1979/01/02City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES January 2, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Taltey
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
FINANCE DIRECTOR: George Ferrone
ELECTRICAL SUPERINTENDENT: George Edwards
PARKS, RECREATION AND ARTS DIRECTOR: James Ruth
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
MOMENT OF SILENCE: In lieu of an Invocation, a moment of silence was observed.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman E. Llewellyn Overholt, Jr., led the assembly in the Pledge
of Allegiance to the Flag.
119: RESOLUTION OF CONDOLENCE: A Resolution of Condolence was adopted by the
City Council on the paSsing of Mr. Marcus P. South, a respected and prominent
builder and developer in Anaheim and Orange County, to be presented to his
family.
119: RESOLUTION OF CONDOLENCE: A Resolution of Condolence was adopted by the
City Council on the untimely passing of Mr. Dirk R. Bode, a Member of the Project
Area Committee, a local, long-time businessman and an involved and concerned
citizen of Anaheim. Mr. Tom Bode accepted the resolution.
MINUTES: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, minutes
of the regular meetings held August 22 and 29, 1978, were approved with corrections
as noted on the meeting of August 22, 1978, as follows:
Page 78-1097 - sixth paragraph - last sentence corrected to read - "Personally,
she wanted to have the District Attorney's report and the transcript with her
before the next meeting."
Page 78-1102 - fifth paragraph - second sentence corrected to read - "Councilwoman
Kaywood was at that regular 6:45 p.m. meeting, but heard that none of the large
cities attended the 5:30 meeting of Mayors."
Page 78-1115 - ninth paragraph - first sentence corrected to read - "Due 'to the
fact that the Annual League of California Cities Conference was going to be held
in Anaheim September 24 through 26, 1978, Councilwoman Kaywood moved that no Council
meeting be held and we participate at the Conference on Tuesday, September 26, 1978."
Page 78-1115 - tenth paragraph - second sentence corrected to read - "She thereupon
moved that the seat of Planning Commissioner Robert Linn be declared vacant as of
Tuesday, A~gust 29, 1978, allowing him to attend and vote on August 28, 1978."
MOTION CARRIED.
79-2
City Ha~l, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 2, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Roth moved to
waive the reading, in full, of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent
to the waiver of reading is hereby given by all Council Members unless, after
reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the read-
ing of such ordinance or resolution. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
MOTION UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $2,264,956.40, in accordance
with the 1978-79 Budget, were approved.
160: BID NO. 3487 - 69KV OIL CIRCUIT BREAKERS: On motion by Councilman Kott,
seconded by Councilman Overholt, the Purchasing Agent was granted a one-week
continuation for reporting results of bids received December 2, 1978, for the
subject oil circuit breakers. MOTION CARRIED.
123: AUTOMATED LIBRARY CIRCULATION SYSTEM: Councilman Kott offered Resolution
No. 79R-1 for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated December 27, 1978,
approving an Automated Library Circulation System Agreement with Systems Control,
Inc., for the proposed price of $184,000 plus $4,800 to incorporate existing
machine readable data into said system. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-1: A RESOLUTION OF THE CiTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AUTOMATED LIBRARY CIRCULATION SYSTEM
AGREEMENT WITH SYSTEMS CONTROL, INC., AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK
TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-1 duly passed and adopted.
150: RECREATION FEES AND CHARGES POLICY: Mayor Seymour questioned James Ruth,
Director of Parks, Recreation and the Arts, relative to the recommendation which
represented a user fee. In the past, he had spoken in opposition to such fees,
and thus he wanted to know how much new revenue was going to be generated by the
recommended action.
Mr. Ruth explained that the proposal covered the program already in existence and
the only new fee was a non-resident fee. It was not an increase in the existing
policy. Mr. Ruth also clarified questions posed by Councilman Overholt relative
to the three groups outlined in his memorandum.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 79R-2 for adoption, as recommended in
memorandum dated December 21, 1978, from the Director of Parks, Recreation and
the Arts. Refer to Resolution Book.
79-3
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 2~ 1979, 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-2: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ESTABLISHING THE POLICY AND FEES FOR CITY-WIDE PARK AND RECREATION PROGRAMS AND
SERVICES IN THE CITY.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-2 duly passed and adopted.
150/174: SENIOR DAY CENTER PROGRAM: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No.
79R-3 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated December 26, 1978, from
the Director of Parks, Recreation and the Arts, authorizing the City Manager to
submit a proposal to the Orange County Community Development Council in an amount
not to exceed $25,000 for expansion of the existing Senior'Day Center Program.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-3: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE FILING OF AN APPLICATION FOR FUNDS PURSUANT TO THE ORANGE COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL GRANT PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
EXECUTE SAID APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and seymOur
None
None
The'Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-3 duly passed and adopted.
153: TITLE CHANGE - KEY PUNCH CLASSIFICATIONS: Councilman Roth offered Resolution
No. 79R-4 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated December 27, 1978, from
the Personnel Director. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-4: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 77R-704 AND ESTABLISHING NEW TITLES FOR EXISTING CLASSES.
(Senior Data and Junior Data Entry Operator, effective January 5, 1979)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-4 duly passed and adopted.~
153: SALARY ADJUSTMENT - CUSTODIAL SUPERVISOR: Councilwoman Kaywood offered
Resolution No. 79R-5 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated December 27,
1978, from the Personnel Director. Refer to Resolution Book.
79-4
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 2, 1979,. 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-5: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 78R-660 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR
CLASSES DESIGNATED AS STAFF AND SUPERVISORY MANAGEMENT, AND ADJUSTING THE RATE
OF COMPENSATION OF THE CLASSIFICATION OF CUSTODIAL SUPERVISOR. (effective
January 5, ].979)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-5 duly passed and adopted.
174: EXTENSION OF CETA PSE AGREEMENTS: Councilman Overholt offered Resolution
Nos. 79R-6 through 79R-8, both inclusive, for adoption, as recommended in memo-
randum dated December 26, 1978, from the Personnel Department/CETA Services
approving amendments to agreements with the Orange County Community Develop-
ment Council to extend the term through September 30, 1979, and to provide addi-
tional compensation in the amount of $13,570; Magnolia Elementary School District
to extend the term through September 30, 1979, and to provide additional compensa-
tion in the amount of $100,250; and LegaI Aid Society of Orange County to extend
the term through September 30, 1979, and to provide additional compensation in the
amount of $32,000. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-6: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH ORANGE
COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, INC., pROvIDING FOR AMENDMENT OF THE
TERM THEREOF, AND FOR ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-7: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH MAGNOLIA
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENT OF THE TERM AND ADDITIONAL
COMPENSATION.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-8: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH LEGAL AID
SOCIETY OF ORANGE COUNTY PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENT OF THE TERM AND ADDITIONAL
COMPENSATION.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour
Kott
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 79R-6 through 79R-8, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
107/155: "TERRA DOMES" INSTALLATION: Councilwoman Kaywood,~ speaking in opposition
to the recommended approval of "Terra Domes" installation, stated she had concerns
relative to the matter after having read the letter submitted by Geodesic Shelters,
Inc. The last time campgrounds were discussed, it was found they had been over-
built in the City, resulting in the expressed need by owners to take in permanent
79-5
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 2~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
residents in the off-season. She believed the current proposal would be opening
the door to transients and once the installation occurred, they would hear the
need to keep them filled in the off-season. She thereupon moved to deny the
temporary one-year installation of "Terra Domes". The motion died for lack
of a second.
Mayor Seymour stated he believed the concept to be worthwhile. There were
certain segments of campgrounds and RV Parks in the City that provided for
tents, but this was a geodesic dome concept offering a much better alternative
of temporary housing than tents. It would give the City an opportunity to look
at that type of construction on a trial basis to determine whether or not its
extension should be provided not only in the campground environment, but also
perhaps as an answer to low-cost housing. His understanding was that the
occupants of the dome would only be utilizing it on a temporary basis, and
therefore, it would provide those who did not have the income to stay in a
motel/hotel or who did not own an RV an opportunity to enjoy the same things
as did others in the City. When he talked to the Manager of KOA, there was no
reluctance whatsoever on his part to limit the tenancy in the dome to one week.
His concern was that on such a trial basis, it be made very clear to the camp
manager that should it be found that tenancy extended beyond one week,'he would
be prohibited from using the geodesic dome any further.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour thereupon moved to approve a temporary one-year
installation of "Terra'Domes" on the KOA Campgrounds located at 1221 South West
Street, subject to all fire retardant requirements of the Building Division, as
recommended in memorandum dated December 20, 1978, from the Planning Department,
Zoning Division. Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated the situation sounded like a rerun of what Council
did when they approved RV parks, wherein tenants were limited to two weeks and
then 30 days. It was found that people were living in those parks for years,
with children of the tenants attending local schools. A situation was going ~o
be created that had to be policed and it was something the City did not need.
Mayor Seymour pointed out the distinction between the two programs. The RV Park
involved large vehicles utilized for 30 days or a longer period of time. The
geodesic dome concept would be restricted to occupancy of one week and in one
campground only and the City would have legal authority to immediately revoke
the power to use the structure if that one-week limitation was exceeded. The
advantages to the proposal were (1) the opportunity to provide people of lower
income the benefits of Anaheim as a tourist-oriented City and (2) provide the
working knowledge of a different type of innovative and potential housing at a
much reduced cost.
Councilman Roth stated he was supportive of the concept and presumed if opposi-
tion was encountered, it would come from motel/hotel owners.
