1983/04/26City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 26, 1983~ 10:00 A.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS~ Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins,
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
CITY ENGINEER: William Devitt
FINANCE DIRECTOR: George Ferrone
UTILITIES ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER: Dale Pohlman
MANAGEMENT SERVICES MANAGER: Darrell Ament
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
HOUSING MANAGER: Lisa Stipkovich
PARKS/RECREATION/COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR: Chris Jarvi
ASSOCIATE PLANNER: Jay Tashiro
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ronald Thompson
FIRE CHIEF: Bob Simpson
FIRE MARSHAL: Garth Menges
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: The Reverend Don Dexter, Anaheim First Presbyterian Church, gave
the Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Irv Pickler led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
119: RESOLUTION OF CONDOLENCE: A resolution of Condolence was unanimously
adopted by the City Council to be presented to the family of Tom Hoag, Golf
Commissioner, on his untimely passing.
119: RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION: Resolutions of Commendation were
unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to Mary Harkness, 78,
and Minnie Smith, 75, for their quick actions in saving the life of elderly
Clara Grove during a fire on April 15, 1983, and risking their lives in the
process. The two women lifted the injured and dazed woman into her wheelchair
and moved her outside to the assistance of the City Paramedics Team.
119: RESOLUTION: A Resolution of Commendation was unanimously adopted by the
City Council and presented to Robert Z0nich and Les Riddell~ commending the
Rotary Clubs of Anaheim for the high principles that governed each member, as
evidenced by the initiation of the "Four-Way Test"--that being, first--Is it
truth? Second--Is it fair to all concerned? Third--Will it build goodwill
and better friendships? Fourth--Will it be beneficial to all concerned?
119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Roth
and authorized by the City Council:
283
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 26, 1983~ 10:00 A.M.
1. Law Day U.S.A. in Anaheim, May 1, 1983.
2. Very Special Arts Festival Day in Anaheim, April 30, 1983.
3. Professional Secretaries Week in Anaheim, April 24-30, 1983.
4. N.S.A. Youth Day in Anaheim, May 1, 1983.
5. Big Bird Day in Anaheim, April 30, 1983.
6. Older Americans Month in Anaheim, May 1983.
7. Week of the Young Child, May 1-7, 1983.
8. Deaf Awareness Month in Anaheim, May 1983.
9. National Consumers Week, April 24-30, 1983.
The first proclamation was accepted by Arthur Gray; the second by PhYllis
Berrenbein; the third by Doreen McVeigh and Barbara Banyacki; the fourth by
Alley Mills, Barbara Fox, Billie Jo Moore, Gwen Braden and Margret Inoashi;
the fifth by Gwenda Watson; and the sixth by Herman Siegmund, Chairman, Senior
Citizens Commission. The last three proclamations were to be mailed.
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 Bay seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $1,569,278.11, in
accordance with the 1982-83 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 furnlsheH each
Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Councilman Pickler
offered Resolution Nos. 83R-149 through 83R-159, both inclusive, for
adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
1. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as
recommended:
284
City Hall, Anaheim, Cz~ifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 26, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
A. Claims denied and referred to Risk Management:
1. Claim submitted b5 Bruce C. Krause for loss purportedly sustained due
to failure of City crew to identify electrical problem at 251 South Old
Bridge Road, on or abcut January 17, 1983.
2. Claim submitted bs~ Olive E. Batson for personal property damages to
tv's, video cassette recorder, telephone answering system and furnace
purportedly sustain..~d due to a power surge at 320 North Park Vista, Space
55, on or about January 31, 1983.
B. Claim denied and ~eferred to Governmental Programs Division, Markel
Services, Inc.:
3. Claim submitted by Fernando Zavala for personal injury damages
purportedly sustained due to humiliation, embarrassment, degradation of
reputation and loss of bail bond, arrested at 1900 South Campus, Ontario,
incarcerated in the San Bernardino County Jail, and made to appear in the
Orange County Municipal Court, on or about January 24, 1983.
2. The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 173: Greyhoun.~ Lines, Inc., Application No. 83-02-62 with the
California Public Utilities Commission, request for approval to increase
its passenger bus ~ares.
3. 108: Approving a~ application for a Dinner Dancing Place Permit submitted
by Edward Carl Andres, Anaheim Motel Ltd., for the Ramada Dugout Coffee Shop,
1221 East Katella Avenue, for dancing seven days a week, from 7:00 p.m. to
2:00 a.m.
4. 170: Authorizing the cancellation of Save Harmless Agreement and Covenant
not to sue dated August 25, 1978 for Grading Plan 758 for the development of a
portion of the southwest corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Fairmont
Boulevard.
5. 123: Authorizing the First Amendment to an agreement with E. Del Smith
and Company, Incorporated, extending Washington representation services from
May 1 1985 through June 30, 1984.
6. 139: Opposing S.66 (Goldwater), compromise legislation on cable
television regulation developed by National League of Cities and National
Cable Television Associat'on and work with the National League of Cities to
amend the bill (proposed Cable Telecommunications Act of 1983).
7. 139: Supporting the League of California Cities and the California
Redevelopment Agencies Ass~ciation legislation, AB 1545 (Hannigan), and
opposing SB 617 (McCorquodale), the California Supervisors' Association
sponsored legislation.
285
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 26, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
8. 144: Approving the terms and conditions of Orange County Environmental,
Management Agency Permit No. 83-13037(RE) for the installation and mainten~o, ce
of a water main in Weir Canyon Road and the bridge crossing the Santa Ana
River, and authorizing the Public Utilities General Manager to execute thf~
permit.
9. 123: Approving the renewal of a license (poleline) agreement with
Southern California Edison Company for a 66 kV line in the vicinity of Lewis
Substation located on the Barre/Villa Park 220 kV right-of-way, License No.
04-72-090.
10. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order, without
competitive bidding, to York Heating and Air Conditioning in the amount of
~41,529 for overhaul and retrofitting of the chiller at the Police Department.
11. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order without
competitive bidding to Doble Engineering Company in the amount of $11,209.50,
plus freight, for one TR-1A circuit breaker motion analyzer.
12. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order without
competitive bidding to Computer Services Corporation in the amount of
~15,934.98 for one Type 100 Controller, solid state police panel and one
interface unit (IFU) for the Harbor/Katella intersection.
13. 160: Accepting the low bid of Graybar Electric in an amount not to
exceed $15,321.24 for 5,000 feet of 4/0 AWG A1 15KV triplex URD cable, in
accordance with Bid No. 3956.
14. 160: Accepting the low bid of Siemens-Allis in the amount of $14,792.30
for two each 69KV disconnect switches without ground switches and one each
69KV disconnect switch with ground switch, in accordance with Bid No. 3957.
169: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-149: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETSKMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE
THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: INSTALLATION
OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND SAFETY LIGHTING AT GLENVIEW AVENUE AT KELLOGG DRIVE AND
CHANTILLY STREET AT LA PALMA AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF AiqAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS~
01-794-6325-E4240 AND 01-794-6325-E4250. (Bids to be opened May 19, 1981,
2:00 p.m.)
164: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-150: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQt~!RE
THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: BROADWAY
STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT, EMPIRE STREET TO E/O BROOKHURST, IN THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 24-791-6325-E1220. (Bids to be opened May 26, 198f~ 2:00
p.m.)
150: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-151: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE ¢~ITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY R~QUIRE
THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: OLIVE HILLS
286
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 26, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
PARK PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, 1980 STATE PARK BOND
ACT NO. 80-30054, ACCOUNT NO. 16-829-7103-1402C. (Bids to be opened May 26,
1983, 2:00~p.m.)
175: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-152: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE
THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: YORBA
SUBSTATION EQUIPMENT AND STRUCTURE FOUNDATIONS, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
ACCOUNT NO. 55-659-6329-8603A-36200. (Bids to be opened May 19, 1983, 2:00
p.m.)
123: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-153: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST
RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL LABOR AND EQUIPMENT TO CUT AND
REMOVE ALL RANK GROWTH AND WEEDS AND REMOVE RUBBISH, REFUSE AND DIRT UPON ANY
PARCEL OR PARCELS OF REAL PROPERTY OR ANY PUBLIC STREET IN THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 01-202-6320. (1983-1984, Edwin Webber, Inc., 528,510)
165: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-154: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE LINCOLN AVENUE CROSSWALK RESURFACING, IN
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 46-793-6325-E3670. (Coefficient Coatings,
Inc., 516,580)
150: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-155: 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: BOYSEN PARK
IRRIGATION SYSTEM RENOVATIONS - PHASE II, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO.
16-814-7103-1402C. (Javaid Enterprises, Inc., contractor)
175: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-156: 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 IMPROVE~fENT, TO WIT: WATER WELL
NO. 39, SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ORANGE AVENUE AND WESTERN AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 53-619-6329-90060-31500. (Stang Hydronics, Inc.,
contractor)
123/177: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-157: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ADOPTING A HOME MORTGAGE FINANCE PROGRAM IN COOPERATION WITH
THE COUNTY OF ORANGE. (Costa-Marks Housing Bond Allocation Act of 1981)
152: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-158: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY ENGINEER TO EXECUTE ALL COUNTY OF
ORANGE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY PERMITS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, EXCEPT THOSE PERTAINING TO EASEMENTS.
287
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 26, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
158: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-159: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (George R.
Hubbard, et ux.; Paul John Scott, et ux.; Norman Rowe, et ux. Edward M.
Haggerty, et ux.; Nils Thomas Ahiberg, et al.; Raymond L. Cross, et ux.; Cosby
Associates, Ltd.; La Meres and Stovall; Jonathan Daniel Dye, et al.; Canyon
View Estates)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
None
MOTION CARRIED. The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 83R-149 through 83R-159,
both inclusive, duly passed and adopted.
165: AWARD OF CONTRACT - HARBOR CENTER PARKING LOT: Councilwoman Kaywood
asked whether the entire area between the Central Library and the Police
Department was going to be a parking lot or if, in fact, any portion was going
to be returned to the lawn area that previously existed.
City Engineer William Devitt answered that there was going to be some
greenery, but that it was basically going to be a parking lot; City Manager
William Talley also confirmed that they were not going to restore the
park-like area between the two buildings.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 83R-160 for adoption. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 160: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE HARBOR CENTER PARKING LOT W/S HARBOR BOULEVARD,
S/O BROADWAY, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 89-362-6327. (Griffith
Company, $88,636.67)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-160 duly passed and adopted.
128/123/i37: 1983 TAX AND REVENUE ANTICIPATION NOTES: Finance Director
George Ferrone first answered questions posed by Councilman Bay for purposes
of clarification. Mr. Ferrone also explained that he had submitted a revised
Page 1 to the Sales Agreement to the City Clerk, which reflected a minor
change.
288
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 26~ 1983~ 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Bay offered Resolution Nos. 83R-161 and 83R-162 for adoption, the
first authorizing the borrowing of funds for Fiscal Year 1983-84 and issuance
of Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes for delivery July 1, 1983, with
repayment date of June 29', 1984, and the second authorizing execution of the
Note Purchase Agreement with Merrill Lynch White Weld Capital Markets Group
relating to the 1983 Tax Anticipation Notes. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 83R-161: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AUTHORIZING THE BORROWING OF FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1983-1984 AND THE ISSUANCE
OF 1983 TAX AND REVENUE ANTICIPATION NOTES THEREFOR.
RESOLUTION NO. 83R-162: A RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF
NOTE PURCHASE AGREEMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 83R-161 and 83R-163 duly passed and adopted.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved the following: (1) Authorizing an agreement
with Jones Hall Hill & White in an amount not less than $6,000, nor more than
$12,000, to provide legal services in connection with the authorization and
issuance of the Notes and consummation of the financing proceedings, and (2)
Authorizing an agreement with James J. Lowrey in an amount not to exceed
$10,000 for financial consulting services relative to the tax anticipation
note issue. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
142/149: ORDINANCE NO. 4424 - HANDICAPPED PARKING: Councilwoman Kaywood
noted that under Section .010, the proposed amendment stated that the parking
space for the exclusive use of the physically handicapped be so indicated by
blue paint on the curb or edge of the paved portion of the street adjacent
thereto. She had broached the matter in the past, pointing out that in some
areas, the blue paint was not very visible on asphalt and suggested that it be
blue paint on a white background.
City Attorney William Hopkins explained that the Vehicle Coda required the
blue on asphalt, in addition "...Space may also be indicated by signs or other
suitable means." In those cases where it was difficult to distinguish the
blue on asphalt, signs should also he recommended to prevent accidental use.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4424 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4424: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION
14.32.430 OF CHAPTER 14.32 OF TITLE 14 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING
TO HANDICAPPED PARKING.
289
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 26, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
160: ACCEPTANCE OF BID TO PURCHASE 27 POLICE PATROL VEHICLES FROM MAURICE J.
SOPP & SON CHEVROLET: City Manager Talley briefed the Council on memorandum
dated May 21, 1983, from the Purchasing Agenct, Diane Hughart, recommending
that the Council waive advertised bidding per Council Policy 306 and accept
the subject low bid in accordance with Bid Specification No. 3969.
Mr. A1 Merriam, Mechanical Maintenance Superintendent, then explained for
Councilman Bay that, if approved, they would receive the cars the latter part
of June and payment would be due at that time.
MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to waive Council Policy No. 306 relating to
advertised bidding and accepting the iow bid of Maurice J. Sopp & Son
Chevrolet in the amount of ~221,537.46 for 27 Malibu Police vehicles in
accordance with Bid No. 3969, as recommended in memorandum dated April 21,
1983, from the Purchasing Agent. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
175.123: AMENDMENT NO. TWO - JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT - SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC POWER AUTHORITY (SCPPA): Councilman Pickler moved to authorize
Amendment No. Two to the Joint Powers Agreement, Southern California Public
Power Authority, to allow the SCPPA to issue refunding bonds when interest
rates were lower, as recommended in memorandum dated April 22, 1983, from the
Public Utilities Board. Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay asked if the amendment allowed the
SCPPA to refund bonds and extend maturity dates or to change the total amount
of the bonding.
Mr. Dale Pohlman, Assistant General Manager Public Utilities, answered as he
understood, there was no restriction on the extension of maturity dates. It
was a simple amendment that provided for refunding.
Councilman Bay stated it would then open the door to extending maturity dates
and extending the debt for a longer period of time. He would, therefore, vote
against the amendment on that basis.
Mr. Darrell Ament, Management Services Manager, stated that Mr. Ed Long of
Mudge Rose Guthrie and Alexander was present who could address the issue.
Mr. Ed Long, Bond Counsel to SCPPA, stated that the amendment itself did not
contain any restriction on the terms of refunding. However, before SCPPA
could issue refunding bonds, each participant in a project which would be
financed with the refunding bonds must adopt an ordinance authorizing the
refund. There were presently ordinances being circulated to the respective
participants in a number of projects of SCPPA which would authorize refunding
bonds. Each of those restricted refunding to circumstances where there would
be a cost savings to the participants. The reason the clauses were not in the
amendment was due to the fact that provisions were handled by separate
documents dealt with in the case of each financing by the specific
participants in that project.
290
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 26, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Bay asked for clarification that on any bonds that would be
refunded in which Anaheim was involved, would those have to come to the
Council for an enabling ordinance; Mr. Long confirmed that the Council would
have to adopt an ordinance, as would each and every participant. Further, no
refunding bonds could be issued by the SCPPA with respect to a project unless
authorized by each participant in the project.
Councilman Bay was interested in making certain there was a safety gap as
explained by Mr. Long.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City
Planning Commission at their meeting held April 4, 1983, pertaining to the
following applications were submitted for City Council information.
1. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 82-83-28: Submitted by City of Anaheim, to establish
the Mobilehome Park (MHP) Overlay Zone on property located and presently zoned
as follows: (A) Lazy Living Mobile, 3345 West Lincoln Avenue, RS-A-43,000 and
CL; (B) La Belle Fountaine Mobile Estates, 200 North Grand Avenue, RS-A-43,000
and CH; (C) Pacific Sunset Mobile Home Estates, 211 South Beach Boulevard,
RS-A-43,000; (D) Cherokee Mobile Gardens, 235 South Beach Boulevard,
RS-A-43,000; (E) Green Acres Mobile Home Park, 3050 West Ball Road,
RS-A-43,000; (F) Melody Trailer Lodge, 300 South Beach Boulevard, RS-A-43,000;
(G) Trails End Trailer Lodge, 1224 South Beach Boulevard, CL; (H) Western
Skies Mobile Home Estates, 2770 West Lincoln Avenue, RS-A-43,000 and CL; (I)
Casa Hermosa Mobile Home Park, 525 North Gilbert Street, RS-A-43,000; and (J)
Rio Vista Mobile Estates, 320 North Park Vista Street, RS-A-43,000.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-71, granted
Reclassification No. 83-82-28, and granted a negative declaration status.
2. VARIANCE NO. 3329: Submitted by Hugo A. Vazquez, et al, to construct a
14-unit affordable apartment complex on RM-1200 zoned property located at 129
South Olive Street with the following Code waivers: (a) minimum lot area per
dwelling unit, (b) maximum structural height, (c) maximum site coverage, (d)
minimum front yard setback, and (e) minimum sideyard setback.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-72, granted
Variance No. 3329, and granted a negative declaration status.
3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2430: Submitted by California Yearly Meeting
of Friends Church, (Anaheim Friends Church), to permit a private pre-school
with a maximum enrollment of 62 students in an existing church facility on
RS-7200, RS-A-43,000 and CL zoned property located at 1501 West Katella
Avenue, with a Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-73, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2430, and granted a negative declaration status.
291
City Hazl, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 26, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2084 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Jim
Sanders and Joe Fargo, requesting an extension of time to Conditional Use
Permit No. 2084, to permit a trucking yard on ML zoned property located at 918
East Vermont Avenue.
The ~!ity Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Conditional Use
Permiu No. 2084, to expire June 16, 1984.
5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2156 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Raymond
C. Salmi, requesting an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 2156,
to permit a church and private educational facilities on RS-A-43,000 zoned
property located on the southeast side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, east of
Eucalyptus Road.
The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Conditional Use
Permit No. 2156, to expire December 15, 1983.
6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2257 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Emkay
Development Co., Inc., requesting an extension of time to Conditional Use
Permit No. 2257, to permit a commercial office building on ML zoned property
located at 2300 East Katella Avenue, with a Code waiver of minimum number of
parking spaces.
The Cit. Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Conditional Use
Permit ~ ~. 2257, to expire September 9, 1983.
7. REC! ~SSIFICATION NO. 81-82-13 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2292 -
EXTENSI~NS OF TIME: Submitted by State Wide Developers, Inc., requesting
extensions of time to Reclassification No. 81-82-13 and Conditional Use Permit
No. 2292, proposed RM-3000 zoning to permit a l-lot, 39-unit, 45-foot high
condominium subdivision on property located on the south side of Crescent
Avenue, west of Brookhurst Street.
The City Planning Commission approved extensions of time to Reclassification
No. 81-82-13 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2292, to expire March 8, 1984.
8. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 81-82-1 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Mr. & Mrs.
Don ?aydendahl, requesting an extension of time to Reclassification No.
81-~.~-1, proposed RM-3000 zoning to establish a 1-lot, 17-unit condominium
subdivision on property located at 205-211 North Western Avenue.
The Cindy Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Reclassification
No. $1-62-1, to expire November 2, 1983.
9. tENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11464, Revision No. i--EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted
by ~nsaker & Associates, requesting an extension of time to Tentative Tract
No. 11464, Revision No. 1, to permit a 66-1ot, 56-unit (10 open space lots)
det,~ched condominium subdivision on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located on the
north side of Falmouth Avenue, south of Coronet Avenue, and west of Romneya
Drive.
292
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 26, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Tentative Tract
No. 11464, Revision No. 1, to expire March 23, 1984.
No action was taken by the City Council on the foregoing items; therefore, the
actions of the City Planning Commission became final.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2410: Submitted by Robert L. Zuckerman, (ARCO M.P.
& G.), to retain convenience retail sales in an existing service station on CL
zoned property located at 610 South Magnolia Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-64, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2410, and granted a negative declaration status.
The Planning Commission's action was appealed by the applicant and, therefore,
a public hearing would be scheduled at a later date.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2411: Submitted by Arthur B. Wilmsen Trust, Bank
of America, (ARCO M.P. & G.), to retain convenience retail sales in an
existing service station on CL zoned property located at 1000 North State
College Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-65, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2411, and granted a negative declaration status.
The Planning Commission's action was appealed by the applicant and, therefore,
a public hearing would be scheduled at a later date.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2412: Submitted by Atlantic Richfield Company,
(ARCO M.P. & G.), to retain convenience retail sales in an existing service
station on CL zoned property located at 1700 West La Palma Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-66, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2412, and granted a negative declaration status.
The Planning Commission's action was appealed by the applicant and, therefore,
a public hearing would be scheduled at a later date.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ~0. 2413: Submitted by Atlantic Richfield Company,
(ARCO M.P. & G.), to retain convenience retail sales in an existing service
station on CL zoned property located at 3901 East Riverdale Avenue, with a
Code waiver of permitted advertising on lighter box signs.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-67, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2413, and granted a negative declaration status.
The Planning Commission's action was appealed by the applicant and, therefore,
a public hearing would be scheduled at a later date.
293
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 26, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
111: ANAHEIM HALLOWEEN FESTIVAL: Anaheim Halloween Festival Committee,
report on a detailed budget for a modified 1983 Festival (requested at the
meeting of April 5, 1983--see minutes that date). Submitted was a report from
the Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services dated April 18,
1983--on file in the City Clerk's office.
Mr. Paul Pink, President, Anaheim Halloween Festival Association, was present
to answer any questions. He first confirmed for Councilman Bay that ~2,128
would be a savings by eliminating the Youth Parade, which amount covered
Streets and Sanitation costs.
Councilman Bay stated his personal opinion was that the Youth Parade woul~ be
the last thing he would like to see eliminated. He had read a letter dated
March 14, 1983, from James Brier, Superintendent, Anaheim City School
District, stating that they were considering eliminating the minimum day on
the last Friday of October, which was the day the Youth Parade was held. He
asked if holding the Youth Parade on a Saturday had been discussed.
Mr. Pink answered that was not specifically discussed, except that they ruled
out the possibility of a Saturday because of the logistical problem involved
having it on the same day as the evening Parade. The School District was
going to discuss the matter on May 10, 1983, and if it was their wish to
continue with the Youth Parade, they could then add back the attendant costs
and hold the parade as in the past.
Councilman Bay stated he felt the Council should leave that matter open until
the meeting of May 10, 1983; Mr. Pink stated that the City would then have to
pick up the additional costs of approximately ~2,100.
Councilman Overholt stated that they should call Dr. Brier to ascertain where
he felt the School Board was headed on the matter or talk to the President of
the Board. He agreed with Councilman Bay that the "kiddy" parade was the most
important event in the whole Festival.
After further Council discussion on the issue, Councilman Roth moved to
approve the requested funding of ~11,950 as outlined in letter dated April 14,
1983, from the Anaheim Halloween Festival Association, as well as ~28,780 as
an in-kind contribution representing the City's support services, as outlined
on the attachment to memorandum dated April 18, 1983, from the Director of
Parks, Recreation and Community Services. Councilman Overholt seconded the
motion.
Before a vote was taken, Christopher Jarvi, Director of Parks, Recreation and
Community Services, confirmed that if it was decided that the Youth Parade
would be a part of the Festival again this year, there would be need for an
additional $2,100 for in-kind services to be provided by the City, which would
be determined after the May 10, !983, meeting of the School District Board.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
294
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 26, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
144: PROPOSED JAIL AND LANDFILL SITES: Report from Planning Department
relating to the County's proposed jail and landfill sites to be located in
Coal/Gypsum Canyons in the Anaheim Hills area (requested at the meeting of
March 15, 1983--see minutes that date).
Mr. Jay Tashiro, Associate Planner, stated that the subject report covered all
the information that was available in staff's evaluation of the situation as
it was today.
On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilman Pickler, the City Council
authorized support of staff recommendations 1 through 4 as outlined in report
dated April 15, 1983, as follows:
1. Educate and inform the canyon area residents of the potential impact of
the jail facility/landfill via public information efforts to homeowner
association groups, school districts, civic groups, churches and major
property owners.
2. Solicit the support of the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce and business
leaders to oppose the jail site/landfill. The Chamber should become actively
involved due to the negative connotations such uses may have on the business
community if an Anaheim site is selected for either use.
3. Request that the County General Services Agency and consultants address.
not only the economic feasibility of the Gypsum and Coal Canyon sites, but
that any such economic or environmental study also address the relative
economic impact of constructing such facilities on County-owned properties
elsewhere in Orange County. Such evaluation may prevent an unnecessary
expenditure of County funds for site acquisition.
4. Direct staff to continue to monitor the County study and request a
presentation from County staff regarding report findings prior to action being
taken by the Board of Supervisors.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Roth, referring to Recommendation No. 1
relative to disseminating information to Canyon area residents, asked that the
Public Information Office be directed to issue news releases on the matter to
be sent to the two "throw-away" newspapers in the Canyon area and that
information ~heet~ be dlgtr~buted through the Canyon L~brary; Councilman
Pickler suggested that residents write to Supervisor Clark. The Mayor stated
that the total Board of Supervisors should be advised of their concern.
Councilman Overholt asked if the report addressed a sanitary landfill without
a jail site; City Manager Talley confirmed, after further input by Mr. Tashiro
and the Planning Director, Ronald Thompson, that staff's recommendation was
opposing both a jail and a sanitary landfill, either or both. Neither was an
appropriate use for the area.
As the maker of the motion, Councilman Bay clarified that the intent was to
include opposition to a dual jail/landfill project or either project
individually.
295
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 26~ 1983, 10:00 A.M.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Roth suggested that they solicit Yorba Linda's support, as well as that
of Corona.
139: SB 1534 - "GRANNY" UNITS: Councilwoman Kaywood noted that with regard
to the subject bill, the State would again preempt local control effective
July 1, 1983. She asked that staff prepare an ordinance for Council
consideration which would protect Anaheim's right to protect the City's
development standards.
City Attorney Hopkins stated that he would prepare such an ordinance.
155: HOME OCCUPATION PERMITS: Councilwoman Kaywood requested a list of
permitted uses under a Home Occupation Permit.
168: WEIR CANYON ROAD--PROPOSED NAME CHANGE: A communication from Mayor Todd
Murphy, City of Yorba Linda, requesting consideration of changing the name of
Weir Canyon Road to Yorba Linda Boulevard, was submitted.
Councilwoman Kaywood moved that no action be taken on the subject request at
this time, as recommended in report dated April 19, 1983, from the Planning
Department/Zoning Division (on file in the City Clerk's office). Councilman
Overholt seconded the motion.
Mayor Roth asked that a letter be sent to Yorba Linda informing them of their
action about to be taken indicating that it was premature at this time to
finalize such a name change as further recommended by the staff; Councilman
Bay suggested that portions of the staff report be included denoting the
various other reports that were also received.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
142/175: ORDINANCE NOS. 4414 THROUGH 4418: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance
Nos. 4414 through 4418, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4414: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING FOR PROCEDURES FOR THE AUTHORIZATION, ISSUANCE AND SALE
OF ELECTRIC REFUNDING REVENUE BONDS OF SAID CITY.
ORDINANCE NO. 4415: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING FOR THE PROCEDURES FOR THE ISSUANCE, SALE AND SECURING
OF WATER REVENUE ANTICIPATION NOTES OF SAID CITY AND PROVIDING THE TERMS AND
CONDITIONS OF SAID NOTES.
ORDINANCE NO. 4416: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING FOR THE PROCEDURES FOR THE ISSUANCE, SALE AND SECURING
OF WATER REVENUE BOND ANTICIPATION NOTES OF SAID CITY AND PROVIDING THE TERMS
AND CONDITIONS OF SAID NOTES.
296
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 26, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
ORDINANCE NO. 4417: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING FOR THE PROCEDURES FOR THE ISSUANCE, SALE AND SECURING
OF ELECTRIC REVENUE ANTICIPATION NOTES OF SAID CITY AND PROVIDING THE TERMS
AND CONDITIONS OF SAID NOTES.
ORDINANCE NO. 4418: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING FOR THE PROCEDURES FOR THE ISSUANCE, SALE AND SECURING
OF ELECTRIC REVENUE BOND ANTICIPATION NOTES OF SAID CITY AND PROVIDING THE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SAID NOTES.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
None
The ~yor declared Ordinance Nos. 4414 through 4418, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
142/108: ORDINANCE NO. 4421: Councilman Overholt offered Ordinance No. 4421
for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4421: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
REPEALING TITLE 4, CHAPTER 4.60 AND ENACTING A NEW TITLE 4, CHAPTER 4.60 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO PRIVATE PATROLS.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4421 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 4422: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4422 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4422: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (66-67-61(103), C-R, north
side of Katella Avenue, east of Harbor Boulevard)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickier, Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4422 duly passed and adopted.
297
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 26, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
ORDINANCE NO. 4423: Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance No. 4423 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4423: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (73-74-36(5), RM-2400, north
of Falmouth Avenue, south of Coronet Avenue, Anaheim Shores)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
AB SE NT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4423 duly passed and adopted.
142/129: ORDINANCE NO. 4425 - PERTAINING TO FIREWORKS: Councilman Overholt
offered Ordinance No. 4425 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4425: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
REPEALING TITLE 6, CHAPTER 6.40, SECTION 6.40.010, SECTION 6.40.030 AND
SECTION 6.40.060 AND ENACTING A NEW TITLE 6, CHAPTER 6.40, SECTION 6.40.010,
SECTION 6.40.030 AND SECTION 6.40.060 PERTAINING TO FIREWORKS.
Councilman Bay requested that the first offering be delayed for one week. Two
Council Members had been in Japan and copies of the proposed change were
furnished and placed in the agenda packets. He received an earlier copy, but
there were changes on the copy since he received on Friday. With an ordinance
such as the one proposed, he wanted to see a staff report telling him what the
changes were. He did not know specifically what was being changed.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked that the matter be set for a public hearing. In
her opinion, it was special interest legislation to benefit one man and one
company and the people did not know anything about it; she saw nothing in the
newspapers.
Mayor Roth stated he received a copy of the proposed ordinance when he was in
Hawaii and had read it. He asked if there had been a change since Friday.
City Attorney Hopkins answered that there had been no change since Friday.
City Manager Talley explained that he had asked the Fire Chief to prepare a
report for him, which he had done. He would be happy to turn it over to the
Council.
Councilman Overholt stated it was entirely appropriate and essential that the
staff report be received by the Council. He questioned why they should delay
the first reading for one week.
Councilwoman Kaywood also maintained that they should have a staff report and
she would still like a public hearing. She felt the issue was of tremendous
importance to the citizens of Anaheim. Their first duty was to ensure the
public safety and the proposal was the exact opposite.
298
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 26, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Overholt did not agree. He believed Councilwoman Kaywood was
trying to raise the entire fireworks question that had to do with illegal
fireworks. The ordinance did not deal with illegal fireworks. The Council
should have the City Attorney's interpretation as to the provisions in the
proposed ordinance, as well as the opinion of other staff in the City,
including Fire Chief Bob Simpson. He again questioned the need for delaying
another week and explained that, in any event, no final action would be taken
until the next Council meeting. If there was going to be media coverage or
citizen activity, that would not be precluded by a first reading today.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved that a public hearing be set to consider
the proposed changes pertaining to fireworks. Councilman Pickler seconded the
motion for the purpose of discussion.
Before further action was taken, Councilman Pickler stated that by next week,
they would have received all material from staff and that would be the time to
set the matter for a public hearing if they felt one was warranted. They
should not rush into setting a public hearing at this time.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that she was a Council Member at the time the
number of days for discharge and sale of fireworks was reduced, which was done
in response to tremendous public pressure because of the danger of "safe and
sane" fireworks. She maintained there was no such thing.
Councilman Overholt noted that the proposed amendment did some other things,
and they should first have the City Attorney explain the proposed amendments,
receive the staff report, and then to have anyone who wished to speak on the
matter do so. They could subsequently consider the matter for one week, and
if there was a lot of pressure, they could hold a public hearing. He offered
the proposed ordinance for first reading and it was his intent that that
offering stand. He felt he had been fair a week ago when he told them he
intended to offer the first reading today.
Councilman Bay asked in the proposed ordinance, where it stated June 28 to
July 4, if that was a change; City Attorney Hopkins answered,' "yes." The
current ordinance stated that time of sale and discharge of fireworks was July
1 through July 4.
Councilman Bay asked £or a complete written report from the City Attorney on
every change in the proposed amendment to the existing ordinance. He felt
there was a great deal in the change that did not meet the eye other than
giving the wholesaler the right to retail. He asked for clarification if the
change was to allow the wholesaler to sell fireworks on his property the same
days as the retail sellers without building a stand; City Attorney Hopkins
answered that was correct.
Councilman Overholt noted that one of the objections raised was the fact that
the time during which fireworks could be sold was extended generally. He
asked if the retail sales by the wholesaler could be over a period of time
greater than that of street stands; City Attorney Hopkins answered "no."
299
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 26, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Overholt wanted to know why they could not let street sellers sell
fireworks from July 1 to July 4, but let the manufacturer sell for a longer
period of time.
City Attorney Hopkins answered that it would be creating a separate category;
Councilman Overholt surmised, therefore, that whatever they permitted the
manufacturer to do they had to permit the same for the street seller.
The City Attorney answered that was correct.
Fire Chief Bob Simpson then reported that there had been retail sales in the
wholesale facility and that was terminated when it came to his attention that
they were doing so. He wrote his first letter in February of 1982 and then
because of the pending decision on SB 999 and a pending decision by the
Council on what they were going to.do, he withdrew the letter for the 1982
season and put it back into effect again at the close of the fireworks season
of 1982. Chief Simpson then answered questions posed by Council Members on
the issue, some aspects of the discussion having been covered in his report to
City Manager Talley, such as the expenditures made by the City in 1982
directly related to fireworks.
At the conclusion of discussion and questioning, City Attorney Hopkins then
explained that the main change was to add the paragraph concerning
"established wholesale businesses." They had previously established retail
businesses and they added the category, "established wholesale business." The
other change was to change the date, "No person shall offer for sale or
discharge any fireworks except during the period of June 28 to July 4
inclusive." and added in Section 6.40.060, "Licensed established wholesale
businesses as defined herein above may sell ~afe and sane fireworks on a
wholesale basis only through established wholesale trade channels. Not
withstanding any provisions of this section, wholesale companies may sell
retail from their wholesale facility during the period permitted by Section
6.40.030 of the Anaheim Municipal Code without construction of a temporary
stand." Those were the changes that were made.
Councilwoman Kaywood then posed questions to Fire Marshal Garth Menges who
explained the circumstances surrounding his contact with Mr. A1 Hole,
representative of Red Devil Fireworks, which was a result of the~fact that his
company was found to be in violation of the City's Fireworks Ordinance, since
they were selling retail from their wholesale facility beginning on June 28 of
each year.
KAYWOOD:
I would still like to ask the City Attorney, whether one
person..owhat is the amount that one person or one company can
donate to political contributions before they have to file
something to show who and how much they have contributed?
HOPKINS:
Councilwoman Kaywood, if it's a gift, the F.P.P. rules anything
over ~50 must be reported as a gift.
3O0
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 26, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
KAYWOOD: I'm talking about campaign contributions.
HOPKINS:
A campaign contribution, I believe the amount is $100, but I would
have to verify that, Mrs. Kaywood.
KAYWOOD: I'm not talking about the recipient, I'm talking about the donor.
HOPKINS:'
KAYWOOD:
If it is a committee that's financing a member of a public agency
or a lobbyist, they have to report so much of that as a gift, but
if it's a person in a private enterprise, I do not think there's
any report required of them. The report is required of the
recipient, the public official.
Well, it's kind of ironic that the FPPC has held to the ~250 a year
in gifts to any elected official, but the door is wide open on
campaign contributions and that, indeed, can be thousands and
thousands of dollars.
HOPKINS:
It is a different section of the law that covers campaign
contributions, yes.
KAYWOOD:
Well, maybe it was a committee. I had recalled seeing something
where all of the donations that went to all of the candidates and
legislators in the State of California was filed.
HOPKINS:
If it was a committee, that would be true. If it's just an
individual company or individual, it would not.
KAYWOOD:
And it wouldn't matter how many hundreds of thousand dollars were
contributed, they would still not have to...
HOPKINS: Not the donor, the recipient would have to report it.
KAYWOOD: I see, Okay, and that's public knowledge.
HOPKINS: Yes it is. Public record.
At the conclusion of further discussion and questioning between staff and
Council Members~ Councilman Roth reminded the Council of the motion on the
floor to hold a public hearing.
Councilman Pickler confirmed that the reason for his second was to enable
discussion. He was opposed to a public hearing and his mind had not been
changed. They should have all necessary information in their hands to review
it and in one week they could determine if a public hearing was needed.
301
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 26, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Bay stated with a first reading today, next week they would be
voting on adoption of the ordinance which, if passed, would be effective 30
days thereafter. Therefore, it would be too late for a public hearing. He
had not said whether he would agree or oppose, but he certainly agreed there
should be public input on the amendment, since it proposed to increase the
number of days to sell and discharge fireworks in the City by a considerable
amount. He was, therefore, in support of the motion.
Councilwoman Kaywood, in answer to comments by Councilman Pickler, recalled
that the prior public hearing on fireworks was not on increased days for sale
and discharge, but whether or not to place the question on the ballot for a
vote of the people. The proposal lost on a three-to-two Council vote in spite
of the fact that one person gathered 7,000 signatures asking that the question
be placed on the ballot. She saw no compelling need on the part of the people
of Anaheim to change the ordinance.
Mayor Roth stated that people would have an opportunity to speak on the issue
next Tuesday, prior to a vote on final adoption of the ordinance.
Councilman Overholt stated his interpretation was that Councilwoman Kaywood
wished to set the matter on a date, time and place certain and advertise it as
a public hearing. He was opposed, but supportive of what the Mayor said, that
anybody who wished to speak on the issue could do so next Tuesday.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion that consideration of the
proposed amendment to the existing ordinance pertaining to fireworks be set
for a public hearing.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood and Bay
Pickler, Overholt and Roth
None
The motion failed to carry.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked then if the second reading of the proposed
ordinance could be set to be heard at a time certain at their next meeting;
City Clerk Linda Roberts guesstimated that consideration of ordinances for
adoption would occur between approximately 10:45 and 11:00 a.m.
Councilman Overholt then requested if there were reports on the issue, that
the Council receive them at this time.
City Manager Talley stated that Chief Simpson's report was prepared at his
(Talley's) request, and he had no objection to submitting it at this time.
(The report was thereupon submitted and distributed by the City Clerk to the
Council.) He continued that he would assume this was the report that Council.
needed for the next meeting. It set forth the Fire Chief's position and
included copies of the two letters sent to Red Devil Fireworks, one dated
February 5, 1982 and the other December 2, 1982 (on file in the City Clerk's
office)°
302
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 26, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Overholt noted that Mr. Hole was present in the Council Chambers.
Mr. A1 Hole, consultant to Pyrotronics (Red Devil and Wildcat Fireworks), 2349
West La Palma Avenue, stated they had been in the wholesale fireworks business
in Anaheim for 16 years at the same location. For all that time, they had
sold at retail and primarily their sales were done in a presale method. The
reasons for selling from their location was that most of their orders were for
large quantities where the purchasers came in and hauled the fireworks away in
van lots. Ail of the provisions of the Anaheim Fire Ordinances had been
followed and all other regulations that prevailed in fireworks stands were
followed, the one exception being that they sold the fireworks from within a
warehouse. In 1982, Chief Simpson wrote a letter to them calling to their
attention the fact that they were selling from facilities other than a
temporary stand with no retail sales license. At that time, he spoke with the
Fire Marshal about the proposed ordinance change to make legal something that
had gone on for a number of years. State law allows sales of fireworks to
start at noon on June 28 of each year. Because of the quantities they sold,
it was necessary to start filling orders and filling them at an earlier date.
That was the reason for the request in the increased sales period, starting
June 28, instead of July 1. He reiterated they were trying to comply as
nearly as possible with State law and City ordinances. The one violation was
in not selling from within a fireworks stand but from behind a counter ia a
warehouse that was fully sprinklered. He felt they were a responsible
business' in Anaheim and he was not convinced that what they were asking for
would create a serious problem.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if he was saying that for 16 years they had been
selling fireworks from June 28 in Anaheim at their present location; Mr. Hole
answered "yes."
Councilman Bay clarified his position that he had no disagreement with a
wholesaler being able to retail a certain percentage of his product, but his
main concern was in the increase in the number of days fireworks would then
have to be retailed all over the City if they allowed Pyrotronics to retail as
early as June 28.
Mr. Hole stated he hoped that the Council would grant the request, since as a
wholesaler they simply wanted to merchandise their product as any other
wholesaler and the increase in time would also be beneficial to them.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. Hole if he was aware that Anaheim's ordinance
stated July i and not June 28; Mr. Hole answered that it had not said that for
all of the 16 years, but since 1974. He did not pay that much attention to
the provision, since most of their products left Anaheim and were sold to
surrounding communities, both in Orange County and Los Angeles County. It was
something that grew with the company before he joined it.
No further discussion ensued on the matter.
303
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 26, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
ORDINANCE NO. 4426: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4426 for first
reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4426: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (78-79-6, RS-5000, northeast
corner of Simmons Avenue and Haster Street, Tract 9815)
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: The City Manager requested a Closed Session to
discuss personnel, labor relations and potential litigation 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. Councilman Pickler
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (12:55 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (1:53 p.m.)
176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 82-10A: In accordance with application
filed by M. J. Brock & Sons, Inc., public hearing was held on proposed
abandonment of a portion of a six-foot public utility easement located within
Tract No. 9684, north of Falmouth Avenue, west of Romneya Drive, pursuant to
Resolution No. 83R-140 duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices
thereof posted in accordance with law.
Report of the City Engineer and a recommendation by the Planning Commission
were submitted recommending approval of said abandonment.
Mayor Roth asked if a~yone wished to address the Council; there being no
response, he closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by
Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Pickler, the City Council
ratified the determination of the Planning Director 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. MOTION
CARRIED.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 83R-163 for adoption, approving
Abandonment No. 82-10A. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 83R-163: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM VACATING A PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT WITHIN TRACT NO. 9684, N/O FALMOUTH
AVENUE, W/O ROMNEYA DRIVE. (82-10A)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-i63 duly passed and adopted.
304
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 26, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 82-14A: In accordance with application
filed by The City of Anaheim, public hearing was held on proposed abandonment
of a portion of a road and public utility easement on the west side of Anaheim
Boulevard at Santa Ana Street, pursuant to Resolution No. 83R-141, duly
published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance
with law.
Report of the City Engineer and a recommendation by the Planning Commission,
dated April 4, 1983, were submitted recommending approval of said abandonment.
Mayor Roth asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no
response, he closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by
Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Bay, the City Council ratified
the determination of the Planning Director 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. MOTION
CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 83R-164 for adoption, approving
Abandonment No. 82-14A. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 83R-164: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM VACATING A PORTION OF A ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT W/S/O ANAHEIM
BOULEVARD AT SANTA ANA STREET. (82-14A)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL M~MBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-164 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2421 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
Application by Far West Savings & Loan Association, (Nautilus Plus Health
gpa), to permit a health ~pa on ~L(§C) 2oned property located at 5417 East La
?alma Avenue, with a Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-56, declared
that the subject project be exempt from the requirement to prepare an
Environmental Impact Report on the basis that there would be no significant
individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact due to the approval of
this negative declaration, since the Anaheim General Plan designates the
subject property for 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; and
further, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2421 subject to the following
conditions:
305
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 26, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
1. That sidewalks shall be installed along La Palma Avenue as required by the
City Engineer and in accordance with standard plans and specifications on file
in the Office of the City Engineer.
2. That parking lot security lighting shall be provided to the satisfaction
of the Anaheim Police Department.
3. That prior to issuance of a building permit or commencement of the
activity herein approved, whichever occurs first, a traffic signal assessment
fee equaling the difference between the industrial and commercial assessment
fees shall be paid to the City of Anaheim for the entire floor area
encompassed by the spa, in an amount as determined by the City Council.
4. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved
plans on file with the Street Maintenance and Sanitation Division.
5. That plans shall be submitted to the Building Division showing compliance
with the minimum standards of the City of Anaheim, including the Uniform
Building, Plumbing, Electrical, Mechanical and Fire Codes as adopted by the
City of Anaheim. The appropriate permits shall be obtained for any necessary
work.
6. That the proposal shall comply with all signing requirements of the ML(SC)
Zone unless otherwise approved in connection with a duly advertised public
hearing.
7. 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.
8. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 1, 2,
4 and 7, above-mentioned, shall be complied with.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Holzwarth, Powell,
Stein & Hinman, Attorneys at Law, and public hearing scheduled this date.
Mr. Clinton Hubbard, Attorney, Holzwarth, Powell, Stein & Hinman, stated that
they filed the appeal on behalf of their client, Burnett-Ehline Properties,
who were located in the project known as the Canyon Commerce Center on East La
Palma Avenue, consisting o£ 21 commercial condominiums. The issua before the
Council was the CUP for Nautilus Plus Health Spa. After briefing certain
sections of the declaration and deed restrictions pertaining to the commercial
condominium project, he elaborated on the reason for their appeal, summed up
as follows:
Burnett-Ehline owned Unit No. 5245 consisting of 17,000 square feet located in
the southwest corner of the center and with it, under the condominium plan,
they were assigned 67 parking spaces to which they had an exclusive easement
ownership interest. Fifty-two of the spaces were located around their unit
and 15 additional spaces (No. 424 through 438) were located near Unit No.
5417, located in the northeast corner of the center, the unit proposed to be
306
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 26, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
occupied by the Nautilus Health Spa. (A diagram of the center showing the
units and the parking spaces for the entire project was submitted--made a part
of the record.) Unit 5417 (Nautilus) had 35 parking spaces assigned to it and
the parking study that was submitted in support of the CUP (previously made a
part of the record--see "Parking Study for Nautilus Plus Health Club Project
Prepared by Basmaciyan-Darnell dated February 14, 1983) stated their business
would require approximately 88 parking spaces. Therefore, they were 53 spaces
short and those would have to come out of some other owner's parking area'.
The parking study erroneously stated that the Canyon Center was an open
parking area. He reiterated, not only were the spaces assigned, but also
owned through exclusive easement rights by each of the condominium units. The
physical proximity of the 15 of 67 spaces of the Burnett-Ehline Properties
across from Nautilus would be used by customers of the Spa after the 35 spaces
assigned to that unit were filled. Further, no governing association had been
formed, as required, and thus there was no method to enforce any parking. The
center was designed for commercial use and parking spaces had a ratio
compatible with the requirements of the City for commercial use. There were
548 spaces for the project and 40 additional spaces were being held in
reserve. Under the CC&R's, those were to be used for annexed property
contemplated at the time the project was constructed. To the extent that
during the first 5 years the property was not annexed, the Declarant had the
power to assign those spaces, and that was Burnett-Ehline, making a total of
588 spaces.
Miss Santalahti stated in answer to Councilman Pickler that they did not have
the information Mr. Hubbard was giving, that apparently there were assigned
parking spaces and staff had no reason to disbelieve that.
Councilman Bay noted that the staff information presented at the Planning
Commission meeting discussed a requirement for the total area of 628 parking
spaces, but with an actual of 604. There was a difference between the 588 and
staff information without even discussing the problem of how they were totaled
legally.
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, reported that the parking study was conducted
by a consultant and unless they completely rechecked, they had to rely on the
consultant to give the actual answers. Further, they thought it was a common
parking area and until this morning, he did'not know it was a condominium.
Mr. Hubbard then submitted a copy of a portion of the CC&R's to the City
Attorney indicating the assigned parking spaces for each unit. If there were
additional spaces, it would be inconsistent with the condominium plan.
The City Attorney confirmed that the document showed 35 spaces assigned to the
proposed Nautilus unit and it was apparently a recorded document.
Mr. James Doolin, Environmental Design and Planning Consultant, 2500 Seaview
Avenue, Corona del Mar, confirmed that the number was 604 parking spaces. He
counted them himself personally and those were the physical spaces existing.
In terms of the requirements for the parking standards, the study was done on
the basis of 2.25 spaces, the standard portrayed to them by the Planning
307
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 26, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Department for research and development (R & D) type uses for the balance of
the site. If any other kind of use such as an office did occur, that would
require a CUP. He understood that there was a City policy on reciprocal
parking in all condominiums and perhaps there had to be some clarification in
terms of joint use of the parking spaces.
Miss Santalahti stated the only circumstance where they would require that the
individual buildings have assigned parking or show available parking was when
the condominium was subdivided. If a one-lot condominium, as long as parking
was available to anybody, they were not concerned how the property was divided
or how they assigned the parking. She did not believe they had any
information at all in their file relative to assigne~ parking.
Mr. Doolin further explained that 88 spaces evolved from the traffic study
which was for maximum peak use and off-hours would be considerably less. The
study was done in terms of another Nautilus Spa in Irvine, which was exactly
the same internally. It had been established for three years and to his
knowledge there had been no problems.
Mr. Kent Dahlke, Vice President and Director of Industrial Real Estate, Far
West Savings and Loan, then gave the background relating to the center wherein
Far West and Burnett-Ehline were in a business partnership. When their plan
failed to materialize, Far West purchased the property back from
Burnett-Ehline, except for the one unit that they (Burnett-Ehline) bought.
Far West owned the remaining 20 units and it was their feeling their tenants
could park anywhere within the spaces they (Far West) owned, recognizing the
condominium plan and underlying exclusive parking easements. The proposed
Nautilus unit had 35 spaces. In addition, there were 40 spaces along the back
of the property reserved for Phase II, and Far West was the Declarant, since
they owned the entire property and, per the CC&R's, declared that the
additional 40 spaces would be parking in common for the benefit of the entire
project. Since the City changed its parking standards allowing for compact
car spaces, they raised the number of spaces from 40 to 62. If Nautilus were
to have 35 spaces and use the common area at peak hours, there would be
sufficient parking. (Mr. Dahlke thereupon submitted a document entitled
Exhibit "D", Rules and Regulations, Schedule A to Exhibit D and letter dated
January 10, 1983, to Burnett-Ehline that as Declarant, they were designating
the parking reserve for Phase II as common area--made a part of the record.)
The Mayor asked to hear from anyone else who wished to speak: Mr. Jack
Bennett, Manager of Amzol, 5445 East La Palma, Canyon Commerce Center, stated
it was his company's opinion that there would be no problem relative to
parking.
Mr. Gerald McLeroy, 5419 East La Palma, Canyon Commerce Center, owner of the
company leasing that space, stated he did not believe there would be any
adverse effect on his business if Far West was to lease to Nautilus. His unit
was located next door to the proposed use.
The Mayor then gave Mr. Hubbard an opportunity to make his rebuttal and
summation.
308
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 26, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Mr. Hubbard then recounted many of the points raised by Mr. Dahlke, also
reiterating the concerns expressed in his opening presentation, specifically
that there was no association with which to enforce any parking regulations,
and they were present to ensure their ability to use parking spaces to which
they had ownership interest. Further, there had been no assignment of the
Declarant's interest and thus, Burnett-Ehline remained the Declarant and
person authorized to deal with the 40 reserved spaces.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the
public hearing.
Discussion and questioning followed between Council Members and Messrs. Dahlke
and Hubbard. As well, a Mr. Mark Ranauro, representative of Nautilus Plus, 55
Oxford, Irvine, answered questions posed by Councilwoman Kaywood regarding
what effect approval with a time limit might have on Nautilus considering
their investment. He also reported that their Irvine complex was not the same
size as the one being proposed, but that the latter was approximately 30
percent larger.
Councilman Overholt then posed a line of questioning to Mr. Hubbard relative
to the language of the exclusive easement for parking as well as any parking
agreement there might be between the tenant and Far West.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: At the conclusion of'
discussion, 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 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.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 83R-165 for adoption, granting
Conditional Use Permit No. 2421 subject to City Planning Commission conditions
and two additional stipulations: (1) That approval be subject to a 2-year
review and (2) that Far West Savings and Loan Association execute an agreement
providing 88 parking spaces for the exclusive use of Nautilus Plus. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 83R-165: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 242i.
Before a vote was taken, both Messrs. Hubbard and Dahlke commented as to their
feelings on the proposed agreement.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution.
309
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 26, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-165 duly passed and adopted.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (3:10 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (3:20 p.m.)
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2422 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
Application by Marie B. Pelletier, to permit medical office use of a
residential structure on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located at 126 North
Brookhurst Street.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-55, declared
that the subject project be exempt from the requirement to file an
Environmental Impact Report on the basis that there will be no significant
individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact due to the approval of
this negative declaration, since the Anaheim General Plan designates the
subject property for general commercial land uses commensurate with the
proposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the
proposal; and that the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no
significant individual 'or cumulative adverse environmental impacts; and
further granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2422, subject to the following
conditions:
1. That sidewalks shall be installed along Brookhurst Street as required by
the City Engineer and in accordance with standard plans and specifications on
file in the Office of the City Engineer.
2. That the existing most northerly and southerly driveways on Brookhurst
Street shall be removed and replaced with a standard curb, gutter, sidewalk
and ten- (10) foot deep landscaped planter.
3. That prior to issuance of a building permit, appropriate water assessment
fees shall be paidto the City of Anaheim, in an amount as determined by the
Office of the Utilities General Manager.
4. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved
plans on file with the Street Maintenance and Sanitation Division.
5. That the existing structure shall be brought up to the minimum standards
of the City of Anaheim, including the Uniform Building, Plumbing, Electrical,
Mechanical and Fire Codes as adopted by the City of Anaheim.
310
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 26, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
6. That the proposal shall comply with all signing requirements of the CL
(Commercial, Limited) Zone unless otherwise approved in connection with a
duly-advertised public hearing.
7. That a 6-foot high masonry block wall shall be constructed along the east
property line and/or that a bond in an amount and f~rm satisfactory to the
City of Anaheim shall be posted with the City to guarantee the installation of
said wall prior to final building inspection.
8. That any proposed parking area lighting fixtures shall be down-lighted
with a maximum height of 12 feet. Said lightin~ fixtures shall be directed
away from adjacent property lines to protect the r~sidential integrity of the
area.
9. That the 10 to 14 1/2-foot wide front setback area shall be landscaped in
conformance with Code standards.
10. That an easement for vehicular access over the property to the north of
subject property to the parking spaces on subject property shall be submitted
to and approved by the City Attorney's Office. Said document, as approved,
will then be filed and recorded in the Office of Orange County Recorder.
12. That this Conditional Use Permit is grantee subject to the completion of
Reclassification No. 73-74-9(10), now pending.
13. That prior to issuance of a building permi~ or commencement of the
activity herein approved, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 7 and 10,
above-mentioned, shall be complied with.
14. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 1, 2,
4, 5, 8, 9 and'll, above-mentioned, shall be complied with.
15. That there shall be curtains only in the doorways to the examination or
treatment rooms, and that there shall be no solid doors in said doorways.
16. That the use is granted for a period of two years, to expire March 7,
1985.
A review of the Planning Commission's action was requested by Councilwoman
Kaywood at the meeting of March 29, 1983, and a public.hearing scheduled this
date.
City Clerk Linda Roberts announces that a letter d~ted April 25, 1983, had
been received from Mr. Benard Blume, the owner at 2!30 North Brookhurst, who
was opposed to the Conditional Use Permit.
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or appli~ant's agent.
311
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTEg - April 26, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Dr. Norman Fay stated he lived in Downey, but had an address at 130 North
Brookhurst and was agent for the property at i26 North Brookhurst. He
reported for Councilwoman Kaywood that the P~_anning Commission required that
they have nine parking spaces and he believed they had nine.
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Planning Director--Zoning, stated that they were
able to provide parking as required by Code. The condition approved by the
Planning Commission required two existing drivew~.ys be removed and an easement
acquired on the property to the north for access to the rear parking area.
Dr. Fay then confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood ~-hat hours proposed were from
8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., 7 days a week, and he would be at the facility all
that time.
Mayor Roth referred to the letter from Mr. Blume which noted that the Planning
Commission approved the application based on the applicant obtaining an
easement on his property. It was conditional approval and if Mr. Blume said
"no," the CUP would have no value.
Dr. Fay then explained that they had been in contact with Mr. Blume. They did
not anticipate any problem, because the matter had been more or less resolved
amicably although no agreement had been signed relative to the use of Mr.
Blume's driveway as ingress and egress to the subject property.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that Mr. Blume's lett r was objecting, since no
such easement or right-of-way had been negotiated or finalized; Dr. Fay stated
he had not seen that letter. However, they had ..~lso discussed with the
Planning Commission if Mr. Blume did not allow their use of his driveway all
that would be necessary would be to combine the side property between 130
North Brookhurst and 126 North Brookhurst an<~ use that as a driveway. A
telephone pole was now located there, but for ~2,250 that could be moved, thus
allowing access to the property.
Councilman Overholt noted the condition stated by the Planning Commission
required that an easement be obtained, it did not discuss any alternate
arrangement. If they sustained the Planning Commission's action, the
applicant would be committed to that access. If they could not gain the
necessary access, the CUP would not be viabl~..
Miss Santalahti clarified that if he could not acquire the easement to the
north, they would have to file for a rehearing to amend the condition of the
easement. She also clarified that the use was granted for a period of two
years, to expire March 7, 1985, and not 1984 as stated in Condition No. 16 of
Resolution No. PC83-55.
Miss Santalahti noted that there were two conditions, one (No. 2) which
required removal of existing driveways and t~o, (No. 10) which required the
easement. If Council wished to approve the ~equest, they could add a
condition to each one indicating that an alternate means of access be provided
acceptable to the Traffic Engineer.
312
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 26, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak, either in favor or in opposition;
there being no response, he closed the public hearing.
Councilman Overholt recommended that they include in their resolution the
possibility of an alternate ingress and egress acceptable to the Traffic
Engineer. The applicant would then not have to go through the process again.
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.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 83R-166 for adoption, granting
Conditional Use Permit No. 2422 subject to the City Planning Commission
conditions, including the following: In the event the necessary easement is
not obtained from the property owner to the north, an alternate access
agreeable to the Traffic Engineer must be obtained. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 83R-166: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2422.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-166 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2426 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
Application by Stanley Black, et al, to permit a billboard on ML zoned
property located at 2020 East Katella Avenue with the following Code waivers:
(a) permitted location of billboards, (b) maximum display area, and (c)
maximum height.
The City ?ianning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-62, declared
that the subject project be exempt from the requirement to file an
Enviror~ental Impact Report on the basis that there will be no significant
individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact due to the approval of
this negative declaration, since the Anaheim General Plan designates the
subject property for 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; and
further, denied Conditional Use Permit No. 2426.
313
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 26, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Metropolitan Outdoor
Advertising, Agent, and public hearing scheduled this date.
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent°
Mr. Jay Kingry, representing Metropolitan Outdoor Advertising, 101 East
Huntington Drive, Arcadia, gave a narrated slide presentation illustrating why
their request for a billboard and Conditional Use Permit No. 2426 should be
approved. The proposed location for the board was not offensive to
neighboring properties, it was compatible in the commercial and manufacturing
district and would have no impact on neighboring signs. It provided a good
business opportunity for the tenant and owner of the property, a truck body
repair facility. The slides showed the location from different street angles
and superimposed on those slides was the proposed billboard showing its
planned orientation. The slides also showed other billboards in the area.
The proposed billboard was 672 square feet allowed by ordinance under a CUP,
and 42 feet to the top. It was a standard painted bulletin. There were no
other suitable sites for a billboard in the area. He felt the issue to be
discussed today was whether the sign belonged in the proposed location more
than the billboard issue itself.
Mr. Kingry then explained in answer to Council questioning that they had
revised their original application and were now asking for a billboard with a
maximum display area of 672 square feet and maximum height of 42 feet, instead
of 1200 square feet and 50 feet, respectively, and that they were planning to
use only the east-facing side of the sign.
The Mayor asked to hear from anyone who wished to speak, either in favor or in
opposition.
Mr. Paul Kiely, President, Kayco, Inc., 2110 East Katella, stated that his
company owned the two office buildings immediately to the east of the subject
property and they were vehemently opposed to the billboard. They did not
believe it was in character with the neighborhood and felt that the Planning
Commission properly and appropriately denied the request. He reiterated, they
were totally and vehemently opposed.
Mr. Phillip Quarre, Hartmann Corporation, 536 West Lincoln Avenue, stated they
owned the property immediately adjacent to the east of the proposed sign and
they were also vehemently opposed to the construction o~ the sign ~or the same
reasons the seven Planning Commissioners rejected the proposal. The sign was
too large, over twice as large than that permitted by the sign ordinance
providing for 300 square feet. It was also too high, 36 feet being the
permissible height and 42 feet proposed. The most important reason they
opposed was from an aesthetic standpoint. It would be located within 25 feet
of a designated scenic highway and the ordinance provided that no sign should
be located within 200 feet of such a highway. They felt a sign of the size
proposed in that location would 'be an eyesore to the entire area and a visual
blight on one of the main arteries in the City. It would also open the
floodgates to a number of requests from other property owners along both
Katella Avenue and State College Boulevard for similar type signs (also see
Mr. Quarre's letter of March 25, 1983, outlining his objections).
314
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 26, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Mr. Quarre further reported that at the present time they were in discussions
with several prospective tenants for their property involving the construction
of a mid-rise building, and the occupants of that building would be looking
directly into the face of the proposed sign, which'would be no more than 30 to
40 feet away from their windows. It would greatly depreciate the value of
their property, as well as inhibit the leasing of that space. For all of
those reasons, Mr. Quarre urged the City Council to reject the application for
a conditional use permit.
Mayor Roth gave Mr. Kingry an opportunity to make his summation and rebuttal.
Mr. Kingry stated they were no real harm to Mr. Quarre's property. Further,
their use was an interim one, since they were only going to occupy that
property as long as the truck body facility was located there and the lease
was for an additional nine years. When he previously appeared before the
Planning Commission, he did not give the presentation he gave to the Council
today. The Commissioners were courteous to him, but did not ask questions and
there was no discussion. He (Kingry) felt there were no adequate spots for
more signs in the area due to the type of development taking place. Their
lease had a 60-day cancellation and should the owner of the property want to
improve and build, they would be compelled to remove their sign on 60 days'
notice.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the
public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - DISAPPROVAL OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to disapprove a negative declaration status for the
subject project on the basis that it may have significant individual or
cumulative adverse environmental impact. Councilman Bay seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Pickler asked the status of the staff
report requested by the Council relative to billboards and when it was going
to be submitted, as well as their feelings on the issue.
Miss Santalahti referred to a letter dated March 21, 1983, from Cabot, Cabot &
Forbes prepared for the Planning Commission which was not redistributed to the
City Council. The letter was in opposition to the proposal (letter previously
made a part of the record). Miss Santalahti then quoted paragraph three from
the letter: "This billboard and the numerous billboards which would
undoubtedly follow if it is approved, would be inconsistent with the character
of Anaheim Stadium and the recently approved Anaheim Stadium Center. The
proposed billboard would have no discernible benefit to the public. The City
has carefully maintained the visual quality of this neighborhood and ASA is
committed to spending substantial sums to preserve the neighborhood's visual
character, (e.g. undergrounding of utilities, etc.)."
Miss Santalahti then commented on the issue, which comments related to the
history of the current Billboard Ordinance, as well as the Department's
recommendation in this case. The billboard currently before the Council was
proposed to be located on a prohibited portion of Katella Avenue and on the
315
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 26, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
same block as Anaheim Stadium. If the use permit was approved, the Council
would undoubtedly be establishing a precedent for future similar requests with
waivers of size and height as well as location. Similar requests had been
filed for billboards along Anaheim's freeways and would be presented to the
Planning Commission in the near future. Since the mid-60's, only one other
billboard had been approved on the restricted portions of Katella and Harbor
Boulevard and it predated the Billboard Ordinance. In concluding, Miss
Santalahti stated, based on her preceding comments, it was the Planning
Department's recommendation that the CUP be denied. If a resolution to
approve was offered, staff further recommended that the conditions already in
the March 21, 1983 Planning Commission staff report be amended. She thereupon
outlined those amendments.
Councilman Pickler suggested a continuance of consideration of the subject CUP
until they received a proposal from staff. They would then have a better
understanding of the future of the billboard program.
Councilman Overholt stated the reason he would oppose a continuance was
because in doing so, they were holding out a false hope for the applicant.
could not see where the CUP would have a chance in view of the violent
opposition of the business neighbors. They should take action today. If
there was a new look in the Stadium area, it would be even more restrictive
than today.
He
A vote was then taken on the motion of disapproval of the negative
declaration. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 83R-167 for adoption, denying
Conditional Use Permit No. 2426. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 83R-167: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2426.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-167 duly passed and adopted.
139: OPPOSITION TO AB 1599: Councilman Bay recalled that at the last
meeting, he requested that a letter be prepared for full Council signature
opposing AB 1599 (see minutes that date), the Costa bill, attempting to add
punitive action by the State, such as withholding Gas Tax revenues from cities
that did not comply with the State Housing and Community Development
Department opinions on fair share of regional.low-income housing.
City Manager Talley stated that the letter had been prepared, but was unable
to be signed until today° He was now having it brought to the Council
Chambers.
316
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 26, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
110: PASSING OF SGT. CLEM KRAMER: Mayor Roth announced that this morning
upon hearing of the passing of Sgt. Clem Kramer, a member of the Anaheim
Police Force for over 20 years, he requested that flags in the City be flown
at half mast.
114: TRIP TO ANAHEIM'S SISTER CITY - MITO, JAPAN: Mayor Roth then reported
on his recent trip to Mito, Japan, accompanied by Councilman Pickler and a
ll5-member delegation. He relayed the events which took place in Mito, among
which was the dedication of a street named Anaheim Way leading to their
stadium. He also reported on their ride in two bullet trains, the first in a
train of the latest design, the track being on a concrete bed, rather than on
a cinder or gravel bed, and the second on the oldest bullet train. He had
documents on the train which he would be willing to share with his
colleagues. The balance of the trip included meeting with the Mayor of
Urayasu, the opening of Disneyland Tokyo and a stop in Hong Kong and Korea.
From time to time, he and Councilman Pickler would report on certain aspects
of the trip as they came to mind.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed
Session. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
p.m. )
(4:35
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (6:20 p.m.)
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn to Wednesday, April 27, 1983,
at 1:30 p.m. for an adjourned regular meeting on the proposed sale of Electric
and Water Utility Revenue Anticipation Notes and Electric Revenue Bonds,
Issues A, B and C of 1983. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED..(6:21 p.m.)
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK
317