Loading...
1979/10/2379 -1198 city Hall~ Anaheim,_California 2_COUNCIL MINUTES - October 23~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL M~MBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ACTING CITY MANAGER: James D. Ruth CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts FIRE CHIEF: James W~ Riley PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ronald L. Thompson HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR: Garry McRae FINANCE DIRECTOR: George P. Ferrone CITY ENGINEER: William G. Devitt TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer GOLF COURSE OPERATION MANAGER: Neal Beeson Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: Reverend Edward Machado, Melodyland Hotline Center, gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Ben Bay led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 119: RESOLUTION OF CONGRA%~LATIONS: A resolution of congratulations was adopted by the City Council to be presented to the citizens and officials of Mito, Japan, Anaheim's Sister City, on their 90th birthday as a municipality. MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of July 31, 1979, subject to typographical corrections. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Bay moved to waive the reading, in full, of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent to the waiver of reading is hereby given by all Council Memberm unless, after reading of the t~tle, specific request is made by a Council Member for the read- ing of such ordinance or resolution. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST ~lE CITY in the amount of $8,519,484.09, in accordance with the 1979-80 Budget, were approved. 158: ACQUISITION OF LOT 12 - SCHAFFER-OSWALD SUBDIVISION: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 79R-608 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated October 16, 1979 from Executive Director of Community Development Norm Priest, authorizing the acquisition of Lot 12 of the Schaffer-Oswald Subdivision, 1008 Patt Street, in the amount of $28,000 as part of an effort to acquire land in the Patt Street area to recycle for new construction. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-608: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT FOR THE ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. 79-1199 City Hall, Anaheim, California ~-. COUNCIL MINUTES - October 23~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: OYerholt~ Kaywood, Bay', Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolu~ [o~ ~o~ 79R~608 duly passed and adopted. 123: TRA~FIC SIGNAL CONSTRUC~IION - INTERSECTION OF SAb~a ANA CANYON ROAD AND AVENIDA MARGARITA: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 79R-609 for adoption, as recommended ~n memorandum dated October 17, 1979 from the City Engineer William Devitt, authoriz~.ng an agreement with Santa Anita Development Corporation for the construct,.on of traffic signals at the intersection cf Santa Aha Canyon Road and Avenida Margarita. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-609: A RESOLUTION OF 2~HE CI%~ COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND LAS TIENDAS DE YORBA, A LIMITED PARR~ERSHIP BY SANTA ANITA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, GENERAL PARTNER~ RELATING TO TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATION AND ~UTHOR--~ IZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ove~i~o]t, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-609 duly passed and adopted. 160: PURCHASE OF E(~UIPMEN~£ ~- ONE PARAMEDIC UNIT - BID NO. 3572: Councilman Roth expressed his concern that there was only one vendor that could bid on the paramedic unit. It seeme~ that t~he specifications were almost proprietary in nature and questioned if ~he Fire Department could modify those in order to re~e£ve comparative bids~ Fire Chief James R~lcy expiained that the other bidders could bid the specifi- cations, but chose not to do so, because they built a standard body design and if the7 wanted to go t~ some cha~nge In process, they could do so. He then explained that process and elaborated upon the special features of the paramedic unit. On motion by Councilman Bay~ seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the low bid of Ralin, Inc. was accepted and ~rchase authorized in the amount of $36,889.06, including tax, as recommended by the Purchasing Agent in hi~ memorandum dated October 16, 1979. MOTION(~ARRIED'~ ' . 123: MAINTENANCE OF GOLF CARTS AT ANAHEIM HILLS GOLF COURSE: Mayor Seymour asked if the proposed reso.lution had been reviewed by the Golf Course Commission; an answer could not be provided immediately and thus consideration of the resolu- tion was held until later in the meeting. 79-1200 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 23~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. Later in the meeting, Acting City Manager James Ruth stated that the matter was not presented to the Golf Course Commission because it was considered a main- tenance item and the Commission in the past had not concerned themselves with the maintenance of the Golf Course. It was important that action be taken today since the carts had already been purchased. The Mayor then asked if the amount of the contract was within the amount budgeted and, therefore, approved by the Golf Course Commission. Mr. Neal Beeson, Golf Course Operations Manager, stated that figure was included within their mechanical maintenance budget. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 79R-624 for adoption, awarding a contract to the low bidder in accordance with the recommendations of the Purchasing Agent in his memorandum dated October 16, 1979. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-624: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREMENT WITH POLARIS E-Z-GO IN CONNEC- TION WITH MAINTENANCE OF GOLF CARTS AT ANAHEIM HILLS GOLF COURSE, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. 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. 79R-624 duly passed and adopted. 107: AMENDMENT TO THE UNIFORM BUILDING OCD.E~ 1976 EDITION - SWIMMING POOl. CONSTRUCTION: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 79R-610 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated October 16, 1979 from Assistant Chief Building Inspector Walter Kirkhart, setting forth local conditions justifying an amend- ment to the Uniform Building Code, 1976 Edition, relating to swimming pool construction. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-610: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM SETTING FORTH LOCAL CONDITIONS JUSTIFYING AN AMENDMENT TO THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, 1976 EDITION. 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. 79R-610 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 4070: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4070 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 4070: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING NEW SECTION 15.04.303.010 TO CHAPTER 15.04 OF TITLE 15 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE BUILDING CODE. 79-1201 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 23L_1979, 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 79R-611 for adoption, as recommended in the subject memorandum, establishing a $250 cash deposit pursuant to the Code Section. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-611: A RESOLUTION OF THE CI2% COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ESTABLISHING A FEE PURSUANi TO SECTION 15.04.303.010 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPA'L CODE RELATING TO SWIMMING POOL CONSTRUCTION. 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~ 79R~-611 duly passed and adopted. 107: AMENDMENT TO THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE~ 1976 EDITION - GUARDRAIL SPACING REQUIREMENTS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 79R-612 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated October 16, 1979 from the Assistant Chief Building Inspector, setting forth local conditions justifying an amendment to Uniform Building Code, 1976 Edition relating to guardrail spacing requirements. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-612: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHIEM SETTING FORTH LOCAL CONDITIONS JUSTIFYING AN AMENDMENT TO THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, 1976 EDITION. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL M~MBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overho][~ Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour No~le N ~ ~ ~ e The Mayor declared Reselu~io~t No. 179R-612 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 40'71: C~un~.:~lman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4071 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 4071: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING SECTION 15.04.1716 TO CHAPTER 15.04 OF TITLE 15 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDING SECTION 1716 OF THE 1976 EDITION OF THE INTERNATIONAI. CONFERENCE OF BUILDING OFFICIALS' UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, VOIUME I~ 123: USE OF A PORTION OF iHE ANAHEIM STADIUM PARKING LOT BY PINATA FOODS, INC.: Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 79R-613 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated October 16,1979 from the General Manager, Stadium, Convention Center and Golf Coerse, authorizing an amendment to the permit agreement with Pinata Foods, Inc., for the use of 50 parking spaces on the Anaheim Stadium Parking Lot for a one-yea~ period, co~nencing April 11, 1979, at $500 per month° Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-6i3: A RESOLUTION OF THE CI%~' COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHIEM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AMENDMENT TO PERMIT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND PINATA FOODS, INC. AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT~ 79-1202 .City ,Hall~ ~ah.eim~ California -- COUNCIL MINUTES - October 23~ 1979, 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. 79R-613 duly passed and adopted. 123/150/174: ORANGE COUNTY REVENUE SHARING FUNDS~ CANYON SITE II: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 79R-614 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated October 17, 1979 from Deputy City Manager James Ruth. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-614: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CI2~f OF ANAHEIM AND THE COUNTY OF ORANGE RELATING TO CANYON SITE II PARK. ($50,000) 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. 79R-614 duly passed and adopted. 153: MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT RATE: On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilman Bay, the mileage reimbursement rates were adjusted by 1¢ per mile, effective November 1, 1979 (19¢ per mile up to I00 miles per trip and 16¢ for mileage over 100 miles per trip), as recommended in memorandum dated October 17, 1979 from Human Resources Director Garry McRae. MOTION CARRIED. 153: AMENDMENT TO PERSONNEL RULE 5 - FIRE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 79R-615 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated October 17, 1979 from the Human Resources Director, amending Resolution No. 75R-565 relating to Personnel Rule 5, hours of work and pay day, for Fire Department personnel, effective October 26, 1979. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-615: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 75R-565 PERSONNEL RULE 5, HOURS OF WORK AND PAY DAY. 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. 79R-615 duly passed and adopted. 153: EMPLOYEE GROUP MEDICAL PLANS - 1980 PROPOSED RATES: On motion by Council- man Roth, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the proposed rates for the various prepaid medical plans for 1980 were accepted, and the Human Resources Director was directed to prepare amendments to the agreements for presentation to the City Council by December 11, 1979, am recommended in memorandum dated October 17, 1979 from the Human Resources Director. MOTION CARRIED. 79-1203 city Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 23~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. 153: SALARY ADJUSTMENT FOR OUTSTATION PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM CLASS- IFICATIONS: Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 79R-616 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated October 16, 1979 from the Human Resources Director, establishing rates of compensation for outstationed ROP Clerk Public Service Employment Program classifications, effective July 1, 1979. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-616: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 76R-677 AND AMENDMENTS THERETO ~'~HICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR OUTSTATIONED PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYMENT CLASSIFICATIONS AND ADJUSTING RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR THE ROP CLERK. 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. 79R-616 duly passed and adopted. 174: NORTH ORANGE COUNtry REGIONAL OCCUPATIONAL PROGRAM: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 79R-617 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated October 16, 1979 from the Human Resources Director, renewing the non-financial agreement with the North Orange County Regional Occupational Program and the Orange County Manpower Commission effective October 1, 1979 through September 30 1980. Refer to Resolutin Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-617: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, THE ORANGE COUNTY ~NPOWER COMMISSION, AND THE NORTH ORANGE COUNTY REGIONAL OC- CUPATIONAL PROGRAM, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. i74: CETA GRANT AGREEMENTS: io~ncilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 79R-618 through 79R-620, both inclusive, for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated October 16, 1979 frc~ the Human Resources Department/CETA Services, author- izing the following Grant Agreements with the Orange County Manpower Commission, the first in the amount of $689,232 for administrative funding under Title I of C.E.T.A., $1,305,124 to provide funds for a PSE Program under Title II-D, and $1,315,013 to provide funds for a Public Service Employment Program under Title VI of C.E.T.A., all expiring September 30, 1980 Refer to Resolution Book. ' RESOLUTION NO. 79R-618: A RESOLUTION OF ~fHE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A SUBGRANT AGREEMENT WITH THE ORANGE COUN~ MANPOWER COMMISSION AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT AND MODIFICATIONS THERETO ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM (Subgrant Agreement No. H80110, DOL Grant #06-0032-05). RESOLUTION NO. 79R-619: A RESOLUTION OF THE CII~ COUNCIL OF THE CTIY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A SUBGRANT AGREEMENT WITH THE ORANGE COUNTY MANPOWER COMMISSION AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREE~4ENT AND MODIFICATIONS THERETO ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM (Subgrant Agreement No. H80124, DOL Grant #06-0032-21). 79-1204 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 23~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-620: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A SUBGRANT AGREEMENT WITH THE ORANGE COUNTY MANPOWER COMMISSION AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT AND MODIFICATIONS THERETO ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM (Subgrant Agreement No. H80161, DOL Grant #06-0032-27). Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Rotl and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-618 through 79R-620, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. 123: MANAGING CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION PROGRAM: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 79R-621 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated October 17, 1979 from Chief of Police George Tielsch, approving an agreement with Linda A. Gray in an amount not to exceed $39,200 for services in connection with the Police Department's Managing Criminal Investigation Program, terminating March 31 1981. Refer to Resolution Book. ' RESOLUTION NO. 79R-621: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH LINDA A. GRAY, AN INDIVIDUAL, AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. (Managing Criminal Investigation Program) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None ~e Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-621 duly passed and adopted. 150: SPRING SOFTBALL PROGRAM: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Bay, an appropriation of $8,400 in revenues and expenditures, and 1,300 part-time hours in Program 01-274 was authorized, as recommended in memor- andum dated October 17, 1979 from Deputy City Manager James Ruth, to conduct fourteen adult softball leagues in the Spring of 1980. MOTION CARRIED. 149: ORDINANCE NO. 4072 - RELATING TO CITY PARKING LOTS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4072 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 4072: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING NEW SECTION 14.32.178 TO CHAPTER 14.32, TITLE 14, OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PARKING. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 79R-622 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated October 16, 1979 from the Deputy City Manager and Executive Director of Community Development, designating portions of a certain off-street parking facility as permit parking only (south of Senior Citizens' Center and east of Village Center Apartments). Refer to Resolution Book. 79-1205 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 23~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-622: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DESIGNATING PORTIONS OF A CERTAIN OFF-STREET PARKING FACILITY AS PERMIT PARKING ONLY. 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. 79R-622 duly passed and adopted. 128: MONTHLY FINANCIAL STATEMENT - THREE MONTHS ENDING SEPTEMBER 30~ 1979: Finance Director, George Ferrone, clarified questions posed by Councilman Bay revolving around the percentage difference between revenue and expenditures, which difference was not the norm. Mr. Ferrone elaborataed upon the reasons for the difference and stated that in the future, when there were exceptions creating a delta larger than the norm, an explanation would be added as a post- script as requested by Councilman Bay. On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the Monthly Financial Statement for the 3-month period ending September 30, 1979, was ordered received and filed. MOTION CARRIED. 156: REIMBURSEMENT FOR EXTRAORDINARY COSTS UNDER SB583: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 79R-623 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated October 18, 1979 from the Chief of Police, authorizing the Police Department to submit a claim for reimbursement of expenses incurred pursuant to SB583 in an amount of $35,461. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-623: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE ANAHEIM POLICE DEPARTMENT TO SUBMIT A CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT TO THE STATE CONTROLLER FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT PROTECTION UNDER EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUM- STANCES FOR FISCAL YEAR 1978-79. 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. 79R-623 duly passed and adopted. 114: COUNCIL MEETINGS WEDNESDAY~ DECEMBER 26~ 1979 AND JANUARY 2~ 1980: Acting City Manager Ruth stated that it was necessary to determine the conser~sus of the Council on the subject meetings in order to resolve scheduling in terms of setting public hearings and awarding of public work improvement projects. M_0TION: Councilwoman Kaywood recalled that last year on items scheduled during the Christmas week meeting, Tuesday, December 26, 1978, everybody was asking for continuances. She, therefore, suggested that the December 26, 1979 meeting, a Wednesday, be cancelled, but that the Wednesday, January 2, 1980 meet- 79-1206 ~ty Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 23, 1979~ 1:30 P.M. lng, be held on that date. She thereupon moved to cancel the December 26, 1979 and to hold the January 2, 1980 meeting. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion for the purpose of discussion. Mayor Seymour stated that it was his feeling that a Council meeting should be held on December 26, 1979 since it was a working day for everyone; Councilman Roth was fearful that a cancellation would cause a very lengthy meeting the following week and suggested that the December 26, 1979 meeting be scheduled and if it was found that there were many requests for c~ntinuances, they could later decide whether or not to hold that meeting. Councilman Bay moved that the original motion by tabled for one week to allow time for Council consideration, with a vote to be taken at that time. Said motion died for lack of a second. Councilman Overholt, speaking to the original motion, stated that he agreed with the Mayor that everyone would be working on December 26, 1979 and January 2, 1980. He also felt it would be a greater burden on staff in preparing for the January 2, 1980 meeting if no meeting were held on December 26. A vote was then taken on the original motion and failed to carry by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt and Kaywood Bay, Roth and Seymour None By the foregoing vote, it was determined that a Council meeting would be held on both December 26, 1979 and January 2, 1980 as scheduled. 112: HUNTINGTON TILE~ INC. VS. COUNTY OF ORANGE~ CITY OF ANAHEIM~ ET AL: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the Orange County Counsel was authorized to defend the City in the matter of Huntington Tile, Inc. vs. County of Orange, City of Anaheim, et al relating to property taxes. MOTION CARRIED. 123: SCOREBOARD SPONSOR - TRIVISION PANEL TO BE CONSTRUCTED INSIDE ANAHEIM STADIUM: City Attorney William Hopkins briefed the Council on the proposed resolutions, authorizing Scoreboard Sponsor Agreements with both Anheuser-Busch and Coca-Cola Bottling Company. He also referred to memorandum dated October 20~ 1979 from his office (on file in the City Clek's office) listing the following corrections: the exclusive sales tax agent for advertising at Anaheim Stadium was American Information Corporation, rather than Anaheim Information Corporation; The Coca-Cola agreement was for a period of 10 years for the sum of $100,000 per year for the advertising rights at the Big "A" located at the Stadium parking lot for a total of $1,000,000, and $25,000 per year for one side (face) of the trivision panel on the inside Stadium scoreboard for 10 years for $250,000 maximum. The Anheuser-Busch, Inc. contract was for 10 years for one entire trivision panel (three faces) for the sum of $125,000 per year or a total of $1,250,000. The latter contract was subject to the approval of the California Alcoholic Beverage Control Board. 79-1207 City .~all~ An.aheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES -- October 23~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 79R-625 and 79R-626 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-625: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CI%'Y OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A SCOREBOARD SPONSOR AGREEMENT WITH ANHEUSER BUSCH, INC., IN CONNECTION WITH ADVERTISING OF PRODUCTS IN THE ANAHEIM STADIUM, AND AUTHORIZING THE M~YOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-626: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A SCOREBOARD SPONSOR AGREEMENT WITH THE COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY OF LOS ANGELES IN CONNECTION WITH ADVERTISING OUT- SIDE AND INSIDE THE ANAHEIM STADIUM, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENTs Before a vote was taken, ~yor Seymour pointed out relative to the scoreboard advertising, with the two present contracts and numbers of others in the work- ing, it would appear at this time that not only would they achieve the projec- tions that had been presented to the Council, but also the profit expected out of the scoreboard revenues Would exceed what they had anticipated. He congratu- lated staff and their involvement in helping to negotiate contracts. Councilwoman Kaywood asked, altho~gh she did not know whether or not it would do any goo, on the Anheuser-Busch contract and any others relating to alcohol and cigarettes, that the advertisers when preparing their ads bear in mind that there would be a great number of children inside the Stadium. A vote was then taken on the f¢~regoing resolution. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolut-Jon No. 79R-625 and 79R-626 duly passed and adopted. 108: PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Bay, application for a Public Dance Permit submitted by George Ulloa for a dance to be held October 27, 1979, 8:00 P.M. to 1:30 at Casa Manana Restaurant, 1204 South Harbor Boulevard was approved, along with the Chief of Police rec- ommendation that approval be subject to Chapter 3.28 and 4.16 of the Anaheim Municipal Code and that two officers be hired to police said dance. MOTION CARRIED. 114: SISTER CITIES FIRST ANNUAL ANAHEIM CAROUSEL OF MUSIC: Mayor Seymour referred to the Anaheim Sister Cities Committee budget closing report on the First Annual Anaheim Carouse] of Music Program held May I, 1979 at the Conven- tion Center dated October 23, 1979 (on file in the City Clerk's office), showing a remaining balance of $1,531~56, representing labor charges for City personnel, which amount exceeded previously approved allocations. 79-1208 City Hall., Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 23~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, payment of the remaining balance from the subject function was approved in the amount of $1,531.56, to be appropriated from the Council Contingency Fund. MOTION CARRIED. REQUEST FOR A REHEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 79-80-2 AND VARIANCE NO. 3097: Request by Mrs. Joan Todd relative to the subject Reclassification and Variance, to construct an 8-unit apartment complex on proposed RM-2400 zoned property located on the southeast corner of Savanna Street and Marian Way, granted September 18, 1979, Resolution Nos. 79R-528 and 529 wa~ submitted. Request for a rehearing was continued from October 16, 1979 (see minutes that date). Mrs. Joan Todd, 3620 Savanna, first presented a recent newspaper advertisement describing condominiums in the area, six of which were sold within a two-week period in the low to medium price range. The ad noted the many amenities which further attracted buyers, such as the project's close proximity to schools colleges, parks, etc. ' Councilman Roth noted that a week ago, the Mayor was going to contact the applicant and ask if he would yield to the wishes of the neighborhood to build condominiums instead of apartments. The Mayor stated that the applicant indicated that although he might con~ider some condominiums, they were not in his plans at the present time, and he wanted the approval to go ahead with apartments. Councilman Bay moved to grant the request for a rehearing on the subject Reclassification and Variance. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt expressed his concern that if a rehearing were held, if, in fact, something new and different would be offered, particularly in view of the applicant's stated position to the Mayor. Mrs. Todd answered the main thing the Council would hear was that the developer who was interested in purchasing property down the street, indicated he was not going to do anything with that property for two years (see Mrs. Todd's letter dated October 10, 1979, on file in the City Clerk's office). At that time, his intentions would be to build condominiums. They were offering a compromise in that if he required the approval of two stories, wherever they migh~ be on the property, they would be willing to yield on that point. She lived directly across the street and it was pointed out to her that it would still be 150 feet away from her property. She would much prefer condominiums to apartments, and she reiterated, if the Council required a variance to get closer to her property with two-stories, she would be willing to yield on that point. Mrs. Duke, who was also present, felt she did not make herself clear at the last meeting (September 18, 1979) as to how she felt about whether or not she wanted to sell her property or stay, and her testimony could have some bearing on the Council's decision again. Those basically were the things that would be different. She did not know if she would be willing to consider condo- miniums if the developer were allowed to build eight two-story condominiums as opposed to two 2-story apartments and six single-story apartments. They were saying that they were willing to go for a much more attractive offer for the developer if they could get him to change his mind and go for condominiums. 79-1209 City Ha.i!, Anaheim, California ~-- COUNCIL MINUTES - October 23~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Roth stated he was going to oppose the motion because the neighbors were saying it was okay t~ go to two stories ~f condominiums were built because they would be sold to ind'ividua] people~ whereas they did not want tenants in apartment houses, relegating them to second-class citizenship. A housing mix was vital and they needed an opportunity for people to have rental units, as well as for people to be able to buy. They were saying they would pern~it the developer or builder to sell with ownership in mind but not for rental purposes, and he disagreed, ,~o~d~.rtm§ the acute housing situation especially for younger people. Mrs. Todd stated she was not indicating what Councilman Roth had articulated. She had a single-family residence but did not have the property to be able to develop into apartments ~f apartme~ts were built across the street. Her husband, who had a Genera] Contractor's license, indicated if condominiums were built, property values would not seriously be deteriorated because they could also possibly redesign their ~house and put a second story on it and have a condominium which, the~efore~ would conform with a condominium project° However, with apartments across the street, it would not be a feasible idea and that was why she preferred condominiums° Councilwoman Kaywood stated ~.~he Council needed to recognize the fact that they did hold a hearing for a (iene~a] Plan Amendment for that particular street (Savanna) and the area, with the idea to reduce density for more ownership, rather than apartments, and she did not believe that was brought out at the last hearing. Councilman Overholt stated he stilt had not heard anything that would lead him to believe a rehearing would be any different from the last hearing and for that reason was going to oppose the motion~ It would not, however, preclude Mrs. Todd from talking to the developer. Mayor Seymour stated his conc~ern with the motion lay in the fact that in order to hold another hearing they wo~].d have to waive a Council Policy, stating that if there was going to be a request for ~'ehearing, that the request take place within one week of the public hearing. The reason for the policy was so that at some time the proponent (developer) and opponent would know that final action had been taken. He was concerned over setting a precedent in waiving that policy~ He, too, would like to see condominiums and wished it had been presented at the public hearing rather than the position that ~t be a one-~tory pro~ect and now tWo: Mrs. Todd stated that she did present that proposition at the last public hearing. Councilwoman Kaywood noted relative t~o the Mayor's comment over setting a precedent, that the item ti~e Council was going to hear at their night session was just such a case where they did not adhere to the policy. It was approximately one month later when a rehearing was requested and granted. The policy was waived at that time, as well as on other occasions. Mayor Seymour stated that i~e still had a concern and that perhaps they ought to consider changing the policy if the precedent had been set whereby time and time again they had granted a waiver~ He stated that he would vote against the motion because of his concerns as expressed. 79-1210 City .~all., Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 23~ 1979, 1:30 P.M. A vote was taken on the foregoing motion and failed to carry by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood and Bay Overholt, Roth and Seymour None 179: CODE VIOLATIONS - 1926 EAST CENTER STREET: Request by Mr. Jerry K. Prosek to address the Council relating to Code violations on p operty located at 1926 East Center Street, which was continued from October 2, 1979, was submitted. City Clerk Linda Roberts noted that a report had been submitted from the Zoning Division dated September 26, 1979 (on file in the City Clerk's office), subject: Prosek (landlord)/Shanahan (tenant) complaint - with attachments Exhibit A through P-2 covering the entire matter, the historical background and present status. Mr. Jerry Prosek, 4035 Gayle Street, San Diego, then addressed the Council and briefed them on the entire situation from inception (see his initial letter dated June 4, 1979 - on file in the City Clerk's office). Mr. Prosek's main complaint revolved around the issuance of building permits to his tenant at 1926 East Center Street, Mr. Shanahan, to permit improvements on the property to correct allegedly illegal installations for which he was cited by the Building Division without his (Prosek's) permission. He then relayed the difficulties he experienced in dealing with City employees and in concluding, asked that the Council give their attention to his complaint. At the conclusion of Mr. Prosek's extensive presentation, Coucnilman Bay stated after reading all of the material submitted on the subject, it seemed to him that the matter involved an owner/tenant dispute requiring legal action. He asked the City Attorney whether or not the Council should comment on the dispute~ City Attorney William Hopkins agreed that the matter was a landlord/tenant dispute and one for a civil court to handle. As indicated in the staff report, they had filed a criminal complaint against the tenant, Mr. Shanahan, for violations that were again found to exist without permits on the premises at 1926 East Center Street on June 28, 1979 by a building inspector and the Zoning Enforcement Officer~ The matter was set for a Jury trial on November 5, 1979. The other matter Mr. Prosek was referring to was a complaint against some City employees who made the investigations. Mayor Seymour stated he agreed with the tack Councilman Bay was using, but it seemed that any time a tenant or an agent of a property owner, someone other than the property owner, approached the City to pull a building permit, there should be some authorization to do so. The property owner should be able to control what happened on his property. When a tenant or contractor stated he represented the property owner and permits were to be issued, there should be some verification, written permission, or assurance of that fact. In this case, the Council had no other choice, at least at this point, other than to require the removal of the installations for which permits had not been issued because Mr. Prosek refused to give such permission. The Council could not force a property owner to take a permit against his will. Without permits, 79-1211 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 23~_..1979,~:30 P.M. the only course of action was as stated in the conclusion in the staff report of September 26, 1979, that the installations be removed. Someone had to deal with the property owner and that would be through civil litigation. Councilman Overholt stated that as much as Mr. Prosek would like the Council to assume jurisdiction, as the Mayor pointed out, the only jurisdiction they had was with reference to the issuance of building pe~.~its and without the land lord's permission, permits were not going to be issued. Councilman Roth expressed his concern over the n~mnber of City hours expended on what he considered strictly a civil matter and what the conflict was costing the taxpayers of the community. further action was taken by the Council. 173: REQUEST FOR EXPANSION OF TAXICAB PERMIT - LOZANO TAXICAB: Request 'by Mr. Manuel Lozano for an expansion of their taxicab permit to allow the operation of two vans in the Disneyland area during convention and peak periods, at $1 per person per destination, up to $4 maximum charge per trip per destination, which was continued from October 9, 1979, was submitted. Councilwoman Kaywood noted that the Council had received two letters that they did not have at the last hearing - one from Mr. Mike Valen, President of Fun Bus, dated October 19, 1979 and one from Mr. Larry Slagle, Yellow Cab Company, dated October 19, 1979. Mr. Manuel Lozano, Lozano Taxicab Service, 1432 East South Street, reiterated his appeal as articulated at the October 9, i979 meeting (see minutes that date). If he was not granted the expansion as requested, he would be put out of business, and he urged the Council to support his request. }~yor Seymour asked if there ~,as any difference between Mr. Lozano's application and that which was approved ilor Yellow Cab on August 28, ]979 (see minutes that date); City Attorney Hopkins explained that the request from Mr. Lozano appeared to be identical to the request of Yellow Cab. Mr~ Lozano stated that Yellow Cab had asked for four vans and he was asking for two. Councilman Overholt stated that the Mayor should be informed that the action which ended in a split vote at the October 9~ 1979 meeting when he (Seymour) was not present, was to grant the request; however, subject to the same con- ditions as imposed upon YeIlov~ Cab Company with respect to Anaheim Plaza, that is, that no taxi vans be operated to or from the Anaheim Plaza. Councilwoman Kaywood then posed a line of questioning to Mr. Lozano in which Mr. Lozano confirmed that his request was for two vans and that he was not saying that whatever Yellow Cab requested, he would want the same thing, but only something that if he did not have it as well would be detrimental to his business. ' 79-1212 City Hall~ Ana~e.i.~.~ California -~ COUNCIL MINUTES - October 23~. 1979~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Roth stated in reviewing Mr. Slagle's letter of October 19, it was indicated that Yellow Cab had not had an opportunity to put the van service into effect and thus, he was not yet in a position to know how well it would work. The concern seemed to be the investment involved without having a track record of the new service with the possibility of competition if the Council approved the request today. The indication was also given that he would ask for a delay in granting additional service until they could develop statistics relative to the new service. Mr. Slagle stated that was correct. Also, he could not afford to keep the max- imum number of taxicabs on Just for those peak periods of time. The more vans or companies allowed to operate that similar type service would, therefore, reduce the opportunities he would have to Justify that service. Mayor Seymour questioned how the Council in any position of equity could permit Yellow Cab to provide that additional service and deprive the other supposedly equal franchise of that opportunity. He contended that Mr. Slagle should have told the Council initially if they treated Lozano Taxicab Service equally, they were not going to be able to make it. If he had done so, he (Seymour) would have denied the initial Yellow Cab request. Mr. Slagle stated the only time they were talking about operating the special service was when there were no cabs available. They made an expenditure to put the vehicles on, but did not have any statistics to tell whether or not it would be economical. He did not feel that the times they were going to be operating that Lozano Taxicab Service would suffer. There was a need for such a service relative to how much of that peak period business was not able to be handled now by the taxicabs. %hat amount was limited and along with that, the amount of Mr. Lozano's business as he indicated was Spanish-speaking clientele which Yellow Cab could not impac~. He was saying that Yellow Cab had a much stronger position because of their size and the time they had been in business. If a person did not want to provide service to the balance of the community, they could make a go of it in the Disneyland area~ The Mayor asked staff if any letters of complaint had been received on Lozano Taxicab. City Clerk Roberts stated, to her knowledge "no", not from citizens or people using that service; City Attorney Hopkins stated that he had not received any complaints. Councilman Bay stated that the original section of the ordinance stated clearly that jitney service must operate over fixed routes. When the Council made the decision on the Yellow Cab business, they changed the whole intent of the Code and allowed jitney service to start within the City without fixed routes. He did not feel any different about the present application as he did the first. However, he did follow the Mayor's reasoning as to how one application could be turned down when the other was approved. He reiterated, he still did not approve of the first, and he would not approve the second because of the basic change in the Code. 79-1213 ~ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 23~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood stated when Mr. Lozano came to the Council, he indicated there was a need for servicing Spanish-speaking people, those residents of Anaheim who had concerns that they were not being given taxi service. There were also many Spanish-speaking people visiting from South America and other parts of the world where he could provide a valuable service that did not exist. That was her reason for feeling it could be a viable service. On the other hand, it was clearly brought out if he were to go just to the Disneyland area and draw off the "cream" without servicing the rest of the City, not only would it be hurting Yellow Cab directly, but also it would not be t'~a purpose intended. Mr. Lozano assured the Council that he was not interested in doing that. Ever since that time, however, he has complained about other taxi services, and he did not want anybody's competition. If Mr. Lozano had come in first with the idea of a van service to take care of convention business when there were mass groups of people involved and the Council approved that, and subsequently if Yellow Cab stated that since Lozano had instituted the service and now they wanted to do so, she would have said "no". It would have been Mr. Lozano's idea and she would have given him a maximum of six months to see if it proved successful which would give some opportunity to capitalize on the investment. Mayor Seymour stated there were two fallacies involved, (1) there was no way that any taxicab company in the City could make a profit by only servicing the calls in the far reaches of the City. The only way to run a taxicab service profitably and continue to service those outside calls, would be to make a profit in the commercial/recreational areas. If that was a fact and Mr. Lozano was going to be able to keep his promise to the Council to provide that service to those outlying districts, his profit base, the commercial/recreational area, could not be threatened. Mr. Lozano felt he would be threatened if Mr. Slagle's Yellow Cab Van Service took business away from his taxicab service; (2) it was bad enough that government had said that there were going to be only two cab services in the City without giving one an advantage which would cause the only other service to suffer. Councilwoman Kaywood recalled that the Mayor had previously said that in cities where cab service was not regulated to some degree, there was cut-throat business. The idea that they were in it at all was to give service to tourist and visitors to the area and the residents. Mr. Lozano had said that he would not be stationing himself in the Disneyland area and that was what he was doing now. Mayor Seymour interjected and stated that Mr. Lozano never said he was not going to station himself in the Disneyland area. In order to be able to service the residential areas of the City, he said he needed to operate in the commercial/recreational area. Councilwoman Kaywood did not agree and she remembered it differently. Mr. Lozano's service was for Spanish-speaking people and her memory was clear on that point. At the time, Fernando Galaviz was present and stated that the service was absolutely needed for Spanish-speaking people who had to go to the hospital or to the doctor's etc. and that was the number one reason; Mayor Seymour stated in order to be able to provide that number one reason, a profit was necessary and the only place to make that profit was in the commercial/ recreational area. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that was exactly what was not said at the time. 79-1214 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 23, 1979~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Overholt stated as long as the City had two taxicab companies, perhaps they learned a lesson not to discourage innovation. If there was innovation, they should be certain before one company was given the privilege of trying that service, that they had a full and complete hearing so that everybody would be informed and they could know at that time whether or not it would endanger the other company. It was his judgment that both companies in view of the growth of activity in the Convention Center area, if the van technique was feasible, they could make it on that. He would vote as he did the last time, out of a sense of fairness as long as there were two cab compan~s and secondly, he believed it would be economically feasible for both companies to perform t~hat service. Mr. Mike Valen, President of Fun Bus, first referred to and briefed the Council. cn his letter of October 19, 1979 (on file in the City Clerk's office), his main concern was in the area of separating a cab from a jitney. He never oppcsed Larry Slagle and they had cooperated with each other for the last 12 years. On the other hand, he had some dealings with Mr. Lozano and, contrary to what Mr. Lozano was saying, that his main intent was to help minorities and the residents, which no one could deny in his original intent, quite quickly it became obvious that his real intent was to take people out of and around the Disneyland area, particularly to Knott's Berry Farm, which was Fun Bus Tours' main source of income. They had been able to keep their price per person to 35¢ in the Disneyland area in their 12 years of business because of the increased volume of passengers. There was a tremendous need for cab service in the City and it was a particular kind of business. Now, however, they were asking for 15 passenger vans and they only needed four passengers at $1 per person. He questioned why they needed 15-passenger vans, which would become 15-passenger buses. They could move a large number of people in that case, and he believed that was the intent although Mr. Slagle said that was not the intent° It should also be noted that the 35¢ fair per person was charged for the service they provided in servicing the Convention Center on a regularly scheduled basis every time there was a convention. In concluding, Mr. Valen reiterated the main question was whether or not they were going to start licensing a n~nber of 15-passenger vans to be in the bus business. He had no intention of going into the cab business and he would appreciate that they had no intention of being in the bus business, but he did not think that was the case. The Council ought to weigh the situation in view of the jitney ordinance and the fact that he did not believe there was a saturation point for cabs in Anaheim. If they had money to spend, he suggested that they spend it on cab service. A discussion followed between Mayor Seymour and Mr. Slagle relative to the fare structure to be used which, in some circumstances, was found to be competitive with the fare charged by Fun Bus. At the conclusion of further Council discussion, Councilman Overholt stated in essence what they had been discussing was how the expansion of taxicab service was impacting a jitney service, but at no time had they approved the jitney service as between Lozano and Yellow Cab; City Attorney Hopkins confirmed that was correct, since a Jitney service had to operate over a fixed route. 79-1215 City Hall~ An.a~.e.im, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 23, 1979~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Slagle then explained for Councilwoman Kaywood that the vans had been in service for approximately five shifts at this point and therefore they did not have much statistical information, nor had there been major conventions in town since the institution of that service. Councilwoman Kaywood then asked both Mr. Slagle and Lozano if it was possible that they would be coming in to raise their rates because of the large investment involved; Mr. Slagle answered, "no"; Mr. Lozano stated that he could not answer the question at this time, but would do so at the appro.~riate time. Mayor Seymour stated there was no way Mr. Lozano could give an answer to that question; Councilwoman Kaywood stated that was her point. If it was not possible to know in advance, how was it possible to say without the service it would put him out of business. Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. Valen if he was opposing Yellow Cab's use of the vans at this point; Mr. Valen answered "no", but he clarified that he was opposed to Mr. Lozano's request, as qualified in his letter, based on previous problems he had with him. Councilman Overholt stated that it was also based on an understanding he (Valen) had with Mr. Slagle when he came before the Council previously. Mr. Valen explained that Mr. Slagle indicated what his intent was, and he also indicated his route would be Euclid Avenue as far as the area he wanted to service. He (Valen) thought about it and although he had mixed feelings, recognized the need in the area. Although Fun Bus did their best, there was still a need for the type of service Yellow Cab was going to provide. He had no objection under Mr. Slagle's original intent, but he expressed his concern over subsequent expan- sion of that service which would be detrimental to his service. Councilman Overholt stated as far as he was personally concerned, when they received further requests by any taxicab companies or jitney companies, he was going to request that the Council insist that all operators receive notice of the consideration. He felt they were involved in a situation where two operators worked things out between themselves, and the Council was not aware of the situation. They were now being asked to do something that was unfair to the other operator. Councilman Roth commented that the City Clerk advised all parties when such matters came before the Council; City Clerk Roberts stated that there was a Code provision mandating notification of any other taxicab service and in all cases, Yellow Cab Company, OCTD, Lozano Taxicab Service and Fun Bus were notified. Councilman Overholt then stated if anybody approached the Council on such matters, he was going to ask them if they had first made any private deals with anybody because he believed that to be the problem in this case. It was not fair for Mr. Valen to have had a private deal with Mr. Slagle and then to come in and oppose Mr. Lozano. Mr. Valen said there was no private deal involved. 79-1216 C~ty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 23~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council finds that this project would have no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 79R-627, approving the request for expansion of the Lozano Taxicab permit to allow the operation of two vans in the Disneyland area during conventions and peak periods at $1 per person per destination up to $4 maximum charge per trip per destip tion. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-627: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING A SPECIAL RATE CHARGE FOR TAXIVANS FOR THE LOZANO CAB SERVICE. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated that if a request was received to raise the fares, she would deny the request and be unhappy about it because it would not be providing a service to the residents. Councilman Roth stated that that had nothing to do with what they were considering today, but it would become the subject of a separate agenda item. Councilwoman Kaywood stated it was to put someone on notice that if the intent was to provide better and more service and then a rate increase followed, that would be the opposite of the intent. A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Roth and Seymour Kaywood and Bay None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-627 duly passed and adopted. 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.) 176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 78-30A: In accordance with application filed by Mr. Bill Asawa, public hearing was held on proposed abandonment of the City's slope easement over a portion of the southwest corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Fairmont Boulevard, pursuant to Resolution No. 79R-572 duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notice thereof posted in accordance with law. Report of the City Engineer dated September 10, 1979 and a recommendation by the Planning Commission were submitted, recommending approval subject to the following condition: That the property owner connect the existing City's irrigation line to his system, and pay costs for the City to cut and cap the line from the City's irrigation system/or that a bond in an amount and form satisfactory to the City shall be posted with the City to guarantee the installation and/or reimbursement of costs of the above-mentioned requirements. 79-1217 City Hal.%.~..An.a.beim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 23~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. 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 Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Bay, 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. Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 79R-628 for adoption, approving Abandonment No. 78-30A. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-628: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ORDERING THE VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF A CERTAIN PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENT. (78-30A) 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. 79R-628 duly passed and adopted. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2021 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Appli- cation by Elden W. Bainbridge, to permit a wholesale and retail appliance facility on ML zoned property located at 1006-1016 Tustin Avenue. City Clerk Roberts reported that a request for continuance to October 30, 1979, 3:00 P.M., had been received° She also explained for Councilman Bay that the request for continuance was received at 11:55 a.m. today. Councilman Bay stated that the Council should possibly start considering a deadline for continuances except in emergency cases, perhaps Friday Noon, prior to the Council meeting. Mayor Seymour stated if it were a public hearing where large numbers of people were involved, that could be considered, but he would not prefer to set a policy on continuances. On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, consideration of the subject application was continued to October 30, 1979 at 3:00 P.M. MOTION CARRIED. PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 3110: Application by Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America, to construct a free-standing sign on ML zoned property located at 2411 West La Palma Avenue, with Code waivers of minimum distance of flashing sign to residential structures, maximum height of flashing sign, maximum area of free-standing sign, maximum height of sign within 750 feet of residential structures. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-179, reported that the Planning Director or his authorized representative has determined that the proposed project falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 5, of the 79-1218 City..Ba. ll, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Oc. tober .2.3~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. City of Anaheim Environmental Impact Report guidelines and is, therefore, categor- ically exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR, and further granted Variance No. 3110 subject to the following conditions: 1. That street lighting facilities along Gilbert Street shall be installed as required by the Office of Utilities General Manager, and in accordance with specifications on file in the Office of Utilities General Manager; and/or that a bond, certificate of deposit, letter of credit, or cash, in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim shall be posted with the City to guarantee the installation of the above-mentioned requirements prior to final inspection of the proposed sign. 2. That the owner(s) of subject property shall submit a letter requesting the termination of Variance No. 1942 to the Planning Department. 3. 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, 4. That Condition Nos. 1 and 2, 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. 5. That Condition No. 3, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections. A review of the planning Commissions decision was requested by Councilman Bay at the October 2, 1979 meeting and public hearing scheduled this date. Miss Santalahti described the location and surrounding land uses. She outlined the findings given in the staff report which was submitted to and considered by the City Planning Commission. Mr. William Barker, Electrical Products Corporation, 1100 North Main Street, Los Angeles, stated that they designed the display. There was an objection at the Planning Commission meeting from a resident who lived across the freeway. They went to the neighborhood and spoke with her and also surveyed the general area. The only part of the sign that would be visible from the homes was the very end and, therefore, they would not see any flashing. The basic purpose of the sign and the electronic portion of it, was an employment opportunity sign for Cai-Comp. They needed in excess of 100 qualified people. A problem they had advertising in the newspaper revolved around the fact that there were many electronic organizations advertising for qualified people. They felt that with the sign, they could lure people passing through Anaheim that might be interested. Their hardship was related to the advertising for help needed at Cai-Comp. Mr. Barker then answered a line of questioning posed by Councilmen.Bay as follows: Relative to the wattage used in the sign, the normal sign lamps on the top portion that read, Cai-Comp, were 800 milliamps at the present time. They were going to use only 430, the reason being that the Cal-Comp logo contained a large white background with black letters. The 800's were so bright in the back that they would engulf the copy and by using 430's, it would tone down the whole background thereby making it more readable. The lamps in the electronic message center were 25-watt lamps on a reostat. They would automatically turn brighter in the day and at night would be automatically toned down. There were approximately 800 lamps per side and the average that would be lit at the same 79-1219 City Hall.~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 23~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. time, 35% of the lamps on each side. Approval had been granted by Caltrans although they did not have anything in writing at the present time. They had all the papers, but had not paid the fees, awaiting approval of the variance. Mr. Barker then confirmed for Councilman Bay statements that were made at the Planning Commission meeting of September 10, 1979 (continued from August 27, 1979 - see Planning Commission minutes those dates). Mr. Barker then explained for Councilwoman Kaywood that the message on the sign would be on for three seconds and off for one second and that Caltrans did not allow the message to "chase" across the board. It was directed to drivers on the freeway, but the sign would not be focusing directly at them. There was no intent to direct the message to anyone else but the drivers. Councilwoman Kaywood expressed her concern at anything being beamed at the freeway that would distract the driver; Mr. Barker explained that information signs or time and temperature signs were allowed anywhere in the United States by the Federal Beautification Act. He then explained for Councilman Bay the main reason that they determined that the residents would not be able to see the sign was due to the fact that the majority of the residents, in order to cut freeway noise, had very thick trees in their yards, and it was almost impossible to see through the trees to even see the freeway. The one resident did not have any trees in her yard, but the neighbor's trees and everything else engulfed it, blocking any view. As well, they had heard from Caltrans that they were going to put 10-foot high wall fences all along the freeway as a buffer in the resi- dential areas to cut down the noise. It was the ultimate goal of the Transpor- tation Department. Mr. Jim Turner, Cal-Comp representative, 9427 E1 Pueblo, Fountain Valley, then explained for Councilman Bay that Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America was basically a financing company and that they were financing the property sold to Cal-Comp approximately 10 years prior. That was the reason they were listed as the applicant, but he did not know if they were a non-profit organization. Councilman Bay stated the reason he asked was if they were non-profit, under the stipulation of advertising for non-profit, he did not know how far advertising on the sign would be limited just by saying it was a non-profit organization. Mr. Barker stated that their position with Cal-Comp was virtually nil other than they were the vehicle by which Cal-Comp was financing the property. The likelihood of Teachers Annuity being involved very much longer was very slim. Cal-Comp had the option to purchase the property and buildings in May of next year, and they were presently in the process of possibly going through a merger with a company called Sanders who had purchased 35% of their stock. Teachers had nothing to do with the request; it was a Cal-Comp request. There being no further persons who wished to speak either in favor or in opposition, the Mayor closed the public hearing. 79-1220 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 23~ 1979, 1:30 P.M. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the City Council ratified the determination of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the :definition of Section 3.01, 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. Councilman Roth offered a resolution to approve Variance No. 3110; Mayor Seymour interjected and suggested that since Councilman Bay reo'~ested the public hearing, he should have the first opportunity to move on the matter. Councilman Roth deferred to Councilman Bay. Councilman Bay then referred to and read applicable Code sections of the outdoor advertising signs and billboards ordinance which he felt were incorporated for good reasons, and he was not in favor of reducing clear intent and purpose of the Code. He also personally reviewed yesterday's Anaheim Bulletin, The Register and the morning Los Angeles Times and failed to find one ad for help wanted at Cai-Comp. If there was a need, he questioned why there was no advertising. He then stated his main point of opposition lay in the fact that he considered flashing and information signs of the type proposed to be a safety hazard to motorists on the freeway. He was opposed on that count, as well as the fact that once it was installed and when all the leaves fell off the trees in the residential neighborhood across the freeway, complaints would start coming in on the Mayor's hotline. He also could not see the reason for the-sign since he was not convinced there was hardship involved. Mr. Turner then explained for Councilman Bay the reason he did not find any help wanted ads was because all of their advertising was done on Saturday and Sunday, and they did not advertise heavily during the week because the response had not been good. They usually advertised in the Times and The Register. Mayor Seymour stated he could not support what Councilman Bay was contending. Relative to a traffic hazard, Caltrans had given their approval. Regarding the sign itself and the number of bulbs, if they were that concerned about the sign, he questioned why they had not become concerned with the flashing signs on the recently moved Big "A" scoreboard to lure customers into the Stadium., or the "chasing" signs at the Convention Center with messages running all night long. Perhaps they should shut their signs down as an example. He reiterated he was strongly opposed to Councilman Bay's position. They had received testimony that the face of the sign would not be observed by the residents, between the sign and the houses were four different sets of railroad tracks, the Santa Aha Freeway, and the trees. In their packets they had a letter from the homeowner living closest to the sign who was supporting it. He did not find any basis to support Councilman Bay's position and would, therefore, support the Planning Commission's position. Councilman Overholt he was going to support Councilman Bay. In reading the action of the Planning Commission, they found that the requested Variance Was necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property owners in the same vicinity and zone and denied to the property in question. He did not understand that. The only benefit 79-1221 City Hall~ ~n~heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 23~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. of the sign was going to be to Cal-Comp by having their big logo displayed and by giving them another avenue to seek employees, although there would be benefit to anyone who would become an employee. He questioned rather than having 300 feet, why they had to have only 225 feet from the residential properties. In disagreeing with the Mayor, he wanted to know why they could not comply with the ordinance. Mr. Barker explained that the Harvey Hubbell sign (formerly U.S. Motors) in close proximity to the subject property, exceeded the height ~imitations and fell within 250 feet. He also explained why the sign could not be smaller if it was placed closer to the freeway. The only way they could bring it within the ordinance and eliminate the need for a variance would be to place it behind the building where it would not be seen. It was not an electronic sign and it would be virtually impossible for the residents to see it since they would have to be out at the freeway level to do so. Councilman Bay was quoting the billboard ordinance and theirs was not a billboard, but an on-premise sign and there was a great difference between the two ordinances. City Attorney Hopkins then quoted from the applicable Code section relative to billboards (18.05); Mr. Barker stated it was the same basic ordinance but different sections. Planning Director Ron Thompson, stated that the item before the Council was specifically an onsite premise sign in an industrial area, and it did fall under the definition of a flashing sign. Mr. Barker further clarified that the reason for the height of the sign was due to the railroad tracks and trains in the area which had a blocking effect. The biggest reason, however, was the fact that the trees on the property were approx- imately 18 to 20 feet high and rather than top off all those trees, they felt their sign proposal was a more logical approach. Councilman Roth noted that the Council authorized a subsidy to the Anaheim Economic Development Corporation (AEDC) to woo industry, Jobs and people to Anaheim. Now they were thwarting the attempts and making it impossible for companies such as Cal-Comp to recruit people, an area where the AEDC should be assisting. He also felt that there should be representation present defending the action. Councilman Overholt stated he was not after Cal-Comp but his question was whether or not they would permit what, in essence, was an eyesore that was going to interfere with the residential neighborhood across from Cai-Comp. If so, his inclination was to have them operate within the Code and he felt with imagination they could do so. If it was felt that there was no aura of light ~hat was going to permeate into the homes across the freeway, that would alleviate one of his fears and also one of Councilman Bay's fears. Mayor Seymour stated if he sensed that the residential neighborhood was being intruded upon, he would support any action that would prohibit the sign, and he was certain the Planning Commission would am well. He did not have that fear, no one opposed the sign, and the resident living nearest the sign was in support. He then reiterated all of the things that intervened between the sign and the residences as well as the Caltrans approval. 79-1222 City .Hall,_ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 23~ .1979.~ 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood was of the opinion if the subject request was granted, there would be many more requests received. She felt anything with a flashing sign would be geared for motorists on the freeway and not for anybody else. It was a distraction and would create an additional hazard on the freeway. There were 50,000 lives a year lost in motor vehicle accidents and many more injuries and thus, she was going to oppose the request. Mr. Barker reminded the Council that the Santa Monica Freeway had signs exactly the same as that being proposed, but located right in the middle of the freeway and those were going to be expanded. They were one of the biggest life savers and prevented accidents. He then presented renderings of the sign as it would be constructed and installed which were viewed and discussed by the Council. Mr. Barker also clarified further questions posed by Councilman Overholt relative to the' technicalities of the sign as compared to the Harvey Hubbell sign. Councilman Bay offered a resolution denying Variance No. 3110, reversing the findings of the City Planning Commission, on the basis that there had been no proof of hardship. Before a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour stated tha% 100 employment opportunities was a hardship as he viewed it; Councilman Roth stated he could not support the denial; Councilwoman Kaywood reiterated her concerns previously articulated. Councilman Overholt stated, in view of the additional clarification given by Mr. Barker, he was going to change his mind and oppose the negative resolution. After viewing the drawings and pictures, he felt the only offensive part of the sign was the readerboard and if there was no impulsing, he would take back everything he said about creating an aura of light that would be damaging to the residential community. He felt that Councilman Bay's concerns were valid, and he was correct in expressing those concerns. A vote was taken on the resolution denying Variance No. 3110 and failed to carry by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood and Bay NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Roth and Seymour Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 79R-629 for adoption, granting Variance No. 3110 in accordance with the City Planning Commission recommendations. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-629: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 3110. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Roth and Seymour Kaywood and Bay None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-629 duly passed and adopted. 79-1223 City Ha.l.1, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 23~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood suggested that when the sign was installed and potential employees applied to Cal-Comp that they ask how many applied because of the sign. 108: REQUEST FOR WAIVER AND REFUND OF TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX PENALTY: Request by Henry J. Kelly for a waiver and refund of the penalty paid on his July 1979 transient occupancy tax. City Clerk Linda Roberts stated that Mr. Kelly was prescnt, but had to leave the meeting. However, he had nothing further to add to his letter of September 27, 1979 (on file in the City Clerk's office). Mayor Seymour asked if anyone was present to speak on Mr. Kelly's behalf; no one was present. On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the subject request for waiver and refund of the penalty paid on the July 1979 transient occupancy tax by Mr. Kelly of Sixpence Inns of America, Inc., was denied. MOTION CARRIED. ~67: .REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL ASSESSMENT FEES: Request by Sparks Ptttman and Sparks for a refund in the amount of $1440, representing traffic signal assessment fees paid in connection with property located at 710 South Anaheim Boulevard, was submitted. City Engineer William Devitt explained that they were recommending a complete refund of the $1440 fee since Mr. Sparks based his request for reimbursement due to his relocation from the Project Alpha area. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, a traffic signal assessment refund in the amount of $1440 to Sparks Pittman and Sparks in con- nection with property located at 710 South Anaheim Boulevard was approved, as recommended in memorandum dated October 11, 1979 from the City Engineer. MOTION CARRIED. 170: TRACT NO. 9749 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Request by Pacific Coast Builders, Inc., for an extension of time to Tentative Tract No. 9749, to establish a 57-1ot subdivision on RS-H$-IO,000 zoned property located on the east side of Imperial Highway, south of Nohl Ranch Road, was submitted. On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the subject request for an extension of time to Tentative Tract No. 9749 was approved, to expire November 10, 1980, as recommended by the Zoning Division. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda: 1. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and referred to the City's Claims Administrator or allowed: 79-1224 _ccitff Hal.!, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 23~_.!979~ 1:30 P.M.~ a. Claim submitted by Francisco Cunanan for damages purportedly sustained as a result of accident at La Palma Avenue and East Street, involving City vehicle, on or about August 15, 1979. b. Claim submitted by Debbie Noecker for damages purportedly sustained as a result of accident on escalator at Anaheim Stadium, on or about October 5, 1979~ c. Claim submitted by Interi~surance Exchange of the Automobile Club of Southern California, for Darrell R~ and Fran K. Cottrel, for dam.ges purportedly sustained as a result of an acciden~ involving a City vehicle, on or about August 13, 1979~ d. Claim submitted by Stephen L. Lord for damages purportedly sumtained as a result of actions by A~aheim Police at the Fountain Bleau Nursing Home, 3415 West Ball Road, on or about June 27, 1979. e. Claim submitted by Bruce H. Berger for damages purportedly sustained as a result of confiscation of claimant's property (newsracks on City sidewalks at 605 South Brookhurst, 2110 South Harbor, Lincoln Avenue at Santa Aha Freeway, 1673 West Ball Road, 927 South Euclid, 2500 West Lincoln Avenue, 400 North Anaheim Boulevard, and 1845 West Katella), on or about August 28, 1979. f. Claim submitted by J. H. Bond for damages purportedly sustained as a result of business time lost caused by problem with electrical input to shop, on or about September 14, i979. g. Claim submitted by James Robert Maraldo for loss of clothing purportedly sustained as a result of actions by Anaheim Police/Jailer, on or about September 5, 1979. h. Claim submitted by l~y R. Brockett for vehicular damages purportedly sustained as a result of vandalism ar Anahe~ Stadium parking lot, on or about August 17, 1979~ i. Claim submitted by The National Association for Senior Citizens for damages purportedly sustained as ~ result of actions by City Council in adopting an ordinance curtailing bingo operations to one day per week, effective November 1 1979, on or about October ~!~ ]979. The following claim w~s allowed: j. Claim submitted by Cynthia Lynn Mitchell for' vehicle damages purportedly sustained as a result of accident involving a City vehicle, on or about August 1979. CORRESPONDENCE: %~e following correspondence was ordered received and filed: a. 105: b. 105: c. 105: d. 156: Community Center Authority - Minutes of October 1, 1979. Community Redevelopment Commission - Minutes of October 3, 1979. Community Services Board - Minutes of September 13, 1979. Police Department -~ Monthly Report for September 1979. 79-1225 ci_ty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 23~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. e. 175: Public Utilities Department, Customer Service Division - Monthly Report for September 1979. 3. 108: APPLICATION - PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT: Application for a public dance to be held October 27, 1979, 8:30 p.m. to 1:00 a.m., at the Anaheim Convention Center, was approved in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Police; Chu Ba Le, Vietnamese Dance Club, applicant. MOTION CARRIED. 170: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10800: Birch Ridge Estates, to establish a 46-1ot, 44-unit condominium subdivision on RM-3000 zoned property located on the north- west and southeast side of Silverspur Trial, east of Covered Wagon Trail. The City Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract No. 10800 and certified EIR No. 197- Addendum No. 1. At the request of Councilwoman Kaywood, subject tentative tract was removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Bay, consideration of the subject tentative tract was continued one week so that it could be heard in conjunction with Reclassification No. 79-80-13, Variance No. 3115 and EIR No. 197. MOTION CARRIED. 170: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10807: Pacific Terrace Apartments, to establish a 348-1ot, 347-unit mobilehome park subdivision on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located at 5815 East La Palma Avenue. The City Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract No. 10807 and granted a negative declaration. At the request of Councilman Bay, the subject item was removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilman Overholt, consideration of the subject tentative tract was continued one week so that it could be heard in conjunction with Variance No. 3119. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 79R-630 through 79R-632, 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. 79R-630: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (R. G. Garland Corp.; Sears, Roebuck & Co.; Anaheim Business Center) 103: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-631: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM OF THE TERRITORY KNOWN AND DESIGNATED AS LAKEVIEW-ORANGETHORPE NO. 4 ANNEXATION. (7.5346 acres, unin- habited) 79-1226 Ci~ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 23~ 1979, 1:30 P.M. 113: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-632: A RESOLUTION Of' THE CI%~f COUNCIL OF THE CI'l~f OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN CITY RECORDS, DOCUMENTS, INSTRU- MENTS, BOOKS AND PAPERS MORE IIA~N TWO YEARS OLD. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt:, Ka)~wood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 79R~630 through 79R-632 both inclusive duly passed and adopted° ' ' 142/170: ORDINANCE NO~ 4©64:: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4064 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4064: A~ ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING SECTION 17.08~095 TO CHAPTER 17.08 OF TITLE 17 OF THE ~AHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SUBDIVISIONS° (establishing public hear~ng requirement for tentative tract maps and parcel maps) 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, 4064 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 4065: Counc[Iman Overholt offered Ordinance No. 4065 for adoption,, Refer to Ordinance ORDINANCE NO. 4065: ~ OR0t.~ANCE OF I~{E CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TII%E 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODf RELATING TO ZONING. (71-72-4(2), CL) Roll Call Vote: AY tis: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBER~ COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None No D e The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4065 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 4066: CouncJiman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4066 for adoption~ Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4066: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (72-73-51(38) RS-HS-22,000, Tract No. 9594) ' 79-1227 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 23~ 1979~ 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 Ordinance No. 4066 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 4067: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance wo. 4067 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4067: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-34, RS-7200, Tract No. 10155) 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. 4067 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 4068: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4068 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4068: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-64(1), 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. 4068 duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 4069: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4069 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4069: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-64(2), CG, Bauer Ranch Regional Shopping Center) 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. 4069 duly passed and adopted. 79-1228 City Hall,... Ana.heim~._California .- COUNCIL MINUTES - October 23~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M~._ ORDINANCE NO. 4073 THROUGH 4075~ Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 4073 through 4075, both inclusive, for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 4073: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CI%% OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (66-67-61(80), CR) ORDINANCE NO. 4074: AM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (66-67-61(94), CR) ORDINANCE NO. 4075: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEI'~ AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (79-80-4, RM-3000) 131: TRASH ON FREEWAY: Councilman Roth stated that he had received many com- plaints including one from the top executive of Disneyland relative to the trash on the freeway sections going through Anaheim, particularly Interstate 5~ He suggested that the Council consider sending a letter to Caltrans asking them to expedite cleanup along those sections. RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: Councilman Bay moved to recess into Executive Session. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (5:25 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (5:48 P.M.) RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed to 7:00 P.M. (5:48 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (7:00 P.M.) REHEARING - CONDITIONAl USE PERMIT NO. i996 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application by Nola T. and Noel F. l~tch, to expand an existing preschool in RS-A-43,000 zoned property located at 2510 West Orange Avenue, was submitted. 'Ihe City Planning Commission~ pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-142, declared that the subject project be exempt from the requirement to prepare an Environmental Impact Report pursuant ~o the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act since there would be no significant individual or cumulative adverse Environ- mental impact due to this project, and further granted Conditional Use Permit No. 1996 subject to six conditions as indicated in their resolution and is outlined at the August 21, 1979 meeting (see minutes that date). A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Mayor Seymour at the meeting of August 7, 1979 and public hearing scheduled August 21, 1979. At that time a negative declaration status was granted on the project, but the Conditional Use Permit was denied (79R-488)o A rehearing was requested and granted on September I8, 1979 and public hearing scheduled this date. Mr. Ron Thompson Planning Director indicated that staff had nothing further to add, but would be happy to review the Commission's action. The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant in view of their request for a rehearing. 79-1229 City Hall, Anaheim.,. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 23~ 1979, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Noel Hatch, 2510 West Orange Avenue, first referred to and presented a map of the area showing in green adjacent property owners who signed in favor of the preschool expansion (made a part of the record). Mr. Hatch passed the map to the Council for their perusal, although each Council Member had received a copy at the time of the request for the rehearing. Mrs. Nola Hatch, 2510 West Orange Avenue, noted that several people who pre- viously spoke in opposition lived on the north side of Hampton and Beryl, and they could easily exit away from their home going east of Beryl out Baker. Mr. Hatch stated that relative to the trees and parking, it was their under- standing that the Planning Department was requiring four additional parking spaces which they had no objection to providing. Some of the people on Hampton and one Council Member were opposed to the removal of the trees (see minutes August 21, 1979). He assumed the City would continue to require the parking, and they would be more than pleased to plant additional trees in front of their preschool, as well as some form of acceptable foliage adjacent to the parking lot, separating themselves from the apartments to the east. The foliage in front of the house when observed from a distance would give the appearance that the trees were still there even though parking was added. He did not see that there would be any objectionable vision problem on the park of the neighbors. If the request for expansion was granted, he and his family were moving and thus two additional parking spaces would be provided in the parking lot, giving addi- tional parking without adding any new spaces. With four additional spaces, a total of six would be created that presently did not exist. This would more than double the accessibility for additional parking over what presently existed in view of the amount of the expansion. It seemed if the neighbors were fearful of people backing into the street or the like, they would favor the expansion because it would create additional parking on the property. Councilman Roth asked, relative to the trees, if Mr. Hatch was still saying they would replace any trees that would have to be removed, with like size trees, in order to increase parking. In other words, if he had ko remove three trees, would he be willing to replace those with trees of comparable size. Mr. Hatch answered "yes" although it might be difficult to replace them with comparable size trees. They would have to destroy a great deal of shrubbery in order to go deep enough and it might also endanger the sewer line, but they would make a reasonable approach to replace the trees. After an observation evaluation by the City's Landscaping Division, they would be willing to comply with whatever they thought advisable. Mrs. Hatch pointed out that there were actually 12 trees in the front of the property at present. They would still have 9 trees and would plant more in addition so that there would still be a great deal of foliage in the front. Mayor Seymour noted on the parking plan that 9 spaces were denoted, Mr. Hatch talked about 6, but he (Seymour) thought there were 6 spaces to begin with. If so, they would then have 12. Mr. Hatch stated that parking that was available was located across the frontage of the existing parking lot irrespective of what the City had delineated which amounted to approximately 6 or 7; Mrs. Hatch stated that 7 could park easily on site in one row in front of the fence. 79-1230 city. Hal.l~ Anah.e.im.~..California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 23~ 1979, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Roth asked, in the event they were able to get the additional 18 students, what the total amount of teachers on the property would then be at any one time. Mrs. Hatch stated there would be an increase of one and one-half teachers and .: the total amount of teachers at any one time at present was 7. Councilman Roth clarified then that the increase in teachers would be 9 at any one time, there was an adequate amount of parking for 7 cars, the City was requiring 4 additional spaces, and only 2 were being utilized. Mrs. Hatch answered that was correct and the only other employees besides the teachers were the cook and a director who substituted as a teacher periodically so that there would be 8 people under some circumstances. The Mayor asked to hear from those in support of the requested expansion. Mrs. Carol Preimesberger, Director, California Preschool, stated she had been at the school for 9 years and during that time the quality had increased 100%. They had a waiting list since February and it disturbed her that they had to turn children away. There were many people in the Chamber audience who had their children in the preschool, as well as children of those in opposition. She then explained for Councilman Roth that she was at the school off and on during the day, and she had never received any complaints from the neighbors that the children were noisy or unruly in the 9 years she had been there. Councilman Bay asked in the 9 years Ms. Preimesberger had been at the school and currently, how much management direction she received from the Hatches and when the Hatches moved where would the management direction be coming from. Ms. Preimesberger explained that the Hatches were always her supervisors and gave her the guidance she needed. She was still learning, but they had allowed her to gain experience and run the school primarily on her own. She believed she was at the point where she had experienced everything relative to the management of the school and she felt confident in that role and would have no hesitation in taking over. She confirmed for Councilman Bay that was the plan. Councilman Bay asked if the Hatches contemplated selling the school; they answered ~lno;~, Mayor Seymour stated that since she was the Director, she undoubtedly was respon- sible for supervising teachers and employees, as well as being responsible to instruct them as to where they should park. He asked if she could recall how many times she received a complaint relative to parking in her 9 years at the school. Ms. Preimesbergerstated she had never received one complaint, the first time such complaints were received was at the previous public hearing. The main reason the personnel did not park in the lot was to alleviate any problems relative to the parents' use of the lot. They preferred to park away from the lot and even since they were instructed to park in the lot, many felt uncom- fortable doing so and still parked on side streets or did not bring their cars. 79-1231 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 23~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. She also again confirmed for the Mayor that since July, other than the public hearing, she had not received any complaints relative to parking, and she had been instructing personnel to park on the school property. Mr. Jim Liptac, 511 South Baker, four houses north of Orange Avenue, directly across from the school, stated in the 16 years he had lived there he never noticed any problems arising from the presence of the school being in operation. Also, when the apartments were built in the area, they had more accidents there than in the last 10 years when the property was free. Judy Casado, 2472 Teresa, Baker and Teresa, corroborated what Mr. Liptac had just stated. As long as she had lived there, she had never experienced any problems from the preschool, but since the apartments had been built approximately 2½ years ago, they had experienced a great deal of problems relative to parking and trash. Residents and those visiting the apartments parked on Orange and Baker. She was in support of the Hatches' request for expansion. Mr. Willard Clark, owner of the first property west of the school, stated he was going to take a neutral stand on the issue because he had friends on Hampton as well. He could look directly out onto Hampton and at the beginning of the hearings, there were cars parked there. Since the first hearing, he did not believe there had been that many cars parked on Hampton. The Hatches' children were now attending the University of Utah and they had cars. If the neighbors were honest, they would have to agree that the parking problem had stopped. He would not have purchased his property if he was in opposition to the preschool, and he had been there for 8~ years. The preschool had not bothered him and he was the closest property owner and he felt that the Hatches had tried. As well, the Planning Commission conditions would alleviate some of the parking problems. He had cars parked in front of his house, but could not say if they were from the preschool or not. He was mainly interested in seeing to it that the block wall was constructed on the west property line which was stipulated to at the August 21, 1979 hearing (see minutes that date). Mr. Jack Passerello, 2474 West Orange, two blocks east of the preschool stated that he owned and operated a small nursery there, the Bluebell Nursery, and had been there for 16 or 17 years. The Hatches had been their neighbors all during that time and it was very hard to find a neighbor that you could call a friend. He did not believe they had given anyone any problem at all--they were an exceptionally wonderful family and the preschool was run the way they would run their family. Relative to the trees, in his business he grew trees. The two large locust trees located on the Hatch property were at least 80 feet tall and dominated the yard. Those trees alone would complete the landscape and any other plans would almost be superfluous. He explained for the benefit of those people who were worried about cutting down the trees, that they were minor trees in comparison to the major locust trees and to replace the trees in question could easily be done with a variety of other plants. It was not possible to see the house or the building from up the street. No landscaper would have ever planted those front three trees because they were Just a hindrance to the landscape, and he would not have planted them. 79-1232 City Ha~!, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 23.~ 1979~ !:30 P.M. The parking lot at the preschool was not used as a parking lot. There were only a few cars and it was almost never full except when there wac an open house. In those instances, the Hatches had been gracious enough to ask him and other neighbors if they could park on their property or in front of their homes. Other times it was used for a drop-off and pick-up by mothers. The real problem of parking on the street was not the Hatches' property, but the apartments ~mmediately to the east. The original plans for those apartments called for 12 spaces for that complex with 12 below parking spaces. However, when the apartments were finally built, those parking l^ts were eliminated, and they were now landscaped. There was no off-street parking available for more than one car, so all the people in those 12 units with 2 cars had to park in the street, plus any visitors. Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. Passerello if he planted large trees and also if the trees were removed and the area were to be concreted for parking, would that harm the roots of the tall locust trees. Mr. Passerello stated he was an average nurseryman, but he knew that the three or four smaller trees should not have been planted where they were now located. They should not be replaced with trees, but with other landscape type bushy plants such as hibiscus which would provide a better screening than the present "Charlie Brown" type trees. Relative to endangering the locust trees, they had plenty of room to spread into the lawn and there was at least 12 feet to the cement and therefore would cause no problem to those trees. He reiterated that the replacement should not be made with trees, but other land- scape type bushy plants that would fill in the lower portion. Valerie Lundy, 2517 West Avenue, Fullerton, stated that she was a teacher at the preschool and she used to park on Hampton or Orange. She referred to the vacant lot on the corner of Hampton and Orange where a couple of boats and trailers were now parked and where they could park if they wanted to. As soon as the Hatches were aware of the parking problems, they asked the teachers to park in the school lot. Subsequently she parked in the lot as well as most of the teachers except a couple who felt guilty in so doing and instead parked in front of the school. The Mayor then asked to hear from those in opposition to the expansion of the preschool. Mrs. Sophie Vanderwoude, 517 South Hampton, stated it seemed to her the main issue was not so much the trees and the parking, but the 40% increase in traffic the expansion would bring to Orange Avenue. They already had as much traffic as they could bear. The residents on Hampton Street had children and they, too, were interested in safety and the safety of their children in the schools in the area. The expansion would bring a great deal of additional traffic to a residential area. They were a residential area and wished to keep it that way. They must have rights as well, where they could keep their residential homes residential and protect them from the encroachment of business establishments. Regarding the trees and parking, the trees served a very important purpose - they provided a sound barrier relative to the 30, 40 or 50 children out in the play- ground and also helped make the area look more like residential and less commer- cial. Eliminating the trees Would commercialize the area a bit more and in 79-1233 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 23~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. order to eliminate the trees to provide additional parking, they would have to cement over the lawn. Hampton Street would then be faced with a supermarket type parking lot with paving all over and the trees removed. Relative to parking in the apartments, she lived on Hampton Street for 12~ years and since the day she moved in, the people from the nursery school had parked on Hampton, long before the apartment houses were built. They had not complained to the school directly, but had spoken to the people who owned the cars which were parked in front of their houses all of the time. However, it did not make any difference. The parking problem, although a nuisance, was not the hazard. The expansion would involve over 40% more parents dropping off their children in the morning and picking them up in the evening - that constituted a hazard. The area was strictly residential and adding that many more cars was a danger to them and their children. There had been accidents there and many fender benders. They were therefore opposed to the expansion. Councilman Roth stated that he contacted the City Traffic Engineer who provided him with an official report dated October 23, 1979 which, amongst other things, reported that the average daily traffic (ADT) on Orange was 8,060, and a~ Level A would have a free flow of traffic with 11,500 vehicles a day. A com- fortable flow of traffic would be 12,100 cars a day or an increase of approx- imately 4,000 over the present ADT. Therefore, an additional 18 children with parents dropping them off would not substantiate what Mrs. Vanderwoude was stating because that minor increase would not cause a traffic problem. Mrs. Vanderwoude stated that the hazard was not in the constant flow of traffic or the volume, but in the additional traffic going into the preschool driveway with mothers hurriedly picking up their children and backing out. Since the last hearing, there had been some improvement in the parking situation. The cars had moved off Hampton and onto Orange. Some of them were in the parking lot or in front of the school. They had changed their position from one street to another, and whereas there were 7, 8 or 9 cars previously parked on Hampton, there were now 2 or 3. Relative to the boats parked at the corner, if someone on Hampton was parking his boat there and was not supposed to be doing so, that constituted a police or traffic matter and should be properly handled by the proper law enforcement agency. Mrs. Setsuko Mori, 417 South Hampton, contended that they were getting confused with many issues not relevant to the hearing. They were not looking to close down the school, as they had accepted it for 14 years. The only objection was relative to the added traffic and parents, and she did not feel that four additional parking spaces would alleviate the problem. They did not complain because none of them felt it was a big problem and she personally felt such schools were necessary. They were also not complaining about the quality of the school or the Hatches as neighbors. The situation relative to the residents on Baker and Teresa was not relevant because they were not directly involved, since they were not located near the corner in question. She also stated that one of the residents who signed as indicated in green on the map previously submitted, was not of voting age, and he did not know what he was signing. Regarding Mr. Clark's statement, there was nothing dishonest in what they were doing. They were residents of the area concerned over the value of their pro- perty with the commercial use in their neighborhood. That and the traffic were their main concerns. 79-1234 City..Hall~. Anaheim,. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 23~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Ernest Labor, resident of Beryl Avenue, questioned if the Traffic Engineer had actually monitored the peak load traffic in the morning and the evening at the subject intersection and not Just the average load. The driveway at the preschool was not made for moving cars to very easily enter and exit, since it was not a circular driveway and during the rainy season, it presented a danger to the children and the people in the local area. To him, the key issue was whether or not the peak traffic could be handled safely and not the noise and the trees. He also explained for the Mayor that he had lived there for 15 years and although he was not aware of any accidents on or ir front of the sub, eot property, the potential was there. Discussion then followed between the Mayor, Traffic Engineer Paul Singer, Mr. Labor and Councilmen Bay and Overholt in which Mr. Singer clarified questions relative to peak hour traffic on Orange, level of service, maximum design capacity etc., and data that was obtained from an annual study of traffic figures of all arterial streets, which included Orange Avenue. In summation, Mr. Hatch stated there was mention made that there was no circular drive when, in fact, they did have an in and out circular drive. Before the houses were built on Hampton, they were operating their preschool and at that time, they did not complain about those, nor the increased traffic or problems that would be created. Mrs. Hatch stated that if they expanded to 18 more children, their attendance would be spread out over a period of three hours, with a maximum of six cars per hour. There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public hearing. Mayor Seymour stated he felt they had received new and different information. If additional parking was provided by the removal of four trees and replacement of the trees made as stipulated, and if the Director of the school responsible for its management enforced employees parking on the property or in front of it, he could no longer oppose the expansion since he could find no other reason to object. He was therefore supportive of the expansion. During the testimony they were provided with information they did not have before, and that was relative to the apartment houses. If they were to go out to the site and find that the parking had not been provided as alleged by Mr. Passerello, they would have to talk to the property owner to see that he provided appropriate parking in accordance with his plans. Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 79R-633 for adoption, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 1996, reinstating the City Planning Commission findings; additional parking to be provided as required; removal and replacement of the four trees in question, with review by Planning staff of the landscaping plans to insure parking area properly buffered; and the School Director to enforce employees parking on or in front of the property. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 79R-633: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1996. 79-1235 City Hal.l,. Anaheim~..Ca!i.f.o..r.ni.a' ~ COUNCIL MINUTES - October 23, 1979, 1:30 P.M. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Roth asked that the stipulation relative to the block wall be included; Mayor Seymour agreed, but noted that it was a require- ment of the Planning Commission. Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the Mayor would include a one- or two-year review period as well. Councilman Bay suggested one year; the Mayor thereupon included the requirement that the permit be reviewed in one year. Councilman Overholt questioned whether the Hatches agreed to a one-year review due to the investment that would be involved. Mr. Hatch stated that the costs were not going to be negligible any longer, but aside from that, they had no reason to think that Ms. Preimesberger and the employees would not cooperate. They did not anticipate any problems, but did want to have a time limit as they did not want Ms. Preimesberger or anyone else being under the threat of any of the neighbors. They did not intend to do any- thing different but there should be a time limit in having to police the help constantly. He had no feelings one way or the other relative to a one- or two- year review. Mayor Seymour confirmed that it would be a one-year review, and it would be his intention at the end of that year, if there were no problems relative to the operation, there would be no need for an additional review. Councilwoman Kaywood stated as long as there was a one-year review, she would support the expansion. She had visited the area on Sunday amd traveled down Hampton Street and Beryl Avenue and noted the car-to-car parking. Since the preschool was closed on Sunday, it was not impacting the parking at all and the cars could be from the apartment dwellers and others in the area. If ~he use was bothering the neighbors in any way, there would be a one-year review and they could lose their permit. Mr. Thompson asked if it was the Council's intent to have the Planning Commission review the use at the end of the one-year period or if the Council wished to make the review. Mayor Seymour stated that the Council would make the review and the Planning staff would review the landscaping plans to be'sure that the use was properly buffered. A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution amended to include: block wall to be installed on the west property line previously articulated, and Council review in one year. 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. 79R-633 duly passed and adopted. 79-1236 _City Hallz_..Anaheiig~..~(i~[i~?~ni~ ~ COUNCIL MINU]]fS --- October ~ 197_9~ ] :30 ADJOURNMENT: CouncJ]w(~ma~:~ ii~/~;,i>od moved to the motion. MOTION CARRItTD. Adjourned: 8: 32 P. ~',~ Councilman Overholt seco~)cled