1983/10/18City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 18, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
The City Council of the City of'Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
AB SENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY ,MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR: Garry O. McRae
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ronald Thompson
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
POLICE SERGEANT: James Brantley
Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Sister Rita Carroll, St. Anthony Claret Catholic Church, gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman E. Llewellyn Overholt, Jr., led the assembly in the
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Roth and
authorized by the City Council:
Veterans Unity Month--November 1983.
The proclamation was accepted by representatives of VFW Post No. 3173.
119: RESOLUTION OF WELCOME: A Resolution of Welcome was unanimously adopted
by the City Council to be presented to the Lions Club Delegation from Germany,
welcoming them to the City of Anaheim.
119/150: PRESENTATION - $1,000 FOR USE AT PONDEROSA PARK: Chris Jarvi,
Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services, introduced Kathy Ellis
and Irene Jennings from the South Anaheim Neighborhood Council. In turn, ~{rs.
Ellis presented a check to the City which was accepted by Mr. Jarvi to be used
to provide staff hours for programs to be held at Ponderosa Park. On behalf
of the Council and the City, Mayor Roth thanked Mesdames Ellis and Jennings
for their generosity.
119: CONDOLENCES TO THE FAMILY OF DON PIGNONE: Mayor Roth noted the sudden
passing of Mr. Don Pignone, Vice Chairman of the Patrick Henry Neighborhood
Council, husband of Sheri Pign'one, member of the Community Services Board and
Chairman of the Patrick Henry Neighborhood Council. He asked that the City
Clerk have prepared a letter of condolence from the Council to be sent to Mrs.
Pignone and family.
119: PRESENTATIONS - CITY SERVICE AWARDS: City Service awards were presented
to the following employees on the occasion of their 25th year of service with
the City of Anaheim, the one exception being Mr. Henry Roger Martinez of the
Parkway Maintenance Department, who was honored on the occasion of his 30th
anniversary:
820
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 18, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Police Department: Jimmie D. Kennedy, William J. Donoghue, Roy C. Records.
Fire Department: Norman L. Morgan. Street Maintenance: Donald E. Tipton.
Parkway Maintenance: Eidred W. Lamb. Facility Maintenance: Wilfred E. St.
Clair. Parks Division: Henry Romo Martinez, John C. Smith. Customer
Service: Ralph E. Anzevino. Electrical Engineering: Thomas J. Kirker,
Charles H. Ruppe, Donn E. West. Water Field Engineering: James F. Scott.
Electrical Field Engineering: Nell K. Frye, Robert C. Shiveley.
The following were unable to be present: Rayford D. Knight, Robert W. Stuart,
and William E. Swain of the Fire Department, Gerald Hill of Facility
Maintenance, and John C. Stillmunks of the Parks Division.
MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular
meetings held September 27 and October 4, 1983. Councilman Pickler seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Roth moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held
September 20, 1983. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Councilwoman Kaywood
abstained, since she was not present at that meeting. 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 Bay seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of ~2,805,018.88, in
accordance with the 1983-84 Budget, were approved.
CITY b~NAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, 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; Councilwoman Kaywood
offered Resolution Nos. 83R-402 through 83R-407, both inclusive, for
adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
1. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as
recommended:
A. Claims rejected and referred to Risk Management:
1. Claim submitted by Quick Start for property damages to electrical
panel and air conditioning compressor purportedly sustained due to an
electrical surge at 235 South Loara, on or about August 6, 1983.
2. Claim submitted by Bonita L. Scott for food loss purportedly sustained
due to a prolonged loss of electrical power at 1222 Eastwood Drive, on or
about August 6 and 7, 1983.
821
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 18, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
3. Claim submitted by Mrs. Bonnie Martin for personal property damages
and food loss purportedly sustained due to a prolonged power outage at 876
South Claudina, on or about August 6 through 8, 1983.
4. Claim submitted by John and Linda Wheian for food loss purportedly
sustained due to a prolonged electrical outage at 898 South Claudina
Street, on or about August 6 through 8, 1983.
5. Claim submitted by Katherine Viner for food loss purportedly sustained
due to loss of electricity at 879 Wayside Street, on or about August 6,
1983.
B. Claim rejected and referred to Governmental Programs Division/Markel
Services, Inc.:
6. Claim submitted by John Nahavandi, dba Independent Taxi and
Transportation Services of California and Lozano Taxi-Limousine Tours (et
al), for personal property damages purportedly sustained due to actions of
the Anaheim Police Department, Code Enforcement and City Council, on or
about May 10, 1983, until present.
2. The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 105: Youth Commission--Minutes of September 14, 1983.
b. 107: Planning Department, Building Division Report--Monthly Report
for September 1983.
3. 123.155: Authorizing an agreement with Ultrasystems, Inc., in the amount
of $9,270 to prepare a Project Alternative Study and Environmental Impact
Report for a proposed modification of an existing street network in the Loara
Street/Dogwood Street Neighborhood.
4. 123: Authorizing an agreement with the State Department of Transportation
for sharing the cost of utilities for jointly owned traffic safety facilities
at various locations in the City.
5. 123: Authorizing a first amendment to an agreement with VTN Consolidated,
Inc., in the amount of $3,407, for additional engineering services to include
the design of erosion control improvement at Pelanconi Park; and authorizing
transfer of $25,000 from the Sewer Construction and Maintenance Fund (11) to
the Parksites and Playgrounds Fund (16), and appropriating said amount into
Program 16-809, Pelanconi Park.
6. 123: Authorizing the City to exercise its option to extend the term of
the agreement with Anaheim Union High School District for joint recreation use
of the swimming pools at Katella, Loara, Magnolia and Savanna High Schools,
for a period of 10 years.
822
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 18, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
7. 128: Receiving and filing the Monthly Financial Analysis for the
two-month period ended August 31, 1983.
8. 150/119: Accepting a donation from South Anaheim Neighborhood Council in
the amount of ~1,000 for use at Ponderosa Park and appropriating said funds
and 200 work hours into Program 270.
9. 160: Accepting the bid of Computer Services Company in the amount of
~47,700 for four Traffic Controllers, IFU, Flow System and Railroad
Pre-emption, in accordance with Bid No. 4038.
10. 160: Accepting the low bid of Coast Roofing Company in the amount of
~308,885, plus options as may be required, and inspection fees, for the
reroofing of Anaheim Convention Center (Areas A and B), in accordance with Bid
No. 4014.
11. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to GMC
Truck & Coach in the amount of $100,744.52 for twelve pick-up trucks, in
accordance with Bid No. 4034.
129: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-402: 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: FIRE STATION
HEADQUARTERS - HVAC RENOVATION, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO.
75-252-6201. (Bids to be opened November 17, 1983, 2:00 p.m.)
175: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-403: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE UTILITIES SERVICE CENTER MATERIAL STORAGE
AREA PAVING, SOUTH OF SOUTH STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS.
51-699-6329-0957M-3710A AND 55-699-6329-0957M-3900A. (Gutierrez Construction
Company, $71,449.50)
167: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-404: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT,
LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION
INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO
CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: INSTALLATION
OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND SAFETY LIGHTING AT GLENVIEW AVENUE AT KELLOGG DRIVE AND
CHANTILLY STREET AT LA PALMA AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS.
01-794-6325-E4240 AND 01-794-6325-E4250. (Baxter-Griffin Company, Inc.,
c ont ract or)
176: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-405: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
~NAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS, HIGHWAYS AND
SERVICE EASEMENTS. (83-10A, a portion of an existing alley and public utility
easement beginning at the south line of Santa Ana Street and extending south
approximately 152 feet, located parallel with and approximately 144 feet east
of the centerline of Harbor Boulevard, public hearing scheduled November 8,
1983, 1:30 p.m.)
823
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 18, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
158: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-406: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (George
Familian Testamentary Trust; Essco Properties; Canyon Corporate Centre, Ltd.)
123/101: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-407: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE RELOCATION OF ONE 135' HIGH
A~VERTISING TOWER, ACCOUNT NO. 47-989-6325. (West Coast Sign Service, Inc.,
$58,000)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL M~MBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
N one
N one
MOTION CARRIED. The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 83R-402 through 83R-407,
both inclusive, duly passed and adopted.
153: ADDITION OF UPGRADE STATUS TO SENIOR UTILITIES SERVICE WORKER:
Submitted was a report dated October 10, 1983, from the Human Resources
Director, Garry McRae, recommending approval of the upgrade status which would
enable the Utilities Department to provide proper staffing and supervision
during extended absences within the Customer Service Division.
Councilman Bay asked for a more thorough explanation relative to the proposed
resolution, specifically if it was a new classification and what extended
absences they had in the Customer Service Division.
City Manager William Talley explained that it was an existing classification
and employees could be upgraded into that when required; Human Resources
Director Garry McRae then explained instances of extended absences, noting one
recent case where an employee had suffered a heart attack. At that time, they
found they had not created an environment in which they could upgrade to
replace the Senior Utilities Service Worker to take the ill employee's place.
The proposed resolution would correct that.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 83R-408 for adoption, amending
Resolution No. 82R-577 which established rates of compensation for classes
represented by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local
Union No. 47, Utility Employees Unit, creating the classification of Senior
Utilities Service Worker, Schedule No. U1221, effective October 21, 1983.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 83R-408: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY.COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
~NAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 82R-577 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF
COMPENSATION FOR CLASSES REPRESENTED BY THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 47, UTILITY EMPLOYEES UNIT.
824
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 18, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL M~MBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt and Roth
Bay
N one
The Mayor declared Rmsolution No. 83R-408 duly passed and adopted.
108: ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT APPLICATION - MUGSY MALONE' S: Application f or
Entertainment Permit Application submitted by Yueng Yi Tsai, Mugsy Malone's,
1731 South Harbor Boulevard, to permit mini-concerts, seven days a week, 8:00
p.m. to 1:00 a.m.--continued from the meeting of September 27, 1983 (see
minutes that date where input was given and the application discussed).
Submitted was a report from the Planning Department/Zoning Division dated
October 11, 1983, relative to parking, as requested by the Council on
September 27, 1983.
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
Mr. Harold R. Stokes, attorney, 1020 North Broadway, Santa Ana, stated that as
requested by the Council, he met with Sgt. Brantley of the Police Department
on October 7, 1983, to discuss some of the Department's concerns, and also
spoke with the Assistant Director for Zoning, Annika Santaiahti, that same
afternoon. As a result and as indicated in the application, he had stipulated
to and was reiterating that there would be no adult or seemingly adult
entertainment, wet.t-shirt contests or that type of activity or entertainment
on the premises, but basically they were only going to have smaller type
bands. Also at the time, there was a question whether name entertainers would
be presented, but physical capacity as well as finances would not make it
feasible to draw top entertainers. The second stipulation with the Police
Department and City Attorney's office, besides supervision and policing inside
the premises, that that type of policing would also occur outside. In case
any emergency vehicles needed to be called onto the premises or
investigations, Mugsy Malone's would provide that type of security or make
certain there was nothing illegal and would assist Police or emergency
vehicles if they needed to be called. He so stipulated to the Council. He
further stated that the Entertainment Permit Application was provisional in
the sense that the Council could revoke it at any time in accordance with
Code. They wanted to continue to work with the Planning Department and the
Police if there were subsequent concerns in the one-year period of the permit.
Mayor Roth asked if the Police Department had changed their position relative
to denial.
Sgt. Jim Brantley answered "yes," with the stipulations Mr. Stokes alluded
to. He then referred to the original application for the Entertainment Permit
with a detailed description of the entertainment to be provided. Their
concern was in the area alluded to on the permit that there would be no
topless, nude, bottomless or any other such type adult entertainment. They
also expressed concern relative to the parking lot and the ingress and egress
of emergency
825
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 18, 1983, 10:O0 A.M.
vehicles and whether or not that could be handled because of the parking space
availability. Mr. Stokes indicated that security people from the location
would assist or provide security for the parking lot area of Mugsy Malone's.
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, then answered questions
posed by the Council Members for purposes of clarification relative to parking
standards (see staff report of October 11, 1983). In a final analysis of the
overall picture, there was no particular problem at that location, and having
contacted adjacent property owners, they indicated no problem as well. If
anything was problematic in her opinion, it would be on Friday and Saturday
nights.
Councilman Overholt stated the question was whether permitting the use would
generate parking in excess of what would have been contemplated with a
restaurant being constructed. He did not think it would.
Miss Santalahti stated the way the Code was written at present, it did not
anticipate an Entertainment Permit would generate more parking than required
under the Zoning Code for the base use, which was a restaurant.
Councilman Bay stated the staff report showed that the business had 65 parking
spaces. Calculating by the new Code, they would require 129 spaces. It was
his opinion that there was inadequate parking. Further, he did not understand
the reasons for stipulations on no adult entertainment when such entertainment
was not allowed in the first place without a CUP.
Mr. Stokes then explained for Councilwoman Kaywood that even though the
application stated small bands of one to eighteen pieces, that number should
not be in the application, since an 18-piece band could not be accommodated on
the stage. He then pointed out that they were dealing with a Fire Department
regulation that limited the capacity. Mugsy Malone's was owned by the
adjacent motel and they did cooperate and exchange parking. The parking was
not all in front, but there was a large area in the rear as well as noted in
the aerial photograph posted on the Chambers wall. He also reiterated, as he
had explained at the previous meeting, they had worked out a stipulation with
the City Attorney's office to change the whole format of their entertainment
on the premises. It was not to say if it was not approved that they would go
back to wet t-shirt contests or anything like that.'
Councilman 0verholt a~ked the City Attorney if a ~p~cific ~tipulati0n that
they would not engage in mud wrestling or wet t-shirt contests on the premises
would not "fly in the face" of what was included in the Adult Entertainment
Ordinance; City Attorney Hopkins stated that would go on the record with
respect to entertainment and if there was a violation, the City could act to
revoke the permit. The Adult Entertainment Ordinance was questioned in court
and the matter was still pending, since there was a question as to whether or
not it was adult entertainment.
Councilman Overholt stated he would assume that Sgt. Brantley could recommend
that there be a specific stipulation with regard to those two activities; Sgt.
Brantley answered that was correct.
826
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 18, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Pickler asked the total number of parking spaces required on the
properties at present under the current Code; Miss Santalahti answered 498
versus 342, which were potential existing spaces.
Councilman Pickier stated he was not interested in causing more traffic
problems in that area at this time, noting the difference of 156 spaces.
busiest times would be Friday, Saturday and perhaps Sunday nights.
The
Mr. Stokes stated that, (1) they were showing good faith in changing the
format of their entertainment, (2) they were willing to stipulate to working
with the Police Department and Planning Department, and (3) the Council could
revoke the permit at any time. He felt there was enough protection for the
City to use its powers.
Councilman Overholt asked the City Attorney for his comments on the matter;
City Attorney Hopkins explained that the pending litigation with Mugsy
Malone's was relative to a criminal prosecution and there had been discussions
in the court before Judge McDonald. He (McDonald) felt if the applicant could
obtain an entertainment permit or whatever permit was necessary from the City,
he would feel that the matter would be closed. If the Council were to grant
the entertainment permit, the case in municipal court would be concluded. The
parking element was not discussed.
Councilman Bay then asked Mr. Stokes to define what he meant by mini-concerts,
since he (Bay) was not interested in creating another problem area such as the
one where Woodstock and two other similar establishments were located and
where they did have problems; Mr. Stokes clarified that in his view, they
would be small types of rock-and-roll or western bands that people would want
to listen to, rather than participate or dance.
Councilwoman Kaywood also reiterated her concern over large bands being booked
with resultant parking and traffic problems; City Attorney Hopkins stated if
that were to occur, it would require notification to the applicant and a
hearing before the Council where evidence would be presented that there was a
violation of the entertainment permit. That process would take approximately
three weeks.
Councilman Overholt, after having recapped what had taken place on the issue
involving the City Attorney and the court, stated he felt what Mr. Stokes was
proposing was much better than a turn-down and an extension of the
prosecution. Further, the limiting regulation was the Fire Department. If
there were more than 299 people in the establishment at one time, the Fire
Department would close the doors.
Councilman Pickler stated what bothered him was the public safety, congestion
and traffic in the area and the proposal could cause a problem.
Mayor Roth stated he was impressed by the fact that the Police Department
reversed their recommendation of denial with the stipulations made by the
applicant and he was willing to give it a try.
827
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 18, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the Council could approve the permit for 90 days
and then review it every 90 days; City Attorney Hopkins stated it could be
approved for 90 days, which would then require another application to renew
it, the normal period being one year.
Councilman Overholt suggested that the approval was essentially subject to a
three-weeks' notice and revocation hearing, which was shorter than 90 days;
Councilwoman Kaywood stated the only way she could approve the permit would be
for 90 days as a trial to ascertain the impact in the area.
MOTION: After further discussion between Councilwoman Kaywood and Mr. Stokes,
Coundilman Pickler moved to deny the requested Entertainment Permit
Application for Mugsy Malone's to permit mini-concerts. Councilman Bay
seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Roth, speaking against the motion,
reiterated that he felt the applicant should be given an opportunity,
especially with the stipulations as articulated; Councilman Overholt agreed,
but he also stated that he was sensitive to Councilwoman Kaywood's concern for
control. If the motion on the floor failed, he hoped to work out something
that would be satisfactory and reasonable in terms of the investment being
made by the applicant.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated if he would like to offer an alternative motion
for a 90-day trial, that would be the only way she could approve; otherwise,
she would vote to deny.
Councilman Overholt questioned if it would be possible to approve the permit
for six months, since he felt 90 days was too short for Mr. Stokes' client to
make whatever investment was necessary to accomplish what he wanted to do and
somehow have a review at the end of 90 days which would accomplish what
Councilwoman Kaywood was trying to do. He asked for a comment by the City
Manage r.
City Manager William Talley stated he would request a Closed Session.
Councilman Pickler moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilwoman Kaywood
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (11:35 a.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meetin8 to order~ all Council Members
being present. (11:50 a.m.)
Councilman Overholt again asked if it was possible to approve the permit for
six months with a review in 90 days; City Attorney Hopkins answered "yes."
They could approve the permit for one year or less than one year. If six
months, it would expire at the end of that time, but with a review at 90 days
to see if the stipulations were being met and if not, action could be taken by
the City before six months.
828
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 18, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Mr. Stokes, in answer to Councilman Overholt, stated they would so stipulate
and work with the Council and staff. He felt that the economic hardships
could now be minimized and a responsibility, as he understood, would be to be
certain within the 90-day period when the report was due that he met with
Planning or the Police Department to see if something unusual had occurred and
if there was something they needed to correct.
Councilman Overholt thereupon offered a substitute motion that the application
for an Entertainment Permit submitted by Yueng Yi Tsai, Mugsy Malone's, 1731
South Harbor Boulevard, to permit mini-concerts, seven days a week, from 8:00
p.m. to 1:00 a.m., be granted for a period of six months, subject to review by
the Council in 90 days and subject to the stipulations agreed to which
included that the applicant provide security both inside and outside the
premises to ensure that there were no violations, as well as no violations of
the parking limitations, no violation of the number of people on the premises,
that there be no topless, nude, bottomless, mud wrestling, wet t-shirt
contests or other adult-type entertainment. Councilman Roth seconded the
motion. Council Members Pickler and Bay voted "No." MOTION CARRIED.
City Clerk Linda Roberts confirmed that the effective date of the permit was
this date and the review would automatically be scheduled on the Council
agenda in 90 days and notification would be sent to the applicant as to the
exact date and time.
PUBLIC REQUEST CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by
Councilman-Pickler, the following item was approved in accordance with the
report and recommendation furnished each Council Member and as listed on the
Consent Calendar, to expire July 6, 1984.
VARIANCE NO. 3275--EXTENSION OF TIME: Request submitted by C. J. Queyrel, for
an extension of time to Variance No. 3275, to establish a 10-lot, 10-building,
RM-1200 zoned subdivision on property located at 1558-1632 East Romneya Drive.
MOTION CARRIED.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: The City Manager requested a Closed Session to
discuss labor relations and pending litigation with action anticipated; the
City Attorney requested a Closed Session to discuss litigation and potential
litigation with action anticipated.
Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilman Pickler
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (11:55 a.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (1:39 p.m.)
123.112: AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES: Councilman Roth moved to approve an
agreement between the City of Anaheim and Richards, Watson, Dreyfuss and
Gershon for legal services and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute
said agreement on behalf of the City of Anaheim. Councilman Bay seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
829
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 18, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 2483: Application
by Edward A. Blank, et al, to permit a bed and breakfast inn on RS-A-43,000
zoned property located at 856 South Walnut Street, with Code waiver of minimum
landscaped setback.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-148, 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 on the basis that there will be no significant
individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact due to the approval of
this negative declaration, since the Anaheim General Plan designates the
subject property for low-density residential 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. 2483, subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the owner of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim a fee
for tree planting purposes along Walnut Street and Beacon Avenue in an amount
as determined by the City Council.
2. That prior to issuance of a building permit, 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.
3. 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 new commercial buildings.
4. That the existing most southerly driveway on Walnut Street shall be
removed and replaced with a standard curb, gutter, sidewalk and landscaping.
5. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved
plans on file with the Street Maintenance and Sanitation Division.
6. That the existing structure shall be brought up to the minimum standards
of the City of Anaheim, including the Uniform Building, Plumbing, Electrical,
Housing, Mechanical and Fire Codes as adopted by the City of Anaheim.
7. That the owner of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim a fee
for street lighting along Walnut Street and Beacon Avenue in an amount as
determined by the City Council.
8. That the driveway onto Beacon Avenue shall be 25 feet in width with
10-foot radius returns.
9. That the owner of subject property shall submit a letter requesting
termination of Conditional Use Permit Nos. 2123 and 2241 to the Planning
De pa r tree nt ·
830
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 18, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
10. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos.
1 through 5.
11. That prior to the commencement of the activity authorized under this
resolution, or prior to the time that a building permit is issued, or within a
period of one year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first,
Condition Nos. 1, 2, 7 and 9, above-mentioned, shall be complied with.
Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in
accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
12. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 4, 5,
6, 8 and 10, above-mentioned, shall be complied with.
13. That the owner of subject property shall pay the Transient Occupancy Tax
pursuant to Section 2.12 of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilman
Pickler at the meeting of September 13, 1983, and a public hearing scheduled
and continued from the meeting of October 11, 1983, to this date. (See
minutes October 11, 1983, where extensive discussion took place and input
re ce ive d · )
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
Mrs. Lois Ramont, 2516 Ames Street, stated she had nothing further to add to
her presentation given at the meeting of October 11, 1983.
Councilman Bay stated the applicant shown in his agenda was the current owner
of the property, and last week they discussed how they were going to tie the
CUP down to the owner, so that if there was a change of operation, that the
CUP would then automatically become void. He then asked the City Attorney,
assuming that there was a majority vote on the Council to approve the CUP, how
they would tie the CUP down to the prospective owners, since the sale was in
escrow at present.
City Attorney Hopkins explained that the discussion at the last Council
meeting revolved around an agreement that would be prepared and recorded that
would set forth the conditions. It would be a condition of the CUP for one
thing, and then there would also be the recorded agreement so that there would
be adequate notice to any prospective buyer.
Councilman Overholt had questions for Mrs. Ramont, noting first that he
appreciated her being at the joint meeting with the Planning Commission last
week when the proposed bed and breakfast (B&B) ordinance was discussed (see
minutes October 11, 1983). He asked if the CUP were approved whether she
would be willing to stipulate to be bound by certain provisions that presently
appeared in the proposed ordinance. If her request for a CUP were approved
today, she would be outside the ordinance and he wanted to see the operation
under the same provisions. He then asked if she (Ramont) would stipulate to
the following:
831 '
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 18, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
(1) That signing be only two square feet maximum with no interior
illumination, (2) that there be no cooking facilities in any guest room, (3)
that no guest shall be permitted to rent accommodations or remain in occupancy
for a period in excess of fourteen (14) days during any consecutive ninety-
(90) day period, (4) that there be no meals served to guests other than
breakfast, and (5) that an owner, manager, proprietor or caretaker of the
property must reside on the subject premises at all times.
Mrs. Ramont stipulated to all of the foregoing conditions individually.
Councilman Overholt noted that the proposed parking provisions on the property
were in conformity with the parking formula proposed at the last meeting; Mrs.
Ramont felt that she was in conformance with the parking proposal.
The Mayor then asked if anyone wished to speak, either in favor or in
opposition.
Mr. Max Engel, 1181 North Catalpa, wanted to know if questions relative to
prospective gross receipts on the proposed B&B had been raised at the previous
meeting; Mayor Roth answered that they had not, because the issue was land use.
Mr. Engel then continued that if the answer to the questions such as dollar
volume per day, month and year, number of customers, etc., indicated it was
going to be a big operation, it was no longer going to be just a B&B, a
casual, small use activity in the neighborhood, but rather it was a euphemism
for a motel. Although he lived miles away, he was concerned relative to the
Council's philosophy on the issue. He simply wanted to voice his opposition
and felt that B&B's were going to be an activity in the neighborhood that
resident~s should not be subjected to and contrary to all principles of sound
residential planning.
Councilman Overholt suggested that Mr. Engel read the proposed ordinance
wherein it was extremely restrictive and would calm his concerns about the
Council wanting to allow motels in all residential neighborhoods.
Councilman Bay stated he had no disagreement with Mr. Engel's viewpoint and
appreciated his being present to speak to the issue.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the
public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Pickler, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council finds that subject
project will have no significant individual or cumulative adverse
environmental impact due to the approval of this negative declaration since
the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property for low density
residential 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. Councilman Bay voted "No." MOTION CARRIED.
832
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 18, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 83R-409 for adoption, granting
Conditional Use Permit No. 2483, subject to ali City Planning Commission
conditions as well as the foregoing stipulations made by the applicant which
conformed to provisions contained in the proposed ordinance regulating bed and
breakfast inns. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 83R-409: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2483.
Roll Call Vote:
AYE S:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt and Roth
Bay
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-409 duly passed and adopted.
179: BILLBOARD STUDY: Report from the Planning Department relating to
billboard regulations--continued from the meetings of May 24, 1983 and
July 19, 1983 (see minutes those dates).
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, briefed the Council on
portions of the eight-page staff report from the Planning Department/Zoning
Division dated October 18, 1983, the subject of which was Billboard Study
Update. The comprehensive report contained background information relative to
the subject, current billboard regulations, state regulations, billboard
design criteria, revenue from billboards and conclusions relative to the
issues and questions revolving around billboards, especially with regard to
whether or not the Code should be amended to allow billboards along freeways
(report on file in the City Clerk's office). During her presentation, Miss
Santalahti also referred to Exhibit A, posted on the Chambers wall, showing
the pertinent portions of the three freeways in Anaheim, with proposed
billboard sites and existing billboard sites indicated by colored dots.
Before concluding, Miss Santalahti noted a change to Page 3, No. (9) under
State Regulations, changing the last sentence to read as follows: "Billboards
are banned along any state, primary or interstate highway, but are permitted
along freeways (commercial and industrial zones), · · · She also read a
letter submitted by Anaheim Beautiful dated October 13, 1983, supporting the
pra~ant ordinance which did not allow billboard~ along £raeway~.
Mayor Roth then asked to hear from those who wished to speak on the issue and
any comments they might have relative to the report submitted by staff. He
noted first that members of the Outdoor Advertising Industry were present.
