Loading...
1980/01/2280-61 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - ~OUNCIL MINUTES - January 22~ 1980, 1:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour COUNCIL M~BERS: None CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, REDEVELOPMENT: Norman J. Priest CITY ENGINEER: William G. Devitt ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: Reverend David Beadles, Anaheim United Methodist Church, gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Don Roth led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 119: INTRODUCTION - DISNEYLAND AMBASSADOR FOR 1980: Mr. Jim Garber, Director of Marketing at Disneyland, introduced Miss Nancy Englert, the 1980 Disneyland Ambassador. On behalf of the Council, Mayor Seymour welcomed and congratulated Miss Englert on the honor and presented her with roses, a briefcase and replica of the Big 119: RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A resolution of congratulations was unan- imously adopted by the Council for the entire institution and staff of Disneyland and Walt Disney Studios on the Silver Anniversary of Disneyland. Mr. Card Walker, President and Chief Executive Officer of Walt Disney Productions, accepted the resolution, along with a commemorative plaque acknowledging the 25th year of Disneyland's existence in Anaheim, as well as an enormous cake, a replica of the famed Disneyland castle. RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed to allow the Chamber audience to share in the celebration and the cutting and distribution of the cake. (1:50 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (2:05 P.M.) 119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Seymour and authorized by the City Council: "Hobby Week In Anaheim"--January 27 through February 2, 1980. MINUTES: Approval of the minutes was deferred to the next regular meeting. 80-62 City Hall~ Anah.eim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 22~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda, after reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to waiver is hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such ordinance or resolution in regular order. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $1,586,638.09, in accordance with the 1979-80 Budget, were approved. 153: CLASSIFICATION AND COMPENSATION STUDY OF POLICE RECORDS SUPERVISOR: Council- man Overholt offered Resolution No. 80R-22 for adoption, as recommended in memoran- dum dated January 16, 1980, from the Human Resources Director Garry McRae and Chief of Police George Tielsch, amending Resolution No. 79R-591 and adjusting the rate of compensation for the classification of Police Records Supervisor to Schedule Xl147, effective January 18, 1980. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-22: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 79R-591 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR CLASSES DESIGNATED AS STAFF AND SUPERVISORY MANAGEMENT, AND ADJUSTING THE RATE OF COMPENSATION FOR THE CLASSIFICATION OF POLICE RECORDS SUPERVISOR. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-22 duly passed and adopted. 156: POLICE DEPARTMENT AUCTION OF UNCLAIMED PROPERTY: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-23 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated January 15, 1980 from the Chief of Police, authorizing the Police Department to conduct an auction of unclaimed property to be held on February 23, 1980, and superseding Resolution No. 79R-755. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-23: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO CONDUCT AN AUCTION OF UNCLAIMED PROPERTY ON FEBRUARY 23, 1980, AND SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION NO. 79R-755. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-23 duly passed and adopted. MOTION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Clerk was directed to publish a notice of intention to transfer unclaimed property to the Purchasing Division for City use. MOTION CARRIED. 80-63 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 22~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. 123: SET CONSTRUCTION AND STORAGE SPACE - ANAHEIM THEATRE AND PERFORMING GROUPS: Councilman Seymour moved to authorize a rental agreement with the Redevelopment Agency for a specified portion of the building at 114 North Topeka to provide set construction and storage space for Anaheim theatre and performing groups, as recommended in memorandum dated January 14, 1980 from Deputy City Manager James Ruth. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Roth noted that staff had done an excellent job, ending a controversial item; Mayor Seymour especially commended Executive Director of Community Development Norm Priest and Deputy City Manager James Ruth. 150: GRANT FUNDING REQUEST - SENIOR CENTER RENOVATION: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-24 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated January 15, 1980 from Deputy City Manager James Ruth, approving an application for funds under Title III-B of the Older Americans Act of 1965 for alteration of the City's existing Senior Citizens' Center located at 222 East Chartres Street, and authorizing the City Manager to execute same. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-24: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR FUNDS UNDER TITLE III-B OF THE OLDER AMERICANS ACT OF 1965 FOR ALTERATION OF THE CITY'S EXISTING SENIOR CITIZENS' CENTER AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY APPLICATION DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-24 duly passed and adopted. 150: SUMMER YOUTH RECREATION PROGRAM GRANT: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to accept a $7,000 award from the Summer Youth Recreation Program Grant, funded by the Orange County Neighborhood Youth Corps, Inc., and appropriating said amount to Parks and Playgrounds Program 270, as recon~nended in memorandum dated January 16, 1980 from the Deputy City Manager. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 175: INSTALLATION OF ELECTRICAL UTILITY FACILITIES - LICENSE NO. BL-72085-22: Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 80R-25 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated January 19, 1980 from Public Utilities General Manager Gordon Hoyt, authorizing a License Agreement with The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company for installation of electrical utility facilities on railroad right-of-way on the south side of Katella Avenue Underpass at the spur track to Anaheim Stadium, and payment of $150 license fee therefor (License No. BL-72085-22). Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-25: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. (License No. BL072085-22) 8O-64 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 22~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-25 duly passed and adopted. 