1983/05/03City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 3, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular s&sston.
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt (entered at 10:13
a.m.), Bay and Roth
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
ASSISTANT CUSTOMER SERVICES MANAGER: Donald R. Metzger
FIRE CHIEF: Bob D. Simpson
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Norman J. Priest
HOUSING ~NAGER: Lisa Stipkovich
COMMUNITY SERVICES MANAGER: Steve Swaim
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
ASSOCIATE PLANNER: Jay Tashiro
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR PLANNING: Joel Fick
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST: Katherine Adams
Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: The Reverend Ron Winckler, Hotline Help Center, gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilwoman Miriam Kaywood led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
119: INTRODUCTION: Mrs. Lillian Landeros presented the 1983 Cinco de Mayo
Queen to the Mayor and the Council, Miss Maricela Barrios.
On behalf of the Council and the City, Mayor Roth welcomed Miss Barrios,
congratulated her on being selected Queen, and presented her with roses.
119: RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A Resolution of Congratulations was
unanimously adopted by the City Council to be presented to the Sons of Italy,
Anaheim Lodge, on the occasion of their 25th Anniversary in Anaheim.
Councilman Overholt entered the Council Chambers (10:13 a.m.).
119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Roth
and authorized by the City Council:
Day of Prayer in Anaheim, May 5, 1983.
Hire a Veteran Week in Anaheim, May 1-7, 1983.
Wellness Week, May 15-21, 1983.
321
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 3, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Beta Sigma Phi Week in Anaheim, week of May 16, 1983.
World Music Competition of Anaheim Week, May 1-7, 1983.
Betty Hartley accepted the Day of Prayer proclamation; Kevin Olsen, Wellness
Week proclamation; Donna Wertz, Jan Crippen and Maryanne Davis, the Beta Sigma
Phi Week proclamation; and Harriet English and "Cappy" Brown, the World Music
Competition proclamation.
MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular
meetings held April 5 and 12, 1983. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda,
after reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to
waiver is hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the
title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such
ordinances or resolutions in regular order. Councilman Roth seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of 34,524,585.04, in
accordance with the 1982-83 Budget, were approved.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Roth,
seconded by Councilman Bay, the following items were approved in accordance
with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each Council
Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Councilman Roth offered
Resolution Nos. 83R-173 through 83R-178, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer
to Resolution Book.
1. il8: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as
recommended:
A. Claims denied and referred to Risk Management:
1. Claim submitted by Mark P. McEvoy for personal property damages to
television and furnace purportedly sustained due to power surge at 235
North Carol Drive, on or about February 6, 1983.
2. Claim submitted by Ken Lynch for personal injury damages purportedly
sustained due to a fall at Anaheim Stadium, on or about January 29, 1983.
3. Claim submitted by Mrs. J. Bailey for personal property damages to
television and light purportedly sustained due to power problems at 320
Park Vista, Space 53, on or about January 31, 1983.
4. Claim submitted by W. Steven Murray for persona! property damages to
to house purportedly sustained due to actions of a City crew at 2533
Glenhaven Avenue, on or about February 24, 1983.
322
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 3~ 1983~ 10:00 A.M.
5. Claim submitted by Carol E. Gi!lenwater for personal property damages
to car purportedly sustained due to an unmarked trench in Nohl Ranch Road,
near Walnut Canyon Road, on or about March 9, 1983.
6. Claim submitted by Clarice M. Kay for personal injury damages
purportedly sustained due to a slip-and-fall accident at the Anaheim
Convention Center, on or about January 26, 1983.
7. Claim submitted by Ronson Equity Management, Inc., for indemnity
purportedly sustained due to a fire caused by utility wires at the Palm
Villa Apartment Complex, on or about April 21, 1982.
8. Claim submitted by John Seymour and Associates, Realtors, for property
damages to building purportedly sustained due to a fire caused by
negligently maintained power lines at 1234 South Euclid Avenue, on or
about April 21, 1982.
B. Claim denied and referred to Governmental Programs Division, Markel
Services, Inc.:
9. Claim submitted by Rene Torres for personal property damages to door
purportedly sustained due to actions of Anaheim Police Officers at 219
North Finch, on or about February 8, 1983.
C. Application for Leave to Present Late Claim denied:
10. Application for Leave to Present Late Claim submitted by Peter Wann
for personal injury damages purportedly sustained due to actions of the
Anaheim Police Department beginning in January 1982 and continuing to
present.
2. The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 105: Public Utilities Board--Minutes of March 17, 1983.
3. 108: The following applications were approved in accordance with the
recommendations of the Acting Chief of Police:
a. Public Dance Permit, Felipe Jesus Guerena, Anaheim Dance Promotions,
to hold a dance at the Anaheim Convention Center on May 7, 1983, from 6:00
p.m. to 1:30 a.m.
b. Publf. c Dance Hall Permit, May Le, Soc-Nau, 507 South Brookhurst, to
permit dancing Thursday and Sunday from 8:00 p.m. through 11:00 p.m. and
Friday and Saturday 8:30 p.m. through 1:30 a.m.
4. 170.123: Approving the assignment of interest in a special water
facilities reimbursement agreement with Jones-Hamilton DPST to Johnson Levine
& Co., effective February 25, 1983; and the assignment from Johnson Levine &
Co. to Incgro & Co., effective March 17, 1983, relating to Tract 9749 in
Anaheim Hills.
323
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 3, 1983~ 10:00 A.M.
5. 177/109: Approving the new Housing Assistance Plan for submission to the
Department of Housing and Urban Development.
6. 128: Receiving and filing the Monthly Financial Analysis for the
eight-month period ended February 28, 1983.
7. 139: Supporting AB 1356 (Floyd), legislation increasing the penalties for
violators of existing laws dealing with the display and sale of drug
paraphernalia and communicating said support to City representatives in the
Assembly.
8. 123: Authorizing an agreement with the County of Orange for the
construction phase of the Anaheim Boulevard widening project from Broadway to
Ball Road, A.H.F.P. No. 1073; City's match, 51.2 million.
9. 123: Authorizing agreements with Automatic Elevator Service Corporation
in an aggregate amount of 5117,000 for elevator and escalator maintenance at
Anaheim Stadium for a term of 3 years.
10. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to R. G.
Systems in the amount of $29,125 for enhancement of an existing load
management system for the Load Scheduling Program in the Public Utilities
Operations Division.
11. 160: Accepting the low bid of Evans Products Company in the amount of
536,263.88 for two each, 71-foot tubular steel poles, in accordance with Bid
No. 3950.
12. 123: Approving the first amendment to the Lease Agreement with C-D III
to construct an approximate 12,500-square foot annex building to be used as
temporary construction offices and personnel training rooms during
construction and as permanent offices and personnel training rooms upon
completion of construction of the Hilton At The Park located at the northwest
corner of the intersection of Harbor Boulevard and Convention Way.
173: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-173: A ltESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING INCIDENTAL USES OF THE PREMISES AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF
ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS AT THE HILTON AT THE PARK.
13. 175: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-174: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: NEW
PRESSURE REGULATING STATION 19, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO.
53-611-6329-17290-34360. (Bids to be opened June 2, 1983, 2:00 p.m.)
14. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-175: . A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE LINCOLN AVENUE TRANSITION ROAD
STREET IMPROVEMENT AT OLD LINCOLN AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO.
46-793-6325-E3680. (Orange Coast Contracting, 359,896)
324
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 3, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
15. 175: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-176: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE LEWIS SUBSTATION TROUBLESHOOTER
BUILDING, 826 EAST CERRITOS AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO.
