1982/11/02C~t~ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 2, 1982, 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
POLICE SERGEANT: James W. Brantley
HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR: Garry O. McRae
FINANCE DIRECTOR: George P. Ferrone
PUBLIC UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER: Gordon W. Hoyt
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ronald L. Thompson
ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR--ZONING: Annika Santalahti
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
ZONING ENFORCEMENT SPECIALIST: Anthony T. Montoya
UTILITIES RATE REQUIREMENT MANAGER: Robert W. Erickson
Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: The Reverend Tom Favreau, Hotline Help Center at Melodyland, gave
the Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Irv Pickler led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Roth,
authorized by the City Council and accepted by Mr. Dean Stockwell:
Youth Appreciation Week in Anaheim, November 7-13, 1982.
119/153: PRESENTATIONS - CITY SERVICE AWARDS: Mayor Roth presented service
awards to the following employees constituting over 700 years of service to
the City of Anaheim and each employee was congratulated and thanked by all
Council Members for their dedicated service:
25 Years of Service--Streets and Sanitation: Ronald Bean; Mechanical
Maintenance: James Hunt and Francis Young; Engineering Division: James Cook
and Herman Stoffel; Library Department: William Griffith; Fire Department:
Walker Browne, Max Crowder (not present), William Horan, Thomas Keehn, Howard
Kelly (not present), David Murray, Thomas Shepler (not present), Edgar Strait,
Raymond Valles (not present; Police Department: Edward Chmiel, Richard
Davenport, Lilburn Easley, William Franklin, Martin Mitchell; Utilities Field
Division: Maynard Wolfe; Parks Division: Joseph Bruce, Ronald Cole, Andrew
Davidson, Louis Masciel, Melvin Wobken.
30 Years of Service--Utilities Field Division: Julio Acosta.
35 Years of Service--Parks Division: Dee Fee.
941
Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 2, 1982, 10:00 A.M.
The Mayor also presented City Clerk Linda Roberts with her service award on
completion of 15 years of service to the City.
MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular
meeting held September 7, 1982. Councilman Roth .seconded the motion. Motion
carried.
Councilwoman Kaywood submitted two documents which were not submitted to the
City Clerk at the August 31, 1982 meeting when the property tax rate was
discussed, the first document, Argument in Favor of Proposition C--November 4,
1980 election, and the second, August 31, 1982, Deadline for Tax Rate.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Bay moved to waive
the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda, after
reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to waiver is
hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the title,
specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such
ordinances or resolutions in regular order. Councilman Roth seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $1,824,638.87, 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 furnished each
Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Councilman Pickler
offered Resolution Nos. 82R-525 through 82R-530, both inclusive, for
adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
1. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as
recommended:
A. Claims denied and referred to Risk Management:
1. Claim submitted by Risk Management, Inc., Jerry's Market, Insured, for
loss of merchandise purportedly sustained due to improperly maintained
transformers at 1150 North East Street, on or about July 10, 1982.
2. Claim submitted by Dale Winterberg for personal property damages
purportedly sustained due to high voltage caused by improper electrical
terminal installation at 115 South Melinda Drive, on or about September 6,
1982.
3. Claim submitted by Shirley G. Davis for personal injuries purportedly
sustained due to a slip-and-fall accident caused by unprotected sidewalk
construction at 1641 South Westchester Drive, on or about September 26,
1982.
4. Claim submitted by Anna D. Rogers for personal injuries purportedly
sustained due to a trip-and-fall accident caused by a lump of cement or
blacktop in the alley between Pine and Janss, on or about August 9, 1982.
942
City Hull, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES.- ~ovem~r 2, 1982, 10:00 A.M.
5. Claim submitted by M. and P. Hanafi, on behalf of their daughter Na
Cim, a minor, for personal injuries purportedly sustained due to child
hitting a pot hole while riding her bicycle in front of 6028 Camino
Manzano, on or about September 15, 1982.
6. Claim submitted by Victoria Ann Dickenson (a minor) by Jody Dickenson
(parent) for personal injuries to minor purportedly sustained due to
electrical cables on the floor of the arena at the Convention Center
during a Circus performance, on or about August 15, 1982.
B. Claim denied and referred to Governmental Programs Division, Markel
Service, Inc:
7. Claim submitted by Calvin Wallace Hong for personal injuries
purportedly sustained due to actions of Anaheim Police officers during the
course of a burglary investigation at 928 South Fann Street, on or about
July 6, 1982.
C. Claims allowed payment:
8. Claim submitted by Dog Dealers, Inc., for personal property damages
purportedly sustained when a City truck backed into claimant's truck in a
left turn lane on La Palma Avenue and Whittier, on or about September 17,
1982. ($456.55)
9. Claim submitted by Finis McGee McLean for personal property damages
purportedly sustained due to a nail drilled into the street next to the
curb at 2104 Dogwood Avenue by City workers, on or about September 25,
1982. ($192.72)
10. Claim submitted by Charles G. fox for personal property damages
purportedly sustained due to a 2 1/4-inch bolt embedded 11 inches from
curb that punctured claimant's right front tire on Fairview between La
Palma and Dogwood, on or about September 22, 1982. ($152.88)
The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 140: Public Library--Monthly Statistical Summary for September 1982.
b. 105: Public Library Board--Minutes of September 15, 1982.
c. 105: Community Center Authority--Minutes of October 11, 1982.
d. 105: Golf Course Advisory Commission--Minutes of October 21, 1982.
e. 114: City,of Stanton Resolution 82-72, Supporting the Passage of a
Weight-Distance Tax in the State of California.
3. 108: The following applications were approved in accordance with the
recommendations of the Chief of Police:
943
Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 2, 1982, 10:00 A.M.
a. Dinner Dancing Place Permit, Sun Cha Roberts, Sundna's Place, 309
North Manchester Avenue, to permit dancing on Wednesday, Friday, and
Saturday, 9:00 p.m. to 1:30 a.m.
b. Private Patrol Application, Stanley Eugene Higgins, Higgins Security,
Inc., to provide armed physical security, walking and patroling guards
within the City.
4. 123/125: Authorizing the Data Processing Director to enter into a
supplement to the agreement with International Business Machines (IBM) for the
converting of financing of existing computer terminals/printers, in an amount
of approximately $120,000.
5. 128: Receiving and filing the Monthly Financial Analysis for the
two-month period ending August 31, 1982.
6. 123: Authorizing an agreement with Wesseln Construction Co., Inc., to
provide four units of affordable rental housing at 141 South Dale Avenue for
persons or families of low- and moderate-income for a period of five years.
7. 123: Authorizing an agreement with Health Examinetics, Inc., to conduct
multiphasic medical examinations on certain Utility and Parkway Maintenance
employees at a cost of $89.50 per employee tested.
8. 153: Authorizing the Human Resources Department to solicit proposals for
temporary help services and to implement the fourth year of the outside agency
temporary help program.
9. 123/153: Authorizing an agreement with Biddle and Associates, Inc., in
the amount of $5,500 to develop a validated psychological evaluation process
for use in the selection of jailers, to be generally completed by November 30,
1982.
10. 150: Continuing the award of Boysen Park Phase II Irrigation
Improvements, Account No. 16-814-7103-1402C, to November 9, 1982.
11. 140: Continuing the award of Central Library Heating, Ventilating and Air
Conditioning, Account No. 75-252-7121, to November 9, 1982.
153: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-525: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 82R-506, NUNC PRO TUNC, WHICH ESTABLISHED
RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR CLASSES DESIGNATED AS SUPPORT AND SUPERVISORY
MANAGEMENT, BY CORRECTING THE SALARY SCHEDULE AND PREFIX FOR CERTAIN
CLASSIFICATIONS. (Facility Maintenance and Utilities Warehouse Supervisors)
156: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-526: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO CONDUCT AN AUCTION OF UNCLAIMED
PROPERTY ON NOVEMBER 20, 1982. (9:00 a.m. at 425 South Harbor Boulevard, and
in the event of inclement weather, conduct said auction on November 27, 1982,
9:00 a.m.)
