Loading...
1983/07/05City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 5, 1983, 10:00 A.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRE SE NT: AB SENT: PRE SENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Overholt, Bay and Roth COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins ASSISTANT CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR PLANNING: Joel Fick ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: Father John Lenihan, St. Boniface Catholic Church, gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Ben Bay led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. li9: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Roth and authorized by the City Council: Cover Expo Days in Anaheim, July 9 and 10, 1983. Amateur Baseball Day in Anaheim, July 7, 1983. 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 ali 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. Councilman Pickier was absent. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMAiN'DS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $1,731,168.47, in accordance with the i983-84 Budget, were approved. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the following items were approved in accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 83R-272 through 83R-279, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. 557 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 5, 1983, 10:00 A.M. 1. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as recommended: A. Claims rejected and referred to Risk Management: 1. Claim submitted by Kimberly Lynn Whaley for personal injury damages purportedly sustained due to lack of sidewalk at approximately 10 feet to the east near the sidewalk of 5635 East La Palma Avenue, on or about March 10, 1983. 2. Claim submitted by Mary Ann Russo for personal injury damages purportedly sustained due to an accident caused by the absence of stop signs or other warnings at the intersection of Eucalyptus and Santa Ana Canyon Road, on or about February 14, 1983. 3. Claim submitted by Mitsuko Fukazawa for personal property damages to car windshield purportedly sustained due to an accident in which a City-owned vehicle was involved at Dale and Orange Avenue, on or about May 25, 1983. B. Claims rejected and referred to Government Programs Division, Markel Service, Inc.: 4. Claim submitted by Doug Klement for personal property damages to car purportedly sustained due to actions of Anaheim Police Officer at 856 North Citron, on or about March 2, 1983. 5. Claim submitted by David and Rose Taxe for personal property damages purportedly sustained due to actions of the Anaheim Police Department at 2701 Harbor Boulevard, Costa Mesa, and 10535 Vestone Way, Los Angeles, on or about March 7, 1983. C.Claim allowed payment: 6. Claim submitted by Dorothea J. Black for personal property damages to car purportedly sustained due to actions of a City crew at 2i01 West Katella, on or about May 9, 1983. 2. 105: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: a. Community Center Authority--Minutes of June 13, 1983. b. Community Redevelopment Commission--Minutes of June 15, 1983. c. Public Utilities Board--Minutes of June 2, 1983. d. Senior Citizen Commission--Minutes of May 12, 1983. 558 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 5, 1983, 10:00 A.M. 3. 108: Approving an application for a Public Dance Permit submitted by Manuel Gomez, Anaheim Dance Promotions, to hold a dance at the Anaheim Convention Center on August 6, 1983, from 6:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m., in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Police. 4. 123: Authorizing an agreement with William M. Mercer, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $8,000, for professional consulting actuarial services. 5. 123: Authorizing a Third Addendum to a Lease Agreement with the Anaheim Municipal Employees Association (AMEA) for office space within the Civic Center at the rate of $1,535 for July 1, 1983 through June 30, 1984. 6. 123: Authorizing a Sixth Amendment to an agreement with Emigdio C. Vasquez at the rate of ~11.15 per hour for art instructional services in the Youth Murals Project, for the term ending June 30, 1984 for a maximum of 300 · hours. 7. 123: Authorizing an agreement with the National Center for Municipal Development, Inc., in the amount of ~5,253 for FY 1983/84, for a Washington representative and participation in the Consortium Cities. 8. 151: Authorizing an Encroachment License with Hartmann Corporation to allow the encroachment of three wooden barriers to prevent unauthorized parking, adjacent to the Stadium parking lot, located on the east side of State College Boulevard, south of Katella Avenue. (82-9E) 9. 123: Authorizing an agreement with Nathan Rubaloff, dba Nate's Palms, at an annual rental of $1,632, for a term of 3 years, to lease a portion of the electrical substation site located on the west side of Ninth Street, north of Laster Street, for container plant growing. 10. 160: Accepting the low bid of Hogg & Davis Sales & Leasing Company in the amount of $31,874.73 for one trailer mounted puller/tensioner in accordance with Bid No. 3989. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-272: 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 EQUIPb~NT 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: MATERIALS FOR REPLACEMENT OF INCANDESCENT AND M~RCURY VAPOR STREET LIGHTS WITH HIGH PRESSURE SODIUM STREET LIGHTS, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 01-677-7121-1217A-37300o (General Electric Company, contractor) 150: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-273: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLA~T, LABOR, SERVICES, b~TERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO 559 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 5, 1983, 10:00 A.M. CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: WASHINGTON COMMUNITY CENTER HANDBALL/BASKETBALL COURT PROJECT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 25-848-7103-48060. (Hondo Company, Inc., contractor) 176: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-274: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS, HIGHWAYS AND SERVICE EASEMENTS. (82-15a, public hearing scheduled July 26, 1983, 1:30 p.m.) 176: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-275: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS, HIGHWAYS AND SERVICE EASEMENTS. (82-16A, public hearing scheduled July 26, 1983, 1:30 p.m.) 176: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-276: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS, HIGHWAYS AND SERVICE EASEMENTS. (82-18A, public hearing scheduled July 26, 1983, 1:30 p.m.) 160: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-277: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING CERTAIN UNCLAIMED PROPERTY IS NEEDED FOR PUBLIC USE AND TRANSFERRING THE SA~ TO THE CITY PURCHASING DEPARTMENT. 123: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-278: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. 3181, 07-0RA-214 3.0/7.6, BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND STATE OF CALIFOrnIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS TO LINCOLN AVENUE (STATE ROUTE 214) FROM KNOTT AVENUE TO ROUTE 5 OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND ACCEPTING THE RELINQUISHMENT OF THAT PORTION OF THE STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM AS PART OF THE CITY STREET SYSTEM. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-279: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (C. Robert Langslet; C. Robert Langslet; C. Robert Langslet; Comet, Inc.; Central Capital Corporation) Roil Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Overholt, Bay and Roth NOES: COUNCIL ~MBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler MOTION CARRIED. The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 83R-272 through 83R-279, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. 173: FEASIBILITY OF A PUBLIC HELIPORT SITE: Mr. Joel Fick, Assistant Director for Planning, answered questions posed by Mayor Roth for purposes of clarification, specifically noting that a report would be submitted to the Council prior to submitting the grant application, as outlined in memorandum dated June 28, 1983, from the Planning Director. MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to direct staff to work with Airspur in the investigation of the feasibility of a public heliport site; grant opportunities; and/or consulting services for the purpose of preparing a 560 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 5, 1983, 10:00 A.M. planning grant submittal to the Federal Aviation Administration, as recommended in memorandum dated June 28, 1983. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Councilman Pickler was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 173: BULLET TRAIN: City Manager William Talley briefed the staff report to the City Manager/City Council from Pamela Lucado, Associate Planner, recommending that the Council determine their position in having American High Speed Rail include Anaheim as a stop for the Bullet Train proposed from LAX to San Diego. Mayor Roth reported on the recent liaison meeting, the outcome was that if the Bullet Train would ever be built and travelled through Anaheim, then Anaheim was interested in having a station established in the City. It was also noted that the plan would require a complete environmental impact report to meet both State and Federal requirements. Councilman Bay stated that they were assured by American High Speed Rail and their consultants that they would meet the EIR requirements under CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) which had been one of his main concerns. It was also important that staff continue working with American High Speed Rail as they. looked at alternatives and that the Council be aware of those alternatives. If there was a Bullet Train, he for one could not picture it running through Anaheim without a major stop in the City and he stated that at the task force meeting. Mr. Carl Shermer, Director of Governmental Affairs, American High Speed Rail, explained that they indicated to the task force that they would very much want the train to stop in Anaheim and to that end, they requested to hear from the City as to its attitude. Receiving such assurance, they would be prepared to move ahead to discuss the specifics of a proposed station in Anaheim. Councilman Overholt stated it was his understanding the recommendation was that the Council approve the concept of a stop in Anaheim. Mayor Roth stated if a Bullet Train was built and would run through Anaheim, they were requesting a station be placed in the City. There was no discussion as to where it would be place at this time, because plans were only in the preliminary stages. MOTION: Councilman Roth moved that relative to American Hi§h Speed Rall~ if a Bullet Train was built and would run through Anaheim, that a station be established in the City. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Mr. Shermer then clarified for the Mayor that they expected to initiate the formal application process this month and the entire process would take between 16 and 18 months or to the end of 1984. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Pickler was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 561 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 5, 1983, 10:00 A.M. 144: APPOINTMENT OF ALTEPd~ATE TO THE ORANGE COUNTY HEALTH PLANNING COUNCIL: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to appoint Pat Fron, Registered Nurse and Vice President of Medical Management Consultants, Inc., as alternate to the Orange County Health Planning Council, as recommended in letter dated June 29, 1983, from Janet Parry. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Councilman Pickler was absent. MOTION CARRIED. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning Commission at their meeting held June i3, 1983, pertaining to the following applications were submitted for City Council information. 1. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 82-83-33: Submitted by L. C. Smull, for a change in zone from ML to CR to permit a 4-story commercial office building on property located at 2300 East Katella Avenue. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-110, granted Reclassification No. 82-83-33, and granted a negative declaration status. 2. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 82-83-34: Submitted by Will D. and Lucille C. Pickerel, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200 to construct a 22-unit apartment complex on property located at 2752 West Ball Road. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-111, granted Reclassification No. 82-83-34, and granted a negative declaration status. 3. VARIANCE NO. 3225 - TERMINATION: Submitted by Clarinda Williamson, (Tiffy's Family Restaurant), requesting termination of Variance No. 3225, to permit an outdoor advertising vehicle on CR zoned property located at 1060 West Katella Avenue, as a condition of approval under Conditional Use Permit No. 2424. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-114, terminated Variance No. 3225. 4. VARIANCE NO. 3329 - RESOLUTION NO. PC83-115: Amending Resolution No. PC83-72, nunc pro tunc, pertaining to Condition No. 2, Variance No. 3329 to permit construction of a 14-unit affordable apartment complex with certain code waivers on RM-1200 zoned property located at 129 South Olive Street. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-115, amended Resolution No. PC83-72, nunc pro tunc, pertaining to Condition No. 2, Variance No. 3329. 5. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11994: Submitted by Randy J. Morris and Lido Lane Properties, to establish a 13-1or, 12-unit subdivision on proposed RM-3000 zoned property located at 3040 West Ball Road. The City Planning Commission, at their meeting held June 27, 1983, approved Tentative Tract No. 11994. 562 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 5, i983, iO:O0 A.M. Councilwoman Kaywood asked if they were still requiring only 2.5 parking spaces for a three-bedroom unit. Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, explained that the proposal met Code and the features that made the difference in the number of parking spaces required were dwelling unit size and whether or not the property had access to a public street. Councilwoman Kaywood felt that they should review that portion of the Code again° If a small two-bedroom or a large three-bedroom was involved and they both required the same amount of parking, it did not seem to her too sensible. Miss Santalahti stated that a parking study was completed within the last year and reiterated the standard of 2.5 spaces. The apartment parking standard proposal was increased because of the potential of conversions. 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. 2453: Submitted by Marcel G. and Edna V. Mayer, to retain a second-family (granny) unit on RS-7200 zoned property located at 1232 West Romneya Drive. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-112, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2453, and granted a negative declaration status. Councilwoman Kaywood requested a review of the Planning Commission's decision on Conditional Use Permit No. 2453 and, therefore, a public hearing would be scheduled at a later date. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2454: Submitted by Robert C. and Margaret A. Hawley, to permit a bed and breakfast inn on RM-2400 zoned property located at 904 West Broadway. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-113, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2454, and granted a negative declaration status. Councilwoman Kaywood requested a review of the Planning Commission's decision on Conditional Use Permit No. 2454 and the date and time for the public hearing was set £or August 9, 1983, at 1:30 p.m. 105: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATES: Councilman Bay moved to approve the Planning Commission action taken under Resolution No. PC83-116 establishing if any regular meeting date falls on a holiday, such meeting automatically shall be held on the immediately succeeding Wednesday unless such date is also a City holiday in which event such meeting shall be held on first business day following such Wednesday. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Councilman Pickler was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 563 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 5, 1983, 10:00 A.M. 108: ACROPOLIS HEALTH SPA--EXTENSION OF ABATEMENT PERIOD--REHEARING: Luis Lee and Theodora Helen De Carvalho, Acropolis Health Spa, 2629 West Lincoln Avenue, requesting consideration of new evidence in support of the extension of the abatement period relating to the requirements of Chapter 4.29. The Mayor asked to hear from the petitioner. Nancy Kaufman, attorney representing the Acropolis Health Spa, stated she was present to support the De Carvalhos' request for a rehearing and the consideration of new evidence. Councilman Overholt interjected and confirmed that this was, in fact, the rehearing as further confirmed by the City Attorney and if she was not prepared, they would be wasting their time. Ms. Kaufman stated she was prepared and was aware that this was the rehearing. She stated the De Carvalhos were small business people who had a second trust deed on their home of approximately $46,000. Everything they had was invested in the business. There had been no police complaints or arrests; there was no indication of any unsavory behavior, and no complaints from neighbors. They were complying with requirements that had been established for the proper prescriptions for the massages. They were involved in two leases at present, one for air conditioning which ran through October 1984, and one for a period of a year on the premises. They had no other assets of any nature and no other source of income. Their daughter had one more year of college to complete. They were only asking for an extension of the enforcement of the ordinance for a period of time sufficient to meet their obligations. Ms. Kaufman continued that they received staff material at the time of the last hearing from the City Attorney and Police Department. The material she had seen from the Police Department indicated they felt the De Carvalhos had sufficient time to recoup their investment. She explained that soon after the ordinance was enacted in 1980, Mrs. De'Carvalho, a licensed masseuse and general partner, was involved in a serious car accident and was totally disabled for 18 months and they were not able to conduct the business they otherwise would have. There was also some indication in the City Attorney's report that certain financial information had not been submitted regarding disposition of money they borrowed to start the business. That information in great detail was submitted on ~eptember 2~, 19~0. She then re~terate~ the hardship that would result if an extension on the abatement period were not granted. Mayor Roth asked the City Attorney to clarify the situation, since the Council was not proposing to put the De Carvalhos out of business, but that they had to comply with the new requirements of the Code. City Attorney Hopkins explained that there was a present requirement that any treatment in a massage establishment be rendered by a medical doctor or on a referral of a medical doctor. Many of the massage establishments had made 564 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 5, 1983, 10:00 A.M. arrangements for referrals, either from the physicians engaged by the patrons or person seeking massage themselves, or referring them to a medical doctor who could by prescription or personal supervision authorize that treatment. The new ordinance would not put the Acropolis out of business, but merely required that there be a medical referral. Other people in the business were complying. Ms. Kaufman stated there was no walk-in business from the street and they had no retired chiropractor or doctor on the premises writing prescriptions. They took people who had their own chiropractor or doctors or who went out and obtained them off the premises. She assumed one of the reasons why the ordinance was enacted was to control the spread of massage parlors in Anaheim. This massage parlor was not one in any way offending the public. They were asking for an extension of time to continue on the old basis. They would also explore the possibility of replacing their present clientele with people who had a medical necessity as recognized by medical doctors, but they could not do so at present and would be out of business if forced to do so immediately. They were asking for an extension of time so they could wind up their leases and possibly be able to convert or possibly just close. They could not continue to do what they were doing and continue supporting themselves without an extension. After questions by Council Members posed to Ms. Kaufman, she stated they were asking for an extension through the lease period, or October of 1984. The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to speak; there was no response. Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 83R-280 for adoption, denying an extension of the period of abatement for the Acropolis Health Spa, pursuant to Section 2 of Ordinance No. 4409, upon a hearing and determination that such extension is not reasonably necessary to prevent undue hardship. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 83R-280: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DENYING AN EXTENSION OF THE PERIOD OF ABATEMENT FOR THE ACROPOLIS HEALTH SPA PURSUANT TO SECTION 2 OF ORDINANCE NO. 4409 UPON A HEARING AND DETERMINATION THAT SUCH EXTENSION IS NOT REASONABLY NECESSARY TO PREVENT UNDUE HARDSHIP. Before a vote was taken, Councilman 0verholt asked Ms. Kaufman if she felt they hah a complete and full hearin8 as far as her clients were concerned. Ms. Kaufman answered no; Councilman Overholt then asked what else she would like to offer. Ms. Kaufman answered that she did not think any other reason had been given why it would not be an undue hardship. She wanted to know if there were any other questions on the minds of the Council Members that had not been expressed which would influence their vote. 565 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 5, 1983, 10:00 A.M. Councilman Overholt asked if she had anything further to add on behalf of her clients to make the hearing complete from her standpoint. Ms. Kaufman stated that one of the problems was that her partner was their attorney. He was unavoidably absent today and she was filling in. She was not prepared with detailed information, for instance, about the effect on the business requiring all the present clientele to engage a doctor. She was saying what she assumed, practically speaking, this would not be feasible and very detrimental to the business. To the extent she did not have documentation of those kinds of questions, the hearing was not complete. Councilman Overhoit stated that was her clients' decision. They chose their own lawyer, but his concern was that she be satisfied that her clients had a full and complete hearing. Ms. Kaufman then stated if all reasons had been expressed to her, then she felt that there had been a complete hearing. Councilman Overholt stated that was a conditional answer; Ms. Kaufman stated she had answered as well as she could. A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Overholt, Bay and Roth None Pickler The Mayor de61ared Resolution No. 83R-280 duly passed and adopted. 