123: ANAHEIM BOULEVARD/HASTER STREET OVERCROSSING OF THE SANTA ANA FREEWAY: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-26 for. adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated January 16, 1980 from the City Engineer, authorizing a cooperative agreement with the State for construction of Anaheim Boulevard/ Haster Street Overcrossing of the Santa Ana Freeway; City's cost, $1,069,000 (Caltrans District Agreement No. 3204). Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-26: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN OVERCROSSING AT THE SANTA ANA FREEWAY AND ANAHEIM BOULEVARD/HASTER STREET, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-26 duly passed and adopted. 158: SALE OF A PORTION OF CITY EXCESS PROPERTY - S.A.V.I. CANAL: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-27 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated January 14, 1980 from the City Engineer approving the sale of a portion of City excess property known as the S.A.V.I. Canal to David Tankersley in the amount of $580, and authorizing execution of a quitclaim deed therefor. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-27: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE SALE OF CERTAIN CITY-OWNED PROPERTY TO DAVID TANKERSLEY. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay and Roth NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-27 duly passed and adopted. 164: AWARD OF CONTRACT - VILLA PLACE EXTENSION SEWER IMPROVEMENT FROM PEARL STREET TO LINCOLN AVENUE: Account No. 11-790-6325-0170. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-28 for adoption awarding a contract, as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated January 16, 1980. Refer to Resolution Book. 80-65 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - C.OUNCIL MINUTES - January 22, 1980~ 1:30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-28: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: VILLA PLACE EXTENSION SEWER IMPROVEMENT, FROM PEARL STREET TO LINCOLN AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 11-790-6325-0170. (Vicco Construction, Inc., $24,487) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-28 duly passed and adopted. 164: CONTINUATION - AWARD OF CONTRACT - VIA VISTA SEWER IMPROVEMENT: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, award of a contract for the Via Vista Sewer Improvement, Account No. 11-790-6325-0160 was continued to January 29, 1980, as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated January 16, 1980. MOTION CARRIED. 142/105: ORDINANCE NO. 4096 - SENIOR CITIZENS COMMISSION: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4096 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 4096: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE I, CHPATER 1.04, BY ADDING THERETO SECTIONS 1.04.960, 1.04.970, 1.04.980 AND 1.04.990 TO THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO A SENIOR CITIZEN COMMISSION. 152: SMALL CLAIMS ACTIONS: Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 80R-29 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated January 21, 1980 from the City Attorney, authorizing certain persons to act on behalf of the City in Small Claims actions, superseding 78R-163. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-29: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING CERTAIN PERSONS TO ACT FOR THE CITY OF ANAHEIM IN CONNECTION WITH SMALL CLAIMS ACTIONS; AND SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION NO. 78R-163. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-29 duly passed and adopted. 105: APPOINTMENT TO THE COMMUNITY CENTER AUTHORITY: (continued from January 15, 1980) Mayor Seymour stated that although he made an attempt to come up with a candidate relative to an appointment to the Community Center Authority, it was clear in his mind that it would be in the best interest to carry the matter over another week. 80-6B City Hall~ Anaheim~ Cglifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 22~ 1980, 1:30 P.M. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Overholt, appointment to fill a vacancy on the Community Center Authority was continued one week. MOTION CARRIED. 108: APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC DANCE HALL PERMIT: Submitted by Jeffrey C. LeBrun for Jezebel's, 125 North State College Boulevard, for dancing seven days a week from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, stated she had nothing further to add to the Zoning Division report of 3anuary 18, 1980. She also confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood that they had not heard anything further from Dr. Gartner which they assumed was due to the fact that development that had taken place adjacent to the subject use was buffering Dr. Gartner from that use. On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilman Roth, the Public Dance Hall Permit for Jezebel's, 125 North State College Boulevard, was approved in accor- dance with the hours stipulated in Conditional Use Permit No. 1862. MOTION CARRIED. '142/166: ORDINANCE NO. 4097 - PROHIBITION OF SIGNS ON PUBLIC PROPERTY AND PRIVATE UTILITY PROPERTY: Councilman Roth suggested that under Section l(d) of the proposed ordinance that they strike "police officer" and leave, "employee of the City", to preclude a citizen requesting a police officer to remove signs when it should be the responsibility of the Public Utilities or Public Works Depart- ment. After a brief Council discussion on that point, the words "police officer" were deleted from the section as well as the word "officer," from the following paragraph. Councilman Overholt referred to the previous question he raised relative to how the reward aspect of the proposed ordinance would be funded (see minutes January 8, 1980). They should have a fund from which the reward would be paid. City Attorney William Hopkins stated that was not included in the ordinance and it would have to be designated by the City Manager to be provided for from whatever fund would be appropriate at the time the matter would arrive. Mayor Seymour stated if they believed they represented the citizens of Anaheim and felt that adopting the proposed ordinance was what the citizens wanted Council to do, then they should have faith and trust in those constituents by reporting such incidents without being paid a bounty to do so. He did not agree with the bounty concept. Councilman Bay stated on the other hand, if a citizen did report on something he had witnessed resulting in time spent in court, that cost money and he felt it only proper that there be a provision to recompense him for his expenses. Councilman Overholt stated that his question had a different thrust. He was questioning the wisdom of having a provision for a bounty without having a specific provision regarding the funding. 80-67 City Hall, Anaheim~ qalifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 22~ 1980, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Roth contended if there were 10 such occasions in the next 10 years where .they had to pay the $50 reward, it would be remarkable, but he felt such a provision would be a deterrent. Mayor Seymour stated he would offer the ordinance for first reading striking the words "police officer or" from Section 1, (d), second paragraph and, "officer or" from the same section, paragraph 3, and striking section 1 (f) in its entirety relative to the reward provision. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she had to agree with Councilman Roth to some degree. She felt by removing that section it would take all the teeth out of the ordinance. Her stand on signing was very well known, and she had never allowed any of hers to be posted. She was concerned that the proposed ordinance would end up costing the City money but she did not know to what extent. She also did not want to add a burden cost to the City. She asked if at the present time the signs were removed as the utility people used the poles, or if they remained in place until they came down eventually. Councilman Roth stated it appeared to him that after election time, the Utility Department removed the signs. Some fell down and were picked up by the citizens or street sweepers so that eventually the signs did come down. Councilman Overholt stated he was supportive of the Mayor's first two changes, but wanted the $50 reward provision to remain. Mayor Seymour stated he would not support the reward portion on final reading of the ordinance although he believed in the spirit of the ordinance. He also stated that he would withdraw his first reading to permit such a reading with the inclusion of section 1 (f). ORDINANCE NO. 4097: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4097 for first reading with the deletion of the words "police officer or" and "officer or", as articulated, and including section 1 paragraph (f). ORDINANCE NO. 4097: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING SECTION 4.04.130 OF CHAPTER 4.04, TITLE 4, OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADDING A NEW SECTION 4.04.130 IN ITS PLACE AND STEAD RELATING TO THE PROHIBITION OF AFFIXING SIGNS ON PUBLIC PROPERTY AND UTILITY POLES. 149: PERMISSION TO PARK A MOTOR HOME AT 2001 EAST KATELLA: Requested by Mr. Lonnie G. Gerard of Gerard's Union 76 (continued from meetings of January 8 and January 15, 1980). Mr. Gerard was not present in the Council Chamber. City Clerk Linda Roberts reported that she had talked to Mr. Gerard who stated that he would be present at today's meeting. Mayor Seymour-suggested that they postpone the item until later in the meeting when Mr. Gerard might be present. Later in the meeting, after all agenda items had been considered, Mr. Gerard was still not present. 80-68 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 22~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. MOTION: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Coungilman Overholt, the subject request was removed from the agenda. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilman Bay, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda: 1. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: a. 105: Community Center Authority--Minutes of December 17, 1979. b. 105: Anaheim Youth Commission--Minutes of January 9, 1980. c. 105: Anaheim Housing Commission--Minutes of November 7 and December 5, 1979. d. 105: Public Utilities Board--January 3, 1980. (unapproved) e. 156: Police Department--Monthly Report for December 1979. 2. AMUSEMENT DEVICES PERMIT APPLICATION: In accordance wi:h the recomendations of the Chief of Police, the Amusement Devices Permit Application submitted by Anthony Frank Croce, for Cinemaland Theatre, 1414 South Harbor Boulevard, for various amusement devices, was approved. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 80R-30 through 80R-33, both inclusive, for adoption in accordance with the reports, recommendations and certifications furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-30: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Grove Construction; Classic Development Company) 167: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-31: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND SAFETY LIGHTING ON LINCOLN AVENUE BETWEEN ANAHEIM BOULEVARD AND OLIVE STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 25-848-6325-6310; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened February 14, 1980, at 2:00 P.M.) 169: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-32: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: SLURRY SEAL CONTRACT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 01-232-6340-00002. (Ted R. Jenkins Company, Inc.) 80-69 .City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 22~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. 174: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-33: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM AREAWIDE WATER SYSTEM - PROJECT AREA IV - MAIN REPLACEMENT PROJECT, ACCOUNT NO. 25-606-6340-25140-34320. (Ace Pipeline Contractors) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-30 through 80R-33, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 4094 AND 4095: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 4094 and 4095 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4094: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (66-67-61(95), CR) ORDINANCE NO. 4095: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (71-72-73(1), CL) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL M~BERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4094 and 4095 duly passed and adopted. 108: DEFENSE OF THE BINGO ORDINANCE: Councilman Overholt commended City Attorney Hopkins and Deputy City Attorneys Jack White and Mac Slaughter in their successful representation of the City against the bingo interests in trying to attempt to get a preliminary injunction on the bingo ordinance. 139: SUPPORT FOR AB1938: Councilman Roth moved to send an appropriate communi- cation to Assemblymen and State Senators from Orange County indicating the Council's support for AB1938, "Rob a Home--Go to Jail." Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 114: LIBRARY MEETING - WEDNESDAY~ JANUARY 16~ 1980: Councilman Bay reported on his attendance at the subject meeting held at the Main Library during the evening. Mayor Seymour also reported that he attended the afternoon session Of that meeting and commented that the new system installed at the Library was truly state of the art, cost effective, and would save many taxpayer dollars. 80-70 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 22, 1980, 1:30 P.M. 114: SUPER BOWL - LOS ANGELES RAMS/PITTSBURGH STEELERS - JANUARY 20~ 1980-- PASADENA: Speaking on behalf of the Council, Mayor Seymour stated that they could not have been more proud of the "Los Angeles-Anaheim" Rams in their performance at the subject game. He saw more clearly demonstrated, first even when the Angels lost to the Baltimore Orioles in the final division play-off game and secondly with the Rams losing the Super Bowl game, the people of Anaheim still could not be happier or more proud of those ball clubs. AS tackle, Doug France had stated at a previous meeting, it was going to be "heaven" playing in Anaheim because of the support of such positive fans. RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess into Executive Session, Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (2:40 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (3:00 P.M.) 152: TONY CORNELIUS SHORE V. PAUL EUGENE LEE & CITY OF ANAHEIM: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Bay, the City Attorney's office and Kinkle, Rodiger & Spriggs were authorized to settle Superior Court Case 31-49-72 - Tony Cornelius Shore V. Paul Eugene Lee & City of Anaheim in an amount not to exceed $12,000. MOTION CARRIED. RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 15 minutes. (3:00 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (3:15 P.M.) 174: PUBLIC HEARING - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PLAN: To consider the Housing Assistance Plan and the Community Development Block Grant revised 3-year Plan and the 1980-81 program activities for ;.-95 Review (the State of California and Regional Clearinghouse Agency review process). Mr. Norm Priest, Executive Director of Community Development, referred to his memorandum dated January 14, 1980 recommending that the Council, by motion, authorize the City Manager to submit the City of Anaheim's 1980-81 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) application for Clearinghouse (A-95) Review by the State of California and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). He pointed out this was the same program which they heard and approved earlier (see minutes December 11, 1979), but with two minor exceptions. As noted in the report, they received a final allocation from HUD which was $670,000 less than the original estimate. At the conclusion of the A-95 Review, it would again be brought back to the Council for approval and subsequent submission to HUD. Councilwoman Kaywood asked where the reprogr,mmed funds of $661,000 were going to come from. Mr. Priest explained that those funds were already established this year largely in Public Works. Because construction had not progressed as rapidly as antici- pated, those funds would be reprogrammed into next year's budget. However, that would not slow down repaying of the alleys as questioned by Councilwoman Kaywood. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak to the 1980-81CDBG application for Clearinghouse A-95 Review; no one wished to speak. The Mayor thereupon closed the public hearing. 80-71 City Hall, Anaheim, .California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 22, 1980~ 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood moved to authorize the submittal of the City of Anaheim's 1980-81 CDBG application for Clearinghouse A-95 Review, as recommended in memor- andum dated January 14, 1980 from Executive Director of Community Development Norm Priest. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIY NO. 2041 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application by Joseph P. Osborn, to permit a limousine service on RS-7200 zoned property located at 1402 South Knott Avenue, was submitted. City Clerk Roberts announced that a letter dated January 21, 1980 had been received from a Mr. George S. Smiley, Jr., attorney for the applicant, request- ing a continuance, since he had been recently retained by his client. From the audience, Mr. Smiley interjected and stated that he wanted to withdraw his letter if possible. Although he had Just been retained last week, he believed they were sufficiently prepared today. As well, there were quite a number of people present on the matter on both sides of the issue and a continuance undoubtedly would cause inconvenience. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-230 declared the subject project exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR and further rec- ommended that Conditional Use Permit No. 2041 be granted, subject to the following conditions: 1. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans on file with the Office of the Executive Director of Public Works. 2. That sidewalks shall be installed along Brady Avenue as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with standard plans and specifications on file in the Office of the City Engineer. 3. 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 street lighting along Knott Street and Brady Avenue. 4. 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 Knott Street and Brady Avenue. 5. Plans for the four (4) car garage and office shall be submitted to the Building Division showing compliance with the minimum standards of the City of Anaheim, including the Uniform Building, Plumbing, Electrical, Mechanical and Fire Codes as adopted by the City of Anaheim. The appropriate permits shall be obtained for any necessary work. 6. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit No. 1. 7. That Condition Nos. 3, 4 and 5, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to the commencement of the activity authorized under this resolution, or prior to the time that the building permit is issued, or within a period of sixty (60) days from date hereof, whichever occurs first, or such further time as the Planning Commission may grant. 8. That Condition Nos. 1, 2 and 6, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections or within a period of ninety (90) days from the date hereof, whichever occurs first, or such further time as the Planning Commission may grant. A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman Kaywood at the meeting of'December 26, 1979, and public hearing scheduled this date. 80-72 ~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 22~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. Miss Santalahti described the location and surrounding land uses. She outlined the findings given in the staff report which was submitted to and considered by the City Planning Commission. Miss Santalahti then clarified for both Councilwoman Kaywood and Councilman Bay that the Home Occupation Permit on the subject was issued June 12, 1979. Also, at the time the Conditional Use Permit was granted, it was granted for people who were residents of the property and who were drivers of the limousines. The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous of being heard. Mr. George Smiley, attorney for the applicant, Suite 560, California Federal Building, 1695 West Crescent Avenue, stated that yesterday he had an opportunity to examine =he file and noted the petition signed by 76 residents of the general area in oppostion to the Conditional Use Permit. At that time, he did not have in his possession two petitions they had supporting Mr. Osborne which he thereupon submitted to the Council (made a part of the record).- One petition was signed by the residents of Anaheim and the other by residents of Stanton since 1402 South Knott Street was approximately one-half block away from Stanton. The circulator of the petition was aware that 90% of those who signed with Stanton addresses had children attending the Hansen Elementary School to the north of 1402 South Knott Street. He also had an opportunity to read Dr. Del L. Smeltzer's letter of December 14, 1979 (Distriect Superintendent of the Savanna School District). With all due respect, he felt that Dr. Smeltzer was in error on a couple of items. He (Smeltzer) felt that traffic would be substantially increased in the area, thus jeopardizing the safety of the school children going to and from school. Mr. Osborn, at his (Smiley's) request compiled his trip ticket since operating last May, revealing an average of approximately one and one-half trips a day which meant that during the course of an average 24-hour day, on three occasions there would be a limousine going into the property and going out of the property, which did not represent a substantial increase in traffic. Mr. Osborn had a two-car garage in front presently being used as a family room, a four-car garage in the rear, three limousines, a mini-van and several personal.cars. He had no room to expand it to anything larger than at present, and he did not intend to expand. In addition, Dr. Smeltzer indicated that since there were no sidewalks on either side of Brady Avenue, the children would have to walk in the street around parked cars, something they were doing in any case. Those who had been out to the address were aware that there was ingress and egress on both Knott Street and Brady Avenue. Mr. Osborn would be very happy to limit ingress and egress of his vehicles to Knott Street and to stay away from Brady Avenue completely. Mr. Smiley then explained the he was not able to tell by looking at the petition signed by the opponents, but he felt one of the reasons they signed was that they felt the entire area was going to be rezoned. He emphasized that the request was strictly for a conditional use permit and, further, Mr. Osborn personally did not want the area rezoned for commercial purposes. He merely wanted an 80-73 City Ha.ll~ Anaheim, California -COUNCIL MINUTES - January 22~ 1980, 1:30 P.M. opportunity for a one-year trial period thereby giving him a chance to show that he was not going to jeopardize the school children or deteriorate the neighborhood. He also felt that a number of petition signers did not like the appearance of Mr. Osborn's property because of all the concrete. The reason for the concrete was not because of his business, but because Mr. Osborn did not like to do yard work. He obtained building permits to do that work and spent almost $47,000 on improvements. He realized, as did Mr. Osborn, that they went about the matter in the wrong way. He (Osborn) should have obtained approval before going to all the expense that he had. He observed Knott Street and noted all the traffic on that street and therefore felt it must have been zoned commercial already and thus he pro- ceeded on that premise. He did not try to subvert the law or anything else. The Planning Commission voted unanimously that the CUP be granted, and Mr. Smiley stated he felt that it should be. Mr. Osborn's was a small operation and he was going to keep it small and do everything possible to limit the amount of ingress and egress. Of the vehicles going in and out of the property, there were probably more personal trips than business trips. Mr. Smiley then answered questions posed by Councilman Roth and Councilwoman Kaywood clarifying some of the points of his presentation. He also explained that the drivers were called in from someplace else and that they drove in and picked up the limousines. Mr. Joseph Osborn, 1402 South Knott Street, stated that he was the owner and operator of the A-1 Limousine Service and to clarify further, it was possible that they could have more than one and one-half trips per day. That was the average, but never could they have nine, ten or eleven trips a day. He did not know of any limousine company with four vehicles who did two jobs a day. The past weekend was the busiest they had experienced due to the Super Bowl and all four vehicles were out on Jobs. Two were out where they did not come back to Anaheim the whole weekend and the other two were in and out. Mr. Osborn then explained for Councilman Overholt that they had three limousines a 1975, 1977 and 1978 regular Cadillac Fleetwood and ene 1977 Ford twelve- passenger van that they used for their airport work. Counciln~n Overholt then asked if Mr. Osborn would be willing to ingress and egress off of Knott Street, rather than Brady Avenue, and if so, would he be blocking off the Brady Avenue exit. Mr. Osborne answered "yes" to the former, but regarding the latter explained they had not yet completed their work around the premises. He had plans to install wrought iron gates, already purchased, across the Brady Avenue entrance. On the 1406 property, there was a driveway running by Knott Street to the back of thebuilding and there would be a wrought iron gate installed there as well. Although he was willing not to use the Brady Avenue exit for his limousine and bus, he did not know if it was fair to say that he could not drive his personal vehicles out of that driveway. He clarified for Councilman Overholt that he would be willing to ingress and egress from the Knott Street driveway with his limousines and van 24 hours a day as long as he could ingress and egress from any driveway with his personal vehicles, and he would not be willing to seal off the Brady Avenue driveway. 80-74 City Hall; Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - J.anu.ary 22~ 1980, 1:30 P.M. In answer to a line of questioning posed by Councilwoman Kaywood relative to servicing his vehicles on the premises, Mr. Osborn explained the following: he washed the vehicles and changed the oil but did no mechanical work on the vehicles of any kind on the premises. The oil was disposed of by digging holes and burying it on his property. Relative to the drainage of water from the property, at the time they had cement poured, the building inspector checked the grading and drainage. They had sufficient drain tiles for the water to drain off the cement out into the irrigation channel running between the Bonanza Apartments and 1406 South Knott Street. Another drain ran under the cement driveway in the front of the house and out into the gutter on Knott Street. However, he did not wash cars in the front of his house--all car washing was done in the rear. Councilman Bay commented that there was no place to dig holes to bury the oil because it was all concrete; Mr. Osborn stated that there was an area on the side of the house and in the rear. In answer to both Councilman Bay and Overholt, Mr. Osborn relayed the following: the driving records of his drivers had been checked and cleared not only by him personally, but also by his insurance company and their driving records were impeccable. Other things that remained to be done to improve the property included landspaping. The 15- to 20-foot area along the Brady Avenue side of the house would be covered with grass eventually. They also had plans for hedges along side of the cement block building and landscaping all along the side wall along Brady Avenue from the corner to the driveway as well as in the front of the two buildings. Fruit trees were planned for the rear of 1406. They could not build in that area even if they wanted to due to a public utility easement. They also had to finish painting where in finality everything would be two colors so that the buildings would match. Wt~en they finished, the premises would look as good as any of the others in the neighborhood and perhaps better. The Mayor asked if there were any others who wished to speak in favor of granting Conditional Use Permit No. 2041; no one wished to speak, but those others in favor were recognized by a show of hands. Approximately 10 people were present in favor of the petitioner. Councilwoman Kaywood asked how many lived in the neighborhood; there were approx- imately three. The Mayor then asked to hear from those in opposition to the granting of the Conditional Use Permit No. 2041. Mrs. Donna Westbury, 3434 Thornton Avenue, then asked to read aloud some of the letters written in opposition to the Londitional Use Permit which included that of Gary L. Brown, Brady Avenue resident, Referee--State Bar Court, and Mrs. James Noson, Jr., President of Hansen School P.T.A. She subsequently submitted all the letters (13) to the Council (made a part of the record). She then referred to the individual form letters signed by 46 homeowners, expressing strong opposition to the operation of the limousine service at 1402 South Knott Street which she read. Mrs. Westbury also submitted a copy of Mr. Osborn's ad on the A-1 Limousine Service taken from the Yellow Pages showing it to be a commercial business, as well as a note from Linda Maestas asking that 80-75 .City Ha. il,. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Januar~ 22~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. her name be withdrawn from Mr. Osborn's petition since, "the petition for A-1 Limousine Service is not the one I signed in July 25, 1979". Mrs. Westbury also noted that Mr. Osborn stated before the Planning Commission that she lived approximately two and one-half blocks away from his business. She then presented the public hearing notice that she received and which was also received by all residents living within 300 feet of the subject property. She contended that Mr. Osborn violated the terms of the Home Occupation Permit by having employees living on the premises. He created his own problems by making his improvements before he applied for a CUP, and then incurred a finan- cial burden. She asked how long a commercial business could operate on a permit before it was changed. She also questioned how they would feel if some- one in their immediate neighborhood applied for a Home Occupation Permit and then opened a commercial business as had occurred in their area. She explained further that at no time did she or Mrs. Corban who walked the streets with her when gathering signatures ever tell anyone on Brady Avenue or Thornton Avenue that there was to be a zone change. Margaret Servance, 3435 Brady Avenue, stated she owned property in the area for almost 32 years and she strenuously objected to having a business approximately 100 feet from her home. The houses had previously been nice residences and now with all the concrete and high walls, the premises looked like a fortress. She did not think it was right for the property owners to sacrifice their well being for one individual, and it did not seem a fair thing to do. Zona De Los Reyes, 3417 Thornton Avenue, stated she was at the last meeting where Mr. Osborn stated that every person in the room at that time had children who played all over his property. That was untrue, along with his statements relative to landscaping. The premises were all concrete and could not accommodate landscaping. Mr. Benjamin Corbrun, 3441 West Brady Avenue, stated he was strongly opposed to having the limousine service located on the subject property. If they granted the conditional use permit, he questioned what was going to stop someone else from obtaining a use permit for other commercial businesses in their immediate area. He lived directly across the street from the use and when the limousines pulled in on Brady Avenue, the headlights of the cars shone into his front home window. Also, the night lights in the rear of Mr. Osborn's property shone in his window. Councilman Overholt asked Mr. Corban, having heard previous testimony that there were on the average one and one-half trips per day, did he have an opportunity to observe the activity on the property. Mr. Corban answered that he had not actually counted each trip but there were limousines going in and out all the time. Today there was an airport van parked on Brady Avenue although only for a short while, but he did not know if the van was taking calls from Mr. Osborn or not. Mr. Corban also noted that Mr. Osborn stated that he had a permit for the drive- way on Brady Avenue. However, the lady who built the house had applied for a driveway on Brady and it was denied. If he had a permit, he questioned why he 80-76 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 22, 1980, 1:30 P.M. only he had a rolled curb instead of the full driveway improvement. When the limousines left the driveway, they could be heard scraping on the cement since there was no slope to the driveway at all. The Mayor asked for a show of hands of those in the neighborhood in opposition to Conditional Use Permit No. 2041. There were approximately 15. In summation, Mr. Smiley stated that on the petition opposing the conditional use permit, most of the residents or approximately one-half lived on Thornton Avenue. Also, Mrs. Westbury might be 300 feet away, but it was not very close to his client's residence. On the other hand, Mr. Hobert lived just to the east and Mr. Vasquez across the street. The immediate neighbors with the exception of the last gentlemen did not feel there was any problem. In regard to Mr. Corbin's testimony, the lights to the rear of the property were there even before Mr. Osborn bought the property. He reiterated, he felt it was a situation where people were afraid that if the subject Conditional Use Permit was granted, everyone was going to try to come in and operate a business. The Council was not going to allow that to happen and should not. He continued that in reviewing the file, included were photographs depicting the front of the residence. Therefore, they knew that the house was set back quite a distance. It was obvious that any driver exiting at the 1402 address on to Knott Street had a good view of small children or anybody walking northbound on Knott Street. On Brady Avenue, he had a photograph, which he submitted, showing that it was not all concrete and as stated, Mr. Osborn was willing to landscape the area. A statement was made by Mrs. Wes tbury that employess were living on the premises which was not true. Only Mr. Osborn, his wife and two daughters lived at the residence. Another family lived at 1406, not related to the Osborns, who had one or two children. None of the drivers of the lim- ousines lived at either 1402 or 1406 South Knott Street. Mr. Smiley then referred to the s,,mmary of trips for A-1 Limousine Service recorded from May of 1979 through December of 1979 which clarified any question as to how many jobs Mr. 0sborn had transacted in that time. He thereupon submitted the summary to the Council (made a part of the record). In concluding, Mr. Smiley advised that Mr. Osborn was already at the location, the concrete was in and his business was there. He urged the Council to give Mr. Osborn a chance for a year and if things did not work out at the end of the year, the CUP could be rescinded. Several members of the Council then posed questions to Mr. Osborn for purposes of clarification regarding building permits, the airport van that was seen on the premises, use of the garages, and the two citations issued by the Zoning Enforcement Officer. At the conclusion of the discussion and questioning, Mayor Seymour asked if any of those present in the Chamber in favor of the petition wished to speak. Mr. Pat Hobart, 3440 Brady Avenue, explained that his property was adjacent to that of Mr. Osborn's with the side of his property abutting Mr. Osborn's. He stated that for three years before Mr. Osborn purchased the houses, they were rentals and the property was littered with trash. Mr. Osborn had improved the 80-77 City .Hall~ Anaheim.~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 22~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. property and it was cleaner than in previous years, precluding his having the burden of cleaning the property which he did for three years. Ms. Phyllis Colonino, resident of La Palma, stated that she was the realtor who sold the house to Mr. Osborn and he subsequently completely upgraded the property. On one occasion before the sale when she had a walk through, she collected 13 beer bottles which had been thrown from traffic coming from South Knott Street. She then testified as to Mr. Osborn's character and also relayed an incident which occurred in the tract on a street of 52 homes wherein teenagers in one family terrorized the street with their automobiles. She used the incident to point out that such things could occur and that A-1 Limousine Service was no such threat. There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public hearing. Miss Santalahti then explained for Councilwoman Kaywood that the Zoning Enforce- ment Officer was out to Mr. Osborn's property two times--once was in June based on a complaint prior to the issuance of the Home Occupation Permit and the second time in September on another complaint where it was determined he was in violation of the HOP. There had been telephone conversations in the interim, and they did meet at least one time at the City Attorney's office to discuss the specifics of the situation. Councilman Bay asked staff if they could assume that all construction work, the concrete, walls, ~arages were legal and within the permits issued by the City to do such work; Zoning Enforcement Officer Whitey Walp answered, to the best of his knowledge, that was correct. Councilman Bay indicated that was then not the issue. However, the driveway on Brady Avenue still had a rolled curb and he asked when the City issued the permit for that type of concrete work, did it include a cut in the curb for a slope of the driveway or not. City Engineer William Devitt stated that a permit had not been issued for that driveway, and it would have to be corrected if a permit were to be issued. The permit was held up until such time as Council made a determination as to whether Mr. Osborn's activity was appropriate. He had applied for the permit on December 7, 1979, but it had not been issued and he also subsequently submitted the check for permit. Mr. Devitt than reiterated for the Mayor that the permit was not issued because it was obvious there was an element of dissension involved. He also confirmed for the Mayor that if the Council should deny the CUP today, Mr. Osborn could still get a permit for the driveway for a residential use. Councilman Overholt asked if there would be any objection to limiting ingress and egress by limousines to a driveway on Knott Street from the standpoint of traffic; Mr. Devitt answered that he was not aware of any. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she would like to know what qualified for a Home Occupation Permit. It was her understanding that such a permit was for very light use. 80-78 City Hall, Anahe.i~.,. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 22~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M. Miss Santalahti answered that when Mr. Osborn filed for the Home Occupation Permit, there were two limousines on the premises and the two drivers lived there. Therefore, those could be considered owned and operated by tenants on the property. A third vehicle or third driver who did not live there could cause a problem. Councilman Bay stated he assumed the intent of a Home Occupation Permit was to allow a home owner to run a business out of his home as long as it was run by the family or people living there without the intent of enlarging into a com- mercial operation. The prime issue in making a decision on granting or denying was whether they were going to spot zone commercial into residential zoning. As far as the comments relative to Mr. 0sborn's property, beauty was in the eye of the beholder. He reiterated the prime issue was one of allowing strip commercial in a residential zone. From his count, there were 68 opposed including 25 on Brady Avenue, and 49 total, with 45 on Brady Avenue in favor, and therefore, it was a split neighborhood. The concerns of the citizens revolved around the fact that there were vacant lots on Knott Street across Brady Avenue to the north and another vacant lot which he assumed, but was not certain, was owned by the gentleman adjacent to the lot who favored the CUP. The normal continuation of strip commercial occurring along busy arterial streets and which had occurred in many places in Anaheim started out just that way. He agreed with the citizens in opposition and he would oppose the issuance of a CUP on that basis. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that the greatest problem they were now facing in Anaheim was the shortage of homes and there was a real need to preserve residential neighborhoods. When Mr. 0sborn stated that he assumed it was a commercial area that, for her, compounded the problem. The Council made a promise in 1977 that Thornton Avenue and Brady Avenue would remain residential, RS-7200. There was a variance allowed for a duplex fronting on Knott Street because it was not the ideal place for single-family, but there was an absolute assurance that it would not go into multiple housing. The situation had gone a step further with actual commercial uses encroaching into residential and there was no way she could support the request. Mayor Seymour concurred with Councilwoman Kaywood and Councilman Bay on the matter. He stated it was not so much a question of the particular use, but rather the intrusion into a residential environment. They were concerned with preserving the residential neighborhoods in the City to the degree that they made a decision to insure the integrity of those residential neighborhoods so that they could remain viable, especially in this particular neighborhood, which was still in the affordable class. To that end, they had to remain con- sistent and, therefore, he was going to oppose the issuance of the Conditional Use Permit. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTREPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council finds the subject project exempt from the requirement to prepare an Environmental Impact Report on the basis that there would be no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact due to the approval of this negative declaration since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property for iow 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 and EIR. MOTION CARRIED. 80-79 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 22, 1980~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 80R-34 for adoption, denying Conditional Use Permit No. 2041, reversing the findings of the City Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 80R-34: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2041. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Roth stated it appeared the CUP was going to be denied but he wanted to know, relative to the Home Occupation Permit, what it would take to scale down the existing operation, for instance, by going back to one or two limousines that would again fit into the Home Occupation Permit use. Miss Santalahti stated it would be hard to say with regard to the number of vehicles, but theoretically Mr. Osborn could argue that the limousines were his used only by himself and his family. Otherwise, no employees could come onto the premises to pick up the limousines. Councilman Roth stated that he was going to support the denial, but he felt the applicant might have some recourse. While he was sympathetic to the citizens, he was also sympathetic for Mr. Osborn in what he was trying to accomplish and in consideration of his property right. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that a Home Occupation Permit usually meant that the home stayed exactly as is; Miss Santalahti stated that typically there were no visual changes from the exterior indicating that business was going on inside. Mayor Seymour stated that perhaps they had to review the Code to state concisely for what purpose a Home Occupation Permit could be used. The rule of thumb he had always used was a business conducted where there was no visible coming or going. If it was true that Mr. Osborn's limousine service included such comings and goings, they ought to do something to change the Code. He never intended, nor did he think anyone else intended a coming and going type business to take place in residential neighborhoods. If there was a loophole, it should be rectified. Miss Santalahti stated when the Code was amended to include six vehicle trips and eight customers, it was relative to the school run by Sister Bernier. Home Occupation Permits were issued each year and had been for many years, approx- imately 500 to 600, and typically there were very few which actually caused a problem. Evidently, the procedures in the Code worked. Mayor Seymour indicated if that were so, it should be left as is. Councilman Overholt stated he was supporting the resolution for denial. It was a good business in the wrong place. vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution. 80-80 Cit Hall Anaheim California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Januar 22 1980 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-34 duly passed and adopted. 118: CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY - MR. GEORGE PILLARS: City Attorney William Hopkins first pointe~ o-~ ~h~ M~. ~i~l-~ was represente~by an attorney, Mr. Bobby Youngblood, and he (Hopkins) recommended that no negotiations be carried on in the absence of the attorney. George Pillars, 408 West Ball Road, informed the Council of the status of Mr. sustained purportedly as a his claim against the City for vehicular damages result of an on-duty emergency vehicle striking parked vehicles in front of 408 West Ball Road, on or about August 25, 1979. He stated at the present time he was out of pocket $11,153.26, the total of all the fees involved in the matter thus far. He did not want to sue the City, but he felt there would be no other recourse. Mayor Seymour stated that they would like Mr. Pillars to negotiate the claim with the City Attorney; Mr. Pillars stated that Mr. Hopkins would not speak with him. Mayor Seymour explained that if he (Pillars) no longer had an attorney on retainer, that Mr. Hopkins would speak with him. City Attorney Hopkins reported that he spoke to Mr. Youngblood, Mr. Pillar's attorney, that morning whose impression was that he was still representing Mr. Pillars. Mayor Seymour asked if in the event Mr. Pillars was not represented by counsel would Mr. Hopkins attempt to negotiate otherwise. Mr. Hopkins answered "yes". After a brief discussion between the Mayor and Mr. Pillars, Mr. Pillars stated he would have his attorney contact Mr. Hopkins directly. ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Adjourned: 4:45 P.M. LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK