Loading...
1978/04/04 78-3~8 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 4~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom COUNCIL MEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts CITY ENGINEER: James P. Maddox POLICE CAPTAIN: Jimmie D. Kennedy ZONING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER: Whitey Walp ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: .Annika Santalahti Mayor Thom called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: Reverend Warren L. Pittman from St. Michael's Espiscopal Church gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilman John Seymour led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Thom and approved by the City Council: "National Library Week in Anaheim" - April 2-8, 1978. "Public Schools Month in Anaheim" - April 1978. "Natural Foods Month in Anaheim" - April 1978. "Fair Housing Month in Anaheim" - April 1978. "Angel Town, California" - April 7-9, 1978. Mr. Leigh Eddy accepted the Public Schools Month proclamation; Mr. Bill McCu~, the Fair Housing Council proclamation; and Mr. A1 Licata, the Natural Foods Month proclamation. Mr. McCue also introduced the new Chairman of the Board of the Fair Housing Council, Mr. Michael Meredith. PRESENTATION - ANAHEIM URBAN RENEWAL COMMITTEE: Mr. Harry Horn, first recognized two other members of the original Urban Redevelopment Committee, Mr. Maury Martenet and Jim Morris. Mr. Larry Henderson and Mr. Jay DeDapper were unable to attend. Four of the members met the previous Thursday and two resolutions came out of that meeting, (1) they complimented the present Council on having done something about redevelopment, and (2) a motion was made and unanimously carried that the services of the Urban Redevelopment Committee be terminated. Mayor Thom thanked Mr. Horn and the rest of the Committee for their service to the City which started in the early 1960s. He considered the Committee to be the bell weather forerunners for what now constituted the Redevelopment Commission and Agency. He and the rest of the Council were inspired by their work and appreciated their time in appearing before the Council today and fortheir many hours of work in the 1960s up through the culmination of the Gruen Report which started the present 78-369 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 4, 1978~ 1:30 P.M. redevelopment efforts. Although the Council could never really dispense with their community efforts, they fully recognized that the old Urban Redevelopment Committee had come to fruition. Councilman Roth moved to formally disband the original Anaheim Urban Renewal Committee with regret. Councilman Thom seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. MINUTES: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Thom, minutes of the Anaheim City Council regular meeting held February 14, 1978, were approved subject to typographical corrections. 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 UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $489,141.76,~ in accordance with the 1977-78 Budget, were approved. 1~'161: ACQUISITION AND SALE OF REAL PROPERTY BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: (Realignment of Lincoln and Town Center Project) Councilman Thom offered Resolution No, 78R-198 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated March 28, 1978, from the Executive Director of Community Develop- ment. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-198: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY'OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AGREEMENT FOR ACQUISITION AND SALE OF REAL PROPERTY WITH THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour and Thom NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kott and Roth ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-198 duly passed and adopted. 150/161: COOPERATION AGREEMENT NO. 6 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW PEARSON PARK SWIMMING POOL: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-199 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated March 29, 1978, from the Executive Director of Community Development. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-199: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DETERMINING CERTAIN PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS TO BE OF BENEFIT TO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ALPHA PROJECT AREA; CONSENTING TO THE PAYMENT BY THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO THE CITY OF THE COSTS OF CERTAIN PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS; AND APPROVING AND AUTHO- RIZING THE EXECUTION OF A COOPERATION AGREEMENT THEP. EFOR BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE AGENCY. (Cooperation Agreement No.'6 - Pearson Park Pool) 78-370 _City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 4~ 1978, 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-199 duly passed and adopted. 123: REPLACEMENT OF DATA PROCESSING PERIPHERAL EQUIPMENT: (Security Pacific National Bank) Councilman Thom offered Resolution Nos. 78R-200 and 78R-201 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated March 28, 1978, from the Director of Data Processing. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-200: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AMENDMENT TO A LEASE WITH SECURITY PACIFIC NATIONAL BANK AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. (Computer Peripheral Equipment) RESOLUTION NO. 78R-201: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH SECURITY PACIFIC NATIONAL BANK PERTAINING TO THE LEASE OF CERTAIN EQUIPMENT AND AUTHORIZING THE .MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. (Computer Peripheral Equipment) R~ll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom None None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 78R-200 and 78R-201 duly passed and adopted. 155': ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) GUIDELINES: Councilman Roth offered Resolu- tion No. 78R-202 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated March 24, 1978, from the Amsistant Director for Planning, Phil Schwartze. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-202: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADOPTING AMENDED GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES FOR THE EVALUATION OF PROJECTS AND THE PREPARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-202 duly passed and adopted. 78-371 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 4~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. 144: A.H.F.P. NO. 836 - RESURFACING AND WIDENING OF EUCLID STREET: (Riverside Freeway to La Palm- Avenue) Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 78R-203 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated March 23, 1978, from the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-203: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF ORANGE AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. (Arterial Highway Financing Program - No. 836 Euclid Street) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-203 duly passed and adopted. 123: AGREEMENT WITH ORANGE COUNTY PRO SOCCER (CALIFORNIA SURF) FOR TEN YEARS: City Manager William Talley introduced an off-agenda item relative to the agree- ment between Orange County Pro Soccer (California Surf) and the City of Anaheim for the playing of soccer games at Anaheim Stadium. The Council approved the concept, in principle, the prior week, and Mr. Liegler issued a single game permit on Friday for the Surf's first victory in Anaheim Stadium. Subsequently on Friday, an agreement was delivered to the Surf which they reviewed and worked on over the weekend. It was then returned to the City and provided to the Council. The Council had thus been presented with a mere 40-page agreement which had been worked on night and day by City staff and the Surf. Although there were a few minor areas to be reviewed with Mr. Liegler, they were not substantive matters. Mr. Talley assured the Council that as far as City staff was concerned, the agreement repre- sented a worthwhile and good agreement for the next ten years with California Surf. He thus recommended Council approval subject to the possibility that staff might come back with a very minor modification relative to a few of the language statements contaihed therein, but nothing of substance. Councilman Kott asked if the City Attorney and Mr. Liegler could assure the Council there were no loopholes in the agreement. City Attorney William Hopkins confirmed that, as stated by Mr. Talley, the document represented a very fine agreement. There were always potential loopholes, however, and it would be very difficult to make any assurances in that respect. Councilman Roth commended Mr. Liegler on putting the package together. Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 78R-204 for adoption, approving the terms and conditions of an agreement with Orange County Pro Soccer (California Surf) for 10 years. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-204: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH ORANGE COUNTY PRO sOCCER AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 4~ 1978, 1:30 P.M. 78-372 Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-204 duly passed and adopted. 180: RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAM: Mayor Thom stated there was an item on which he would like Council direction, centering around a reported possible misunderstanding relative to the employment of a Risk Analyst, and the Risk Analyst's request for legal counsel. As he understood the dilemma, the Risk Analyst, through Mr. Talley, was requesting that he give guidance to legal counsel and that legal counsel work under him or under his guidance and direction. He believed the only clarification the Council should address itself to was whether they were ever going to allow a member of staff, other than the Council, to give any direction to the City Attorney's office. If so, such action would break the chink in the armor of the City Charter which provided that the City Attorney report to the City Council and take his direc- tion from his clients, the City Council. He reiterated that. was his reason for wanting clarification and thus recommended that the Council, by motion, or what- ever means deemed proper, not considerallowing anyone other than the Anaheim City Council to give direction to the City Attorney's office or any other legal counsel engaged by them so that staff would have no misconception as to who the client of the City Attorney's office was. Councilman Kott seconded the motion for the purpose of discussion. Councilman Kott then stated that whoever the individual might be hired as the Risk Manager, that he would have to be willing to work with the City Attorney at least at the outset. Should there be any problems between them, then that matter could be brought before the City Council for a definitive decision. Sub- sequently, it had been pointed out the Council might have to determine how many and~which cases were involved so as to consider the issue from that point on. The integrity of the City Attorney's office should be protected with the City Council, as a body and as his clients, bearing the responsibility for the ultimate decisions. Councilman Seymour totally supported the fact that the City Charter called for the City Attorney's office to report directly, and be responsible, to the City Council. At this point, he was not concerned that there was any threat to dilute that rela- tionship, the reporting balance, or the legal counsel/client City Council relation- ship. The concern presently was an administrative method and since the City was going to employ a Risk Manager responsible for handling Workmen's compensation claims, liability claims, unemployment compensation claims, industrial accident claims, and the like, there was a need for some administrative type of procedure in which to handle those claims. Theretofore, under the self-insured program, claims were merely referred to the insurance company and their attorney would then determine the legal posture for resolving those claims. The Risk Manager would now be responsible for that function. Thus, there was a need to determine the adminis- trative method in which those claims were going to be handled. He could understand the City Attorney's need to have the role clearly identified, and therefore, he agreed with the intent of the motion. He believed, however, that given a week's time, the City Manager could report back and clearly detail or give a recommendation as to what 78-373 City Hall~ ~aheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 4~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. the relationship was going to be or should be between the Council, the Risk Manager, the City Attorney and the City Manager's office. He was confident upon submission of that report, the matter would resolve itself. He thus, asked for delay of action on the motion until the report was received from the City Manager. Councilman Roth concurred with Councilman Seymour. Mayor Thom agreed to the continuance as well as Councilman Kott. However, the Mayor requested that prior to next week's meeting, a verbatim transcript of his motion only be submitted to the Council by the City Clerk because he wanted that very clear definition in the motion. 167: AWARD OF CONTRACT - INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND SAFETY LIGHTING AT THE INTERSECTION OF BROADWAY AND GILBERT STREET: (Account No. 10-4309-771-16-0263) Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 78R-205 for adoption, awarding a contract to the low bidder, in accordance with recommendations of the City Engineer in his memorandum dated March 27, 1978. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-205: 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 EQUIP- MENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND SAFETY LIGHTING AT THE INTERSECTION OF BROADWAY AND GILBERT STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 10-4309-771-16-0263. (Steiny and Company, $48,900) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-205 duly passed and adopted. 101: CONVENTION CENTER EAST PARKING LOT MODIFICATIONS: (Account No. 38-4855-985- 20-0893) On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Roth, award of con- tract on the subject modifications was continued one week for further consideration of bids. MOTION CARRIED. 160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - THIRTEEN THREE-PHASE PADMOUNT TRANSFORM!~_~$~ BID NO. 3384: (Account No. 32-1701) On motion by Oouncilman Roth, seconded by Council- woman Kaywood, the bid of General Electric Corporation was accepted as being more valuable to the City in reduction of annual cost, when compared with the lowest capital cost proposed, and purchase authorized in the amount of $49,796.68, including tax, as recommended in memorandum dated March 28, 1978 from the Purchasing Agent. MOTION CARRIED. 78-374 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 4~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. 142: REQUEST TO DISCUSS CODE SECTION REQUIRING MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENTS TO CLOSE AT MIDNIGHT: Request by Robert S. Michaels, Michaels and Sobel, to set a date and time to discuss Section 4.29.060 of the Anaheim Municipal Code was submitted. City Attorney Hopkins explained that the request was merely that the matter be set for a hearing by the City Council. The Code Section referred to required massage establishments to close at midnight, and he believed Mr. Michaels' intent was to persuade the Council to extend that closing hour. Councilwoman Kaywood moved to deny the request to discuss Section 4.29.060 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Councilman Thom seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 72-73-2 AND VARIANCE NO. 2393 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Mike Niciforos, requesting an extension of time to Reclassification No. 72-73-2 and Variance No. 2393, to construct a retail and commercial office building on pro- posed CL zoned property located on the west side of Brookhurst Street, north of Katella Avenue. Miss Santalahti explained for Councilman Kott, that an extension of time had not been requested previously, the original application was granted for 180 days on March 19, 1973, and the requested extension would be retroactive over.a six-year period. Councilman Kott asked the City Attorney if it was legal to grant an extension over one year. City Attorney Hopkins referred to a memo dated March 28, 1978, from his office to the City Clerk which stated that they had no objection to a retroactive exten- sion of time, provided the extension did not exceed one year, as specified in the Anaheim Municipal Code. City Engineer James Maddox explained that the subject property was located in the area of the Brookhurst street widening project, particularly on the west side. He discussed the matter with the City Attorney's office, wherein they indicated the Engineering Division could require the owner to stipulate he would dedicate addi- tional right-of-way or the extension of time could be denied, which would then require refiling. Councilman Roth moved to approve the extension of time retroactive to March 19, 1973, to expire March 19, 1979, with the condition that dedication as required by the City Engineer be completed within 15 days of April 4, 1978. Councilman Kott seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 142: REQUEST TO DISCUSS CODE SECTION RELATING TO THE DISCHARGING OF FIREARMS OR FIREWORKS: Mr. William Ameling, Deputy Agricultural Commissioner of Orange County, 1010 South Harbor Boulevard, briefed the Council on the subject request, reasons for which were outlined in a letter dated March 14, 1978, from William Fitchen, Agricultural Commissioner (on file in the City Clerk's Office). The main thrust dealt with consideration by the Council of retaining the use of a bird repelling device to herd or scare-off depredating birds from strawberry fields which crop was very large in the County and in Anaheim, involving approximately 2,500 acres, one-third of which was in the prime growing area within Anaheim's city limits. The device, a hand-held pistol employing a cardboard cartridge designed to shoot and ex- plode in the air, had been used for 5 years as an alternative to poisoning which they heretofore used. The device was used to keep birds off the strawberries during 78-375 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 4~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. the months of February, March and April, when berries were prime. Thus, damage was high and expensive, and up to 40 percent of the berries were lost by such damage; 40 percent representing the profit to be made and farmers were naturally concerned. Mr. Ameling understood one of the points of opposition to the device was that of noise in residential areas. He could not argue with that, and if noise was too great in those areas, it should be curtailed. He was specifically speaking of reinstating its use in areas where noise was not a factor, manufacturing and industrial areas such as those in North Anaheim and mid-town. There was an alter- native device called a carbide cannon, costing approximately $300 which was three times as loud as the hand-held device. The cannon, however, was subject to vandalism and thus could not be left out overnight, necessitating dismantling and subsequent set-up of said device the next day. Mr. Ameling conceded there was also concern and rightfully so, that the hand-held device could be misused. When they recommend its use, they stress it should be used by adults only and fired at least 20 to 50 feet into the air which results in better efficiency because the noise carried. Councilmen Roth and Kott posed several questions to Mr. Ameling for clarification purposes, at the conclusion of which, Councilman Kott asked Police Captain Kennedy and the City Attorney if they would have objections, rather than changing the Code, instead have individuals licensed to use the device just as with handguns. Captain Kennedy explained that the concern of the Police Department was two-fold, (1) noise--complaints had been received and, (2) their major concern was the probability of someone being injured by the projectile discharged by the device, although they did not have any reports of people who had been injured. Before concluding, Captain Kennedy noted that many of the strawberry fields in Anaheim were bordered by thoroughfares with sidewalks, housing tracts, and some- times schools. City Attorney Hopkins briefed the Council on his memorandum dated March 30, 1978, (on file in the City Clerk's Office) the essence of which recommended, if it would be of help to farmers, the Code be amended to (1) restrict the use only for the purpose of repelling birds from damaging crops and (2) that such use must be 100 yards from public streets and residential areas. He did concur with Captain Kennedy, that there was some danger in the use of the device. Mayor Thom suggested that perhaps some type of registration be required with the Police Department and/or the City Attorney's office so that both would know where the device was going to be discharged, and therefore, those using the device without proper sanction, could be forced to apply for the use. Captain Kennedy believed the suggestion to be a good alternative, esPecially if it could be tied-in with the proposed amendment excluding the use of the device within a distance of 100 yards from public streets and residential areas. Mr. Ameling was agreeable to the stipulation and commented the value of the crop was such that the farmers would do practically anything to bring it to fruition. He would appreciate any consideration along that line and was certain the farmers could live with the situation as City Attorney Hopkins suggested. 78-376 ..~ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 4~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood asked the City's Zoning Enforcement Officer if he wished to offer additional input relative to his memorandum dated March 23, 1978. Whitey Walp, Zoning Enforcement Officer, explained that over the past two years, he had received several complaints about the hand-held repelling device and had spoken to Captain Kennedy relative to the advice he received from the City Attorney's office on how to handle the matter. Under the present Firearms Act, the device was in violation of the law. He had also spoken to numerous farmers about the problem, one being Mr. Fugishige on South Harbor Boulevard, where the device was demonstrated to him and which he (Walp) recognized as being illegal. Further with the hand-held device, noise traveled in all directions and the reverberation from the tall buildings in the area (near Quality Inn) was very loud. Mr. Fugishige subsequently installed a carbide cannon, which involved no projectile and with sound travelling in only one direction. Since he ceased using the hand-held device, no additional complaints had been received except for a redirection of the cannon, away from a mobile home park located in the area. The cannon was a safer device than the hand-held pistol. Councilman Seymour moved to direct the City Attorney's office tO amend the pertinent ordinance allowing the use of the bird repelling device, with the stipulation that registration of the use be made with the Police Department and/or City Attorney's office and restricting use to 100 yards from the point of firing to.any public street or residential area. Councilman Kott seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Thom, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda: 1. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and referred to the City's insurance carrier or the self-insurance administrator: a. Claim submitted by Russell B. Adkins for damages purportedly sustained as a result of action by Anaheim Police on or about December 13, 1977. b. Claim submitted by Robert J. George for monetary loss purportedly sustained as a result of being without electricity on or about March 3, 1978. c. Claim submitted by Albert Anderson for damages purportedly sustained as a result of actions by Anaheim Police on or about December 13, 1977. d. Claim submitted by Marie B. Cooper (Roman Spa) for personal damages purportedly sustained as a result of actions by Anaheim Police during the past two weeks. e. Claim submitted by Gene Lambert for personal injuries and property damages purportedly sustained as a result of a traffic signal malfunction (Brookhurst and Katella) on or about December 29, 1977. f. Claim submitted by Thomas Michael Shanley for personal injuries purportedly sustained as a result of actions by Anaheim Police on or about December 1, 1977. g. Claim submitted by R. W. Diener for monetary loss purportedly sustained as a result of street disrepair (Serrano Avenue) on or about February 18, 1978. 78-377 .C_ity Hall.~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 4~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. 2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: a. 173: Before the PUC Application No. 57697, Notice of Hearing of Michael A. Kadletz, dba Goodtime Tours and Co., for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to expand existing sightseeing tour authority between points in Los Angeles County and Orange County on one and and Palm Springs on the other hand. b. 114: City of Costa Mesa Resolution No. 78-34 concerning the housing distribution proposals of the SCAG. c. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission - Minutes of March 15, 1978. d. 105: HACMAC - Minutes of March 14, 1978. e. 175: Public Utilities Board - Minutes of March 2, 1978. f. 175: Monthly report of January 1978 - Electrical Engineering Division. g. 173: Douglas Bus Lines, Inc., notice of filing an application with the PUC for fare increase. 3. 108: PUBLIC DANCE PERMITS: The following permits were approved in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Police: a. Public Dance Permit for Title 1 Parent Advisory Committee, Anaheim High School, to hold a dance in the Martin Recreation Center, La Palma Park, on April 28, 1978 from 8:00 P.M. to 1:00 A.M. in conjunction with the Cinco de Mayo Fiesta. (Dolores Guerrero, Applicant) b. Public Dance Permit for a dance to be held by the Sabot Car Club in the Martin Recreation Center, La Palma Park, on April 14, 1978 from 9:00 P.M. to 1:00 A.M. (An~drew Pizano, Applicant) c. Public Dance Permit for the Santa Ana and Tustin Police Associations to hold a dance in the Anaheim Convention Center on April 7, 1978 from 10:00 P.M. to 1:00 A.M. (Jack D. George, Applicant) MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 78R-206 through 78R-208, both inclusive, and 78R-210 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. 78R-206: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Santa Anita Development Corp., et al.; Raymond Gerald Baker, et al.; Kenneth Kallman; Central Assembly of God, et al.) 78-378 ~ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California. COUNCIL MINUTES - April 4~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. 164: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-207: 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: LAKEVIEW AVENUE SEWER IMPROVEMENT 236 FEET NORTH OF LA PALMA AVENUE TO LA PALMA AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 11-4309-720-16-0000; 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 April 27, 1978, 2:00 P.M.) 164: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-208: 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: LA PALMA AVENUE SEWER IMPROVEMENT, E/O BLUE GUM STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 11-4309-720-16-0000; 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 April 27, 1978, 2:00 P.M.) 176: RESOLUTION NO. 78R-210: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE AND ABANDON CERTAIN PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENTS. (Fredericks Development Corp.) (76-7A, north of Cerritos Avenue and west of Walnut Street, public hearing set April 25, 1978, 3:00 P.M.) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom None None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 78R-206 through 78R-208, both inclusive, and 78R-210 duly passed and adopted. 169: KATELLA AVENUE~ EUCLID STREET AND BROADWAY STREET IMPROVEMENT: (Account Nos. 13-4309-705-16-0000, 13-4309-745-16-0000 and 13-4309-744-16-0000) Councilman Seymour stated he would abstain from discussion and voting on the subject improvement since his office was located on Euclid Street. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 78R-209 for adoption, authorizing work to be done and opening of bids to take place on May 4, 1978, at 2:00 P.M. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-209: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE THE CONSTRUC- TION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: KATELLA AVENUE, EUCLID STREET AND BROADWAY STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 13-4309-705-16-0000, 13-4309-745-16-0000, 13-4309-744-16-0000; 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 May 4, 1978, 2:00 P.M.) 78-379 City Hall~ ~Amaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 4~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Thom NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-209 duly passed and adopted. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning Commission at their meeting held March 13, 1978, pertaining to the following applications, as listed on the Consent Calendar, were submitted for City Council information. 1. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 77-78-45: Submitted by Calvin and Wilhelmina Meekhof, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200 on property located west of Western Avenue, north of Ball Road. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-4i, granted Reclass- ification No. 77-78-45 and granted negative declaration status. 2. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 77-78-47 AND VARIANCE NO. 2995: Submitted by MEB Invest- ments, for a change in zone from C1 to Rm-4000, to construct a 30-unit condominium complex on property located on the east side of Euclid Street, south of Romneya Drive with certain code waivers. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to ResOlution Nos. PC78-42 andPC78-43, granted Reclassification No. 77-78-47 and Variance No~ 2995, respectively, and granted negative declaration status. 3. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 77-78-49 AND VARIANCE NO. 2996: Submitted by Leonard J. and Geraldine Lawicki, for a change in zone from RS-7200 to CL, to convert an existing residential structure into a real estate office on property located at 1703 Sallie Lane with certain code waivers. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution Nos. PC78-44 and PC78-45, granted Reclassification No. 77-78-49 and Variance No. 2996, respectively, and granted negative declaration status. 4. VARIANCE NO. 2992: Submitted by William K. and Yvonne L. Myman, to permit an existing illegal enclosed patio on RS-7200 zoned property located at 2510 West Glencrest Avenue with certain code waivers. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-46, granted Variance No. 2992 and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination. 5. VARIANCE NO. 2997: Submitted by Patrick M. and Judith M. Ryan, to construct a tennis court on RS-HS-43,000(SC) zoned property located at 192 South Starlight Drive with code waiver of minimum sideyard setback. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-40, granted Variance No. 2997 and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination. 78-380 City Hall; Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 4~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. 6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1778: Submitted by Robert and Bernice Sue Grosse, to permit a veterinary hospital on CL(SC) zoned property located at 6280 Santa Ana Canyon Road with certain code waivers. The abovementioned application was withdrawn by the applicant and granted negative declaration status. 7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1806: Submitted by Dorothy Sabel, William A., Gloria M. and Goldie Bayzerman, to permit a massage parlor on CL zoned property located at 242 South Euclid Street. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-48, denied Condi- tional Use Permit No. 1806 and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination. 8. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1809: Submitted by the Southern California Edison Company, to permit a wholesale nursery on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located on the northeast corner of Freedman Way and Clementine Street with ~code waiver of maximum fence height. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-50, granted Condi- tional Use Permit No. 1809 for five years, subject to review by the City Planning Commission and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination. 9. VARIANCE NO. 2530 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Request submitted by Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Comapny for a retroactive extension of time to Variance No. 2530 to permit a mobile office on ML zoned property located on the north side of La Palma Avenue, west of Kraemer Place. The City Planning Commission denied the extension of time to Variance No. 2530. 10. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1573 - REVISED PLANS: Request submitted by Irvine Enterprises, for approval of revised plans for Conditional Use Permit No. 1573, to permit a motel and recreational vehicle park with certain code waivers on CL zoned property located on the north side of Ball Road, east of Harbor Boulevard. The City Planning Commission approved revised plans for Conditional Use Permit No. 1573 with the deletion of tenting area. No action was taken on the foregoing items, thus the actions of the City Planning Commission became final. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1807: Submitted by Michael J. and Jeri J. Garan, Bruce C. and Oma Lee Armstrong, to permit a retail purchasing service facility on ML zoned property located at 1290 Sunshine Way. Councilwoman Kaywood requested a review of the subject application for Conditional Use Permit No. 1807. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 73-74-55(6) - REVISED PLANS: Submitted by Garo Minassian, architect, requesting approval of revised plans for Reclassification No. 73-74-55(6), to establish a planned commercial 'park' adjacent to an industrial tract on proposed CL zoned property located at the northwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Magnolia Avenue. 78-381 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 4, 1978, 1:30 P.M. On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Seymour, revised plans for Reclassification No. 73-74-55(6) were approved, subject to the stipulations that revisions be made to allow ingress only to subject property from the adjacent prop- erty to the west and that the revised plans be approved by the Traffic Engineer, as recommended by the Planning Commission. MOTION CARRIED. ORDINANCE NO. 3845: Councilman Thom offered Ordianance No. 3845 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 3845: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-35, RM-1200) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom None None The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3845 duly passed and'adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 3846: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 3846 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 3846: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-25, CL) RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: By general consent, the City Council recessed into Executive Session. (2:40 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Thom called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (2:47 P.M.) 1127113: LEGAL ANALYSIS MEMORANDUM ON F.P.P.C. OPINION REGARDING THE CITY OF ANAHEIM: On motion by Councilman Thom, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Attorney was requested to engage the services of the law firm of Spurlock and Thatcher to prepare a legal analysis memorandum on the F.P.P.C. opinion regarding the City of Anaheim, in an amount not to exceed $800. MOTION CARRIED. RECESS: By general consent, the City Council recessed to the start of public hearings. (2:48 P.M.) AFTER K~CES$; Mayor Thom called the meeting to order~ all Council Members being present. (3:00 P.M.) PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1802: Application by Amil Shah, to permit an adult book store on CG zoned property located at 242 East Lincoln Avenue with code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78~32 reported that the Planning Director has determined that the proposed activity falls within the defini- tion of Section 3.01, Class 1, of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the requirement for an environmental impact report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR, and further, recommended that Conditional Use Permit No. 1802 be denied. 78-382 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 4~ 1978~.. 1:30 P.M. The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Mr. David M. Brown, attorney for the applicant, and public hearing scheduled this date. The City Clerk reported that two letters and one petition containing approximately eighty-six signatures in opposition had been received. 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. Ms. Louise Monaco, Attorney, Fleischman, Brown, Weston and Rhoad, 433 North Camdon Drive, Beverly Hills, explained that they appealed the denial of the conditional use permit because they did not agree that no satisfactory parking arrangement was available. It had come to their attention that since the denial, an additional public parking facility became available to the southeast of the proposed bookstore with 127 public parking spaces available in that lot. Initial plans for the store indicated there would be two parking spaces immediately behind the building, but subsequently the architect advised that the parking could be increased legally to four spaces which would then necessitate only seven addi- tional spaces from the public parking facility. Ms. Monaco continued that from a review of her files and the City ordinance relative to parking requirements, there was practically no use that could be made of the 2,125-square foot building if public parking was not made available. There was also a provision in the Code section allowing for permission to be granted upon payment of a fee which her client was willing to pay. The Planning Commission also expressed some concern over the possibility of the City becoming indebted to the applicant for relocation expenses in the event the property was condemned in the future. Her client, however, was willing to stipulate to waiving of any such relocation expenses. Ms. Monaco contended that the issue was not just in business, but a business impli- cating the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the California Supreme Court stipulated that there were narrow guidelines within which any municipal body could deny a business permit to a business dealing in the First Amendment, just as her client. They wished to cooperate with the City to the extent possible to do so; however, they did not concede or waive any rights by their appearance that the ordinance scheme automatically imposing a conditional use permit procedure allowing wide discretion far beyond the perimeters of those approached by the California Supreme Court. Also, they did not concede the validity of that procedure or waive, by their appearance, any further challenges they might make, should the CUP be denied. In concluding, Ms. Monaco reiterated that they wished to cooperate and it was their opinion under the guidelines as they understood them and with the public parking facility presently available, the proposed location could be and would remain in full compliance. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition. Mrs. Margaret Taylor, part owner of the property at 122 South Philadelphia Street, stated that parking conditions, despite the temporary lot, were terrible and she found it difficult not only to park near her residence, but at other places of business in the vicinity which she had to frequent for needed services. She did not believe the parking situation had been solved and was opposed to the granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 1802. 78-383 City Ha. li~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 4.,. 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Floyd Farano, 4056 Maple Tree Drive, first qualified himself as an expert witness for the purpose of testifying in opposition 'to the pending application. He had been a member of the Anaheim City Planning Commission for 16 years and sat as its Chairman for 3 years, and subsequently was a member of the Orange County Planning Commission for 9 months. During that time, he sat in hundreds of public hearings for conditional use permits, including adult book stores, massage parlors and many other such applications, requiring a CUP under City ordinances. His observation was that counsel had neglected to satisify the re- quirements of the Anaheim Code by failing to fulfill their required showings. In establishing the entitlement to a CUP, an applicant must make certain legal show- ings, for example, that the use was one permitted under the Code or at least one not prohibited. Also that the use would not have an adverse affect on adjoining land, that the size and shape of the land was capable of the full use intended and not a matter detrimental to the peace, health, safety and welfare of the surrounding citizens, that it would not impose an undue burden on traffic and it was not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the City of Anaheim. Mr. Farano submitted that the applicant had not met a single obligation and, relative to off-site parking, that the City Planning Commission and City Council required finding documents stating land would be available for parking, in perpe- tuity or as long as the particular use existed in a certain location, A mere allegation in a public hearing and a promise to provide such parking was not sufficient. There was no guarantee that parking would be available to that use presently or at any other time and parking could disappear just as other parking had in the area. Relative to land use, Mr. Farano stated that land uses were philosophical in nature and the determination, discretion and decision of Councils, Boards of Supervisors, and Federal and State governments had been upheld on numerous occasions when de- ciding what land uses combined well with others. The City, in its own discretion had'a right to determine its own customs, morals and approach to life in deciding if land uses were not compatible to the health, safety and welfare relative to the living environment of the citizens. As an experienced planning commissioner, the combination of the type of use proposed today was not comparable with the rest of the area. Although the area was down trodden and about to be destroyed, the City's General Plan and Project Alpha had designed and planned the way in which the area would be used in the future, and the proposed land use had not been included. Although in other parts of the country adult book store and the like were always found in areas in a general state of deterioration, the subject area was in that state by design because it was a project area of the City of Anaheim and scheduled to become a new focal interest of the City. He emphasized therefore that with the other uses designed and planned for the area, such as shops, stores and office and commercial buildings, the proposed use would not be compatible and it was not presently compatible with the surrounding area as far as the residents were concerned. Before concluding, Mr. Farano again touched upon the parking situation and noted that in his experience where waivers were requested from parking requirements, the ones suffering were those making use of the business, the surrounding area, and transients through it. Waivers in excess of 10 to 25 percent of the Code where practically no parking was required in connection with the use had proven to be 78-384 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April .4~ 1978; 1:30 P.M. fatal to the use and other uses around it because of the resultant congestion, confusion and inconvenience to other people in the area and the patron of the store itself. The use proposed would be lacking parking by 90 percent, and he did not know when such a waiver was ever allowed. Captain Neal Hogan, Salvation Army, 201 East Cypress Street, stated he wished to speak on two grounds. The first was based on his ministerial responsibilities of upholding moral standings within the community which recognized, on a legal basis, that each community had a concern and was entitled to input in establishing some standards on a community level. The second revolved around the appropriateness of the proposed use and its proximity to other establishments, particularly to the youth programming being developed within the area. The Salvation Army conducted a youth center two blocks away from the proposed use and the City, as well, was concerned about youth programming in the immediate area. As to the necessity of the use on a business level, competition already existed in the area thus no particular segment of society was being deprived from having an option of the materials offered. In terms of fairness, the store did not need to be allowed at this time. Ms. Monaco responded first to Mr. Farano's testimony and stated that book stores were a permitted use in the zone, and it was only by reason of the content of the books to be sold therein, that they were before the City Council. It was also by reason of the fact that books were limited, by law, to be sold only to adults that they were required to apply for the CUP. Relative to documentation for off-site parking, that was in the hands of the City Council and she assumed that if the application for interim parking arrangements in the public parking facility were granted, the City Council or the City administrative body would provide such documentation. As to other areas regarding the ability of the City to make its decision on the basls of the general health, safety and welfare grounds, she stated that discretion was not allowed to the City Council, and it was not a decision which the courts allowed in the area of First Amendment law. She could appreciate the position of the City Council finding themselves personally objecting to the nature of the busi- ness, but nevertheless, under discussion was material presumptively entitled to Constitutional protection and failure to limit the basis for issuance of licenses to very narrowly stated objective grounds, could cause the City licensing ordinance to be struck down as unconstitutional. She noted also that there were other adult book stores in the area indicating that they were not, as a generic type of business, incompatible. Further, the property had been vacant for nearly a year, and she assumed it would be better for the City to have the property restored to useable character in order to produce income for the City. Relative to Captain Hogan's statements, while she appreciated his concern for the youth, she pointed out there were criminal statutes in effect which fully covered the sale of any form of prohibited material to minors. It was the policy of her client, that no one under 21 years of age be admitted to the premises, and an I.D. requirement was also a policy of E.W.A.P. and one ridgedly enforced. There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public hearing. 78-385 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 4, 1978, 1:30 P.M. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the City Council ratified the determination of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 1, of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the requirements for an environmental impact report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Roth thereupon offered Resolution No. 78R-211 for adoption, denying Conditional Use Permit No. 1802, upholding the findings of the City Planning Commission. He also stated that it was interesting to note that the "filth" peddlers try to hide behind the Constitution to convince the Council to grant a waiver of parking spaces. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-211: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF .THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1802. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL'MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-211 duly passed and adopted. 105/119: LETTER OF CONDOLENCE TO THE FAMILY OF FRED FLEISHOUR: Councilwoman Kaywood announced that Mr. Fred Fleishour passed away unexpectedly on Saturday, April 1, 1978, and asked that a letter of condolence be prepared and sent to his widow and family. She continued that Mr. Fleishour was past president of the senior citizens club and the previous week had been appointed to the PAC committee. She had spoken to the President of the Senior Citizens Clu~ recommending the appoint- ment of an alternate to serve on PAC. She thereupon submitted the name of Mr. War~en Hunziker. After a brief discussion, it was determined that the vacancy had to be posted for 10 days in accordance with the Maddy Local Appointive Act, after which time, an appointment could be made. 162: TRAILS COMMITTEE - HALF-DAY RIDE AND BARBECUE: Councilman Seymour stated that he had received a request from the Riding and Hiking Trails Committee to have the City provide an endorsement of a one-half day ride and barbecue the Committee was sponsoring. If the City was willing to provide the endorsement, the proceeds of the event could be tax exempt. The event was to celebrate the extension and completion of much of the trails in the Santa Ana Canyon and the endorsement would involve no cost to the City. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood~ the City Council endorsed the half-day ride and barbecue sponsored by the Trails Committee in order to make proceeds from the event tax exempt. MOTION CARRIED. RECESS: Councilman Roth moved to recess to 7:30 P.M. Councilman Kott seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (3:32 P.M.) 78-386 C~ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 4~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. AFTER RECESS: Mayor Pro Tem Kott called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present with the exception of Councilmen Seymour and Thom. (7:30 P.M.) PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour (entered Council Chamber at 8:30 p.m.), Kott, Roth and Thom (entered Council Chamber at 7:40 p.m.) COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: William T. Hopkins CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ron Thompson ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 77-78-38: Application by Robbie Kaufman and James Norman Morgan, for a change in zone from RS-7200 to CO on property located at 800 South Harbor Boulevard. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-25, recommended that the subject property be declared exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report pursuant to the provisions of the California Environ- mental Quality Act and, further, granted Reclassification No. 77-78-38, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner(s) of subject property shall deed to the City of Anaheim a strip of land 25 feet in width from the centerline of the street along Helena Street for street widening purposes. 2. That all engineering requirements of the City of Anaheim along South Street, Helena Street, and Harbor Boulevard, including preparation of improvement plans and installation of all improvements such as curbs and gutters, sidewalks, street grading and paving, drainage facilities or other appurtenant work, shall be complied with as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with standard plans and specifications on file in the Office of the City Engineer; that street lighting facilities along South Street, Helena Street, and Harbor Boulevard shall be installed as required by the Director of Public Utilities; and/or that a bond, certificate of deposit, l~tter of credit, or cash, in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim shall be posted with the City to guarantee the installation of the above-mentioned requirements. 3. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the sum of sixty cents (60¢) per front foot along South Street and Helena Street for tree planting purposes. 4. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans on file with the Office of the Director of Public Works. 5. 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. 6. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities. 78-387 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 4~ 1978t 1:30 P.M. 7. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer. 8. Prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject property, Condition Nos. 1, 2 and 3, above-mentioned, shall be completed. The provisions or rights granted by this resolution shall become null and void by action of the City Council unless said conditions are complied with within one year from the date hereof, or such further time as the Planning Commission may grant. 9. That Condition Nos. 4, 6 and 7, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections. 10. That the subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and that any modifications thereto shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. A review of the Planning Commission's action was requested by Councilman Kott on March 7, 1978, 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. Councilman Roth asked for clarification relative to the designation of the subject property. Miss Santalahti explained that she verified the designation with the City's General Plan and it was, in fact, designated commercial, professional all along Harbor Boulevard on the entire easterly side, from Ball Road to Lincoln Avenue. The staff report indicated a iow density residential designation which was not correct Mr. James Morgan, one of the applicants and co-owner of the property, then explained for Councilman Roth that what they proposed to do was establish a building for pro- fessionals on the property along Harbor Boulevard, with parking on the other portion in question (South and Helena Street)· He stated that Mr. Rowland, architect for the project, was present and would speak to the matter. Mayor Thomentered the Council Chamber. (7:40 P.M.) The Mayor outlined the format'of the meeting for those in the audience. He then asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was desirous of being heard. Mr. Dan L. Rowland, Dan L. Rowland and Associates, 1000 West La .Palms, first spoke to Councilman Roth's question, relative to the site plan. He then displayed the site plan which was prepared and presented to the Planning Commission showing the building oriented as close to Harbor Boulevard as possible, providing ingress and egress aligned with the alley presently existing to the north· He also pointed to the residential area thatwould be most impacted by the project, and further noted the nicely kept uniquely isolated residential area between South Street and Hampshire Street. Their site plan respected that isolation, thus the impact would be minimal in comparison with any development that might be proposed. Mr. Rowland further 78-388 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 4~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. stated that a 6-foot masonry wall would be provided around the site, and he briefed the Council on the landscaping to be installed, which included street trees. He commented further that the owners of the two properties most imminently impacted on the east side of Helena Street both signed the petition in favor of the project. At the Planning Commission meeting, they had also answered the questions of a number of people living in the area whose vista would be most im- pacted by the project. Mr. Rowland then described the proposed structure which was a professional building in terms of the context of the Zoning Code and specifically stated it was not a medical building and did not have the plumbing facilities to accommodate those activities. Thus, the bulk of traffic through the site would be the same as business office activities. Mr. Rowland then displayed additional sketches of the site de- picting how they would like the site to look, as well as another sketch denoting the projected activities more clearly, and a schematic presentation. He confirmed for Councilman Kott that the setback on Helena Street conformed with the Code, and the pavement, landscaping and the tree wells were in excess of 100 feet from the building. The schematic more clearly depicted the 6-foot masonry wall, the day- long parking area, the proposed service route, and the short-term parking abutting the building. He noted that the heavy activity area of short-term parking was 50 feet further from the residential area than that in the business operations to the north of the proposed project. He believed they demonstrated the best possible utility of the site. Mr. Rowland stated the most salient points of the project were contained in the site plan showing the various elevations which he also displayed. He reiterated that the 6-foot masonry wall around the building would provide the least impact possible. Although it would be unrealistic to say that traffic would not be generated on Helena Street, that traffic would be inconvenienced traffic because of the wall which would not have any pedestrian access. Thus, there was no real reason for anyone to park in that area and walk to the building, when they could park inside. As an analogy, Mr. Rowland cited the Keystone Savings and Loan building on the corner of Euclid Street and Crescent, where the exact same situa- tion existed with parking backed up to single-family residents. A masonry wall with the same type landscaping being proposed on the subject project screened the area. That project proved to be a successful application of the same principles. There was also a similarity in circulation with a major arterial on one side (Euclid) and the collector street at the right-angle (Crescent). The neighborhood still showed great residential vitality with no physical evidence of degradation. Thus, they were not proposing something that had never been done before, but a viable program. Mr. Rowland, in concluding, outlined the following points relative to the project: 1. The proposed use was essentially 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. with no night or weekend impact. 2. There would be less noise and odor than with any residential use as a project. 3. There was no impact on neighborhood schools or community facilities and the project was self-supporting from a City services standpoint. 78-389 City Hail, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 4~ .1978~ 1:30 P.M. 4. Harbor Boulevard and South Street would not be impacted beyond their designed capabilities. 5. It would not affect the housing inventory of moderately priced houses in the community because the property had never been part of the housing inventory except for one old building on the site which, at this time, Was a target for vandal attacks and deteriorating rapidly since Mr. Morgan did not renew the renters in anticipation of approval of the project by the Planning Commission. 6. It was an excellent project made for the zone, creating a favorable image in the neighborhood. He maintained that the project would improve the entire block and that the CO zone was developed many years before for the specific purpose of assembling properties along Harbor into buildable sites that would attract commercial office buildings. The basic element of the CO zone provided that less than one-half acre could not be developed. The subject property was approximately 200 feet by 200 feet which was less than an acre and any subdivision on the property would be less than the Code requirements for CO zoning. To be forced to develop less would result in a City-created hardship and a legal hardship that would take a series of variances to develop at all, notwithstanding the economics of the situation. In response to Council questioning, Mr. Rowland clarified that there were 70 parking spaces available on-site, and there were no trees on Helena Street that would be removed. The trees existing along the easterly side of the street would be duplicated--~ on the opposite side, thus maintaining'the bower effect of the trees on the remainder of the street. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak first in favor of the applicant and Reclassification No. 77-78-38. Mr.~Jerry Grotley, World Travel Bureau, stated that his company purchased property on the west side of Harbor Boulevard, south of South Street, immediately to the south of the Anaheim Employees Credit Union building, where they were going to develop an attractive one-story building. They were pleased to be a neighbor of the proposed project and to see a building of the stature indicated built in the area with the structure located on Harbor Boulevard rather than set back where it would interfere with residential property and parking to the rear. That was the trend of the buildings going up on Harbor, and he personally favored the concept. There was nothing attractive about the front-on parking on prime access streets. He reiterated, they were pleased to see a clean facility being proposed on Harbor Boulevard. Mr. George Parrish, owner of property on Helena Street approximately 100 feet north of South street, stated the project was worthwhile and one that he endorsed. He did not live in the neighborhood, but on Illinois Street. He had, however, owned the property for a number of years. Mrs. Anderson, 726 Harbor Boulevard, across the street from the project, stated that she would be looking at the proposed building from her kitchen window and she was most delighted at the prospect and wholeheartedly endorsed the project. 78-390 City ~all; Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 4; 1978~ 1:30 P.M. The Mayor then asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition to the proposed project. Mrs. Dorothy Fassel, 843 South Helena Street, (resident since 1951) spoke on behalf of the citizens in opposition to the action taken by the City Planning Commission which they believed would have a significant impact on the neighbor- hood. She also referred to the petition previously submitted, signed by an overwhelming majority of the property owners living in the area who were opposed to the project. She emphasized the following points: 1. The character of the neighborhood was such that it was comprised of many 26-year property owners and many lifetime residents. 2. It was a peaceful, quiet residential area existing long before commercialization of Harbor Boulevard. 3. Another business building was not needed, and there were other areas of the City properly zoned for the particular venture. 4. Most needed were stable communities where children could be reared in a safe atmosphere with friendly neighbors. 5. They found it difficult to comprehend the fairness or desirability of one owner imposing a commercial venture upon the remainder of the neighborhood or why they had to come before the City Council to fight for the right to have their neighborhood remain as it was at present. 6. M~st of the homes were purchased long before as places to live in and not for speculation, as opposed to the applicant who clearly purchased the property in speculation with the knowledge that it was zoned at least partially for residential use. 7. Traffic would be adversely affected by ~he project, especially on South Street where congestion already existed due to the backup from the traffic signal at Harbor Boulevard. She submitted photographs depicting the situation. Auto exiting from the parking lot would be forced to turn right on South Street, and in all probability, would turn right again on South Helena to approach Hampshire where there was also another very desirable neighborhood and then to Harbor Boulevard. 8. The project would create a dangerous situation for the 14 children living on the block near the subject property. 9. They were concerned about the creeping commercialization and the philosophy that if Parcel A became commercial, there would be little reason to object to Parcel B being rezoned accordingly. 10. The complexion of the whole area was threatened, not just the homes on Helena Street. In summary, Mrs. Fassel urged the City Council to give the higher priority to the desires of the many long-term residents over that of a single commercial venture. 78-391 City Hall, Anaheim.~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 4~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. In answer to Councilman Roth, Mrs. Fassel confirmed that the residents were not suggesting that the whole parcel of property be residential, but the frontage on Helena Street. The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to speak in opposition to the proposed project; there being no response, he asked if the applicant wished to make a summation before the public hearing was closed. Mr. Rowland stated that nothing that Mrs. Fassel said was contradictory to what they had been saying--the neighborhood was a lovely one and it would be impacted by the project, but not negatively. Approximately six families would be defintely impacted, three of which whose properties were immediately opposite the project on Helena Street and facing the project to the west. Relative to the traffic, he emphasized there was nothing the proposed project or any other land use could do to change the traffic pattern as discussed. If it was at all feasible to develop the property to some form of residential use, the traffic impact on the street using the City's projected numbers would exceed the impact of the project on Helena immediately by 10 times the present traffic. .Although that was not a great impact, comparatively the proposed project would have the least impact of any they could anticipate. In concluding, Mr. Rowland stated that the concerned voice indiCating the Council was not representing the residents was not accurate because, in fact, the item was removed from the Planning Commission Consent Calendar and set for a hearing. He cautioned, however, that it would not be the last time there was a hearing on the property no matter what occurred in the future, whether Mr. Morgan or someone else proposed another project. They would again be faced with informing the Council of their desires as the property developed. There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public hearing. A member of the audience asked if there was still an opportunity to speak in opposition to the project; the Mayor explained that opportunity had been offered twice and no one else came forward. Councilwoman Kaywood interjected and stated she had no objection to hearing anyone else who wished to speak. The following people then spoke in opposition to Reclassification No. 77-78-38 for the below listed reasons and related comments: Mrs. Betty Routh, 842 South Helena: 1. They were trying to avoid the domino theory, wherein if one parcel was zoned commercial, the next would also be rezoned accordingly. 2. They were not dictating how the property should be used, but were saying that the homes they saved for and lived in were the homes and the area they chose. As Mr. Rowland pointed out, it was a uniquely isolated area and they wanted that area to be retained in the same type of zoning as it had been during all the years they lived there. 78-392 C_ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 4~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. 3. ~e petition spoke for itself and of the people most impacted, all but one of the parties who lived across the street signed the petition in opposition contrary to that stated by Mr. Rowland. 4. If much of the building would be undeveloped lease space, what assurance could be given that it would not be used for medical or dental offices, and that heavy traffic patterns and off-street parking would not occur. Bernadette Heinz, 852 South Helena (west side): 1. She was concerned over what was going to happen to the property on the east side of Helena, opposite her property. 2. If the property on the west side was rezoned and all the trees and shrubbery removed, it would become a hot place to live. Helen Cherry, 852 South Helena (sister of Mrs. Heinz): 1. The protest in opposition to Reclassification No. 77-78-38, was a proper one because they did not want to see their neighborhood deteriorate or impacted by commercial use. Tim Berry, 707 South Helena (north of South Street): 1. He and his wife moved into the area in January and his concern was for their children yet unborn who would be using the street in front of their house. Children played in the street at present and he visualized a real danger to the children in the neighborhood relative to the negative traffic impact of the project. 2. Mr. Berry asked that those in the Chamber audience opposing the project, raise their hands. Approximately 30 people were present in opposition. Mr. Lee Hoffman, 839 South Helena, (16-year resident): 1. The neighborhood was most desirable and well maintained. 2. Because of the traffic congestion on South Street, people would be forced to exit onto Harbor Boulevard by utilizing Helena Street, south to Hampshire Street, and then to Harbor Boulevard. 3. He suggested that if the proposal passed, in order to preclude causing a traffic Jam on South Street, that the driveway on South Street be used for in- gress only with egress through the parking lot out onto Harbor Boulevard. 4. He questioned the statement that comparable trees could be placed on Helena Street against a 6-foot wall. The existing trees were evergreen elms. Thus a 64-inch box tree would be required. ' 5. Theirs was an excellent neighborhood and he did not want to see it disturbed. 78-393 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 4~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Bob Routh, 842 South Helena (27-year resident): 1. They lived in a quality area with many amenities which meant more to him than living close to his university teaching position in Long Beach. 2. He would not deny the right of a person to make a living, to buy, sell and divide property, but there was a point in dealing with people when it was time to think in terms of quality. He believed when a neighborhood was willing to declare that it felt it was bonded together by something stronger than financial gain, that fact should be considered. 3. Theirs was the second tract built in Anaheim; it was an excellent place to live; and he did not want to see it disturbed. The Mayor then, again, allowed time for rebuttal by the applicant. Mr. James Morgan, 300 South Harbor Boulevard, applicant, stated that he was also a long-time resident of Anaheim for some 20 years and in addition owned the subject property for the last 10 years, paying taxes thereon. He had been carrying the prop- erty for a long time to see how Harbor Boulevard and the City was going to develop. The property had never been subdivided and it had always been a single, parcel. When the City went through the intent to zone Harbor Boulevard CO, they left the back portion of his parcel literally unzoned. He had talked to the Planning Department a number of times to get their thoughts on the matter and he had received at least 10 to 15 proposals to develop the propery, ranging from a service station, car wash, restaurant and church. In each instance, he turned the proposal down because he wanted something compatible with his neighbors on Helena Street. The people adja- cent to his property were in favor, as well as the people across the street. He then pointed to the commercial land uses directly across Harbor Boulevard and to the south of his property. He was concerned over the possibility that his parcel would be cut in half, as well as the fact that he had already dedicated 10 feet to the widening of Harbor Boulevard and assumed he would have to dedicate some back on Helena for the widening of the street. He did not believe anyone would suggest that he build single-family dwellings on the back part of the prop- erty, especially since the property had never been subdivided. To put a building on the front part of the lot and leave the back undeveloped, would result in a development such as the one to the north of his property built on stilts which he believed would be more objectionable than the building he proposed. Mr. Morgan reiterated some of the points previously made by Mr. Rowland and further stated that given the opportunity, he could improve not only the property, but also the whole boulevard which was in need of improvement. It would help the City and the neighborhood rather than detracting from it. He maintained.the development proposed was the only one he could offer that was compatible with the neighborhood and with what the City wanted to accomplish on Harbor Boulevard. Councilman Roth asked if the exit onto South Street could be marked so as to prohibit right turns. 78-394 City Hallt Anaheim,.. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 4t..1978t 1:30 P.M. Miss Santalahti stated that the Traffic Engineer indicated that although a sign could be placed at that location, the majority of drivers would do what- ever they wished. There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public hearing. Councilman Seymour stated that his concern when he looked at the proper~y and the proposal for it revolved around the three-stories and the density of the development. He first wanted to know if alternatives were considered relative to a one-story commercial professional structure and what were the reasons for proposing a three-story building other than economics. Secondly, although he was certain it had been brought out in the Planning Commission hearing, he pointed out that typically a 20-foot landscape buffer was required between a single-family residential development and a commercial or apartment house development. Mr. Rowland explained the development they would have preferred, given no impact to Helena Street, would have been to put the building in a different configuration, making an "L" shape against the inside of the property opening the corner of Harbor and South Street to parking. They would then have been able to eliminate the height of the building. The properties most specifically impacted by the height (present configuration) were the two immediately south. However, they had signed a petition in favor. Although the project was more extensive in that it covered more of the Harbor Boulevard frontage than the house presently there, the height of the new project would be approximately the same height and the impact would not be signi- ficantly different. Councilman Seymour suggested if a 20-foot landscape buffer was installed on the southerly portion and a one-story structure was oriented to the southerly portion of the lot, opening up parking on the Harbor Boulevard frontage, the need for ingress and, egress off South Street could have been eliminated. Mr. Rowland stated that since the intersection was signalized, ingress and egress was necessary from.both streets. The single-story structure would not be practical because a more intense development would be necessitated if the property was divided. Approximately 40,000 square feet of land was available and they were only able to develop 15,000 square feet of building, considerably under the average given another configuration. They had complied with every aspect of the CO zone and the spirit of the zone with no variances or deviations at all, and as mentioned earlier, the property had never been in the housing inventory and only one house had always and still remained on a 40,O00-square foot lot. Mr. Rowland then clarified a.point relative to the trees stating it was their intent to match the trees that were across Helena Street and blockouts.would be provided in the block wall that would acconmxmdate the root structure of that particular street tree. Councilman Kott stated the property was a problem parcel and he sympathized with Mr. Hoffman and Mr. ~brsan in their efforts to develop the parcel. Conversely, he sympathized with the people in the neighborhood who had lived there for many years, and he, too, wanted to see it retained as it had been. He did not have an answer relative to that parcel, but it was obvious if the project was extended into Helena Street, the future of that area would follow in the same manner. Thus, in the interest of preserving the neighborhood, he personally would have to vote against the project at this point. 78-395 City H. all~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 4~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the City Council finds that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the proposal and that the initial study submitted by the petitioner indicated no significant individual of cumulative adverse environmental impacts and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 78R-212 for adoption, denying Reclassi- fication No. 77-78-38, and reversing the City Planning Commission's findings. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Seymour stated he would support Councilman Kott's resolution to deny the reclassification because he felt there should be a less dense use with some type of assurance that an unbearable traffic burden would not be created on the residential neighborhood. The front portion of the property, the northerly portion, deserved and should have CO zoning and perhaps even beyond the half-way line, with some type of development because of the dedication being required on Harbor Boulevard. Councilwoman Kaywood first stated that she was certain the proposal would be a very nice development and there was truth in the fact that with 8:00 a.m. or 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. use, there was less traffic than with residential, whether single-family or greater. She had, however, been to the neighborhood and viewed the lovely trees and homes. The same situation was occurring in many parts of the City where areas were deteriorating. Even though the situation may not occur within this particular project, if a thought was planted that it could happen, that alone would impact the neighborhood and start it on its way down. Thus, she could not support the reclassification. Mayor Thom explained that at one time he had a business on Harbor Boulevard, and as well, had many friends on Helena Street and Harbor, including Mr. Morgan. He maintained, however, there was no doubt in anyone's mind that, from a commonsense point of view, Harbor Boulevard was anything other than a commercial boulevard. The economic pressures brought it to bear since the mid 1950s. Relative to the subject property, he could think of applicants who could apply for uses on it that would not be nearly as in close conformance as the philosophy of this particular proposal. Commercial office use was probably the best use it could be put to without adversely impacting the residential character of Helena or any of the adjoining streets, particularly since the parking was to the rear. He therefore disagreed with Council Members Seymour, Kott and Kaywood, since the project was a good one. Therefore, he would not support the resolution and he did not believe anything else would be proposed superior to this project. Possibly the next time it was submitted, economic pressures would force the applicant to sell it off to someone else who would bring pressur~ to bear. The residents might end up with something that would force them off Helena. Councilman Roth agreed with the Mayor in that he could visualize within the next few years someone submitting a plan with many variances, whereas this project was asking no variances whatsoever. He also felt the protection of the 6-foot wall fence on the westerly portion of the property would preserve the single-family integrity of the area. He also believed placing the structure as close to Harbor Boulevard as possible was a wise choice, providing the highest and best use of the property. 78-396 ~ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 41 19781 1:30 P.M. A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-212: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT A CHANGE OF ZONE SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED IN A CERTAIN AREA OF THE CITY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED. (77-78-38, CO) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL M~fBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Seymour and Kott Roth and Thom None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-211 duly passed and adopted. PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 2990 AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 5107: Application by 630 South Knott Avenue Company, to convert an existing 88-unit apartment complex to a one-lot condominium unit on RM-1200 zoned property located at 630 South' Knott Street with code waivers of: a) minimum building site area (denied) b) maximum structural height (denied) c) maximum site coverage (denied) d) minimum front yard setback (denied) e) minimum recreation-leisure area (denied) f) minimum distances between buildings (denied) g) minimum width of pedestrian accessways (denied) h) minimum number and type of parking spaces (denied) The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC78-29, reported that the Planning Director has determined that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Classlll, of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the req6irements for an environmental impact report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR, and further, denied Variance No. 2990. The action of the City Planning Commission was appealed by the developer, Covington Brothers, 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. Bob Fitzpatrick, representing Covington Brothers, 2451 East Orangethorpe, Fullerton, stated that the plan for which staff outlined the variances was the original plan submitted to the City prior to the Planning Commission hearing. They had since submitted a revised plan, changing some of the variances, eliminating a few and curtailing the severity of the remainder of the variances. He thereupon passed a copy of the new plan to the Council, which was later posted on the Chamber wall. 78-3~c7 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 4~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. In order to accomplish the conversion and to bring it up to, or close to Code, Covington Brothers was proposing to remove 8 units from the development thereby decreasing overall density and also increasing parking from the current one and one-half parking spaces per unit to a full two and one-half spaces per unit, thus meeting City Code requirements. Ail 80 remaining units would have private patio areas, and, in addition, a common leisure/recreation area, including a swimming pool, recreation building, a large children's play area and several barbecue and picnic table areas. The expansion of the leisure/recreation area would thus bring this amenity up to within 5 percent of that required under current codes. They also reduced the site coverage from 45 percent down to the 40 percent permitted. The physical conversion of the project would consist of the following: they would repair and repaint the exteriors and interiors of all units, repair all block walls and fences, completely refurbish and repair the recreation building and the pool area, provide new kitchen appliances and add a new dishwasher to every unit, and new carpeting and new drapes. They would renovate the existing landscape and run sound tests on all party walls and bring them up to current State sound requirements. ~ey would also provide general maintenance, refurbishing and repairs as needed to create a project that was virtually brand new. Covington Brothers would also be offering two programs for the current' tenants. For those tenants not wishing to purchase a unit, they would provide current infor- mation on other apartment projects in the area, including vacancies, type of units, amenities, rental rates and whether they allowed children or pets. Each tenant would be given a minimum of 4 months' notice to relocate and provide full-time assistance to any tenants requesting help in relocating. In addition, Covington Brothers would provide the final two months' occupancy rent free to help lower relocation costs and also return all refundable deposits. The second plan for those tenants who wished to purchase a unit, each tenant would be ~iven a minimum of 2 months to decide if they wanted to buy theirs or another available unit. The 2-month period would not begin until they received their public report from the Department of Real Estate. In addition, they would return to every tenant purchasing a unit, 4 months of their previous paid rent in the form of a credit towards their down payment at closing and return all refundable deposits. The average sales price was projected to be between $37,000 and $39,000. They would attempt to arrange for a 95 percent financing thus, requiring a minimum 5 percent down payment. On a $38,000 sales price, the down payment would be $1,900; added to this would be loan fees and closing costs of approximately $800, leaving a total of $2,700 required to close escrow. Using an average rental of $250 a month, Covington Brothers would provide $1000 towards the down payment, leaving a balance of approximately $1,700 required to purchase a unit. A higher down payment could be paid which would reduce monthly payments. In any event, the previous tenants would have all the advantages of homeownership. He noted that the monthly association fee would be approximately $30 to $35. Mr. Fitzpatrick continued that not all apartments should be converted to condo- miniums, but there was a tremendous need for low to moderate income housing in Orange County and condominium conversions were one of the few ways this could be accomplished. The subject development lent itself to the concept and could provide housing for those people who could not, in any other way, afford to own their home. The conversion would upgrade the project and, as well, provide an asset to the City of Anaheim. 78-398 City~ Hall~ Anaheim~ California ~ COUNCIL MINUTES - April 4~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Fitzpatrick then confirmed for Councilman Roth that under the revised plan, the required number of parking spaces, 200 for 80 units, were now being provided. He also explained for Councilman Kott why some of the variances would be impossible to eliminate, for example, the minimum distance between buildings. They tried to mitigate the front yard setback by heavy landscaping or a wall in front of the project to reduce sound problems from Knott Avenue. Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the Planning Commission had an opportunity to review the revised plan. Mr. Fitzpatrick stated they did so when they presented the plan the evening of the Planning Commission hearing. Miss Santalahti stated the plan was brought to the Planning CommisSion, but it was not reviewed by staff in written form. Thus, the Planning Commission's staff report was the same as that received by the CounCil. The Commission did not see any changes in writing and they denied the action based on the exhibit submitted in connection with the staff report. She confirmed for Councilwoman KaywoOd that they never voted on the particular plan presented this evening. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition. The following people spoke in opposition to the project for the below listed reasons, as well as related comments: Mr. Wendell Gratton, 630 South Knott, Apt. 5A: 1. Many of the tenants living in the complex could meet the rent, but would never be able to meet the purchase payment. 2. Two months' free rent was not enough to cover relocation costs. 3. It was very difficult to find rental space for a family with children. Some people did not want to buy a home because their trade, such as his, necessitated moving. 4. The applicant was making the conversion sound so attractive that the tenants were being taken in on the project without checking further. He believed some of the amenities offered to be a front to make the project sound attractive. 5. The security gates to be provided would be ineffective because a bar was located on the alley side of the complex and the wall in that vicinity was con- stantly being knocked down. 6. It was apparent that the improvements they were previously told were going to be made would not be undertaken. As little as possible would be done to keep costs down. 7. He was certain the price would escalate for a 3-bedroom unit over the maximum of $39,000 quoted, which was for a 2-bedroom unit. 78-399 City ~all~ Anaheim.~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 4~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. 8. He took issue with the fact that many Code requirements had not been met, and if not met, he did not believe the project should be approved. 9. His rent was presently $245 a month and payments to purchase would be approxi- mately $380 a month, plus the association fee. Before concluding, Mr. Gratton stated that he had lived in the complex approximately 8 months. He conceded the rent was reasonable, the complex was kept up very nicely, it was a good neighborhood, and the managers took care of problems that arose. There was also a waiting list to move into the complex. The Mayor emphasized to Mr. Gratton, that if Covington Brothers did not want to convert the complex, but instead wished to make major changes by renovating it, the rent structure could escalate well over $245 a month. Don Payne, 630 South Knott, Apt. 2lB: 1. The rise in monthly payments, if the units were purchased, would be way beyond the capability of the vast majority of the present tenants. 2. Letters received in support of the project, were form letters supplied by Covington Brothers and circulated within the apartment complex by the manager. They effectively seduced many of the tenants opposed to conversion in the first place by dangling the promise of property ownership in front of them, and many did not stop to consider the consequences of signing the letter. He believed the tenants, in signing the letter, were trying to cover themselves for any eventuality. 3. There were many physical aspects of the complex about which he was concerned if he became a buyer: washer/dryer hookup, the need for extensive soundproofing, a water heater, backyard too small for families, fences on all patios would have to be shored-up, storage space was less than adequate. 4. Covington Brothers was proposing a superficially face-lifted structure, meeting outdated zoning criteria. 5. Veterans Administration (VA) financing was not available because such a project, when converted, did not meet VA requirements. 6. Low cost housing did not have to mean low quality housing. 7. He was concerned over the prospect of having to move. When they rented approximately 5 months earlier, they indicated they were looking for a long-term housing arrangement. 8. They had no security as a renting population. 9. If conversion were approved, he contended a dangerous precedent would be established with respect to waiving certain items to suit the needs of a profit oriented corporation. In concluding, Mr. Payne admitted to the necessity of low-cost, privately owned homes, but also demanded attention to the reality of the necessity of moderately priced, family oriented rental properties in reasonable neighborhoods. He was not upset about the proposal but took issue with the fact that the City had building 78-.-400 City Ha!lt A~aheim~ California ~ COUNCIL MINUTES - April 4t 1978~ 1:30 P.M. standards and zoning ordinances to be followed. In the proposed project, they were not only bending the waivers, as established, but there was a moral question that by so doing they were eliminating housing for 80 families and out of that, less than half expressed an interest in buying. The City had to recognize their responsibility to the renters and young families who lived there and the principle in the matter was conversion of rental property. Mr. Jim Finnigan, 630 South Knott, stated he had lived in the complex for 4 years and at the time he moved in, was told the apartment would be redecorated and carpets cleaned every two years. He was however, still waiting for those improvements. He referred to some of the improvements mentioned as well as the variances being re- quested and was concerned that if the project was approved, thereafter those im- provements would not be made. He was not planning to continue living in the apartment but would be moving out of the area entirely. James Lucht, 630 South Knott, Apt. 6A: 1. The noted improvements would cost a great deal more than anticipated because of the extent of the work needed to be done. 2. It would be very difficult for most families to afford the purchase of a unit. 3. The precedent that would be set, as expanded upon by Mr. Payne, was of concern to him and there was nothing to prevent the same thing from happening if he moved elsewhere. 4. Many of the units would be purchased by speculators who would, in turn, rent them out. Cougcilman Roth spoke to some of the concerns raised by Mr. Lucht, commenting that Covington Brothers'reputation in the County was such that they were considered one of the top in quality builders of apartments. They had not owned the subject property heretofore, but Mr. Visser, one of the owners, was selling to them presum- ably subject to the conversion. In his estimation, upon viewing the premises of the complex, it was his feeling that the project needed help immediately. Further, the Council was concerned that the only housing being provided today was that such as being built in Anaheim Hills, and it was imperative to provide some type of housing under $50,000 and that in itself was a challenge. Mr. Stewart Cohn, 630 South Knott, 10C, speaking in favor of the project, stated that he signed one of the letters because he was interested and he disagreed with Mr. Payne that the majority of the tenants did not want to purchase since 20 to 25 percent had not given an opinion. As far as what Mr. Payne was looking for, there was no guarantee when renting and the only way to solve the dilemma' was to own property. Mr. Cohn believed the complex to be ideally suited for conversion and one of the very few in Orange County with the setup to do so. He was also pleased with the terms provided and the financing, noting that the VA would not allow a loan on any kind of conversion. The complex was not an individual unit, but a community. The conversion provided an opportunity to build equity and gain tax advantages, and he agreed with Covington Brothers that it would be of benefit for the community and the people of Anaheim. He wanted to go on record as being supportive of the project. 78-40 1 Cit2 Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 4, 1978, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Bill Visser, 701 West Lincoln, co-owner of the project, noted the contradiction in Mr..Gratton's testimony, wherein he first degraded the complex and then pointed to its advantages. He also noted that the rent had not been raised for 16 months. They had planned to improve the area and bring the complex up to standards and in order to do so, they had several choices. They could rebuild the whole complex and raise the rent, sell to another investor who may not make any improvements, but still raise the rent, or convert into condominiums and sell the units off one at a time. He believed it to be a very good project and then reiterated some of the amenities planned, as previously stated by Mr. Fitzpatrick. He emphasized the tenants would have first choice of purchase and that 33 had shown an interest in buying. Mr. Visser continued that the units were 15 years old and had to be redone, and the opportunity was now there to convert the units, especially since there was such a great need for medium priced homes, as well as providing the opportunity of homeownership to the tenants under arrangements that were more than generous. In concluding, Mr. Visser stated, on questioning by Councilwoman Kaywood, that they would sell the project if they were not permitted to convert to condominiums. In summation, Mr. Fitzpatrick first stated that he was told the last condominium conversion in Anaheim took place two years before, and if that were true, a con- version two years later did not indicate there was a snowballing effect. They had converted only 'three projects to condominiums since many were not conducive for such conversion. He emphasized that everything he stated would be done was going to be accomplished and perhaps even more. They would do all of those things and these could be made a condition upon them. They were not being said merely to get the project approved, but because they knew those improvements were necessary to make the project livable. Mr. Fitzpatrick then commented on the following points: (1) as to the statement tha~ the complex was not the right type or size for a conversion, many new condo- miniums were built smaller with less space. The proposed units would be up to grade with any condominium of a comparable or higher price. (2) They had no intentions of installing laundry hookups on the patio. Six to eight laundry facilities were available in the complex. (3) Relative to security and mainte- nance, the homeowners association would bring about more control regarding maintenance than with absentee owners, because people paying dues would be living on the premises. (4) It was very difficult for an investor to obtain financing, and the lender on the last conversion stipulated that at least 80 percent of the project had to be owner occupied or they would not make the loan. (5) The VA financing situation, as stated, was correct, but Cal Vet would finance a conversion, not specifically because of the project under consideration, but because of their general posture on conversions at this point. In concluding, Mr. Fitzpatrick stressed that although there may be a need for apartments, there was a greater need for lower income housing. There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public hearing. 78-402 City H~all~ Anaheim~ Califor_n__i_a - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 4, 1978m 1:30 P.M. The Mayor thereupon asked Mr. Fitzpatrick to again state the stipulations he made earlier relative to the improvements that were going to be made; Mr. Fitzpatrick restated the improvements and commented further that relative to sound attenuation, if it required 3 layers of drywall, they would install it, and as well,, would take care of any other improvements they were not presently aware of that needed attention. They knew what such improvements cost and they could accomplish them and still offer a house that was affordable. Councilwoman Kaywood questioned staff as to statistics that might be available on the ~wo former condominium conversions in Anaheim, Casa Emperador and the last one in 1975 for senior citizens over 50, wherein it was presumed they would not be driving any longer. Although no statistics had been gathered on either conversion, Councilman Seymour stated he visited the senior citizens complex on Magnolia and found they were experiencing no parking problems and the parking standards there were more stringent than those for the subject project. The project appeared to be in' excellent shape and no "for sale" signs were in evidence. Mr. Jim Christensen asked to be recognized since he was the developer on the senior citizens project. He stated the requirements called for 1.2 parking spaces because of the nature of the complex. It was also interesting to note that the Federal government, in their program for building condominiums for senior citizens, also stated the same requirement of 1.2 spaces. The sales, as Councilwoman Kaywood previously indicated, were slow at first because of a visibility problem. After signing was allowed, however, no difficulty was experienced in selling the units. The last figure he had indicated that 95 percent of the original residents were still living in the complex and they were so pleased that they sent a letter to the developer, Warmington, indicating their pleasure. Thus, it was a highly successful project and it did what the Council hoped it would do--provide iow cost housing for senior citizens, rather than a rental program or a government subsidized rental program. Councilman Seymour asked staff the status of the variances requested in view of the revised plans. Miss Santalahti stated if the variances were approved, the status would be as follows: waiver "a" would still be required, but modified by approximately a 10 percent greater building site area per dwelling unit; waiver "b" would be the same; waiver "c" could be denied on the basis that coverage was now the required 40 percent because of the two buildings that would be demolished; waiver "d" would still be required as shown; waiver "e" would be increased, but she did not know by what amount; waiver "f" would still be required;waiver "g" would still be required; waiver "h" would be modified, in part, where.a minimum number of parking spaces would be provided. However, the Code still required that there be 160 garage spaces and 130 covered carports rather than a garage. Thus, waiver "c" would not be necessary and waiver "h" would be approved, in part. Discussion then followed between staff and Councilman Seymour, at the conclusion of which the Planning Director, Pon Thompson, confirmed for Councilman Seymour that the housing percentage in Anaheim reflected' apartments were at 47 percent, mobile homes 5 percent and single-family residential 47 percent. 78-4C3 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 4~ 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Seymour stated that the project offered great appeal and would be of benefit to the City. From the testimony given, he surmised that the project was, in fact, neighborhood preservation at its very beginning since such preservation specifically spoke to refurbishing and converting older properties to a high percentage of homeownership. Such ownership usually connoted well maintained properties and neighborhood. In assessing Anaheim's situation and realizing it was split approximately 50-50 between single-family residences and apartments, he did not have a problem in pointing out that the City was already offering a great number of tenant available apartments. Relative to the tenants opposing the project, he noted that one tenant had lived in the complex for 5 months (Payne) and another 8 months (Gratton) and the gentle- man living there 4 years was going to move. The offer of 2 months' free rent for the short-term tenants was a generous one as well as the plan of assistance relative to relocation even though the developer had no legal obligation to do so, nor in helping them to purchase if they wished. Relative to the opportunity to convert to homeownership, if the downpayment was $1,900 and the developer agreed to a credit of $1,000, for a $900 downpayment plus approximately $800 in closing costs, a tenant would be in a position of homeownership. He knew of no condominiums in the City that could be purchased under $50,000. In concluding, Councilman Seymour stated the basic question was one of property rights and whether the owner had a right, within reasonable restrictions placed upon him by government, in this case the City Council, to do what he chose with his property subject to whatever legal rights the tenants might have. He main- tained the stipulations made tonight relative to tenants rights were more than adequate. Thus, he was prepared to recognize that there were variances and perhaps the project would not meet standards that they would impose on brand new condominiums. On the other hand, as he viewed the variances, there was not a major one in the group, and thus he could support the project. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council ratified the determination of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 11, of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the requirements for an environmental impact report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Seymour thereupon offered Resolution No. 78R-213 for adoption, granting Variance No. 2990, reversing the decision and findings of the City Planning Commission and approving waivers a, b, d, e, f, g and h (in part), subject to all of the stipu- lations made by the applicant, including the landscaping plan on Knott Avenue or a block wall fence on Knott Avenue, to be approved by the Planning Department. The reason for overturning the Planning Commission's decision being-the result of modi- fication to the project since it was before the Commission, creating improved parking conditions and a density of between 15 and 17 units an acre. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked if there was some way a provision could be made to preclude the creation of snowballing and a precedent since the pro- ject was surrounded by apartments. She was concerned over the possibility of sub- standard housing being created if people bought and subsequently found it was not a livable condition. They would therefore, m~ve out and rent the units and the City would end up with a slum. 78-404 City Hall~ Anaheim; California '- COUNCIL MINUTES - April 4; 1978~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Kott took issue with that assessment because the Council was, in fact, the agency that could prevent any snowballing. If a complex was not convertible, it simply would not be allowed to convert, and whoever might invest in such a project, they were not going to do so with intentions of losing their investment. He also believed that many of the things discussed pertained to civil and social matters, as opposed to considerations the Council should give as a governmental body. Miss Santalahti suggested an additional condition; in adding the additional stipu- lations, she recommended that they be accomplished prior to the recordation of the final tract map because that would be the City's final involvement in the project. Mr. Fitzpatrick stated it would not be possible to do so because they would not own the property until they secured a loan. When they received a loan, they would buy the property, as well as record it at the same time, and then the refurbishing would be accomplished. Councilman Seymour clarified that staff was looking for some legal means of insuring that the developer would deliver all that was stipulated before giving the last final City approval. City Attorney Hopkins stated that Miss Santalahti's suggestion was a good one, but a bond would also be acceptable if the applicant was willing to post such a bond. Councilman Seymour thereupon added, as part of his resolution, the requirement that a bond be posted by the developer with the City Attorney's approval. Mayor Thom stated that although he appreciated the concern of the tenants, he wished that more apartment complex owners would consider using the same type of vehicle of conversion to condominiums. It was the only avenue he knew of making homeownership available relative to medium priced housing. Hopefully, whoever performed the conversion would have a reputation such as Covington or Warmington who could do a proper, professional Job. ~n years to come, he would like to see applications submitted to the Council for similar conversions to meet housing needs. A vote was taken on the foregoing resolution, including stipulations and added conditions. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 78R-213: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 2990, IN PART. Roll Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour, Kott, Roth and Thom NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 78R-213 duly passed and adopted. 78-40 5 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 4~ 1978, 1:30 P.M. TENTATIVE MAP~ TRACT NO. 5107: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, the proposed subdivision, Tentative Map, Tract No. 5107, to- gether with its design and improvements was found to be consistent with the City's General Plan and the City Council approved said Tentative Map, subject to the following Interdepartmental recommendations: 1. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 5107 is granted subject to the approval of Variance No. 2990. 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 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. 4. 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 concurrently with the final tract map. 5. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner'satisfactory to the City Engineer. 6. 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. Councilwoman Kaywood abstained. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilman Kott seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Adjourned: 10: 30 P.M. LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK