1984/11/2097¸
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 20~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT
ABSENT:
PRESENT
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Pickler, Overholt and Roth
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Pickler, Overholt and Roth
(Councilman Pickler entered at 10:29 a.m.)
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
LIBRARY DIRECTOR: William Griffith
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
SECRETARY: Leonora N. Sohl
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
CIVIL ENGINEER - DESIGN: Arthur Daw
Ma~or Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Reverend O. L. Underwood, Anaheim Foursquare Church, gave the
invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Miriam Kaywood led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
127: DECLARING THE RESULT OF THE CANVASS OF ELECTION RETURNS - GENERAL
MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD NO~T~MBER 6~ 1984: Councilwoman Kaywood offered
Resolution No. 84R-448 for adoption, declaring the result of the Canvass of
election returns of the General Municipal Election held on November 6, 1984.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R- 448
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF .~.E CITY
OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING THE RESULT
OF THE CANVASS OF ELECTION RETURNS OF THE
GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD IN SAID CITY
ON NOVEMBER 6, 1984.
The City Council of the City of ~naheim, CalifoTnia,
does hereby resolve, determine, and orde~ as ~ollows:
WHEREAS, a general municipal election was called and
regularly held and conducted in the City of Anaheim, County of
Orange, State of Califcrnia, on Tuesday, the 6th day o(
November, 1984, as required by the Charter of the City of
Anaheim.
Wqq~EREAS, notice of said election was duly and regularly
given in the time, form, and manner as provided by law; voting
precincts were properly established: election officers were
appointed: and in all respects said election was held and
conducted and the votes cast thereat, received and canvasseG and
the returns maae and Ceclared by the Orange County Registrar of
Voters in the time, form, and manner as required by the
provisions of the Elections Code of the State of California for
the holding of elections in cities; and
1093
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 20~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
WHEREAS, the total votes cast at said election for the
purpose of electing officers of sald City as required by the
Charter of the City of Anaheim are as shown on the Certificate
of Registrar of Voters to Result of the Canvass of the General
Election Returns, attached hereto as 'Exhibit A.'
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That there were 223 votinc precincts
established for the purpose of holding said election consisting
of consolidation of the regular election precincts in the City
of Anahei~ for the holding of state and county elections.
SECTION 2. That said regular general municipal
election was held for the purpose of electing the following
officers of said City as requlred by the Charter of the City of
Anaheim, to w~t:
Two members of the City Council of said City for the
full term of four years; and
Mayor of said City for the full term of two years.
SECTION 3. That the whole number of votes cast in
said City (except absent voter ballots) was 80,437 .
That the whole number of absent voter ballots cast in said
City was 5,784, making a total of 86,221 votes cast in sald City.
SECTION 4. That the names of persons voted for at said
election for for Member of the City Council of said City are as
follows:
Ed Humphrey
Fred R. Hunter
Don R. Roth
Joseph M. Reeves
John Gordon
Hugh "Jerry" Johnson
Melvin Thomas
Melvin A. Aguilar
Ralph Alva
Mark H. Foucher
Daniel P. Kruse
Gus Bode
Ben Bay
Bill G. Burnett
That the names of the persons voted for at said election
for Mayor are as follows:
Miriam Kaywood
E. Llewellyn Overholt, Jr.
Don R. Roth 1094
95
City Hallt Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 20t 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
- SECT. ION 5. ~"nat the number of votes given at each
precinct and the number of votes given in the City to each of such
persons above named for the respective offices for which said
persons were candidates are as shown in the Certificate~of
Registrar of Voters to Result of the Canvass of the General
Election Returns, attached hereto as Exhibit "A."
that:
SECTION 6.
The City Ccuncil does declare and determine
Don R. Roth was elected as Mayor of said City for the full
term of two years
Don R. Roth was elected as Member of the City Council of
said City for the full term of four years.
Ben Bay was elected as Member of the City Council of said
City for the full term of four years;
SECTION 7. The City Clerk shall enter on the
records of the City Council of said City, a statement of the
results of said elections, showing:
2.
3.
4.
The whole number of the votes cast in the City:
The names of the persons voted for;
For what office each person was voted:
The number of votes given at each precinct to each
person;
The number of votes given in the City to each person.
SECTION 8. That the City Clerk shall immediately make
and deliver to each of such persons so elected a Certificate of
Election signed by the City Clerk and duly authenticated: that the
City Clerk shall also administer to each person elected, the Oath
of Office prescribed in the State Constitution of the State of
California and shall have them subscribe thereto and file the same
in the Office of the City Clerk. Whereupon, each and all of said
persons so elected shall be inducted into the respective office to
which..they have been elected.
SECTION 9. That the City Clerk shall certify to the
passage and adoption of this resolution, shall enter the same in
the book of original Resolutions of said City; and shall make a
minute of the passaqe and adoption thereof in the records of the
proceedings of the City Council of said City in the minutes of the
meeting at which the same Is passed and adopted.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is approved and adoped by the -
City Council of the City of Anaheim the 20th day of November, 1984.
1095
96
City Hall~ Amaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 20; 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
RECEIVED
CERTIFICATE or RE£1SIPAR 01' VOTERS TO RESULT,, i,,~ ,BL~
OF TIlE CANVASS OF lllE GFf)ERAI. ELECTIOf~i2[llI~I,N~ IlS
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF OPANGE )
Oil'( Oi A~,HL;M
I, A. E. 01son, Registrar of Voters of Orange County, do ilereby
certify the. following ~o be a f,)], true ;.,d correct Stateme~t of the Vote
o£ the electinn listed below, consnlidat'e,t with the General Election held
~m November 6. ]984.
ANAIIEIfl CITY COUNCIL ELECTION
COIlr;C l LMEMBEP
HELVIII A. AGUILAR 8,)30
~AI. PH ALVA
BEn BAY 29,21~:
Il, lIS BOL'F. 4,1 ] 7
BILl. ~,. BIIRI'~TT 4,F, 34
I, IAP, K II. FOU£IIER 2,447
JOl,U GOr)qoN I
ED ttUItP!~REY 4,26~
FRED R, ttUNTER 22,56r,
IIIIGII ,)O~lNSOfi 4,76/
D~tiI~L ~. FRUSE 1,~24
JOSEPtl m. R[EVES 2,670
DON P. AOTIi 44,752
I1EIVIN I~IOHAS 5,R]',
I.IA¥OR
ltl PIAM Ks, YWOOD
E. II. EWFI LYN OVERIIOI. T, ,ll~.
DON R. I~OTH
20,140
9,64k'
47 ,¢,7~)
1096
93:
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 20~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
PRECIrIcr 13ALLOTS CAST:
APSENI'EL B^LI. OTS CAST:
TOTAL B~',I.LOTS CAST:
It0,437
5,
H6,221
1 hereby certify that the ~lU~ber nf votes cast for each candidate is
as set fnrth :,bove.
WIIII[SS my h~,td and Official Seal this 19t;. day nf rtovember, ]q~4.
A. [. OI._r,QN
I!E6]::~::/',P OF VOTEPS
Ora~.ue County
EXHIBIT A
Aoll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBFAS:
COUNCIL MEMBEKS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, 0verholt and Roth
None
Pickler
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-448 duly passed and adopted.
114: OATHS OF OFFICE: City Clerk Leonora N. Sohl administered the.Oaths of
Office to Mayor Don R. Roth and Councilman Ben Bay. Mayor Roth was re-elected
tO the Council for a four-year term ending November, 1988 as well as being
re-elected to a two-year term as Mayor, term endin8 November, 1986.
Councilman Bay was re-elected to a four-year term as Council Member, term
ending November, 1988.
Mayor Roth expressed his great pleasure in having been re-elected to both his
Council and Mayoral seat. He thanked ali those who supported him, not only
those who worked on his behalf, but also the citizenry. He then introduced
his wife, Jackie and his secretary, Elma Ott. Mrs. Ott unexpectedly had to
take over the treasurer's duties of his campaign. In closing, he pledged to
be the best Mayor possible for the City of Anaheim.
1097
94
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 20~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Bay also thanked his supporters throughout the City. He gave
exceptional thanks to the media, particularly the three reporters who covered
the City of Anaheim and particularly the Election - The Los Angeles Times
(Orange County section), Anaheim Bulletin and The Resister. He considered the
reporting to be fair and impartial and possibly the most objective reporting
he had ever seen in the City.
Council Members Overholt and Kaywood congratulated both Mayor Roth and
Councilman Bay on their re-election.
119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Roth
and authorized by the City Council:
"National Home Health Care Week" in Anaheim, November 25 - December 1, 1984,
"Voice of Democracy Week" in Anaheim, November 27 - December 3, 1984.
The National Home Health Care proclamation was accepted by Rebecca Lazar and
the Voice of Democracy proclamation was accepted by Patrick LaNasa.
114: MITO DELEGATION: Mayor Roth welcomed a delegation from Mito, Japan who
were present in the Council Chambers. He presented City flags to each Member
of the Delegation who were all greeted personally by the Mayor and all Council
Members. A formal reception and dinner was scheduled for the delegation that
evening.
MINUTES: Approval of the minutes was deferred to the next regular meeting.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda,
after reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to
waiver is hereby given by 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 Overholt seconded the
motion. Councilman Pickler was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $57,757.24, in accordance
with the 1984-85 Budget, were approved.
Councilman Pickler entered the Council Chambers. (10229 a.m.)
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the following items were approved in
accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each
Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Councilwoman offered
Resolution Nos. 84R-449 through 84R-452, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer
to Resolution Book. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4554 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
1. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as
recommended:
1098
9]
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 20~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
Claims rejected and referred to Risk Management:
a. Claim submitted by Patricia Marie Whisenant and Nicholas Colella for
personal injury damages sustained purportedly due to malfunctioning~traffic
signals at the intersection of Orange Avenue and the entrance to Humana
Hospital, approximately 400 feet west of Beach Boulevard, on or about July 3,
1984.
b. Claim submitted by Gerald Eugene Sweeney for personal injury damages
sustained purportedly due to poor design of golf cart at the Anaheim Hills
Golf Course, on or about July 1, 1984.
c. Claim submitted by Robert E. Wingate for personal property damages
sustained purportedly due to objects in the street at the intersection of La
Palma and Richfield, on or about August 18, 1984.
d. Claim submitted by James J. Deegan for personal property damages
sustained purportedly due to actions of Anaheim Police Officers at 381
Yorkshire Circle, on or about July 12, 1984.
2. Receiving and filing the following correspondence: (on file)
a. 105: Community Services Board--Minutes of October 11, 1984.
b. 105: Senior Citizens Commission--Minutes of October 11, 1984.
c. 105: Public Utilities Board--Minutes of October 4, 1984.
d. 156: Police Department--Third Quarter 1984 Part 1 Crime Analysis.
3. 108: Approving the following applications in accordance with the
recommendations of the Chief of Police:
a. 108: Public Dance Permit, Gary Allen Nelson, E1 Torito's Who Song &
Larrys, 2020 East Ball Road, to hold a dance November 21, 1984, from 8:00
p.m. to 1:00 a.m.
b. 108: Public Dance Permits, Tron Dinh Do, to hold dances at the
Anaheim Convention Center, November 21 and December 22, 1984, from
8:30 p.m. to 1:30 a.m.
4. 123: Authorizing an agreement with Orangewood - A New Home for Dependent
Children and the County of Orange for a sub-grant from the City in the amount
of ~224,000 to partially fund construction of a gymnasium at a facility to be
located at 401 City Drive South, Orange.
5. 123: Authorizing an agreement with Bentley, Barnes and Lynn, Inc., to
provide recruitment advertising services as requested by the Human Resources
Director.
6. 123: Authorizing an agreement with Wilson-Bryant and Associates in an
amount not to exceed $79,940 to prepare plans, specifications and contract
1099
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 20, 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
documents for advertisement of street improvements to Orangethorpe Avenue from
Imperial Highway to Kraemer Boulevard no later than April 1, 1985.
7. 128: Receiving and filing the Monthly Financial Analysis for the
two-month period ending August 31, 1984.
8. 164: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-449: 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:
BROADWAY STREET/CLEMENTINE STREET SEWER IMPROVEMENT AND CITY CENTER PARKING
STRUCTURE SITE CLEARANCE IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO.
46-792-6325-E2940. (Opening of bids on December 20, 1984, 2:00 p.m.)
9. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-450: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE BARRIER FREE ANAHEIM NO. 9B -
CERRITOS AVENUE AND WALNUT STREET; WEST STREET FROM CHESTNUT STREET TO
BROADWAY, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 24-793-6325-E3900. (Awarding a
contract to the lowest and best responsible bidder, Damon Construction
Company, in the amount of 345,776)
10. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-451: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM WHICH ESTABLISHES RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR CLASSES ASSIGNED
TO THE GENERAL CITY EMPLOYEES UNIT REPRESENTED BY THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION. (Creating the job classification of Welder Helper,
1008 J-E, effective November 30, 1984)
11. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-452: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION.
12. 158: ORDINANCE NO. 4554: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 1, CHAPTER 1.04, SECTION 1.04.310 PERTAINING TO
PURCHASING. (First Reading, Amending Section 1.04.310 of the Code,
authorizing the Stadium-Convention Center-Golf General Manager to approve
certain purchases from contracted Food and Beverage Reserve Accounts)
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 84R-449 through 84R-452:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Pickler, Overholt and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 84R-449 through 84R-452, both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted.
End of Consent Calendar. MOTION CARRIED.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City
Planning Commission at their meeting held October 29, 1984, pertaining to the
following applications were submitted for City Council information.
1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2629: Application submitted by Anaheim
General, Ltd., to permit the addition of a drive-through lane to an existing
semi-enclosed restaurant on CL zoned property located at 820 North Euclid
1100
Cit~ Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 20; 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
Street, with the following Code waivers: (a) minimum number of parking
spaces, (b) minimum length of drive-through lane. (deleted)
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-217, granted in
part, Conditional Use Permit No. 2629, and granted a negative declaration
status.
2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2630: Application submitted by Stewart, Green
Associates, to permit on-sale beer and wine in a proposed restaurant on CL
zoned property located at 2134 East Lincoln Avenue, with Code waiver of
minimum number of parking spaces (East Anaheim Center).
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-218, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2630, and granted a negative declaration status.
3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2613 (READV.): Application submitted by John
Koycla, to amend the legal description and to delete Condition No. 2,
pertaining to the required dedication for street widening purposes in Planning
Commission Resolution No. PC84-172 for Conditional Use Permit No. 2613, to
permit a semi-enclosed restaurant with on-sale beer and wine on CL zoned
property located at 406 West Vermont Avenue, with Code waiver of minimum
number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-219, denied
Conditional Use Permit No. 2613 (Ready.), and granted a negative declaration
status.
4. VARIANCE NO. 3432: Application submitted by Dunford Properties, Inc., to
construct a self-storage facility on ML zoned property located at 2130 South
State College Boulevard, with the following Code waivers: (a) minimum number
of parking spaces, (b) maximum fence height.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-222, denied
Variance No. 3432, and granted a negative declaration status.
5. VARIANCE NO. 3435: Application submitted by Century American Corporation,
to retain the display of 10 temporary flags for a new residential subdivision
on RM-3000 zoned property located on the north side of Alameda Avenue, west of
Mull.r Str..t (Tract No. 12102 - Stanford Court), with Code waiver of
permitted days of display.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-223, granted
Variance No. 3435, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption
determination. (Class 11)
6. VARIANCE NO. 3434: Application submitted by Century American Corporation,
to retain the display of 10 temporary flags for a new residential subdivision
on RM-3000(SC) zoned property located on the northwest side of Anaheim Hills
Road, south of Nohl Ranch Road (Tract No. 10585 - Embassy Pointe), with code
waiver of permitted days of display.
1101
9O
City Hall~ A-mheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 20, 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-224, granted
Variance No. 3434, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption
determination. (Class 11)
7. VARIANCE NO. 3433: Application submitted by Leo Freedman Enterprise,
(Hyatt Anaheim), to retain 25 roof-mounted flags on CR zoned property located
at 1700 South Harbor Boulevard, with Code waiver of permitted number and type
of flags.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-225, granted
Variance No. 3433, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption
determination. (Class 11)
8. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 1166 AND 1645 - EXTENSIONS OF TIME:
Application submitted by Town Tour Fun Bus Company, Inc., requesting
extensions of time to Conditional Use Permit Nos. 1166 and 1645 and/or
deletion of Condition No. 2 of Resolution No. PC74-14 and Condition No. 10 of
Resolution No. PC76-156, pertaining to extensions of time to retain a bus
terminal, bus storage and repair facility and the incidental rental of
automobiles on proposed CL zoned property located at 304 Katella Way and 1825
Mountain View Avenue.
The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Conditional Use
Permit Nos. 1166 and 1645, to expire August 16, 1985.
9. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2104 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Application
submitted by Thomas A. Beveridge, (The French Quarter) requesting an extension
of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 2104 and/or deletion of Condition No. 5
of Resolution No. PC80-157, pertaining to extension of time, to Conditional
Use Permit No. 2104, to retain a public dance hall at 919 South Knott Street.
The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Conditional Use
Permit No. 2104, to expire September 2, 1985.
10. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1969 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Application
submitted by Nemax Incorporated, requesting an extension of time to
Conditional Use Permit No. 1969, and/or deletion of Condition No. 4 of
Resolution No. PC79-72 pertaining to required extensions of time, to retain a
van conversion facility on ML zoned property located at 1832 East Ball Road.
The City Planning Commission approved deletion of Condition No. 4 of
Conditional Use Permit No. 1969, thereby deleting requirement for extensions
of time.
11. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2100 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Application
submitted by McDonald's Restaurants, requesting an extension of time to
Conditional Use Permit No. 2100, and/or deletion of Condition No. 11 of
Resolution No. PC80-126, pertaining to required time extensions, to retain a
drive-through restaurant on CH zoned property located at 119 West Ball Road.
The City Planning Commission approved deletion of Condition No. 11 of
Conditional Use Permit No. 2100, thereby deleting requirement for extensions
of time.
1102
87
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 20~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
12. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1883 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Application
submitted by Collins Limited Partnership, requesting an extension of time to
Conditional Use Permit No. 1883 and/or deletion of Condition No. 2 of
Resolution No. PC78-205 pertaining to required time extensions, to retain
on-sale beer and wine in an existing restaurant on ML zoned property located
at 1514 West Broadway.
The City Planning Commission approved deletion of Condition No. 2 of
Conditional Use Permit No. 1883, thereby deleting requirement for extensions
of time.
13. VARIANCE NO. 2849 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Application submitted by Victor
Construction, Inc., requesting an extension of time to Variance No. 2849,
and/or deletion of Condition No. 7 of Resolution No. PC76-189 pertaining to
required time extensions, to retain retail sales of sandwiches on ML zoned
property located at 3445 "C" East La Palma Avenue (The Big Sandwich), with
Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission approved deletion of Condition No. 7 of Variance
No. 2849, thereby deleting requirement for extension of time.
14. ANAHEIM STADIUM AREA STUDY: Application submitted by Phillips, Brandt,
Reddick (PBR), progress report on the Anaheim Stadium Area Study.
There was no action taken by Planning Commission.
15. VARIANCE NO. 3358 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Application submitted by Dave
Gillett, requesting an extension of time to Variance No. 3358, to construct a
commercial office complex on CL zoned property located north of Santa Aha
Canyon Road, east of Weir Canyon Road, with Code waivers of minimum structural
setback and minimum landscaped area.
The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Variance No.
3358 to expire October 17, 1985.
16. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 84-85-11 AND VARIANCE NO. 3436: Application
submitted by Pacesetter Homes, Inc., proposed change in zone from RM-1200 to
RM-3000, to construct a 72-unit affordable condominium complex under the
authority of State Government Code Section No. 65915 on property located on
the southeast corner of Broadway and Citron Street, (former Fremont Junior
High School playfield), with Code waiver of minimum building site area per
dwelling unit.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-220 and 221,
granted Reclassification No. 84-85-11 and Variance No. 3436, and granted a
negative declaration status.
Councilman Roth requested a review of the Planning Commission's decision on
Reclassification No. 84-85-11 and Variance No. 3436 and, therefore, a public
hearing would be scheduled at a later date.
End of Planning Commission Information Items.
1103
88
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 20~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2500--CLARIFICATION: Mark Hepp, requesting
clarification whether installation of an elevator was required under the
Council approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2500, to permit a 20-unit,
2-story senior citizen's complex at 127 West Cypress Street with Code waiver
of minimum number and type of parking spaces.
The Mayor stated as he understood, the elevator was not required by Code.
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, answered that was correct.
Plans were submitted which showed an elevator, but the Building Code for the
structure did not require one. She referred to the excerpt dated November 15,
1984 to the Council from the Planning Commission wherein the Commission
recommended to the Council that the elevator installation be required as part
of the original approval by the Commission. It also noted that the Planning
Commission had granted the requested density and parking waiver initially
because of the installation of the elevator, their feeling being that the
elevator made the project a true senior citizen complex.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she was certain that was the reason the project
was approved, plus the fact that the petitioner stated that the elevator would
be included.
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant.
Mr. Frank Addis, 7 Sunrise, Irvine, explained that he and his sister had owned
the property since 1976. At the Council meeting of November 29, 1983 (see
minutes that date), he submitted a proposal for a senior citizen complex which
included a number of amenities in order to provide a superior senior citizen
housing complex, one being an elevator because it was felt there would be a
large number of people who were not ambulatory enough to get to the second
floor. Subsequently, in trying to obtain financing, problems were
encountered. Finally, E1 Camino Bank agreed to fund the project at a higher
interest rate but would only loan $45,000 less than their lowest construction
bid. Costs were cut by simplifying air-conditioning and heating plans, and as
a contingency, an alternate plan of installing only the elevator shaft and
pump and motor room which allowed flexibility to install the elevator at a
later date was prepared. The final plans were submitted to the Building
Department and approved, indicating a future elevator. It was only a week ago
that the Building Inspector informed him that the elevator must be installed,
the cost for which was $25,000 with a lead time of four to six months. At
present, they had rented 75 percent of their units and there had been no
demand for a elevator. Further, in order to make the project affordable
housing, they made an agreement with the Anaheim Housing Authority to have
four affordable units in the project ($367 a month) and also agreed to place
the remaining units into the HUD Program with expected occupancy by
January 1, 1985. People had already given notice to move out of their former
residences into the project. Requiring them to put the elevator in at this
time would delay occupancy until April or June of 1985 and the building in the
meantime would be left vacant. He was requesting that the Council allow the
issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy not be contingent upon installation
of the elevator or allow them to delay installation of the elevator until such
time as HUD guidelines would allow rent increase to pay for their additional
cost.
1104
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 20~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood reiterated, if the plans for the project had not included
an elevator, there was no doubt that Mr. Addis would not have received
approval for 20 units with only 11 parking spaces since at the time there were
only 6 units existing on the property. Parking was not permitted on that side
of the street and there was no way anybody who had a car or a lot of visitors
was going to be able to live in the project. Also, Mr. Addis indicated that
four units were going to be affordable which equated to only 20 percent of the
units and not 25 percent. She questioned the rental for the regular units if
the affordable units were $367 a month. Mr. Addis explained that was
dependent on the size of the units. They had to comply with HUD affordable
requirements for the space provided. The four units were way below market
unit rates. Further, the elevator was being installed to help people get
upstairs but there was no demand. Relative to the 11 parking spaces, with the
units rented thus far, there was need for only two spaces.
Mayor Roth asked Mr. Addis if he had discussed the matter with the Senior
Citizen Commission noting that the president of that Commission was in the
Chamber audience. He (Roth) was inclined to support the request but he felt
Mr. Addis should talk to the Commission to get their input and perhaps the
matter should be continued until he had done so.
Councilman Overholt stated that he felt the Council's intention was clear -
that there should be an elevator. Now at the "llth hour" the issue was before
the Council with the applicant indicating the installation of an elevator was
going to "tilt" the financing on an item the applicant agreed to provide; Miss
Santalahti commented that the discussions regarding the elevator took place at
the Planning Commission and the plans did show an elevator. She did not
recall that the matter was broached at the Council meeting (see minutes of
November 20, 1983). It was a condition of approval in the sense that it was
shown on the approved exhibit and it was expected that the applicant would
build according to the plan. Approved Exhibit No. 2 just said elevator.
Further, approval of the senior citizen project was not contingent upon any
affordable units but only that the residents would be 55 years of age or older
which did comply with current state regulations but at that time it did not.
(Also see Staff Report dated November 13, 1984 which discussed the matter in
detail as well as an excerpt from the City Planning Commission meeting of
November 14, 1984).
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that there were all kinds of waivers on the
project. Sixteen of the 20 units would cost over $400 a month which she felt
was out of the realm of affordable. Net density was 68.6 with 20 units. The
City had standards and she felt the applicant came in and removed all those
standards including the very reason he received approval, i.e. installation of
an elevator.
Councilman Bay felt the problem with the request was in Mr. Addis's approach.
He (Bay) could not vote to eliminate the condition or say it was not part of
the consideration of the project because it was. There was no question of the
commitment to the elevator. If the Council now decided it was not a condition
it would force them in the future by precedent to bring up and discuss every
item implied, promised, conditioned, stipulated or anything else done at the
Planning Commission hearing at the City Council level. He suggested that Mr.
1105
86
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 20~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Addis change his request that due to the problems encountered permission be
granted by the Council to delay the installation of the elevator to a definite
time and Mr. Addis should commit to that time.
Mr. Addis stated he agreed with changing the request to allow them to have a
Certificate of Occupancy if the Council would grant a delay for a reasonable
period of time when they could afford to install the elevator and get it
ordered. As he previously stated the Elevator Company indicated a four to six
month lead time and he asked that the Council give at least that period of
time.
Councilman Overholt asked if two years would be adequate; Mr. Addis indicated
it would be more than adequate.
Discussion then followed between Council Members relative to the period of
time to allow Mr. Addis to install the elevator during which Councilman Bay
expressed his concern over how many such requests they were going receive in
the future. Although he felt that one year was adequate as was suggested in
their discussion, he was not anxious to vote for that time period unless it
was very clear that the Council was making a true exception to the rule. He
did not want to have to listen to all the reasons why developers could not do
something six months after approving developments because of economic reasons.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved that an elevator be installed and operating at
127 West Cypress Street by January 1, 1986. Councilman Pickler seconded the
motion.
Before a vote was taken, Miss Santalahti stated that a bond should be posted
as well prior to the Certificate of Occupancy being issued giving the date the
elevator shall be installed.
Councilman Bay amended his motion to include that a bond be posted prior to
issuance of Certificate of Occupancy.
Mr. Addis agreed to the requirements articulated by Councilman Bay.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
134/179: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 196 - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 84-85-12 AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2636: Setting a date and time for a public hearing
on General Plan Amendment No. 196, Reclassification No. 84-85-12 and
Conditional Use Permit No. 2636, to consider an amendment to the Land Use and
Open Space Elements of the General Plan, alternate proposals of ultimate land
uses including but not limited to General Industrial and General Open Space, a
change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to ML, to permit an automobile sales center on
property located at 2790 East Ball Road.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved that Tuesday, December 4, 1984, at 1:30 p.m. be
the date and time set for a public hearing on General Plan Amendment No. 196,
Reclassification No. 84-85-12 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2636. Councilman
Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
1106
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 20~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
179: VARIANCE NO. 2369--TERMINATION: Request by Charles W. Ford, for
termination of Variance No. 2369, to construct a 32-unit apartment complex on
property located at 3340 West Orange Avenue, as a condition of approval of
Variance No. 3421.
Submitted was a report dated November 6, 1984 from the Planning
Department/Zoning Division, recommending that the Council terminate Variance
No. 2369.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 84R-453 for adoption, terminating
Variance No. 2369. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-453: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM TERMINATING ALL PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH VARIANCE NO. 2369 AND
DECLARING RESOLUTION NO. 72R-241 NULL AND VOID.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Pickler, Overholt and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-453 duly passed and adopted.
123: AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO THE CANYON PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER:
Approving an agreement with Canyon Plaza Shopping Center to provide access to
Canyon Plaza Shopping Center from Imperial Highway. This matter was continued
from the meetings of September 18, October 9 and 16, 1984. (See meetings
those dates).
City Clerk Sohl announced that staff requested a one week continuance relative
to the subject agreement.
The Mayor asked if anyone was present to speak to the issue; it was determined
that only Mr. Floyd Farano, Attorney, was present.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to continue approval of the agreement with
Canyon Plaza Shopping Center to provide access to that Center from Imperial
Highway to November 27, 1984. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
123: MAINTENANCE CENTRALIZATION: This subject was discussed and continued
from the meeting of November 13, 1984, to this date (see minutes of
November 13, 1984).
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to (1) authorize the Maintenance Director
to direct Shamma Enterprises to proceed with Phase II working drawings for
Maintenance Centralization at a fee of 5 1/2 percent of the bid (estimated
cost $78,000) acquired by the City for construction of the project, and (2)
authorize staff to proceed with a Certificate of Participation Issue of
~3,200,000 to finance Maintenance Centralization and rebuilding of Fire
Stations 2 and 3 as recommended in memorandum dated November 5, 1984, from the
1107
City B~11~ An-heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 20, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Director of Maintenance John Roche. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion.
Councilman Bay voted "no." MOTION CARRIED.
105: PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE: J. Laurance King, Chairman, Project Area
Committee, requesting renewal of the Charter for the Project Area Committee
and confirming reappointment and re-election of current members. This matter
was continued from the meetings of October 2 and 9 and November 13, 1984, to
this date (see minutes those dates).
Lt. Col. Rhoads, 122 North Vine Street, resident and property owner in the
area since 1951 and a member of the Project Area Committee (PAC) stated he was
speaking in behalf of PAC. He first referred to memorandum dated November 16,
1984 from the Community Development Department to the City Manager/City
Council (on file in the City Clerk's Office) and spoke to several of the items
contained therein specifically the estimated cost of operating PAC of
$20,566.98 a year which he felt was on the high side. He emphasized, compared
to the operating budget of the Community Development Department, it equated to
only .0077 of one percent of that budget. The members of PAC had given freely
of their time and talents, without pay, to assist in guiding the direction of
Anaheim during the period of redevelopment and decisions were made only after
adequate discussion of the facts and ultimate ramifications. In addition to
the review of Neighborhood Preservation Planning, a member of PAC was assigned
to each of the five Neighborhood Councils acting as a direct line of
communication to PAC. The objective of PAC was cost effective. To terminate
PAC would not be proper by a prudent Council. Lt. Col. Rhoads then outlined
the areas on which the Committee was presently working. In concluding, he
stated that PAC had been, and still was, the communication link that had the
pulse of the people within the project area.
Mayor Roth thanked Col. Rhoads for his presentation but he noted one area not
broached was the renewed "attack" on redevelopment in downtown Anaheim. He
(Roth) was inclined to leave PAC in place for the next couple of years,
otherwise it would only add fuel to the fire of those people claiming the City
did not have a plan or was not getting input from citizen groups. He was a
great supporter of redevelopment and its accomplishments were a source of
pride for the City. In view of the "reckless" attack against redevelopment in
the last few months, it was necessary to turn the tide which would not be done
by eliminating citizen input.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she had initially moved to renew the PAC
Charter and to reconfirm and reappoint current PAC members for one year. She
renewed her motion as follows: That the Project Area Committee Charter be
renewed for a term of one year and confirming reappointment and re-election of
current members to expire June 30, 1985. Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay explained his concern in requesting
that the Council take a look at PAC. A lot of people misunderstood that the
only reason he wanted it brought up was to do away with it. He felt the
Council should be looking at the specific accomplishment of all the City's
Boards and Commissions at least on a yearly basis. Some were in place by the
City Charter, some were by the pleasure of the Council and some were there
because of redevelopment law, i.e., PAC. He was also concerned with the
1108
8]
tit7 Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 20~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
Central City area and the attacks on redevelopment that were made in the
recent campaign. Perhaps PAC should be communicating better with the Project
Area and the people surrounding the Project Area by retelling of the
redevelopment plan. He invited Col. Rhoads to take that message baek to PAC.
He had even heard comments that there was no plan, and it was well known that
there was, and a very extensive and good one. If the Council was going to
retain PAC, they should be thinking how they could improve the functions of
PAC. He urged the Council to consider direction to staff and PAC to think,
talk about, and come up with recommendations on how to improve communication
on what was going on in redevelopment.
Councilman Overholt commended Col. Rhoads and the work of the Project Area
Committee but stated he shared Councilman Bay's concern that on an annual
basis it would be appropriate to review the work of Boards and Commissions.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
142/108: ORDINANCE NO. 4553: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4553 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4553: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
REPEALING CHAPTER 7.32 OF TITLE 7 AND ENACTING A NEW TITLE 7, CHAPTER 7.32
PERTAINING TO SOLICITATION AND FUND RAISING ACTIVITIES.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Pickler, Overholt and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4553 duly passed and adopted.
114: ALL-AMERICA CITY COMPETITION: Councilman Pickler reported on the trip
he took to San Antonio, Texas as part of a contingent of ten representatives
from Anaheim which included five private citizens who were involved with
community activities some serving on various City Boards and Commissions. Out
of 500 cities entering to compete, 100 cities would be chosen and out of that
100, seventeen finalists selected. The main emphasis in the presentation
given by Anaheim was in three areas - Neighborhood Councils, Volunteer
Programs and Bilingual Programs. He then elaborated on the procedures and
program followed at the competition.
City Manager Talley, who also attended the competition, explained that the
judges voted on Monday evening, but no results were released at that time.
After the holidays, the staff of the Association would conduct field
interviews to verify information that the winners provided and once verified,
results would be announced in early March, 1985. He reported that USA Today
had agreed to be a co-sponsor of the competition and was hosting an awards
dinner to be held in Washington D. C. If Anaheim won, the award would be
presented at that dinner. Everyone he talked to in San Antonio felt that
Anaheim made an excellent presentation and in looking at what a community must
do to win the award, Anaheim met every criteria. Mr. Talley then explained
1109
City ~,11~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 20~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
the procedural aspects of the competition and highly commended the citizens
involved and Mayor Pro Tem Pickler who worked 18-hour days to put on the
all-important ten minute presentation. He also noted that of the seventeen
finalists, perhaps only seven cities would be chosen although there-was no
minimum or maximum.
144: MAJOR THOROUGHFARE AND BRIDGE FEE PROGRAM: Councilman Bay again
referred to report dated November 13, 1984 from Ron Thompson, Planning
Director to the City Manager/City Council relative to the meeting he and Mr.
Thompson attended with two County Supervisors and cities on bridge and road
fees (see minutes of November 13, 1984 and also minutes of the meetings of
September 11 and 18, 1984 when the matter was first presented to the
Council). He (Bay) also bad a list of some policy decisions that were
recommended by that group. In his opinion, the Council was going to have to
discuss and make policy decisions as well pertaining to the way cities should
be organizing. The County was looking for input from Anaheim on how the
groups from the various cities would be organizing with the County to get
moving on the concept so that a body could be set up, either a partnership
organization or a Memorandum of Understanding between the cities and the
County. He felt it would be difficult to handle the matter across the whole
Council continuously and he, therefore, suggested appointing a Liaison
Committee of two Members of the Council to cover the matter and represent the
City in those meetings and to help document the process decided upon by the
City relating to bridge and road fees. Relative to the fees, he did not know
if the feeling of the Council was as his, that the commercial fees were too
high and a number of other cities also felt they were too high.
Mayor Roth stated he needed an opportunity to read the report submitted and
perhaps next week the Council could discuss the matter.
It was determined that a discussion of policy and the appointment of two
Council Members to serve as Liaison Members representing the Anaheim City
Council relative to the County of Orange Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee
Program be discussed at the Council meeting of November 27, 1984.
169: INSTAI.IATION OF FIXED MEDIAN ON LA PALMA EAST OF KRAEMER: Councilman
Bay requested that action be initiated to install a fixed median on La Palma
Avenue east of Kraemer as discussed in the public hearing held on November 13,
1984 on Conditional Use Permit No. 2609 for Carl Karcher Enterprises (see
minutes of November 13, 1984). At that hearing, Carl Karcher Enterprises
(CKE) agreed to pay for up to one half the cost of the median. Also, he (Bay)
suggested that the project could be funded by redevelopment funds since it was
located in a Project Area. He asked that the City Manager submit a report on
the best way to finance the City's half of the installation. As he recalled,
the 470-foot median (Proposal B) was estimated at $18,300 and CKE agreed to
pay up to one half or a limit of $10,000.
City Manager Talley stated a report would be submitted next week on how best
to finance the installation of the median and how fast the project could be
initiated.
1110
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 20; 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
170: VACANCY ON BOARD OF ORANGE COUNTY LEAGUE OF CITIES: Councilman Pickler
referred to a letter received from the Orange County Division League of Cities
looking for a replacement for Mary Adler, State Director.
Councilman 0verholt, as a Member of the Nominating Committee stated if Council
Members were interested in that seat, a letter of interest should be sent to
all members of the League's Nominating Committee.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: The City Manager requested a Closed Session to
discuss labor relations with no action to follow as well as a proposed
agreement with Freedom Bowl, Inc. with action anticipated; The City Attorney
requested a Closed Session to discuss litigation and potential litigation with
no action anticipated.
The Mayor announced that a Closed Session would be held to consult with the
City's Attorney concerning pending and potential litigation as well as labor
relations.
Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session and a lunch break.
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (11:40 a.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (1:48 p.m.)
123: EXHIBITION PROGRAM AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND
FREEDOM BOWL INC.: City Manager William 0. Talley referred to memorandum
dated November 16, 1984 to the City Manager/City Council from Tom Liegler,
Stadium Convention Center/Golf General Manager, recommending the approval of
an Exhibition Agreement between the City of Anaheim and Freedom Bowl, Inc. for
the playing of an annual collegiate football bowl game at Anaheim Stadium. He
then briefed the data contained in the three-page report. The agreement
covered a 20-year period and provided for a game to played annually between
December 1 and January 31 with the game to be played only in Anaheim so long
as the stadium was available with rights of the Los Angeles Rams acknowledged
in the agreement. (Staff report and agreement on file in the City Clerk's
Office). The parties also agreed that the elected position of Mayor of the
City of Anaheim have a permanent voting membership on the Board of Directors
of Freedom Bowl, Inc.
In concluding, Mr. Talley stated the City believed the agreement to be an
innovation as far as any agreements between the City and an exhibitor. The
formula protected the City, the City would not lose any money and if the Bowl
was as successful as the City believed it would be, the City would stand to
profit from that success in the future. Mr. Liegler was in the Chamber
audience, as well as representatives of Freedom Bowl, Inc. He (Talley) was
asked about possessory interest tax. That would be the responsibility of the
Exhibitor if any such taxes were levied. Staff recommended approval of the
agreement.
Councilman Pickler moved to approve the Exhibition Agreement between the City
of Anaheim and Freedom Bowl, Inc. for the playing of an annual collegiate
football bowl game at Anaheim Stadium. Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
1111
8O
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 20~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Roth stated he was delighted the proposed
action was being taken today which would be of benefit not only to Anaheim,
but also all of Orange County. He was very proud that the City Council was
supportive of the Freedom Bowl and he also thanked the group of citizens who
had worked so diligently over the last two years to bring the project to
fruition and a very successful conclusion. He announced that the first
Freedom Bowl was scheduled for December 26, 1984, at 5:00 p.m. and would
receive national television coverage.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED unanimously.
170: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - TRACT NOS. 10980 AND 10982: Requests
submitted by Kaufman and Broad, to amend conditions of approval, in particular
Condition Nos. 25 and 33, of Tentative Tract No. 10980 and 10982,
respectively, relating to posting a Bond with the City to guarantee grading
and landscaping of the slope adjacent to the regional shopping center site on
property located south of Santa Aha Canyon Road, east and west of Weir Canyon
Road. (Bauer Ranch). This matter was continued from the meetings of October
23 and November 6, 1984, to this date (see minutes those dates).
The City Clerk announced that letter dated November 19, 1984 had been received
from Kaufman and Broad requesting a continuance of their subject request and
public hearing to November 27, 1984.
The Mayor asked if anyone was present who wished to speak to the issue; there
was no response.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to continue public hearing on Tract Nos. 10980
and 10982 to Tuesday, November 27, 1984, at 1:30 p.m. Councilman Bay seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
130: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - GOLDEN WEST FRANCHISE: Request for
application for a franchise by Golden West Refining Company, to construct and
maintain pipelines for the transportation of hydrocarbon substances in Knott
Street from the north to the south City boundary, for a term of ten years.
This matter was continued from the meeting of November 16, 1984, to this date.
Submitted was report dated October 15, 1984 from the Engineering Department,
recommending that the Council approve an ordinance granting a franchise to
Golden West Refining Company £or p~pel~nes ~nF. nott §treet and author~zing the
Mayor and City Clerk to execute the ordinance.
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
Mr. Barry Berkett, Vice President, Golden West Refining, stated that he did
not have a problem with the language of the proposed franchise which was
worked out some time ago. However, one problem Golden West had was with a
situation that seemed to be occurring throughout the nation, i.e., in granting
various franchises and with cities looking for ways to increase revenues, the
fees paid by oil companies were increasing, the feeling being that since an
oil company was involved, a few extra dollars would not make a difference.
Mr. Berkett then gave an extensive presentation relative to fees charged by
1112
??
City ~11~ Anabeim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 20~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
other cities, negotiations with the City of Anaheim, how Golden West felt the
fee should be determined, etc., his main thrust being that what Golden West
originally accepted in June of 1984 was now changed. Since then, the two cent
figure times a formula was increased to six cents based upon the fact that the
City of Buena Park and other cities were getting more money for their
franchises. The amount of dollars reflected an increase from approximately
$2,400 to $8,200 a year. He emphasized that the issue was not merely the
$6,000 differential, but, in fact, one city after another appeared to be
saying that they liked the fee other cities were charging. Small companies in
the industry such as Golden West were thus paying larger and larger fees to
various municipalities. He was asking the City Council to look at the two
cent fee recommended by the County of Los Angeles and utilized by the City of
Long Beach and many other cities. The bottom line was the fact that the
proposed ordinance granting the franchise reflected a three-fold increase in
the fee to be paid by Golden West for the pipeline franchise through Anaheim
and Golden West did not feel that was appropriate. (See staff report of
October 15, 1984 explaining the background of the issue as well as a breakdown
of the proposed fee for the continued use of the 12" and 6" diameter pipelines
already located in Knott Street).
Mr. Berkett then answered questions posed by Council Members wherein he stated
the ability of most cities to charge fees that had been established was
questionable given the statutes of the Public Utilities Code (PUC Section
6231) and the Broughton Act, the latter allowing the franchisee and the City
to negotiate a reasonable fee. During the discussion, City Manager Talley
presented the City's side of the issue countering some of the points made by
Mr. Berkett and in finality concluding that the proposed fee was not unfair to
Golden West.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition;
there being no response, he closed the public hearing.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4555 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4555: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING A FRANCHISE
TO GOLDEN WEST REFINING COMPANY TO CONSTRUCT, MAINTAIN AND OPERATE PIPELINES
FOR THE TR~2NSPORTATION OF HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCES IN KNOTT STREET.
179: PUBLIC H~ARINC - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2621 (READV.) AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION: Application submitted by Wood Bridge Village, Ltd., to permit
on-sale alcoholic beverages in a proposed semi-enclosed restaurant on CG
(recently rezoned CL) zoned property located at 50 South Anaheim Boulevard,
with Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-197, 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. 2621, in part, subject to the City Planning Commission
conditions as listed on Resolution No. PC84-197.
1113
78
City Hallt Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 20~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by the applicant, Wood
Bridge Village, and public hearing scheduled this date.
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
Mr. Tom Bode, Managing General Partner, Wood Bridge Village Limited, 50 South
Anaheim Boulevard, owners of Wood Bridge Village, explained that they had
endeavored to create a project with design appeal and an atmosphere which
would be an asset to the community. The restaurant tenant requested a patio
dining area of 625 square feet and they were required by Code to have a
storage and/or employee locker room area of 490 square feet located on a
mezzanine area. Total number of parking spaces for the restaurant was
determined to be 180 spaces (60 on site - 120 off site). The subsequent
addition of the patio dining and storage area generated a recalculation of the
parking requirements to a total of 189. It was the sincere belief of Wood
Bridge Partnership that the additional spaces would not impact the parking
because of the tentative nature of the use of the patio dining area and the
non-public use of the storage area. Mr. Bode respectfully requested
consideration of the parking variance application for the subject 9
additional. (Also see letter dated October 23, 1984 from Tom Bode, parking
demand study dated September 19, 1984 from RTA~ Pasadena - as well as minutes
of the Planning Commission hearing of October 1, 1984 explaining the situation
in detail).
Mayor Roth asked for clarification if the request was for 9 spaces or 5 spaces
since he noted the differing figures in the documentation provided to the
Council; Mr. Bode stated he believed the recalculation required an additional
5 spaces for the patio area and an additional 4 spaces for the storage area.
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, clarified that 9 spaces was
correct.
Upon questioning by the Mayor, Mr. Bode reported that the Redevelopment Agency
would make those 9 spaces available to them in the parking structure at a flat
fee of 51,000 per space with the lease period being 55 years.
Councilman Pickler did not feel that the request was unreasonable and referred
to some other projects in the downtown area where waivers were granted much
greater than the subject. He maintained that the subject request should be
approved; Miss Santalahti explained that the projects referred to were large
such as the hotel complex or like projects which had waivers up to 20 percent
of overall parking. In constructing a parking structure, however, space cost
might be up to 510,000 each. Everybody so far in the downtown area had to
acquire such space and this would be the first instance where a waiver would
be granted.
Councilman Bay maintained that granting such a waiver was a precedent and the
first and only time ever the City gave variance on parking in the
Redevelopment Project Area. If they did so, the Council could expect other
requests to follow on future projects. Although it seemed like a low
percentage, 9 spaces out of 189, a cost of 59,000 for 55 years was not very
1114
75¸
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 20~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
large either. He maintained and reiterated if the variance were granted,
there would be one request after another from other developers coming into the
Project Area.
Mr. Bode felt that the precedent had already been set in allowing a parking
waiver under Variance No. 3171 granted to the Masonic Temple; Miss Santalahti
stated that the Masonic Temple operation was a different situation than a
commercial operation and a good part of the basis for that variance was in how
their meetings were held which were at night.
Mr. Bode maintained, as explained earlier, that the pedestrian orientation for
customers using the restaurant during noon time would offset parking required
and in the evening, when other businesses were closed, the rest of the on-site
parking would be available.
During the ensuing c~cussion between Council Members, staff and Mr. Bode,
Councilwoman Kaywood proposed a compromise in allowing the waiver until such
time as a problem arose relative to parking and at that time Wood Bridge would
agree to buy the additional spaces; Mr. Bode felt that would be fair.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, 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.
Before further action was taken, Miss Santalahti stated in this case, the
parking structure was going to be shared. She did not believe it was going to
be reasonable that anybody could say that a given tenant was causing a problem
in the parking structure. Staff would never be able to say it was one tenant
or another causing the problem. That condition should not be added because
she did not believe it could ever be proven. The parking spaces in the
structure were accessible to everyone.
Councilman Overholt surmised then that the businesses who were going to use
that structure shared in the cost of the structure and Mr. Bode was saying
that they wanted to be excused from sharing in the 9 stalls of that parking
structure; Mr. Bode reiterated Wood Bridge did not feel that the calculation
of 189 spaces was appropriate because the additional space which generated the
additional request for 9 spaces would not impact the parking. Therefore, Wood
Bridge would be paying their proportionate share.
Councilman Bay maintained the problem he saw was the fact that a methodical
formula had been worked out for the downtown area relative to parking and all
businesses were going to pay their fair share. He did not agree with breaking
that formula.
1115
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 20~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Further discussion and questioning again followed relative to the established
formula for calculating cost of spaces, possible deferment of providing the
required spaces and the precedent setting aspects of the requested waiver if
granted.
At the conclusion of discussion and additional Council input, Councilman Bay
offered Resolution No. 84R-454 for adoption, granting Conditional Use Permit
No. 2621, in part, upholding the findings of the City Planning Commission,
i.e., on-sale alcoholic beverages and denying the waiver of minimum number of
parking spaces. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-454: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2621, IN PART.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Pickler, Overholt and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-454 duly passed and adopted.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PER/MIT NO. 2624 AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION: Application submitted by Anaheim Hills Development Corp., to
permit a remote telephone switching facility on RS-A-43,000(SC) zoned property
located on the south side of Canyon Rim Road, west of Serrano Avenue, with
Code waiver of minimum structural setback.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-198, 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. 2624, subject to certain conditions:
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilman
Roth at the meeting of October 23, 1984, and public hearing scheduled this
date.
City Clerk Sohl announced that letter dated November 15, 1984 from Pacific
Bell had been received requesting a continuance of the public hearing to
November 20, 1984.
Mayor Roth explained the reason he set the matter for a public hearing was due
to the concern expressed by a group of people living in the northeast section
of the Lake S,,mmtt area of Anaheim Hills relative to the location of the
proposed cement block building. He noted that there were a number of people
in the Chamber audience who undoubtedly wished to speak to the item. He
explained that in the past in such cases Council gave an opportunity to those
who wished to speak to do so for the record and if the Council then wanted to
grant a continuance, they would grant it at that time. (By a show of hands,
it was determined that approximately 20 people were present on the matter).
1116
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 20~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Pickler asked if a representative of the applicant was present.
Mr. Tom Nusbickel, 2150 Musial, Placentia, Ralph Allen & Partners, Architects,
was present representing Pacific Bell who were proposing the facilities. Last
week they had a meeting with the Homeowners Group where a number of questions
were raised. The applicant wanted more time to be able to direct some study
towards those questions such as sound generation, views, etc.
Mayor Roth stated the residents were concerned about noise, lights, security
and most importantly the appearance of a block building in a very nice
residential area as well as what might be drained into the water reservoir.
The Mayor asked to hear from a representative from the Homeowners Group.
Mr. Lew Herbst, 912 Ridgecrest Circle, Anaheim, first confirmed for the Mayor
that he did not participate in the hearings before the Planning Commission on
Conditional Use Permit No. 2624 since he was presently a Member of the
Planning Commission having declared a Conflict of Interest (see minutes of the
Planning Commission hearing of October 1, 1984 where extensive discussion took
place). Mr. Herbst first submitted a map of the area involved showing the
proposed location of the building, the areas that would be adversely affected
by that location, and the alternate more appropriate sites for the facility
(map made a part of the record). He also referred to the petition previously
submitted signed by residents opposed to the proposed location of the
telephone switching facility (previously made a part of the record). He
explained that there were approximately 20 homes on the opposite side of the
lake from Ridgecrest Circle that would be impacted if the building were
constructed. From his backyard, he looked right into it. Eighty percent of
the building site consisted of severe slope area which would make it difficult
to stop any drainage into the reservoir. There was natural chaparral around
the lake and no irrigation had been allowed. The residents would be impacted
by a complete change in their line of vision should the building be
constructed and also a blacktop road would be installed as an access to the
building making a good skateboard driveway for youngsters which would result
in the necessity for fencing, further impacting the view. The building was
going to have air-conditioning units and although they did not make that much
noise, the decibels going across the lake would be accentuated because water
did not absorb sound. The area was very quiet and ambient noise was very low
at night. Even 25 decibels traveling across the lake at night would be very
annoying. Also at the present time, plans did not show any security for the
building.
Relative to alternate sites, their telephone lines were at Serrano and Canyon
Rim Road and there was a piece of property dead ending at Serrano. That
property was the Telephone Company's first choice for a site. It would not be
objectionable and nobody could see it whereas under the present proposal
Pacific Bell would have to dig into the side of the reservoir which was
drinking water. A park site with a bird sanctuary was located nearby. The
building would be an intrusion that did not belong there. There was also a
large site, as indicated on the map, owned by the School District and when
Serrano was extended, the area would be filled with dirt. He imagined the
School District would be willing to sell Pacific Bell a portion of that site
1117
74
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 20~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
for building the facility plus the fact that it was close to the end of the
Telephone Company's lines.
Councilman Pickler asked Mr. Herbst if the Homeowners had discussed, the
alternate sites with Mr. Nusbickel; Mr. Herbst stated the answer he got from
the applicant was that Anaheim Hills did not want to sell the property to
them. He (Herbst) talked to George Mason who stated that the property was
part of their overall plan for the next big tract coming over the hill and it
was not subdivided. If Anaheim Hills wanted to, they could sell that property.
Mayor Roth stated Judge Mason viewed the property as a remnant that he could
do nothing else with. Somewhere downstream, the City need to look at the
property as a remnant where it could be traded off for open space in the
future.
Councilman Overholt asked Mr. Herbst if in his experience he felt there was
any way in which Pacific Bell could address the concerns of the residents
satisfactorially.
Mr. Herbst answered "no." There was no way that the sound attenuation could
be handled. It was not possible to have quiet compressors or blowers and even
if they got down to 45 decibels, at night that could be 20 or 25 points over
ambient level. Further, relative to the drainage, the only way they could
meet the requirement around the lake would be not to landscape the facility at
all and then there would be an even greater visual impact. The applicant
should look for another site.
Len Ekenstan, 7189 East Drake Drive, stated he lived in the location in the
Eastridge Estates since the homes were built. They would look directly into
the facility. They chose the site to live because they wanted a country
atmosphere where it was quiet, peaceful and' they could enjoy wildlife and
natural surroundings. He was also a Real Estate Broker and maintained that
the facility, if built, would cause a loss of property value to all the
residents in that vicinity which could exceed $1 million overall. There were
other sites in the area better suited. The school site he would like to
suggest was at the opposite end of Serrano where an elementary school was
located. Across the street from the school was a large open area big enough
to accommodate the subject facility and no homes were located near that site.
He encouraged the Council to consider that site as an alternate and deny the
subject variance.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to continue the public hearing on Conditional
Use Permit No. 2624 and negative declaration for 30 days to Tuesday, January
15, 1985, at 1:30 p.m.
Before any action was taken, Councilman Overholt asked Mr. Nusbickel if there
was anything he felt could be done relative to the testimony given by those in
opposition and, if nothing, the applicant would have to submit another
application. Mr. Nusbickel answered that was the reason they were asking for
the continuance. If they shifted the facility to another site, they would not
be coming back to the Council. They were working with Anaheim Hills and as
1118
71
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 20, 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
the Architect, he was working with Pacific Bell who would take a look at all
the questions and concerns and try to get the matter resolved in 30 days.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if he would also look into the question ef
vibration generated from the facility which might have a damaging influence on
the reservoir; Mr. Nusbickel assured Councilwoman Kaywood that there were no
vibration generators involved and thus there would be no vibration generated
outside of the building shell itself.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
It was determined that public hearing on Conditional Use Permit No. 2624 would
be the first public hearing scheduled on that date.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 3419 (READV.) AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
Application submitted by Vernon W. Edmonds, to construct a 15-unit apartment
complex on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located at 920 South Western Avenue,
with Code waivers as follows: (a) maximum structural height, (b) maximum site
coverage, (c) maximum fence height.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC85-195, 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. 3419, in part, subject to certain conditions.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilman
0verholt at the meeting of October 23, 1984, and public hearing scheduled this
date.
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
Mr. Hugo Vasquez, 619 South Live Oak Drive, first described the proposed
15-unit apartment complex to be built at 920 South Western Avenue as well as
describing surrounding land uses. He also explained that a Preliminary Letter
of Understanding - County Tax Exempt Bond Issue had been signed by him
offering 20 percent of the units, i.e., 3 units - to be set aside for tenants
whose income levels were 65 percent of the County median (letter dated
October 27, 1984) previously made a part of the record. He then referred to
the rendering posted on the Chamber wall and briefed the amenities that were
to be included in the complex, the purpose of Las Brisas Estates (the name of
the complex) being to offer a quality estate designed for rental housing while
maintaining the flexibility of providing affordable housing to low-income
families.
Mr. Vasquez also reported that he had spoken with all property owners
surrounding the parcel. Of the four owners, there was a discrepancy with one
who owned the vacant lot north of the subject parcel. In redesigning, he
adjusted the building to be 33 feet away from the vacant parcel and
heightening
1119
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 20~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
the fence from 8 feet to 10 feet. He had also agreed to plant 15 gallon trees
along the north side of the parcel to increase the privacy from each parcel of
land.
Councilman Overholt stated the reason he set the matter for a hearing was due
to the fact that he was contacted by Mr. McGaughy who not only owned the
vacant lot, but also his home was to the north of that vacant lot.
Questions were then posed to Mr. Vasquez and staff by Council Member Kaywood
with regard to the setback; Miss Santalahti referred to Item No. 15 of the
October 1, 1984 staff report the the Planning Commission, Page 5c. It stated
that the Code required that within 150 feet of any single-family residential
zoned boundary, the height of any structure shall not exceed one-story.
Revised plans indicated two-story units located 33 feet from the north and 10
feet from the east property line.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that the Council had gone as low as 50 feet but
never as low as was being requested. She was certain Mr. Vasquez knew that
whatever happened today, the other adjoining parcels on the east were going to
be looking at that decision which would be precedent setting.
Mr. Vasquez stated that the 8-unit two-story structure built across the street
was 5 feet away from single-family residential and those units were less than
a year old. It was a mishap on the part of the Planning Department and staff
but nonetheless it was there.
The Mayor asked to hear from those who wished to speak.
Mr. Mel McGaughy stated he owned the vacant property north of the project and
had for 28 years. He was completely opposed and wanted the applicant held to
the Code requirements which would be single-family all the way. That was done
with his neighbor across the street, Tom Donavan. His project was built
approximately 2 to 3 years ago which was held to one story all the way with a
10-foot fence. However, sometime back he agreed in person to the subject
builder if he would delete the two-story on the north side and put up a
10-foot fence, he would go along with the project but Mr. Vasquez did not see
it that way. He reiterated he was opposed to the 15 units and had a petition
signed by his neighbors who were also opposed. (Petition submitted and made a
part of the record). The Planning Commission stated that they never passed
anything that close, it was an exception and would set a precedent. His
vacant lot was a part of his residence and he had hoped to build a home on it
for his younger daughter. If the project were approved, it would limit the
use of the property to the south. He had a nice residence and would like to
maintain and keep the same lifestyle. His parcel was approximately 2 acres,
he had lived there for 28 years and planned to continue living there.
Councilman Overholt stated his only objection then was that the project should
be one-story adjacent to his (McGaughy's) property; Mr. McGaughy answered that
he would be glad to concede that noting that the developer was wrong with the
entire project being two-stories. He would be glad to concede and have him
build one-story at that location.
1120
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 20~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
Mr. Tom Donavan, 905 South Western Avenue, stated he had lived there for 35
years. He then explained when they were involved in becoming the buffer to
the apartments to the south of their property, they worked out a conclusion
through a number of meetings that were very beneficial to the area and
satisfactory to the residents. They had been involved with widening of the
streets, installation of the first street lights, and they had seen a great
deal of change in the density of the area about which they were extremely
concerned. They did not have any electronic stop and go signs from Orange to
Ball Road and they were in need of a break in traffic at either Rome or
Terranimar. There were also speeding problems. They currently had difficulty
with access to their driveways and it was not a situation they wanted to see
impacted by increased density of the immediate area. A second concern was the
fact that the project was in reality two and a half stories since underground
parking was involved. He had also done considerable investigation over the
years relative to drainage and the area had a very high water level. He could
see serious potential problems in constructing subterranean parking next to
sewer lines that were already set high. He was hoping they could gain Council
support to maintain a way of life that had been part of the area and his
family for the past 35 years. Growth b md to be constructive to the City. He
further clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood that his objection was to a
two-story project because in due time, there would be no buffer area with
one-story dwellings.
Councilman Pickler stated relative to drainage, the project would have to be
approved by the City Engineer before they could proceed; Mr. Donavan stated he
was basically concerned with the issues as he presented them and seriously
concerned about the lack of a left-hand turn signal and the fact that cars
were speeding through that area.
Jerry Wallick, 9361 Canterbury Lane, Garden Grove, Real Estate Broker, stated
she represented the two gentlemen to the left who owned 3157 and 3163 West
Ball and Mr. Perez, the owner of 3153 West Ball Road. They were both
indicating support for Mr. Vasquez and his project. She further explained for
Councilwoman Kaywood that Mr. McClain's property was adjacent to the service
station and extended further back to the east of the service station and he
was living there at present. Mr. Perez had owned his property for over 40
years and Mr. McClain had his property for approximately 10 years.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor asked Mr.
Vasquez to make his s,,mmation.
After Mr. Vasquez had done so, Councilman Pickler stated that two people were
in opposition and the project was infringing on the residential zone. He was
going to turn the project down unless there was some compromise. He would
also request a continuance if Mr. Vasquez felt it was not warranted and there
was room for compromise.
Mr. Vasquez stated his attitude had always been to work with his neighbors as
well as the City. There was a possibility of designating the units on the
north side of the parcel as one-story. Then the only variance he would be
requesting would be site coverage. In other words, a good portion of the lot
would be a one-story development other than facing off to Rocket Gas Station
being two-story.
1121
7O
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 20~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
After further questioning by Council Members, Mr. Vasquez clarified what he
was proposing was remaining with the two-story structure on the south side Of
the parcel, taking the other side of the two-story structure and creating
single-story structures along the north perimeter, still maintainin~ 15 units,
still maintaining 1,250 square feet per density factor which was under 36 to
the acre with the only variance being the site coverage.
At the conclusion of discussion and questioning between Council Members, staff
and Mr. Vasquez, Councilman Overholt moved to continue the public hearing on
Variance No. 3419 and negative declaration to Tuesday, January 15, 1985, at
1:30 p.m. to give Mr. Vasquez an opportunity to modify his plans in working
out a compromise with his neighbors. Councilman Bay seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated there was no way she was going to allow any kind
of Code waivers looking down into or being that close to the neighbors living
environment and also if the plans included tandem subterranean parking, she
would not approve that.
RECESS - CLOSE SESSION: Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (4:05 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (5:20 p.m.)
ADJOURNMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to adjourn. Councilman Overholt
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (5:20 p.m.)
LEONORAN. SOHL, CITY CLERK
1122