Mr. Robert Reid, Regency Outdoor Advertising, 820 Sunset Boulevard, Los
Angeles, prefaced his presentation by stating it would be 99 percent directed
to freeway-oriented signs. There were already large signs existing of 300
square feet and if the City was going to have larger signs, he felt the place
for them was on the freeways. He then submitted a map he prepared showing the
freeways similar to the exhibit posted on the Chambers wall. He explained
833
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 18, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
that the green areas were those already landscaped, so that billboards could
not be constructed in those areas. The orange lines indicated the Scenic
Corridor area from Tustin Avenue through the Canyon, which also would have no
billboards. The orange line down the 57 Freeway represented ail residential
and there were no billboards in residential areas along the freeway. Along
with the map, Mr. Reid also submitted a document dated July 6, 1983, which was
his original proposal suggesting regulations for billboards in the City of
Anaheim, indicating first that all current billboard regulations should remain
the same, but that a new section be added for freeway-located billboards,
followed by the proposed ten regulations. Mr. Reid then read, explained and
elaborated upon the points in his proposal, especially emphasizing Proposal
No. 10--"A business license fee for freeway structures will be assessed at
$5,000 per structure per year." The reason he indicated, per structure, was
to encourage the building of back-to-back structures. He noted that staff
suggested that fees for billboards be based on annual gross receipts or square
footage of billboards located City-wide. He personally did not feel that
$5,000 per structure was an excessive amount and that something should be
worked out. It was a fair figure and sharing with the City was something long
overdue.
In concluding his presentation, Mr. Reid noted that on Page 7 of the staff
report it stated, "Planning staff studies show that major high-quality
commercial and industrial developers seek locations along freeways where
billboards are not permitted." Some of those people were in the audience
today, property owners along the freeway who were lessors of Regency Outdoor
Advertising who could speak to the issue.
Mr. Reid's presentation was followed by questions posed to him by Council
Members during which Miss Santalahti was asked to clarify some of the points
raised, especially with regard to Point No. 5 of'Mr. Reid's proposal, that
there be 500-foot spacing between other off-premise outdoor advertising
structures measured in both directions from both sides of the freeway, the
number of boards that could be permitted under such a proposal, etc.
The following people, mainly from the Outdoor Advertising Industry, also spoke
on the issue and at the conclusion of each presentation, questions were posed
by Council Members for clarification as to their recommendations or proposals,
the number of boards they presently had in the City, their feeling relative to
the method they would prefer for assessment of fees, etc.
Mr. Jay Kingry~ Jay Kingry Consulting Services, 101 Huntington Drive, Arcadia,
stated his remarks were opposite to those of Mr. Reid. He tried to look at
the business through the City's eyes and he could not see the freeways being
opened up where they would have ten or fifteen applications for boards at one
time. In all fairness, however, freeways should be opened up, but with
stringent regulations. He then referred to his letter of October 12, 1983,
and briefed the five points listed therein which he suggested be included in a
policy statement the Council might consider (letter on file in the City
Clerk's office). He did not agree with the fee of $5,000 per structure
834
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 18, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
because it was too excessive, and suggested perhaps a percentage of gross
receipts would be a more fair assessment, one-half percent on boards on
surface streets and possibly five percent for those on freeways.
Mrs. Bonnie Kingry, Manager, Public Affairs/Real Estate, Independent Outdoor
Advertising, 979 North La Brea, Los Angeles, referred to her letter of
October 7, 1983, previously submitted to the Council, which listed her
company's position and suggestions relative to opening up new freeway
locations for outdoor advertising (letter on file in the City Clerk's
office). They also felt if a tax increase was necessary, the only fair way of
assessing the industry would be by the gross receipts method. One-half
percent sounded reasonable to them, which would represent a six hundred
percent increase over what was currently being charged. If there was an
increase, she suggested that it be on a graduating scale, one-half percent
this year and then going up to one percent, which would enable companies to
raise their rates accordingly.
Mr. Ken Keesee (property owner), 406 North Dwyer, stated he had been
approached by a sign company who offered him a lucrative arrangement for
development of his property for additional income. His feeling was that in
the long term, the taxpayers of the City would benefit from the proposed
plan. He clarified that he was speaking of the "Reid" plan, because he liked
the idea of the City getting revenue as well as the land owner. He also
clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood that in the event he was not to receive any
revenue, he would still feel the same. He would have no opposition to a
billboard at the south end of the Santa Ana Freeway or any of the other
locations. Relative to spacing, he felt that if they were too close together,
it could become detrimental, which was a concern expressed by Councilwoman
Kaywood.
Sherry Bennett, representing Gannett Outdoor Advertising, 1731 Workman Street,
Los Angeles, referred to her letter of October 17, 1983, which was submitted
that morning (letter on file in the City Clerk's office). Listed in the
letter were eight recommendations for consideration. They were willing to
accept a reasonable increase in licensing fees for billboards in order to
expand and operate on the freeways and felt that one percent of the gross
revenue was an acceptable rate. She also felt that the industry was close on
many points~ They would like to be able to come to the Council with a
proposal to review and would give one last try to find something amenable to
all.
Mayor Roth stated that was the answer he was looking for, because he felt more
comfortable in seeing the industry getting together, even though their
proposal might not be accepted. He noted that her letter reflected a change
in attitude of Gannett Outdoor relative to many of the issues presented by Mr.
Reid.
Mr. Ron Cipriani, Public Affairs Representative, representing Foster &
Kleiser, 1550 West Washington, Los Angeles, referred to his letter of
October 17, 1983 (on file in the City Clerk's office), which outlined the
835
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 18, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
position of his company. For the opportunity of doing business adjacent to
freeways in Anaheim, they would support paying a business license on those
freeway-oriented signs only of one percent of gross sales of those specific
signs.
Lynn Van Aken, National Advertising--3M, 5959 Topanga Canyon Boulevard, Los
Angeles, stated it was their position that outdoor advertising should be
allowed on any commercial property or "M" zone and also on railroad property.
Further, the fee should be a percentage of the gross revenue, somewhere
between one-half of one percent and one percent. He personally did not want
to see the freeway totally built out with billboards, but he did not think
that would happen, since all requests would be coming before the Council on a
CUP and on an individual basis.
Dennis Catron, United Outdoor Advertising, 1717 Orangewood Avenue, Orange,
first referred to Item No. 8, Page 3 of the staff report, where it stated that
none of the cities contacted permitted billboards at locations where they were
designed to be read from freeways. He noted, however, that the City of
Westminster had just approved billboards on freeways and Garden Grove took a
similar action approximately two weeks ago. The cities of Santa Ana and
Commerce had CUP's for billboards on their freeways, etc. They had no boards
in Anaheim at present, but believed they should be permitted on industrial and
commercial locations. As for the size, they believed that boards should be
permitted up to 20 feet by 60 feet--up to, because it would require a CUP and
there were locations where that size should be permitted. They also felt
billboards should be permitted on railroad property in industrial and
commercial areas. No matter if the property was owned by the City, local or
national businessmen, they felt there should be one law for all property
owners, and that was one of the reasons why they were present today. They
were for a percentage of gross sales or a flat fee.
Councilman Bay questioned Item 9(d) in the staff report indicating that no
billboard may be placed on property adjacent to a freeway which had been
landscaped or would be landscaped in the future. He heard that even on
freeways that were proposed to be landscaped, until landscaping was
contracted, it was open to signs; Miss Santalahti answered that was the way
she understood it also. She also confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood that
there was a policy or regulation that if there were billboards, there would be
no landscaping, but it was in connection with the Highway Beautification
Program.
Mayor Roth asked for clarification that if a billboard was constructed on a
freeway area, that area would never be landscaped.
Planning Director Ronald Thompson stated at the time the City removed the
billboards back in the mid-1960's, the State informed them that the reason why
Anaheim's freeways were not landscaped and Downey's were, was due to the fact
that Anaheim had approximately 30 billboards, while Downey had none.
836
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 18, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Pickler then referred to Page 5 of the staff report wherein it
stated that the City Attorney indicated that the City could not discriminate
in terms of one billboard location versus another, unless the fee was based on
square footage or some other similar characteristic of the individual
billboard. He asked to hear from the City Attorney.
City Attorney William Hopkins stated under existing law, they could not charge
more for freeway locations versus another location unless it was based on
square footage, but he would be glad to do further research and prepare a more
elaborate opinion with respect to billboard locations and what could be
charge d.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if it were based on gross receipts would that still
apply; City Attorney Hopkins stated that would be proper, because it would be
based on income received on that particular billboard.
Councilman Overholt suggested that the City Attorney be asked to prepare a
formal opinion that would give a "road map" as to what they could or could not
do legally.
City Attorney Hopkins stated his office would prepare an opinion covering a
business license and various other permit fees.
Councilman Overholt stated he had lined up all the letters received from the
industry and was "shocked" to see the agreement that did exist on some of the
major items; Councilman Pickler favored a continuance to analyze and study
what was presented to them today; Mayor Roth stated that he was not prepared
to move ahead today, but would encourage the industry to keep working on the
issue in order to come up with a proposal that would be acceptable and present
it in perhaps two or three weeks.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she still heard from people throughout the City
who were thoroughly disgusted with the existing signs. She maintained that
Anaheim's current ordinance was extremely liberal. She wondered whether a
question on the ballot for the people to vote on might not be a good idea, to
see just how the citizens felt.
MOTION: After a further discussion, Councilman Roth moved to continue the
billboard ragulation~ i~ua for four w~ak~, to Novambar 15, 1983, at 10:00
a.m. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed
Session. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (3:45 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (5:00 p.m.)
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4455: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4455 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
837
'City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 18, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
ORDINANCE NO. 4455: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING SECTION
18.02.031 AND ~4ENDING SECTIONS 18.02.030 AND 18.02.032 OF CHAPTER 18.02 OF
TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
N one
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4455 duly passed and adopted.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4456 - RELATING TO BED AND BREAKFAST INNS: Amending and
adding various Subsections, Sections and Chapters of Title 18 of the Code,
relating to Bed and Breakfast Inns.
City Attorney William Hopkins referred to Page 2, Section .070 of the revised
ordinance, which now read as follows, which he felt was more appropriate:
".070 Notwithstanding any other provision of Title 18 of this Code to the
contrary with the exception of Section 18.04.130.080 hereof, Bed and Breakfast
Inns may be located in any single-family residences deemed by the City to be
of architectural and/or historical significance in any zone provided a
conditional use permit is obtained therefor and said residence complies with
all provisions of the Uniform Building Codes as adopted by the City of
Anaheim." There was also a minor change under Section .030 and it now read,
"Signs. On-premises..." He then clarified upon Council questioning that the
changes would mean an amended first reading of the ordinance today with final
adoption in one week.
Councilman Bay stated he was glad the City Attorney brought up the two minor
changes, because he did not want his changes to appear as a delaying tactic to
what a majority of the Council would more than likely vote through. He felt
that other things should be covered in the ordinance which they had discussed,
but which he did not find contained therein. A specific amendment that he
would recommend under Section .070 immediately after, notwithstanding any
other provision · · . in parentheses, except 18.04.130.010, the .010 referring
to the 2,000-square foot provision. He wanted to see .070 amended to retain
that 2,000 square foot minimum. Most of the historical structures they were
talking about were 2,000-square feet or more and most, by their very size,
made it economically feasible to make them an exception under the guise of
historically or architecturally significant. Therefore, he did not want to
see any letup of the 2,000 square foot minimum, even under that guise.
Mayor Roth stated as he recalled, that was a concern expressed by Commissioner
Herbst at the joint meeting (see minutes October 11, 1983), that there were
under certain conditions structures that could be considered as being both
historically or architecturally significant, but less than 2,000 square feet,
and that the Council should look at those individually. He felt that was very
clear and the reason for that paragraph.
838
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 18, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Pickler stated he understood the concerns of Councilman Bay, but
anytime someone applied for a bed and breakfast (B&B) they would need a CUP.
If there were such structures of historical or architectural significance
below 2,000 square feet, the Council would have the final decision, and if he
could be convinced at that time that the structure was not large enough, he
would be able to judge accordingly.
Councilman Bay, after presenting his argument in a different fashion,
concluded by stating that it was only fair to continue to hold that size
throughout the entire ordinance, so they would have a line drawn. Otherwise,
it would be wide open, because they had no criteria for defining what was
architecturally or historically significant.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated if there was a structure that was truly
historical, it was worthy of saving, and if it was perhaps 1800 square feet
with two or three bedrooms that could be rented as a B&B, she would be in
favor, because it would be preserving a building which would otherwise be
destroyed. It would necessitate a CUP and they could make a judgment at that
time. She would not be in favor of including the proposed amendment by
Councilman Bay.
Councilman Bay assumed then that he had no second to his proposed amendment.
He then asked if there was anything in the ordinance that referred to tying
the CUP to the owner as was done today when they approved CUP 2483, so that
when ownership changed, the CUP would have to be renewed. He did not see
anything referring to that issue in the ordinance.
City Attorney Hopkins stated that would be at the discretion of the Plamning
Commission and they would determine what would go into the conditions. It was
not in the Ordinance.
Councilman Bay asked what was then going to be on the books that stated what
they agreed to in the extensive dialogue previously, that the CUP would not be
tied just to the property as normally done with CUP's.
City Attorney Hopkins stated that it would be on a case-by-case basis at the
discretion of the Planning Commission; Councilman Bay answered that was not
the intent of the dialogue as he heard it.
Councilman Pickler asked if it was possible to include that in the ordinance;
the City Attorney stated they could look into it, but normally a CUP went with
the land and in certain cases where the Planning Commission felt it would be
appropriate to include such a condition, that could be worked out. That was
the reason why it was left at the discretion of the Planning Commission.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated it was always her understanding that a variance
went with the land and a CUP with the applicant.
City Attorney Hopkins stated that the law in the various treatises on CUP's
and variances specified that they did run with the land, and that was true for
the past 20 or 30 years.
839
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL'MINUTES - October 18, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she wanted it included in the ordinance that it
would apply to the applicant; the City Attorney stated that could be done,
however, there were several cases they checked last week that indicated they
could do so by specifying it as a condition tying it to individuals. It was
case law, which was something they would have to look into carefully and that
was why he would prefer to leave it on a case-by-case basis.
Councilwoman Kaywood felt it would then mean that if the Planning Commission
happened to overlook it, it could slip by and not be included; City Attorney
Hopkins stated if the Planning Commission felt it necessary to tie it to the
applicant, they could do so.
Councilwoman Kaywood reiterated that she would like to see that provision in
the ordinance; the City Attorney stated they could add something to that
effect.
Councilman Bay stated as he recalled when the matter was discussed at last
week's meeting, a specific question was put to the City Attorney relative to
the fact that the CUP was based on the land, and Council concensus was that
they needed a solution to that problem to tie the CUP to the owner-applicant,
and when that ownership changed, it voided the CUP. He thought the answer was
"yes," there was a way to do that. He emphasized that he wanted to see it
that way in the ordinance.
Mr. Hopkins stated that was the answer, but he did not have direction to put
it in the ordinance.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to amend the ordinance to include in the
appropriate section that the CUP would be tied to the owner-applicant and when
the ownership changed, the CUP would be null and void. Councilwoman Kaywood
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
City Attorney Hopkins noted that another change was under Section .0242, which
dealt with a parking space for each bedroom in the residence, plus one parking
space for each non-resident employee, plus one additional parking space for
visitors.
Councilman Bay wanted to know what would prevent someone from renting a den as
a bedroom and yet parking requirements were based on a bedroom. He questioned
whether a statement should not be included that no tenants would be rented
rooms other than bedrooms in B&B inns.
After further Council discussion on that point, the City Attorney stated if
the Council wished, he could include a definition of a sleeping area; Mayor
Roth felt the responsiblity should be placed on the individual renting the
rooms, realizing that patrons would be anticipating the privacy of a bedroom.
Councilman Overholt then asked, under the ordinance as they were amending it,
if any B&B facility had to operate under a CUP; the City Attorney confirmed
that was correct.
84O
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 18, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Overholt surmised then that when Section .070 was amended, the
facilities described therein would not be given any different treatment than a
facility that was not historically or architecturally significant; the City
Attorney answered "no," except it would be in any zone, since there would be
no restriction.
Councilman Overholt stated, when an applicant came in with a 2,000-square foot
house, they were also looking for a CUP. Otherwise, in a neighborhood of
2,000-square foot houses, the whole area could be B&B's and thus the control
was ultimately still that of the Council's.
Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4456 for an amended first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4456: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING AND ADDING
VARIOUS SUBSECTIONS, SECTIONS AND CHAPTERS OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO BED AND BREAKFAST INNS.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4457: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4457 for
first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4457: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (83-84-5, CL, southwest corner
of Chestnut Street and Harbor Boulevard)
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed
Session. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
p.m.)
(5:30
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (6:21 p.m.)
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Bay moved to adjourn. Councilman Overholt seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (6:21 p.m.)
LINDA D. ROBERTS~ CITY CLERK
841