1982/11/30City Hail, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 30, 1982, 10:00 A.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL M~BERS: Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
COUNCIL M~BERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
CITY ENGINEER: William Devitt
PUBLIC UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER: Gordon Hoyt
HII~AN RESOURCES DIRECTOR: Garry McRae
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ronald Thompson
ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR--ZONING: Annika Santalahti
CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR: Walter Kirkhart
ZONING ENFORC~I~ENT SPECIALIST: Anthony Montoya
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: The Reverend Rick Gastil, Hotline Help Center at Melodyland, gave
the Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Irv Pickler led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
119: INTRODUCTION: Mayor Roth introduced and congratulated Miss Melissa
Borbon, the reigning 1982 Cinco de Mayo Queen, and presented her with red
roses on behalf of the Council and the City.
119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Roth
and authorized by the City Council:
Toys for Tots Campaign, December 1-20, 1982.
Lungs for Life Week in Anaheim, December 6-10, 1982.
MINUTES: Approval of the minutes was deferred to the next regular meeting.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda,
after reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to
waiver is hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the
title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such
ordinances or resolutions in regular order. Councilman Roth seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DMMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of ~1,269,502.17, in
accordance with the 1982-83 Budget, were approved.
1021
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 30, 1982, 10:00 A.M.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARtMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Pickler,
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 Pickler offered
Resolution Nos. 82R-566, and 82R-568 through 82R-574, 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 denied and referred to Risk Management:
1. Claim submitted by Rosalinda Garcia Martinez for personal property
damages purportedly sustained due to a power failure causing damage to
claimant's refrigerator and spoiling the food therein at 333 North Valley,
#3, on or about October 8, 1982.
2. Claim submitted by Leroy and Loretta Carriosa for personal property
loss purportedly sustained due to meter reader breaking key in dead bolt
lock, leaving storage door open at 2853 West Lincoln Avenue, on or about
October 14, 1982.
3. Claim submitted by Ronald Ray Abbott for personal property damages
purportedly sustained when claimant's car ran over a water main cover and
gashed his transmission pan causing a leak on Westchester between Delmonte
and Lincoln Avenue, on or about August 26, 1982.
4. Claim submitted by Donald vander Giessen for personal injuries
purportedly sustained due to a slip-and-fall accident at Anaheim
Convention Center, on or about September 26, 1982.
5. Claim submitted by Sylvia Anne Sugden for personal injuries and
personal property damages purportedly sustained due to an accident caused
by an Anaheim Police Officer immediately south of the intersection of
Brookhurst Street and Lincoln Avenue, on or about August 3, 1982.
6. Claim submitted by Robert E. Plaisted for personal property damages
purportedly sustained due to a fire truck running over claimant's planter
in the Mobilehome Park at 1919 Coronet Avenue, on or about September 13,
1982.
7. Claim submitted by Robert L. Rattan for personal injuries purportedly
sustained due to a bicycle accident caused by a rise in the pavement on
Imperial Highway in the vicinity of Canyon High School, on or about
August 7, 1982.
B. Application for Leave to Present a Late Claim denied:
8. Application for Leave to Present a Late Claim submitted by Robin Smith
for personal injuries purportedly sustained due to a bicycle accident
caused by a rise in the pavement on Imperial Highway in the vicinity of
Canyon High School, on or about December 26, 1981.
1022
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 30, 1982, 10:00 A.M.
2. The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 105: Community Center Authority--Minutes of November 8, 1982.
b. 105: Public Utilities Board--Minutes of October 21, 1982.
c. 140: Public Library Board--Minutes of October 20, 1982.
d. 140: Public Library--Monthly Statistical Summary for October 1982.
3. 106: Authorizing an increase in the FY 1982-83 Community Promotion budget
appropriation in the amount of $1,000, reflecting the revenues collected for
the "Anaheim Day in Tijuana", to offset the associated expenses.
4. 128: Receiving and filing the Monthly Financial Analysis for the
three-month period ending September 30, 1982.
5. 160: Accepting the low bid of Dardanella Electrical Corporation in an
amount not to exceed $67,939.50, for 75,000 pounds of 653.9 K~MIL 18/3 ACSR
wire, in accordance with Bid No. 3915.
6. 160: Accepting the bids of Badger Meter Co. in the amount of ~49,088.60
for 2,000 each 5/8-inch by 3/4-inch water meters; and Rockwell in the amount
of $12,614 for 200 each, 1-inch water meters, in accordance with Bid No. 3906.
7. 169: Continuing the award of Barrier Free Anaheim No. 7 Street
Improvement, Account No. 24-793-6325-E3630, to December 7, 1982.
8. 158: Authorizing payment of $95,950 to Courtesy Automotive for
modification to the building at 412 South Anaheim Boulevard, as required by
the Anaheim Boulevard Street Widening Project, Account No. 13-792-7101-E2580.
(R/W 2800-32)
167: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-566: A ~SOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE
THE CONSTRUCTION AND C(1MPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROV~ENT, TO WIT: INSTALLATION
OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND SAFETY LIGHTING AT KATELLA AVENUE AND CLAUDINA
WAY/KATELLA WAY, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, FEDERAL NO. HES-L030(O07), ACCOUNT
NOo 49-795-6325-E5250. (Bids to be opened December 30, 1982, 2:00 p.m.)
169: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-568: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE C~MPLETION 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 CCMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: PAVEMENT
MARKING D~I~ONSTRATION PROGRAM, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO.
17-796-6325-E6020. (Consley & Montigny Company, Inc., contractor)
1023
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 30, 1982, 10:00 A.M.
150: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-569: 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: RIVERDALE
PARK IMPROVEMENTS, 4545 EAST RIVERDALE AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT
NOS. 16-822-7103-2202C AND 16-822-7103-22150. (T. J. Crosby Company, Inc.,
contractor)
167: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-570: 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 TP~NSPORTATION
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 THE INTERSECTION OF BROOKHURST
STREET AND CATALINA AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO.
01-794-6325-E4210. (Steiny and Company, Inc., contractor)
164: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-571: 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: SOUTH STREET
WATER IMPROVEMENTS, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO.
51-606-6329-27230-34340. (Tennyson Pipeline Co., contractor)
109/166: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-572: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM REQUESTING THE CALIFORNIA DEPAR%MENT OF TRANSPORTATION POST
SIGNS ON THE NORTHBOUND SANTA ANA FREEWAY (I-5) OFF-RAMP AT SOUTH STREET
PROHIBITING TRUCKS FROM EXITING AT THIS OFF-RAMP.
153: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-573: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 82R-123 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF
COMPENSATION FOR CLASSES DESIGNATED AS UNREPRESENTED PART-TIME JOB
CLASSIFICATION. (Library Page Driver, Salary Schedule 387)
158: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-574: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Starer Bros
Markets, et al.; AmericanMedicorp Development Co.; Donald Yoder, et al.;
Imperial Terrace)
Roll Cai1 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. 82R-566 and 82R-568
through 82R-574, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted.
1024
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 30, 1982, 10:00 A.M.
123: AMENEMENT TO THE SHARED HOUSING PROGRAM: Submitted was a report from
Mr. Norman J. Priest, Executive Director of Community Development, dated
October 25, 1982, recommending an amendment to the subject program, to allow
that only one member of a match need be a senior citizen, 50 years of age,
disabled or handicapped.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she was glad to see the proposed change, since it
gave much more flexibility to the program and would help a greater number of
people.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to approve the change to the Shared Housing
Program for the Elderly under the.agreement with the County of Orange, to
allow that only one member of a match need be a senior citizen, who is 50
years of age, disabled or handicapped. Councilman Pickier seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
101: AWARD OF CONTRACT - ANAHEIM STADILM RESTROCM ADDITIONS - MARTIN RESNIK
CONSTRUCTION Cf~4PANY: Awarding a contract to the lowest and best responsible
bidder, Martin Resnik Construction Company, in the amount of $135,060,
including Alternates 1 and 2, for Anaheim Stadium Restroom Additions, Account
No. 24-958-6325.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated before approving the contract, she wanted to be
certain that the ceramic tile floors under Alternate 2 would not be slick and
slippery. She would not be adverse, subject to the surface being non-slip.
City Engineer William Devitt explained that if the floor did get wet, it would
be slippery, but they would maintain it in a dry condition; Councilwoman
Kaywood asked if the contract could be held over one week.
City Manager William Talley stated he would prefer to trail the matter so that
information could be provided today, because the bid was such a favorable one.
Later in the meeting, Mr. Talley reported that the City Engineer had the
specifications with him, and the City was allowed to select the tile to be
placed on the floor. Mr. Devitt assured him that they would choose a material
that was as close to slip-proof as possible.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 82R-567 for adoption. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 82R-567: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE ANAHEIM STADII1M RESTROfM ADDITIONS, IN THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO.24-958-6325. ~iartin Resnik Construction Company,
$135,060)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL M~BERS:
COUNCIL M~BERS:
COUNCIL M~MBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 82R-567 duly passed and adopted.
1025
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 30, 1982, 10:00 A.M.
123/153: ~PLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM CONTRACTOR: Submitted was a report
dated November 18, 1982, from the Human Resources Director, Garry McRae,
recommending acceptance of the bid by Holman Consulting Corporation to provide
professional employee assistance services, effective January 1, 1983, at a
cost of $1.45 per employee per month, and directing the Human Resources
Director to send written notice to the National Council on Alcoholism, Orange
County, giving them 30-day notice of cancellation of their contract for
services, effective December 31, 1982. City Manager William Talley briefed
the Council on the staff report which discussed the process of selection by an
ad hoc evaluation committee composed of representatives from the Anaheim Fire
Association, Anaheim Police Association, and Anaheim Municipal Employees
Association. A Mr. Olsen from Martin Luther Hospital and Mr. Larson from the
National Council on Alcoholism (NCA), Orange County, were present to speak to
the issue.
Mr. Kevin M. Olsen, 404 North Pine, Vice President, Partnership for Good
Health, Martin Luther Hospital Medical Center, stated he would like to discuss
the staff recommendations. He also referred to his letter dated November 23,
1982 previously submitted to the Council wherein he stated that he believed
REACH, the Martin Luther Hospital Program, was the best selection for the
City. He wanted to review the comparison chart which he compared, review his
letter, and go over the staff report.
City Manager Talley interjected and asked for an expression of Council policy,
since he found it offensive for a bidder to come in, make an analysis of the
process, and present skewed information to Council on something that was
basically a solicitation of services. If they had erred, he felt it
appropriate that the error be pointed out. However, heretofore, the Council
had not as a policy reviewed all of the various submittals. He reiterated, he
would like an expression of policy or at least that Council request Mr. Olsen
to confine his remarks to what he felt was misinterpreted about his bid.
Further, relative to the process followed, they did what the Council wanted
and requested, that the employees make a recommendation to the Council.
Mr. Olsen then limited his presentation to questions posed to staff relative
to data contained in the staff report, which questions were answered by both
Mr. Talley and Human Resources Director Garry McRae.
Mr. David Larson, 2110 East First Street, Santa Ana, Executive Director of
NCA, Orange County~ explained that they had the City of Anaheim under contract
for employee assistance counseling for the past three years. They went into
the process with the feeling that they were looking at a re-contract hearing,
but were in error. There were certain pertinent facts they wanted to present
to the committee not presented the first time around. They wanted to again
appear before the committee and give valuable information which they thought
the committee knew, but that they did not know. Their request, therefore, was
for a two-week stay to allow them to appear before the committee of employee
representatives to make a better presentation to them.
1026
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 30, 1982, 10:00 A.M.
Mro Tom Beardman, President, Anaheim Police Association, stated he was part of
the committee that heard the presentations on the programs that would be
offered by the different organizations° It was finally determined that Holman
Consulting had the amount of experience and programs they were looking for, as
well as accessibility and extended services. Martin Luther Hospital, the
REACH Program, made a very professional and impressive presentation. The
committee discussed the fact that they were local, but Holman Consulting had
offices that were widespread in areas where many City employees resided, so
that there would be no great inconvenience for employees to utilize their
services.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. Beardman if he had heard anything today that
would lead him to change his mind about the selection; Mr. Beardman answered,
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to accept the bid of Holman Consulting
Corporation to provide professional employee assistance services, effective
January 1, 1983, at a cost of ~1.45 per employee per month, and to direct the
Human Resources Director to send written notice to the National Council on
Alcoholism, Orange County, giving them 30-day notice of cancellation of their
contract for services, effective December 31, 1982, as recommended in
memorandum dated November 18, 1982, from the Human Resources Director, Garry
McRae. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. Councilman Overholt voted
"no." MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Overholt stated he felt that particularly Mr. Larson expressed the
view that for some reason, in some way, his organization was misled as to the
nature of the bidding process. If there was any indication that someone was
misled, he felt it would be better for the Council to send the matter back to
the committee to make certain that no one was misled, and for the committee to
subsequently take the responsibility as to whether or not they would open up
the process again.
175 (ELECTRIC UTILITY): REPORT ON STORM DAMAGE: City Manager Talley stated
for Council and media information, he asked Mr. Hoyt to give a brief report on
the damage the City was sustaining as a result of the wind and rain storm in
progress.
Public Utilities General Manager Gordon Hoyt reported their main problems came
about in a 4 1/2- to 5-minute period when they recorded wind gusts higher than
they had ever had experienced at the Lewis Substation. They had either
lightning or high-voltage enter the control center and as of approximately 20
minutes ago, they still had 13 to 15 12Kv circuits out which served a
considerable area. There were outages at Rockwell and Delco-Remy, and from
his office, looking out over the Anaheim and Garden Grove area in a southerly
direction, he could see at times as many as five arcs coming from failures all
over the area. Based on the experience they had, he felt that citizens were
going to be out of electricity in some areas through tomorrow night,
Wednesday, December 1, 1982. They were going to bring in everybody possible.
Trees and poles were down in various parts of the City. Wind gusts were
recorded at 60+ miles per hour.
1027
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 30, 1982, 10:00 A.M.
105: APPOINIMENT TO THE PROJECT AREA CCMMITTEE: City Clerk Roberts announced
that staff had requested a one-week continuance on the subject appointment.
On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the appointment
of a member to fill a vacancy on the Project Area Committee for the term
ending June 30, 1983 (Beeson), was continued one week. MOTION CARRIED.
105: APPOINTMENT TO THE CfF~MUNITY SERVICES BOARD: Councilwoman Kaywood
nominated Glenn Irving to the Community Services Board; Councilman Bay
nominated Kathy Walden; Mayor Roth nominated Rick Gastil.
Councilman Bay moved that nominations be closed. Councilman Pickler seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
A vote was then taken on the nominations in the order in which they were
nominated:
Glenn Irving:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL M~BERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood
Pickler, Bay, Overholt and Roth
None
Kathy Walden:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL M~BERS:
COUNCIL M~MBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Pickler, Bay and Overholt
Kaywood and Roth
None
Kathy Walden was thereupon appointed to the Community Services Board for the
term ending June 30, 1983, to fill the vacancy created by Joan Burda.
City Clerk Roberts then confirmed for Councilman Overholt and Councilwoman
Kaywood that letters received from individuals indicating their interest in
serving on Boards and Commission were kept on file for future consideration
when vacancies occurred.
VARIANCE NO. 1874 - TERMINATION: Request by Myung Shik Yun for termination of
Variance No. 1874, to permit development of a 45-unit apartment complex with
certain Code waivers on property located at 727 South Beach Boulevard, as a
condition of approval under Conditional Use Permit No. 2355, was submitted.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 82R-575 for adoption, in accordance
with the recommendations of the Zoning Division. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 82R-575: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM TERMINATING ALL PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH VARIANCE NO. 1874 AND
DECLARING RESOLUTION NO. 67R-427 NULL AND VOID.
1028
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 30, 1982, 10:00 A.M.
Roil Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL M~4BERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overhoit, Bay and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 82R-575 duly passed and adopted.
108/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4378 - TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX: City Clerk Roberts
stated it was her understanding that it was Council's intent to adopt the
subject Ordinance today in view of the amended first reading last week.
City Attorney William Hopkins stated that Councilman Overholt offered the
Ordinance at the meeting of November 23, 1982 (see minutes that date), and
Mayor Pro Tem Bay made a request for an amended first reading to add the
requirements of a four-fifths vote of the Council in the case of a waiver of
the penalty. The Council voted to approve that amendment. He pointed out
that one of the things involved pursuant to the Charter was that an
affirmative vote of at least three members of the Council may repeal an
action, but there was nothing that stated there could not be a four-fifths
requirement.
Discussion then followed between Councilmen Overholt, Bay and the City
Attorney relative to the procedure in offering ordinances for adoption at the
conclusion of which, Councilman Bay requested that the policy be clarified for
the Council. He felt that when they had a first reading of an ordinance and
they amended the first reading at the time of the offering, he did not
understand the implication that it had to be reoffered the next week as
another first reading.
The City Attorney explained that the Charter was the governing document. It
stated that, "In the eVent any Ordinance is altered after its introduction,
the same shall not be finally adopted at a regular or adjourned meeting held
not less than five days after the date upon which Ordinance was so altered."
It did not say it had to be done in writing. It could be.verbally altered at
the meeting, but there must be five days from the date of alteration before
the final vote.
Councilman Bay stated if necessary, he was going to formally offer the
Ordinance for first reading today; City Attorney Hopkins suggested that he
offer it for an amended first reading.
Councilman Bay thereupon offered Ordinance No. 4378 for an amended first
reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4378: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING NEW SECTION
2.12.045 AND AMENDING SECTION 2.12.070 OF CHAPTER 2.12 OF TITLE 2 OF THE
ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX.
1029
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 30, 1982, 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Roth emphasized, as he had previously, that he felt to require a
four-fifths vote was a dangerous precedent and he was going to oppose the
Ordinance at the next meeting.
Councilman Overholt thereupon moved for an amendment to the first amended
reading to provide for a majority vote of the Council, since that was the same
requirement as for a resolution. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion for
the purpose of discussion.
Councilman Overholt emphasized his concern over the imposition of a four
affirmative vote requirement and he did not think that the issue was of such
import that it required more than a resolution would require. Further, during
the period of April 21, 1982 and the time when Councilman Pickler was sworn
in, the Council consisted of only four members. If the Ordinance, as amended,
passed, a unanimous vote would have to be required under such circumstances.
However, if his motion did not pass, he was still going to support the
Ordinance, because he felt it was important that the Council have the power to
give relief in exceptional cases.
Councilman Pickler stated he seconded the motion in order to give Councilman
Overholt an opportunity to again speak to the issue. He felt, however, that
by the amended first reading, the Council now had the opportunity to hear
those seeking relief of the penalty. If he saw that such a move was misused,
they could change the Ordinance.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion by Councilman Overholt and
failed to carry by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL M~4BERS:
COUNCIL MKMBERS:
COUNCIL M~BERS:
Overholt and Roth
Kaywood, Pickler and Bay
None
ORDINANCE NO. 4379: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4379 for first
reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4379: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (80-81-22, RM-2400)
164: NEED FOR STORM DRAINS: Councilwoman Kaywood, noting the severe storm in
progress, reminded the Council of the dire need for storm drains in Anaheim,
and the missed opportunity they had to do something about the situation on
August 31, 1982 (see minutes that date).
162: REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE FRCM THE WEST ANAHEIM CC~[MUNITY HOSPITAL:
Councilman Pickler referred to a letter received from the West Anaheim
Community Hospital asking for support relative to a piece of equipment they
wished to acquire. He was going to submit copies to the Council for possible
action.
1030
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 30, 1982, 10:00 A.M.
114: LETTER OF TH~2fKS TO DISNEYLAND AND THE MARRIOTT: Mayor Roth requested
the City Clerk to prepare a letter of thanks to Mr. Bullis of Disneyland and
Mro Joel Rothman of the Anaheim Marriott for their outstanding spirit of
cooperation and generosity in contributing 100 rooms free of charge for
players and executives when the Freedom Bowl comes to Anaheim.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: The City Manager requested a Closed Session to
discuss personnel 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 Roth moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilwoman Kaywood
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (11:35 a.mo)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present with the exception of Councilman Overholt. (1:45 p.m.)
112: SMITH VS. CITY OF ANAHEIM: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by
Councilman Bay, the City Attorney and Kinkle, Rodiger and Spriggs were
authorized to settle Orange County Superior Court Case No. 34-58-13, Sally
Smith vs. City of Anaheim, for a sum not to exceed $25,000. Councilman
Overholt was temporarily absent. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Overholt entered the Council Chambers. (1:47 p.m.)
153: LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING AND AMENDING RATES OF CCMPENSATION FOR CLASSES
REPRESENTED BY THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL
#47: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 82R-576 and 82R-577 for
adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 82R-576: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ADOPTING A LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 47. (dated November
29, 1982)
RESOLUTION NO. 82R-577: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 81R-83 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF COMPENSATION
FOR CLASSES REPRESENTED BY THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS, LOCAL NO. 47, UTILITIES EMPLOYEES UNIT. (effective October 8, 1982
through December 16, 1982, inclusive)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt and Roth
Bay
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 82R-576 and 82R-577 duly passed and adopted.
1031
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 30, 1982, 10:00 A.M.