In answer to Councilman Kott, Miss Santalahti stated that the Planning Commission
had not seen the proposal, but it was considered from the Buildimg Division's
point of view relative to the structural aspects. In view of the one-year limi-
tation recommended, there was no concern expressed unless it was decided that
the concept might be appropriate in other campgrounds. She also explained for
the Mayor that no specific number to be installed was suggested by the builder,
but she estimated there would be approximately 10 shelters.
79-6
City Hall, Anaheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES- January 2, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour amended his motion to include a limitation of 10 shelters only to
be installed. Councilman Roth agreed with the amendment.
Councilwoman Kaywood questioned who was going to police the situation to insure
that tenancy would not exceed more than one week and she suggested that the motion
include a one-week tenancy.
The Mayor stated the intent of his motion was that the dome be a very temporary-
type shelter occupied by tenants for a one-week maximum and those tenants would not
be allowed to move from dome to dome after the first week.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion as amended. Councilwoman Kaywo0d
voted "No". MOTION CARRIED.
123/160: SOIL TEST AND FOUNDATION INVESTIGATIONS FOR 69KV STEEL POLES: On motion
by CounCilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the Utilities Director was
authorized to approve a purchase requisition in the amount of $1,500 with letter
agreement with Converse Ward Davis Dixon for soil tests, foundation investigations
and engineering report for four 69kV steel poles required for the construction of
the Lewis/Dowling #1 69kV line. MOTION CARRIED.
101: PENDING ANAHEIM STADIUM BOND ISSUE: City Manager Talley stated that the
proposed motion would be authorizing an expenditure up to $200,000 from the
Council Contingency Fund Land Sale. However, staff now recommends that only
$42,500 come from the account and the remaining $157,500 be taken from the
Sewer Construction and Maintenance Fund. The funds would be used to proceed
with the expansion of the Stadium and reimbursed from the proceeds of the bond
sale later in the fiscal year, so that by the end of the fiscal year the City
would have been repaid for funds advanced.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to authorize the expenditure of $42,500 from the
Council Contingency Account Land Sale and $157,500 from the Sewer Construction~
and ~intenance Fund to proceed with the expansion of the Stadium; said funds to
be reimbursed from proceeds of the bond sale. Councilman Overholt seconded the
motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Kott asked if the funds were presently drawing
interest.
Mr. Talley answered "yes", all funds of the City were drawing interest and the
loan, in this case, would probably be for 90 days based upon a March groundbreaking.
Councilman Kott asked specifically if interest would be drawn on the loan in
question.
Mr. Talley answered that the City had never previously charged interest when
dealing with one of its own created agencies and in' this instance, the borrower
of the money was Anaheim Stadium, Inc. It was not now a private corporation, the
nature of that corporation having changed in August to facilitate'the refunding
issue.
City Attorney Hopkins then clarified the status of Anaheim Stadium, Inc., for
Councilman Kott.
79-7
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 2, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Kott stated when the organization was first formed, it was a private
entity, separate from the City. Since they became involved in the Stadium ex-
pansion, it had become a non-profit, public entity and he did not fully under-
stand the situation. Above that, they were told the expansion would cost the
taxpayer of the community nothing. However, if they were borrowing money on
one hand that was drawing interest and giving it to another entity, he did not
believe that type of procedure was in the best interest of the taxpayer.
The Mayor stated that Councilman Kott was perhaps technically correct and in
order to keep the situation totally pure, some interest should be applied. In
order for the Council to keep its promise, he suggested that as the funds were
advanced to Anaheim Stadium, Inc., that they be charged an interest rate such
as the City normally received as an average return on invested capital. The
amendment was agreeable to both Councilmen Roth and Overholt.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion amended to include interest to
be charged at the average rate of return as the City was now receiving on its
invested capital. MOTION CARRIED.
124: COMMUNITY CENTER AUTHORITY BETTERMENT II PROGRAM: Authorization ~for the
expenditure of up to $500,000 for the Community Center Authority Betterment II
Program, expansion of the Convention Center, to be borrowed from Worker's Compen-
sation Reserve (General Benefit Fund), to be repaid from proceeds of the bond
sale, was submitted.
Mr. Talley explained that the Community Center Authority (CCA) was working on
the bond sale that would occur in approximately 90 to 120 days, and they wanted
to raise $500,000 in funds they did not have for up-front expenses. They were
requesting that the Council advance that money and staff was suggesting that it
be taken from the Worker's Compensation Reserve (General Benefit Fund) inasmuch
as it would be repaid before the end of the fiscal year. Relative to the
January 2, 1979 letter from the Anaheim Police Association (APA), on file in the
City Clerk's Office, asking the Council to wait until all facts were in before a
decision was made, Mr. Talley believed that they did not understand that was a
fully funded account made up entirely of City funds,~and there was no way they
would spend all funds available. He suggested if the City Council would like to
direct the City Clerk to contact the APA, he would be happy to meet with them
and discuss all of the information to show that the fund would not be jeopardized
by a temporary three- or four-month transfer of $.5 million.
A brief discussion followed in which Councilman Kott expressed some concerns rela-
tive to the proposal. In answer to the Mayor, Finance Director George Ferrone
stated that there were alternatives as to other areas from which the loan could
be made and'the next logical choice would be from the Employee Benefits Fund.
In either case, the monies would be refunded within 90 to 120 days. The Worker's
Compensation Reserve which they proposed to use, contained $2.2 million.
MOTION: The Mayor stated he shared Councilman Kott's concern and although he
believed the requested advance to be "safe" they might be setting a precedent.
However, if .the advance could be taken out of the General Benefits Fund, he
considered it appropriate to do so with the same inclusion relative to the pay-
ment of interest as on the Anaheim Stadium, Inc. advance. Councilman Seymour
79-8
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 2~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
thereupon moved that the expenditure of up to $500,000 for the Community Center
Authority Betterment II Program be borrowed from the Worker's Compensation Re-
serve to be repaid from the proceeds off'the bond sale with interest~to be charged
at the average rate of return as the City was now receiving on its invested
capital. Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, the Mayor asked Mr. Ben Schroeder, President of the
CCA, if there was any problem relative to the interest stipulation; Mr. Schroeder
indicated there was no problem.
Councilman Kott maintained that since the General Benefits Fund was a trust,
as one of the Trustees, he would feel much better if the various employee groups
first concurred with the proposed procedure. Otherwise, he could not vote for
the proposal because he did not believe it was within his prerogative to do so.
He was also of the opinion that interest should be cumulative and it should be
included as part of the motion.
Mayor Seymour contended that Councilman Kott was taking one very minor and min~scule
portion of the General Benefits Fund and labeling it all as some type of Trust Fund
and that was not so. There was no law saying there had to be a General Benefits
Fund, and the City never had one until two years prior. The funds were identified
as working capital funds and as the City changed its financial approach, the General
Benefits Fund was created and that fund represented a better system of financial
management. Thus, Councilman Kott's point was not valid relative to its being
a Trust Fund. It was merely an accounting change.
Councilman Overholt thereupon questioned the Finance Director relative to the
General Benefits Fund to further clarify its status, as well as the philosophy
involved in the interest to be charged the CCA and the relationship between the
City and the CCA and with Anaheim Stadium, Inc. The reason he posed the ques-
tions was to show first that they were engaged in a bookkeeping process and
also he did not want the Directors of ASI or the Trustees of the CCA to feel
that the City Council was trying to "sock" them with some kind of charge to im-
prove facilities which were of great benefit to Anaheim.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Ben Schroeder, President of the CCA, recommended that the Council, the Anaheim
Union High School District Board of Trustees and the Community Center Authority
meet in an official meeting as soon as possible. They were scheduled to meet with
the School Board the next day.
The Mayor suggested that they find out what the President of the Trustees of the
School Board had to say and subsequently a meeting would be set. On behalf of
the Council, he then thanked Mr. Schroeder, the CCA and the Board for doing an
outstanding job.
123: INVESTIGATION SERVICES - CITY INSURANCE MATTERS: City Attorney Hopkins
clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood that the investigation would cover all insurance
matters. He also confirmed for Councilman Overholt that the actual report would
come from his office, but the Frasco Agency was doing the time consuming "leg work"
relative to the investigations.
79-9
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 2~ 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood then asked if the incident which occurred at the meeting
of August 29, 1978 (see minutes that date) relative to excess liability insur-
ance would also be covered in the investigations.
Mr. Hopkins stated that would be included, as well as all relations between the
Broker and the Risk Manager.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 79R-9 for adoption, as recommended in
memorandum dated December 26, 1978, from the City Attorney, approving an agree-
ment with R. J. Frasco Agency for investigation services in connection with
City insurance~matters, in an amount not to exceed $2,000. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-9: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN'AGREEMENT WITH R. J. FRASCO AGENCY AND
AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-9 duly passed and adopted.
180: SHORT-RATE CANCELLATION PROCEDURES - WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE:
City Attorney Hopkins submitted a report dated January 2, 1979 and stated he
did not receive the letter dated December 29, 1978 from Ms. Angele Khachadour,
Chief Counsel, Department of Insurance, State of California, until this morning.
Messrs. Love and Parker were present if Council wished to proceed on the matter.
Councilman Roth stated he did not have a chance to read the City Attorney's report;
Mr. I~pkins thereupon briefed the Council on his report which was requested by the
Council, the bottom line being the last paragraph on Page 3 of the report, "Our
investigation indicates that Mr. Parker's statements to the City Council on
December 5, 1978 are correct with respect to the applicability of the Short Rate
Cancellation Table to Workers' Compensation Insurance policies; however, incorrect
with respect to the applicability of the Short Rate Cancellation Table to insurers
writing excess coverage such as the Fireman's Fund Workers' Compensation Excess
Policy."
Mr. Hopkins then clarified for Councilman Roth that the discussion of December 5,
1978 (see minutes that date) dealt with excess insurance, the Firemen's Fund excess
policy,
CouncilWoman Kaywood asked how the report would affect what the Council action
was at that meeting.
Mayor Seymour stated Council's action was not to cancel the policy, so therefore,
it remained in effect. They were to await the City Attorney!s report before taking
any action, and it appeared that no action should be taken.
79-10
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 2, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to receive and file and City Attorney's report
dated January 2, 1979, relative to the short-rate cancellation procedures on
Workers' Compensation Insurance. Councilman Kott seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
108: PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT: On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman
Roth, approval of a Public Dance Permit submitted by the Anaheim Soccer Club for
a dance held December 31, 1978, at the Anaheim Convention Center, in accordance
with the recommendations of the Chief of Police, was ratified. MOTION CARRIED.
101: RAMS AGREEMENT RELATIVE TO JULIETTE LOW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: Councilman
Kott invited Mr. Ron Mullen to address the Council.
Mr. Ron Mullen, representing the Juliette Low Elementary School attendance area
of the Magnolia School District, stated that on October 23, 1978, several citizens
of that community attended a Planning Commission meeting after which a letter was
written appealing the decision made relative to the leasing of the school facili-
ties. He subsequently received a letter from the City Clerk which stated that the
issue would be discussed on November 21, 1978, which was during the Thanksgiving
Holidays when many people in the community made other plans and were not able to
attend. As a consequence, only one representative attended, Mrs. Reeda Ram Follow-
ing the meeting, she wrote an open letter to the newspapers, with a copy to the Mayor
as well, citing basic issues involved. It was some of those issues that they hoped
to address during the presentation of materials to the City Council. Because
they were denied that appeal, they wanted to have some of the questions answered
which were addressed in that letter as follows: They wanted to know who was going
to pay for the improvements made to the facilities. They were aware that the
agreement between the City and the Rams organization did address the leasing, of
that facility, but it did not include any improvements. The lease stated the
lessor would make the following improvements to the premises: inStallation of
central air conditioning; layout and installation of two football fields; erection
of a shower and weight room; fenced pedestrian walk from Polk Street to Gilbert
Street; erection of a block wall with an exit gate on Polk Street; construction
of vehicular access driveways ingress and egress connected with Lincoln Avenue;
construction of a swimming pool that would be used for community and therapeutic
swimming programs. Since Mr. Ruth made many public statements in the past that
the monies would be repaid to the penny to the taxpayers, they wanted to know
how the improvements would be made and who would be making those payments.
It was also stated during the Planning Commission meeting that fire hydrants needed
to be installed and also additional street lighting on Ventura Street. They wanted
to know who would incur the costs of those improvements.
Their community was also concerned about the intended use of the property for
recreational purposes when the Rams were not using the facilities. A cost of
$5,862 would be required to provide recreational purposes for the facility and
they wanted to know if the taxpayer would have to pay that amount.
Mr. Mullen stated they also received conflicting reports about when and what
facilities would be available to the community. In his cOnversations with Mr.
Jack Teale of the Rams, he stated that the facilities would' only be available
during the months of July and August. However, the lease stated there would be
a 7-montb period. Further, on November 24, 1978, Reeda Ram received a call frOm
79-11
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 2~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Steve R°senbloom of the Rams who said they did not intend to open those facilities
at all for park and recreation purposes.
They were also concerned that underlying the Rams coming to the Juliette Low
facility, there were many unanswered questions in the minds of the people and
many strange happenings had occurred in the area, some of which he relayed to
the Council. There are also pertinent dates and times involved relative to the
manner in which the closure of the school took place, as well as the tendering
of the lease of the property. As a community, they were going to have.to live
with the Rams organization for at least the next ten years according to the lease,
and they felt as citizens of that community they had a right to have the answers
to the questions posed.
In order to clarify the specific questions, the Mayor confirmed them as follows:
1. Who will pay for the improvements of the Juliette Low School?
2. Who will pay for the fire hydrants as required by the Planning Commission?
3. Who will pay for the streeting lighting on Ventura Street?
4. Who will pay the $5,862 that will be required to provide recreational purposes
for the facility and if more than that, who will pay?
5. When and what facilities will be available for use by the general public?
6. Specifically, what facilities will be installed and what use the community can
make of those facilities?
Mr. Mullen clarified that those were the basic questions.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour thereupon moved to direct the City Manager to prepare
a response specifically answering the six questions posed, to be mailed to Mr.
Ron Mullen. Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
Councilman Kott asked for clarification relative to the improvements. For Mr.
Mullen's edification, he explained that a previous motion by the Council regarding
the Rams agreement stated that the facilities would ultimately be paid for by
bonds that would be floated by ASI. As he recalled, the City was also to put up
the front money.
Mr. Talley stated that either the proceeds of the bond sale or interest from the
bond sale would be allocated to construct the improvements with no front money.
The funds would come from ASI and not the City.
Councilman Kott questioned the City Attorney with regard to using interest from
the bond money to b& used from proceeds that were given to ASI as a'Stadium entity
which, in turn, they would use on a school in a remote part of the City.
Mr. Hopkins stated the interest that would be earned would come under the control
of the City and the City would, in accordance with the lease agreement, make
arrangements for the facility to be constructed. He had not seen the final details,
but under those circumstances, it would be a public purpose since the facilities
would be available to the public, and there would be no legal problem involved.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
79-12
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 2~ 1979, 1:30 P.M.
For purposes of clarification, Councilman Overholt asked if Mr. Mullen was a
resident of the Juliette Low School attendance area.
Mr. Mullen stated that he lived on Monterey Street, one block from the school.
He was acting as spokesman for the residents in the area, and not as their
attorney.
RECESS: By general consent, the City Council recessed for 5 minutes. (2:55 P.M.)
AFTER RECESM: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (3:00 P.M.)
PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 78-79-22 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Applica-
tion by Melvin and Marrian E. Schantz, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to
CL on Portion A, and from RS-A-43,000 to RS-5000 on Portion B, on property located
southeast of the intersection of the Riverside Freeway and Imperial Highway,
approximately 675 feet north of Santa Ana Canyon Road.
The City Clerk announced that a letter dated December 28, 1978, from the Appli-
cant's attorney had been received requesting that the public hearing be'continued
to January 16, 1979.
The Mayor asked if anyone was present regarding the subject application.
Mr. Floyd Farrano, Attorney for the Applicant, was present and available for
any questions the Council might have.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, public hearing
on Reclassification No. 78-79-22, was continued to January 16, 1979, 3:00 P.M.,
as requested by the applicant's attorney. Councilman Seymour abstained. MOTION
CARRIED.
The Mayor stated his abstention was due to the fact that he was a tenant in the
property immediately adjacent to the subject location.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1913: Application by Gulf Oil Corpora-
tion of California, to permit a truck and trailer rental yard on CL zoned property
located at the northwest corner of Orange Avenue and Knott Street.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-270 declared that
the subject property be exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental
impact report pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act and further denied Conditional Use Permit No. 1913.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Mr. Steve Harpine, U-Haul
Company of Orange County, Agent for the Applicant, and public hearing scheduled
this date.
Miss Santalahti described the location and surrounding land uses. She. outlined
the findings~given in the staff report which was submitted to and considered by
the City Planning Commission.
79-13
City Hail~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January .2~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous
of being heard.
Mr. George Nelson, U-Haul Company of Orange County, 860 South Placentia Avenue,
Placentia, first stated there was a lack of communication with the Planning
Department on a couple of items, and he felt that was why the conditional use
permit was denied. On the first plot plan submitted, they were told by the
Planning staff to plot the maximum amount of equipment they would have on the
project. The revised plot plan now before the Council was what they wished to
operate with enabling good traffic movement throughout the project. The second
item was the closing of the two driveways near the intersection. Again, Planning
staff stated that was what the Traffic Engineer wanted, but in talking to the
Traffic Engineer, he did say he wanted the two closest driveways to the inter-
section closed, but they could install one on Orange Avenue 110 feet back from the
intersection. With those facts, they believed they could have been granted approval
from the Planning Commission. It was a permitted use in the zone with a condi-
tional use permit and they were willing to do whatever the'City required. Approval
of the use would allow them to expand their business and provide a low-cost
service to residents of West Anaheim. He also confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood
that the revised plans had not been seen by the Planning Commission and further
clarified for Councilman Kott that what the Planning Department requested was not
exactly what was wanted by the Planning Commission.
Councilman Roth stated that part of the denial was that the proposed use would
adversely affect adjoining land users, and they did not feel it was a~ compatible
use.
Mr. Nelson stated they felt the project was denied mainly because of the traffic
pattern that would be generated.
Councilman Kott questioned why Planning gave out erroneous information to the
applicant.
Miss Santalahti explained that the information was not erroneous and they always
asked the petitioner to show what they anticipated to be the maximum amount of
storage on site. That was a normal staff inquiry. The Commission was concerned
with the number of vehicles to be stored, plus the three driveways that were to
remain open and the revised plans still showed those driveways. She asked Mr.
Nelson if he was saying they would be willing to close the two driveways nearest
the intersection if they could open a new one on Orange 110 feet from the inter-
section.
Mr. Nelson answered "yes" and that was what t~e Traffic Engineer indicated he
wanted; Miss Santalahti stated that the Traffic Engimeer had required the same
before on many other projects.
Councilman Overholt asked Mr. Nelson how many trucks and trailers he anticipated
storing on the property as scheduled on the plot plan.
Mr. Nelson stated that the revised plan would be the maximum to allow adequate
traffic flow throughout the project, consisting of nine trucks and twenty trailers,
which was ten less each. He reiterated the original one submitted to the Planning
Commission showed the maximum inventory they could accommodate on the lot. Further,
79-14
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 2, 1979~ 1:30 p.M,'
in answer to Council Members Roth and Kaywood, he explained that they did not
perform maintenance work on the trucks and trailers at the subject location, but
such work would be done at their manufacturing shop in Placentia. Also, they
did ask to see a driver's license from those who came to rent vehicles, but
they did not check out their driving record.
Mayor Seymour noted that the submitted plans indicated a 6.5-foot high block
wall on the north property line and along the carports abutting the West property
line. A trailer with a truck was going to be higher than 6.5 feet and he wan~ed
to know what the applicant was going to do to obscure that view from the limited
commercial property and the apartments.
Mr. Nelson stated the trailers would be on the north side of the property line
and were only 6 feet high. The truck would be against the carport which could
not be seen from the apartment building adjacent to the property.
The Mayor stated that he apparently misunderstood the situation. He Was under
the impression that all the applicant was going to do was cater to a trade of
citizens in Anaheim who drove a truck or trailer for a living and could not
park on residential streets, thus enabling them to rent space so they could
park overnight.
Mr. Nelson stated that was not the case, but their business was all U-Haul for
household moving only with their one-ton trucks, truck height being 10 feet
6 inches.
Councilman Kott asked staff how the new plan would solve the problem.
Miss Santalahti explained that modification of the driveways would alleviate
some concern. The petitioner was also reducing the number of vehicles on site
by approximately 27 percent, but whether the plan was substantially better or
not, was the question.
Councilman Roth noted that there was such a facility on Lincoln Avenue, one
block west of East Street and the appearance of the yard with the trucks and
trailers was an eyesore for the neighborhood. He believed that was what the
Planning Commission was trying to bring out. A rental agency such as that
proposed was a difficult use in a basically residential area.
Mr. Nelson countered that was probably true in the past, but the subject busi-
ness would be a company-run facility staffed by company employees over which they
would have total control, and therefore they could control the kind of situation
to which Councilman Roth referred, whereas they could not do so in the past because
the facilities were agent locations run on a commission basis.
Councilman Kott noted that at the Planning Commission hearing, there were no
objections and no letters were received; Miss Santalahti stated that she did not
believe anyone was present at the hearing in opposition.
A gentleman from the audience, Mr. Tom Sufert, 212 South Ridgeway, indicated he
was present at the Planning Commission hearing. He then addressed the Council.
Mr. Sufert stated he was the owner of the apartment house direCtly to the west
~-t5
City Hall, Anaheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES- January 2~ 1979, 1:
of the proposed leasing operation and his garages abutted the subject lot. When
he was present at the Commission hearing, the applicant stated there would be
some kind of a wall set up immediately adjacent to his garages as a protective
device. None was indicated at that time and he did not know if the revised plot
plan considered a protective device for his garages. After a brief review of
the plan by Mr. Sufert and the Council, Mr. Sufert stated he still did not see
any provision to provide such protection.
Mr. Sufert then relayed another item of concern to him. A driveway was located
immediately to the west of his garages which was the entrance to the parking for
his apartments. Every time he had an occasion to use that driveway, he had a
difficult time egressing onto Orange Avenue and making a left-hand turn going
east due to the heavy traffic on Orange and the fact that the driveway was so
close to the intersection. Either it was difficult to get out into the lane
going east-bound because of cars jammed up at the signal or when the light
changed, there was a heavy flow of traffic going west. Even at that distance,
it was actually a hazard to get out onto Orange. He therefore submitted that
an entrance 110 feet from the intersection would be even more of a hazard.
Additionally, Mr. Sufert maintained that a rental yard of the nature proposed
was more appropriate in an entirely different environment than that existing at
the subject location, that being apartment houses with very light commercial.
He believed the use would be an eyesore and further with regard to the people
living in the apartments directly to the north which were two-story, they would
be looking down on trucks and trailers and he did not feel they would favor
such a view. There were windows in those apartments exposed to the south and
the sound would carry as well. Mr. Sufert also believed that there would be a
parking problem since people going to the facility to rent vehicles would want
to leave their cars somewhere. The streets were full at present and thus he
did not know where additional vehicles would be parked.
The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to speak either in favor or in opposition;
there was no response.
In rebuttal, Mr. Nelson stated they did agree to protect the carport from any
damage, as well as to make any repairs of damage created by the operation. In
turn, if anyone drove through the carport, they would expect the same. Relative
to parking, with 90 percent of the people who rented their vehicles, they attached
the trailer to the patron~ car or a patron picked up a truck without leaving their
own vehicle. Rental was one-way and the rented truck or trailer was left somewhere
else. He also clarified that their hours of operation were from 7:00 a.m. to
7:00 p.m.
There being' no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked where such facilities were normally located.
Mr. Nelson stated they had one location in Anaheim,on Anaheim Boulevard in a
commercial-general area.
California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 2~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
ENVIRO~.~ACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Seymour, sec~ by Councilman Roth, the City Council finds that no sensitive
environmental impacts are involved in the proposal and the initial study sub-
mitted by the petitioner indicated 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. 79R-10 for adoption, denying Condi-
tional Use Permit No. 1913, upholding the findings of the Planning Commission.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-10: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1913.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-10 duly passed and adopted.
167: REQUEST FOR PARTIAL REFUND OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL ASSESSMENT FEES: Request by
Bregder Development Company for a partial refund of the traffic signal assessment
fee paid in connection with property located at the northeast corner of Katella
Avenue and Easy Way, was submitted.
Councilwoman KaYWood noted that in between the two times noted in Mr. Bregder's
letter of December 11, 1978, that the law had changed relative to fees and had
it not, Mr. Bregder would have had to pay a higher fee.
Mr. Bill Bregder, 1835 West Katella, stated he was aware of that fact. A certain
fee was charged regardless of the zoning of property and then it was found to be
erroneous and much too high. It was subsequently switched back to one-half or
less which in the past was double or more than double.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to approve the request for a partial refund of
the traffic signal assessment fee paid in connection with the subject property
in accordance with the current fee schedule. Councilman Seymour seconded the
motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that the first assess-
ment was made in November 1977, and then the ordinance changed in August of 1978.
The new schedule was. instituted a full year later, November 1978, thus there was
savings involved in the second assessment.
A brief discussion followed between Councilwoman Kaywood and Mr. Bregder relative
to the fees previously paid, at the conclusion of which Mr. Bregder stated his
basic concern was the fact that he, as a builder, paid a double fee when he took
out building permits for his buildings, but when he inquired for another person,
the fee was 0ne-half or less. He reiterated, he did not like the idea of paying
double and the next person paying one-half.
79-17
City Hal%, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 2, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilwoman Kaywood voted "No".
MOTION CARRIED.
107: REQUEST FOR REDUCTION OF POOL FENCE HEIGHT: Request of Mr. John H. Barr
for a waiver of Anaheim Municipal Code Section 6.56.010 relating to pool fencing
requirements for property located at 4441 East Emberwood Lane.
Mr. John Barr briefed the Council on his letter dated December 13, 1978, and also
submitted photographs of his property. He explained that he just recently pur-
chased his home, the rear fencing of which was on a bluff varying in height from
approximately 28 to 36 inches. They anticipated installing a jacuzzi, and he was
told by the Building Division there was a 5-foot fence requirement. The drop to
the rear of his property was 45 feet and he submitted if either an adult or child
scaled that height to get to his back fence, another 5-foot barrier would not
serve any barrier. Therefore, he was requesting that his existing fence to the
rear be allowed to remain, and he would comply with the Code relative to side yards
or the front. He was advised by the salesman that the existing slump stone 'fence
as shown in the photographs was 42 inches; however, as he previously stated, it
varied from 28 to 36 inches, and he pointed that out so as not to mislead the
Council.
Mayor Seymour asked the City Attorney in the event the Council were to approve
the request and some child did scale the 45-foot bank, climbed the fence and
drowned in the pool, if the City could be liable because they waived a portion
of the ordinance.
City Attorney Hopkins answered, under present day conditions and comparative
negligence suits, it was his opinion that the City would very likely be named
as a party in the event there was such a suit alleging negligence. If there
was a 5-foot fence and the same thing occurred, the City would be able to
defend itself much more readily than if the ordinance was waived.
Councilman Roth stated he was sympathetic with Mr. Barr's situation and was
going to support him, but on the City Attorney's opinion, it would be difficult
for him to do so, especially when liability involved other citizens of the
community. Mayor Seymour expressed the same sentiments.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to deny the request of Mr. Barr for waiver of
Anaheim Municipal Code Section 6.56.010 relating to pool fencing requirements
on property located at 4441 East Emberwood Lane. Councilman Overholt seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman
Kott, the f611owing actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and
recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent
Calendar Agenda:
1. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 105: Community Development Commission - Minutes of December 13, 1978.
b. 175: Utilities Department, Electrical Engineering Division - Monthly report
for August 1978.
79-18
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 2~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
2. 108: AMUSEMENT DEVICES PERMIT: An application for Amusement Devices Permit
for various amusement devices for Romano's Family Billiard Parlor, 1829 West
Katella #B (Catherine Romano, applicant), was approved in accordance with the
recommendations of the Chief of Police.
MOTION CARRIED.
118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: Councilman Kott requested that the claims against
the City be submitted before the time of the meeting so he would have an opportunity
to evaluate them since they represented a large cost. He wanted to be able td com-
pare the items from week to week.
City Attorney Hopkins indicated there would be no'problem in providing the documen-
tation. In the past it had been a practice not to include the claims in the agenda
packet, however, there was no reason why they could not do so. There were items
that were regularly denied to that point in time, but it kept the Council apprised
as to what the claims against the City were.
On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the recommended action
to deny and refer the following claims to the City's insurance carrier or the self-
insurance administrator, was approved:
a. Claim submitted by Norman Wenzel for personal injuries purportedly sustained
as a result of unlawful arrest on or about September 11, 1978.~
b. Claim submitted by David, Donald and Rebecca Elaine Morton for false arrest
and personal injuries purportedly sustained as a result of actions by Anaheim
Police on or about September 9, 1978.
MOTION CARRIED.
170: TENTATIVE TRACT NOS. 9744~ 9745 AND 9601: Developer, Texaco-Anaheim Hills,
Inc., to establish a 30-lot subdivision on RS-HS-22,000 zoned property located at
the northeast corner of Canyon Rim Road and Fairmont Boulevard. (Submitted in
conjunction with Variance No. 3068 and EIR No. 196, which will appear on the
January 9, 1979 agenda under the Planning Commission Consent Calendar.)
The City Planning Commission approved Tract No. 9744, 11 lots; Tract No. 9745,
10 lots; and Tract No. 9601, 9 lots and noted that EIR No. 196 was previously
approved.
Councilman Kott removed subject item from the consent calendar and questioned
why the decision was made not to have horse trails on the property.
Mr. Dan Salcedo, Anaheim Hills, Inc., 380 Anaheim Hills Road, explained the reason
behind the decision which was made by his company and which, in finality, revolved
around the fact that there were topography problems since the property was quite
steep and there was a question as to whether horse trails were realistic in that
area. He then elaborated upon some of the topography problems involved. He con-
tinued that .there were some objections from HACMAC regarding the particular route.
Anaheim Hills, knowing that they now had precluded the possibility of people having
horses in that tract, felt the best decision was to preclude the horse trail in
light of the fact that the topography was prohibitive.
79-19
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Janua~ 2~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the request was approved subject to it going back
to the Trails Committee.
Mr. Salcedo answered that approval included going back to the Trails Committee
which they had no problem with and also HACMAC. He continued that in his opinion
relative to the opposition of HACMAC, that they would be in opposition to the
Variance. Subsequently, when they were precluding the horse trails, that was
the time when Mr. Gowa spoke in opposition to either the elimination or the amend-
ment to the trail, but that was a subject that was not addressed at HA~MAC.
Councilman Kott stated it seemed to him that the horse trail issue should be a
part of HACMAC so that they could facilitate matters.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that there was a separate.Trails Committee made up of
riders to handle such matters, which worked fine.
Miss Santalahti explained that the issue of horse trails was not b~ought up at
all at the HACMAC meeting when the revised plan was discussed. When it came up
at the City Council meeting, Mr. Gowa expressed conce~ a~d th~~ Planning Commis-
sion's approval required that the matter be reviewed. If the trail people wanted
the trail, then HACMAC would want the trail also. If not, HACMAC did not want it
either.
~yor Seymour understood if there was going to be a trail, it might be relocated.
Mr. Salcedo clarified that it was possible there might not be a trail in light of
the fact that there would be no need for a trail.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that the trails problem was still pending and had to
be resolved, but the Council's approval of the request would not affect that at
all. Miss Santalahti confirmed that was correct.
No action was taken on Tentative Tract Nos. 9744, 9745 and 9601; thus the action
of the Planning Com~nission became final.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilman Roth offered Resolution Nos. 79R-11 through
79R-15, both inclusive, for adoption in accordance with the reports, recommenda-
tions and certifications furnished each Council Member and as listed on the
Consent Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book.
158: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-11: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (William Hubbard,
et ux.; Everett H. Miller, et al.; Orange Unified School District Of Orange County;
Clarence H. Hoiles,'et al.; Castille Builders, Ltd,., et al.; Ryvers G. Reeder,
et ux.; Elaine Taylor; R.G. Garland Corp.; Rolf Krumes, et ux.; Robert Brkich,
et ux.; Loren W. Du Chesne, et ux.; James N. Wingert, et ux.; Arthur Rodriguez,
et ux.; Jack Culp, Jr., et ux.; Robert Wiens, et ux.)
167: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-12: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 78R-516 ESTABLISHING TRAFFIC SIGNAL FEES AND
ADOPTING A NEW TRAFFIC SIGNAL FEE SCHEDULE.
79-20
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 2~ 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 79R-11 and 79R-12 duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-13: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
TERMINATING ALL PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 523
AND DECLARING RESOLUTION NO. 64R-100 NULL AND VOID.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-14: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
TERMINATING ALL PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH VARIANCE NO. 2417 AND DECLARING
RESOLUTION NO. 72R-445 NULL AND VOID.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour
Kott
NOne
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 79R-13 and 79R-14 duly passed and adopted.
165: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-15: 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: ALLEY IMPROVEMENTS - PHASE I -
ALLEY N/O LINCOLN AVENUE BETWEEN EMILY STREET AND CLAUDINA STREET, IN THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 46-792-6325-2010. (Sully-Miller Contracting Company)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-15 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Kott voted "No" relative to Resolution Nos. 79R-13 and 79R-14 because
he did not have copies of the resolutions in order to know what he was voting on.
The City Clerk stated that those items were routine in nature and the resolutions
were not normally included in the agenda packets, but if Council wished, they
would be included in the future.
167: REPEAL OF COUNCIL POLICY NO. 214 - TRAFFIC SIGNAL ASSESSMENT: The City
Clerk stated that in light of adopting the resolution establishing new traffic
signal fees,, it would be appropriate to adopt a motion repealing Council Policy
No. 214, relating to such fees because it was now obsolete.
79-21
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - J~uary 2~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, Council Policy No.
214, relating to traffic signal assessment fees was repealed. MOTION CARRIED.
ORDINANCE NOS. 3953 AND 3954: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance Nos. 3953 and
3954 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3953: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (60-61-98, CL and PLD-M)
ORDINANCE NO. 3954: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM _AMgNDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (66-67-61(88), C-R)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Ordinance Nos. 3953 and 3954 duly passed and adopted.
170: ORDINANCE NO. 3955: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 3955 for
first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 3955: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING ORDINANCE NO.
3933, NUNC PRO TUNC. (relating to grading)
RECESS: By general consent,_ the Council recessed to 7:30 p.m. (4:.02 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present with the exception of Councilman Kott. (7:30 P.M.)
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 3060 ANB CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1905 AND
NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application by Robbie Kaufman and James Norman Morgan,
to construct a 3-story office building on PORTION A of RS-7200 zoned property
(Resolution of Intent to CO) located at 800 South Harbor Boulevard with code
waivers of:
a) minimum number of parking spaces
b) minimum site area
c) maximum building height
d) required site screening
PORTION B: To permit an automobile parking lot on RS-7200 zoned property
located at the southwest corner of South and Helena Streets With code waivers of:
a) permitted encroachment of a block wall in the front setback
b) permitted encroachment in the front setback
79-22
C. ity Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 2~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-253, declared that
the subject property be exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental
impact report pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act and, further, granted Variance No. 3060, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay the traffic signal assessment
fee (Council Policy No. 214) amounting to $180.00 per 1000 square feet of office
building or fraction thereof prior to the issuance of a building permit.
2. That a mutual parking and access agreement providing for circulation and
parking from one parcel to the other shall be submitted to the City Attorney's
Office for review and approval; then be filed and recorded in the office of
the Orange County Recorder.
3. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1
through 3.
4. That Condition No. 2, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to the
commencement of the activity authorized under this resolution, or prior to the
time that the building permit is issued, or within a period of one year from date
hereof, whichever occurs first, or such further time as the Planning Commission
may grant.
5. That Condition No. 3, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to final
building and zoning inspections.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-254, granted Condi-
tional Use Permit No. 1905, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner(s) of subject property shall deed to the City of Anaheim a strip
of land 32 feet in width from the centerline of the street along South Street, and
a strip of land 25 feet in width from the centerline of the street.along Helena
Street for street widening purposes.
2. That all engineering requirements of the City of Anaheim along South Street,
including preparation of improvement plans and installation of all improvements
such as curbs and gutters, sidewalks, street grading and paving, drainage facilities
or other appurtenent work, shall be complied with as required by the City
Engineer and in accordance with standard plans and specifications on file in
the Office of the City Engineer; that street lighting facilities along South and
Helena Streets shall be installed prior to the final building and zoning inspections
unless otherwise approved by the Director of Public Utilities, and in accordance
with standard specifications on file in the Office of the Directbr of Public
Utilities; or that a bond, certificate of deposit, letter of credit, or cash, in an
amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim shall be posted with the City
to guarantee the above improvements will be installed prior to occupancy.
3. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the
sum of three and one-half dollars ($3.50) per front foot along Harbor ~Boulevard
for street lighting purposes.
79-23
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 2~ 1979, 1:30 P.M.
4. That sidewalks shall be installed along Helena Street as required by the
City Engineer and in accordance with standard plans and specifications on file
in the Office of the City. Engineer.
5. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the
sum of ninety-five cents (95¢) per front foot along South and Helena Streets for
tree planting purposes.
6. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans
on file with the Office of the Director of Public Works.
7. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and determined
to be necessary by the Chief.of the Fire Department prior to commencement of
structural framing.
8. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
9. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory
to the City Engineer.
10. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1
through 3; provided, however, that the trash enclosure shall be relocated a minimum
of 10 feet away from the RS-7200 zoned parcel to the south.
11. That Condition Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5, above-mentioned, shall be complied with
prior to the commencement of the activity authorized under this resolution, prior
to the time that the building permit is issued, or within a period of one year
from date hereof, whichever occurs first, or such further time as the Planning
Commission may grant.
12. That Condition Nos. 4, 6, 8, 9 and 10, above-mentioned, shall be complied
with prior to final building and zoning inspections.
A review of the variance and conditional use permit was requested by Mayor
Seymour at the November 28, 1978 meeting, and public hearing scheduled this
date.
The City Clerk reported a petition in opposition containing approximately 91
signatures had been received and copied for each Council Member.
Before proceeding, Mayor Seymour outlined the procedure that would be followed
in conducting the hearing.
Miss Santalahti described the location and surrounding land uses. She outlined
the findings given in the. staff report which was submitted to and considered by
the City Planning Commission.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous
of being heard.
79-24
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 2~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Floyd Farano, attorney for the applicant, stated that the issue before the
Council was simple in nature although complex in demands upon the Council. It
only asked two questions: (1) whether the project was the best overall use of the
land in question considering its effects upon the entire neighborhood, intensity
of the use itself and its contribution to the City as a whole and (2) whether the
detrimental effect outweighed the benefit to the City as a whole. He maintained
that an analysis of the present application would clearly show (1) the proposal
was the best use of the property, and (2) it was in the best interest of the
entire City.
Mr. Farano continued that he found it difficult to believe that the possibility
of graffiti on a wall would be the deciding factor. The applicant proposed con-
struction of a building which would result in the least possible intensive use,
consisting of a 17,000-square foot commercial office building with one-half of
the space to be occupied by architects and lawyers offices and the balance suitable
for accounting, engineering or similar use. The space would not be suitable for
medical or dental offices, or laboratory or real estate uses. The space in the
building had been designed for something other than walk-in type traffic with
resulting low intensity use. Even opponents seemed to be agreeable that such use
would provide the least impact in the area. The property to the east ~mmediately
adjacent to Helena would be used to park automobiles and the lot would be com-
pletely sealed off from Helena Street, with ingress only from Harbor and South
Street and egress only provided from Harbor Boulevard. In order to prohibit
exiting the property from South Street, spikes and warning signs would be in-
stalled. The physical arrangement was such that all parking would be on the
premises and street parking and traffic would be eliminated.
Mr. Farano further explained that while the plan appeared to be identical as that
previously before the Council, substantial changes had been made specifically
designed to further protect the residents of the area. The changes proposed were
as follows: (1) instead of requesting commercial zoning for the entire parcel,
the commercial use was confined to Harbor Boulevard only and the conditional use
permit requested for parking on the eastern parcel, which .technique offered sub-
stantial protection against the possibility of future commercial uses that might
front on Helena, (2) a landscape buffer 12.5 to 15.5~feet to be provided on the
outside of the fence on Helena Street to further enhance and beautify the neigh-
borhood and (3) egress on South Street was eliminated with all traffic egressing
onto Harbor Boulevard.
The waivers requested by the application were necessitated by the fact that the
commercial usage was confined to the Harbor frontage 0nly. The last time the
matter was before the Council, they sought commercial zoning on the entire parcel.
This time, they were seeking to perfect the commercial zoning presently o~ Harbor
and to seek only, by conditional use permit, the use of the eastern portion of the
parking which would result in no change to the property. The application further
served to point out that hardships did exist insofar as the Harbor property was
concerned. Those hardships resulted in the various site development standards
of the Code. Twenty thousand square feet was required, whereas there was only
18,735 square feet to develop. Because of the size and shape of the property,
it would be impossible to develop it in accordance with the development standards.
79-25
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 2~ 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Farano then presented a drawing of the site showing the ingress and egress
onto Harbor and ingress only from South Street, as well as the increased land-
scaping on the Helena site. In providing that additional landscaping, they had
to give up four parking spaces which was the reason for one of the waivers.
Relative to parking on the street, the design was such that it would be extremely
difficult if not impossible for anyone to park their car on Helena Street and~
walk around the property to enter the building off Harbor. They believed they
successfully precluded any possible misuse of street parking because of the lack
of parking on South Street. The second drawing presented was an architectural
drawing showing the planting plan. It was not a rendering, but an actual plan
of what the developer was committing to do to the property and they wanted to
make that part of the application. The third drawing was of the site plan pre-
sented by the architect, Dan Rowland, on two previous occasions. 'It also was
not a rendering, but a photograph from an actual scale model of the project.
The idea was to show the appearance of the building as viewed from the east side
of Helena Street. The trees shown were approximately one-half of their full growth
and when the trees matured to full height, the building would be covered from view.
Mr. Farano concluded his presentation by explaining that the petitioner had spent
a great deal of time and effort in revising, re-revising and evaluating plans and
discussing what they were trying to do with the neighbors in order to make the
project a more palatable and acceptable one.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak in suPport of the project.
Mrs. Anderson, 726 South Harbor, stated she lived at that address for almost four
years and had been a resident for 18 years. Mr. Morgan's property was in the
southeast corner of Harbor and hers was on the northeast corner. From the very
first, she had been keenly interested and 100 percent in favor of Mr. Morgan's
idea of developing the property. With the rebuilding of downtown Anaheim now
in progress, how else but that Harbor Boulevard be involved in becoming a better
built street with more modern buildings. With the two large buildings presently
under construction on South Harbor in the middle of the 800 block, she could not
understand how any Anaheim residents could stand in the way of Mr. Morgan's pro-
ceeding with his plans to have his building built.
The Mayor then asked to hear from those in opposition to the project.
Mrs. Dorothy Fassel, 843 South Helena, presented a diagram which showed all of
the houses in the area who were in opposition to the project in red. As well,
the Council had in its possession petitions signed in December by the residents
on Dickel, Helena and Hampshire Street who were opposed to the construction of
the 3-story office building and the conditional use permit for automotive park-
ing on the Helena Street side of the parcel. She emphasized they were opposed
to a parking area invading a single-family zoned street. She maintained that
every one of the families represented by the signatures on the petitions would
be affected in some manner. Notices from the City regarding the proposal had
even been received by Dickel Street residents just as those, residents in the
immediate location. They were asking the City Council to consider the over-
whelming number of residents who felt that the proposal would depreciate and
adversely affect their property.
79.26
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 2~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Jay Tompkin, 703 South Helena, read several statements from the Council meet-
ing minutes of July 25, 1978, wherein the matter was considered (see minutes that
date). The statements were those of the }~yor, Councilmen Roth and Overholt
wherein they gave their thoughts and/or commented on what they believed would be
the best use or why they would support the neighborhood. He maintained that those
statements must have fallen on deaf ears and Mr. Morgan was obviously not paying
attention and he had only his interest in mind. They did not want a parking lot
on Helena Street, but instead people in homes. Mr. Tompkin concluded by stating
that the will of the people on Helena Street was a lot stronger 'than Mr. Morgan's
parking lot which they just did not want.
Mrs. Adrian Benedict, 863 South Helena, stated that the timing of the meetin~
was not beneficial to any members of the neighborhood because many had the Tues-
day after New Year§ off and were out of town and others were quite ill and thus
they could not get the crowd to the meeting that they wiShed. Some time ago,
Mr. Morgan and a lawyer for Dan Rowland asked to meet with the neighbors and
they did, the purpose of which was to discUss exactly what the neighbors would
like to have done with the property. They emphasized that they wanted people,
houses, duplexes or condomini,,ms, and not a parking lot. 'Valuable time was
wasted because they felt Mr. Morgan had no intention of fulfilling any.of their
wishes. After the last Planning Commission hearing granting a decision in favor
of the petitioner, one of the Commissioners took the opportunity to speak with
them and stated the proposed project would be the best deal the neighborhood
could ever get. She stated however that the residents of the 800 block of South
Helena did not buy their property because of any deals, but because they wanted
to buy residential property in a residential city. They were not interested in
any deals, but wanted to keep their neighborhood just as it was, a residential,
safe, clean and stable area. There were a few people on Helena, including herself,
who would soon be able to say that they owned their own home. At about the same
time, if the applicant's petition was granted, all their 30 years of payments
would have been in vain because of the decline of their residential neighborhood
and property, just as with other parts of Anaheim being swallowed up by large.and
small business interests with little thought to homeowners. She then elaborated
upon that point.
In concluding, Mrs. Benedict stated that people were a valuable commodity and if
the decision was made in favor of the petitioner, they would still continue their
efforts to halt the proposed building. They were not easily discouraged, it was
a personal issue with all of them and many had their whole lives at stake on the
issue.
Mrs. Benedict then relayed her concern over the fact that Council minutes were
quite tardy in their preparation and the efforts she expended in trying t° obtain
minutes of July 25, 1978, the last time a public hearing before the Council took
place on the subject proposal. Such had been the case not only presently, but
in past years as well, and she questioned why such ~ situation existed.
The City Clerk explained that anyone was welcome to listen to the tapes of the
Council meeting proceedings in lieu of or until the actual minutes were prepared.
~ere decidedly had been a backlog in minutes preparation, however, preparation
time was generally two months.
79-27
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 2~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Roth explained that recently there had been many issues of great im-
portance to come before the Council and many verbatim transcripts had been re-
quested, making it difficult for the City Clerk's Office to prepare minutes on an
up-to-date basis. As well, there was no money available to hire additional people
to provide more timely minutes.
Mr. Jim Langford, 817 South Dickel, stated that a parking lot thrust into a resi-
dential area was still a parking lot regardless of how it was zoned. While the
new plan, in his opinion, would improve the traffic picture, there were things
other than traffic that were objectionable to the people living in the neighbor-
hood, the first being the intrusion of a parking lot. Secondly was the invasion
of privacy by the construction of a 3-story building as proposed. In spite 'of
the fact that variances were being requested rather than a zoning change, such a
proposal would still change the complexion of the neighborhood. It was one step
toward creeping commercialism, and he did not believe there could be any good
argument given that the people adjacent to the parking lot would not want to do
something with their property also. The big step was the first one and thereafter,
there was no reversal of that process. As suggested at the last meeting, Mr.
b~rgan should tone down the size of his proposal.. No one suggested that he should
not develop his property along Harbor, but a 3-story building should not be thrust
into a residential area because it was too large of a project. The architect had
shown that he could design attractive buildings for that size lot as evidenced by
a building he designed just north on Harbor. Mr. Langford reiterated it would be
entirely acceptable if Mr. Morgan used the Harbor site for the office building
portion leaving the Helena Street property residential as it should be.
Bernadette Heinz, 852 South Helena, first stated that she wished'to second the
views of those who had already spoken. It was obvious that all of the neigh-
borhood had seen fit to stand together and fight for what they believed to be
their natural right to live in peace in their homes. There was enough outside
influence in their lives without adding more elements such as a parking lot and
increased traffic. Suggestions and recommendations had been made many times before
and thus she would not repeat those. She did however, comment on the graffiti
problem. Most had seen the recent destruction of walls around the new senior
citizens complex and the distress it caused. She suggested that perhaps a building
with a wall as proposed would be another invitation for those who had defaced
the complex walls to move even closer to their neighborhood. In 10 years they
could possibly expect their whole neighborhood to fall apart when it took 30
years of nurturing to make it grow and develop. On behalf of herself and her
sister, Mrs. Cherry, she implored the Council to recognize the continuing efforts
of the neighborhood in order to preserve what they had at present.
Mr. Ted Brazil, 822 South Helena, working from a plan of the area, first asked
for clarification from staff as to the zoning on the property.
Miss Santalahti explained that there was a Resolution of Intent to Commercial
Office on the Harbor frontage and the Helena side was RS-7200. The latter would
remain as such, but the petitioner was requesting a conditional use permit specifi-
cally for the parking lot and that would be the sole use for that property.
79-28
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - coUNcIL MINUTES - January 2~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
~.'~r. Brazil contended if the Council aPproved the proposal, the precedent would be'
set that an R2 property could be commercial and the whole block (south of the sub-
ject property) would fall and his house was located in that block.
Mr. Tim Barry, 707 South Helena, stated that he did not see much change in the
new proposal. The crux of the problem, as stated by Messrs. Langford and Brazil,
was that in allowing a parking lot to come into the neighborhood would give the
potential for a clean sweep of the block and those who lived to the north on
Helena could also recognize that potential. They liked their neighborhood too
much to allow the domino theory to start, and they wanted it stopped now. He did
not think the issue was that of a neighborhood blocking progress as indicate& by
the attorney at the outset. The issue was--why not leave people to live in
their neighborhood to enjoy their lives and not put businesses wh~re people should
be. They had talked before of Mr. Morgan scaling down his proposal. They did not
want to tell him what to build there, but with the clear declaration made by the
Council at the last meeting, they did not understand why they were at another
meeting tonight. The Council unanimously agreed that the neighborhood should stay
residential, and Mr. Morgan could develop the Harbor side site as he wished. There
were options for him to take, and he wished that Mr. Morgan would stop wasting
the neighbors' and Council's time and get on with those options.
Mr. Bob Routh, 842 South Helena, asked the Council's indulgence while he reminisced
on the well established neighborhood where he had lived for many years which
would give background support to the main idea he wanted to express. Mr. Routh
then relayed much of his personal background information relative to the neighbor-
hood which he had given at previous meetings regarding its being a quality area
with many amenities and the cohesiveness of the residents living therein, which had
made it the fine neighborhood it was since its inception, having been the second
tract built in Anaheim. In concluding, Mr. Routh stated that they had heard a
great deal about the best use for the piece of property under question. That
property was originally someone's home. He emphasized, as he did previously, that
all they wanted was to be left alone.
b~ayor Seymour then allowed Mr. Farano time for rebuttal limited to the arguments
raised in opposition.
Mr. Farano stated that he made a list of the concerns expressed, but commented
that Mr. Routh was a hard act to follow. He was certain they could talk about
some logic of reminiscing that would probably touch all of them as deeply as
Mr. Routh's presentation. He thereupon relayed his background as a boy and
explained that the place where he lived was now part of the University of Illinois,
Chicago Campus. The things he loved were now gone--a change had taken place just
as would always occur whether or not it was welcomed. The proper~y they were dis-
cussing was also going to change whether tonight, the next night, the next month
or year. About the only thing that could be done was try to minimize the impact
that any kind of change was going to have. That is what his client had tried to
do in the last four months, minimize the impact in the amount of change the pro-
ject would have on the surrounding property. He stated that the City Council had,
in the past, and should do so in the future, listen to what the people had to say,
but the relative importance of the testimony had to be weighed because the people
79-29
Ci. ty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 2~ 1979, 1:30 P.M.
on Dickel or North Helena would not be as impacted as a resident living directly
across the street. He did not intend that their testimony be ignored, but placed
in the proper perspective.
Mr. Farano continued that when they talked to the various people in the neighbor-
hood when they started on the project again, they knew all of the arguments relative
to traffic, graffiti, etc. They explored what could be done and talked.about various
things, but nothing was ever agreed upon or recommended by neighbors and there was
not one constructive suggestion in the four months he had worked on the project as
to what would be an acceptable project. A single-story commercial building with
Harbor frontage was suggested, but because of its size and shape, would end up at
an approximately 4,000-square foot building. He told the neighbors that theYe
were other considerations for the property, but before proceeding, they tried to
find a neighborhood which had a similar situation. One was in Fullerton and the
other in Anaheim. He first presented photographs of the property and pictures of
the neighborhood on Chapman Avenue in Fullerton comparable to that on Helena.
However, the arrangement did not have a brick wall to the rear and the parking
lot was open and exited onto the residential street. They spoke with everyone in
the area who had anything to say about the arrangement relative to traffic problems,
whether or not it degraded the neighborhood or devalued their property or if it
interfered with their enjoyment of life or lifestyle. In every case, the answer
was ~lnoll.
The Anaheim location was Keystone Savings (Euclid and Crescent Streets) with a
parking lot fronting on Fairhaven, a residential street, a vacant lot to the south
and a highrise to the south of the lot. They asked people questions and also
submitted a survey which was passed to the Council along with photographs of the
area. The questionnaire asked if the neighbors had objections to Keystone Savings,
the parking lot that bordered the east side of Fairhaven, traffic problems, pollu-
tion, noise, degradation of the beauty of the neighborhood. In each of the five
questionnaires, it was indicated that the project did not degrade or change, but
enhanced the neighborhood. The biggest single complaint was the vacant lot and
even though it was fenced, it was a junk catcher. He contrasted that project with
the proposed project to show the difference in the development which he maintained
would not be detrimental. As well, he submitted statements they took in talking
to the people in the immediate area on both the east and west side of Helena and
others on Harbor indicating approval. He also maintained that knowing what they
did about zoning, conditional use permits, variances, Waivers and the like, it
would not be setting a precedent. The pictures he submitted as well as some of
comments on the questionnaires spoke for themselves. They had done everything
they could and would continue to do everything to lessen the impact. There was
no question that the project was going to change the neighborhood, but anything
that would be proposed would do the same.
Regarding building single-family residences, there would be no buffer if they
developed that portion as suggested because single-family residences would abut
the commercial development. Those families would be exactly against the
commercial property with no buffering. The project they proposed provided a
substantial buffer either with or without the parking lot. If the commercial
property were developed with the exclusion of the Helena property, it would re-
sult in what was on the property presently, a vacant lot strewn about with trash.
He emphasized the idea of residential abutting commercial on Harbor Boulevard was
contrary to everything they had talked about tonight.
79-30
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 2, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Farano also pointed out that the use would be a nine to five operation, whereas
with single-family residences or duplexes, there was a continual movement of people.
The residents would have the street to themselves with no change except for the
better after five o'clock at night.
In concluding, Mr. Farano'stated it had not been an easy project and both the
proponents and opponents were to be congratulated because they devoted a great
deal of time and energy to it. They had given the City Council something to
think about and the Council, in turn, had to be fair to all its citizens and to
act on the project in a manner that was in the best interest of the entire
community and not the particular priority of anyone. The Council likewise
should be commended in their approach and willingness to listen and to discuss
the matter time and again and regardless of the outcome, he doubted anybody
could say that the Council had not performed its duty to its citizens.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
Mayor Seymour asked that the specific landscape plan be passed to the Council
for their evaluation. In looking at the single-family residential development
to the south on Harbor Boulevard and in trying to get a better handle on'the
domino theory that the neighborhood discussed, he then asked Miss Santalahti
if she could give a general description of what the site development standards
would be for commercial use on those size lots on Harbor.
Miss Santalahti stated at the current time, especially if the buildings were
retained as residential structures, there were a list of uses that were allowed.
The only uses permitted in a residential structure were typically office-type
functions and minor retail uses such as art galleries and antique stores with
parking to the rear as provided by Code. Rather than each one having its own
separate access, they would encourage the sharing of access with their neighbors
so as to keep the parking to the rear of the property. If the property were
redeveloped with a commercial building, then they would have to live with set-
backs relative to building height and provide a ratio of parking in either case
such as five spaces per 1000 square feet for retail Use. Signing would be re-
stricted and a block wall would always be required next to a residential zone
automatically. Because of the shallow depth of the property, generally fairly
small commercial buildings were proposed, a one-family lot converted to commer-
cial use, thus resulting in a number of small commercial buildings instead of
minor commercial uses with a lot of driveways onto Harbor. The subject properties
were typically under Resolution of Intent to CO zone and were tending to go one
lot at a time. It was not typical for people to get together to try and develop
a larger piece into a common development.
Councilman Roth remarked relative to this decision that had to be made, this was
a difficult way to start the new year. The Council was sensitive to the fears
and wishes of the people and he believed that more time and energy had been
spent on the subject proposal than any other item in the last couple of years.
The Council'was very familiar with the problems involved and since the last
79-31
~ Ha__~l.l~3~.~A~n_~_~ei~m California - COUNCIL MIN~JTES - January 2, 1979, I~30 P.M.
~e~ring (see minutes of July 25, 1978) he had spent considerable tame looking
~ ~he feasibility of putting single-family homes on the eastern por~iom of ~he
~r~perty and tried to take an intelligent approach as to what effec~ ~a~ wou~
hav~ on the western portion, As well, he looked at the effect it w~ have
~!~ people who would be living there abutting a commercial developme~
,~!~ wo~i~ p~r~ ~c~ ~ ~ ~rderly as the one proposed tonight. He agreed
~?~ Mr. Farano whe~ he stated there would be absolutely no room
~gle-family development from the commercial use.
'~,~ C~unci!. Planning Commission and staff tried to be very patient ±~
~ av~ryone, evaluating the plans and trying to work out what wou~d 5e best
s~ concerned. He had changed his opinion from the last'hearing in ccnslderlng
.... aspects especially relative to the possibility of a single-famiLy deveLe~ment
~?n the Helena side. He considered the development as now proposed tc be.the
highest and best use for the subject property and it represented & ccmtinu!ng,
orderly fashion of development along Harbor Boulevard. If the parcel were
divided and only Parcel "A", the commercial property, could be ~eYeloped, it
would be less desirous and everybody would be sorry to see what we'u!d happen
as a consequence particularly regarding the increase in traffic which would be
most detrimental to the community. The proposal had gone back to the Planning
Commission and they approved it unanimously.
To further uphold the Planning Commission's reco~ndation, several Council
Members asked that it be presented to the Chamber of Commerce for their comment
and the Chamber subsequently recommended the proposal. The new proposal pro-
viding for an increase in the landscaping on Helena Street from 12.5 to 15.5
feet and the no exit onto South Street would be beneficial and it would not be
as bad as the neighborhood proclaims. As well, Parcel "B", the eastern portion,
would have not have any buildings on it because a conditional use permit was
being requested for a parking lot and the fears that the whole property would be
covered with commercial buildings would be eliminated. He did not understand
the philosophy of the domino effect of the commercialization of any property along
Helena Street. He did not see that in the near future and before granting any
type of zoning or conditional use permit, the matter would have to come before
the Council.
Mayor Seymour stated when they first started out, the project which had come before
the Planning Commission and the Council several times, and he recalled the major
concerns being (1) traffic, (2) visual intrusion and (3) change in the character
of the neighborhood. He believed that was where the opposition still existed.
Each time the matter had been before the Council, he had been very adamant in his
opposition to the proposal and either the first or second time he suggested (1)
that in order to handle the visual intrusion, that the applicant agree to'more
dense landscaping Or buffering of the project from Helena Street or (2) in order
to preclude vehicular traffic from circulating on Helena Street, that there be
no egress granted onto South Street from the property. In spite of those requests,
the applicant saw fit not to meet them. However, tonight he had done so.
Relative to the change in the neighborhood, knowing that the properties facing
Harbor could develop in the future without the single-family residences on the
west side of Helena Street and knowing that all but two were opposed to the
79-32
City .Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 2, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
present project, without those people selling their property, he did not know
how the true domino effect could take place. It could happen if all the homes
indicated in red on the diagram on Helena Street were to sell their property
to one or more people who owned the property on Harbor. Without that happening,
however, it would be a practical impossibility for such a theory to take place.
At best, what would take place would be that each individual property would
develop into a very low intensity-type use.
The Mayor continued that he did not know how he could, in clear conscience, con-
tinue to object to the project any longer. The applicant had solved the traffic
problem and no traffic would enter Helena Street. The visual intrusion was ~olved
by the landscaped barrier as evidenced by the specific plan provided. He further
stated that he understood the concerns of the neighborhood which had a great deal
of history and one where neighbors knew one another. That is why he heretofore
staunchly supported the desires of that community, but there were two sides to the
question. The desires of the neighborhood had to be balanced with certain rights
of the property owner as to what he could legitimately do with his property. He
was supportive of the present proposal because he did not know what more that
property owner could do to lessen an impact on their neighborhood. If he were
to develop that property with residential on Helena Street, there would be more
traffic than with the present proposal. With the blocking of traffic egressing
onto South Street, traffic would now be precluded from moving through that neigh-
borhood. Visually the neighbors would see a heavily vegetated landscape screen.
He again reiterated he did not know how the impact could be lessened further.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council finds that no sensitive
environmental impacts are involved in the proposal and that the initial study
submitted by the petitioner indicated no significant individual or cumulative
adverse environmental impacts and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to
prepare an EIR. Councilman Kott was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 79R-16 for adoption, gra~ting Variance
No. 3060 and Resolution No. 79R-17 for adoption, granting Conditional Use Permit
No. 1905, subject to the additional conditions that no egress be permitted onto
South Street, to be reinforced by the installation of spiking; the landscape buffer
on the Helena Street side be increased from 12.5 to 15.5 feet and be installed
during the period of construction in accordance with the landscape plan submitted at
this hearing.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated in this case she had been
anxious to please the residents in the neighborhood,~ but on the other hand,
evaluating the proposed project and the lightness of the use, she believed it
was the best way to'protect the neighborhood. There would be less traffic and
less evening and weekend use than with three single-family residences. Relative
to the domino theory, she. concurred with the Mayor and did not see where anyone
who loved their home and wanted to keep their residential area was going to sell
out and move. However, if they wished to do so, there was no way to prevent that
action, but she did not believe they would do it because of the proposed project.
79-33
City Hall~ Anaheim, California- COUNqtL MINUTES- Janua.r¥ 2~ 1979~ 1:.30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood disagreed with one point and had to concur with the Planning
Commission that a difficult situation could occur by preventing egress onto South
Street. She believed the traffic situation would be compounded by not allowing
any egress, whereas if allowed, traffic would make a left to the light at South
Street and Harbor in order to go either left or right at that point. If the only
egress was on Harbor and a vehicle wanted to turn left, it would be nearly im-
possible and the motorist would probably turn right out of the complex onto
Harbor, and then take another right onto South Street and right onto Helena which
was what the neighborhood did not want.
Mayor Seymour stated that although he understood what the Planning Commission said,
he felt strongly that by preventing egress onto South Street, that was the only
way they could guarantee there would be no increased traffic to that neighborhood
and that was why he included the stipulation in his resolution.
Councilman Overholt stated he was going to support the Mayor's resolution and
the problem he had wrestled with was that which Mr. Langford raised relative to
the project being too large for the property. He believed they had concluded
that properly handled, the project'was not too large. If the applicant went to
two stories, they would still require parking and there would be the same intru-
sion into the neighborhood. His concern had been for traffic. At the last
hearing, the opponents very ably indicated that there was a traffic jam on South
Street going west in the afternoon and that egress from the property would result
in traffic not turning left, but instead turning right on South and right on
Helena to go back to Harbor. He was of the opinion that the Mayor's resolution
would absolutely prohibit egress onto South Street and should totally eliminate
any inconvenience to that neighborhood from traffic generated by the project. He
believed that was the principal concern expressed by the residents. He also agreed
with the Mayor that with the increased landscape buffer and the large stock, given
a little time, the neighbors would not be able to see anything. It was a project
that would be a credit to the community. The Keystone Savings building was perhaps
the best example of what the property would look like when matured although he
believed it would look even better. When Keystone was trying to acquire property
for their parking lot, the residents were upset, but yet there was less traffic
with the parking lot than houses.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolutions. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-16: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 3060.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-17: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1905.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour
None
Kott
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 79R-t6 and 79R-17 duly Passed and adopted.
79-34
City Hall~ Anaheim~ Caltfornia~r.COUl~,CIL MINUTES - January 2, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilwoman Ka~Ood moved to adjourn. Councilman Roth seconded
the motion. Councilman Kott was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 9:07 P.M.
LINI~A D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK