING ALL PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1691 AND DECLARING RESOLUTION NO. 77R-252 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-506 through 80R-508, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. 80-.i~70 C±t¥ Hall, A~ahe~m, Cal±for~±a - COUNCIL HINUTES - November ~2, 1980, 1:30 ?.M. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning Commission at their meeting held October 20, 1980, pertaining to the following applications, as listed on the Consent Calendar, were submitted for City Council information. 1. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 79-80-29 (READVERTISED) AND VARIANCE NO. 3174: Submitted by Gordon E. Sloan, for a change in zone from RS-7200 to RM-1200, to construct two one-family dwellings on property located at 1222 East Belmont Avenue, with a Code waiver of minimum lot area per dwelling unit. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-180 and 181, granted Reclassification No. 79-80-29 and Variance No. 3174, and granted a negative declaration status. 2. VARIANCE NO. 3173: Submitted by C. D. H. Corporation, to expand an existing motel on C-R zoned property located at 1016 West Katella Avenue, with a Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-184, granted Variance No. 3173, and granted a negative declaration status. 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2120: Submitted by Harry S. Rinker, to permit an automotive repair service on ML zoned property located at 5415 East La Palma Av enu e. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-182, granted Con- ditional Use Permit No. 2120, and granted a negative declaration status. 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2124: Submitted by Larry R. Smith, to permit a car wash on CL zoned property located on the north side of Ball Road, west of Knott Street. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-183, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2124, and granted a negative declaration status. 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 675 - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: Submitted by Orange County Water District, to permit the pr6duction and manufacture of mineral aggregates for building and road construction on proposed b~ property located on the east side of Richfield, south of the centerline of La Palma Avenue. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-185, terminated Conditional Use Permit No. 675. 6. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR LOW ~ND MODERATE COST HOUSING PROJECTS: Report relating to the possible adoption of Code Standards for construction of afford- able dwelling units. (INFORMATION ONLY) Councilman Bay asked if they did not discuss the matter now, when would they discuss it? Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, stated that she had reviewed the matter very rapidly with the Council previously in connection with some public hearings. The Planning Commission decided that they wanted to hold a work session in the future, perhaps sometime in January, following a survey of 80-1~71 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 12, 1980, 1:30 P.M. other cities, as well as Anaheim, of existing condominiums to determine the number of people living in units, the number of cars and to look at the parking stand- ards to see whether they should be reduced. The Commission did plan to hold a work session on the subject after some surveying in the area. They were hoping for Janaury, but she felt it would probably be early February. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she had a problem with that relative to the number of items that might be approved in the meantime. There might not even be a spot of land left by February. Councilman Bay asked if there were any light Council agendas in the next month; City Clerk Roberts answered, December 16th, since there were no public hearings scheduled that date as yet. Councilman Bay then stated that after reading the information, even if they did not have a work session until February, there should be some discussion of the subject by the Council whether with the Planning Commission or not. He felt the Planning Commission was again trying to ascertain Council Policy in those areas. He was of the opinion that the Council seemed to be split in their views on just how far they were going to go with the standards. He therefore suggested that they schedule the matter at least for discussion by the Council on December 16, 1980 and then follow it up with a workshop with the Planning Commission. Mayor Seymour stated he had no problem whatsoever in scheduling a work session to arrive at some standards. They had a work session a few months ago (see minutes September 2, 1980) but could not come up with any standards. They did arrive at a policy, that being to look at each project on a case-by-case basis. They all voted for that and thus he did not need a meeting on December 16th to review that policy, but rather a work session to discuss specific development standards, and he would go for that at any time. Merely to have a special meeting to discuss policy, as Councilwoman Kaywood stated, without any facts, would be of little benefit. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that one fact they did have in Anaheim was, wherever they had parking shortages, there were gigantic problems. Her concern was seeing _projects come in one after another, and they were coming in very fast, and they were all getting huge parking waivers. She did not want them to be approved with those waivers. After further discussion and debate between the Mayor and Councilwoman Kaywood, Councilman Bay requested, if possible, to set up a workshop with the Planning Commission sooner than February. He would appreciate staff trying to do so. The Mayor stated he would support a workshop as soon as possible. No action was taken on the foregoing items, therefore the actions of the City Planning Commission became final. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 80-81-12, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2115 (TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11256): Submitted by Edward A. and Cheryl L. Padilla, for a change in zone from PD-C to ~M-3000, to permit a one lot, 22-unit affordable condominium com- plex on property located at 115-129 West South Street, with certain Code waivers. 80- '1~,~ 72 Ci.~y Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 12, 1980, 1:30 P.M. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-178 and 179, granted Reclassification No. 80-81-12, Conditional Use Permit No. 2115 (Tentative Tract No. 11256), and granted a negative declaration status. Councilwoman Kaywood requested a review of the Planning Commission's action on the subject Reclassification and Conditional Use Permit. 142/179: ORDINANCE NO. 4187: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4187 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4187: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING NEW SECTION 18.86.050 TO CHAPTER 18.86, TITLE 18, OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (relating to Conditional Uses and Structures in the Public Recrea- tional Zone) 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. 4187 duly passed and adopted. 142/102: ORDINANCE NO. 4188: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 4188 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4188: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 8.22 TO TITLE 8 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ANIMALS. (relating to slaughtering and butchering of animals for food) 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. 4188 duly passed and adopted. 142/108: ORDINANCE NO. 4189: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4189 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4189: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING SECTION 3.04.220 AND ENACTING A NEW SECTION 3.04.220 IN ITS PLACE J~XYD STEAD PERTAINING TO ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS ON LICENSE COLLECTION. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL ME~BERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4189 duly passed and adopted. 80-1473 C_i. ty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 12, 1980, 1:30 P.M. ORDINANCE NO. 4190: Councilman Overholt offered Ordinance No. 4190 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4190: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ~MENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-41, RM-1200) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL M~MBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4190 duly passed and adopted. 142/108: ORDINANCE NO. 4191: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 4191 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 4191: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING NEW CHAPTER 3.78 TO TITLE 3 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIAPL CODE RELATING TO SWAP MEETS. (re- lating to definition and fees for swap meets) RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: Councilman Overholt moved to recess into Executive Session. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED~ (5:45 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: being present. Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members (6:00 ?.M.) ADJOURNbIENT: Councilman Seymour moved to adourn. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Adjourned: 6:00 P.M. LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK