1985/05/07City HR11~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 7~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M.
PR]~SENT:
A~SENT:
PRESENT:
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Pickler, Overholt and Roth
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
ACTING CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
EXECUTIVE DLRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/PLANNING:
Norman J. Priest
PROGRAM, DEVELOPMENT & AUDIT MANAGER: Ron Rothschild
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING ASSOCIATE: Shirley Land
FIRE CHIEF: Bob Simpson
Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Sister Laura Gormley, St. Anthony Claret Church, gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Miriam Kaywood led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Roth
and authorized by the City Council:
"Hire a Veteran Week" in Anaheim, May $-11, 1985,
"Meals on Wheels Week" in Anaheim, May 13, 1985,
"Poppy Days" in Anaheim, May 10-11, 1985, (American Legion Auxiliary)
"Fire Service Day" in Anaheim, May 11, 1985,
"Emerald Day" inAnaheim, May 11, 1985,
"Transportation Partnership Week" in Anaheim, Hay 12-17, 1985,
"Better Hearing and Speech Month," May 1985,
"Senior Citizen's Month" in Anaheim, May 1985.
The Hire a Veteran Week proclamation was accepted by Rod Harford and Darlene
Swancy-Smith; Meals on Wheels Week by Charlotte Westbrook; Poppy Days in
Anaheim by Virginia Galloway; Fire Service Day in Anaheim by Darrell Hartshorn
and Sheri Benge; Senior Citizen's Month by Herb Eggett.
119: RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A Resolution of Congratulations was
unanimously adopted by the City Council to be mailed to Mimi Robins, upon her
325
City M, ll; Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 7; 1985; 10:00 A.M.
installation as President of the Southern California Dental Assistants
Association.
119: RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A Resolution of Congratulations was
unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to Ronald C. Harding,
upon being named "Small Business Person of the Year."
119: RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A Resolution of Congratulations was
unanimously adopted by the City Council to be presented to Mr. and Mrs. August
F. Lenain, upon 50 years of marriage.
MINUTES: Councilman Pickler moved to approve the minutes of the regular
meetings held April 16 and April 23, 1985 and to continue approval of the
minutes of December 4, 1984 for one week as requested by Councilwoman
Kaywood. Councilman Roth abstained from the minutes of April 23, 1985 since
he was not present. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Pickler moved to
waive the reading in full of all ordinances ant resolutions of the Agenda,
after reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to
waiver is hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the
title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such
ordinances or resolutions in regular order. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of ~5,932,176.32, in
accordance with the 1984-85 Budget, were approved.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Roth,
seconded by Councilman Pickler, the following items were approved in
accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each
Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Councilman Roth offered
Resolution Nos. 85R-168 through 85R-177, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer
to Resolution Book. Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4607 for first
reading.
1. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as
recommended:
Claims rejected and referred to Risk Management:
a. Claim submitted by Peter Castas for personal injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about March 13, 1985.
b. Claim submitted by Southern California Gas Company for property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about February 21, 1985.
c. Claim submitted by Truel Warren Burleson for personal injury and
property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about
December 23, 1984.
326
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 7~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M.
d. Claim submitted by Pat Buchanan - Hedman for personal injury and
property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the police on or about
January 28, 1985.
e. Claim submitted by Michael Nowhannesian for false arrest and
imprisonment sustained purportedly due to actions of police at Anaheim Stadium
on December 23, 1984.
2. Receiving and filing the following correspondence: (on file)
a. 105: Project Area Committee--Minutes of April 9, 1985.
b. 105: Library Board--Minutes of March 20, 1985.
c. 140: Public Library--Monthly Statistical S,,mmary for March 1985.
d. 175: Before the Public Utilities Commission, Southern California
Edison Company Application No. 83-12-53 (U 338-E) for authority to
increase rates charged by it for electric service.
3. 123/153: Authorizing the Human Resources Director to execute a Joint
Exercise of Powers Agreement with the State Personnel Board, Hayward Unified
School District, County of Sonoma, County of Sacramento, and Sacramento
Municipal Utility District, creating the Cooperative Personnel Services
Agency, for the term ending June 30, 1995.
4. 150/109: Accepting a Roberti-Z'berg Urban Open Space and Recreation Grant
(SB174) in the amount of $25,000 for the construction of a restroom building
and miscellaneous drainage improvements at La Palms Park.
5. 175: Authorizing Change Order No. 1 to the contract with Macco
Constructors, Inc., in the amount of 318,910.28 for additional work in
connection with Water Improvements on Weir Canyon Road, Account Nos.
54-605-6329-01716 and 54-605-6329-01715.
6. 175: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-168: 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: THE
MODIFICATION OF THE WATER SYSTEM AT KAT~?.IA SUBSTATION IN THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM. (Account No. 55-485-6430-01031; and opening of bids on June 6, 1985,
2:00 p.m.)
7. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-169: 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:
LINCOLN AVENUE STREETAND STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT IN THE CITY 0FANAHEIM.
(Account Nos. 17-791-6325-E1360 and 51-484-6329-00732; and opening of bids on
June 6, 1985, 2:00 p.m.)
8. 175: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-170: 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:
327
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 7~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M.
INSTALTATION OF WATER MAIN ON AVENIDA DE SANTIAGO IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
(Account No. 54-605-6329-01615; and opening of bids on June 6, 1985, 2:00 p.m.)
9. 150: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-171: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL
PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT ANDALL UTILITIES AND
TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL
WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO
WIT: PEARSON PARK LAGOONS REFURBISHMENT IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. (Account
Nos. 25-820-7103-20060, 16-820-7103-2021c, and 24-820-7103-2012c, Pentaco,
Inc., contractor, and authorizing filing of the Notice of Completion therefor)
10. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-172: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF
PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND
TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUELAND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF
WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO
WIT: CERRITOS AVENUE-STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD TO ANAHEIM BOULEVARD STREET
IMPROVEMENT IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. (Account Nos. 12-793-6325-E3550 and
51-484-6993-00710, Fleming Engineering, contractor, and authorizing filing of
the Notice of Completion therefor)
11. 123: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-173: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING SUPPLEMENT NO. 25 TO LOCAL AGENCY - STATE AGREEMENT
NO. 07-5055. (Approving Supplement No. 25 to Local Agency/State Agreement No.
07-5055, Federal Funds in the amount of ~113,400 with City match of $12,600,
to provide upgrading of the crossing at Harbor Boulevard and Santa Aha Street
(BK 509.8)
12. 123: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-174: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AND ORDERING THE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
OF THE TERRITORY KNOWN AND DESIGNATED OAK HILL RANCH ANNEXATION. (Approving
and ordering the annexation to the City of approximately 546 acres located
approximately 1.1 miles southeast of the intersection of Weir Canyon Road and
the Riverside Freeway (Route 91), designated the Oak Hills Ranch Annexation)
13. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-175: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 84R-243 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF
COMPENSATION FOR CLASSES DESIGNATED AS PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL MANAGEMENT.
(Amending Resolution No. 84R-243 which established rates of compensation for
classes designated as professional and technical management, changing the Job
title of Public Utilities Operations Analyst to SCADA System Manager, XSR07,
effective May 3, 1985)
14. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-176: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDINGRESOLUTION NO. 85R-122 WHICH ESTABLISHED'RATES OF
COMPENSATION FOR UNREPRESENTED PART-TIME JOB CLASSES. (Amending Resolution
No. 85R-122 which established rates of compensation for unrepresented
part-time Job classes, creating the Job classifications of Program
Coordinator--Artist, A 0664, Program Coordinator--Gymnastics, A 0664, Program
Coordinator--Therapeutics, A 0664, and Recreation Director--Artist, A 0597,
effective May 17, 1985)
328
City ~a!l~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ma7 7, 1985~ 10:00 A.M.
15. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-177: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION.
16. 149/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4607: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING SECTION 14.32.189 OF TH~ ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO PARKING
RESTRICTIONS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ORANGETHORPE AVENUE BETWEEN L~MON STREET AND
MISSILE WAY. (first reading)
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 85R-168 through 85R-174:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Pickler, Overholt and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 85R-168 through 85R-174, both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 85R-175 and 85R-176:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt and Roth
Bay
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 85R-175 and 85R-176 duly passed and adopted.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 85R-177:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay,
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Pickler, Overholt and Roth
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 85R-177 duly passed and adopted.
End of Consent Calendar. MOTION CARRIED.
123/108: REVIEW OF THE BUSINESS LICENSE ORDINANCE: City Manager Willim
Talley briefed the Council on report dated April 1~, 1985 from the Community
Development Department, recommending that the Council approve the Professional
Services Agreement with Ralph Andersen and Associates for review of the
business license ordinance in an amount not to exceed ~20,000 plus
out-of-pocket expenses for Phase One, on an hourly basis ranging from ~39 to
~99 as specified in the agreement plus out-of-pocket expenses for Phase Two
and ~30,000 plus out-of-pocket expenses for Phase Three (if initiated) and
that the City Council also waive Council Policy 401 due to the consultant's
extensive experience in analyzing business tax structures.
Councilman Overholt stated the reason he removed the item from the Consent
Calendar, even though there had not been an evaluation or changes in the
business license structure in 27 years, since it would be of concern to the
business community, to act on the proposal with no comment or discussion would
be inappropriate. He then posed questions to Mr. Priest to clarify his
understanding of the three phases involved in the proposed analysis.
329
City Hull~ Anah, im~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 7; 1985~ 10:00 A.M.
Mayor Roth stated he was going to vote "no" on the proposal. It was clear to
him with an investment of between $20 and ~30,000 that there will be an
increase of fees. The statement that fees had not been raised for 20 or 30
years was no excuse. He also felt that a study could be done in-house.
City Manager Talley, responding to the latter, stated that staff attempted to
study the issue in 1976, but since then the staff's credibility with the
business community had been impacted because of the politicizing of the study
at that time. He felt it was necessary to have someone with total
independence and not biased in any way in order to maintain the maximum amount
of credibility regarding the study. Mr. Andersen had a national reputation of
objectivity and had performed these studies in other communities. He
recommended that the Council not assign the project to staff to avoid a
credibility issue.
Councilman Bay asked if the previous staff study done in 1976 was available
and if so, he would like to see a copy of that report. Further, he was going
to oppose the request because to him it was another means of coming to an end
to increase fees in taxes. If the City was going to spend $50,000 plus across
the three phases, it was obvious the intent was to change the structure and
justify increases. He could not go along with the means to meet that end. He
also stated in answer to Councilman 0verholt that he would not mind a week's
continuance on the issue to have an opportunity to see the 1976 report, but he
did not know if it would change his mind or not relative to his ultimate
decision.
Councilman Overholt moved to continue the subject agreement for one week.
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she was on the
Council at the time the draft report was submitted. The Council, as a whole,
did not have an opportunity to bring the matter forward as an open public
report because everything was prejudged and there was so much concern about
the probable violation of the Brown Act by three Council Members that it
over-shadowed the report.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion of continuance. MOTION CARRIED.
000/129/142: PROPOSAL FOR PARAMEDIC FEES: Establishing paramedic fees to be
charged by the Fire Department for voluntary subscription of $24 per year per
residence, business or industry, and a fee for Basic and Advanced Support
Services of ~75 and ~125 respectively, for nonresidents and nonsubscribers.
The following detailed reports were submitted - report dated April 19, 1985
from the City Attorney's Office which reviewed the advisability of the two
proposals for imposition of a fee for paramedic services; report dated
April 29, 1985 from the Fire Chief, with attachment, recommending
implementation of a paramedic fee based upon voluntary subscription.
COUNCIL QUESTIONS:
Councilman Overholt.
Regarding the report from the City Attorney's Office, does a
330
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 7~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M.
legal opinion dictate a voluntary program and, if so, how much
is the voluntary program costing as compared to a mandatory
~2.00/month charge for paramedics.
City Manager Talley.
The answer to the first question is "yes." Staff would have
been prepared to either present two proposals - the voluntary or
subscription plan. Staff would have recommended for both fiscal
equity and administrative reasons that Council, in effect,
create one plan where all members of the Anaheim public would
belong.
Jack White, Acting City Attorney.
In reviewing the voluntary and mandatory proposals, it is the
opinion of his office and himself personally that he would have
legal difficulty in sustaining, if challenged, a mandatory fee
imposed upon every resident, business and industry in the form
that was proposed. Under Article XIIIB of the State
Constitution, the fee would constitute a special tax and,
therefore, required a two-thirds vote of the residents in order
to be imposed, or otherwise subject to Judicial challenge. If
challenged, based upon the current constitutional provision and
lack of case law the fee would not be sustainable in his opinion.
In answer to further questions posed by Councilmen 0verholt and
Bay, Mr. White stated the reason why the collection service
analogy would not be appropriate to a paramedic service such as
for trash collection, that service is typically used by all the
residents with a more direct tangible cost-benefit ratio. A
paramedic fee could not show a direct cost-benefit relationship.
Mayor Roth expressed b_is concern relative to what he considered
abuses of paramedic use in the City; Fire Chief Bob Simpson
stated he estimated approximately 80 percent of the calls to
which the Fire Department responded were not paramedic calls in
nature but "band-aid" calls. Also, approximately 70 percent of
all Fire Department business was emergency medical service. Of
those utilizing the service it was estimated that between 2,000
and 2,500 annually were non-residents or visitors to the
community.
000/129/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4608: Adding new Chapter 16.24 to the Code,
relating to paramedic fees. Councilman Overholt offered Ordinance No. 4608
for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4608: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ADDING NEW CHAPTER 16.24 TO TITLE 16 OF THE ANAKEIM MUNICIPAL CODE R~TATING TO
PARAMEDIC FEES. (first reading)
It was determined that the proposed resolution establishing paramedic fees be
continued one week to be acted upon in conJunction with adoption of the
ordinance.
331
City H,11~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 7~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M.
179: REQUEST FOR REHEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2652: Affidavit of
Merit in support of a request for a rehearing submitted by Floyd L. Farano,
Farano and Kieviet, for Conditional Use Permit 2652, Prince Supermarket, to
permit a convenience market with off-sale beer and wine on RM-1200 zoned
property located at 1200 West Cerritos Avenue. (Denied by Council at a Public
Hearing on April 2, 1985, request for rehearing denied at meeting of April 9,
1985)
At its public hearing of April 2, 1985, the City Council denied the subject
request. On April 9, 1985 the Council then denied a request for a rehearing
on the subject; subsequently an additional request was received again asking
for a rehearing.
Mr. Frank Lowry, Attorney, Farano & Kieviet, stated his reason for appearing
before the Council today was contained in the Affidavit of Merit previously
submitted. However, it was discovered that there was some opposition locally
which had not been previously expressed and he was requesting a hearing date
in June to give an opportunity to work with the opposition to get it
withdrawn. In June, it would be almost a full year after the attempt to clean
up the market and to straighten out problems in the area thus providing a
track record. The applicant could not ask for a date much later than that
because he would be bankrupt.
Councilman Overholt moved to approve the request for a rehearing and setting
the second Tuesday in June, or June 11, 1985, at 1:30 p.m. as the date and
time for the public hearing. Councilman Roth seconded the motion for the
purpose of discussion.
Councilman Pickler stated he was opposed to the rehearing since the applicant
was aware of, and made the stipulation that there would be no beer and wine
sold at the market, at the original hearing.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Council Members Kaywood and
Pickler voted "no." MOTION CARRIED.
105: APPOINTMENT TO THE YOUTH COMMISSION: Appointment to the Youth
Commission to fill term expiring December 31, 1986. Sandra Matthews who was
appointed to the Commission at the Council meeting of April 9, 1985 was
subsequently unable to accept the appointment since her application to an
out-of-state college had been accepted.
Councilwoman Kaywood nominated Blanca Reynoso.
Councilman Roth moved to close nominations. Councilman Overholt seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Blanca Reynoso was thereby unanimously appointed to the Youth Commission for
the term ending December 31, 1986.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City
Planning Commission at their meeting held April 15, 1985, pertaining to the
following applications were submitted for City Council information.
332
City Hall; Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 7; 1985; 10:00 A.M.
1. VARIANCE NO. 3471: Application submitted by Stewart, Green Associates,
(New Meji), to permit a restaurant on property located at 214 South State
College Boulevard with Code waiver of minimumnumber of parking spaces.
The applicant withdrew his application.
2. VARIANCE NO. 3474: Application submitted by Vincent P. Pietrok, to
construct a 16-unit affordable apartment on RM-1200 zoned property located at
218 West Vermont Avenue, with the following Code waivers: (a) minimum
building site area per dwelling unit, (deleted) (b) maximum structural height.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC85-97, granted in
part, Variance No. 3474 for a 14-unit apartment complex, and granted a
negative declaration status.
3. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 84-85-29: Application submitted by Norbert A. and
Ruth M. Waters, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to CL, on property
located at 2523-25 East Ball Road.
The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC85-98, granted
Reclassification No. 84-85-29, and granted a negative declaration status.
4. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 84-85-30 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2676:
Application submitted by Charles E. and Anita Margarete Peairs, for a change
in zone from RM-1200 to CL, to permit a used automobile sales agency and lot
on property located at 1107 North Swan Street.
The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC85-99 and 100,
granted Reclassification No. 84-85-30 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2676 for
a term of 5 years, and granted a negative declaration status.
5. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 84-85-34 AND VARIANCE NO. 3477: Application
submitted by Habib Mansouri-Far and Joseph N. Makabi, for a change in zone
from RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200, to construct a one and two story 22-unit
apartment complex on property located at 3333 West Ball Road, with the
following Code waivers: (a) maximum structural height, (b) maximum fence
height.
Tie vote by the Planning Commission, public hearing scheduled this date at
1:30 p.m.
6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2677: Application submitted by Gerald A.
Young, (Duke's Charbroiled), to permit an enclosed restaurant on ML zoned
property located at 3371 East Miraloma Avenue, with Code waiver of minimum
number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC85-101, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2677, and granted a negative declaration status.
9. VARIANCE NO. 3478: Application submitted by Country Club Hotels, Inc.,
(Comfort Inn), to construct an addition to a freestanding sign on CL zoned
property located at 1251 North Harbor Boulevard, with the following Code
333
City M-11~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 7t 1985; 10:00 A.M.
waivers: (a) permitted location of a freestanding sign, (b) minimum distance
between freestanding signs.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC85-104, granted
Variance No. 3478, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption
determination. (Class 11)
10. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2300 (Ready.) - EXTENSION OF TIME: Application
submitted by Robert J. Waters, (Arita Sales Co.), requesting an extension of
time to Conditional Use Permit No. 2300, and/or deletion of Condition No. 5 of
Resolution No. PC82-35 pertaining to required time extensions, to retain
retail sales of dinnerware products on MA zoned property located at 2720 East
Park Regal Drive.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC85-105, approved an
extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 2300, to expire March 8, 1986.
11. VARIANCE NO. 2349 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1408 (READV.) -
EXTENSIONS OF TIME: Application submitted by Collins Limited Partnership,
(Pepper Tree Faire), requesting extensions of time to Variance No. 2349 and
Conditional Use Permit No. 1408, and/or deletion of Condition No. 10 of'
Resolution No. PC72-77 and Condition No. 2 of Resolution No. PC73-147
pertaining to required time extensions, to retain a center for the sale of
handcrafted objects and related merchandise with food sales on property
located at 1514 West Broadway and to retain a billboard on an industrial
building located at the southeast corner of Broadway and Adams Street.
The City Planning Commission approved deletion of conditions of Resolution No.
PC85-106 and 107 of Variance No. 2349 and Conditional Use Permit No. 1408
(Readv.).
12. AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. PC85-49--NUNC PRO TUNC: Application submitted by
Planning Commission Secretary, request to amend Resolution No. PC85-49, nunc
pro tunc, to correct conditions of approval of Variance No. 3462, for property
located at the northwest corner of 0rangewood Avenue and State College
Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC85-108, amended
Resolution No. PC85-49 nunc pro tunc.
13. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2672: Application submitted by E.D.G.A.
Enterprises, to permit an entertainment facility for teenagers on ML zoned
property located at 1490 South Anaheim Boulevard, with Code waiver of minimum
number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC85-96, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2672 for two years, to expire April 15, 1987, and
granted a negative declaration status.
Councilwoman Kaywood requested a review of the Planning Commission's decision
on Conditional Use Permit No. 2672 and, therefore, a public hearing would be
scheduled at a later date.
334
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 7~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M.
14. VARIANCE NO. 3473: Application submitted by Cyprien and Catherine Duhart,
to construct a 2-unit addition to an existing single family dwelling on
RM-2400 zoned property located at 869 South Lemon Street, with the following
Code waivers: (a) maximum fence height, (b) minimum side yard setback and
minimum width of pedestrian accessways, (c) required type of parking spaces,
(d) vehicular backing onto public streets.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC85-102, granted
Variance No. 3473, and granted a negative declaration status.
Councilwoman Kaywood requested a review of the Planning Commission's decision
on Variance No. 3473 and, therefore, a public hearing would be scheduled at a
later date.
15. VARIANCE NO. 3475: Application submitted by Mark and Sue Ann Cross, to
establish a 2-lot, RS-5,000(SC) zoned single-family subdivision on property
located at 599 Paseo de Luna, with Code waiver of minimum building site width
for cul-de-sac lots.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC85-103, granted
Variance No. 3475, and granted a negative declaration status.
Councilwoman Kaywood requested a review of the Planning Commission's decision
on Variance No. 3475 and, therefore, a public hearing would be scheduled at a
later date.
End of Planning Commission Informational Items. MOTION CARRIED.
108: ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT APPLICATION - CASANOVA'S: Submitted by David
Masaru Kishaba, for Casanova's, 821 Beach Boulevard, for 1 to 2 girls dancing,
seven days a week, from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m., with recommendation for
approval by the Police Department. This application was continued from the
meeting of April 23, 1985 for full Council action.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to approve the application for an entertainment
permit submitted by Dav/d Masaru Kishaba, for Casanova's, 821 Beach Boulevard,
for 1 to 2 girls dancing, seven days a week, from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m., as
recommended by the Chief of Police. Council Members Kaywood and Pickler voted
"no." MOTION CARRIED.
142/160/128: ORDINANCE NO. 4605: Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance No.
4605 £or adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4605: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SUBSECTIONS
.050 AND .060 OF SECTION 1.12.070 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO
THE DISPOSITION OF UNCLAIMED PROPERTY. (Technical correction to reflect
proper name of Finance Department in place of Purchasing Department)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Pickler, Overholt and Roth
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
335
City B~11~ Anabeim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES -May 7, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4605 duly passed and adopted.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4606: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4606 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4606: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
(Reclass. 84-85-13, RM-1200 OR A less intense zone, 134 So. Western Avenue)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COb~CIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Pickler, Overholt and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4606 duly passed and adopted.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4609: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4609 for first
reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4609: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF TNEANAHEIMMUNICIPAL CODE RETATING TO ZONING.
(Reclass. 68-69-37(71), ML, 2880 East Coronado)
144: F~A~TERN/FOOTHILL CORRIDOR - FEE PROGRAM: Councilman Bay stated the last
meeting was held on Thursday, May 2, 1985 in Orange, attended by Councilman
Pickler, Joel Fick, Assistant Director for Planning and himself along with
other cities where they worked on the Joint Powers Authority differences
between the cities involved in the Eastern/Foothill Corridor. There were
three meetings scheduled this week. The cities were coming closer to
agreement and had the same objective of starting the Corridors as soon as
possible.
144: APPOINTMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE TO THE ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSION (OCTC) Mayor Roth asked for some direction from the Council
relative to the voting to take place at the League of Cities Meeting on
Thursday, May 9, 1985, on several appointments to be made, particularly the
appointment of a representative to the OCTC, Dan Griset being the incumbent.
There were two additional candidates for the position - Don Mac Allister and
Hank Wedaa.
After a brief Council discussion on the matter, Councilman Overholt and Mayor
Roth expressed their support for Don Mac Allister and Councilman Pickler for
Dan Grtset.
Councilman Overholt moved that the Mayor support the selection of Don Mac-
Allister for the Orange County Transportation Commission barring any legal
impediments relative to district representation. Councilman Bay seconded the
motion. Council Members Kaywood and Pickler voted "no." MOTION CARRIED.
114: REPORT ON TRIP TO MITO~ JAPAN: Mayor Roth gave a brief report on his
trip to Anaheim's Sister City, Mito, Japan where he met Mito's new Mayor,
336
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 7~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M.
Sagaua, who was planning to come to the United States and Anaheim for the
first time in the Fall.
The Mayor also reported on his visit to a modern plant on one of the Japanese
islands where sludge extracted from wastewater was being turned into an
odorless and dynamic fertilizer. He was going to submit a report on this new
technology since the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was requiring that
more sludge be removed from water going into the outfall since at present
sludge was now being dumped into landfills which were running out of room.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: The City Manager requested a Closed Session to
discuss potential litigation and labor relations with no action anticipated;
the City Attorney requested a Closed Session to discuss pending and potential
litigation with no action anticipated.
The Mayor announced that a Closed Session would be held with the City's
Attorneys to discuss pending and significant exposure to litigation and labor
relations pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9A, 54956.9B-1 and 54957
with no action anticipated.
Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session and a lunch break.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (11:55 a.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meetin~ to order, all Council Members
being present. (1:50 p.m.)
134/179: PUBLIC HEARING - GPA NO. 202, RECLASSIFICATION NO. 84-85-28~
VARIANCE NO. 3465~ REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF SPECIMEN TREE AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION:
APPLICANT: Jun Nishino, D.D.S.
Marcia J. Nishino
1780 Winlock Street, Orange CA. 92665
ZONING/LOCATION/REQUEST: To consider alternate proposals of ultimate land
uses including but not limited to Commercial Professional and Low Density
Residential on approximately 1.8 acres located at the northeast corner of
Santa Aha Canyon Road and Pinney Drive, proposed change in zone from
KS-A-43,000(SC) to CO(SC) or less intense zoILlng~ to construct a 19-foot high
commercial office building with Code waivers of minimum buildin~ setback and
minimum landscaped setback, and request for approval of removal of one
specimen tree.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC85-88 approved General Plan
Amendment No. 202 land use and circulation elements (Exhibit "A" designating
2.0 acres as Commercial Professional land uses and Exhibit "B" revising
Exhibit No. 7 of the Santa Aha Canyon Road access point study); Resolution No.
PC85-89 granted Reclassification No. 84-85-28; Resolution No. PC85-90 granted
Variance No. 3465, and a motion by the Planning Commission granted the request
for removal of one specimen tree on the basis that a reasonable and
practicable development of the property on which the tree is located requires
removal of the tree. Approved EIR - negative declaration.
337
City ~a!l~ An-heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 7~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQU/I{EMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin April 25, 1985.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - April 24, 1985.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated April 1, 1985.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Paul Noyes, 14618 Oakwood Road, Minnetonka, Minn. 55345
d6veloper and agent for the land owner.
Referring to the two renderings posted on the Chamber wall, he
described the proposed project designed to blend in with the
residential neighborhood. Even though the property is zoned for
single-family use, homes would have to be built within 50 to 60
feet of busy Santa Aha Canyon Road. The persons who expressed
opposition said they would like to see the land remain as it is,
or at worst with single-family homes. It would not be fair to
the property owner if homes are built and, if so, they would
have to be rental homes. The site is so narrow the houses would
have to be two-stories which would impact the neighborhood much
more than the subject proposal. He had photographs showing the
present status of the property where an abandoned irrigation
canal ran the entire length of the property which collected
rubbish and debris and some neighbors said they had a rodent
problem because of the canal. The ditch will be filled in and
landscaped. Another neighbor expressed concern about traffic
and as evidence by the plans, there are 65 parking spaces as
required and the use would not increase the traffic even one
percent. They are also providing a 350-foot deceleration lane
for entering the property. The project will be a beautiful
asset to the surrounding residential area. He confirmed for
Councilwoman Kaywood that relative to the Pepper tree that had
to be moved, they would try to relocate it elsewhere on the
property.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION:
Jack Conway, 5318 Gerda.
He is not really in favor of the project. His home abuts the
adjacent property and he has no financial interest in the
matter. Plans were submitted to the neighbors in October of
last year and they did not show a masonry wall, whether there
would be restricted access to the project between the buildings
and their homes, and concern was expressed about the overall
size of the project. All of the items had since been addressed
by Mr. Noyes and his architect. The building is now 25 percent
smaller than that proposed originally and the preliminary
proposal indicated 105 cars and now it is down to 65. He
reiterated the concerns of the residents had been addressed but
he did not know whether there were any other concerns of
residents. The final plans were distributed to all of the
homeowners. Everyone was invited to a meeting held at his house
where they talked to the developer and landscape architect. At
338
City Hall~ Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 7~ 1985t 10:00 A.M.
least the Gerda Drive homeowners were well informed on what was
taking place. Two groups were involved either in favor or in
opposition or perhaps neither - the homes on Gerda which
physically touched the property and where the residents were
presently living with the problem and the homeowners across
Santa Aha Canyon Road and 100 feet up on the hillside.
Currently there were three homes on Gerda opposing the project.
Of the 13 directly affected where the properties backed up
against the project, 10 are in favor. It is obviously a
distressed piece of property, it is an eyesore and until
something is done, the residents did not like what was there.
They also did not like some of the past proposals, they did not
want homes or two-story homes and had come to the conclusion
that there should be something on the property and felt that the
subject project is reasonable and equitable to themselves as
property owners and equitable to the property owner. The
majority of the homeowners, although not enthused, are not
opposing the project.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
OPPOSED CONCERNS:
Marylou Rogers, 107 Orangehill Lane.
Any property good or bad bordering commercial property would be
harder to sell and would lose from 5 to 10 percent value as
borne out by the many calls she made to home loan officers at a
number of institutions. A vacant lot does not have to look like
an eyesore. There will be a loss of aesthetics and a loss of
the residential atmosphere with this project. They were told if
the property was ever developed, it would be R-1 and now the
rules were being changed.
Marie Connell, 5250 Gerda Drive.
Their home is just north of the proposed development with
two-stories and for them looking out on the development would be
like looking at a wall. There were more residents on Gerda than
stated but they were not able to be present. The developer,
knowing the zoning when he bought the property, was
speculating. The proposal is too large. The abandoned fire
station on Pinney Drive is now operated by the Anaheim Parks and
Recreation Department and there is a problem with parking along
Pinney. There will also be a flow of traffic in and out of the
proposed project. It has always been a troubled corner and many
accidents had occurred there with three having taken place since
the Planning Commission hearing. The project will add to that
problem. There is supposed to be a 100-foot easement and the
developer wants to bring that down to 20 feet. If the project
is allowed, it will be much closer than any other development
along Santa Ann Canyon Road. They are concerned with traffic in
the area. They would like the area to remain as is, or with a
smaller commercial development.
339
City H~]]~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 7~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M.
EXHIBITS, MATERIALS SUBMITTED:
Photographs of the property showing its present condition.
SUMMATION BY APPLICANT: Mr. Noyes.
In 1978, six single-family homes were proposed and turned down
by the Council. Relative to Mrs. Connell's concern, the
building would be about 50 feet from her house. Tree masses
will be planted on the north side and all she would be looking
at would be a forest. The side walls of the buildings Jog in
and out, the roof line had a good size overhang with cedar shake
shingles and the roof slopes away. They could work with Mrs.
Connell and plant the tree she would like to see along that area.
Mr. G. E. Kraemer, 1923 East Walnut, Orange, Realtor.
A proper development of the property would not devalue
surrounding properties and it could do nothing but enhance the
value. The project is developing a piece of property that is an
eyesore.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
She asked Mr. Noyes if he would be willing to stipulate there
would be no medical offices because of the parking situation.
Mr. Noyes so stipulated because there was not enough parking to
allow medical offices.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Roth closed the public hearing.
COUNCIL CONCERNS:
Councilwoman KaYWood.
Having been involved in the original planning for the whole
canyon area, 11 access points were designated along Santa Ana
Canyon Road for a good reason and she was concerned with
breaking that down. With the deceleration lane and the entry
only and exit only, she wanted to be sure that people would do
that, i.e. that it be absolutely enforced.
~hirley Land, Assistant Traffic Engineer.
The developer spent a great deal of time with staff relative to
ingress and egress on the site. Staff felt the design was safe
and the developer had complied with all of the Traffic
Department requirements.
Mayor Roth.
He wanted assurance that relative to the screening of the
property to the north that good height be obtained from trees
that were planted right from the start and also that there would
be a block wall to the north.
340
City Hall; Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 7~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M.
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning.
Exhibit showed the block wall and it was an imposed condition.
Rob Sawyer, 1750 East Deer Street, Santa Ama.
Relative to the trees, they will strongly advise their client to
start with box size trees to get good height and the client has
said they are willing to do that, from a list of approved
trees. He also did not have a problem getting together with
Mrs. Connell to choose the tree she would like as suggested by
Councilwoman Kaywood.
Councilwoman Kaywood also requested that the project be tied to
the drawing submitted.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Pickler, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council approved the
negative declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative
declaration together with any comments received during the public review
process, and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any
comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will
have a significant effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 85R-178 for adoption, approving
General Plan Amendment No. 202, land use element, Exhibit "A" and circulation
elements Exhibit 'B". Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 85R-178: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVINGANAMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE ANAHEIM GENERAL
PLAN DESIGNATED AS AMENDMENT NO. 202, EXHIBIT "A' AND "B."
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Pickler, Overholt and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 85R-178 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 85R-179 for adoption, approving
Reclassification No. 84-85-28. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTIONNO. 85R-179: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING RECLASSIFICATION NO. 84-85-28.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 85R-180, granting Variance
No. 3465. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 85R-180: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 3465.
Roll Call Vote:
341
City Hall~ Anabeim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 7~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Pickler, Overholt and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 85R-180 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Pickler noted that the Reclassification and Variance were subject
to all City Planning Commission conditions and with the stipulation by the
apPlicant that there will be no medical offices, that box size trees be used
to ensure a rapid growth and that the plans be tied to the drawings submitted.
MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to approve the requested removal of a
specimen tree (No. 85-03). Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 84-85-34~ VARIANCE NO. 3477~ AND
NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
APPLICANT: Habib Mansouri-Far and Joseph N. Makabi
5905 Beckford Avenue, Tarzana, CA. 91335.
ZONING/LOCATION/REQUEST: For a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200, to
construct a one and two story 22-unit apartment complex on property located at
3333 West Ball Road, with the following Code waivers: (a) maximum structural
height, (b) maximum fence height.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Tie vote by the Planning Commission at their
meeting of April 15, 1985 and forwarded to the City Council without a
recommendation necessitating a public hearing before the Council.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin April 25, 1985.
Posting of property April 25, 1985.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - April 25, 1985.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated April 15, 1985.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT~
Jerry Druktn, 1280 East Flower, Designer, representing the
developer of the project.
He first reviewed the 22-unit apartment project and its design
as he did at the Planning Commission meeting of April 15, 1985
(see Planning Commission minutes that date), where there was no
opposition and there was also no issue involving any of the
design characteristics. One of his key concerns in designing
the project was to minimize the impact of the multiple-family
zone in proximity to the single-family zones to the north and
west explaining how that was done with a 20-foot landscape
buffer along the north property line extending around the west
property line where the one-story buildings were located. There
were no doors or windows which would look down or into any
single-family homes adjacent to the development as evidenced by
342
City Hall~ A~,heim~ C~fornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 7~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M.
the fact that there was no opposition to the proposal. He
worked closely with staff and tried to address all their
concerns as reflected by the staff report which recommended very
few conditions because of the things required of them which were
incorporated into his plan. They realized single-family homes
are not going to be built on the property or even condominiums.
Also rental is not going to be built there because of the depth
of the lot and the only option is multiple-family zoning. Along
Ball Road for 8 to 10 miles is a spectrum of multiple-family
developments leading one to believe that the entire Corridor is
multiple-family, medium density development of the type which
they are proposing. Across the street to the south east there
is currently on the general plan a medium density specification.
EXHIBITS, MATERIALS SUBMITTED:
Letter from Anaheim General Hospital signed by their Executive
Director as well as letters from neighbors and/or property
owners in close proximity who were in support of the project or
who did not oppose it.
Jaleh Makabi.
She explained the property belonged to her husband, father and
mother. Six years ago when her parents left Iran they left
everything behind because of the revolution and one half of the
property is the only thing they owned. She then elaborated on
the personal problems under which the family was now laboring
and subsequently urged approval of the proposal.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
OPPOSED: June Lanc, 3312 West GlenHolly.
Her biggest concern is in cutting off Deerwood. Eventually the
property abutting her back yard would also be affected by the
fact that there would be no Deerwood coming through and they
would have apartments built up to their fence. It also seems
that 22 units is high density. Should the development be
allowed, the property that is now the nursery directly behind
their homes would be open to the same type of development. She
was also concerned about the height of the structures.
George Brott, 330§ West GlenHolly.
He was concerned with the proposed building to be constructed on
a very narrow strip of land Just west of the wholesale nursery.
Once built it is going to open up two-story areas on the nursery
property which will be looking down on his back yard and
swimming pool which he objected to strenuously. Theirs is a
very nice residential area and they wanted to keep it that way.
He did not like two-story apartment buildings. Relative to
Anaheim General Hospital, they have been trying to get out of
the community and into the canyon area. He did not know of
anybody in the area who had approved of the project.
343
City Hall~ A~aheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 7, 1985t 10:00 A.M.
Dorothy Ehnert, 3326 West GlenHolly.
Her neighbors to the right are concerned about their pool and
privacy on that end of GlenHolly as well as the traffic on Ball
Road. They were not approached to ask their opinion at all.
Single-family homes, or a one-story project would be acceptable
to her.
COUNCIL CONCERNS:
Councilwoman Kaywood.
Forty-nine bedrooms are proposed with 55 parking spaces which
was not adequate, as well as the fact that there are 36 tandem,
tuck-under parking spaces. The two-story buildings are 55 feet,
23 feet and 9 feet from single-family zoning and the City has
never permitted anything that close to single-family
residences. It is packing too much on a small lot. Later in
the meeting, she also expressed additional concerns - that the
request is spot zoning, that since the nursery property is three
times the size of the subject property, the owner will want 66
units on his property if the subject project is approved.
Councilman Pickler.
The project is JRmmlng too much into the area. He suggested a
reduction in units and orienting the building so that it is at
least 100 feet away from single-family residences on the back
end of the property.
SUMMATION BY APPLICANT: Jerry Drukin.
After answering a line of questioning posed by Councilwoman
Kaywood, Mr. Drukin answered the concerns expressed by those who
spoke in opposition. Mrs. Lanc's interest in extending Deerwood
is logical, but the owner of the nursery has no intent of
selling his property at this time or allowing the extension of
Deerwood through his property. They are not asking for density
bonuses and no increases over the RM-1200 zone. There are no
windows that look directly to the north on the two-story
building and the one-story building on the west property line
has no doors and windows that encroach on the single-family
homes. They can provide 55 parking spaces on site, two for each
,,-~t leaving 11 guest parking spaces. There is no way that
single-family homes are economically feasible to be built on the
site. Mr. Brott is at least 300 feet away from the development
which will have minimal impact on his property. If the number
of bedrooms is of concern, they will lower the number to
two-bedrooms for all 22 units. There are no two-stories
immediately adjacent to any single family with only a 9-foot
set-back.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Roth closed the public hearing.
Mr. Drukin, in answer to Councilman Pickler and his concern
regarding the back end of the property, stated they would be
344
City ~,11~ ADaheim~ C-1tfornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 7; 1985~ 10:00 A.M.
willing to remove one of the units at the rear of the property
in essence making it a one-story building and that would place
the first two-story building at approximately 60 to 70 feet from
the single-family residents although they did not agree with
that.
Councilman Bay.
The key issue and the reason for the split vote at the Planning
Commfssion had to do with the fact that the area on the general
plan is designated RS-7200 single-family dwellings. There is no
doubt whatever the decision made on the subject 100-foot by
300-foot lot will set the pace for what is eventually developed
on the nursery property which is very large. To assume that
this property and the nursery property will never be anything
but multiple-family or commercial is a wrong assumption. He did
not agree with the argument which economically might be fine for
the current property owner, but it was going to affect the rest
of the development in the area which makes the decision today
critical to the whole neighborhood for the future. There has
been no request for a general plan change and if the owners
wanted to change single-family zoning in the general plan, there
should be a general plan change. He had not seen that happen
and he believed that was the issue at the Planning Commission
level.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Bay, seconded by Councilman Pickler, the City Council approved the negative
declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative declaration
together with any comments received during the public review process, and
further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received
that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant
effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 85R-181 for adoption, denying Reclassi-
fication No. 84-85-34 and Resolution No. 85R-182 for adoption, denying
Variance No. 3477. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 85R-181: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DENYING RECLASSIFICATION NO. 84-85-34.
RESOLUTION NO. 85R-182: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DENYING VARIANCE NO. 3477.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES .'
NOES:
ABSENT
COUNCIL MEMBERS
COUNCIL MEMBERS
COUNCIL MEMBERS
Ka~wood, Bay and Overholt
Pickler and Roth
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 85R-181 and 85R-182 duly passed and adopted.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for ten minutes. (4:00 p.m.)
345
City Hall; Ansheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 7~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M.
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (4:10 p.m)
179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 84-85-26:
APPLICANT:
Verla W. Brown
c/o Stanley Rosen, Attorney
1515 Cabrillo Park Drive, Santa Aha, CA.
92701
ZONING/LOCATION/REQUEST: For a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-2400, to
construct a 4-unit apartment complex on property located at 680 South Sunkist
Street.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC85-67 denied Reclassification
No. 84-85-26, approved EIR - negative declaration.
HEARING SET ON:
Appeal filed by Stanley L. Rosen, Attorney representing the Estate of Verla
Wimberly Brown. This matter was continued from the meeting of April 30, 1985
to this date (see minutes of April 30, 1985).
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin April 18, 1985.
Posting of property April 19, 1985.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - April 19, 1985.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated March 4, 1985.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Stanley Rosen, 1515 Cabrillo Park Drive, Santa Ana.
There is no developer relative to the subject, the onus of
rezoning the property having fallen on the administratrix (Amy
Atkinson) and the attorney (Rosen). He had contacted all of the
homeowners after the continued public hearing of April 30, 1985
to advise them of the development and to clear up
misinformation. The Estate is composed of some 10 heirs. The
opposition indicated there was going to be some major general
plan amendment and there would be 56 units on the parcel
extending from South Street to Virginia Street. There are only
three vacant lots on the street, the applicant~s at 100 feet by
175 feet and the other two, 92 feet by 175 feet and 72 feet by
175 feet. There is no possibility that there will be a 56 unit
development. The development being requested is a single-story
4-unit apartment which he described utilizing the renderings on
the Chamber wall, each ,,nit consisting of two bedrooms, two
baths and each with a two-car garage. The Estate explored the
possibility of developing single-family homes. The inheritance
tax appraisal stated the property has a value of 380,000.
Placing single-family residences on the property was not even
considered by the Planning Commission. The homeowners objecting
to the project did so on the basis that they did not want to
have non-owner occupied residences. Councilwoman Kaywood had
346
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May ?~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M.
stated earlier that she did not like spot zoning and that is
what he was suggesting. However, if the objective o£ the City
is to have an attractive unit compatible with the residents in
the area, he was suggesting that the proposed development met
that objective.
Amy Atkinson, 521 North Anaheim Boulevard, Administratrix of
the Estate.
Having lived in Anaheim for 23 years, she was very proud of the
City. She did not feel what they were presenting today would do
anything to detract from the neighborhood but it could only
help. There is capacity in the driveway so that there will be
no backing out onto the street, and there will be no necessity
for trash trucks to do so either. The proposal is something
that would be very beautiful and good for the community and help
to set a precedent in the area. She asked the Council to give
serious thought to the problem they have had in trying to sell
the property since those interested always inquired as to the
zoning and are not interested when they find out it has a
single-family designation.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
OPPOSED: Francis Nutto, 621 Jambalaya.
The general plan at this time shows low density residential as
being the appropriate land use and the residents all agree with
the present designation. The petitioner is requesting an
apartment on one lot in a sea of single-family homes. To rezone
one lot is clearly spot zoning and the Planning Commission
unanimously recommended denial. There is no compelling reason
to have apartments on the property. It can be developed with
two single-family residences, one facing Sunkist and one on a
flag lot. It is no hardship to develop the property according
to the current general plan designation. He had heard two
offers on the property for single-family development, one at
$70,000 and also interest expressed at $80,000. In answer to
Councilman Overholt, he stated that one of the people who made
the offer was in the audience but he did not believe the offer
was passed to the owner of the property. He would be glad to
tell the owners about the two offers. He asked that the Council
recognize the feelings of the neighborhood, adhere to the
general plan, and deny the zoning for the apartments. He then
resubmitted copies of petitions that were submitted at the
Planning Commission opposing the subject proposal.
Richard Vodel, 564 South Sunkist.
Besides being against apartments next door to his house, he also
has some professional expertise in the field since his family
has been developing in the area since 1919 and he has been
involved for the last 15 years. He is not insensitive to
problems of developers but considers the subject proposal to be
irresponsible. Sunkist cannot be widened any more and it has no
center lane divider. There are three or four accidents a year
347
City Hall, Anahelm~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 7~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M.
in front of his home because there is no central lane to get
into for turns causing rear end accidents. The idea of putting
one single home on the lot has not been mentioned. The only
draw-back is the busy street. The developers could do it and
turn a profit. People had come to his door asking about the
property because they were located adjacent to it.
Virginia Ainsworth, 627 South Jambalaya.
Her property is directly in back of the lot in question and also
adjacent to the pre-school. There is a 6-foot wall and no
landscaping on the pre-school site whereas she was promised an
8-foot wall with landscaping. She experienced noise and
occasionally broken windows from the children playing there. If
there is a 4-unit rental built in back of her, she will have
additional noise to contend with on evenings and weekends as
well. She did not feel she could cope with that and preferred
that a single residence be built.
Patricia Degroot (next door to Mr. Nutto).
She had two children who walked to and from school and go
directly by the property, not only her children but also those
from the other schools in the area. They did not need any more
traffic or trash trucks. Everybody gets off the freeway at
Sunkist using that street to avoid the traffic on the freeway.
Walt Degroot.
If the property is rezon~d, it will open up other adjacent
properties for rezoning. Once rezoned, other things could be
built as long as they were within Code requirement; Councilwoman
Kaywood clarified that the Council can tie a proposal to a
specific plan and no changes could be made without another
public hearing.
Cozra Esfahlan, 603 South Jambalaya.
He gave an example where an addition of fourplex units in a
single-family area changed the neighborhood to the extent it was
the opinion of the neighbors he talked to that because of the
fourplexes, nobody would pay the $130,000 to $140,000 their
homes were worth to live in the area. Whoever buys the subject
lot can split it in two and build two buildings, make a profit,
and keep the neighborhood happy.
SUMMATION BY APPLICANT: Mr. Rosen.
He had not received a single offer on the property outside of
someone at the end of the Planning Commission hearing who said
he might be interested in the property if it required only a
small down payment. Relative to the project, they were talking
about the difference between two residences and four. If two
houses, the one on the flag lot will be directly abutting the
Kinder Care Center. He questioned who would pay a land cost of
at least $50,000 and a construction cost of another $80,000 for
348
Cit7 Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 7~ 1985, 10:00 A.M.
a lot abutting the Kinder Care Center using a single narrow
driveway to that lot and surrounded by 6-foot masonry walls. He
then answered the additional concerns raised, and in concluding
asked that the Council allow the property to be developed in a
way that will not be detrimental to the neighborhood.
In answer to Councilman Overholt, Mr. Rosen confirmed that the
Estate would be willing to sell the property at the appraisal
value. He then asked if it would be possible to continue the
hearing. It was unfair to the applicant to have 200 signatures
of parties opposing the project based upon their concern with a
56-unit apartment house. It was also unfair for the applicant
to now learn of a $70,000 or ~80,000 offer which they did not
know existed. He asked for a continuance in order to explore
that with Mr. Nutto realistically and find out if there were
such offers.
Mayor Roth felt it was out of order to try to negotiate a Real
Estate deal at this time.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Roth closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Pickler, seconded by Councilman Bay, the City Council approved the negative
declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative declaration
together with any comments received during the public review process, and
further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received
that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant
effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 85R-183 for adoption, denying
Reclassification No. 84-85-26. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 85R-183: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DENYING RECLASSIFICATION NO. 84-85-26.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Pickler, Overholt and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 85R-183 duly passed and adopted.
179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2599 (READY)
REVISED PLANS:
APPLICANT: Commonwealth Financial Corporation,
P. O. Box 76478, Los Angeles, CA. 90076
ZONING/LOCATION/REQUEST: To permit a 7-story, 224 room hotel complex with
on-sale of alcoholic beverages on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located on the
349
City N~1I~ Anmheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 7~ 1985'~ 10:00 A.M.
south side of Frontera Street and east side of Glassell Street, with the
following Code waivers: (a) minimum number of parking spaces, (b) maximum
structural height.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC85-71 granted Conditional Use
Permit No. 2599, approved ELR - negative declaration.
HEARING SET ON:
Review requested by Councilwoman Kaywood during the appeal period ending
March 26, 1985. This matter was continued from the meeting of April 30, 1985,
(see minutes of April 30, 1985).
PUBLIC NOTICEREQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin April 18, 1985.
Posting of property April 19, 1985.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - April 19, 1985.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated March 4, 1985.
COUNCIL CONCERNS:
Councilwoman Kaywood.
The applicant is asking separately for a freestanding restaurant
with another parking waiver. She asked the status of that
project. She also feels that the subject property is an
inappropriate area for a hotel overlooking a Recycling Center
which will create a conflict of uses and both the Recycling
Center and hotel would be complaining.
APPLICANT'S STATEMENT AND ANSWER TO QUESTIONS POSED BY COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Robert F. Fuller.
The application for the restaurant will be heard by the Planning
Commission on May 13, 1985 and at the present time, the
indication is that they will have to bond for additional parking
to cover the restaurant. Relative to their hotels, they are
built so that everything is oriented inward. Many of their
hotels are built in the middle of the worst areas, but they are
successful and the hotel Just being completed in Los Angeles
looks out over a runway. The rendering posted on the Chamber
wall showed an example of their hotels, the one in the rendering
being the Los Angeles facility. Eighty percent of their
customers wanted to be located by industrial areas. Relative to
the letter from WCS International regarding the easement which
is of concern to them, he had been talking to George Adams, the
owner of the Recycling Center for over a year and they had
discussed the possibility of trading easements. The hotel will
give Mr. Adams the subject easement and he (Adams) will give the
hotel an easement for their sewer line along the bottom side of
his properties and the new property Mr. Adams is purchasing from
the County. Mr. Adams spoke to him yesterday and explained that
relative to the recent letter, he (Adams) had to be on record
relative to his concern that the easement not be used for
35O
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 7~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M.
ingress or egress in case they could not complete their
transaction. The matter had not yet been resolved.
ADDITIONAL COUNCIL CONCERNS: Mayor Roth.
He is supportive of the hotel but concerned that there will be a
problem regarding trucks utilizing the Recycling Center passing
by the hotel night and day as well as a night shift when the
crushing of automobiles took place at the facility. It was the
right of the hotel to invest their money as they wished but he
did not want in the future for the hotel to be coming to the
Council for a show cause hearing why the Recycling Center should
not be closed down. Before he gave approval to the project, he
would have to have a stipulation from the applicant that they
were aware of the activities of the Recycling Center but will
have no objection to it.
Mr. Fuller.
Relative to the existing noise and trucks, he so stipulated but
asked if the Mayor was saying that they could never object if
there was a change or an abuse.
Jack White, Acting City Attorney.
He recommended that a condition be added pursuant to the
stipulation that the owner or his successors in interest would
not protest the operation of the Recycling Center so long as it
was being conducted in accordance with all permits issued by the
City of Anaheim. The Recycling Center is being operated
pursuant to Conditional Use Permits issued by the City. As long
as there is no violation of the terms of the currently issued
permits, the present or subsequent owners would agree that they
would not seek to have that operation closed or abated. If the
Recycling Center applied for an expansion of their facility, the
applicant, owner of the subject property would have the right to
come in at a public hearing to express the views of the property
owner regarding that change of use.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
If the Recycling business is such that it needs to expand and it
cannot do so because of the hotel, that is also of concern to
her.
Councilman Bay.
Glassell Street from the Riverside Freeway to La Palma to the
north is the second busiest stretch of street as reflected on a
daily traffic standard sheet that he had with 40,000 automobiles
on that short stretch alone. His concern is with added traffic
caused by the hotel. If a great deal of traffic is going to be
added to the east west traffic on Frontera, there are certain
times of the morning when traffic is going to Jam up on Glassell
Street. His concerns are not so much with the hotel but the
addition of a restaurant and the added flow of traffic from the
351
City Hall; Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 7; 1985; 10:00 A.M.
industrial area to the restaurant and back. He could support
the hotel, but not the restaurant.
Mr. Fuller.
Councilman Bay's concern might be a problem. The restaurant is
a freestanding facility with one-half the trade coming from the
hotel and the other half during the lunch hour and late evening;
Councilman Bay stated that the timing on traffic flow might work
out.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION:
Philip Anthony, representing George Adams and WCS International.
He clarified their position on the easement (see minutes of
April 30, 1985) which is as stated in their April 29, 1985
letter. He would appreciate Mr. Fuller's clarification that the
easement is not to be used as public access as part of the
project because it will not be necessary and is not safe given
the present operation of the Recycling Center over the same
area. In addition, he felt Mr. Adams would agree with the
wording the City Attorney gave on the present use and what is
allowed by the City because WSC is a growing business. The
hotel property does own the easement for ingress and egress.
The concern of WCS is tbmt it was never envisioned for the kind
of project such as a hotel and they believed the Council had the
authority to not allow it as a public access for the subject
project.
Jack White, Acting City Attorney.
The Council by condition can limit the access from any given
access point to the project. The request is that the easement
in question would not be available as access for the hotel use.
The City can limit the fact that it not be used by the hotel
patrons or in connection with the operation of the hotel and
Planning staff Just confirmed there is no objection to such a
limitation on the Planning Department's behalf; Mayor Roth
suggested the wording, hotel operation.
Mr. Fuller.
He has no objection to hotel patrons not using Newkirk but would
have a problem relative to the 4,000 square-foot building since
it iS to be used as storage for all of their hotels; Mr. Anthony
felt if that is a pure industrial use, that is another problem.
Their position is that the building is part of the hotel
operation and the same arguments apply. They are not objecting
to the hotel as long as it meets City requirements but using any
kind of hotel related access on the old easement is not
necessary.
COUNCIL ACTION:
After further discussion and questioning between Council Members, Mr. Fuller
and Mr. Anthony on the continuing question of the easement, Mayor Roth closed
the public hearing.
352
City Hall~ An-heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 7~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M.
Council Members were concerned that the easement question be resolved between
the two parties prior to decision being made.
MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to continue Conditional Use Permit No. 2599
(Readv.) revised plans to Tuesday, May 14, 1985, at 1:30 p.m. Councilman Bay
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
179: CONTINUED REHEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 2460~ 2461 and 2462:
APPLICANT: Riviera Mobilehome Parks, (a Joint venture)
300 West Katella Avenue, Anaheim, CA.
ZONING/LOCATION/REQUEST: To add, amend or delete conditions of approval of
Conditional Use Permit Nos. 2460, 2461 and 2462 on proposed RM-1000 zoned
property located at 300 West Katella Avenue. CUP 2460, to permit a 17-story,
852 room hotel; CUP 2461, to permit two 14-story office complexes; CUP 2462,
to permit two 180-unit condominium towers.
Environmental Impact Report No. 262 relating to the subject conditional use
permits was certified by the City Council at their meeting of January 24, 1984
as being in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act along
with the Statement of Overriding Consideration.
HEARING SET ON:
Council meeting of February 28, 1984. Review requested by Councilman Pickler
and rehearing granted by the Council relative to certain requested amendments
at the meeting of April 3, 1984 and continued from the meetings of May 15,
June 5, July 24, October 9, November 27, December 18, 1984, February 12,
March 5, and April 16, 1985 to this date (see minutes those dates).
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin February 2, 1985.
Posting of property February 1, 1985.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - January 31, 1985.
STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report from the Planning Department/Planning Division dated
December 11, 1984 and February 26, 1985; Staff Report from City Attorney's
Office dated February 6, 1985 and April 8, 1985.
City Clerk Sohl announced that request had been received from Floyd Farano,
Attorney for the applicant, for a continuance of the public hearing to May 14,
1985.
Mr. Floyd Farano, Attorney, Farano and Kieviet, clarified for Councilwoman
Kaywood that a one week continuance would be sufficient.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to continue the public hearing on
Conditional Use Permit Nos. 2460, 2461 and 2462 to Tuesday, May 14, 1985 at
1:30 p.m. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
119: liESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A Resolution of Congratulations was
unanimously adopted by the City Council to be presented to Gordon Hoyt, Public
353
Cit~ Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ma7 7~ 1985~ 10:00 A.M.
Utilities General Manager, on the occasion of his being installed as President
of the American Public Power Association.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session
to discuss the matters previously announced. Councilwoman K~ywood seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (6:00 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (8:30 p.m.)
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilman Bay seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED. (8:31 p.m.)
LEONORAN. SOHL, CITY CL~KK
354