Loading...
1984/07/03fCity Hall~ Amaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 3~ 1984, 10:00 A.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: Jim Ruth ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY: Robert Franks CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti PROJECT ENGINEER: A1 McDougall ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF PLANNING: Joel Fick Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: Reverend Tom Favreau, Hotline Help Center, gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Ben Bay led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 119: ~ESOLUTION OF WELCOME: A Resolution of Welcome was unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to Ho Young Chung extending a sincere welcome to the people of Korea participating in the Expo and extending best wishes for a successful show in Anaheim. 119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Roth and authorized by the City Council: "Summer of Crime Prevention, Summer of 1984". The proclamation was accepted by Captain Dale Wilcox of the Anaheim Police Department. MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular meetings held May 1 and May 8, 1984. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. Councilman Overholt abstained from voting on the minutes of May 8, 1984 since he was not present at that meeting. MOTION CARRIED. WAIVER OF P. EADING - 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 Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of 31,829,790.98, in accordance with the 1983-84 Budget, were approved. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the following items were approved in 684 City H~11~ A-~beim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 3, 1984, 10:00 A.M. accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 84R-254 through 84R-257, 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: a. Claim submitted by Golden West Baseball Company c/o Shields, Anderson and Garrison for indemnity based on Superior Court Case No. 39-46-49, Ann Dominici, Plaintiff, vs. Golden West Broadcasters, Inc., as Doe 1. b. Claim submitted by Golden West Broadcasting Inc., c/o Shields, Anderson and Garrison for indemnity based on Superior Court Case No. 394783, Gloria K. Bush, Plaintiff, vs. Golden West Broadcasters, Inc., Inc. as Doe 2. c. Claim submitted by Elena Carmelo for personal property damages sustained purportedly due to failure of City equipment at 703 South Claudine Street, on or about March 5, 1984. d. Claim submitted by Howard W. Klbel for personal injury damages sustained purportedly due to negligent design and maintenance of Anaheim Senior Citizens Club, 281 East Lincoln, on or about February 21, 1984. e. Claim submitted by Paul Molloy for personal injury damages sustained purportedly due to unsafe turn at Anaheim Hills Golf Course, on or about April 15, 1984. Claims Filed Against the City - recommended to be allowed: a. Claim submitted by Paula Beard Keiser for personal property damages sustained purportedly due to actions of parking attendant at the Convention Center, on or about May 5, 1984. 2. Receiving and filing the following correspondence: (on file) a. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission--Minutes of June 13, 1984. b. 105: Industrial Development Board--Minutes of March 21 and May 14, 1984. 3. 174: Authorizing submission of an application for participation in the Rental Rehabilitation Grant Program for funds in the amount of 3179,000 and transmittal of said application to the Department of Housing and Urban Development. 4. 177: Adopting the Tenant Assistance Policy as part of the City's participation in the Rental Rehabilitation Grant Program. 685 City Hall~ Anahelm~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 3, 1984, 10:00 A.M. 5. 128: Approving the 1983-84 write-off of uncollectible miscellaneous accounts receivable totaling 587,802.37. 6. 123: Authorizing an agreement with Gary Johnson terminating a supplemental health benefit, effective June 18, 1984. 7. 180: Authorizing Rollins Burdick Hunter, Broker of Record, to order aviation liability insurance (police helicopters), underwritten through Southeastern Aviation, at an annual premium cost of 513,200 for coverage of 520,000,000 per occurrence for the period July 1, 1984 through July 1, 1985. 8. 123: Authorizing the First Amendment to an agreement with Holman Consulting Corporation for Employee Assistance Program Services increasing the yearly cost by 54,872 and extending the contract period though June 30, 1985. 9. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to waive Council Policy No. 306, and to issue a purchase order to Advanced Control Systems in the amount of 5473,663.12 for one each HPM-7085 Redundant Master Station and complementary software, Lewis Substation. 10. 160: Accepting the bids of Westinghouse Electric Corporation in the amount of 526,606 for two each 750 KVA three-phase padmount transformers, Item No. 1, and General Electric Company in the amount of 550,746.44 for three each 1500 KVA three-phase padmount transformers, Item No. 2, in accordance with Bid No. 4103. 11. 160: Accepting the low bid of Master Sort, Inc., in the amount of 523,100, for furnishing mail delivery service for the term July 1, 1984 through June 30, 1985, in accordance with Bid No. 4109. 12. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-254: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A CERTAIN DEED AND ORDERING ITS RECORDATION. (Accepting a Deed of Easement from Equitable Life Assurance Society) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, 0verholt, Pickler and Roth None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-254 duly passed and adopted. 13. 000/142/129: ORDINANCE NO. 4516: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING CHAPTER 16.08 OF TITLE 16 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING THERETO SECTIONS 16.08.091, 16.08.092, 16.08.093, 16.08.094 AND 16.08.095, PERTAINING TO PERMIT FEES. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Overholt, Pickler and Roth Bay None 686 Clt7 I~_~11~ Anahetm~ California - COUNCIL MI~J~ES - Jul7 3~ 1984, 10:00 A.M. The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4516 duly passed and adopted. 14. 000/142/129: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-255: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ESTABLISHING PERMIT'FEES FOR CHAPTER 16.08 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE FOR SERVICE RENDERED BY THE FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND ESTABLISHING THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF SAID PERMIT FEES. (effective August 2, 1984) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, 0verholt, Pickler and Roth Bay None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-255 duly passed and adopted. 112: REPRESENTATION OF ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT (OCTD) BY ROURKEAND WOODRUFF: Authorizing Rourke and Woodruff to continue representation of Orange County Transit District in case of Lutz vs. City of Anaheim. Councilman Roth moved to authorize Rourke and Woodruff to continue representation of OCTD in the case of Lutz vs. City of Anaheim. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt stated that such conflict cases were of concern to him. He questioned how big a law firm had to be before they did not have to worry about conflict of interest. The reason for the State Bar Code was to treat law firms as entities providing that one entity could not play both sides of the street. If Rourke and Woodruff were a one man lab firm, they could not ask for the privilege. Assistant City Attorney Bob Franks explained that he had spoken with Mr. Alan Watts of Rourke and Woodruff personally who assured him that his representation of OCTD would not in any way compromise his representation of the City. The City Attorney's Office felt that the matters were unrelated and that there were other lawyers in the law firm who would be handling the personal injury lawsuit. Implicit in the motion was that any attorney handling City of Anaheim matters should not be involved in that lawsuit. The City Attorney's Office was assured that would not happen and that was the Basis ~or the recommendation. Councilman Overholt stated he was going to vote "no" and was doing so, so that the City could investigate the question of law firms saying they could represent anybody and everybody and freely ask for waivers of conflict of interest. Councilman Bay was also interested in the question of knowing when the City should say "no"; Mr. Franks stated his office would be glad to report to the Council on the matter within two weeks and then ask for Council direction. Councilman Pickler withdrew his second to the foregoing motion. Councilman Bay thereupon seconded the motion because he saw no apparent conflict in this 68? City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 3~ 1984, 10:00 A.M. case but did want to see a report from the City Attorney's Office on the issue. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she was going to vote "no" as well. Councilman 0verholt thereupon moved to continue consideration giving authorization to Rourke and Woodruff to continue representation of OCTD in the case of Lutz vs. City of Anaheim subject to obtaining a policy statement on the subject matter of conflict of interest from the City Attorney's Office. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CAR/LIED. 148/114: DESIGNATION OF VOTING DELEGATE ANDALTERNATE FOR LEAGUE ANNUAL CONFERENCE: Councilman Roth moved to designate the Mayor as delegate and Mayor Pro Tem as alternate at the Annual League of California Cities Conference to be held September 23 to 26, 1984. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Roth, noting that Tuesday, September 25, 1984, was a business meeting day at the League Conference for the voting delegate as reported by the City Clerk, felt that the City Council meeting scheduled for that day should be cancelled so that the City could be well represented at all times at the League Conference, especially since Anaheim was hosting 430 cities in California who were represented in the League. MOTION: Councilman Roth moved that there be no Council meeting held on Tuesday, September 25, 1984, due to the League of California Cities meeting to be held in Anaheim September 23 to 26, 1984. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 144: RECONFIRMING DELEGATE AND ALTERNATE ON THE ORANGE COUNTY HEALTH PLANNING COUNCIL: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to reconfirm the appointment of Janet Parry, as delegate, and Pat Fron, as alternate delegate, on the Orange County Health Planning Council. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. RESOLUTIONS PERTAINING TO THE NOVEMBER 6~ 1984 GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION: Councilman Pickler offered Resolution Nos. 84R-256 and 84R-257 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. 127: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-256: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN SAID CITY ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1984 FOR THE ELECTION OF CERTAIN OFFICERS OF SAID CITY AS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE CHAPTER, AND REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO CONSOLIDATE SAID GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION WITH THE STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 6, 1984. 127: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-257: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING REGULATIONS FOR CANDIDATES FOR ELECTIVE OFFICE, PERTAINING TO MATERIALS SUBMITTED TO THE ELECTORATE AND THE COSTS THEREOF FOR THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN SAID CITY ON TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1984. 688 City Hall~ Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 3~ 1984~ 10:00 A..M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth None None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 84R-256 and 84R-257 duly passed and adopted. 105: APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS: Appointments to fill terms expiring June 30, 1984 on the following Boards/Commissions. (continued from the meeting of June 26, 1984). This item was continued from the meeting of June 26, 1984 (see minutes that date). City Clerk, Leonora Sohl, first suggested that appointments to the Project Area Committee be continued. The Council had requested recommendations and none had been received as yet. There was also a question concerning the number of years to extend the Project Area Committee Charter and in order for the committee to continue, that question would also have to be discussed. Councilman Bay moved to continue appointments to the Project Area Committee. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. It was determined that the subject appointments would be continued until recommendations were received on potential appointees and the Charter issue discussed. City Clerk Leonora Sohl announced that a letter of application had been received from Mr. Herb Eggett for a seat on the Public Utilities Board (PUB). Other than that letter, all others had been copied and provided to the Council in the books submitted to them previously. Councilman Overholt moved to continue all appointments for two weeks. Before any action was taken, Councilman Overholt stated his reasons for moving a continuance was due to that fact that he Just received the book containing the letters of application for the various board and commissions and they had Just received the letter from Mr. Eggett. He felt the critical appointments were those for the Community Services Board and Public Utilities Board and he wanted two more weeks to deliberate. Discussion followed between Council Members wherein the Mayor noted that the book contained material they had seen before but put in a more comprehensive format. He also felt that they could act on many of the appointments to clear them from their agenda, particularly reappointments to commissions other than the Community Services Board and Public Utilities Board. Councilman Pickler suggested only a one week continuance. Councilman Overholt thereupon amended his motion to continue appointments and reappointments for one week. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay, speaking against the motion, did not favor continued delays in making appointments in a timely manner and the 689 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 3~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. material in the book had been provided previously. Other than Mr. Eggett's letter, there was nothing new contained in the information. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion of continuance. Councilman Bay and Roth voted "no". MOTION CARRIED. 108: APPLICATION FOR A PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT: Councilman Pickler moved to ratify the City Manager's approval of an application for a Public Dance Permit submitted by Paul Ibarra Maldonado for PMMA Personnel Management Association of Aztlan C.S.U.F. to hold a public dance at the Anaheim Convention Center on June 30, 1984, from 8:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning Commission at their meeting held June 11, 1984, pertaining to the following applications were submitted for City Council information. 1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1280 (READVERTISED): Submitted by Sam and Vera Menlo, requesting amendment to certain conditions of Planning Commission Resolution No. PC71-239 pertaining to a child day care center permitted in conjunction with an existing apartment complex on RM-1200 zoned property located at 1730 North Temple Street, with Code waivers as follows: (a) minimum number of employee parking spaces, (b) vehicle loading and unloading area for children. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-107, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 1280, and granted a negative declaration status. 2. CONDITIONAL USE PFPJtIT NO. 2580: Submitted by Econo-Lube, Inc., (Econo-Lube n' Tune), to expand an automobile tune-up center on CL zoned property located at 3201 West Lincoln Avenue. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-108, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2580, and granted a negative declaration status. 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2584: Submitted by Walter E. Blair, Inc., to permit an automobile repair facility on}iL zoned property located at 947 So. East Street, with the following Code waivers: (a) minimum number of parking spaces, (b) minimum landscaped front setback. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-109, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2584, and granted a negative declaration status. 4. VARIANCE NO. 3404: Submitted by Crescent Associates, to construct a slatted chain link fence on }iL zoned property located at 241 and 301 North Crescent Way, with Code waiver of required site screening. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-110, granted in part, Variance No. 3404, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination. 5. VARIANCE NO. 3389: Submitted by Pacesetter Homes, Inc., (Waterscape Condominium), for temporary flags to display flags for a new residential 69O City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 3, 1984, 10:00 A.M. subdivision on RH-3000 zoned property located at 100 South Seneca Circle, with Code waiver of permitted days of display for temporary flags. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-112, granted in part, Variance No. 3389, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination. 6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2408 - CLARIFICATION OF PERMITTED USES: Submitted by Planning Staff, requesting clarification of permitted uses under Planning Commission Resolution PC83-13, approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2408, to permit an industrial/commercial office building and a drive-thru restaurant on ML zoned property located on the northwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Lakeview Avenue. The City Planning Commission withdrew Conditional Use Permit No. 2408. 7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2040 - TERMINATION: Submitted by Burnett-Ehline Properties, requesting termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 2040, to permit a 4-story, 75,000 square foot commercial office complex and restaurant with on-sale alcoholic beverages on CO zoned property located on the northwest corner of Orangewood Avenue and State College Boulevard, in accordance with the conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2546. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-113, terminated Conditional Use Permit No. 2040. 8. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1838 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Mike Lin, requesting an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 1838, to permit a tent camping facility in an existing recreational vehicle park on CL zoned property located at 333 and 475 West Ball Road. The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 1838, to expire May 22, 1985. 9. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2265 - TERMINATION: Submitted by Burnett-Ehline Properties, requesting termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 2265, to permit a 15-story, 209-foot high commercial office complex on CO zoned property located at the northwest corner of 0rangewood Avenue and State College Boulevard, in accordance with the conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2546. The City Planning Commission terminated Conditional Use Permit No. 2265. 10. VARIANCE NO. 148 - TERMINATION: Submitted by Redevelopment Agency, requesting termination of Variance No. 148, to permit the manufacture of plastic parts on CO zoned property located on the north side of Broadway and east of Harbor Boulevard, in accordance with the conditions of approval of Reclassification No. 83-84-30 and Variance No. 3401. The City Planning Commission terminated Variance No. 148. 11. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2458 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Calmark Development Corporation, requesting an extension of time to 691 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 3, 1984~ 10:00 A.M. Conditional Use Permit No. 2458, to permit a 94-unit senior citizens apartment complex on RM-1200 zoned property located at 950 South Gilbert Street. The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 2458, to expire June 27, 1985. 12. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2377 - REVISED PLANS: Submitted by Floyd F. Farano, requesting approval of revised plans, on an expansion and amendment of conditions of approval of City Council Resolutiou No. 82R-498, for additional signing to permit a Planned Unit Industrial Service Center with sales and service of new and used automobiles on HL zoned properties located on the northwest and northeast corners of Brasher Street and La Palma Avenue. The City Planning Commission denied approval of revised plans in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 2377. See public hearing on Conditional Use Permit No. 2377, revised plans, which was conducted later in the meeting and on which the Council took action which reversed the findings of the Planning Commission. 13. VARIANCE NO. 3406: Submitted by Stephen C. and Barbara A. Walker, to construct an addition to a single-family residence located on RS-HS-10,000(SC) zoned property located at 855 Swallow Way, with the following Code waivers: (a) minimum number of parking spaces, (b) minimum garage setback. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-111, granted Variance No. 3406, and granted a negative declaration status. Councilman Roth requested a review of the Planning Commission's decision and, therefbre, a public hearing would be scheduled at a later date. 14. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 193 (READVERTISED): Submitted by WCS International, to consider an amendment to the Land Use Element, to change the current map designation from General Open Space to an alternative use including, but not limited to General, Industrial and to the General Plan Text, applicability of Redevelopment Plan, on approximately 2.8 acres located on the south side of Frontera Street, east of Glassell Street. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-104, granted a negative declaration status, and approval of the Ceneral Plan Amendment was recommended designating the entire area (Part I) for general industrial land uses (Exhibit 'A"). MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to set a date and time for a public hearing on General Plan Amendment No. 193 (Readvertised) on Tuesday July 31, 1984, at 1:30 p.m. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 15. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 83-84-15 (READVERTISED): Submitted by WCS International, (Orange County Steel/Salvage, Inc.), for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to ML, to expand a resource recovery and recycling operation including an automobile dismantling business with wholesale and retail sales 692 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 3~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. of auto parts, on approximately 1.85 acres on the south side of Frontera Street, east of Glassell Street. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-105, granted Reclassification No. 83-84-15, and granted a negative declaration status, and with recommendations that the Council review in conjunction with General Plan Amendment No. 193. MOTION: Councilman Roth moved that the date and time for a public hearing on Reclassification 83-84-15 (Readvertised) be set for Tuesday, July 31, 1984, at 1:30 p.m. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 16. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2525 (READVERTISED): Submitted by Holly W. Davidson, (Orange County Steel/Salvage, Inc.), to expand a resource recovery and recycling operation including an automobile dismantling business with wholesale and retail sales of auto parts, on ML zoned property located at 3200 East Frontera Street. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-106, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2525, and granted a negative declaration status, and with recommendations that the Council review in conjunction with General Plan Amendment No. 193. MOTION: Councilman Roth moved that the date and time for a public hearing on Conditional Use Permit No. 2525 (Readvertised) be set for Tuesday, July 31, 1984, at 1:30 p.m. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ORDINANCE 4515: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4515 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. 142/153: ORDINANCE NO. 4515: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING CHAPTER 1.13 OF TITLE 1 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODEAND ENACTING A NEW CHAPTER 1.13 IN ITS PLACE PERTAINING TO POLICE RESERVE CORPS. ORDINANCE NO. 4517: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4517 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. 179: ORDINANCE NO. 4517: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CiTY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIMMUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (Reclassification No. 82-83-11, southeast corner of Old Lincoln Avenue and Anaheim Boulevard) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4517 duly passed and adopted. 111: CHAMBER OF COMMERCE PLANNING SESSION - PALM SPRINGS - JUNE 29-30, 1984: Councilman Pickler reported he had attended the subject conference; Councilman Roth also reported on his attendance commenting that it was the most 693 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 3~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. productive session he had ever attended. Congressman Dannemeyer was the guest speaker on Friday. Amongst other issues, he spoke on the Santa Ana River Flood ProtectionAgency (SARFPA) on which he was in full accord. It was one of the few spending items that Congressman Dannemeyer supported because of the extreme emergency and due to the fact that Orange County would be inundated with flood waters should the plan not be implemented, which in turn would cost billions of dollars in damage. Council,~n Overholt then reported, as an alternate to the Flood Protection Agency, he attended a meeting Thursday, June 28, 1984, where they discussed the flood control project wtdch the area had been working on for ten years. An excellent report was given by Legislative Advocate, Greg Sanders. As a result of that report, a call was placed to Congressman Dannemeyer, Badham and Congressman Patterson who was taking the lead in trying to get legislation through the House to approve the 31.3 billion as the first funding phase. Because of the public position of Congressmen Dannemeyer and Badham against spending, there was concern in the meeting Thursday over its successful passage. It was reported Saturday morning, however, that the House did pass the legislation and Congressman Dannemeyer went out front in helping lead the House to pass that legislation. Therefore, it looked like the Santa Ana River Flood Control Project was a step towards reality. Before concluding, the Mayor then commended Norm Priest, Executive Director of Community Development and Garry McRae, Human Resources Director, on the excellent presentations they gave at the Planning session. 115: ACCESS FROM PODIUM: Councilman 0verholt referred to the memo from Mr. John Roche, Maintenance Superintendent, informing the Council that he was studying the podium access question as well as working on the audio system. Mr. Bill Erickson had contacted some Council Members on a suggestion he had for replacement of the podium. He asked Mr. Erickson to address the Council. Mr. Bill Erickson, 301 E. North Street, read his letter dated June 29, 1984, which he submitted (on file in the City Clerk's Office) outlining his suggestion to solve the access problem from the podium. Attached to his letter was a sketch showing how his plan could work if implemented. Councilman Overholt suggested that Mr. Erickson submit the letter to Mr. Ruth to pass along to Dan Rowland Associates (Architects of the Civic Center) for their recommendation. 114: LACK OF qUORUM - TUESDAY; JULY 17) 1984: Councilman Bay noted that two Council Members were going to be absent at the subject meeting and he would be the third. A brief discussion followed between Council Members and staff wherein it was reported by staff that Planning Commission items could be prepared and submitted at the next Council meeting for consideration instead of July 17, 1984, although the appeal period would remain the same. 694 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 3~ 1984, 10:00 A.M. It was determined that a quorum would not be present for the Council meeting of July 17, 1984, due to vacation scheduling of a majority of the Council and thus no meeting would be held on that date. 153: REQUEST FOR LEGISLATIVE ACTION TO HAVE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT SYSTEM (PERS) FUND COSTS OF THEIR REPRESENTATIVES: Councilman Bay referred to the extensive discussion that took place on the PERS problem during budget hearings (see minutes of June 12 and 26, 1984). He noted that City Manager Talley had taken an action by writing a letter to the PERS Administration regarding possible legislation to solve the problem with which the City was faced. He (Bay) emphasized it was important that the City commence action through Intergovernmental Relations directing that office to contact the City's State Assemblymen and Senators requesting legislative action on the problem so that initiation of the legislation would come as much from the City as anybody. The first action was taken and he now urged that the Council institute the second action, that of lobbying the City's representatives in Sacramento. Further discussion on the issue took place between Council Members Bay and Overholt wherein Councilman Overholt felt that the Council should first await a response to the letter written by the City Manager to see if PERS would respond affirmatively or negatively. After further discussion, Councilman Bay moved that letters be sent to the City's representatives in Sacramento asking for legislative action on having PERS fund the costs of their representatives. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. Before. a vote was taken, Councilman Bay confirmed for the Mayor and Councilman Overholt that he was not asking IGR to make preparations to start a lobbying action should PERS not initiate such action. He was moving that the action be started by sending the normal letters to their legislators encouraging them to initiate legislation in Sacramento to solve the problem. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: The Assistant City Manager requested a Closed Session to discuss potential litigation with no action anticipated; the potential litigation dth no action anticipated. Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session and a lunch break. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (11:14 a.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all members being present. (1:35 p.m.) Councilwoman Kaywood left the Council Chambers. (1:36 p.m.) 104: PUBLIC HEARING - STREET LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 1977-1: To consider objections to the improvements of proposed Street Lighting Assessment District No. 1977-1 on property abutting Lenz Drive in Tract No. 1404. 695 City Nall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 3~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. Submitted was a report dated June 19, 1984 from the Assistant City Manager recommending that the Council by resolution declare that there was not majority protest against Street LightingAssessment District No. 1977-1 (Tract No. 1404). The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition; there was no response. Mayor Roth presumed that letters were sent out to property owners. Mr. A1 McDougall, Contract Administrator, Engineering, reported that a letter was sent out two weeks ago to all property owners informing them of the meeting day and the subject matter. The Mayor closed the public hearing. MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to declare that there was not majority protest to energize, operate and maintain Street Lighting Assessment District No. 1977-1. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Councilwoman Kaywood was temporarily absent. MOTION CARRIED. Later in the meeting (2:55 p.m) it was determined that a resolution was necessary declaring no majority protest. Councilman Pickler thereupon offered Resolution No. 84R-258 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 84R-258: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING THAT THERE WAS NOT A MAJORITY PROTEST AGAINST STREET LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 1977-1, TRACT NO. 1404. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIl. MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, 0verholt, Pickler and Roth None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-258 duly passed and adopted. 179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2377 - REVISED PLANS: Application submitted by Floyd F. Farano, requesting approval of revised plans to the City Council, on an expansion and amendment of conditions of approval of Resolution No. 82R-498, for additional signing to permit a Planned Unit Industrial Service Center with sales and service of new and used automobiles on ML zoned properties located on the northwest and northeast corners of Brasher Street and La Palma Avenue. Denial of the revised plans was recommended by the City Planning Commission; the recommendation of the Planning Commission was appealed by Floyd L. Farano, Attorney for the applicant and public hearing scheduled this date. Councilwoman Kaywood entered the Council Chambers. (1:39 p.m.) 696 City Hallt Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 3~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent. Mr. Floyd Farano first briefed the Council on the sales statistics of the Mercedes Benz dealership which was established in the industrial park, which use was approved by the Council on October 12, 1982 (see minutes of October 12, 1982 - RE: Public hearing on Conditional Use Permit No. 2377, Pages 904 through 909). The business had been very successful since its establishment and it was that success that brought him to the Council today to request approval of the following upon which he elaborated (also see minutes of the Planning Commission hearing of June 11, 1984 where the items were discussed in detail and also staff report to the Planning Commission dated June 11~ 1984). (1) Construction of a 5,880 square-foot used automobile showroom on the northwest corner of Brasher Street and La Palma Avenue, (2) a new sign plan for the original building on the northeast corner~ (3) proposed display of not more than five automobiles in front of the existing Mercedes Benz facility. Councilwoman Kaywood then posed questions to Mr. Farano wherein she referred to the Council minutes of October 12~ 1982 when Mr. Farano stipulated upon questioning by Councilman Overholt that the only signing would be the shield on the front of the retail showroom and the sign on the corner of La Palma Avenue and Brasher Street. "...there was no other sign contemplated, the only possible exception being a directional sign showing the way to the parts and service area. Such a si~n would be off La Palma Avenue. If there was anything other than that sign, it would be in conformance with Code, and nothing more than identifying the service area." Mr. Farano acknowledged the stipulation made. However, even with the additional proposed signage~ it was still well within the ordinance and they were not asking for any waivers. Miss Santalahti~ Assistant Director for Zoning, confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood that the permitted industrial signing was 100 square feet in the 50-foot setback along La Palma Avenue or the 5 feet on Brasher Street. There could potentially actually be two signs. Furthermore~ if they were to locate the sign further back than 50 feet they could actually have a 350 square-foot si~n. The total square footage signing Mr. Farano was talking about was within the ML regulations. She also stated she was assuming with the new proposal that the applicant still wanted to retain the Hercedes Benz seal over the door and that the new wall sl&n of 22 square feet was to be located against glass or the concrete. Mr. Farano answered "yes" relative to the seal and confirmed that the 22 square-foot sign would be located against the white cement block which he pointed to on the posted plan. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition; there being no response he closed the public hearing. Councilman Pickler moved to approve the revised plan submitted under Conditional Use Permit No. 2377, reversing the findings of the City Planning Commission. 697 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 3~ 1984, 10:00 A.M. Before any action was taken, Councilman Overholt noted that the recommendation of the Planning Commission was that Revision No. 1 to Conditional Use Permit No. 2377 be denied but if allowed, they should not approve the following: (1) display of vehicles in the front of the building; (2) that the 45-foot high rotating sign should not be allowed; (3) that the existing monument sign should incorporate the dealership sign; (4) that the three flags be allowed as requested. Although he felt that the modifications sought were appropriate, talking about outdoor display was so far afield from the original concept proposed, and that the Council had in mind in the industrial zone, that there was merit in not allowing outdoor display of vehicles. He felt the 40-foot rotating sign was only for visibility from a distance and he did not think that was the idea of the Mercedes Benz dealership being in that area. The thought was that it was a good location in the industrial area and for those working in that area but that it would be accommodating people who drove by every day on their way to work. Those two points were of concern to him both of which departed from what he conceived to be the situation they were trying to create on that property. Mr. Farano stated that the idea was for the 40-foot sign to be seen from a distance, considering the fact that the dealership was located in an area where a Mercedes Benz or any other dealership was not usually found. They were not trying to abuse the fact that the dealership was in an industrial area. The new plan was not contemplated when the business was proposed to be placed in an industrial zone. Councilman Overholt stated he believed the applicant must have had it in mind whether or not something like that would be contemplated. He felt the sign was inconsistent with with the original plan as well ~s the display of cars, and would cheapen what was a good use. If asked for originally these would have been the "death knell" for the whole proposal. Mr. Farano asked if it would be more acceptable not to have the sign rotate and decrease the height to 40 feet. They could make the sign stationary and he could discuss the 40-foot height with his client (his client was agreeable). Mr. Farano also referred to the booklet submitted containing photographs of the facility, specifically No. 3 showing the proposed display of cars. Discussion then followed between Councilman 0verholt and Mr. Farano relative to such display with Councilman Overholt concluding that the area was going to be active and not passive and he did not want to see it looking like "Flgueroa Street". Mayor Roth stated in evaluating the situation and knowing the excellent operation and the positive enhancement it was to the area, he was supportive of the proposed requests although he did not support a rotating sign. No one was present in opposition and they had received no letters of objection. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she would have a great deal of trouble saying no to any other auto dealer asking to do the same thing. She felt approving the requests would start something the City and Council had worked hard to preclude from the industrial area. 698 Cit7 Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Jul7 3, 1984, 10:00 A.M. Councilman Overholt offered as an alternative the possibility of working something out by displaying only a single Mercedes automobile. He would have no objection to that, but would to the displaying of five automobiles. Mr. Farano suggested that they display one car on each side parked in a way as to demonstrate they were on display. That would be appropriate and acceptable to his client. They would accept the stationary sign and display one car on each side surrounded by a garden effect or some type of landscaping so it was obvious the car was being displayed. Councilman Overholt stated he would accept Mr. Farano's latter proposal. Councilman Bay s,,mmarized the request for five cars was now down to two and the 45-foot rotating sign was down to 40-feet and stationary. He recalled that the particular conditional use permit was specifically for the Mercedes Benz dealership and that alone was a precedent. The conditional use permit was not on the property but the actual tenant. What he heard was that the total signing at approximately 60 square feet was 40 square feet below that allowed in the industrial area. He noted the beauty of the development when he drove by the area and he could not believe it was a car dealership. It was a big plus for the area from an environmental standpoint and from every standpoint. Further, there was no argument over the sales taxes benefits as reported by Mr. Farano. As long as it was controlled by the tenant, Mercedes Benz, he could support the request with the changes as stipulated. MOTION: Councilman Pickler, clarifying his previous motion, moved to approve the revised plans relating to Conditional Use Permit No. 2377 but amending the conditions to allow a non-rotating sign 40-feet in height and a maximum of two cars for display purposes in the front of the building. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked Councilman Pickler if he wanted to specify that one car be displayed on each side; Councilman Pickler stated he would prefer to leave it up to the dealer. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she was going to vote 'no" because they were making it look like "auto alley." A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilwoman Kaywood voted #non. MOTION CARRIED. After Miss Santalahti explained the specific amendments to three conditions (No. 7, 12, and 14), Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 84R-259 for adoption reversing the findings of the City Planning Commission but subject to all interdepartmental committee recommendations as follow which incorporated the aforementioned amendments as stipulated: ~7. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 2-15 except as the signing modifications as required by Condition No. 14 hereof." 699 tit7 Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 3, 1984, 10:00 A.M. "12. That there shall be no on-site display or sale of new or used cars other than Mercedes Benz automobiles, and that only two (2) such cars, both of which must be new unregistered vehicles, may be displayed outside the building and that any such outside display shall be only in the front setback area adjacent to La Palma Avenue." "14. That the permitted signing on the premises as otherwise shown on Exhibit Nos. 12, 13, 14 and 15 of exhibits on file with the City of Anaheim shall be further modified and limited to the following: a. one (1) monument type sign with a maximum area of 22 square feet located in the front setback area adjacent to La Pa]ma Avenue specifying only the name of the automobile dealership; b. one (1) Mercedes Benz seal on the south-facing wall above the entrance and mounted on concrete (not glass) paneling; c. one (1) directional/guide sign with a maximum area of 8 square feet identifying the "service and parts" area which sign shall be located adjacent to the easterly driveway on La Palms Avenue; d. one (1) freestanding signwith a maximum height of 40 feet and maximum area of 9 square feet containing only the Mercedes Benz insignia or logo which sign shall be located adjacent to the approved driveway on Brasher Street; and e. one (1) wall sign with a maximum area of 22 square feet mounted on the concrete paneling on the westerly end on the south-facing building wall." Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 84R-259 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. 179: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-259: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AMENDMENT OF CONDITIONS IN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2377 AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 82R-498 ACCORDINGLY. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MF2/BERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth Kaywood None The Hayor declared Resolution No. 84R-259 duly passed and adopted. RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for five minutes. (2:50 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (2:55 p.m.) 179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2187 (READVERTISED) AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application submitted by R. H. Siegele, to consider revocation or modification of the conditions of approval of Planning 7OO City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 3~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. Co~mission Resolution No. PC82-62 approved in conJunctionwith Conditional Use Permit No. 2187, to permit a recycling facility and recreational vehicle storage yard onHL zoned property located at 919 E. South Street, with the following Code waivers: (a) minimum landscaped setback, (b) maximum fence height, (c) required enclosure of outdoor uses, (d) minimum number of parking spaces. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-62, (March 23, 1981) declared that the subject project be exempt from the requirement to prepare an Environmental Impact Report pursuant to the provisions of the California Quality Act since there would be not significant individual or cumulative adverse Environmental Impact. On May 14, 1984, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-93, the City Planning Commission revoked Conditional Use Permit No. 2187 and also revoked Resolution No. PC81-62. The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by the applicant and public hearing scheduled this date. The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent. Mr. Ray Siegele, 832 No. West Street, owner and operator of the business, first asked if the Planning Staff was going to give a slide presentation and, if so, he might change the schedule, of his presentation; Miss Santalahti stated that Planning had slides of the previously existing conditions and recent polaroid photographs where mounted on the Chamber wall. She also explained for Mr. Siegele that relative to the code waivers, those were originally sought a number of years ago when the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) was processed. They were advertised originally and were simply readvertised in this instance. Mr. Siegele first requested to see copies of notices of violations indicated as having been issued to him dated June 4, July 15, and November 14, 1981 through April 12, 1984 since no notices nor a citation for violations was ever issued to him. Then, reading from a prepared statement, he addressed each of the conditions that he had not complied with listed in the staff report to the Planning Commission date May 14, 1984 (Page 12-a) starting with Item No. 11. 0rillnally approval of the CUP was subject to a number of conditions including the conditions listed which were numbered in the original Planning Commission Resolution (PC81-62) 7, 10 through 18 and 21 and 22 indicating his compliance with some of those conditions. In concluding, he submitted a number of questionnaires which had been passed out to his customers giving comments relative to his business (made a part of the record) disagreeing that the center should be closed. (A sheet was also attached s,,mmarizing the results of the questionnaire) Councilwoman Kaywood asked for clarification from Mr. Siegele that he said the four waivers were not conditions at the time of the original approval of the Conditional Use Permit; Mr. Siegele answered they were not required to do those at the time. They were waivers of conditions that the staff wanted at the initial granting of the permit. 701 City Hall; Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 3~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. Miss Santalahti stated they were industrial development standards he would be required to follow for the conditional use permit. The Planning Commission waived those requirements in 1981. Councilman Overholt noted the following in the staff report. 'The operator has shown little or no interest in cooperating with the City in clearing the property of the existing violations and operating in accordance with the use permit.' He was interested in what Mr. Siegele had done to alleviate problems and the time frame and whether he was trying to be a good neighbor. The fact that he (Slegele) made an investment did not Justify his doing anything he wanted to do. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak in favor; there being no response he asked to hear from those who wished to speak in opposition. Neil Fieri, representing Rose Properties involving eight business addresses on Rose Street occupied by Anaheim Plastics, stated the management and employees of Anaheim Plastics and Rose Properties were unanimously opposed to the Recycling Center. It appeared to be a Junk yard a~d was degrading to the neighborhood. It did not keep up the standards of other businesses in the area. They had approximately 100 employees and they too were concerned about their investment. MarilynHelm, 700 So. East Street, referred to the petition previously submitted representing herself and ten other neighbors asking for the revocation of the permit (previously made a part of the record, also see minutes of the Planning Commission hearing of May 14, 1984, where Mrs. Helm gave detailed testimony). She also submitted pictures to the Council which depicted some of the present conditions at the Recycling Center. In her extensive presentation, Mrs. Helm elaborated on the many areas of concern relative to the business. This was not the first time attempts had been made to bring Mr. Siegele into compliance and he was in frequent violation at his previous site on Atchison Street supposedly because that property was too small for his operation. The recent measures taken by Mr. Siegele were a case of too little, too late and the improvements would not result in permanent changes. If the Council granted the permit they should take action to deny the waivers of minimum landscape setback, required enclosure of outdoor uses and minimum number of parking spaces (see petition). They also felt it was necessary to have curbs and sidewalks and marked driveways as a safety improvement for the school children using the area and further that any approval be subject to yearly renewal. Before concluding, Mrs. Helm referred to letter dated June 27, 1984 from the Anaheim City School District signed by Betty Patterson, President of the Board of Education urging the Council to uphold the decision of the Planning Commission. Mr. Vincent Pietrok, 1001 E. South Street, owner of the property across the street from the facility stated the subject property was the only one on the north side of the street without curbs and sidewalks. It appeared the rear of cars parked in the parking area were on the City right-of-way and children had nowhere else to walk but in the street. The driveway on the west'side of the property was a rubble of piled up cement. The permit should be revoked 702 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL KINUTES - July 3~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. because Hr. Siegele made no attempt to solve the problems in the three years he was located at the subject site. Arnold Hare, representing Duralith, 605 So. East Street, the adjacent property to the west, stated he was not present to put Mr. Siegele out of business but wanted to see something done about the paper and debris which filled their parking lot. Paper blew onto their roof and the dust generated caused problems with their air-conditioning. Their business was such that it was almost a clean-room atmosphere. They were asking that the papers and dust be contained. The following people then came forth to speak in favor: Arthur John Crouse, 874 So. Citron Street, stated he was retired and in his retirement collected paper. He did not know Mr. Siegele or any of the problems but he felt that he (Siegele) was doing a lot of good. Gene Rounds, 11541 Cielo Paseo, Santa Ana, stated he was reasonably active in the redevelopment of Anaheim and had relocated many businesses from the downtown area. His livelihood was in industrial-commercial brokerage and recycling was a necessary business in today's society and permitted use in the industrial zone. He suggested that the Council visit the subject site. Hr. Sid K.insbursky, representing Klnsbursky Brothers, owner of a large scrap yard in Anaheim explained that it was difficult to run a business when the Center did not know what was coming in. It was hard to establish a guideline saying that certain material was going to be on the property because they might not get that material for a year and other material came in groups and had to be processed as it arrived. He then clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood that he had purchased material from Mr. Siegele in the past. There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor asked Mr. Siegele to make his summation. Mr. Siegele first countered the points raised by those in opposition and in so doing submitted the following: (1) a signed document from the property owners and occupants in the area dated July 3, 1984 stating, 'The undersigned business owners or managers deny any knowledge of or association with the so called group of "citizens and businesses to close Orange County Scrap and Recycling.'; (2) photographs taken ol ~. Pletrok's backyard; (3) a printed notice that was circulated advocating the closing of his business (all made a part of the record). Working from a posted plan of his property, Hr. Siegele then outlined what he proposed to do as follows: Install an 8-foot block wall since it would be of benefit to his business 200 feet to the north of the property with an appropriate gate for access for their equipment and 400 feet along the alley. The 20-foot inset would be brought out to the property line to put the fence in line with the existing chain link fence. The two swinging gates would be moved somewhere to the north since paper blew through those gates. He would install another vehicle scale to assist in moving traffic through the property and alleviate the dust problem. 703 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 3~ 1984, 10:00 A.M. The second phase would include the installation of the 8-foot high block wall 400 feet from the northerly property line to midway on the property along the alley bringing it to the end of the existing 120-foot long building. Eventually he would construct the entire wall. They had started monitoring with water hoses which helped to hold the paper down. He felt they could comfortably acquire financing to complete the improvements within 180 days. He had one reservation, that being he would have to have latitude on how he could run and operate his business within the confines of his property. Councilman Bay surmised that Mr. Siegele's whole operation would be contained either within an 8-foot wall fully on the north, fully on the east other than where the building was located and the property outside that building would not be used for the operation. Mr. Siegele stated there was incidental shop equipment in that area at present relative to their general overall operation but relative to the recycling material, it was not stacked in that area. Councilman Bay stated they were talking about unscreened storage and the impact to the neighbors with regard to blowing dirt or refuse. An 8-foot block wall would lessen some of the impacts. He wanted to know what Mr. Siegele was going to do to keep paper from blowing. The key to the matter was Mr. Siegele giving assurances and time frames to stop the impacts to his neighbors, i.e., a specific plan in a specific amount of time with no excuses. He (Bay) was not interested in getting inside the operation but in mitigating the impacts affecting the surrounding properties. Councilwoman Kaywood commented that she remembered Mr. Siegele's operation from 1975 with years of empty promises and excuses to the neighbors. It distressed her to see that he had been in his present location for three years moving there from his former Atchison Street property because that property was too small. Now, only on the threat of revoking his permit, improvements began to happen three weeks ago. Councilman Bay asked for comments from staff on Mr. Siegele's proposed improvements to mitigate the impacts; Councilman Overholt asked what alternatives the Council had in terms of action. He was also interested in having the Council decide what was going to be done to solve the problems and setting up a time schedule accordingly. Miss Santalahti explained that staff recommendations were basically identical to those made in 1981. That the full dedication be made immediately on the property rather than delaying it to ultimate redevelopment; that the engineering improvements be installed along South Street as required including curbing and some sidewalks; that the property be enclosed with an 8-foot block wall. It was originally recommended that it be enclosed entirely on the four sides; that minimally an 8-foot masonry block wall be installed the entire length of both the north and east property line and that any gates in those fences be chain link with wood slats; that the landscaping as required be installed and maintained along the South Street frontage. It was also recommended that the improvements be completed within 90 days due to the amount of time that had passed without any improvements being accomplished. 7O4 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 3~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. Further discussion and questioning took place between Council Members and Mr. Siegele to clarify what Mr. Siegele was going to do and how the City could be assured he was going to accomplish the necessary improvements. During the discussion, Mr. Siegele asked if it would be acceptable if he were to start construction of the block wall at the end of July. The scale itself was a 335,000 investment they could stall because they had lived with the one scale for as long as they were located on the property. However, he could proceed to re-blacktop the area which would alleviate the dust. If he started construction on the block wall, it would be cash out-of-pocket but would show his sincerity. He would slat the fencing to the front immediately or include it in the total block wall. Councilman Overholt stated he was going to have to comply with Fire Department requirements relative to inside his operation. He asked staff if there were other critical areas. Miss Santalahti answered that the Commission was concerned with opening of the access ways and that was a condition Mr. Siegele agreed to at the time. Councilman Overholt inquired about the condition that customers not be allowed in the employee areas; Mr. Stegele stated that was something he had agreed to and the area was posted. Councilman Overholt asked if he was agreeing to post the area for the safety of customers; Mr. Siegele confirmed he had done that. Councilman Overholt continued that Mr. Siegele agreed it should be done and he felt he had complied. However, if Code Enforcement found it was not done he asked Mr. Siegele if he would comply. Mr. Siegele promised he would do so. Relative to the blowing papers, he had someone policing the alleys and one of the other possibilities was to install a sprinkler system on the top of the block wall to mitigate the situation. Assistant City Attorney Bob Franks then outlined for Councilman Overholt the alternatives available to the Council today, the fourth being the granting of a continuance for the purposes of compliance. The Council could then impose certain conditions as a condition of the continuance with certain dates within which those conditions would have to be completed. Mr. Siegele would have to agree to the continuance and to carrying out the Council's directives relative to compliance. Councilman Overholt stated if terms could be agreed upon today, the Council could continue the revocation proceedings and if Mr. $iegele complied, the matter would be resolved. Mr. Siegele would have to agree to installing a block wall on the north and east side down to the buildings, slatting the fence from the buildings to the frontage on South Street, installing the scale, resurfacing the area where the scale was going to be and starting construction of the wall by the end of July. If he did not start the wall by that time, the CUP would be revoked or if not installed in six months, the CUP would be revoked. Mr. Franks stated Mr. Siegele would come back for an additional hearing to give him an opportunity to be heard before any revocation of the CUP. 705 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 3~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. Councilman Bay suggested a meeting of the applicant and members of staff to work out terms of a six-month agreement to solve the negative impacts. The agreement could then'be brought back to the Council for approval next week; Miss Santalahti stated she would prefer three weeks. Staff could come back with the original conditions approved by the Planning Commission in a draft form, modified presumably to eliminate those conditions that appeared to be operational in nature and without any direct impact on the neighborhood, plus an addition of the issue brought up today some of which were vaguely repeated. Staff would prepare a draft and contact Mr. Siegele when ready to give him an opportunity to comment and upon agreement, that would be the document submitted to the Council. MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to continue the public hearing on Conditional Use Permit No. 2187 to July 24, 1984, subject to the preparation of an agreement to solve the negative impacts to be drawn by staff in cooperation with Mr. Siegele, which document would be submitted to the Council for consideration. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Mr. Siegele stated he would like a disinterested third party involved. It was clear what was stated by the Council was needed. He was willing at the earliest convenience to meet with staff next week. Councilman Overholt stated Mr. Siegele would meet with staff and come back to Council. If that did not give enough lead time to make arrangements to start the construction of the wall by the end of July, that would be contemplated. Miss Santalahti would be his impartial third party. Mr. Siegele stated that was acceptable. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for ten minutes. (5:52 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (6:02 p.m.) 179: PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 3396: Application submitted by Purushottamdas R. and Nila P. Patel, (Convention Center Inn), to construct a freestanding sign and an illuminated roof sign on C-R zoned property located at 2017 South Harbor Boulevard, with the following Code waivers: (a) maximum area of freestanding sign, (b) permitted location of freestanding sign, (c) maximum area of roof sign, (d) permitted location of roof sign, (e) maximum height of illuminated roof sign. Pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-96, The Planning Director or his authorized representative has determined that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 11 as defined in the State EIR guidelines and is therefore categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. 706 City Hall ~ Anaheim ~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 3, 1984 ~ 10: 00 A.M. The Planning Commission granted Variance No. 3396, in part, subject to the following conditions: 1. That there are no special circumstances applicable to the property which do not apply to other property in the same vicinity and zone. 2. That strict application of the zoning code does not deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the same vicinity and zone. A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman Kaywood at the meeting of June 5, 1984 and public hearing scheduled this date. The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present to answer questions of Councilwoman Kaywood. Mr. John Schmitz, 718 No. Anaheim Boulevard, was present. Councilwoman Kaywood first noted that the frontage existing on Harbor Boulevard was only twenty feet wide. To have built something on that property and to subsequently ask for waivers was a self-induced hardship. She asked the reason for the request for so many signs and why there was a sign on the property at present when it had not been approved as well as other questions pertinent to her concerns. Mr. Schmttz explained that only two signs were being requested and both could not be seen at the same time. His client was requesting a variance be granted because the variance procedure was designed to be used when a particular piece of property did not fit the standard. Also, he was not aware if there was a ConveRtion Center within the motel. He was the sign contractor. The present sign which was on a trailer was placed on the property because the owner was running at only ten percent occupancy and he was using it as a temporary measure to attract business to be able to make his payments. Miss Santalahti first clarified that the present sign on a trailer was not legal, but for the period that the variance was pending, staff had not taken any enforcement action. She also clarified that the entire proposal was before the City Council today and was advertised accordingly including the portion denied by the Planning Commission, the roof sign. The particular parcel being only 20 feet wide had legal signage o£ only 40 square feet for one freestandin~ sign. They were proposing overall 185 square feet. Were the parcel substantially larger, it was legal to have up to 350 square feet but that would necessitate a parcel with a 175-foot frontage. The underlying ownership of the subject property and the two adjacent properties, Mr. Steak's Restaurant and Peter Pan Motel were all held in common under a single ownership. Councilman Pickler asked if Mr. Schmitz had considered incorporating the Convention Center Inn, Mr. Steak's Restaurant and Peter Pan Motel into one sign; Mr. Schmitz answered that it had been considered but when there were two motels on the same sign, he questioned who was then going to get the business. He was present to state the case that the ll8-unit motel was completely separate from the other separate parcel. They were requesting the same privileges enjoyed by other properties of 1/2 acre in size. The Code was 707 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 3, 1984, 10:00 A.M. designed as a guideline and it was not possible to take all circumstances into account when designing the Code and the reason for the variance procedure. It required some latitude because of the shape of the parcel. Councilman Bay emphasized as had Councilwoman Kaywood and confirmed by Miss Santalahti that it was a hardship created by the owner who owned all three properties. After additional discussion and questioning of Mr. Schmitz, the Mayor closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 84R-260 for adoption denying Variance No. 3396 reversing the findings of the City Planning Commission allowing only a 40-foot sign according to Code. Refer to Resolution Book. 179: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-260: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DENYING VARIANCE NO. 3396. Before a vote was taken, Councilman 0verholt stated this would tell the owner of the property to figure out how to give fair signage to the Mr. Steak's Restaurant, Peter Pan Motel, and the Convention Center Inn. MIss Santalahti stated there were only two driveways to the three properties and thus there were practical reasons. The applicant could have a 40 square-foot roof sign or a 40 square-foot sign on the street frontage; Councilwoman Kaywood then stated she would make it specific, that the applicant be allowed only a 40 square-foot Harbor Boulevard street sign. Mr. Purushottamdas Patel then clarified for the Council that he was the owner of all three properties (Mr. Steak's Restaurant, Peter Pan Motel, and the Convention Center Inn) and that Mr. Steak was leased out and had been since he owned the property. A vote was then taken on the foregoing Resolution. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS COUNCIL MEMBERS COUNCIL MEMBERS Kaywood, Bay, 0verholt, Pickler and Roth None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-260 duly passed and adopted. Before concluding, Mr. Patel requested that he be allowed to have the present sign remain on the property at least until September. Councilman Overholt asked if Miss Santalahti had a suggestion; Miss Santalahti stated that Mr. Patel should go to the Planning Department and get a permit for some temporary signing on the property. 708 City Hall~ Anahetm~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Jul~ 3, 1984, 10:00 A.M. Mr. Sc~ttz explained that they had a special permit issued previously but it had expired; Councilman Overholt suggested that perhaps Miss Santalahtt could be of assistance in that regard. 134: GENERAL PLAN A~END~ENT NO. 194 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: To consider an amendment to the General Plan Text, which would update and consolidate the elements of the General Plan. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-97, 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, and further, adopted and recommended to the City Council adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 194, a draft update and consolidation of the existing General Plan Text (excluding the Canyon Area General Plan, Noise and Housing Elements). Mr. Joel Fick, Assistant Director for Planning, briefed the staff report to the Planning Comm~ssion dated May 14, 1984, noting that the purpose of General Plan Amendment No. 194 was to update and consolidate various elements of the General Plan in conformance with current State General Plan Guidelines. Before concluding his presentation, Mr. Fick stated, as Council was aware, certain citizens recently expressed concern regarding the density issue and some misunderstood statements that appeared in the Housing Element and State of the City reports drafted last March. On June 19, 1984 (see Council minutes that date) a technical revision was approved to the Housing Element as required by State mandate and at that meeting, Planning staff verbally deleted representation in the energy conservation section of the report pertaining to the 90 dwelling units per acre. Since that time, the dwelling Planning Department's masters had been revised to delete any such references. Further, staff had been asked to emphasize that there were no density policy amendments included in the update whatsoever. The update and consolidation resulted in a document that was consistent, Streamlined, complied with State Law and was much more easily identifiable and useful. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak; there being no response, he closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Kaywood referred to an article in the Anaheim Bulletin of Thursday, June 21, 1984 written by Phil Villa indicating that, "Central City residents were claiming victory in spite of the Council's three to one adoption of the General Plan Amendment that they opposed." The entire article contained such misleading information. She was glad to hear staff again clarify the error on the 90 units to the acre density issue. That evening she made it clear that was not included in it and had never been the density, and it was not being proposed at that time. Staff said it would be deleted and it was deleted, and thus she was at a loss to know why there was confusion in the article. Councilman Bay noted that the document implied that the Housing Element was mandatory under State Law. He wanted to know if that was currently true, that 709 City Hall~ Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 3~ 1984, 10:00 A.M. the City must have a Housing Element in its General Plan; Mr. Fick confirmed that was true. Councilman Bay recalled that when they first submitted a Housing Element, it was not mandatory and the law that made it mandatory came out of HUD staff in Sacramento and that was why he opposed it originally. He did not know how he could keep opposing it when it was State Law other than to vote against the GPA change because it contained the Housing Element; Councilman Overholt commented that staff had done an excellent Job on the changes which would make their Job easier. Councilman Bay agreed and thus would only abstain on the resolution. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman Pickler, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council ratified the determination of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 11, 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 Pickler offered Resolution No. 84R-261 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. 134: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-261: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE TEXT OF THE ANAHEIM GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATED AS AMENDMENT NO. 194. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COb~CIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, 0verholt, Pickler and Roth NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bay ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-261 duly passed and adopted. Before concluding, Mr. Fick stated that in the update, the Housing Element was only referenced by incorporation and that had already been adopted. 155: MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Planning Department, requesting approval as a Master Environmental Assessment, of a body of materials consisting of Atlas exhibits and related s,,mmaries, files and micro-computer data bases which together comprise an ongoing technical inventory of City-wide physical, biological, social and economic characteristics. Adoption of the Master Environmental Assessment was recommended by the Planning Commission at their meeting of May 14, 1984. Hr. Joel Fick, Assistant Director for Planning, stated he was pleased to present the document to the Council which consisted of 60 plus exhibits of an informational nature. The California Environmental Quality Act encouraged cities to adopt comprehensive data bases and allowed for the material to be referenced in the initial studies, negative declarations or EIRs. His department had been made aware of a possible concern that could be confusing 710 City Rallt Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 3~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M. if the document were to be officially adopted as to whether~ for example, a s~mmary element in the document was as official as an element in the general plan itself. As a result, and in order to avoid any possible confusion pertaining to that, he would recommend that they view the work as a technical information resource available to the City, staff and general public. Rather than adoption as suggested in the staff report, he suggested that the Council instead, by motion, receive and file the report which would suit their purposes. Before concluding Mr. Fick also briefed portions of the staff report to the Planning Commission dated May 14, 1984. MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to receive and file the Master Environmental Assessment as recommended by staff. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (6:50 p.m.) LEONORAN. SOHL, CITY CLERK 711