1979/08/2179-926
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 21~ 1979, 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
CITY ENGINEER: William G. Devitt
CETA SERVICES MANAGER: Bill R. Hepburn
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
POLICE DEPARTMENT: Detective Lieutenant Dale Wilcox
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Reverend Warren Pittman, St. Michael's Episcopal Church, gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilwoman Miriam Kaywood led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
105: PRESENTATION: A letter of special recommendation and appreciation by the
Mayor and the City Council was read to be presented to the Members of the Hill
and Canyon Municpal Advisory Committee (HACMAC) commending them for their time
and efforts in serving the City on that committee. The Mayor then presented
the lettar to Dr. Ronald Dyas and George Sisson, two of the Members who were
present in the Council Chamber.
MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular
meeting held March 13 and April 24, 1979. Councilman Overholt seconded the
motion. Councilman Bay abstained. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood 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. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $1,353,764.39, in accordance
with the 1979-80 Budget, were approved.
160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - SIXTY 150KVAR 7200-VOLT SHUNT CAPACITORS - BID
NO. 3552: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Bay, the low
bid of Maydwell and Hartzell was accepted and purhcase authorized in the amount
of $16,510.56 including tax, as recommended by the Purhcasing Agent in his
memorandum dated August 14, 1979. MOTION CARRIED.
79-927
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 21~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - FOUR THREE-PHASE PADMOUNT TRANSFORMERS - BID
NO. 3557: On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilwoman Kmywood, the
low bid of General Electric Company for three 1000 KVAs was accepted and pur-
chase authorized in the amount of $21,859.32 including tax and the low bid of
Balteau Standard for one 750 KVA was accepted and purchase authorized in the
amount of $6,394.98 including tax, as recon~nended by the Purchasing Agent in
his memorandum dated August 14, 1979. MOTION CARRIED.
174: AWARD OF CONTRACT - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT AREA 4: (Account
Nos. 25-793-6325-3130, 3180 and 3190) Councilman Overholt offered Resolution
No. 79R-477 for adoption awarding a contract as recommended by the City Engineer.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-477: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST
RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS
AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND
WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM AREA 4 - AREA
BOUNDED BY LA PALMA AVENUE, PAULINE STREET, WILHELMINA STREET, AND ANAHEIM
BOULEVARD, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, PROJECT ACCOUNT NOS. 25-793-6325-3130,
25-793-6325-3180 AND 25-793-6325-3190. (McGrew Construction Company, $299,484.70)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-477 duly passed and adopted.
123: CONSTRUCTION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS AT TUSTIN AVENUE AND RIVERSIDE FREEWAY:
Councilman Bay stated-that the necessity for the subject traffic signals was
additional proof of the increasing traffic at two of the points of access in
the Northeast Industrial area. If any Council Members had been up in the area
driving off the Riverside Freeway at Tustin and noted the new Gold Key furniture
development, the lot north of Gold Key contained divided buildings set up for
commercial with show windows. Some of that was the reason for the increased
traffic requiring the expenditure of monies for traffic lights.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 79R-478 for adoption as recommended
in memorandum dated August 15, 1979 from the City Engineer authorizing an agree-
ment with Caltrans to construct traffic signals at Tustin Avenue at the River-
side Freeway off-ramps at an estimated cost of $133,000, with City and State to
share equally. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-478: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN CONNECTION WITH THE INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNAL SYSTEMS AND SAFETY
LIGHTING; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID
AGREEMENT.
79-928
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 21, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-478 duly passed and adopted.
123: APPRAISAL SERVICES - CITY'S DEFERRED PAYMENT REHABILITATION LOAI~ PROGRAM:
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 79R-479 and 79R-480 for adoption as
recommended in memorandum dated August 14, 1979 from the Executive Director of
Con~nunity Development, Norm Priest, authorizing an agreement with David G. Fish
and Monica M. Moore for appraisal services in connection with the City's Deferred
Payment Rehabilitation Loan Program. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-479: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH DAVID G. FISH AND AUTHOR-
IZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-480: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH MONICA M. MOORE 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, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-479 and 79R-480 duly passed and adopted.
123: CETA ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS: Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 79R-481
for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated August 8, 1979 from the Human
Resources Director Garry McRae, authorizing an agreement with the Orange County
Manpower Commission to provide administrative funds for the operation of the
CETA Program for April 1 through September 30, 1979, totalling $577,585. Refer
to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-481: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANA~{EIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A SUBGRANT AGREEMENT WITH THE ORANGE COUNTY
MANPOWER COMMISSION AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO
EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. (Subgrant Agreement
No. H80182, DOL Grant #06-9032-5)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-481 duly passed and adopted.
79-929
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 21~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
123: AMENDMENT TO AN AGREEMENT WITH SPECIAL COUNSEL, ALAN WATTS: Councilman
Overholt offered Resolution No. 79R-482 for adoption, authorizing an amendment
to the subject agreement pursuant to Council's action on August 7, 1979 adopting
hourly rates of $65 for services of attorney and partners, and $50 for services
performed by associates. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-482: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH ALAN
R. WATTS FOR LEGAL SERVICES PROVIDED TO CITY CONCERNING POWER SUPPLY, AND AUTHOR-
IZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AMENDMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-482 duly passed and adopted.
105: JOINT MEETING - LIBRARY BOARD AND COUNCIL: Request received from the
Library Board for a joint meeting with the Council, Friday, August 24, 1979
at 2:00 P.M., Council Chamber, was submitted.
After Council discussion regarding the requested meeting time, Councilman Seymour
moved to adjourn from today's meeting to Tuesday, August 28, 1979 at 12:00 Noon
in the Council Chamber for the requested joint meeting with the Library Board.
Councilm~n Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
The Mayor suggested in the future, regarding the point made by Councilman Roth,
they should try as best they could to schedule such meetings immediately pre-
ceeding the Council meeting, but at the same time making certain that enough
time was allowed so that they would not be rushed.
~08: DINNER-DANCING PLACE PERMIT: Submitted by Harvey S. and Norma M. Owen
for the Oscars Restaurant, 1160 North Kraemer Boulevard, for dancing Monday
through Saturday, 8:00 P.M. to 1:00 A.M.
Mayor Seymour stated they had the report from the Chief of Police recommending
that the above permit be granted subject to the applicable provisions of the
Anaheim Municipal Code and he wanted to know if the Chief's recommendation
remained the same.
City Manager Talley explained that Lieutenant Wilcox was to be present to report
on the matter and since he was not in the Council Chamber, requested that it
be postponed to a later time today.
Later in the meeting, Lieutenant Wilcox reported that he contacted the owner,
Mr. Harvey Owen, and that he had applied for a different permit than that requested.
He believed if the permit situation was clarified, there would be no problem.
79-930
C~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 21, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Talley thereupon recommended that the item be removed from the agenda.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Bay, request for application
for the subject Dinner-Dancing Permit was removed from the agenda. MOTION CARRIED.
172: TRAFFIC DIVERTER - CAMINO MANZANO: Request by Mr. Murray Zoota to address
the Council to present the citizen's portion of the cost to install a traffic
diverter on Camino Manzano, was submitted.
Mr. Murray Zoota, 6093 Camino Manzano, stated as requested by the Council, the
residents of Camino Manzano had contributed $1,500 towards the cost of a traffic
diverter they requested and which was approved by the Council representing half
the cost of the $3,000 diverter. The checks were submitted to the City Clerk.
In so doing however he asked if for any reason the diverter was taken down
because it was poorly planned or unsafe, that the money be returned to the
residents.
After a brief discussion between Mr. Zoota and the Mayor relative to the latter
part of Mr. Zoota's request, the Mayor asked the City Attorney's opinion on
returning that money to the residents.
City Attorney Hopkins stated that they could accept the $1,500 as a gift to
the City but without any strings or any possiblity of return. If the procedure
Mr. Zoota was referring to were followed, there would have to be an agreement
that would provide for all such terms and conditions.
Mr. Zoota then stated he would tender their share without requesting any return
and ask the Council to do what they promised and solve the problem on the street
however they chose to do so (see minutes August 8, August 29, October 3, November
28, 1978). Councilman Roth asked staff if the barricade was considered unsafe
even before it was installed.
City Engineer William Devitt stated that it had certain objectionable features.
As well, the City Clerk had advised him that on November 28, 1978 she received
a petition of some 400 names who were opposed to the project.
Mr. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer stated he had a memorandum from the Fire Chief
stating it would add to a circuitous route to get to an emergency and that would
fall into the safety area.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that it would be necessary to hand-clean the street
because the sweeper could not get through. She questioned the additional cost
of doing that and also asked what diverter they were talking about.
Mr. Singer answered that it was the simplest barricade and the least expensive;
Mr. Devitt clarified that the cost was $3,000. It would not be one that emer-
gency vehicles could get through but there were several alternatives that could
be constructed of that nature.
Councilwoman Kaywood emphasized that there were other streets throughout the
City with similar problems as those on Camino Manzano, and there would be no
reason not to grant like requests.
79-931
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 21, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to accept the $1,500 from the residents of
Camino Manzano (approximately 48 contributed) and the traffic diverter to be
installed. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood expressed her concern that when
the barrier was installed, motorists were not going to be aware of it and
accidents would be caused by the barrier itself. She also wanted to know the
source of the additional $1,500 needed for the barrier.
The Mayor added to his motion that the payment of the balance of $1,500 was to
be allocated from the Council Contingency Fund.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Zoota asked that he be kept abreast of the status of the project.
108: REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF COUNCIL POLICY NO. 539: Submitted by R. J. Fulmer,
on behalf of Seiyu Yogi relating to the requirement that no amusement or recre-
ational devices be maintained within 600 feet of any school and pertaining to
an application for Amusement Devices Permit and License for Yogi Amusement
Center No. 2, 2534 West Lincoln Avenue.
The Mayor asked if Seiyu Yogi or his representative was present to speak to
the matter; no one was present.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the subject
request for waiver of Council Policy No. 539 was denied. MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman
Seymour, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and
recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent
Calendar Agenda:
i. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and referred
to the City's Claims Administrator and the Application for Leave to Present
Late Claim was denied:
a. Claim submitted by Maribeth Brock for damages sustained purportedly as a
result of electricity being turned off and causing food spoilage sometime between
July 9 and 21, 1979.
b. Claim submitted by Robert V. Cisternino for personal injuries sustained
purportedly as a result of a slip-and-fall accident at Anaheim Stadium on or
about April 30, 1979.
c. Claim submitted by Benjamin J. Gritters for vehicle damages purportedly
sustained as a result of low hanging limbs of trees located in the Anaheim
Stadium parking lot breaking power antenna on or about July 31, 1979.
d. Claim submitted by Gregory Krueger for personal injuries purportedly sus-
tained as a result of an incident involving City employees at Anaheim Stadium
on or about April 27, 1979.
79-932
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 21, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
e. Claim submitted by Orange County Guide for property damages purportedly
sustained as a result of power cable failure on or about July 27, 1979.
f. Claim submitted by State Compensation Insurance Fund for personal injuries
purportedly sustained as a result of the industrial death of Ricardo Calderon
(auto vs train accident which occurred at railroad crossing on Orangethorpe,
west of Concerto Drive) on or about July 7, 1979.
g. Claim submitted by Terry D. Wyatt for vehicle damages purportedly sustained
as a result of vehicle hitting deep hole in the pavement at the northeast corner
of Anaheim and Harbor Boulevards on or about July 26, 1979.
h. Application for Leave To Present Late Claim submitted by Interinsurance
Exchange of the Automobile Club of Southern California for damages to vehicle
purportedly sustained as a result of paint overspray in Municipal Golf Course
parking lot, on or about August 30, 1978.
2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission - Minutes of August 1, 1979.
b. 105: Community Services Board - Minutes of July 12, 1979.
c. 175: Utilities Department, Customer Serivce Division, Monthly Report for
July 1979.
d. 156: Police Department, Revised Monthly Report for July 1979.
MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 79R-483
through 79R-487, both inclusive, for adoption in accordance with the reports,
recommendations and certifications furnished each Council Member and as listed
on the Consent Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book.
158: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-483: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Glenroy
Partners; Larry C. Noggle; and Van Horne, Ltd.)
167: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-484: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE
THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: MAINTENANCE
CONTRACT FOR TRAFFIC SIGNALS, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, FOR A 3-YEAR PERIOD,
ACCOUNT NOS. 01-263-6325-3000 AND 01-263-6240-3000; APPROVING THE DESIGNS,
PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF;
AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID
PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO
PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids
to be opened September 13, 1979, 2:00 P.M.)
79-933
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 21~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
169: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-485: 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: EUCLID STREET STREET AND
STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS, RIVERSIDE FREEWAY TO LA PALMA AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, A.H.F.P. NO. 836, ACCOUNT NO. 13-792-6325-2080. (Sully-Miller Contracting
Company)
164: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-486: 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: LA PALMA AVENUE--TUSTIN
AVENUE STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 46-791-1010.
(Bebek Company)
150: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-487: 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: JUAREZ PARK DRAINAGE IMPROVE-
MENT, N/O ANNIKA STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 16-817-6325 AND
01-792-6325-2470. (Fleming Engineering, Inc.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 79R-483 through 79R-487 both inclusive
duly passed and adopted. ' '
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning
Commission at their meeting held July 30, 1979, pertaining to the following
applications, as listed on the Consent Calendar, were submitted for City Council
information.
1. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 79-80-6: Submitted by Ralph J. and Dorothy M. Warden,
for a change in zone from CG to ML, to construct a warehouse addition to an
existing warehouse on proposed ML zoned property located at 336 South Walnut
Street.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-155, granted
Reclassification No. 79-80-6, and granted a negative declaration status.
2. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 79-80-7 (TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10794): Submitted by
Anaheim United Methodist Church, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to
RM-3000, to establish a 1-lot, 21-unit condominium subdivision on property
located on the south side of Wagner Avenue, east of State College Boulevard.
79-934
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 21~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-153, granted
Reclassification No. 79-80-7 and granted a negative declaration status.
3. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 79-80-9: Submitted by Marshall E. Dunn, et al, for a
change in zone from RM-2400 to CO, to construct a four-story office building
on proposed CO zoned property located at 500 South Harbor Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-154, granted
Reclassification No. 79-80-9, and granted a negative declaration status.
4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002: Submitted by Soloman and Harriet June
Weinberg, to retain an aviary on RS-7200 zoned property located at 2731 East
Jackson Avenue with a waiver of minimum setback for a bird coop.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-156, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2002, and granted a negative declaration status.
5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003: Submitted by Walter J. and Mary E. Burandt,
to permit automobile glass installation and retail glass sales on ML zoned
property located at 1331 North East Street, Unit C.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-157, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2003, and granted a negative declaration status.
6. VAIRANCE NO. 3104: Submitted by Investors Development of Orange County,
Inc., to establish a 3-lot subdivision on RM-1200 zoned property located at
2224 South Lewis Street with a waiver of minimum building site width.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-158, granted
Variance No. 3104, and granted a negative declaration status.
7. REMOVAL OF SPECIMEN TREES (TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 9594 - REV. NO. 2): Submitted
by Burnett Development Co., requesting the removal of 44 eucalyptus trees, in
order to establish a 13-lot subdivision on RS-HS-22,000 zoned property located
on the east side of Henning Way, south of Arboretum Road.
The City Planning Commission granted the removal of specimen trees (Tentative
Tract No. 9594 - Rev. No. 2), and granted a negative declaration status.
8. REMOVAL OF SPECIMEN TRESS (TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10254): Submitted by Classic
Development Corporation, requesting the removal of 4 eucalyptus and 1 sycamore
tree, in order to construct a 15-lot subdivision on RS-7200 zoned property located
on the northwest side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, northeast of Mohler Drive.
The City Planning Commission granted removal of specimen trees (Tentative
Tract No. 10254), and granted a negative declaration status.
9. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 77-78-37 - REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLANS:
Submitted by Masonic Building Association of Anaheim, requesting approval of
specific plans for a nine-unit apartment complex on proposed RM-1200 zoned
property located at the east terminus of Provential Drive.
79-935
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 21, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
The City Planning Commission approved the specific plans for Reclassification
No. 77-78-37.
10. VARIANCE NO. 1790 - REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Dennis
W. Aase, requesting a retroactive extension of time to Variance No. 1790, to
waive the requirement of a block wall enclosure of outdoor storage of wrecked
automobiles on ML zoned property located at 701 East Cypress Street.
The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Variance No. 1790,
to expire April 25, 1982.
The City Council took no action on the foregoing items therefore the actions of
the City Planning Commission became final.
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 79-80-2 AND VARIANCE NO. 3097: Submitted by Frank Pagliari,
et al, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-2400, to construct an 8-unit
apartment complex on proposed RM-2400 zoned property located on the southwest
corner of Savanna Street and Marian Way with a waiver of maximum structural
height.
Councilwoman Kaywood requested a review of the subject application.
VARIANCE NO. 3103: Submitted by Bhikhu and Pushpa B. Patel, Khushal N. and
Lalivati K. Patel, to construct a 3-story, 40-unit motel on C-R zoned property
located on the south side of Ball Road, east of West Street, with a waiver
of minimum number of parking spaces.
Councilman Bay requested a review of the subject application.
142: ORDINANCE NO. 4036 - AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18 - RACQUETBALL~ TENNIS FACILITIES
AND CHILD DAY-CARE CENTERS: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 4036 for
first reading, as recommended by the Planning Commission.
ORDINANCE NO. 4036: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION
18.06.060 AND ADDING NEW SUBSECTIONS .0257 AND .0267 TO SECTION 18.06.060
OF CHAPTER 18.06, TITLE 18, OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
142: AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18 - TENNIS AND PADDLEBAI.T. COURTS: Amendments to
Subsections 18.04.043.102, 18.22.030.030, 18.23.030.030 and adding new
Sections 18.22.064.100 and 18.23.064.100 to allow tennis and paddleball courts
as permitted encroachments into required side and rear yards in RS-HS-43,000
and RS-HS-22,000 zones.
Approval was recommended by the City Planning Commission for subsequent first
reading of the ordinance.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated relative to the proposed amendment, that where all
the adjacent land was developed, she saw no problem, but if the land were not yet
developed, a neighbor's front yard could be involved, creating noise and visual
intrusion. She wanted to know if there was any way of separating the two.
79-936
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 21, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Miss Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, explained the only way they had
of distinguishing a front yard was if there was a public street or a recorded
access easement. Otherwise, they would have to assume that an interior property
line would remain a side yard or back yard even if something else were developed.
She did not believe there were too many cases involving Councilwoman Kaywood's
concern.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if on one-acre lots, was there an option as to which
way a house could be oriented.
Miss Santalahti answered in that particular zone, the way the house was placed
was not regulated at all by zoning. There was an identical setback from all
property lines of 10 feet whether street side or interior side. They just
expected that the street side was going to be the front although Councilwoman
Kaywood was correct in that someone might build a house facing sideways.
Councilwoman Kaywood reiterated that she did not want somebody installing a
tennis court and having that determine the way an adjacent one-acre or larger parcel
was going to have to place a house.
Mayor Seymour asked for clarification if the Planning Commission's concern in
making the recommendation was that there had been too many requests for variances.
Miss Santalahti answered that they had between five and ten requests for tennis
court fences specifically, and in one case there was an existing neighbor who did
not like it being placed towards his house. It was approved, but the neighbors
did not receive notice, since it was sent to the previous owner. ~ However,
they were contacted prior to the design work on the tennis court. One of the
spouses did not like it and that caused a problem.
Mayor Seymour was of the opinion that the type of relief being proposed should
be on small lots, but not on one-acre or half-acre lots. If he were going to
spend the money required to purchase such lots and his neighbor could build a
tennis court or paddleball court on his property line, that would be of great
concern to him.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she did not object if an area was completely developed
and the neighbors knew where the courts were going to be placed.
Miss Santalahti suggested that prior to the second reading, they could make
certain that the Peralta Hills and Mohler Drive Homeowners' Associations
were contacted and send copies of the proposed ordinance requesing any input
or comments from them on either the half-acre or one-acre .lots.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to delay the first reading of the proposed
ordinance so that staff could supply additional information relative to the
Planning Commission's approval of the proposed amendment.
Before any action was taken, Mayor Seymour asked if he would include in that
motion that input also be solicited from the Peralta Hills and Mohler Drive
Homeowners' Association; Councilman Bay was agreeable. Thereupon, Councilman
Seymour seconded the motion.
79-937
.City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 21, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated if they polled the existing
homeowners, her concern would not be addressed because she was looking at the
undeveloped parcels. A situation would be created rendering a one-acre or more
parcel undevelopable because of the placement of a tennis court on the adjacent
property. She had great problems with that.
A vote was taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
170: FINAL MAP - TRACT NO. 10387: Developer, Beam Development Company; tract
is located on the east side of Euclid Street, south of Romneya Drive and con-
tains one proposed CL zoned lot and a 30-unit proposed RM-3000 zoned lot sub-
division.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the proposed
subdivision, together with its design and improvement, was found to be consistent
with the City's General Plan and the City Council approved Final Map, Tract
No. 10387, as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated August 14,
1979. MOTION CARRIED.
170: FINAL MAP - TRACT NO. 10669: Developer, Investors Development of Orange
County, Inc.; tract is located at the northeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and
Pearl Street and contains ten proposed RM-1200 zoned lots, 40-unit, and three
proposed CL zoned lots.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the proposed
subdivision, together with its design and improvement, wa8 found to be consistent
with the City's General Plan and the City Council approved Final Map, Tract
No. 10669, as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated August 14
1979. MOTION CARRIED. '
142/156: ORDINANCE NO. 4034: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4034
for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4034: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SUBSECTIONS
· 020, .040 AND .050 OF SECTION 5.04.010, ADDING NEW SECTION 5.04.065, AND
~MENDING SECTION 5.04.070 OF CHAPTER 5.04, TITLE 5, OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO BICYCLE LICENSING.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4034 duly passed and adopted.
142/156: ORDINANCE NO. 4035: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4035 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4035: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING CHAPTER 4.95 TO
TITLE 4 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO FALSE ALARMS. (burglary/robbery
alarms)
79-938
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 21, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4035 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NOS. 4037 THROUGH 4041: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance Nos. 4037
through 4041, both inclusive, for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4037: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (61-62-69(89), ML)
ORDINANCE NO. 4038: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (65-66-24(26), ML)
ORDINANCE NO. 4039: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (78-79-28, CL)
ORDINANCE NO. 4040: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (61-62-69(83), ML)
ORDINANCE NO. 4041: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (78-79-26, RM-3000)
114: OPEN HOUSE - SENIOR CITIZENS COMPLEX: Councilman Overholt reported on
his attendance at the open house of the Village Center, the new Senior Citizens
housing complex. The unit he visited was on the second floor overlooking Chartres
Street which was in a disruptive state due to Redevelopment. However, the
residents he spoke with living in the Center considered it beautiful and exciting
to watch progress being made.
131: CALTRANS PROJECTS: Councilwoman Kaywood stated that last week she brought
up Caltrans and the letter they had received from OCTD (see minutes August 14,
1979). Since then, she had spoken to Councilman Hollinden and was satisfied
that if they just stayed out of the situation, that would be the best course
of action at this point in time.
150: POSSIBILITY OF INSTITUTING A SENIOR CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE: Councilman
Roth stated he also attended the open house of the Senior Citizens complex, as
well as the TLC Luau, as did many Council Members. In his discussions with the
seniors, particularly Herb Eggett, some problem areas were presented. He,
therefore, suggested the possiblity of forming a nine- or eleven-member board
of senior citizens to be advisory to the Council. Seniors were faced with a
number of problems such as housing, and since there were already advisory
boards and commissions for other areas such as the Youth Commission, Planning
Commission, etc, they should consider one for the seniors. There were a number
of different senior citizens groups in the area and they could get representation
from each of those groups to serve. In that way, the Council could be alerted
to the many problems confronting the senior citizen today and that input would
be a valuable asset to the Council.
79-939
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 21, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated there was a very active Senior Citizens Council
of the County and Anaheim had about five representatives on that Council. She
did not know if they would care to attend another meeting since they would be
dealing with the same leadership over again.
Councilman Roth stated that Mr. Eggett was on that Council and he was the one
he had spoken with. Mr. Eggett did not feel there would be any conflict and
the Council might be surprised with the input they would get.
Mayor Seymour stated he was interested in obtaining input from every segment of
the City's population. Just in the last year recalling the number of times and
incidences that he, as one Council Member and other members, had attended Senior
Citizen functions and meetings, it was no less than twelve to fifteen times
where he had been involved with TLC, the Senior Citizens Center, and the Senior
Health Fair, etc. He felt personally that he received more input and spent more
time with Senior Citizens than with any other segment of the community and he
was happy to do it. If they had a "laundry list" of issues, that would be fine,
but he was fearful that in organizing a formal commission, they would be stepping
on the toes of the Senior Citizens Club of 2000 that conducted activities at the
Chartres Center as well as TLC. He did not feel the lack of communication as
expressed by Councilman Roth, since he communicated with them all the time.
Councilman Roth recommended if nothing else, that they ask for input. He was
the last person to suggest a board or commission, but he felt there was a need
for input from the Seniors relative to their particular problems.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she Joined the Senior Citizens Club last year and
there were almost 5,000 members at the center. The monthly Courier published
by the Club listed many activities and anyone who said they had nothing to do
was not trying. She felt the Seniors did have as loud a voice as anybody.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to send a letter under his name to the various
senior activity clubs within the City asking for input relative to the creation
of a senior citizens advisory commission. Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
164: MIRALOMA STORM DRAIN: Councilman Bay recalled that some weeks ago they
discussed with the City Engineer a proposed meeting between Engineering and
the contractors on the Miraloma Storm Drain relative to planning construction
so that the portion from Miller Street to the channel might be completed prior
to the start of heavy rainy season. He asked the status of that situation.
City Engineer William Devitt stated he would subsequently supply Councilman
Bay with that information.
161: MITIGATION OF CIRCULATION PROBLEMS - ALPHA PHASE I CONSTRUCTION: Councilman
Bay stated he had received a copy of the report regarding the problems and
measures to be taken to mitigate the circulation problems and traffic detours
in the Alpha Phase I project area and was pleased to note there were at least
six specific actions being taken. It appeared that the situation was under
control, and he thanked the City Engineer for the report.
79-940
City Hall.~. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINU~ES - August 21, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
179: PROPOSED CHANGES TO ML ZONING: Councilman Bay stated he wanted to call to
the Council's attention the Planning Commission workshop meeting concerning the
subject and staff report dated August 13, 1979 to the Planning Commission. He
copied each Council member on that report and felt it important that they take
note of the fact that the Planning Commission approved staff recommendations which
did not include the proposed changes to the ML zoning in the Northeast Industrial
area. He wanted them to be aware of that so that in reading it, they would be
aware of the Commission's and staff's position on the subject as of now.
114: LIAISON COMMITTEE MEETING - REDEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING: Mayor Seymour reported
on the following Liaison Committee meeting held in the last week:
Redevelopment Meeting - the purpose of the meeting was an update on the Brashears
project as well as the Collins project with regard to financing. He was confident
that all things considered, the Redevelopment Program was moving well.
Housin~ Liaison Meetin~ - the purpose was to discuss attempts the City was under-
taking to develop some affordable housing. The Council could look forward to
a request for a mobile home park condominium conversion, a family park located
in the Santa Ana Canyon area with approximately 300 spaces. With the help of
the manager of that park, Housing staff has been working with the tenants and
at this point, it appeared that most all of the tenants would be supportive of
the conversion because it would give them the opportunity to own the land upon
which their mobile home was located with a loan payment not much in excess of
what they were paying in rent at present. The initial report was favorable and
it would perhaps be two to three months before the Council would consider the
matter in a public hearing. It would not come before them until most of the
red tape was cut and problems ironed out.
They also received a report and update on the Caltrans property owned by the
State at Orangethorpe and Imperial and it appeared that the adjacent property
owner was supportive of a housing project there. Thus, the Council would
perhaps see that as low and moderate income housing coming before them for
approval.
The rehabilitation program was also discussed as well as potential low and
moderate income type housing developments.
114: GIFT OF APPRECIATION: Mayor Seymour expressed the fact that he was over-
whelmed by Councilman Roth's Circus elephant ride whereby he represented the
City to mark the opening of the Circus at the Convention Center. Knowing that
he did so with pride and dignity and in serving Anaheim at great personal risk,
he presented Councilman Roth with a large bag of peanuts from Plains, Georgia
as a token of his personal appreciation; Councilman Roth expressed his deep
appreciation for the gift.
RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed until public hearing time at
3:00 P.M. (2:40 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (3:00 P.M.)
79-941
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 21, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1996: Application by Noel F. and
Nola T. Hatch, to expand an existing preschool located at 2510 West Orange
Avenue, was submitted.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-142 declared that
the subject project be exempt from the requirement to prepare an Environmental
Impact Report pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act since there would be no significant individual or cumulative adverse
environmental impact due to this project and further granted Conditional Use
Permit No. 1996 subject to the following conditions:
1. That trash s~orage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans
on file with the Office of the Director of Public Works.
2. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim a fee,
in an amount as determined by the City Council, for tree planting purposes
along Orange Avenue.
3. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit No. 1
(Revision No. 1) and Exhibit No. 2.
4. That a 6-foot high masonry block wall shall be constructed along the west
property line; provided, however, that a 6-foot high chain link fence inter-
woven with plastic strips may be constructed instead of the block wall if a letter
from the adjacent property owner, agreeing thereto, is submitted to the Planning
Department.
5. That Condition Nos. 1, 2 and 3, above-mentioned, shall be complied with
prior to the commencement of the activity authorized under this resolution, or
within a period of one year from date hereof, whichever occurs first, or such
further time as the Planning Commission may grant.
6. That Condition No. 4, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to the
final building and zoning inspections.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Mayor Seymour
at the meeting of August 7, 1979, 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.
The Mayor noted that the applicants, Noel and Nola Hatch, were present and he
asked if they would care to elaborate on their detailed letter of August 17,
1979 (made a part of the record) which answered some of the questions raised.
Mrs. Nola Hatch, 2510 West Orange Avenue, stated that their neighbor to the
west, Mr. Clark, asked for a block wall, and they were agreeable to that and would
install the block wall on the west property line extending from the rear property
line up to the playground, not out to Orange Avenue.
Mrs. Hatch continued that she noted one discrepancy in the staff report as it
was read. The original building, called the resident's building in staff report,
from the time they purchased the property 17 years ago had been used for twenty
79-942
C~ty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Augqst 21, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
preschool children. Thus, it was not a new use for the building but a continuing
use for twenty preschool children with the request to add eighteen more. At
present, their family of eight lived in that house, but they were going to be
moving and when they did so, would remove the dividers between the three bedrooms
and make that into a large classroom so that it could accommodate eighteen more
children.
The parents brought their children to the preschool between 6:30 and 9:30 A.M.,
or over a period of 180 minutes, approximating one car for each ten minutes.
When the family moved, the two cars belonging to them would be eliminated, thus
making room for the two additional teachers they would hire. In the afternoon,
parents picked their children up in a like three-hour period and so it was
distributed very evenly. Approximately 20% of the children were picked up by
one person where a neighbor child was involved or brothers and sisters and,
therefore, the number of students did not reflect the number of cars involved
in transporting them to and from school.
Mrs. Hatch explained that since one of the teachers who lived at 511 Baker
received a notice of the meeting from the City, she decided to have the neigh-
bors on Baker sign a petition in favor of expansion, as well as neighbors on
Teresa, Grivey and Beryl and one on Hampton Street within 300 feet (petition
made a part of the record). The petition basically expressed their favoring
the expansion of the school by 18 additional children. She then submitted
another petition to the Council supporting the previous one signed by the parents
who were using their services (made a part of the record) indicating their
support because of good location, convenience to public schools, high quality
program, and staff's attitude of concern for their children. It contained 50
signatures, 40 from Anaheim and 10 from outside the City. Mrs. Hatch explained
that the preschool also cared for elementary aged children before and after
public schools where they could walk from Walt Disney and Maxwell School close
by. It was important to the parents to have the preschool in a location close
to public schools and also their licensing agent, the State Department of Social
Services, wanted preschools in residential areas similar to those in which the
~.~hildren lived and not in any kind of commercial area. If no preschool was avail-
able in that community, many children would be on the streets and bothering
the neighbors. Preschool was an asset to the community by taking care of little
children while parents were working and also school age children through the
sixth grade.
Traffic seemed to be a problem for their neighbors on Hampton. If it was a
problem on Orange, she felt it would be well to look at all of the apartments
that had been built on Webster recently that could be generating that traffic.
They had been at the location for 17 years and for the few more cars the
expansion would generate, they felt it was the best use for the property to
increase it by 18 more students. The outside of the buildings would remain
the same, and it would look better for the neighborhood if it involved only
one use, that of a preschool.
Mrs. Hatch clarified for the Mayor that they would not close the school if the
CUP were not granted. They had two buildings and would continue to use them
for 80 children, but there would still be part of the building that would remain
vacant.
79-943
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 2!, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Since there were no other members of the public present to speak in support,
the Mayor asked to hear from those in opposition.
Mr. Craig Jones, 2532 West Orange Avenue, first stated that he personally and
his father (2538 West Orange) were not against kids or preschools. The problem
was the effect that 80 to 90 children living and performing down the street had
on their lives. The main point he wanted to bring to the Council's attention
was the private well (Smith Water Company) located on the 2532 West Orange Avenue
property and the use of that well by the Hatches, the details of which were
contained in his letter of July 16, 1979 (made a part of the record) of which
the Council was aware. Mr. Jones then elaborated upon the situation relative
to the well, at the conclusion of which, Councilman Roth noted that in reading
the Planning Commission hearing minutes, they stated that the well was not a
condition of the CUP. He therefore asked the City Attorney if the controversy
had any bearing on the issuance of the CUP.
City Attorney Hopkins explained that they had reviewed the facts and letters
submitted as well as the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting and it was
their opinion that the dispute regarding the well was not relevant to the granting
of the CUP, but a matter for outside private litigation as to ownership rights.
Also noting the Hatch's letter of August 17, 1979, page 2, item 4 (made a part
of the record), they indicated they had installed a double check valve assembly
in order to have two sources of water on their property as required and no
objection had ever arisen. He reiterated, it was his opinion that the well
matter had no relevance to the granting of the CUP.
Mr. Jones also referred to an additional concern as explained in his letter -
"... the expansion of an existing household servicing 10 of 81 children in
a nursery school, to service 38 of 99 in the future..." there appeared to be
a credibility problem because be believed the expansion was supposed to involve
i0 children and not 20. As well, the block wall fence issue was something that
appeared to be clouded.
Mayor Seymour stated, as he understood, Mr. Jones' concerns were, (1) that the
expansion was in excess of 10 and, (2) the water situation. He asked Mr. Jones
if he was satisfied with the City Attorney's response relative to the water
question.
Mr Jones answered "no", because they were hoping to avoid litigation although
they were prepared to proceed with it and would be doing so if the Council did
not act.
After a brief discussion between the Mayor and Mr. Jones revolving around the
water issue, Councilman Roth reminded them that the problem was still a civil
matter and had no bearing on the CUP.
Mr. Jones then explained for Councilwomam Kaywood that he had not been disturbed
by any noise emanating from the existing preschool, but that some parked cars
were a bother at times.
79-944
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 21, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Robert Kuehn, 2515 Beryl, stated his primary concern relative to the request
was safety of the children and the people as they went to and from the preschool.
The use was too heavy at present and if there was an indrease, it would compound
the problem. People were parking on Hampton and crossing Orange Avenue. The
situation affected the parking in front of his house as well as on Hampton.
Another concern was one of beauty and if the Hatches were allowed to expand
the preschool, they would have to cut down a couple of large trees which were
valuable assets to the neighborhood since they lived in a residential community.
Mr. Kuehn concluded the problem on Orange at Hampton when the children were
delivered to the preschool in the morning and picked up in the evening, would
be significantly compounded and the danger increased if they were allowed to
have 20 more children in the preschool.
Mrs. Sophia Vanderwoude, 517 South Hampton, sta~ed her house was the closest to
the corner at Orange and she could look across the street and see the nursery
school. She had lived there for 12 years and during that time the teachers and
employees of the school had never been permitted to park on the school premises,
but had always parked on Hampton Street or wherever they could find a parking
space, most on South Hampton. There had never been a time when there were not
five, six and seven cars parked in front of her house and on the other side of
the street. If she had guests visiting her during the operation of the school,
they had to circle the area to find a parking space and there were four other
ladies, residents on south Hampton who would testify to that situation. They
had all been annoyed by the excess parking problem. In order to alleviate the
problem, the owners of the school said they would cut down the trees on their
lawn, th ~ee very large old trees, which made the premises look like a residential
area just as the rest of the neighborhood. They would also pave over the grass
to make room for the three additional parking spaces which would only create
an eyesore in the area. Instead of residential, it would look 100% commercial
and adding three additional spaces would not solve the problem. The mothers who
dropped off their children in the morning generally arrived between the hours
of 7:30 A.M. and 8:30 A.M., when there was the heaviest concentration of traffic.
There had been many accidents and near misses and she, plus the other residents
of her street, had been involved in those near misses more than once. The traffic
situation was horrendous and adding additional students would add additional
mothers, cars and traffic problems. The residents of South Hampton Street
had put up with the situation and had been as patient as they could be. Many
times, she had asked people parking in front of her house to move their car
to give her room. In concluding, Mrs. Vanderwoude stated that the area could
not accommodate additional traffic and they were very much opposed to the
expansion.
Councilman Roth asked for clarification that what Mrs. Vanderwoude was saying
was that she did not want the staff to park on the street in front of her home
and, as well, not on their own property because they would have to remove the
trees; Mrs. Vanderwoude answered that was correct and also clarified for
Councilwoman Kaywood that she was speaking for all the neighbors in opposition
on Hampton.
79-945
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 21~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood also asked if she had problems with the new apartments
that were just constructed in the vicinity; Mrs. Vanderwoude answered, none
whatsoever, and that they did have parking facilities.
Linda Talong, Beryl Avenue, stated that their concern revolved around the fact
that theirs was a neighborhood with pride of ownership. It was lovely and
they wanted to keep it that way. Teachers from the preschool were parking on
Hampton and the parking facilities at the school were so nil that if they used
the school facilities, she questioned how the parents would be able to come and
go with their children and whether they would drop them off on Orange Avenue
with the risk of getting hit. Her biggest concern was for the safety of the
children and parents if the teachers were going to use the lot. She would not
want to see one massive parking lot.
Mrs. Setsuko Mori, 417 South Hampton, stated she had been a resident of the area
for 14 years and there was pride of ownership in the neighborhood. She had
never seen the teachers park in the lot because there was no room, and she
estimated there was room for six cars under the present set-up. Parents did
not have room to pull into the parking lot if teachers parked there. If they
did allow for more parking, there would still not be sufficient room.
In summation, Mrs. Hatch stated that they were not going to cut down the large
trees, but three small trees. Looking from Hampton to their property, you
could not see the smaller trees, but two large magnificent trees that would not
be touched. Also, more than one-half of the front yard would continue to be
grass and there would be a few other smaller trees remaining so that it would
still look residential.
Relative to the statement that there were many accidents, they were there before
Hampton Street and there had not been many accidents. She recalled one about
15 years prior when they had 20 students in their residence building and it
involved one of the parents. The mothers parked their cars and they were not
in such a hurrry as the Council was led to believe. They required the parent
to get out of their car and walk their child in through the gate, coming and
going. If some did back out, they periodically issued notices explaining
their policy so that the new parents would know what was expected of them.
Safety of the children was foremost in their minds as well.
Relative to need, they had a waiting list for the past one-and-a-half years and
a good portion of the enrollment came from those on that list. There was a
great need for preschools in the area, whereas five years ago that was not true.
Mr. and Mrs. James on the corner of Hampton and Orange Avenue next to Mrs.
Vanderwoude signed the petition in favor. Mrs. Hatch then described some of
the cars that were seen parked in the area which were assumed to be from the
preschool. However, they were not all from the school, and she did not know
to whom they belonged.
It was easy to have teachers park in the parking lot because at 6:30 there were
no children on the premises and thus there was no need for teachers to supervise
them. As the parents brought their children to school, there was an open parking
lot. After 12 children arrived, there was a need for a teacher. At 9:30, all the
parents were at work and the lot was filled with teachers' cars; then, 12 children
79-946
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 21, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
would go home and one of the teachers left and so on. One teacher walked, a
couple rode bikes, and a couple of husbands drove their wives to the school.
The only part-time person was their cook. Mr. Kuehn and other people who
lived on Beryl did not need to exit on Hampton to Orange. They could easily
go to Baker to get to Orange or to Baker to go to Broadway.
Mrs. Hatch then explained for Councilwoman Kaywood that she was not a teacher
at the preschool at this point and someone would not have to replace her. They
were planning to move to Yorba Linda where they were building another preschool.
There were eight in her family, six children and two parents.
Mrs. Hatch also clarified for the Mayor they were going from 80 to 98 children,
excluding the family, and the maximum number of students they would have if the
CUP were approved would be 98 students plus 10 employees.
Councilwoman Kaywood questioned the possibility of tandem parking; Miss Santalahti
explained that they accepted tandem on other similar proposals because the Code
was not specific on how many spaces were required for such a use.
Councilman Roth asked Mrs. Hatch if she was going to be able to guarantee that
her teachers were not going to park on Hampton Street.
Mrs. Hatch answered, unless there was a new teacher involved and she did not get
to her right away, there was no reason or need to ask anyone to park on Hampton
Street. She did not realize that it was a problem. She also did not know why
a teacher would park on Hampton which was less convenient than parking on the
preschool premises; Mrs. Hatch surmised that if they parked in the lot, they perhaps
felt they might be held up with parents coming to pick up their children.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that the Planning Commission approved the CUP on a
one-year trial and she was concerned if the trees were removed, even if they
were the small trees, she was sympathetic to the residents' concern that they
not be removed.
Miss Santalahti reported that the plan submitted showed nine on-site parking
spaces and the three trees would have to be removed since approval was based
on that plan. The concern was that teachers or whoever would not be parking
on Hampton.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if tandem parking could be used still allowing space
to drop children off; Miss Santalahti stated it was possible and if the teachers
wanted to do so. Mayor Seymour noted that there was no way to utilize tandem
parking the way the teachers' hours were staggered and only chaos would result.
Councilman Roth stated, in his opinion, the preschool was located blocks away
from two tax supported elementary schools on Orange Avenue, Maxwell and Walt
Disney. When the Disney School was built, it involved removing a number of trees
to accommodate the parking lot, just as with the Maxwell School. At one time, he
79-947
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 21~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
lived on Orange close to the subject area and observed the people parking on
Orange and Magnolia from both schools. The Hatches had been good neighbors
for 17 years and were to be commended for an outstanding job. To discriminate
against them, because it was a free enterprise operation, was difficult for him
to understand. In speaking of commercial uses, preschool was a valid use under
a CUP. As well, the Hatches were in the area before it was built up. He saw
no problem with the request and felt that they should give it a trial operation
for one year.
Mayor Seymour took the opposing viewpoint and asked that they not confuse the
fine establishment and services provided the community. The issue was an
increase in that activity which was substantial, from 70 students to 98 or
an increase of 40% and the problems he saw in parking and traffic that would
result. After hearing both sides of the question, he had real concerns in
granting even a one-year trial period.
Councilman Bay contended that the true issue was the essence of a CUP which, in
his mind, was a granted privilege and an exception to the planning in the neigh-
borhood. It was a residential neighborhood and even though the use had been
there for 17 years, it was still under a condition because it was an exception.
Therefore, he considered that on any CUP in order to justify it, it must be
favored by the surrounding neighbors. He had a great deal of opposition and
he considered it a commercial operation. He also did not agree with Councilman
Roth on his comparison with public schools which were a public service to the
entire community. He reiterated, if a CUP were going to be granted, it must be
favored and be able to co-exist without friction with the people in the area.
Thus, he would oppose the request.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Seymour, seconded by Councilman Bay, the City Council finds that this project
would have no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact
and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Seymour offered a resolution denying CUP No. 1996, reversing the findings
of the City Planning Commission; opposing the 40% increase in the activity with
resultant parking and traffic problems, as well as the minor environmental
problems that would be created relative to the trees.
Before any action was taken, Councilman R0th stated he was certain if the Hatches
knew there would have been such a turnout at the meeting, they also could have
filled the Chamber to show what they had done as far as being good neighbors
throughout the years. The people on the north side of the preschool had just
as much to lose as those on Hampton.
Councilman Overholt stated he was going to oppose the resolution. The Hatches
had a CUP since 1963 to serve 80 students and the application at present was
to increase that from 80 to 98. For that reason, he did not particularly agree
with the Mayor's mathematics.
He continued that serious charges were brought by some of the neighbors, one being
that the Hatches prohibited their teachers from parking on the lot, but he did
not get that from the testimony provided by the Hatches, who indicated they were
79-948
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 21~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
not aware of the parking problem. When they were so informed, they then identified
some of the vehicles and found that they belonged to the homeowners. As well,
since the Hatches were going to be leaving, there would be two less cars parked
in the area. His feeling was that to increase the capacity for the facility
by 18 students over the 80 they had presently would have no visible impact on
the parking situation in the area. Also, if more students were attending, the
hours the preschool would be open would adjust to accept those students. The
service being performed, even though termed commercial, was extremely important
in the community providing daycare and preschool facilities for working parents.
He felt since the Planning Commission considered the property to have the
capacity to accommodate 98 students and with their warning to the Hatches, that
the neighborhood was unhappy about the parking situation, disagreeing with Mrs.
Hatch that she could not direct her employees to park on the premises, he was
going to oppose the resolution of denial.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she had great sympathy for all the neighbors in
the area, but agreed with Councilman Overholt that the need for good preschool
facilities for working parents was very important in today's world, particularly
when two people had to work in order to pay the rent. She was not looking
at the figures in the same way as the Mayor when he indicated there was an
increase from 70 to 98. According to the Hatches, up until two years ago, they
did have 80 students and were approved for that amount and they were now
requesting an increase from 80 to 98 while at the same time their family of
eight was going to leave. She saw that as increase of only ten.
Councilwoman Kaywood was also very concerned that there not be a visual impact
on the neighborhood and she did not want to see the trees removed. She felt
it was worth a try and the Planning Commission approved it for a one-year trial
period. If there were impossible situations for the neighbors to live with,
their needs must be recognized and addressed since they had a large investment
in their homes, as well, and should not be bothered by cars or noise. She was
amazed that nobody had complained about noise. She was going to vote for
approval of a one-year trial period, but she did not want to remove any trees
or have anything paved over at this time.
Miss Santalahti explained that the plan the Commission reviewed was Revision
No. 1 which showed nine parking spaces. The original exhibit showed six parking
spaces totally free. The revision reduced that number to five to allow for a
pedestrian access to a door or gate and proposed four additional spaces where
the trees were currently located, totalling nine on the whole side.
Mayor Seymour stated that it appeared that some would say a vote in support of
the resolution would be a vote against preschools which could be nothing further
from the truth. To him, the arithmetic was very clear - for the past two years
the maximum of 70 students had been on the premises and with the approval of
the requested CUP, that number would be increased to 98 or a 40% increase in
that period of time. Relative to parking, as an elected official, and prior
to that his service on the Planning Commission, he had never seen such leniency
being granted on the parking for a preschool. It was amazing to him that the
Council would approve a business-type use with such a shortage of parking, and
he did not understand from where his colleagues were approaching that aspect.
79-949
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 21~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution of denial and failed to carry
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bay and Seymour
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood and Roth
Councilman Roth offered a resolution granting CUP No. 1996 upholding the findings
of the Planning Commission with the additional requirement that a block wall be
installed as stipulated to by the applicant.
Before any action was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked about the removal of the
trees.
Councilman Roth emphasized that he wanted to have an adequate amount of parking
on the premises so people would not have to park on Hampton. They had to remove
a couple of small trees and leave the big ones, that would be sufficient. He
was not interested in preserving a few small trees at the expense of not pro-
viding adequate parking, and he was supportive of whatever it would take to
keep the teachers from parking on Hampton.
Councilwoman Kaywood emphasized that she would have a problem if the trees were
removed.
Councilman Overholt stated he felt as Councilman Roth, that if the Conditional
Use Permit were granted, the Council had the responsibility to assure that the
parking would be available. The small trees were not the ones the neighbors
were objecting to being removed. He felt if it was necessary to remove those
smaller trees to provide parking, that would have to occur.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated in the event the problem was still not solved within
a year, the neighbors would be back to complain and then those trees could not
be replaced.
A vote was taken on the foregoing resolution to grant Conditional Use Permit
No. 1996 and failed to carry by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt and Roth
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay and Seymour
Discussion then followed relative to replacement of the trees that would have to
be removed. Mr. Hatch stated they would be happy to accommodate the neighbors
and the Council with anything that would be satisfactory. He suspected that 50%
of the real objections related to the trees and was not based on traffic or
parking. If there was a choice as to whether the trees would go or the parking,
the neighbors would just as soon save the trees and forget about the parking.
He reiterated they would be pleased to do whatever necessary to mitigate the
problems and satisfy the neighbors.
Miss Santalahti stated that the trees were about 10 feet high to approximately
15 or 20 feet and if the Council looked favorably on the application, they could
have the Hatches obtain staff approval for some kind of replacement for those
three trees of a size that would be decent to start with.
79-950
City ~all, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 21~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood was concerned that if the area was going to be paved, the
old trees would be killed because they would not be receiving enough air and
water. She would therefore change her vote to deny from one of approval on the
80 children, and she thereupon offered a resolution of denial on the expansion.
Councilman Overholt stated that the original resolution would then carry; the
Mayor asked the City Attorney if it would be appropriate to offer a new
resolution since the original resolution to deny failed to carry.
Mr. Hopkins answered "yes", it would have to be a new resolution including
reversal of the Planning Commission's findings.
Councilman Seymour thereupon re-offered the original resolution of denial; Council-
woman Kaywood stated that she Just offered a resolution of denial and that the
Mayor's original resolution stated he was going to deny a 40% increase.
The Mayor stated his original resolution was to deny Conditional Use Permit
No. 1996, the request for an increase to 98 students. He stated he just
reoffered the resolution of denial and it was no different than the original
resolution.
For purposes of clarification, Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 79R-488
for adoption, denying Conditional Use Permit No. 1996, reversing the findings of
the City Planning Commission, including the findings that parking conditions would
be detrimental to the neighborhood; there would be minor damage to the environ-
ment, and that expansion of the existing use would be detrimental to the neigh-
borhood. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-488: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1996.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay and Seymour
Overholt and Roth
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-488 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 79-80-5~ VARIANCE NO. 3105~ TENTATIVE
TRACT NOS. 8116 AND 8117 (REVISION NOS. 4) AND EIR NO. 203~ ADDENDUM NO. 2:
Application by Texaco-Anaheim Hills, Inc., to establish a 35-1ot, RS-HS-10,000
single-family subdivision on Portion A and for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000
to the RM-3000 zone to establish a 99-unit, RM-3000 condominium subdivision,
with waiver of maximum structural height, on Portion B, on property located on
the south side of Nohl Ranch Road, west of proposed extension of Meats Avenue.
The City Planning Commission has reviewed Addendum No. 2 to Environmental
Impact Report No. 203 for Tentative Map of Tract No. 8116 (Revision No. 4) and
Tentative Map of Tract No. 8117 (Revision No. 4) and has considered the evidence,
79-951
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 21~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
both written and oral, having been presented to supplement Addendum No. 2 to
EIR No. 203 finds that potential environmental impacts of the project may be
reduced to an insignificant level by conformance with City plans, policies and
ordinances; and Addendum No. 2 to EIR No. 203 is in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act and with the City and State EIR guidelines and therefore
based upon this information certified Addendum No. 2 to Environmental Impact
Report No. 203. The Planning Commission further denied Reclassification No.
79-80-5 (PC79-148) and Variance No. 3105 (PC79-149).
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Anaheim Hills, Inc., 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.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous
of being heard.
Mr. Dan Salceda, Anaheim Hills, Inc., stated he had a copy of the Macauley and
Manning transcript of the July 16 and July 30, 1979 Planning Commission meetings,
and it was his recollection that density was not an issue. Also, he could not
recall any discussion about air quality, and overall density of the project
was 3.9. There were three issues of concern and interest to the Planning
Commission: first, the need for additional parking - the Code required 3.5 for
RM-3000 which was a recent higher adjustment and they had come in with 50
parking spaces above and beyond Code requirements or four parking spaces per
unit. Working from a map of the project, Mr. Salceda pointed to the additional
parking they provided to the Planning Commission.
The second question related to the offset intersection at Shannon and Nohl Ranch
Road. They had many conversations with the Planning Department, the Traffic
Engineers and their own consultants, Western-Pringle. After much deliberation,
they determined it was in the best interest of the City and Anaheim Hills, Inc.
to provide as safe an offset intersection as possible. They accomplished that
by providing for an additional 150 feet side-by-side left-turn pocket lane,
whereas before there was only a single left-turn pocket lane.
The big concern of the Planning Commission was simply the internal traffic
generated by a single-family development next to an attached tract. That
particular issue was addressed with Mr. Pringle's second letter to the Council
dated August 1, 1979 where essentially he said the design was more than adequate
and at worst case it would be 450 ADTs, and pursuant to the MMA standards
those streets would be able to accomodate up to 1200 daily trips. In those
instances, they had met the concerns and demands and also exceeded the require-
ments of the Code and the Planning Commission.
In concluding, Mr. Salceda stated for all those reasons, they were shocked that
they were denied by the Planning Commission because they gave great deference to
the wisdom of the Commission and worked very hard prior to going to a public
forum, be it the appointed or elected officials of the City, to bring in a good
product, and they believed they had accommodated those issues.
79-952
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 21~ 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Salceda also asked to speak to another concern relative to what was happening
in the area. A couple of years prior, they went to the Planning Commission with
multi-family zoned units, but people were telling them they wanted single-family
detached housing. Consequently, they revised certain Tentative Tract Maps from
multi-family to single-family. Now it was different, and people were telling
them, and they were being responsive to those cries, that they must address a
different kind of housing situation today. He felt it important to suggest to
the Council that they were in conformance with the Canyon area General Plan
and also that they had a significant vested interest in the kind of projects
they put out in the Canyon with significant architectural control to continue
to provide the aesthetics people were used to and in no way lessening the life-
style and open space they wanted for the Canyon area. One of the anxieties felt
by the Planning Commission was in terms on certain conversions within Anaheim
Hills. He did not believe that they could have converted Tentative Tract No.
8116 and 8117 even if they wanted to because of the topography. They only
converted those where they felt it was feasible and they picked out those units
with only the smallest amount of earth that would have to be displaced. They
were trying to accommodate a greater segment of the marketplace and with the
townhome concept, they could attract up to 25% of the marketplace, whereas
presently with the cost of single-family detached units, they were looking at
only 3%. It was their intention to sell the two tracts to one builder which
would allow for consistency and conformity between the two adjoining tracts.
As a planned community, they must provide people with varied types of housing
stock with the same type of lifestyle. He then showed the Council pictures
of certain attached housing units that were presently being built in Orange
County which they believed were proof positive that the attached housing unit
of 1979 ~nd the 1980s was something to be proud of.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition.
Mr. Louis Dexter, 305 North Ranchito, stated that those in the West Anaheim area
had as much to gain from a project such as that being proposed by Anaheim Hills
as the Anaheim Hills sector. As well, the development could be of aid to the
industrial sector in the area in providing the availability of medium priced
housing and the project was well within the General Plan.
Mr. Dexter then addressed himself to the concept of exclusive zoning to which
he was opposed and he was wondering if the Planning Commission was moving in
that direction. Such zoning deprived the entry of low-medium income housing
and from his experience in the Anaheim Hills area, there was a shortage of
medium priced housing. The trend to multiple-family housing was the only way
to go to get young people or anyone into a house of their own and that was
a definite plus for the subject project. It also provided people in the flat
lands an opportunity to move up to those areas, making their former residences
available to people at a lower price. A place where single-family residences,
apartments, condominiums, townhouses and commercial development existed was a
fine place to live and provided a better mix. He felt that the City was moving
in that direction in Anaheim Hills and that was why he favored the project.
79-953
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August ~1~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated one of the concerns she noted from the Planning
Commission was the mix of traffic with single-family residences having to go
through the condominium portion to exit the area.
Mr. Salceda thereupon showed from a scale model how the traffic flow would
occur through the project. The only area where that would occur would involve
35 homes for no more than 250 feet out to Shannon and on to Nohl Ranch Road.
Councilwoman Kaywood also noted that they had requested a conversion six weeks
prior to this one and she wanted to know if there were any other projects which
they would be submitting for conversion; Mr. Salceda answered "no".
The Mayor interjected and stated relative to that point, at a recent Liaison
Committee meeting, he took the opportunity to talk with Mr. Salceda relative
to having a Liaison meeting with Anaheim Hills to discuss the future regarding
the market change taking place there and long term plans on the varying of
housing desires and styles they were going to be proposing. That particular
concern would be answered one way or the other at that time.
Councilwoman Kaywood emphasized that she wanted to know at present if something
else would be coming in to them; Mr. Salceda again answered "no" and stated
there was only Tract No. 10408 and the present one.
Councilm~n Bay stated that after looking at the pros and cons on the project,
he did not believe that the essence of any resistence had anything to do with
traffic, parking, or anything else. It was his opinion it revolved around
the fact that this project was the second one to be converted in a row and
there were concerns from people in the Canyon that if one was converted, there
would be another and that would be a continuing pattern. He did not know if
that would be true or whether their economics would demand it, but he felt it
would be important in the Liaison meeting for an explanation to be given on
their longer range plan. He had nothing against the developmemt other than
~ also had some of the fears of the present residents in the canyon as to
whether they were going to set a pattern of increasing density on each new
development. He then asked Mr. Salceda for clarification if he was saying these
were the only two tracts that were possible to convert.
Mr. Salceda explained that they asked Converse-Davis to look at all of the tracts
approved to ascertain which ones had the possibility of revision. They were trying
to target a particular kind of market, that being the $125,000 attached townhome-
garden home market. They could go somewhere else, but the cost of regrading
would be such that the cost of the unit would escalate to $200,000 for an attached
unit.
Very soon they would be bringing before the residents of Anaheim Hills, the
Planning Commission and the City Council an amendment to the General Plan
encompassing 811 acres which was part and parcel of the Bauer Ranch annexation.
They were working on that very diligently and would be presenting it at the
earliest possible time which should allay some of the present anxieties.
79-954
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 21~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated another concern related to the original overall
density that was approved by the Planning Commission and if it was expected
that the density would exceed that amount, she would be very concerned because
of the basic infrastructure of services in existence which were geared to
that density.
Mr. Salceda answered that (1) much of the infrastructure that ~as built
was predicated on 21,000 units, at some point in time reduced to 17,100. He
emphasized they would be significantly under the 12,000 that had been approved
at present. They had firmed up their designs on 711 of the 811 acres and on
those 711 they projected they would be at or somewhat less than the density
factor presently existing in Anaheim Hills.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if they were still planning the estate lots she was
worried about nine years ago; Mr. Salceda reported that 300 estate lots were
planned.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 203 - ADDENDUM NO. 2: On motion by Councilman
Seymour, seconded by Councilman Bay, finds that potential environmental impacts
of the project may be reduced to an insignificant level by conformance with City
plans, policies and ordinances; and Addendum No. 2 to Environmental Impact Report
No. 203 is in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and
with City and State EIR guidelines and therefore certified Addendum No. 2 to
Environmental Impact Report No. 203. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 79R-489 for adoption, approving
Reclassification No. 79-80-5, reversing the findings of the City Planning
Commission, and Resolution No. 79R-490 for adoption, granting Variance No.
3105, also reversing the findings of the City Planning Commission, and including
in the findings that the traffic concerns have been mitigated; densities in
relationship to the General Plan are well under those that the General Plan
set forth; there are market considerations and changes in lifestyles that
warrant the approval of the tract; there is an understanding from Anaheim
Hills that they will continue to vary their housing and that approval of this
specific development does not set the stage for many of these types of develop-
ments in the future. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-489: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
ZONING SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE
CHANGED. (79-80-5)
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-490: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 3105.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-489 and 79R-490 duly passed and adopted.
79-955
.~ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 21, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Bay, Tentative Tract
Nos. 8116 and 8117 (Revision Nos. 4) were approved, subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 8116 (Revision No. 4) is
granted subject to the approval of Reclassification No. 77-78-1 and Variance
No. 2950.
2. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each
subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval.
3. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities.
4. That prior to the introduction of an ordinance a final tract map of subject
property shall be submitted to and approved by the City Council and then be
recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder.
5. That the covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall be submitted to and
approved by the City Attorney's Office prior to City Council approval of the final
tract map and, further, that the approved covenants, conditions, and restrictions
shall be recorded prior to the final tract map approval.
6. That street names shall be approved by the City Planning Department prior to
approval of a final tract map.
7. That drainage of said property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to
the City Engineer. If, in the preparation of the site sufficient grading is
required to necessitate a grading permit, no work on grading will be permitted
between October 15th and April 15th unless all required off-site drainage facilities
have been installed and are operative. Positive assurance shall be provided the
City that such drainage facilities will be completed prior to October 15th. Necessary--
right-of-way for off-site drainage facilities shall be dedicated to the City, or
the City Council shall have initiated condemnation proceedings therefor (the costs
of which shall be borne by the developer) prior to the commencement of grading
operations. The required drainage facilities shall be of a size and type sufficient
to carry runoff waters originating from higher properties through said property
to ultimate disposal as approved by the City Engineer. Said drainage facilities
shall be the first item of construction and shall be completed and be functional
throughout the tract and from the downstream boundary of the property to the ultimate
point of disposal prior to the issuance of any final building inspections or occupancy
permits. Drainage district reimbursement agreements may be made available to the
developers of said property upon their request.
8. That grading, excavation, and all other construction activities shall be con-
ducted in such a manner so as to minimize the possibility of any silt originating from
this project being carried into the Santa Ana River by storm water originating from
or flowing through this project.
9. If permanent street name signs have not been installed, temporary street name
signs shall be installed prior to any occupancy.
10. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay appropriate drainage assess-
ment fees to the City of Anaheim as determined by the City Engineer prior to ap-
proval of a final tract map.
11. That an ordinance rezoning the subject property shall in no event become
effective except upon or following the recordation of Final Tract Map No. 8116
(Revision No. 4) within the time specified in Government Code Section 66463.5
or such further time as the advisory agency or City Council may grant.
12. That fuel breaks shall be provided as determined to be required by the Fire
Chief.
79-956
.City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 21~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
13. That native slopes adjacent to newly constructed homes shall be hydroseeded
with a low fuel combustible seed mix. Such slopes shall be sprinklered and
weeded as required to establish 100 feet separation of flammable vegetation
from any structure.
14. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay the traffic signal assess-
ment fee in (Ordinance No. 3896) in an amount as determined by the City Council,
for each new dwelling unit prior to the issuance of a building permit.
15. That any specimen tree removal shall be subject to the regulations pertaining
to tree preservation in the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone.
16. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the
appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees, as determined to be appropriate by
the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building permit is issued.
17. In the event that subject property is to be divided for the purpose of sale,
lease or financing, a parcel map, to record the approved division of subject
property, shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim and then be
recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder.
18. That the developer of subject tract shall enter into a special facilities
agreement with the City for water facilities in the High Elevation System, as
required by Rule 15B of the Water Utility Rates, Rules and Regulations prior
to approval of a final tract map as stipulated by the petitioner.
19. 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.
20. In accordance with the requirements of Section 18.02.047 pertaining to the
initial sale of residential homes in the City of Anaheim Planning Area "B", the
seller shall provide each buyer with written information concerning the Anaheim
General Plan and the existing zoning within 300 feet of the boundaries of subject
tract.
21. That in accordance with City Council policy, a 6-foot masonry wall shall be
constructed on the north property line separating lot Nos. 3 and 5 and Nohl
Ranch Road, except that for corner lot No. 1 said wall shall be stepped down to
a height of thirty (30) inches in the required front yard setback and except
that pedestrian openings shall be provided in said wall(s) where cul-de-sacs
abut the planned highway right-of-way line of the arterial highway. Reasonable
landscaping, including irrigation facilities, shall be installed in the unce-
mented portion of the arterial highway parkway the full distance of said wall;
plans for said landscaping to be submitted to and subject to the approval of
the Parkway Maintenance. Following installation and acceptance, the City of
Anaheim shall assume the responsibility for maintenance of said landscaping.
22. That all requirements of Fire Zone 4, otherwise identified as Fire Admini-
strative Order No. 76-01, will be met. Such requirements include, but are not
limited to, chimney spark arrestors, protected attic and under floor openings,
Class C or better roofing material and one hour fire resistive construction
of horizontal surfaces if within 200 feet of adjacent brushland.
23. That subject property shall be developed in accordance with City Council
Policy No. 538 which specifies minimum setbacks adjacent to arterial highways,
or that the owner(s) of subject property shall petition for and obtain a waiver
of said policy.
24. That any landscaped median located in the cul-de-sac terminus of Ardmore
Street shall be constructed by the developer of subject tract and shall be
maintained by the homeowners association.
79-957
City HalT., Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 21, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
25. That prior to construction of any landscaped median located in the cul-de-sac
terminus of Ardmore Street, approval of specific construction plans shall be
obtained from the Streets and Sanitation Department.
1. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 8117 (Revision No. 4) is
granted subject to the approval of Reclassification No. 79-80-5 and Variance
No. 3105.
2. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each
subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval.
3. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities.
4. That prior to the introduction of an ordinance a final tract map of subject
property shall be submitted to and approved by the City Council and then be
recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder.
5. That the covenants, conditions, and restrictions shall be submitted to and
approved by the City Attorney's Office prior to City Council approval of the final
tract map and, further, that the approved covenants, conditions, and restrictions
shall be recorded prior to the final tract map approval.
6. That street names shall be approved by the City Planning Department prior to
approval of a final tract map.
7. That drainage of said property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to
the City Engineer. If, in the preparation of the site sufficient grading is
required to necessitate a grading permit, no work on grading will be permitted
between October 15th and April 15th unless all required off-site drainage facilities
have been installed and are operative. Positive assurance shall be provided the
City that such drainage facilities will be completed prior to October 15th. Necessary--
right-of-way for off-site drainage facilities shall be dedicated to the City, or
the City Council shall have initiated condemnation proceedings therefor (the costs
of which shall be borne by the developer) prior to the commencement of grading
operations. The required drainage facilities shall be of a size and type sufficient
to carry runoff waters originating from higher properties through said property
to ultimate disposal as approved by the City Engineer. Said drainage facilities
shall be the first item of construction and shall be completed and be functional
throughout the tract and from the downstream boundary of the property to the ultimate
point of disposal prior to the issuance of any final building inspections or occupancy
permits. Drainage district reimbursement agreements may be made available to the
developers of said property upon their request.
8. That grading, excavation, and all other construction activities shall be con-
ducted in such a manner so as to minimize the possibility of any silt originating from
this project being carried into the Santa Ana River by storm water originating from
or flowing through this project.
9. That all private streets shall be developed in accordance with the City of
Anaheim's Standard Detail No. 122 for private streets. Plans for the private
street lighting, as required by the standard detail, shall be submitted to and
approved by the Electrical Division. Approved private street lighting plans
shall then be submitted to the Building Division for inclusion with the building
plans prior to issuance of building permits.
10. That the alignment and terminal point of storm drains shown on this tentative
tract map shall not be considered final. These drains shall be subject to precise
design considerations and approval of the City Engineer
tl. If permanent street name signs have not been installed, temporary street name
signs shall be installed prior to any occupancy.
79-958
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 21, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
12. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay appropriate drainage assess-
ment fees to the City of Anaheim as determined by the City Engineer prior to ap-
proval of a final tract map.
13. That an ordinance rezoning the subject property shall in no event become
effective except upon or following the recordation of Final Tract Map No. 8117
(Revision No. 4) within the time specified in Government Code Section 66463.5
or such further time as the advisory agency or City Council may grant.
14. In accordance with the requirements of Section 18.02.047 pertaining to the
initial sale of residential homes in the City of Anaheim Planning Area "B", the
seller shall provide each buyer with written information concerning the Anaheim
General Plan and the existing zoning within 300 feet of the boundaries of subject
tract.
15. That the developer of subject tract shall enter into a special facilities
agreement with the City for water facilities in the High Elevation System, as
required by Rule 15B of the Water Utility Rates, Rules and Regulations prior
to approval of a final tract map as stipulated by the petitioner.
16. That fuel breaks shall be provided as determined to be required by the Fire
Chief.
17. That native slopes adjacent to newly constructed homes shall be hydroseeded
with a low fuel combustible seed mix. Such slopes shall be sprinklered and
weeded as required to establish 100 feet separation of flammable vegetation
from any structure.
18. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay the traffic signal assess-
ment fee in (Ordinance No. 3896) in an amount as determined by the City Council,
for each new dwelling unit prior to the issuance of a building permit.
19. That any specimen tree removal shall be subject to the regulations pertaining
to tree preservation in the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone.
20. That the owner(s) of subject property shall dedicate and improve a 10 foot
wide equestrian and hiking trail as shown on the Equestrian and Hiking Trails
Component and that improvement plans, in accordance with standard plans and
specifications on file in the Office of the City Engineer, shall be submitted
in conjunction with the grading plan; and/or that a bond in an amount and form
satisfactory to the City of Anaheim shall be posted with the City to guarantee
she installation of the above-mentioned requirements prior to occupancy.
21. In the event that subject property is to be divided for the purpose of sale,
lease or financing, a parcel map, to record the approved division of subject
property, shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim and then be
recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder.
22. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the
appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees, as determined to be appropriate by
the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building permit is issued.
23. 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.
24. That all requirements of Fire Zone 4, otherwise identified as Fire Admini-
strative Order No. 76-01, will be met. Such requirements include, but are not
limited to, chimney spark arrestors, protected attic and under floor openings,
Class C or better roofing material and one hour fire resistive construction
of horizontal surfaces if within 200 feet of adjacent brushland.
79-959
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - August 21, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
25. That subject property shall be developed in accordance with City Council
Policy No. 538 which specifies minimum setbacks adjacent to arterial highways,
or that the owner(s) of subject property shall petition for and obtain a waiver
of said policy.
26. That the owner(s) of subject property shall provide adequate access to the
sanitary sewer which extends from the cul-de-sac terminus of Westford Street to
Meats Avenue. Said access may be provided by locating the manholes in the street
rights-of-way or by installing a paving material suitable for use as a bearing
surface for sewer maintenance trucks along the sewer maintenance easement.
MOTION CARRIED.
Before closing, Miss Santalahti stated since they questioned Mr. Salceda regarding
conversions, he was speaking about tentative tracts they had under their control.
She knew of at least one that was coming back that had been sold and recorded
and the Commission and the Council would be seeing that in the future.
Mayor Seymour requested that any information of that type that could be provided
would be appreciated at the Liaison Committee meeting in order to find out how
much of the same they would be faced with in the future, as well as looking for
assurances that the remainder of Anaheim Hills would not be developed in that
fashion.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Seymour moved to adjourn to Tuesday, August 28, 1979,
at 12:00 noon, for a joint meeting with the Library Board. Councilman Overholt
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 5:18 P.M.