1984/04/17!85
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 17~ 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, Pickler and Roth
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: Jim Ruth
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
PUBLIC UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER: Gordon Hoyt
ACTING CITY ENGINEER: Arthur L. Daw
Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Reverend Louis Rohrs, Trinity United Methodist Church, gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Ben Bay led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
119: RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A Resolution of Congratulations was
unanimously adopted by the City Council to be presented to Georgia Frontiere,
Owner of the Los Angeles Rams Football Team, upon receiving the Boy Scouts of
America "Vincent T. Lombardi Varsity Scouting Hall of Fame Award". The
resolution was to be presented to Mrs. Frontiere on Monday, April 23, 1984 in
Los Angeles.
119: RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION: A Resolution of Commendation was
unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to Mr. Jim Brinton,
President of the Anaheim Senior Citizens Club Inc. in appreciation and
commendation for their 25 years of service to the older residents of Anaheim.
119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Roth
and authorized by the City Council:
Professional Secretaries Week in Anaheim, April 22-28, 1984.
Good Friday Observance Day in Anaheim, April 20, 1984.
Federation Day in Anaheim, April 24, 1984.
Tania Annenkoff, President of the Orange Empire Chapter, accepted the
Professional Secretaries Week proclamation; Earl Nellesen, Chairman, accepted
the Good Friday Observance Day proclamation, and Louise Palmer, President of
the Anaheim Ebell Club, accepted the Federation Day in Anaheim proclamation.
119: RESOLUTION OF CONDOLENCE: A Resolution of Condolence was unanimously
adopted by the City Council to be presented to the family of Sergeant Roy
Records on his and his two grandaughters tragic passing last week. Sergeant
Records was a 26-year veteran of the Anaheim Police Department, a man who was
loved and respected by all those who knew him.
430
186
Cit~ Hall~ Anahetm~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 17~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
114: SISTER CITY COMMITTEE - INTRODUCTION: June Lowry and Charlotte Brady,
Sister City Committee, introduced Julietta Orhler, the 1984 Benihana Sister
City Scholarship recipient, and Christy Lavoy, Sister City Olympic Youth
Legacy Torch Carrier, who were present in the Chambers audience.
MINUTES: Approval of the minutes was deferred to the next regular meeting.
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 AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of 32,445,374.34, in
accordance with the 1983-84 Budget, were approved.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Pickler,
seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the following items were approved in
accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each
Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Councilman Pickler
offered Resolution Nos. 84R-142 through 84R-148, both inclusive, for
adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
1. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as
recommended:
A. Claims rejected and referred to Risk Management:
1. Claim submitted by Jeanette Obrymski for personal injury damages
sustained purportedly due to a trip-and-fall accident caused by unsafe steps
of a Monaco Motor Home at the Convention Center Recreational Vehicle Show, on
or about January 14, 1984.
2. Claim submitted by Vincent J. Smith for personal property damages
sustained purportedly due to a City-owned tractor backing into claimant's car
parked in front of 518 North Hampton Street, on or about February 28, 1984.
3. Claim submitted by Mr. & Mrs. William Rogers for personal property
damages to appliances sustained purportedly due to an overloaded transformer
at 1432 Blossom Lane, on or about December 27, 1983.
4. Claim submitted by Gregg McKay and William Rtvera for personal injury
damages sustained purportedly due to negligence on the part of the City in not
providing adequate security at Anaheim Stadium, on or about November 20, 1983.
5. Claim submitted by Audrey J. Arnce for personal injury damages
sustained purportedly due to negligence on the part of the City in the design
of Nohl Ranch Road in the City of Orange and not controlling dirt hauling
trucks using roadway, on or about November 28, 1983.
431
188
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April..17~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
6. Claim submitted by Barbara Helen Lutz for personal injury damages
sustained purportedly due to an accident in which a City-owned vehicle caused
an OCTD bus on which claimant was a passenger to stop suddenly on Lincoln
Avenue near the intersection of Gilbert Street, on or about January 11, 1984.
7. Claim submitted by Donald R. Peterson for unlawful arrest by Anaheim
officers at Angels Inn Motel, East Katella, on or about February 28, 1984.
B. Deny application of leave to present late claim:
8. Application for leave to present a late claim submitted by Sean
Patrick Therien for personal injury damages sustained purportedly due to lack
of attendants and ushers at Anaheim Stadium, on or about April 28, 1983.
2. The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 156: Police Department--Monthly Report for February 1984.
b. 105: Youth Commission--Minutes of March 14, 1984.
c. 107: Planning Department, Building Division--Monthly Report for
March 1984.
d. 105: Public Utilities Board--Minutes of March 15, and April 5, 1984
(unapproved).
e. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission--Minutes of March 14, 1984.
3. 123: Authorizing a first amendment to a License Agreement with California
Services Corporation, dba California Auto Dealers Exchange, to provide a
90-day term for subsurface investigation of groundwater contaminants at 1310
North Tustin Avenue.
4. 106(84-85)/174(CDBG): Approving the Proposed Statement of Community
Development Objectives and Projected Use of Funds in the amount of $2,746,300
for the 1984/85 Block Grant Program.
5. 160: Accepting the low bid of Siemens-Allis, Inc., Switchgear Division,
in the amount of $211,324.78 for one outdoor metal-clad switchgear equipment
and one set 1200-amp disconnect fingers for Sharp Substation, in accordance
with Bid No. 4079.
6. 160: Accepting the low bid of Rafferty International in the amount of
$94,211.96 for three 34,000# G.V.W. Tilt Cab/Chassis, in accordance with Bid
No. 4089.
7. 167: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-142: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE LOARA HIGH SCHOOL TENNIS COURT
LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 16-838-7103 and
24-838-7103. (Dewco, $52,862)
432
184
Ci.t~ Hall~ Anaheim,. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 17~ .1984~ 10:00 A.M.
8. 150: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-143: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE 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. (Warvi Construction, Inc., $123,300)
9. 139: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-144: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM SUPPORTING PROPOSITION 18 WHICH PLACES BEFORE THE VOTERS OF
CALIFORNIA JUNE 5, 1984 A BOND MEASURE TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR PARKS AND
RECREATIONAL LAND ACQUISITION, DEVELOPMENT AND OTHER RELATED PURPOSES.
10. 123/174: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-145: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF
ORANGE. (CDBG Shared Housing Program for the Elderly, extending the term to
April 1, 1985)
11. 123: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-146: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE
ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR THE ACQUISITION AND SALE OF CERTAIN REAL
PROPERTY. (located at 210 West Oak Street and 118 South Clementine Street and
authorizing execution of grant deed therefor)
12. 131: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-147: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE URBAN LIMITS TO BE IN THE FEDERAL-AID URBAN
SYSTEM.
13. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-148: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION.
14. 108: Approving an application for an Entertainment Permit submitted by
William Alverton McGaffey, Jr., for the Casanovas, 821 South Beach Boulevard,
to permit no more than 3 dancing girls, Monday through Sunday, 11:00 a.m. to
2:00 a.m., in accordance with the recommendation of the Chief of Police.
15. ORDINANCE NO. 4484: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING SECTIONS
2.12.015 AND 2.12.075, AND AMENDING SECTIONS 2.12.020, 2.12.030, 2.12.040,
2.12.045, 2.12.050, 2.12.060, 2.12.070, 2.12.080, 2.12.090, AND 2.12.110 OF
CHAPTER 2.12 OF TITLE 2 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO TRANSIENT
OCCUPANCY TAX.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
None
None
Councilwoman Kaywood voted "no" on Item No. 14 above. MOTION CARRIED. The
Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 84R-142 through 84R-148 duly passed and adopted.
142/175: PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT - UTILITIES LIFELINE RATES:
Recommendation from the Public Utilities Board to direct the City Attorney's
Office to work with the Public Utilities Board and Department staff to prepare
433
!81
City Hall~. Anahe.i~ California -.COUNCIL MINUTES - Ap. ril 17~ 1984~ lp.:00 A.M.
wording for a proposed Charter Amendment, which will permit the City Council
to establish eligibility requirements for Water and/or Electric lifeline
rates, for consideration by the Board. Submitted was a report dated April 10,
1984 from the Public Utilities Board.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked the costs to convert the data processing system to
accommodate the proposal and how would the applicant be investigated as to
needs.
Assistant City Manager, James D. Ruth, stated that they would follow up and
get those answers.
MOTION: After a brief Council discussion about the possibility of trailing
the matter until answers could be provided, Councilwoman woman moved to
continue discussion of a proposed Charter Amendment for two weeks. Councilman
Bay seconded the motion.
Before any action was taken, Councilman Bay stated that he, too, had a number
of questions. First, he was quite surprised with a request to start action on
a Charter Amendment without a great deal more discussion by the Council from
what he thought was a minority position. At the time, he did not realize
there was any such number one recommendation by the ad hoc Committee. He had
not yet had an opportunity to look at the minutes nor the discussion that took
place. He was also surprised at the recommendation to direct the City
Attorney to start wording on a Charter Amendment before there was public input
and dialogue. He felt it should be put on the agenda each week for discussion.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated her concern was that the proposal was a backwards
approach and they could be looking at a very expensive proposition. The
Public Utilities Board (PUB) did not seem that enthusiastic about it as well.
Public Utilities General Manager Gordon Hoyt, stated that the Public Utilities
Board wanted to see what would be involved in putting a Charter Amendment
together to give the City Council the ability to set whatever terms and
conditions they would like to set for lifeline rates. They asked the
Assistant City Attorney if he would help and he indicated with a matter of
such a sensitive nature, he would prefer to have the Council ask the City
Attorney to work with the Board. The intention was that they would work with
the City Attorney's office, amongst themselves, with staff and whoever else to
try to see if they could come up with something they could recommend to the
Council that would be suitable for a ballot measure. The Board had taken no
official action adopting or rejecting the work of the ad hoc Committee, but
thanked and commended them for working so diligently on a task. They would
maintain the present Electric lifeline rates but he did not see any indication
that the board wanted to do anything with Water rates.
Mayor Roth stated, since they had a deadline of approximately August to get
final ballot wording to the County as explained by the City Clerk, they had
considerable time to work on the issue before then. He encouraged his
colleagues to make an analysis and submit any questions they had to Mr. Hoyt
who in turn could take them back to the PUB where they could be dialogued and
a report subsequently submitted to the Council.
434
i82
City Hall~ Anahetm~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 17~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Bay agreed with Councilwoman Kaywood that they had the "cart before
the horse." If the PUB and Council decided to amend the Charter, all they
really needed to know was the minimum flow timethrough the City Attorney's
office to do so. He suggested if the PUB was serious in working up the
position outlined or alternative positions, that they have a public hearing
and if there was not time for that, perhaps a work session or even a joint
work session with the Council to discuss the position. He would like to see
public input within the time frame they had because he would like to know who
was behind the move to amend the Charter at all. He felt there was a problem
with the public fully realizing how the lifeline worked presently, i.e., that
every residential customer benefited. If the proposed change indicated taking
that lifeline away from all those residential customers in order to give it to
those meeting certain requirements, he would be interested in public input
before he supported any such measure going on the ballot to change the
Charter. Further, they did not have any border lifeline rates at present.
That question should be discussed as well and public input invited. The PUB
ought to take a look at the time span that they had to deal with and then come
back in with recommendations as to how they would like to proceed, either
working with the Council or on their own.
Councilman Overholt agreed. His inclination was to deny the motion and send
it back to the PUB and have them use their attorney which was also the
Council's attorney (City Attorney) if they felt it important and then take
direction from Councilman Bay to the effect that there be a public hearing.
He would like to see it done at the Board level and not at the Council level.
Mr. Hoyt stated the Board wanted to do it that way; City Attorney William
Hopkins explained they felt before a final Charter Amendment was prepared,
they should have direction from the Council. They were trying to economize on
time and he did not want to spend a great deal of time on something if the
Council did not approve in the first place.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she felt even a draft of a Charter Amendment at
this time would be premature if they had not determined if they really wanted
one. She reiterated, all the questions had to be answered before doing so.
She repeated her motion of continuance although she did not know if two weeks
would be su£~icient time.
Further discussion followed between Councilwoman Kaywood and Mr. Hoyt relative
to the present set up of lifeline rates and the fact that it was possible
presently under the Charter to give Water lifeline rates. Also, Councilwoman
Kaywood reiterated that the questions they had needed to be answered before
going any further.
Mr. Hoyt stated that maybe the sense of the Council was that they would like
to see a detailed proposal from the Board; Councilwoman Kaywood stated she
felt that was necessary.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt offered a substitute motion that the matter be
referred back to the Public Utilities Board for further deliberation and to
pursue the entire general question, taking into consideration the comments of
435
City Hall~ .Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 17~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
the Council relative to their request for further information, encourage
public hearings, and subsequently return to the Council. Councilwoman Kaywood
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
105: APPOINTMENT TO THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION: Appointment to
the Community Redevelopment Commission for the term ending June 30, 1986.
(Leo)
Councilman Overholt moved to continue the subject appointment for one week.
Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
108: APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT: Councilman Bay moved to approve
the application for a Public Dance Permit submitted by Manual Gomez, Anaheim
Dance Promotions, for a dance to be held at the Anaheim Convention Center on
April 21, 1984, from 6:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m., as recommended by the Chief of
Police. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
123/167: LOARA DOGWOOD STREET NEIGHBORHOOD - PROJECT ALTERNATIVE STUDY:
Loara Street/Dogwood Street Neighborhood Project Alternative Study submitted
by Ultrasystems~ Inc., was requested at the meeting of April 3, 1984 to be
scheduled this date (see minutes that date).
The Study dated March, 1984 was requested, "to develop realistic mitigation
measures to ameliorate or reduce the inordinate number of vehicular collisions
occurring in the traffic flow of the Loara Street/Dogwood Street
neighborhood." (Also see minutes dated April 3, 1984 where the issue was
discussed by the Council).
Councilman Pickler asked staff what would resolve the subject problem.
Traffic Engineer Paul Singer answered that there was truly no good solution to
reduce traffic flows into the area. Presently 78 percent of the traffic in
the neighborhood was generated by outside trips. Those trips could be
eliminated by some very drastic means that were unsatisfactory to some. Ideas
were brought forth in public meetings, such as closing Dogwood and Loara and
closing Loara Street at the Carbon Creek Channel which would ultimately create
other problems. He reiterated there were really no good solutions to the
problem. The concept of extending Loara Street to La Palma Avenue was going
to bring more through traffic into the neighborhood. There were two opposed
ideologies and, therefore, the problem was not resolved. (See Pages 5, 12,
and 17 of the subject Study wherein the four alternatives were discussed.
Page 17 also included an evaluation of all the alternatives.) Council Members
then posed additional questions to the Traffic Engineer and acting City
Engineer Art Daw, relative to the alternatives during which discussion took
place regarding the resultant impacts of those alternatives and the divergent
preferences of the residents in the area, as well as the fact that no matter
what alternative they might choose, not everyone was going to be happy.
Councilman Bay noted in the April 28, 1984 staff report that the neighborhood
meeting finally elected to have stop signs installed at the intersections of
Dogwood Street at Loara Street and Dresden Street. He wanted to know the cost
of those stop signs.
436
180
City Hall~ Anaheim~ Ca~ifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ap.ril 17,. 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
Mr. Singer stated that was the least expensive solution because it was a
"band-aid" approach, and not a solution. Estimated cost was approximately
$10,000, because it would require bringing energy to a flashing light. There
would be one flashing stop sign and two normal stop signs, with standard stop
signs costing approximately ~60 apiece.
Councilman Bay stated he would not be against the stop signs to try to show
the neighborhood they would like to do something to alleviate the problem. If
the stop signs did not satisfy the neighborhood and they came back in
strength, perhaps the next step would be to consider closing Dresden at La
Palma Avenue as discussed earlier and an alternative which was favored by the
Traffic Engineer as perhaps being the most beneficial.
Mayor Roth asked staff what action they were looking for; Art Daw, acting City
Engineer, stated, based upon the consensus of the property owners in the area,
they would proceed with the installation of stop signs. They had essentially
put that project on hold since the Council requested a discussion on the
issue. Unless they received other instructions, they would proceed with the
installation.
There was no objection from any Council Member to having staff proceed with
the installation of stop signs at the intersection of Dogwood Street at Loara
Street and Dresden Street as outlined in staff report dated March 28, 1984.
Mayor Roth asked that after the installation took place, that the situation be
monitored and Council be given an update relative to the resultant effect of
the stop sign installations.
170: FINAL MAP--TRACT NO. 11975: Developer Goldman and Rodes; tract is
located west of Citron Street, south of La Palma Avenue and contains a 1-lot,
9-unit proposed RM-3000 zoned subdivision.
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 Tract No. 11975, as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum -
dated April 3, 1984 subject to the CC&R's being approved by the City
Attorney's office and the Engineering Division and payment of Park and
Recreation in lieu fees. MOTION CARRIED.
181: PATRONS OF THE ARTS - FULLERTON COLLEGE: Faye Mullins, President,
requesting appointment of a City representative for a two-year term, and
suggesting City payment of the ~15 1984-85 membership dues for both
representatives (new appointee and Mrs. Vickie Thompson). This matter was
continued from the meeting of April 10, 1984.
Councilwoman Kaywood nominated Vivian Engelbrecht; Councilman Roth seconded
the nomination.
Councilman Overholt moved to close nominations. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
437
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Apri! 17, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Mrs. Vivian Engelbrecht was thereupon unanimously appointed to serve as the
City's representative for a two-year term on the Fullerton College Patrons of
the Arts Board of Directors.
City Clerk Roberts asked if that included payment of the membership fees;
Councilwoman Kaywood suggested that they ask Mrs. Engelbrecht if she wanted it
paid.
105: PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE: Request for confirmation of the election of
Mrs. Midge Taggart to the Project Area Committee for the term ending June 30,
1984 (Waltz) and a request to fill the vacancy of a Council-appointed position
created by the resignation of Harold Burmetster (June 30, 1985).
Councilman Roth moved to confirm the election of Mrs. Midge Taggart to the
Project Area Committee for the term ending June 30, 1984. Councilman Bay
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to appoint Mr. Irving Willing to fill the vacancy
created by the resignation of Harold Burmeister for the term ending June 30,
1985. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
179: ORDINANCE FOR ADOPTION: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4493 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4493: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4493 duly passed and adopted.
101: SUPER BOWL: Councilman Overholt gave a status report on the potential
of having a Super Bowl in Anaheim in either 1987, 1988 or 1989, since he was ~
part of the Mayor's delegation to San Francisco on Thursday, April 12, 1984,
to once again, as in 1982, pursue the possibility of having the game played in
Anaheim. The recent meeting was preliminary to making another presentation
before the National Football League in Washington, D. C., on May 24, 1984, at
which time the owners were contemplating awarding from one to three dates,
1987, 1988 and 1989.
114: COMMENDATION FOR DISNEYLAND: Councilman Bay, commenting on the
Disneyland Community Service Awards Ceremony which took place on April 11,
1984, stated he reflected upon all of the things that Disneyland contributed
to the City and to the County. They were always ready to help and he felt
perhaps they did not thank them often enough for all that they did for their
community.
438
178
City Hall.~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 17, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Overholt, thereupon, requested that a special resolution be
prepared to be presented to Disneyland not connected with any particular
event, but to say "thank you" from all of the citizens for their long and
continuing contributions to their community.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: The Assistant City Manager requested a Closed
Session to discuss personnel matters and labor relations with no action
anticipated; the City Attorney requested a Closed Session to discuss
litigation and potential litigation with no action anticipated.
Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session and a lunch break.
Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (11:50 a.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (1:30 p.m.)
179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2428 AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION: Application submitted by Larry R. Smith, to permit a billboard
on CL zoned property located on the north side of Ball Road, west of Knott
Street, with the following Code waivers: (a) maximum display area, (b)
maximum height.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-63, approved the
negative declaration from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact
report on the basis that there would be no significant individual or
cumulative adverse environmental impact due to the approval of this negative
declaration since the Anaheim General Plan designates this subject property
for general commercial land uses commensurate with the proposal, that no
sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the proposal and that the
initial study submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant individual
or cumulative adverse environmental impact and further, denied CUP 2428.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Foster and Klefser,
agent, and public hearing scheduled and continued from the meetings of May 10,
June 7, July 26, and November 22, 1983 and February 21, 1984 to this date.
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicantts agent.
Mr. Robert Verman, 1550 West Washington Boulevard, Los Angeles, noted that the
matter had been continued for 6 to 9 months because staff was working on a
proposed sign ordinance. However, because of a lease situation with the
property owner and lease rental, they were asking for the Item to be heard
today. They were asking for one of their larger signs, 617 square feet, to be
installed on a commercial lot and even though there were eight signs at the
intersection, what they would be willing to do, since they had two other signs
diagonally across the intersection, would be to take down one or both of the
other signs. In a previous meeting with Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director
for Zoning, it was noted if they were to take down both, there would be no
guarantee that another sign would not go up, so they wanted to take down one
of the signs. He reiterated it was a commercial location. The signs in no
way would hinder or harm the business in the area. They would even be willing
to have a "sunset" clause because they felt the property was going to be
439
175
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 17~ .1..984~ 10..:00 A.M.
developed at some point in time. They would possibly bring it back in three
or four years and take a look at the location and the surrounding area at that
time. He reiterated it would not hurt or harm anything and they would take
down another sign, so that there would be a total of eight signs at the
intersection compatible with the ordinance.
Councilwoman Kaywood questioned Mr. Verman as to why he felt they needed the
waivers and why he could not comply with Code; Mr. Verman answered, because of
the size of the lot, it could handle a larger sign. The parking area was
quite large and because of the other buildings in the area, it would not harm
anything. He also noted that they had take down 18 signs since 1967, while
putting up approximately 14.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak in favor; there being no response he
asked if anyone asked to speak in opposition.
Mrs. Joyce Keeter, 716 South Kenmore, owner of the property at 3501 West Ball
Road at the subject location, explained that existing at the present time
three feet from her property line was a billboard on the west and one on the
north. If they allowed the oversized billboard to be installed, she would
have two billboards within 54 feet of her western property line. There were
eight billboards in the area now and the area had been made a dumping ground
for the billboard industry. There were more billboards on that corner than
any other corner along Ball Road. She asked if 672 square feet was 38 X 46.
Miss Santalahti answered that it was 14 X 48. The staff report to the
Planning Commission stated 672 square feet and thus the first public hearing
was at 672 square feet.
Mrs. Keeter then asked how a company could come in and take down signs when
she thought it was up to the property owner.
Miss Santalahti answered that they had agreements with the property owners and
she would assume first if the Council were to grant the CUP and require that
as a condition, before they could put up the sign, they would have to remove
the ones they said they were going to remove. Whatever the agreement was with
the property owner, he would have to take care of himself.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that eight billboards were allowed by right at the
intersection and if one board or two or four boards were removed, then the
same number could go right back; Miss Santalahti clarified that under the
Code, that was correct.
Mrs. Keeter stated that another billboard would be a detriment to her business
property. She had two signs removed from her property about three years ago
because she felt they were not helping the area. Everything that could be
done to upgrade the area should be done. She had a Union service station on
the corner. There were no billboards on her property line now. She requested
a "no" vote by the Council.
440
176
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 17, 198.4_, ~.0.:.0.0 A.M.
Councilman Pickler felt since they were still in the process of formulating a
proposed ordinance relative to billboards, they would be premature in making
any decision today. The only action he would take if they made a decision
today would be to deny the CUP, because he did not realize there would be
three billboards on one corner.
Miss Santalahti stated with regard to the draft ordinance, staff was
recommending if freeway billboards were permitted, that the number of
billboards now permitted at intersections be reduced. In this case, they
would then have nine billboards where they could only have four. She did not
believe this particular billboard would be impacted except potentially more
negatively by adoption of the ordinance and that the new ordinance would not
allow anything such as Mr. Verman was proposing.
Mr. Verman then explained for Councilwoman Kaywood that they had two boards on
the southeast corner. He pointed out that out of the eight signs, four were
the smaller independent size boards, 72 square feet, 6 feet by 12 feet which
were probably the size of the signs on the Union station. As far as taking
down four boards, there was a compensation bill requiring compensation for the
removal of a sign to the property owner and sign company by a state schedule.
As far as reducing the numbers, it would be through attrition, not through
voluntary action by the City.
Councilwoman Kaywood interpreted what Mr. Verman was saying that if the
Council were to approve the request today that they would be "stuck" with that
in Anaheim, or if they were to be asked to remove the billboards, the City
would have to pay him compensation to remove that board. Mr. Verman explained
if they added a "sunset" clause, it would mean that the permit would be good
for three years at which time they would be required to fill out the same
applications, go before the Planning Commission and City Council under a CUP
who would review the circumstances of that location. If the development in
the area was such that they felt the sign would be interfering with other
businesses, they would request that the sign be taken down, deny the
application and they would then have no alternative but to take the sign down.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that there could be an alternative, that being to
deny it now; Mr. Verman stated that was correct.
A line of questioning was then posed to Mr. Verman by Councilman Overholt
wherein certain questions were also clarified by staff. At the conclusion of
discussion, Councilwoman Kaywood stated if the proposed ordinance were to be
passed and billboards allowed on the freeways in Anaheim, the proposal was
then to go back and remove the permission to have eight boards at each
intersection which was given in the 1960's as a trade-off at that time. If
four boards were going to be the maximum, then Mr. Verman's proposal would not
stand a chance. She asked if that was why he wanted to proceed today.
Mr. Verman answered that they had been paying rent and it was about time to
make a decision. If they were to adopt that ordinance, there would be no way
that the other signs would be removed by the City.
The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to speak.
441
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 17~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
Mr. Gus Bode, East Street, spoke to the issue relative to a sign he had on his
property; Mayor Roth interjected and explained that the discussion today was
relative to whether or not they would grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2428
and the overall billboard issue was not going to be discussed until May 1984.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Before concluding, Councilman Bay asked staff to clarify where the eight
billboards were located at this time.
Miss Santalahti answered, there were two signs on each corner facing each
street.
Councilman Bay then stated he already heard that on the northwest corner there
were two 72-square foot boards there now, and there were two on the southeast
corner also 72 square feet each. If there were four, 300-square foot boards,
they were on the southwest and northeast corner.
Miss Santalahti explained that the other 72-square foot boards were on the
northeast corner. On the southeast corner Foster and Kleiser presently had
two, 300-square foot boards.
Councilman Bay surmised then that on each of the southern corners there must
be two, 300-square foot boards, to make eight for the whole intersection and,
right now the two northsides had four small boards and the two southern sides
had four of the maximum size under the Code or 300 square feet; Miss
Santalahti clarified that was correct.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Pickler, the City Council finds that this
project would have no significant individual or cumulative adverse
environmental impact due to the approval of this negative declaration since
the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property for general
commercial land uses commensurate with the proposal, that no sensitive
environmental impacts are involved in the proposal and that the initial study
submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant individual or cumulative-
adverse environmental impact; and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement
to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered a resolution to deny CUP 2428 on the basis that
if the new proposed ordinance should be adopted allowing only four billboards
per intersection, as Mr. Verman testified, it would mean the City would have
to remove the requested board and pay compensation. The fact that there were
eight existing boards at present meant that there was an over abundance
already and further proliferation would open Anaheim as "billboard city"
within City limits.
Before action was taken, Councilman Overholt, instead, offered a motion to
continue the public hearing on Conditional Use Permit No. 2428 until one week
after they considered the proposed billboard ordinance on May 15, 1984, and,
therefore, the public hearing would be continued to May 22, 1984, 1:30 p.m.
Councilman Bay seconded the motion.
442
174
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ap.ril 17, 1984.., 1.O.:0.q ~.M.
Before action was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood questioned if by the continuance
the Council was saying that nine billboards per intersection would be
acceptable; Councilman Overholt stated the reason for his motion and his
concern was that if the new ordinance was passed, it may well impact the
ultimate decision on the issue.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Bay, Overholt and Roth
Kaywood and Pickler
None
MOTION CARRIED.
179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2438 AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION: Application submitted by La Palma Business Park, to permit a
billboard on ML zoned property located at the northeast corner of White Star
Avenue and Armando Street, with the following Code waivers: (a) maximum
display area, (b) maximum height.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-95, declared
that the subject project be exempt from the requirement to file an
Environmental Impact Report pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act on the basis that there will be no significant
individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact due to the approval of
this negative declaration, since the Anaheim General Plan designates the
subject property for general industrial land uses commensurate with the
proposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the
proposal; and that the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no
significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact; and further
denied, Conditional Use Permit No. 2438.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Robert D. Mickelson,
Agent, and public hearing scheduled and continued from the meetings of June
and July 26 and November 22, 1983 and February 21, 1984, to this date.
City Clerk Roberts announced that a request for continuance of the public
hearing was received in a letter dated April 16, 1984 from Robert D.
Mickelson, Agent, to June 5, 1984; Councilman Bay suggested that the public
hearing also be continued to May 22, 1984.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to continue the public hearing on Conditional
Use Permit 2438 and negative declaration therefor to May 22, 1984, at 1:30
p.m. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - NO. 83-84-7~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2499
AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application submitted by Gloria H. Miller and
Dorothy H. Hurley, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200, to permit
a 79-unit (senior citizens) apartment complex on property located at 2620 West
Ball Road, with the following Code waivers: (a) minimum building site area,
443
171
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Apri.1 17~ 1984~ 1.0:00 A.M.
(b) maximum structural height, (c) maximum site coverage, (d) minimum floor
area, (e) minimum recreational-leisure area, (f) minimum private
recreation-leisure area, (g) permitted encroachments into required yards, (h)
minimum distance between buildings.
The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-213 disapproved a
negative declaration status and granted Reclassification No. 83-84-7 and
Conditional Use Permit No. 2499, in part, subject to certain conditions. A
review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman
Kaywood at the meeting of December 6, 1984 and public hearing scheduled for
January 10, 1984. At that meeting, the Council disapproved a negative
declaration status and denied the Reclassification and the CUP. A rehearing
was requested by the applicant and granted by the Council on January 17, 1984
and public hearing scheduled and continued from the meetings of February 21
and March 20, 1984, to this date. (see minutes, those dates were extensive
input and discussion took place)
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
There was no response.
The City Clerk clarified that Mr. Pene, representing the developer, had been
notified and also messages were left at his office for him to call by the City
Attorney's office, Planning staff and her office, but Mr. Pene had not
returned the calls.
Mayor Roth stated that apparently Mr. Pene felt that there was nothing further
to discuss and had indicated previously that another continuance would be
detrimental to the project.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - DISAPPROVAL OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to disapprove the negative declaration from the
requirement to file an environmental impact report on the basis that there
would be significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact
involved in the proposal. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 84R-149 and 84R-150 for adoption
denying Reclassification No. 83-84-7 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2499 for
the same reasons the Council denied the project on January 10, 1984 (see
minutes that date). Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-149: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT A CHANGE OF ZONE SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED IN
A CERTAIN AREA OF THE CITY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-150: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2499 (REHEARING).
444 ;
172
Cit7 Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 17, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAINED:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Overholt and Pickler
None
Bay and Roth
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-149 and 84R-150 duly passed and adopted.
179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2522 AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION: Application submitted by Mahmoud R. E. L. Kanawey, to permit a
convenience market with off-sale beer and wine and gasoline sales on ML zoned
property located at 1175 No. East Street.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-248, 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. 2522.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Talat Radwan,
appellant, and public hearing scheduled and continued from the meetings of
February 7 and March 27, 1984, to this date.
City Clerk Roberts announced that a letter dated April 10, 1984 had been
received from Mr. Radwan withdrawing his application.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to approve the request for withdrawal of the
subject application by the appellant Mr. Radwan. Councilwoman Kaywood
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
134/179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 190,
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 83-84-17~ VARIANCE NO. 3374 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
Application 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,
(e) required enclosure of carports.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-31, disapproved
the negative declaration status and denied General Plan Amendment No. 190,
Reclassification No. 83-84-17 and Variance No. 3374.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Brown Development
Corporation and public hearing scheduled and continued from the meeting of
April 3, 1984, to this date.
445
169
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 17~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent; there was no
response.
City Clerk Roberts explained that the applicant was notified of the public
hearing.
From the audience, a gentlemen stated that he worked with the applicant and
had spoken with him yesterday and he was under the assumption that the hearing
was going to start around 4:00 p.m.; it was clarified that even though on
April 3, 1984 (see minutes that date) it was determined by the Council that
the subject public hearing would be the last hearing on that date, that it was
scheduled for 1:30 p.m. and those people who called were advised that the
hearing, even though last, might be heard close to 1:30 p.m.
Since there were many people in the Chambers audience, Mayor Roth stated they
would first take testimony from those in opposition to the project and perhaps
by that time the applicant would be present; Councilman Overholt requested
that in the meantime the applicant be called and advised that they were
proceeding with the public hearing.
The Mayor then asked to hear from those in opposition.
Irene Jennings, President, South Anaheim Neighborhood Council, first presented
a petition signed by approximately 261 residents of the area in opposition to
the proposed development of the 250-unit apartment complex. The density was
too high and their neighborhood could not absorb the huge number of people or
traffic that would be generated by the development. She stated that all 260
residents would have been present if it were a night hearing. They felt
strongly that a rental project, as opposed to homeownership, was not the
answer for the area, and it would not be compatible with their single family
homes or the condominium project to the south (Smoke Tree). They would be
happy to have a development such as the Smoke Tree condominiums and as stated
on the petition, "we would find a low density complex, preferably condominiums
or townhouses, to be acceptable." She then elaborated on the traffic impacts
that would result by adding a minimum of 500 to 600 people to their already
dense area. They felt that the traffic that would enter and exit onto Wilken_
Way would be disastrous on that one small street. The children in the area
attended Stoddard Preschool and it was full and overflowing at present.
Ponderosa Park was small and it was already overcrowded. The crime rate an
the apartment area north of 0rangewood Avenue was one of the highest in the
City and crime seemed to travel along with renters. They felt there was a
good chance the apartments would subsequently become neglected and run down.
Further, they were concerned relative to the decrease in value of their homes
with a crowded rental area in such close proximity. Apartments were not the
right thing for their neighborhood.
The Mayor asked for clarification that they were then not opposed to a
condominium project but to apartments; Mrs. Jennings clarified that they were
in favor of condominiums or townhouses. They had met with the developer, but
he did not understand that they did not want renters. They would not,
however, prefer a 250-unit condominium project, but one that was similar to
Smoke Tree which she believed was at 14 units per acre.
446
170
C.!t~ Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 17.~. 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
The following people also spoke in opposition and their main points of concern
summarized.
Mrs. Fern Call, property owner, 333 West Wilken Way. Six cars were "wiped
out" on that corner in the last three years. Vehicles traveled very fast on
that corner. There were no grocery stores within walking distance, meaning
that there would be around 750 vehicles instead of 500. Ail the troubles they
had were a result of the overcrowding, no garages and no place for trash.
Mr. Charles Dearborn, 2241 South Wiley Drive. His property abutted the
subject White Front property. Since there would be a way for people to get
behind the proposed carports, they would then be able to climb over the wall
into the adjacent backyards. The Council had previously approved townhouses
on that property and he was in favor while other apartment projects were
denied. Their neighborhood had the highest crime rate in the City and adding
250 more apartments would lend itself to an increase in crime.
Elaine Proko, 222 West Bluebell (17-year resident). When they talked to Mr.
Brown, the developer, he stated it was not financially feasible to build
condominiums. She did not feel that the homeowners should take the loss.
Frank McCormick, 229 West Bluebell (24-year resident). They had apartments
surrounding their whole neighborhood and they fought apartments in 1961 and
1962. They were called the toughest neighborhood in town and more apartments
would make the problem worse. The pride of ownership of townhomes would
upgrade their neighborhood and help it as well.
Babs McLatchey, 233 Bluebell and also owner of 332 Bluebell. Her house was
burglarized three times in one and a half years. The last time they caught
the intruder and he lived in the apartments north of Orangewood. She was very
afraid at the prospect of more apartments being built.
Charles Nichols, 2165 Midland (25-year owner), agreed with the previous
speaker as relative to density, traffic and crime. He, too, favored an
ownership proposition such as condominium or townhouses and if and when such
approvals were given, he requested that any variances be extremely limited. -
~e was al~o wonderin~ what exit~ had been provided and if all exits were on to
Wilken Way.
Annika Santalahti~ Assistant Director for Zoning, explained that the current
proposal showed all exiting onto Wilken Way. The previous condominium
approval included a southerly connection to Chapman Avenue to the south;
Traffic Engineer Paul Singer stated the plan presently showed exiting onto
Wilken Way, but exiting could be arranged through Willow Brook Lane because it
abutted the property, that is if they were condominiums.
Deborah Marcus, 229 West Tiller Avenue (6-year resident). One of the reasons
they bought into the neighborhood was a program that the City Council had for
low income loans for first-time home buyers. That was a much more productive
means of upgrading the neighborhood than putting apartments in. They were
447
167
Cit~ Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 17~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
also right on the border of Anaheim and, therefore, when talking about high
density, it was also necessary to know what was going on in Orange and Garden
Grove that might also impact the area.
Margie Lancaster, 213 West Wilken Way (27-year resident). They were just
getting their house fixed because a young girl rammed her car into their
bedroom. They were disturbed about traffic and crime and all the other things
going on in their neighborhood and were very much against apartments. They
had also been burglarized twice. She was concerned about her grandchildren
who lived in the neighborhood. They wanted developments that required
homeownership.
Mr. Fredrick Mason, Attorney for the applicant, Mr. Brown, then stated that
Mr. Brown was expected to be present between 3:00 and 4:00 p.m. He, Mason,
would be happy to answer any questions, but did not expect to speak this
afternoon unless it was necessary.
The Mayor then asked if anyone else wished to speak.
Mr. Charles Jennings, 142 West Cliffwood, stated he was certain the Council
was aware of the deteriorated condition of the White Front property. It was a
disgrace to their neighborhood. The owners did not take care of the property
even though they had been "on their backs" to do so. They wanted the property
improved but not with 250 apartments.
Mayor Roth asked staff to send out a Code enforcement officer to the property
and if there were violations, to cite accordingly.
Sid Strand, 126 Cliffwood, stated the price paid for the property was the big
reason why the developer was looking for such high density. He felt it had to
be addressed because he, Mr. Brown, kept going back to the residents on that
point. Also, if condominiums were to be built, there was a possibility that
there could be a request for conversion and he suggested that there be
easement restrictions placed on any such project that if conversion was
considered, that it would take a two-thirds majority vote.
Councilwoman Kaywood explained that it generally worked the other way, that
apartments were requested to be comverted to condominiums; otherwise, it would
not work out economically.
Mayor Roth noted that Mr. Brown had arrived. He suggested a recess so that
his attorney could advise him of the concerns of the opposition which
undoubtedly were the same concerns expressed at the Planning Commission
hearing and at the meetings held with the neighbors.
~CESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for five minutes. (3:00
p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (3:07 p.m)
448
168
C.ity Hal!, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April. .1.7,..~.98.4.,..1.0.:00 A.M.
Mayor Roth first briefed Mr. Brown on what had taken place at the meeting
prior to his arrival.
Mr. Richard T. Brown, 3595 Presley Avenue, Riverside, explained that he met
with the neighbors on two occasions and did it in the beginning primarily
because they thought the concern was not going to be what their concern turned
out to be. They thought it would be a concern with (1) density and, (2)
traffic. At the second meeting, they felt they answered those questions.
They hired a Traffic Engineer, Weston Prtngle, and were frankly astounded at
the reaction they received. They thought they had planned a high quality
project and they needed to ask for only a few variances. The neighbors
recognized the project had to be developed, but to develop it with renters was
philosophically against what they hoped to see.
Relative to why they were "foolish enough to fight for their development, they
did it because of the economics of the property. They did not own the
property but had a good investment in it. The Pipefitters Pension Fund owned
it and they were in a position of investment in the property. They were left
with two alternatives, one being a reduction in the number of units. They
considered that but chose not to do so because they would have to reduce the
quality of the project. They also did not want to go to condominiums because
they would have to build on a land base of about $35,000 raw land per unit.
Knowing what the sales price would have to be and knowing what would then have
to look like, it would be an instant slum. It was his opinion that the kind
of project they were proposing provided much extra storage and it could be an
excellent apartment unit. The other alternative was to go into commercial
since it was zoned commercially now. However, it had no frontage on Harbor
Boulevard or Chapman Avenue and thus it was not a likely spot. The neighbors
were more in favor of residential. The property had to be put to use and they
would like to put it to the most productive use. The fundamental question was
whether or not they wanted residential on that property.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if Mr. Brown stated that it was not possible to
build the 142 condominiums that had previously been approved on the property.
Mr. Brown stated that that approval had expired and was no longer valid. They
had gone over the economics of the situation many times and in order to do so,
the units would have to be of such a nature that he would not want to have
anything to do with them. Part of the regulations imposed by the Pipefitters
had to do with the quality of the apartments including such as cast iron
sinks, tub, etc., all of the quality items that were no longer being provided.
Council Members then posed a line of questioning to Mr. Brown wherein he gave
the following information; the structures were such that they must sell
condominiums in that area for under ~100,000 to have a reasonable sales rate;
that sometimes they did manage their projects and sometimes they did not, and
he could not guarantee that they would do so forever; that the minimum number
of apartments they could build on the property and still have an economically
feasible project would be approximately 220 units with a reduction in some of
the quality; rentals for the proposed apartment project were scheduled at ~650
a month for two bedrooms, two bath and if a condominium project were built to
sell for under ~100,000, monthly payments would be approximately $1,300 a
month; they could restrict the number of people per unit and had been able to
enforce that in the past.
449
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 1.7~ 1984~..1.0:00 ~.M.
Mayor Roth stated the problem he saw in being responsive to the citizens was
first, that they wanted the property cleaned up. On the other side, they were
saying that they did not want any apartments, but either single family homes
or condominiums should be built. As far as condominiums, nothing could be
built for less than $90,000 to 5100,000 with payments of $1,400 to 51,500 a
month which he did not think would sell in that area and which he did not feel
the developer would build. Perhaps the Council's action was going to keep the
status quo.
Mr. Brown stated that they had an alternative plan for a mini-storage area,
since with high density there was apparently a great need.
Councilman Bay then broached the subject of the possibility of high-rise
units; Mr. Brown stated they did not explore high-rise on a condominium basis,
but did so as far as apartments. He felt they could go in with a twelve or
fifteen-story apartment building and make it work.
Councilman Bay stated he was not suggesting that, but was trying to answer the
main complaint of renters vs. homeowners. What he was looking for was not
necessarily high-rise apartments, but maybe high-rise homeownership, and he
could not understand why more developers were not looking at that.
Mr. Michael Eskaros, 5142 Warner, Huntington Beach, the Real Estate Broker
working with Mr. Brown, stated he made a survey and found out vacancies and
condominiums in the City of Anaheim were running between 6 percent and 20
percent and he went back to 1980. He also talked to the people next door at
the Smoke Tree project, the poor sales person sitting and trying to sell 16
condominiums and where in about four months, he sold 15. There were some
condominiums in Orange County that they could not give away at a five percent
down payment because of the economic burden. The quality of the project with
the kind of rent projected would bring quality people. Applying a ratio of
income to housing cost, if someone was paying ~650 a month, their income was
going to be two to three times that, which was more than the median income for
residents of Orange County. With condominiums, they were talking about
$14,000 or 515,000 a month and in that case, they could have a big, vacant,
pride-of-ownership complex.
Miss Santalahti, in answer to a question by Councilwoman Kaywood posed earlier
in the meeting, reported the housing distribution in the City of Anaheim in
mid 1983 was as~follows: 41.6 percent apartments, 6.4 percent condominiums,
46.6 percent single family residence, 5.3 percent mobilehomes.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that they still had more owners than renters, and
she emphasized she would always want to be sure they maintain that ratio.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
After further discussion and questioning by Council Members to both staff and
Mr. Brown regarding certain aspects of the proposed project, Councilwoman
Kaywood stated that according to the adopted General Plan, referring to staff
report to the Planning Commission dated February 22, 1984, Page 6-b, the land
use designation was Iow medium density and the highest possible number of
45O
166
City ~-ll~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 17.,. 1984, 10:00 A.M.
units if it went to RM-2400 would be 129 to 172 units which would generate
1,100 to 1,460 daily traffic trips. She felt there was a reason for the
zoning to be in the low medium range. The fact that it had been approved for
142 condominiums in the recent past was well thought out, and it would be well
to leave it at that.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council finds that this project
would have no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental
impact and that an environmental impact report would not be required prior to
approval of this project. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 84R-151 through 84R-153, both
inclusive, for adoption denying General Plan Amendment No. 190,
Reclassification No. 83-84-17 and Variance No. 3374, respectively, upholding
the findings of the City Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-151: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DISAPPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE ANAHEIM GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATED AS
AMENDMENT NO. 190.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-152: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT A CHANGE OF ZONE SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED IN
A CERTAIN AREA OF THE CITY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-153: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DENYING VARIANCE NO. 3374.
Before a vote was taken Councilman Overholt recognized a gentlemen who wished
to speak.
George Lychkoff, 133 West Simmons, stated that studies were made when the
Ponderosa development came into being and the figures generated were probably
still true which caused the Council to prevent the building of additional
apartments. Nothing had changed and, in fact, the situation had probably
worsened. Adding more people would only exascerbate the problems that were
existing at the present time.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolutions.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Overholt, Pickler and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 84R-151 through 84R-153, both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted.
Before concluding, Mr. Brown asked for a sense of feeling from the Council if
they went back and redesigned the project, would they consider a mini-storage;
Mayor Roth noted that the people in the area said they would rather have a
mini-storage and that would give him a fairly good indication of their feeling.
451
CitZ Hall.~ Anahefm~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 17, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Both Councilwoman Kaywood and Councilman Pickler emphasized that Mr. Brown
should first be talking to the Planning Department staff to see what was
feasible and within the Code before proceeding with any expensive plans.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed
Session. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (4:25 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (6:00 p.m.)
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Pickler moved to adjourn. Councilman Bay seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (6:04 p.m)
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK
452