108/179: HOUSING TASK FORCE RECflMMENDATIONS: Discussion relating to Housing
Task Force recommendations. Continued from the meeting of November 2, 1982
(see minutes that date). Submitted was a report dated November 18, 1982, from
Mr. Len Reitz and Mr. Anthony Montoya, Housing Code Inspectors, in reply to
statements made by members of the City's Housing Task Force during the Council
Meeting of November 2, 1982, regarding alleged Housing Code Inspection
violations.
In referring to the subject report, Councilwoman Kaywood emphasized that she
was not looking to assess blame or cause a problem, but was more interested in
how they were going to move forward from this point. It was not important how
long it would take to correct violations, but that all complaints would
eventually be handled. She was also concerned with the idea of not having
permits pulled when corrective work was done and she questioned staff on that
issue.
A lengthy discussion followed on the permit aspect, the inspection process,
and the possibility of charging reinspection fees wherein questions were posed
by Council Members and answered by Mr. Walter Kirkhart, Chief Building
Inspector, and Mr. Ronald Thompson, Planning Director.
The Mayor then asked if anyone wished to speak.
Mrs. Sheri Pignone, 1181 Crown Street, Chairman of the Housing Task Force,
reported that in the Patrick Henry Area alone, there had been approximately 7
apartment owners who had gone to court because of non-compliance. She did not
believe that up to this time any reinspection fees had been charged. She
questioned why not start charging fees to offset Mr. Reitz'$ costs, time and
expenses.
Additional discussion followed relative to the feasibility of charging
reinspection fees at the conclusion of which Mr. Thompson stated he would work
with the City Attorney in developing whatever might be necessary to reimburse
for reinspections when they went to court on a case. Otherwise, he felt it
would be very difficult and time consuming to recover such costs. In the case
of Garden Grove, they had considerably more manpower to deal with those types
of problems. Mrs. Pignone then stated that the Housing Task Force was
recommending that Council republish the Nuisance Ordinance, preferably in the
Spring Parks & Recreation brochure, as well as the possibility of including it
in a utility bill. Relative to Housing Task Force Recommendation No. 15
dealing with occupancy, the Housing Task Force recommended adoption of an
ordinance compatible with the Housing Authority Occupancy Limitations, since
overcrowding seemed to be a major problem.
Councilman Bay answered that the Housing Authority Limitation of Occupancy was
to meet the requirements to obtain a subsidy for rent. The enforcement of
that was based on the incentive to be qualified to fall under the subsidized
rent program. If an ordinance was passed and there was no incentive, they
would encounter State and Federal laws and restrictions on who could live in a
dwelling.
1032
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 30, 1982, 10:00 A.M.
City Attorney Hopkins pointed out as well that the problem was one of
enforcement, although they were looking into that area. It was difficult to
prove a violation relative to occupancy.
Mrs. Pignone asked if there was any way Council could recommend doing some
concentrated work in the Patrick Henry area such as that which had occurred in
the Anna Drive area after former Mayor Seymour registered a citizen's
complaint.
Councilwoman Kaywood thereupon registered a complaint relative to problems in
the Patrick Henry area, specifically the Julianna, Hall and Victor Avenue
areas. She had also received complaints from apartment owners in that area.
Mrs. Pignone again asked about readvertising the Nuisance Ordinance;
Councilwoman Kaywood first wanted to know if it would be unreasonable to ask
for a report from staff in 60 days relative to the results of their
enforcement efforts in the Patrick Henry area.
Mr. Thompson answered that it would not be unreasonable to expect such a
report within that time frame.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated the reason she was asking, she did not want
another advertising on the Nuisance Ordinance before staff completed their
enforcement efforts in the Patrick Henry area, since staff would be very busy
in that area in the meantime.
MOTION: On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, a
report was to be submitted to the Council in 60 days, giving the results of
enforcement efforts in the Patrick Henry area. MOTION CARRIED.
Before concluding, Mrs. Pignone also asked consideration for a change of
wording in the Nuisance Ordinance where it stated that there be no
clotheslines in the front yard area. The problem was not the clotheslines,
but what people were using for clotheslines such as fences, shrubs, trees, etc.
Pamela Robinson, 400 North Vine, Apartment D, then stated that the Patrick
Henry area was not the only area that needed attent%on. The Vine, Bush, Rose,
East, Sycamore and Cypress area was becoming a declining neighborhood and she
recently turned in 11 complaints on her own. The decline was generating
crime, more bad tenants, plus bringing in "slum" landlords. She was present
today to ask that something be done to ensure more Code enforcement as was
just mentioned by zeroing in on target areas.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to receive and file the report dated October 26,
1982, from the Zoning Division. Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked if in receiving and filing
the report, it meant that they would not refer to it again; Mayor Roth
answered that the action would have nothing to do with the Council engaging in
further dialogue on the issues involved.
1033
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 30, 1982, 10:00 A.M.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
120: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - PUBLIC NUISANCE - 949 North Mohican Avenue:
To determine the existence of a public nuisance at 949 North Mohican Avenue,
and to abate in whole or part, Mr. and Mrs. Arthur Neiswanger, owners.
Continued from the meeting of November 2, 1982 (see minutes that date).
The Mayor asked to hear from the Neiswangers or their agent.
Ms. Darrilyn Wallner, 631 South Brookhurst, Suite 104, Attorney representing
Mr. and Mrs. Arthur Neiswanger, stated at the last hearing (November 2, 1982)
it was requested that she meet with the Assistant Planning Director--Zoning to
determine a feasible plan agreeable to both the Neiswangers and the Planning
Department. They did so and devised a plan acceptable to all parties on where
to place the gravel, how it was to be laid, etc. They were also going to
install slats to keep the gravel in a certain area. Mr. Neiswanger was
attempting to do the work himself and since it would be a slow process, they
were requesting four months for completion.
Ms. Wallner then confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood that the gravel was going
to be used as a driveway; Councilwoman Kaywood asked staff when they had ever
permitted gravel to be used for a permanent driveway or parking area. She was
concerned over the precedent that would be set.
Assistant Planning Director--Zoning Annika Santalahti answered that the issue
did not come up often, but if properly maintained, gravel could be an
acceptable material and there was nothing in the Code that prohibited its use.
Councilman Overholt thought that the issue was totally and completely
dialogued at the meeting of November 2, 1982, and at the conclusion, Ms.
Wallner was directed to work with staff. The present issue was to consider
the four months to install the driveway.
Councilman Pickler also expressed his concern over allowing gravel driveways;
Councilwoman Kaywood reiterated her concern as well. She also had a problem
with the four-month period for completion and the fact that nothing had been
done to date.
Councilman Overholt stated he was prepared to move to allow the four months
requested on the condition that the work commence within 30 days and, if not,
that the matter come back to the Council.
Miss Santalahti then explained for Councilman Pickler that she could accept
the 8ravel driveway in this instance, since the use was minimal. If the
driveway was being used a great deal, it would not be acceptable.
Councilman Overholt asked if there was any way they could give permission to
the Neiswangers and if and when the house was sold, it would not be
contemplated that someone else could do the same thing.
1034
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 30, 1982, 10:00 A.M.
City Attorney Hopkins answered there was no way to do so. He also explained
there was no prohibition against a gravel driveway anywhere in the City. It
was the apron portion in the City's right-of-way that had to be of paved
cement.
Councilman Bay stated that he did not like the solution, since he did not feel
that it was a solution; Mayor Roth expressed his concern that after having
given direction at the meeting of November 2, staff and Ms. Wallner followed
that direction and they were now back to square one.
Councilman Bay agreed, but the problem he had revolved around the City
Attorney's opinion that once the gravel driveway was installed, it would be
permanent. He maintained there had to be something that they could do to make
the gravel driveway a temporary fix. He wanted to see more study on how to
make it temporary until the house changed ownership when the fix would no
longer be permitted, because there would be no need for it.
City Attorney Hopkins suggested that they hold any action, so that a further
study could be made. There might be some way to do it by an agreement. Other
than that, he did not know how they could restrict a new owner.
Councilman Bay offered a resolution to approve the proposed plan for a gravel
driveway on the basis that such approval was contingent upon working out an
agreement between the Neiswangers' attorney and staff, that it would be
terminated upon sale of the property.
Ms. Wallner stated that was the intent of the parties, that it would last as
long as the Neiswangers owned and occupied the house.
The City Attorney suggested that the matter be continued and that the
resolution be held for three or four weeks until there was an opportunity to
study the matter.
MOTION: Councilman Bay withdrew his resolution and thereupon moved to
continue the public hearing to determine the existence of a public nuisance at
949 North Mohican Avenue, and to abate in whole or part, Mr. and Mrs. Arthur
Neiswanger, owners, to December 28, 1982, at 11:30 a.m. Councilman Overholt
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2382 AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION: Application by Atlantic Richfield Company (Arco Service
Station), to permit a convenience market with gasoline sales on CL zoned
property located at 700 South State College Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC82-192, declared
that the subject project be exempt from the requirement to prepare an
Environmental Impact Report pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act, on the basis there would be no significant
individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact due to the approval of
1035
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 30, 1982, 10:00 A.M.
this Negative Declaration, since the Anaheim General Plan designates the
subject property for general commercial land uses commensurate with the
proposal; and that the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no
significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts; and
further, denied Conditional Use Permit No. 2382.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by the applicant and a
public hearing scheduled and continued from the meeting of November 16, 1982.
City Clerk Linda Roberts announced that a letter dated November 29, 1982, had
been received from Mr. Wallace R. Davis of the Law Offices of Cohen, Stokke
and Davis, which included an addendum of the appeal to the City Council (8
pages of attachments), together with petitions in favor of CUP 2382, signed by
1,000 Anaheim residents. The material had been submitted to the Council.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that the signatures reflected addresses which were
all over the City. Councilman Bay then asked if there was a count of the
signatures on the letter of opposition they received dated November 24, 1982.
City Clerk Roberts answered that the letter was signed by Murle Burkett,
President of the Board of Directors of the Anaheim Gardens Homeowners
Association. There were no other signatures on that letter.
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
~{r. Wallace Davis stated he was the attorney representing the operator, Daniel
Cretty, who had been located at the site for approximately four years. He was
also representing Arco, the applicant for the CUP. Mr. Davis then highlighted
some of the points contained in the addendum included in his November 29, 1982
letter (made a part of the record) to support their request for a conditional
use permit. As background, he referred to a prior hearing held in November of
1981, where at the time, the Planning Commission suggested that the two
driveways closest to the intersection, one on South Street and the other on
State College Boulevard, be closed. The point was, if those driveways were
closed, it would solve any contemplated traffic problems. At that time,
Traffic Engineer Paul Singer indicated if that were done, there would be
adequate circulation within the inside of the property as well as improve any
traffic problems that might be otherwise contemplated. The applicant had now
studied the matter carefully, and with an adjustment of the pumps, he could
now accommodate the closing of those two driveways and they were now proposing
to do so.
Mr. Davis continued that the size of the parcel was then broached at the
Planning Commission meeting of October 18, 1982. Both the map and the staff
report indicated the size as being 120 feet by 116 feet when, in fact, the
actual size of the parcel was 141 feet by 146 feet, not including the
sidewalks. It was larger than the site that was approved for a dual use at
West Street and Ball Road which was 136 feet by 123 feet. That facility had
proven to be without any traffic problems and it was an improvement to the
area. He submitted that the subject site was adequate, and somehow there was
an error as to its size.
1036
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 30, 1982, 10:00 A.M.
Mr. Davis also pointed out that there was already a distinct dual use on the
property, the sale of gasoline, and service or repair of automobiles. Their
proposal would be the removal of the latter use, to be replaced with a cleaner
operation, a mini-market. There would be landscaping involved and it was for
the convenience of surrounding residents as well as assisting the local
businessman.
After further elaboration on what they felt were positive aspects of the
proposed use, Mr. Davis reiterated that the size of the site was adequate, the
traffic flow would meet the ideal with the closure of the two driveways, and
it would serve the residents of the community. He requested approval of
Conditional Use Permit No. 2382.
Miss Santaiahti, Assistant Planning Director--Zoning, then confirmed for
Councilman Pickler that relative to the size of the property, the corner
radius of 25 feet was not counted, and if added, would give the numbers quoted
by Mr. Davis of 141 feet by 146 feet.
Traffic Engineer Paul Singer confirmed that the major issue previously was the
closure of the two driveways closest to the intersection. There was another
issue, but it did not dea~ with traffic. If he recalled correctly, it was
relative to the sale of alcohol.
Miss Santalahti then elaborated upon the reasons for the the Planning
Commission's denial, which were in addition to the traffic concern.
Councilman Overholt stated that apparently the applicant did not intend to
sell beer and wine; Councilwoman Kaywood asked for a stipulation to that
effect.
Mr. Davis stated that he was not ready to address the alcoholic beverages
issue. If that did become an issue, he would like time to address it.
Councilman Bay asked staff if when the Planning Commission denied the CUP,
they had the correct set of dimensions of the size of the property, since one
of the reasons for denial wa~ the size of the site; Miss Santalahti answered
that they did not have it in their packets~ but it was on the exhibit shown to
them. Nobody broached the issue, but she did not believe that they realized
the 141 by 146 was the correct dimension.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak, either in favor or in opposition.
Mr. Robert Wright, 1278 East Florida Place, stated he was the owner of the
Mini-Mart Food Store directly across the street from the subject site.
Relative to the petition submitted in favor, there was confusion amongst some
of his customers who stated that they heard he was going to be moving across
the street, and some signed thinking that was the case. He had a statement
from one of his customers who could not be present today indicating just
that. Further, it was standard with most such mini-marts to carry beer and
1037
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 30, 1982, 10:00 A.M.
wine. He had been a resident of that area for six years and a customer of the
Arco station for ten years and was well aware of the traffic problem. The
subject "T" intersection had caused more problems than a regular
intersection. He believed the use would create a traffic problem and urged
the Council to vote as did the Planning Commission and deny the CUP.
In answer to questions posed by the Council, Mr. Wright stated that his hours
of operation were from 7:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight, that he sold beer and
wine, that his store was set back approximately 25 to 30 feet and he did not
intend to install gas pumps.
Mr. William H. Boeck, 709 South Plymouth, first referred to the 1981 meetings
before the Planning Commission and the Council on Conditional Use Permit No.
2382 and, therefore, would not repeat the testimony given. The Planning
Commission had now denied the request twice as did the Council once. There
had been no significant changes physically in the property and he saw no
reason to reverse the consistency of the judgment in the previous Planning
Commission hearing, as well as the Council's decision.
Mr. Davis, in his rebuttal, stated that there had been significant changes on
the property, the major one being the closure of the two driveways. The
second was the size, which was established at 141 by 1~6 feet. He did not
believe the 150- by 150-foot requirement was actually a part of the ordinance,
but merely a planning tool indicating an optimum plan. Further, the site had
been in existence with the present use for many years. Also, he had not been
aware that beer and wine was an issue.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the
public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, 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 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 is, therefore, exempt from the requirement
to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered a resolution to deny Conditional Use Permit No.
2382, upholding the decision of the Planning Commission.
Before any action was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated that they should not
overlook the fact that any new service station coming in today would be
required to be 150 by 150 feet, for a service station only, and the request
was for a dual use on the property. Further, she did not want to overlook the
homeowners opposition, the fact that Sycamore Junior High School was across
the street, as well as a mini-mart.
1038
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 30, 1982, 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Pickier agreed with Councilwoman Kaywood. Further, he felt the use
would add to the congestion at that corner, they would eventually be selling
beer and wine by obtaining a license from the Alcoholic Beverage Commission,
and it would become a "hangout" for the kids who walked by the site daily.
Mayor Roth and Councilman Overholt then spoke against the proposed resolution
of denial on the basis of the clarification of the lot size and the closure of
the two driveways, the latter being the major issue and previous reason for
denial.