179: ORDINANCE NO. 4442: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4442 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 4442: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM ~dNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (82-83-13, RM-1200, south side of Orange Avenue, west of Western Avenue) 175/137/142: ORDINANCE NOS 4433 AND 4434: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance Not. 4433 and 4434 for first r~adin~. ORDINANCE NO. 4433: ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF TRANSMISSION PROJECT REVENUE BONDS BY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POWER AUTHORITY. ORDINANCE NO. 4434: ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF NOTES BY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POWER AUTHORITY. 566 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 5, 1983, 10:00 A.M. REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: The City Manager requested a Closed Session to discuss labor relations and personnel matters with 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 Bay seconded the motion. Councilman Pickler was absent. MOTION CARRIED. (10:58 a.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present with the exception of Councilman Pickier. (12:24 p.m.) RECESS - LUNCH BREAK: By general consent, the Council recessed for a lunch break. (12:25 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present with the exception of Councilman Pickler. (1:37 p.m.) 179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 82-83-29, VARIANCE NO. 3325 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application submitted by Jack H. and Charlotte A. Dick, for a change in zone from RS-10,000 to ~-3000, to construct a 10-unit condominium complex on property located at 949 North Citron Street, with the following Code waivers: (a) minimum lot area per dwelling unit, (b) maximum structural height, and (c) minimum landscaped setback. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-76, declared that the subject project be exempt from the requirement to file an Environmental Impact Report pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property for low-medium density residential land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the proposal; and that the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts due to the project; and further denied Reclassification No. 82-83-29. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-77, denied Variance No. 3325. The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Bruce Goldman, agent, and public hearing scheduled and continued from the meeting of June 7, 1983, to allow a review of revised plans by the Planning Commission and rescheduled to this date (see minutes June 7, 1983). Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, referring to the revised plans posted on the Chambers wail, briefed staff report to the Planning Commission dated June 13, 1983, which outlined the specific changes to the plan. The Planning Commission reviewed the revised plans at that hearing and recommended approval. During the meeting, the petitioner indicated willingness to build an 8-foot instead of 6-foot block wail on the west property line in response to concerns by a neighbor and also that all garages would have doors. If Council approved, she recommended that the conditions of approval be amended to include those two items. 567 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 5, 1983, 10:00 A.M. The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent. Mr. Bob Gilbert, engineer on the project, 4552 Lincoln Avenue, Cypress, stated he was present to answer any questions. The Mayor then asked to hear from anyone who wished to speak, either in favor or in opposition. Mr. Bill Jolissaint, lO01 North Citron Street, explained that his property joined on the north side of the subject property. After much deliberation and thought on the matter, they were re~dy to approve the developer's revised plan as submitted, but there were issues he would like to discuss. With the revised plan, the developer secured approximately 203 square feet per unit in addition to what they had on the old plan and the Code required 1000 square feet per unit. They had gained some square footage on the property in the recreation-leisure area. He was requesting that the Council ask and allow the developer to give them an easement of two feet on their side, which would be the south side of his property line. This would assist him in getting out of his garage and opening the door of his car. He was asking for 113 lineal feet on his side, the south side of his property, or the north side of the subject property. He talked to the developer, Mr. Goldman, who was going to own the property, who stated he had no objection giving the two feet if the Council did not object. There was also some question as to how high the fence was going to be on their side. He understood on the west side of the property there was going to be an 8-foot concrete block fence. He would like a 6-foot block fence on his side, since he did not want to cut off all the air flow. Miss Santalahti, in answer to the Mayor, explained the plan on the wall showed a 6-foot fence on all property lines. The Commission indicated a willingness to go to 8 feet on the west property line and the petitioner would perhaps address that issue. Councilman Bay then asked for clarification if Mr. Jolissaint wanted the 2-foot easement (2 feet wide by 113 feet long) from the most southerly'part of his property line, which was not a straight line but a jog, out to the street; Mr. Jolissaint confirmed that was correct. He also clarified that he was speaking only for himself and his property and he was not speaking for the neighbors. Mr. Richard Brewbaker, 943 North Citron, ~tated that he owned the property immediately to the south of the subject property. Considering the zoning on his property and what the proposed project would do to him, he did not look upon it favorably. After further discussion between staff and Council, Mr. Brewbaker then asked if he wanted to develop further downstream, would he have to have a setback on his side from the garages. Miss Santalahti answered if'the property was approved for RM-3000, he would be permitted by right when he rezoned his property to construct in a similar manner along that particular property line. 568 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 5, 1983, 10:00 A.M. Councilman Bay stated he could then put his garages butted up to the proposed garages on the line if he wanted to; Miss Santalahti stated he could do so subject to ail building codes. Mr. Brewbaker stated that was what he wanted to know. He still felt they ought to do the whole street. He also clarified for Councilman Bay that the project would not impact his driveway, but he was not pleased with having to look at garages. He also wanted to know how high they were going to be. Miss Santalahti answered that the garage height on the inside had to be at least 8 feet with a parapet of at least another 24 inches and, therefore, there would be at least a 10-foot wall on that side. The Mayor then gave Mr. Gilbert an opportunity to make his summation. Mr. Gilbert stated that they had no objection to installing an 8-foot wail on the west side of the property. Mr. Jolissaint's request was an unusual one. Their first proposal offered that two feet in exchange for his agreement to a variance on the setback for that side of the property. They redesigned the project at his request for 20-foot setbacks ail the way around, and now were asked to cut back to 18 feet. On behalf of the developers and owners, he would recommend against an easement, because they would be required to maintain that property outside the line. If Mr. Jolissaint was interested in buying that property and the City would grant the variance for the reduced setback on that side, which would entail another variance, the owners were willing to sell the property at a fair price. Mr. Bruce Goldman, principal involved in the project, explained that Mr. Joiissaint called him Friday with the proposal which they had offered to him in the original plans. He told Mr. Jolissaint he would not object to giving him the property if his partner was in agreement, but his partner had been out of town. They had even discussed the possibility of deeding the property to Mr. $olissaint if he (Jolissaint) built a fence on the property he was asking for. He was concerned over the delay that had been caused by Mr. Jolissaint. Councilman Bay maintained that the Council should not be involved in personal negotiations that should be going on between Mr. Jolissaint and the developer. He suggested that they approve the project as revised and leave open the two-foot difference between the 20-foot setback and 18-foot setback to be resolved by final negotiations between Mr. Jolissaint and the owners. Miss Santalahti suggested if the Council wished to approve the project, there could be some kind of adjustment or conditional statement that along the easterly 113 feet of the northerly property line there may be an 18-foot landscaped setback with a 6-foot block wall constructed along that portion, or the 20-foot setback as shown on the drawing. There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public hearing. 569 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 5, 1983, 10:00 A.M. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council finds that subject project will have no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact due to the approval of this negative declaration since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property for low-medium density residential land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the proposal; that the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts; and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. Councilman Pickler was absent. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Bay moved to accept the revised plans adding a qualifying statement relative to the variation of 18 feet or 20 feet on the easterlymost portion of the northerly boundary, including an 8-foot block wall along the west property line, and that all garages have doors. Before any action was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated that would mean Mr. Jolissaint and the applicant would have to get together and make the decision; Councilman Overholt stated there was nothing requiring them to do anything or to get together at all. He felt that the applicant could proceed with the 20-foot setback and not even deal Mr. Jolissaint, since there was no motivation for him to do so. He suggested that the matter be trailed.and that Mr. Jolissaint and the owner discuss the issue now. Councilman Bay trailed his motion to allow the principals an opportunity to work out a compromise. In the meantime, Mr. Goldman, having spoken with Mr. Jolissaint, stated that they had come to an agreement on the issue. They were going to deed the two feet by 113 feet of property to Mr. Jolissaint, who in turn, was going to build the required fence on that portion of the'property. Councilman Overholt asked if that would be in fee rather than easement; Mr. Goldman answered yes. A vote was then taken on the motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilman Roth, clarified as follows: Approving the revised plans as submitted subject to the following: An 8-foot block wall to be constructed along the west property line; ali garages will have doors; owner to deed 2 feet by 113 feet on the north property line to B. Jolissaint; B. Jolissaint to build the required fence on that portion of the property; there will be an 18-foot setback on the north property line. Councilman Pickler was absent. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Bay offered Resolution Nos. 83R-281 and 83R-282 for adoption, approving Reclassification No. 82-83-29 and granting Variance No. 3325, subject to interdepartmental recommendations. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 83R-281: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED. 570 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 5~ 1983~ 10:00 A.M. RESOLUTION NO. 83R-282: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 3325. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Overholt, Bay and Roth None Pickier The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 83R-281 and 83R-282 duly passed and adopted. 179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2435 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application submitted by Camping World of California, Inc., (Camping World), to retain overnight customer parking (camping) in conjunction with an existing recreational vehicle service facility on ML (proposed CR) zoned property located at 866 So. West Street. (continued from the meeting of June 21, 1983) The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-88, declared that the subject project be exempt from the requirement to file an Environmental Impact Report pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act on the basis that there will be no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact due to the approval of this negative declaration, since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property for commercial-recreational 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. 2435. The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by the applicant and public hearing scheduled and continued from the meeting of June 21, 1983, to this date. Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, explained that the Conditional Use Permit proposed a retention of overnight customer parking and camping in connection with the existing recreational vehicle (RV) sales and repair. It was denied by the Planning Commission on May 2, 1983, based on the undesirability of establishing a dual use on the property and the potential adverse impact of camping use on surrounding properties. The applicant submitted revised plans labeled Revision No. 1, posted on the Chambers wail, which showed 15 overnight RV parking spaces and 9, day-use-only RV spaces. Those spaces would be located adjacent to the Santa Ana Freeway. In addition, 98 regular customer parking spaces would be available on site. The revised plans also showed the addition of various on-site signs designating specific areas for the overnight RV parking, RV parking days only, and no overnight RV parking. Electrical hookups would be provided for the 15 overnight spaces as well as the installation of a sanitary dump station. Otherwise, the property would remain as previously developed. 571 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 5, 1983~ 10:00 A.M. The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent. Mr. Bob Break, Laitham and Watkins, 660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1400, Newport Beach, briefed letter dated July 29, 1983, previously submitted, which explained the purpose for which Camping World had applied for the CUP, clarifying the apparent misunderstandings that led to the denial of the application by the Planning Commission, and outlining the steps Camping World had taken and would take to ensure that the use contemplated under the CUP would remain only an ancillary use and not create any detriment to surrounding property owners (5-page letter with attachments, made a part of the record). Referring to the posted site plan of the property (which was also an attachment to their letter), Mr. Break noted the location of the overnight parking spaces which were located behind their building and away from the residential community across South West Street. He also pointed to the areas where directional signs would be located on the property, designating the various parking areas. As part of his presentation, Mr. Break also briefed the Council on the additional conditions they were proposing in order to safeguard surrounding property owners (see pages 3 and 4 of letter of July 29, 1983). Councilwoman Kaywood then posed questions to Mr. Break relative to the procedures followed when customers brought their RV's in for repair. She was interested in having identification (No.'s 1-15) placed inside of the vehicles for overnight customers, so that it would be immediately evident that that person was authorized to park in Camping World overnight. Mr. Ted Donnelly, Senior Vice President of Operations of Camping World, explained that they were not in the campground business and did not want to be; they wanted only to provide additional service. They watched their property very closely and they would not allow anybody to stay longer than required. He then answered questions posed by Council Members relative to the specifics of the operation. Miss Santalahti then clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood that they had not received complaints from the residential area, but at the Planning Commission hearing, there was another RV servicing facility who was specifically prohibited from overnight occupancy on their property. Camping World was permitted to establish their business at the subject location and then expand it to overnight parking, which was never addressed. They agreed it was not a permitted activity and it would have to be discussed. No residents were being impacted, assuming the overnight use had not concerned them. Councilman 0verholt expressed concern if they permitted the use at Camping World, they would he establishing a precedent. Once the door was opened, they should be prepared to entertain similar requests from other RV repair facilities. Miss Santalahti stated with the size of the parking lot, they were not encroaching into any of the required parking for the building on the property, they could have overnight spaces removed from the adjacent residential area, 572 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 5, 1983, iO:O0 A.M. and the facility was easy to find. She felt that the two features that were most favorable were the available parking and the vehicles could be placed in a way that visually they would have minimal impact on adjacent land uses. The Mayor asked if anyone was present who wished to speak in favor or in opposition to Conditional Use Permit No. 2435; there was no response. Councilman Bay stated that he could see the need of Camping World for the requested use and he did not foresee any impact; however, he was concerned, as was Councilman Overholt, relative to the precedent that would be set. He did not want to open the door for commercial parking lots to be opened to recreational vehicles. He needed advice from the City Attorney on the proper way to approve the use but placing a control on it so that it could be checked and some way they could prevent opening the door to the precedent. City Attorney Hopkins stated that the defense to that in this case was the fact that the property was adjacent to the freeway and vehicles could be parked in such a manner so as not to interfere with surrounding land uses. was possible that neighbors would object and the way to proceed might be to allow the use for a limited period. If the neighbors found it to be a problem, it might be necessary to then revoke the privilege; Councilman Bay suggested a one-year review. It The Mayor closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council finds that 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 commercial-recreation land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the proposal; that the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts; and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. Councilman Pickler was absent. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 83R-283 for adoption, reversing the findings of the Planning Commission, subject to interdepartmental recommendations, and ~ubject to the following conditions: That there be a one-year review; subject to the revised plans submitted and stipulations by the applicant in letter dated July 29, 1983; and inside-the-vehicle numbering system identifying those RV's on the premises for service. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 83R-283: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2435. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the Mayor would include the wording unique location; the Mayor was agreeable. 573 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 5, 1983, 10:00 A.M. Councilman Bay concurred relative to a unique location, because he could not think of another location he could vote for requesting the same use; Councilman Overholt agreed and he too could not think of another place in Anaheim having such a unique location for the use they were requesting. A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution, including that approval was further based on the fact that a unique location was involved. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Overholt, Bay and Roth None Pickler The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-283 duly passed and adopted. 179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2438: Application by La Palma Business Park, to permit a billboard on ML zoned property located at the northeast corner of White Star Avenue and Armando Street, with the following Code waivers: (a) maximum display area, and (b) maximum height. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-95, declared that the subject project be exempt from the requirement to file an Environmental Impact Report pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act on the basis that there will be no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact due to the approval of this negative declaration, since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property for 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. 2438. The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Robert D. Mickelson, agent, and public hearing scheduled this date. MOTION: On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilman Roth, the public hearing on Conditional Use Permit No. 2438 was continued to July 26, 1983, at 1:30 p.m., a week after the discussion on billboards which was scheduled to take place on July i9, 1983, and in accordance with letter dated June 22, 1983, from Mr. Mickelson. Councilman Pickler was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 153: APPOINTMENT OF ACTING CITY MANAGER: Councilman Bay moved to ratify the appointment of Les White, Executive Director of Administrative Services, to serve in the capacity of Acting City Manager during any temporary absence or disability of both the City Manager and the Assistant City Manager. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Councilman Pickler was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 574 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 5, 1983, 10:00 A.M. RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Councilman Pickler was absent. MOTION CARRIED. (3:58 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present with the exception of Councilman Pickler. (4:17 p.m.) ADJOURNMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to adjourn. seconded the motion~ Councilman Pickler was absent. p.m.) Councilman Overholt MOTION CARRIED. (4:18 LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK BY ASSISTANT CITY CLERK 575