Loading...
1986/09/09City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 9~ 1986, 10:00 A.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, 0verholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth (Councilman Overholt entered at 10:15 a.m.) COUNCIL MEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl CODE ENFORCEMENT SUPERVISOR: John Poole ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti SGT. TRAINING BUREAU: Randall Brydges Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: Reverend Mike Landreth, Canyon Hills United Presbyterian Church, gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Mayor Don Roth led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. MINUTES: Approval of the minutes was deferred to the next regular meeting. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda, after reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to waiver is hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such ordinances or resolutions in regular order. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of 32,831,737.02, in accordance with the 1986-87 Budget, were approved. Councilman Overholt entered the Council Chamber. (10:15 a.m.) CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Pickler, seconded by Councllwoman Kaywood, the following items were approved in accordance with the reports, certifications and reeommandat~on~ furnished ~aeh Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Councilman Pickler offered Resolution Nos. 86R-396 through 86R-399, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. 1. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as recommended: Claims rejected and referred to Risk Management: 755 City Mm11, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 9, 1986, 10:00 A.M. a. Claim submitted by Mohammmd Javadzadeh and Bita Javadzadeh by and through Guardian Ad Litem Mohammad Javadzadeh for wrongful deaths of Fatemeh and Behnaz Javadzadeh sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about April 12, 1986. b. Claim submitted by St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about June 15, 1986. c. Claim submitted by Balboa Ins. Group for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about June 4, 1986. d. Claim submitted by Mrs. Adolph Ercoli for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about July 23, 1986. e. Claim submitted by Canyon Terrace Homeowners Association, Inc. for indemnity for a lawsuit sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about April 24, 1986. f. Claim submitted by 20th Century Insurance Company for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about June 30, 1986. g. Claim submitted by Mickey Billings for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about July 11, 1986. h. Claim submitted by Marie Watkins for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about June 12, 1986. 2. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to Truck Hydraulics Equipment Company, in an amount not to exceed $50,000 for overhaul of three aerial manlifts and two digger derricks, in accordance with Bid No. 4359. 3. 160: Accepting the low bid of Neff Contracting Corporation in the amount of $44,969 for residential sidewalk replacement, in accordance with Bid No. 4362. 4. 160: Accepting the bid of Coast Roof Company, Inc., in the amount of $36,139 for replacement of the roof at the Haskett Library, in accordance with Bid No. 4363. 5. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-396: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDINGAND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE ANDNECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC WORK. (La Palma Avenue Street Improvement, Magnolia Avenue to 666 feet west of Magnolia Avenue, Account Nos. 15-793-6325-E3180 and 51-484-6993-00710; and opening of bids on October 2, 1986, 2:00 p.m.) 6. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-397: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR CERTAIN PUBLIC WORK. (SULLY-MILLER CONTRACTING COMPANY). (Sully-Miller Contracting Company, in the amount of $502,214.10, for State College Boulevard, Ball Road to Orangewood Avenue, Account No. 15-793-6325-E3060) 756 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 9, 1986~ 10:00 A.M. 7. 104: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-398: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINAT3~ ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION OF A CERTAIN PUBLIC WORK. (CONSTRUCTION OF STREET LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 1985-1) (Accepting the completion of construction of Street Lighting Assessment District 1985-1 Street Lighting System, Account No. 24-676-6329-04615, Baxter-Griffin Company, Inc., contractor, and authorizing filing of the Notice of Completion therefor) 8. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-399: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A CERTAIN DEED CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY OR INTERESTS THEREIN. Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 86R-396 through 86R-399: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth None None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 86R-396 through 86R-399, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. End of Consent Calendar. MOTION CARRIED. 000/102: COUNTY OF ORANGE -ANIMAL CONTROL FEES: Submitted was report dated August 29, 1986 from the Chief of Police Jimmie Kennedy, recommending the adoption of certain fees to be charged to citizens by the County of Orange pertaining to animal control. Councilman Bay wanted to know if the proposed fees by the County were new or in addition to current fees since the packet information did not contain that data. He was not overly impressed with the County's animal control services in the City. Even though there is no effect on the City budget, he could not vote to support an increase in fees because it will mean an increase in those fees to Anaheim citizens. City Manager, William Talley, stated that a report could be provided to the Council next week. In order to provide services to the cities, the County requires that cities adopt the County fees which are collected and retained by the County. The City had the option of not providing animal control services or providing it through another means such as establishin~ a bureaucracy to do so within the City or to contract with someone else to do the work. The fees involve a late penalty fee on dog license renewal, a fee for bringing animals to the County Control Facility and for quartering quarantining of animals on the owner's premises. It was determined that the matter be trailed until later in the meeting to provide Councilman Bay with answers to his questions (10:18 a.m.). Later in the meeting (1:50 p.m.), SEt. Randy Brydges of the Anaheim Police Department, reported that relative to Section A, the late fee for dog license renewal is an enhancement of $5.00 on existing law. As of July 1, 1986 it became 310.00. Relative to Items B & C (see report of August 29, 1986) those are both new fees to cover operating costs only. 757 Cit~ Mall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 9~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 86R-400 for adoption, adopting certain fees to be charged to citizens by the County of Orange pertaining to animal control, as recommended in memorandum dated August 29, 1986 from the Chief of Police. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 86R-400: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING CERTAIN FEES TO BE CHARGED BY THE COUNTY OF ORANGE PERTAINING TO ANIMAL CONTROL. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay stated since it will now cost 35.00 to bring an animal(s) down to the County, there will be fewer animals taken there similar to the effect that dumping fees had when the County established fees for dumping in landfills. He also wanted to know if the County was going to look at the impact of instituting such fees. Sgt. Brydges answered yes. Animal Control must respond back to the Board with statistics concerning the use of relinquishment services before and after institution of fees to determine if a negative or significant change in the use of the services has occurred. In six mouths, there will be an indication relative to that impact. He confirmed the County will field more units to the contracting cities to pick up strays and, therefore, this will enhance the service provided as a result of additional monies being made available through the fees. Councilman Bay stated he was not ready to approve and add his voice to new fees by the County or by the City. New fees had to be Justified. This was a bad idea. A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution: Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, 0verholt, Pickler and Roth Bay None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86R-400 duly passed and adopted. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning Commission at their meeting held August 18, 1986, pertaining to the following applications were submitted for City Council information. 1. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 85-86-34 AND VARIANCE NO. 3559: Submitted by Joseph William and Mary Frances Roach, for a change in zone frum RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200, to construct a 2-story, 4-unit apartment building on property located at 1627 East Sycamore Street, with Code waivers of maximum structural height and minimum structural setback. The applicant withdrew his application. 2. VARIANCE NO. 3581: Submitted by Cabrillo Plaza, to construct an addition of 4,170 square feet to an existing commercial center on CL zoned property 758 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 9~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M. located at 5201-5223 East 0rangethorpe Avenue, with Code waiver of minimum number of required parking spaces. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-215, denied Variance No. 3581, and granted a negative declaration status. 3. VARIANCE NO. 3584: Submitted by Shih-Yen and Jul-Wa Chiang, to construct a three-unit apartment complex on RM-1200 zoned property located at 200 E. South Street, with the following Code waivers: (a) maximum building height, (b) minimum structural setback, (c) maximum fence height. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-215, denied Variance No. 3584, and granted a negative declaration status. 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2832: Submitted by Daisy Ellis, May G., Morris and Gall B. Yip, to permit on-sale beer and wine in a proposed Japanese Noodle restaurant on CL zoned property located at 3024 West Ball Road, with Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-220, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2832, and granted a negative declaration status. 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2835: Submitted by Lederer-Anaheim, Ltd., (Vineyard Christian Fellowship), to permit a retail book store in conjunction with an existing church on ML zoned property located at 333 East Cerritos Avenue, with Code waiver of minimum number of required parking spaces. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-224, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2835, and granted a negative declaration status. 6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1262 (READV.): Submitted by Eva L. Ter Beest, et al, (Anaheim Kampground of America), requesting an extension of time for Conditional Use Permit No. 1262, for an existing 221-space travel trailer park located at 1221 So. West Street to comply with Condition No. 14 of Resolution No. PC71-193, pertaining to a 15 year time limit. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-226, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 1262 (Ready.) to expire March 7, 1997, and granted a negative declaration status. 7. KECLA$$IFICATION NO. 85-86-38 AND VAKIANCE NO. 3571: Submitted by Martha $chumacher, for a change in zone from RS-7200 to CO (Parcel A), to construct a 2-story office building on property located at 800 South Harbor Boulevard, with the following Code waivers: (a) Permitted business signs (deleted), (b) maximum number of small car spaces, (c) maximum number of parking spaces, (d) maximum structural height, (e) minimum yard requirements, (f) maximum wall height. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-213 and 214, denied Reclassification No. 85-86-38 and Variance No. 3571, and granted a negative declaration status. 759 Cit~ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 9~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M. The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by the applicant and, therefore, a public hearing will be scheduled at a later date. 8. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 86-87-4 AND VARIANCE NO. 3585: Submitted by Donald And Opal Heydendahl, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200, to construct a 50-unit apartment complex on property located at 205 and 211 No. Western Avenue, with the following Code waivers: (a) Minimum number of parking spaces, (b) maximum structural height, (c) maximum site coverage, (d) minimum distance between buildings. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-221 and 222, granted Reclassification No. 86-87-4 and Variance No. 3585, and granted a negative declaration status. The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by the applicant and, therefore, a public hearing will be scheduled at a later date. 9. VARIANCE NO. 3589: Submitted by Henry and Juana Ulloa, to construct two additional units and retain a single-family dwelling for a total of 3 units on RM-1200 zoned property located at 327 South Clementine Street, with the following Code waivers: (a) minimum yard requirement, (b) minimum recreation-leisure area. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-223, granted Variance No. 3589, and granted a negative declaration status. A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman Kaywood and, therefore, a public hearing will be held at a later date. 10. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2837: Submitted by Robert F. and Daphne I. Weiss, to permit a dental office and laboratory in a converted residential structure on CL zoned property located at 1720 South Euclid Street, with the following Code waivers. (a) Minimum number of parking spaces, (b) required location of parking spaces, (c) required landscaping (deleted). The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-225, granted in part, Conditional Use Permit No. 2837, and granted a negative declaration status. The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by the applicant and, therefore, a public hearing will be scheduled at a later date. See Item No. 22 under the public hearing portion of today's Council meeting when the public hearing on Conditional Use Permit No. 2837 took place. 11. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 218, RECLASSIFICATION NO. 86-87-3 AND VARIANCE NO. 3588: Submitted by D & D Development Company, to consider amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan proposing a redesignation from the low density residential and low-medium density residential to a medium density residential designation on property located at 2900-2920 East Lincoln Avenue, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200, to construct a 220-unit, 2-story apartment complex, with Code waivers of maximum structural height and minimum structural setback and yard requirement. 760 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 9~ 1986, 10:00 A.M. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-217, 218 and 219, approved General Plan Amendment No. 218 with modifications, granted Reclassification No. 86-87-3 and denied Variance no. 3588 and granted a negative declaration status (Ready.). The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by the applicant and, therefore, a public hearing will be scheduled for September 23, 1986. End of Planning Commission Informational Items. MOTION CARRIED. 179: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF REVISED PLANS - RECLASSIFICATION 81-82-2: Request for Approval of Revised Plans relating to Reclassification No. 81-82-2, project located at the northeast corner of Orangewood and Santa Cruz Street. Submitted was report dated September 8, 1986 from the Assistant Director for Zoning, recommending approval. MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved that revised plans (Rev. No. 2 of Exhibit No. 1 and Rev. No. 1 of Exhibit Nos. 2 through 4) are in substantial conformance with the plans and specifications previously approved in connection with Condition No. 10 of Ordinance No. 4304. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 179/142: PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING THE DEFINITION OF A BASEMENT: Amending Section 18.01.030 of the Code, amending the definition of basement. Submitted was report dated September 2, 1986 from the Assistant Director for Zoning, recommending the adoption of the proposed Code Amendment to define basement garages as nstories" and to establish criteria under which certain pending multiple-family residential projects may not have to comply with the new standard. City Clerk Leonora Sohl announced that letter dated September 8, 1986 from Summer Hill Development Company had Just been received and distributed to the Council and that several people had requested to speak on the issue. Mayor Roth asked if anyone wished to speak; there was no response. Councilman Pickler offered the ordinance for first reading. ORDINANCE: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE DEFINITION OF "BASEMENT" AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 18.01.030 OF CHAPTER 18.01 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. Discussion then followed between Council Members and staff. Councllwoman Kaywood stated the big problem relative to subterranean parking and the definition of a basement was where such a project was proposed next to single-family residential. When done well, there was no impact at all resulting in a good addition to the City. Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, referring to the staff report noted that the number of units approved were primarily in connection with public hearings. Thus, 95% or more were going to come to the Council or 761 City Hall, Anmheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 9, 1986~ 10:00 A.M. the Planning Commission at a public hearing. While the Code Amendment might be "tight", by far the majority of the projects would be before the Council at a public hearing in any case. She did not believe there would be a practical impact on increasing the number of hearings that the Commission or Council presently sees. Councilman Bay felt that the proposed ordinance should be modified prior to a second reading. By offering the ordinance as is, he could see serious impacts on development possibilities. If subterranean parking was counted as a full story, it would drive up the cost of the development ultimately to be paid for by the consumer. He was not ready to offer amendments today but recommended that the proposal be looked at further to make it more practical and still solve the problem Councilwoman Kaywood brought forth and that all the Council was aware of with regard to excessive height next to single-family residential. Mayor Roth was inclined not to make any change since they would have an opportunity to look at each such project on a case-by-case basis when a conditional use permit was requested. Miss Santalahti confirmed that the ordinance would be applied across the board regardless of adjacent zoning. Councilman Bay stated they wanted to make sure where the technique is used and where it may create an impact, that there is no way for the developer to proceed without the need for a variance or a conditional use permit and then the project will come to the Planning Commission and Council. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that is not what happened with the project that resulted in a blatant intrusion on adjacent single-family. The Planning Commission had denied the project, the developer then deleted one or two units and did not have to come back for further approval and the Code did not cover the problem. They did not go far enough underground resulting in the first-story looking down into a single-family home which totally destroyed their privacy and drapes or blinds had to be closed at all times. Councilman Overholt stated he understood the primary objection was one and one-half stories within 10 feet of a single-family residential property line because it is almost two-stories in terms of roof lines. He did not agree that the problem created at Loara (another project) was the result of apartment zoning. The problem would have been created even without apartment zoning. There is still the problem that someone could build within 10 feet of a single-family residence up to one and one-half stories with a roof line the same as a two-story house. The ordinance was designed to prevent that so a project would not automatically be able to proceed. Councilman Bay stated the ordinance goes farther than that and will create new needs for new variances where that problem does not exist. He would like to see some revision that solves the problem the Council is all in agreement with - one and one-half and two and one-half story multiple-family going next to single-family residential without the broader areas of solving problems that do not exist and that do not need to be fixed. 762 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 9~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M. Miss Santalahti stated staff had looked at alternative wording such as, "or not permit more than 12 inches or 18 inches of that basement level to project above the adjacent grade." Relative to not being able to look into adjacent residential property, there is a separate Code which addresses that issue. Councilman Pickler withdrew his offering of the first reading of the ordinance. Mayor Roth assumed that staff had proper direction relative to what the Council was looking for in amending the proposed ordinance that it be specifically geared to preventing intrusion into single-family residential rather than applying it across all such projects. It was determined that an amendment to the proposed ordinance would be submitted in one week for Council consideration. 108/142: PROPOSED ORDINANCE RELATING TO VENDING FROM VEHICLES: Amending Section 14.32.310 of the Code relating to vending from vehicles and establishing Permit Application and appeal fees pursuant to Section 14.32.310 of the Code. This matter was discussed and continued from the meetings of June 17, July 1, 8, 22 and August 26, 1986, to this date (see minutes those dates). Mr. Floyd Farano, attorney and President, Anaheim Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber appointed a Sub-Committee to consider the issue. Several meetings were held in which members of the Chamber and Industry were involved. (See covering letter dated August 22, 1986 submitted by the Chamber attached to which was report entitled City/County Government Sub-Committee report on amendingAnaheim Municipal Code - Vending from Vehicles, approved August 21, 1986 by the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors). The general consensus of the Sub-Committee was that vending in all areas of the City is an activity which should be regulated and supports a reasonable ordinance. The Chamber is aware of the August 28, 1986 staff report which is before the Council. (See staff report dated August 28, 1986 from John W. Poole, Code Enforcement Supervisor, recommending adoption of Ordinance No. 4725 regulating street vending including the staff recommendations as indicated in the report. The 8-Page report listed the Code Sections, the proposed Code Amendment, the Chamber of Commerce recommendations and staff's recommendations - on file in the City Clerk's Office). The Chamber does not concur in the report. The Chamber feels the idea and control of street vending is entirely different in the retail and residential sectors of the City. The ordinance which controls these two sectors should be separately considered since the problems do not co-exist in both sectors. Relative to the licensing procedure, such a procedure should be established whereby the suspension or revocation of a permit should be subject to a public hearing before a vendor's license is revoked except in cases where charges of moral turpitude are involved. The information requested by the City should pertain only to those employees of a company or the vendor who is actually going 763 City Hall, A--heim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 9~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M. to be employed and working within the City. The report is thorough and sets out the attitudes and views of the Chamber. Several items in the ordinance are discriminatory. In Section .010, the problems of residential and industrial construction and commercial are different. The way the ordinance is written promotes selective enforcement. Some of the items relative to application go beyond now existing constitutional protections. The Chamber is strongly in favor of regulations but not an over-kill. What the Chamber has recommended is not a "door opening" policy so that vendors can go anywhere and do what they want to do. They are not in favor of vendors coming in and selling their wares in the Stadium or Convention Center area. City Attorney Jack White. The ordinance drafted by him at the direction of the Council was to restate the existing provision of law that has been in effect for over 60 years. The purpose is to modernize and add a set of regulations that both his office and Code Enforcement felt would be enforceable relating to conducting vending in areas where it would be permitted. If the ordinance were to be revised and a significant change made authorizing vending in business districts, he believes as long as a vendor was on the public street or if pushcarts were to be allowed on the public sidewalks, the vendor would be able to vend in any location in the City as long as the vendor met all the requirements in the ordinance. It is a policy decision the Council can make. He concurs with the recommendations set forth in the August 28, 1986 staff report. Matters that concern him legally would be making significant changes in the City's ability to conduct background investigations. The City should have the authority and obligation to conduct background investigations to ensure that any prospective vendor is not a person that has a propensity or past history of crimes that would place the public in Jeopardy by that person being a vendor on the street or where there is a past history of alcohol or drug abuse that would endanger the public. Councilman Bay. He questioned the possibility that the Councilts intentions to regulate street vending was being limited too much by the structure of the current ordinance. He believes the Chamber and the City are having a problem trying to codify what they both desire because of the existing ordinance. Perhaps they needed to restructure the ordinance and talk about specific zones. It will be necessary to get more specific in order to codify the solution without creating new side effect problems. John Poole, Code Enforcement Supervisor. Relative to background investigation, there is a misconception on the type that is done. It is a very cursory investigation looking at only pertinent information such as past drug or alcoholic use, anyone that has been involved in child molesting 764 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 9, 1986~ 10:00 A.M. or something of that nature. It does not involve looking into family background or how a person gets along in his neighborhood - only possibly a past criminal record or unfavorable driving record, PUBLIC TESTIMONY: William Sweeney, Orange County Food Service, 3071 East Miraloma Avenue, Anaheim, Ca. An approach superior to the one previously suggested has been suggested today. They have been concerned primarily with the industrial area. Perhaps there is an additional solution in looking toward regulations pertaining only to the industrial area. Lynn Scholeman, President of "Bad Boys Hotdogs". His understanding of the law is that they cannot open on any corner. They have first to get permission from the owner before they can have any stands. They are opening "Bad Boys Hotdogs Push Carts" but are dropping the carts off at each location. They would not open up in front of a restaurant or hotel but only where they get approval of the property owner. Their operation will be on private property. No one else wished to speak. Mayor Roth. He was concerned that the City and the Chamber seemed to be so far apart on the issue. The Council had to address the concerns of the residents in multiple-family areas who wanted to retain peace and quiet in their neighborhoods. His concern was that there not be an over-kill. Originally he was concerned relative to businesses such as Mr. Sweeney who provide a needed service in industrial areas. Councilwoman Kaywood. She referred to and gave her input on the proposed changes to the Code, Chamber of Commerce recommendations and subsequently staff's recommendations as listed in the staff report of August 28, 1986; Section .010 - she concurs with staff's recommendation (see Page 2 of the report); .0209 (Page 2) - she questioned whether or not something should be added that wherever vendors stop and regardless of the amount of time, even if one minute, that they not be blocking traffic. (Discussion then followed relative to the reasonableness of the 10 minute time limit in any one location); .0308 (Page 4) staff's recommendation that the insurance coverage requirement be reduced to ~250,000/~500,000 from the ~1 million proposed; .0312 (Page 5) staff recommended that the section be deleted as recommended by the Chamber; .060d (Page 6) staff recommended that the section be deleted as recommended by the Chamber; .0802 (Page 7) staff recommended that the section be deleted relative to the failure of the permittee to notify the license 765 City Hall, Am-beim, ¢olifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 9~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M. collector. It was apparent there were areas of concurrence and she concurred with the whole report as staff recommended with the changes. Extensive discussion followed between Council Members, staff and Mr. Farano, wherein certain provisions of the proposed ordinance were discussed and clarified as to interpretation. At the conclusion of discussion, Mayor Roth suggested reviewing each Section as outlined in the staff report with Mr. Farano to determine after discussion, if the Chamber had changed its mind relative to staff's recommendations. Mr. Farano commented as follows: On Section .010, there was no change in the Chamber's recommendation; .021, no change; .0202, if .0201 is accepted by the Council as proposed by staff, the Chamber's concern about .0202 also fails; .0209, the Chamber is suggesting a reasonable approach to the time limit; .0212, there was no great concern about that Section but reasonableness should prevail; .0215, there is a ground of reasonableness except that the City does permit construction businesses to start at 7:00 a.m. If street vending is not allowed to start until 9:00 a.m., there are a couple of hours that will be lost by those vendors who service construction sites. Mayor Roth noted that with regard to Section .0215 relative to amplified sound, music, sound-making devices, etc., this aspect was one of the great concerns of many citizens because it disturbed the peace of their neighborhoods. He noted that the Sub-Committee voted to eliminate that Section. Later in the meeting, in answer to Councilman Overholt, City Attorney White explained that the amplified sound ordinance, currently in existence, would treat different areas differently. The current ordinance prohibits any amplified sound device used for commercial purposes including an automobile horn in any residential zone. It permits amplified sound devices for commercial purposes in all non-residential zones of the City between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. daily. There is already a distinction in existence r~lating to sound amplification devices. If those are being modified, it would be necessary to look at revising that ordinance if it is not consistent with what is being done with regard to horns on street vending vehicles. Floyd Farano. The consensus was that since there was a noise ordinance already in existence, that would be the possible guide. This was a difficult area and reasonableness had to be exercised here as well. , MOTION: Councilman Bay felt that they should reconstruct the ordinance and set up a control on vending by zoning in order to get away from the 766 CitH Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 9~ 1986, 10:00 A.M. differences of interpretation. He was not ready to adopt an ordinance based on the Chamber's or staff's recommendations today. All alternatives must first be explored. He thereupon moved to continue Ordinance No. 4725 until further study and alternatives are explored and devised to simplify and resolve what the objectives really are. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Pickler stated the City had an ordinance it could live with and one which had been in effect for many years. He did not like the possibility of having a separate ordinance for each individual area. With the changes suggested, he was ready to proceed. Mr. Alfonzo Gomez, 1364 East Broadway, Secretary of the Street Vendors asked to speak. He drives an ice-cream truck and questioned how people would know he is around without music. Music on their trucks is what they consider commercial speech and if they are not able to speak, they will be lost. He also questioned how an ice-cream truck could do business when they could stop only every 500 feet. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion of continuance including the date certain, set for Tuesday, October 7, 1986 at 1:00 a.m. MOTION CARRIED. Before concluding, Councilwoman Kaywood noted that the Chamber specifically invited business interests to their meetings and not citizens who were most affected by the situation. Mayor Roth also clarified that the input to staff or the Chamber by citizens living in the area would be most welcomed. Mr. Farano then stated the Chamber would like to suggest that the names of the Neighborhood Councils be submitted to the Chamber and the Chamber will be happy to invite them to any subsequent meetings as suggested by Councilman Bay; Mayor Roth asked that that information be provided by Code Enforcement. 156: ORDINANCE NO. 4759: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4759 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4759: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM RELATING TO THE CALIFORRIA BOAItD OF CORItECTIONS' STANDARDS AND TRAINING FOR CORItECTIONS PROGRAM. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4759 duly passed and adopted. 767 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 9~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M. 179/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4760: Adding new Subsection .135 to Section 18.61.050 of the Code, to include retail and wholesale carpet and/or petroleum based flooring businesses in the ML zone. Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance No. 4760 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4760: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIMADDING NEW SUBSECTION .135 TO SECTION 18.61.050 OF CHAPTER 18.61 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: 0verholt, Bay, NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None Pickler and Roth The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4760 duly passed and adopted. Councilwoman Kaywood, explaining her "no" vote, stated that the City's industrial area has been dwindling, an area which is supposed to create ~obs in the City. To allow wholesale carpet sales with the sales tax collected at the point of sale, or the customer's home, which could be located out of Anaheim, the City was losing on all counts. Councilman Bay stated he wished Councilwoman Kaywood had made her statement before the vote was taken. He changed his vote to an abstention. Councilman Overholt stated he did not recall the Council being advised that the City would lose sales tax on carpet and linoleum sales in the industrial district. Frank Lowry, Attorney, Farano & Kieviet, 100 So. Anaheim Blvd., explained the sales tax is from the point of sales; however, the salesman picks up the check at the customer's house. The sales tax is paid from the place of business which is Anaheim. City Attorney, Jack White, confirmed that the point of sale in his understanding would be the business location and not the individual home; Councilman Overholt stated there would then be no loss of sales tax to the City. The vote on the ordinance remained as originally cast. 179: ORDINANCE NO. 4761: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4761 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 4761: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIMMUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (Amending Title 18, Reclass. 85-86-29, CL, north of the northeast corner of Lincoln and Gilbert. REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: Mayor Roth announced that a Closed Session would be held with the City's Attorney regarding: 768 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 9~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M. a. Pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a), to wit: Golden West Baseball Co. vs. City of Anaheim, Orange County Superior Court Case No 40-92-46; 221 N. Beach Blvd., Inc. vs. City of Anaheim, O.C.S.C.C. 49-96-03. b. Pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9bl. Councilman Roth moved to recess into a Closed Session and lunch break. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (12:28 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (1:50 p.m) Chairman Roth reconvened the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency meeting. (1:57 p.m.) 161/123/114: JOINT PUBLIC HEARING WITH THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: A Joint public hearing with the Redevelopment Asency to consider the proposed Second Amendment to Disposition and Development Agreement with Meyer Investment Properties, Inc., providing for the sale and redevelopment of certain real property in Redevelopment Project Alpha, consisting of approximately 13 acres generally bounded on the north by Lincoln Avenue, on the east by Clementine Street, on the south by Broadway~ and on the west by Harbor Boulevard, to provide for altering the financing and sale provisions thereof with respect to the first phase parking structure was scheduled and noticed for this date and time. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in Anaheim Bulletin August 29 and September 4, 1986. PLANNING STAFF INPUT: See Staff Report dated August 29, 1986 from the Community Development Department, Development Services Manager, John Buchanan, recommending approval of the Second Amendment to the Disposition and Development Agreement with Meyer Investment Properties Inc. Director of Community Development and Planning, Norm Priest, briefed the Council on the proposed recommendation also noting that the Agency finances, constructs and ultimately sells to Meyer Investment Properties the Phase I parking structure. The original contract for that did not cover the landscaping around the parcel. It is simply being added to the original financing package. Further, certain environmental findings have been made that the project will have no significant impact on the environment. Favorable action is recommended. Chairman Roth asked Mr. Priest to convey to Mr. Meyers how pleased the Agency was with the project which was eventually going to be a "showplace" in the City of Anaheim. PUBLIC DISCUSSION IN FAVOR OR IN OPPOSITION: None. 769 Cit~ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 9~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M. AGENCY ACTION: Chairman Roth closed the public hearing. Agency Member Kaywood offered Resolution No. ARA86-25 for adoption. Resolution Book. Refer to RESOLUTION NO. ARA86-25: ARESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MAKING CERTAIN ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO AND APPROVING THE PROPOSED SECONDAMENDMENT TO THE DISPOSITIONAND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH MEYER INVESTMENT PROPERTIES, INC.; AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF SAID SECOND AMENDMENT. Roll Call Vote: AYES: AGENCY MEMBERS: Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, NOES: AGENCY MEMBERS: None ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: None Pickler and Roth The Chairman declared Resolution No. ARA86-25 duly passed and adopted. Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 86R-401 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 86R-401: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM MAKING CERTAIN ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO ANDAPPROVING THE PROPOSED SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND MEYER INVESTMENT PROPERTIES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, AND FINDING THAT THE CONSIDERATION FOR THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY THEREUNDER IS NOT LESS THAN FAIR MARKET VALUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH COVENANTS AND CONDITIONS GOVERNING SUCH SALE. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86R-401 duly passed and adopted. ADJOURNMENT: Chairman Roth moved to adjourn the Redevelopment Agency Meeting. Agency member Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (2:02 p.m.) 176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 85-13A: In accordance with application filed by Fereidon Hakimi, public hearing was held on proposed abandonment of the westerly four feet of a nine-foot former Southern Califormia Edison easement located on the north side of Embassy Avenue, east of Laxore Street, pursuant to Resolution No. 86R-367, duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance with law. Report of the City Engineer dated August 5, 1986 was submitted recommending approval of said abandonment. 770 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 9~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M. Mayor Roth asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no response, he closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: The City Engineer determined 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. Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 86R-402 for adoption, approving Abandonment No. 85-13A. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 86R-402: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM VACATING THE WESTERLY FOUR FEET OF A NINE-FOOT FORMER SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON EASEMENT LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF EMBASSY AVENUE, EAST OF LAXORE STREET. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86R-402 duly passed and adopted. 176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 85-14A: In accordance with application filed by Magdy Hanna, public hearing was held on proposed abandonment of an easement for electrical facilities on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, east of Stinson Street, pursuant to Resolution No. 86R-368, duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance with law. Report of the City Engineer dated August 5, 1986 was submitted recommending approval of said abandonment. Mayor Roth asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no response, he closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: The City Engineer determined that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class $, o£ the City o~ Anaheim gu~delines to the requirement~ ~or an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 86R-403 for adoption, approving Abandonment No. 85-14A. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 86R-403: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM VACATING AN EASEMENT FOR ELECTRICAL FACILITIES ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF LINCOLN AVENUE, EAST OF STINSON STREET. Roll Call Vote: 771 City Hall, A~aheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 9~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86R-403 duly passed and adopted. 176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 86-1A: In accordance with application filed by Victor Hugo Construction Company, public hearing was held on proposed abandonment of an easement for public utilities and access purposes on the west side of property located on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, west of Brookhurst, pursuant to Resolution No. 86R-369, duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance with law. Report of the City Engineer dated August 5, 1986 was submitted recommending approval of said abandonment. Mayor Roth asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no response, he closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: The City Engineer determined that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 5, of the City of Amaheim guidelines to the requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 86R-404 for adoption, approving Abandonment No. 86-1A. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 86R-404: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM VACATING AN EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES AND ACCESS PURPOSES ON THE WEST SIDE OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF LINCOLN AVENUE, WEST OF BROOKHURST. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES · ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86R-404 duly passed and adopted. 179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2837 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: APPLICANT: Robert F. and Daphne I. Weiss 1608 Buena Vista Avenue Anaheim, Ca. 92802 REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: To permit a dental office and laboratory in a converted residential structure on CL zoned property located at 1720 South Euclid Street, with the following Code waivers: (a) Minimum number of parking spaces, (b) required location of parking spaces, (c) required lamdscaping (deleted). 772 City Hall, Amaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 9~ 1986, 10:00 A.M. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC86-225 granted, in part, Conditional Use Permit No. 2837 approved EIR - Negative Declaration. HEARING SET ON: Appealed by Robert F. Weiss. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in Anaheim Bulletin August 28, 1986. Posting of property August 29, 1986. Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - August 29, 1986. PLANNING STAFF INPUT: See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated August 18, 1986. City Clerk Leonora N. Sohl announced that letter dated September 5, 1986 had been received and previously distributed to the Council advising that Mr. Weiss wished to withdraw his appeal. City Attorney Jack White. Since the item has been noticed for a public hearing and an appeal filed, appropriate action would be to hold the hearing and subsequently affirm the action of the Planning Commission unless there is opposition. Mayor Roth asked if anyone was present to speak in opposition; no one was present. COUNCIL ACTION: Mayor Roth closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Pickler, seconded by Councilman 0verholt, the City Council approved the negative declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative declaration together with any comments received during the public review process, and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Pickler o~fered Resolution No. 86R-405 £or adoption, upholding the findings of the City Planning Commission, and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2837, in part, waiver C being deleted. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 86R-405: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2387. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86R-405 duly passed and adopted. 773 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 9, 1986~ 10:00 A.M. 134/179: PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 213~ RECLASSIFICATION NO. 85-86-33, VARIANCE NO. 3568 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: APPLICANT: Claudia Kinne, et al, c/o Kirk H. Finley 1502 North Broadway Santa Ama, Ca. 92701 REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: To consider amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan to consider alternative proposal of land use from the current general industrial designations to the general commercial designation, a change in zone from ML to CL, to expand retail uses in an existing retail/warehouse building on property located at 590 East Katella, with Code waivers of minimum number of parking spaces and minimum landscaped area. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC86-203 approved General Plan Amendment No. 213; Resolution No. PC86-204 approved Reclassification No. 85-86-33 and Resolution No. PC86-205 granted Variance No. 3568; approved EIR - Negative Declaration. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in Amaheim Bulletin August 28, 1986. Posting of property August 29, 1986. Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - August 29, 1986. PLANNING STAFF INPUT: See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated August 4, 1986. Mayor Roth asked if anyone wished to speak to either the General Plan Amendment, the Reclassification or the Variance; no one wished to speak. COUNCIL ACTION: Mayor Roth closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Bay, the City Council approved the negative declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative declaration together with any comments received during the public review process, and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. MOTION CARkIED. Councilman Pickier offered Resolution No. 86R-406 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 86R-406: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 213, EXHIBIT A. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None 774 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 9~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M. The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86R-406 duly passed and adopted. Councilman Bay offered Resolution Nos. 86R-407 and 86R-408 for adoption, approving Reclassification No. 85-86-33 and granting Variance No. 3568, subject to City Planning Commission conditions. Refer to Resolution Book. ~ESOLUTION NO. 86R-407: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING RECLASSIFICATION NO. 85-86-33. RESOLUTION NO. 86R-408: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 3568. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth None None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 86R-407 and 86R-408 duly passed and adopted. 179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2807 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: APPLICANT: Cosby Way Partners 5100 Birch Street Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: To permit repair of personal autos and storage in an existing multi-tenant industrial building on KL zoned property located at 1161 North Cosby Way, with Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces (denied). (continued from the meetings of July 22 and 29, 1986, #16) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC86-152 granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2807, in part, the Code waiver pertaining to parking was denied, approved EIR - Negative Declaration, and granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2807 for a period of one year. HEARING SET ON: A review of the Plannin~ Commission's decision was requested by Councilman Pickler at the meeting of July 1 , 1986. This matter was continued from the meetings of July 22 and July 29, 1986, to this date. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in Anaheim Bulletin July 10, 1986. Posting of property July 11, 1986. Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - July 11, 1986. PLANNING STAFF INPUT: See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated June 9, 1986. ADDITIONAL STAFF INPUT: Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning. Staff has been to the property a number of times since July 25, 1986. Several actions have taken place in the interim as well. 775 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 9~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M. On August 25, 1986 Ms. Browning sent a copy of letter to staff indicating to the tenants that there were Code violations and each individual would have to take care of their own business. On August 7, 1986, staff received two further letters which Ms. Browning had sent specifically to the individual who has the automotive repair function and sent him a 30-day notice of termination of his lease. On August 8, 1986, staff inspection was made and found that all refuse and waste had been removed from the property. There still appeared to be a few inoperable vehicles on the property. The auto repair business was still in operation. On August 15, 1986, the outside areas had been cleaned and maintained with the only ongoing violation being the auto repair business. On August 20, 1986, staff reinspected. There were two different inoperable vehicles found and the automobile repair business was still in operation. On August 26, 1986, staff telephoned Ms. Browning and she informed staff that a private party impound towing service had been hired to remove all the inoperable vehicles but that they were busy and would not do it immediately. On August 29, 1986 staff reinspected. The inoperable vehicles were still there and the auto repair business still in operation. The landscaping had been upgraded with flowers and shrubs. The item was then trailed until later in the meeting since Ms. Browning had left the Council Chamber. (2:15 p.m.) Later in the meeting (2:29 p.m.) Sharon Browning, Commercial Property Management, 2512 Chambers Road, Tustin, reported the following: The tenant that is causing all the problems in Unit U has been given a written eviction notice which exPired August 31, 1986. He is still on the premises and cannot yet commit to an exact date but he is moving as quickly as possible. The next step is to institute legal action. She had one car towed the other day. However, she is having problems with towing companies in Anaheim which she explained. The tenant has made arrangements to have the oil on the premises picked up. Relative to the illegal loft, in Unit U, Lacy Construction is contracting with her to obtain the permits for that loft with the City. The illegal loft in Unit U will be removed as soon as the tenant has vacated. ~he has not yet notified the marshal to evict the tenant. Councilman Bay. The conditional use permit the applicant is trying to get is to permit repair of personal autos and storage of those automobiles in an existing multi-tenant industrial building. The tenant in the auto repair business is being evicted in order to bring in a multi-tenant auto repair business. Sharon Browning. The Council had indicated there was a parking problem. That is where the problem is stemming from. Three units requested to 776 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 9, 1986, 10:00 A.M. have personal auto storage and the tenant in Unit U was not one of them and he was in violation. The Planning Commission tentatively approved a year's probation. Before the CUP is finally approved and at the end of the year it would be reviewed again. She is requesting that again today. PUBLIC INPUT- IN FAVOR: None. PUBLIC INPUT- IN OPPOSITION: None. COUNCIL ACTION: Mayor Roth closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Pickler, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council approved the negative declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative declaration together with any comments received during the public review process, and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 8§R-409 for adoption, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 2807 with the subject use being permitted for one year until September 9, 1987. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 86R-409: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2807. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS COUNCIL MEMBERS COUNCIL MEMBERS Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86R-409 duly passed and adopted. 114/153: REQUEST FOR SALARY/COMPENSATION DATA - DEPARTMENT HEADS AND EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT: Councilman Bay asked the City Manager for the following information for the 1980/81 Fiscal Year and the 1985/86 Fiscal Year: For each Department Head or Executive Management position, the base salary and additional dollars of compensation paid to those management positions by management contract requirements deferred or paid; the percentage dollar amount the City pays to PERS on each of those positions, the auto allowance and any other easily definable compensation, all listed by positions. Secondly, he would also like the travel expense account expenditures for each Department Head and Manager position including the City Attorney, City Clerk and City Treasurer. Those positions should also be included in the first request. In addition, he would like a review of the travel and expense account expenditures from each of those same positions in the City by each of 777 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 9, 1986, 10:00 A.M. those Department Head positions in the 1980/81 Fiscal Year and again in the 1985/86 Fiscal Year and a total dollar figure varying between the two. Discussion then followed between Council Member Overholt, Kaywood and Pickler who questioned City Manager Talley and City Attorney Jack White relative to Councilman Bay's request specifically the time and effort that would be involved as well as Charter provisions relating to such requests by a Council Member. (A verbatim transcript of the proceeding in its entirety is on file in the City Clerk's Office). At the conclusion of discussion, Councilman Bay stated by next Tuesday, if there were any key parts of his request that were difficult or impossible to furnish, he would like to know what they are and he may be able to remove those from his request. City Manager Talley stated he would be able to respond to the request and will do so immediately upon receipt of a verbatim transcript from the City Clerk some time tomorrow. RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session to discuss the balance of the items announced earlier in the meeting. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (2:46 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (5:44 p.m.) ADJOURNMENT: the motion. LEONORA N. Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. MOTION CARRIED. (5:45 p.m.) SOHL, CITY CI.E~ Councilman Pickler seconded 778