A vote was then taken on the resolution of denial and failed to carry by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL M~BERS~
COUNCIL M~4BERS:
COUNCIL M~4BERS:
Kaywood and Pickler
Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 82R-578 for adoption, reversing the
findings of the Planning Commission, and granting Conditional Use Permit No.
2382, subject to the following Interdepartmental Committee recommendations,
primarily on the basis that there was some misunderstanding on the size of the
site. He recalled the previous hearing where the issue was the closing of the
two driveways. The Traffic Engineer had indicated that would solve the
problem. He, therefore, saw no reason to deny the CUP.
1. That the most westerly driveway on South Street and the most northerly
driveway on State College Boulevard shall be removed and replaced with a
standard curb, gutter and sidewalk.
2. That the existing trash enclosure on subject property shall be relocated
per recommendation of the Street Maintenance and Sanitation Department.
3. That a separate attendant shall be on duty at all times for the purposes
of dispensing gasoline.
4. 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 4.
5. That Condition Nos. 1, 2 and 4, above-mentioned, shall be complied with
prior to final building and zoning inspections.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 82R-576: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL GRANTING CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT NO. 2382.
1039
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 30, 1982, 10:00 A.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL M~4BERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Bay and Roth
Kaywood and Pickler
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 82R-578 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2389 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
Application by Pierre and Francoise A. Aphessetche, to permit an automobile
repair facility on ML zoned property located at 1380 North Lakeview Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC82-197, declared
that the subject project be exempt from the requirement to prepare an
Environmental Impact Report pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act, since there would be no significant individual or
cumulative adverse environmental impact due to the approval of the Negative
Declaration, since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property
for general industrial 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 due to this project, and further,
granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2389 subject to the following conditions:
1. That sidewalks shall be installed along Eisenhower Circle as required by
the City Engineer and in accordance with standard plans and specifications on
file in the office of the City Engineer prior to the commencement of the
activity authorized by this conditional use permit.
2. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay the difference between the
industrial and commercial traffic signal assessment fees (Ordinance No. 3896)
for 6,101 square feet prior to the commencement of the activity authorized by
this conditional use permit.
3. That all automotive repair work, auto and auto parts storage shall be
conducted wholly within the existing building.
4. 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.
5. That Condition No. 4, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to
final building and zoning inspections.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman
Kaywood at the meeting of November 9, 1982, and a public hearing scheduled
this date.
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
1040
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 30, 1982, 10:00 A.Mo
Mre Marcus Osborn, 2315 North Santiago, Santa Ana, was present to answer any
questions°
Councilwoman Kaywood stated the concern before, and her concern as well, was
that there not be anything done outside. She wanted to be very certain that
all automotive repair work, the parking, etc., would be enclosed within the
building.
Mr. Osborn explained that ail his parking after working hours was inside the
building and all work was to be done inside the building. He had to do that
for insurance purposes as he could not obtain insurance if work was done on
the outside.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that was her main concern; Mayor Roth asked if
that was a stipulation when the Planning Commission approved the CUP. He read
in the Planning Commission Resolution that all repair work shall be done
inside the building.
Miss Santalahti answered that was correct. It was Condition No. 3 of
Resolution No. PC82-197.
The Mayor questioned why they would have a hearing on the issue if that was a
condition of approval by the ?lanning Commission; Councilwoman Kaywood
answered that she had received calls of concern and wanted it reiterated. In
the event it was violated, it would then be a simple matter to terminate the
CUP.
Councilman Overholt questioned whether they needed to reiterate those things
if they were a condition of the granting of the CUP. He felt it was an
imposition on the applicant and the Council to have a public hearing just to
reiterate what had already been imposed as a condition of approval.
City Attorney Hopkins confirmed that Condition No. 3 of the Planning
Commission resolution required, "That all automotive repair work, auto and
auto parts storage shall be conducted wholly within the existing building."
It was a condition that would be enforceable under the Code. Reiteration did
not make it any more enforceable and the resolution would be sufficient.
ENVIRONMENTAL LMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Pickier, 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 general
industrial 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.
1041
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 30, 1982, 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 82R-579 for adoption. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 82R-579: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2389.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MMMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 82R-579 duly passed and adopted.
139: SB 341 - DRUG PARAPHERNALIA SALES: Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she
believed the City Attorney had provided the Council with a copy of the subject
bill. The bill now made it a crime to sell or give away drug paraphernalia
and it increased the penalty if an adult furnished paraphernalia to a minor.
The bill also provided that violations of the provisions of the bill were
grounds for revocation of the business license. She presumed that under the
new bill, the existing head shops in Anaheim could be closed down.
City Attorney Hopkins stated he would forward the bill to the Police
Department and request enforcement in accordance with the new law.
108: ADULT ENTERTAINMENT BUSINESSES AND NON-COMPLIANCE TO BE CLOSED ON
DECEMBER 20, 1982: Mayor Roth noted that December 20, 1982, was the date for
closing adult entertainment businesses in the City unless they had complied
with the new provisions of the controlling ordinance.
City Attorney Hopkins stated that was correct. The two ways they could
continue operating was if they moved out of the restricted areas, or if they
had only referrals by medical personnel authorized by the State.
The Mayor asked if final notice had been given that December 20 was the
deadline; the-City Attorney answered that no letters had been sent, but they
would be glad to send them. He would check with the License Division to
notify operators that the date would be December 20, 1982.
The Mayor also requested a list of those licensed establishments to be
submitted to the Council.
ADJOUR/~ENT: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to adjourn. Councilman Overholt
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (4:25 p.m.)
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK
1042