1984/02/21City Ma!l, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Februaz7 21, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, 0verholt, Pickler and Roth
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Father John Lenihan, St. Boniface Catholic Church, gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Miriam Kaywood led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
119: RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A Resolution of Congratulations was
Unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to Roland Sharpless,
Senior Real Property Agent, on the occasion of his retirement after 22 years
of employment with the City.
119: RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION: A Resolution of Commendation was
unanimously a~opted 'by the City Council and presented to Dan Paun, Project
Architect, Shamma Enterprises, for Honorable Mention for his design in the
1984 Olympic Gateway competition.
119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Roth and
auth6~l'z~d by the City Council:
Olympic Torch Relay Day in Anaheim, February 21, 1984.
MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular
meetings held January 24 and February 7, 1984. Councilman Pickler seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
waive the'reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda,
after reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to
waiver is hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the
title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such
ordinances or resolutions in regular order. Councilman Bay seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of ~1,659,352.10, in
accordance with the 1983-84 Budget, were approved.
152
tit7 Hall.,. Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Februar7 21~ !.984~ 10:00 A.M.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: The City Manager requested a Closed Session to
discuss a matter of public security.
Councilman Pickler moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilman Bay
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (10:23 a.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (11:00 a.m.)
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Bay, the following items were approved in
accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each
Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Councilwoman Kaywood
offered Resolution Nos. 84R-73 through 84R-76, both inclusive, for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
1. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as
recommended:
A. Claims rejected and referred to Risk Management:
1. Claim submitted by Beverly Hartson for personal injury damages
purportedly sustained due to tree branches being cut by City employees
falling on claimant at Ball Road and Euclid Street, on or about
October 20, 1983.
2. Claim subudtted by Eileen E. Russell for personal property damages to
vehicle purportedly sustained due t° actions of parking attendant at the
Convention Center, on or about December 17, 1983.
3. Claim submitted by Henry Ponteprino for personal property damages to
answering phone and RCA T.V.-clock radio unit purportedly sustained due to
drop in voltage caused by a broken wire at 751 North Olive Street, on or
about December 29, 1983.
4. Claim submitted by Linda Biglands for personal injury damages
purportedly sustained due to an accident in which a City-owned vehicle
struck the claimant in the parking lot at 3360 West Lincoln, on or about
November 29, 1983.
5. Claim submitted by Tracy Biglands for personal injury damages
purportedly sustained due to an accident in which a City-owned vehicle
struck the claimant in the parking lot at 3360 West Lincoln, on or about
November 29, 1983.
6. Claim submitted by Roy W. DeWelles for loss purportedly sustained due
to actions of Redevelopment at 76 Claudina Street, Suite 300, on or about
October 21, 1983.
7. Claim submitted by O. Clyde Hardman for personal property damages to
refrigerators purportedly sustained due to electricity failure at 602
South Chantilly, on or about December 18, 1983.
153
City Hall, Ana.heim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Februar~ 21, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
8. Claim submitted by Juana H. Carrion for personal property damages to
carpets and tile purportedly sustained due to actions of City sewer
maintenance crew at 905 1/2 East Broadway, on or about October 9, 1983.
9. Claim submitted by Cathy Day for personal property damages purportedly
sustained due to incorrect clearing of sewer blockage at 901-B East
Broadway, on or about October 10, 1983.
10. Claim submitted by Firemen's Fund, Morgan Enterprises, Insured, for
damages to vehicle purportedly sustained when City employee rear-ended
insured's car on Ball Road, 40 feet east of East Street, on or about
November 28, 1983.
B. Claims rejected and referred to Governmental Programs Division/Markel
Services, Inc:
ii. Claim submitted by Terrill Monroe Cannon for personal property loss
of watch purportedly sustained due to actions of an Anaheim Police Officer
on Lola Street, on or about December 8, 1983.
12. Claim submitted by Bank of America for indemnity based on Orange
County Superior Court Case No. 41-41-40, Richard L. Hooiey, Rita M.
Hooiey, Plaintiffs, vs. Bank of America National Trust and Savings
Association, City of Anaheim, Anaheim Police Department and Does 1 through
200, inclusive, Defendants, purportedly occurring on or about October 24,
1983.
2. The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 105: Youth Commission--Minutes of January 11, 1984.
b. 105: Public Utilities Board--Minutes of February 2, 1984 (Unapproved).
3. 108: The following application was approved in accordance with the
recommendations of the Chief of Police:
a. Entertainment Permit, James Lawrence Schumann, Flashdance, 2810 West
Lincoln Avenue, for 1 to 4 entertainers, Tuesday through Saturday, from
9:00 p.m. to 1:30 a.m..
4. 179: Consenting to the cancellation of M-1 Deed Restrictions imposed as a
condition of approval under Reclassification No. 59-60-23, property located at
2300 East Katella Avenue, L. C. Smull, owner.
5. 123: Authorizing an agreement with Public Management Consultants
Associates in the amount of ~3,250 plus travel and per diem, to conduct a
one-day In Search of Excellence Workshop for management staff.
6. 128: Receiving and filing the Monthly Financial Analysis for the
six-month period ended December 31, 1983.
154
Ci.t7 Ha!l,. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Februar7 21, 1984~ 10:00. ~..M.
7. 123: Authorizing the Acting City Engineer to execute a letter agreement
with Smith-Emery Company in the amount of ~3,000 for testing and the
preparation of a materials report on City-owned property located on the south
side of Ball Road between the Santa Aha River and the Orange (57) Freeway.
8. 151: Authorizing an Encroachment License with Pacesetter Homes, Inc., to
allow encroachment of various improvements, including a retaining wall and
raised wood decking within a portion of a City sewer easement located in Tract
No. 11426. (83-4E)
9. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to IBM in
the amount of $28,473.72 for the purchase of one IBM copier, Model 60, Series
III.
10. 160: Accepting the bid of Westinghouse Electric Company in the amount of
$57,867.52 ~or two each 150 KVA, two each 300 KVA, two each 500 KVA, and one
each 1000 KVA three-phase fused padmount transformers, in accordance with Bid
No. 4068.
11. 160: Accepting the low bid of APCO Valve and Primer Corporation in the
amount of $12,563.12 for one each 6-inch, and one each 20-inch Globe Type
Silent Check Valve, in accordance with Bid No. 4071.
12. 160: Accepting the bid of General Electric Company in the amount of
$43,211.96 for two each 500 KVA, and two each 750 KVA three-phase padmount
transformers, in accordance with Bid No. 4075.
164: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-73: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM REJECTING ALL BIDS RECEIVED UP TO THE HOUR OF 2:00 P.M. ON THE 2ND DAY
OF FEBRUARY, 1984, FOR THE OLIVE HILLS RESERVOIR STORM DRAIN CHANNEL REPAIR,
ACCOUNT NO. 51-479-6329-17280-70810, AND READVERTISING THE REQUEST FOR BIDS
THEREON. (Bids to be opened March 22, 1984, 2:00 p.m.)
175: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-74: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE LA PALMA 3 M.G. RESERVOIR, IN THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, ROOF REHABILITATION, ACCOUNT NO. 51-479-6329-17260-75600. (D E B
Enterprises, Inc., $92,238)
169: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-75: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ANA/{EIM AWARDING A
CONTRACT FOR THE KELLOGG DRIVE STREET IMPROVEMENT, 123' SOUTH OF 0RANGETHORPE
AVENUE TO LA PALMA AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANA~r~IM, ACCOUNT NO.
46-792-6325-E2930. (R. J. Noble Company, $108,719.20)
158: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-76: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Grace F.
Hahn; Ktmm A. Richardson, et ux.; Tat International, Inc.)
155
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 21, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
None
None
MOTION CARRIED. The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 84R-73 through 84R-76,
both inclusive, duly passed and adopted.
108: APPLICATION FOR POOL ROOM PERMIT - ORANGE COUNTY SPORTS ARENA, INC:
Application submitted by Tony Margerum, Orange County Sports Arena, Inc., 2i31
West Lincoln Avenue, for 20 pool tables.
Councilman Overholt moved to continue the subject request for a Pool Room
Permit to be heard in conjunction with the Conditional Use Permit. Councilman
Pickier seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
142/140: ORDINANCE NO. 4482: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4482
for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4482: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING NEW SECTION
17.08.385 TO CHAPTER 17.08 OF TITLE 17 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING
TO SUBDIVISIONS. (establishing Public Library Facilities Benefit Areas--
Payment of Fees Required)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Overhoit, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4482 duly passed and adopted.
142/164: ORDINANCE NO. 4483: Councilman Pickier offered Ordinance No. 4483
for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4483: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING CHAPTER
10.12 OF TITLE 10 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING SECTION 10.12.O70
THERETO. (relating to sewer connection charges)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4483 duly passed and adopted.
142/108: ORDINANCE NO. 4484: Councilman Overholt offered Ordinance No. 4484
for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
156
City N~ll~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 2.1., 1984, 10:.00 A..M.
ORDINANCE NO. 4484: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING SECTIONS
2.12'.015 AND 2.12.075, AND AMENDING SECTIONS 2.12.020, 2.12.030, 2.12.040,
2.12.045, 2.12.050, 2.12.060, 2.12.070, 2.12.080, 2.12.090 AND 2.12.110 OF
CHAPTER 2.12 OF TITLE 2 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO TRANSIENT
OCCUPANCY TAX.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4484 duly passed and adopted.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4485: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4485 for
adoption' 'Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4485: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
(74-75-21(5), ML, east of Orange Freeway, south of Taft Avenue)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
AB SENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4485 duly passed and adopted.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4486: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4486 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4486: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
(82-83-25, ML, east of Orange Freeway, north of the S.P.R.R.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4486 duly passed and adopted.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4487: Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance No. 4487 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4487: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-64(3), RM-2400(SC),
southeast corner of Santa Aha Canyon Road and Weir Canyon Road, Tract No.
10983)
157
City Hall~ Anaheim., California - COUNCIL MINUTES - FebruarY 21, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated she recalled that the
subject was to be RM-3000 zoning.
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, answered that this
particular piece of property in the Planned Community (PC) 0veriay was
indicated as RM-2400 for that area although, in fact, the development was
condominiums, RM-3000.
Councilwoman Kaywood then asked if it would be safer to have RM-3000 zoning;
Miss Santalahti explained that the zoning required chat it be consistent with
the Tentative Tract. They had discussed the matter at great length. The
original proposal had been R M-2400 and they had never changed that in order to
be consistent. The way it was being handled was acceptable.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if that would mean that the applicant could
subsequently request to change the maximum; Miss Santalahti answered, "no," it
did not. They were required co go with the particular tract that was
identified, that being one unit per lot, and they could not increase the
density. Any changes would take a new public hearing, even though the zoning
was RM-2400. They would have to refile entirely on the project. She did not
believe there was any way they could increase the density without the subject
being totally discussed again.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing ordinance.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ~
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4487 duly passed and adopted.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4488: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4488 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4488: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-64(4), RS-5000(SC),
south of the southeast corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Weir Canyon Road,
Tract No. 10984)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, 0verholt, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4488 duly passed and adopted.
158
Cit7 Hall.~.Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 2!~ 1984.~..10:00 A.M.
144: PROPqSED DUMP SITE AND JAIL FACILITY: Councilman Pickler reported that
on February 16, 1984, he attended an Orange County Waste Management Advisory
Committee meeting wherein he suggested to the administration at the County
that relative to the facilities being considered for location in the
Gypsum/Coal Canyon area, that the matter should come before the Commission
prior to going to the Board of Supervisors. They asked for an extension of
time, so that they could peruse the report of the administration, and they
received unanimous approval on that.
Councilman Overholt commented that the subject was still the number one issue
and Supervisor Nestande was meeting tonight with representatives of homeowners
groups in Anaheim Rills. He felt the real pressure had to come from the
homeowners; Mayor Roth also commented on the subject, reporting on recent
conversations he had with Supervisor Nestande, as well as sharing other
information that was evolving with regard to the sites under consideration,
which were in Anaheim's Sphere of Influence.
REQUES? FOR CLOSED SESSION: The City Manager requested a Closed Session to
discuss labor relations and' litigation with no action anticipated; the City
Attorney requested a Closed Session to discuss litigation, potential
litigation and a personnel matter, with possible action anticipated.
Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session and a lunch break.
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (11:20 a.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (1:50 p.m.)
179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2428 AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION: kpPlication submitt'ed by Larry R. Smith, to permit a billboard
on CL zoned property located on the north side of Ball Road, west of Knott
Street, with the following Code waivers: (a) maximum display area, and (b)
maximum height.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-63, declared
that the subject project be exempt from the requirement to file an
Environmental Impact Report pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act on the basis that there will be no significant
individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact due to the approval of
this negative declaration, since the Anaheim General Plan designates the
subject property for general commercial land uses commensurate with the
proposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the
proposal; and that the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no
significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts; and
further denied Conditional Use Permit No. 2428.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Foster and Kleiser,
Agent, and public hearing scheduled and continued from the meetings of May 10,
June 7 and July 26 and November 22, 1983, to this date.
159
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 21, 1984,' !0:00 A.M.
City Clerk Linda Roberts announced that a letter dated February 16, 1984, had
been received from Robert Vermon of Foster and Kleiser, Agent for the
applicant, requesting a 60-day continuance of the public hearing.
Mayor Roth first asked if anybody was present to speak on the matter.
Mrs. Joyce Keeter, 716 South Kenmore, stated she was again present, as she had
been at all previous meetings where the issue had been continued.
Mayor Roth then explained the reason for the extended continuances, mainly due
to the fact that staff was working on recommendations to be incorporated into
a proposed ordinance regarding billboards and that was not yet complete. He
gave Mrs. Keeter the opportunity to give her testimony today or if she
preferred, to return should the Council act favorably on the request for a
continuance; Mrs. Keeter preferred to be present when the matter was discussed.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to continue the public hearing on Conditional
Use Permit No. 2428 and negative declaration therefor to April 17, 1984, at
1:30 p.m., as requested by the agent. Councilman Bay seconded the motion.
Councilwoman Kaywood voted "No." MOTION CARRIED.
179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2438 AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION: Application submitted by La Palma Business Park, to permit a
billboard on ML zoned property located at the northeast corner of White Star
Avenue and Armando Street, with the following Code waivers: (a) maximum
display area, and (b) maximum height.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-95, declared
that the subject project be exempt from the requirement to file an
Environmental Impact Report pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act on the basis that there will be no significant
individual or cnmulative adverse environmental impact due to the approval of
this negative declaration, since the Anaheim General Plan designates the
subject property for general industrial land uses commensurate with the
proposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the
proposal; and that the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no
significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts; and
further denied Conditional Use Permit No. 2438.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Robert D. Mickelson,
Agent, and public hearing scheduled and continued from the meetings of June 7
and July 26 and November 22, 1983, to this date.
City Clerk Roberts announced that a letter dated February 16, 1984, had been
received from Robert D. Mickelson Planning Consultants, Agents for the
applicant, requesting a continuation of the subject public hearing to an
appropriate date, allowing further time for staff to complete their studies on
the billboard ordinance.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak to the subject; no one wished to
speak.
160
Cit7 Hal!~ Anaheim~ C.a!.i.f.ornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - Februar~' 21~ 1984~ 10.:00 A.M.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to continue the public hearing on Conditional
Use Permit No. 2438 and negative declaration therefor to April 17, 1984, at
1:30 p.m. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. Councilwoman Kaywood voted
"No." MOTION CARRIED.
179: REHEARING - VARIANCE NO. 3350 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application
submitted by Alfredo Silva Ceballos, et al, to retain an illegal dwelling unit
and to construct a garage on RM-1200 zoned property located at 428 and 428-1/2
South Melrose Street, with the following Code waivers: (a) minimum vehicular
accessway, (b) minimum number and type of parking spaces, (c) minimum lot area
per dwelling unit, (d) maximum lot coverage, (e) minimum floor area, (f)
minimum landscaped setback, and (g) mirttmum sideyard setback.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-212, 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, and further, granted Variance
No. 3350, in part, subject to the following conditions:
1. That plans shall be submitted to the Building Division showing compliance
with the minimum standards of the City of Anaheim, including the Uniform
Building~ Plumbing, Electrical, Housing, Mechanical and Fire Codes as adopted
by the City of Anaheim. The appropriate permits shall be obtained for any
necessary work.
2. That the existing structure shall be brought up to the minimum standards
of the City of Anaheim, including the Uniform Building, Plumbing, Electrical,
Housing, Mechanical and Fire Codes as adopted by the City of Anaheim.
3. That prior to issuance of a building permit, the appropriate traffic
signal assessment fee shall be paid to the City of Anaheim in an amount as
determined by the City Council for each new dwelling unit.
4. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Revision No.
1 of Exhibit No. 1, showing two detached dwellings.
5. That Condition Nos. 1 and 3, above-mentioned, shall be completed within a
period of 90 days from the date of this resolution.
6. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 2 and
4, above-mentioned, shall be complied with.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman
Kaywood at the meeting of December 6, 1983, and a public hearing scheduled
January 10, 1984 (see minutes that date). At that public hearing, the Council
granted a negative declaration status for the project, but denied Variance No.
3350.
161
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 21, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
On January 17, 1984, the Council considered an Affidavit of Merit submitted by
Mr. Cebailos, requesting a rehearing on Variance No. 3350. The Council
granted the request subject to a ~50 fee to help defray the cost of legal
advertising, and a public hearing scheduled this date.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present.
Mr. Aifredo Silva Ceballos, the owner of the property on South Melrose, was
present to answer any questions.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked staff the current status of the property.
Miss Santaiahti answered that they had not done a recent field check on the
property since the Council set the matter for a rehearing. Mr. Cebalios had
modified his request--instead of having two additional units on the property
beyond the original single house, there was to be only one additional unit.
Mr. Cebailos would have to comment as to whether or not he had done any
additional work in the interim.
Mr. Ceballos, answering the Mayor, said he had done additional work, but at
present, construction had stopped.
Councilman Pickler noted that the Affidavit of Merit submitted by Mr. Ceballos
stated that, "I am already bringing the building addition into conformance
with Code as per the Planning Commission." Me asked Mr. Ceballos what he was
doing to bring it into conformance.
Mr. Ceballos answered that he was going to meet everything as requested in the
Code. The lot was presently in bad shape.
Councilman Pickler asked staff what had to be done to bring the property into
conformance; Miss Santalahti answered that they originally proposed a garage
be constructed within a setback area. She believed that part of that had been
removed, which was what the Commission requested. Mr. Ceballos had pulled no
permits for any of the work on what appeared to be the third unit. Now he was
combining what was the second unit with a new third one to make just one
bigger unit. He had to get building permits for all of that work; he did not
have those and would not unless the Council approved the Variance.
Mayor Roth stated he felt what Mr. Ceballos was saying, he did not want to
proceed with any work until he found out Council's action.
Councilman Pickler stated before he could make a decision, he would have to
know from staff what had to be done to bring the property into conformance
with Code.
Mayor Roth explained that the existing structure had to be brought up to
minimum Building codes as required by the Planning Commission. If the Council
denied the request, undoubtedly nothing would be done to the property and the
City gained nothing, the alternative being to commence litigation proceedings
to have Mr. Ceballos remove the existing building.
162
Hal.i! Anaheim, Cal.ifornia' - COUNCIL, MINUTES - F. ebrua.r[ 21.., 1984,.. 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Pickler noted that there were seven waivers requested and he wanted
to know if staff was saying they wanted the Council to approve those waivers
if the applicant brought everything else into conformance.
Miss Santalahti answered that the proposal as approved by the Planning
Commission deleted waivers (d) maximum lot coverage, (f) minimum landscaped
setback and (g) minimum sideyard setback and, therefore, only the remaining
four waivers would have to be granted. At the Commission level, they were
concerned whether the structure could be brought up to Code. The Building
Division sent someone out to inspect the property and it was determ/ned from
what they could see that Mr. Ceballos could probably bring it up to Code, but
he was going to have to do some work.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if a Code Enforcement Officer was sent to the site
as they had requested at the last hearing (see m/nutes from January 10, 1984);
Miss Santalahti answered, "yes." There was some work done in connectionwith
a trailer on one of the adjacent properties and they were going to be going
out again relative to the "junk" that was stored in the area as well.
The Mayor clarified that the Junk was not on Mr. Ceballos' property, but on
the property directly to the rear.
M/ss Santalahti stated that was correct and also confirmed for Councilwoman
Kaywood that the trailers which were also of concern at the previous meeting
were not on Mr. Ceballos' property.
Mr. Ceballos then stated that relative to waiver (e), the unit was constructed
with 468 square feet. He had now added 274 square feet for a total of 742
square feet, which was closer to the requirement of 1225 square feet. It was
going to be better than before.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if it was going to be 724 square feet for one
apartment with one bedroom; Mr. Ceballos stated it was two bedrooms and one
bath. There were still two units on the lot. It had two park/ng spaces and
they were going to add two more to make four parking spaces.
Mayor Roth asked staff if the proposal included the construction of two
garages; Miss Santalahti answered, "no," and that the spaces were all open
parking.
Mr. Ceballos interjected and confirmed that two parking spaces would be in the
garage and there would be two more open spaces.
The Mayor asked if anyone was present to speak, either in favor or in
opposition.
Mrs. Maria Tienda, 329 South Melrose, stated she had received a second notice
about the hearing and that was why she was present. For her, there was no
problem in what Mr. Ceballos was doing on his property. She did not know
exactly what he was doing, but felt if Mr. Ceballos was going to build new
garages, that would be nice, and better than the old garages that were there
before. It would be nice to have everything updated.
163
City Rall, Anaheim~ California- COUNCIL MINUTES- February 21, 1984~ !0:00 A.M.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the
public hearing.
Mayor Roth noted that Mr. Ceballos had left the public hearing, apparently
thinking that his presence was no longer required.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she would like to have Mr. Ceballos present to
agree to some stipulations; however, with only four waivers remaining and
considering the deplorable condition of the property, anything Mr. Cebailos
would do would be an improvement. If he could bring everything up to Code and
live within the City Codes, then she was willing to offer a resolution of
approval, since she viewed it as an upgrade of the neighborhood.
Mayor Roth noted that the conditions of the Planning Commission required that
the property be brought up to Code.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, 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.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 84R-77 for adoption, granting
Variance No. 3350, subject to ail City Planning Commission conditions, and
with the understanding that Mr. Ceballos would meet Codes and upgrade the area
as soon as possible. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-77: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 3350, IN PART.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickier and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-77 duly passed and adopted.
179: REHEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 83-84-7, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.
2499 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application submitted by Gloria H. Miller and
Dorothy H. Hurley, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200, to permit
a 79-unit (senior citizen's) apartment complex on property located at 2620
West Ball Road, with the following Code waivers: (a) minimum building site
area, (b) maximum structural height, (c) maximum site coverage, (d) minimum
floor area, (e) minimum recreational-leisure area, (f) minimum private
recreation-leisure area, (g) permitted encroachments into required yards, (h)
minimum distance between buildings.
164
City Hall~ Anaheim.~. Ca!!f. grnia - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 21..~ 198.4~. 10:00 A.M.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-213, 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, and further, granted
Reclassification No. 83-84-7 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2499, subject to
certain conditions.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman
Kaywood at the meeting of December 6, 1983, and a public hearing scheduled
January 10, 1984 (see minutes that date). At that meeting, after extensive
discussion and input, the Council disapproved a negative declaration status
for the project and denied both the Reclassification and the Conditional Use
Permit.
On January 17, 1984, the Council considered an Affidavit of Merit subm/tted by
Mr. Pene requesting a rehearing on Reclassification No. 83-84-7, Conditional
Use Permit No. 2499 and the negative declaration. The Council granted the
request subject to a $50 fee to help defray legal advertising costs and public
hearing scheduled this date. The City Clerk advised that a letter of
opposition had been received this date from Mrs. Diane Reese and copies
furnished to each Council Member.
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
Mr. Bill Pene, G. G. P. Associates, developer, 5015 Burke, Newport Beach,
Suite 7, asked first to make a brief s,,mmary of the project and then to
identify specific changes made and subsequently address the area of density.
Councilwoman Kaywood interjected and asked if he had a revision to his plan
and if it had been presented to staff; Mr. Pene answered that he did have a
revision with him, but he had not yet given it to staff. He was trying to get
feedback from Council Members and had met with two of them, and also met with
the Senior Citizen Commission in the last few weeks.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that there had been ample time for revised plans
to be submitted to staff. He (Pene) was not going to walk in and show them
something new that nobody had seen. Staff did not have an opportunity to view
those plans or comment on them and the Council also had seen nothing.
Mr. Pene stated that mainly what he had done was cut the density, but the
overall plan was basically the same.
Mr. Pene then continued with his presentation and reported that they were
proposing a 70- to 72-unit senior citizen project consisting of 52 one-bedroom
units and 20 studio units. They were on the borderline economically between
the 70 and 72. They would llke to have the 72 and believed they could Justify
that amount, but he would leave that to the discretion of the Council. He
gave a brief s,m-,ary of the project and then read the following changes which
had been made to the initial proposal presented to the Council on January 10,
1984: (1) A letter concurring with the Anaheim Housing Authority to draft an
165
City Hall, Anaheim.~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 21, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
affordable housing agreement for 25 percent of the units to comply with HUD
Section 8 guidelines has been signed. (2) Recordation of a covenant with the
City of Anaheim that requires at least one tenant of each dwelling unit to be
age 60. The complex shall be maintained for senior citizen housing for a
period of no less than 30 years. Studio units will be limited to one tenant.
One-bedroom units will be limited to a maximum of two tenants. The form and
content of said covenant shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney's
office prior to recording. (3) A recreation room will be provided. (4) There
will be 110 parking spaces. At least 72 will be covered. This is 1.52 spaces
per dwelling unit. Only .8 is required by Code. (5) The carports to the
south and west of the project will have wooden storage lockers attached and
hanging down from the top of the carport next to the wail, thus cutting off
any opening between the top of the wall and the top of the carport. Carports
will be approximately 8 1/2 feet high. They will be wood post and beam for a
nice appearance and drainage would be back on to the property. The south wall
to the rear of the project is 8 1/2 feet high at the southeast corner, going
up to 10 feet at the southwest corner. An 8-foot high wall will be
constructed along the west property line separating it from the Blume
property. (6) A 2 1/2-foot high wooden visual screen on top of the west
carport 60 feet long from the southwest corner will be constructed to block
any visual views from the units into Blume's back yard, subject to the
approval of the Anaheim Building Department. (7) Based on a meeting with the
Anaheim Senior Citizen Commission, it was suggested the swimming pool is not
necessary. The spa would be a good addition. The Commission's
recommendations to omit the pool and build a spa along with gas barbeques and
a picnic area would be followed. Topa Management would be used to manage the
property, the same managers of the Village Centre.
Mr. Pene then addressed the area of density by use of a comparison chart, the
numbers for which were obtained from the Planning Department. He compared his
project with two other projects approved in the City, one at 950 South Gilbert
and the other at 1250 East La Palma Avenue. The comparison considered the
number of units, lot size-acreage, total building area, the percentage of
building to lot size, and the number of people per project and per acre. Mr.
Pene's thrust was the fact that his proposed project compared favorably with
the other two. He then submitted his revised plans and also referred to the
rendering of the project he had also submitted, which was posted on the
Chambers wall.
Councilman Pickler wanted to make it clear at the outset that due to the fact
that the plans had not first been presented to the Planning Department for
analysis and subsequent recommendations, he would not vote for the project
today, whether he liked it or not, and suggested that the matter be continued,
so that staff could make their analysis and report.
Mayor Roth asked how many were present in the Chambers audience on the issue
(there were approximately 20 people) and how many wished to give testimony
(there were approximately five). He suggested that they could take their
testimony today, but it was likely that the matter would be continued.
166
Cit7 Ha.ll,. Anaheim,..Ca..1.!forn.~a.,- COUNCIL MINUTES - Febru.arT. 21, 1984, 1.0.:00 A.M.
Councilman Overholt stated he would second a motion for continuance, but would
be happy to take testimony from anybody who wished to give it today. He also
felt it was presumptive to present plans to the Council without first going
through staff. He would not vote on the matter today as well.
Councilwoman Kaywood then questioned Mr. Pene relative to different aspects of
the project, particularly with regard to the proposed carports. Her
understanding from his explanation was that the carports were going to be a
roof on stilts.
Mr. Pene explained that after the opposition that was expressed at the last
meeting over the open space that would be left from the top of the carports to
the top of the wall, he was now going to cover that open space by attaching
wooden storage lockers. There was, however, no wall on the carport.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that her definition of a carport was a structure
that had a wall on all three sides; Mr. Pene confirmed that there was no wall
on the rear of the carport, but that there would be walls all the way around
the property. However, the wall would not go to the top of the carport. They
agreed to go eight feet, but to go beyond that would involve a substantial
cost.
Councilman Bay asked why they were not capping the top of the carport. Rather
than bringing the wall up an extra foot, he questioned why they could not come
down and close the area.
Mr. Pene stated that they could do that by coming down from the roof with some
wood, but another way would be to construct the storage lockers as he had
explained.
Mayor Roth asked to hear from those who wished to speak.
Mr. Alvin A. Sugarman, 12562 Ocean Breeze Drive, Garden Grove, developer of
the contiguous property on the south side of the applicant's project, stated
that the wall on the property belonged to the people of Meadow-view Park. It
was not part of any carport and there would be no additional wall constructed
and nothing would be attached to the existing wall. He was interested in
protecting the people who bought the six homes adjacent to the property. He
wanted to speak today, since he came back from vacation to do so. The six
homes were built to Code with specific open spaces, and they all had a back
yard. They did not want a carport to the rear, or any kind of covered
enclosure behind those six homes. It was not much of a request, because there
were many other things the developer could do, such as putting a greenbelt
across that 160-foot stretch of the yard, possibly two trees in back of each
unit and in addition, instead of the 20 parking spaces, cut those spaces to 16
and put them at an angle. He still had 1.5 park/ng spaces per unit, which was
within the Code, but not permitted in a normal apartment complex. If he cut
four or five units, it would not do any damage to his project, but would
assist the people in the rear. He strongly recommended if they approved the
project, they should look at the reason for havin§ the parking behind those
167
Cit~.~all, Anaheim~ ..California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 21~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
homes. If he constructed a 10-foot wall, it would be detrimental uo the back
yards that were only 10 feet or 12 feet. Further, fill was going to have to
be added on the property of at least two feet and, therefore, the wall was
getting shortened on the other side. He would then have a 6-foot wall on his
side and if the carports had an 8 1/2-foot roof, there would be a 2 1/2-foot
gap and not just one foot. Mr. Sugarman then confirmed for Councilwoman
Kaywood that if the project was not truly a senior citizen project, he would
be "dead against it." Further, the size of the greenbelt he had in mind was
three to four feet and as much as 15 feet.
Mr. Herb Eggett, 904 South Bruce Street, stated emphatically that he was in
favor of the project although he thought it was on property several blocks
away.
Mr. Anthony Giagnocavo, 322 North Olive, Anaheim resident 8 months, stated
that there was a shortage of housing for senior citizens and the developer was
going to use private funds to build senior citizen housing, which was
something they did not often see. He was in favor of the project. It was not
too small for a senior citizen around 80 years old and it should be approved.
Mr. John Shanahan, 1215 South Empire, stated relative to Mr. Pene addressing
the Senior Citizen Commission, the Commission was open to the public and he
(Pene) was an unscheduled speaker. The Commission did discuss the project and
their position remained in favor as of the last hearing. He then explained
for Councilman Pickler that the Commission was not qualified to discuss zoning
and all they got into was whether there should be a pool or a jacuzzi or
things of a general nature. They made no recommendations and would never be
in a position to make recommendations relative to size, number of parking
spaces, etc.
Mr. Roger Friermuth, President of the Meadowview Park Homeowners Association
and also speaking on his own behalf, stated he felt Mr. Pene had been working
with the neighbors just as with the Council in that since the last meeting, he
(Friermuth) had been expecting to meet with Mr. Pene or his representative,
but they had had no contact whatsoever. On their own, they had come up with
their proposal for City consideration. They were asking for some sort of
division between the development and their property. They were not opposed to
the development, even though they did not like it. Working from a drawing,
Mr. Friermuth explained that they were asking for as much as a 15-foot
separation with a greenbelt only in that portion of the property directly
behind their homes. He thereupon submitted the drawing to the City.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked how many feet were involved; Mr. Friermuth answered
that six units were involved, and each of them had approximately 25- to
30-foot back yards and thus approximately 180 feet total. Their fence was 49
feet from the proposed building that would be at the rear of the property.
When he did some minor calculations on the plan, he found out that 42 percent
of the land was devoted strictly to driveways, parking and the automobile,
which he felt was unfortunate. Even with that 50-foot separation, he felt
that there ought to be plenty of room for at least ten feet of greenbelt,
168
Cit7 Hall~ Anaheim~..Ca!ifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 21.~ 198.4.~ 10:00 A.M.
leaving 20 feet to park a car and a 20-foot driveway. He felt it would be
cheaper to plant a few trees rather than construct a carport, the only problem
being there would not be as many covered spaces as the developer would like on
the project.
Mr. Bernard Blume, 2368 West Ball Road, property owner to the west, stated in
order to diffuse the issue of how his security and privacy was to be
protected, he wanted to know if it was possible to have Mr. Pene stipulate
that there would be a solid wall from the ground to the top of the carport
along with a three-foot parapet wall, the purpose for which would be to block
the view of the balconies into his property. That had always been his
concern. What Mr. Pene Was planning to do relative to the carport was very
unconventional. Everyone he had spoken with could not understand why Mr. Pene
would not back off on that issue, because there was not that much cost
differential in building an 8-foot wall and building a solid wall to the roof
of the carport. He (Blume) did not feel they were being unreasonable. They
were neglecting to take into account the fact that when the ground fill was
added, the wall was going to be lifted and it was five feet from his house,
thereby block/ng all light to his property. He had not complained about that
and all he was saying, he would live with the solid wall and the darkness, but
he did not want that visual intrusion; he wanted his safety protected, and
also to be protected from the noise and the fumes.
No one else wished to speak.
Mr. Pene then stated it was not his intention to go around the Planning staff
and the drawing bad Just come "off the press." He almost did not come back,
because they had made concessions relative to the plan to an economic bottom
line for them. His intentions were clear--they wanted to provide senior
housing. He had done a great deal for elderly people around the country and
this was an extension of his feeling about helping elderly people in providing
a senior citizen complex. He was at the point, however, where he felt a
continuance was probably in all their best interests.
Mayor Roth asked, if the hearing was continued, for Mr. Pene to please meet
with the Homeowners Association, as well as with Mr. Blume. He (Roth) was
looking for a compromise. There was a need, but the Council wanted to protect
the integrity of the neighborhood as well.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she wanted to make it very clear that relative to
the carport, she wanted the back wall fully enclosed with no opening at the
top.
Councilman Bay stated there was no argument relative to the need; however, the
way Mr. Pene did things was not basically the way they did things in Anaheim.
From his standpoint when a request was den/ed and there was a rehearing and
the developer had been told of the changes the people would like, the move to
meet individually with Council Members was not a popular thing in the City of
Anaheim.
169
City Hall, Anaheim., .~alifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - F~bruar~ 21,.1~84, 10:00 A.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood then read a portion of a letter dated February 15, 1984
(paragraphs 3, 4 and 5), submitted by Diane E. Reece, because she could not be
present at today's hearing (letter made a part of the record), the essence
being the following: Mrs. Reece expressed her thanks for the Council's
previous denial of the proposed project and then gave additional input
relative to her feelings--that the project would be an eyesore for the entire
community and set a precedence for the whole City, that the cramped conditions
and poor facilities made one question what type of person would consider
living there, that the development as proposed would not meet the needs of
senior citizens and that the project would turn into a slum. She hoped that
the Council would continue to uphold the high standards of the City and
continue to protect its citizens from people who would use the City as a means
of enriching themselves at the expense of others.
Frances Scherman, 1396 Damon Avenue, stated she was very interested in housing
for seniors, because she was working for seniors. They should be aware of the
very large senior population in Anaheim, and that the United States this year
did an aging population and found that there were more seniors, people above
the age of 60, than anything else. She attended a housing meeting that
morning where it was revealed that they had 1600 seniors on a waiting list for
housing. Those were some of the things the Council had to address.
Mayor Roth closed the public hearing, but stated that any member of the
Council could open it for questions.
Councilman Pickler stated to allow a project to be built because it was
needed, if it was going to fail apart in a couple of years, would be
detrimental. They had to consider the 230,000 citizens of Anaheim, not just a
certain group, and they had to look at the future in that area. He again
broached the subject of having guidelines set relative to senior citizen
projects through the means of bringing together staff, senior citizens and
developers. He felt it was important relative to future actions on senior
projects.
MOTION: Councilman Pickier moved to continue the public hearing on
Reclassification No. 83-84-7, Conditional Use Permit No. 2499 and negative
declaration therefor to March 20, 1984, at 1:30 p.m. Councilman 0verholt
seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Pickler asked relative to his suggestion,
how the Council felt.
Councilman Bay stated that normally when they wanted to devise some new
guidelines, they had a workshop meeting with the Planning Commission while
directing staff to provide some alternatives. Right now, State guidelines
provided for a 25 percent density bonus in setting up controls that met HUD
requirements. He felt if they really wanted to get into the issue, that a
workshop be set up with the Planning Commission, City Council and Senior
Citizen Commission, the latter included not so much from a technical
viewpoint, but from their view as to their needs. The Council was
knowledgeable of those
170
Cit~ Hall, Anaheim,.California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Februar7 21, ~984.~. 10:00 A.M.
needs, but the problem presented itself when they started walking the "razor's
edge" between the economic feasibility of development, so that rents could be
reasonable, and density control that they try to hold to in the City. He
recommended that a workshop be set up starting with recommendations from staff.
Councilman Overholt felt that the Senior Citizen Commission should feel free
· and be encouraged to express a view on anything they wanted to.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion, as well as requesting staff to
set up a workshop with the Planning Commission, Council and Senior Citizen
Commission and developers, to discuss and devise guidelines for development of
senior citizen projects in the City. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
RECESS: Councilman Roth moved to recess for five minutes. Councilman Pickler
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (3:27 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (3:35 p.m.)
161.107: PUBLIC REARING - HOUSE MOVE-ON: Request of the Anaheim
Redevelopment Agency, to move a house from 219 South Lemon Street to 902 East
Cypress Street. Submitted was a report from the Building Division dated
January 30, 1984, recommending approval of the subject request, conditioned
upon compliance with City of Anaheim Building, Plumbing, Electrical and
Mechanical Codes.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak, either in favor or in opposition;
there being no response, he closed the public hearing.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 84R-78 for adoption, approving the
request for the house move-on. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-78: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIh kPPROVING A HOUSE MOVING PERMIT TO MOVE A SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE TO
902 E. CYPRESS STREET IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL M~MBERS: Kaywood, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
NO, S: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bay
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-78 duly passed and adopted.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2526 AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION: Application submitted by Robert M., Jr., and Marilyn Shepard, to
permit an 8-unit senior citizens' apartment complex on RM-2400 zoned property
located at 615 West Broadway.
171
Cit~ Hall, ~naheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February. 21, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-2, 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, and further, granted Conditional
Use Permit No. 2526, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner of subject property shall by recorded deed irrevocably
offer to the City of Anaheim a strip of land 10 feet in width from the
centerline of the alley for alley widening purposes.
2. That the owner of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim a fee
for street lighting along Broadway in an amount as determined by the City
Council.
3. That the owner of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim a fee
for tree planting purposes along ~roadway in an amount as determined by the
City Council.
4. That the owner of subject property shall execute and record a covenant
against the property in a form approved by the City Attorney's Office,
restricting occupancy of each unit to a maximum of two (2) residents, at least
one of whom must be at least sixty (60) years of age or older.
5. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit No. 1.
6. That prior to the commencement of the activity authorized under this
resolution, or prior to the time that a building permit is issued, or within a
period of one year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first,
Condition Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, above-mentioned, shall be complied with.
Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in
accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
7. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition No. 5,
above-mentioned, shall be complied with.
8. That prior to issuance of a building permit, appropriate water assessment
fees shall be paid to the City of Anaheim, in a amount as determined by the
Office of the Utilities General Manager.
9. That prior to issuance of a building permit, the owner of subject property
shall deposit with the City of Anaheim, the estimated secondary reimbursement
area water fees as established by the Water Engineering Division and also,
shall execute and record a covenant against the property (in a form approved
by the City Attorney's Office), agreeing to pay the actual amount of such fees
(as hereinafter established ~y the City) prior to final building and zoning
inspections.
172
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 21~ 1984, 10.:00 A....M..
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman
Kaywood at the meeting of January 31, 1984, and a public hearing scheduled
this date.
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
Mr. Jim Needham, 9492 Sandra Circle, Villa Park, Agent and proposed developer,
stated he was proposing an 8-unit senior citizen project. In answer to
questions posed by Councilwoman Kaywood, he relayed the following: The
one-bedroom units were 610 square feet and rental would be ~425 per month.
The two-bedroom units were 745 square feet and would be renting at $475 per
month. Minimum age for renting the unit was 60, and two people maximum per
unit, one being 60 years old.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated her concern was the fact that there were all
single-family homes on the street and what would result if this was the first
of a number of such requests. There was not sufficient parking, would it be
regulated for seniors, who was going to do the monitoring, and what kind of a
situation would be created relative to the infrastructure.
Miss Santalahti answered the Conditional Use Permit was approved, like any
permit, if they violated the conditions it could be brought up for
termination. They would require recording of convenants on the property,
limiting the occupancy of the units to a maximum of two per unit and one at
least 60 years of age in order to alert any future purchasers they were not
buying a normal apartment building. The zoning in the area was RM-2400 and if
a regular apartment building, they could only build three or four units on the
property. Under Code at present, anybody along that area could come in and
simply pull a building permit, assuming that they complied with all the
RM-2400 standards.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated with the seven parking spaces proposed for eight
Units, and there were some two-bedrooms, she questioned what they were getting
into.
Miss Santalahti stated that the parking requirement was a figure recommended
by the traffic consultant who prepared the parking study 1 1/2 years ago.
They had no experience yet with it, but their feeling was fairly secure that
that would be an adequate number for an active senior citizens project
compared to one that had non-ambulatory tenants. From information that they
had received from apartment owners who had only seniors, they did not come
anywhere near to using the normal parking that a regular project would have
required, talking about people over 60, 65 or 70 and older.
Councilwoman Kaywood expressed her concern if this was approved how would they
not approve the same request next door and the next door after that, etc.
Councilman Bay stated that the property was zoned RM-2400 and the density
bonus shown on the graph, at 40 units per acre, was 12.1 percent relative to
RM-1200. He did not understand, within their rules, how they could build over
173
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 21, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
RM-1200 on property zoned RM-2400 when the density bonuses were figured
against RM-1200. Where was the request for classification change to rezone
the property for RM-1200.
Miss Santalahti explained that the Zoning Code had a CUP section called Senior
Citizens Housing Projects, and currently it had no standards attached to it.
The Planning Commission would be reviewing a proposed ordinance with an age
limitation in the near future.
Councilman Bay stated this was then another example when the minute a project
was called a senior citizen project, all the rules on Zoning and everything
else "went out the window."
Miss Santalahti stated if the Commission and Council approved the project,
that was correct.
Councilman Bay stated he did not understand how that got started. Did they
create an ordinance that said if you call a project senior citizen, they did
not have to worry about density bonuses or changing the zoning. He did not
recall the Council making that policy decision.
Miss Santalahti stated it came up when the park/ng study was conducted by the
consultant. It was decided that they needed a CUP section that specifically
identified a senior citizen project as such. If it came in that way, it was a
CUP and the development standards that were being reviewed were looked at as a
way of Judging whether they felt the project would be appropriate regardless
of the zone it was in. The difference between the RM-2400 and the RM-1200 was
only the density issue, and nothing else.
After additional discussion between Council Members Kaywood and Bay and Miss
Santalahti, Councilwoman Kaywood stated she saw a problem they were creating
for the City. She wanted senior housing, but more like the Village Centre
type of senior housing, which was totally controlled, there was no way anybody
could get around the age restriction, and they had cars. There was a buzzer
if a senior was in trouble of any kind and they could be assisted. She was
looking at the current situation as a new gimmick for higher density, and once
the project was built and the parking was not there, there was no place to put
it. She asked if the same continued down the street, what would the effect be
on the infrastructure.
Miss Santalahti stated they did not get any particular comments about that
from any of the departments. The area under zoning alone theoretically should
be able to handle at least twice what was already there.
Councilwoman Kaywood also requested that with regard to the senior citizens
projects sheet in the staff report, that they not include and make a long list
of proposals rather than the approved projects. Relative to the.subject
project,-she was looking at 10 bedrooms and seven parking spaces and she did
not see it working out as a viable project for the community where it would
not become a problem.
174
C!t~.Hall, Anah.e~m, Califor~ia -.C0UNC.~L MINUTES - Februar~ 21, 1984., .~0:90 A.M.
Mr. Needham, responding to Councilwoman Kaywood's comment about the gimmick
for higher density, stated that was absolutely true. There was some type of
gimmick needed to get higher density, because higher density meant lower cost
housing--not cheap housing. He was proposing quality housing and spacious
apartments. Relative to his feeling on the parking, from his own experience,
the .8 requirement may be accurate. In the apartment where his mother-in-law
lived, three of her neighbors and his mother-in-law did not drive. They were
all in their 70's. They were talking about maximum use of the land to provide
the most economical housing.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that aside from this project, it was evident that
they had to have a work session with the Planning Commission, with staff
giving input in order to save a lot of wasted time when they did not have
guidelines, and the decision-making was on a case-by-case basis.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak, either in favor or in opposition.
Trudi Pitt, Boydston Realty, 703 North Anaheim Boulevard, lister on the
subject property, submitted a plot map which showed the lots and their numbers
in the subject tract. Shown in green were all the people who signed her
petition in favor of the project, which was attached to the plan (both made a
part of the record). Most of the property along that portion of Broadway
consisted of rentals and many had senior citizens in them already. The one
next to the church (the third lot to the west of the subject property) had
five units on it and on Chestnut street to the rear (No. 534), there were six
units. She personally knew that everyone in those units were seniors, and
four did not drive, or used their garages only for storage. Relative to the
lots on either side of the subject property (Nos. 12 and 14), she explained
for Councilwoman Kaywood that on Lot 14 (immediately adjacent to the east),
she had never been able to contact the owner, and the gentleman on the other
side (Lot 14, immediately to the west), did not speak very good English. He
had been present earlier in the meeting and wanted to speak. Ail he said was
that he was not against the project and would put his name on a piece of paper
for her.
Mr. John Shanahan, 1215 South Empire, reported that the Senior Citizen
Commission was not aware of the details of the subject project at their
February 10, 1984, regular Commission meeting. However, on February 13th, he
personally became aware of the details involved in the proposal. He could not
speak for the Commission at this point, but as a concerned senior citizen, in
his opinion, the units were excellent for seniors.
The Mayor asked if the applicant had anything further to add and since he did
not, the public hearing was closed.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, 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.
175
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 21, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she still had a problem in not knowing what was
going to be happening down the street and how they were going to exercise
control. If it worked, she was all in favor, but if not, she did not want to
know she had voted for something that would make problems for the City and,
therefore, she was planning to abstain.
Councilman Pickier offered Resolution No. 84R-79 for adoption, granting
Conditional Use Permit No. 2526, subject to City Planning Commission
conditions. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-79: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2526.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay stated he was going to abstain also,
primarily because he was very concerned that under a paragraph about a CUP,
suddenly ail their standards went by the wayside. He felt when they met with
the Planning Commission in the workshop and with the staff, that they consider
ways to set standards and guidelines for helping senior citizen developments.
Presently, they put a CUP on something and called it senior citizens and it
wiped out all the need to get a change in zoning or anything. That was too
loose for him. Until they got some standards and real control of those
standards, he did not intend to vote for anything that gave what was an
equivalent to a density bonus on zoning that did not even exist on the
property.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution.
Roll Call Vote:
AYE S:
NOES:
ABSTAINED:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Pickler and Roth
None
Kaywood and Bay
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-79 duly passed and adopted.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 3372 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
Application submitted by Marion Vesey, (Anthony's Pier 2), to construct an
outdoor patio enclosure on CR zoned property located at 1640 South Harbor
Boulevard, with the following Code waivers: (a) minimum landscaped setback,
and (b) minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-8, 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, and further, denied Variance No.
3372.
176
City. Hall~ ~naheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Februar[ 2!~ 1984~ 1.0:00 A.M.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by the applicant and
public hearing scheduled this date.
City Clerk Linda Roberts announced that a letter had been received dated
February 1, 1984, from Floyd Farano, Attorney for the applicant, requesting a
continuance of the public hearing to March 20, 1984.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to continue the public hearing on Variance No.
3372 and negative declaration therefor to Tuesday, March 20, 1984, at 1:30
p.m., as requested by the applicant. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, the Mayor askmd if anyone was present to speak and if
so, did they wish to give testimony today or wait until March 20, 1984.
Patty Shad, 830 South Oakstone, manager of the'Best Western Anaheim Inn
directly north of Anthony's Pier 2 on Harbor Boulevard, stated she was against
the granting of the Variance and would wait until March 20, 1984, to give her
testimony.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
R~CESS - CLOSED SESSION: Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed
Session. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (4:08 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Pro Tem Pickler called the meeting to order, all Council
Members being present with the exception of Councilman Roth. (6:00 p.m.)
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Pickler moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood
seconded the motion. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED. (6:00 p.m.)
LIN-DA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK
177