1984/01/10City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 10, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session~
PRE SENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, BaM, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR: Garry O. McRae
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting..
INVOCATION: The Reverend David Bolton, Bethel Baptist Church, gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member E. Llewellyn Overholt, Jr., led the assembly in
the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
119: RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A Resolution of Congratulations was
unanimously adopted by the City Council, congratulating Rams owner Georgia
Frontiere, Coach John Robinson and the entire Rams squad on an outstanding
1983 season, with best wishes for continued success in 1984 and years to
follow. The resolution was accepted by Rams representatives Marshall Klein,
Dick Beam and Pete Donovan. Russ Bollinger, offensive lineman, was also
present and gave his reflections on the 1983 season.
li9: PRESENTATION: Mr. Bill Griffith, City Librarian, before introducing Mr.
Bert Yale, explained that after a presentation of the bookmobile slide show at
a Kiwanis Club meeting, Mr. Yale had consented to making a videotape of the
slide show, which was necessary in order to be able to televise it and to do
so without cost to the City. Personnel from Channel 56 were present at that
meeting and indicated if the City subsequently turned a copy over to them,
they would broadcast it on their station.
Mayor Roth, on behalf of the Council and the City, accepted the videotape from
Mr. Yale, the owner of Yale Video in Anaheim, and thanked him for his efforts
and generosity, which would now enable greater publicity for the Bookmobile
Outreach Program through TV coverage.
119: RESOLUTION OF INVITATION: A Resolution of Invitation was unanimously
adopted by the City Council to be mailed to the National Square Dance
Association to meet in Anaheim in 1988.
MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular
meetings held November 29, December 6 and December 13, 1983. Councilman
Overholt seconded the motion. Councilman Pickler abstained on the meetings of
December 6 and December 13, 1983, since he was not present at those meetings.
MOTION CARRIED.
15
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 10, 1984, 10:00 A.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
ordinances or resolutions in regular order. Councilman Bay seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of ~3,348,224.45, in
accordance with the 1983-84 Budget, were approved.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Pickler, the following items were approved in
accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each
Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Councilwoman Kaywood
offered Resolution Nos. 84R-5 through 84R-8, 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 rejected and referred to Risk Management:
1. Claim submitted by Nels D. Persson for personal property damages to
freezer and food loss purportedly sustained due to low electrical voltage
at 921 South Trident, on or about November 24, 1983.
2. Claim submitted by Cherly Lynn Vlacilek for personal property damages
to automobile purportedly sustained due to an accident caused by a
malfunctioning traffic signal at the intersection of Ball Road and Walnut
Street, on or about October 21, 1983.
3. Claim submitted by Daniel E. Boone, Jr., for personal property damages
to clock and clock radio purportedly sustained due to power surge at 215
Primrose Street, on or about November 5, 1983.
4. Claim submitted by Pacific Telephone for property damage to cables and
conduit purportedly sustained due to actions of City contractor at Anaheim
Boulevard and Old. Lincoln Avenue, on or about August 19, 1983.
5. Claim submitted by Pedro Garcia Reyes for personal injuries and
property damages purportedly sustained when claimant struck equipment
owned and parked by an agent of the City on Romneya Avenue, west of Harbor
Boulevard, on or about September 17, 1983.
6. Claim submitted by Roberta Bayley for personal property damages to
refrigerator purportedly sustained due to electrical outage at 912 South
Hacienda Place, on or about November 24, 1983.
16
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 10, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
7. Claim submitted by Robert Agnew for personal property damages to
vehicle purportedly sustained due to an accident involving a City driver
at Anaheim Stadium, Orangewood Exit, on or about November 12, 1983.
B. Application for Leave to Present a Late Claim denied:
8. Application for Leave to Present a Late Claim submitted by Automobile
Club of Southern California, subrogee of Bonnie L. and Charles F. Cordes,
for personal injuries to insureds purportedly sustained due to an accident
involving a City-owned vehicle on La Palma Avenue, on or about
September 8, 1983.
2. The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 105: Youth Commission--Minutes of November 18, 1983.
b. 105: Public Utilities Board--Minutes of December 1, 1983 and
December 15, 1983 (unapproved).
c. 140: Public Library--Monthly Statistical Summary for November 1983.
3. 123: Authorizing a novation agreement with Trans Pacific Administrators,
Inc., and DG Administrators, Inc., assigning contract services for the
administration of the City Workers' Compensation claims program in accordance
with the terms and conditions contained in the September 14, 1982, agreement
with Trans Pacific Administrators, Inc., to DG Administrators, Inc.
4. 123/153: Authorizing an agreement with Ball-Taft Medical Clinic, in the
amOunt of ~48 per Class "A" exam, ~32 per Class "B", and 514 per Class "C"
exams, to provide pre-employment medical examinations for the term January 1,
i984 through December 31, 1985.
5. 153/106: Authorizing one additional Senior Engineering Aide in
Subdivision Services, authorizing the Human Resources Department to fill the
position, and appropriating an additional ~14,800 into Program No. 265 from an
anticipated increase in revenues.
6. 160: Accepting the bid of Qualified Electric Company in an amount not to
exceed ~22,970.20 ~or 50,000 £eet of wire, 336.4 ACSR, in accordance with Bid
No. 4056.
7. 160: Accepting the bid of Multi-Amp Corporation in the amount of
$21,557.60 for one each Distribution Transformer Test Table, Model TTS-981, in
accordance with Bid No. 4065.
8. 160: Accepting the bid of General Electric Company in the amount of
517,678.68 for two each 500KVA, three-phase padmount transformers, in
accordance with Bid No. 4057.
17
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 10, 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
9. 160: Waiving advertising and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a
Purchase Order to S & C Electric Company in the amount of ~72,304.72 for nine
each PMH-9 padmounted, three-phase sectionalizing switches and one each PMH-11
padmounted, three-phase sectionalizing switches with fused lateral taps, in
accordance with quotation No. 15-RDA83-157 dated December 21, 1983.
10. 164: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-5: 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:
OLIVE HILLS RESERVOIR STORM DRAIN CHANNEL REPAIR, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
ACCOUNT NO. 51-479-6329.-17280-70810. (Bids to be opened February 2,.1984,
2:00 p.m.)
11. 175: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-6: 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: LA
PALMA 3 M.G. RESERVOIR, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ROOF REHABILITATION, ACCOUNT
NO. 51-479-6329-17260-75600. (Bids to be opened February 2, 1984, 2:00 p.m.)
12. 175.123: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-7: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT TO BE
ENTERED INTO WITH CONTRACTORS EMPLOYED IN EMERGENCY SITUATIONS REQUIRING
IMMEDIATE WORK ON THE CITY UTILITY SYSTEMS, AND AUTHORIZING THE PUBLIC
UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE THE CONTRACTOR'S FEES AND TO EXECUTE
SAID AGREEMENT. (form agreement, with term of each expiring at the next City
Council regular meeting)
13. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-8: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Orange
County Water District; Conley E. Clark, et %tx.)
14. 128: Receiving and filing the Monthly Financial Analysis for the
four-month period ended October 31, 1983.
15. 139: Opposing AB 12 (Vasconcello$) and SB 87 (Lockyear) re public
campaign financing for State and Local elections until provisions restricting
a local government official's ability to raise campaign funds and eliminating
State income tax deductions for political contributions to local campaigns are
amended from the bill, and directing staff to communicate the City's position
to State Legislators.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
None
None
MOTION CARRIED. The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 84R-5 through 84R-8, both
inclusive, duly passed and adopted.
18
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 10, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
175.123: FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES ~ JA/vf~3 M.
MONTGOMERY - LENAIN FILTRATION PLANT: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to authorize
the first amendment to an agreement with James M. Montgomery, Consulting
Engineers, Inc., for additional engineering services in conjunction with the
Lenain Filtration Plant Rehabilitation, increasing the contract by ~214,600,
as recommended in memorandum dated December 23, 1983, from the Public
Utilities Board. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
108: ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT - MUGSY MALONE'S: Review of the Entertainment
Permit granted to Yueng Yi Tsai for Mugsy Malone's, 1731 South Harbor
Boulevard, to permit mini-concerts, seven days a week, 8:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m.
Review was requested at the meeting of October 18, 1983--see minutes that date.
Mayor Roth stated he understood there were two representatives present to
speak to the issue. He first asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was
present; there was no response. The Mayor then asked to hear from those who
wished to speak.
Mr. Tom Goodman, Attorney, 505 City Parkway West, Suite 900, Orange, stated he
represented Laveta Domino, the landlord of Mugsy Malone's, the adjacent Circus
Restaurant and also of the surrounding Stovall Motels. Neither he nor the
Stovails had any knowledge of the previous meeting or that an application for
a permit had been filed. His client strongly opposed the granting of such a
permit. The lease between Mugsy Malone's and Laveta Domino with Mr. Tsai, the
owner of Mugsy Malone's as tenant, provided in Paragraph 5, Page 4 that, "The
demised premises are leased to the lessee solely for the purpose of running a
restaurant and cocktail lounge. Lessee shall not use or permit such premises
or any part thereof to be used for any purpose or purposes other than the
purpose or purposes for which said premises are hereby leased." That
provision was in the lease for a specific reason, i.e., to protect the
interests of the surrounding tenants, specifically the Stovall Motels. The
applicant for the permit wanted a theatre-type showtime entertainment such as
that presently at Crazy Horse, the Golden Bear and the Palomino Club. That
could not be construed as running a restaurant and cocktail lounge. By even
filing the application, Mr. Tsai was in breach of his lease. Mrs. Domino's
concern was primarily the problem created for the Stovalls. Should they
obtain the right to have two shows, patrons would be coming in at 8:30 p.m.
and clearing out for the 10:30 show, and clearing out again at 1:00 a.m., at a
time when people were trying to sleep. There were also horrendous parking
problems. It was not fair to the adjoining tenants to allow that type of
activity.
Councilman Overholt questioned why they were to be concerned with the problems
with their tenants in connection with what the lease provided. The City's
concern was relative to the impact the Entertainment Permit was having on the
surrounding area and that was something that was debated at length at the
meeting of October 18, 1983, when Mr. Goodman was not present.
19
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 10, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Mr. Goodman stated even though he was not present, he had listened to the tape
of the proceedings, and the representations made by the attorney for Mr. Tsai
were quite inaccurate.
Mayor Roth stated his impression at that meeting was that everyone was aware
of what was going on and no representatives were present in the audience from
the surrounding businesses, the issues at that time being noise and traffic.
Mr. Kenneth Baxter, 1717 South Harbor Boulevard, manager of the Cosmic Age
Lodge and the Galaxy Motel for approximately seven years, stated he was
familiar with the problems emanating from Mugsy Malone's. In the past they
had dealt with different lessees of that property. In the last few years, it
had been basically a restaurant and lounge and they got along most of the time
fairly well. There was a particularly annoying problem regarding parking. On
occasions over the years, they had to hire guards on busy nights, since it was
difficult to guarantee their paying guests a space in their parking lot.
Recently, when they instituted other forms of entertainment (Mugsy Malone's),
the noise factor was extremely irritating to their motel guests. Their exit
door was located approximately 100 feet from the front of the Galaxy M°tel.
At 1:00 and 2:00 in the morning, their guests had been sleeping for several
hours. They had called the police on several occasions because of fights in
the parking lots and every morning there were a number of empty beer bottles
all over the place. The back of the restaurant, which was in view of
approximately 200 of the hotel rooms, looked like the "City dump." They had a
long-standing relationship with the owner of the property, approximately 18
years. They ran a family operation hotel and 95 percent of their guests were
there with their families to enjoy Disneyland and the surrounding
entertainment. They had refunded money to guests because of the problems
regarding noise and some people said they were scared because of some of the
things they heard. In the last couple of years, Mugsy Malone's had been in
existence under different owners. The last three or four years there had been
problems on weekends. The problems had surfaced and then gone away over the
years. In the past year or two when the entertainment was extremely
questionable, the integrity of the hotel was questioned, and some people might
have suspected that the motel owned that business.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if in the past 90 days since the Entertainment
Permit was in existence if there were more problems with parking and noise and
requests for refunds.
Mr. Baxter answered that he did not know if it was more, but the business had
not had much success in taking off with their program. The weekends were the
most difficult and the noise factor, instead of 9:00 or 10:00 p.m., was now
later in the night. When it went past 10:00, 11:00, 12:00 or 1:00, it was
uncomfortable for guests. Relative to parking, Mugsy Malone's had spaces for
65 automobiles in the back and generally it was only Friday and Saturday
nights where they attempted to overflow into their lot. Some of those were
employees trying to park in their lot as well. 65 spaces represented
approximately one-half of what they needed when they were running to
capacity. Christmas time was very difficult, since their motel was sold ouc.
The problems surfaced when they were busy, which was approximately half the
year, and they needed those spaces.
2O
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 10, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Mayor Roth stated 90 days ago he supported the permit, one of the reasons
being there was no input or complaints from adjoining owners and tenants.
view of the testimony today, however, he was going to change his position.
In
Councilman Roth thereupon moved to oppose the subject Entertainment Permit.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
Before any action was taken, Councilman Overholt stated that the action taken
at the previous meeting was to grant the permit for six months, subject to a
review in 90 days, which was today. If they took action in the negative sense
today, he asked if that would terminate the permit or set a hearing to show
cause why the permit should not be revoked.
City Attorney William Hopkins recommended that they set an order to show cause
hearing, at which time the applicant would have an opportunity to present his
side of the case. In order to revoke it, it would be recommended that a
public hearing be set to give the opportunity of the permittee to make his
presentation.
Councilman Roth thereupon amended his motion and set Tuesday, January 24,
1984, at 10:00 a.m., as the date and time for an Order to Show Cause Hearing
why the Entertainment Permit for Mugsy Malone's, 1731 South Harbor Boulevard,
to permit mini-concerts seven days a week, 8:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m., should not
be revoked. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
123/142/153: ORDINANCE NO. 4469: Authorizing an amendment to the contract
between the City Council of the City of Anaheim and the Board of
Administration of the Public Employees' Retirement System.
City Clerk Linda Roberts stated that she had been notified that Gary Wilder,
representing the Anaheim Firemen's Association, was present and wished to
address the Council.
Mr. Gary Wilder, member of the Board of Directors for the Anaheim Firemen's
Association and a member of the negotiating committee for the Fire
Association, stated his reason for being present today was to remind the
Council that the adoption of the proposed ordinance would take away the 1959
Survivors Benefits, or otherwise known as the Widows and Orphans clause. Each
of the Council Members should have received a letter from Mr. Jake Petrosino,
member of the State PERS Board of Administration, about a week ago explaining
this was a no-cost item to the City and completely funded by employee
contributions, and that eliminating the benefit would provide no savings
whatsoever to the City. In fact, Mr. Petrosino said the benefits could even
be increased at no cost to the City, because of the reserve fund and the fact
that it was not used that much. As the Council was aware, they did not
participate in the Social Security System and the Survivors Benefits Plan was
originated so that they might enjoy some of the things that the people under
Social Security enjoyed. Without either one of the plans, there would be no
benefits provided for widows and orphans. They felt the deletion of the
benefit was both short-sighted and unjustified. If the Council had a reason
21
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 10, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
for deleting it and they could explain it to him, he could go back to the
membership and explain it to them. He was present to plead with the Council
to revise the ordinance to keep the 1959 Survivors Benefit intact. He felt
the no-cost item could go a long way towards relieving some of the labor
tensions that had come about as a result of imposing the contract on the
Anaheim Firemen's Association.
Mayor Roth stated he was going to ask if the City Manager or a representative
from the negotiating team wanted to respond.
City Manager William Talley noted that the Human Resources Director was
present and asked him to come forward, but first pointed out that no benefits
for any existing employee was being changed by the ordinance. It did
contemplate for new hires and was adopted by the City Council after the
impasse hearing. He recommended that the Council not change in any way their
decision, inasmuch as he did not believe it was the City's place to argue
whether or not anything was a no-cost item or whether it affected future
employees or not. He believed those issues were settled. He would not warn
the Council, but would point out that to reopen negotiations on any aspect of
what was a many-months effort, he felt, gave fodder to anyone who wanted to
open it up to the next issue. His recommendation to the Council would be,
they met for months, both sides declared an impasse, the Council was asked for
a decision, the Council made a decision and he believed it was totally
inappropriate to reopen labor negotiations at this point.
Mayor Roth asked for confirmation that he was saying the Widows and Orphans
Fund as referred to by Mr. Wilder was not applicable to the present men on
board; Mr. Talley answered, absolutely. It would affect new employees.
Human Resources Director Garry McRae interjected and stated it would affect
those hired after February 10, 1984, which was the effective date of the
modification.
Mr. Talley stated a month from now the ordinance would go into effect for any
employees that chose to accept an offer of employment with the City of
Anaheim. It would not affect any current employment, nor would it affect any
current employee.
Mayor R0th asked Mr~ McRae if he had anything further to add.
Mr. McRae answered the only thing he would add would be that it would not be
appropriate for the City Council to improve upon the final offer that was
negotiated at the bargaining table on December 3, 1983, and was, in fact, the
basis for the impasse reached on December 12, 1983.
The Mayor asked if Mr. Wilder had anything to add; Mr. Wilder, referring to
Mr. McRae's comment, stated if the subject issue was one they discussed or was
one of the main issues they were having a problem over, they were not even
aware of the issue until Mr. Petrosino brought it to their attention. They
were made aware of it when the Council was made aware of it.
22
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 10, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Mr. Talley stated they were now into a dialogue regarding negotiations. The
statement made by the Human Resources Director was that this was part of the
package that was agreed upon by both parties. That was their only comment.
They were not going to discuss when Mr. Petrosino decided to get into
Firefighter negotiations or anything else. They were starting to get back
into the dialogue and in his view, it was a never-ending process, once they
allowed any intrusion.
Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4469 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance
Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4469: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AND THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT
SYSTEMS.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4469 duly passed and adopted.
152/142/149/101/124: ORDINANCE NOS. 4470 AND 4471: Councilman Pickier
offered Ordinance Nos. 4470 and 4471 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4470: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
REPEALING TITLE 14, CHAPTER 14.32, SECTIONS 14.32.320 AND 14.32.330 AND
ENACTING A NEW TITLE 14, CHAPTER 14.32, SECTIONS 14.32.320 AND 14.32.330
PERTAINING TO PARKING CITATIONS. (authorizing Stadium/Convention Center
security personnel to issue parking citations and tow away vehicles)
ORDINANCE NO. 4471: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM b~NICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (82-83-33, C-R, 2300 East
Katella Avenue)
Roil Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance Nos. 4470 and 4471 duly passed and adopted.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4472: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4472 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4472: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (66-67-61(93), C-R, southwest
corner of Ball Road and Harbor Boulevard)
23
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 10, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickier and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4472 duly passed and adopted.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4473: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4473 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4473: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (81-82-10, ML, 1420 North
Lemon Street)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The May6r declared Ordinance No. 4473 duly passed and adopted.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: The City Manager requested a Closed Session to
discuss labor relations, litigation and personnel matters with no action
anticipated; the City Attorney requested a Closed Session to discuss
litigation and potential litigation with action anticipated.
Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session and a lunch break.
Councilwoman.Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (i0:50 a.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (1:37 p.m.)
112: CITY OF ANAHEIM VERSUS SODA SHOPPES OF CALIFORNIA: Councilman Pickler
moved to authorize the City Attorney to accept the sum of ~35,000 in
settlement of Orange County Superior Court Case No. 35-33-88, City of Anaheim
vs. Soda Shoppes of California, et al. Councilman Overholt seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 81-82-5 AND CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT NO. 2259: Application submitted by American National Properties,
Inc., (Orangewood Acres Mobilehome Park), for a change in zone from
RS-A-43,000 to C-R, to permit conversion of an existing mobilehome park and
construction of a five-story office building on property located at 2111 South
Manchester Avenue.
The City Planning Commission disapproved a negative declaration status on
November 16, 1981, and subsequently denied Reclassification No. 81-82-5 and
Conditional Use Permit No. 2259.
24
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 10, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
~The ~cision of the Planning Commission was appealed by the applicant and
public hearing scheduled and continued from the meeting of November 22, 1983
to this date.
City Clerk Linda Roberts announced that a letter dated January 5, 1984, had
been received from the applicant, requesting a continuance of the public
hearing to February 7, 1984.
Mayor Roth asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present on the
subject item.
Mr. Phil Schwartz, agent for the applicant, was present in the Chambers
audience; no one else was present to speak to the issue.
Councilman Roth, noting that no one but the applicant's agent was present,
moved to continue the public hearing on Reclassification No. 81-82-5 and
Conditional Use Permit No. 2259 to February 7, 1984, at 1:30 p.m. Councilman
0verholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
176: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 81-30A: In accordance with
application filed by Michael G. Mack, Orange County Transit District (0CTD),
continued public hearing was held on proposed abandonment of a portion of
Baxter Street between the Carbon Creek Channel and Via Burton, pursuant to
Resolution No. 83R-146, duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices
thereof posted in accordance with law. Report of the City Engineer dated
April 6, 1983, was submitted recommending approval of the abandonment, subject
to the following two reservations: (1) That a public utility easement be
reserved over the proposed abandonment area for electrical purposes, and (2)
that a public utility easement be reserved unto the Pacific Telephone and
Telegraph Company over the proposed abandonment area to accommodate their
existing facilities, together with ail reasonable rights of ingress and
egress. Said reservation to said Telephone and Telegraph Company to be
subject to and subordinate to the rights of the City of Anaheim reservation as
stated above.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: The Planning Director
determined that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section
3.01, Class 5, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for an
Environmental Impac~ Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the
requirement to file an EIR.
Public hearing on Abandonment No. 81-30A was held on May 10, 1983 (see minutes
that date); it was subsequently continued to the meeting of December 6, 1983
(see minutes that date), and after further discussion and testimony, continued
to this date.
Submitted was a report dated December 21, 1983, from the City Attorney's
office pertaining to a proposal of ASL Corporation to lease public street
easment from City for private parking purposes.
25
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Januar~ 10, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
City Clerk Roberts noted a letter dated January 6, 1984, from Mr. Warren
Brakensiek, Corporate Secretary of the Carnation Company (on file in the City
Clerk's office), which had been copied and submitted to the Council.
Mayor Roth stated he was pleased to receive the letter from Carnation Company
wherein it was reported that since the December 6, 1983 meeting (see minutes
that date), Carnation, ALS and the OCTD had been meeting to determine if an
arrangement could be worked out regarding the Baxter Street property. The
final paragraph of the letter asked that the abandonment be approved. He then
asked if anyone was present from the Transportation District who had anything
to add.
A representative from the District was present, but had nothing to add.
The Mayor then asked if anyone was present from ALS.
Ms. Susan Gordon, Attorney representing ALS, stated she would like to thank
the Council, the representatives of the OCTD and Carnation Company. They had
been extremely cooperative and ALS was withdrawing their opposition to the
abandonment at this time.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the
public hearing.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 84R-9, approving Abandonment No.
81-30A, subject to the conditions of the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-9: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
VACATING A PORTION OF BAXTER STREET BETWEEN THE CARBON CREEK CHANNEL AND VIA
BURTON. (81-30A)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor daclared R~s01ution No. 84R-9 duly passed and adopted.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 83-84-7 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. 2499: Application submitted by Gloria H. Miller and Dorothy H. Hurley,
for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200, to permit a 79-unit (part
senior citizen's) apartment complex on property located at 2620 West Ball
Road, with the following Code waivers: (a) minimum building site area, (b)
maximum structural height, (c) maximum site coverage, (d) minimum floor area,
(e) minimum recreational-leisure area, (f) minimum private recreation-leisure
area, (g) permitted encroachments into required yards, and (h) minimum
distance between buildings.
26
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 10, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-213, approved
the negative declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative
declaration together with any comments received during the public review
process and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments
received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a
significant effect on the environment and, further, granted Reclassification
No. 83-84-7, subject to the following conditions:
1. That completion of these reclassification proceedings is contingent upon
the granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 2499.
2. That prior to introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject property, the
owner of subject property shall execute and record a covenant against the
property restricting occupancy of the units to a maximum of two occupants per
unit, at least one of which must be at least 55 years of age or older.
3. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Revision No.
1 of Exhibit Nos. 1 through 3; provided, however, that temporary louvered-type
screen devices shall be constructed on top of the carports located adjacent to
the southwesterly four ("C") units. The screening shall be approximately
eighty (80) feet long and shall adequately screen the proposal from the
adjacent dwellings and shall be approved by the City's Building Division.
Said screening shall remain on the carports until the adjacent property to the
west, currently zoned RS-A-43,000 with a resolution of intent to RM-1200 and
developed with a single-family dwelling, is ultimately developed for uses
other than single-family residential.
4o That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition No. 2,
above-mentioned, shall be complied with.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-214, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2499, in part, subject to the following conditions:
1. That sidewalks shall be installed along Ball Road as required by the City
Engineer and in accordance with standard plans and specifications on file in
the Office of the City Engineer.
2. That street lighting facilities along Ball Road shall be installed as
required by the Utilities General Manager in accordance with specifications on
file in the Office of Utilities General Manager, and that security in the form
of a bond, certificate of deposit, letter of credit, or cash, in an amount and
form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim, shall be posted with the City to
guarantee the satisfactory completion of the above-mentioned improvements.
Said security shall be posted with the City of Anaheim prior to approval of
building permits. The above-required improvements shall be installed prior to
occupancy.
3. That the owner of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim a fee
for tree planting purposes along Bali Road in an amount as determined by the
City Council.
27
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 10~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
4. That prior to issuance of building permits, appropriate park and
recreation in-lieu fees shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in an amount as
determined by the City Council.
5. That prior to issuance of building permits, the appropriate traffic signal
assessment fee shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in an amount as determined
by the City Council for each new dwelling unit.
6. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner
satisfactory to the City Engineer.
7. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
8. That prior to commencement of structural framing, fire hydrants shall be
installed and charged as required and determined to be necessary by the Chief
of the Fire Department.
9. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved
plans on file with the Street Maintenance and Sanitation Division.
10. That prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall present
evidence satisfactory to the Chief Building Inspector that the proposed
project is in conformance with Council Policy Number 542 "Sound Attenuation in
Residential Projects".
il. That the owner of subject property shall restrict occupancy of the
dwelling units to a maximum of two occupants per unit, at least one of whom
must be at least 55 years of age or older and record a covenant in a form
approved by the City Attorney's Office to run with the land so restricting
occupancy of such units.
12. That this Conditional Use Permit is granted subject to the completion of
Reclassification No. 83-84-7, now pending.
13. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Revision No.
1 of Exhibit Nos. 1 through 3, provided, however, that temporary louvered-type
screen devices shall be constructed on top of the carports located adjacent to
the southwesterly four ("C") units. The screening shall be approximately
eighty (80) feet long, and shall adequately screen the proposal from the
adjacent dwellings and shall be approved by the City's Building Division.
Said screening shall remain on the carports until adjacent property to the
west zoned RS-A-43,000 with a resolution of intent to RM-1200 and developed
with a single-family dwelling, is ultimately developed for uses other than
single-family residential.
14. That prior to the commencement of the activity authorized under this
resolution, or prior to the time that a building permit is issued, or within a
period of one year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first,
Condition Nos. 2, 3, 11 and 12, above-mentioned, shall be complied with.
Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in
accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
28
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 10, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
15. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 1, 6,
7, 9 and 13, above-mentioned, shall be complied with.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman
Kaywood at the meeting of December 6, 1983, and a public hearing scheduled
this date.
City Clerk Roberts announced that there were a number of waivers requested and
she understood that all were deleted because of revised plans.
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
Mr. Bill Pene, G. G. P. Associates, developer, 5015 Burke, Newport Beach,
Suite 7, was present to answer questions.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she was very concerned that there were eight
waivers requested and by the "magic stroke" of saying the project would be 100
percent senior citizens, no waivers were necessary. She found that
unacceptable. She referred to a set of previous Planning Commission minutes
wherein the developer stated he liked the idea of a mix of senior citizens and
younger people to avoid a convalescent home appearance and suddenly, 100
percent seniors was fine. They were calling a 55-year old person a senior,
one who did not own a vehicle and, therefore, would not be driving, with the
requirement that only one of a couple be 55 and the other could be any age.
Further, the size of the units was entirely unacceptable. Her garage was 600
square feet and the units proposed were 436 to 480 square feet, which she
considered to be a cubicle. The staff report indicated that if the density
requested were allowed, 56 units to the acre, and the standard being 36 to the
acre, it would severely tax the infrastructure and create a dangerous
precedent. Those were just some of her concerns. She noted in his letter to
the Council, Mr. Pene stated the appeal was initiated by Mr. Bernard Blume.
She pointed out, however, that she set the matter for a public hearing due to
the foregoing concerns, especially the eight waivers.
Mr. Pene noted that the Planning Commission approved the project unanimously.
Relative to the size of the project and comparing it with existing senior
citizen projects approved in the City, in every category, they were well
within established precedent. The density of 56 percent was well within the
constraints of two other projects which were approved at 66 and 68 percent.
Further, the project would not adversely affect the concerns expressed
relative to infrastructure. Relative to traffic or density, if the project
was developed w~th 64 units under a typical apartment development for 1.74
acres as permitted, it would generate three residents per unit, or a total of
192 residents. The proposed project would only generate a maximum of 126. It
was not only important to consider the number of units, 79, but also the
type. They were one bedroom and studio units and the amount of people that
would be living on that land would actually be less than a typical apartment
complex.
29
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 10~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
In answer to a line of questioning posed by Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Pene
relayed the following information: Rental would be on a lease basis; they had
agreed to sign a covenant with the City that would limit the tenants of the
project to age 55, so that at least one of the tenants was 55 and there would
be no more than two persons in each unit; the total of 126 residents was based
on one person being in a studio unit and two in a one-bedroom unit; in order
to guarantee that only one person and not two would be renting studio
apartments, a document could be drafted assuring that there would be only one
tenant renting a studio unit; at the present time, rentals ranged from ~350 to
~400 a month; they had no agreement with the City Housing Authority--the
project was completely funded with private funds and they were asking for no
monies or special considerations; he considered age 55 in the realm of a
senior citizen and if they were being asked to stipulate to certain
conditions, it was important that if down the road market conditions changed
and they ran into a vacancy problem they still had that range of people to
draw from in the market, 55 and above. To raise 55 to 60 or 65 years of age
would limit the market; there were senior citizen projects in the City where
the size of the units were smaller than those proposed, one being at 950
Gilbert; there would be no medical facilities on-site and no dining
facilities. The project was for ambulatory seniors and they were not building
a convalescent home.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that they were asking for a 53 percent density
bonus with no guarantee of anything and they could charge any rental rates
they wished. It was not providing so-called senior citizen housing at an
affordable rate. She also noted that the project on Gilbert Street was the
only one that contained units of smaller square footage than that being
proposed.
Councilman Pickler disagreed with age 55 being considered a valid starting
point to being a senior citizen, especially the assumption that people who
were 55 did not drive, and thus the need for less parking spaces. He further
felt the project was too high a density for the area and did not see it as an
enhancement. He also suggested that staff review the age issue relative to
the definition of a senior citizen, which he felt would be more appropriate
starting at 60 or 62. He maintained that the propcsed complex was not, in
reality, a senior citizens development.
Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that the Planning Commission had since
proposed that 62 be considered the age for a senior citizen complex.
Councilman Overholt then posed questions to Mr. Pene relative to site
screening with regard to Mr. Blume's property to the west; Mr. Pene stated
they agreed to provide the necessary screening and to submit it with the
approval with the Anaheim Building Department. To them, it was not an
issue--they had agreed to the proper screening and it would be done.
Councilman Bay noted in the letter from Mr. Blume, dated November 29, 1983, he
mentioned that the builder had agreed to build an 8-foot wall on the westerly
side of the development. He asked Mr. Pene if he had stipulated to building
3O
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 10, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
that 8-foot wail; Mr. Pene answered "yes," that they would build the 8-foot
wall. If the question had to do with carports, a wail would divide the
property line and the carports would be on the other side of the wall. The
wall would be on their property line.
Councilman Bay stated that he did not find any 8-foot wall in the conditions;
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if he was now stipulating to an 8-foot wail.
Mr. Pene answered "yes," as was indicated in the minutes of the Planning
Commission meeting (see minutes of November 14, 1983).
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak, either in favor or in opposition.
Mr. Bernard Blume, 2638 West Bali Road, owner of the property to the west of
the proposed project, first submitted a diagram showing the proximity of his
house to the property line (made a part of the record)e He explained that at
the time he requested the 8-foot wall, he did not realize that the carports to
be built adjacent to his property line would be open. The carports were five
feet from three of his bedrooms and two baths and in addition, bordered 60
feet of his patio area. He had a very nice home and any type of visual
intrusion was difficult. He assumed the top of the carport would be 12 feet,
thus there would be four feet of open space from the wail to the top of the
carport five feet from his residence. He was asking that the carports be
filled in to mitigate noise, fumes and for safety purposes. With an 8-foot
wall, someone could stand-on a car and jump over the fence. Further, the
quality of the units should be the same as any other units, even if it was a
senior citizen complex. He was asking for a solid block wall on the rear of
the carports to the 12-foot height. An additional factor was that eight
balconies would be facing his property and some would be able to look into his
patio, pool and home. In order to solve the problem, he would like an
additional two-foot parapet wall built'that would increase the height and
avoid the visual intrusion on his property. He was trying to protect his
health, safety and visual intrusion into his property. He also reported, in
answer to Councilman Overholt's earlier questions to Mr. Pene, that he was
contacted by the developer. They were constantly attempting to purchase his
property and if he had committed himself to anything with them, they would be
saying he would be asking for the wall because he was planning to sell the
property. He felt the stipulation at this meeting for a wall and a parapet
was the proper form. He considered the development to be precedent setting.
Mayor Roth asked what he saw as the future for his property; Mre Blume
answered that this would be an opportune time to sell his property if the
developer had the ability to get the density they were requesting. If he
wanted to make money, he could answer that he would move tomorrow, but if they
could guarantee him his privacy, he would say that was where he wanted to live
as long as he wanted to live there. He also confirmed for Councilwoman
Kaywood that he did not plan to move out of his home at this point, oni~ if
the conditions were such where it would not be a good place to live any longer.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if he was saying he could be forced out, but he did
not plan to move; Mr. Blume answered "yes."
31
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 10~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Before concluding and in answer to the Mayor, Mr. Blume stated he agreed with
small units and senior citizen units, but felt there had been a great
sacrifice of quality in the proposed project. There was not even a
recreational area and if they were trying to satisfy the needs of seniors,
they should have a recreational facility. Otherwise, it was using the seniors
as an excuse to create increased density. Further, the rentals were not
inexpensive and he also felt they would have a difficult time monitoring the
situation with regard to the age of the tenants, using as an example a 55-year
old man moving in with a 22-year old daughter and subsequently the father
moving out.
The following people also spoke in opposition:
Mr. Alvin A. Sugarman, 8071 Slater Avenue, Huntington Beach, explained that he
was the developer of Meadowview Park, the adjacent project to the west, and he
was also building apartment units west of the project at Sharon and Ball
Road. The people from Meadowview Park did not receive a notice of the public
hearing before the Planning Commission or Council. Two-hundred seventy-one
feet of the subject property was contiguous to the Meadowview property. He
then explained the conditions that would be placed on a project on the subject
property if it were a conventional apartment project which would not allow
more than 45 or 48 units and if a condominium complex, 32 or 33. Relative to
invasion of privacy, the people to the south lived in small townhouses with
10-foot backyards. There was as big a piece of land where the 24 units were
in Meadowview Park as there was on the subject property where they were
proposing to build 79 units. If for some reason they were to grant the CUP,
they should not allow carports where existing structures were behind it. He
recommended a greenbelt giving a 20-foot buffer. He also recommended a
reduced density.
Mr. Roger Friermuth, 2671 Meadowview Lane, president of and representing the
Meadowview Park Homeowners Association, presented a petition to the Council
(made a part of the record) signed by 22 of the 24 homeowners. He thereupon
read the preface to the signatures on the petition which stated their
objections in the form of questions as to why the Planning Commission approved
the project when the Planning Department had not recommended approval. They
did not approve of the reclassification or the conditional use permit with the
waivers proposed. The last paragraph stated, "We, the undersigned, understand
that this property will and should be developed; all we ask is that you
reconsider approval of this project, and act to protect the peace, health,
safety and general welfare of the citizens of Anaheim." He stated they did
not receive any notification and found out about the project only ten days
ago, and in that short time had done all they could. He found that some of
the questions (as outlined in the petition) had already been answered. They
did not oppose the senior citizen project and looked forward to having senior
citizens as neighbors, but in looking at the waivers requested, they felt that
seniors needed better than a minimum development.
32
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 10, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
After Mayor Roth clarified the notification procedure for public hearings, he
questioned the City Attorney relative to the fourth question in the
aforementioned petition asking how covenants could be enforced when courts had
ruled that landlords could not discriminate as to age, sex, color or religion.
City Attorney Hopkins answered that they had been told the covenant would be
enforceable. Although it might be somewhat difficult, the covenant would be
recorded and enforceable.
'Mr. Friermuth then stated, speaking for himself, they had moved to the area
because they felt it was a nice, medium density area and not highly impacted.
Further, listening to Mr. Blume, they were in the same position, since his
backdoor was 20 feet away from the proposed parking area and his patio would
be directly adjacent to a wail. He, too, was upset over the open carports.
He would prefer a greenbelt, but in lieu of that and as a last resort his
choice would be an enclosed carport.
Kevin Thornton, 2685 Meadowview Lane, expressed his concern over the proposed
density of the project and Mr. Pene's comments that it would not affect the
infrastructure of the area. He questioned what impact would occur if the CUP
were allowed if Mr. Blume sold his property and the people to the south sold
theirs.
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, stated she did not believe
the density change currently being proposed would have an impact, but if the
whole area redeveloped at a higher density, it m~ght.
Mr. Thornton also pointed out that the site for the trash area would be 50
feet from his backyard and, further, if the carports were 12 feet high, his
backyard was only 10 feet deep. They did not want to have to look at a wall.
He would like a greenbelt and the structures removed from against the back
wail.
Mr. Phillip Case, 1249 East Imperial Highway, Placentia, stated first that he
had been developing apartments in the City of Anaheim for 20 years. He would
like to register his strong opposition to the project for two reasons: They
had built and still owned the property 260 feet to the west known as The
Balboa, since 1973, developed at 27 units per acre. The subject property
proposed to be built in the §uise as an exclusive senior citizens residence
was a definite threat to the density of that street. They had a definite
economic interest in the project as an owner. The other reason, they were
active builders and would like to continue building in Anaheim. He was
present today so he would not have to be back tomorrow trying to do the same
thing Mr. Pene was doing. The best he (Case) had been able to do in the last
five years in the City was 27 units to the acre. The economics of building
apartments today was ail tied to the cost per foot and the rent per foot.
What the developer was proposing was low-cost only to the developer, not the
occupant. Mr. Pene stated an entry rent of 80 cents a foot. Their property
to the west contained a bachelor apartment of 550 square feet renting at 75
cents a foot furnished, with one-bedrooms at 735 square feet at 57 cents a
33
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 10~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
foot unfurnished. The property they were currently developing at 1250 East La
Palma consisted of 48 units, 24 one-bedrooms at 700 square feet and 24
two-bedroom, one-bath units at 835 square feet. Those were going to be
opening up and renting at 67 cents a foot for the one-bedrooms on 1.7 acres of
property, which was exactly the same shape and size as the subject property.
He would not be able to compete with other people trying to do this same thing
if he had to continue to build under the existing Code requirements. The
price of ground was relative per unit and not tied directlY to the square
footage involved. It would leave him no choice but to play the same game. He
wanted to see more thought put into the project before allowing a deviation to
a City Code. He reiterated, he did not see how he could compete in the market
place on a legitimate basis if the word got out that all you had to do was
qualify a project as a senior citizen project. It was also a poor design on
top of everything else.
Mr. John Shanahan, 1215 South Empire, a member of and speaking for the Anaheim
Senior Citizens Commission, stated they were in favor of the proposed 79
senior citizen units. They felt comfortable in approving the project based on
the CUP being predicated on the covenant which had been discussed fully which
protected the development as a senior citizen complex. They felt that the
unit size and rental cost was up to the individual. What they were hearing
today was that people agreed to the need for senior citizen housing in
Anaheim, but did not want it in their backyard. He also took a tour of the
area and there were four single homes on the north side of Meadowview that
were two-stories that would be invading the privacy of the senior citizen
project. He reiterated, they needed senior citizen housing and were going to
fight every time there was an opportunity to get some.
Mr. Shanahan then answered a line of questioning posed by Councilwoman
Kaywood, as well as questions by Council Members Pickler and Overholt,
relative to the size of the units, the rental rate, the age limit and the lack
of amenities which were usually a part of senior citizen developments. Mr.
Shanahan remained steadfast in the need for senior citizen housing and
maintained that what was considered suitable varied with the individual.
Mayor Roth then asked Mr. Pene to make his summation.
Mr. Pene first stated he resented some of the comments made. Their
organization was ~0in~ to build the project and retain it. They saw a need
for those units in the City and they were filling that need. The developers
were afraid they were going to have to compete with the proposed rents. The
waivers requested were very small from the established Codes. If he
eliminated 15 units and made a recreational area, he would have to raise rents
to $500 a month. The project included a pool and spa. Relative to the
comments from the people to the south, carports butted up against the property
line for most of the area. Further, they agreed to sign a covenant with the
City and he would like to hear what the City would want in that covenant.
They wanted to rent to seniors and not young adults. It was a good project
and would be well built. He had calls after the Planning Commission meeting
from seniors all over the City wanting to get on a waiting list for the
project, and they were aware of the size of the units and that came from the
34
City Hall., Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 10, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Housing Development Department. The units might not be for everybody, but
certainly for a good segment of the City's population. He reiterated that he
wanted to hear from the City as to how they wanted the covenant set up to
assure that it was rented to seniors, since that was one of the major issues
expressed.
Councilman Bay wanted to know what guarantee would any senior have who moved
into the project and rented an apartment at ~350 a month as to what the rent
would be one year later. He was not proposing rent control, but with a 53
percent density bonus, there ought to be a proven welfare to the good of the
seniors that they could count on.
Mr. Pene stated he did not know how to respond to guaranteeing rents. They
were doing the project with completely private funding. He commented
previously he would like to have had money from HUD or have the City buy down
the land.
Councilman Bay reiterated his question--what was Mr. Pene offering on a
long-term basis for the good of seniors or anybody else in the City for the 53
percent density bonus being requested;-Mr. Pene stated he did not have any
problem tying it to the HUD affordable rat~s for 25 percent of the units if
that was necessary.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - DISAPPROVAL OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she would like to preface her motion for denial of
the EIR finding by pointing to several of the remarks made by Mr. Case, who,
to her knowledge, was the largest apartment builder in Anaheim. He built
quality apartments at reasonable prices that 20 years later were still in
excellent condition. He built, maintained and owned them. He said he could
not compete without doubling the density. As was pointed out on Page 4-e of
the staff report, Item 20, "Planning Commission may want to also consider the
precedent setting nature of this request...The density request far exceeds
that anticipated by the General Plan for the area. Should this density be
approved, the infrastructure would be severely taxed." They also heard from
Mr. Blume if the project were to be built as requested and his privacy was no
longer possible, he would be forced to sell, but he did not want to sell. If
Mr. Blume were to sell, the property owner to the south would also be looking
to sell. They would then not be looking at 79 apartments, but 236 apartments
"squashed" in a substandard manner and with the guise of a senior citizen
project where eight waivers were suddenly wiped out with the stroke of a pen.
Councilwoman Kaywood thereupon moved to disapprove the negative declaration
from the requirement to file an Environmental Impact Report on the basis that
there would be significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental
impact involved in the proposal. Councilman Pickier seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 84R-10 and 84R-11 for adoption,
denying Reclassification No. 83-84-7 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2499,
reversing the findings of the City Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution
Book.
35
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 10, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-10: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT A CHANGE OF ZONE SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED IN
A CERTAIN AREA OF THE CITY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED. (Reclassification No.
83-84-7)
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-11: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2499.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 84R-10 and 84R-11 duly passed and adopted.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session
to discuss potential litigation. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED. (3:15 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (3:32 p.m.)
179: GUIDELINES - SENIOR CITIZEN: Councilman Pickler stated in order to
settle the question of age limits, etc., relative to senior citizen
developments as had been broached in past discussions, he recommended that
guidelines be established, working through staff, senior citizens and
developers, so that they would have a formula as to the definition of a senior
citizen, whether it be 55, 62 or whatever. He felt, however, that the age
aspect was just a part of the problem. They had to specify to the Planning
staff that they should look at other related items as well.
Mayor Roth suggested that the matter be considered at the conclusion of public
hearings.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 3345 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
Application submitted by Hugo A. Vazquez, to construct an 7-unit affordable
apartment complex on RM-1200 zoned property located at 129 South Melrose
Street, with the following Code waivers: (a) minimum 10t area per dwelling
unit, (b) maximum structural height, (c) maximum site coverage, and (d)
minimum sideyard setback.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-211, approved
the negative declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative
declaration together with any comments received during the public review
process and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments
received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a
significant effect on the environment, and further granted Variance No. 3345,
in part, subject to the following conditions:
36
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 10, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
1. That prior to issuance of a building permit, appropriate park and
recreation in-lieu fees shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in an amount as
determined by the City Council.
2. That prior to issuance of a building permit, the appropriate traffic
signal assessment fee shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in an amount as
determined by the City Council for each new dwelling unit.
3. That prior to commencement of structural framing, fire hydrants shall be
installed and charged as required and determined to be necessary by the Chief
of the Fire Department.
4. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved
plans on file with the Street Maintenance and Sanitation Division.
5. That prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall enter into
an agreement with the City of Anaheim pursuant to Government Code Section
65915 to provide that twenty-five percent (25%) of the residential units shall
be rented as low or moderate income housing as defined in Government Code
Section 50093 and with appropriate resale controls as approved by the City of
Anaheim.
6. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Revision No.
2 of Exhibit Nos. 1 through 4.
7. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 4 and
6, above-mentioned, shall be'complied with.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman
Kaywood at the meeting of December 6, 1983, and a public hearing scheduled
this date.
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
Mr. Hugo Vazquez, 619 South Live Oak, was present to answer questions.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that this was also a project where there was a
great deal of neighborhood concern expressed at the Planning Commission
meeting and she did not read any answers to those concerns. One of the issues
was the proposed three stories in a block with only one and two stories, and
parking. She asked Mr. Vazquez if he also owned the vacant lot next to the
subject property.
Mr. Vazquez answered "no," although he had tried to purchase it on several
occasions. He then submitted his letter dated January 6, 1984 (Redhill
Realty), made a part of the record, the purpose of which was to formally
address the Council and all concerned agencies in writing of the individual
property owners' support and full approval to construct a 7-unit apartment
37
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 10, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
complex on 129 South Melrose. Mr. Vazquez thereupon read the letter, noting
that the project provided for 18 parking spaces, it was a secure complex with
a well thought out design consisting of two floor plans--2-bedroom unit with a
full bath wi~h a den/bedroom, or a 2-bedroom with 1 1/4 bath, private spa and
barbeque area and other amenities, as listed. Attached to the letter was a
petition signed by approximately eight residents living on both Olive Street
and Melrose, who were in favor of the project and who had lived in the
neighborhood since the early 1900's.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked relative to parking, if the three-bedroom unit was
taken into account; Miss Santalahti answered that the Parking Ordinance
adopted approximately one year ago required that all apartments have 2.5
spaces per unit, except for studio-type apartments. The project did meet Code.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she wanted that looked at again. She had calls
Sunday that those requirements were ridiculous, because they were overflowing
parking everywhere. Further, parking for new apartments and condominiums that
they were permitting was another issue which she would be bringing up as well.
Councilman Pickler asked Miss Santalahti if she saw any problems with the
proposed development; Miss Santalahti answered that two waivers were being
requested, two having been deleted. The second waiver, maximum structural
height, would not have been needed if the garage level, which was the first
story, were below grade. It would need a waiver the way it was designed.
Relative to the minimum sideyard setback, she felt that Code could be
satisfied. She did not believe the waivers were significant as proposed in
the development.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that it was a single-family area and presently the
house on the property had more than one family living in it. The people who
rented it asked to have one of the doorways blocked off so they would have
privacy. Approximately eight people were living there.
The Mayor then asked if anyone wished to speak.
Mr. Michael Brayton, 503 East Broadway, stated he was opposed to the project.
He was the Block Captain for Neighborhood Watch and represented the
neighborhood. He referred to the petition signed by 29 residents who were
against the project for the following reasons: The building would dwarf
neighborhood structures; they were opposed to the requested structural height
and minimum sideyard clearance; Mr. Vazquez was "stuffing" as many people as
possible into the present residence by taking a single-family dwelling and
making it into a multiple-family dwelling without permits and against Code and
it was a health hazard; parking was currently a problem on the street; Melrose
Street was the nicest residential street in downtown Anaheim other than it
needed to be repaved and it was the only street in the Redevelopment Area that
had a Neighborhood Watch. He also reported that the Redevelopment Agency was
not working with Mr. Vazquez and not making loans to anybody in the area (Area
4), because they were currently making a study on the type of impact that
would be made with high density or a large development in close proximity to
single-family dwellings and one of the options was to down-zone the area, so
that developments like the subject project could not be made.
38
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 10, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Mayor Roth interjected and asked for clarification as to who was discussing
the latter, i.e., down-zoning; Mr. Brayton answered, the Redevelopment Agency
and that was one of their options.
Councilman Bay pointed out that the Council also sat as the Redevelopment
Agency and that they were not aware of that situation.
In concluding, Mr. Brayton questioned, considering the cost of the project, if
it did not pencil out as far as economics, would Mr. Vazquez then "stuff" more
people in the complex as he had done in the past.with other pieces of
property. There were also 14 children under the age of seven living in that
one block and they were concerned about the number of people who were going to
be living on that street.
Mr. Joseph Sinner, 124 Melrose, referred to the Planning Commission
Resolution, Item 4, Page 2, "That there were exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved..."
California Code Section 65906 stated that "...variances from the terms of the
zoning ordinance shall be granted only when because of special circumstances
applicable to the property...deprive subject property of privileges enjoyed by
other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification."
Currently under existing zoning law, no other property on that block would be
allowed to build a three-story structure and ignore the sideyard setback.
Therefore, granting of the variance to Mr. Vazquez would constitute a special
privilege inconsistent with present zoning law. Mr. Vazquez had plans he had
shown in the neighborhood where ail cars must enter from the alley and exit to
the east onto Melrose. According to the recent CalTrans Highway Capacity
Manual, eight trip-ends per day per unit would mean an additional 56 trips per
day onto a small street. There were small children in the area and additional
trips could cause safety problems. The variances were self-induced. If Mr.
Vazquez would submit a plan within the existing Code, he would get the support
of the community.
Mr. A. R. Buis, i241 East Union, Fullerton, stated that he and his wife
purchased the property to the south of the proposed project in 1946 and in
1966 they started renting it (a two-story house) and had done so ever since.
If the complex were permitted, it would be undesirable, because there were
seven windows on the north side of his house, which would be obstructed from
the light. He could, perhaps, live with that, but he was concerned about
"loading" the apartments with people. He wanted a block wall at least six
feet high on the property line to protect his renters.
The Mayor asked for clarification that he (Buis) would not be opposed if a
block wall fence were built; Mr. Buis stated what was presently existing on
that property was bad.
Pat Whitaker, Neighborhood Restoration Specialist, Community Development
Department, explained that relative to the remark made by Mr. Brayton, they
had reviewed briefly with him various alternatives to development that might
come about in the future, which included possibly a less dense development, a
39
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 10, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
more dense development or a mixed use development. There was nothing implied
or stated that would lead one to believe that the Agency was considering
lowering the density or down-zoning the area, and the statement about
downgrading the zoning was not true. They were looking at the general
alternatives.
Mayor Roth thanked Ms. Whitaker for the clarification, since upon hearing the
remarks, he felt there was something wrong, since the Redevelopment Agency
(consisting of the five Council Members) were not aware that anything like
that had been approved.
The Mayor asked Mr. Vazquez to make his summation.
Mr. Vazquez stated that relative to the block wall, that was already a part of
the conditions. He so stipulated that there would be a six-foot block wall on
both sides of the project. Relative to stuffing people into the apartments,
he had originally rented the present property to approximately five people.
The tenants were people who worked for Van's Tennis Shoes. When the Van's
building on Broadway burned down, friends of the people who lived on the
property did not have the funds necessary to continue renting their apartment
north of Lincoln, and they moved into the property. They were still living
there. He was hoping to get the project approved and subsequently was going
to tear the present structure down. The neighbors had not looked at the plans
proposed and when he knocked on Mr. Brayton's door last week, he (Brayton)
said he was opposed without seeing the plans. He knocked on doors and sat
down with people and went through the plans. It was going to be a quality
project and quite expensive. It was high in quality, not density. He did not
believe the average individual was going to invest a great deal of money and
then try to attract "substandard" tenants.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Pickler, the City Council approved the
negative declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative
declaration together with any comments received during the public review
process, and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any
comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will
have a significant effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that although the drawing of the proposed project
was attractive, she felt that on that block of Melrose with one- and two-story
structures, a three-story structure would be setting a precedent the residents
would be unhappy with.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered a resolution denying Variance No. 3345, reversing
the findings of the City Planning Commission.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Roth stated he was going to vote against the
resolution, because the City Council' had been trying to encourage citizens in
that community to upgrade their properties. Mr. Buis stated that the existing
4O
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 10, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
property needed help and badly. He (Roth) maintained that rundown properties
only brought about more rundown properties. The request for three stories was
partly technical, because of the garage.
Councilman Bay, speaking against the denial, stated that no density bonus was
involved and it could have been requested up to 25 percent under State law, or
on 25 percent affordable, which was being proposed. The only deviations were
the maximum structural height and sideyard setback. They heard from the
property owner to the south who requested a six-foot wail, and they had a
stipulation that the wail would be built, both on the north and south side of
the property. He did not see a great impact with the 32-foot height when
there were already existing single-family dwellings of that height in the
neighborhood. He felt the project would be good for the neighborhood unless
the owner abused the way he rented the units.
Councilman Pickler stated the number of variances was minimal. He felt that
once such a project was built in that area, it would tend to enhance it.
A vote was then taken on the proposed resolution of denial and failed to carry
by the following vote:
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood
Bay, Overholt, Pickier and Roth
None
Councilman Roth thereupon offered Resolution No. 84R-12 for adoption, granting
Variance No. 3345 in part, subject to City Planning Commission conditions,
including the stipulation of six-foot block wall on the north and south side
of the property. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-12: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 3345, IN PART.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Bay, 0verholt, Pickler and Roth
Kaywood
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-12 duly passed and adopted.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 3350 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
Application submitted by Alfredo Silvo Ceballos, et al, to retain an illegal
dwelling unit and to construct a garage on RM-1200 zoned property located at
428 and 428-1/2 South Melrose Street, with the following Code waivers: (a)
minimum vehicular accessway, (b) minimum number and type of parking spaces,
(c) minimum lot area per dwelling unit, (d) maximum lot coverage, (e) minimum
floor area, (f) minimum landscaped setback, and (g) minimum sideyard setback.
41
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 10, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-212, approved
the negative declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative
declaration together with any comments received during the public review
process, and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any
comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will
have a significant effect on the environment, and further, granted Variance
No. 3350 in part, subject to the following conditions:
1. That plans shall be submitted to the Building Division showing compliance
with the minimum standards of the City of Anaheim, including the Uniform
Building, Plumbing, Electrical, Housing, Mechanical and Fire Codes as adopted
by the City of Anaheim. The appropriate permits shall be obtained for any
necessary work.
2. That the existing structure shall be brought up to the minimum standards
of the City of Anaheim, including the Uniform Building, Plumbing, Electrical,
Housing, Mechanical and Fire Codes as adopted by the City of Anaheim.
3. That prior to issuance of a building permit, the appropriate traffic
signal assessment fee shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in an amount as
determined by the City Council for each new dwelling unit.
4. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Revision No.
1 of Exhibit No. 1, showing two detached dwellings.
5. That Condition Nos. 1 and 3, above-mentioned, shall be completed within a
period of 90 days from the date of this resolution.
6. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 2 and
4, above-mentioned, shall be complied with.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman
Kaywood at the meeting of December 6, 1983, and a public hearing scheduled
this date.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present; no one was
present.
City Clerk Linda Roberts confirmed for the Mayor that the applicant had been
notified of the hearing; the Mayor suggested that they proceed with the
hearing and take testimony from those present in opposition.
Mr. Walter Olinyk, 1230 South Hickory, Santa Aha, owner of 420 South Melrose,
stated he was also present three months ago on this matter and two weeks ago
the applicant cut a two-foot partition. He had three or four people working
there, but the roof was still hanging close to his property. It was a big
mess on the property. He had owned the property for sixteen years. The
vacant lot had three trailers parked on it. People were living there with no
bathroom facilities. He was having great difficulties with the owner of that
property and he was begging the Council for assistance.
42
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 10, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Mayor Roth asked that a Code Enforcement Officer be sent to the property to
investigate the situation relative to the trailers parked on the vacant lot.
Mrs. Ida Lee Backus, 537 Sherwood Drive, stated she owned the property at 417
and 417-1/2 South Melrose, and her sister owned the house at 423 South
Melrose, and they were raised on that street. Next door to her house three
homemade trailers were moved in and people were living in them without any
form of sanitation. There was also one behind Mr. Olinyk's house. It was a
slum area and it was running down the surrounding properties. They were very
concerned over the situation and some of the buildings were not built to
Code. She surmised there must be about five units of people living on that
property. There were leantos in the back and there was no room for a garage.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Pickier, the City Council approved the
negative declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative
declaration together with any comments received during the public review
process, and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any
comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will
have a significant effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 84R-13 for adoption, denying
Variance No. 3350, reversing the findings of the City Planning Commission.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-13: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DENYING VARIANCE NO. 3350.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Overhoit, Pickier and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-13 duly passed and adopted.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she did not know whether they had to place a time
constraint on cleanup of that property.
Mayor Roth stated that Code Enforcement was going to be busy on the property
tomorrow.
Miss Santalahti stated they would notify the owner and give him 90 days to
terminate any illegal situation.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2506 AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION: Application submitted by Jean K. Fogarty, to permit a temporary
trailer for a fish market on CL zoned property located at 2840 East Lincoln
Avenue.
43
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 10, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-215, approved
the negative declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative
declaration together with any comments received during the public review
process, and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any
comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will
have a significant effect on the environment, and further, granted Conditional
Use Permit No. 2506, subject to the following conditions:
1. That in the event subject property is to be divided for the purpose of
sale, lease, or financing, a parcel map to record the approved division of
subject property shall be submitted to and approvmd by the City of Anaheim and
then be recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder.
2. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved
plans on file with the Street Maintenance and Sanitation Division.
3. That a 6-foot high masonry block wall as measured from the highest
finished grade of subject property, shall be constructed on the southerly
property line for a minimum distance of approximately 135 feet or more
adjacent to Lot Nos. 34 and 35 in Tract No. 4152.
4. That the use is granted for a period of two (2) years to expire on
November 14, 1985.
5. 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; provided, however, that skirting shall be provided around the bottom
of the temporary trailer to provide a sound barrier and that any necessary
openings required for venting shall face north towards Lincoln Avenue.
6. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 2, 3
and 5, above-mentioned, shall be complied with.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman
Kaywood at the meeting of December 6, 1983, and a public hearing scheduled
this date.
The'Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
Mrs. Jean Fogarty, 6671 Canyon Hills Road, stated she was present to answer
any questions.
Councilwoman Kaywood explained that she had received complaints from some of
the neighbors and also wanted answers to the questions they had relative to
odors, whether the motor for refrigeration of the trailer would be noisy, and
the kind of wall that would be constructed to protect the residents on the
street to the south.
44
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 10~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Mrs. Fogarty stated she had not been able t~, reach the people who were going
to establish the market and was going to ask for a continuance today.
However, she could answer questions and then ask for a continuance.
Mayor Roth asked for a show of hands of the people in the Chambers audience
who were present relative to the requested CUP; approximately eight to ten
people were present.
Mrs. Fogarty then explained as far as the noise factor, and she was not an
expert, it was set up so that the trailer was going to be lowered into the
ground and there was then going to be skirting around the trailer to stop the
noise. If there was any noise, it would be directed toward the traffic area
on Lincoln Avenue. One of the questions raised had to do with a possible
power shortage. The agent explained that there was a backup unit on the
trailer. His inventory was all frozen foods and he would not put himself in a
position of losing that inventory. Relative to the odor, she personally went
to the site where the trailer was now located in Santa Ana and she did not
smell any odor. Everything was frozen, the same as in a frozen food market.
They were presently located on Grand Avenue in Santa Ana in an industrial
area. The trailer had a lot of material underneath it that was not
necessary. The trailer they were going to use was not as high as the one on
that property. If they did use that one, they would be removing the rigging
and it would be sunk down and it would be shielded. There was going to be an
awning and wood decking all around it and it would look like a seafood
grotto. There would be paved parking, a block wall fence and poles stuck into
the asphalt to stop traffic from going through. At present, trucks were
parked on the property and there was dust. Traffic was going through the back
of the center which was used as a garbage dump. The proposal would be an
improvement to the area. The color of the trailer would blend in with the
rest of the center.
Councilman Bay asked the hours of operation; Mrs. Fogarty answered she thought
it was 10:00 to 7:00, there were no lighted signs except lighting for parking,
whatever the City would require.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if she lived on the south side, what would she see;
Mrs. Fogarty stated that at present, there was a 4 1/2-foot fence and if the
CUP was approved, there would be a 6-foot fence, on the other side would be
shrubbery, there would be a nicer view with no dust factor. There would then
be a parking lot and the back of the trailer, which would be about the same
height as the building on the property, and it would be painted a cream color.
The Mayor asked to hear from those who wished to speak.
Bette Miller, 2857 Gerald Circle, stated she had a petition signed by 60
concerned residents of the area, which she thereupon submitted (made a part of
the record), after reading the heading, which outlined the concern of the
residents: Odor that would be generated from the market; increase in dust and
traffic; it would encourage an influx of insects and rodents; it would
depreciate the value of the adjacent homes. She pointed out that the trailer
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 10~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
was not a prefab type as used by other merchants. It was a deep, refrigerated
semi-trailer rebuilt inside to be self-contained. She did not know how they
accommodated lavatories and the like. Mrs. Fogarty was asking the residents
of the area to close their eyes and accept any means she could find to accept
money for the property.
Questions were then posed to Mrs. Miller by Council Members during which she
described the trailer now located in Santa Aha which would be the unit to be
placed on the subject property and the noise emanating from that refrigerated
unit.
Mr. Dale Bradford, 2861 Gerald Circle, stated his home was almost immediately
behind the subject property where he had lived for 20 years. His home was ~11
he had and he wanted to protect it as best as he could, as did the other 59
residents. There was a double fence along the property line. The people who
were there before the property was developed had a 6 1/2-foot concrete block
fence and that was what he had. Refuse had been moved into the area behind
his home. The Sanitation Division should give some thought and consideration
to the valley created by the two block walls, with eight to ten inches in
between where there were all sorts of refuse and rats. When the six-foot
fence was constructed behind his property, he was going to have the same
situation, which was an unhealthy one. Relative to odor, he had worked around
motels and restaurants all his life and any refuse from paper where fish was
wrapped was going to have an odor.
Mayor Roth, speaking to Mrs. Fogarty, noted that Curtis Schwartz, the vendor
who was going to put the unit on the property, had the expertise to give the
Council the information they°needed. He wanted to know the reason why he was
not present today.
Mrs. Fogarty stated she could not notify him in time and he went up to Alaska
and Washington. The message was not communicated to him correctly and he was
under the impression that the project was approved. Relative to Mr.
Bradford's presentation, the existing situation was there when she bought the
property. The other thing was the situation of the fill in the vacant land
shortening that site. She had offered to add to the fence. She was flexible
and if they wanted two fences or one fence, she offered both alternatives to
them. She believed Mrs. Miller wanted the double fence.
MOTION: After additional questions posed to Mrs. Fogaraty by Council Members,
Councilman Bay moved that action on the CUP be continued for two weeks and
that a continued public hearing take place on Tuesday, January 24, 1984, on
the basis that the actual tenant and user of the trailer was not present.
Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
Before action was taken, Councilman Bay stated he assumed the tenant could be
present at that time to give them the technical answers they needed regarding
the noise of the refrigeration unit, potential odor problems, etc., because
without some assurance of a solution to those problems, he would have to
oppose the issuance of the CUP.
46
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Januar~ 10, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Overholt stated he would like to see some pictures in two weeks;
Mrs. Fogarty stated they could take additional pictures and perhaps submit an
artist's rendering.
Councilman Bay suggested where there were two walls or a fence and a wail
adjacent to each other that Orange County Vector Control be called to come out
for rat infestation or any other infestation in that area.
Councilman Overholt stated it was his understanding the public hearing portion
was closed, but that questions could be asked.
Mayor Roth asked that the continued hearing be set as the first public hearing
on January 24, 1984, at 1:30 p.m.; Councilwoman Kaywood stated at that time
she wanted to know the height of the trailer and the width.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2342 (READVERTISED):
Application submitted by Patricia H. Chappeil, (L.O.R.D.S. Ministries), to
consider modification or revocation of Conditional Use Permit No. 2342, to
retain a church and food distribution center on CG zoned property located at
806 and 808 North Anaheim Boulevard, with the following Code waivers: (a)
minimum number of parking spaces, and (b) permitted outdoor storage.
The Planning Director or his authorized representative has determined that the
proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class
21, as defined in State Environmental Impact Report Guidelines and is,
therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. The
City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-216, revoked
Conditional Use Permit No. 2342.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by the applicant and a
public hearing scheduled this date.
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
Louis Forkell, Director of L.O.R.D.S. Ministries, 747 1/2 North Philadelphia
Street, firs~ confirmed for the Mayor that he was the pastor of L.0.R.D.S.
Ministries.
Councilman Pickier stated that he had passed the property many times and noted
the last time that a "for lease" sign was displayed on the building.
Miss Santalahti stated she went to the property at lunch time and noted that
the premises were vacated.
Paster Forkell explained that the Planning Commission gave him 22 days to do
something and refile. At that meeting, he told them he found other property
in the City of Orange and they were in the process of moving. It did not mean
he wanted to shut down what he was doing in Anaheim. The property was not
47
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 10, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
vacated, he still had an active lease, but in order to protect himself, he had
looked for other means but not where the chapel was concerned. They voted to
have both the food ministry and chapel closed. He had not found another
chapel. The ones suffering in this situation were the landlords, because they
were losing rent. They had a new facility they could move into, but he did
not want to give up what they were doing in Anaheim, since there was a
tremendous need. Since the Planning Commission meeting, the ministry served
over 168 families from Anaheim, recommended through Anaheim agencies.
Mayor Roth stated he had heard good things about the chapel and bad things
relative to food processing at the location, trailers on the property,
disposal of spoiled food, etc. He asked for confirmation if Pastor Forkell
was saying that he was moving the food distribution to Orange and not bringing
it back to the subject location, but instead would be using the existing
structure for a chapel and counselling center.
Pastor Forkell answered that the chapel was at 804-806 North Anaheim Boulevard
with one landlord, and 808 had another landlord. He did not see the
feasibility of expanding the chapel, because now they were going to get back
into parking spaces. He would propose and be willing to go along with a dry
storage, not even an on-premises labor type of thing, but when he would have
excessive loads of any dry products he could use the facility for dry storage
such as for beans, canned goods, etc. It would not be an active handout
center as in the past. They would take the refrigeration out and it was being
removed now. Ail fresh products would be at their new location.
Councilman Overholt asked if he was proposing use for dry storage only, would
there be any garbage whatsoever connected with that use or any waste products.
Pastor Forkell answered if so, it would be things that would not be offensive
and he would be willing to go a step further. They had made arrangements with
their new location and if the day came that that occurred, he would take it to
their new location. He would not use a dumpster on premises. He would use it
long enough to load it and take it away.
Councilman Overholt asked about the frequency of ingress and egress by their
big diesels and suggested that perhaps a limitation could be placed on the
number of trips, since one of the problems was odor from diesel trucks; Pastor
Forkell stated on an average it would not be daily. There might be a bobtail
truck, van or something on a daily basis, but not over one or two trips at the
most. The liquor store on the corner also had deliveries four or five days a
week that used diesel trucks. They should not be any more frequent than that.
Councilman Bay asked if he had read the petition that was received from nearby
homeowners listing parking, noise, odors, sleeping on the premises, excessive
storage of trucks, trailers, etc., general appearance and hours of operation,
with truck going in and out, forklifts being operated, etc. If they changed
to only dry supplies, he did not know how that would solve the problems unless
Pastor Forkell could tell him.
48
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 10, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Pastor Forkell answered those were a problem by petition and not by fact. At
the previous hearing he asked where were the citations. When an inspector
visited the property and could not find the problems, it was not possible to
acknowledge a problem as existing.
The Mayor then asked to hear from those who wished to speak.
Mr. Wiiber Parnell, 115 East North Street, stated as far as dry storage, they
were still going to have rodents and rats, which they had for the last three
years. L.O.R.D.So Minstries had two bobtail trucks that were both diesel.
When they were driven in and parked there in the morning, his whole house was
fuji of diesel fumes. At one time when the City Inspector was at his home
inquiring as to the complaints, one of the diesels was parked outside. His
windows were up in his home and within five minutes the inspector said he was
going out to shut the man down. The inspector had gone out in response to the
City Attorney. They had semi's, two bobtails and a pickup that were all
diesels.
The Mayor asked if he was saying he would have no objection if the facility
were used as a chapel and for counselling, but his concern revolved around the
trucks, the noise and exhaust fumes.
Mr. Parnell stated he objected to the trucks, forklifts and the early morning
and late night hours. The chapel never caused problems. If he kept the
campers, mobile homes and trailers off the property and moved the food
distribution, there would be no problems with parking.
Mr. Bill Erickson, 301 East North Street, Block Captain of Neighborhood Watch,
stated it was called to his attention that there were various complaints with
regard to Conditional Use Permit No. 2342. Relative to the chapel, he had
never heard any evidence against it, but if there was going to be a repetition
of food distribution, they would be getting into the same category as before.
He felt it was unbelievable that Pastor Forkell was appearing before the
Council, so that he could start something up again.
Theresa Halliday, 17522 Rainier, Santa Ana. She owned the property at 114
Mills Drive on the corner of the alley behind Mr. Parnell. Her biggest
objection was traffic on the alley and her concern over the money it was
costing her because her fence ~as badly damaged by the trucks. Estimates to
repair the wail to its original state were ~5,000.
Mary Lou Terhay, 761 North Claudina. The situation had been unbearable all
summer with trucks, noise and exhaust. She could not keep her door open in
her apartment. They were operating ail hours of the night and they did not
live by the ordinance that stated hours were 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. It was
11:00 and 12:00 at night. He was backing trucks up into the street. That was
the biggest thing. It was unnecessary noise.
49
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Januar~ 10, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Pickler asked if the hours for the trucks were limited to 7:30 or
8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m., would that be acceptable; Mrs. Terhay answered that
would not cut down on the smell from the diesels.
Mr. Bob Speake, 211 North Street. He lived two blocks from the site and
although he did not get the smell from the diesels, he did object to the
traffic generated by the trucks and the hazards involved.
Patricia Chapel stated she owned the building and she was located next door
and had been for five years. There were a lot of trucks going in and out and
a lot of people bringing food back and forth. She thought the complaint was
the garbage and waste and people coming in and out. They had since moved the
food distribution operation. She suggested he needed more space. She
questioned him as to what would be wrong if he stored his dry food on the
premises, have pickup from 8:00 to 5:00, and not have people on the premises.
He thought it would be all right. There was talk about rats and rodents, but
her business was next door where she had fabrics worth $30 a yard and there
were none in her building. For the first two-and-one-half years the ministry
was located there, there were no complaints because they were not that busy,
but last year they were very busy.
Councilman Roth asked Pastor Fork~ll his reaction if they were to say he could
continue the chapel and give him a trial period of six months on the dry food
operation, with trucks limited to daylight hours only; Pastor Forkell answered
that with their new operation, he saw no problem with that. He noted that
Anaheim Boulevard was a truck route. He had his diesels checked and they all
passed. Ali the problems the neighbors had presented had been taken care of.
Councilman Pickler asked why the bin on the premises could not be moved inside
and when trash pickup came around it could be put outside for emptying;
Patricia Chapel stated that would be fine with her, since she had someone on
the premises every morning at 7:00. There was no reason why it could not be
pushed outside. The City told them to put the opening in and she disagreed
with them at the time. It should have been back against the building and then
in the morning pushed out. She agreed it should be inside.
Miss Santalahti explained that the problem with the Sanitation Division was
that when they were dependent upon the tenant pushing the unit out, they
usually pushed it out earlier and left it out longer. If they could get to
the unit itself within an enclosure, the chances were better it would stay in
the enclosure.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Councilman Overholt stated they were sensitive to the residents, but a whole
block of commercial property was involved. If it was a small Safeway or Alpha
Beta, the same problems would be occurring. He felt the neighborhood was
going to have to live together. If the ministry was willing to limit their
operation to dry storage and have enough ingress and egress during daylight
hours, he felt the residents were going to have to put up with that. It was
not a solid residential community and what the Mayor was suggesting was
something he could wholly support.
5O
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 10, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Pickier stated he could go along with the six months, but he would
like to include that the trash bin be put on the inside and something worked
out with the people who picked up the trash.
Councilman Bay stated he would like to see some specific times of day on the
limitation of the trucks and suggested 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. He was also
concerned about sleeping on the premises and people in trailers. He heard
they were removed, but if there was any reason for people to be sleeping on
the premises, he would like to know that now or else he assumed that was not
part of the CUP.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that the M~yor had previously pointed out that
diesel fumes were 20 percent worse on the human body than "homegrown" smog.
She would hate to have someone say the residents just had to live with it.
Also, when no one sleeping on the premises was mentioned, Pastor Forkell
nodded his agreement, but they needed to have that in the record.
Pastor Forkell first stated relative to the time limitation, he would prefer
that it be 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. He also confirmed that there would be no
sleeping on the premises in recreational vehicles or anything else. They had
totally eliminated that.
Miss Santaiahti noted Page 6e of the staff report c~ntained Interdepartmental
Committee Recommendations. However, Item 3 pertained to a block wail, wooden
fence or chain link wood slatted enclosure around the outdoor storage area and
she was not clear on whether or not that was eliminated.
Mrs. Chapel reported that there was a chain link fence ail the way around the
property and that was where the trash recepticals were. If it was agreeable,
they would bring them inside the fence and then put them out. Everything
would be stored inside the building.
Mr. Parnell asked about refrigeration; Pastor Forkell stated he had one unit
working and that would be out at the end of the month.
Mr. Parnell also asked about idling trucks which were detrimental from his
standpoint; Councilman Overholt asked if there was any problem if they shut
the diesels down or perhaps put a time limit on idling.
Mr. Parnell stated that Mr. Forkell never let the diesels idle. The trouble
was with a tall, slim driver; Pastor Forkell stated he was not there anymore.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 84R-14 for adoption, granting
Conditional Use Permit No. 2342 (Readvertised), reversing the revocation of
the Conditional Use Permit by the City Planning Commission, but subject to the
following Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations (No. 3 eliminated) and
subject to the following stipulations-conditions: CUP approved for six months
(trial period); indoor storage of dry products and canned goods only; no food
processing on the premises, dry or wet; truck deliveries limited to hours of
8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. daily except Sunday; trash receptacles to be stored
inside the building and pushed outdoors daily for trash pickup; no sleeping on
the premises, inside or outside, in vehicles or otherwise.
51
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 10, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
1. That the owner(s) of subject property shall conditionally dedicate to the
City of Anaheim a strip of land 40 feet in width from the centerline of the
street along Anaheim Boulevard for~street widening purposes, conditioned upon
the City of Anaheim having a street widening project which includes frontage
along subject property.
2. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved
plans on file with the Street Maintenance and Sanitation Division.
3. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specification~ on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit No. 1.
4. That Condition No. 1, above-mentioned, shall be completed within a period
of 90 days from the date of this resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-14: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM MODIFYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2342.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-14 duly passed and adopted.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed
Session. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (5:55
p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (9:40 p.m.)
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilman Bay seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED. (9:40 p.m.)
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK
52