1981/03/17 81-398
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 17, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
COUNCIL M~MBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
CONVENTION CENTER, STADIUM, GOLF GENERAL MANAGER: Tom Liegler
PUBLIC UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER: Gordon Hoyt
DEPUTY CITY MANAGER: James Ruth
CITY ENGINEER: William G. Devitt
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ron %hompson
PUBLIC UTILITIES ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER: Ed Alario
ASSISTANT TO THE CITY b~NAGER: James Armstrong
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
CUSTOMER SERVICE MANAGER: James Willis
Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Dr. Ray Niederer, Bethel Baptist Church, gave the Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilwoman Miriam Kaywood led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Seymour
and authorized by the City Council:
"Quality Control Week in Anaheim" - March 15-21, 1981
The proclamation was accepted by Mr. John Ensing, Chairman of the Orange
Empire Section of the American Society of Quality Control.
119: RESOLUTION: A resolution of approval was unanimously adopted by the
City Council approving the Orange County Art Alliance's planning process for
the development of an Orange County Cultural Plan. The resolution was accep-
ted by Arlene Isaaks and Eileen Anthony.
117: RESIGNATION FROM OFFICE OF CITY TREASURER: Councilwoman Kaywood moved
to accept the resignation of Glenn E. Stewart from the Office of City
Treasurer due to retirement, with regret, effective May 22, 1981. Councilman
Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
MINUTES: Approval of the minutes was deferred to the next regular meeting.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda,
after reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to
waiver is hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the
title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading o~ such
ordinances or resolutions in regular order. Councilman Bay seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
81-399
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 17, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $1,167,782.80, in accor-
dance with the 1980-81 Budget, were approved.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL MOTION CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Bay, the following actions were authorized, as
recommended:
a. 160: Bid No. 3747--15,000 feet of No. 4/0 URD Secondary Wire. Award to
Q~alified Electric, $14,509.70.
b. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to
Advanced Control Systems in the amount of $30,089.16 for two Remote Terminals,
one Multiplexer Interface Card, one Color Graphic CRT and one Flexible Disk
Drive.
c. 123/101: Authorizing a permit agreement with Kayco, Incorporated, provi-
ding 50 parking spaces at Anaheim Stadium at a monthly rate of $100 for the
first 18 months of the agreement and a monthly rate of ~150 thereafter, for a
period of three years.
d. 123: Authorizing water facilities agreements with The Baldwin Company for
the reimbursement of fees advanced by the Company towards the cost of Special
Facilities to serve Tract Nos. 9215 and 10940 in the Anaheim Hills area, in
accordance with Rule 15.B of the City's Water Rules.
MOTION CARRIED.
174: SEVENTH YEAR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT APPLICATION: Councilman
Overholt offered Resolution No. 81R-112 for adoption, authorizing the City
Manager to execute and file an application for a Community Block Grant pursu-
ant to the ~busing and Community Development Act of 1977, as recommended in
memorandum dated March 10, 1981 from Executive Director of Community Develop-
ment Norm Priest. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-112: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AND FILE AN
APPLICATION FOR A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PURSUANT TO THE HOUSING
AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1977.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNC IL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-112 duly passed and adopted.
150: AWARD OF CONTRACT - PEARSON PARK REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT: Account No. 16-
/25-820-7103. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 81R-113 for adop-
tion, awarding a contract as recommended by the City Engineer in his memoran-
dum dated March 11, 1981. Refer to Resolution Book.
81-400
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -March 17, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-113: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST
RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS
AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND
WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE
FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: PEARSON PARK REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, IN THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 16/25-820-7103. (Industrial Turf, Inc.)
Before a vote was taken, ~uncilman Roth noted ~dustrial T~rf stated there
was a discrepancy in their bid.
City Engineer William Devitt stated that was correct and perhaps a representa-
tive of the firm was in the audience.
A Mr. Maddox of Industrial Turf, Inc., stated there was a transposition from
numerical to letters in Item 1 on the bid form.
Mr. Devitt stated the error was not a mathematical one. The specifications
stated that wherever there was a discrepancy between the written word and the
written figure, the written word prevailed. The bidder showed 312,000 as a
figure for Item 1 and $1,200 as the written word.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution.
Roll Call Vote:
AYE S:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNC IL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNC IL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-113 duly passed and adopted.
Before concluding, Mr. Maddox asked for clarification if the contract was
awarded with the corrected figure; Mayor Seymour indicated that was his intent.
City Manager William Talley stated that the figure recommended was
$331,938.76. The Council was advised in the March 11, 1981 memorandum that
the bidder indicated there was a $10,800 error. They had conferred with the
City Attorney and the bid specification provided that the written word pre-
vailed. They were, therefore, recommending the lower figure.
Mr. Maddox confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood that he could not abide by the
bid at that figure since the particular item involved could not be completed
for 31,200.
City Attorney William Hopkins clarified for Councilman Overholt that in the
case of a discrepancy between the words and figures, the words prevailed and
the recommendation was based upon the words prevailing. If the company could
not or refused to perform, then the bid bond would be subject to forfeiture.
The Council had the prerogative to waive the discrepancy if it so desired.
The City was covered, but it did not mean there would not be a lawsuit.
Mr. Devitt pointed out that Industrial Turf would still be the low bidder.
81-401
City Ball, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 17, 1981, 1:30 p.M.
Mayor Seymour stated if this was an attempt to get an edge up on competitive
bidders, he would throw the bid out, but it was clear that it was nothing more
than a clerical error.
Further Council discussion followed relative to the issue, at the conclusion
of which it was the consensus that the contract be awarded at the higher
figure as indicated as the outset, or ~342,738.76, which, in the final analy-
sis, was still below the next bidder by approximately $14,000.
131: RECLASSIFICATION OF STATE ROUTE 55 FROM THE FEDERAL AID URBAN SYSTEM TO
THE FEDERAL AID PRIMARY SYSTEM: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No.
81R-114 for adoption, requesting that State Route 55 (the Costa Mesa/Newport
Freeway) be reclassified from the Federal Aid Urban System to the Federal Aid
Primary System, as recommended in memorandum dated March 11, 1981, from the
City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-114: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THAT STATE ROUTE 55 BE DESIGNATED IN
THE FEDERAL-AID PRIMARY SYSTEM.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-114 duly passed and adopted.
123/158: REQUEST TO LEASE FIVE ACRES OF CITY-OWNED PROPERTY: (Continued from
the March 10, 1981 meeting--see minutes that date). Mayor Seymour stated that
the report supplied by staff dated March 11, 1981 satisfied his question posed
at the previous meeting.
Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 81R-115 for adoption, authorizing an
agreement with ~avid Rudat in the amount of $2,500 annually, for lease of five
acres of City-owned property located on the east side of Brookhurst Street,
south of Pacific Avenue at the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks, for the term
ending March 1, 1984, as recommended in memorandum dated March 11, 1981 from
the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-115: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH DAVID RUDAT TO ESTABLISH A CHOOSE AND
CUT CHRISTMAS TREE FARM ON CERTAIN CITY PROPERTY AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND
CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-115 duly passed and adopted.
81-402
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 17, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
156: AUCTION OF UNCLAIMED PROPERTY: Councilman Bay offered Resolution No.
81R-116 for adoption, authorizing the Police Department to conduct an auction
of unclaimed property to be held on March 28, 1981, at 9:00 a.m., as recommen-
ded in memorandum dated March 12, 1981 from the Police Department. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-116: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO CONDUCT AN AUCTION OF UNCLAIMED
PROPERTY ON MARCH 28, 1981.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNC IL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
No ne
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-116 duly passed and adopted.
On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Clerk was
directed to publish a notice of intention to transfer unclaimed property to
the Purchasing Division for City use. MOTION CARRIED.
123/173: SB 620 GRANT AGREEMENT FOR A MULTI-MODAL TRANSPORATION CENTER AT
ANAHEIM STADIUM: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 81R-117 for
adoption, authorizing an agreement with the State for SB 620 funds in an
amount not to exceed $232,995 for use by the City in constructing a Multi-
modal Transportation Center to be located adjacent to the Santa Fe Railroad
tracks at Anaheim Stadium, as recommended in memorandum dated March 11, 1981
from Pamela Lucado, Associate Planner. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-117: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN CONNECTION WITH
THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTI-MODAL TRANSPORTATION TERMINAL TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID
AGREEMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-117 duly passed and adopted.
123/101: THEME TOWER FOR THE ANAHEIM AMTRAI< FACILITY: On motion by Council-
woman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, an agreement was authorized
with Evans McKenzie and Associates for the design, manufacture and installa-
tion of Theme Tower for the Anaheim Amtrak facility to be located on Stadium
grounds, and to act as exclusive sales representative for sale of advertising
space thereon for a period of 10 years, as recommended in memorandum dated
March 3, 1981 from Stadium, Convention ~nter, Golf C~neral Manager Tom
Liegler. MOTION CARRIED.
81-403
City. Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 17, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
123: LEASE OF 300 SQUARE FEET OF %HE CIVIC CENTER PARKING STRUCTURE BY STORER
CABLE TV FOR AN ANTENNA INSTALLATION: Councilman Overholt moved to authorize
a lease agreement with Storer Cable TV, Inc., at an annual sum of $500 for the
first year and ~250 a year for the next two years, with rental thereafter to
be adjusted by the ~nsumer Price Index, for the lease of 300 square feet at
the northeast corner of the Civic Center parking structure for an antenna in-
stallation, as recommended in memorandum dated March 10, 1981 from the City
Manager's office. Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay stated he wanted to be assured that
relative to the electric connection involved, that they were going to have a
metered connection and that Storer was going to be paying for the electricity
used; Mr. Jim Armstrong, Assistant to the City Manager, assured Councilman Bay
that that would occur.
A vote was then taken the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
175: NORTH BRAWLEY GEOTHERMAL GENERATION PROJECT: B~thorizing a Public
Parties Unit I Geothermal Agreement, North Brawley Geothermal Participation
Agreement, and the North Brawley Geothermal Project, California Environmental,
Feasibility and Licensing Agreement to provide for Anaheim's joint participa-
tion in a 10 MW demonstration unit and for the right to participate in the
potential development of up to nine 50 MW units, totaling 450,000 kilowatts of
gross electrical generation; and appropriating $790,000 from the $6 million
Electric Revenue Bond funds to finance Anaheim's proportionate share of the
project costs for fiscal year 1980/81.
Public Utilities General Manager Gordon Hoyt stated, while it was his recom-
mendation that the City participate in the subject project, at its regular
meeting of February 19, 1981, the Public Utilities Board (PUB) recommended
that his (Hoyt's) recommendation not be approved, the basis being they felt
that the City should not invest in research and development (R&D) type pro-
jects, but should invest in projects where the technology was already estab-
lished and where there was less risk than with so-called soft technology pro-
jects. He had explained to the Board that he was going to take the matter to
the City Council and the Council could make a decision accordingly. The Board
felt that was the appropriate course of action.
Mr. Hoyt continued that there was absolutely no assurance of success relative
to the project. The reason he brought the matter to the Board and Council was
that the California Energy Commission in commenting on the City's Resource
Plan indicated it felt Anaheim should be pursuing additional solar and geo-
thermal resources and this was an opportunity to do so if it cared to. He
commented that it was risky venture.
The Mayor stated that he read the report submitted (see report dated
February 25, 1981 from the PUB with attachments) and concluded the project was
not a good one for the City because it was too risky. Part of that risk was
borne out on page five of the report which he briefed in part. He did not
think the project was something he wanted to see the citizens committing their
money to and, therefore, he was going to support the recommendation of the PUB
in recommending a "no" on the project.
81-404
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 17, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Hoyt stated he had no problem with that course of action. He was seeking
the direction of the Council.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to uphold the recommendation of the Public
Utilities Board that the City not participate in the North Brawley Geothermal
Generation Project. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
175: PARTICIPATION IN ADDITIONAL OWNERSHIP OF SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING
STATION~ UNITS 2 AND 3 (SONGS): Public Utilities General Manager Gordon Hoyt
explained that on January 22, 1981, he wrote to Southern California Edison
(SCE) asking if they would be interested in selling Anaheim an additional per-
cent or two of interest in the SONGS, Units 2 and 3. Last Thursday, March 12,
1981, Edison replied that they would be interested in selling them some addi-
tional ownership interest in that project, between 1% and 1.5% at the City's
option. A~suming the 1.5% interest, the City would increase its participation
to 3.16% or 69.52 megawatts. In order to have Edison explain and present the
project fully to the City, they had a brief meeting with the Utilities Liaison
Committee to try to understand the proposal that SCE was putting forth.
Essentially, Edison would like to have the arrangement completed and money
paid to them by September 30, 1981. The problem in that was that they would
need to give SCE their money prior to receiving final approval to transfer the
ownership interest from Edison to Anaheim. Edison had indicated, if that hap-
pened, they would return the City's money with interest and in the preliminary
dicussions with them, it appeared they could return it so that Anaheim would
be made whole in the remote possibility that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) would not approve transfer of the ownership interest.
In order for Anaheim to be able to pay for the additional participation, it
would require a bond issue in the neighborhood of $80 million. In order to
make that happen, the voters would have to vote on that issue and the last day
that the City Council could call a Special Municipal Election, as he was in-
formed by the City Clerk, and also to place measures on the ballot, was next
T~esday, March 24, 1981. In order to structure the arrangement as SCE had
offered to sell, it would be most helpful if they had the ability to issue
bond anticipation notes to finance the venture. He thereupon suggested that
perhaps the City Council might wish to adjourn today's meeting to Thursday,
March 19, 1981, at 3:30 p.m., the regular meeting of the PUB, when a full pub-
lic discussion could be held between the Board and the Council to develop rec-
ommendations to the Council, so that next Tuesday the Council could take ap-
propriate action coming from those discussions. Anticipating that, he talked
with SCE and they agreed to have three or four people present to explain the
project. He had also asked a representative from R.W. Beck to be present. He
would further hope to make a recommendation to the City Manager and the City
Council to employ Mudge Rose Guthrie and Alexander as Bond Counsel should they
go forward, and he had asked a representative of Mudge Rose to be present. He
was also seeking to have a representative of James J. Lowrey and Associates,
their financial advisors, to be present in order to discuss the whole gamut of
possibilities and to try to complete the arrangements in an expeditious
fashion if that be the wish of the Council. Mr. Alan Watts, Special Counsel,
would also be present.
?
?
81-405
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 17, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Hoyt concluded that they had an opportunity to purchase another 1.5% of
San Onofre. He believed the economics were essentially as they were when they
purchased the original 1.6%. The consultants had advised them that this was
the lowest cost power that seemed to be available to Anaheim. His recommenda-
tion was that they go forward with public discussion in order for the Council
to reach a conclusion as to whether or not they should participate in that
effort.
Mayor Seymour reported that Friday, March 13, 1981, they had a Liaison Commit-
tee meeting at which he and Councilman Overholt were present, as well as Mr.
Hoyt, Mr. Watts, representatives from SCE and R.W. Beck. It was the opinion.,
at the conclusion of the meeting, that at least on the surface, it would
appear that they had an outstanding opportunity to invest into the most unique
power plant to be on-line in California if not the nation. Because the matter
had all come together since Thursday morning, with the PUB being informed, as
well as the Council through the week-end, they would need to have the proposed
work session to see if they could refine the proposal in order to ascertain
what it could mean to the City and to determine if there were any down sides
to the question. If they were satisfied with the information received, they
should be prepared next Tuesday to consider a ballot question for the voters
of Anaheim in June. The project had already proven itself and he for one, if
all the other details could be worked out, would in in strong support.
Councilman Bay stated he supported having the meeting on Thursday to explore
the matter. Without threatening the opportunity, he was hoping within the
time constraints they could work out some other items so that perhaps this
might not be the only issue to be placed on the ballot. If time allowed, he
would like to see something worked out that might still offer the opportunity
they had relative to the Palo Verde Project or to set up a method whereby they
would not lose that opportunity without making the final decision until they
received the necessary information.
Mayor Seymour stated that he concurred, but on the other hand, they should
keep in mind if the opportunity regarding SONGS was, in reality, how it
appeared, he did not want to see that opportunity jeopardized as a result of'
putting other questions to the voters in such a time span where they would run
the risk of confusing them, and lose an excellent opportunity. If it could be
accomplished, he would be supportive of Councilman Bay's suggestion.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated with the very few numbers of election dates they
were permitted to have, it would be nice to have a separate ballot for one
question if time permitted, but they did not have that luxury and it was very
expensive to continue to call special elections where there were very impor-
tant items that needed to be changed in the Charter before the City could ben-
efit by saving a great deal of money. They had to do whatever it would take
to come up with the proper phrasing and to be able to explain difficult ques-
tions, breaking them down into a simple question, as simple and as complete an
explanation as possible.
Councilman Overholt stated he shared the Mayor's view in that if the present
opportunity was as good as it appeared, it would be regrettable if they were
to reduce their ability to have a Special Election by combining the issue with
other issues.
81-406
city Hall., Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 17, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
After further discussion, Mr. Hoyt stated, assuming that they went forward
with the additional purchase in San Onofre, they were getting to the point of
being very picky and choosy about whatever base load opportunities would come
to Anaheim, but the Palo Verde Project would be one of those primarily because
it was under construction and it would be of economic interest to the City.
It was the consensus of the Council that the joint meeting with the Public
Utilities Board be held on Thursday, ~rch 19, 1981, at 3:30 p.m., as articu-
lated by Mr. Hoyt.
155: PUBLIC FACILITIES PLAN FOR THE BAUER RANCH DEVELOPMENT: Approving, with
modifications, the specific Public Facilities Plan for the Bauer Ranch devel-
opment, including the implementation programs, submitted by Kaufman & Broad,
required by Resolution Nos. 79R-50 and 79R-607. (See, "Public Facilities Plan
for the Development of Bauer Ranch," Kaufman & Broad of Southern California
Inc., January 1981, James E. Crosby Engineers, Inc.)
Communication data March 17, 1981 had been received from the Sea & Sage
Audubon Society, Fern L. Cohen, (hair, Weir Canyon Committee--"Statement To
The City Council of Anaheim On The Subject Public Facilities Plan Of The Bauer
Ranch." A Mr. Dick S.T. Hsu, P.E., Section (hief, Development Planning of the
OCTD, was also present to speak to the Plan.
Deputy City Manager James Ruth then briefed the Council on the seven-page
staff report with attachments, and further elaborated upon the staff recom-
mended modifications, Page 5 through 7 of the report. He noted with regard to
Item 5, Page 7, the OCTD request for inclusion in the plan, a copy of letter
was received from Kaufman & Broad dated March 17, 1981 in which it appeared
that Items "a," "b" and "c" under Item 5 could be resolved and staff was in
agreement with the resolution of those matters. Item D, the request for the
100- to 200- space Park and Ride lot as part of the Open Space dedication,
staff felt that the past policy of the City had stated that the Public
Facilities Plan include only City necessitated improvements and they did not
feel that particular request fell in that category, gaufman & Broad had
addressed that issue with OCTD and suggested that they look for some alternate
locations in that general service area. Relative to the library, they did
have some concerns about access problems to the library and also some traffic
considerations relative to the library site. Kaufman & Broad presented a
letter to them today stating that they would be willing to relocate the
library site in an area that would be acceptable to the City and they were
specifying if that was accurate, they would like that site to be granted and
to have the final control over the location of the library site. The Assis-
tant library Director had also reviewed the letter and felt there would be no
problem in reviewing that consideration and coming back to Council with a
specific recommendation at a future date.
In concluding, Mr. Ruth briefed the attachment--Bauer Ranch Matrix Summariza-
tion and also the last attachment--Projected Revenues--Cost Flows--Bauer
Ranch. The Bauer Ranch proposed development plan was unique and provided a
new frontier for development in an urbanized community in an era of physical
limits. The Public Facilities Plan provided the necessary assurances that the
City service needs could and would be met, while placing no additional finan-
cial burden on the residents of Anaheim.
81-407
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 17, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood referred to the discussion on the library (Page 3) where
he (Ruth) indicated that the recommendation was against City Policy. She
asked if that was with regard to the grading and construction.
Mr. Ruth explained that the problem they had, was the location of the library
was going to be next to the Utilities Substation and there was a concern by
the Library Director that there might be an encroachment on library land.
They also felt there was poor access and some traffic concerns expressed by
the Traffic Engineer. 1hey ended up relocating the Utilities Substation and
after doing so, Kaufman & Broad had come back and felt that those problems did
exist and would, therefore, come back with a better location. All were satis-
fied with that proposal.
Councilman Bay asked on Page 7 showing the annual costs and deficits in
brackets, did that mean (1) that an FY83-84 that cumulative red would be
$448,200 and that (2) the City would have to absorb that within the Budget.
Mr. Ruth answered "yes" on both counts, but then pointed out that it turned
dramatically the next year and then would be reduced the following year and
thereafter.
Mr. Tom Winfield, attorney, stated that Kaufman & Broad asked him to make some
introductory remarks. His initial remarks revolved around two things, the
first being a long and extremely responsible interrelationship between the K&B
staff and City staff in accomplishing that which Mr. Ruth had described in the
plan. They felt that City staff did an excellent job. When they met with the
Council Liaison Committee last week to go over the staff's report and final
numbers, staff asked certain questions that cut through t-he many numbers and
down to basic points. They responded at that time, but felt it appropriate to
reduce the responses to writing and to discuss them in public.
Mr. Winfield then submitted two data sheets--Positive Fiscal Impact of Bauer
Ranch Development on City of Anaheim--and Kaufman & Broad Major Capital
Improvement Cost ~vance For the Development of Bauer Ranch (1980 dollars)
both dated March 17, 1981 (on file in the City Clerk's office). The first
question asked was--what exactly is the City getting? %~he answer, the City
will be receiving ~10.5 million in capital assets of value to the City at no
cost to the City. These included streets, storm drains, water system, fire
station, a park and electric substation. As Mr. Ruth's report indicated,
under the City's previous operating policies, ~aheim would have expended
close to ~5 million to accomplish those same things. In this case, K&B was
expending the up-front money..%here was a possibility that as the remainder
of the service area developed, $3.9 million of that would be reimbursed to
them, but $6.6 million would be out-of-pocket with $10.5 million in physical
capital assets of benefit to the entire City. Further, the City would have 13
acres of dedicated land, again at no cost to the City, to accommodate City
facilities that would service the Bauer Ranch and other portions of the City
adjacent thereto.
Lastly, but perhaps most importantly, the assets that the City would not be
able to see physically, as with the capital improvements and the land, had to
do with cash flow--how many dollars will I have left after I pay my overhead?
He referred to Item 3 under the Positive Physical Impact sheet submitted which
81-'~8
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 17, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
showed the positive cumulative cash flow to the City after deducting cost of
services to Bauer Ranch, all expressed in 1980 dollars and reported as fol-
lows: Positive cash flow to the City would begin in approximately three and
one-half years. In the first year, the City would have an investment of
$2,600 in the project. By the fourth year, the city would be ahead $800,000;
the fifth year, ~1.75 million; the tenth year, $6.5 million and in the 15th
year, $11.25 million. The project when built would also generate an addi-
tional $3 million in property tax revenue going to other taxing entities in
the community, the county, but more importantly the School District.
There were housekeeping issues to address such as the relocation of the
library and if they were agreeable with Mr. Ruth's recommendation, it was also
desireable from their standpoint. They had responded to the OCTD request by
letter today. They were more than willing to work with OCTD and City staff,
but there were certain issues they were not certain they could resolve at this
time. He reiterated they were more than willing to continue to attempt to
resolve them in the future.
He continued that Mr. Ruth misspoke when he talked about percentages for reim-
bursement--the 10%, 31.2% and 29.02% to K&B (see Page 5 of the staff report)
were what their actual costs would be when the reimbursement process was over
and hopefully they would be reimbursed 90%; as to the Fire Stations, the Bauer
Ranch was only 10% of the service area and 68% for the storm drains, because
Bauer was only 31% of the service area.
The last point had to do with the interest rate to be charged as part of the
reimbursement agreement. They understood it had been the City's policy in the
past not to charge interest in such situations. They did suggest, however,
that the City's policy was set at a pre-Proposition 13 and pre-Proposition 4
point in time. ~hey were dealing with reimbursement of substantial numbers
and interest rates that were not the three and four percent they were talking
about 10 years ago, but interest rates now for the cost of money of 20, 21 and
22%. The community as it presently existed and would grow would greatly ben-
efit by having the improvements in place right now. The developer presently
in the City or soon to be in the City would benefit by having those improve-
ments in place. It was not unfair to require of that developer that he pay a
reasonable fair interest rate as part of the reimbursement. ~hrther, they
also felt it was not unfair to require as part of the reimbursement agreement
that the developer coming later be obligated to pay some percentage of the
amount as a service charge to the City for administering the reimbursement
agreement and performing the accounting responsibilities entailed. Rather
than having to resolve the issue today, it may be appropriate since the rea-
sonable anticipated reimbursement periods would vary, if the Council wished to
defer determination on whether or not to establish an interest rate and reim-
bursement agreements until the agreements were actually before the Council.
%hat would be satisfactory from their standpoint. It may be difficult and in-
appropriate for them to decide the interest issue right now. When they had
the particular agreements before them, the information, profit areas, etc., it
would be more real and the issue more easily dealt with. He requested, there-
fore, that if they were going to resolve the interest question today, that it
not be resolved against them at this time.
81-409
.City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 17, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Dick Hsu, OCTD, stated as noted in the EIR for the Bauer Ranch Develop-
ment, one of such magnitude would generate a large amount of trips, some
38,000 trips a day in that portion of the City, not including the Rmgional
Shopping Center. While they recognized that demand would warrant additional
transit service to the new area, there were minimum transit facilities neces-
sary in order for them to provide effective and efficient transit services.
The facilities needed were outlined in the Staff report as mentioned previous-
ly. They believed that transit services should be of significant interest to
the City of Anaheim as it would not only help mitigate the traffic impact of
the proposed project, but also provide some 2,000 residents, 3,000 employees
and other visitors of the area alternate transportation. It would be to the
City's advantage to insure transportation service and support facilities were
available. While they had been working with the developer and had very posi-
tive communication with them,' to date, they had only received a portion of the
commitment of the public facilities. They, therefore, requested the Council
to either delay approval of the Facilities Plan until such time as the transit
facilities were included, or give a conditional approval of the project sub-
ject to a commitment from the developer to provide the minimum facility for
the transit service.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked for clarification by Mr. Hsu if the only issue in
contention from their standpoint was relative to the Park and Ride lot of 200
spaces.
Mr. Hsu answered that the letter they received a few minutes ago from Kaufman
and Broad (March 17, 1981 to Mr. Jim Reichert, C~neral Manager, OCTD) indi-
cated that Item a and c of Page 7 of the staff report had been addressed.
Relative to Item b, however, the letter stated, "We are willing to coordinate
with the District and the City Traffic Engineer toward the end of accommoda-
ting bus service on Weir Canyon Road, Santa Ana Canyon Road and Monte Vista
Road." That language was not sufficient for OCTD to insure that there were
adequate stops or turnouts on the roads. /hus, in addition to the Park and
Ride issue, they did not totally understand the commitment from K&B.
~uncilwoman Kaywood noted that Mr. Ruth had stated "a," "b" and "c" met with
staff's approval; Mr. Ruth clarified, "a" and "b" definitely. On "c," it was
their understanding that K&B could accommodate the turnouts without taking up
additional dedicated land, but he would like to have K&B address that issue
more specifically.
Councilwoman Kaywood first asked for confirmation from Mr. Hsu that if "a,"
"b" and "c" were taken care of, then "d," the Park and Ride lot, was the one
issue they were coBcerned with at this time; Mr. Hsu answered that was cor-
rect. Further, it should be a paved area but it could be an area within the
K&B property or arrangements could be made with the Regional Shopping Center.
At this time, however, they had not received any commitment from the Taubman
Company, the shopping center developers.
Discussion then followed between Mayor Seymour, Mr. Hsu and Mr. Winfield re-
garding OCTD's concern relative to the Park and Ride facility. During the
conversation, Mr. Winfield stated, as Mr. Ruth indicated and in the letter
delivered to the Transit District today reflected, they were more than willing
to work with and cooperate with City staff and the District in accommodating
81-410
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 17, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
the bus traffic they envisioned reasonably would be involved with the residen-
tial development and the shopping center development. Mr. Hsu was talking
about 33,000 traffic trips a day. It was (1) a cumulative number and (2) a
regional number. He was talking about people commuting from 810 homes. He
submitted that they did not need and they should not be required to provide
the 200 spaces to park their cars. ~he Park and Ride facility was something
that was a regional problem and something that the County of Orange should
become involved with. He suggested that perhaps the ~3 million a year in
property taxes that the development would generate would help the County in
financing it. It was inappropriate at this time to exact that kind of
requirement from either K&B or the Taubman Company. The problem was not of
the Bauer Ranch's making. He reitereated, to ask a solution from the Bauer
Ranch, in addition to the other considerations flowing to the City, was
grossly unfair. Further, regarding the turnouts, the major streets they were
building, Weir Canyon and Santa Ana Canyon Road, were going to be as presently
designed, 148 feet wide. They were scenic highways. Valuable, developable
property was being dedicated as part of the street right of way to have scenic
highways and to require bus turns in addition on property that belonged to
Taubman or that K&B had planned for development was again an unfair require-
ment. The purpose of the Public Facilities Plan, which was actually a munici-
pal facility plan, was to insure that the City would not be out of pocket. He
did not think the Transit District was entitled or should be allowed today to
make mandatory requirements of them. They had been fair with the District and
were continuing to offer to work with them, but their requirement was not
fairly attributable to the development.
Mr. Hsu stated it had been implied that the District was exacting of the
developer certain things that were not required or that should be provided by
the Transit District. Service would be provided costing the District millions
of dollars a year just to extend service into the new area of development.
They had committed to extend four local lines anticipating the development of
the magnitude taking place. They realized that President Reagan's budget cut-
backs may have impact on them. However, four years later, a subsequent admin-
istration could require additional transit service. They were unable to
determine what would happen in the future. Relative to the numbers presented
by Mr. Winfield, approximately 800 dwelling units, those units represented
approximately 2,000 people not only commuting to work, but also to their jobs
and for other purposes as well. The facilities being requested were strictly
for the benefit of the development and not necessarily for other people in the
area.
Mayor Seymour stated that staff had said there would be 2,100 citizens. He
asked if Mr. Hsu was saying of the 2,100 men, women and children, that 1,500
of them were going to take a trip everyday on the OCTD.
Mr. Hsu stated that the 1,500 trips represented the total trips they could
expect to be diverted from automobile to transit for the entire development
area being proposed by K&B. There were other developments in the proposal
which included 160,000 square feet of commercial in Area 9 and 125,000 square
feet of commercial in Area 10. All those combined would generate, according
to the developer's estimate, 38,000 trips. Out of that total number of trips,
1,500 trips could be expected for the total Transit ridership.
81-411
.City Hall, Anaheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES- March 17, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour stated then if he understood what he (Hsu) was saying--for the
benefit of the regional shopping center operator, the office space bringing
people to their place of business, etc., they should pay OCTD in-kind for some
property.
Mr. Hsu stated not necessarily donation of property, but space enough for
people to park their cars. They were also providing in-kind service to the
development. ~]~ey were only talking about 100 to 200 people that would use
the Park and Ride facility to go somewhere else to work. Those would be the
people living in the 810 units who ride OCTD to and from work.
Mayor Seymour stated now they were getting to the point he was trying to
make. He suspected that they needed a Park and Ride facility in the area, but
he did not believe for a moment that they needed it for the 2,100 citizens
alone. ~hey might need it for the entire area, but for the 2,100 citizens, he
had a difficult time believing that they needed 200 parking spaces so that
they could drive down the hill from where they lived, get on a bus to go to
work, and have that bus come back to their car.
Mr. Hsu stated that 200 was perhaps a more optimistic estimate. To begin
with, 100 spaces was a more reasonable figure they could expect to generate it
directly from the particular development. Others were expectations in the
future when the energy shortage arose again and they might expect more than
200.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated when K&B indicated the use would be 20 to 25
spaces, that was more realistic to be generated from the 800 plus homes.
ask them to provide 100 or 200 spaces was completely out of line.
To
Mr. Hsu stated that 20 to 25 spaces was pessimistic.
Councilman Bay stated he felt it would be enough to say that they expected
OCTD to neogtiate for something without trying to figure out the numbers at
the hearing today.
Mayor Seymour stated he was empathetic in general with OCTD, but they were
totally unrealistic in what they were representing their needs to be. If they
would take a more general approach and draw a two-mile radius around the
property and indicate that was the population that would use the Park and Ride
facility, that would be more reasonable. Parking for 200 cars out of 810
residential units was not realistic. They wanted to provide OCTD an oppor-
tunity to permit on-going dialogue with the developer but mandating the dona-
tion of a Park and Ride facility was ridiculous. On the other hand, he would
say that staff particularly, and K&B secondarily, deserved a great deal of
commendation, applause and recognition because what they had before them was a
totally unique approach to the development and construction of the infrastruc-
ture so necessary for housing development in a day of tight physical restraint
as a result of Proposition 13. The imagination and creativity that staff had
demonstrated in working the matter out with K&B was greatly demonstrated by
virtue of the fact that they had a mix of uses providing positive tax flows,
thereby permitting the typically negative tax flow from the residential
segment of the development to be carried on all by itself without
81-412
City Hall~ Anaheim, Ca~ifprnia - COUNCIL MINUTES - Marc~ 1.7, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
having to tax any of the citizens of the City. ~he Bauer Ranch proposal from
an economic standpoint would be held up as an example throughout the State of
California, if not the Nation. He reiterated he applauded the efforts of
staff in the creativity in their approach to negotiating the proposal. It was
a prime example of the cooperation between the public and the private sector
resulting in benefit to the public that needed to be housed.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to approve the Public Facilities Plan for
the Bauer Ranch development as recommended with the following additions: That
the reimbursement agreement, subject to finalization and approval by the City
Council, be drawn to include interest as well as an administrative fee to be
paid to the City of Anaheim from that interest accumulation as future proper-
ties were developed. Further, that Kaufman & Broad be required to negotiate
in good faith with OCTD for what would be in the future their fair share of
the responsibility for a Park and Ride facility. Councilman Overholt seconded
the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mr. Ruth asked to add a further consideration. On
the library site, Kaufman & Broad were requesting that in the event the City
did not develop the Library within seven years, that the library site revert
to them. Staff would like not to be limited to seven years, but they would
revert the property to Kaufman & Broad if they did not use it for a library
site° They did not want to be held to seven years.
Mayor Seymour stated he felt that was reasonable. He also noted that the
Kaufman & Broad representative was nodding agreement. They should, therefore,
consider that as part of the motion.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion with the aforementioned condi-
tion. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (3:35 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (3:45 P.M.)
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2148 AND NEGATIVE DECLA-
RATION: Application by Atlantic Richfield Company, to permit a convenience
market with gasoline sales on CL(SC) zoned property located at 5700 East La
Palma Avenue, with the following Code waivers, was submitted:
a. maximum size of price signs
b. prohibited freestanding signs (withdrawn)
c. maximum number of wall signs (withdrawn)
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-231, declared
that the subject project be exempt from the requirement to prepare an environ-
mental impact report pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmen-
tal Quality Act since there would be no significant individual or cumulative
adverse environmental impact due to this project and further, denied Condi-
tional Use Permit No. 2148.
81-413
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 17, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by P.D. Lippert, agent,
and public hearing scheduled and continued from February 10, 1981. (see
minutes February 10, 1981 where extensive discussion took place)
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
Mr. /homas Goodman, representing Arco, stated that on February 10, 1981 the
Council suggested that they obtain some documentation indicating that the
traffic flow did not increase in such conversions. The easiest way to do that
was to take representative stations relative to gallonage. He had just
received that today which he presented to the Council--see report dated
March 17, 1981--subject: Traffic Analysis--AM/PM Markets--Anaheim region. He
pointed out that the figures listed were in thousands of gallons. The data
reflected in the 27 or 28 stations analyzed not only in Orange County but in
other areas that the gallonage decreased when a conversion to a mini-market
concept occurred with two exceptions. The study did not refer to traffic
specifically, but there was no way they could make a comprehensive study on
traffic and they felt by analyzing the decrease in gallonage, it represented a
decrease in vehicles. By inference, the vehicles decreased, not increased.
Mr. Goodman then clarified questions posed by the Council including the fact
that they were no longer requesting a waiver of the maximum size of price
signs and since waiver "b," prohibited freestanding signs, and "c," maximum
number of wall signs, had been withdrawn, they were not asking for any
waivers, just approval of the conditional use permit.
Mr. Goodman further clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood that no portion of the
service station would be removed and that the restrooms would still remain
intact. The key-type restroom was the type Used by the mini-marts.
The Mayor asked if he would stipulate that if the conditional use permit were
approved, that both a men's and women's restroom would be provided; Mr.
Goodman stated he was authorized to so stipulate.
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 ~uncilman
Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council finds that subject pro-
ject will have no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental
impact since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property for
General Commercial land uses co~nensurate 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 Seymour offered Resolution No. 81R-118 for adoption, granting Con-
ditional Use Permit No. 2148, reversing the findings of the City Planning Com-
mission, subject to the following Interdepartmental Committee conditions, and
that both a men's and women's restroom be provided:
81-414
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 17, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
1. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved
plans on file with the Office of the Executive Director of Public Works.
2. That all non-conforming uses of subject property (i.e. towing services,
mechanical maintenance repair) shall be terminated and only the proposed con-
venience market with gasoline sales shall be permitted.
3. That a separate attendant shall be on duty for the dispensing of gas at
all times.
4. 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 4.
5. That Condition Nos. 1 and 4, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior
to final building and zoning inspections. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-118: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2148.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour stated he felt the use would be a great
service to the citizens who resided in that section of the City because of the
very limited and planned limited use by the Council and the Planning Commis-
sion of service stations in that area. The use would be operating 24 hours a
day, providing the ability to buy gas, while at the same time picking up some
groceries. He was thus supportive because of the service it would provide.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she was going to vote against the CUP for the
reasons she enumerated previously (see minutes February 10, 1981), one being
the Council's consistent denial of a dual use on one location, particularly on
a substandard location. She also felt that approval of the request would be a
disservice in that the canyon area was planned to avoid the problems existing
in the rest of the City with service stations on every corner, so that there
was a very minimal number in the canyon. By reducing the amount of gallonage
that could be pumped or in anyway discriminating against those people who did
not want to service themselves, that was removing a part of the public service
that should be in that area. The dual use would set a precedent that would
come back to haunt the Council.
Councilman Bay stated he originally opposed the development because there was
no data to go on as to whether the use would increase or decrease traffic.
Although they did not have specific new traffic data, they did have data that
gave indications that there would not be an increase in traffic due to the
use. The key problem factor in his mind was the traffic and he felt it had
been answered logically to where he could now support the resolution.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNC IL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNC IL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Bay, Roth and Seymour
Kaywood
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-118 duly passed and adopted.
81-415
City Hall., Anaheim., California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Marc.h..17.~ .198~.~. 1.: 3,0. iP,Mo
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 319%,..TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11362 AND
NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application by Conrad J. and Josephine M. Letter, to
establish a l-lot, 7-unit condominium subdivision on RM-1200 zoned property
located at 1260 East La Palma Avenue, with the following Code waivers was
submitted:
a) minimum building site area
b) maximum structural height
c) maximum site coverage
d) minimum landscaped setback
e) minimum recreational-leisure area
f) minzmum number of parking spaces
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-3, declared that
the subject project was exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmen-
tal impact report pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act since there would be no significant individual or cumulative ad-
verse environmental impact due to this project and further, denied Variance
No. 3192.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Conrad J. and
Josephine M. Letter, owners, and Walter K. Bowman, agent, and public hearing
scheduled and continued from the meeting of February 17, 1981 (see minutes
that date).
The Mayor asked if Council had any questions of staff.
Councilman Bay asked if there had been any revisions; Miss Santalahti, Assis-
tant Director for Zoning, answered that no revisions were submitted.
Councilman Roth asked relative to the new standards that would possibly be
approved on March 24, 1981, would all the requested waivers then be required.
Miss Santalahti answered that of the six waivers, only Item "c," minimum site
coverage, would actually be deleted. Two of the other requested waivers would
be modified and three would remain as presently being requested--"c," maximum
site coverage would be deleted, "a," minimum building site area, would now be
2,937 square feet per unit, and the maximum structural height waiver, "b," was
still needed. They had no sections showing the specific design to indicate if
there was any visual intrusion from the second floor of the units located
between 60 feet and 113 feet from the single-family zoning to the south and
the north. Item 'q,"minimum landscaped setback, required 20 feet of land-
scaping adjacent to the RS-7200 zoning to the south. That had not been
changed. Item "e," minimum recreational-leisure area, the Code required 1,000
square feet and they still had the same number of approximately 916 square
feet. The final waiver, "f," minimum number of parking spaces, they had a
ratio of 2.4 spaces per unit. If the Code were modified, it would be 2.5
spaces per unit.
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
81-416
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -~tarch 17, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Walt Bowman, 7936 Cerritos Avenue, Stanton, agent for the applicant,
stated he did not know if he came up with the same figures as staff. If they
were adding just the driveway areas, then both figures were in agreement. He
did not know if they were also adding in the street dedication which in the
case of La Palma Avenue was 23 feet. (Staff indicated they were not). In
that case, they were at 2,937 square feet per unit and the Code requirements
were 3,000 square feet. They were also at 40% building coverage. On the
minimum recreation landscaped area, their architect came up with 1,021 square
feet. Staff came up with 916 square feet. Relative to parking, they had 17
spaces and the Code would now require 17.5. They could provide some tandem
parking, but it could not be counted in the total number of spaces. As was
stated, the site plan was approved for seven apartments in July of 1980 and
the reason they were back was due to the economics of the situation. Mr.
Letter could get financing for condominiums, but not for apartments. The
working drawings had all been submitted, they were in the Building Division
and there was a hold on them until they could determine what they could do.
The design of the building was that there would be no windows facing the
adjoining single-family property and there were no windows facing the single-
family, plus eliminating any site intrusion into the adjoining single-family
property, to the south. Ingress and egress was all to La Palma Avenue and
there would be no traffic through the neighborhood. When they were getting
the site plan approved for the last three parcels to the west, the neighbors
seemed to be wanting condominiums rather than apartments. ~he Thompson's who
lived at 714 Hemlock, which abutted the property to the south and who would be
most impacted, had looked at the plans and they did not care whether they were
developed as apartments or condominiums, but they'wanted the property devel-
oped. He did not know if there was any objection present today, but at the
last meeting on February 17, 1981, there was none. ~here was one neighbor who
attended the Planning Commission meeting who he later met with, and showed
them the site plan. He did not know whether or not they were happy but they
did not show up at the Council meeting today. It would appear according to
the calculations they worked out, realistically they were talking about the
two-story and the minimum setback on the rear unit to the Thompson property
and they proposed eight feet and twenty feet was required. The back yard of
that condominium unit was actually on the west side of the property and there
was a 12-foot patio area there. Also on the west side of the property, there
was a 15-foot green area. ~here was no way they could twist the building. It
would appear if it were approved, it would make the neighbors happy and
certainly make Mr. Letter happy.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. Bowman if he was saying that the minimum build-
ing site area was now 2,937 instead of 2,155; Mr. Bowman answered '~es".
Councilwoman Kaywood asked staff if the new 3,000 square foot was what they
were requiring at 2,900. She was confused as to how 2,155 became 2,900.
Miss Santalahti answered Ghat the current Code stated that public
rights-of-way were always subtracted, as well as private rights of way. If
the Code were modified as proposed, many private driveways would be left in,
giving up to a maximum of about 25% higher density than the current Code.
When public right-of-way was involved, some people did not have the
opportunity of counting that in and, therefore, they did not see any reason to
put that in the Code, thereby giving some people a substantial windfall, while
81-417
City Hall,. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Marc~ 17,. 1~.8.1, 1:3~. P.M.
their neighbor may not have the right to do that at all. She clarified that
2,155 square feet became 2,937 if the new Code were adopted. The gross acre-
age on the parcel was .47 acres, net would have been .35 acres. Relative to
density, Code allowed 14.5 units. Previously it was about 20 dwelling units
per acre and now it was 14.8 on an imaginary one-acre piece.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated it seemed to her that they were playing games with
numbers. They were going to come up with an horrendous density bonus but were
going to say on paper it worked out differently. What they were going to have
was a totally undesireable living environment. It came down to the point
where it was the same thing for apartments as for condominiums.
Miss Santalahti stated that was about right except for the height waiver.
Mr. Bowman then clarified, relative to parking, they had 17 spaces without
tandem parking. There were seven double garages and three guest parking
spaces.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated they were talking about seven units with three
bedrooms each, and thus 21 bedrooms, and now 17 parking spaces were suppose to
be acceptable for 21 bedrooms. She asked if the apartment Code required more
than that.
Miss Santalahti stated that the apartment Code was 2.25 spaces per unit and
thus a little less. That was the specific three-bedroom count. For one-
bedroom, it was only 1.5 spaces per unit.
Councilman Bay asked Mr. Bowman if he was aware of the debate on density and
the changes recently voted on by a majority of the Council which took place at
meetings held February 18 and March 5, 1981 with the ~anning ~ommission; Mr.
Bowman stated he was present at both meetings.
Councilman Bay recalled at those meetings what the majority of the ~ouncil
stated was that in calculating the RM-3000, they were going to go to gross
rather than net and that would result in some bonus without affordable even
being mentioned. At the same time, it was clear that the Council said if they
did that density-wise, there were not going to be any other variances. Assu-
ming with no second story windows that they met the visual intrusion on the
subject development, in his mind at present, since the plan was not being
revised, they were coming in and asking not only for those agreed to modifica-
tions to the ordinance, but also a couple of other variances at the same
time. In effect, there would be precedent setting on the agreement already
reached. He wanted to know if that was the way Mr. Bowman understood his
position looked at this time.
Mr. Bowman stated it would depend whether it was completely black and white.
They were at 2,937 square feet land density area per unit and based on gross
square footage. It did not take into consideration the fact that property
owners had to dedicate land for street widening or for public use without any
reimbursement; Councilman Bay added, nor had it ever.
81-418
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 17, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Bowman stated he did not see the justification of not giving some consi-
deration when there was an extraordinary amount of street widening asked for.
If they were to get credit just for the 13 feet, they would at 3,080 square
feet per unit. That would be the 38% building coverage over the 1,000 square
feet relative to leisure-recreational area without a single change to the plan.
Councilman Bay questioned the landscaped setback under waiver "d".
Mr. Bowman explained the very south unit abutting the Thompson property had an
8-foot rear yard to the %hompson proprerty. That property was a cul-de-sac
lot on 714 North Hemlock. Their house was oriented to the front of the prop-
erty and they had a pool area as he best recalled. That was actually a side
yard for that last unit. ~he rear yard was a 12-foot patio area with sliding
doors on the west side of the property not facing the Thompson property.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the pub-
lic hearing.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated when the project initially came into the City in
approximately April of 1980, the Planning Commission turned it down, and it
came to the Council and instead of also turning it down, it was postponed for
a meeting with the City Planning Commission to amend the Code. The Planning
Commission subsequently approved six units instead of five, and it came back
to the Council and seven units were given. That was on apartments and now it
had come back in for condominiums. They were saying that by now counting the
gross instead of the net square footage, there was going to be the same apart-
ment and condominium density.
Miss Santalahti clarified that the new Code would allow six units where the
current Code allowed five units by right on the property. He was asking for
seven.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated as a result of the discussion that took place at
the very lengthy meeting of March 5, 1981 (see minutes that date)'if they
changed the Codes, they would not permit any variances to it. Mr. Bowman was
still asking for variances by wanting seven units instead of six. She also
asked for clarification if staff was saying if apartments, six units would be
permitted.
Miss Santalahti first stated five units would be 100% in accordance with Code
with regard to the site and density factor. A fully Code-complying apartment
project, one story over the entize site, was probably going to be very similar
to what would be allowed for a condominium project, simply because, with one
story, they could not do that much. In this particular situation, she was
certain the apartment allowed units without any Code waiver's was very similar
to condominiums which was approximately five units.
After further discussion, Mayor Seymour stated he was going to vote against
the project. They had developed new standards over which they deliberated
long and hard. One of the reasons he wanted to see them come up with new
standards was to stop the procedure followed for a year on a case-by-case
81-419
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 17, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
basis. Now that they had some standards, they should live with those and the
only time they should be granting variances would be if they were technical in
nature. Because the applicant had not demonstrated any technical justifica-
tion, he was going to vote against the project.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Seymour, seconded by Councilman Bay, the City Council finds that subject pro-
ject will have no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental
impact since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property for
medium density residential 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 cumu-
lative adverse environmental impacts; and is, therefore, exempt from the
requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 81R-119, denying Variance No. 3192,
upholding the findings of the City Planning Commission and based upon the new
standards the project would require five variances in order to be approved as
a condominium project, when comparing it to the new standards, with no techni-
cal justification for approval of the variance request. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-119: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DENYING VARIANCE NO. 3192.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-119 duly passed and adopted.
176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 80-4A: In accordance with the applica-
tion filed by the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, public hearing was held on
proposed abandonment of Fmlena Street between Chartres Street and the new
alignment of Lincoln Avenue, the adjoining alley running east and west between
Helena and Lincoln, and the adjoining alley running north and south between
the above described alley and Chartres Street, pursuant to Resolution No.
81R-74, duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin, and notices thereof posted in
accordance with law.
Report of the City Engineer dated February 4, 1981 and recommendation by the
Planning Commission were submitted recommending approval of said abandonment,
subject to an easement reservation.
Mayor Seymour asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no
response, he closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman
Bay, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council ratified the determin-
ation of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the
definition of Section 3.01, Class 5, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the
requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categori-
cally exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
81-420
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 17, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 81R-120 for adoption, approving Abandon-
ment No. 80-4A, subject to the following reservation: That an underground
utility easement be reserved unto the Southern California Gas Company to ac-
commodate existing facilities, together with all reasonable rights of ingress
and egress over the westerly 21.0 feet of Helena Street. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-120: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ORDERING THE VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF HELENA STREET BETWEEN
CHARTRES STREET AND LINCOLN AVENUE AND CERTAIN ADJOINING ALLEYS. (80-4A)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNC IL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNC IL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-120 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 80-81-22 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
Application by Eileen A. Druiff, for a change in zone from RS-7200 to RM-2400,
to construct a duplex on property located at 123 South G~and Avenue, was sub-
mitted.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-25, declared
that the subject project be exempt from the requirement to prepare an environ-
mental impact report pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmen-
tal ~aality Act since there would be no significant individual or cumulative
adverse environmental impact due to this project and further, granted Reclas-
sification No. 80-81-22, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim a
fee, in an amount as determined by the City Council, for street lighting along
Grand Avenue.
2. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim a
fee, in an amount as determined by the City Council, for tree planting pur-
poses along Grand Avenue.
3. That sidewalks shall be installed along Grand Avenue as required by the
City Engineer and in accordance with standard plans and specifications on file
in the Office of the City Engineer.
4. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satis-
factory to the City Engineer.
5. That the owner of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the
appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to be appropriate
by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building permit is
issued.
6. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay the traffic signal assess-
ment fee (Ordinance No. 3896) in an amount as determined by the City Council,
for each new dwelling unit prior to the issuance of a building permit.
7. That appropriate water assessment fees as determined by the Office of
Utilities General Manager shall be paid to the City of Anaheim prior to the
issuance of a building permit; provided said property is to be served by City
water.
81-421
city Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 17, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
8. That subject property shall be developed precisely in accordance with
plans specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1
through 4.
9. Prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject property,
Condition Nos. 1 and 2, 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 hereof, or such further time as the Planning Commission may
grant.
10. That Condition Nos. 3, 4 and 8, above-mentioned, shall be complied with
prior to final building and zoning inspections.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman
Kaywood at the meeting of February 17, 1981, and public hearing scheduled this
date.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if anyone was present in opposition to the proposed
project; no one was present.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she received a call that morning stating that due
to illness, nobody was going to appear today. She felt she could speed the
matter along since the applicant, Mrs. Druiff, did speak to her and she
(Kaywood) had also been out to see the property. The Council had been on
record as wanting to upgrade, rehabilitate and to recycle old neighborhoods so
that they would be a good place to live and also to preserve their integrity.
There were three brand new homes built in the area that answered all of those
concerns. The neighbors wanted to be very sure that the subject project
would, in fact, look like a single-family home and that whether Mrs. Druiff or
a member of her family lived in it or not, they would have very strict manage-
ment over whoever lived there and how they would care for the property. Mrs.
Druiff had specific plans that the approval would be tied to so that any other
vacant property in that neighborhood would not automatically come to the City
and indicate, the area was now zoned for duplexes and be able to do a less fine
job of policing it than she expected the applicant would do.
Mrs. Eileen Druiff then presumed that they did not want her to proceed with
her presentation; Councilwoman Kaywood stated she felt it was not necessary.
Mrs. Druiff then presented the design of the structure to the Council.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that the approval would be specifically tied to
that design. She also knew there was another vacant lot on the street and
asked staff, if the subject project were approved, would it automatically
become RM-2400 and if no waivers to that, automatically approved.
Miss Santalahti confirmed that the zoning action only covered Mrs. Druiff's
property and nothing else.
Mrs. Druiff also confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood that a member of her
family would be living in the proposed project and herself eventually. She
gave her assurance that it would be very well maintained.
Councilman Roth asked how many people in the audience were in support of the
project; there were approximately ~ight people present in support.
81-422
City Hall, Anaheim.~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 17, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mrs. Druiff also mentioned that she had obtained 40 signatures of people
living in the area, many of whom lived in single-family homes, strongly sup-
porting her application.
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 Overholt, the City Council finds that subject
project will have no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmen-
tal impact since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property for
medium density residential land uses commensurate with the proposals; that no
sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the proposal; that the Initial
Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant individual or cumu-
lative adverse environmental impacts; and is, therefore, exempt from the
requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 81R-121 for adoption, approving
Reclassification No. 80-81-22 on the specific parcel of Mrs. Druiff, tied into
the specific plans and that it would not affect any of the other vacant or
other parcels in that neighborhood.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-121: 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. (80-81-22)
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour stated he did not know what the last
part of the resolution offering meant, "that it would not affect any of the
other vacant or other parcels in the neighborhood."
Councilwoman Kaywood stated staff said it would not be changing the zoning or
any vacant parcels on the street.
Mayor Seymour noted that the public hearing just closed dealt only with the
one specific subject lot, and he did not know why there was a need to refer-
ence other properties.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she wanted it specifically noted; the Mayor felt
that they could not legally do that.
City Attorney Hopkins stated he did not think it would be necessrary to state
that because the subject matter dealt with a specific piece of property
covered by the Reclassification. %he legal description was in the record and
that would be the particular area that would be covered.
Councilman Overholt asked if the resolution was offered without the additional
conditions; Mayor Seymour answered "yes", but he asked for clarification from
Councilwoman Kaywood.
Councilwoman Kaywood answered "no", she had it tied to the specific plans on
the subject parcel.
81-423
~it~ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 17~ 1981, 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor asked the City Clerk to read the resolution as she understood it to
be; City Clerk Roberts stated, it would be approved as recommended by the
Planning ~mmission. Condition No. 8 stated, "~hat.subject property shall be
developed precisely in accordance with plans and specifications on file with
the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1 through 4." The Zoning Division
advised those were the specific plans for the project.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated there was a question about the six-foot wall going
down to the street but that was not the way it was; Miss Santalahti stated
that the wall would go to the required setback which was 15 feet from the
property line of the street and then it would have to drop to a maximum of 42
inches.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-121 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Roth then expressed concern over the fact that recently a number of
reviews had been requested of the Planning Commission's decisions by Council-
woman Kaywood and when they came to public hearings at the Council, in the
final analysis, she (Kaywood) offered the resolution of approval. He felt
that there must be a cost to the taxpayers in notifying people of public hear-
ings and also time expended by those who then attended that hearing. He did
not deny that a Council person had the right to pull items from the Planning
Commission Consent Calendar.
The Mayor then acknowledged a woman from the audience who wished to speak.
Caroline Druiff, daughter of Eileen Druiff, wished to officially concur with
the fact that a lot of their time had been taken relative to the matter.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated nevertheless it was a matter of the City Council
representing all of the people and when she or any other Council Member
received complaints from a neighborhood, if they were not responsive to those,
she did not think they would be doing their job.
134: PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO GENERAL
PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 155: Submitted by A~aheim Hills, Inc., requesting amend-
ment to conditions of approval to General Plan Amendment No. 155, relating to
950 acres of land generally located south of the Bauer Ranch, west of the
Wallace and Douglass Ranches, northwest and north of the Southern California
Edison easement and east of the present Anaheim Hills Planned Community.
Mr. Ron Thompson, Acting Public Works Executive Director, referred to the
recommendation made by Parks, Recreation and Community Services and the
Planning Department in memorandum dated March 11, 1981 (on file in the city
Clerk's office). The recommendation would accomplish the request by Anaheim
Hills and permit the condition to be extended for one year until March 17,
1982.
81-424
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 17, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak.
Mr. Dan Salceda, representing Anaheim Hills, Inc., stated that he concurred
with the staff report. It was a long time in the making, but he felt that the
small amendment still satisfied the intent of the protracted negotiations with
staff. One item he asked be changed was in the first line of the ~mendment,
that Texaco be added to Anaheim Hills, Inc. (i.e., to read Texaco-Anaheim
Hills, Inc.) since they were the legal owner of the property.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the
public hearing.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 81R-122 for adoption, amending
Provision No. 2 of General Plan knendment No. 155, as recommended in memoran-
dum dated March 11, 1981 from the Parks, Recreation and Community Services and
Planning Departments, as follows: "/hat City staff and Texaco-Anaheim Hills,
Inc. (or their successors) shall confer and establish a specific park site and
specific development and maintenance costs, and report their recommendation to
the City Council prior to March 17, 1982, or prior to the submission of any
tentative tract map within Areas 3, 9 or 10, whichever occurs first." Refer
to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-122: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING PROVISION NO. 2 OF RESOLUTION NO. 80R-252 AMENDING GENERAL
PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 155, EXHIBIT "A AMENDED."
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNC IL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNC IL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
No ne
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-122 duly passed and adopted.
175: AMENDMENTS TO THE PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT RULES AND REGULATIONS:
Amending rates, rules and regulations for the sale and distribution of elec-
tric energy as adopted by Resolution No. 71R-478 and amended by certain reso-
lutions, to allow a ~10 charge for returned checks; eliminate the four-month
restriction for computing undercharges for other than single-family domestic
service schedules; and to allow for an increase in fees for electric meter
retesting, effective April 1, 1981.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted in report dated March 11, 1981 from the Public
Utilities Board (PUB) that the $10 charge for returned checks did not begin to
cover the actual cost. She wondered whether it might be well to enclose an
explanation in the next Utility mailing regarding checks returned for lack of
funds so that people would have fair notice.
Mr. Ed Alario, Assistant Public Utilities C~neral Manager, stated that if the
$10 charge was approved, such a notice would be going out within a week.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she would also like to see in it that the actual
cost to the City was approximately $27 and, therefore, the ~10 fee was not
only in line, but also a bargain.
81-425
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 17, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Bay stated he was concerned where they were changing the four-month
limitation rule on all except single-family to what appeared to be a no
limit. He felt strongly where re-evaluations and corrections were made on a
bill, there should be some limit. Perhaps four months was too short, but any-
thing over a year to him was long. He asked if there was any reason for no
limit.
Mr. Alario stated what they had to consider was that if the wrong factor was
placed in a meter or they found a meter was running slow for a long period and
in a large account, the amount would be prorated amongst the rest of the rate
payers. Relative to the [barter provision requiring cost of service, they
tried to keep everything as close as they possibly could to the person or
company benefitting and, therefore, they should be the ones paying the cost.
The four-month rule probably made it much easier on the Utility itself because
if an error was found, they could go back and bill for four months, and it was
all over with. ~he same type of dialogue took place at the PUB meeting.
After some additional explanation by Mr. Alario, Councilman Bay stated he
still felt there should be some limit.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if there would be a problem in specifying two years
because she had a problem in that regard as well.
Mr. Alario answered that two years would probably cover 99% of the cases.
Councilman Roth stated his concern was relative to the proposed fee increase
from 52.50 to 525 for meter retests.
Mr. James Willis, Customer Service Manager, explained that the 525 was a
deposit that was charged only when a customer requested meter tests more fre-
quently than six months. If the test was found to be within the limits, that
deposit would be forfeited. If not, it was a refundable deposit and a cor-
rection would be made on the customer's bill on top of that. He also
commented that he could not recall the last time they charged to test a meter.
The Mayor then posed additional questions to Mr. Alario for purposes of clari-
fication.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 81R-123 and 81R-124 for adoption,
as recommended by the Public Utilities Board in report dated March 11, 1981
with the following amendments: that the six-month limitation on rebilling for
undercharges or overcharges as defined in Rule 17 for both the electric and
water utility be amended to four months on residential and two years on all
other accounts.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-123: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING THE RATES, RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE SALE AND DISTRIBU-
TION OF ELECTRIC ENERGY AS ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 71R-478 AND
~MENDED BY CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NOS. 73R-25, 73R-373, 73R-531, 74R-75,
74R-630, 75R-243, 75R-344, 75R-345, 76R-41, 76R-377, 76R-528, 76R-817,
77R-464, 77R-628, 78R-458, 78R-655, 79R-292, 79R-309, 79R-335, 79R-669,
80R-81, 80R-186, AND 80R-480.
81-426
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 17, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-124: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING THE RATES, RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE SALE AND DISTRIBU-
TION OF WATER AS ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION NO. 72R-600 AND AMENDED BY RESOLUTION
NOS. 73R-255, 73R-387, 73R-532, 74R-433, 75R-315, 75R-469, 75R-479, 76R-378,
78R-418, 78R-419, 78R-459, 79R-643 AND 80R-304.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNC IL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNC IL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 81R-123 and 81R-124 duly passed and adopted.
164: FORMATION OF A~SESSMENT DISTRICTS - $10 MILLION STORM DRAIN BOND
ISSUE: (Continued from the meetings of January 27 and February 10, 1981--see
minutes that date). On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman
Overholt, consideration of the formation of assessment districts relating to
the $10 million Storm Drain Bond ~sue was continued to March 31, 1981.
MOTION CARRIED.
177: RESALE CONTROLS - GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65916: (Continued from the
meetings of February 3, 10, and 17, 1981--see minutes those dates). On motion
by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, consideration of subject
resale controls was continued one week, as requested by staff. MOTION CARRIED.
107: REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF FIVE-FOOT FENCE REQUIREMENT FOR A POOL: Request
by Mr. Jerry Martin, for a waiver to Section 6.56.040 of the Code relating to
a five-foot fence requirement for a pool and jacuzzi on property located at
784 South QUail Circle, was submitted.
The City Clerk stated that the Building Division had advised that the matter
had been resolved to Mr. Martin's satisfaction and it did meet present Code
requirements. No further action was taken by the Council.
175/105: CITIZENS' COMMITTEE TO WORK WITH PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD ON UTILITY
MATTERS: Councilman Roth recalled that last week at the suggestion of the
Mayor, they discussed the possibility of setting up a citizens committee rela-
tive to Utility matters which he thought was going to be discussed again
today. When they had a meeting with the Public Utilities Board (PUB) on
February 10, 1981 (see minutes that date), one of the questions he asked was
if they had ever looked at the inventory--where they headed when all projects
came on-line; were they going to be in a position of selling power to other
cities or would 100% of ~aheim's requirements be satisfied, or 50% or 60%.
The inventory question was an important one when considering forging ahead and
jumping into generation programs. He was particularly concerned about some
long-range programs that were not coming on-line for several years with the
possibility of a break-through occurring with some new mode of energy and then
finding out that they had created a large amount of bonded indebtedness that
was not necessary. He would feel more comfortable getting information from
not only the PUB, but also from citizens groups. He felt it was a wise idea.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that the question had come up at the Public
Utilities Board and at Council a number of times. She suggested that raising
it again at the Ihursday joint meeting with the PUB would be in order, since
it was not agendized today.
81-427
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 17, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour stated he totally supported the idea as presented by Councilman
Roth. As articulated earlier in the meeting, he was concerned that they do
whatever they could to zero in on the one issue, the San Onofre Project, con-
centrate on it, and having accomplished that, settle back and formulate a
deliberate process relative to the things he discussed; Councilman Roth agreed
that the first priority would be San Onofre.
Councilman Overholt stated, relative to a citizens committee in addition to
the PUB, he questioned if that was not a citizens group. He would be very
concerned that they give clear direction and define the functions of the
citizens committee that would delve into the question just articulated. He
would also be concerned that those were not the charges to the Public
Utilities Board. His concept of a citizens committee was that if they had a
project, perhaps that committee would get behind it and put on a campaign to
explain it to the electorate. He, for one, would be very concerned that they
did not create a Board on a Board essentially doing the same thing. He, too,
felt that San Onofre should be their number one concern at present and if suc-
cessful, to take a look at the other question.
Councilman Bay commented on Councilman Roth's ~first question as to where they
were in relationship to their total need vs what they were already committed
to or looking to commit to. He (Bay) asked that specific question of Mr. Hoyt
on the telephone Saturday when he called to talk about San Onofre. He knew
that they could get that information from staff and what they should do was to
make certain that Mr. Hoyt had that type of information with him even for the
meeting scheduled Thursday afternoon with the PUB.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that Mr. Hoyt had answered the question before and
he brought the matter up again today that if they did get the additional per-
centage of participation in San Onofre, they would be very choosy about what
.else they would go for, because such a large percentage of their need would
already be covered. Further, relative to a citizens committee, she believed
that the very same PUB whose present members had been on the Board from the
very beginning stated that it took them a full year or longer to acquire the
background necessary to really know what the Utilities were all about. If
they were going to appoint another citizens committee, they had to be aware
that there was going to be a lot of staff time involved in bringing them up to
speed, and they were not going to have a reasonable in depth recommendation
unless they devoted that kind of time.
No further action was taken by the Council.
149: REQUEST FOR PERMIT PARKING - 200 BLOCK OF NORTH CLEMENTINE: Request by
Steven Koskondy, et al, requesting permit parking along the 200 blc0k of North
Clementine Street, was submitted.
Mayor Seymour asked if anyone was present relative to the request for permit
parking; no one was present.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood stated on that basis, she would move to concur
with the staff recommendation contained in memorandum dated March 18, 1981
that the request be denied on the basis that it would start precedent through-
out the City, thereby creating many problems. Councilman Overholt seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
81-428
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 17, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilman
Roth, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and
recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent
Calendar Agenda:
1. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and
referred to the City's Claims ~dministrator:
a. Claim submitted by Great American Insurance Companies, Austin Booth,
insured; Claim No. 935-10119, for damages purportedly sustained as a result of
accident involving Police Unit No. 267~ on La Palma Avenue west or Arbor
Street, on or about December 29, 1980.
b. Claim submitted by Harold R. Schmoll for personal injury damages purpor-
tedly sustained as a result of slip-and-fall accident at Anaheim Stadium, on
or about November 30, 1980.
c. Claim submitted by Connie Bafford for personal injury damages purportedly
sustained as a result of slip-and-fall accident at Anaheim Stadium, on or
about September 27, 1980.
2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and
filed:
a. 107: Planning Department, Building Division--Monthly Report for February
1981.
b. 105: Park and Recreation Commission--Minutes of January 28, 1981.
c. 109: State Controller, tfmnneth Cory, letter of estimated amounts to be
paid to cities and counties as their share of revenues apportioned by his
office during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1981 from Highway Users Taxes,
Motor Vehicle License Fees, Highway Carriers' Uniform Business License Tax and
Off-Highway Motor Vehicle License Fees.
d. 156: Police Department--Monthly Report for February 1981.
3. 108: APPLICATIONS: In accordance with the recommendations of the Chief
of Police, the following applications were approved:
a. Anusement Devices Permit: G & S Liquor, 106 South Western Avenue, for one
video game. (Angelo George Typaldos, applicant)
b. Public Dance Hall Permit: Harvey S. Owen, aka Codfather's Den, Inc., for
Oscar's, 2916 West Lincoln Avenue, for dancing Monday through Saturday nights,
9:00 p.m. to 1:30 a.m.
MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 81R-125
through 81R-128, both inclusive, for adoption in accordance with the reports,
recommendations and certifications furnished each Council Member and as listed
on the Consent Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book.
81-429
City Hall., Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 17, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
158: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-125: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING AN EASEMENT DEED CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN
REAL PROPERTY FOR AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES. (R/W
#2800-16, Anaheim Boulevard Widening)
158: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-126: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING AN EASEMENT DEED CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN
REAL PROPERTY FOR AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES. (R/W
#2800-25, Anaheim Boulevard Widening)
164: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-127: 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: SANTA ANA
CANYON SOUTH RIVER TRUNK SEWER IMPROVEMENT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT
NO. 11-790-6325-E0320; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND
SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF
SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.;
AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING
SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened on April 9,
1981 at 2:00 p.m.)
164: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-128: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT,
LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION
INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO
CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: TRIPLE CROWN
LANE-DERBY CIRCLE SEWER IMPROVEMENT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO.
11-790-6325-E0190. (Changing Times Enterprises, Inc.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNC IL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 81R-125 through 81R-128, both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City
Planning Commission at their meeting held February 23, 1981, pertaining to the
following applications were submitted for City Council information.
1. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 80-81-25: Submitted by City of Anaheim, for a change
in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-2400, to construct a 40-unit apartment project
located north and west of the northwest corner of 0rangethorpe Avenue and
Imperial Highway.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-42, granted
Reclassification No. 80-81-25, and granted a negative declaration status.
2. VARIANCE NO. 3201: Submitted by George Garcia, et al, to construct a room
addition on RS-7200 zoned property located at 957 South Caplan Street, with a
Code waiver of minimum rear yard setback.
81-430
.Ci.ty Ball~ Anaheim, California -COUNCIL MINUTES -March 17, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-43, granted
Variance No. 3201, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption
determination.
3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2172: Submitted by Ralph M. Young, et al, to
permit a contractor's storage and office facility on proposed CG zoned prop-
erty located at 1167 North Lemon Street.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-44, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2172, and granted a negative declaration status.
4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2173: Submitted by Ruth Feuerstein, et al, to
permit a drive-through restaurant on CL zoned property located at 999 South
Brookhurst Street, with a Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-45, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2172, and granted a negative declaration status.
5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2177: Submitted by The Tappan Company, to
permit a 13-lot, 12-unit industrial condominium complex on proposed ML zoned
property located at the southeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Richfield
Road, with a Code waiver of required lot frontage.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-46, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2177, and granted a negative declaration status.
6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2178: Submitted by W-S Anaheim, to permit an
office building on C-R zoned property located at 888 South West Street.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-48, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2178, and granted a negative declaration status.
7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2179: Submitted by Watt Commercial Properties,
Inc., to permit a semi~nclosed restaurant with on-sale beer and wine on CL
zoned property located at 202 West Lincoln Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-49, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2179, and granted a negative declaration status.
8. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2180: Submitted by Van P~rne, Ltd., to permit
an ll-lot, 10-unit industrial condominium complex on proposed ML zoned prop-
erty located on the north side of Coronado Street, east of Red Gum Street,
with a Code waiver of required lot frontage.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-47, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2180, and granted a negative declaration status.
9. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1743 - A~PROVAL OF SPECIFIC USE: Submitted by
R. G. Reeder, requesting approval of the specific use of a disposal truck
storage and office facility under CUP No. 1743 on ML zoned property located at
the cul-de-sac terminus of White Star Avenue.
The City Planning Commission approved the specific use for Conditional Use
Permit No. 1743.
81-431
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 17, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
10. TENTATIVE TRACT NOS~ 10407., 10409 and 10410 - EXTENSIONS OF TIME: Sub-
mitted by Anaheim Hills, Inc., requesting extensions of time to Tentative
Tract Nos. 10407, 10409 and 10410, proposed RS-HS-10,000 zoned subdivisions
located on the south side of Willowick Drive, south of Nohl Ranch Road.
The City Planning Commission approved extensions'of time to Tentative Tract
Nos. 10407, 10409 and 10410, to expire February 28, 1982.
11. LIQUID INDUSTRIAL WASTE TRANSFER STATION - INFORMATION ONLY: Informa-
tional report on County consideration of three sites for a Liquid Industrial
Waste Transfer Station in Anaheim: a) Newkirk dump site, located at the east
end of Frontera Street; b) 10.4 acre parcel southeast of the intersection of
Ball Road and Orange Freeway; and c) an 8.7 acre parcel located on the south
side of Winston Road approximately 600 feet east of State College Boulevard.
Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that the Newkirk Dump Site was right next to
a percolating basin so that it should not be considered at all.
Planning Director Ron ~hompson stated that the staff brought the matter to the
Planning Commission for their information in case they were asked by citizens
about it. There would be ample time for the City to make official comments in
the EIR process when they narrowed down the sites to those that would be most
appropriate.
No action was taken by the City Council on the foregoing items; therefore the
actions of the City Planning Commission became final.
142/179: AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18 - REQUIRED PARKING IN THE CG AND CH ZONES:
~mendment of Subsections 18.45.066.050 and 18.46.066.050 relating to required
parking in the CG and CH zones was recommended by the Planning Commission.
Miss Santalahti asked that the item be taken off the agenda at this time.
They were doing some work with the Traffic Engineer on the matter, and they
were not prepared at this time to go with the amendment as proposed.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the subject
item was removed from the agenda at the request of staff. MOTION CARRIED.
169: RECOMMENDATION TO STUDY THE CLOSURE OF HAMPSHIRE AVENUE AT WEST STREET:
Recommendation by the City Planning Commission to study the closure of
Hampshire Avenue at West Street due to the impact of commercial traffic on the
adjacent residential area.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated in passing the subject area a number of times, she
noted the amount of huge trailer trucks parked there, many belonging to Global
Van Lines. Global did provide parking spaces in their lot for everyone of
their vans. ~hose vehicles on the street created a serious hazard relative to
visibility and they also took a large amount of space. She questioned what
they could do other than policing the area constantly. There were also other
streets where huge vans, trailer trucks and rigs were parking overnight. She
did not know the reason for this and she was seeing it occur more than ever
before.
81-432
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 17, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Roth noted that there were people in the audience who were
concerned about the subject item and wanted to speak to it.
Mr. Harry Borton, 1112 West Fmmpshire, stated they submitted a petition to the
Planning Commission. Not only Global but many of the trucking companies were
using West Street for all night parking. He had complained to the Traffic
Division and they did as much as they could do. The Police Department cited
the vehicles for parking there between the 3:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. "no
parking" period. They not only parked there but also used Hampshire as a
thoroughfare traveling down Hampshire, onto to Walnut Street, and then onto
Ball Road. There were many small children living on Hampshire and that was
one of the reasons why they were requesting the closure. At the Planning
Commission meeting, the gentleman planning on building the office building on
the Wild, Wild Wet site consented to sharing in the cost of closing
Hampshire. They wanted it done in such as way that would not necessarily mean
a block wall. They knew there were other ways of accomplishing the closure.
He and the other homeowners were concerned about the condition of the area,
the graffiti on the walls on West Street, etc. It was going downhill.
Mayor Seymour stated that he felt Mr. Borton had a valid request.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the situation was something new or if he could
pinpoint when it started happening.
Mr. Borton stated he had been a property owner on Hampshire for three years
just after Wild, Wild Wet was approved. He put up with the situation that
occurred because of that business, such as the litter on his front lawn, beer
bottles, etc. and the congregating that occurred after the business closed.
He was glad to see that business leave and felt the office building would be
an improvement to the area, but it would also increase the traffic on
Hampshire. The truck traffic started to increase when they finished the motel
on West Street.
Councilman Roth explained that one of the problems in closing Hampshire, if
they could not have a cul-de-sac, would be trash pick-up. He was supportive
relative to the closure, but they had gone through such situations before. It
would be appropriate first to receive recommendations from the Fire and Police
Departments as they had in the past.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved that the Planning Commission study the
closing of Hampshire ~enue at West Street due to the impact of commercial
traffic on the adjacent residential areas as requested. Councilman Bay
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Later in the meeting, Councilwoman Kaywood stated relative to the prolifera-
tion she had seen and the number of huge tractor trailers on many arterial
streets, she suggested that perhaps the Police, when traveling the streets, if
they were not answering an emergency call, be encouraged to give out more
citations because they did have the "No Parking" Ordinance between 3:00 and
6:00 a.m. Perhaps if they did so, they would not have so much of that
parking, because it was a serious hazard.
ORDINANCE NOS. 4212 AND 4213: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance Nos.
4212 and 4213 for first reading.
81-433
City Hall,. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 17, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
ORDINANCE NO. 4212: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (76-77-56, RS-7200, Tract No.
9876)
ORDINANCE NO. 4213: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-56, RS-7200)
132: REFLECTORS ON TRAHS BINS: Councilman Overholt expressed his thanks to
the City trash collectors and City staff members involved in the following
matter: A while back, he suggested to the City Manager that the placement of
trash bins on the sides of public streets without any reflectorizing or in
various colors, in his opinion, posed a hazard to traffic. City Manager
Talley felt it was a good idea and that Anaheim Disposal and Jaycox Disposal
would be favorably disposed to putting some kind of reflectorization on those
bins. He (Overholt) just received a memorandum from William T. Hopkins,
Assistant City Manager, to which was attached a memorandum from Bill Lewis,
Street Maintenance Superintendent, as well as communication from Anaheim and
Jaycox Disposal. Tme memorandum indicated that both of the City's trash con-
tractors had just completed the reflectorization of the bins and agreed to
maintain the reflector tape in the future.
Councilman Overholt commended both Anaheim Disposal and Jaycox for recognizing
what they considered to be a suggestion to improve the safety of the bins in
the parkways and also staff for whatever help they offered in bringing the
program about.
114: LIAISON MEETING - SANTA ANA CORRIDOR STUDY: Mayor Seymour reported on
the Liaison meeting which took place March 16, 1981, which he and Councilman
Overholt attended, along with Supervisor Ralph Clark, members of the Transit
District staff and City staff, City Manager William Talley and ?am Lucado,
Associate Planner. They discussed the Santa Aha Corridor Study and Amaheim's
position. It would appear that they might have reestablished cooperative
relations. ~hey assured Anaheim that they wanted to work closely with staff,
and he and Councilman Overholt assured them that they wanted to work closely
with the District Board, as well as the Orange County Transit Commission, to
try to improve communications.
114: LIAISON MEETING - PARKING STANDARDS IN THE CITY: Mayor Seymour reported
on the Liaison Committee meeting that morning that he and Councilwoman Kaywood
a~tended. They met with Planning Commissioners Tolar, Herbst and Bushore,
along with Dan Rowland, Bill Brashears, Planning Director Ron ~hompson,
Traffic Engineer Paul Singer, Assistant Director for Zoning Annika Santalahti
and another gentlemen from a parking firm. The purpose was to discuss in a
very general nature parking standards for the City, more specifically, stan-
dards that might be appropriate in the Redevelopment Project area, the
Convention Center commercial-recreation area, the Stadium area and in other
parts of the con~nunity. The discussion was that the City's standards were
outdated and outmoded and there was a concurrence to that fact, that they
needed to update them and perhaps the appropriate way to do so would be to
direct staff to bring back a proposal in which they would employ an outside
'hnbiased" consultant to take a look at the parking standards and make some
recommendations. Mr. Priest enunciated the qualities of the consultant they
extended the contract to today as being the experts in the Nation as far as
traffic and parking. Perhaps they could use those consultants somewhere else
in the City besides the Redevelopment area, or perhaps not. In any event the
81-434 i
City Hall.,. Anahe.im, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 17, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
bottom line of the meeting was unanimous concurrence that they ought to take a
long and hard look at upgrading the parking standards. In order to do that,
although they had much data and staff were very well informed about parking,
they would best be served by employing an outside consultant. Therefore, he
and Councilwoman Kaywood were bringing to the City Council the following:
Councilman Seymour moved to direct staff to prepare a proposal which would
embody the hiring of an outside consultant to review and make recommendations
on existing parking standards as to how they relate to future potential devel-
opments in the City. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated, when the Mayor indicated
there was unanimous concurrence, there was no vote taken.
Mayor Seymour stated he asked that question at the meeting if there was any-
body in the room who disagreed that the parking standards needed to be looked
at. Nobody said anything, not even Councilwoman Kaywood.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated there was no objection to looking, but she wanted
to repeat some of the comments brought up. In the past, they always had the
developer supply the parking and if they were talking about cutting either the
size of the spaces or amount of parking, what could in effect happen, would be
a transfer of cost over the City. In times of Proposition 13 and Proposition
4 when transferring an ongoing problem, that was something they should take a
very hard look at.
Mayor Seymour stated the motion merely authorized a proposal to be drawn by
staff to employ outside consultants to make recommendations.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated ordinarily where a developer was coming in looking
for a large waiver to the parking standards, they should be the ones to pay
for the consultant. She questioned who would pay for the consultant.
Mayor Seymour stated if they wanted an unbiased consultant's opinion, the ~ty
would pay for it. If they wanted a tainted opinion, then they should get
someone else to pay for it.
Councilman Bay stated since parking was the "name of the game" in the City in
almost every major development area, he felt it was well in order that they go
to a totally objective consultant. He would support the motion.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Seymour stated since time was of the essence, they would appreciate a
quick response.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: The City Manager requested a Closed Session to
discuss a personnel matter with no action anticipated; the City Attorney
requested a Closed Session to discuss litigation matters with action
anticipated.
Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilwoman Kaywood
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (5:45 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (6:07 P.M.)
81-435
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 17, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
112: SWIDERSKI VS. CITY OF ANAHEIM: On motion by Councilman Seymour,
seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Attorney and Ruston and Nance were
authorized to settle United States District Court Case No. CV 80-01310R,
Swiderski vs. City of Anaheim, et al, for a sum not to exceed ~7,500. MOTION
CARRIED.
112: BRUSCATO VS. CITY OF ANAHEIM: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded
by Councilman Kaywood, the City Attorney was authorized to settle Orange
County Superior Court Case No. 32-96-45, Bruscato vs. City of Anaheim, for a
sum not to exceed $4,500. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: Councilman Seymour moved to recess to 7:00 P.M. for a continued
public hearing on Reclassification No. 80-81-13, Conditional Use Permit No.
2119 and Tentative Tract No. 11053. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED. (6:07 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (7:20 P.M.)
PRESENT:
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: William T. Hopkins
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ron Thompson
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
HOUSING COORDINATOR: Pam Kaiser
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 80-81-13, CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 2119, TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11053 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Applica-
tion submitted by Mary S. Nelson, Administrator for Ida M. Rannow Estate, for
a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-3000, to permit a 5-lot, 220-unit con-
dominium subdivision (25% affordable) on property located at the southwest
corner of Cerritos Avenue and Euclid Street, with the following Code waivers:
a. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit
b. Maximum structural height
c. Minimum floor area
d. Minimum recreational-leisure area
e. Minimum number of parking spaces
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution Nos. PC81-228 and
PC81-229 declared that the subject project be exempt from the requirement to
prepare an environmental impact report and further granted Reclassification
No. 80-81-13 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2119, subject to conditions as set
forth on February 24, 1981. Tentative Tract No. 11053 was considered and
approved by the City Planning Commission.
A review of the subject application was requested by Councilwoman Kaywood at
the January 6, 1981 Council meeting, and public hearing scheduled and con-
tinued from February 24, 1981 to this date.
At the request of Mayor Seymour, due to the submittal of a revised project
plan subsequent to the previous hearing date of February 24, 1981, Miss
Santalahti briefed the Council on the staff report covering the revised plan.
81-436
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 17, 1981,' 1:30 P.M.
She explained that the project now provides for 208 condominium units, 44 of
which would be in the affordable category; the lot area is now 2,215 square
feet per dwelling unit, rather than 2,100 square feet. This plan yields an
equivalent density of 19.6 dwelling units per acre. She summarized that the
revised plan would delete the need for waivers "c" and "d"; waiver "e" had
been previously taken care of; and in connection with waiver "e", the revised
plan would not meet the standards for covered and enclosed parking spaces, but
would meet the requirement overall for the number of parking spaces.
In response to ~ouncilman Bay, Miss Santalahti explained the formula given by
the Office of Planning and Research of the State of California to determine
density bonuses, i.e., if a developer were to provide an 8-~nit project, 25%
of eight units is two, which is the number placed in the affordable category
and in addition he would receive a bonus of two additional units over the
number of units allowable by Code without any waivers.
Mr. Hopkins explained that the formula example cited is only an interpretation
of the law concerning bonus incentives from the Office of Planning and
Research, and the City is not bound to use that definition.
Miss Santalahti explained for Council Members that up until the subject pro-
posal under consideration, the Planning Department has viewed the density
bonus as being 25% of the total number of units approved in the project,
whereas this interpretation of the rule would provide a more conservative
approach to the number of affordable units to be provided, i.e., this would be
25% of 178 rather than of the 208 total units. She advised that this is a
proposal set forth by the developer and the Council may elect to continue
their past policy.
In response to Councilwoman Kaywood, Ms. Pam Kaiser of the Housing and Neigh-
borhood Preservation Division, explained that the developer proposes to dis-
tribute his affordable units at the 80, 100 and 120 percent of median ranges;
therefore 10 units are scheduled to be proposed at the 80% of median range and
since the bottom range are the units counted by SCAG towards the City's pro-
portionate or fair share of affordable housing, the number of units gained
with this proposal would be 10.
Mayor Seymour offered the applicant an opportunity to discuss the revised
project.
Mr. Brian Norkaitis, William Lyon & Company, reported that as a result of the
extensive discussion held at the public hearing on February 24, 1981 in which
it became evident that the area residents were not as much opposed to the
development of subject property as a condominium as much as they were opposed
to the granting of any variances or waivers from site development standards,
his company took another hard look at the proposed development. He explained
that in the revised plans submitted at this time every possible effort had
been made to bring the project into conformance with the site development
standards being considered in the revised RM-3000 ordinance.
Mr. Norkaitis reviewed the revised Plan B and compared it to Plan A discussed
on February 24th, indicating that the changes to the project are; (1) to
reduce total number of units proposed from 220 to 208; (2) to increase the
parking ratio upwards to 2.5, eliminating the need for waiver "e"; (3) to
increase the size of the individual units, eliminating the need for waiver
81-437
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 17, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
"c"; (4) to realign the garages on the southerly edge of the project so as to
prevent any visual intrusion from second story units into the rear yards of
residential properties adjacent; (5) concerning the maximum structural height
(waiver "b") on the revised plan, the units are set back 100 feet from the
property line and the height of the units is less than the 50 feet which would
be allowable.
Mr. Norkaitis stated that the William Lyon Company position on the access
point to Cerritos as result of a traffic study undertaken by staff, is that a
new access point should be established to be located 300 feet easterly from
the original point shown on Plan A. Ibis was submitted to the City Traffic
Engineer for his assistance in determining which of the two proposed points of
access would cause the least conflict problems with the high school entrance.
As a result, the Traffic Engineer reported in his opinion the safest situation
is the one the City is currently using, i.e., the continuous left-hand turn
lane configuration, inasmuch as it allows the most room for stacking of cars.
/he proposed alternate access location was found to be acceptable, but the
Traffic Engineer still was of the opinion that the safest condition is to line
up this access with another point across the street.
At the conclusion of Mr. Norkaitis' presentation, Councilman Overholt summed
up that with the revised plan, the project would still be deficient of some
covered parking spaces, with which Mr. Norkaitis agreed.
Because of the confusion experienced at the last public hearing regarding the
pricing, rental schedules and dollar amounts necessary to qualify for purchase
of these units, both in the affordable category and otherwise, Councilman Roth
requested that these issues be addressed.
Mr. Norkaitis explained that there are three ranges of income for which they
are attempting to develop a project, and that the cost may vary as much as
from $34,000 to $78,000 per unit, depending upon its size and the market seg-
ment of affordable to which the unit is directed. He cited the following pro-
posed prices as examples: in today's market a unit with 10% down and 15 1/2%
mortgage rate for 30 years, a one bedroom unit at 568,000 would require an
annual income of $33,000 to qualify; for a two-bedroom unit selling at
582,000, the annual income to qualify would be 541,000. In comparison, in the
100% affordable range, the one-bedroom unit would cost $44,000 and require an
annual income of 518,000; and two-bedroom unit selling for 557,000 would
require an income of $23,000.
With regard to the developer's traffic and channelization study showing the
access point onto Cerritos shifted 300 feet to the east, Mayor Seymour noted
that this was not the access point placement recommended by the City Traffic
Enginear, and questioned why they w~r~ not going along with the ~caffic
Engineer's recommendation to align this access with the entrance to Loara High
School.
Mr. Norkaitis responded that the developer would be happy to accept the
Traffic Engineer's recommendation, and provide the alternative location in
response to concerns expressed by the City Council and the area residents at
the last public hearing.
87-438
~ity Hall, A~ahei~,. Ca~.ifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 17, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour asked if there was anyone who wished to address the Council in
favor of the proposed reclassification, conditional use permit and tentative
tract; there being no response he opened the floor to those who wished to
speak in opposition. The following is a brief summary of the major reasons
expressed by the speakers in opposition to subject proposals:
1. Arlene Frickman, resident at Pepperwood Townhouses, expressed opposition
on the basis that these units would most likely become rental units with
absentee landlords. This is a very large problem to the owners at Pepperwood.
2. Fred Missell, 969 ~darwood, was concerned about the open space to be pro-
vided in the project and particularly whether or not it would be usable as
play area by children or would they have to resort to playing in the land-
scaped greenbelts.
3. Jack Winick, 2052 June Place, was opposed to the granting of any variances
from Code or site development standards as in his opinion this created an
adversary situation between the City Council, the residents of the ultimate
project and the developer and this will continue to create problems. In
addition he was concerned that the constant granting of variances lowers the
standards each time. Mr. Winick also spoke to the issue of not allowing the
open vs. closed garages for security reasons. In conclusion he stated that he
realized that the piece of property could not remain vacant and is in fact
ideally suited in his opinion for condominium development, but the Council
should watch the density and site development standards to reflect concern for
the neighborhood in general.
4. Ken Smith, 1873 West Chanticleer, disagreed with the previous speaker and
indicated that he felt the property would best be developed in single-family
unattached dwelling units.
5. Mrs. Thomas, 1361 West Cerritos (Pepperwood Village), spoke against the
use of flat roofs on the garages as these become areas used for disposal of
debris. She advised of the difficulties experienced in Pepperwood Village in
enforcing parking regulations. She also felt it woud not be compatible for
people buying affordable vs regular market prices to live together in one
condominium project.
6. Mr. Ed Davis, 1639 Camrose Way, spoke in opposition, citing that he was
particularly concerned that the City Council was not angry and did not show
him sufficient emotion, so that he knew how they felt about the project.
7. Beth Fujishige, Chairman of the Anaheim Youth Commission, stated that in
their advisory capacity,' the Commission at their March 11, 1981 meeting deter-
mined they should express concern to the City Council that the condominium
project should be built within the existing building standards. The
Commission further was concerned for safety of the children both within the
project it- self and at the Loara High School campus, and it was the feeling
of the Commission that this high density development should not be built near
the schools.
8. Paul Jockinsen, 1404 Laster Avenue, stated his opposition was due to the
fact it appeared the Council was changing the rules to suit certain develop-
ers. He was of the opinion that the City should maintain standards and not
allow any substandard projects into the City.
81-439
ci.t~ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 17, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
9. Paul Morris, 1802 Harle, stated that he has considered this proposal care-
fully and discussed it with his neighbors and family members since the last
public hearing, particularly the question as to whether or not he would object
to this project being built in his neighborhood if built to Code. He advised
that he now feels that his answer must be that he doesn't want the condomin-
iums built at this location, even if they meet all Code requirements. He
would prefer that this property be developed in single-family residences.
10. Dale Stanton, 1509 Harle Place, recalled that he spoke to the density
issue when the Pepperwood Condominiums were proposed eight years ago and that
all the problems described by these residents were foreseen. He displayed
photographs to the Council showing the flooded condition of Cerritos Avenue
looking southwest and north, including the intersection of Euclid and
Cerritos, during a minor rain storm on February 28, 1981. He took exception
to the statement made by the developer that the widening and improvement of
Cerritos Avenue west of Euclid will improve and increase the water carrying
capacity of this street.
Mr. Stanton also related his difficulties in obtaining design capacity studies
of the two streets in question, Euclid and Cerritos, and that he was informed
there was not sufficient staff available to perform the specific studies
necessary.
In response to this, Mayor Seymour brought to Mr. Stanton's attention a report
on traffic projections throughout the City which was only recently produced by
the City Engineering staff and which contained the information he desired.
Mr. Stanton also addressed the issue of the regulations on affordable housing,
noting that it appears they are not well understood by the City staff or the
elected representatives and it appears to him that no controls have been ins-
tituted in the program. He voiced the opinion that prior to proceeding any
further with affordable housing, the Council should address the issue of
setting controls.
11. J. E. Davis, 1630 West Cris Avenue, reported the results of a telephone
conversation he personally conducted with the State Housing Authority repre-
sentative in Los Angeles, in which he was advised that there is no State law
which mandates that cities give a 25% density bonus for a developer to provide
affordable housing; that is only in those counties or cities which have an
inclusionary zoning requirement that mandates certain percentages of housing
in new development where this is a mandatory situation. Mr. Davis stated he
was absolutely opposed to any affordable housing being built in this area.
12. Maggie Raymond (no address given), voiced her opinion that part of the
reason housing prices had escalated so is that the realtors participated by
buying homes and reselling them one month later.
13. Pat Clancy, 303 North Bush Street, stated that it is her feeling that the
young people who are in the housing market today would be much happier and
better off by going out to areas in San Bernardino to purchase a single-family
home, rather than buying a condominium in Anaheim. She was of the opinion
that there is not such great market for these condominiums as the Council
believed, and that she could see no sense in constructing these units if there
are no buyers for them.
81-440
City Hmll, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 17, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
14. Bob M~sse, 1523 South Bayless, posed procedurally questions regarding the
EIR, specifically if the City has never received an Initial Study of the
Environmental Impact from the actual applicant, William Lyon & Company;
secondly he inquired why the City Council is discussing Codes which have not
yet been adopted. Mr. Messe was of the opinion that the Council was short-
cutting the process, since the only indication there is on concurrence of the
revised RM-3000 standards is a three to two vote.
In addition Mr. Messe stated that it is apparent from discussions that the
economics of affordable housing are as yet unclear; resale and rental controls
still need to to be implemented to assure these units will remain affordable
for some period of time. He also observed that if the density bonus is given,
in lieu of the other permitted incentives, only his neighborhood will pay the
price for affordable housing.
15. Shirley Berko, 2220 Della Lane, President of Temple Beth Emet, spoke in
opposition, based on her feeling that this density is not in the best interest
of the community; she felt a reduction in parking spaces would be particularly
detrimental because of the impact it might have on the Temple parking lot,
which, if used by visitors and tenants of this project, would be a very big
problem for the Temple.
16. Mary Fry (no address given, lives in Santa Ana Canyon) cautioned that
Council review the situation which has occurred as result of the building of
another affordable housing project built under the FHA-235 Program and which
has led to overcrowding at schools, increased crime and defacement of property.
17. June Michaelson, 1437 Easy Way, voiced her opposition due to the impact
on already congested traffic in the area.
18. Paul Radnour, 1403 Goodhue, spoke in-opposition based on the additional
run-off waters. He noted that the drainage systems in that neighborhood can-
not accommodate the development which is in place and his area is particularly
impacted by the water run-off from the recreation vehicle park. He urged the
Council to take these items into consideration when reviewing new development.
19. Herb M. Silverman, 1570 West Cerritos, immediate Past President of Temple
Beth Emet, summarized that it appears the people of this area have strongly
and emotionally spoken out against this project and urged the Council to heed
the residents from the area. Hm voiced his opinion that the primary objection
is to the density of the proposal.
20. Tom Gildea, 1513 West Cerritos Avenue, related his concern about creating
more traffic congestion in the immediate area as he has observed through his
involvement with Little League, many parents will not allow their boys to
cross Ball Road in order to participate in team practice at the park.
21. Mike Black, (no address given, lives on Loara), stated that he disagrees
with the proposal of the developer for a 35-foot front setback from Euclid
Avenue because of the traffic on that street.
22. Dave Desroches, representing the Anaheim Youth Commission, stated that he
realized the Council's concern for providing housing for future generations
coming into the City, however at the same time he urged that they not change
81-441
Cit~ H~. 11, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 17, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
the City's standards and Codes to accomplish this. Since 97% of the land is
already developed in West Anaheim, it is apparent there is not much the
Council can do. He further stated that the Youth Commission has a legitimate
concern about the safety of the students at Loara High School.
23. Mr. Martin Braver, (no address given), urged the Council to discuss
alternative incentives for affordable housing, other than the density bonus,
now at the meeting to determine whether the developer would consider them.
24. Mr. Fred Missel (no address given) questioned what occurred to the ques-
tion of bonds for storm drains recently on the Anaheim ballot, and Council-
woman Kaywood explained the situation that even though 68% of the registered
voters in Anaheim voted "yes" for storm drains, because they voted 5 to 1
against Proposition 4 on the same ballot, the City is in the position of being
unable to sell bonds for this purpose. (buncilwoman Kaywood stated she is
still seeking a way to implement the ~10 million Storm Drain Bond Issue.
Mayor Seymour determined sufficient public input had been received and closed
the public hearing.
Mr. Brian Norkaitis of William Lyon & Company first clarified that title to
subject property is held by his firm and that letters indicating first that
William Lyon would act as agent and then notifying the City that ownership had
transferred to that company were submitted in a timely fashion. Regarding the
improvements planned for Cerritos Avenue, Mr. Norkaitis explained that this
street is planned to have an ultimate 64-foot street section which means an
additional eight feet plus curb, gutter and sidewalk. The setback planned for
Euclid is 35 feet and his company chose to use 35 feet because they recognized
that this is a busy street. They do not intend to build a wall, but rather to
use a berm and landscape treatment to screen the property to compliment Euclid
and Cerritos.
With respect to the recreational spaces planned for the project, Mr. Norkaitis
admitted that there are many different ways to approach the development of
these, but that the family composition must be taken into consideration in
this planning. It is his company's belief that the project they are proposing
will attract primarily younger couples and retired couples and would not
generate a high percentage of children. He added that it was certainly never
his company's intent that berm area to the south of the property would be used
as a play area. He explained that his company would be happy to add a wading
pool in the swimming pool area and a tot lot some place on the property. They
woud be willin§ to make these chan§es to the plans.
Discussion centered about the resale controls and in particular how these
might assure that the City would retain these units as affordable for a number
of years. Councilwoman Kaywood expressed the opinion that the five years men-
tioned for controls was not a sufficient period of time, especially because of
the density bonus being considered.
In response to Councilman Bay, Mr. Norkaitis advised that in addition to the
density bonus which would permit construction of 204 units based on 178
allowed under the revised standards, his company was also still seeking a
variance to waive one of the two required covered parking spaces.
81-442
City Hall,. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 17, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Because of some confusion during the discussion it was explained by City
Attorney Hopkins, at the request of Councilman Overholt, that the State law
does not mandate a 25% density bonus be given for affordable units, that there
are other specified incentives listed in the Government Code which may be
granted and further as a third option, the Council could grant two other
incentives provided these are acceptable to the developer.
Councilman Overholt stated that it appears to him from what the City Attorney
had explained that the Council's hands are not tied with respect to the den-
sity concerns expressed by the neighborhood, that they have other incentive
options to grant in order to obtain the affordable units. Further on the
question of resale controls, Councilman Overholt was of the opinion that these
do not need to be addressed on this particular evening, but could be incorpor-
ated into an agreement between the City and the developer at a later date. He
stated he would personally be inclined to allow the developer to build, in
accordance with the revised RM-3000 standards, 178 units, which is 30 less
than the current proposal, and grant two of the alternate incentives to retain
the affordable aspect of the project.
Councilwoman Kaywood disagreed, indicating that she still believed this to be
a density bonus at 178 units, since originally the developer would have been
allowed only 154 units.
The Mayor recognized Joanne Stanton who contended that despite several com-
ments made to the contrary, there never was an actual noticed public hearing
held on the revised site development standards for RM-3000 and consequently
the only people who attended the workshops were those who were concerned about
pending development proposals, as well as realtors and developers. She voiced
the opinion that the general public has not had an opportunity to comment on
these revisions.
Mayor Seymour stated that in his opinion the coverage given the two workshops
on the front page of the local paper was far better notice to the public than
an actual legal notice published in the rear of the paper. The workshop hear-
ings were open and they received comments from all members of the public.
At the conclusion of discussion Mayor Seymour noted that due to the message he
has received from the very emotional residents of the neighborhood, he would
be willing to eliminate the affordable housing aspect from this project, which
would thereby allow the developer 178 units under the revised standards for
the RM-3000 zone.
Councilman Overholt again suggested that the Council consider other incentives
other than the density bonus, as he would very much like to retain the afford-
able component of the project.
Mayor Seymour indicated that he received a very strong message from the neigh-
borhood during these hearings that the objection to the project is density,
and furthermore, there appears to be a fear that the affordable housing will
bring some undesireable element into the neighborhood, and so perhaps it would
be the Council's wisest decision not to impose this on that neighborhood.
81-443
Ci.ty Ha~l.,. Ang~eim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 17, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour asked Mr. Norkaitis what the William Lyon & Company's position
would be as to whether they wished to discuss incentives for providing afford-
able housing other than the density bonus or would they prefer to build the
development at 178 units, according to the revised Code without any affordable
units, to which Mr. Norkaitis responded they would respectfully prefer the
latter choice, no affordable units with a density of 178.
Mayor Seymour summarized that this would mean the William Lyon & Company is
prepared to build this project without affordable units; without variances and
in accordance with standards of the revised RM-3000 zone, which would yield
178 units. Mr. Norkaitis agreed to this.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council finds that subject pro-
ject will have no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental
impact since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property for low
medium density 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.
Question was raised as to how the Council can approve the reclassification and
conditional use permit subject to development under the revised RM-3000 stan-
dards, since these are not currently in effect, and Miss Santalahti suggested
that they impose a condition on the approval of the final map that this cannot
take place until the revised RM-3000 Ordinance has been adopted in accordance
with the normal procedures. Further, that the approvals be subject to plans
as submitted, provided however, a maximum of 178 units with two parking
garages per unit be provided.
Mayor Seymour offered Resolution No. 81R-129 for adoption, approving
Reclassification No. 80-81-13 to change the zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-3000,
subject to the conditions recommended by the City Planning Commission, with
following amendments:
No. 12 of the Planning Commission resolution should be re-numbered "No. 11".
REPLACE: No. 13 with No. 12:
12. That an ordinance rezoning the subject property shall in no event become
effective except upon or following the recordation of a final tract map for a
maximum of one-hundred seventy-eight (178) residential condominium units.
No. 14 of the Planning Commission resolution should be re-aumbered "No. 13".
MODIFY: 16. That the property shall be developed substantially in accordance
with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Revision
No. 1 of Exhibit Nos. 1 through 6 and Exhibit Nos. 7 and 8 of Conditional Use
Permit No. 2119; provided, however, that the site plan shall be revised to
show one-hundred seventy-eight (178) condominium units. Said revised plan
shall be submitted to the City Council for review and approval along with any
other revisions prior to introduction of an ordinance rezoning the property.
Said revisions may be submitted in conjunction with the revised tentative
tract map.
81-444
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 17, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
17. Prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject property,
Condition Nos. 1, 2, 12 and 16 above-mentioned, shall be completed. The
provisions or rights granted by this resolution shall become null and void by
action of the City Council unless siad conditions are complied with within one
year from the date hereof, or such further time as the City Council may grant.
18. That Condition Nos. 3, 5, 6, 10, 14 and 16, above-mentioned, shall be
complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-129: 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. (80-81-13)
Mayor Seymour offered Resolution No. 81R-130, for adoption, approving Condi-
tional Use Permit No. 2119 subject to the following conditions:
Change Planning Commission conditions as follows:
NEW #2. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance
with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Revision
No. 1 of Exhibit Nos. 1 through 6 and Exhibit Nos. 7 and 8; provided, however,
that there shall be no "affordable" units, and that the site plan shall be
revised to show one-hundred seventy-eight (178) condominium units. Said
revised plan shall be submitted to the City Council for review and approval
along with any other revisions prior to introduction of an ordinance rezoning
the property. Said revisions may be submitted in conjunction with the revised
tentative tract map.
DELETE: Condition No. 3 in its entirety.
NEW: #3. ~hat prior to issuance of a building permit or approval of a final
tract map, whichever occurs first, an ordinance amending the "RM-3000" Site
Development standards (in a manner which eliminates the need for the building
height, density, and parking waivers) shall be adopted and shall be in effect.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-130: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2119.
Prior to voting on the resolutions Councilman Bay indicated that inasmuch as
he opposed to the revised development standards to be incorporated into the
RM-3000 zone, which this approval is structured upon, he intends to vote
against this particular project. He explained however that this does not mean
that he would intend to beg the issue by setting for public hearing all of the
projects coming from the Planning Commission under the new standards, that
once these are adopted by a majority of the Council, he will abide by them.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNC IL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Roth and Seymour
Kaywood and Bay
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 81R-129 and 81R-130 duly passed and adopted.
81-445
City, Hall,, Ana.heim,~ California -, ,COUNCIL MINUT,ES -. M.arc,h 17,, 198,1.,' 1.:.30 P.M.
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11053: Developer, William Lyon & Company, to establish a
5-lot, 220-unit condominium subdivison (25% affordable) on proposed RM-3000
zoned property located at the s/w corner of Cerritos Avenue and Euclid Street.
No action was taken by the City Council on subject Tentative Tract Map, as
this is to be resubmitted in revised format in accordance with the approved
plans for 178 units, no affordable.
Mayor Seymour called attention to the fact that the question of eventual use
of the Trident Junior High School site may soon come up and suggested that the
Council and the neighborhood begin to consider the implications of this deci-
sion. In particular, Mayor Seymour commented that he personally felt it would
be best not to commit to a permanent type of use, as there is always the even-
tuality this may again be needed as a school site. Development into residen-
tial units would mean that this would not ever become a school again.
There being no further business before the City Council, Councilwoman Kaywood
moved to adjourn to on Thursday, March 19, 1981, at 3:30 P.M. Councilman Bay
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (12:40 A.M., March 18, 1981)
· CITY CLERK