944
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 2, 1982, 10:00 A.M.
Directing the City Clerk to publish a legal notice of said auction and of the
City's intent to transfer certain unclaimed property to the Purchasing
Division for City use.
164: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-527: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF WATER IMPROVEMENTS ON WEIR
CANYON ROAD FROM SOUTHERLY OF LA PALMA AVENUE TO THE RIVERSIDE FREEWAY
NORTHERLY OFF RAMP, ACCOUNT NOS. 54-605-6329-17160-34350 AND
54-605-6329-17150-34350. (Macco Constructors, Inc., $169,502)
164: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-528: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE WALNUT CANYON SEWER RECONSTRUCTION,
ANAHEIM HILLS GOLF COURSE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO.
43-790-6325-E0440. (Gillespie Construction, $38,780)
123: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-529: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE CENTRAL MECHANICAL MAINTENANCE FACILITY,
IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 72-721-6325. (J. A. Stewart Construction
Company, $3,299,992, contingent upon the sale of Certificates of Participation)
158: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-530: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (American
Medicorp Development Company; Lease All - La Palma; Lease All - La Palma;
Lease All - La Palma; Ryder Truck Lines, Inc.)
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. 82R-525 through 82R-530,
both inclusive, duly passed and adopted.
123: EXTENSION OF CURRENT SERVICE FUNDING PERIOD OF PERS CONTRACT: City
Manager Talley briefed the Council on memorandum dated October 25, 1982, from
the Human Resources Director, recommending the extension of the subject
funding to June 30, 2011. Mayor Roth then posed questions relative to the
effect such an extension would have, which were answered by Mr. McRae and City
Manager Talley.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 82R-531 for adoption, requesting the
Public Employees' Retirement System to extend the funding period for current
service, death benefits, and 1959 survivor benefit actuarial liabilities to
June 30, 2011. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 82R-531: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM REQUESTING THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM TO EXTEND THE
FUNDING PERIOD FOR CURRENT SERVICE, DEATH BENEFITS, AND 1959 SURVIVOR BENEFIT
ACTUARIAL LIABILITIES FOR THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
945
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 2, 1982, 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. 82R-531 duly passed and adopted.
123/128: SALE OF CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION IN ~H~ AMQUNT QF $10,290,000
FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS, AND AGREEMENTS WITH ANAHEIM STADIUM INC.,
FIRST INTERSTATE BANK OF CALIFORNIA, MERRILL LYNCH WHITE WELD CAPITAL MARKETS
GROUP, AND ASSIGNMENT OF LEASE BY AND BETWEEN NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER
CORPORATION AND THE CITY: City Manager William Talley explained that as they
were almost ready to recommend that Council authorize the issuance of the
Certificates, it was brought to their attention that the way in which they
were going to do so would place ownership outside of a public agency, which
could potentially expose the City to possessory interest charges. Therefore,
in order to avoid that, the two ways thought to be most feasible was either to
create a new non-profit corporation or amend the Articles of Incorporation of
the current non-profit corporation within the City. The City opted for the
latter and in discussions with the City of Anaheim Stadium, Inc. (ASI), they
agreed to amend their by-laws to allow them to be the vehicle the Certificates
could be issued through, and thereby save upwards of $1 million in taxes that
the City would otherwise have to pay. Therefore, the first action being
recommended would be to adopt a motion, as outlined in memorandum dated
November 1, 1982, from the City Attorney, regarding the amendment to the
Articles of Incorporation adopted by ASI on October 28, 1982.
City Attorney William Hopkins stated that the City Council had the privilege
of approving any amendments to the ASI by-laws. In this case, they would be
waiving those rights to such approval because of the fact that it would be in
the interest of the City. He recommended that the motion be adopted waiving
that privilege. There was no change in liability.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the amendment to Article Second
of the Articles of Incorporation of City of Anaheim (California) Stadium, Inc.
("ASI"), adopted by ASI on October 28, 1982, and expressly waiving the 30-day
period within which the City may disapprove the amendment, pursuant to Article
Seventh of the ASI Articles of Incorporation. Councilman Overholt seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution Nos. 82R-532 and 82R-533 for adoption, the
first authorizing execution of the following lease agreement, trust agreement,
Agency agreement, assignment of lease and purchase agreement: Lease agreement
relating to capital improvements by and between Stadium Inc., as lessor and
the City as lessee, dated as of November 1, 1982; Trust Agreement relating to
capital improvements by and among First Interstate Bank of California, as
trustee, Stadium, Inc., and the City, dated as of November 1, 1982; Agency
agreement relating to acquisition, construction and installation of capital
improvements, by and between Stadium, Inc., and the City, dated as of
946
City Hall, ~An~he.im.,. ~a~ifo~n~a--C~UNCIL MINUTES - November 2, 1982, 10:00 A.M.
November 1, 1982; Assignment of lease, by and between National Railroad
Passenger Corporation and the City dated as of November 1, 1982; Purchase
agreement relating to the Certificates of Participation evidencing a
proportionate interest of the holders thereof in lease payments to be made by
the City to the Stadium, Inc., by and among Merrill Lynch White Weld Capital
Markets Group and First Interstate Bank of California, Los Angeles,
California, as Trustee, and the City, dated November 2, 1982; and the Second,
approving and authorizing execution of Bill of Sale to Stadium Inc.,
pertaining to collator and truck loader. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 82R-532: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF LEASE AGREEMENT, TRUST
AGREEMENT, AGENCY AGREEMENT, ASSIGNMENT OF LEASE AND PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND
AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING CERTAIN ACTIONS WITH RESPECT THERETO.
101: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-533: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF BILL OF SALE PERTAINING TO
COLLATOR AND TRUCK LOADER.
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. 82R-532 and 533 duly passed and adopted.
Before concluding, Finance Director George Ferrone highlighted the results of
the negotiation that took place yesterday relative to the subject
Certificates of Participation issue. They had distributed to the Council
today two documents, the Sales Agreement and the Preliminary Official
Statement that were received today, representing the finalization of the
negotiations that started yesterday at 6:00 a.m. He was pleased to advise
that their negotiations resulted in dropping the issue size from $10,815,000
to $10,290,000, which was reflected in the new Official Statement. The net
interest coBt on the transaction was 10.O3 percent and once again, Anaheim
had beaten the competitive market place across the country. Mr. Bob
McDonald, their financial advisor, was present to explain the status of the
negotiation ~nd ex~otly wh~t h~d t~ken pl~oe.
Mr. Bob McDonald, President, James J. Lowrey and Company, financial advisors
to the City, then explained what had taken place the previous day during the
negotiations and the beneficial effect of the City's rating having been
upgraded by Moody's to a AA rating, approximately two months prior.
175: AMENDING THE RATES, RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION
OF ELECTRIC ENERGY: Public Utilities General Manager Gordon Hoyt first
informed the Council of corrections that had to be made in material already
submitted to the Council, which changes were explained in his memorandum
dated November 2, 1982 (on file in the City Clerk's office). The changes,
however, did not affect the application.
947
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 2, 1982, 10:00 A.M.
Mr. Hoyt then explained that a public hearing was held at the Public
Utilities Bo@rd (PUB) meeting on October 21, 1982, where the Board considered
their application for an increase in rates. At that meeting, the Board
recommended that the rates be approved (see report dated October 26, 1982, to
the City Manager/City Council from the Secretary of the Public Utilities
Board, wherein the recommendation was made and discussed extensively. Also
included with the report was backup documentation, copies of the proposed
resolutions, electric rates, rules and regulations, and a transcript of the
entire proceedings of the October 21, 1982 public hearing. Also submitted
previously was data entitled--City of Anaheim, California, Public Utilities
Department, Proposed Electric Rate Increase--Prepared Testimony and Exhibits
to be Presented before the Public Utilities Board, dated October 1982. All
documentation on file in the City Clerk's office).
Mr. Hoyt stated that there were basicalIy three reasons for increasing the
rates: (1) the increasing cost of purchased power from the Southern
California Edison (SCE) Company; (2) the imminent operation of San Onofre
Nuclear Generating Stations (SONGS) Unit 2--they were proposing to change the
Energy Cost Adjustment (ECA) to a Power Cost Adjustment (PCA) and (3) the
proceedings were designed to meet the requirements of the Public Utilities
Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, regarding consideration of certain standards
for electric utilities. In essence, the Step One increase which they
proposed to be effective tomorrow, November 3, 1982, would produce an
additional $6.3 million, an overall increase including the base rate increase
and the PCA decrease of 8.7 percent. The Step Two increase which they
proposed be made effective on the date when SONGS Unit 2 went into commercial
operation and SCE began charging the City the Step Two wholesale rate
increase would produce $4.8 million, an overall increase of 11.8 percent.
They were currently estimating that would go into effect on April 1, 1983.
They concurred in the recommendation of the Public Utilities Board that the
two resolutions proposed, increasing electric rates, be adopted.
Mayor Roth then posed questions relative to figures contained in Table I
(page three of the October 26, 1982 recommendation from the PUB),
specifically the 11.1 percent increase reflected for residential, which was
larger than that of all other classes, except street lighting rates: the
Mayor's questions were answered by Mr. Robert Erickson, Rates Requirements
Manager.
Mayor Roth then expressed his concern that with the proposed Step One
increase to be effective on November 3, 1982, Anaheim's electric rates would
be 7 'to 7.5 percent above Southern California Edison's rates for the next two
months. They had been promising Anaheim's citizens that by the City owning
its own utility, their cost of service would be considerably less. He found
it alarming, therefore, that rates would be above Edison's and even more
alarming was the fact that the Step Two increase, to be effective in April
1983, would bring another 10 percent increase.
948
C~t~ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 2, 1982, 10:00 A.M.
Mr. Hoyt stated it was an unhappy situation, but he did not feel that it was
anything to be alarmed at. From time to time, until their power supply
situation was up and running and in operation, they were going to find
themselves in situations as in the past where for a couple of months, because
of the difference in timing of increases between the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the California Public Utilities Commission,
the rates for the City would take effect before taking effect for the
California retail customers. However, on January 1, residential rates would
be nearly 9 percent under Southern California Edison and in April, when Unit
2 became operational and Edison included those costs in its rates, and the
City did the same, the City's rates would then be 5.6 percent under Edison's
and remain there until something happened in the future.
Mayor Roth countered, however, that Mr. Hoyt's statement was only based on
the idea that the Public Utilities Commission was going to grant some
increase to Southern California Edison in January; Mr. Hoyt stated that was
correct. It was their best estimate of what would happen.
Councilman Bay asked for an explanation as to why rates would have to
increase when SONGS went on-line. They told the voters they were investing
in that nuclear energy plant, and as soon as it was operational, rates would
be going down.
Mr. Hoyt explained that while the plant was under construction by SCE, it was
not allowed in the rate base. It was construction work in progress and they
did not earn money on that. When the plant went into commercial operation,
Edison was then allowed, just as any utility subject to the PUC or the FERC,
to put that into the rate base.
Councilman Bay asked if the City were not involved in San Onofre, would the
normal supply of electrical power that they purchased, whether oil, gas or
nuclear increase twice as much; Mr. Hoyt stated, if they were not involved,
it would escalate approximately another $385,000 a month.
Further discussion followed on the proposed rate change wherein additional
questions were posed by Council Members, which were answered by both Mr. Hoyt
and Mr. Erickson. Mr. Hoyt further clarified for the Mayor that several of
the items, specifically lifeline rates, would be a topic to be considered by
the ad hoc Committee in the coming months.
Mayor Roth then noted that the second proposed resolution was asking for
authority to be given to the Public Utilities General Manager to define and
set the effective date of the Step 2 increase. He did not feel the
responsibility should be taken away from the elected officials, because there
would perhaps be citizens who would want to speak on the issue.
Mr. Hoyt explained it was done that way because there was some uncertainty
when and how SCE was going to inform them that they were going to set the
rates. The public hearing, which was advertised and held before the Public
Utilities Board on October 21, 1982, dealt with the two phases, and they were
very clear about that issue.
949
Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 2, 1982, 10:00 A.M.
Mayor Roth reiterated the authority should be in the hands of the Council.
He was concerned and could not support that resolution.
Councilman Overholt stated the only unknown was when Edison was going to
implement the Step 2 wholesale rate increase, which was tied into San Onofre
in some way. Mr. Hoyt was asking for authority impose the Step 2 increase at
the most optimum point for the City's rate payers. After further discussion
with Mr. Hoyt on the issue, he asked if Council were to approve the
imposition of the Step 2 increase when Edison implemented their Step 2
wholesale rates, would that still leave him an opportunity to negotiate with
Edison as to when its rates would go into effect.
Mr. Hoyt answered, it may, although he had no problem in saying that a Step 2
increase would take effect the same day as Southern California Edison put
their new rates into effect. A unanimous action by the Council would be more
acceptable than any other action. He also confirmed for Mayor Roth that the
modification of the Energy Cost Adjustment to a Power Cost Adjustment
broadened the authority he had at present, only because it added to it costs
of the oncoming units. It involved different kinds of variable costs only,
and not fixed costs.
The Mayor asked if anyone was present who would like to speak to the proposed
increases in electric rates; no one wished to speak.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 82R-534 for adoption, amending the
rates, rules and regulations for the sale and distribution of electric energy
as adopted by Resolution No. 71R-478 and most recently amended by Resolution
No. 82R-371, to become effective November 3, 1982 as Step 1 increase. Refer
to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 82R-534: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING THE RATES, RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE SALE AND
DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRIC ENERGY AS ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.
71R-478 AND MOST RECENTLY AMENDED BY CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 82R-371.
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. 82R-534 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 82R-535 for adoption, but amended
as follows: amending the rates, rules and regulations for the sale and
distribution of electric energy as adopted by Resolution No. 71R-478 and most
recently amended by the Step 1 increase, effective November 3, 1982, and the
effective date of the Step 2 increase will be the same day that Southern
California Edison begins charging their Step 2 wholesale rate. Refer to
Resolution Book.
950
City Ha~!,L~naheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November .2, 1982., 10:00 A.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 82R-535: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING THE RATES, RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE SALE AND
DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRIC ENERGY AS ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.
71R-478 AND MOST RECENTLY AMENDED TO IMPLEMENT THE STEP 1 ELECTRIC RATE
INCREASE WHICH WILL BECOME EFFECTIVE NOVEMBER 3, 1982.
Roll Call Vote:
AYE S:
NOES':
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 82R-535 duly passed and adopted.
123: SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH ALDERMAN, SWIFT AND LEWIS -
CONSULTING ENGINEERING SERVICES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the
Second Amendment to an agreement with Alderman, Swift and Lewis for
consulting engineering services in connection with the 36-inch transmission
main in Santa Ana Canyon Road between Mohler Drive and Weir Canyon Road, for
additional design work, increasing the fee to $13,750, as recommended in
memorandum dated October 26, 1982, from the Public Utilities Board.
Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
123: LETTER AGREEMENT WITH CONVERSE CONSULTANTS - TEST BORINGS FOR SOIL
INVESTIGATION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve a letter agreement with
Converse Consultants Geotechnical Consultants in the amount of $2,100, to
perform test borings for soil investigation for 69 KV pole foundations and to
prepare a soils report for the Yorba-Fairmont #2 69 KV line, and authorizing
the Public Utilities General Manager to execute same, as recommended in
memorandum dated October 26, 1982, from the Public Utilities Board.
Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: The City Manager requested a Closed Session to
discuss labor relations and personnel matters with action anticipated, and
the City Attorney requested a Closed Session to discuss litigation and
potential litigation with possible action anticipated.
Councilman Bay moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilman Roth seconded
the motion, noting that the Council would then reeonvene at 1:30 p.m. for
public hearings. MOTION CARRIED. (11:55 a.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order; all Council Members
being present. (2:05 p.m.)
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 82-83-2 AND VARIANCE NO.
3283; AND VARIANCE NO. 3282: Reclassification No. 82-83-2 and Variance No.
3283, petitions submitted by Pablo V. and Laura Knowlton Dominguez, for a
change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to CL, to permit two canopy signs on property
located at 1200 South State College Boulevard, with the following Code
waivers of (a) maximum number of freestanding signs and (b) minimum distance
between freestanding signs.
951
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 2, 1982, 10:00 A.M.
Variance No. 3282, petition submitted by Shell Oil Company, to retain two
canopy signs on C-R zoned property located at 601 West Ball Road, with the
following Code waivers: (a) maximum number of freestanding signs and (b)
minimum distance between freestanding signs.
On the first petitions (Reclassification No. 82-83-2 and Variance No. 3283),
the City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC82-156, 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 impacts 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 Reclassification No. 82-83-2, subject to the following
conditions:
1. That appropriate water assessment fees as determined by the Office of
Utilities General Manager shall be paid to the City of Anaheim prior to
adoption of an ordinance rezoning subject property.
2. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim a
fee, in an amount as determined by the City Council, for tree planting
purposes along Ball Road and State College Boulevard.
3. 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.
4. That prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject property,
Condition Nos. 1 and 2, above-mentioned, shall be completed. The provisions
or rights granted by this resolution shall become null and void by action of
the Planning Commission unless said conditions are complied with within one
year from the date hereof, or such further time as the Planning Commission may
grant.
5. That Condition No. 3, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to
final building and zoning inspections.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC82-157, granted
Variance No. 3283, subject to the following conditions:
1. That this Variance is granted subject to the completion of
Reclassification No. 82-83-2, now pending.
2. 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.
952
C~hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 2.,.J~2, 10:00 A.M.
On the second petition (Variance No. 3282), the City Planning Commission,
pursuant to Resolution No. PC82-155, reported that the Planning Director had
determined that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section
3.01, Class 11, 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, and further, granted Variance No. 3282, subject to
the following conditions.
1. That appropriate water assessment fees as determined by the Office of
Utilities General Manager shall be paid to the City of Anaheim.
2. That plans for the existing canopy signs shall be submitted to the
Building Department to show compliance with all applicable City Codes.
Permits shall be obtained as required.
3. 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.
4. That Condition Nos. 1, 2 and 3, above-mentioned, shall be completed within
a period of sixty (60) days from the date herein.
A review of the Planning Commission's actions on the petitions was requested
by Councilman Pickler at the meeting of August 31, 1982, and public hearings
scheduled and continued from October 5 and 12, 1982, to this date.
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
Mr. Decosta Lindsay, engineer for Shell Oil Company, explained that they were
requesting to be able to continue with the Shell standard sign above their new
service station. The sign was actually a cut out metal canopy and they
considered it a directional sign, because it notified the public the station
was self-serve and open 24 hours a day. It was a sign they installed all over
the United States. They never considered it a sign previously, because it was
an integral part of the structure.
Councilman Pickler stated his main reason in asking for a hearing was due to
the fact that the City had a Code in effect relative to signing. That the
station was self-serve was self-explanatory by the signs at the front of the
building. If they were going to allow the additional signs, they should
change the Code so that all stations could do the same thing. Staff felt the
signs they had were adequate and he did as well. He maintained that the
applicant should comply with Code.
Mayor Roth felt that the two corners involved were areas of high visibility.
Two old gas stations were replaced with modern stations, improving the overall
total appearance. He, therefore, had no problem with the subject requests for
variance, because the final outcome did not detract from, but enhanced those
corners.
953
.Ci.ty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 2, 1982, 10:00 A.M.
Discussion and questioning then followed between Council and staff relative to
the interpretation of a free-standing sign, as discussed in a staff report
dated September 28, 1982, to the City Manager/City Council, from the Planning
Department/Zoning Division. Signs placed on the pump island canopies were not
specifically addressed in the Code and were, therefore, categorized by staff
as additional free-standing signs. However, the Planning Commission granted
the variance requests on the basis that they felt the pump island canopy signs
did not constitute free-standing signs, but could be classified as wall or
directional-type signs.
Councilman Bay stated that variance requests were treated individually and the
Planning Commission, in this case, ruled for the variance on the two subject
stations. The City did have control through the variance process, and the
alternative of changing the whole Code for two Shell stations was not
practical. They should either sustain or deny the Planning Commission's
ruling that these were reasonable variances, while not saying that it was open
to everybody else. If others wanted a variance, they were subject to the
variance process and each would be handled on an individual basis.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak, either in favor or in opposition;
there being no response, he asked Mr. Lindsay to make his summation.
Mr. Lindsay stated that they had eight to ten stations in Anaheim, and they
did not have any signs on the corner or sidewalk. In the last five years,
they had been working closely with staff and removed all excess signage, as
mentioned in the foregoing discussion. They always considered the sign on the
canopy as meeting the Code, and it was not considered as a free-standing
sign. He requested approval of the variances.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION (RECLASSIFICATION NO.
82-83-2 AND VARIANCE NO. 3283): 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 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.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION (VARIANCE NO. 3282): On
motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council
ratified the determination of the Planning Director that the proposed activity
falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 11, 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.
954
qi~ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 2, 198~,. 19i0~.~.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 82R-536 for adoption, approving
Reclassification No. 82-83-2. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 82R-536: 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. (82-83-2, CL)
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. 82R-536 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Pickler offered resolutions denying Variance Nos. 3283 and 3282,
reversing the findings of the City Planning Commission.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay stated if the Council passed both of
the resolutions for the variances, they would be sustaining staff's definition
of a free-standing sign, and their definition should be sustained the way the
Code was presently written. As well, the Planning Commission's decision on
the variances, treating them as two individual cases, should be sustained. He
was speaking against denying both of the variances on that basis, and the fact
that if the staff felt they had further problems, once the Council sustained
or did not sustain their definition, that they were more apt to change the
Code if the Council did not sustain their definition. If sustained, the
problem would be one treated by variance as it came through the process.
The resolutions offered by Councilman Pickler to deny Variance No. 3283 and
Variance No. 3282 failed to carry by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Overholt, Bay and Roth
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
Councilman Bay offered Resolution Nos. 82R-537 and 82R-538 for adoption,
granting Variance No. 3283 and Variance No. 3282, respectively, subject to the
conditions imposed by the Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 82R-537: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 3283.
RESOLUTION NO. 82R-538: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 3282.
955
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 2, 1982, 10:00 A.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Overholt, Bay and Roth
Pickler
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 82R-537 and 82R-538 duly passed and adopted.
120: PUBLIC HEARING - PUBLIC NUISANCE - 949 NORTH MOHICAN AVENUE: To
determine the existence of a public nuisance at 949 North Mohican Avenue, and
to abate in whole or part, Mr. and Mrs. Arthur Neiswanger, owners. A report
was submitted by the Planning Department dated July 28, 1982.
The Mayor asked to hear from the Neiswangers or their representative.
Ms. Darilyn Wallner, 631 South Brookhurst, Suite 104, Attorney representing
Mr. and Mrs. Arthur Neiswanger, asked first to hear from the Planning
Department.
Mr. Anthony Montoya, Housing Code Enforcement Officer, reported that he-made a
reinvestigation and reinspection of the subject property and the vehicle
parked on the front lawn was still in existence and photographs taken
confirming same. (The photographs were shown to the Council.) The parking of
the motor home on the front lawn had ceased, but the station wagon was still
parked on the lawn. The wagon belonged to the Neiswangers, and the motor home
belonged to the Lauders (Mrs. Lauder was Mrs. Neiswanger's daughter).
Ms. Wallner then relayed the following information: Mr. and Mrs. Neiswanger
were approaching 91 years of age (they were present in the Chambers
audience). They lived at the subject address and did park the car by their
front door. The reason they did so was because of Mrs. Neiswanger's health
and Mr. Neiswanger's inability to assist her in case she were to fall.
Because of repeated surgeries and treatments for cancer, Mr. Neiswanger was
unable to lift or push. They lived alone and wanted to take care of
themselves and their home, the only problem being when they wanted to go to
church, attend family functions, or visit the doctor, they had to use the
family car, which was still being driven by Mr. Neiswanger and in so doing,
they developed a system. Ms. Wallner then explained how Mr. Neiswanger
assisted his wife out their front door, down the steps and into the car, only
by its being parked by the front door. When they first started receiving
notices from the City, Mr. Neiswanger parked his car in the street, where it
was vandalized. Ms. Wallner then referred to the applicable Code section and
explained that the car was not being stored on the front lawn, but parked like
any other car. She then introduced a close neighbor of the Neiswangers to
speak to the Code section referring to depreciation of nearby property values.
Evelyn Kuntz, 954 Mohican, stated that the car parked on the front lawn had no
effect whatsoever. The Neiswangers took care of themselves and were
self-sufficient. The car was parked by the front door for easy access and
there was no way they could park in their garage.
956
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 2, 1982, 10:00 A.M.
Ms. Wallner then answered questions posed by Councilman Bay, during which she
explained that Mr. Neiswanger took care of his property himself, and was in
the process of fixing a leaking roof and had installed scaffolding which he
dismantled when he started receiving notices from the City, thinking that the
scaffolding might also be objectionable. She asked if the scaffolding was
part of the complaint; Mr. Montoya answered that the scaffolding was not an
issue in the matter.
Councilman Pickler stated it seemed Mr. Neiswanger could get around very well,
and if that were so, why was it not possible when they were ready to use the
car for him to drive the car to the point of pickup, thereby eliminating the
problem of parking on the lawn.
Ms. Wallner stated it would involve more walking for Mr. Neiswanger, and if
parked on the street, the car would again be subject to vandalism. She felt
that Councilman Pickler was saying that the Code would not be violated if Mr.
Neiswanger drove on the lawn to pick up his wife. However, a time period
would be involved and that period should be defined.
City Attorney William Hopkins stated the violation specified, "Motor vehicles,
trailers, campers, boats or other mobile equipment parked on lawns or yards."
That was the specific charge they were dealing with, not storing, and parking
would be leaving it there for an extended period of time, not just picking
someone up at the front door.
Councilman Bay questioned Ms. Wallner relative to the double garage. One
garage was converted, but there was a double garage built in the back of the
house. He wanted to know why the ear could not be parked in the garage.
Ms. Wallner, after conversing with the Neiswangers, stated that apparently the
distance from the garage to the house would be prohibitive for Mr. Neiswanger,
worse than going to the driveway or the street.
Mayor Roth asked if anyone wished to speak on the determination of the
existence of a public nuisance at 949 North Mohican; there being no response,
he closed the public hearing.
Councilman Bay stated that the testimony revealed extensive physical activity
by Mr. Neiswanger. The hearing today was to determine whether the only way
the Council could get action was to declare a public nuisance, giving them the
legal right to take steps. He did not believe that was going to be necessary,
since he felt there were other solutions, nor did he believe it would be a
violation of the Nuisance law to drive a car up to a front door on a temporary
basis due to the physical condition of the people involved, if done on a
sporadic basis. Due to Mr. Neiswanger's physical ability, he felt the car
could be parked in the street, garage or driveway, which would solve the
problem.
Mrs. Nancy Lauder, daughter, then spoke in answer to questions posed to Ms.
Wallner by Councilman Overholt. She stated that there was space for a car in
the garage. Further, Mr. Montoya was aware of the problem involved and the
957
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 2~ 1982, 10:00 A.M.
fact that the Neiswangers were very upset, and Mrs. Neiswanger became ill
after Mr. Montoya suggested that she had people living in the garage. She
felt the situation was unconscionable on the part of the City. She then
stated, in answer to Councilman Bay, that she did not answer any of the
notices sent to the Neiswangers, because they belonged to the Neiswangers.
Discussion then followed between Council, staff and Ms.' Wallner relative to
possible alternatives to solve the dilemma, such as a paved driveway in front
of the step area where the Neiswangers entered the house and where the car was
presently parked, with approaches cut into the driveway; Ms. Wallner
emphasized that the cost of curb cutting and poured cement was prohibitive and
suggested instead a gravel driveway.
The City Attorney pointed out that gravel driveways were not permitted and it
would have to be a paved surface of some kind; Councilman Overholt recalled
that when Mr. Lauder was present at the meeting of October 26, 1982, regarding
a similar public nuisance, they discussed a gravel driveway.
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Planning Director--Zoning, stated that at that
time they indicated if the driveway were gravel, it would have to be
maintained in that manner. It could not be gravel and then allowed to sit for
two years with weeds in it. The resolution adopted at the meeting of
October 26, 1982, read that it be either paved or graveled and maintained as a
driveway.
Councilman Overholt then asked if the Neiswangers installed gravel surface
outside their front door and maintained it, would that avoid the finding that
there was a nuisance; Miss Santalahti felt that it would, but the only point
not clear was whether a new driveway cut was needed and, if so, it would have
to be done by permit.
Ms, Wallner felt that the present driveway was adequate, and the way the
Neiswangers were getting into the front yard would not necessitate the cutting
of the curb.
City Attorney Hopkins then stated, in answer to Councilman Overholt, that the
City Engineer would have to make a determination as to what would be the
proper consistency and maintenance of a driveway. It may be that they could
work something out that would be satisfactory to Engineering.
Councilman Bay was of the opinion if they could solve the car being parked on
the front lawn continually and yet still have the pickup capabilities, he did
not know why they needed to redesign a driveway or anything else, since there
would be no violation. After further discussion, Councilman Bay maintained
before the matter could be settled, there would have to be some agreement from
Ms. Wallner and her clients that one of the alternatives discussed would be
taken, i.e., park the vehicle in the garage or on the street or some type of
permanent driveway. Otherwise, they would have to declare a public nuisance
which would have to be abated in 30 days; Ms. Wallner stated she would have to
consult with her clients before she could stipulate to anything.
958
Cit~ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 2, 1982, 10:00 A.M.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for five minutes (3:32 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (3:37 p.m.)
Ms. Wallner, having spoken to her clients, stated that to park the car in the
garage would not be a feasible alternative in an emergency situation due to
the Neiswangers' advanced age. They were agreeable to the alternative of
creating a gravel driveway on their lawn with no curb cuts, since they would
be utilizing the same routes they were using at present, which she again
described.
City Attorney Hopkins clarified that the City Engineer informed him that the
apron of the driveway must be of paved concrete or some approved material,
i.e., that portion in the City's right-of-way.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved that the public hearing be continued to
November 30, 1982, 1:30 p.m., and during that approximate 30-day period, the
applicants and their attorney provide plans and specifications on how the
alternative proposed, a gravel driveway with a paved apron on the City
right-of-way, would be accomplished, and that alternative to be first approved
by the Planning Division and the Engineering Division. Councilman Overholt
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2373: Application submitted by
Iberham Ali Ara, to permit a convenience market with gasoline sales on CL
zoned property located at 1725 South Brookhurst Street.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC82-186, declared
that the subject project be exempt from the requirement to prepare an
environmental impact report pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act, since there would be no significant individual or
cumulative adverse environmental impact due to the approval of 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 due to this project, and further, denied
Conditional Use Permit No. 2373.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by the agent for the
applicant, and public hearing scheduled this date.
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
Mr. A1 Serrato, agent for the applicant, explained that they were proposing to
expand a 1,000-square foot existing service station building by an additional
1,625 square feet, for a total of 2,625 square feet, and to expand the retail
activity to include a convenience market. He then outlined several of the
959
City~.Hall,. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 2, 1982, 10:00 A.M.
major reasons for expansion, during which he also submitted photos of the
existing station on the property, as well as photos of what the site would
look like after they completed the expansion. He also showed an artist's
rendering of the station as it would look after a major remodeling improvement
of the site, which would cost in excess of $150,000.
Working from a posted plan of the site, Mr. Serrato then described the present
traffic pattern through the station premises facilitated by three driveways
facing Brookhurst, the middle driveway being the area of contention. On their
request, Conditions 9 and 10, No. 9 referred to two existing 30-foot wide
driveways, and No. 10 was a 3-foot wide landscaped planter. If they installed
a landscaped planter in front, there would be no way for the cars to exit, and
if they raised the curb on the middle driveway, leaving the two remaining end
driveways, that would again cause a major problem for people exiting and
entering the station. At the Planning Commission meeting of October 4, 1982,
they expressed concern that Items 9 and 10 should be amended. Their request
was denied and since then, they had the opportunity to meet with the Traffic
Engineer to discuss possible alternatives. They were, therefore, willing to
stipulate to the following: (1) That in the middle area, they would install a
tire buster with an exit only sign rather than the landscaped planter, (2) the
two right and left entrance driveways would be so marked as entrances, (3) the
concrete work of the entrance to the driveways would be modified as curb
returns, and (4) they would stipulate in a letter as an added condition, per
the Traffic Engineer's request, to install and maintain the tire buster and to
construct the curb returns.
Mr. Serrato continued that one of the concerns expressed at the Planning
Commission hearing was the request to remain open 24-hours a day. In
particular, one representative of the school adjacent to the site stated that
the young ladies finished classes around 10:30 p.m. If the business were a
24-hour operation, it would denigrate upon the professionalism of the area.
They were willing to stipulate to a closing time of 10:00 p.m. to resolve that
particular issue.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if they planned to sell beer and wine; Mr. Serrato
answered "yes."
The Mayor asked to hear from those who wished to speak, either in favor or in
Opposition.
Mr. Jonathan Van Cleeve, agent for Marvin Barrett, explained that Mr. Barrett
was the adjacent landowner to the proposed project, located directly to the
north and west, on which there was a private college and some other commercial
buildings with a substantial amount of parking on all four sides. His client
was opposed to the requested CUP. His client's concern was for the continued
professional atmosphere of the school and the continued safety and welfare of
the students attending that school. Mr. Barrett was the former owner and
president of the school, as well as owner of the property on which it was
located. He had since sold the school and was now the landlord to the
school. He was concerned not only for the well being and continued value of
960
qity Hall~,L ~A~naheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 2,. ~1.9~82, ,1.0.:~00 A.M.
his property, but also, he had a positive obligation to represent and stand bY
the interests and concerns of his tenants. Beer and wine were going to be
sold in the vicinity in close proximity to the school and there was already a
convenience mart located within the commercial buildings adjacent to the
school, which had available a certain amount of wine. They did not object to
the notion that the applicant was in need of additional revenues, but were
simply concerned with the suitability of the use at the subject site. They
did not believe it was appropriate.
Mayor Roth questioned the fact that whoever Mr. Van Cleeve was representing
did not want the competition of another convenience market, since there was
such a market already located on his property.
After further discussion, Mr. Van Cleeve concluded that under the rules and
regulations relating to CUPs, one of the things that had to be shown was that
it would not adversely affect adjacent landowners and they were arguing that
condition had not been met by the applicant and that it would adversely affect
the landowners.
The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to speak; there being no response, he
gave Mr. Serrato an opportunity to make his summation.
Mr. Serrato stated if the beer and wine were not appropriate, they questioned
why it would be allowed to be sold on the property owned by the landlord. The
applicant had a meeting with the landlord, hoping to resolve the matter, and
the concern emerged in those discussions that a new convenience market with
retail sales would be detrimental in trying to sell the existing Deli-Market
owned by the landlord. They did not want to contribute to any problems in the
area, and subsequently contacted the Anaheim Police Department to review the
kind of criminal statistics taking place in that section. In the last 60
days, there were only a total of four incidents in the area. It was the
conclusion of the Police Department that crime activity was negligible. They
respectfully requested that their application be favorably considered.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if in the first place the property was too small
for the use they were proposing; Miss Santalahti answered that in terms of
actual size for a service station alone, 150 feet by 150 feet was what they
would normally expect to see on a corner piece of property. The subject
property was only 116 feet by 160 feet.
Councilwoman Kaywood also recalled that the ordinance stated that a service
station must be at an intersection; Miss Santalahti stated that the current
ordinance required a service station to be at one of two corners at the
intersection of two arterial highways--the only permitted locations under a
CUP. The subject would not qualify for a service station location today.
961
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 2, 1982, 10:00 A.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood questioned if it would not qualify as a service station
location, how could it qualify for a dual use. She surmised that was
obviously why the Planning Commission denied the request. She felt they were
looking at something that was not only a dangerous precedent, but outrageous.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Bay, the City Council finds that subject
project will have no significant individual or cumulative adverse
environmental impact due to the approval of this Negative declaration since
the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property for general
commercial land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive
environmental impacts are involved in the proposal; that the Initial Study
submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant individual or cumulative
adverse environmental impacts; and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement
to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 82R-539 for adoption, denying
Conditional Use Permit No. 2373, upholding the findings of the City Planning
Commission, on the basis that the site was too small even for a service
station, it was not on a corner or arterial highway, the dual use would be
overbuilding, and due to the objections of the college located adjacent to
it. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 82R-539: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2373.
Before any action was taken, Councilman Roth questioned the Traffic Engineer,
Paul Singer, relative to the ingress and egress to the site. He (Singer) also
clarified for Councilman Bay that the Average Daily Traffic on Brookhurst
Street was 33,400.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler and Bay
Overholt and Roth
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 82R-539 duly passed and adopted.
108: ANAHEIM MARRIOTT HOTEL - REQUEST FOR ABATEMENT OF PENALTIES: Marriott
Corporation, Taxes Division, for abatement of the penalty assessed on the late
filing of the Transient Occupancy Tax due on the Marriott Hotel--continued
from the meetings of September 21 and October 12 and 26, 1982--see minutes
those dates.
962
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 2~ 1982~ 10:00 A.M.
Mr. Joel Rothman gave a recap of circumstances involved relative to their
timing on payments of tax collection for transient occupancies (see minutes of
September 21, 1982). He emphasized that at no time was there an attempt to
avoid payment, but the discrepancy was based on their 13 accounting periods,
as opposed to the City's 12 periods. They did not ignore the City's request
to change the system, but internal problems were involved. They had since
changed their accounting system to coincide with that of the City's.
Mayor Roth stated he realized the ordinance was such that there was no
variance, and that was the problem. There was no alternative for the elected
body to make exceptions. Due to the fact that the Marriott had been such an
asset to the community, he felt it was time for an exception to the rule and
he would prefer to see the item delayed to permit the elected body the
authority to take action as necessary. Otherwise, he could not give his
approval to deny the request.
Councilman Overholt stated the City Attorney had advised that they had no
choice but to deny the request; however, he shared the view expressed by the
Mayor, objecting to the ability to impose a penalty, but without the ability
to waive that penalty. In this case, the penalty involved was almost $16,000
and the Council was unable, by its own law, to consider circumstances and must
impose the penalty. He felt the Council should have the ability to grant a
waiver for just cause. He reiterated, in this case, the Council had no choice
but to deny. In the future, he wanted the ordinance modified to be able to
waive, but not on the interest owed.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that when the ordinance was put into effect, part
of the reason for the inability to waive was just that.
City Attorney Hopkins clarified that the remedies would be to amend the
ordinance to provide for the Council to waive the penalty, but it would not be
in effect for 30 days after adoption and thus would only apply to future
situations. There was no possibility for the Council to waive the penalties
for the Marriott.
Councilman Bay stated this was not the only case in point where the Council
had no power to waive or use judgment. That was why the City had a Charter,
and the Charter locked them down to certain things. Past Councils had set up
the ordinance with the full intent of not leaving leeway, so that the Council
would not be dealing with every possible exception. It did not mean that a
majority of the Council could not change the ordinance, but as far as the
issue today, there was no discretion available to them and perhaps that might
be an argument for the ordinance in other cases.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to deny the request to abate the penalty as
requested by the Marriott on the grounds that they had no power to do so.
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
963
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 2, 1982, 10:00 A.M.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt then moved that the City Attorney be directed to
work on an amendment to the present ordinance that would provide for the
assessment of interest on late payments and, in addition to that, a penalty
which would be subject to the discretion of the Council to waive. Councilman
Roth seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood spoke against the motion. One
of the reasons payments were coming to the City on time was because of the
inability for any three members of the Council to decide on an exception. She
maintained that the revenues would stop flowing should such an action pass.
Councilman Overholt felt the next question was to know how much they collected
in penalties; City Manager Talley stated that information could be provided,
but he felt the potential of the penalty was worth far more than the
collection. Having a penalty in existence almost insured conformance to the
ordinance.
Mayor Roth stated he agreed with the penalty factor, but disagreed on tying
the hands of the elected body. He felt the Council should have a right, under
extraordinary conditions, to make a judgment. In the future, he would not
support any ordinance that locked in something absolute.
Mayor Roth suggested that they obtain information from staff relative to the
dollar penalty amount, look at some of the alternatives of a proposed
ordinance change, and submit that to the Council to see if it would get three
votes within the next week or two.
Councilman Overholt asked if there was any opposition; Councilwoman Kaywood
stated she would prefer it, because it was her feeling, once the door was
opened, they were going to get into a tremendous enforcement problem and would
need to hire more people and spend a great deal more money which was not now
necessary.
Councilman Overholt asked if there was any objection to doing what the Mayor
suggested; there was no objection.
Councilman Overholt thereupon withdrew his motion and Councilman Roth his
second, but with a report to be submitted by staff in two weeks relative to
the ramifications of amending the ordinance.
107/155: HOUSING TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS: Receive and file report dated
October 26, 1982 from Zoning Division containing responses to questions posed
by Council concerning Housing Task Force recommendations (see minutes of
October 5, and October 12, 1982, where the matter was previously discussed).
Councilwoman Kaywood expressed her concern over the recommendation that the
subject report be received and filed. She felt there was a tremendous problem
in the City that must be dealt with. She wanted to know which Housing Task
964
~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 2, 19.8~, ]~0:09 A.M.
Force Recommendations had not yet been implemented, where and how they could
be implemented, and to proceed with strict Code enforcement. Most of the
problems were stemming from a few landlords who owned substandard apartment
houses which were not maintained, and rented to too many people. Those
landlords did not care about Anaheim.
Councilman Bay noted in staff report dated October 26, 1982, from the Planning
Department/Zoning Division, that the City spent $293,500 this year in Code
enforcement across the City, and that the current vacant Code Enforcement
Officer position would be occupied in two weeks. This countered the
implication made that the City was not doing anything about complaints.
Further, he read in a recent Anaheim Bulletin article that staff was still
waiting for direction on whether the City was going to have proactive or
reactive enforcement. He wanted to, once and for all, clear up that issue.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved that the Council Policy on Civil Code (in
ensuing discussion, changed to Anaheim Municipal Code) enforcement in the City
be reactive based on complaint. Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
Before action was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked Councilman Bay to define
that further, because she felt they had two different ways of doing so. When
an inspector went out on a call and saw other violations along the way, he
could deal with those violations.
Councilman Bay stated that was the general interpretation. Historically in
the City, Civil Code enforcement violations were initiated by complaint or
reactive enforcement. Proactive enforcement meant sending out a team across
the City on other than a complaint. The issue had been debated and redebated
for approximately six months, and if there was still a question, he felt it
was time the Council made its position clear.
Councilwoman Kaywood felt that the words were creating a block and that there
had been confusion on the part of the inspectors in knowing how to handle a
situation--reactive meaning if they saw something they may not react unless
someone called in a complaint. Councilman Bay was saying that on the way to
complaint they could and should deal with other violations noted; Councilman
Bay stated there was a difference between may and shall.
Councilman Overholt stated before they voted, they had to deal with the
circumstance of the complaint of Citizen Seymour relative to a specific
neighborhood, the Anna Drive area. A report had been submitted today dated
October 26, 1982, and he maintained if the vote was supportive of the present
reactive type policy, that would not preclude the type of thing done on the
Citizen Seymour complaint.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she had previously asked for a verbatim of
what was discussed, because on Anna Drive, she recalled that it was to be a
door-to-door inspection, interior as well as exterior, and in actuality they
went into only one apartment by invitation.
965
~ty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 2, 1982, 10:00 A.M.
Mr. Peter Beard, 173 Hillcrest Drive, Fullerton, member of the Housing Task
Force, stated he was an apartment owner in Anaheim and had been for five
years. They had numerous buildings in the Patrick Henry area. In those five
years, the neighborhood had improved tremendously, and he reported on some of
the things that had occurred in that regard. The Housing Task For~e had not
met for approximately ten months, because there was a general feeling of
frustration on certain items that were not getting done. He then referred to
a report dated October 28, 1982, from the Task Force to the City
Council--Comments and Observations on Task Force Recommendations Status, and
spoke to a number of the issues raised, specifically Recommendation Nos. 4 and
12, relative to the fact that two Code Enforcement Officer positions still
needed to be filled, and Recommendation No. 9 requiring that bulk bins be used
in apartment buildings of four or more units. They also discussed proactive
versus reactive enforcement.
Before concluding, Mr. Beard explained that they also had buildings in other
cities, Garden Grove and Santa Ana, and in Garden Grove, they had gone about
the matter in a different way. The Council expressed concern about budgets
and the money necessary to support Code Enforcement Officers. He maintained
that if Anaheim charged for Code Enforcement where violations were found to be
real, they could offset a great amount of the revenue spent on Code~
Enforcement positions by following Garden Grove's procedure. Garden Grove
charged a fee per violation found in a building of $50 plus a reinspection fee
of $15.
Mayor Roth asked the Planning staff to obtain a copy of the Garden Grove
ordinance, submit copies to the Council for inspection, and subsequently
submit a report relative to the feasibility of implementing the same in
Anaheim.
Councilman Overholt stated relative to Councilman Bay's motion, he would
suggest a wording change to Anaheim Municipal Code instead of Civil Code;
Councilman Bay stated if the second agreed, he was amenable to changing the
wording accordingly; Councilman Roth agreed.
Councilwoman Kaywood wanted to have added to the motion, encourage Enforcement
Officers to pursue other violations; but Councilman Bay did not want to add
anything, since it was merely a statement of basic policy.
Councilwoman Kaywood then asked Councilman Overholt if there was something he
would want to support; Councilman Overholt stated that he agreed with
Councilman Bay's interpretation of his motion, that being to establish a basic
and simple policy. What he (Overholt) had attempted previously to explain was
that it was his understanding of the policy that it would not preclude, but
encourage the things that had been going on, particularly relative to the
Citizen Seymour complaint and in pursuing violations that were observed when
officers went out on a complaint matter.
966
C~t~ H~ll, ~naheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 2, 1982, 10:00 A.M.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion, amended to read as follows:
That Council Policy on Anaheim Municipal Code enforcement in the City is
reactive based on complaint.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Bay and Roth
Kaywood and Pickler
None
MOTION CARRIED.
Council discussion then followed with regard to the Housing Task Force report
and if any future actions were to be taken; Councilwoman Kaywood emphasized
that she did not want to receive and file the report, but it should be kept
alive and periodic reports submitted. It should be continued until the time
of the next report requested regarding the Garden Grove ordinance on
enforcement.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved that the matter be continued for four weeks.
did not think the item should appear on the agenda every week, but he felt
that once a month as they worked the problems was adequate.
He
Councilman Roth suggested three weeks, since by that time they should have the
information from Garden Grove. Councilman Pickler seconded the three week
continuance.
Before any action was taken, Mrs. Sheri Pignone, Chairman of the Housing Task
Force, stated in the report submitted the Task Force recommended that the
publication of the Nuisance Ordinance be republished in the Parks and
Recreation 1983 summer brochure. Also, she asked if the Task Force was still
in existence; Councilwoman Kaywood stated they had not disbanded the Task
Force.
Councilman Bay asked the attendance at the last Task Force meeting; Mrs.
Pignone reported that everyone on the Task Force was present, with the
exception of the representative from the Chamber and the representative from
one neighborhood council. Otherwise, everyone was present, even the
alternates. She then submitted a recommendation made in 1977 by Norman J.
Priest, Executive Director of Community Development, wherein he recommended
systematic Code enforcement.
A vote was then taken on the motion by Councilman Bay that the matter be
continued four weeks to November 30, 1982, at 1:30 p.m. Councilman Roth
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
108: NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE FOR ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT APPLICATIONS:
Notification procedure for Entertainment Permit Applications--continued from
the meetings of October 5 and 12, 1982.
967
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 2, 1982, 10:00 A.M.
Mayor Ro~h referred to a joint report dated October 19, 1982, from the Police
Department and Planning Department/Zoning Division, the first recommendation
being that no action be taken, thereby Continuing to process Entertainment
Permit Applications in the current manner. Otherwise, the cost and the time
required for posting was prohibitive.
Councilman Pickler then posed questions to Annika Santalahti, Assistant
Planning Director--Zoning, for purposes of clarification; Councilwoman Kaywood
stated she saw no reason to change the current procedure. They had to look
for ways of cutting, not adding, to the budget.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved that no action be taken by Council on the
present notification procedure for Entertainment Permit Applications.
Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
175/105: APPOINTING A MEMBER TO THE AD HOC COMMITTEE TO STUDY ELECTRIC AND
WATER LIFELINE RATES: Councilman Bay moved to continue the subject
appointment for two weeks. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
PUBLIC REQUESTS CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by
Councilman Overholt, the following items were approved in accordance with the
reports and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the
Consent Calendar:
1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2121 - EXTENSION OF TIME: A request submitted
by Floyd L. Farano for an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No.
2121, to permit a 104-unit residential condominium on property located at 2170
South Harbor Boulevard (Westwinds Trailer Lodge), was approved in accordance
with the recommendation of the Zoning Division, to expire July 28, 1983.
2. 129: PUBLIC FIREWORKS DISPLAY PERMIT: Application submitted by
Disneyland Entertainment Division, to discharge fireworks at Disneyland Park
on November 17, 1982, at approximately 8:30 p.m., was approved in accordance
with the recommendation of the Fire Chief and Fire Marshal.
Councilman Pickler abstained on Item 2. MOTION CARRIED.
108: AMUSEMENT ARCADE APPLICATION NO. 82-30 - ANAHEIM FUN CENTER VIDEO
ARCADE: A request by Richard L. Neely for waiver of Council Policy No. 539,
prohibiting amusement device machines within 600 feet of a school, to permit
continued operation of Anaheim Fun Center Video Arcade, 884 West Lincoln
Avenue, was submitted.
Mr. Richard Neely, 212 South Ohio, Apartment No. 1, explained that this was
not a permit for a new establishment. The Center had been established for a
number of years at the same location and operating under certain conditions as
agreed upon by the Anaheim Union High School District. He took over the
management of the Fun Center in December, but did not obtain ownership at that
968
C~y H.a%l, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 2, 1.9~2~1~:00 A.M.
time. He had established certain policies since taking over the management
that ensured the business to be a good, clean family center. In doing so, he
had successfully convinced Mr. Dale Schroeder, Principal, Anaheim High School,
that the Center was not a detriment to the education of the children in the
area, and it was not an attractive nuisance to that part of Anaheim. He also
worked closely with members of the Police Department, Phil Tuttle of the
Narcotics Division, Lt. Der. Richard Stockwell, Burglary, and he had dealt
directly with the uniformed officers in the area. They all realized that the
efforts he made in not only running a clean operation but, in fact, cleaning
up a situation that previously existed due to poor management or lack of it.
He was asking to continue the operation and wanted to obtain a business
license himself. He planned to continue running the Arcade as he had been in
the past nine months.
Councilwoman KaYW°od asked if he would have any problems running the business
under the same conditions, i.e., (1) the Center will not be open prior to 2:40
p.m. daily, excluding Saturdays and Sundays, school holidays'and vacation
periods, and (2) the Center will not be an attractive nuisance that detracts
from the operation of Anaheim High School. (See letter dated October 12,
1982, from Dale L. Schroeder.)
Mr. Neely stated he had no problems at all with those conditions.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she had heard Mr. Neely was doing a very good job
and she noted that there was only one objection out of 65 people who were
polled.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak; Sgt. Brantley of the Anaheim Police
Department stated that in doing some research before coming to the meeting
today, there were some facts not known to the Police Department at the time
their report of protest was initiated. They would still protest, but only on
the ordinance restriction that the location not be within 600 feet of a
school, specifically Anaheim High School. As stipulated before in the
protest, there was reference to the past conduct at that location, but in
checking their files, since Mr. Neely had taken over, police response to that
area had been almost nil, indicating Mr. Neely had been cooperative and was
cleaning up the location. They would have no objections at this time to the
approval of continued operation of the Arcade.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to approve the request for a waiver of Council
Policy No. 539 with regard to the Anaheim Family Center Video Arcade at 884
West Lincoln Avenue, on the basis that the subject activity would not be
detrimental to the public welfare and morals, subject to the approval of the
affected school district, and further stipulating to the conditions of the
school district that (1) the Center will not be open prior to 2:40 p.m. daily,
excluding Saturdays and Sundays, school holidays and vacation periods, and (2)
the Center will not be an attractive nuisance that detracts from the operation
of Anaheim High School. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
969
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 2~,~z1~98~2,~ 10:00 A.M.
132/142: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 18.61 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO RECYCLING/RESOURCES RECOVERY TRANSFER FACILITIES: To consider
amending Section 18.61.050.600 by adding Subsection .612 of the Code
pertaining to Recycling/Resources Recovery Transfer Facilities in the Anaheim
Canyon Industrial Area. Also considered was a report by the Planning
Department/Zoning Division, which was submitted to the Planning Commission.
The City Planning Commission recommended approval of the ordinance.
Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4373 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4373: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING NEW SUBSECTION
.612 TO SECTION 18.61.O50.600 OF CHAPTER 18.61 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (Recycling/Resources Recovery Transfer
Facilities in the Anaheim Canyon Industrial Area)
149/155: JOINT MEETING WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON THE PARKING STUDY
OUTCOME: Miss Santalahti then offered some dates as possible times for a
joint meeting of the Council/Planning Commission to discuss the subject study
as suggested by Councilman Bay at the meeting of October 12, 1982.
After brief Council discussion, it was determined by general consent that
setting a date and time for the joint meeting would be continued for one week.
142/179: ORDINANCE NO. 4371: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4371
for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4371: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SUBSECTIONS
.130,131,132,133 AND REPEALING SECTION 18.41.050 OF CHAPTER 18.41 OF TITLE 18
OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (to allow office use of a
residential structure in the C-O zone with the approval of a conditional use
permit)
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. 4371 duly passed and adopted.
108/179/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4372: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4372
for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4372: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SUBSECTION
(a) OF SECTION 4.29.030 OF CHAPTER 4.29 OF TITLE 4 AND SUBSECTION G OF SECTION
18.89.020 OF CHAPTER 18.89 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING
TO LICENSING AND ZONING. (Massage Establishment and Adult Entertainment
Business Ordinances)
970
Cit~ Ha.ll, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 2, 1982, 10:00 A.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt and Roth
None
Bay
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4372 duly passed and adopted.
120/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4374: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4374
for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4374: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING SECTION
6.44.070 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADOPTING A NEW SECTION 6.44.070, IN
PLACE THEREOF PERTAINING TO NUISANCES. (correcting a clerical error)
142: ORDINANCE NO. 4375: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4375 for
first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4375: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (82-83-5, CL, southwest corner
of Avenida Margarita and Santa Aha Canyon Road)
111: 59TH ANNUAL HALLOWEEN FESTIVAL AND PARADE: Council Members commented on
the recent Halloween Festival, Ball and Parade which took place in the City
covering a three-day period, October 29 to 31, 1982, and commended all those
involved for an outstanding and very successful effort.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed
Session. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (6:15
p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (9:52 p.m.)
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilman Bay seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED. (9:53 p.m.)
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK
971