Loading...
2523ORDINANCE NO. 2523 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADOPTING THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PLUMBING AND MECHANICAL OFFICIALS UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE, 1967 EDITION, APPENDICES A, B, C, D, E, F AND G INCLUDED, WITH AMENDMENTS THERETO; AND AMENDING TITLE 15, CHAPTER 15.20 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That Title 15, Chapter 15.20 of the Anaheim Municipal Code be, and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: "CHAPTER 15.20 PLUMBING CODE. "SECTION 15.20.001 APPROVAL. "The City Council does find and determine, as the result of study and investigation conducted by the City and its build- ing officials, that the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials Uniform Plumbing Code, 1967 Edition, Appendices A, B, C, D, E, F and G included, is an approved Code for adoption by reference within the meaning of Section 500.22.1 of the Government Code of the State of California. "SECTION 15.20.010 ADOPTION OF UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE. "Pursuant to the provisions of Sections 50022.1 to 50022.8, both inclusive, of the Government Code of the State of California, the City Council of the City of Anaheim does hereby adopt, by reference, the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials Uniform Plumbing Code, 1967 Edition, Appendices A, B, C, D, E, F and G included, with amendments thereto; that three copies of the Code shall be filed in the office of the City Clerk and shall be kept there for public inspection while the Code is in force, all of which copies shall be certified to be true copies by the City Clerk. The City Clerk shall at all times maintain a reasonable supply of copies of the Code available for pur- chase by the public. "SECTION 15.20.020 AMENDMENTS. "Certain portions of Uniform Plumbing Code are hereby amended as follows: 1. That the first paragraph on page la, stating the provisions and describing the contents of the Uniform Plumbing Code, is hereby amended to read as follows: An ordinance providing for the protection of the public health and safety; requiring a permit and in- spection for the installation or alteration of plumb- ing and drainage systems and providing for the col- lection of fees therefor; establishing minimum regu- lations for the installation, alteration or repair of plumbing and drainage systems and the inspection thereof; and providing penalties for its violation. ac 2. Section 1.1, on page la, is hereby amended to read as follows: Whenever the term 'administrative authority' is used in this Code, it shall be construed to mean the Chief Building Inspector of the City of Anaheim or his designated representative. 3. Section 1.2, on page la, is hereby amended to read as follows: Whenever the term 'assistants' is used in this Code, it shall be construed to mean the assistant and/or senior plumbing inspector or deputy inspector or his designated representative. 4. Section 1.3, la, is hereby amended to read as follows: Unless otherwise provided by law, the office of the administrative authority shall beta part of the build- ing and safety division. 5. Section 1.4, page la, is hereby amended by deleting therefrom subparagraphs (2), (9), and (10). 6. The first paragraph of Section 1.7, on page 3a, is hereby amended to read as follows: Any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions of this Code shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punish- able by a fine of not to exceed five hundred dollars or by imprisonment in the City or County Jail not to exceed six months, or by both such fine and imprison- ment. In addition thereto, this chapter may be enforced by injunction or any other appropriate civil remedy. Each separate day or any portion thereof during which any violation of this Code occurs or continues shall be deemed to constitute a separate offense, and upon con- viction thereof shall be punishable as herein provided. 7. Section 1.10(a), page 4a, shall be emended to read as follows: (a) No permit shall be issued to any person to do or cause to be done any plumbing or drainage work regulated by this Code, except to a person holding a valid unex- pired and unrevoked plumbing contractor's certificate of qualification, except when and as otherwise herein- after provided in this section. 8. Section 1.12, on page 5a, is hereby amended by adding thereto the following: All fees provided for herein are to be paid to the division of collections of the finance department of the City of Anaheim or to such other proper authority provided by law in accordance with the following schedule: -2- TYPE OF FIXTURE OR ITEM EACH Water closet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.50 Bathtub . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.50 Shower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.50 Kitchen sink . . . . . . . . . . . 1.50 Lavatory (wash basin) . . . . . . . . . . . 1.50 Laundry tub or tray . . . . . . . . . . 1.50 Clothes washer waste pipe . . . . . . . . . 1.50 Slop sink . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.50 Floor sink . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.50 Floor drain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.50 Dishwasher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.50 Garbage disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.50 Drinking fountain . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.50 Urinal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-50 Grease interceptor . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.50 Sand interceptor. . . . . . . . . 1.50 Gas system, one to five outlets . . . . . . 1.50 Six or more outlets, per outlet . . . . . . .30 Water heater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.50 Water softener . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.50 Water piping system . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.50 Water main lst one hundred feet . . . . . . 5.00 Additional one hundred feet . . . . . . . . 1.00 Lawn sprinkler one to four valves . . . . 2.00 Additional valves, each . . . . . . . . . .50 Septic tank and seep pit . . . . . . . . . 5.00 Sewer: 1st one hundred feet . . . . . . . 5.00 Additional one hundred feet . . . . . . . . 1.00 Manholes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.00 For issuing each permit . . . . . . . . . . 2.00 Called inspections when project governed by Uniform Plumbing Code, 1967 ed., not ready for inspection . . . . . . . . . . 5.00 Reinspection necessary to correct project previously inspected when said reinspec- tions exceed two such reinspections . . . 5.00 9. Section 2.2(a), on page 9a, shall be amended to read as follows: (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to conduct, carry on or engage in the business of plumbing or act in the capacity of a plumbing contractor, without first having had issued to him a valid plumbing contractor's certificate of qualification. 10. Sections 2.2(b.) and 2.3 through 2.11, on pages 9a, 10a, lla and 12a are hereby deleted. 11. Section 315(f), page 27, is hereby amended to read as follows: (f) No water, gas, soil or waste pipes shall be in- stalled or exposed outside of a building wall, except where permitted by the administrative authority. -3- 12. Section 315, page 27, is hereby amended by adding thereto the following subsection (g): (g) Any system of piping that conveys liquids or gases which may become a danger to life or property shall be required to be tested and clearly identified prior to the approval of the piping system by the admin- istrative authority. 13. Section 323, page 32, is hereby deleted. 14. Section 702, on page 52, is hereby amended by deleting therefrom subsection (c). 15. Section 910, on page 68, is hereby amended by adding thereto the following: All kitchen and food processing facilities shall be provided with garbage disposals which shall connect to a separate trap and waste outlet. 16. Section 1004, on page 73, is hereby amended by adding thereto the following subsection (e): (e) Notwithstanding the several water pipe sizes set forth in Table 10-2, page 81 of the Uniform Plumbing Code, 1967 ed., no building supply pipe which pipe extends between and connects the water meter and first fixture branch of said building shall be less than one inch in size along any portion of its length. Any hose Bibb at the point where service enters the build- ing may be considered as a first fixture branch. Hose bibbs not less than three-quarters of an inch in size shall be installed at the front and rear of all buildings which normally require water piping. At least one such hose bibb shall be installed in both the front and rear of all such buildings. Such front and rear hose bibbs shall be connected and supplied by piping which piping shall be not less than three- quarters of an inch in size. 17. Section 1008, on page 75, is hereby amended by deleting therefrom paragraph (1) of subsection (c). 18. Section 1215(f), on page 107, is hereby amended by substituting the word 'appliance' for the words 'water heater.' 19. Appendix F, Sub. F2, on page 155, is hereby amended to read as follows: Approval of the administrative authority shall be obtained before any medium pressure gas piping system is installed. 20. Appendix G is hereby amended by adding thereto the following Sections Gll, G12 and G13. Gll. No swimming pool water shall be permitted to waste or flow to adjacent property or permitted to waste or flow to public rights of way. -4- G12. Swimming pool water heating equipment shall conform to the design, construction, and installation requirements of the 1967'Uniform Plumbing Code for domestic water heaters. G13. No pool heater or pool filter equipment shall be permitted in a required side yard or actual front yard or any open space located between the front lot line and the line formed by the front of any building or buildings. "SECTION 15.20.030 MODIFICATIONS. "The City Council reserves the right and power at its own discretion or upon the recommendation of the Chief Building Inspector to modify any of the provisions of the Plumbing Code when there are practical difficulties in the way of carrying out the strict letter thereof provided that the spirit of the Code shall be observed, public safety secured and substantial justice done. "SECTION 15.20.040 SEVERABILITY. "The City Council of the City of Anaheim hereby declares that should any section, paragraph, sentence or word of this chapter of the Code hereby adopted be declared for any reason to be invalid, it is the intent of the Council that it would have passed all other portions of this chapter independent of the elimination herefrom of any such portion as may be declared invalid." SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this ordinance and shall cause the same to be printed once within fifteen (15) days after its adoption, in the Anaheim Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published and circu- lated in said City, and thirty (30) days from and after itsfinal passage it shall take effect and be in full force. THE FOREGOING ORDINANCE is approved and signed by me this 18th day of June , 1968. ATTEST:. CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM -5- STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, DENS M. WILLIAMS, City Clerk of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 2523 was intro- duced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Anaheim held on the 28th day of May, 1968, and that the same was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 18th day of June, 1968, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Dutton, Krein, Schutte, Clark and Pebley NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: None AND I FURTHER CERTIFY that the Mayor of the City of Anaheim approved and signed said Ordinance No. 2523 on the 18th day of June, 1968. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of Anaheim this 18th day of June, 1968. _•,` v CItY CLERK OF. THE CI OF ANAHEIM ( SEAL) I, DENS M. WILLIAMS, City Clerk of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the foregoing is the original Ordinance No. 2523 and was published once in the Anaheim Bulletin on the 2Bth day of June, 1968.7 City Clerk March 20, 2007 - Page 15 Council Member Hernandez moved to approve Item No. 52, seconded by Council Member Sidhu. Roll Call vote: Ayes - 5; Mayor Pringle, Council Members: Galloway, Hernandez, Kring and Sidhu. Noes - 0. Motion Carried 53. Consider a request for rehearing for General Plan Amendment No. 2006-00448 and C410 Amendment No. 8 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 (City Council public hearing held February 13, 2007; Request for Rehearing submitted by SunCal Companies). OPTION 1: RESOLUTION NO.: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM denying a rehearing requested by SunCal Companies in connection with General Plan Amendment No. 2006-00448 and Amendment No. 8 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2. OPTION 2: RESOLUTION NO.: 2007-038 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM granting a rehearing requested by SunCal Companies in connection with General Plan Amendment No. 2006-00448 and Amendment No. 8 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 and setting a future date at which the rehearing will occur. Mayor Pringle announced the City Attorney had placed two resolutions on the agenda relating to Item No. 53 and that Option 1 was a request to deny the rehearing and Option 2 would grant the rehearing. Council Member Kring provided background on her decision to declare a conflict of interest for the proposed General Plan Amendment #2006-00448 held on February 13, 2007, explaining that she had sat in the audience, however, listened to the comments and discussions taking place during the February 13th hearing. A March 19th letter received from the Fair Political Practices Commission now determined there was no conflict of interest and Council Member Kring moved to approve Resolution No. 2007-038, of the City of Anaheim granting a rehearing requested by SunCal Companies in connection with General Plan Amendment No. 2006-00448 and Amendment No. 8 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 and setting a future date at which the rehearing would occur, seconded by Council Member Hernandez. Council Member Galloway stated she would support rehearing the proposed plan amendment which contained an affordable housing component and felt it was important to have five voting council members to consider the issue rather than having a split vote. Council Member Kring remarked there was an affordability component, albeit only 15 percent, and she was looking forward to having the opportunity to ask questions of both sides. She also expressed concern that there was housing on the site which would be displaced and was disappointed that Disney Corporation was putting an initiative on the ballot relative to resort area development. Mayor Pringle pointed out the issue before Council in August of 2006 was should there be a mechanism by which there would be an incentive for hotel development by combining a residential element within the hotel project. At that point in time, four members of the council also wanted another option to move forward with an overlay that would allow for residential as long as 15 percent of that residential was affordable. He added no project had been approved, and Council March 20, 2007 - Page 16 adopted the general plan amendment and directed staff to move forward with creating a new overlay which would include an affordable housing component. He commented that overlay would be the topic scheduled for rehearing should Council approve this request and a hearing date would be set and the issue would be whether or not the zoning should be changed on a couple of parcels by Haster and Katella Avenue. Mayor Pringle added that he and Council Member Sidhu had earlier offered their hope for an opportunity to bring all sides together and come up with some type of compromise. Part of that compromise would not only allow SunCal and another developer to shave off a portion of their property where they could have residential whether it be 15 percent or 100 percent affordable, but also leave the portion of the property that touched the resort corridors and leave those portions for resort and hotel development. They had also mentioned creating an initiative to protect the resort area, to draw a line around the existing resort area and put it to a vote of the people to see if they would agree to protect the boundaries of the resort area from this point on. Council Member Sidhu suggesting holding the hearing on April 24th, and with no objections from Council, Mr. White stated the resolution approving the rehearing would be changed to include a hearing date of April 24th, if legally permissible, otherwise April 17th would stand. Roll Call Vote: Ayes - 3; Council Members Galloway, Hernandez and Kring. Noes - 2: Mayor Pringle, Council Member Sidhu. Motion Carried. PUBLIC HEARING: 54. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION C280 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2006-00191 OWNER: Anaheim Redevelopment Agency P.O. Box 3222, Anaheim, CA 92803-3222 AGENT: Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, 201, Suite 1003, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 1275-1287 East Lincoln Avenue: Property is approximately 4.3 acres having a frontage of 425 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue and is located 515 feet east of the centerline of East Street. City -initiated request for reclassification from the C -G (General Commercial) zone to the RM -4 (Multiple -Family Residential) zone or a less intense zone for a multiple -family project. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: CEQA Negative Declaration approved Reclassification No. 2006-00191 granted unconditionally (PC2007-11) (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner Flores absent) Appealed by Sheri Morales on behalf of Zion Lutheran Church, School and Board of Directors. MOTION: H/G CEQA Finding: Negative Declaration RESOLUTION NO. 2007-039 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM finding and determining that the zoning map referred to in Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code should be amended and that the boundaries of certain zones should be changed. March 20, 2007 - Page 15 Council Member Hernandez moved to approve Item No. 52, seconded by Council Member Sidhu. Roll Call vote: Ayes - 5; Mayor Pringle, Council Members: Galloway, Hernandez, Kring and Sidhu. Noes - 0. Motion Carried 53. Consider a request for rehearing for General Plan Amendment No. 2006-00448 and C410 Amendment No. 8 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 (City Council public hearing held February 13, 2007; Request for Rehearing submitted by SunCal Companies). OPTION 1: RESOLUTION NO.: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM denying a rehearing requested by SunCal Companies in connection with General Plan Amendment No. 2006-00448 and Amendment No. 8 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2. OPTION 2: RESOLUTION NO.: 2007-038 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM granting a rehearing requested by SunCal Companies in connection with General Plan Amendment No. 2006-00448 and Amendment No. 8 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 and setting a future date at which the rehearing will occur. Mayor Pringle announced the City Attorney had placed two resolutions on the agenda relating to Item No. 53 and that Option 1 was a request to deny the rehearing and Option 2 would grant the rehearing. Council Member Kring provided background on her decision to declare a conflict of interest for the proposed General Plan Amendment #2006-00448 held on February 13, 2007, explaining that she had sat in the audience, however, listened to the comments and discussions taking place during the February 13th hearing. A March 19th letter received from the Fair Political Practices Commission now determined there was no conflict of interest and Council Member Kring moved to approve Resolution No. 2007-038, of the City of Anaheim granting a rehearing requested by SunCal Companies in connection with General Plan Amendment No. 2006-00448 and Amendment No. 8 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 and setting a future date at which the rehearing would occur, seconded by Council Member Hernandez. Council Member Galloway stated she would support rehearing the proposed plan amendment which contained an affordable housing component and felt it was important to have five voting council members to consider the issue rather than having a split vote. Council Member Kring remarked there was an affordability component, albeit only 15 percent, and she was looking forward to having the opportunity to ask questions of both sides. She also expressed concern that there was housing on the site which would be displaced and was disappointed that Disney Corporation was putting an initiative on the ballot relative to resort area development. Mayor Pringle pointed out the issue before Council in August of 2006 was should there be a mechanism by which there would be an incentive for hotel development by combining a residential element within the hotel project. At that point in time, four members of the council also wanted another option to move forward with an overlay that would allow for residential as long as 15 percent of that residential was affordable. He added no project had been approved, and Council March 20, 2007 - Page 16 adopted the general plan amendment and directed staff to move forward with creating a new overlay which would include an affordable housing component. He commented that overlay would be the topic scheduled for rehearing should Council approve this request and a hearing date would be set and the issue would be whether or not the zoning should be changed on a couple of parcels by Haster and Katella Avenue. Mayor Pringle added that he and Council Member Sidhu had earlier offered their hope for an opportunity to bring all sides together and come up with some type of compromise. Part of that compromise would not only allow SunCal and another developer to shave off a portion of their property where they could have residential whether it be 15 percent or 100 percent affordable, but also leave the portion of the property that touched the resort corridors and leave those portions for resort and hotel development. They had also mentioned creating an initiative to protect the resort area, to draw a line around the existing resort area and put it to a vote of the people to see if they would agree to protect the boundaries of the resort area from this point on. Council Member Sidhu suggesting holding the hearing on April 24th, and with no objections from Council, Mr. White stated the resolution approving the rehearing would be changed to include a hearing date of April 24th, if legally permissible, otherwise April 17th would stand. Roll Call Vote: Ayes - 3; Council Members Galloway, Hernandez and Kring. Noes - 2: Mayor Pringle, Council Member Sidhu. Motion Carried. PUBLIC HEARING: 54. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION C280 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2006-00191 OWNER: Anaheim Redevelopment Agency P.O. Box 3222, Anaheim, CA 92803-3222 AGENT: Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, 201, Suite 1003, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 1275-1287 East Lincoln Avenue: Property is approximately 4.3 acres having a frontage of 425 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue and is located 515 feet east of the centerline of East Street. City -initiated request for reclassification from the C -G (General Commercial) zone to the RM -4 (Multiple -Family Residential) zone or a less intense zone for a multiple -family project. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: CEQA Negative Declaration approved Reclassification No. 2006-00191 granted unconditionally (PC2007-11) (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner Flores absent) Appealed by Sheri Morales on behalf of Zion Lutheran Church, School and Board of Directors. MOTION: H/G CEQA Finding: Negative Declaration RESOLUTION NO. 2007-039 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM finding and determining that the zoning map referred to in Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code should be amended and that the boundaries of certain zones should be changed.