1983/06/07City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 7, 1983~ 10:00 A.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pickier, Overholt, Bay and Roth
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
CITY TREASURER: Ruth Redepenning
CITY ENGINEER: William Devitt
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ronald Thompson
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR PLANNING: Joel Fick
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS OFFICER: Cynthia Cave
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT~ SPECIALIST: Kate Adams
Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: The Reverend Don Halbuth, St. Paul's Presbyterian Church, gave
the Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Ben Bay led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Roth and
authorized by the City Council:
Stamp Expo Days in Anaheim, July 29-31, 1983
119: RESOLUTIONS OF CONGRATULATION: Resolutions of Congratulations were
unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to the Loara High School
Baseball and Wrestling Teams, the Baseball Team having won the CIF 3-A
Championship and the Wrestling Team, the CIF 4-A Championship. Members of
both teams were present along with their coaches, Scott Pickler (baseball) and
John Deham (wrestling) and the principal of Loara High School, Tom Kneely, as
well as their athletic director John DeFries.
MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood stated she would like to insert the word,
"not," on Page 329, second paragraph, of the minutes of May 3, 1983.
Councilman Pickler moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held
May 3, 1983, with the correction as noted by Councilwoman Kaywood. Councilman
Bay seconded the motion.
City Clerk Linda Roberts read the paragraph wherein the word was to be
inserted, at the request of Councilman Bay.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Roth voted "No."
MOTION CARRIED.
452
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 7~ 1983~ 10:00 A.M.
Mayo~ Roth then stated he was not going to approve any further minutes until
after the correction was submitted and he had an opportunity to review the
correction. It would not be acceptable to make corrections just prior to .
approval'of the minutes.
Councilman Overholt stated he would like to change his vote to "No," since he
agreed with the Mayor; Councilman Pickler thereupon withdrew the motion and
asked to have the minutes presented at the next meeting.
Mayor Roth stated if it was crucial that minutes be adopted at a particular
meeting, that was one thing, but normally, approval of the minutes was a
routine matter with no urgency involved; Councilman Overholt stated he felt it
was crucial to have the minutes in final form before approval.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to amend the minutes of April 26, 1983,
with the addition she presented at the meeting of May 31, 1983, relating to
File Reference 129, Fireworks.
Councilman Pickler stated that in the addition presented by Councilwoman
Kaywood, he did not get the same connotation from the requested verbatim
provided by the City Clerk's office. If Councilwoman Kaywood wanted to have
the verbatim transcript added instead of the paragraph she had submitted, he
saw no problem with that.
Councilwoman Kaywood amended her motion providing for the inclusion of the
verbatim portion of the meeting of April 26, 1983, as submitted. Councilman
Pickler seconded the motion. Councilman Roth voted "No." MOTION CARRIED.
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 Roth seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of ~1,686,111.85, in
accordance with the 1982-83 Budget, were approved.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Pickler,
seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the following items were approved in
accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each
Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Councilman Pickler
offered Resolution Nos. 83R-218 through 83R-233, both inclusive, for
adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance No.
4439 for first reading.
1. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as
recommended:
453
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 7~ 1983~ 10:00 A.M.
A. Claims rejected and referred to Risk Management:
1. Claim submitted by Jack and Darla Ramsey for personal injury and
personal property damages to car purportedly sustained due to failure of
the City to properly maintain the westbound lane on Bali Road near Dale,
on or about February 22, 1983.
2. Claim submitted by Rhonda Kay Tarrell for personal property damages to
car purportedly sustained due to faulty directions by parking lot
attendant at Anaheim Stadium, on or about April 18, 1983.
3. Claim submitted by Virginia Borges Tustison for personal property
damages to car purportedly sustained due to a malfunctioning traffic
signal at the intersection of Tustin and Riverdale, on or about March 30,
1983.
4. Claim submitted by John Joseph Witkowski for personal property damages
to car purportedly sustained due to a malfunctioning traffic signal at the
intersection of Tustin and Riverdale, on or about March 30, 1983.
5. Claim submitted by Thomas W. Osborn for personal injuries purportedly
sustained due to actions of a City employee at the Convention Center, on
or about January 16, 1983.
6. Claim submitted by Robert Halgren for personal injuries purportedly
sustained due to an accident at the Anaheim Stadium Motocross race, on or
about January 30, 1983.
7. Claim submitted by 20th Century Insurance Company, Paul Melanson,
Insured, for subrogation for property damages to car purportedly sustained
due to improper and unsafe operation of a street sweeper at the
intersection of Ball Road and Trident Street, on or about April 7, 1983.
B. Claim allowed payment:
8. Claim submitted by Deborah K. Burger for personal property damages to
car purportedly sustained due to actions of an Anaheim Police Officer on
Anaheim Boulevard near North Street, on or about April 25, 1983. (~419.80)
2. The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 105: Park and Recreation Commission--Minutes of April 27, 1983.
b. 105: Public Utilities Board--Minutes of May 5, 1983.
c. 105: Project Area Committee--Minutes of April 26, 1983.
d. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission--Minutes of May 4, 1983.
454
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 7, 1983, 10:00
3. 177: Authorizing the Mayor to execute a letter of endorsement for funding
under Section 8 of Title II of the Housing and Community Development Act of
1974, for 875 Existing and 402 Moderate Rehabilitation units.
4. 160: Accepting the low bids of Maydwell and Hartzell in the amount of
58,185.32 for two each ll2.5KVA three-phase padmount transformers, Item 1;
McGraw-Edison in the amount of 513,769.40 for three each 150KVA three-phase
padmount transformers, Item 2; General Electric Co., in the amount of
519,872.88 for two each 500KVA three-phase padmount transformers, Item 3; RTE
Corporation in the amount of 530,551.32 for two each 1500KVA three-phase
padmount transformers, Item 4; and Westinghouse Electric Corporation ~ the
amount of 523,476.88 for four each 225KVA three-phase padmount transforme~,
Item 5.
164: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-218: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 0F THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE
THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: LENAIN
FILTRATION PLANT SEWER, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 53-619-6329-
90210-33100. (Bids to be opened July 7, 1983, 2:00 p.m.)
150: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-219: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CI?Y OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE
THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: YORBf
REGIONAL PARK SPORTS FIELD LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
ACCOUNT NO. 16-819-7105. (Bids to be opened June 30, 1983, 2:00 p.m.)
164: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-220: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE BROADWAY STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT, EMPIRE
STREET TO EAST OF BROOKHURST, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO.
24-791-6325-E1220. (K.E.C. Company, 5660,694.70)
150: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-221: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE OLIVE HILLS PARK PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS,
IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, 1980 STATE PARK BOND ACT NO. 80-30054, ACCOUNT NO.
16-829-7103-1402C. (Parrott & Wright Construction, 515,039)
104: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-222: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT ON EACH LOT AND PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINED IN
STREET LICHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 1977-1 FOR T~E CONTRACT YEAR JULY 1, 1983
TO 3UNE 30, 1984, FOR THE AMOUNT ESTIMATED TO BE NECESSARY TO IMPROVE THE
STREET LIGHTING SYSTEM FOR SUCH ENSUING CONTRACT YEAR. (TRACT 1404, ~32.41
per lot)
104: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-223: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT ON EACH LOT AND PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINED IN
STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 1980-2 FOR THE CONTRACT YEAR JULY 1, 1983
TO JUNE 30, 1984, FOR THE AMOUNT ESTIMATED TO BE NECESSARY TO IMPROVE THE
STREET LIGHTING SYSTEM FOR SUCH ENSUING CONTRACT YEAR. (TRACT 1859, 530.90
per lot)
455
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 7~ 1983~ 10:00 A.M.
104: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-224: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT ON EACH LOT AND PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINED IN
STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 1980-3 FOR THE CONTRACT YEAR JULY 1, 1983
TO JUNE 30, 1984, FOR THE AMOUNT ESTIMATED TO BE NECESSARY TO IMPROVE THE
STREET LIGHTING SYSTEM FOR SUCH ENSUING CONTRACT YEAR. (TRACT 1097, ~89.51
per lot)
104: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-225: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT ON EACH LOT AND PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINED IN
STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 1980-4 FOR THE CONTRACT YEAR JULY 1, 1983
TO JUNE 30, 1984, FOR THE AMOUNT ESTIMATED TO BE NECESSARY TO IMPROVE THE
STREET LIGHTING SYSTEM FOR SUCH ENSUING CONTRACT YEAR. (TRACT 1392, ~21.49
per lot)
104: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-226: A RESOLUTION OF T}~ CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT ON EACH LOT AND PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINED IN
STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 1980-6 FOR THE CONTRACT YEAR JULY 1, 1983
TO JUNE 30, 1984, FOR THE AMOUNT ESTIMATED TO BE NECESSARY TO IMPROVE THE
STREET LIGHTING SYSTEM FOR SUCH ENSUING CONTRACT YEAR. (TRACT 2302, ~15.92
per lot)
104: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-227: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT ON EACH LOT AND PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINED IN
STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 1980-7 FOR THE CONTRACT YEAR JULY 1, 1983
TO JUNE 30., 1984, FOR THE AMOUNT ESTIMATED TO BE NECESSARY TO IMPROVE THE
STREET LIGHTING SYSTEM FOR SUCH ENSUING CONTRACT YEAR. (TRACT 2875, 337.88
per lot)
104: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-228: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT ON EACH LOT AND PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINED IN
STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 1981-1 FOR THE CONTRACT YEAR JULY 1, 1983
TO JUNE 30, 1984, FOR THE AMOUNT ESTIMATED TO BE NECESSARY TO IMPROVE THE
STREET LIGHTING SYSTEM FOR SUCH ENSUING CONTRACT YEAR. (TRACTS 1516 and 1653,
$37.05 per lot)
104: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-229: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT ON EACH LOT AND PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINED IN
STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 1981-5 FOR THE CONTRACT YEAR JULY 1, 1983'
TO JUNE 30, 1984, FOR THE AMOUNT ESTIMATED TO BE NECESSARY TO IMPROVE THE
STREET LIGHTING SYSTEM FOR SUCH ENSUING CONTRACT YEAR. (TRACT 2090, ~26.85
per lot)
104: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-230: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT ON EACH LOT AND PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINED IN
STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 1981-6 FOR THE CONTRACT YEAR JULY 1, 1983
TO JUNE 30, 1984, FOR THE AMOUNT ESTIMATED TO BE NECESSARY TO IMPROVE THE
STREET LIGHTING SYSTEM FOR SUCH ENSUING CONTRACT YEAR. (TRACTS. 2228 and 2705,
~37.40 per lot)
456
City Hall, Anahetm~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 7~ 1983~ 10:00 A.M.
104: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-231: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT ON EACH LOT AND PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINED IN
STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 1982-1 FOR .THE CONTRACT YEAR JULY 1, 1983
TO JUNE 30, 1984, FOR THE AMOUNT ESTIMATED TO BE NECESSARY TO IMPROVE THE
STREET LIGHTING SYSTEM FOR SUCH ENSUING CONTRACT YEAR. (TRACTS 1326 and 1563,
$26.20 per lot)
158: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-232: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Global
Investors II; M. J. Brock and Sons, Inc.; M. J. Brock and Sons, Inc.)
108/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4439: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING
CHAPTER 4.32 OF TITLE 4 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE AND ENACTING A NEW
CHAPTER 4.32 PERTAINING TO AUCTIONS.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
None
MOTION CARRIED. The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 83R-218 through 83R-232,
both inclusive, duly passed and adopted.
123/153: DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN ADDITION: Before action was taken on the
proposed resolution, questions were posed by Council Members Roth and Kaywood
for purposes of clarification which were answered by both Ruth Redepenning,
City Treasurer, and Mr. Bruce Halverson, Vice President, Director of
Operations of California 457 Benefits, Limited.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 83R-233 for adoption, authorizing an
agreement with the International City Management Association Retirement
Corporation for a Deferred Compensation Plan for public service employees, as
recommended by California 457 Benefits, Limited, consultant, and by the City
Treasurer and Director of Finance, in their joint memorandum dated May 31,
1983. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 83R-233: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ESTABLISHING A DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN FOR THE EMPLOYEES OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM. (International City Management Association Retirement
Corporation)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-233 duly passed and adopted.
457
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 7, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
108: APPLICATION FOR A PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT - ANAHEIM DANCE PROMOTIONS:
Councilman Pickler moved to approve an application for a Public Dance Permit
submitted by Felipe Jesus Guerena for Anaheim Dance Promotions to hold a
public dance at the Anaheim Convention Center on June 11, 1983 from 6:00 p.m.
to 1:00 a.m., in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Police.
Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
108: REQUEST FOR REHEARING - ACROPOLIS HEALTH SPA: City Clerk Linda Roberts
announced that an Affidavit of Merit in support of a request for a rehearing
had been received from Luis De Carvalho of the Acropolis Health Spa for an
extension of the period of abatement.
Councilman Bay asked the City Attorney if he had any advice to give on the
affidavit and the request.
City Attorney William Hopkins recommended that the Council grant a rehearing
for the timely discussion of the Affidavit of Merit that had been submitted.
Councilman Roth thereupon moved to approve the request for a rehearing as
submitted under the Affidavit of Merit from Luis De Carvalho of Acropolis
Health Spa. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt stated he would support the
motion only on the City Attorney's recommendation; otherwise, he would oppose
it.
City Attorney Hopkins stated he recommended it strongly, the reason being, Due
Process.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City
Planning Commission at their meeting held May 16, 1983, pertaining to the
following applications were submitted for City Council information.
1. VARIANCE NO. 3333: Submitted by Peter Gwosdof, et al, to construct an
office building on CO zoned property located at 872 South Harbor Boulevard,
with a Code waiver of minimum sideyard setback.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-92, granted
Variance No. 3333, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption
determination.
2. VARIANCE NO. 3335: Submitted by James and Velma W. Emmi, (Nelco
Products), to construct a lunch room addition to an existing industrial
building on ML zoned property located at 1100 East Kimberly Avenue, with a
Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
Variance No. 3335 was withdrawn at the request of the Planning Department, and
a negative declaration was granted.
458
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 7~ 1983~ 10:00 A.M.
3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2440: Submitted by Shell Oil Company,~ to
permit a car wash in an existing service station on CL zoned property located
at 101 North Beach Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83~96, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2440 and granted a negative declaration status.
4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2441: Submitted by Shell Oil Company, to
permit a car wash in an existing service station on CL zoned property located
at 2100 South Harbor Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-97, granted
Conditional Use' Permit No. 2441 and granted a negative declaration status.
5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2442: Submitted by Robert F. Mills, to permit
on-sale beer and wine in a proposed semi-enclosed restaurant on CL zoned
property located at 1750 West La ?alma Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-98, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2442, and granted a negative declaration status.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that there was a discrepancy in the hours of
operation indicated in the minutes of the hearing and the resolution;
Assistant Director for Zoning, Annika Santalahti, stated that she would verify
that the times indicated in the minutes are consistent with times given in the
resolution and the resolution be corrected if necessary.
6. VARIANCE NO. 2824 (READVERTISED): Submitted by John E. Weburg, to retain
two freestanding signs on CL zoned property located at 1287 East Lincoln
Avenue, with the following Code waivers: (a) maximum number of freestanding
signs, (b) permitted location of freestanding signs, and (c) minimum distance
between freestanding signs.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-100, granted
Variance No. 2824 (Readvertised), and ratified the Planning Director's
categorical exemption determination.
7. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 78-79-25 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1935 -
EXTENSIONS OF TIME: Submitted by The Gunston Hail Company, Inc., requesting
extensions of time to Reclassification No. 78-79-25 and Conditional Use Permit
No. 1935, proposed RS-HS-10,000(SC) zoning to permit a 27-1ot, 25-unit planned
unit development on property located southeast of Imperial Highway and Nohl
Ranch Road.
The City Planning Commission approved extensions of time to Reclassification
No. 78-79-25 and Conditional Use Permit No. 1935, to expire January 29, 1984.
8. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1998 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Rustic
Motel, requesting an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 1998, to
permit a 20-unit expansion of an existimg motel on CL zoned property located
at 916 South Beach Boulevard.
459
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 7, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Conditional Use
Permit No. 1998, to expire July 16, 1984.
9. VARIANCE NO. 2349 (PORTION A) AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1408 (PORTION
B) - EXTENSIONS OF TIME: Submitted by David S. Collins, requesting extensions
of time to Variance No. 2349, (Peppertree Faire, Portion A), and Conditional
Use Permit No. 1408, (Portion B), to establish a center for the sale of
handcrafted art objects and related merchandise with food sales and to
establish a billboard exceeding the allowable area at other than an authorized
location, on ML zoned property located at 1514 West Broadway (Portion A) and
also on property located at the southeast corner of Broadway and Adams Street
(Portion B).
The City Planning Commission approved extensions of time to Variance No. 2349,
(Peppertree Faire, Portion A), and Conditional Use Permit No. 1408, (Portion
B), to expire April 17 and May 28, 1985, respectively.
No action was taken by the City Council on the foregoing items; therefore, the
actions of the City Planning Commission became final.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2438: Submitted by La Palma Business Park, to
permit a billboard on ML zoned property located at the northeast corner of
White Star Avenue and Armando Street, with the following Code waivers: (a)
maximum display area, and (b) maximum height.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-95, denied
Conditional Use Permit No. 2438, and granted a negative declaration status.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Robert D. Mickelson,
agent for the applicant and, therefore, a public hearing would be scheduled at
a later date.
VARIANCE NO. 3338: Submitted by Ox Road General Partnership, (Spaghetti
Station), to permit three freestanding signs on CR zoned property located at
989 West Bali Road, with the following Code waivers: (a) maximum number of
freestanding signs, and (b) maximum sign height.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-99, granted
Variance No. 3338~ and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption
determination.
Councilman Overholt requested a review of the Planning Commission's decision
and, therefore, a public hearing would be scheduled at a later date. He noted
that the subject was gateway property to the whole tourist area and if
additional freestanding signs were going to be permitted, there should be a
public hearing so that no one could come back later and complain.
VARIANCE NO. 3334 AND WAIVER OF COUNCIL POLICY NO. 542: Submitted by Marvin
C. Moore, to construct a 2-unit addition to an existing apartment building,
with a request for waiver of Council Policy No. 542 pertaining to sound
460
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 7, 1983~ 10:00 A.M.
attenuation in residential projects, on RM-1200 zoned property located at 1811
Crestwood Lane, with the following Code waivers: (a) maximum structural
height, (b) maximum site coverage, (c) minimum distance between buildings, and
(d) minimum number and type of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-94, granted
Variance No. 3334, and granted a negative declaration status.
Councilman Pickler requested a review of the decision of the Planning
Commission and, therefore, a public hearing would be scheduled at a later
date. He also asked that staff investigate the premises to ascertain exactly
what was being proposed.
Miss Santalahti stated for the public hearing, she would have photographs
taken of the location, so that Council could see the existing conditions in
comparison to the proposed plans for that property.
139: ASSEMBLY CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 38 (NAYLOR) AND SENATE
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 26 (SEYMOUR): Measures which would require all
taxes of a local government to be approved by two-thirds of the voters.
Continued from the meeting of May 31, 1983--see minutes that date. Submitted
was an extensive report from the Intergovernmental Relations Officer dated
June 2, 1983 (on file in the City Clerk's office), and a communication from
the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce indicating support for both Amendments.
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to oppose ACA No. 38 (Naylor) and SCA No. 26
(Seymour) on the basis of preemption of local control. Councilman Pickler
seconded the motion.
Discussion, debate and questioning followed between Council Members relative
to the proposed amendments during which the Intergovernmental Relations
Officer, Cindy Cave, answered questions posed by Councilwoman Kaywood.
Councilman Overholt stated he was not going to act on the issue today, since
he felt it was premature to do so until they knew exactly what the amendments
had to say. He suggested that they could take positions on certain aspects
and make those known. He would be in favor of opposing the Naylor amendment
to the extent that it intended to restrict local government in their ability
to raise £und~ beyond th~ ad valorem tax, which was clear Proposition 13 and
then support it to the extent that the amendments limited the State
Legislature in generating revenue measures. He would be opposed to taking a
strong position requiring a two-thirds vote on all measures at the local level.
Councilman Bay moved that the issue be tabled indefinitely.
Before any action was taken, Councilman Bay stated under the rules of the
Council, when a motion was made, an abstention automatically became a vote in
favor. His feeling of the consensus of the Council was that two members were
opposed to both of the proposed Constitutional Amendments, two did not oppose
and one stated he would abstain on the vote. If they voted now on
461
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 7~ 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood's motion, it would appear on a 2-2 vote, with one
abstention, that the Council was in opposition. That was the reason for his
motion to table it indefinitely.
Councilman Pickier stated he agreed with Councilman Overholt in opposing
certain portions, but he was concerned that other portions were wrong and as a
body they had to make known that they disapproved. If the Amendment were
changed, they could change their vote accordingly. If they gave the
Legislature no information at all, they would approve what they had.
Councilman Overholt seconded Councilman Bay's motion.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated if they were representing the citizens of Anaheim
and it could be so damaging not only to Anaheim but to every city in the
State, they had to go on record in opposition, so that the Intergovernmental
Relations Office could oppose that position.
A vote was then taken on the motion to table the matter indefinitely. Council
Members Pickler and Kaywood voted "No." MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked the Intergovernmental Relations Officer to prepare
a letter for her signature.
179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2049 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Sherry Bennett,
Gannett Outdoor, requesting an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No.
2049, to retain an existing billboard on ML zoned property located on the
north side of Katella Avenue, east of Douglass Road.
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to continue consideration of the extension of time
on Conditional Use Permit No. 2049 to June 14, 1983, as requested in a letter
dated June 3, 1983, from the applicant. Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
Before action was taken, Councilman Pickler noted that a hearing on billboards
was going to be held in July and he wanted to have more input before voting on
any billboards. He would like to see staff meet with two or three
representatives from various billboard companies and discuss any problems so
that there could be an exchange of ideas. He did not know if that was
possible before July 19, 1983.
Councilwoman Kaywood objected to the suggestion. The subject billboard was
illegal and approved for an extension three years ago.
Councilman Overholt asked if it was Councilman Pickler's intention that the
matter be continued to July 19, 1983; Councilwoman Kaywood noted that the
applicant requested a one-week extension and she made a motion accordingly.
Councilman Roth withdrew his second. Councilwoman Kaywood's motion thereupon
died for lack of a second.
462
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 7, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Pickler suggested that the matter be continued to July 26, 1983,
one week after the issue was scheduled to be discussed at the Council meeting
after receipt of input relative to staff's position and attitude toward the
billboard ordinance. He thereupon moved to continue consideration of the
extension of time on Conditional Use Permit No. 2049, to retain an existing
billboard on ML zoned property located on the north side of Katella Avenue,
east of Douglass Road to July 26, 1983. Councilman Overholt seconded the
motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt asked if the proposed continuance
would prejudice anybody; Miss Santalahti answered that she did not believe
there had been any particular interest in that billboard, except for the
company itself.
Councilman Bay noted that a letter had been received from a citizen urging the
Council not to approve its continuance at the location (see letter dated June
6, 1983, from Phillip Quarre, Hartman Corporation).
Councilman Overholt stated that he (Quarre) had indicated he could appear not
only on July 19, 1983, to give input on the whole general question of
billboards, but also on July 26, 1983. A vote was then taken on the foregoing
motion. Councilwoman Kaywood voted "No." MOTION CARRIED.
108: HEARING--THE ROMAN SPA-EXTENSION OF ABATEMENT PERIOD: Marie Pelletier,
requesting an extension of the abatement period for The Roman Spa, 130 North
Brookhurst Street, pursuant to Code Subsection 4.29.030. Submitted was a
report from the City Attorney dated May 26, 1983, recommending that a hearing
be conducted, and a report dated May 27, 1983, from the Chief of Police,
recommending that an extension of the abatement period be denied.
The Mayor asked to hear from Mrs. Pelletier.
Marie Pelletier (Cooper), 3311 Devon Circle, Huntington Beach, briefed
portions of her letter dated May 11, 1983, submitted in support of her request
for the extension of the abatement period (on file in the City Clerk's
office). She emphasized that she had changed the use of the residence she
owned at 126 North Brookhurst Street next to The Roman Spa to commercial,
which cost her a great deal of money, especially since the house had be~n
previously rented at ~800 a month. If ~he lo~t that, it would create a
hardship and she did not know what would happen to her. She would probably
lose her property and everything. She asked for the Council's consideration.
Councilman Overholt noted that when the Adult Entertainment Ordinance was
first enacted, his recollection was that they had numerous hearings to abate
it for a statutory period during which the applicants were sworn and testified
under oath. He asked the City Attorney, since they were getting into
additional abatement hearings, if it would be appropriate to have applicants
testify under oath.
463
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 7, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
City Attorney William Hopkins answered that it would be desirable. In this
case, theY eliminated a chiropractor from the ordinance which now required
instead a medical doctor or a licensed physician to write prescriptions. If a
hardship could be demonstrated, an extension would be warranted. One of the
things that was relevant was why a medical doctor could not be contacted in
order to furnish the necessary prescriptions or certificates. That was an
option open to the applicant.
Councilman Overhoit stated Mrs. Pelietier raised a point that based upon the
existing ordinance, she made substantial investments, but he did not believe
they had any numbers on that. He also wanted to ask if she would mind being
sworn and whether all the testimony she had given had been under oath.
Mrs. Pelletier said she had no objection to that.
Councilman Overholt stated, since the figures would be a basis for her
hardship claim, if relevant, they ought to see and discuss those figures.
Mrs. Pelietier stated if he would like to have some figures, she could have
her bookkeeper put those together.
Councilman Overhoit asked if it was relevant that she invested in a house and
entered into an agreement with a chiropractor.
City Attorney Hopkins stated it would be relevant, but pointed out from the
minutes of the Planning Commission hearing of March 7, 1983, on Conditional
Use Permit No. 2422, to permit a medical office use of a residential structure
at 126 North Brookhurst, the residence next to The Roman Spa, that Dr. ~Fay
(Doctor of Chiropractic) who was going to handle referrals for The Roman Spa,
stated that he applied for practice to supervise the spa and his private
practice would also be located there. He indicated he would have made the
move regardless of whether The Roman Spa was there or not. There was a
question of whether he did or did not do this on his own and whether the
investment by Mrs. Pelletier-Cooper had any relationship to what Dr. Fay was
doing.
Mrs. Pelletier then explained for Councilwoman Kaywood that she had bought the
house previously, it was rented out and she subsequently converted it to
commercial. It was her decision to. do that, but if there was no new law
requiring a chiropractor, she would not have done that. She also confirmed
for Councilmen Bay and Overholt that Dr. Fay was to pay nothin~ to service The
Roman Spa. His services were paid for through the house and for the expenses
she paid to convert the house to commercial. He had a lease with no payment
of rent. He was doing nothing for The Roman Spa right now, since the new
ordinance was passed requiring that medical doctors write prescriptions,
instead of chiropractors.
Councilman Overhoit asked if Dr. Fay was performing chiropractic services at
The Roman Spa; Mrs. Pelletier answered "yes."
464
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 7, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Overholt emphasized that neither Dr. Fay nor any other chiropractor
could prescribe massages and keep The Roman Spa within the ordinance. He
further stated that if there was a lease that did not provide for the payment
of any rent, it was not going to be of benefit to Mrs. Pelletier.
Mayor Roth, referring to letter of May 11, 1983, asked Mrs. Pelletier if the
intent of her request was to be able to continue to use a chiropractor as
under the old ordinance; Mrs. Pelletier stated that would be okay with her, or
the way it was under the old ordinance. She had been in business for
approximately 15 years. She also clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood that she
was previously married to a Mr. Cooper, but she was now the sole owner of the
business.
Councilman Overholt stated in October of 1980, the Council granted a two-year
abatement period of the Adult Entertainment Ordinance to The Roman Spa which
expired at the end of 1982. Further, he did not think anybody could expect
her to rent anything for no rental payment.
Mrs. Pelletier asked for consideration in giving her more time, with or
without the chiropractor; Councilman Overholt stated he was suggesting she
recoup by entering into an arrangement with the chiropractor that was
reasonable to both of them.
Mrs. Pelletier stated she could not lose her business. She wanted to have
time to recoup the money she had already spent, with or.without the
chiropractor. She did not need the chiropractor, but since the City required
it, she did so.
Councilman Overholt pointed out that massages were to be prescribed by people
with certain qualifications and there was nothing that said she had to pay
them; Mrs. Pelletier stated that nobody was going to do any work for nothing.
Councilman Overholt expressed that they were not supposed to be servicing her
establishment, but the patient. They were to prescribe and send the patient
to her. He could not understand how the City was forcing her to make an
investment which she did not want to make and from which she could not recover.
Councilwoman Kaywood reiterated that Dr. Fay had indicated if her business was
not in existence~ he would still be practicing chiropractic in the house next
door to her.
Mrs. Pelletier, upon questioning, also reported that she paid Dr. Fay $400 a
month to be on the premises. Other than the prescribed massages, if somebody
wanted an adjustment, he would do that also. He was not in the building now.
Ail kinds of things had been done, but he had not yet physically been located
there.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to deny the application for an extension of
the abatement period for The Roman Spa. Councilman Bay seconded the motion.
465
City Hail. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 7, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Roth added the following finding: That the
application be denied further on the basis that the applicant did not
demon~_rate the existence of a hardship that would warrant an extension of
time.
A votc was then taken on the foregoing motion, including the additional
findin~ by Councilman Roth. MOTION CARRIED.
108: HEAkING--THE TENDER TOUCH-EXTENSION OF ABATEMENT PERIOD: Marie Nguyen,
requesting an extension of the abatement period for The Tender Touch, 219
South State College Boulevard, pursuant to Code Subsection 4.29.030.
Submitted was a report from the Chief of Police dated May 24, 1983,
recommending the denial of an extension of the abatement period, and report
dated May 25, 1983, from the City Attorney's office,.recommending that a
hearing be conducted.
The Mayor asked if Ms. Nguyen was present; Ms. Nguyen, owner of The Tender
Touch, was present and asked that her representative speak for her.
Mr. William D. Runneals, 414 Hillcrest, Placentia, stated he considered this a
hardship case because Ms. Nguyen bought The Tender Touch in 1979. She put up
her home to finance the business. Per the City's ordinance, they closed on
December !0, 1982. She still had to pay the lease and payments on the
business. They then complied with the City's Code requiring medical referrals
from a ch ropractor or osteopath. They felt it was to their advantage to put
a chiropractor on the premises and they had him open up an office. He had a
business 'icense and when people came in and requested a massage, the
chiropraclor checked them out, heart and blood pressure, etc. They had tried
to comply with Code all along. They also tried to move three different times,
but w~re unsuccessful. They had now changed their hours from 10:00 a.m. to
10:O0 p.m. on weekdays and 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays.
The chiropractor was there most of the time. Ms. Nguyen was going to lose her
home if she did not get an extension. She had a loan outstanding on the
business of about $10,000.
Councilman Overholt stated he assumed what Mr. Runneals was testifying to was
true ~nd correct and that he would be willing to testify under oath; Mr.
Runner.ups answered that he would do so.
Upon further questioning by Councilman Overholt, Mr. Runneals reported on the
inw~tm~ntg mad~ by Mg. N~uy~n after D~c~mb~r of 1982. She r~carpeted,
repainte2 and refurbished the business and set up an office on the premises
for the chiropractor costing approximately ~2,000 or ~3,000. She did not
borro~ that, but he (Runneals) helped her as much as he could. There was a
sum l~rger than ~10,000 outstanding in December of 1982. The loan she
recei'ed originally for the business was $50,000, it was now down to
approximately $10,000 and he was not aware of any additional loans in the
interim. The chiropractor was on a retainer with Tender Touch, but he had his
own b~siness. The retainer was ~1,000 a month and he did not pay any rent and
a reasonable value of the space he was occupying was approximately $400. In
466
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 7, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
essence, he was being paid approximately ~1,400 a month for his services. He
did not know how many adjustments the chiropractor performed a month. He also
clarified that The Tender Touch did not pay any retainer or fee or
compensation to the previous off-site chiropractor, Dr. Hyun. (Also see
letter dated May 12, 1983, submitted in support of the abatement period--on
file in the City Clerk's office.
In concluding, Ms. Nguyen stated she tried very hard to do everything
correctly according to the requirements of the City. She hoped that the City
would understand.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to deny the request for an extension of the
abatement period for The Tender Touch, 219 South State College Boulevard,
pursuant to Code Subsection 4.29.030, on the basis that the applicant did not
demonstrate that a hardship exists that would warrant the extension of time.
Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
170: FINAL MAP - TRACT NO. 11464: Developer, M. J. Brock & Sons, Inc.; tract
is located on the south side of Coronet Avenue, north of Falmouth Avenue and
contains 62 proposed RM-2400 zoned lots.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the proposed
subdivision, together with its design and improvement, was found to be
consistent with the City's General Plan, and the City Council approved Final
Map Tract No. 11464, as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum
dated May 27, 1983. MOTION CARRIED.
170: FINAL MAP - TRACT NO. 11754: Developer, Warren Development; tract is
located at 3529 West Savanna Street and contains 16 proposed RM-3000 zoned
lots.
The City Clerk noted that Miss Santalahti had a comment to make.
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, stated that the phrase, "for
condominium purposes," appeared on the final map, and it should be deleted
before the tract was recorded. Apparently, in accordance with the Subdivision
Ordinance, the subject tract layout consisting of 15 individually owned lots
and one common lot did not conform to the ordinance requirement under the
Subdivision Map Act. It was a simple change that could be made and
incorporated into Council action if they approved the final map.
City Engineer William Devitt then confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood that he
anticipated no flooding problems relative to drainage on Savanna Street.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Pickler, the proposed
subdivision, together with its design and improvement, was found to be
consistent with the City's General Plan, and the City Council approved Final
Map Tract No. 11754, as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum
dated May 27, 1983, with the phrase, "for condominium purposes," to be deleted
from the final map before the tract is recorded. MOTION CARRIED.
