1984/03/13Ci.ty Hall~. Anah. ei~ .~alifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 13~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickier 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
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR PLANNING: Joel Fick
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
ACTING CITY ENGINEER: Art Daw
Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: A Moment of Silence was observed in lieu of the Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member E. Llewellyn Overholt, Jr., led the assembly in
the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
119: INTRODUCTION: Mrs. Earline Jones, Executive Director, Miss Anaheim
Pageant, introduced Miss Teresa Lynn Nellesen, the 1984 Miss Anaheim/Miss
America.
Mayor Roth, on behalf of the Council and the City, welcomed Miss Neliesen and
congratulated her on being chosen Miss Anaheim/Miss America 1984. He also
presented her with a dozen red roses and expressed how proud they all were to
have a native of the City as Anaheim's representative.
119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Roth
and aut'horized by the City Council:
Girl Scout Week in Anaheim, March 11-17, 1984.
Red Cross Month in Anaheim, March 1984.
City Employee Involvement Month, April 1984.
The following were present to accept the respective proclamations--Girl Scout
Week, Mrs. Betty Lillis; and Red Cross Month, Myrtis Pebley and eight
representatives of the organization.
119/116: PRODUCTIVITY THROUGH EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT: City Employee
Involvement Month, Carla Robertson, Program Development and Audit. Ms.
Robertson also introduced other members of the Board of Directors of the
revised City's Involvement Program representing various departments in City
government, A1 Morelli, Industrial Engineer, Utilities, Doris Taylor, Staff
Assistant, Facility Maintenance, Randy Gaston, Lieutenant, Police Department,
Harvey Waldron, Parkway Maintenance, and Mary Lou Akeley, Haskett Branch
Library. (Mr. Tom Tyre, Benefits and Training Manager, could not be
present.) The program was designed to foster and encourage productivity
improvement through employee participation and cooperation.
194
Cit~ Hall~ Ana.heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 13, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the Revised City Employees
Involvement Program. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular
meetings held February 21 and February 28, 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 Pickler seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS ~GAINST THE CITY in the amount of 32,648,212.24 for the
period ending' March 2, 1984, and $2,667,069.04 for the period ending March 9,
1984, in accordance with the 1983-84 Budget, were approved.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, 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; Councilwoman Kaywood
offered Resolution Nos. 84R-86 through 84R-98, both inclusive, for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
1. 118: The following claims filed against the City were referred to Risk
Management, as recommended:
a. Claim submitted by Albert C. Clay for personal property damages to
automobile and personal injuries purportedly sustained due to an accident
in which a City-owned vehicle was involved on Harbor Boulevard near the
intersection of Freedman Way, on or about November 4, 1983.
b. Claim submitted by Richard Madden for personal property damages to
household items purportedly sustained due to damages caused by City
hooking up ground wire to gas pipe at 1307 Holgate, on or about
January 31, 1984.
c. Claim submitted by Audiovox Hearing Aid Center for property damages
purportedly sustained due to backup of sewage at 1242 West Lincoln Avenue,
#4, on or about November 17, 1983.
d. Claim submitted by Anne Anderson for personal property damages to
camera purportedly sustained due to a slip-and-fall accident on futura
stone landing between stairways at the Convention Center, on or about
December 26, 1983.
e. Claim submitted by State Farm Insurance on behalf of Glenn M. and
Jennie Fuller, insureds for property damages to automobile purportedly
195
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -.~arch 13, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
sustained due to an accident caused by a malfunctioning traffic signal at
the intersection of Brookhurst and Katella, on or about January 15, 1984.
2. The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 106: Controller of the State of California, Estimated Shared Revenue
to be apportioned by the State Controller during the 1984-85 Fiscal Year.
b. 173: Airport Service, Incorporated, Application No. 84-01-34 filed
February 14, 1984, Notice of Application for Fare Adjustment.
c. 105: Public Utilities Board--Minutes of January 19, and February 2,
1984.
d. 156: Police Department--Monthly Reports for December 1983 and January
1984, and Year End Report for 1983.
e. 173: Before the Public Utilities Commission, Southern California Gas
Company Notice to Customers of Filing of Application No. 84-02-25, to
increase rates to offset cost of maintaining and enhancing the level of
service.
f. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission--Minutes of February 1, 1984.
3. 123: Authorizing a first amendment to an agreement with Wm. M. Mercer,
Inc., for professional actuarial consulting services for meet and confer
matters, increasing the compensation payable in an amount not to exceed
~17,000 and extending performance time by six calendar weeks from date of
execution.
4. 123: Authorizing an agreement with Equitable Life Assurance Society of
the United States, to provide administration services for the City's
self-funded medical plan effective January 1, 1984, and authorizing the Mayor
to execute a letter agreement relative to payment of premium taxes on the
paid claims volume of the plan. (Page 7, Section 9 of the agreement changed
to reflect, Laws of the State of California, not New York.)
5. 123: Authorizing the second amendment to a rental agreement with
Southwest Innovation Group, Inc., decreasing their square footage and monthly
fee to $371 for rental of Office No. 220 in the Civic Center, effective March
1, 1984.
6. 132: Receiving and filing the Anaheim Solid Waste Study Executive Summary
prepared by Hekimian Van Dorpe Associates dated December 1983.
7. 150/145: Authorizing the Mayor to sign a letter to the Orange County
Board of Supervisors requesting assistance with the development of the
westerly most six acres of Yorba Regional Park for a recreational facility.
8. 123: Authorizing an agreement with PRC Toups Corporation in an amount not
to exceed ~1,500 for the preparation of the 1982-83 Report to Bondholders.
196
City Hall, Anahe.im, Califo~nia - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 13, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
9. 178: Authorizing the Mayor to send a letter to the Municipal Water
District of Orange County regarding the District's proposed alternative
financing methods.
10. 175.123: Authorizing a License Agreement with TRW Company, Information
Services Division, to install customer-owned facilities within the City's
underground cable vault.
11. 160: Accepting the bids of Westinghouse Electric Corporation in the
amount of $94,844.56 for five each 300 KVA three-phase padmount transformers,
four each 500 KVA three-phase padmount transformers, and two each 1,000 KVA
three-phase padmount transformers, Item Nos. 1, 2 and 3; Maydwell & Hartzell
in the amount of ~35,221.68 for two each 1,500 KVA three-phase padmount
transformers, Item No. 4; and General Electric Company in the amount of
~50,297 for two each 2,000 KVA three-phase padmount transformers, Item No. 5,
in accordance with Bid No. 4069.
12. 160: Accepting the bid of Pirelli Cable Corporation in an amount not to
exceed ~114,529.95 for 10,540 feet of 15KV 1,000 KCMIL aluminum wire, in
accordance with Bid No. 4074.
13. 160: Accepting the bid of Byron Jackson Pump Division in the amount of
~70,984.16 for one Turbine Pump and Motor Assembly for Well No. 41, in
accordance with Bid No. 4076.
14. 160: Accepting the bid of General Electric Supply in an amount not to
exceed $45,561.45 for 25,000 feet of 600-volt, URD Secondary Service Cable, in
accordance with Bid No. 4077.
15. 160: Accepting the low bid of Ted Case Painting in the amount of ~33,800
for repainting the Glover Football Stadium, in accordance with Bid No. 4083.
16. 150: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-86: 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:
PEARSON PARK AMPHITHEATER RESTROOMS AND CONCESSION BUILDINGS, IN THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 16-820-7103-20080, 25-820-7103-20060, 16-820-7103-2012C
AND 24-820-7103-20110. (Bids to be opened April 5, 1984, 2:00 p.m.)
17. 167: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-87: 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:
LOARA HIGH SCHOOL TENNIS COURT LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
ACCOUNT NOS. 16-838-7103 AND 24-838-7103. (Bids to be opened April 5, 1984,
2:00 p.m.)
18. 129: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-88: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 83R-473 AWARDING A CONTRACT TO ACC
AIR CONDITIONING AND HEATING COMPANY FOR A PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT (FIRE STATION
HEADQUARTERS HVAC RENOVATION). (for inability to acquire bonding)
197
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 1.3~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
19. 129: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-89: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AWARDING TO THE SECOND LOWEST MOST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER THE
CONTRACT FOR THE FIRE STATION HEADQUARTERS - HVAC RENOVATION, IN THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 75-252-6201. (Kinney Air Conditioning, 592,121)
20. 164: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-90: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE LA ?ALMA AVENUE RELIEF SEWER FROM
44' WEST OF EAST STREET TO 1188' WEST OF EAST STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
ACCOUNT NO. 11-790-6325-E0480. (A & A Pipeline, 589,542)
21. 175: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-91: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF SITE IMPROVEMENTS
OF WELL SITES 40 AND 41, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS.
53-619-6329-90280 AND 53-619-6329-90310. (Advanco Constructors, 51,070,008)
22. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-92: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE BROOKHURST STREET STREET AND WATER
IMPROVEMENTS, 389' NORTH OF CRESTWOOD LANE TO 35' SOUTH OF CRESTWOOD LANE, IN
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 13-792-6325-E2490; 53-619-6329-90280-31500;
54-605-6329-17330-34350 - AHFP NO. 1079. (Loant Construction Company,
5133,479.85)
23. 164: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-93: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL
PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND
TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL
WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO
WIT: PUMP STATION IMPROVEMENTS AT VIA ARBOLES NEAR CANYON RIM ROAD, IN THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 51-619-6329-90080-32400. (Aris Engineering,
contractor)
24. 109/156/106: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-94: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN MODIFICATIONS TO A GRANT FROM THE
CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE PLANNING FOR IMPLEMENTING THE ANAHEIM
CAREER CRIMINAL APPREHENSION PROGRAM, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
E~LECUTE ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH SAID GRA/~T MODIFICATIONS.
(including an increase in the amount of ~61,787 and an extension of the grant
period to November 30, 1984; appropriating said funds into Program No. 17-195;
and authorizing the City Manager to execute all necessary documents in
connection therewith, to implement the Anaheim Career Criminal Program)
25. 160: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-95: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING CERTAIN UNCLAIMED PROPERTY IS NEEDED FOR PUBLIC USE
AND TRANSFERRING THE SAME TO THE CITY PURCHASING DEPARTMENT.
26. 144(AHFP): RESOLUTION NO. 84R-96: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REQUESTING THE COUNTY OF ORANGE TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE
ARTERIAL HIGHWAY FINANCING PROGRAM CERTAIN HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
(1984-1985) (Lincoln Avenue, Sunkist Street to State College Boulevard,
560,000 and Anaheim Boulevard, Lemon Street to Cypress Street, 5450,000)
198
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 13, 1984,. 10:00 A.M.
27. 113/175: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-97: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CITY RECORDS MORE THAN TWO
YEARS OLD. (City Clerk's Department and the Public Utilities Department)
28. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-98: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION.
(Randy Roland Wise, et ux.; Canyon Corporate Center, Ltd.; Orangewood
Associates; Northwest Motor Welding~ Inc.; Henry B. Wesseln, et ux.)
29. 123: Authorizing the Data Processing Director to enter into an agreement
with Pacific Bell to upgrade data transmission speed from 4800 bps to 9600 bps
at a cost of 310,319 and to purchase eleven GSU-500A standalone data service
units from General Data Communications Industries, Inc., including monthly
maintenance, in the amount of ~9,995. (Section (10), under Standard Terms of
the agreement changed to reflect, shall be governed by the Uniform Commercial
Code, as adopted in the State of California, not Connecticut.)
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-86 through 84R-98,
both inclusive, duly passed and adopted.
123/149: ESTABLISHMENT OF A PARKING AUTHORITY: Directing staff and the City
Attorney to negotiate an agreement with Rutan & Tucker, more particularly Earl
S. Wolcott, for the creation of a Parking Authority. Submitted was a report
dated March 7, 1984, from the Assistant City Manager, James Ruth, recommending
approval of the establishment of the subject Parking Authority.
Councilman Overholt noted that Mr. Allan Hughes and Mr. Herb Leo were present
in the Chambers audience; Mayor Roth asked if they wished to make any comment.
Mr. Herb Leo, 2906 Bellamy, President of Transpark, congratulated the Council
and Mayor for having considered the subject proposal, which related to the
plans that Transpark had been presenting regarding a solution to the traffic
problems in the recreation-sports area. Inasmuch as there was one parking
structure in the downtown Redevelopment area and another to be completed in 30
days, those would need a managing authority operated by the City, and the
proposed action today should pave the way for the Parking Authority. He urged
the Council to act favorably on the proposal.
Councilman Overholt stated the entire Council felt that transportation and
parking problems, particularly in the Convention Center-Hotel area, was
something that could be a nightmare if not dealt with now. The efforts of
Transpark, which was essentially a non-profit corporation, was a private
effort to dovetail with the City's effort to solve the problem.
199
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 13, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to direct staff and the City Attorney to
negotiate an agreement with Rutan & Tucker, more particularly Earl S. Wolcott,
for the creation of a Parking Authority. Councilman Bay seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
123: PROPOSED AUTO CENTER--CITY-OWNED PROPERTY/BALL ROAD AND 57 FREEWAY:
Authorizing preparation of an agreement with Ford, Mazda, and Mitsubishi Auto
Dealers for development of an Auto Center on City-owned property located at
the corner of Ball Road and the Orange (57) Freeway.
Mr. James Ruth, Assistant City Manager, briefed his detailed report of
March 6, 1984, wherein he recommended preparation of the subject agreement.
He especially emphasized the economic benefits of the proposal, which in the
final analysis, would yield an estimated ~500,000 to $600,000 annual increase
in sales tax once the dealerships were operational.
Councilman Bay surmised that starting the first year, they would get about
~35,000 over the interest value of their money. Projected across 25 years,
they were going to regain the principal, still own the property where the $2.2
million was invested, plus making interest on the investment. He felt that
was a good deal for the City.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to authorize preparation of an agreement
with Ford, Mazda, and Mitsubishi Auto Dealers for development of an Auto
Center on City-owned property located at the corner of Bali Road and the
Orange (57) Freeway, as recommended in memorandum dated March 6, 1984, from
the Assistant City Manager. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
123.153/i12: INCREASE IN MAXIMUM COMPENSATION--CITY'S SB 90 CLAIM:
Counciiwoman"Kaywood moved to authorize the City Attorney to execute a letter
agreement with Rogers and Wells, Attorneys at Law, increasing the maximum
compensation payable to ~16,000, in connection with the City's SB 90 claim.
Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
105: APPOINTMENTS TO THE YOUTH COMMISSION: Appointments to the Youth
Commission to fill terms expiring December 31, 1984 and 1985, respectively.
Councilwoman Kaywood nominated Adrian Owens of Western High School; Councilman
Roth nominated Susan Kerr, Loara High School.
Councilman Bay moved to close nominations. Councilman Pickier seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to appoint Adrian Owens and Susan Kerr to fill the
terms on the Youth Commission expiring December 31, 1984 (LEPAK) and December
31, 1985, (Michaels/Kuramoto) respectively. Councilman Roth seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked that letters of thanks be sent to all those who
applied, noting that they had such a fine selection from which to choose.
200
City. Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following acti
Planning Commission at their meeting held February
following applications were submitted for City Coun
twenty-two day appeal period expires March 15, 1984
1. VARIANCE NO. 3361: Submitted by David C. Booms
subdivision on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located a
with the following Code waivers: (a) minimum lot a
width.
Variance No. 3361 was withdrawn by the applicant, a
status was granted.
2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2539: Submitted by
permit a coin operated car wash in an existing serv
property located at 101 South Brookhurst Street.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolutio
Conditional Use Permit No. 2539, and granted a nega
3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2540: Submitted by
County Sports Arena, Inc.), to permit on-sale beer
amusement center with 102 parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolutio
Conditional Use Permit No. 2540, and denied a negat
The application was withdrawn by the applicant at t
Council meeting.
4. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 191 AND RECLASSIFICA
Submitted by General American Life Insurance Compan
to the Land Use Element from the current general in
commercial professional, and a change in zone from
6-story commercial office building on 3.24 acres lo
corner of Katella Avenue and Howell Street.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolutio
denied General Plan ~mendment No. 191, granted Recl
and granted a negative declaration status.
5. REMOVAL OF SPECIMEN TREES: Submitted by Butter
to remove 2 Eucalyptus trees to facilitate construc
residence on property located at 609 Peralta Hills
Removal of specimen trees was approved by the City
negative declaration status was granted.
6. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 83-84-21: Submitted by Ka
Mary E. Blume, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,00
construct a 32-unit apartment complex on property 1
Lincoln Avenue.
201
~arch 13, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
~ns taken by the City
22, 1984, pertaining to the
zil information. The
5:00 p.m.
to establish a 2-lot
219 South Loara Street,
ea, and (b) minimum lot
nd a negative declaration
Shell Oil Company, to
ice station on CL zoned
n No. PC84-29, granted
ive declaration status.
am J. Williams, (Orange
in a proposed family
No. PC84-30, denied
ive declaration status.
he February 28, 1984 City
~ION NO. 83-84-19:
~, to consider an amendment
dustrial designation to
ML to CO, to construct a
cared on the northeast
Nos. PC84-34 and PC84-35,
assification No. 83-84-19,
ield Venture Corporation,
ion of a single-family
Drive.
Planning Commission, and a
thryn Wise, Bernard E. and
0 and CL to RM-1200, to
ocated at 2566-2570 West
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 13, 1984, !p:00 A.M.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-36, granted
Reclassification No. 83-84-21, and granted a negative declaration status.
7. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 83-84-20 AND VARIANCE NO. 3375: Submitted by Eileen
A. Druiff, for a change in zone from RS-7200 to RM-2400, to construct a duplex
on property located at 124 South Harding Drive, with Code waiver of minimum
sideyard setback.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution Nos. PC84-37 and PC84-38,
granted Reclassification No. 83-84-20 and Variance No. 3375, and granted a
negative declaration status.
8. VARIANCE NO. 3378: Submitted by Country Club Hotels, Inc., to permit two
freestanding signs and an entrance sign on CL zoned property located at 1251
North Harbor Boulevard, with the following Code waivers: (a) permitted
location of freestanding signs, (b) minimum distance between freestanding
signs, (c) maximum height of freestanding illuminated sign, (d) minimum ground
clearance of freestanding sign, and (e) maximum square footage of entrance
sign.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-39, granted, in
part, Variance No. 3378, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical
exemption determination.
9. VARIANCE NO. 3379: Submitted by Jose Queng Tiamzon and Felicitas B.
Tiamzon, to construct a room addition to an existing single-family residence
on RS-5000 zoned property located at 1031 North Baxter Street, with a Code
waiver of maximum lot coverage.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-40, granted
Variance No. 3379, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption
determination.
10. VARIANCE NO. 3380: Submitted by Joaquin Sueiro and Agnes S. Vail, to
construct a room addition to an existing single-family residence on RS-5000
zoned property located at 1909 Deer Creek Circle, with Code waiver of maximum
lot coverage.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-41, granted
Variance No. 3380, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption
determination.
11. VARIANCE NO. 3381: Submitted by Walter E. and Catherine A. Cook, to
construct a room addition to an existing single-family residence on RS-5OO0
zoned property located at 5044 Holbrook Street, with Code waiver of maximum
lot coverage.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-42, granted
Variance No. 3381, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption
determination.
202
City Hall., Anaheim.~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March .1.3., .1.984, 10:00 A.M.
12. VARIANCE NO. 3376: Submitted by William H. and Faithe E. Reimbold, to
construct a patio to the rear of an existing single-family residence on
RS-7200 zoned property located at 1000 North Roanne Place, with Code waiver of
minimum rear yard setback.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-43, granted
Variance No. 3376, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption
determination.
13. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 81-82-13 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2292 -
EXTENSIONS OF TIME: Submitted by State Wide Developers, requesting extensions
of time to Reclassification No. 81-82-13 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2292,
for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-3000, to permit a l-lot, 39-unit,
45-foot high condominium subdivision on p~operty located on the south side of
Crescent Avenue, west of Brookhurst Street.
The City Planning Commission approved extensions of time to Reclassification
No. 81-82-13 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2292, to expire March 8, 1985.
14. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2061 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Hope
House, Inc., for an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 2061, to
permit an alcoholic and drug rehabilitation center on CG zoned property
located at 714 North Anaheim Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Conditional Use
Permit No. 2061, to expire February 25, 1986.
No action was taken by the City Council on the foregoing items; therefore, the
actions of the City Planning Commission became final.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2538: Submitted by Robert L. Wetzler and Ethel L.
Wetzler, to permit a convenience market with gasoline sales and off-sale beer
and wine on CL zoned property located at 934 South Beach Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-28, denied
Conditional Use Permit No. 2538, and granted a negative declaration status.
The Planning Commission's action was appealed by the applicant and, therefore,
a public hearing would be scheduled at a later date.
134/1.7.9:' CENER~.L PLaN AMENDMENT NO. ~90, RECLASSIFICATION NO. 83-84-17, AND
VARIANCE NO. 3374: Submitted by Retirement Fund Trust of the Plumbing,
Heating & Piping Industry of Southern California, to consider an amendment to
the Land Use Element from the current low-medium density residential, and a
change in zone from CG to RM-1200, to construct a 250-unit apartment complex
on approximately 9.6 acres located on the south side of Wilken Way,
approximately 615 feet east of Harbor Boulevard, with the following Code
waivers: (a) maximum structural height, (b) minimum floor area of dwelling
units, (c) minimum distance between buildings, (d) minimum dimensions of
parking spaces, and (e) required enclosure of carports.
2O3
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 13~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution Nos. PC84-31, PC84-32 and
PC84-33, denied General Plan Amendment No. 190, Reclassification No. 83-84-17,
and Variance No. 3374, and disapproved a negative declaration status.
The Planning Commission's action was appealed by the applicant on Thursday,
March 15, 1984, and therefore, a public hearing would be scheduled at a later
date.
179: VARIANCE NO. 2768 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Request submitted by James A.
Lasby, Residential Field Services, Inc., for a two-year extension of time to
Variance No. 2768, to permit an office on RS-7200 zoned property located at
838 South State College Boulevard.
City Clerk Linda Roberts announced that two people had requested to speak on
the issue, Charles R. Wright and Mary Lu Shultz, and a letter of opposition to
the extension of time had been received from Paul and Jeannine Payne.
The Mayor asked if Mr. Lasby was present and had anything to say before they
heard from those who wished to speak..
Mr. James Lasby stated they bought the property at 838 South State College
Boulevard last year with ascrow closing in May. One of the reasons they
bought it was that they could get approval of a variance that was existing on
the property. Through Mr. Bill Ranney, the realtor who handled the property
transaction for them, they will be able to get the initial action to make the
variance current. The property was run down when they took possession of it
and they had since brought it up to a much better appearing state. He had
talked to two or three neighbors over the past seven or eight months and he
had never received any objection or negative input. The neighbor to the
south, Mr. Theron Anson, was nice enough to write a letter and recommendation
that the City Council reconsider and grant the variance. (He thereupon
submitted a copy of letter dated March 11, 1984, from Mr. Anson.) Residential
Field Service currently occupied the property, a service company to mortgage
lenders. There was no walk-in traffic. The only thing creating any kind of
walk-in traffic was an occasional salesman or their own people.
The Mayor asked to hear from anyone who would like to speak in support of the
applicant; no one was present. He then asked to hear from those who asked to
be heard.
Mary Lu Shultz, 829 South Reseda, a resident of the area for 19 years, stated
that the residents of Placentia Park had asked her to be a spokesperson
against Variance No. 2768. She asked if she could have those who were opposed
please stand. (There were approximately 18 people present in opposition.)
They had previously submitted to the Planning Commission on February 22, 1984,
petitions containing 135 signatures, six letters of opposition, and a copy of
their deed restrictions. Other letters had also been mailed and she then
submitted an additional letter to the City Clerk, just handed to her. The
variance had been violated since 1976 when Mr. Ehrle owned the property. She
then gave a brief historical background regarding the property which presently
had a sign on the door, Residential Field Services. There were times when six
204
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 13, 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
to ten cars parked around the property, causing congestion and traffic. It
was obvious the house was not being used as a residence. They felt the
present owner should reestablish the property as a residence. They did not
wish their properties to be blighted by additional commercial zoning.
Mr. C. R. Bob Wright, 931 Cedarwood Lane, Civic Affairs Chairman of the
Anaheim Gardens Homeowners Association, stated they were an 85-home planned
community one block south of the property. At the Planning Commission
meeting, he submitted 27 signatures opposing the variance, and he now had 61
additional signatures, or a total of 88 representing 84 percent of the
homeowners. Mr. Wright also gave a brief historical background as to what had
occurred on the property, revealing that in 1980, the City Council again
extended the temporary variance on the residence, whereas they thought the
matter had been settled in April of 1978. Therefore, they were not aware that
offices continued until they saw a sign appear on the door, parking spaces
adjacent to the alley, increased parking on Viking Street and people leaving
and entering the office. The temporary variance should not be extended. Cars
were parked on both sides of Viking. Their main complaint was the fact that
all of the homes in the area had been designated single-family and further
extension of the temporary variance would encourage other home owners on the
east side of State College Boulevard to apply for the same variance. They
asked that the temporary variance be terminated now as it should have been on
the last request for extension (Mr. Wright submitted additional petitions--all
documentation submitted by both Ms. Shultz and Mr. Wright was made a part of
the record).
Mayor Roth gave Mr. Lasby an opportunity to respond.
Mr. Lasby stated since parking was the major problem, when he was looking at
the property to purchase it initially, one of the neighbors was using the
three-car off-street parking area on the property. In the last seven to eight
months when there may have been other than his off-street parking, there were
no more than four vehicles, three on the south side of Viking and one on the
north side. He did not believe that parking was a major problem or that they
were a bad neighbor. The letter written from Mr. Anson (which he submitted)
who lived at 840 South State College, outlined the improvements they had made
on the property and he (Anson) appreciated what they had done to it.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to deny the requested extension of time to
Variance No. 2768, as recommended by the City Planning Commission. Councilman
Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
179: WORK SESSION - SENIOR CITIZEN PROJECTS: Annika Santalahti, Assistant
Director for Zoning, reported that she had discussed the subject with the
Planning Commission and Senior Citizen Commission and a tentative date for a
work session was suggested as Wednesday, April 11, 1984, in the evening, or
another date that would be convenient for the Council.
After a brief discussion, it was determined that the subject work session with
the City Council/Planning Commission/Senior Citizen Commission and interested
developers would be held on Tuesday, April 10, 1984, at 1:30 p.m., to discuss
guidelines for senior citizen projects.
2O5
Cit~ Hall~ Anahei~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 13,. 1984, 10:00 A.M.
108: LINCOLN PALM MOTEL - PARTIAL ABATEMENT OF PENALTY: Request by Mr. Shyh
Huang Lee, for a partial abatement of the penalty assessed on the late filings
of the Transient Occupancy Tax due on the Lincoln Palm Motel, 1600 East
Lincoln Avenue. Submitted was a joint report from the Program Development and
Audit and Planning Department, recommending denial of the subject request.
Mayor Roth asked to hear from Mr. Lee or anyone present to speak on the issue;
no one was present.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to deny the request for the partial
abatement of penalty on the late filings of the Transient Occupancy Tax due on
the Lincoln Palm Motel, as recommended by Program Development & Audit and
Planning Department. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
170: FINAL MAP - REVISION NO...i~ TRACT NO. 11830: Developer, Gfeller
Development Company; tract is located on the north side of Lincoln Avenue,
east of Beach Boulevard and contains 17 proposed RM-1000 zoned lots (639
units).
MOTION: On motion by Councilman Pickler, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the
proposed subdivision, together with its design and improvement, was found to
be consistent with the City's General Plan, and the City Council approved
Final Map Revision No. 1, Tract No. 11830, as recommended by the Acting City
Engineer in his memorandum dated March 5, 1984, subject to payment of sewer
fees, electric service (Phase I) fees and parkway landscaping inspection
fees. MOTION CARRIED.
179/155: REQUEST FOR A WAIVER OF FEES ON LAND TO BE CONVEYED TO THE CITY:
Request by Kaufman and Broad, fo'r consideration relative to waiver acreage
fees, maintenance of slopes on parcels dedicated for public facilities, and
slope maintenance adjacent to Santa Ana Canyon Road at the Regional Shopping
Center. Submitted was a report dated March 8, 1984, from the City Attorney's
office, recommending that the Council deny the request to waive certain
development fees otherwise required by ordinance to be paid by Kaufman and
Broad (K&B) as subdivider or improver of the property relating to the four
parcels of land which will be conveyed to the City pursuant to the
requirements of the adopted Public Facilities Plan for the Bauer Ranch. Also
submitted was a detailed joint report dated March 6, 1984, from the
Engineering and Planning Division, recommending the following:
1. That all fees for the fire station site be collected at their normal times
according to City of Anaheim policies and reimbursement of such be included in
the Reimbursement Agreement for the fire station.
2. That all fees on the remaining properties to be deeded to the City of
Anaheim (i.e. library, substation and park sites) be paid by Kaufman and Broad
and collected prior to approval of Parcel Map No. 83-249 for the substation
site and prior to approval of the grading plan for Areas I, II, and III for
the library and park site.
206
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 13~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
3. That all slopes on the public facility sites and access thereto, if any,
that are to be deeded to the City of Anaheim be maintained by a property
owners association.
4. That all slopes adjacent to Santa Ana Canyon Road be maintained by a
property owners association.
The report, the discussion portion, gave extensive background data on the
issue and the justification for the foregoing recommendations.
The Mayor asked to hear from a representative of K&B.
Mr. Robert Galloway, Senior Vice President of K&B, first relayed the past
history leading up to their request today. He also briefed their letter dated
February 21, 1984, listing the three items which they felt should have special
~onsideration due to the special circumstances involved as follows: (1)
Waiver of fees on property dedicated for public facilities; (2) maintenance of
slopes on parcels dedicated for public facilities and; (3) slope maintenance
adjacent to Santa Ana Canyon Road at the regional shopping center. (Letter on
file in the City Clerk's office.) Listed after each item were their reasons
for justification in respectfully requesting Council's approval on the basis
of what they felt was "fair and equitable."
Mayor Roth asked Mr. Galloway if he had seen the report from the City
Attorney's office dated March 8, 1984, specifically referring to the first
sentence of the last paragraph--"We are aware of no basis upon which the City
is legally authorized to waive any development fees otherwise required by
ordinance to be paid by K&B as the subdivider or improver of the property
prior to conveyance of the four public sites to the City."
Mr. Galloway had not seen the memorandum. One was given to him for his
perusal.
Mr. Tom Winfield, Attorney, Brown, Winfield and Canzoneri, representing K&B,
also recounted the background history relating to their request today. His
major points and contentions lay in the fact that this was a situation where
the fees had to do with the development and construction of an electrical
substation, fire station and public library, and he suggested without having
had the opportunity to review the ordinances, that there was no requirement in
the Code, or legislative intent in the Code, that when the City determined it
was necessary to build a fire station, that it pay fees to itself in order to
accomplish that purpose. He suggested that they had the power to waive or to
agree to take in-lieu consideration in return for fees customarily charged.
He did not think these fees were customarily charged, but secondly, through
the Master Public Facilities Plan for the Bauer Ranch, they had created a
relationship which was that of a development agreement under California law,
and the City had the power to make trade-offs with developers. They felt it
was unfair to put them in a position when they were. building a public
improvement, to characterize them as a private developer as to that site, and
it was equally unfair to require them to pay water and drainage fees, etc.,
for the construction of a fire station.
207
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 13, 19~4.., !0:00 A.M.
As to the slopes, there were four slope areas to which their request was
addressed. The Facilities Plan fairness required that the park slopes be
maintained by the in-lieu fees and not by any homeowners association. As to
the electrical substation, the Facilities Plan made it very clear that the
property owner also dedicate the facility, but its operation and maintenance
would be a system-wide responsibility financed through rates charged to
users. Relative to the library site, the Plan recognized that the dedication
of that site was compensation for the full share of Bauer Ranch's portion of
whatever library burden it imposed on the community. It was not fair or
proper that they require their buyers to maintain slopes on a library site
that would benefit the entire community.
Relative to the slope at Santa Ana Canyon Road, under the Public Facilities
Plan, they were not entitled to that, but were present requesting, as a matter
of fairness, that they consider whether or not they made a mistake when they
agreed to have the long-term maintenance of that slope paid for by homeowners
not yet in the community. It was previously owned by CalTrans and would not
have been maintained by anyone. As a result of their trying to give the City
a shopping center that was properly laid out, etc., they had to alter the
height of Santa Ana Canyon Road, which cost one-quarter of a million dollars
in order to buy that property from CalTrans and annex it to the City. It was
a major view slope that was going to impact everybody dealing with the
regional shopping center and the benefit of that slope being well-maintained
was one of Citywide importance and an economic benefit. He asked that they
grant Mr. Galloway's request.
After Messrs. Galloway and Winfieid's presentation, Mayor Roth directed
questions to staff. Extensive input, discussion and questioning followed.
City Manager William Tailey, in his presentation, elaborated on the two issues
that were involved, the first being the fact that in order to set the rates, a
certain amount of acreage was considered and then the cost divided by the
acreage. The developers knew how many acres were involved and when they
started saying they wanted excluded some of the acreage they were donating or
dedicating to the City, they were really saying they wanted the taxpayers of
Anaheim to pick up those shares of their district's apportionment. They knew
that was not the intent of the overall agreement. The Council from the first
day had said they did not want the Plan to cost the taxpayers one penny, but
by asking the City to waive the fees, they were saying they wanted the
taxpayers to take on those acreage assessments. Secondly, the areas the City
asked for were flat areas. The City had taken areas that were not flat to put
some of their public facilities on, but when they took those areas, they said
they were not going to take extraordinary costs such as slope maintenance. If
Kaufman and Broad did not understand that was staff's position, he wanted to
state for the record that this was the City administration's position. After
further elaboration, and in concluding, Mr. Talley stated he was not going to
ask, unless the Council demanded it, for the City to take on extraordinary
things like slope maintenance and the other costs resulting primarily from the
parcels being located in areas that were not flat and not optimum. He also
encouraged Council not to waive any of the other fees, because they would be
expected to pick them up because the acreage was known.
208
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 13~ 1984,. 10:00 A.M.
K&B was in the business of building houses, the City was in the business of
serving them, and the City was not going to be coming back to try to
renegotiate the fire station, library or park facilities, and they did not
think K&B should be back asking for any exceptions on what the staff believed,
even if legally permissible to do so, was originally contemplated in the
Public Facilities Master Plan.
Joel Fick, Assistant Director for Planning, summarizing the Planning
Department's comments, explained that from a historical perspective, as far
back as the staff report pointed out, June of 1978, the staff consistently
pointed out to K&B that the City needs were for flat, usable sites. It was
not by mistake that the Utilities, Park and Library Departments had specific
wording in the June 19, 1978 memo relative to flat usable areas. He
reiterated staff had consistently pointed out through time that the City would
not bear an undue obligation for the slope areas and the staff position had
been consistent that the City needs were for the usable portions of land and
the citizens of Anaheim should not bear the burden of the additional slope
area.
Mr. Jack White, Assistant City Attorney, clarified the City's position
relative to the imposition of the fees, emphasizing that regardless of which
fees they were talking about, it was their belief that ail of the fees being
imposed related to matters which were required in connection with the
development of property by a subdivider, Kaufman and Broad in this case, at a
time prior to the property being conveyed to the City. If that was the case,
there was no basis in the ordinance allowing the City to waive any of the
fees. To the extent that perhaps the fees may be required at some other time,
such as at building permit issuances, then those particular fees were
unrelated to the K&B situation at the current time, because it would be after
the property was conveyed to the City.
In connection with the fire station, for instance, K&B had the responsibility
there to do a construction activity. On the fees required in connection with
construction and collected in connection with a building permit, they would
have the responsibility of paying upon issuance of the building permits, which
would be at a time prior to the ultimate conveyance of the land to the City.
Those could be recouped if the Council so chose by allowing those fees to be
included in the reimbursement agreement that the Public Facilities Plan
required to be set up for the fire station site and the electrical substation
site and could be spread over a larger area of benefit for the property that
was ultimately going to benefit by those two facilities. To the best of their
knowledge, those would be the two areas where the fees could be respread, but
they were unaware of a provision that would allow the Council to waive fees
that K&B would be otherwise required to pay because the fees attached
themselves at a time prior to the property being conveyed to the City.
Councilman Overholt stated he surmised that Mr. White had heard nothing today
that had come to his attention that would change his opinion as expressed in
his memorandum to the Council of March 8, 1984; Mr. White confirmed that was
correct.
209
Ci.t~ Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 13, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to deny the request of Kaufman and Broad of
Southern California, Inc., to waive certain development fees otherwise
required by ordinance to be paid by K&B as subdivider or improver of the
property relating to the four parcels of land which will be conveyed to the
City pursuant to the requirements of the adopted Public Facilities Plan for
the Bauer Ranch, based upon the advice of the City Attorney.
Before action was taken, Mr. Winfield stated that he had just given Mr. White
the staff report and he apparently had not noticed the provision in it stating
that staff was asking that the fees be collected as a condition of approving
their grading plans. The request made of staff would reflect that they were
condoning the staff's imposing the condition as an approval of grading plans
and that was inconsistent with the premise upon which Mr. White made his
opinion.
Mr. White did not agree, since the request did not specify exactly what the
fees were to start with. If the developer could show the City was attempting
to collect a fee that the developer was not responsible for because it was a
building permit fee and there was no building on the site, they would
certainly want to take a look and respond to that; however, he had not heard
that today and had not seen it in the application for the waiver.
Mr. Winfield stated that whatever motion was made, that it be made with some
degree of specificity; the Mayor repeated the motion offered by Councilman
Overholt.
Councilman Overholt suggested that Mr. Winfield get together with Mr. White
and hammer things out later; Mr. Winfield stated he wanted to make sure they
had that option.
Councilman Pickier seconded the motion offered by Councilman Overholt denying
the request. MOTION CARRIED.
170: GRADING WITHIN BAUER AND WALLACE RANCH AREAS: Request by Kaufman and
Broad (K&B), for approval to grade within the Bauer and Wallace Ranch areas
prior to obtaining a waiver of the Hillside Grading Ordinance. Submitted was
a report dated March 6, 1984, from the Engineering Division recommending that
should the Council decide to approve the request that the City Engineer be
authorized to (1) approve the balance of the grading plan (G.P. 1013) without
an approved waiver of the Hillside Grading Ordinance and, (2) require that
prior to approval of the as-graded grading plan (G.P. 1013) by the Engineering
Division a waiver of the Hillside Grading Ordinance for this grading plan be
approved by the City Council.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to approve the request of Kaufman and Broad to
grade within the Bauer and Wallace Ranch areas prior to obtaining a waiver of
the Hillside Grading Ordinance, subject to the two conditions as listed in
memorandum dated March 6, 1984, from the Engineering Division.
210
City Hall~ Anaheim.~ .califo.r.ni.9 - cOUNCIL MINUTES - March 13, 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
Before further action was taken, Mr. Art Daw, Acting City Engineer, stated
that it had just come to his attention that there was one problem relative to
the subject, that being with the Fish and Game Permit needed to accomplish the
grading. There was a meeting with Bauer Ranch, some City staff members and
the Fish and Game in December, at which time K&B was to come back with their
proposal to satisfy Fish and Game within 60 days. K&B had been trying to get
together with Fish and Game but had been put off and given a 30-day extension
of time. Fish and Game was somewhat changing their original stipulations
discussed in December, which could affect the grading of the property.
Councilman Roth thereupon modified his motion that approval be granted subject
to the approval of Fish and Game.
Mr. Tom Winfield, representing K&B, interjected and suggested that the City
exercise its jurisdiction and not delegate to Fish and Game the authority to
approve what they were asking; Mr. White, Assistant City Attorney, stated he
agreed with Mr. Winfield in this particular instance.
Councilman Roth clarified his motion as first articulated, not including
approval subject to approval of Fish and Game. Councilman Pickier seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
108: HEARING - ARCADE APPLICATION NO. 84-1, ..ORANGE COUNTY SPORTS ARENA.,
INC.: To consider an appeal of the decision of the Planning Director
approving an Amusement Arcade Application for Orange County Sports Arena,
Inc., 2131 West Lincoln Avenue, for 21 amusement devices. Submitted was a
report from the Zoning Division dated March 5, 1984, discussing the matter.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to continue the subject hearing to Tuesday,
March 20, 1984, at 10:00 a.m. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
108: POOL ROOM PERMIT APPLICATION - ORANGE COUNTY SPORTS ARENA,. INC.:
Application by Tony Margerum, application for a Pool Room Permit, to allow 20
pool tables at the Orange County Sports Arena, Inc., 2131 West Lincoln
Avenue. This matter was continued from the meeting of February 21, 1984.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to continue a decision on the subject Pool Room
Permit Application to Tuesday, March 20, 1984, at 10:00 a.m., to be heard in
conjunction with the foregoing Arcade Application No. 84-1. Councilwoman
Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: The City Manager requested a Closed Session to
discuss a personnel matter and current litigation with no action anticipated;
the City Attorney requested a Closed Session to discuss litigation and
potential litigation with no action anticipated.
MOTION:
break.
p.m.)
Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session and a lunch
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (12:05
211
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 13~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, ail Council Members
being present. (1:35 p.m.)
173: HEARING - PLAZA TRANSPORTATION COMPANY: Request by Monica E. Keppel, to
add stops at the following restaurants: Delaney's, 1050 West Ball Road,
Spaghetti Station, 950 South Ox Road, Charlie Brown's, 1751 South State
College Boulevard, Casa Maria Mexican Restaurant, 1801 East Katella Avenue,
Mr. Stox, 1105 East Katella Avenue, and Fu Ling, 2141 Harbor Boulevard, to
their present Jitney Service Permit. Submitted was a report dated February 3,
1984, from the City Attorney's office recommending approval of the request.
The Mayor asked if anyone was present to speak in opposition to the subject
request; no one was present. (It was noted that Ms. Keppel was in the
Chambers audience, but had no comment to make.)
The Mayor closed the hearing.
MOTION: Councilman Pickier moved to approve the request of Monica Keppel,
Plaza Transportation Company, to add the aforementioned stops to their present
Jitney Service Permit.
Before any action was taken, Councilman Overholt explained that he set the
matter for a hearing, since he felt the request expanded the scope of Ms.
Keppel's service. It was his concern that other transportation companies be
notified of her intent, so they would have the opportunity to speak if they
wished to do so. They obviously did not have anything to say, and her request
would apparently get a unanimous vote.
Councilman Overholt thereupon seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
179/107: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 81-82-5 AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2259 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application
submitted by American National Properties, Inc., (Orangewood Acres Mobilehome
Park), for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to C-R, to permit conversion of
an existing mobilehome park and construction of a five-story office building
on property located at 2111 South Manchester Avenue.
The City Planning Commission disapproved a negative declaration status on the
project on November 16, 1981, and further, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-176
and PC83-177~ denied Reclassification No. 81-82-5 and Conditional Use Permit
No. 2259.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by the applicant and a
public hearing scheduled and continued from the meetings of November 22, 1983,
January 10 and February 7, 1984 to this date.
After explaining the procedure to be followed in the public hearing, the Mayor
asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
212
City Hall~ Anaheim.~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 13, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Ms. Carol Hoffman, Hoffman Business Consultants, representing American
National Properties, 2300 Michelson, Irvine, explained that they were
requesting a conversion of the mobilehome park to a commercial designation, as
well as requesting a temporary use of the lot for recreational vehicles
(R.V.'s) until such time as development plans could be completed. Since they
had started the process, the Mobilehome Park Overlay Zone had been initiated,
which established relocation benefits. She then referred to documentation
previously submitted relating to the infrastructure in their park and the need
for replacement at an estimated cost of 5327,000, or ~3,400 per space, which
would require substantial rent increases and considerable inconvenience to the
tenants, resulting in potential relocation of units during the improvement
process.
She then summarized the reasons the applicant had used for the request for
conversion as follows: (1) Life expectancy of the park; (2) age of the
infrastructure and the aforementioned costs for replacement; (3) the
difficulty experienced in raising rents to cover costs of improvements; (4)
surrounding commercial land uses; (5) proposed widening of the Santa Ana
Freeway. She then gave a profile on the tenants living in the park (also see
extensive documentation--made a part of the record--Mobile Home Park
Conversion Impact Report--Orangewood Acres Mobilehome Park--minutes of
meetings of hearings held before the Planning Commission, specifically the
meeting of October 3, 1983, booklet entitled--Request to Convert Orangewood
Mobilehome Park, which also contained the Alternatives A and B offered to
tenants relative to relocation. Also submitted at this meeting was data sheet
entitled, Findings of Fact Required for Reclassification, Orangewood
Mobilehome Park, listing five conditions posing a threat to the general
welfare of the mobilehome park residents).
Ms. Hoffman referred to the two Alternatives (see section entitled--Relocation
Benefits in Request to Convert booklet), basically stating "Alternate "A"--we
would pay the actual moving costs, including tear-down, transportation and
set-up, plus park requirements at an average comparable mobilehome park, or,
Alternate "B"--we would pay relocation benefits as stated in the preceding
"Chart I." Today, they were offering a new and additional Alternative as
follows: (3) In the event there were coaches in the park incapable of being
moved in the judgment of a wholesale coach mover, they would provide a
replacement coach of equivalent value. With the inclusion of the latter
Alternative, their plan exceeded the City requirements in that relocation
costs would be paid whether the coach itself was relocated or not.
Ms. Hoffman then clarified an offer that was made relative to a bonus payment
or rent credit of 5940 for each permanent resident that was offered in
February, subject to the tenant moving prior to May 1, 1984. There were not
many who took advantage of that offer and the relocation program was now tied
up in lawsuits and the court had not yet taken any action. They were hoping
as late as noon today to get that information. The judge was going to rule on
whether or not the owners could evict tenants of the park for non-payment of
rent. There were a number of tenants currently who refused to pay rent for
three months or longer, and under the rules of real estate law, non-payment of
213
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 13~ 198.4, iO:O0.A.M.
rent was a cause for eviction. That was a separate issue, but if the judge
were to have ruled before the Council ruled, it was conceivable there would be
those who would be required to be evicted and thus not eligible for relocation
benefits. It was their goal to treat the tenants fairly, to meet the intent
of the ordinance, and to comply with the intent of the Housing Element.
In concluding, Ms. Hoffman further stated, in light of the concern expressed
by the Planning Commission with regard to the office building proposed, in the
booklet submitted, to the rear were three copies of plans that would
demonstrate their willingness to consider alternative development scenarios.
She then briefed those alternatives. They felt their conversion request met
the Code requirements and their relocation benefits plan was designed to meet
individual needs of tenants in the park, their reclassification request
conformed to the General Plan and their development plans were flexible,
pending further review by the City.
Upon questioning by Councilwoman Kaywood and Councilman Overholt, Ms. Hoffman
confirmed that relative to the third alternative, they could not guarantee it
would be in an Anaheim park, but within the guidelines proposed, they would
work with the resident to find a unit that would be acceptable and, further,
that it would just apply to single-wide coaches.
Mr. Paul Bostwick, Midway Mobilehome Park, 1411 South Anaheim Boulevard,
Chairman of the Mobilehome Educational Trust, stated he was on the committee
to develop the conversion ordinance. He was very impressed today with the
offers that had been proposed, which gave all of the tenants opportunities
under the ordinance for which it was developed. In light of the court case,
he felt it was a win-win situation today, both for the tenants and for the
City, the latter because the property would be developed into something
admirable for the City.
Mayor Roth asked for clarification from Ms. Hoffman on the following: That if
an action of the Council today established the relocation plans and the judge
later ruled the tenants were to be evicted, what would be the position of the
tenants.
Ms. Hoffman answered it was their intent to proceed with the relocation of the
residents on the basis of the Council's decision, regardless of the court
action, with regard to all permanent residents, if the Council acted favorably
today.
The Mayor then asked to hear from the spokesman for the mobile home tenants.
Mr. Michael Smith, Attorney for approximately 55 of the residents at
Orangewood Acres, 600 West Santa Ana Boulevard, Santa Ana, stated that he
apparently represented all but one of the so-called permanent residents. He
was going to address the issue of mitigating the hardships, and a Mr. Kramer
would discuss the opposition to conversion. Relative to relocation costs, he
felt the question was, how much, based on a comparable park. Relative to the
Conversion Impact Report, American National Properties supplied a survey of 14
parks. He had called them as recently as yesterday and did an update and in
about one-half of the parks, there were no vacancies, and those that had
214
City Hall,.Anaheim,. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 13, ~984, 10:00 A.M.
vacancies required a number of improvements before a home could be relocated
in that park. (Submitted was data sheet entitled--Cost for Relocation and
Improvements in a Comparable Park, with Exhibits.) American National
Properties broke costs down between $1,000 and $2,000 for tear-up and
set-down, transportation of $250 to $450, and park requirements of $1,450 to
51,850. He questioned where those figures came from and thereupon submitted
his study, which broke down the costs to disassemble, assemble, transport and
for the improvements required (see data, Costs for Relocation and Improvements
in a Comparable Park--made a part of the record). Never had American National
Properties offered payment of 100 percent of relocation costs plus
improvements. It had always been a set figure. For the homes that could not
be relocated, they would like what the Code provided, i.e., the equivalent
cost of relocation costs for another home, which would include tear-up,
set-down, transportation and park improvements, which would be more in value
than some of the homes currently in the park. In other words, if the coach
could not be relocated, they would want those costs and would like that option.
Councilwoman Kaywood interjected and asked Mr. Smith what they would gain,
since that would not give the person a place to live. There was a difference
in the value of a coach when it was already located in a space and one without
a space.
Mr. Smith answered that they could take that money and buy a cheaper home. A
home that could not be relocated would be worth very little money. They were
afraid what was going to happen was that the residents would be "stuck" with
additional relocation costs, and that was the reason they wanted total
relocation costs, including improvements. Otherwise, the tenants would be
paying for improvements out-of-pocket. Receiving 52,700 to 54,300 would not
pay the bills. The Code provided for total relocation costs and he failed to
see where the American National Properties proposal did so.
The following people then spoke to the issue:
Mr. Glenn F. Kramar, 2111 South Manchester, Space 64, stated he was present as
a homeowner in the park for six years to present some of his reflections
representative of the thought of the tenants. The thrust of Mr. Kramar's
presentation was the fact that the tenants were convinced that they were
living where they would like to live, where they had established families and
work and most of the residents were now retired. If they were to summarize
what they wanted, it would be at this point in their lives, in their
retirement years, that they be able to live in the park where there was a
total expression of the meaning of home ownership, but in an affordable
manner. Most could not afford any other alternative and it was a means to
continue to live in the community of Anaheim. The continuance of the
mobilehome park was in the interest of the City. Orangewood Acres represented
a genuine position of affordable housing that had a right to its continuance.
It would not be in the highest interest of the City to approve the
conversion. If in the alternative the Council voted in favor, they were
asking the following: (1) 100 percent relocation costs, including
improvements required in the other locations, (2) that a reasonable amount be
calculated for those who chose not to, or could not move within that zone and
those costs should be based on the then current price that would be the
215
City Ra!l.~ Anaheim,.California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 13, 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
equitable amount to be paid, and it would be the averaging of the cost of
those who were moving, rather than an arbitrary figure, (3) if they chose to
have a similar unit within that zone, he would consider that as a nice offer
as an alternative and he would see no objection to that.
Mayor Roth commented after Mr. Kramar's presentation that what he did not
touch on was the issue of property rights of those individuals who owned the
park, about which he had a concern. The Council considered their most
important assets to be the people, and their freedoms were based on the
concept of property rights.
Mr. Red Reinhardt, Fullerton, Chairman of the Orange County Senior Citizen
Council, suggested that the only way to solve the problem, since there had
only been two conversions before the Council, was that they should direct
staff to create a zone called Mobile Home Residential, thereby giving them
protection, so that they would not have to be at the mercy of every dollar and
developer coming in.
Katherine Frazier, 211i South Manchester, explained that they had moved into
the Park in 1980 and when they went to the office with their real estate man,
they were not told that the Park was for sale. Seven months later they were
told it was sold. She then reported on some of the problems that had occurred
since then. Further, they were given leases in October, but in January the
lease was refused, so she refused to pay a ~35 rent increase. The park was
close to her husband's work and it would be difficult to relocate, since her
husband could not find another job. Human lives were more important than
making big money.
Gladys Tourula, 2111 South Manchester, Space 61, stated she was told that they
would not move one person at a time from the Park, but that everyone had to
move at the same time. Nothing had been said, if the Park were rezoned, how
they were going to move out and how they were to get their money to do so.
Mrs. Oder Bennett, 21il South Manchester, stated she was ready to move at any
time, because she could not take the anxiety or the harassment any longer.
Councilman Bay questioned Ms. ~offman relative to the statement made by one of
the tenants that she was willing to move, but the developer only offered to
have them move as a group.
Ms. Hoffman stated that the answer was not that they all had to move as a
group at the same time, but rather they were not going to start any relocation
of any residents until such time as the conversion had been approved and then
they would implement the Relocation Benefits Program.
Mayor Roth then asked Ms. Hoffman to make her summation and rebuttal.
Ms. Hoffman stated their intent all along was to provide a reasonable estimate
of costs. The booklet they presented stated the two alternatives for
relocation and she offered a third today. If costs were greater in some
instances, it would not be a cost to the tenant, but one the developer would
absorb. They did not receive copies of Mr. Smith's new estimates, so were
216
Cit~ Hall; Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 13~. 1984, 10:00 A.M.
unable to evaluate those. Further, as she stated before, they did not feel
the lawsuit was part of the requested action, but if they had any questions
about that lawsuit, their attorney was present and could respond. It was the
intent of the relocation benefit to provide assistance to tenants in a way
that no other tenants in the City had an opportunity to participate in. If
they had an apartment building that had to be torn down for some reason, the
residents in the apartment would not have the relocation assistance benefits.
The Mobile Home Park Overlay was designed to provide such assistance and they
felt the program as outlined provided that. Their efforts were to meet the
intent of the Code and to assist in the plight of the residents.
Councilman Overholt stated that he felt Mr. Smith was concerned with the
people who owned the older coaches who might be better off financially taking
the total of actual costs of tear-down and set-up in dollars and then
investing those someplace else. He asked if they would be willing to pay
those costs in lieu of relocating those coaches.
Ms. Hoffman stated that was the program as presently designed; Mayor Roth
asked if she was stipulating to that.
Ms. Hoffman stated that the program defined it in that way.
Councilman Overholt asked Mr. Smith if he agreed with Ms. Hoffman where the
tenants might be better off taking the money rather than an equivalent coach;
Mr. Smith answered that he did not understand when Ms. Hoffman stated it, but
he would accept that position.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Councilman Overholt asked Mr. Phil Schwartze, who was present in the Council
Chambers, what his capacity was in representing whomever he was representing;
Mr. Phillip Schwartze, 31211 Casa Grande, San Juan Capistrano, stated that he
was the mediator and had yet to accomplish as much as the Council and the
people did in about one-half hour today. His mediation was for the purpose of
negotiation.
Councilman Pickler then asked Ms. Hoffman if they would be willing to add to
the relocation benefits the ~940 bonus previously offered.
Ms. Hoffman answered that they would have to consider that, since there were
certain advantages to offering the bonus at the time it was offered. After
conferring with the applicant, she stated it was his feeling that basically
the reason for the ~940 was to solve a problem before it became one. Given
the fact that the lawsuits were underway and they had to fund those costs, and
the conveniences that would have been provided had been lost, the answer was,
"no". The ~940 was an attempt to create an opportunity for tenants to
relocate conveniently and early and to solve a problem, but they did not take
advantage of the offer.
Councilman Pickier stated he would like to see the ~940 added to the other
figures.
217
City Hail~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 13, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Roth, 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, and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to
prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Pickler offered resolutions of approval on both the
reclassification and conditional use permit with the stipulation that the ~940
bonus payment previously offered by the developer be paid to the tenants.
Before any action was taken, the Mayor asked if the $940 was reinstated, what
time frame they were looking for relative to the tenants vacating the park.
Councilman Overholt stated the problem with the proposal was the fact that the
$940 was to motivate tenants to move earlier than they otherwise might have,
but some of the tenants might want to string that time out as long as
possible. What they were suggesting was that Ms. Hoffman stipulate that any
tenant who agreed to move out by a certain date would get a bonus. He added
if the developer so stipulated, he would support their request.
Ms. Hoffman stated that another aspect or condition in offering the ~940
previously had to do with the withdrawal of the lawsuits as well.
Councilman Overholt asked if there was a way that the lawsuit could be settled
right now; the Mayor suggested a recess.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for ten minutes. (3:31 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (3:43 p.m.)
Since no decision had been reached, the matter was trailed to later in the
meeting.
Later in the meeting (4:02 p.m.), Mr. Phil Schwartze stated it appeared that
they had a handshake agreement. Both the landowners and the tenants had
agreed that the ~940 would be a part of the offer. If the tenants moved by
the end of the month (March) they would receive the full ~940. That figure
would be reduced by $235 each succeeding calendar month up to the sixth
month. Additionally, ail suits would be dropped on all parties. Further,
there was some discussion during the break that this was a matter-of-fact way
of changing the ordinance and he was simply noting that for Council thought.
He concluded, it would appear that they had concluded negotiations.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution Nos. 84R-103 and 84R-104 for adoption,
approving Reclassification No. 81-82-5 and granting Conditional Use Permit No.
2259, respectively, reversing the findings of the City Planning Commission,
but subject to all Interdepartmental Recommendations as amended by the
Planning staff at the meeting as follows:
218
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 13, 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
1. That the owner of subject property by recorded deed shall irrevocably
offer to deed to the City of Anaheim a strip of land 45 feet in width from the
centerline of the street along Orangewood Avenue for street widening purposes.
2. That all engineering requirements of the City of Anaheim along Manchester
Avenue, including preparation of improvement plans and installation of ail
improvements such as curbs and gutters, sidewalks, street grading and
pavement, sewer and drainage facilities, or other appurtenant work shall be
complied with as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with
specifications on file in the Office of the City Engineer; and that security
in the form of a bond, certificate of deposit, letter of credit, or cash, in
an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim, shall be posted with
the City to guarantee the satisfactory completion of said improvements. Said
security shall be posted with the City prior to introduction of the ordinance
rezoning the property, to guarantee the installation of the above-required
improvements prior to occupancy.
3. That street lighting facilities along Manchester Avenue shall be installed
as required by the Utilities General Manager in accordance with specifications
on file in the Office of Utilities General Manager, and that security in the
form of a bond, certificate of deposit, letter of credit, or cash, in an
amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim, shall be posted with the
City to guarantee the satisfactory completion of the above-mentioned
improvements. Said security shall be posted with the City of Anaheim prior to
introduction of the ordinance rezoning the property. The above-required
improvements shall be installed prior to occupancy.
4. That the owner of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim a fee
for tree planting purposes along Orangewood Avenue and Manchester Avenue in an
amount as determined by the City Council.
5. That completion of these reclassification proceedings is contingent upon
the granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 2259.
6. That a deed restriction shall be recorded whereby no structures shall be
constructed within 85 feet of the existing centerline of Orangewood Avenue.
Said deed restriction shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney
prior to recordation.
7. That vehicular access rights to the public alley to the west of subject
property shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim.
8(a). That the owner(s) of the subject property shall pay to each resident who
currently owns a permanent mobilehome as identified in the conversion impact
report, relocation benefits in the respective amounts as set forth on Exhibit
"A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, plus ~940 to
those owners who relocate by March 31, 1984, or ~710 to those who relocate by
April 30, 1984, or ~480 to those who relocate by May 31, 1984, or ~250 to
those who relocate by June 30, 1984; or such other benefits as mutually agreed
upon.between the park owner and the mobilehome owner. Said relocation
benefits shall be paid to each resident who currently owns a permanent
mobilehome, and proof thereof submitted to City in a form satisfactory to the
City Attorney.
219
City.. Hall, Anahe.~m~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March .!3~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
(b). That the amount of said relocation benefits payable to each resident who
currently owns a permanent mobilehome pursuant to subparagraph (a) above, set
forth on Exhibit "A", shall be increased by an amount equal to any increase in
the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, All
Items, Los Angeles-Long Beach Metropolitan Area (1967=100), published by the
United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics ("Index"), which
is published nearest to the date of this resolution as compared to the index
most recently published prior to the date of payment of said relocation
benefits. (c). That the owner of the subject property shall post a
performance bond in an amount and form satisfactory to the City Attorney to
guarantee the payment of said relocation benefits.
9. That prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject property,
all the conditions above-mentioned shall be completed. The provisions or
rights granted by this resolution shall become null and void by action of the
City Council unless said conditions are complied with within one year from the
date of this resolution, or such further time as the City Council may grant.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2259 granted subject to the following conditions:
1. That this conditional use permit is granted subject to the completion of
Reclassification No. 81-82-5. No Building permit shall be issued authorizing
any use or building permitted pursuant to this conditional use permit until
following adoption of the rezoning ordinance in Reclassification No. 81-82-5.
2. That sidewalks shall be installed along Manchester Avenue and Orangewood
Avenue as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with standard plans
and specifications on file in the Office of the City Engineer.
3. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved
plans on file with the Street Maintenance and Sanitation Division.
4. That prior to commencement of structural framing, fire hydrants shall be
installed and charged as required and determined to be necessary by the Chief
of the Fire Department.
5. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
6. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner
satisfactory to the City Engineer.
7. That prior to issurance 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 new commercial buildings.
8. That the proposed driveway on Orangewood Avenue shall be relocated
westerly as approved by the City Traffic Engineer.
9. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications.on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos.
1 through 4.
220
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 13, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
10. That prior to final buildings and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 2, 3,
4, 5, 6, 8 and 9, above-mentioned, shall be complied with.
Approval was also subject to the applicant stipulating to adding a third
alternative for relocation, that in the event there were coaches in the park
incapable of being moved in the judgment of the wholesale coach mover, they
would provide a replacement coach of equivalent value and, further, that the
$940 "bonus" payment previously offered by the developer be paid to the
tenants, with the full $940 to be paid if the tenant moved by the end of
March, and that payment to be reduced by $235 each suceeding calendar month up
to six months.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-103: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF
CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED. (81-82-5)
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-104: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2259.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolutions.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickier and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 84R-103 and 84R-104 duly passed and adopted.
Before concluding, Councilman Bay noted that American National Properties had
also requested to use the remaining spaces in the park for RV purposes until
they were ready to build.
Miss Santaiahti clarified that the request was not covered in the resolutions;
Councilman Overholt asked if such a request presented any problems in terms of
adequate facilities being provided.
Miss Santalahti answered that she had not discussed the matter with the
Building Division, but assumed it would be acceptable, presuming there was no
problem relative to the infrastructure and that adequate laundry facilities,
restrooms, etc., could be provided.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to approve the request of American National
Properties that they could fill any vacant spaces in the mobilehome park with
RV's until pending plans were finalized, or a maximum of one year, providing
that, and subject to, staff approval that the infrastructure was adequate to
do so. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
221
City Hall~ Anah~.~m~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March.. 13, 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2523 (READVERTISED):
Application submitted by Atlantic Richfield Company, (Arco Service Station),
to permit a convenience market with gasoline sales and off-sale beer and wine
on ML zoned property located at 1801 South State College Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-9 and pursuant
to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, 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 Conditional
Use Permit No. 2523.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Wallace R. Davis,
Attorney for the applicant, and public hearing scheduled this date.
City Clerk Linda Roberts announced that a letter dated March 7, 1984, had been
received from Mr. Davis requesting a continuance to April 3, 1984.
The Mayor asked if anyone was present to speak.
Mr. Charles Curtis, Cohen, Stokke and Davis, 540 North Golden Circle, Santa
Ana, explained that the matter was being handled by Mr. Davis, who was unable
to be present today, and the reason for his request for continuance.
No one else was present to speak to the issue.
MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to continue the public hearing on
Conditional Use Permit No. 2523 (Readvertised) to Tuesday, April 3, 1984, at
1:30 p.m. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 83-7A: In accordance with application
filed by Robert Stevens, public hearing was held on proposed abandonment of a
portion of a public utility easement dedicated to the City for electrical
purposes located at 603 West Victor Avenue, pursuant to Resolution No. 84R-64,
duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin, and notices thereof posted in
accordance with law.
Report of the City Engineer dated January 27, 1984, was submitted recommending
approval of said abandonment.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: The City Engineer also
determined that the proposed activity fails within the definition of Section
3.01, Class 5, of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the requirement for an
Environmental Impact Report, and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the
requirement to file an EIR.
Mayor Roth asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no
response, he closed the public hearing.
222
Cit~ Ha!!~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 13~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 84R-99 for adoption, approving
Abandonment No. 83-7A. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-99: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM VACATING A PORTION OF AN EASEMENT LOCATED ON VICTOR AVENUE, WEST OF
HARBOR BOULEVARD. (83-7A)
Roll Call Vote:
AYE S:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickier and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-99 duly passed and adopted.
176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 83-11A: In accordance with application
filed by John Wielenga, public hearing was held on proposed abandonment of two
former Southern California Edison Company electrical utility easements
acquired by the City, as successor, located east of Sharon Circle, south of
Ball Road, pursuant to Resolution No. 84R-65, duly published in the Anaheim
Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance with law.
Report of the City Engineer dated January 26, 1984, was submitted recommending
approval of said abandonment.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: The City Engineer also
determined that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section
3.01, Class 5, of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the requirement for an
Environmental Impact Report, and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the
requirement to file an EIR.
Mayor Roth asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no
response, he closed the public hearing.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 84R-100 for adoption, approving
Abandonment No. 83-11A. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-100: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM VACATING CERTAIN EASEMENTS LOCATED EAST OF SSIARON CIRCLE, SOUTH OF
BALL ROAD. (83-11A)
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-100 duly passed and adopted.
176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 83-12A: In accordance with application
filed by Edwin Meserve, public hearing was held on proposed abandonment of
vehicular access rights to Sycamore Street, east of State College Boulevard,
223
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 13~ 1.984, 10:00 A.M.
pursuant to Resolution No. 84R-66, duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and
notices thereof posted in accordance with law.
Report of the City Engineer dated January 23, 1984, was submitted recommending
approval of said abandonment.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: The City Engineer also
determined that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section
3.01, Class 5, of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the requirement for an
Environmental Impact Report, and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the
requirement to file an EIR.
Mayor Roth asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no
response, he closed the public hearing.
Councilman Pickier offered Resolution No. 84R-101 for adoption, approving
Abandonment No. 83-12A. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-101: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAKEIM VACATING VEHICULAR ACCESS RIGHTS TO SYCAMORE STREET, EAST OF STATE
COLLEGE BOULEVARD. (83-12A)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-101 duly passed and adopted.
176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 83-13A: In accordance with application
filed by Karl G. Mehalick, public hearing was held on proposed abandonment of
a former Southern California Edison Company electrical utility easement
acquired by the City, as successor, located west of Marion Way, south of
Savanna Street, pursuant to Resolution No. 84R-67, duly published in the
Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance with law.
Report of the City Engineer dated January 26, 1984, was submitted recommending
approval of said abandonment.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: The City Engineer also
determined that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section
3.01, Class 5, of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the requirement for an
Environmental Impact Report, and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the
requirement to file an EIR.
Mayor Roth asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no
response, he closed the public hearing.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 84R-102 for adoption, approving
Abandonment No. 83-13A. Refer to Resolution Book.
224
City Hall~ Anaheim, California- COUNC. IL MINUTES - March. 13.~ .!984~ 10:00 A.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-102: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM VACATING A CERTAIN EASEMENT LOCATED WEST OF MARION WAY, SOUTH OF
SAVANNA STREET. (83-13A)
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-102 duly passed and adopted.
179: ORDINANCE NOS. 4489 THROUGH 4491: Councilwoman Kaywood offered
Ordinance Nos. 4489 through 4491, both inclusive, for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4489: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFER_RED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
(83-84-10, RM-1200, 115 South Ohio Street)
ORDINANCE NO. 4490: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
(83-84-14, RM-3000, south side of Crescent Avenue, north side of Alameda
Avenue, west of Muller Street, Tract 10102)
ORDINANCE NO. 4491: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
(82-83-23, CL(SC), easterly of the terminus of La Palma Avenue, on the north
by AT&SF RR, on the west by Tract No. 9169, and on the south by the Santa Ana
River, Shorb Wells)
114: NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES CONFERENCE - WASHINGTON~ D.C. - MARCH 3
THROUGH 6, 1984: Council Members Pickier, Overholt and Roth then briefed some
of the events that took place at the subject conference, which they agreed was
very worthwhile and advantageous for the City and citizens of Anaheim.
Councilman Overholt commended Cindy Cave, Intergovernmental Relations Officer,
who coordinated the efforts of the City's delegation.
183: RECOMMENDATION OF THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BOARD: Councilman Bay
referred to a letter dated March 24, 1984, from Mr. John Flocken, Chairman of
the Industrial Development Board, recommending that appropriate departments
provide input to the Board (letter on file in the City Clerk's office). He
felt it would be good to get advice from the Board on matters ragarding
industrial sectors of the community, but he did not want to set up a new chain
that would delay the flow process. He asked the Council reread the letter and
that the matter be discussed at the next Council meeting on Tuesday, March 20,
1984; Councilwoman Kaywood also asked for staff input relative to the
recommendation.
AMTRAK STATION: Mayor Roth asked the City Manager to give an update at the
next meeting relative to repair of the roof and when the station would be in
full operation.
225
City Hall, Anaheim~ California -..COUNCIL MINUTES - March 13,. 1984, 10:00 A.M.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2533 AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION: Application submitted by King-Seeley Thermos Co., to permit a
Salvation Army Adult Rehabilitation Center, including a 150-bed men's
residence and treatment center and a work therapy unit, on ML zoned property
located at 1300 South Lewis Street, with Code waiver of minimum number of
parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-23, 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. 2533, subject to the following conditions:
1. 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 (dormitory room) in
the men's residence.
2. That the owner of subject property shall, by recorded deed, irrevocably
offer to deed to the City of Anaheim a strip of land 45 feet in width from the
centerline of the street along Lewis Street for street widening purposes.
3. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner
satisfactory to the City Engineer. All water shall be picked up on-site and
not allowed to drain into Lewis Street unless otherwise approved by the City
Engineer.
4. That prior to commencement of structural framing, fire hydrants shall be
installed and charged as required and determined to be necessary by the Chief
of the Fire Department.
5. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved
plans on file with the Street Maintenance and Sanitation Division.
6. That the vehicular access rights, except at approved access points, to
Lewis Street shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim.
7. That the on-site street shall be a private street, however, if dedication
of the street is anticipated in the future, it shall be constructed to public
street standards with a minimum right-of-way of 60 feet.
8. That prior to issuance of a building permit, appropriate water assessment
fees shall be paid to the City of Anaheim, in an amount as determined by the
Office of the Utilities General Manager.
9. That gates shall not be installed across any driveway or private street in
a manner which may adversely affect vehicular traffic in the adjacent public
streets. Installation of any gates within a distance of forty (40) feet from
said public street rights-of-way shall be subject to the review and approval
of the City Traffic Engineer.
226
Cit~.Hall~ Anahei.m, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 13.~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
10. That all engineering requirements of the City of Anaheim along Lewis
Street, including preparation of improvement plans and installation of ail
improvements such as curbs and gutters, sidewalks, street grading and
pavement, sewer and drainage facilities, or other appurtenant work shall be
complied with as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with
specifications on file in the Office of the City Engineer. Said security
shall be posted with the City prior to issuance of building permits, to
guarantee the installation of the above-required improvements prior to
occupancy.
11. That the men's residential facility shall be sprinklered as required by
the Fire Marshall.
12. That prior to issuance of a building permit, a plan indicating~ adequate
trash and fire access shall be submitted and approved by the Street
Maintenance and Sanitation Division and the Fire Department.
13. 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. 2, 6, and 10, 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.
14. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos.
1 through 5.
15. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 3, 5,
9, 11 and 14, above-mentioned, shall be complied with.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Dale F. Kinseila,
Attorney for Kilroy Industries, and a public hearing scheduled this date.
A letter dated March 6, 1984, from Mr. Floyd Farano, representing Potters
Industries, Inc., had been received, requesting a continuance of the public
hearing to March 20, 1984.
City Clerk Roberts noted that Mr. Montejano, Attorney for the Salvation Army,
indicated that he wanted the public hearing to take place today.
Before proceeding, Mayor Roth explained that he was a Board Membar of the
Salvation Army and had been for many years. He had submitted a letter of
resignation to the Board that was not accepted. Although he would prefer to
participate in the hearing, he felt it would be in the best interest to get a
ruling from the City Attorney.
City Attorney Hopkins stated he had reviewed the matter and Board membership
did give him some authority to engage in decisions. Although there would be
no financial impact involved, he recommended that the Mayor abstain, because
of a possible conflict.
227
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 13, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Overholt stated he had exactly the contrary advice, that if there
was no economic benefit, there was no conflict of interest.
Mr. Hopkins stated that the Mayor was not obligated under the Fair Political
Practices Commission to abstain. However, being a member of the Board gave
the appearance of some conflict. It was a decision for the Mayor to make.
Mr. Rudy Montejano, Attorney for the Salvation Army, clarified that Mayor Roth
was a member of the Advisory Board and not the governing board.
After further discussion relative to the Mayor abstaining on the issue, City
Attorney Hopkins recommended that, with an abundance of caution, he (Roth)
should refrain from participating, but repeated that he could not direct the
Mayor to do so.
Councilman Roth left the Council Chambers. (4:25 p.m.)
Mayor Pro Tem Pickier, assumed chairmanship of the meeting, referred to the
request for continuance, and asked to hear from Mr. Farano relative to his
request.
Mr. Floyd Farano, 100 South Anaheim Boulevard, explained that he was retained
as the attorney for Potters Industries one week ago yesterday. Due to the
short period of time, they were requesting that the Council extend the hearing
to March 20, 1984, to give him adequate time to prepare for the hearing. He
understood that the Salvation Army was opposing the continuance and he
regretted any inconvenience, but felt that the Council would agree that it was
a sensitive subject and in order to make an intelligent decision, there were
many issues that had to be considered. There was an effect not only on the
Salvation Army, but also ali other property owners in the area. He was still
requesting a continuance.
Councilman Bay asked to hear from the appellant, Kilroy Industries, since they
were paying for the hearing.
Mr. Donald Pehrson, Vice President of Kilroy Industries, owners of property at
1230 South Lewis Street, stated he also wished to request a continuance of the
hearing to March 20, 1984, the reason being that first of all, Mr. Kinsella
(their attorney) could not be present today and, further, that they had a
meeting with officers of the Salvation Army and, although he could not predict
the outcome, they would like to have another week to possibly work out an
arrangement between the Salvation Army and his company. Given that time, they
could possibly withdraw their appeal. He respectfully requested a one-week
continuance. He then clarified for the Mayor Pro Tem that they were opposed
to residential uses of industrial property, but considering the applicant and
trying to be a cooperative neighbor, they were meeting with them and he had
every reason to believe they could come to an agreement. However, they would
like to reduce any agreement to.writing so that there would be no
misunderstanding.
228
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 13, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Mr. Rudolfo Montejano, 888 West Santa Ana Boulevard, Santa Ana, Attorney
representing the Salvation Army (the "Army") stated, speaking only to the
issue of the request for continuance, that the Army would be prejudiced in
this instance if the continuance were granted. There was a 350,000 payment
due next Tuesday and they did not want to make that payment unless they had
full assurance that they had a project approved by the Council. Involved was
a ~5.5 million escrow and they could not afford to lose that property simply
because they took a chance on waiting one more week. It was an important
project for the Army. Secondly, there were residents of the City present
today on the issue, as well as business people, and he was hesitant to bring
them back again. There was also a matter of legal fees involved. They had no
problem relative to the noise factor and the Army did not object to the
operations of Potters Industries. He also did not believe that Potters was a
proper party to the action. For those reasons, and there were others, the
continuance should be denied. Another week would be a waste of money and an
imposition.
Councilman Overholt asked Mr. Montejano his feeling about Mr. Pehrson's
request; Mr. Montejano answered that he felt any action should be taken on Mr.
Pehrson's request, and not the request of Potters Industries. He asked for
time to confer with Mr. Pherson.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess into Closed
Session. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Councilman Bay voted
"No." Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED. (4:41 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor Pro Tem called the meeting to order, all Council
Members being present with the exception of Councilman Roth. (5:05 p.m.)
Mr. Montejano reported that in the interim, he met briefly with Mr. Pehrson
and he (Montejano) was of the opinion they could possibly stipulate to certain
conditions that would relieve their fears. It turned out, however, that they
had no specific concerns and were unable to give specific reasons for wanting
those conditions. He asked that Council deny the request for continuance.
Mr. Farano asked for a ruling from the City Attorney. He wanted to know where
Potters Industries would stand in their continued opposition if an agreement
could be reached where Kilroy might withdraw their appeal.
After further discussion, the City Attorney stated if the Council granted a
continuance and the matter was resolved in some other way, Mr. Farano and
Potters would have to come in with an action of some kind to try to get the
Council to reconsider.
Mr. Farano, in that case, replied they wanted the hearing to take place today.
Mr. Pehrson stated he still wanted the continuance and his first priority was
to induce the Council to vote for the continuance. He felt they had enough
information to rule on the request for continuance. Kilroy had an earnest
concern and because of the applicant, they wanted to do what was right. He
clarified for Mayor Pro Tem Pickler that he was not prepared to testify at the
public hearing scheduled today, since he was not a lawyer, and if Potters
Industries had not requested a continuance, he would have done so.
229
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 13, 1~84, 10:00 A.M.
After additional discussion relative to the continuance, Councilman Bay moved
that the public hearing be continued to Tuesday, March 20, 1984, at 1:30 p.m.
Councilman Overholt seconded the motion for the purpose of discussion.
Discussion followed revolving around the $50,000 payment that had to be made
by the Salvation Army on Tuesday, March 20, 1984, which also involved a time
difference, since the payment was due on the East Coast.
Councilman Bay amended his motion that the matter be continued to Tuesday,
March 20, 1984, at 10:15 a.m., instead of 1:30 p.m. Councilman Overholt
seconded the motion. Council Members Pickler Kaywood and Overholt voted
"No." Councilman Roth was absent. The motion failed to carry.
Mayor Pro Tem Pickier asked to hear from Mr. Pehrson.
Mr. Pehrson stated he would rest his case on their opposition to residential
uses in industrially zoned areas. He emphasized, however, that they felt the
applicant was a very fine one.
Councilman Overholt asked if there was any way in which his concerns could be
resolved, or was it a philosophical position of Kilroy that the uses could not
be mixed.
Mr. Pehrson stated that he would hate to paint a picture that could turn out
badly. Kilroy was endeavoring to do something and there were a number of
items, but he did not want to discuss them publicly. Hopefully, by the end of
the week, they could reduce something to writing. They had opposed the
request of the Salvation Army and were continuing to do so. In the interest
of harmony, everything else had to be a side comment.
Mr. Floyd Farano then gave his presentation, explaining first that Potters
Industries had been located in Anaheim for 28 years. He then briefed the
Council on the products manufactured by Potters on a 24-hour a day basis,
involving processes utilizing four blast furnaces, large fans, compressors,
etc. He also explained the type of noise generated which they felt was not
compatible with residential uses. Further, on two separate occasions, not at
the subject site, Potters Industries had been forced to discontinue two of its
shifts because of night-time noise. Because it was not economical to operate
the plant on a one-shift basis, they closed the entire plant. That situation
was due to the fact that residential uses were close by. He then submitted a
booklet (made a part of the record) showing the location of Potters and other
companies in the area, basically surrounding the proposed site. He
particularly emphasized the noise factors, which were a part of industrial
uses, including the fact that the main track of the Santa Fe Railroad cut
across the area, further contributing to the noise factor. His main emphasis
was that the residential use proposed did not belong on that site. It was not
a healthy atmosphere for the people who were going to be housed in the
facility. Also, Potters was presently negotiating for another use on the
remaining property at their site, that use being an asphalt reclamation plant.
230
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 13~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Mr. Farano also had questions relative to some of the information contained in
the staff report, one relating to a fence to be constructed around the men's
quarters to prevent people from getting into that area, which he submitted was
more to keep people in than out. He also questioned the number of full-time
Salvation Army employees to be on the site. In talking to a representative of
the applicant, he was told that only one or two people would be on site, and
the rest would be patients or clients. He did not know if that was true, but
felt that if the Council considered any kind of favorable action, that some
strong conditions and considerations be given to having full time people on
the premises.
Councilwoman Kaywood surmised that the concern was that Potters was going to
have complaints from the Salvation Army because of the residential hall. She
asked ~r. Farano's reaction if the Salvation Army gave Potters an agreement in
writing that they would not complain about noise.
Mr. Farano stated that theY had explored that and he explained to his client
what the Salvation Army was willing to do. Their response was, could they be
assured it was not going to happen. The City could not give up its right to
say they would never prosecute Potters. It was not binding on the City, Air
Quality Management, or Federal authorities. Further, the complaints might
come from those going through the rehabilitation program. There was nothing
whereby they could be assured from a legal standpoint that they would never
have such a problem.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated if Potters were to move in after the Salvation
Army was located on that site, she could see where that would be valid. Since
they were there at the present time, and Mr. Farano brought out and spread on
the ~ecord the kind of noise made and that they operated 24 hours a day, if
the Salvation Army was willing to say they would never complain about the
noise from Potters, that would be established in the record; Mr. Farano
expressed his concern that although he understood, he felt it would have
little effect. Further, the Conditional Use Permit ran with the land, and if
the Salvation Army sold to someone else, it would not be binding upon any
subsequent owner.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she believed the CUP could be approved with the
particular applicant and not go to a subsequent purchaser, since they had done
that before.
There being no further persons who wished to speak in opposition, the Mayor
Pro Tem asked to hear from the applicant.
Mr. Montejano stated that it came down to a question of noise on the part of
Potters. They were making the argument that they would have an adverse effect
231
Cit~ Hall, Ana.heim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 13, 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
on the Salvation Army. The Army was aware of the businesses and industries in
the area, as well as the railroads, UPS and other surrounding businesses, and
were still willing to go in and build. The facility would be designed,
located, engineered and constructed in accordance with Code in order to
minimize many of the problems raised by Mr. Farano. They did not feel there
was a problem, and if they did not feel so, it was not for someone else to say
that they did. They would stipulate that they would not complain about the
present activities of Potters Industries, nor complain of the future
operations of Potters. They would not take the position that Potters would
have an adverse effect on the operation of the Salvation Army. They would
have the record put before a judge or before the Council, showing this was
what they agreed to, and they were going to be held to their word. They were
making that assurance to the Council, the residents of the area and Potters
Industries.
Councilwoman Kaywood interjected and asked if he heard anything that Mr.
Farano said today that was new and different, or if there was anything with
regard to that site that came to his attention for the first time.
Mr. Montejano answered, "no," and reiterated that the Army was fully aware of
any potential problems or adverse effects arising from the operation of
Potters. The Army was willing to go on to the site and operate. The
residential building would have to be built according to all Codes and
regulations.
Mayor Pro Tem Pickier asked staff if the Code was strong enough so that the
building after construction would prevent noises from penetrating the
residential areas.
Miss Santalahti stated that their requirements specifically identified
residential areas, apartments, condominiums and single-family houses. They
did not consider things such as motels and staff's approach on the subject was
that the proposal, even though permanent housing, the occupants were not going
to be permanently located on the site. They, therefore, had no specific
concern. If it was an apartment project or the like, there would be Building
Code regulations pertaining to things like double-paned windows to mitigate
the noise. For this type of use, they would not require that automatically.
Additional questions were posed to Mr. Montejano by Council Members relative
to their operations of other such centers. Councilman Bay referred to a
comment by Mr. Farano as to the possibility of a retail thrift store outlet
eventually being established on the property. He explained that one of the
problems with intrusion into industrial zoning had been retail operations, and
there was considerable opposition across the City to retail within
industrial. He asked Mr. Montejano if it was their intention to ever put a
retail store at the proposed location.
Mr. Montejano answered that at present, their downtown Santa Ana site had a
retail store and it was the intent of the Army to keep it and/or to relocate
it within Santa Ana. In the future, it may be the desire to open a retail
operation at the Anaheim site. If there was such a desire or need, they would
come back to the City for approval.
232
City Hall, Anaheim,. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 13,. 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
Miss Santalahti confirmed for Councilman Bay that the addition of retail sales
in the industrial area would require a CUP and a hearing. The ordinance
presently allowed for accessory retail sales for any products manufactured on
the premises. If not manufactured at the site, they would not permit it.
They did not consider repaired items as having been manufactured on site and
they would have to come back, even for retail sales of 20 percent.
Councilman Bay noted that Mr. Montejano stipulated that they were not going to
complain about the noise from Potters. The appellant, however, was Kilroy
Industries, who, he assumed, owned industrial property in that area. In the
same locale where other companies, such as UPS, the railroad, etc. He asked
if Mr. Montejano could give the same stipulation, knowing the sound problems,
that the Army would not instigate complaints on those activities. He was
asking for that stipulation, because he listened to Mr. Farano's argument
being one of proper land use and he did not think there was anyone on the
Council that would agree that with the noise levels probable in that area,
that this was good land use for residential purposes. He felt with Kilroy's
concerns and Potters, as well as the whole industrial community, that the Army
would not have impacts on them, but they would have impacts on the Army. If
he (Montejano) could give them a statement, realizing ail those impacts, and
if they could set the Conditional Use Permit up to the tenant, the Salvation
Army, perhaps that would solve most of the fears of the industrial community.
Mr. Montejano stated that was a fair request and they would agree as a
condition in the Conditional Use Permit that the Army was presently aware of
all of the industrial operations in that area, all of the activities, all of
the potential problems they might raise for the Army's activities. They were
stipulating as a condition of the CUP that the Salvation Army would not raise
a complaint against those activities.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Bay, the City Council finds 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 is, therefore,
exempt from the requirement to prepare and EIR. Councilman Roth was absent.
MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 84R-105 for adoption, approving
Conditional Use Permit No. 2533, subject to all City Planning Commission
conditions, subject to the foregoing stipulation made by Mr. Montejano that no
complaints will be raised against present and future activities occurring in
that industrial area, and that the Conditional Use Permit be limited solely
and exclusively to the Salvation Army. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-105: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2533.
233