1983/11/29City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 29, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRE SENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Overholt (entered at 10:17 a.m.),
Pickler and Roth
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
CIVIL ENGINEER: Arthur Daw
COMMUNITY SERVICES MANAGER: Steve Swaim
MANAGEMENT SERVICES MANAGER: Darrell Ament
ASSISTANT CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Mary Hibbard, Anaheim United Methodist Church, gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Irv Pickler led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
119: RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A Resolution of Congratulations was
unanimously adopted by the City Council to be presented to Molly McGee, a
member of the Anaheim Union High School District Board of Trustees since 1974,
upon her retirement from the Board, and commending her for those nine years of
service.
119: RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION: A Resolution of Commendation was
unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to Detective Vic
Dominguez, for his work in the initiation of valuable police community
relations programs. Detective Dominguez was accompanied by his wife, Renee,
and Police Chief Jimmie Kennedy.
119: RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A Resolution of Congratulations was
unanimously adopted by the City Council to be presented to Airport Service,
Inc., for their continued success in their newly designed and constructed
Disneyland Hotel Airport Service Terminal.
119: LETTER OF CONDOLENCE FOR THE FAMILY OF SGT. EDWARD HASLAM: Mayor Roth,
on behalf of the Council, requested that a letter of condolence be prepared to
be signed by the Council for the family of Sgt. Edward Haslam, who was killed
in a traffic accident on Monday, November 28, 1983. Sgt. Haslam, a very
dedicated and personable man, was 23-year veteran of the Police Department,
where he would be very much missed.
MINUTES: Approval of the minutes was deferred to the next regular meeting.
965
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 29, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda,
after reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to
waiver is hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the
title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such
ordinances or resolutions in regular order. Councilman Bay seconded the
motion. Councilman Overholt was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of 32,007,504.29, in
accordance with the 1983-84 Budget, were approved.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Pickler, the following items were approved in
accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each
Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Councilwoman Kaywood
offered Resolution Nos. 83R-454 through 83R-456, both inclusive, for
adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
1. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as
recommended:
A. Claims rejected and referred to Risk Management:
1. Claim submitted by Rachel Chisholm for personal injuries purportedly
sustained due to negligence on the part of the City at the Anaheim
Convention Center, on or about August 13, 1983.
2. Claim submitted by Robert William Burke for personal property damages
to automobile purportedly sustained due to condition of street at 1123
South Chantilly Avenue, on or about July 17, 1983.
3. Claim submitted by Winona Lyn Parks for personal property damages to
automobile purportedly sustained due to insufficient residence protection
from golf balls at Fairway Village, 120 North Magnolia, on or about
October 18, 1983.
4. Claim submitted by Allstate, Ron Marwan Eido, Insured, for property
damages purportedly sustained due to an accident involving a City-owned
vehicle at La Palma Avenue and Kramer, on or about August 30, 1983.
5. Claim submitted by Southern California Gas Company for property
damages purportedly sustained at 2157 West Chalet Avenue, on or about
September 23, 1983.
6. Claim submitted by Frank DiFronzo for property damages purportedly
sustained due to roots from parkway tree at 3435 West Olinda Lane, from
October 1982 through October 18, 1983.
B. Claims rejected and referred to Governmental Programs Division/ Markel
Services, Inc.:
966
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 29, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
7. Claim submitted by Arturo C. Rivera for personal property loss
purportedly sustained due to actions of Anaheim Police Officers at the
Anaheim Police Station, on or about October 16, 1983.
8. Claim submitted by Chris and Dee Christoffers for personal injuries
purportedly sustained due to false arrest by Anaheim Police Officers in
the vicinity of La Palma Avenue and Imperial Highway, on or about July 24,
1983.
9. Claim submitted by Scott, Stephanie and Shaun Hebard for violation of
civil rights purportedly sustained due to actions of~Anaheim Police
Officers at the Friendly Village Apartments, 1919 East Center Street, on
or about July 26, 1983.
2. 108: Denying the applications for Public Dance Permits submitted by Jose
Luis Acosta, Acosta Productions, to hold dances at the City Crew Dance Hall,
3168 West Lincoln Avenue, on December 3, 10, and 17, 1983, from 7:00 p.m. to
1:00 a.m., in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Police.
3. 123/174(82-83 CDBG): Authorizing agreements with the following community
services agencies in the amounts listed, to provide human services to
Anaheim residents for the period July 1, 1983 through June 30, 1984:
a. West Orange County Hotline, $1,000, telephone counseling services.
b. We Tip, $1,000, crime prevention services.
c. The Villa, 510,000, alcohol rehabilitation services.
d. Volunteer Center of Orange County-North/R.S.V.P, $15,022, senior
volunteer services.
e. Orange County Community Development Council, 52,000, emergency food
services.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she recalled reading that the Food Bank had
gone out of business and she asked if that could be checked.
Mr. Steve Swaim, Community Services Manager, confirmed that they were still in
business.
f. North Orange County Regional Occupational Program Preschool, $4,000,
preschool services.
g. Volunteer Center of Orange County-North/Home Helping Hands, ~7,000,
homemaker/case management services.
h. Community Pride, Inc., $2,000, community educational services.
i. Anaheim City School District, $6,600, children's educational services.
967
City Hail, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 29, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
j. AMPARO, $3,000, youth services.
k. Feedback Foundation-T.L.C., ~28,307, senior nutrition services.
1. Christian Temporary Housing Facility, ~5,000, temporary housing
services.
m. YWCA Youth Employment Service, ~4,000, youth employment services.
n. Legal Aid Society, $28,000, legal services.
4. 150/106: Accepting Roberti-Z'berg Urban Open Space and Recreation Funds
(SB 174) in the amount of ~53,835 and appropriating ~27,403 into Oak Canyon
Nature Center Account No. 16-810 and $26,432 into Pearson Park Account No.
16-820.
5. 123: Authorizing an agreement with McLean and Schultz in the amount of
~5,950 for architectural services for the design of restroom facilities at La
Palma Park, with a term of 40 working days.
6. 175.123: Approving an increase in the hourly rate for legal services
provided by Spiegel & McDiarmid, in accordance with their Statement of
Standard Fees and Charges, for work relating to the Electric Utility,
effective July 1, 1983.
7. 164: Authorizing Change Order No. 1 to the contract with Brkich Bros.
Corporation in the amount of ~65,042 for additional required work in
connection with the South Street Water Improvements, Phase II, Lemon Street to
Illinois, Account No. 53-606-6329-27410-34340.
8. 160: Accepting the low bid of Bryant Organization in the amount of
$60,527 plus options as may be required for reroofing of the Utility SerVice
Center and Parks Central Yard, in accordance with Bid No. 4043.
9. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to
Carmenita Ford in the amount of ~64,236 for two cab/chassis, in accordance
with Bid No. 4049.
10. 160: Accepting the low bid of Sib0ney Communications, Inc., in the
amount of $15,521.58 for video equipment, in accordance with Bid No. 4052.
11. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order, without
competitive bidding, to Motorola Communications and Electronics, Inc., in the
amount of ~17,624.62, for radio equipment and accessories, in accordance with
their quotation dated November 9, 1983.
12. 103.155: Approving the Negative Declaration for the proposed La
Palma-Red Gum Annexation, consisting of three unincorporated County islands
having a combined area of approximately 49 acres located in the Canyon
Industrial Area, northeast, northwest and south of the intersection at La
Palma Avenue and Red Gum Street.
968
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 29, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
103: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-454: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS FOR THE
ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN UNINHABITED TERRITORY DESIGNATED AS LA PALMA-RED GUM
ANNEXATION. (agreeing that the territory be deemed "undeveloped" in
accordance with the terms of the Master Property Tax Transfer Agreement)
175: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-455: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE
THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: WATER
IMPROVEMENTS OF WELL SITE #14, WEST STREET AT LA PALMA RESERVOIR SITE, IN THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 53-619-6329-90130-32400. (Bids to be opened
December 29, i983, 2:00 p.m.)
158: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-456: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Ellas
Properties, Inc.; Kenney Golf Enterprises, Inc.; Paul D. Williamson, et al.;
Clyde L. Brown, et al.; William G. Jolissaint et ux; William G. Jolissaint et
ux; William G. Jolissaint et ux; The Huston Building)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Pickler and Roth
None
Overholt
Councilman Bay voted "No" on Item No. 3, authorizing agreements with Community
Services Agencies to provide human services to Anaheim residents. MOTION
CARRIED. The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 83R-454 through 83R-456, both
inclusive, duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Overholt entered the Council Chambers. (10:17 a.m.)
169.165/174: PROGRAM NO. 799 - KATELLA AREA IMPROVEMENT: Councilwoman
Kaywood, referring to staff report of November 17, 1983, recommending approval
of the subject program, noted that embossed concrete was going to be used for
a part of the improvement. If embossed concrete was going to be used in
pedestrian walk areas, she was going to object.
Mr. Art Daw, Acting City gn~n~or, eorffirm~d that ~n any ar~a~ wh~re thare
would be pedestrian traffic, no embossed concrete would be used. Ne also
confirmed for the Mayor that in the future, in pedestrian areas, they would no
longer be using the embossed concrete.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve Program No. 799, Katella Area
Improvement, Katella Avenue - Harbor Boulevard to 500 feet west of West
Street, median beautification project at an estimated cost of ~120,000; and
construction concrete crosswalks at the Katella Avenue intersections with
Harbor Boulevard, West Street and Convention Center at an estimated cost of
~102,000, as recommended in memorandum dated November 17, 1983, from the City
Engineer. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
969
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 29, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
i29.160: COMPUTER-AIDED DISPATCH SYSTEM: City Manager William Talley briefed
the Council on staff report dated November 23, 1983, from the Assistant Fire
Chief, Mattel Thompson, recommending approval of the acquisition of a computer
aided dispatch system through the Joint Powers Authority (report on file in
the City Clerk's office with Attachment No. I--Operations Study, and No.
II--Final Report--Evaluation of Proposals for a Fire Computer-Assisted
Dispatch (CAD) and Management Information System (MIS) for the Net-4 Joint
Powers Authority). He explained that once the Authority approved the upgrade
in the computer-aided dispatch system, the City would be obligated for the
next five years to include its payment in the Fire Department's budget plans.
It represented a commitment of nearly 5460,000 on behalf of the City. The
system had been studied by both the Fire Chief and the Data Processing
Director and they were totally in concurrence, not only with the
recommendation that it be approved, but also the procedure the Joint Powers
Authority followed in arriving at the recommendation.
Fire Chief Simpson then confirmed for Councilman Bay that there would be no
impact on the 1983-84 budget, since payments would begin after that time. He
also reported that they had preliminary discussions with both Buena Park and
Fullerton about them joining the system, which might further offset the cost
to the City.
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the acquisition of a computer-aided
dispatch system through the Joint Powers Authority, as recommended in
memorandum dated November 23, 1983. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
175: DISCUSSION - ELECTRIC UTILITY RATES STABILIZATION ACCOUNT AND OVERCHARGE
FUNDS: Continued from the meetings of November 8 and November 22, 1983 (see
minutes those dates).
Mayor Roth asked to hear from the representative from the Chamber of Commerce.
Mr. Bill Latham, representing the Chamber of Commerce, first stated they were
in error in not appearing at the public hearings before the Public Utilities
Board (PUB) and it was his responsibility to do that. Since that time, there
had been a subsequent meeting of the PUB where the rate stabilization account
was discussed thoroughly with Mr. Walt Smith, Chairman of the Board of
Directors of the Chamber, in attendance. The PUB voted six-to-one against
establishing a rate stabilization fund. As Mr. Talley stated at a previous
meeting, the advisory body to the Council on Utilities matters was the PUB and
he inferred the Chamber was another policy advisor. Both the Board and the
Chamber were in accord and had taken the position that a rate stabilization
account was not in the best interests of the rate payers of the City.
Councilwoman Kaywood felt if there could be some kind of stability, it would
be very effective for all users, as well as the City; Mr. Latham agreed, but
maintained that the biggest single factor influencing utility rates was the
fuel cost and the Council had established a fuel stabilization account which
could be used to the benefit of the citizens and industry.
970
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 29, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Mr. Bill Erickson, 301 East North Street, then read a prepared statement, the
essence of which was as follows: He compared the return he would receive on a
~6.3 million and an ~11 million refund from Southern California Edison to what
industry would receive (the three highest bills). One industry could receive
approximately three-quarters of a million dollars refund, where he would
receive only $25. To him, that was an injustice to the low rate payer.
Councilman Bay asked if he (Erickson) was implying that when they received a
refund for overcharging, it was unfair to give back the proper percentage by
cost of service; Mr. Erickson stated that 311 million was being held and he
would like to see it go into a fund where the interes~ could run for two
months and that interest applied to the organizations that had come before the
Council to use the funds.
Councilwoman Kaywood then posed questions to Darrell Ament, Public Utilities
Assistant General Manager, Management Services, who first clarified that they
had not received any refund as yet. They had been notified by their attorneys
that a decision was rendered by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) that they would potentially be receiving approximately $5 million and
also the PoSsibility of another ~9 million, but they did not have the money in
hand.
Mayor Roth stated if the PUB voted six-to-one against a rate stabilization
account, he felt the Council would be derelict in not going back and asking
them to provide the Council with something else as an alternative. He did not
see the urgency in making a decision today, because they did not have the
refund in hand. Subsequently, in concert with the PUB and Chamber, they could
come up with some recommendations.
Councilman Bay stated it was his understanding that the PUB considered the
plan and their decision was six-to-one "No" and they particularly disagreed
with holding back refunds versus the alternative of returning those refunds to
the rate payers. He did not agree that the idea should go back to the PUB.
The issue that was before them today was whether they agreed or did not agree
with the PUB.
Councilman Bay moved that the Council agree with the Public Utilities Board
and reject the particular plan presented for rate stabilization.
Before any further action was taken, Councilman Bay stated it was time they
made their position clear; Councilwoman Kaywood stated it was her
understanding that the PUB voted four-to-two prior, in favor.
Mr. Ament explained that they took three votes, one on the specific rate of
the case. They took separate votes on two other issues; one was whether or
not to take any underspending of the budget and put it into a rate
stabilization account, and that was a three-three vote. They then took a
separate vote as to whether to put refunds into a rate stabilization account
and it was a four-to-two vote to recommend that the refunds be placed in a
rate stabilization account. That was during the public hearing. At the last
Board meeting, they voted six-to-one not to recommend that.
971
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 29, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated nobody seemed to know exactly clear-cut what they
were discussing. She was concerned that a motion on the part of the Council
would be premature at this time.
MOTION: After further discussion and additional questions were posed to Mr.
Ament by Council Members Pickler and Kaywood, Councilman Overholt moved to
reject the concept of a rate stabilization account. Councilman Bay seconded
the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt stated his problem with the rate
stabilization account was it tended to conceal the true facts. The alleged
purpose for the account was to give the Utility greater power to smooth out
the rates. Gordon Hoyt had stated the account was not going to result in the
elimination of rate increases. He tended to agree with the Chamber that to
create the fund for a well-meaning purpose further complicated the process of
setting rates, which were tied in with fuel costs. If fuel costs increased,
they had to be paid, and a return to rate payers should be by a refund or a
reduction in their rate for a period of time. He would like to see the
Utilities stay with the market conditions and was generally opposed to the
rate stabilization account concept.
Mayor Roth stated he was going to support the motion, because it would not
prevent the Board and Chamber from subsequently resolving the issue.
Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that there would be a monthly report on what
was in that account that would go to the Board and Council and it could be
changed at any time, either a shorter time or a longer time. It was up to the
Council any Tuesday to make a determination of how much the maximum should be,
whether it was needed, etc. She felt it was worth trying.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Council Members Kaywood and
Pickler voted "No." MOTION CARRIED.
161/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4463: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4463 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4463: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE RIVER VALLEY
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4463 duly passed and adopted.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: The City Manager requested a Closed Session to
discuss labor relations with action anticipated; the City Attorney requested a
Closed Session to discuss litigation and potential litigation with action
anticipated.
972
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 29, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session and a lunch break.
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (11:03 a.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (1:37 p.m.)
179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2474 A~D NEGATIVE
DECLARATION: Application submitted by Orange County Water District, to permit
a portable asphalt concrete plant on RS-A-43,000(SC) (FP) zoned property
located at 1101 Richfield Road.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-152, disapproved
the proposed negative declaration upon finding that it has considered the
proposed negative declaration, together with any comments received during the
public review process and further finding that on the basis of the initial
study, and on the comments received, there is substantial evidence that the
project will have a significant effect on the environment; and upon the basis
that the Planning Commission did not have sufficient evidence to make a
finding that the proposed project, alone or in combination with any existing
developments, will not endanger life, will not significantly restrict the
carrying capacity of the regular torre floodway (Santa Ana River) and will not
increase flood heights nor increase the velocity of flood waters and, further,
denied Conditional Use Permit No. 2474.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Blair Paving, Inc.,
agent, and a public hearing scheduled and continued from the meeting of
November 8, 1983 (see minutes that date where extensive discussion and input
was received).
Mayor Roth stated that the continuance had given the opportunity for the
Council to visit the area, and also to have present today a representative of
the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), who had also been to
the area, Mr. Ed Camarena, Chief Enforcement Officer for the four-county
SCAQMD, to give a presentation on his findings, which the Council just
received in the form of a report.
Mr. Ed Camarena~ Director of Enforcement, SCAQM_D, then briefed his extensive
report entitled, Air Pollution Compliance Status at Blair Paving, 1101 South
Richfield Road, Anaheim, California, dated November 29, 1983, the first
section of which was a summary of the situation. The last paragraph of that
summary was as follows:
"The plant is equipped with the best available control technology and except
for problems encountered at start-up, there have been no air pollution
violations. The final permit to operate may soon be issued and it may be
conditioned to limit the number of hours the plant may operate per day."
The balance of the report gave the background, potential air pollution
sources, permit status, Blair Paving process description and plot plan. Also
included was a source test conducted on the plant on November 1, 1983, by
973
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 29, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Truesdale Laboratories, Inc., the results of which indicated compliance for
carbon monoxide, sulfur and particulate requirements and, based on the
hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen emissions, it may be necessary to restrict
Blair Paving's operations to nine hours per day.
In concluding his presentation, Mr. Camarena stated that a matter also before
the Council today was consideration of increased truck traffic at the
facility. That aspect had not been reviewed by the District. They had
reviewed the original application for the permit to construct and the current
thinking regarding the issuance of the permit was based on the information
submitted in the application and the subsequent test that had been conducted
at the facility. Their current information indicated they would be issuing
the permit with the two conditions he mentioned earlier, throughput of tons
per hour and maximum hours of operation. He clarified for the Mayor that
their recommendation relative to hours of operation would be to limit the
plant to nine hours a day and that additional information may result in
modification of that. He also explained that most asphalt paving operations
started early in the morning and proceeded until about noon time. Daytime
operations were most beneficial from a pollution standpoint, because that was
when the winds were the greatest, and whatever emissions resulted from the
operation had an opportunity to be diluted and dispersed. There would be no
recommendation as to specific hours.
Mr. Camarena then confirmed for the Mayor that should there be problems in the
future relative to the plant, the District would have jurisdiction over those
areas relative to the permit that may be granted shortly. They could place
additional conditions on the operating permit and in addition, issue a notice
of violation for any violations of the permit conditions or District
regulations. Those violations were normally prosecut~ed or litigated through
the courts. Repeated offenses would result in more stringent actions that
ultimately could result in a petition by the District staff to the District
Hearing Board for a revocation of the permit or some other similar action.
Mr. Camarena then answered a line of questioning posed by the Mayor and
Council Members relative to his findings, observations and ultimate
conclusions in his area of expertise relating directly to air quality
problems, especially with regard to the effect of prevailing winds on not only
air pollution, but also noise levels. He also clarified that tons per hour
related to the emissions into the atmosphere for the equipment they were
considering for permit, and the trucks that used the facility were not
directly related, so that those regulations for their purposes would have very
little meaning. They had the authority to regulate emissions from stationary,
non-vehicular sources, which was the State mandate.
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant.
Mr. Ben Day, President, Blair Paving, stated since the meeting of November 8,
1983, they had dbuble insulated the noise barrier, plus installed triple
insulation across the back end, which he felt made a significant reduction in
noise. They also installed a more elaborate smoke filtering system on their
974
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 29, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
asphalt storage tank. They had virtually eliminated any visible smoke from
that source. The other point of smoke was the burner itself, but if there
were smoke emissions from that source, it was telling him that he was
operating inefficiently and thus it was costing him money. Therefore, it was
an incentive to keep the burner properly operating. During the last
three-week period, they had also installed signs and instituted strict
limitations on the drivers relative to making right turns only onto La Palma
Avenue from Richfield. If any drivers were seen making left-hand turns, it
would be the last time they worked at the plant. He then gave results on
their pollution source tests, which levels were at or well below the amounts
allowable. In concluding, he stated that recycling of asphalt pavement had
the potential, as technology improved, to stretch road dollars by 25 to 30
percent. He had and would continue to improve his plant.
Mr. Day then clarified upon questioning by Council Members that the plant had
been in operation 13 of the 15 working days since the last meeting, 95 percent
of the truck traffic had been completely eliminated from the levee road, hours
of operation were from 6:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., six days a week, but they were
presently operating five days a week and out of 52 Saturdays a year, they
might want to work ten of those Saturdays. He also explained their permit to
construct was based on 300 tons per hour in a nine-hour day, or 2700 tons of
total finished product, which was more than the approximate 1800 tons he was
requesting with 25 tons in one truckload of material. His permit would allow
him 250 tons per hour, or twenty truck trips of finished product, and an
additional twenty of raw material, or 40 truck trips per hour in and out.
Those were maximum figures and not daily averages.
Discussion then followed relative to the actual number of truck trips, as
broached by Councilwoman Kaywood; Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated that
relative to the 1800 tons, taking all the trips bringing the material in and
bringing it out, resulted in 288 trip ends, whereas 2700 tons would result in
432 trip ends.
Councilman Bay then reported on the results of his visit to the area on
November 23, 1983. The noise he heard was mainly from the South, freeway
noise, and he could not detect any odors relative to asphalt. He was
concerned, however, about Mr. Day's direction to his truck drivers relative to
left turns onto La Palma Avenue. To him, the corner of La Palma Avenue and
Richfield was one of the blindest he had seen, but while he was there he
observed at least two trucks with asphalt turning left on La Palma Avenue from
Richfield. Those turns were still occurring, despite Mr. Day's direction, and
he did not believe that all the direction in the world was going to change
that problem. The situation had to be resolved and they would have to turn to
the Traffic Engineer for a recommendation.
The Mayor then asked to hear from those who wished to speak.
Mrs. Sandra Philippi, 4353 Alderdale (also see minutes of November 8, 1983,
where testimony was given by Mrs. Philippi), first submitted newspaper
articles regarding the recent accident on Nohl Ranch Road involving an
975
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 29, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
i8-wheeler truck, as well as additional photos of the asphalt plant, a copy of
Planning Commission Resolution No. PC83-51, and copy of the Anaheim Municipal
Code Section relating to the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone. She emphasized
that they were aware it was difficult for them to understand the noise and
odor pollution the residents had to endure. It was a very real problem for
them, otherwise they would not be spending so much time and effort to stop the
threat they felt to their peace, health and safety. She appreciated the
visits of the Council Members to the area. She had spoken with two other
major asphalt companies in the area who, because of the weather and the time
of the year, were not running anywhere near capacity. Therefore, the present
noise could be multiplied times two in the summer. Their main concerns were
those where Mr. Day was in violation of his original permit, especially
relative to the number of truck trips per day, the existence of the plant in a
flood zone and in the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone, and the fact that
18-wheeler trucks were in their neighborhood traveling on streets that their
children used.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she was in the area on Thursday and there was a
faint odor, but she could not tell where it was coming from. There was also
an odor along La Palma Avenue, but again it was not possible to know its
origin; Councilman Pickler stated the issues were noise and pollution, and
then the truck trips became an issue. However, they did not make any noise if
they only used Richfield Road. It seemed to him that the truck trips were
more bothersome than the noise and pollution.
Mrs. Philippi stated that was their main concern and she then elaborated on
the kinds of noise generated by the trucks; Councilman Pickler stated he could
not hear the trucks from her residential area and he also viewed the operation
of the plant firsthand, and there was not an inordinate amount of noise, even
on-site.
At the conclusion of further discussion between Mrs. Philippi, Councilman
Pickler and Mayor Roth, Mrs. Philippi emphasized that if Mr. Day could begin
his operation at a later time in the morning, it would be of great help to the
residents.
Councilman Overholt then reported on his visit to the area and to the plant,
at the conclusion of which he stated that wind direction was critical to the
nuisance, not only from odor, but noise. What was developing was hopefully a
plan whereby Mr. Day's operation could continue with a minimum of impact on
the residents and to continually monitor his operation so that if problems
arose, they could stimulate motivation in remedying those problems. From his
standpoint, he did not know if he could say that Mr. Day could not carry on
business in an area that had the natural resources used in asphalt production.
Mr. Kevin Lucas, 4965 Alderdale, in answer to Councilwoman Kaywood's previous
question, stated he was the pool owner who had a fine film on his pool and it
was still there, caused by a tar substance. He felt it was naive of the
Council to give Mr. Day three weeks and expect him not to be as quiet as
possible. He had been running six days a week, eight and nine hours a day,
976
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 29, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
with the blower on, causing constant noise, bothering their home environment.
When the "heat" was on him, the blower had been on only a small fraction of
the time. Further, there was no mistaking the freeway noise from his
operation and he could hear the operation above his pool filter on his patio.
Relative to the truck trips, since he had diverted the flow of traffic onto
Richfield, the problem with the bells and horns had been eliminated, but
another problem in its place was the left-hand turns onto La Palma Avenue.
Further, he had been in excess of truck trips allowed from the outset. The
minutes of the Planning Commission hearing stated that the Commission would
not have granted the original permit if they knew his interpretation of trucks
and truck trips. They were going to allow him 280 or 400 plus trips when the
Planning Commission would never have granted the permit in the first place.
James Lawson, 4432 Alderdale, stated that Mr. Day was asking for 80 outgoing
trips per day and nine hours, and that was 720 truck trips; Councilman Pickler
clarified it was 80 truckloads a day, not an hour; Councilwoman Kaywood stated
1800 tons would equal 288 trip ends.
Traffic Engineer Paul Singer explained that at the present time, ali of La
Palma Avenue had a continuous left-turn lane with the exception of the subject
area, because of inadequate width. In order to do any type of channelization,
acquisition of the property and construction to its ultimate width would have
to be made at the southwest corner of Richfield and La Palma Avenue. In order
to avoid any possibility of trucks making left turns at the intersection from
Richfield Road southbound, south of La Palma Avenue, a configuration of median
islands could be constructed in such a manner that only left turns into and
out of the north leg of Richfield would be permitted, precluding any left
turns into or out of Richfield Road to the south. He did not have a cost
estimate or a suggestion as to who would pay for the improvement, but it was a
positive answer to the problem. If approved, and the funds were available
today, it would take approximately six to nine months to complete.
Councilman Pickler then called on Mr. Day to ascertain his concurrence with a
number of conditions, the first being the stipulation he had made at the
meeting of November 8, 1983, that he would pave Richfield Road from the plant
all the way down to La Palma; Mr. Day stated that was correct.
Councilman Pickler then broached the hours of operation and asked if he (Day)
could live with hours of operation from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; Mr. Day
answered that 7:00 to 5:00 would be difficult for him. Some of the jobs, such
as the one at the naval shipyard in Long Beach, considering peak hour morning
traffic, it might take one hour and 15 minutes or one and one-half hours to
get the first load to that site. Under union rules, he would have to pay his
men from 8:00 on, whether they were working or not, and it would be a
tremendous economic waste to him. He felt he could possibly live with a 6:30
a.m. starting time as subsequently suggested by Councilman Pickler.
Mr. Day then agreed to the following as proposed by Councilman Pickier: He
could agree to 15 Saturday operations per year, a one-year review on the
Conditional Use Permit, no ingress or egress from the levee road going out
977
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 29, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
toward Tustin Avenue~ clearing the corner at Richfield and La Palma of shrubs,
trees, etc., to give more visibility, and planting of a screen of Eucalyptus
trees along the River to screen the plant from the residential area across the
River. (Also see letter dated October 18, 1983, from Spray, Gould and Bowers
on behalf of Blair Paving, listing further conditions that they were willing
to provide for continuing at the site.) Mr. Day then requested that the City
install a "No Left Turn" sign at Richfield and La Palma, and perhaps have an
officer patrol the area. He would again speak with his truckers.
Councilman Overholt then noted that Mr. Day stated if he started at 7:00 a.m.,
it would cost him more money. He pointed out that the Orange County Board of
Supervisors placed a 7:00 time limit for flights leaving the John Wayne
Airport. His understanding of the situation relative to Blair Paving was that
the greatest noise that occurred with the greatest regularity was the noise
associated with the start-up of the plant. He was leaning toward a starting
time of 7:00 a.m., and although it might cost him more money, the residents
should not be awakened.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Pickler, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council approved the
negative declaration, reversing the findings of the City Planning Commission,
upon finding that it has considered the proposed negative declaration,
together with any comments received'during the public review process and
further, finding that on the basis of the initial study and on the comments
received there is substantial evidence that the project will not have a
significant effect on the environment; and is, therefore, exempt from the
requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Pickler offered a resolution for adoption, granting Conditional Use
Permit No. 2474, reversing the findings of the City Planning Commission with
the aforementioned conditions as stipulated, and with a plant start-up time of
6:30 a.m.
Before any action was taken, Mr. Singer clarified that an official traffic
control sign could be installed stating, "No Left-Hand Turns," at an
approximate cost of ~100 to ~120; Mayor Roth stated payment would be the
responsibility of Blair Paving.
Councilman Pickler also clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood that the CUP would
have a one-year review, not that it would be granted for one year.
Discussion again followed relative to maximum daily truck trips wherein Miss
Santalahti stated she presumed was meant to be 288--the total number amounting
to the number of trucks which entered the site, plus the number which exited
the site; Councilwoman Kaywood stated she did not want it to be 280 trips
times four.
Traffic Engineer Paul Singer stated that 288 would mean trip ends, which were
well defined in any traffic manual--a one-way trip through a particular
point. It did not matter which way the trip was taking place. He would use
trip ends.
978
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 29, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted the request had been for 60 trips; Mr. Singer
stated 60 loads were of the finished product. He reiterated that trip ends
were a clear number of trucks passing a point, which could be easily verified
by a traffic counter.
Councilman Overholt felt that they should include a definition of trip ends in
the conditions.
Councilman Bay stated he hoped in addition to the planting of fast growing
trees or building a berm, that the dirt piles on the property south of the
operation we-re attenuating the noise directly to the south. He hoped that
those piles were going to stay there, because he felt they had a lot to do
with how much noise emanated to the south.
Councilman Bay then stated he was not going to vote for the resolution,
because even with ail of the conditions, it would not solve the basic problem
of the operation being in the wrong place. He did not know how it got there
originally, but as far as land use in the Scenic Corridor and all the open
area in the Riverbed, if there were potential nuisances and existing nuisances
affecting the residents, then that was bad land use. The use was too close to
residential and there would be a continuing impact. The issue was proper land
use.
Councilman Roth stated he was going to support the resolution. The Council
had a firm responsibility to the business community as well, and they needed
to give an opportunity to Mr. Day to be a good neighbor. Even though there
was to be a one-year review, if the situation became worse or intolerable and
they had any type of complaint from SCAQMD, the CUP provided the vehicle for
the neighbors to advise the Council of any deteriorating activity. He felt
there was sufficient safeguards, and he was also asking the SCAQMD to advise
the Council of any infractions or problems whatsoever.
Councilman Overholt then offered Resolution No. 83R-457 for adoption, granting
Conditional Use Permit No. 2474, reversing the findings of the City Planning
Commission, including the five Interdepartmental Recommendations listed in the
staff report to the Planning Commission, dated September 7, 1983, Page l-e,
and the stipulations made by Mr. Day as follows: That Richfield Road be paved
all the way down to La Palma Avenue; that Saturday operations were limited to
a maximum of 15 §aturday~ in on~ y~ar: that the vegetation at the southwest
corner of Richfield Road and La Palma Avenue be cleared'by Blair Paving to
improve visibility; that a screen of Eucalyptus trees be planted along the
River to screen the plant from the residential area across the River; that the
sand piles existing on the property to the south not be removed, since they
mitigated noise; that there be no ingress or egress from the levee road from
the plant to Tustin Avenue; that the maximum number of daily trip ends per day
be 288; that start-up time of the plant be no earlier than 7:00 a.m.;
installation of an official traffic control sign at La Palma Avenue and
Richfield Road for right turn only, at a cost of ~100 to ~120 to be paid for
by Blair Paving; and review of the Conditional Use Permit in one year. Refer
to Resolution Book.
979
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 29, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 83R-457: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2474.
Before action was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated she was also voting
against the resolution, but she had a problem with the decision, since she
felt the need was very great and applauded any kind of recycling efforts,
because they were running out of natural resources. However, she empathized
with the residents and she did not believe they were making it up when they
were saying there were odors and noises disrupting their lives.
Councilman Pickler felt that the 6:30 a.m. starting time in his offering of
the resolution was reasonable; Councilman Roth suggested a compromise at 7:00
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Pickler and Roth
Kaywood and Bay
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-457 duly passed and adopted.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 83-84-8~ CONDITIONAL USE PER, lIT
NO. 2496, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application submitted by Roland Covey,
for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to CL on Parcel 1, and from RM-1200 to
CL on Parcel 2, to construct a 4-story, 60-unit motel on property located at
736 South Beach Boulevard and 2966 Stonybrook Drive, respectively.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-179, approved
the negative declaration status of the project upon finding that it had
considered the negative declaration together with any comments received during
the public review process and further finding on the basis of the initial
study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the
project will have a significant effect on the environment and further, granted
Reclassification No. 83-84-8, subject to the following conditions:
1. That street lighting facilities along Stonybr0ok Drive shall be installed
as required by the Utilities General Manager in accordance with specifications.
on file in the Office of Utilities General Manager, and that security in the
form of a bond, certificate of deposit, letter of credit, or cash, in an
amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim, shall be posted with the
City to guarantee the satisfactory completion of the above-mentioned
improvements. Said security shall be posted with the City of Anaheim prior to
introduction of an ordinance rezoning the property. The above-required
improvements shall be installed prior to occupancy.
2. That the owner of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim a fee
for tree planting purposes along Beach Boulevard in an amount as determined by
the City Council.
980
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES ~ November 29, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
3, That completion of these reclassification proceedings is contingent upon
the granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 2496.
4. That the owner of subject property shall submit a letter requesting
termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 379 to the Planning Department.
5. That prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject property,
Condition Nos. 1, 2 and 4, above-mentioned, shall be completed. The
provisions or rights granted by this resolution shall become null and void by
action of the Planning Commission unless said conditions are complied with
within one year from the date of this resolution, or such further time as the
Planning Commission may grant.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-180, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2496, subject to the following conditions:
1. That this Conditional Use Permit is granted subject to the completion of
Reclassification No. 83-84-8, now pending.
2. That prior to issuance of a building permit, the appropriate traffic
signal assessment fee shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in an amount as
determined by the City Council for new commercial buildings.
3. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner
satisfactory to the City Engineer.
4. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
5. That prior to commencement of structural framing, fire hydrants shall be
installed and charged as required and determined to be necessary by the Chief
of the Fire Department.
6. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved
plans on file with the Street Maintenance and Sanitation Division.
7. That the proposed driveway on Beach Boulevard shall be relocated to
Stonybrook Drive as required and approved by the City Traffic Engineer.
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 through 6; provided, however, that kitchen efficiency units may be installed
in no more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the motel units, with a maximum
of 6-cubic foot refrigerators, two-burner stoves excluding oven and baking
facilities, and single compartment sinks, except that the manager's unit will
be allowed to have full kitchen facilities.
9. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 3, 4,
6, 7 and 8, above-mentioned, shall be complied with.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman
Kaywood at the meeting of October 25, 1983, and a public hearing scheduled
this date.
981
Cit~ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 29, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present.
Mr. John Swint, agent, stated that they had asked for no waivers or variances,
that the height limitation involved was 75 feet and they were only at 40
feet. He was at a loss to understand why the matter was set for a public
hearing.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she was very much concerned with what was
happening in the area with the proliferation of motels that were being built
higher and higher. The motel adjacent to the proposed building was a
three-story unit approved last year, and now this was going to be four
stories. She felt the area had become thoroughly saturated with motels.
Councilwoman Kaywood then posed questions to staff for purposes of
clarification, as well as to Mr. Swint. He (Swint) reported that all four
stories of the motel would be fully sprinklered and that they were going to
have four kitchen units, although 25 percent kitchen units would be allowed.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the large trucks that were parking on the
property were doing so with permission; Mr. Frank Wu, owner, stated that the
trucks were parking there without his knowledge and it was not permitted by
them, although he had not posted the property accordingly, since escrow closed
just two weeks after the Planning Commission hearing.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak, either in favor or in opposition;
there being no response, he closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Pickler, seconded by Councilman Bay, the City Council finds that the project
would have no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental
impact and does hereby approve the negative declaration upon finding that it
has considered the negative declaration together with any comments received
during the public review process, and further, finding on the basis of the
initial study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence
that the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
Councilwoman I(aywood voted "No." MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered resolutions of denial on both the
Reclassification and the Conditional Use Permit, reversing the findings of the
City Planning Commission. Both failed to carry by the following vote:
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood
Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
None
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 83R-458 and 83R-459 for adoption,
approving Reclassification No. 83-84-8 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2496, in
accordance with City Planning Commission conditions. Refer to Resolution Book.
982
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 29, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 83R-458: 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. (83-84-8)
RESOLUTION NO. 83R-459: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2496.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked if he would like to add a
stipulation that all units would be sprinklered; Miss Santalahti stated they
checked with the Fire Department and it was a requirement that for four
stories or higher, that the entire building be sprinklered.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolutions.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
Kaywood
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 83R-458 and 83R-459 duly passed and adopted.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2500 AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION: Application submitted by Frank Raymond Addiss and Sharon Ann
Barth, to permit a 20-unit senior citizens apartment complex on PD-C zoned
property located at 127 West Cypress Street, with Code waiver of minimum
number and type of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-185, approved
the negative declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative
declaration together with any comments received during the public review
process and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments
received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a
significant effect on the environment and further, granted Conditional Use
Permit No. 2500, subject to the following conditions:
1. That prior to issuance of a building permit, appropriate park and
recreation in-lieu fees shall be paid t0 the City of Anaheim in an amount as
determined by the City Council.
2. That prior to issuance of'a building permit, the appropriate traffic
signal assessment fee shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in an amount as
determined by the City Council for each new dwelling unit.
3. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner
satisfactory to the City Engineer.
4. That the owner of subject property shall execute and record a covenant
against the property restricting occupancy of the apartment units to at least
one person 55 years of age or older.
983
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 29, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
5. That the developer shall obtain (by Ordinance) a parking prohibition on
the north side of Cypress Street adjacent to subject property as required by
the Streets and Sanitation Department to allow for safe trash collection.
6. 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.
7. That prior to the commencement of the activity authorized under this
resolution, or prior to the time that a building permit is issued, or within a
period of one year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first,
Condition Nos. 4 and 5, 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.
8. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 3 and
6, above-mentioned, shall be complied with.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman
Kaywood at the meeting of October 25, 1983, and a public hearing scheduled
this date.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated this was an existing 6-unit apartment and the
applicant was requesting to build a 20-unit senior citizen complex. Sixteen
covered parking spaces were required and eleven spaces were proposed (five
covered and six open). She was concerned-about that.
Miss Santalahti interjected and explained that the proposal was to demolish
the existing construction and rebuild the project. The parking analysis was
based on a senior citizens housing project, since they were going 100 percent
that way and, therefore, had a lower parking requirement than a typical
apartment unit would have.
Councilwoman Kaywood continued that she also was concerned as to what was
being defined as a senior citizen who did not drive. Staff recommended age
60, but it was approved instead at age 55, and only one of the individuals of
a couple had to be 55 and not both. They were looking at a 68.6 net density
which she did not think they had ever done, and there was no affordable
involved, with 11 parking spaces and 20 units and no street parking allowed.
She felt this would be creating a horrendous problem for the City.
Miss Santalahti stated as to the age limitation, the Commission at different
times had discussed an appropriate senio~r citizens age. In this instance,
they accepted 55. The attorney did bring up the issue as to whether the
Commission meant both potentially two occupants of a unit, or whether one only
had to be that age. The Commission was prepared to go along with only one of
the occupants. Relative to parking, they looked at the current occupancy as
to whether any of the tenants drove, as well as several other projects that
they seemed to feel were comparable to what they were hoping to achieve here,
and the Commission went along with the proposal on this particular location,
984
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 29, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
which was very near downtown. She felt that had a lot to do with their
willingness to feel that people would not have to have cars, because there
would be public transit within a reasonable distance.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated it was very close to Pacific Telephone, and the
entire street was loaded with cars. She did not know what anyone was thinking
that there was no need even for one parking space per unit.
Miss Santalahti explained that when the parking study was conducted over a
year ago when the new Code was adopted, the consultant did look at senior
citizen housing projects and for active seniors, the feeling was that at least
locally or within California, .8 parking spaces per unit was appropriate.
Ages ranged from as low as 50 on up, but there was no specific age.
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
Mr. Frank Addis, 70 Sunrisa, Irvine, stated that he and his sister bought the
property from his grandmother in 1976 and it was rented exclusively for senior
citizens and they would continue to do so because of the tremendous need for
senior housing. Within the last year, they had two vacancies ~and received
over 100 phone calls for each. He believed there were no vehicles on the
property at the present time. In this case, because they were willing to
agree to the stipulation of the age limitation, the land should be put to its
best and highest use for housing people who needed housing.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak, either in favor or in opposition.
Mr. John Shanahan, 1215 South Empire, Senior Citizen Commissioner, stated he
was authorized to speak for the majority of the Commission and they were in
favor of the senior citizen housing proposal. The seniors needed those units
and he could not emphasize that more.
Pastor Honn, 121 West Cypress, stated he was concerned only with the problem
of noise that might emanate from his facility. They had done everything they
could to keep the noise down by taking the children to the back of the church
and cooperating as much as possible. If they were going to expand, it would
mean more problemp as the church grew with more children. He suggested that
perhaps a wall of some kind be constructed between the church and the subject
property that would break the sound.
Mayor Roth noted that the applicant was nodding his agreement with that; Miss
Santaiahti noted that the exhibit approved by the Planning Commission showed a
6-foot wall along the easterly boundary and she was assuming it was a block
wall.
Pastor Honn then stated if there was a serious parking problem, he had
property in the back where some way or another they could cooperate with the
applicant and get~ together. They could work out some arrangements for parking
to help him if that was a problem.
985
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 29~ 1983, 10:00 A.M.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the
public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Pickler, the City Council finds that subject
project will have no significant individual or cumulative adverse
environmental impact, and does hereby approve the negative declaration upon
finding that it has considered the negative declaration together with any
comments received during the public review process, and further finding on the
basis of the initial study and any comments received that there was no
substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the
environment. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered a resolution to deny the Conditional Use Permit
because there was no written agreement relative to parking. The church could
move and someone else take over and there would still be no parking. She felt
they were getting onto dangerous ground talking about 68.6 units to the net
acre, and the next one in would cause the cost of the land to increase. She
was very concerned about senior housing, but she would like it to be livable,
not impossible.
A vote was then taken on the proposed resolution to deny the Conditional Use
Permit, reversing the findings of the City Planning Commission, and it failed
to carry by the following vote:
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood
Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
None
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 83R-460 for adoption, granting
Conditional Use Permit No. 2500 subject to City Planning Commission
conditions, including a 6-foot high masonry block wall along the east property
line. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 83R-460: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2500.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
Kaywood
None'
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-460 duly passed and adopted.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed
Session. Councilman Pickier seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (3:55 p.m.)
986
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - November 29, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Pro Tem Pickler called the meeting to order, all Council
Members being present, with the exception of Council Members Overholt and
Roth. (4:11 p.m.)
112: HANSON VS. CITY OF ANAHEIM: Councilman Pickler moved to authorize the
City Attorney and Ruston & Nance to settle Orange County Superior Court Case
No. 35-65-47, Hanson vs. City of Anaheim, for a sum not to exceed 37,500.
Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Council Members Overholt and Roth were
absent. MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT:
the motion.
(4:12 p.m.)
Councilman Bay moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded
Council Members Overholt and Roth were absent. MOTION CARRIED.
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK
987