467
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 7, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
179/103: ORDINANCE NO. 4438: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4438 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4438: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (79-80-18, RS-A-43,000(O),
east of the northeast and southeast corners of Orchard Drive and Lakeview
Avenue, La Palma-Lakeview-No. 4 Annexation)
Roll Call Vote:
AYE S:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickier, Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4438 duly passed and adopted.
139: AB 1597 (COSTA): Councilman Bay referred to the information they had
received on AB 1597 (Costa) relating to housing, referencing AB 1599. The
Council had taken a position against AB 1599 and he understood it was more or
less shelved. Now, some of the provisions or prime ideas within that bill had
been put into amendments to AB 1597. He requested that the Intergovernmental
Relations Office look closely at the bill and submit a report sometime during
the coming week, so that they could determine if they would like to take a
strong position against it, if the essence of AB 1599 was contained in it.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: The City Manager requested a Closed Session to
discuss personnel and labor relations with no action anticipated; the City
Attorney requested a Closed Session to discuss litigation and potential
litigation with no action anticipated.
Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilwoman Kaywood
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (11:58 a.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (1:47 p.m.)
179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2428: Application
by Larry R. Smith, to permit a billboard on CL zoned property located on the
north side of Ball Road, west of Knott Street, with the following Code
waivers: (a) maximum display area, and (b) maximum height.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-63, declared
that the subject project be exempt from the requirement to file an
Environmental Impact Report pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act on the basis that there will be no significant
individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact due to the approval of
this negative declaration, since the Anaheim General Plan designates the
subject property for general commercial land uses commensurate with the
proposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the
468
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 7, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
proposal; and that the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no
significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts; and
further denied Conditional Use Permit No. 2428..
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Foster and Kleiser,
Agent, and public hearing scheduled and continued from the meeting of May 10,
1983, to this date.
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
Mr. Rob Verman, representing Foster and Kleiser, 1550 West Washington, Los
Angeles, stated when he originally asked for a continuance, he was not aware
of a staff report relative to a proposed billboard amendment. He was,
therefore, asking for a continuance to such time after the discussion took
place on that issue.
MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to continue the public hearing to July 26,
1983, at 1:30 p.m., which would be one week following the submittal of the
staff report regarding billboards, to take place on July 19, 1983. Councilman
Roth seconded the motion.
Before action was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood wanted to know how many people
were present in the Chambers audience with regard to the item, since they had
previously continued the matter to this date and people were present to speak
at that time. She did not feel it was fair to those who were present then and
no w.
Councilman Overholt stated he was supportive of the motion, but he also felt
that the people who were present today should have an opportunity to identify
themselves or if they wished to be heard, they should be given the opportunity
to do so, and the matter then continued to July 26, 1983.
Discussion followed between Council Members relative to the motion on the
proposed continuance at the conclusion of which, Councilman Overholt called
for the vote subject to the individuals present being able to make statements.
Before action was taken~ Mr. Ron Bell, 14371 Goldenwest, owner/operator of the
racquet ball facility at 979 South Knott, stated the reason for the
continuance a month ago was to give time so that the applicant could effect a
compromise, but in 30 days, they had received no correspondence, calls or
anything else.
Councilman Pickier then called for a vote on the motion to continue the public
hearing on Conditional Use Permit No. 2428 to July 26, 1983, at 1:30 p.m.
Councilwoman Kaywood voted "No." MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood emphasized that the people were told at the meeting of
May 10, 1983, that the matter would be continued to today and they would be
heard first after waiting many hours that day.
469
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 7, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Mr. Ron Bell stated they were concerned over the very large nature of the sign
which would affect the aesthetics of the corner. The applicant already had
two signs on the corner, one on each street frontage. The other concern was
the uncertainty over what was going to happen to the front portion of the
parcel. He reiterated that they had come to the meeting today with the idea
that a compromise could have been effected in the interim, but they had not
been contacted in any form whatsoever.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that Mr. Bell could be prejudicing his own case
when he returned on the 26th of July; Councilman Overholt did not agree.
Councilman Bay suggested that Mr. Bell be present on July 19th as well, when
the staff report would be submitted and discussed.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak.
Mrs. Joyce Keeter, 716 South Kenmore, stated she would be back but was
definitely in opposition. She owned the Union Station at the corner of Knott
and Ball.
Mrs. Windflower Ochoa, 1330 Oriole, stated she lived within one-quarter mile
of the corner. She was concerned that it was already a "junky" looking corner
and saw no reason to make it worse, and that was also the opinion of many of
the residents in the Brentwood Homes tract containing approximately 200
families.
Mayor Roth confirmed that the item was continued to July 26, 1983, at 1:30
p.m., and would be the first public hearing as requested by Councilwoman
Kaywood. The billboard issue itself would be discussed on July 19, 1983, at
10:00 a.m.
179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING--VARIANCE NO. 3328: Application by State-Wide
Developers, Inc., (Apollo Jr. High School), to construct a 432-unit affordable
condominium complex on proposed RM-3000 zoned property located on the west
side of Knott Street, south of Ball Road, with the following Code waivers:
(a) minimum lot area per dwelling unit, (b) maximum site coverage, (c) minimum
floor area, and (d) minimum recreational-leisure area.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-70, reported
that Environmental Impact Report No. 247 was previously certified by the City
Council on December 8, 1981, in conjunction with General Plan Amendment No.
166 and further, denied Variance No. 3328.
A public hearing was held on May 3, 1983, in conjunction with General Plan
Amendment No. 184 and Reclassification No. 82-83-27. General Plan Amendment
No. 184, Exhibit "A", was approved under Resolution No. 83R-185, and
Reclassification No. 82-83-27 was approved under Resolution No. 83R-186. A
decision on Variance No. 3328 was continued to this date, with revised plans
to be submitted to the Planning Commission in the interim.
470
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 7, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Miss Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, referred to the
drawings posted on the Chambers wall which consisted of the original and the
revised plans submitted by State-Wide Developers. The revised propqsal
deleted some buildings, thereby reducing the density to the Code requirement
plus 25 percent affordable units. They also eliminated the need for the other
two waivers pertaining to minimum floor area and minimum recreational leisure
area. The Planning Commission reviewed the plans a week ago and went along
with the scheme on the basis that it did comply with the Code requirements for
332 units, however, they were still unhappy with the architecture of the
project and would like to have been able to insure that the project would not
appear as block or box-like structures. The Chairman felt that the
architecture of the project used little imagination and creativity and as
proposed, the project had a barracks-like look and left a lot to be desired.
The other Commission Members basically concurred. Miss Santalahti also
confirmed upon Council questioning that waiver "b", maximum site coverage,
waiver "c", minimum floor area, and waiver "d", minimum recreational-leisure
area had all now been deleted. The remaining waiver was "a", minimum lot area
per dwelling unit, was still required, and they were proposing 18 plus units
per acre, which was the Code requirement, plus 25 percent for the afforda~ble
units. The total number of units being proposed at this time was 332, which
included 83 affordable units (25 percent).
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
Mr. Alex Belle, president of State-Wide Developers, representing the
applicant, 5182 Katella Avenue, Los Alamitos, first briefly summarized the
presentation he made at the meeting of May 3, 1983 (see minutes that date),
wherein he explained the HELPER (Housing Enabled by Lender Participation and
Equity Rollover) Program under which the project was originally designed and
planned to be 100 percent affordable. He then explained that in all of the
meetings held on the matter, there was no comment whatsoever with regard to a
barracks-like project, nor a comment relative to its architectural
desirability. They were now down to 18 units per acre and were ready to
formalize a commitment to 25 percent affordable, although the project in its
entirety would be in the affordable range.
The Mayor then asked to hear from anyone who wished to speak, either in favor
or in opposition.
Mrs. Donna Westbury, 3434 Thornton, reiterated the statement made at the
meeting of May 3, 1983, that as long as the developer builds to condominium
standards, they were in favor of the project. She also reported that relative
to the flight pattern at the Los Alamitos Air Base, she had since spoken with
Sgt. Harrington and was informed that it had been changed. It now went down
Katella Avenue and did not cross over the proposed development. Another issue
was relative to the cost of the left-hand turn signals that would be necessary
on Cerritos and Ball because of the project which should be the developer's
responsibility to pay. Also, exiting from Knott and Thornton on a left-hand
turn was to be considered.
471
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 7, 1983~ 10:00 A.M.
Miss Santalahti stated relative to the latter, she believed Mrs. Westbury was
referring to the requirement regarding the raised median in Knott Street to
prevent five various left-turn movements from the project. The left-turn
median would be constructed the entire length except at the location of
Thornton or Brady and those two locations would have breaks in the median to
allow existing residents to get into their streets. The project had the
standard traffic signal assessment condition, which fee may or may not go to a
traffic signal in the area.
Windflower Ochoa, 1330 Oriole, first stated that she was directly under the
flight pattern and did not agree with Mrs. Westbury relative to a change. She
heard planes every day and, in any case, Katella Avenue was less than a mile
away. She was concerned for future residents that there be sound attenuation
particularly in the north portion of the condominium tract and also because of
the railroad. As well, an independent contractor spoke at the last meeting
and mentioned that the slant of the roofs in the project was going to cause
sound reverberation back to the residents. She did not know if that had been
changed and they were concerned that the roofs be slanted in the right
direction or not slanted, whichever would best mitigate the sound problem. It
also appeared that there were many open garages and she believed it was a
Council Policy to have closed garages. They also wanted a guarantee that the
anti-graffiti material be used in the mortar for the wall.
Mr. Belle then answered the concerns expressed by Mrs. Westbury and Mrs. Ochoa.
At the conclusion of Mr. Belle's presentation, Councilwoman Kaywood posed
questions to staff regarding the selling price of the affordable units.
Kate Adams, Community Development Specialist, stated that the proposed selling
price for one bedroom was ~67,500, which would be affordable to persons whose
incomes were of one- and two-member households. The two-bedroom unit proposed
selling price was ~80,000. Their analysis of affordability was based on 10
percent down and 12.5 percent, 30-year fixed rate mortgages. There would be a
five-year resale agreement based on Council Policy.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the
public hearing.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 83R-234 for adoption, granting Variance
No. 3328, subject to the following Interdepartmental Committee recommendations
and to Revision No. 2 of Exhibit 1, for 332 units which included 83 affordable
units (25 percent).
1. That this Variance is granted subject to the completion of
Reclassification No. 82-83-27, now pending.
2. That subject propertY shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos.
1 through 3 (Revision No. 2).
472
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 7, 1983~ 10:00 A.M.
3. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition No. 2,
above-mentioned, shall be complied with.
4. 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 not less than 83 of the residential units shall be sold
as low or moderate income housing as defined in Government Code Section 65915
and with appropriate resale controls as approved by the City of Anaheim.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 83R-234: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 3328.
Before a vote was taken, Miss Santalahti clarified that relative to the
traffic signal assessment issue, the condition recommended by staff to the
Planning Com~aission was payment of the traffic signal assessment fee.
Traffic Engineer Paul Singer explained that the fee amounted to $17,264 at
today's rate and should building permits be pulled at some later date, the fee
would possibly increase. Traffic signal modification from a two-phase signal
to a five-phase varied between $50,000 to $65,000. They had not contemplated
assessment of that because they generally did not feel that the volume of
traffic generated would be great enough to justify the signal assessment for
an entire signal.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked what the recommendation would be on the project
considering the addition of 332 unit; Mr. Singer answered their recommendation
would be payment of the traffic signal assessment fee.
Mayor Roth stated that the assessment fee was to be included.
Miss Santalahti pointed out that the staff report included all other standard
conditions and she was assuming these were also to be included; Councilman
Roth clarified that was correct. Further, he noted that his resolution
included approval of Revision No. 2 of Exhibit 1 rather than the previous
drawings submitted. Miss Santalahti also clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood
that the developer was also required to enter into an agreement with the
Community Development Department for 25 percent of the units to be affordable,
which was a standard condition.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution, including the payment of
the traffic signal assessment fee and entering into the aforementioned
agreement.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-234 duly passed and adopted.
473
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 7, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 82-83-29~ VARIANCE NO.
3325 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application by Jack H. and Charlotte A. Dick,
for a change in zone from RS-10,000 to RM-3000, to construct a lO-unit
condominium complex on property located at 949 North Citron Street, with the
following Code waivers: (a) minimum lot area per dwelling unit, (b) maximum
structural height, and (c) minimum landscaped setback.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-76, declared
that the subject project be exempt from the requirement to file an
Environmental Impact Report pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act on the basis that there will be no significant
individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact due to the approval of
this negative declaration, since the Anaheim General Plan designates the
subject property for low-medium density residential land uses commensurate
with the proposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the
proposal; and that the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no
significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts; and
further, denied Reclassification No. 82-83-29 and Variance No. 3325.
The Planning Commission's decision was appealed by Bruce Goldman, agent for
the applicant, and public hearing scheduled this date.
Mayor Roth stated he understood there were revisions to the plan.
Miss Santalahti explained that after the Planning Commission hearing on
April 18, 1983, the petitioner submitted a set of revised plans, which were
posted on the Chambers wall, eliminating two of the three waivers, "a,"
pertaining to density and "b," pertaining to maximum structural height, and
were now proposing a one-story project instead of a project which included
some two-story b~ildings. The original action denying the project at the
Planning Commission level was basically because the proposal did not reflect
the Commission's desires in connection with the General Plan Amendment for
low-medium density. They made a finding that all properties in the area on
the west side of Citron that would redevelop with apartments or condominiums
be developed with one-story buildings and fully enclosed garages--the revised
plans would reflect that particular finding. The only variance now was the
landscaped setback, specifically the minimum 20-foot wide landscaped buffer
required between single family and condominiums and the only area on which it
was affected was on the south property line abutting the existing
single-family zoning; however, that property was within the General Plan area
designation for low-medium density development. The distance ranged from zero
for carports abutting the property line to five feet for one of the
condominium units.
Councilman Pickler felt that the matter should be referred back to the
Planning Commission and then come back to the Council; Councilwoman Kaywood
also noted that they had nothing in their agenda packets relative to the
change. She asked how many people in the Chambers audience were present
because of their interest in the subject variance; approximately 20 people
raised their hands.
474
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 7, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
Mr. Bob Gilbert, manager of the project, 4552 Lincoln Avenue, Cypress, was
present. After additional discussion between Council and staff relative to
the matter being returned to the Planning Commission, Mr. Gilbert explained
that the residents were represented by one spokesman and he was sent a
registered letter and had seen the revised plan and talked to the planners.
They would like very much to be heard today and had addressed all but one
concern.
The Mayor asked to hear from a representative of the homeowners in the area.
Mr. Bill Jolissaint, 1001 North Citron, stated that the people in the area
were not notified of the proposed change except that he was so notified by
registered letter. He felt that the Planning Commission should hear the
matter again. He clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood that he did see the
revised plans, but he did not like what he saw. On the south side, they were
putting six garages right on the property line and he did not believe that
followed City Code.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated in the interest of time, they should meet with the
developer and lek him know of their concerns with regard to the revised plans,
so that by the next hearing, Revision No. 2 would be ready.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved that the revised plans be referred back to the
Planning Commission for review and recommendation. Councilwoman Kaywood
seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mr. Richard Brubaker, 943 North Citron, stated his
was the property immediately to the south. He did not believe he would be
able to be present for the next hearing. Therefore, he wanted to know how the
setbacks against his property would affect him.
Miss Santalahti explained that the setback waiver was required because his
current zoning was single-family and the project was a condominium. If Mr.
Brubaker's property was rezoned Re-3000, such as the subject proposal, the
waiver of setback would no longer be necessary, but was simply because of the
existing zoning. Past practices in similar instances where it was expected
that the nelghhorlng property would develop as a k{gher density than fha
existing one was that that type of waiver be granted. However, approximately
60 percent of the property would have a garage immediately abutting the
property line with a wall of approximately l0 feet because of Fire Code
requirements. The five-foot condominium setback would be similar to what the
single-family unit would have had, had the property been developed with
single-family structures.
Mr. Brubaker stated he would like to see something done for the whole street,
a general plan for the whole area.
475
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTEf5 - June 7, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Miss Santalahti then explained that there was a General Plan designation on
all of the property from La Verne Street to La Palma Avenue for low-medium
density residential. It would permit apartments at RM-2400 with a maximum of
18 units per acre, condominiums as proposed w_.th an equivalent of 14.5 units
per acre, or any single-family development. 7'he General Plan had been
considered in the area and had been approved ~-or that stretch of lots fronting
on Citron Street.
Councilman Bay revised his motion to specifically continue the public hearing
to a date and time certain, that being July 5, 1983, at 1:30 p.m., and that
the application be referred back to the Planning Commission for a
recommendation on the revised plans.
A vote was then taken on the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Before concluding~ Mr. Ben Cooper, 923 North Winter Street, questioned how
much weight the wishes of the people living in the area carried. He then
asked for a show of hands of those who did not wish to see the project become
a reality. (Approximately 15 people raised their hands.) He thereupon stated
that the Council should honor the wishes of the people who had invested in and
had been living in the area first.
Mr. Brubaker then explained that they had petiti, ned all of the property
owners on that side of Citron with the excepticn ~f Mr. Jolissaint, including
Mr. Brubaker, and they signed the petition and as ed to have the properties
redesignated as RM-3000.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recesse~ for 10 minutes (3:05 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting t~ order, ail Council Members
being present. (3:15 p.m.)
179: PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 3326: Application submitted by William J.
Hinson, Jr., (Hawaiian Village Recreation Club), to convert an existing
recreation building to a single-family residence on RS-7200 zoned property
located at 1253 North Brookhurst Street, with the following Code waivers: (a)
maximum lot coverage, (b) minimum front yard '~etback, (c) minimum rear yard
setback, and (d) minimum number of parking sp.~es.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-85, reported
that the Planning Director had determined that the proposed activity falls
within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 1, {~ the City of Anaheim
guidelines to the requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and is
therefore categorically exempt from the requi?~ment to file an EIR and
further, granted Variance No. 3326, in part, -ubject to the following
conditions:
1. That the owner of subject property shall ._onditionally dedicate to the
City of Anaheim a strip of land 60-feet in width from the centerline of the
street along Brookhurst Street for street wid~.~ing purposes, conditioned upon
the City of Anaheim's need to widen Brookhurst Street.
476
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 7, 1983~ 10:00 A.M.
2. That street lighting facilities along Brookhurst Street 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 t.he 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 Brookhurst Street in an amount as determined
by the City Council.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. That the vehicular access rights to Brookhurst Street shall be dedicated
to the City of Anaheim.
8. 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 the plans shall be revised to include 4
on-site parking spaces which shall minimally consist of: Taking vehicular
access off the public alley at the west property line, and 2 open parking
spaces. Said received plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Traffic Engineer.
9. That prior to the commencement of the activity authorized under this
r~o~ution, or prior to th~ tim~ that a bufldin~ p~rm~t i~ i~u~d, or within
period of one year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first,
Condition Nos. 1, 3 and 7, 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.
10. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 5 and
8, above-mentioned, shall be complied with.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilman
Pickler at the meeting of May 10, 1983, and a public hearing scheduled this
date.
477
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 7~ 1983, 10:00 A.M.
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
Mr. Keith Hinson, 2301 West Lauri, Santa And, was present to answer questions.
Councilman Pickler stated that he and the people in the area were concerned as
to what was happening with the Hawaiian Village property. He understood that
the property had been divided into three lots and he wanted to know how that
occurred.
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, stated the property had
always been three lots. The Hawaiian Village Recreation Club was originally
developed after the surrounding tract property. The property was subdivided
in connection with that tract housing, and the recreational facility was built
over all three lots. When it was vacated and the pool demolished, it was back
to what it was originally, and now the one lot had the entire building on it.
Mr. Hinson stated his understanding from the Building Department was the same,
that it was always three lots and they had a conditional use permit on it
making it a recreation club.
Councilman Pickler stated his concern was that there be no parking in the
alley. He had been in the area and there was parking going on behind
Brookhurst. He suggested that no parking signs be posted.
Traffic Engineer Paul Singer referred to Council action taken at the time of
the removal of parking on Brookhurst Street in conjunction with the
installation of a continuous left-turn lane on Brookhurst. There was an acute
shortage of parking in the area and the City Council at the time (see minutes
of Council meetings of January 12, January 19, January 26 and February 2,
1982) did give a positive nod for the residents to be able to park on one side
of the alley on both sides of Brookhurst Street between La Palma Avenue and
the freeway. Unless the Council wished to reverse that action, parking was
now there by right, as long as vehicles did'not block emergency equipment or
trash pickup.
Mayor Roth also gave a brief historical overview leading to the Council's
previous action, which came about after many hearings with the residents in
the area. If they were going to make changes now, he maintained it would be
necessary to hold a public hearing.
Councilman Bay noted that the Hawaiian Village Recreation Club was a kind of
condominium, speaking of joint ownership of the various members who joined.
It was his understanding that other than some taxes due on the property, there
was no intention in selling off those three lots and that other than paying
off any debt accumulated on those lots, the rest of the money would end up
going to a charity.
Mr. Hinson stated he was not aware of that. His father had bought the one lot
at 1249 North Brookhurst and not 1253 as indicated on the agenda.
478
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 7~ 1983, 10:00 A.M.
The Mayor asked to hear from anyone who wished to speak, either in favor or in
opposition.
Mr. Joseph Bueno, 1252 North'Fulton, located behind the Hawaiian Village
Recreation Club, explained that the recreation club was deeded to the tract by
the builder. It was a non-profit organization and they paid dues. At the
time, all the existing members discussed how they could get rid of the
property. There was a charter saying that the property could not be sold, but
it had to go to a charitable institution. Yet, the property had been sold,
but as to how or why was the big question. At no time did the last members
receive notice as to what was being done with the property. No one could
possibly break the charter and yet it was done and supposedly it was done by
the last president. The property was sold for ~30,000 and the next two lots
were now being sold for ~63,000 each. As a past member, he was concerned over
what was happening with the property and where the funds were going.
City Attorney William Hopkins explained that there was a pool on the property
in a very serious condition constituting a health hazard and nuisance. They
subsequently looked for somebody responsible to correct the nuisance, but
everyone denied they had anything to do with it. They were finally able to
find some of the original charter members of the Association with whom they
discussed serious problems and agreed to correct them. In the meantime, the
taxes had not been paid on the property. The State was taking over and about
to sell the property for taxes. They did not trace it ali the way down to the
current development, but it was very close to where the State was going to
take it over and sell it.
Mr. Hinson then clarified for Councilman Overholt that the lot his father
owned was at 1249, the southernmost lot. He had clear title to the property
and he bought it from the Hawaiian Village Recreation Club.
Councilman Bay stated if the property was divided into two lots rather than
three, all the problems with which they were now confronted would not be a
problem. He was curious and was certain many ex-members were also, as to just
what happened and why it could not have been divided into two lots to solve
all the problems.
Councilman Overholt wanted to know how that would solve all the problems; Miss
Santalahti stated that the three waivers pertaining to coverage, front and
rear setbacks were not so much the lot as the specific building on the lot.
In order to get two lots on the property, they would have to file a parcel map
resubd~v~dlng the property, eliminating one o£ the lots.
Councilman Overholt stated perhaps there was something the Hawaiian Village
could do with respect to proceeds, but on the question of whether Mr. Hinson
was entitled to do something on the property, it might be beyond the scope of
the hearing.
479
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 7, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Pickler agreed that the legality of the situation was something
that the Hawaiian Village Recreation Club should follow through on their own.
He was concerned that all parking be on the property, but there was no access
to Brookhurst Street. His main concern was that the alleyway be left free, so
that it could be used in case of an emergency and also that no type of
business be conducted at that address.
Mr. Bueno stated he was present on behalf of the property owners surrounding
the Hawaiian Village Recreation Club. He thereupon submitted a petition
requesting that "no parking" signs be posted (made a part of the record). He
was present during the previous hearings and there was only one family who
continuously parked vehicles in the alley. He maintained that emergency
equipment would not be able to get through if parking was allowed in the
alley. They were requesting that "no parking" signs be posted. The same
group of people were in opposition to the waiver of minimum parking spaces.
The petition contained signatures of 100 percent of the people he talked to.
Mayor Roth stated he had no objection if the residents wanted to petition the
City Council and reverse their previous request. However, he could not
participate in any arbitrary action at this time to install "no parking"
signs; Councilman 0verholt suggested that Mr. Bueno confer wi~h the Traffic
Engineer.
The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to speak; there being no response, he
closed the public hearing.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted with a 20-foot dedication, the structure would be
fronting 5 1/2 feet on Brookhurst; Miss Santalahti then answered questions
posed by Councilwoman Kaywood, noting that since there was no structural
involvement relative to the existing building, they were going to end up five
feet from the ultimate right-of-way line. Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out
there was not only the noise itself that would be so unbearable, but also
there was a safety hazard involved in being that close to any street. With
the kind of traffic on Brookhurst, it would be hard to imagine.
ENVIRONMENTA~L IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman
Pickier, seconded by Councilman 0verholt, the City Council ratified the
determination of the Planning Director that the proposed activity fails within
the definition of ~ectlon 5.01, Class 1, o£ the City o£ Anaheim ~uldellne~ to
the requirements for an Environmenta! Impact Report and im, therefore,
categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Pickier offered Resolution No. 83R-235 for adoption, granting
Variance No. 3326, subject to City Planning Commission conditions. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 83R-235: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 3326.
480
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 7, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Pickler, Overholt and Roth
Kaywood
Bay
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-235 duly passed and adopted.
Mayor Roth stated that they would look forward with interest to the list of
people who were interested in having no parking in the alleys, contrary to the
previous action taken by the Council. Mr. Bueno should work with Mr. Singer
as suggested by Councilman Overholt.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 77-78-64 (READVERTISED):
Application by Kaufman & Broad, Inc., requesting amendment to the Bauer Ranch
General Plan of Development; Ordinance Nos. 4068 and 4069; and Resolution No.
79R-607, proposed RM-3000(SC), RS-5000(SC) and RS-43,000(SC) zoned property
located southeast and southwest of the intersection of the Riverside Freeway
and Weir Canyon Road.
The City Council on June 8, 1982, certified EIR No. 256 as being in compliance
with the California Environmental Quality Act in conjunction with General Plan
Amendment No. 176 and Revision No. 3, Exhibit No. 1 of the General Plan of
Development.
Approval of the requested amendments was recommended by the Planning
Commission at their meeting of May 2, 1983.
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
Mr. Robert Galloway, Senior Vice President, Kaufman & Broad, explained that
they were now in Revision No. 4. The latest revision was in connection with
their latest tentative maps, Areas 1, 2 and 7. This was mainly updating of a
planning document and the Planning Commission approved it unanimously. He
explained that they changed the bottom end of Weir Canyon Road and the
Planning staff's interpretation was that the location as shown in their plan
was in substantial conformance with the General Plan and would not need any
General Plan Amendment at this time. It also eliminated Parcel No. 11. He
requested that the General Plan of Development be approved as submitted with
the hope that they would not have to revise it and come back to straighten out
Weir Canyon and take out Parcel No. 11.
Mayor Roth noted that one of the staff recommendations was that Condition No.
22 be added. He asked Miss Santalahti to speak to that. (See staff report
dated May 2, 1983, Page 1-f.)
Miss Santalahti read the condition as follows: "That subject property shall
be developed substantially in accordance with the Bauer Ranch General Plan of
Development on file with the City of Anaheim and marked Revision No. 4 of
481
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 7, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Exhibit No. 1; provided, however, that the total dwelling unit count shall not
exceed 945, although transfer of units between land use areas may be approved
by the Planning Commission following submittal of precise plans for such
transfer, as discussed in the preceding Condition No. 3." There were some
other conditions and the condition amendment had to do with the revised
exhibit, Revision No. 4 of Exhibit No. 1.
Mayor Roth stated he wanted to be certain that Mr. Galloway was aware that
Condition No. 22 was a recommendation of staff and it would be a part of the
proposal.
Mr. Galloway stated he had no problems with that. He reiterated they would
like it approved with the minor amendment relative to Weir Canyon Road and the
elimination of Parcel No. 11. He then clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood that
with regard to the substation, park and library, they had already relocated
those and he believed that the Wallace and Douglass ranches were aware of the
changes.
The Mayor asked to hear from anyone who wished to speak.
Mr. Roger Grable, Rutan & Tucker, 611 Anton Boulevard, Costa Mesa,
representing the Wallace Ranch, referred to their letter dated May 24, 1983,
previously submitted, which explained their specific concerns (made a part of
the record). They did not have any objection to the relocation of the
library, the substation, the park and the tranfer of the residential units.
Their concerns were with other changes reflected in the document that were
inconsistent with the Public Facilities Plan, such as those relating to sewer
and water. The Planning Commission did not consider or prove that and
deferred it to a consideration of the public facilities if there were going to
be amendments to that. They were very happy with that because they would have
an opportunity to participate in the process. Their concern was that they not
abandon the master planning that was going to serve all of the developments.
They had no objection to the change.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the
public hearing.
Councilman Bay then posed questions to Joel Fick, Assistant Director for
Plannin$~ relative to any changes that might have occurred across the Bauer
Ranch General Flan of Development and the effect relative to the cost/benefit
ratio factors discussed at the outset, since the Council guaranteed the
project would not cost the taxpayers and the rest of the City any money.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 83R-236 for adoption, amending the
conditions of approval as set forth in Resolution No. 79R-607, as amended,
relating to zoning Reclassification Proceedings No. 77-78-64. Refer to
Resolution Book.
482
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 7~ 1983, 10:00 A.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 83R-236: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AS SET FORTH IN RESOLUTION NO.
79R-607 RELATING TO ZONING RECLASSIFICATION PROCEEDINGS NO. 77-78-64.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-236 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Roth offered Ordinance Nos. 4440 and 4441 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4440: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING ORDINANCE
NO. 4068 AS HERETOFORE AMENDED.
ORDINANCE NO. 4441: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING ORDINANCE
NO. 4069 AS HERETOFORE AMENDED.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to approve Revision No. 4 of Exhibit No. 1 of
the Bauer Ranch General Plan of Development on file with the City of Anaheim.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1564 (READVERTISED):
Application by John A. Huish, (Anaheim Family Fun Center), to permit an
outdoor soccer field in conjunction with an existing recreational facility on
ML zoned property located at 4145 North Shepard Street.
An EIR negative declaration was previously approved on October 14, 1975, in
conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 1564.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-87, recommended
approval of an amendment to City Council Resolution No. 75R-534 granted in
connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 1564, expanding the use of an
existing recreational facility subject to the following conditions:
1. 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, including the provision for a total of 131 parking spaces.
2. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition No. 1,
above-mentioned, shall be complied with.
3. That the additional use of an outdoor soccer field in conjunction with an
existing recreational facility is granted for a period of one year, to expire
on May 1, 1984.
City Clerk Linda Roberts announced that a petition had been received dated
June 2, 1983, signed by approximately 42 businessmen located in the subject
area opposing the application for an entertainment permit submitted by Keith
483
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 7, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Wayne Goodman of Anaheim Fun Center to permit three- to six-piece bands on
Fridays from 8:00 p.m. to 12:00 midnight (continued from the meeting of
May 24, 1983). Two additional letters were also received from Karl Sader, S &
S Investments dated June 6, 1983, and Dale Fowler Investments dated June 3,
1983, also opposing the entertainment permit application.
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
Mr. Jim Huish, 31762 Paseo Terazza, San Juan Capistrano, stated that he and
his brother were the owners of the Anaheim Recreation Center and he was
present to obtain a permit for a soccer field at their location. They were
before the Planning Commission approximately two or three weeks ago and were
given certain conditions to install barbed wire on their property line and to
work out any problems with Mr. Sader and to add some parking. Mr. Sader's
problem had been solved, the barbed wire had been installed along the Fowler
property and half of the Sader property. The reason it was not up all the way
was because there was a need to drive trucks through a portion of the wail.
They had been pouring concrete on the parking lot ali week and had 32 stalls
ready to go in currently and six more would be ready tomorrow. They did
complete what they said they would do.
The Mayor noted from the staff report that two issues were involved, the
soccer field and the application for an entertainment permit.
Miss Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, explained that the original
CUP and the changes that had been made never included an activity such as
concerts that were now being proposed. She did not believe the entertainment
permit was the correct method of bringing the matter to the Council's
attention, but rather considered under the CUP. If the Council was receptive
to the proposal, it could be determined the activity was part of the CUP and
the Council could make that decision. The soccer field was a separate issue.
Mr. Huish clarified that he was present only on the soccer issue. He then
answered questions posed by the Council Members relative to the soccer
operation. He emphasized that he wanted the soccer field whether or not the
entertainment permit was approved. He also stated that there had been no
parking problem and if he needed more parking, he would put it in. He did not
need the parking, but was installing it because he told the Planning
Commission he would do so.
Mr. Fred Kenny, representing Camelot Golf Course, the adjacent property owner,
first submitted letters that briefly s~mmarized the things he was going to
say. They did not have anything against the soccer field, but in the last two
years, they had problems with parking. During peak times if there were not
enough parking spaces, their customers would leave. Their peak night was
Saturday night and during such peak times they had validated parking. On
Saturday nights, 60 to 80 cars parked on their lot who did not validate at
their place of business. He disagreed with Mr. Huish and maintained that the
customers of the Anaheim Family Fun Center were parking in their lot, creating
a hardship on them. It created a hardship because they owned the parking lot
484
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 7, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
and also vacant land to the north of the parking lot. They had plans to build
a future industrial building on that property and thus were going to need that
parking for their future plans. It was unfair for Mr. Huish to rely on their
parking for his customers. Even with the 36 additional spaces, there was a
short fall of 30 to 40 spaces which would be needed during peak times. He was
hoping that the Council could do something that would make the situation more
fair on their behalf. (Also see Mr. Kenny's letter of June 7, 1983,
erroneously dated July 7, 1983.)
Mr. Ray Anderson, 19171 MacArthur Lane, Yorba Linda, president of the Southern
Indoor Soccer League, explained that they were presently playing their games
under a special events permit at the Huish center. He had met previously with
the Planning Commission, Council and Mr. Sator, but not with the people from
Camelot. He was not aware of the petition submitted outlining some of the
problems that had been experienced by surrounding businesses, but felt those
were incidents that happened in the past. The Huishes had repaired the barbed
wire fence and raised it to approximately 18 feet. He felt an earnest effort
had been made to decrease the potential for the type of activity outlined. He
also felt that there was ample parking, but if parking became a problem at a
future time, there was more property to be developed and it could be
considered at that time. He asked that the Council grant the permit, so that
they could conduct a soccer program which was a separate issue.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. Huish if he was willing to install an
additional 40 to 50 spaces at this time; Mr. Huish, in the final analysis,
stated that they had never needed parking for the subject facility. They put
in 38 more stalls because they had to, even though they did not need those
spaces. Their customers parked in Mr. Kenny's lot at times, but likewise, Mr.
Kenny's customers also parked in his lot. They did not want to be forced to
construct additional parking they did not need. He suggested that they review
the situation after the summer. At present they had 95 spaces plus the
additional 38 installed, totaling 133 spaces.
Miss Linda Cerbin, Board of Directors of the soccer league and the liaison
between Mr. Huish and the soccer league, 433 Talbert, Brea, clarified that
they did not have soccer games on Saturday afternoons or evenings and thus,
there would be no added parking problem during that peak time. There were
three games a night, the league started at 5:30 p.m.'and ended at 10:00 p.m.,
and normally by the time the first team had left, the second team came on to
the courts. There was no overlap. The Mayor asked if she would stipulate
that no soccer games would be played on Saturday nights; Miss Cerbin so
~tipulated. She alzo reported that ~he had not ~een any type of parking
problem at the facility. For each of the games they had approximately 30
people in attendance.
Mr. Kenny then clarified their method of validating parking and emphasized
that they were mostly concerned with Friday and Saturday nights. They wanted
something done about it. They had talked to the Anaheim Family Fun Center
about the matter. They had not installed parking they were supposed to
install two years ago and finally were doing so because the Planning
Commission told them they had to do so.
485
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 7, 1983~ 10:00 A.M.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Councilman Roth offered a resolution permitting indoor soccer to the end of
the soccer year, and at that time a review was to take place to consider a
possible extension.
Before any action was taken, Miss Cerbin stated the end of their season was
August 17, 1983, but she would like to ask for an additional two weeks in case
games had to be rescheduled.
Mr. Anderson stated that originally the City Council was going to offer a
one-year conditional use permit to be reviewed at the end of that period.
was, therefore, requesting that the CUP be approved for one year and then
reviewed.
He
Councilman Pickler stated he had no problem with one year, but he was
concerned relative to parking. He would like to see a review of the parking
situation in mid-September to ascertain if there were any problems; Councilman
Bay stated he had a problem with one year. He suggested that they approve the
permit to the end of the calendar year, December 31, 1983, which would give
ample opportunity to review the matter and yet enable the soccer league to
plan for the coming year.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that as Mr. Kenny reported, the additional parking
was required at the Anaheim Family Fun Center two years ago and it was just
now being installed because they were forced to do so. She wanted to see some
additional parking required at this point.
Councilman Roth again offered a resolution granting Conditional Use Permit No.
1564 (Readvertised), to permit outdoor soccer, to December 31, 1983.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she was holding her vote, since it would be
contingent upon whether or not additional parking was to be required;
Councilman Overhoit stated he was going to vote no, because parking was the
problem and not soccer. They were restricting the timing on the playing of
soccer. He agreed with Councilman Pickler that parking needed to be reviewed.
A vote was then taken on the proposed resolution and failed to carry by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Roth and Bay
Kaywood, Pickler and Overholt
None
Councilman Pickler thereupon offered Resolution No. 83R-237 for adoption,
permitting an outdoor soccer field in conjunction with an existing
recreational facility under Conditional Use Permit No. 1564 (Readvertised) to
May 1, 1984, with a review of parking conditions to take place in
mid-September, 1983. Refer to Resolution Book.
486
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 7~ 1983~ 10:00 A.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 83R-237: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1564 (READVERTISED).
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated she woul~ vote for
approval on the basis that she felt soccer was a good thing, but she
maintained that more parking was needed now.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-237 duly passed and adopted.
Mayor Roth then asked if the applicant was present relative to the application
for an Entertainment Permit.
Mr. Keith Wayne Goodman, 17482 Wayne Street, Irvine, stated he would like to
withdraw the application for the Entertainment Permit at the Anaheim Family
Fun Center, 4145 North Shepard Street, permitting three- to six-piece bands on
Fridays, from 8:00 p.m. to 12:00 midnight.
Since the application was withdrawn by the petitioner, no further action was
necessary.
RECESS: Councilman Roth moved to recess to 7:00 p.m. for a public hearing on
Reclassification No. 82-83-26 and a negative declaration. Councilman Bay
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (4:58 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (7:25 p.m.)
179: PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 82-83-26 AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION: Riviera Mobilehome Parks, to remove the MHP (Mobilehome Park
Overlay) zone, (with Resolution of Intent to CR), from property located at 300
West Katella Avenue, to permit conversion of an existing mobilehome park.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-75, declared
that the subject project be exempt from the requirement to file an
Environmental Impact Report pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act on the basis that there will be no significant
individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact due to the approval of
this negative declaration, since the Anaheim General Plan designates the
subject property for commercial recreation land uses commensurate with the
proposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the
proposal; and that the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no
487
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 7, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts; and
further granted Reclassification No. 82-83-26, subject to the following
conditions:
1. That prior to introduction of an ordinance reclassifying the property from
the Mobilehome Park Overlay Zone, specific development plans (or further
discretionary permits) shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning
Commission.
2. That prior to (a) termination of the tenancy of any resident mobilehome
owner for any reason by the park owner or mobilehome owner; or (b) adoption of
an ordinance rezoning that portion of subject property upon which such
mobilehome is located from the (M}{P) Overlay Zone, or (~) issuance of any
building permits for development of any portion of subject property, whichever
occurs first, the owners of subject property shall pay to each displaced
mobilehome owner (as identified in the Conversion Impact Report) or such
owner's successors in interest, relocation benefits in accordance with Section
18.92.060.040 of the Anaheim Municipal Code for the actual cost of relocation
of such mobilehome, which amount shall be not less than the total minimum
amount as set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by
this reference, or such other benefits as mutually agreed upon between the
park owner and the mobilehome owner. Said relocation benefits shall be paid
to each displaced mobilehome owner and proof thereof submitted to the City in
a form satisfactory to the City Attorney. In the event of payment of the
minimum amount set forth on Exhibit A hereof, said park owner shall also pay
to the mobilehome owner interest thereon at the rate of 10% per annum, simple
interest, calculated from the d~te of this resolution to the date of payment.
Mayor Roth asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
Mr. Floyd Farano, Attorney, 2555 EaSt Chapman Avenue, Suite 415, Fullerton,
first gave an overview of the events leading up to the hearing which started
15 months prior when the Council commissioned a task force to explore the
various problems involved in the conversion of mobilehome parks. As a result,
an ordinance emerged (Ordinance No. 4364) which was recommended unanimously by
the task force. It was not designed to prevent conversions, but to deal with
the question of conversion on a uniform and equal basis. They were present
tonight to discuss whether Riviera Mobilehome Park complied with the terms of
the ordinance. His purpose was to show and demonstrate that, in fact, the
Riviera Mobilehome Park had complied with the terms of the ordinance and how
they had done so.
Summarizing Mr. Farano's presentation, he addressed the issues raised in the
appeal submitted on May 5, 1983, by Mr. Vincent Jantz, Attorney for the
mobilehome park residents (see, Appeal--The Residents of the Riviera
Mobilehome Park Appeal Actions Taken by the Planning Commission Which Affect
Their Interests-made a part of the record). In his response dated June 6,
1983, attached to which was a memorandum addressing two specific issues raised
by the residents in their brief, i.e., the negative declaration finding made
by the Planning Commission instead of requiring an EIR, and the issue of
488
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 7, 1983~ 10:00 A.M.
"affordable housing" as it concerned the residents of the park and the removal
of the Mobilehome Park Overlay Zone (also made a part of the record). He gave
the historical background of the Riviera Mobtlehome Park, as well as the
present number of coaches in the park and their average age, emphasizing that
the park's infrastructure was now 25 years old. While it wa~ safe today, it
would not continue to be safe and function as a mobilehome p~rk. He then
specifically addressed Ordinance No. 4364 and the provision~ contained
therein, especially with regard to relocation benefits. He then briefed their
relocation plan which consisted of three alternatives, A,..B and C (see
Mobilehome Conversion Impact Report Riviera Project Part 3--Proposed
Relocation Benefit Plan, pages 7 and 8).
Mr. Farano then gave a video presentation showing six mobilchome parks located
from 50 to 75 miles from Anaheim, giving some details relative to each of the
parks such as rent structure, coaches that would be accepted in those parks,
amenities, available services, etc. (also see Planning Commission minutes of
April 18, 1983, and booklet provided on the six parks, which contained
photographs of the parks shown in the video presentation). The presentation
also included a video of shopping malls which were in close proximity to some
of the parks and concluded with a film of the Riviera Mobilehome Park during
which Mr. Farano explained why the park should convert. It was now in a
location which had evolved into a highly developed area and was never intended
to remain a mobilehome park and it was not going to remain as one, according
to Mr. Farano.
In concluding, Mr. Farano reiterated that they had compl ed with the ordinance
and they were in compliance with the law with regard to ~he EIR finding. He
then gave a hypothetical situation assuming the Riviera ~obilehome Park was to
redevelop and the cost figures involved in so doing which would result in a
rental rate of $905.84 per month per coach. Even though affordability was not
the issue, he maintained a rental figure of that amount was not affordable.
Further, they were not going to comment on the plans advanced by Mr. Jantz,
because those were not going to work and were completely outside of the
ordinance. Anything other than the criteria established in the ordinance was
inappropriate in his opinion.
The Mayor asked to hear from anyone who wished to speak in support of Mr.
Farano's position.
Mrs. Vickie Talley, 17845 Sky Park Circle, Suite J, Irvine, Executive Director
of the Manufactured Housing Educational Trust, stated she wanted to go on
record ~n support o~ the removal o£ the Mo~lehome Park Overlay ~one on the
Riviera Mobilehome Park. She then asked if the Council had received a letter
from Paul Bostwick, Anaheim Director of the Trust. (Letter dated June 6,
1983, had been received and made a part of the record.) She noted that Mr.
Bostwick had served on the Task Force and he represented their feelings at the
meetings that were held which were also expressed in their 2etter.
The Mayor then asked to hear from those in opposition.
489
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 7, 1983~ 10:00 A.M.
Mr. Marlin Stapleton, Attorney, 17621 Irvine Boulevard, Tustin, stated he had
been asked to come to the meeting by some of the residents to speak against
the closing of the park. In answer to Councilman Overholt, he explained that
he was not associated with Mr. Jantz and that he (Stapleton) represented quite
a few of the residents. He then questioned the provisions outlined in the
relocation plan presented by Mr. Farano. He contended that for the residents
to move any distance would create a hardship with regard to their jobs,
availability of medical care, close proximity to their families, etc. Also,
the overlay zone was to obtain and retain affordable housing. Relative to the
negative declaration EIR finding, he questioned why an EIR was required on the
Lincoln Beach Mobilehome Park and not Riviera. They were requesting the
Council not to remove the Overlay Zone on the Riviera Mobilehome Park.
Mayor Roth asked the City Attorney to explain the situation with regard to the
EIR.
City Attorney Hopkins explained that the study prepared for the project and
the Planning Commission determination was that a negative declaration was
adequate and an EIR not required. Such a finding was in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act requirements; Miss Santalahti also
clarified that Lincoln Beach Mobilehome Park was built on a landfill site
which involved substantial environmental problems. The requirement to prepare
an EIR on that park was due to the underlying landfill condition and as part
of that they included the relocation issue.
Councilman Overholt asked the people present from the Riviera Mobilehome Park
to stand as Mr. Stapleton had asked in his presentation; approximately 100
residents were present.
Mr. Vincent Jantz, Attorney retained to represent most of the residents of the
park, stated that he prepared the appeal document which had previously been
submitted. Since there was no reason to repeat all of the material contained
therein, he would merely brief the highlights. He first clarified for
Councilman Overholt that he was not associated with Mr. Stapleton. He (Jantz)
had retainer agreements signed by 137 residents of the park. He then
addressed the tenant relocation package approved by the Planning Commission
which he felt was adequate in some respects, but inadequate in others. Mr.
Jantz then briefed pages 1 through 3 of the appeal submitted. After doing so,
he also noted that on many occasions, the owners had stated that they would
cover all costs of relocation. They wanted to have a definition of all costs:
such as who would cover the costs of personal possessions; where would the
residents stay while they were being moved; if a coach was damaged, would
there be an insurance policy to cover damages; etc. Page 11 of the appeal
listed five findings that were required to be shown before the Planning
Commission granted Reclassification No. 82-83-12 (to establish the Mobilehome
Park Overlay Zone) which he maintained were not made.
In concluding, Mr. Jantz stated his clients felt that the letter of the
ordinance had been met but not the spirit. They were asking for an
opportunity to be heard, that the Council overturn the decision made by the
Planning Commission and make one that was fair and actually reflected the
needs of the residents of the park.
490
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 7, 1983~ 10:00 A.M.
Mr. Jantz then explained for the Mayor that the ordinance specified a series
of events that must take place, most specifically that a conversion impact
report be filed. It was not adequate and some of the conclusions reached were
faulty.
The Mayor asked the City Attorney if he had an opinion relative to any flaw;
City Attorney Hopkins stated that they had found no defect in the conversion
impact report. With reference to the five findings, only one had to be found
by the Planning Commission and the City Council. In this case, they did make
such a finding, that being, that the Reclassification was required by public
necessity and convenience and the general welfare.
The following people then spoke in opposition to Reclassification No.
82-83-26, removing the Mobilehome Park Overlay Zone, their major areas of
concern being that the Overlay Zone not be removed but that it be given a
chance to work; the EIR finding was not proper; the park should not be closed;
the owners should discuss the situation and compromise with the tenants, the
residents did not know when they moved into the park that it was considered to
be a temporary land use; since a 5100 million project was involved, the
residents should be paid benefits that would not cause them to lose any money;
the jobs of residents living in the park would be in jeopardy if they had to
relocate to great distances; it was not possible for some residents to move to
Hemet or anyplace else; seniors and widows needed to have more viable options
to consider:
Carl S. Shorey, Riviera Mobilehome Park (RMHP), 300 West Katella, Space 51;
Francis Ricker, RMHP Space 58; Dale Smith, Rancho LaPaz, 501 East
Orangethorpe; Louise Karcher Simmons, RMHP Space 52; Judy Graham, RMH?;
Marjorie Shaw, Rancho LaPaz; Nella Jane Shorey, RMHP Space 51; Ruby Gordon,
RMHP; Jay Bramer, Fernwood Mobilehome Park, 1009 Western Avenue, Space 9 (a
former resident of Westwinds, briefed concerns expressed in his letter
entitled Rezoning Mobilehome Parks to Other Uses, previously made a part of
the record); Nancy Anger, RMHP; Barbara Jerry, RMHP Space 67.
Ms. Graham further elaborated on the concerns of the residents. She
maintained that the Overlay Zone removal was granted contingent upon the
payment of certain ben~fits and this was the first chance the residents had to
respond to the benefits package. Option A needed to be revised and developed
and the tenants given the opportunity to express their interest in it.
Relative to the second option of paying all moving costs, everything must be
stipulated, since it would be the last opportunity to do so. Relative to the
third option, some people were not going to move their coaches. If the park
closed, it would come down to a number of people who would not sell or move,
but who would have to find other accommodations. Further, the minimum amounts
for the flat benefit package should be raised. She asked that they approve
the options with details to be stipulated at a later date to include Mr.
Jantz's option (outlined in the appeal) of a one percent depreciation over
time. They needed to have the 57,500 and Option A, as well as better viable
options overall. If they closed the park, the residents had to be covered
fairly and adequately. They had not had a chance to devise their own options
for protecting the residents, which was the stated purpose of the ordinance.
491
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 7, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Mayor Roth then asked Mr. Farano to make his summation.
Mr. Farano explained that they were in opposition to the Mobilehome Park
Overlay Ordinance when it was proposed and they opposed it at the task force
committee meeting. They had specifically addressed the Council and requested
that they be exempted from it, because the Riviera Mobilehome Park had long
been considered and recognized as a park that was likely to convert and was
ready for conversion. He was present at the time the ordinance was adopted
and he was congratulated for not speaking against it by one of the attorneys
speaking for the residents. Now, the Mobilehome Park Ordinance was considered
to be unacceptable. The ordinance was not a guarantee, but an attempt to
create an orderly relocation and conversion if and when it came about.
Mr. Farano also spoke to some of the concerns expressed. There was going to
be an EIR insofar as the proposed development was concerned; relative to the
insurance Mr. Jantz spoke about, they proposed and would make available and
had arrangements made with contractors who were insured and the transportation
of mobilehomes was a regulated industry in the State of California and
Interstate Commerce. The moves would be conducted by insured movers.
Relative to the presentation on comparable mobilehome parks in Hemet, Lake
Perris and Warner Springs, they were not saying the residents had to move to
those places, but they were displayed for the purpose of establishing that
there were comparable spaces existing although, unfortunately, not in Orange
County. They made an attempt to make available a coach purchase plan at ~150
a month for 60 months which totalled ~9,000. Further, if coaches were moved,
they would provide new skirting and new awnings. That was included in their
estimate. The present owners or managers never engaged in any sort of
activity that promoted the sale of coaches, at least during the tenancy of Mr.
John Murray, the resident manager of Riviera Mobilehome Park from September of
1976 through October 1982. They never promised anybody~they were going to be
there forever.
In concluding, Mr. Farano stated they had not negotiated, because as soon as
the ordinance came into being, that was their guideline and they intended to
live by it. They felt they had met their obligation to the City and citizens
and would not consider plans or any idea that had anything to do with the
value of coaches, residual or otherwise. It was not affordable space as
evidenced by the figures he previously presented.
Councilman Pickler asked relative to the cost of moving personal possessions
if that cost was i~cluded.
Mr. Farano answered in their interpretation it was not a part of the ordinance
and it was never considered in their computation of estimated moving costs.
It was not their proposal to pay those costs.
In answer to Councilwdman Kaywood, Mr. Farano stated that the present owners
were Becker and Alexandra, Ltd., a partnership of Alexandra and Becker, Ltd.,
who were successors from Writeman International about seven or eight years
ago. Alexandra and Becket Ltd. were successors in interest to Writeman. Mr.
492
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 7, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Cheng was the resident representative of Alexandra and Becker Ltd., the
executive manager who reported to the owner. Grace Baughman was the resident
manager.
Mr. Farano then explained for Councilman Pickler that they were offering
Alternatives A, B and C and whichever of those alternatives any resident
wanted they could have with one caveat, that being, because of an expressed
lack of interest by the residents in Alternative A, he did not know if that
was available at this time. He reiterated for the Mayor that the residents
could have any option they wanted but with respect to A, only if there was a
sufficient amount of interest expressed would they try to revitalize it. It
received so little attention initially, they dropped it approximately four
months ago. He told the Planning Commission if there was an expressed
interest, 'they would endeavor to carry through, but they needed approximately
25 people to do so at that time. Assuming there was the interest in option A,
then any one of the alternatives were available at the choice of the residents.
Mr. Stapleton interjected and stated that the residents paid a $500 appeal fee
which Council could waive or give back. He asked that that be done.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Councilman Bay Stated he had seen nothing tonight that told him the owners in
good faith had failed to meet the requirements of the ordinance that the task
force and City Council had approved. The information from the City Attorney
and staff and from what he had heard was that the letter of the law of the
ordinance was being met by the owners in their offers of transportation costs
to move. The residents were forgetting when they asked the Council if they
were being fair to them, the right of ownership of property. They did not own
the property they lived on, and the man that did still had the right and power
to say whether or not it was going to remain a mobilehome park. The Council
could not change the property rights law nor could they be responsible for the
economic mistakes made by people. The park residents were asking the Council
to make the owner pay them for their loss because they could no longer live on
his land. Under the law,.Councilman Bay stated he he did not believe they
could do that either, because that would not represent the true right of the
property owner within the State and Country. As much as he empathized with
their position, the requirements of the ordinance were being met and three
alternatives were offered. He did not see how he could vote to retain the
Overlay Zone given the conditions, because the Overlay Zone said that the
ordinance was in effect and when the owner wanted to change the use, he would
go through certain legal steps which he had done.
After further discussion with the Council, Mr. Farano stipulated to providing
all three alternatives A, B and C with the contingency that they would make
Alternate A available if they could get between 20 and 25 persons in the park
interested in Alternate A.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Pickler, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council finds that subject
493
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 7, 1983~ 10:00 A.M.
project will have no significant individual or cumulative adverse
environmental impact due to the approval of this negative declaration since
the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property for commercial
recreation land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive
environmental impacts are involved in the proposal; that the Initial Study
submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant individual or cumulative
adverse environmental impacts; and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement
to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 83R-238 for adoption, granting
Reclassification No. 82-83-26, subject to City Planning Commission conditions
and including the three alternatives A, B and C as proposed by the owners of
the Riviera Mobilehome Park in order to mitigate the impact of conversion on
displaced residents, and finding that the reclassification is required by
public necessity and convenience and the general welfare. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 83R-238: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO ZONING SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES
SHOULD BE CHANGED. (82-83-26)
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Roth stated .that this was another very
difficult decision to have to make; however, it was also difficult to disagree
with the owners, since all the requirements had been met. He was going to
support the resolution, because he did not feel he had any alternative and, as
Councilman Bay pointed out, they had a-responsibility to protect property
rights as well.
Councilman Overholt stated that the Mayor and Councilman Bay had stated his
view on the issue. The burden was to try to do everything that could be done
to relocate those who wanted to be relocated with a minimum of hardship. He
was supportive of the resolution.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated there was no question, because she remembered 13
years ago or more when she was first on the Planning Commission that the
Riviera Mobilehome Park was an interim use. At that time, there was a great
deal of space everywhere. There were property rights involved on both sides.
The findings were made and she felt they were accurate, but as far as
relocation with minimum hardship, there had to be a fairer relocation method
and, therefore, she could not support A, B or C. She felt there had to be a D
or E or something else that would be fair. If all the costs were actually
paid, it could come to considerably more and there was a large discrepancy in
figures being quoted. She could not support the approval.
Councilman Pickler stated that a task force was formed to consider the
mobilehome park issue and it included not only the tenants, but also some
owners and some attorneys and many meetings were held over a long period of
time.
494
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - June 7~ 1983~ 10:00 A.M.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
Kaywood
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-238 duly passed and adopted.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilman Pickler seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (11:18 p.m.)
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK
LEONORA N. SOHL, ASSISTANT CITY CLERK
495