50-424-6325-01770-31100. (Palmer Building Systems, Corp., ~13,638)
16. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-177: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE DALE AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENT,
BROADWAY TO ORANGE AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS.
24-792-6325-E2900 AND 53-606-6329-17310-34310. (Parrott and Wright
Construction Company, $26,623.25)
17. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-178: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A CERTAIN DEED AND ORDERING ITS RECORDATION.
(Secure Properties, Inc.)
18. 123: Authorizing a Joint Powers Agreement with the cities of Santa Ana,
Garden Grove, La Habra and the County of Orange for the operation of programs
under the Job Training Partnership Act and appointing William O. Talley as
Anaheim's representative on the Orange County Job Training Partnership Agency
and Garry O. McRae as the alternative representative.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
None
MOTION CARRIED. The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 83R-173 through 83R-178,
both inclusive, duly passed and adopted.
108: APPLICATIONS FOR ENTERTAIN~ENT PERMITS - HOLLYWOOD A-GO-GO AND THE EXPO
- APPLICATION FOR A POOL PERMIT, THE EXPO: (1) Entertainment Permit submitted
by Robert Wayne Copeland, Hollywood A-Go-Go, 508 South Knott Street, to permit
dancing girls 7 days a week, from 3:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m.; (2) Entertainment
Permit submitted by Steven Douglas Sigerseth, The Expo, 621 North Euclid
Street, to permit six female dancers 7 days a week, from 9:00 p.m. to 2:00
a.m.; and (3) Pool Room Application submitted by Steven Douglas Sigerseth, The
Expo, 621 North Euclid Street, to permit 3 pool tables.
Councilwoman Kaywood recommended that the three application requests be
continued for one week for a report from the Police Department. She was
concerned with the request for an Entertainment Permit at 508 South Knott
Street, since there was a proliferation of bars and noisy user-type
entertainment in that area, and there was a residential area located to the
west and the north.
Councilman Overholt stated he was going to suggest that Items 2 and 3 (The
Expo applications) be set for a public hearing, because they had received some
objections from residents.
325
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 3, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she did not believe it was necessary to set a
public hearing at this time, but she did want a Police report and, in the
meantime, residents of the area could be notified.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to continue consideration of Entertainment
Permit Applications for Hollywood A-Go-Go and The Expo, and Pool Room Permit
Application for The Expo for one week and that a police report be submitted to
the Council. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
108: POOL ROOM APPLICATION - BIG JOHN'S BILLIARDS: Submitted by Gary Jay
Chopic, Big John's Billiards, 807 East Orangethorpe Avenue, to permit 40 pool
tables.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that the application by Mr. Chopic contained no
references or other required information and it was for 40 pool tables.
Councilman Bay stated that the business had been at the location for many
years.
Councilwoman Kaywood reiterated that there were no references on the
application or any identity of other persons that might be involved. If the
application was a renewal, it would have been a simple matter to have included
that information. She wanted to see the application properly filled out.
The ~fayor asked if the applicant or anyone was present relative to the subject
application; no one was present.
Since a representative of the Police Department was not present to answer
questions, City Manager Talley recommended a continuance.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to continue action on the Pool Room
Application submitted by Gary Jay Chopic, Big John's Billiards, 807 East
Orangethorpe Avenue, to permit 40 pool tables, for one week. Councilman
Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
112/179: SB 1534 - "GRANNY" UNITS: Councilwoman Kaywood again referred to
the subject bill and reiterated her request of April 26, 1983, that the City
Attorney prepare an ordinance for Council action in order to protect the
C~tyts s~te development standards w~th regard to "Cranny" un, ts to preclude
the City from being preempted when the State law went into effect on July 1,
1983.
PUBLIC REQUESTS - CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Pickler, seconded
by Councilman Overholt, the following items were approved in accordance with
the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each Council Member
and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Councilman Pickler offered Resolution
Nos. 83R-179 and 83R-180 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
326
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 3, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
1. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 73-74-36--EXTENSION OF TIME: Request of Mike Conlon,
M. J. Brock & Sons, Inc., for an extension of time to Reclassification No.
73-74-36, proposed PC zoning to construct the Anaheim Shores Planned Community
consisting of residential condominiums, a mobilehome park, a neighborhood
shopping center and office park on property generally bounded by Euclid
Street, La Palma Avenue, Brookhurst Street and the Riverside Freeway, was
approved, to expire March 19, 1984, as recommended by the Zoning Division.
2. VARIANCE NO. 1949-16--TERMINATION: Request of Sylvia Hammond, for
termination of Variance No. 1949-16, to permit a motor scooter agency and
unpainted furniture salesroom on property located at 714 North Anaheim
Boulevard as a condition of approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 1061.
RESOLUTION NO. 83R-179:- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM TERMINATING ALL PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH VARIANCE NO. 1949-16
AND DECLARING RESOLUTION NO. 1684 NULL AND VOID.
3. VARIANCE NO. 3246--TERMINATION: Request of Fred L. Stevens, for
termination of Variance No. 3246, to establish a 13-lot, RS-HS-22,000(SC)
zoned subdivision, with.waiver of minimum lot area, on property located north
of Martella Lane and east of Martin Road, due to a revision of the map of
Tract No. 10674, Rev. No. 1, thereby negating the requirement for Variance No.
3246.
RESOLUTION NO. 83R-180: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM TERMINATING ALL PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH VARIANCE NO. 3246 AND
DECLARING RESOLUTION NO. 82R-65 NULL AND VOID.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
None
MOTION CARRIED. The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 83R-179 and 83R-180 duly
passed and adopted.
175:' EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE FUND TO HELP PAY FOR UTILITY BILLS (AMPS): Request
by Helen McConnell, Emergency Aid Chairman, Assistance League, to report on
the progress of AMPS (Anaheim Maintains Public Service), was submitted. See
minutes of March 22 and 29, 1983.
Helen McConnell, Emergency Aid Chairman, Assistance League of Anaheim, briefed
the Council on the efforts that took place following the Council meeting of
March 29, 1983, specifically their meeting of March 30, 1983, attended by City
staff, a representative of the Chamber of Commerce and a representative from
the Episcopal Services Association, as well as the efforts they had made to
begin to raise the needed funds for the program. (Also see report dated
327
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 3~ 1983~ 10:00 A.M.
April 28, 1983, from the Public Utilities General Manager, reporting on the
April 25, 1983, meeting of the Emergency Assistance Program Committee.) The
thrust of Mrs. McConnell's presentation was the fact that they needed $20,000,
otherwise it would not be feasible to open their office to the public.
Further, today the Assistance League was submitting a letter requesting
$20,000 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds (see Public Hearing
- Ninth Year Community Development Block Grant Program hearing later in the
meeting), and they were also requesting a $10,000 seed fund that would keep
their office operating until the ~20,000 was available. With these actions,
along with the mailer planned to be sent to Chamber of Commerce members, they
could stay in business and fulfill the purpose of AMPS.
Councilman Overholt then posed questions to the City Attorney as to his
findings on whether or not the Utilities could participate by direct financial
contribution. He wanted to know if the Utilities were prohibited from doing
so if it were an advance, subject to reimbursement.
City Attorney Hopkins stated that they were checking with Bond Counsel on that
aspect.
After further discussion and questioning between Council Members, staff and
Mrs. McConneil, Councilwoman Kaywood stated she understood what Mrs. McConnell
was trying to convey relative to the Council making available ~10,000, but the
City was facing a ~10 million shortfall and it was not possible to do so at
this time. She wanted to see a way under the lifeline program that the
$10,000 seed money could be allocated. It would be even more preferable if
some of the members of the Chamber of Commerce would come forth with a large
donation.
Mr. Bill Latham, Chamber of Commerce, 3370 Miraloma, explained that at the
meeting held almost five weeks ago, strategy was developed in concert with the
Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Chamber. He thought it was good
strategy; however, it did not work as he had planned. He and the Chamber were
committed to making a voluntary program work. They were regrouping and
developing these new strategies to make a success of the program essential to
the citizens of Anaheim.
Councilman Overholt wanted to clarify what AMPS was designed to do. It was
mane up o~ a number o£ organizations ~nclud~ng the participation of the City's
Utilities staff. It was not a project of the Chamber of Commerce~ the
Assistance League, the Lutheran or Episcopal groups, but a project of the
community to try to help people who found themselves in difficulty. The
policy that was going to be carried out was a one-time assistance to those
individuals who were in need. If there was a way the Utilities could provide
a loan, something that could be advanced and reimbursed, it would give the
organizations a feeling they were not in it by themselves. He hoped that the
City Attorney could come up with something that would open that door.
328
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 3~ 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Mr. Don Metzger, Assistant Customer Service Manager, stated he had no conflict
with it and supported what both Mrs. McConnell and Mr. Latham said. He did
not believe there was any disagreement on the committee and none of them were
pleased with the results thus far. After the first meeting, he was under the
impression that they would have an insert in the Utility billings but
thereafter, it was felt that such an insert would not be quick enough.
Councilwoman Kaywood suggested that perhaps the $3,000 estimated to be used
for printing the inserts could be used as a starter for the fund; Councilman
Pickler suggested that they loan the 310,000 from the General Fund so there
would be money to work with and then go through the procedure of finding out
whether they could get that back from the Utility or Block Grant Funds.
Councilman Bay reiterated his philosophy relative to government intervention
into "social engineering" and charitable problems. He emphasized that he did
not believe the City should take money out of its General Fund or anywhere
else to help another charity. He sympathized and empathized with all of those
needs and gave to them personally, but did not consider it his right to give
taxpayer money, thereby making every taxpayer an automatic mandatory
contributor to those causes, whether they agreed or disagreed.
Mayor Roth stated that they were going to continue the matter for one week
during which the City Attorney would continue to investigate the possibility
of the Utilities participating in'the program with a direct financial
contribution, subject to reimbursement. As well, the Council would appreciate
a progress report from the Chamber. They appreciated the continuing concern
of the Assistance League, as well as the Chamber's efforts in support of the
program.
142/149: ORDINANCE NO. 4424: Amending Section 14.32.430 of the Code relating
to handicapped parking.
City Clerk Linda Roberts announced that staff had requested a 2-week
continuance on the proposed ordinance.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to continue consideration of proposed
Ordinance No. 4424 to May 17, 1983. Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
142/129: ORDINANCE NO. 4425 - PERTAINING TO FIREWORKS: Repealing and
enacting new Sections 6.40.010, .030 and .060, pertaining to fireworks (see
minutes of April 26, 1983, where extensive discussion took place).
Councilman Overholt stated since he offered the Ordinance for first reading,
he wanted to make a statement. At the time the Ordinance was offered, it was
in a form which was the best form he understood could be developed to try to
enable a local businessman to continue what he had been doing for years under
State law, and yet minimize the impact of fireworks sales and use in the
City. He now understood that there may be proposed modifications that would
329
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 3, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
reduce or eliminate the expansion of the use and sale of fireworks in the
City, but still permit the manufacturer to continue to do what he was
authorized to do under State law. If those modifications were brought forth
in the discussion, he would be supportive, and thus, would withhold offering
the existing ordinance until it had full discussion.
Mayor Roth stated he would like to offer some amendments to the proposed
Ordinance as follows: Under Section 3--6.40.030--Fireworks--Time of Sale and
Discharge--add a new Section .010 to be entitled, Wholesale Business--No
established wholesale business as defined herein shall offer for sale at
retail any fireworks except during the period of June 28 through July 4,
inclusive. This would permit the wholesale business the right of retail sales
from June 28 through July 4.
Under the same Section, add--.020--Retail Business--Meaning the Boyscouts,
Girlscouts, those organizations using the sale of fireworks for fund-raising
would remain status quo, that is, sale of fireworks would remain July 1
through July 4 as under the existing Ordinance.
Under the same Section, add .030 covering the Discharge of Fireworks--that
would also remain the same as under the existing Ordinance with discharge to
take place only between July 1 through July 4.
The Mayor continued that the Ordinance would, therefore, be modified under
Section 3 only, adding .010 permitting the wholesaler the same opportunity as
any other manufacturer in the City to sell a limited amount of his products
retail. He (Roth) felt it was a good compromise and it would not permit
anybody to discharge fireworks any earlier than the present Ordinance, while
retaining the same dates for retail sales through fireworks stands.
Councilman Overhott asked the City Attorney to comment on the proposed
amendment. If it was something, in his opinion, that was legal, he would be
supportive.
City Attorney William Hopkins explained that the California Health and Safety
Code provided that a resale license shall authorize retail sales of safe and
sane fireworks in the State only during the period of 12:00 noon on the 28th
of June to 12:00 noon on the 6th of July of the same calendar year. The
0ri~inal pr0p0~al referred to the 28th of June to the 4th of July and would
have made the Ordinance coincide with State law. By breaking the Ordinance
Section 6.40.030 into three sections, it thereby established the wholesale
business having June 28 to July 4 and the retail businesses retaining July 1
to July 4, with the discharge of fireworks being restricted from July 1 to
July 4. He did not believe there was any violation of the State Code inasmuch
as all of the dates were within the periods provided by the California Health
and Safety Code.
Councilman Bay stated the legal question that came to mind, if they allowed
the wholesale business to sell retail for a different period of time than
retailers, if they received a court action on discriminatory law, how would
the City Attorney propose to answer that.
330
City Hal~, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 3, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
City Attorney Hopkins answered if the Council felt that breaking the Ordinance
into three sections is what should be done, they would do their best to
support tha~ in any court action that may result.
Councilman kay stated he would be glad to support the amendment proposed with
one additio~al amendment, that being under Section .030 on the Discharge, that
no person skall discharge any fireworks except on the 4th of July. He offered
it as an amendment which would require a second and a vote and, if passed, it
would bec,~me part of Mayor Roth's original amendment.
Councilm~n Overholt seconded Councilman Bay's proposed amendment in order to
speak to tl~_ issue. If they were going to get into a discussion further
limiting th~ use of fireworks, that was the kind of thing he would support.
However, he did not consider that to be the issue he brought forth to the
Council last week. He would not support the additional amendment, but if
Councilman Bay wished to pursue it, he would support him in doing so.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she would support no discharge of fireworks except
on July 4; but to have a public hearing, she would go much farther than that
and move to set the issue as a ballot measure and have the people vote on it.
Councilman Overholt stated if Councilman Bay was serious about reducing the
use of f~reworks in the City, that was a proper subject for a public hearing,
but today they were trying to reconcile a conflict.
Council~ man Kaywood stated she was having a problem with that. In her
opinion, there was one company breaking the law for the last nine years in
Anaheim, and instead of requiring that they comply with the law, there was a
lot of bending to make an illegal act legal.
Further discussion, debate and questioning followed between Councilwoman
Kaywood and Councilman Overholt with input requested of staff, at the
conclusion of which Councilwoman Kaywood stated she would support the
amendment proposed by Councilman Bay and would second it if it would stand as
a single issue. She would not support t~e initial amendment proposed.
Councilman Bay suggested that they take public input at this time; Councilman
Overholt thereupon withdrew his second to Councilman Bay's motion.
The following people then spoke upon the issue: Mr. Richard Curtis, 419 East
Sycamore (also see Mr. Curtis' letter dated April 27, 1983, in opposition to
the amem~ment proposed to the Fireworks Ordinance on April 26, 1983). He
first read ~he sections of the existing Ordinance 3349 of September 17, 1974
(6.40.030 a~ 6.40.060). In concluding, he stated he was against the sale and
u~e of any fireworks in the City of Anaheim except for those professionally
controlled, such as the displays at Disneyland and the Stadium and other such
displays. ~-~ was opposed to the extension of time for sale and discharge of
fireworks, out if they must have them, he implored the Council to retain the
period of time presently existing and which had been in existence since 1974,
July 1 through July 4. He was very much in favor of Councilman Bay's
suggestion of July 4 only.
331
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 3, 1983~ 10:00 A.M.
Windflower Ochoa, 1330 Oriole, felt that the quality of life was at stake in
Anaheim, as well as the safety of its citizens, and in particular, the safety
of its children, youth and property. She proposed a ban on the sale of
fireworks in the City and that their use be confined to one spectacular
display free to the public. She was objecting to any sales of fireworks.
Sandy Ramich, 5134 Greensboro, stated that to approve the amendment was
ill-advised. Pyrotronics had been selling fireworks retail for 16 years
starting on June 28 and thus illegally for nine years. They were doing
something that was not legal and the Council was condoning it. She did not
agree with that and there were people in her neighborhood who did not feel it
was right. She would speak on banning fireworks entirely at another time.
There were no further persons who wished to speak.
The Mayor noted there was no second to Councilman Bay's amendment limiting the
discharge of fireworks to one day. The motion died for lack of a second.
After further Council discussion on the issue, Fire Chief Bob Simpson answered
questions posed by Councilwoman Kaywood relative to the cost of enforcement,
as well as questions by other Council Members.
At the conclusion of discussion, Councilwoman Kaywood stated she did not
receive a copy of the proposed amendment to the ordinance and, therefore,
asked to have the amended first reading next week and the second reading the
week following that. She was just handed a copy by the City Attorney and she
did not have time to read it.
Councilman Overholt recalled that there was no requirement to give advance
notice to other Council Members when there was an offering; Councilman Bay
stated since that matter was originally his issue, he had to agree that
Councilman Overholt was correct. The majority of the Council voted against
the policy and procedure of having to give advance notice. However, any
Council Member could propose an amendment next week if they wished to do so.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked Councilman Bay if he had received a copy of the
amendment; Councilman Bay answered that he had received it in the regular City
mail.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she was the only member of the Council who
did not receive a copy of the amended ordinance and she just now received a
copy from the City Attorney.
Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4425 for an amended first reading,
permitting the wholesaler to sell retail June 28th through July 4, with the
dates of discharge of fireworks and sale from fireworks stands to be retained
as at present, July 1 through July 4.
332
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May'3~ 1983~ 10:00 A.M.
ORDINANCE NO. 4425: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
REPEALING TITLE 6, CHAPTER 6.40, SECTION 6.40.010, SECTION 6.40.030 AND
SECTION 6.40.060 AND ENACTING A NEW TITLE 6, CHAPTER 6.40, SECTION 6.40.010,
SECTION 6.40.030 AND SECTION 6.40.060 PERTAINING TO FIREWORKS.
ORDINANCE NO. 4426: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4426 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4426: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (78-79-6, RS-5000, northeast
corner of Simmons Avenue and Haster Street, Tract 9815)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL b~MBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4426 duly passed and adopted.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: The City Manager requested a Closed Session to
discuss personnel matters and labor relations with no action anticipated; the
City Attorney requested a Closed Session to discuss litigation and potential
litigation with no action anticipated.
Councilman Pickler moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilman Roth
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (12:28 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (1:48 p.m.)
174(CDBG): PUBLIC HEARING - NINTH YEAR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
PROGRAM (CDBG): To consider an allocation for the Ninth Year Community
Development Block Grant Program and Budget in the amount of $3,538,000,
including an additional appropriation in an amount of approximately $844,000
resulting from the recent Jobs Act of 1983.
Mr. Norman Priest, Executive Director of Community Development, briefed his
report dated April 25, 19~, recommending an additional appropriation o£
~1,719,200 for the 1983-84 CDBG Program and Budget and authorizing the staff
to prepare proposed statements of Community Development Objectives and
Projected Use of Funds to include $1,719,200 for a total of $3,538,000. He
then explained how the additional $1,719,200 was derived, which was a part of
the discussion contained in his report.
The Mayor then asked to hear from those who wished to speak.
Mr. Eugene Scorio, Executive Director, Orange County Fair Housing Council,
stated he submitted a proposal for Fair Housing Services to Anaheim in the
amount of $38,000. Yet last year the Council saw fit to award Fair Housing a
333
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 3, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
sum of $35,000. This year they had been cut back from 40 percent to 20
percent. In consideration of the services performed for Anaheim, upon which
he elaborated, he was requesting that either the original amount of ~35,000 be
continued or increased by the modest amount of ~3,000.
Mr. Robert Cohen, Executive Director, Legal Aid Society for Orange County,
stated that they had an office in Anaheim and the last time he was before the
Council, they allocated $15,000 to Legal Aid and an additional ~25,000
contingent upon having additional funds to allocate. They were not asking for
anything new, but just to be able to sustain their presence in Anaheim. They
wanted Council to reaffirm that kind of funding.
Gay Duncan, President, Assistance League of Anaheim, referred to a letter she
submitted earlier in the meeting dated May 2, 1983, requesting 320,000 from
CDBG funds to be used for Project AMPS. They had not appeared before the
Community Services Board with their request because they found out only
yesterday such funds might be available to them. (Attached to the letter of
May 2, 1983, was a detailed application containing backup documentation for
their request.)
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the
public portion of the hearing.
Councilman Bay, after explaining his understanding of the allocation of the
CDBG funds, expressed his concern that they had not heard from the CDBG
Citizen Participation Committee so that the public could understand the
dialogue that took place when their recommendations were made (see Attachment
No. 2 to-report dated April 25, 1983, from the Executive Director--
Community-wide CDBG Citizen Participation Committee--Recommendations for
Additional Funds).
Mr. Steve Jimenez, Chairman of the CDBG Citizen Participation Committee, then
explained the criteria they used to establish their priorities for the
additional funds based upon input they received in the December 1982 public
hearing, as well as previous meetings and hearings. It was his understanding
they were required ~o hold only one hearing thereafter (see minutes of the
Participation Committee meeting of April 7, 1983), where there would be no
citizen participation~ but based on the recommendations they heard in the
past. However~ because there were many people at the meetin8 and because
those people were $o patient~ they did take input from representatives of
non-profit organizations. The result of the meeting was reflected in
Attachment No. 2, outlining their recommendations for allocation of funds.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that members of the Committee expressed their
concern that Block Grant funds were going to the charitable organizations at
all; Mr. Jimenez reported that there was an indication that funds should
primarily be spent to help the target areas.
334
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 3, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
MOTION:' Councilman Bay moved to approve the recommendation of the
Community-wide CDBG Citizen Participation Committee as listed in Attachment
No. 2 of report dated April 25, 1983, from the Executive Director (Items !
through 17)', totaling ~1,719,200.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt stated he felt strongly that AMPS
should be included at this point, since if they did not do so at this time, it
would get lost. He thereupon amended the motion offered by Councilman Bay to
reflect ~20,000 for the AMPS Program in accordance with the staff
recommendation, as indicated on Attachment No. 2, which revised the cost
estimate of alley reconstruction (Item No. 17) to ~283,000 with the difference
of $45,000 recommended to be placed into the Contingency Fund. Councilman
Pickler seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, City Manager Talley suggested if that was the intent,
it would be better to take the $45,000 and use it as part of Item 5 (Central
City Area Street Improvements), thereby reducing the additional entitlement to
~45,000, which would allow for more flexibility. They would not necessarily
take the funds from Item 17, but might reprogram Item 17 somewhere else.
Councilman Overholt stated what he wished to do was add an AMPS program of
$20,000 and charge that in accordance with staff's recommendation; City
Manager Talley stated they would bring that back to the Council.
Additional questions were then posed by Council Members for purposes of
clarification, which were answered by staff members Norman Priest, and Steve
Swaim, and also Mr. Jimenez.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion as amended by Councilman
Overholt, including the recommendation as articulated by the City Manager.
Councilman Bay voted "No." MOTION CARRIED.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - (1) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2410 AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION; (2) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2411 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION; (3)
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2412 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND (4) CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT NO. 2413 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: The first application (CUP
2410) was submitted by Robert L. Zuckerman, (Arco M.P. & G.), to retain
convenience retail sales in an existing service station on CL zoned property
located at 610 South Magnolia Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-64, declared
that the subject project be exempt from the requirement to file an
Environmental Impact Report pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act, since the Anaheim General Plan designates the
subject property for general commercial land uses commensurate with the
proposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the
proposal; and that the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no
significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts; and
further granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2410, subject to the following
conditions:
335
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 3, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
1. That the existing most northerly driveway on Magnolia Avenue and the
existing most easterly driveway on Orange Avenue shall be removed and replaced
with a standard curb, gutter, sidewalk and landscaping.
2. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos.
1 and 2 with a maximum retail sales area of 140 square-feet.
3. That Condition Nos. 1 and 2, above-mentioned, shall be completed within a
period of 90 days from the date of this resolution.
4. That the retail sale of alcoholic beverages (including beer and wine)
shall not be permitted in conjunction with this use.
5. That items to be sold at this location shall be limited to gum, packages
of candy and mints, packaged nuts and seeds, candy bars, fruit juices (glass
and cans), soda, chips (i.e., Fritos), cookies and cakes.
The decision of the Planning Commission relating, in particular, to Condition
No. 1 aforementioned, was appealed by C. V. Hicks, Arco Agent, and public
hearing scheduled this date.
The second application (CUP 2411) was submitted by Arthur B. Wilmsen Trust,
Bank of America, (Arco M.P. & G.), to retain convenience retail sales in an
existing service station on CL zoned property located at 1000 North State
College Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-65, declared
that the subject project be exempt from the requirement to file an
Environmental Impact Report pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act, since the Anaheim General Plan designates the
subject property for general commercial land uses commensurate with the
proposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the
proposal; and that the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no
significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts; and
further granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2411, subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the existing most southerly driveway on State College Boulevard and
the existing most westerly driveway on La Palma Avenue shall be removed and
replaced with a standard curb, gutter, sidewalk and landscaping.
2. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos.
i and 2 with a maximum retail sales area of 200 square feet.
3. That Condition Nos. 1 and 2,, above-mentioned, shall be completed within a
period of 90 days from the date of this resolution.
336
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 3, 1983~ 10:00 A.M
4. That the retail sale of alcoholic beverages (including beer and wine)
shall not be permitted in conjunction with this use.
5. That items to be sold at this site shall be limited to gum, packages of
candy and mints, packaged nuts and seeds, candy bars, fruit juices (glass an~
cans), soda, chips (i. e., Fritos), cookies and cakes.
The decision of the Planning Commission relating, in particular, to Condition
No. 1 aforementioned, was appealed by C. V. Hicks, Arco Agent, and public
hearing scheduled this date.
The third application (CUP 2412) was submitted by the Atlantic Richfield
Company, (Arco M.P. & G.), to retain convenience retail sales in an existing
service station on CL zoned property located at 1700 West La Palma Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-66, declared
that the subject project be exempt from the requirement to file an
Environmental Impact Report pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act, since the Anaheim General Plan designates the
subject property for general commercial land uses commensurate with the
proposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the
proposal; and that the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no
significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts; and
further granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2412, subject to the following
conditions:
1. That appropriate water assessment fees shall be paid to the City of
Anaheim in an amount as determined by the Office of the Utilities General
Manager.
2. That the existing most northerly driveway on Euclid Avenue and the
existing most easterly driveway on La Palma Avenue shall be removed and
replaced with a standard curb, gutter, sidewalk and landscaping.
3. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos.
1 and 2 with a maximum retail sales area of 180 square feet.
4. That Condition Nos. 1, 2 and 3, ab0v~-mantioned, ~hall be completed
a period of 90 days from the date of th~s resolution.
5. That the retail sales of alcoholic beverages (including beer and wine)
shall not be permitted in conjunction with this use.
6. That items to be sold at this site shall be limited to gum, packages of
candy and mints, packaged nuts and seeds, candy bars, fruit juices (glass and
cans), soda, chips (i. e., Fritos), cookies and cakes.
337
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 3, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
The decision of the Planning Commission relating, in particular, to Condition
No. 2 aforementioned, was appealed by C. V. Hicks, Arco Agent, and public
hearing scheduled this date.
The fourth application (CUP 2413) was submitted by Atlantic Richfield Company,
(Arco M.P. & G.), to retain convenience retail sales in an existing service
station on CL zoned property located at 3901 East Riverdaie Avenue, with Code
waiver of permitted advertising on lighter box signs.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-67, declared
that the subject project be exempt from the requirement to file an
Environmental Impact Report pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act, since the Anaheim General Plan designates the
subject property for general commercial/medium density land uses commensurate
with the proposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the
proposal; and that the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no
significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts; and
further granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2413, subject to the following
conditions:
1. That appropriate water assessment fees shall be paid to the City of
Anaheim in an amount as determined by the Office of Utilities General Manager.
2. That the existing most southerly driveway on Tustin Avenue shall be
removed and replaced with a standard curb, gutter, sidewalk and landscaping.
3. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos.
1 and 2 with a maximum retail sales area of 200 square feet.
4. That Condition Nos. 1 through 3, abovementioned, shall be completed within
a period of 90 days from the date of this resolution.
5. That the retail sale of alcoholic beverages (including beer and wine)
shall not be permitted in conjunction with this use.
6. That items sold at this site shall be limited to gum, packages of candy
and mints, packaged nuts and seeds, candy bars, fruit juices (glass and cans),
~oda, chip~ (i. ~., Frit0~), c0oki~ and caka~.
The decision of the Planning Commission relating, in particular, to Condition
No. 2 aforementioned, was appealed by C. V. Hicks, Arco Agent, and public
hearing scheduled this date.
It was determined that all applications would be considered together, since
they all related to the condition imposed by the Planning Commission requiring
the closure of certain driveways in each instance. Conditional Use Permi~ No.
2413 also involved a sign issue which would subsequently be addressed.
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
338
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 3, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Mr. Wallace R. Davis, Attorney for Atlantic Richfield Company, first referred
to an addendum submitted on April 26, 1983 (see Appeal to City
Council--Addendum, made a part of the record), covering the four Conditional
Use Permits to permit sales of allowed snacks from open racks rather than from
vending machines. The addendum outlined the reason for their appeal, that
being the requirement regarding the closure of certain driveways, since the
condition in each case was not justified in view of the slight modified use
being requested. They felt that requirement was uncalled for and not
justified by the facts or experience. He clarified this was not a mini-market
operation and there was no expansion of the physical facility, but related
only to the small area being used to dispense snacks.
They felt there was not only no proof of any traffic problem, but also, if
they had to close the driveway, serious problems would then be created in the
internal vehicular circulation pattern. The ordinance did not impose any
limit on the number of vending machines and there was need for clarification.
He recommended that there be a limitation on the size of the area where snacks
could be sold. When they appeared before the Planning Commission, some
material was presented with which they were totally unaware purporting to show
that there were accidents in the intersections involved which called for the
closing of the driveways. A review and careful analysis of those accidents by
Kimmell and Associates, Traffic Engineering Consultants, proved that the
driveways did not cause the accidents. He then pointed out a few brief
examples of the kinds of accidents that were presented (see letter dated
April 11, 1983, from Herman Kimmell, relating to the collision diagrams
attached to his letter). Mr. Kimmell was present to discuss the negatives
that would occur should the driveways be closed. He also submitted background
data on the firm of Herman Kimmell and Associates, as welt as Mr. Kimmell,
another principal, Edward Granzow, and a list of some of their clients both in
the public and private sector (made a part of the record).
Mr. Herman Kimmell, 3300 Irvine Boulevard, Newport Beach, then reported on his
findings, pointing out in some instances that the collision diagrams showed
accidents that occurred at the other driveways as well. He also reported on
what would occur if the forward driveways were closed. The gas pumps would
still be located out front and a car turning into the rear driveway would have
to make almost a "U" turn to get to the pumps. Cars exiting the station would
als° interfere with cars entering, and if there was an adjacent commercial
~ite, they would al~0 be u~ing that driveway, re~ulting in more c0nge~tion and
accidents.
Mayor Roth noted that the problem arose because the applicant wanted to
provide snacks on open racks instead of vending machines, the latter being
permissible under the existing ordinance. He was now being penalized in
providing the service by conditions calling for the closure of certain
driveways, whereas otherwise, he could have circumvented the whole issue by
merely installing a whole area of vending machines; Annika Santalahti,
Assistant Director for Zoning, stated that theoretically, they could sell
snacks inside the building in as many vending machines as they wished.
339
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ma~ 3, 1983~ 10:00 A.M.
In answer to Councilman Pickier, Traffic Engineer Paul Singer reported on his
findings relative to the closure of the driveways. He explained that the
collision diagrams were prepared for the Planning Commission and they sho-ed
collisions in the vicinity of the stations and thus, several areas of
collision were included. He took the position that curb cuts in the vici~,ity
of corners encouraged unsafe driving, which was borne out by Mr. Kimmells'
study and as articulated on the aerial photographs posted on the Chambers
wall. Mr. Singer then answered additional questions posed by Council Members.
There being no further persons who wished to speak relative to CUP Nos. 2410,
2411, and 2412, the Mayor gave Mr. Davis an opportunity to make his summation~
Mr. Davis requested that Condition No. 1 under CUP 2410, Condition No. 1 u~der
CUP 2411 and Condition No. 2 under CUP 2412 be deleted. The use they were
requesting was very slight and additional problems would occur should the
driveways be closed, because the stations involved were not designed to have
only two driveways.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council finds that the
foregoing projects under Conditional Use Permit Nos. 2410, 2411 and 2412 will
have no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact
pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, since
the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject properties for general
commercial land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive
environmental impacts are involved in the proposal; that the Initial Study
submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant individual or cumulative
adverse environmental impacts; and are, therefore, exempt from the requirement
to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution Nos. 83R-181, 83R-182 and 83R-183 for
adoption, granting Conditional Use Permit Nos. 2410, 2411 and 2412, subject to
the Planning Commission conditions, with the deletion of Condition Nos. i, 1
and 2, respectively, of the Planning Commission Resolutions. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 83R-181: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2410.
RESOLUTION NO. 83R-182: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2411.
RESOLUTION NO. 83R-183: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2412.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated she agreed with the
Traffic Engineer and felt it was a wise move to close the driveways in
accordance with the conditions of the City Planning Commission.
340
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 3, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolutions.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
Kaywood
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 83R-181, 83R-182 and 83R-183 duly passed
and adopted.
Relative to Conditional Use Permit No. 2413, Miss Santalahti explained that
the Code waiver pertained to a lighter box sign. The Code was amended to read
the lighter box could only include the service station logo. When various
price signs were required by policy, they allowed service stations to place on
lighter box signs anything that pertained directly to the sale of gasoline and
which gave direction. On the back side of the sign facing the buildings, they
did not prohibit stations from putting up any kind of advertisement, because
typically they could not be read from the street. As noted from the plan
posted on the Chambers wall, the inside and outside of the sign could be read
from the street due to the configuration of the station and its orientation on
the subject corner.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted, therefore, that resulted in two additional signs
that were not permitted uses.
Mr. Davis noted the lighter box sign was not an item they appealed, but rather
the driveway issue, Condition No. 2. The Planning Commission approved the
sign as evidenced by the minutes of the hearing of April 4, 1983.
Councilwoman Kaywood explained that by their appeal, any issue was open for
discussion or consideration.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak, either in favor or in opposition;
there being no response, he closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council finds that subject
project will have no significant individual or cumulative adverse
environmental impact pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act, since the Anaheim General Plan designates the
subject property for general commercial/medium density land uses commensurate
with the proposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the
proposal; that the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no
significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts; and is,
therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 83R-184 for adoption, granting
Conditional Use Permit No. 2413, subject to the Planning Commission
conditions, with the deletion of Condition No. 2. Refer to Resolution Book.
341
City Hail, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 3, 1983~ 10:00 A.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 83R-184: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2413.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
Kaywood
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-184 duly passed and adopted.
134/179: PUBLIC HEARING--GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 184, RECLASSIFICATION NO.
82-83-27 AND VARIANCE NO. 3328: To consider an amendment to the Land Use
Element of the General Plan from medium density residential and commercial
professional to medium density residential designation on approximately 18.6
acres of land located on the west side of Knott Street, south of Ball Road.
This was a property owner initiated General Plan Amendment to change the
current medium density residential and commercial professional designation to
medium density residential with the property owner proposing to develop a
432-unit condominium project.
The City Planning Commission, in their resolution No. PC83-68, recommended
approval of Exhibit A, designating the entire study area for medium density
residential land uses. Further, the Planning Department deemed it
appropriate, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act, that Environmental Impact Report No. 247, which was certified by
the City Council on December 8, 1981, adequately addressed the alternative.
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 82-83-27 AND VARIANCE NO. 3328: Application by Paul T.
Salata, 2950 Airway, D-3, Costa Mesa, owner, to consider a change in zone from
RS-A-43,000 to RM-3000, to construct a 432-unit affordable condominium
complex, together with a request for waiver of Council Policy No. 543
pertaining to density bonuses, on said property (Apollo Jr. High School;
State-Wide Developers, Inc., developer), with the following Code waivers: (a)
minimum lot area per dwelling unit, (b) maximum site coverage, (c) minimum
floor area, and (d) minimum recreational-leisure area.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-69, reported
that Environmental Impact Report No. 247 was previously certified by the City
Council on December 8, 1981, in conjunction with General Plan Amendment 166.
The EIR considered the maximum permissible density under the medium density
residential land use designation (36 dwelling units per acre) established by
the General Plan Amendment (GPA). The proposed Reclassification had a density
less than the maximum permitted by the GPA. They further granted
Reclassification No. 82-83-27 subject to the following conditions:
1. That street lighting facilities along Knott Street shall be installed as
required by the Office of Utilities General Manager, and in accordance with
specifications on file in the Office of Utilities General Manager; and/or that
342
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 3, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
a bond, certificate of deposit, letter of credit, or cash, in an amount and
form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim shall be posted with the City to
guarantee the installation of the abovementioned requirements prior to
occupancy.
2. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved
plans on file with the Street Maintenance and Sanitation Division.
3. That prior to commencement of structural framing, fire hydrants shall be
installed and charged as required and determined to be necessary by the Chief
of the Fire Department.
4. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
5. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner
satisfactory to the City Engineer.
6. That in the event subject property is to be divided for the purpose of
sale, lease, or financing, a parcel map to record the approved division of
subject property shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim and
then be recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder.
7. That prior to issuance of a building permit, appropriate park and
recreation in-lieu fees shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in an amount as
determined by the City Council.
8. That a modified cul-de-sac shall be provided at the terminus of Kingsway
Avenue and Myra Avenue as required by the City Engineer.
9. That all private streets shall be developed in accordance with the City of
Anaheim's Standard Detail No. 122 for private streets, including installation
of street name signs. Plans for the private street lighting, as required by
the standard detail, shall be submitted to the Building Division for approval
and included with the building plans prior to the issuance of building
permits. (Private streets are those which provide primary access and/or
circulation within the project.
10. That prior to issuance of a building permit, the appropriate traffic
signal assessment fee shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in an amount as
determined by the City Council for each new dwelling unit.
11. That prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall present
evidence satisfactory to the Chief Building Inspector that the residential
units will be in conformance with Noise Insulation Standards specified in the
California Administrative Code, Title 25.
12. That prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall present
evidence satisfactory to the Chief Building Inspector that the proposed
project is in conformance with Council Policy Number 542 "Sound Attenuation in
Residential Projects".
343
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 3, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
i3. That a 6-foot high masonry block wall shall be constructed along the
north, west and south property line(s) and/or that a bond in an amount and
form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim shall be posted with the City to
guarantee the installation of said wall prior to final building inspection.
14. That a median island shall be installed on Knott Street adjacent to
subject property. The design of said median island shall be subject to the
review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer.
i5. That appropriate notice be provided to all future buyers and tenants that
the property is subject to the sight, sound, and over-flight by aircraft
utilizing Armed Forces Reserve Center, Los Alamitos.
16. That all structures shall conform to the height criteria contained in
Federal Administrative Regulations Part 77. Evidence of said compliance shall
be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit.
17. That the proposed project shall not emit excessive glare or light, nor
produce steam, smoke, dust, or electronic interference so as to endanger
aeronautical operations.
18. That an Aviation Easement over the property be granted to the Armed
Forces Reserve Center, Los Alamitos.
19. That prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject property,
Condition Nos. 1, 13 and 18, above-mentioned, shall be completed. The
provisions or rights granted by this resolution shall become null and void by
action of the Planning Commission unless said conditions are complied with
within one year from the date of this resolution, or such further time as the
Planning Commission may grant.
20. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 2, 4,
5, 8 and 14, above-mentioned, shall be complied with.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-70, denied
Variance No. 3328.
The City Planning Commission requested the City Council to review their
actions pertaining to Reclassification No. 82-83-27 and Variance No. 3328 in
conjunction with their hearing on General Plan Amendment No. 184, and further
recommended that the request for waiver of Council Policy No. 543 be denied.
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
Mr. Alex Belle (Bellehumer), President, State-wide Developers, Inc., 5182
Katella Avenue, Suite 106, Los Alamitos, first pointed out what could be an
error im the Planning Commission minutes of March 21, 1983, which stated that
there were eight people opposed to the project when, in actuality, that was
not the case. There was one person adamantly opposed, but a number spoke on
behalf of the project. Those not directly in favor were concerned with the
344
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 3~ 1983, 10:00 A.M.
possible traffic problem that could exist by placing a median island on a
portion of Knott Avenue (see minutes of Planning Commission meeting of
March 21, 1983, and April 4, 1983, where Mr. Belle made an extensive
presentation--made a part of the record). One thing that came out of the
meeting was that the homeowners did not want apartment housing, but were not
opposed to a condominium project. At this point, the General Plan reflected
36 units per acre, which, in his opinion, was too much density for the area.
In their initial meeting with the Planning Commission, they proposed 435 units
or 23.2 dwelling units per net acre, which they subsequently modified to 20.9
units per net acre, as opposed to the maximum allowable, including the 25
percent bonus of 18.0 dwelling units per acre. Thus, they were 2.9 units per
acre more than what had been approved in the past by the Council. Instead of
the 25 percent maximum density bonus, he believed the 2.9 units over would put
that at about 44 percent. Their appeal to the Council was based on an
extraordinary program which evolved as a result of the extremely high interest
rates and high cost of land associated with it which had stopped ali
production of affordable or moderately priced housing. The program "Housing
Enabled By Lender Participation and Equity Rollover" (HELPER) was now in the
process of being incorporated into the Housing Program for the State of
California and it had already been introduced to various legislators in
Washington, D.C. They wanted to make money, but that was not their number one
reason for being present. They wanted to have as a prototype a project known
as the Apollo Development in the City of Anaheim that would be a symbol of
what could be done Nationwide to solve the affordable housing problem, both
for rental and sale, without any subsidy, bonds, rental subsidy, etc. They
were the exception, because they were going to build 100 percent affordable.
They were appealing for the Council's help and support in implementing the
HELPER Program.
Mr. Belie then gave an extensive and detailed presentation on the program as
outlined in the booklet previously made a part of the record entitled
"HELPER"--Housing Enabled by Lender Participation and Equity Rollover, which
explained all facets of the program in detail, including Exhibits A, B and C.
The Mayor asked to hear from those who wished t'o speak.
Donna Westbury, 3434 Thornton, speaking on behalf of herself and her husband
and the neighbors on Thornton, stated they were very much in favor of the
condominium project as long as it was being built to condominium standards.
They definitely did not want apartments.
Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that as Mr. Belle expressed, under the HELPER
Program, the units would rent as apartments initially; Mrs. Westbury stated
they understood that the first three to five years that would be true, and
then the tenants would have an option to buy the units as homeowners. They
also wanted to see the project built at 18 units per acre. Councilman Bay
pointed out that with the requested bonus, it would be 20.9 units per acre
and, after further questioning by Council Members, Mrs. Westbury agreed that
20.9 units per acre would be better than an apartment project at 36 units to
the acre.
345
City Hall, ~aheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 3, 1983~ 10:00 A.M.
Questions were then posed to staff by Councilwoman Kaywood for purposes of
clarifica[ion relative to the approval of the EIR and the number of units
involved ~n that approval. Jay Tashiro, Associate Planner, Annika Santalahti,
Assistant Director for Zoning, and Joel Fick, Assistant Director for Planning,
answered the questions posed.
Mr. Fick ~onfirmed that at present a developer would be permitted to build an
RM-3000 development. An apartment project would require a request for
reclassification. Miss Santalahti stated in answer to Councilwoman Kaywood,
that they could build apartments but at the condominium density.
Mr. Chris Riggins, Kingsway Avenue, stated he was speaking on behalf of the
developer and favored the proposed condominium project. He was against
apartments and although he would like to see lower density, he did not want to
see an apartment complex built on the property.
Windflower Ochoa, whose home backed up to the project, stated they were
concerned that there be no apartments and they also wanted to be assured it
was a quality project. They were depending on the Council's expertise that
they were going in the right direction. She and her neighbors were concerned
that care be taken on the north end of the project where there was a noise
problem. In that area, they could hear the helicopters from Los Alamitos as
well as tra!~s.
Councilman O erholt stated that he did not know for one if he could guarantee
a quality project. He thereupon read from a staff report dated April 4, 1983,
page 5-m, stating, "This project closely resembles an apartment project in
terms of de~.~ity." He asked Miss Santalahti to respond.
Miss San~alahti answered that the proposal complied with the RM-2400, the
lower de~lsity apartment zone, and the dwelling unit sizes were the same as
required for apartments, and in one of them, it was actually smaller for the
three-bedroom unit.
Councilman Overholt continued, noting that the staff report also stated, "In
conclusion, it was staff's opinion this proposal does not offer the amenities
of other condominium proposals developed in both the flat and hillside areas
of Anahe~'~."
Miss Santalahti spoke to the issue and explained that they felt higher
densities ~hould be balanced with certain amenities. In this instance, the
recreationai area was under Code, the parking was at Code, which was a
positive factor, the site plan posted on the Chambers wall reflected a very
geometric layout with five driveways onto Knott Street. Most of the
condominium projects that the Council had recently seen, including the
Pacesett~r project, which did get a small bonus, located on the Fremont School
site, basically had two driveways out of the project, an interior recreational
leisure open space distribution, which made for especially nice areas, and the
William L~on project on Cerritos had no waivers from Code. Ignoring the
density, ~hey felt that a developer could come up with design features which
346
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 3~ 1983, 10:00 A.M.
made a particularly appealing living environment for the future residents, as
well as protecting people already living in the area. They did not feel that
the proposed project addressed those type of design features as they should.
Councilman Overholt then asked if they could guarantee that owner-occupants
would reside in the units; Miss Santalahti answered that unfortunately they
could not do so, since the owner would always have the right to sell or rent
the units.
After further discussion, Councilman Pickler asked for clarification that Miss
Santalahti was saying they were planning to build to apartment standards, but
selling the units as condominiums; Miss Santalahti answered it looked like
that to her.
Before concluding, Mrs. Ochoa relayed additional concerns as follows: That in
the manufacture of the proposed block wall, that graffiti repellent material
be used to prevent defacing of that wall; they were not certain that there
should be walkways leading from the project, and it might be better if it were
a closed project.
Mr. Edwin Moile, resident of Mission Viejo, offered suggestions relative to
the design of the project, since he happened to be present in the Civic Center
today. Otherwise, he had no interest in the project.
Emily Cook, Seabrook Lane, stated she favored the condominium project if it
was 18 units to the acre. She did not want them rented because people would
be moving in and out, but rather that they be built at regular size and then
sold.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor asked Mr. Belle
to make his summation.
Mr. Belle then answered the concerns expressed especially relative to the
quality of the project and its maintenance. During his summation, questions
were posed to him by Council Members Pickler and Kaywood for purposes of
clarification. He (Belle) emphasized that if the Council was not convinced
that the HELPER Program was unique and valuable to people in the future, they
should vote it down. If they felt it was a valuable contribution to
affordable housing and if there were other projects coming in that wanted to
develop under the program, it would be to the benefit of everyone to approve
those. The concept was not new and there was no pioneering involved, the only
question being would the developer three or four years from now take $1.8
million of his profit and hand it back to the tenant to encourage them to
become homeowners. Whatever way they could possibly come up with documents to
satisfy the Council's mind that they would follow through with what they were
saying, they would do it and that was the extent of the pioneering.
During Mr. Belle's summation and in answer to Councilwoman Kaywood, Kate
Adams, Community Development Specialist, stated that the units would be
affordable to people whose incomes were at 120 percent of the median, or
347
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 3, 1983~ 10:00 A.M.
around ~600 a month rent. However, there would be no guarantee of
affordability at the final sale. They did not know what the final market rate
would be and could not make an analysis of that.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated the density was a very big problem to her. The
plan lacked imagination and it was also under the flight path of Los
Alamitos. Further, she did not want Anaheim to be the "guinea pig" for the
new concept. If there was some experience with the program, they would at
least have something to look at, but she had more questions than answers on
the HELPER Program. She would like to see it working somewhere before she
could give her blessing to such a program, and she reiterated the density of
the project was of great concern.
Further questions were then posed to Mr. Belle by Councilman Overholt wherein
he (Overholt) expressed his concern that there was no assurance that the units
would be sold at an affordable level.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 83R-185 for adoption, approving General
Plan Amendment No. 184, Exhibit "A", as recommended by the City Planning
Commission. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 83R-i85: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO TRE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE ANAHEIM GENERAL
PLAN DESIGNATED AS AMENDMENT NO. 184, EXHIBIT "A".
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL ~MBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay, and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-185 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 83R-186 for adoption, approving
Reclassification No. 82-83-27, as recommended by the City Planning
Commission. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 83R-186: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO ZONING SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES
SHOULD BE CHANGED. (82-83-27)
Roil Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay, and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-186 duly passed and adopted.
348
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 3, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Bay offered a resolution to deny Variance No. 3328.
Before further action was taken, Mr. Belle asked that before a vote was taken,
he would like to modify his request, although he was not certain that was
possible at this time. The modification would be to 18 units per acre,
instead of 20.9, including the 25 percent density bonus, and that the project
meet all condominium standards.
City Attorney William Hopkins recommended the the matter not be amended at
this time, since the public hearing was closed.
Miss Santalahti suggested that if the Council expected to look favorably at
the request, it might be appropriate that the Variance be continued in order
that they submit revised plans reflecting the proper dwelling unit count, plus
the lack of other waivers, to the Planning Commission.
MOTION: Councilman Bay thereupon stated that he would change his offering of
a resolution to deny the Variance to a motion to continue public hearing on
Variance No. 3328 to June 7, 1983, at 1:30 p.m., in order to give the
applicant an opportunity to submit revised plans, as articulated by Miss
Santalahti. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to deny the requested waiver of Council Policy
No. 543 pertaining to density bonuses. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
139: SB 778 - BINDING ARBITRATION: Councilman Pickler reported on his trip
to Sacramento on May 2, 1983, along with the Intergovernmental Relations
Officer, Cindy Cave, to express opposition to the subject bill. He wanted to
thank Senator John Seymour publicly for his efforts in working on the City's
behalf in defeating the bill, which would result in the savings of many
dollars. He suggested that a letter of thanks signed by the entire Council be
sent to Senator Seymour. As of the present moment, compulsory binding
arbitration was a dead issue, and he recommended that they follow the same
procedure in the future of aggressively pursuing their position on
legislation, either personally and/or through letters to State Legislators.
114: REQUEST FOR A COMMUNITY CENTER AUTHORITY LIAISON MEETING: Councilman
Bay asked the City Manager to schedule a liaison meeting with the Community
Center Authority on the Convention Center within the next couple of weeks. He
felt it was time they had such a meeting to get acquainted with the Authority
Members, as well as the School Board Members.
167: SYNCHRONIZATION OF TRAFFIC LIGHTS IN THE CITY: Councilman Pickler
requested a status report relative to the synchronization of traffic lights in
the City. He also broached some of the traffic problems he saw around the
Stadium and Convention Center.
349
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 3, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed
Session. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
p.m.)
(6:00
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (6:45 p.m.)
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn.
the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (6:46 p.m.)
Councilman Pickler seconded
350