Loading...
1987/02/10City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 10~ 1987~ 10:00 A.M. PRESENT: ABSENT: VACANCY: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hunter Pickler, Kaywood and Bay COUNCIL MEMBERS: One ASSISTANT CITY CLERK: Ann M. Sauvageau The Assistant City Clerk called the regular meeting of the Anaheim City Council to order at 10:00 a.m. and adjourned to 12:00 noon. Adjourned: 10:01 a.m. LEONORA N. SOHL, SECRETARY By Assistant Secretary City Hall; Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Februar~ 10~ 1987~ 12:00 Noon The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: VACANCY: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler, Hunter, Kaywood and Bay COUNCIL MEMBERS: None COUNCIL MEMBERS: One CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer CODE ENFORCEMENT SUPERVISOR: John Poole ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti LIEUTENANT, TRAFFIC BUREAU: James Thalman A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was posted at 1:00 p.m. on February 6, 1987 at the Civic Center front lobby window, containing all items as shown herein. Mayor Bay called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: City Attorney Jack White requested a Closed Session to consider the following items: a. Pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a), to wit: Golden West Baseball Co. vs. City of Anaheim, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 40-92-46; City of Anaheim vs. Orange County Board of Supervisors, relative to potential jail sites in Anaheim, Case No. 50-96-78. 99 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 10, 1987, 1:30 P.M. b. Labor relations matters - Government Code Section 54957.6. c. Potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(c). Councilman Bay moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED. (12:06 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. One Vacancy. (1:37 p.m.) City Attorney White announced that there was no action to be taken after Closed Session and that Item A above had not been discussed. INVOCATION: Dr. Lawrence Downing, Seventh Day Adventist Church, gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Miriam Kaywood led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Bay and authorized by the City Council:' National Burn Week, February 8-14, 1987, Minority Business Opportunity Day, February 17, 1987. Fire Marshal Mike Dory accepted the National Burn Awareness Week and Mary Beth Done accepted the Minority Business Opportunity Day proclamation. MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held January 27, 1987. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. One Vacancy. 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 Pickler seconded the motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $4,401,160.02, in accordance with the 1986-87 Budget, were approved. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Pickler, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, 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. 87R-35 through 87R-39, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. 100 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 10, 1987, 1:30 P.M. 1. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as recommended: Claims rejected and referred to Risk Management: a. Claim submitted by Kenneth B. Sexton for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about September 29, 1986. b. Claim submitted by Stephanie T. Talley for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 5, 1986. c. Claim submitted by Toni Huston for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 19, 1986. d. Claim submitted by Albert John Coppage for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 11, 1986. Claims filed against the City - Recommended to be Accepted: e. Claim submitted by Roy L. Fratus for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about November 7, 1986. f. Claim submitted by Charles A. Richter for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 15, 1986 through December 25, 1986. 2. Receiving and filing the following correspondence: (on file) b. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission, Minutes of January 14, 1987. c. 105: Park and Recreation Commission, Minutes of December 3, 1986. a. 108: Approving a Public Dance Permit submitted by Javier C. Mora, for Who Song & Larry's (El Torito), to hold a dance February 14, 1987 from 10:00 p.m. to 1:30 a.m., in accordance with the recommendation of the Chief of Police. b. 108: Approving a Public Dance Permit submitted by Alfonso Z. Magana, for the Casa Maria Restaurant~ to hold a dance February 14, 1987 from 9:00 p.m. to 1:30 a.m., in accordance with the recommendation of the Chief of Police. 4. 123: Authorizing the Second Amendment to Agreement with Charles G. Robinson, in an amount not to exceed $55,807.29 per year, to provide safety-administration consulting services effective January 22, 1987. 5. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to the Anaheim Public Improvement-Corporation, in the amount of $403,574.36 for thirty-one police patrol vehicles, in accordance with Bid No. A-4415. 101 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 10, 1987, 1:30 P.M. 6. 160: Waiving Council Policy No. 306 and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to Anaheim Public Improvement Corporation, in the amount of 321,624 for two traffic controllers and cabinets. 7. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-35: 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 WORK. (Broadway Street & Storm Drain Improvement Phase II, Euclid Street to Broadview Street, Account Nos. 12-791-6325-E1470, 43-791-6325-E1470 and 51-484-6993-00732 FAU M-Mil2(3) 8. 107: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-36: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION OF A CERTAIN PUBLIC WORK. (ANAHEIM AUTO CENTER GRADING AND IMPORT BORROW) (Accepting the completion of construction of the Anaheim Auto Center, Ball Road at Route 57, Grading and Import Borrow, Account No. 01-933-6325, C. W. Poss, Inc., contractor, and authorizing filing of the Notice of Completion therefor) 9. 150: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-37: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION OF A CERTAIN PUBLIC WORK. (INSTALLATION OF ELEVATOR IN THE SENIOR CITIZENS CENTER BUILDING) (Accepting the completion of construction of Senior Citizens Elevator, Account No. 25-807-7105-07060, The Gotham Company, contractor, and authorizing filing of the Notice of Completion therefor) 10. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-38: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINATJ,Y ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION OF A CERTAIN PUBLIC WORK. (LA PALMA AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENT) (Accepting the completion of construction of La Palma Avenue Street Improvement, Account No. 15-793-6325-E3180, Blair Paving, Inc., contractor, and authorizing filing of the Notice of Completion therefor) 11. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-39: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN REAL PROPERTIES OR INTERESTS THEREIN. End of Consent Calendar. 139; SB-151/PROPOSED 0VF2~UL TO AIR POLLUTION CONTROL LAWS: Letter dated January 30, 1987 from Don R. Roth, Orange County Supervisor, Fourth District, urging support of the approach taken by the South Coast Air Quality Management District Board (SCAQMDB) relative to the subject bill. The letter also explained that the Orange County Board of Supervisors decided to oppose the structure of the District Board as provided in SB-151 and elaborated on the reasons why. Councilwoman Kaywood moved to oppose the restructuring of the South Coast Air Quality Management District Board as recommended by Supervisor Roth. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Mayor Bay stated he assumed the motion includes a letter to the City's representatives in Sacramento. 102 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 10, 1987~ 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood amended her motion to include that the letters be sent. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED. 179: REQUEST FOR REHEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 86-87-12 AND VARIANCE NO. 3602 - 2000 DEVELOPERS INCORPORATED: A request for a rehearing was submitted by 2000 Developers, Inc., for a rehearing for Reclassification No. 86-87-12 and Variance No. 3602, for a change in zone from CO to RM-1200, to construct a 3-story, 22-unit apartment complex on property located at 402 W. Elm Street and 415 and 419 South Helena Street, with certain Code waivers, denied by Council on January 27, 1987. A representative from 2000 Developers was present in the Chamber audience. Councilman Pickler stated he was the no vote on the subject project at the time of the public hearing on January 27, 1987. However, he was going to offer the motion to grant a rehearing but in the interim, he asked that the developers talk to the Planning Department relative to the items he was concerned about. Councilwoman Kaywood suggested that the developers also speak to one of the persons who was in opposition, Mrs. June MacIntyre. MOTION: Councilman Pickier moved to grant the request for rehearing submitted by 2000 Developers, Inc., on Reclassification No. 86-87-12 and Variance No. 3602, with a public hearing to be scheduled Tuesday, March 10, 1987 at 3:00 p.m. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning Commission at their meeting held January 19, 1987, pertaining to the following applications were submitted for City Council information. 1. REQUEST FOR SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL NO. 86-05: Submitted by East Hills Development, request for removal of one California live oak specimen tree and one California pepper specimen tree to facilitate construction of 292 apartment units on RS-A-43,000(SC) zoned property located at 8600 Santa Aha Canyon Road (Bauer Ranch). The City Planning Commission approved the request for Specimen Tree Removal No. 86-05. 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2847: Submitted by Joseph N. and Jaleh J. Makabi and Hourie Houriani, to permit a 94-bed skilled nursing facility on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located at 3333 West Ball Road, with the following Code waivers: (a) Minimum landscaped setback, (b) maximum structural height, (c) minimum side yard setbacks. The applicant withdrew his application. 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2861: Submitted by Hugo A. Vazquez, to permit a 75-unit motel on CL zoned property located at 2244 West Lincoln Avenue, with the following Code waivers: (a) Minimum structural setback (deleted), (b) required screening of parking areas (deleted). 103 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 10, 1987, 1:30 P.M. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-11, denied Conditional Use Permit No. 2861, and granted a negative declaration status. 4. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 86-87-20 AND VARIANCE NO. 3627: Submitted by Dr. William Roberson, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 and CL to RM-1200, to construct a 3-story, 72-unit affordable apartment complex on property located at 2775, 2785 West Ball Road and 910, 920 South Dale Avenue, with the following Code waivers: (a) Minimum building site area per dwelling unit, (b) maximum structural height, (c) maximum site coverage, (d) minimum structural setback. The City Planning, Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-12 and 13, granted Reclassification No. 86-87-20 and Variance No. 3627, andgranted a negative declaration status. 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2868: Submitted by Edward E. Matthews, to permit a church on ML(SC) zoned property located at 5435 East La Palma Avenue. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-14, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2868 for a term of 3 years, and granted a negative declaration status. 6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2876: Submitted by David and Carole Chavez, to continue operation of an existing recreational vehicle storage yard with a caretaker's residence previously granted by Orange County Use Permit No. 3895 on proposed ML zoned property located at 4420 East La Palma Avenue. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-17, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2876 for a term of 5 years, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination, (Class 1). 7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2877: Submitted by Carl Karcher Enterprises, lnc., (Carl's Jr.), to permit construction of a new restaurant with a drive-thru lane on CL zoned property located at 2119 South Harbor with the following Code waivers: (a) Permitted location of freestanding sign, (b) minimum number and type of parking spaces, (c) minimum length of drive-thru lane, (d) minimum front landscaped setback. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-18, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2877, and granted a negative declaration status. 8. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2880: Submitted by Home of the Ministering Angel, to convert a 3-car garage to offices and a storage room for an existing boarding and lodging home for 20 children on RS-HS-22,000(SC) property located property located at 233 South Quintana Drive. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-20, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2880, and granted a negative declaration status. 9. VARIANCE NO. 3628: Submitted by Orak Efteljaro, to construct a single family residence on RS-HS-22,000 zoned property located at 335 South Mohler Drive, with the following Code waivers: (a) Minimum structural setback, (b) maximum building height. 104 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 10, 1987, 1:30 P.M. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-21, granted Variance No. 3628, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination, (Class 5). 10. VARIANCE NO. 3629: Submitted by Margreta Jorgensen, to convert an existing garage to a therapy room on RS-7200 zoned property located at 1006 South Marian Street, with Code waiver of minimum number and type of parking spaces. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-22, granted Variance No. 3629, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination, (Class 3). 11. VARIANCE NO. 3630: Submitted by Edward and Eve Nober, (Saga Motel), to expand an existing motel on C-R zoned property located at 1650 South Harbor Boulevard, with Code waiver of minimum number of required parking spaces. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-23, granted Variance No. 3620, and granted a negative declaration status. 12. VARIANCE NO. 3631: Submitted by L. N. Munson, to establish restaurant uses in a retail center on CL zoned property located at 2405 and 2415 West Lincoln Avenue, with Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-24, granted Variance No. 3631, and granted a negative declaration status. 13. VARIANCE NO. 3633: Submitted by Steven and Richard Gumpert, to construct a one-story, 3-building, 29,975 square foot retail center on CL zoned property located at 1701-1749 West Katella Avenue, with Code waiver of maximum structural height. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-25, granted Variance No. 3633, and granted a negative declaration status. 14. VARIANCE NO. 3635: Submitted by Clifford Evans, to permit two freestanding signs on CL zoned property located at 515 South Beach Boulevard, with the following Code waivers: (a) Maximum number of freestanding signs, (b) permitted location of a freestanding sign, (c) minimum distance between freestanding signs. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-26, granted Variance No. 3635, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination, (Class 11). 15. PUBLIC MEETING PROCEDURES RESOLUTION: Adoption of public meeting procedures for Planning Commission meetings in conformance with amended Ralph M. Brown Act. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-27, adopted the Public Meeting Procedures Resolution. 105 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 10~ 1987, 1:30 P.M. 16. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: Submitted by Anaheim Police Department, request for an amendment to the General Plan to consider designation of a Police Department satellite substation site in the vicinity of Weir Canyon Road and Monte Vista Road. Staff instructed to set a public hearing before the Planning Commission. 17. VARIANCE NO. 3597: Submitted by Hugo A. Vazquez and Take Watanabe, to construct a 3-story, 4-unit apartment building on RM-1200 zoned property located at 202 South Olive Street with the following Code waivers: (a) Maximum structural height (deleted), (b) maximum site coverage, (c) minimum recreational-leisure areas (denied), (d) minimum area of private recreational-leisure areas (deleted), (e) minimum width of pedestrian accessways. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-10, granted, in part, Variance No. 3597, and granted a negative declaration status. A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman Kaywood and, therefore, a public hearing would be scheduled at a later date. 18. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2874: Submitted by Lobel Financial Corp., to permit an auto sales lot on CL zoned property located at 1237 South Brookhurst Street. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-15, denied Conditional Use Permit No. 2874, and granted a negative declaration status. Conditional Use Permit No. 2874 is scheduled for a public hearing this date. See public hearing section. 19. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2875: Submitted by Jack Satchwell, to permit a granny unit on RS-7200 zoned property located at 514 North Zeyn Street, with Code waiver of minimum structural setback and yard requirements. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-16, denied Conditional Use Permit No. 2875, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination, (Class 3). The Planning Commission's decision was appealed by the applicant and, therefore, a public hearing would be scheduled at a later date. 20. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2879: Submitted by Grady E. Hanshaw, to permit a 672-square foot, double-face billboard on CH zoned property located at 519 South Brookhurst Street, with Code waiver of maximum permitted height. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-19, denied Conditional Use Permit No. 2879, and granted a negative declaration status. The Planning Commission's decision was appealed by the applicant and, therefore, a public hearing would be scheduled at a later date. End of Planning Commission Informational Items. 106 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 10, 1987~ 1:30 P.M. 149/142: PARKING RESTRICTIONS - 42ND STREET: Amending Section 14.32.189 of the Code pertaining to parking restrictions on both sides of 42nd Street. Councilwoman Kaywood asked if Freedman Forum had been notified regarding the proposed ordinance to prevent people from getting tickets. Lieutenant Thalman, Anaheim Police Department, stated the Manager of Freedman Forum including the restaurant had been notified of the parking situation. The Traffic Engineering Office is responsible for the posting of signs and they have also notified the management. Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance No. 4801 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4801: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION 14.32.189 OF CHAPTER 14.32 OF TITLE 14 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO PARKING RESTRICTIONS. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler, Hunter, Kaywood and Bay NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS: One The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4801 duly passed and adopted. 149/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4802 - PARKING RESTRICTIONS - BROADWAY STREET - PHILADELPHIA TO 42ND STREET: Amending Section 14.32.189 of the Code pertaining to parking restrictions on Broadway, north side from Philadelphia Street to 42nd Street. Councilman Pickler wanted to know the City's concerns relative to the proposed ordinance prohibiting parking on Broadway from Philadelphia Street to 42nd Street. He felt that area could be used by people wishing to buy tickets for the theatre. Lieutenant Thalman answered it was in response to a request by the management o~ Freedman Forum and it was intended that buses be made exempt on occasion. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer. The restrictions are necessary due to the operation of the Freedman Forum Theatre. The area along Broadway is designated to become a loading and unloading zone for buses and also could serve as a drop-off area during the operation of the theatre. It is very difficult to accomplish the drop-off zone on 42nd Street. If parking is permitted, it would then result in double parking for loading and unloading and would cause a hazardous situation. There is a green zone on 42nd Street that accommodates two vehicles which can be used for those making ticket purchases. That green zone is located immediately in front of the ticket office of the theatre. If that zone was on Broadway, it could cause problems of stack up which will take a police officer to clear. The green zone on 42nd 107 City Mmll, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 10, 1987, 1:30 P.M. Street does not cause a hazard. He recommends approval of the ordinance as it is proposed because he feels it is the safest possible condition they can make and it is convenient for the patrons of the theatre. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4802 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4802: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION 14.32.189 OF CHAPTER 14.32 OF TITLE 14 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO PARKING RESTRICTIONS. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hunter, Kaywood and Bay NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS: One The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4802 duly passed and adopted. 149/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4803: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4803 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4803: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING CHAPTER 44 OF TITLE 14 RELATING TO PARKING METERS. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler, Hunter, Kaywood and Bay NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS: One The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4803 duly passed and adopted. 149/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4804: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4804 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4804: AN ORDINANCE OF T~E CITY OF ANANEIM RKPEALING C~APTER 6.46 OF TITLE 6 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE. (Relating to control of the operation of vehicles on unimproved parcels of private and public property) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler, Hunter, Kaywood and Bay NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS: One The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4804 duly passed and adopted. 108 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 10~ 1987, 1:30 P.M. 114: SELECTION OF COUNCIL APPOINTEE: Councilman Pickler stated he had offered several suggestions on how the Council might proceed in selecting an appointee to the vacant Council seat in order to eliminate the cost of a Special Election. He and Councilwoman Kaywood had submitted many names as possible appointees. He is now giving Mayor Bay and Councilman Hunter an opportunity to pick a candidate and in that way he and Councilwoman Kaywood would not "control the City" as some people would imply. He feels the Council can get on with the business at hand and find someone to fill the seat, whoever Mayor Bay and Councilman Hunter wish. That was his charge to both Council Members. Council Members then gave input to the issue of appointment to the vacant Council seat. Councilman Hunter reiterated that his choice is Mr. Bill Ehrle because he received almost 22,000 votes in the last Election. He also suggested in order to avoid the same kind of predicament in which the Council now finds itself that there be some type of Charter amendment providing that the next highest vote getter in an Election fill any vacant seat on the Council which may arise. At this point he cannot, in good conscience, appoint anyone other than Bill Ehrle. Councilwoman Kaywood expressed her concern that the predicament has never occurred on the Council and it is obvious and specific in the Charter that the runner-up in an Election is not the one appointed to a vacant seat but it is the Council's responsibility to make that decision. It was imperative that a 5th Council person be appointed so that the business of the City can continue. She suggested to Councilman Hunter that he bring Mr. Ehrle forward and have him speak to the Council, answer questions on what his platform is and see what would happen. She asked that both Mayor Bay and Councilman Hunter submit two names to be submitted next week and if one was Mr. Ehrle that would be fine. Mayor Bay commented that he is now convinced the only way to solve the issue is a Special Election. He reiterated there were close to 22,000 people who voted for Mr. Ehrle. The decision will go back to where it belongs, the ballot box. He is also convinced the Council is polarized and nothing productive would be gained by further debate. At the conclusion of the Mayor's comments, Councilwoman Kaywood moved that the issue of filling the 5th Council seat be placed on the Council agenda of February 17, 1987 for discussion and appointment. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. The motion failed to carry by the following vote: Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler and Kaywood NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hunter and Bay ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS: One 109 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 10, 1987~ 1:30 P.M. 114/179: PROPOSED ORDINANCE RELATING TO BILLBOARDS: Councilwoman Kaywood directed staff to prepare an ordinance requiring a Conditional Use Permit on all arterial billboards within the City including those that were now permitted by right at 8 per intersection. 179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2856 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: APPLICANT: George Chris Heed - Heed Family Trust 7122 Westminster Avenue Westminster, Ca. 92683 REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: To permit retail sales of applicant's product line in conjunction with applicant's primary permitted uses on ML zoned property located at 1830 South Anaheim Boulevard (Pleasure House Boutique), with the following Code waivers: (a) Dedication of right-of-way, (b) minimum dimensions of vehicle accessways, (c) minimum number of parking spaces, (d) permitted accessory uses, (e) minimum structural setback and yard requirements, (f) required improvement of parking areas. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC86-286 denied Conditional Use Permit No. 2856, approved EIR - Negative Declaration. HEARING SET ON: Appealed by Robert A. Sarno, Attorney for Jerry Deming (agent). was continued from the meeting of January 13, 1987, to this date. This matter PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY: Publication in Anaheim Bulletin January 1, 1987. Posting of property January 2, 1987. Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - December 31, 1986. PLANNING STAFF INPUT: See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated November 24, 1986. APPLICANT'S STATLMENT: Clyde De Witt, attorney, on behalf of Pleasure House Boutique, 433 North Camden, Beverly Hills. Chan~es have been made since the Planning Commission reviewed the Conditional Use Permit. A couple o~ months ago, the building was 100% retail and parking problems were created because of that situation. Included in the business were a number of things no longer there, such as sexually explicit videos and magazines. Removal of those items coupled with a substantial change in the use of the building has significantly changed the situation. The retail business now consists of leather items and clothing which is manufactured on the premises. The business is now 23% retail and 70% manufacturing and shipping. Shipping is primarily by mail and UPS. The reduction in retail has curtailed the retail traffic and thus the need for parking. Mr. Deming (the owner) is not breaking any laws and has no intention of doing so. The only question at this point is zoning. The things the Planning Commission 110 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 10~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M. suggested and the concessions necessary for granting the CUP are totally unrealistic and are not required by any other business along that street. The amount of square footage and the number of customers is what determines the parking spaces. Nothing would be better than more parking spaces if there is a retail business no matter how small. The business has now been compressed both in terms of volume and physical square footage. Therefore, there is not as much traffic and plenty of parking. The business as it exists right now is an improvement. In view of the zoning problems, the business has adapted accordingly with a critical reduction in the size of the retail part of the premises and an increase in the amount of manufacturing. That change took place in late November. Jerry Deming, owner. When he first started the operation, he believed that the site was for a retail operation but three months later problems started to arise. He was told by the City the business was in the wrong zone which was the first time he had heard that was the case. He had already spent ~150,000 starting the business. He then tried to comply with everything required of him. He repainted the exterior of the building, cleaned up the front, repaved it, painted the interior, installed air-conditioning, etc. It is not like an adult store and it was not intended to be. Over 50% of their customers are women and a higher class clientele. They sell lingerie, they can make men's and women's boots to anyone's design, earrings, hosiery, gloves, all kinds of lotions and potions, all kinds of cards, etc. things that are different and unique combined into one store. He removed all the videos and magazines. The store was now like a boutique. Manufacturing and mail order is about 50% of sales. The store has been reduced to 1,800 square feet. The building is about 7,800 square feet. If they are to do what the Planning Commission requested and do their own manufacturing, it would not make it the store it is. Many of the things they manufacture they do not put in the store itself because they did not want to bring those items into Anaheim. He will do anything the City wants and will cooperate in any way. It is not an adult store but it is a store where men and women can buy intimate things. He then clarified that 10% of the business is retail, 40% wholesale and 40% mail order. They do manufacturing for a mail-order company and also wholesale. PUBLIC DISCUSSION- IN FAVOR: None. PUBLIC DISCUSSION- IN OPPOSITION: Mr. G. Bahkta, 1836 South Anaheim Boulevard. He has owned the Freeway Motel adjacent to the subject business for 13 years. When the business next door (Pleasure House Boutique) opened, the customers of that business started parking 111 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 10, 1987~ 1:30 P.M. on his property. It has caused a day-to-day problem. If he wanted to operate his motel as an adult business, he could not do so because it is against City ordinances. The business next door is selling adult material which is within 400 feet of a residential area. The staff report states that 37 parking spaces are required for the business. The strip parking on the property can only accommodate 14 spaces, the staff report says 18. The overflow parking from the business parks on his property. He questioned how the flip-flopping from retail to manufacturing could be done so quickly. Even if the business has changed to limited retail, the business traffic has not changed. It is still a problem for him and it is going to be a problem for one year or ten years. He does not see just by writing a figure that there is now 77% manufacturing and 23% retail will solve the parking problem. Customers of the adjacent business always use his parking spaces. When he tries to tell those customers that they are in his spaces, they become violent and abusive. He has worked hard to maintain his business which depends on the entrance to his property. It is necessary to leave an entrance open for his customers. When he tries to close it to prevent unauthorized parking, it hurts his business. His major concern is how the parking problem is going to be corrected. Since the day the Pleasure House business opened, it has been a problem for his business every day and he urged the Council to do something about it. He also confirmed that even though the applicant reported a change in the percentage of retail vs. shipping, manufacturing, wholesale, etc. it has not changed a thing as far as traffic and parking problems. He has not kept a daily record of overflow into his parking lot but could do so. He has tried all the peaceful solutions such as roping off his lot but it is not working. The business next door is using his property to do their business and he does not want intrusion on his property. SUMMATION BY THE APPLICANT: Clyde De Witt. He is concerned that Mr. Bahkta reported that there is no change in the traffic since the Pleasure House Boutique opened even though Mr. Demtng has el~minated an entire phase of the business. There is now a substantial barrier between the two parking lots. Before him client moved in it was a 100% retail business for 26 years and the City did not complain in spite of it being in total violation of the zoning. There are many businesses in Anaheim that have overflow parking. The size of the retail has diminished to one-quarter of what it was and the amount of dollar income is down to about one-half. The business will not return to what it was. Relative to the requirement to dedicate a 50-foot strip of land and paying for lighting, that does not seem reasonable unless all the other businesses along that area have to do the same. He is prepared to accept any suggestions about the parking problem. He suggests, and his client would be prepared to accept, a period of time in which he 112 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 10~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M. STAFF INPUT: is allowed to grow no more and not change the character of his business in the direction of any increasing retail for perhaps 90 or 180 days in order to see how it works. If parking is still a problem, his client would do whatever is necessary to solve that problem. Something that has changed in the last three weeks, employees no longer park on the property with the exception of the manager. John Poole, Code Enforcement Supervisor. He clarified there are 14 parking spaces on the property. A Code Enforcement Officer met with the manager of the business, Mr. Tom Theodore, who reported that there are between 17 and 18 employees which is a contradiction to the 10 employees being reported to the Council. Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning. Upon questioning, she clarified that when the business license was sought for the subject business in April of 1986, it was identified and there was an attachment provided by the applicant regarding the type of business. The departmental check was for industrial zoning plus the notation that this was subject to retail not being a primary outlet per the applicable Code. The business license noted that the previous business was Furniture in the Bare (unfinished furniture). The way the applicant filled out his business license stated they assembled leather goods, a mail-order operation and inventory storage all of which were legitimate. Mayor Bay. He asked for clarification - the past uses are not the question and the hearing, but the pending application for any actual use of that property at this time under existing Codes. City Attorney Jack White. The subject is a mixed use of property - a combination of manufacturing, wholesale and retail use. The manufacturing use would be permitted under Code as a matter of right in that zone; the wholesale business would be permitted, provided sales are limited to wholesale and not retail customers. Retail sales would even be permitted, as they were for the previous occupant of the property, if the retail sales were incidental to the manufacturing use and the products sold were assembled or manufactured on the premises, and this was not the primary retail location from which sales occurred of those manufactured goods. If this were a secondary sales location which also was the manufacturing location, the business could incidentally sell the goods manufactured on the property. In this case, goods are being sold at retail and do not fit that definition as a permitted use. They are not all manufactured on the premises and this is not the incidental location where retail sales occur but appears to be the sole location where retail sales occur. The section of the Code that would authorize a CUP for retail 113 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 10, 1987~ 1:30 P.M. sales at all provides that sales businesses are authorized by a CUP if they serve and are compatible with industrial uses and do not encourage retail sales or attract customers other than industrial users. In essence, it is a use that is limited to retail sales to customers that are in the industrial zone and not being attracted as retail customers from outside the industrial zone. That is the test the Council is looking at. Clyde De Witt. He does not dispute much of what has been said. The bulk of the retail sales in this business is in the mail-order business. The retail business in the store is incidental to the manufacturing and other retail sales which is mail order. Jerry Deming. Relative to the number of employees, there are approximately 10 working in the back and 7 employees in the store itself. The store is open 12 hours a day, 7 days a week. They also rotate between part-time and full-time employees. There are approximately 16 or 17 or 18 employees and some are part-time. There are 15 to 20 employees on the premises at one time. Councilwoman Kaywood. She asked if there were more employees than parking spaces, where are the employees parking; Mr. Deming answered that they are pooling everybody from another parking lot. This has started in the last three weeks. Clyde De Witt. His client has addressed the problem to the point where there are no more than two parking spaces occupied by employees. The parking lot they are using is owned by a Lumber Company across Katella Avenue. A condition of employment is that the employee not park in the lot but at the Lumber Company and walk to the business. He has also put signs up facing Mr. Bahkta's area. Another possibility is to install signs on his own property indicating that cars will be towed away if the patron has parked in Mr. Bahkta's lot. COUNCIL ACTION: Mayor Bay closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Kaywood. There is a major parking problem which has been ongoing since the subject business opened. There were no problems with prior owners and uses of that property. It is a problem related to the subject business which has impacted the business next door and it is not fair to that business. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer. The Council should be aware of the fact that as shown on the plot plan, the maneuvering space of the parking is actually 114 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 10, 1987~ 1:30 P.M. going to be on public right-of-way because of the required 50-foot dedication. When the dedication takes place, most of the parking is going to be done on public right-of-way. Theoretically, there are only three parking spaces on the property plus some parallel spaces, perhaps three or four that could be arranged. Otherwise, there would be encroachment on the public right-of-way. Should the CUP be approved, the condition of dedication and improvements or paying for the improvements is included as part of the approval. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilman Pickler, the City Council approved the negative declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative declaration together with any comments received during the public review process, and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 87R-40 for adoption, denying Conditional Use Permit No. 2856 and confirming the findings of the City Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 87R-40: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2856. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler, Hunter, Kaywood and Bay None None One The Mayor declared Resolution No. 87R-40 duly passed and adopted. RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for ten minutes. MOTION CARRIED. (4:23 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order~ all Council Members being present. One Vacancy. (4:36 p.m.) 176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 86-4A; In accordance with application filed by the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, public hearing was held on proposed abandonment of a portion of an alley north of Center Street, west of Philadelphia Street, pursuant to Resolution No. 87R-8 duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance with law. Report of the City Engineer dated January 5, 1987 was submitted recommending approval of said abandonment. Mayor Bay asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no response he closed the public hearing. 115 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 10, 1987~ 1:30 P.M. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: The City Engineer also determined that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 5, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 87R-41 for adoption, approving Abandonment No. 86-4A. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 87R-41: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM VACATING A PORTION OF AN ALLEY NORTH OF CENTER STREET, WEST OF PHILADELPHIA STREET. (86-4A) Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler, Hunter, Kaywood and Bay None None One The Mayor declared Resolution No. 87R-41 duly passed and adopted. 179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2874: APPLICANT: Lobel Financial Corp., 2528 West Woodland Drive, Anaheim, Ca. 92806 REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: To permit an auto sales lot on CL zoned property located at 1237 South Brookhurst Street. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC87-15 denied Conditional Use Permit No. 2874; approved EIR - Negative Declaration. HEARING SET ON: The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by the applicant. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRF~TS MET BY: Publication in Anaheim Bulletin January 29, 1987. Posting of property January 29, 1987. Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - January 29, 1987. PLANNING STAFF INPUT: See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated January 19, 1987. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT: Seymour Lobel, Lobel Financial. His business primarily is the financing of the automobiles which involves repossessions, cars turned back in etc. They are late model cars which cannot continue to be parked on gas stations and all around the City. For approximately two years he has been looking for a place to hold the cars and found the subject property where the Code allows a car lot under a CUP. He paid 116 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 10, 1987~ 1:30 P.M. STAFF INPUT: cash for the property and knew there was a risk involved but was desperate to find a place. He intends to install light standards that will be very attractive and the lot will be entirely paved. There will also be an office which will be a credit to the area. He emphasized the primary function of his business is finance but the car lot is a necessary adjunct. The location is of the utmost importance for his operation and almost an absolute necessity. He emphasized, he is not in the retail automobile business. There will be no banners, balloons or flags all over the property. It will be a clean, sedate place that anyone would be proud to say they own. The purpose of the property would be to have the automobiles on the property once in a while, every week or two when they build'up and then to have them brought to the Anaheim Auction in Tustin and disposed of there. The lot will be a holding place and is not his primary business. Mr. Lobel then answered questions posed by Council Members wherein he stated he had no intention of painting prices on the windshield of the vehicles. He is going to wholesale the vehicles but will also retail Just a few. He would stipulate that he would not put prices on the windshield but would prefer not to be inhibited on those rare occasions where he might display prices but it would be tastefully done. He may have an odd retail sale now and then but it will be basically 90% wholesale. The light standards were 16 or 18 feet high but they had to be lowered to 14 feet or 12 feet to the proper standards so that the lights would not shine into the residential area. He intends to install square type standards that are used by new car agencies although he would not even need them with the kind of business he is in. Earl Eddy, Milestone Builders. With regard to development standards, he has worked closely with Planning staff. He has no objection with any of the conditions imposed on the project with regard to setback, landscaping, the light stamdards will be 12 feet as requested amd the location of the office has been set and approved. They are going to comply completely with Code relative to the development standards and are not asking for any variances. Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning. There is a 10-foot planter proposed along the west property line which is adjacent to single-family zoning. The Code requires trees planted on 20-foot centers at a minimum although the drawing seems to indicate that there is nothing identified as to species or size. The Code is quite general and is at minimum - that whatever is planted as a tree at 20-foot centers has to reach a mature size within 5 years. It is more effective to have a mix - a bush and then a tree 10 feet away and then another bush to get a higher and lower buffering along the boundary line. 117 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 10, 1987~ 1:30 P.M. From the audience, Mr. Lobel stated they will probably meet or exceed the standards; Mr. Eddy stated he will work with staff and will have something that staff agrees upon when they submit landscape plans for approval. Relative to the lights, they were of concern to staff and the Planning Commission. The zoning development standards require that they do not shine on the residents, l~ney do not want the lights to shine there either but want them shining on the lot for security purposes. PUBLIC DISCUSSION- IN FAVOR: None. PUBLIC DISCUSSION- IN OPPOSITION: None. COUNCIL ACTION: Mayor Bay closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Pickler, the City Council approved the negative declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative declaration together with any comments received during the public review process, and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED. Annika Santalahti. Condition No. 2 pertains to an irrevocable offer of dedication. In the third line down, the term - "from the back of the curb" is used which instead should read "from the property line." (Condition No. 2, Page Sd, third line). Mr. Eddy stated that was no problem at all to Mr. Lobel. City Attorney, Jack White. He would like to clarify one of the representations since he was not certain it was a stipulation made by the appellant that at least 90% of the automobiles would be sold at wholesale. He wants to know if that condition is going to be imposed. Without that condition, the property could be transferred and operated as a normal used car lot by this owner and any subsequent owner. Mr. Lobel. It is his intention to have the automobiles placed on that lot. Ninety percent is a very loose figure. Up to this point, it has been 95% but it could go to 80 or 85%. Basically it will be a very high figure. He would rather not stipulate specific percentage. Councilwoman Kaywood asked if Mr. Lobel would stipulate to 80% wholesale; Mr. Lobel stated he feels that would cover the situation and he will stipulate to 80%. 118 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 10, 1987, 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out if Mr. Lobel found that there was going to be 50% retail he would have to come in for a change to the CUP. Annika Santalahti. She asked relative to including the stipulation that there be no balloons or banners displayed in connection with the use and that sales prices shall not be painted on the For Sale vehicle; Counciiwoman Kaywood noted that Mr. Lobel already stated that there would be no flags, balloons, banners and no prices on the vehicles. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 87R-42 for adoption, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 2874, reversing the findings of the City Planning Commission, but subject to all Interdepartmental Committee recommendations as well as the amendment to Condition No. 2 as articulated by staff and the stipulations made relative to at least 80% of the For Sale automobiles shall be wholesale; that there be no balloons, flags or banners displayed in connection with the use; that sales prices shall not be painted on the For Sale vehicles; and, that landscaping be provided as articulated by staff. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 87R-42: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2874. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler, Hunter, Kaywood and Bay None None One The Mayor declared Resolution No. 87R-42 duly passed and adopted. PUBLIC INPUT: Mr. Walter Bormann, 2704 West Ball Road. He broached the subject of the Council vacancy and his concern that the current situation would not have occurred if those holding a Council seat but running for another office would be required to relinquish their Council seat the day before the Election. Also, the electorate should decide who will fill a vacant Council seat. No items of public interest were presented. ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Bay moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CAR/tIED. (5:12 p.m.) LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK 119