1984/07/24City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 24~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Pickler and Roth
COUNCIL MEMBERS: 0verholt
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
HOUSING MANAGER: Lisa Stipkovich
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: The Reverend David Bolton, Bethel Baptist Church, gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Irv Pickler led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
119: PRESENTATION: Mayor Roth stated he had the opportunity to hear the
Calgary Junior High School Band of Calgary, Canada, yesterday (July 23, 1984)
when they performed on the steps of the Civic Center. The Mayor had presented
a plaque to the band in recognition and appreciation of their visit to the
City of Anaheim.
119: RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION: A Resolution of Commendation was
unanimously adopted by the City Council to be mailed to the South Coast
Repertory Theatre for their outstanding service to the County on the occasion
of their twentieth anniversary.
119: RESOLUTION OF WELCOME: A Resolution of Welcome was unanimously adopted
by the City Council to be presented to the Olympic Officials of the 1984
Olympic Games on Monday, July 30, 1984, the start of Olympic Wrestling at the
Anaheim Convention Center, a major event in the XXIII Olympiad, Los Angeles
1984.
119: RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A Resolution of Congratulations was
unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to Charles Collins,
executive Chef at Cattleman's Wharf Restaurant upon his being named "Chef of
the Year." The Mayor presented the Resolution to Mr. Collins on behalf of the
Council and the City.
MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular
meetings held April 17, April 24 and May 15, 1984. Councilman Roth seconded
the motion. Councilman 0verholt was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
waive the reading in full of all ordinances ant resolutions of the Agenda,
after reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to
730
Cit7 H~]!~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 24~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
waiver is hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the
title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such
ordinances or resolutions in regular order. Councilman Bay seconded the
motion. Councilman Overholt was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $2,590,943.73 for the
period ending July 13, 1984, and $2,216,120.03 for the period ending July 20,
1984, in accordance with the 1984-85 Budget, were approved.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Bay,
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; Councilwoman K~ywood
offered Resolution Nos. 84R-277 through 84R-290, both inclusive, for
adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
1. 118: The following claims filed against the City were rejected, as
recommended:
a. Claim submitted by Douglas E. Roman and Lloyd C. Betker for personal
property damages purportedly sustained due to lack of maintenance on the part
of the City at 1243 West Lincoln Avenue, on or about March 13, 1984.
b. Claim for indemnity submitted by Scott Storch stemming from San Diego
County Superior Court case No. 51623 - Phillip B. Hardin, Plaintiff, vs. James
Chastain, individually and dba Green Giant Tree Service, Scott Storch, and
Does 1 to 20, accrued on or about February 28, 1984.
c. Claim submitted by Volt Technical Corporation for property damages
purportedly sustained due to incorrect power start up at 3430 East Miraloma
Avenue, on or about August 6, 1983.
d. Claim submitted by Andres and Kumiko Liedtke for personal injury
damages and loss of consortium purportedly sustained due to an accident in
which a City-owned vehicle and City driver were involved on Fairmont Boulevard
north of Canyon Rim Road, on or about August 5, 1983.
e. Claim submitted by Diane Horton, et al, for personal injury damages
purportedly sustained due to negligence on the part of the City at or near the
intersection of Brookhurst Street and Pslais Road, on or about March 8, 1984.
f. Claim submitted by Barbara C. Monaghan for personal injury damages
purportedly sustained due to condition of sidewalk near curb at the northeast
corner of the intersection of Vermont and Dakota, on or about April 3, 1984.
g. Claim submitted by Lori Panter for monetary loss purportedly sustained
due to actions of City employee at the car wash on the corner of East and
Sycamore, on or about May 29, 1984.
h. Claim submitted by Allstate Insurance Company as subrogee for Richard
Rossman Hagerman, Insured, for property damages purportedly sustained due to
actions of City crew at 2856 East Gerald Circle, on or about February 26, 1984.
731
City H-11~ Ansh~m~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 24~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
i. Claim submitted by Winton A. Burnett for personal injury and personal
property damages purportedly sustained due to actions of Anaheim Police
Officers in the vicinity of 3068 West Coolidge Avenue, on or about March 16,
1984.
2. The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 105: Community Services Board--Minutes of April 26, May 3 and 24,
1984.
b. 105: Community Services Board/Senior Citizens Commission--Minutes of
June 6, 1984.
c. 107: Planning Department, Building Division Report--Monthly Report
for June 1984.
d. 105: Public Utilities Board--Minutes of June 7 and June 14, 1984.
e. 105: Industrial Development Board--Minutes of June 20, 1984.
f. 175: Before the Public Utilities Commission, Amended Application No.
83-12-02, Southern California Edison Company, Increase its
Conservation/Load Management Adjustment to its Base Rates and Certain
Other Rate Levels to Conform to the Rate Design Criteria Set Forth in
Decision No. 82-12-055 of the California Public Utilities Code; to Make
Certain Changes to its Conservation/Load Management Adjustment Clause
Tariff; and to Review the Reasonableness of Edison's Expenditures
Reflected in the Conservation/Load Management Adjustment Clause in 1983.
3. 123: Authorizing an agreement with Event Medical Services, Inc., to
furnish medical services for events at Anaheim Stadium with fees reimbursable
by tenant, for the term April 1, 1984 to March 31, 1986.
4. 175.123: Authorizing a letter agreement with Mudge Rose GuthrieAlexander
& Ferdon and Rourke & Woodruff as Co-Bond Counsel, for services in connection
with the issuance of short-term water revenue anticipation notes and water
revenue bonds, in amounts in each issue not to exceed 550,000 and 530,000,
respectively, payable out of the proceeds.
5. 123: Authorizing an agreement with Coleman Security, in an amount not to
exceed 5246,000, to provide elementary school crossing guard service for the
period July 1, 1984 through June 30, 1985.
6. 150: Accepting an in-kind grant from Wells Fargo and Western Medical
Center of Santa Aha, in an amount valued at 55,000, for purchase of an
exercise course at ModJeska Park, with City match of 52,758 for equipment
costs and approximately 52,500 for said installation.
7. 179: Granting a one year extension of time to Reclassification No.
80-81-14 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2121, to permit a 104-unit affordable
condominium project on proposed RM-3000 zoned property located at 2170 South
Harbor Boulevard, to expire July 28, 1985. (Westwinds Trailer Lodge)
732
City Hall~ Anahetm~ Califoru/a - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 24, 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted there was no reason given for the request for a
one-year extension; Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning,
explained that she did not know the reason except that the developer had been
to the Planning Department showing revised plans, but no final decision had
been made regarding the actual development.
Councilwoman Kaywood voted "No" on this item, since it was the third request
for an extension of time which involved the Westwinds Trailer Park and the
mobile home owners were relocated three years ago.
8. 123: Authorizing the City Engineer to execute a Letter Agreement with the
City of Fullerton, in an amount not to exceed $15,000, to provide for
rehabilitation and resurfacing of Orangethorpe Avenue, from Placentia Avenue
to State College Boulevard.
9. 177: Authorizing the Mayor to execute a letter of endorsement for
application for 23 Section 8 "Existing" units under the Rental Rehabilitation
Program Demonstration under Section 213 of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974.
10. 177: Authorizing the Mayor to execute a letter of endorsement for 1,697
units under the Section 8 "Existing" Housing Assistance Payments Program under
Section 213 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974.
11. 177: Approving the Memorandum of Understanding with the Housing
Authority for the Rental Rehabilitation Program Demonstration, and authorizing
the Mayor to execute said Memorandum.
12. 123/125: Authorizing the Data Processing Director to enter into revised
purchase agreements with IBM, Inc., amending Volume Purchase Agreement No.
G79-B623, in the amount of $677,490 to accommodate a retroactive 12% discount
on the purchase of one Processor and one Display Console over a three-year
period, effecting savings estimated at $100,000.
13. 160: Waiving Council Policy 306 and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to
issue a purchase order to R & W Lift Trucks, Inc. for one used Hyster lift
truck, Model H50H, in the amount of $14,628.
14. 164: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-277: 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:
EMPIRE STREET STORM DRAIN, LINCOLN AVENUE TO BROADWAY, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
ACCOUNT NOS. 01-791-6325-E1370 AND 51-606-6329-02260. (Bids to be opened
August 23, 1984, 2:00 p.m.)
15. 175: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-278: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETEIdkINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT:
ASHINGTON LANE, CHAI~T AVENUE, EMPIRE STREET AND PALAIS ROAD CONDUIT
INSTAI.IATION, IN THE CITY 0FANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 55-489-6340-08620-59300.
(Bids to be opened August 9, 1984, 2:00 p.m.)
733
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 24, 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
16. 165: : RESOLUTION NO. 84R-279: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE ANDNECESSITY
REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: PATT
AREA BLOCK WAT3. - OLIVE STREET TO PATT STREET, NORTH OF JULIANNA STREET, IN
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 25-214-6772-PATT. (Bids to be opened August
23, 1984, 2:00 p.m.)
17. 175: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-280: 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:
CONSTRUCTION OF A 16-INCH DIAMETER WELL AT THE DAD MILLER GOLF COURSE, IN THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 61-512-7107 AND 64-308-7107. (Bids to be opened
August 23, 1984, 2:00 p.m.)
18. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-281: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE CENTRAL CITY STREET IMPROVEMENT,
AREA BOUNDED BY SYCAMORE STREET, SABRINA STREET, CYPRESS STREET AND ANAHEIM
BOULEVARD, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS 25-793-6325-E3780AND
51-606-6329-17540-34310. (Walsh Engineering Company, $249,248.10)
19. 123/129: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-282: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL
LABOR, SERVICES, AND EQUIPMENT TO CUT AND REMOVE RUBBISH, REFUSE AND DIRT UPON
ANY PARCEL OR PARCELS OF REAL PROPERTY OR ANY PUBLIC STREET, IN THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, AS DIRECTED BY THE CHIEF OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, ACCOUNT NO.
01-202-6320. (Edwin Webber, Inc., contractor)
20. 176: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-283: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS,
HIGHWAYS AND SERVICE EASEMENTS. (83-17A, located north of Romneya Drive, east
of Catalpa Avenue, at 2161 West Romueya Drive, public hearing scheduled
August 21, 1984, 1:30 p.m.)
21. 103: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-284: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ORDERING A MUNICIPAL REORGANIZATION FOR THE TRANSFER OF
CERTAIN UNINHABITED TERRITORY FROM THE CITY OF FULLERTON TO THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DESIGNATED AS ORANGE COUNTY MUNICIPAL REORGANIZATION NO. 68.
22. 160: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-285: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAMEIM DECLARING CERTAIN UNCLAIMED PROPERTY IS NEEDED FOR PUBLIC USE
AND TRANSFERRING THE SAME TO THE CITY PURCHASING DEPARTMENT.
23. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-286: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 84R-120 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF
COMPENSATION FOR UNKEPRESENTED PART-TIME JOB CLASSES. (creating the Job
classification of Adult Worker I, A 0335E, effective July 13, 1984)
24. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-287: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM WHICH ESTABLISHES RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR CLASSES ASSIGNED
TO THE ANAHEIM FIRE ASSOCIATION UNIT. (creating the job classification of
Fire Prevention Aide A, 1347D-E, effective July 13, 1984)
734
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 24, 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
25. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-288: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 84R-242 NUNC PRO TUNC. (deleting the
classification of Recreation Specialist)
26. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-289: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS, EASEMENTS AND/OR FACILITIES
HERETOFORE IRREVOCABLY OFFERED FOR DEDICATION. (as shown on Parcel Map No.
83-235, Hundley Street)
27. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-290: A EESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION.
(Allec Street Partnership; Bay Corporate Center Associates, Ltd.; Myung Shik
Yun, et ux.; Myung Shik Yun, et ux.)
28. 176: Granting a one year extension of time for fulfillment of certain
conditions imposed by Resolution No. 80R-10, relating to Abandonment No.
79-8A, property composed of certain portions along Santa Aha Canyon Road in
the vicinity of Weir Canyon Road, to expire July 1, 1985.
29. 108: Approving an application for a Dinner Dancing Place submitted by
Thomas C. DICarlo, for Quincy's Restaurant Inc., 713 South Brookhurst Street,
for dinner dancing seven days a week, 9:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m., in accordance
with the recommendation of the Chief of Police.
30. 158/176: Authorizing execution of a Grant Deed conveying real property,
Parcel C of Parcel Map 83-239, held in fee title by the City, to Kent Land
Company, in accordance with a condition of approval of Abandonment No. 79-8A.
158/176: RESOLUTION NO. 84R-291: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Kent
Land Company; The Prudential)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Pickler and Roth
None
Overholt
MOTION CARRIED. The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. §4R-277 through §4R-291,
both inclusive, duly passed and adopted.
123/170: ESPERANZA VILLAS AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT AND PURCHASER'S
AGREEMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood noted in the agreement with the purchaser
(Exhibit A--Page 2, Line 15) that no interest was due by the purchaser and she
thought an interest rate of 10 percent had been established.
Lisa Stipkovich, Housing Manager, explained that was true only on projects
where there were funds that the City had put into the project. This was a
resale mechanism to avoid windfall profit. The second trust deed was
established in a sense in an artificial way. No money transpired. Taking for
example an appraised value of $80,000 and if the unit sold for $60,000, there
would then be a $20,000 second trust deed the City would hold. Only if the
735
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 24, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
,,nit was sold within the five years would that be due and payable to avoid the
windfall profit aspects of affordable housing.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted, however, if the first purchaser was able to sell
at $80,000 instead of $60,000, they would be getting a windfall profit.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to authorize an Agreement with Esperanza Villas
in connection with the conversion of a 97-unit condominium project located in
Tract No. 11766 to provide for sale of 24 units of affordable housing and
approving the form of the purchasers' agreement for sale of said units, and
authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said agreements. Councilman
Pickler seconded the motion. Councilwoman Kaywood voted "No." Councilman
Overholt was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
170: FINAL MAP--TRACT NO. 10409 (REV. 3) (READVERTISED): Developer, The
Pennridge Corporation; tract is located on the north side of Imperial Highway,
south of Nohl Ranch Road and contains 44 proposed RS-HS-10,000(SC) zoned lots.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Pickler, 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. 10409, as recommended by the City Engineer in his
memorandum dated July 12, 1984. Councilman Overholt was absent. MOTION
CARRIED.
112/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4518: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4518 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4518: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION
1.12.060 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RETATING TO CLAIMS.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Pickler and Roth
None
Overholt
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4518 duly passed and adopted.
179: ORDINANCE NOS. 4519 AND 4520: Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance Nos.
4519 and 4520 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4519: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
(82-83-15, RM-3000(SC), west side of Villareal Drive, south of Nohl Ranch
Road, from RS-A-43,000(SC))
ORDINANCE NO. 4520: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
(77-78-64(5), RS-5000(SC), southwest of the intersection of Santa Aha Canyon
Road and proposed extension of Weir Canyon Road, from RS-A-43,000(SC) - Tract
10981)
736
Cit7 Hall~ Anahefm~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Jul~ 24~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Pickler and Roth
None
Overholt
The Mayor declared Ordinance Nos. 4519 and 4520 duly passed and adopted.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4521: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4521 for
first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4521: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY 0FANAHEIMADDINGANDAMENDING
VARIOUS SECTIONS AND SUBSECTIONS OF VARIOUS CHAPTERS OF TITLE 18 OF THE
ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (Dedication and improvements -
General)
179: ORDINANCE NOS. 4522 AND 4523: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance
Nos. 4522 and 4523 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4522: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE ~TATING TO ZONING.
(77-78-1(1), RS-HS-10,000(SC), southeast corner of Nohl Ranch Road and Meats
Ave., Tract 9864)
ORDINANCE NO. 4523: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE BRLATING TO ZONING.
(77-78-1(2), RS-HS-10,000(SC), south side of Nohl Ranch Road, east of Meats
Ave., Tract 9602)
127: ADVISORY VOTE ON FREEWAY BILLBOARDS AND ARTERIAL SIGNS: Councilwoman
Kaywood asked that staff develop wording for a proposed ballot measure that
would be an advisory vote regarding freeway billboards and arterial signs to
determine the wishes of the citizens of Anaheim in the event the subject came
up again in the future,
Councilman Bay stated in the case of unilateral direction to staff to prepare
an advisory ballot measure, he felt such a request required discussion by the
Council, which had not taken place. He wanted to know what Councilwoman
Kaywood had in mlnd slnce~ to his recollection~ the last time the Council
discussed blllboards~ they made no cham~es to the current billboard ordinance.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated since there was going to be an election and there
would be no additional costs to include the measure on the November ballot, it
seemed to her it was one of those controversial issues where people should
have input. If the question was an advisory one, it would not lock the hands
of the present or future Councils but would give direction and be a strong
voice in knowing the feelings of the people.
Mayor Roth stated by a 5-0 vote, the Council had put the issue completely to
bed and were not going to allow billboards on freeways. He did not understand
why the Council should take staff time on an advisory issue that at this time
was not an issue,
737
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - C01~¢TL ~IFOTI~.$ - Jul), 24, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she wanted to be certain that it would remain a
dead issue and it would not be "resurrected."
The Mayor stated it could be brought back at any time, but he did not believe
it would happen in the time he was going to be on the Council. He did not
foresee that he would change his mind in opposing billboards, including any
the City might want to construct.
Councilman Bay stated his intent was not to question whether billboards may or
not be an issue, but whether one member of the Council could direct staff to
do a great deal of work without agreement of the majority of the Council.
Councilman Pickler asked if that had been done in the past; Councilwoman
Kaywood stated there was assent by silence in the past.
City Manager William Talley stated that Councilwoman Kaywood was correct.
When a Council Member requested a staff report and the rest of the Council
said nothing, staff would prepare the report and submit it to the Council.
However, if three Council Members said no, staff would ignore the request.
Currently, if any Council Member asked that wording be developed, staff would
proceed and subsequently submit that wording to the Council.
Councilman Pickler concurred with Councilman Bay that 'if a Council Member
wanted a staff report, a majority of the Council should determine it was
needed.
Councilman Bay stated he did not want to imply that one Council Member could
not ask for information, but he was concerned with the degree. If in the
first place there was not a majority feeling that an issue should be placed on
the ballot even after the work was done, he would question the money spent in
preparing such wording. He did not believe the Council ever set a firm policy
requiring a majority vote. In this case, he did not feel the matter should go
on the ballot and he would be opposed to spending any money to do so.
Council Members Pickler and Roth expressed the same relative to any
expenditure of funds as did Councilwoman Kaywood in the final analysis.
144: JAIL AND LANDFILL SITE: Mayor Roth stated he was alarmed to read a
recent newspaper article wherein it was reported that the Orange County Board
of Supervisors intended to discuss at their meeting today the appropriation of
funds for a Jail site and landfill water study in the Coal and Gypsum Canyon,
which study was expected to cost as much as 3206,000. He directed staff to
monitor the situation and to reiterate the Council's continued opposition to
the consideration of Coal and Gypsum Canyon as sites for the subject
facilities and also to the proposed expenditure of funds for such a study.
169: SCHEDULED OPENING OF THE WEIR CANYON BRIDGE: Mayor Roth asked the
outcome of his directive to staff at the meeting of July 10, 1984 (see minutes
that date) to contact the County to determine why the Weir Canyon Bridge was
not yet open and when it was expected to be open.
738
Cit~ Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Jul7 24~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: The City Attorney requested a Closed Session to
discuss pending and potential litigation with action anticipated.
Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session and a lunch break.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Councilman Overholt was absent.
MOTION CARRIED. (10:42 a.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present with the exception of Councilman Overholt. (1:35 p.m.)
112: MACCO CONSTRUCTORS; INC.; VS CITY OF ANAHEIM: Councilman Roth moved to
authorize the City Attorney's office to settle Orange County Superior Court
Case No. 43-12-86 and the claim of Macco Constructors, Inc., for a sum not to
exceed $62,000. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. Councilman Overholt
was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2187 (READV.) AND
NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application submitted by R. H. Siegele, to consider
revocation or modification of the conditions of approval of Planning
Commission Resolution No. PC82-62 approved in conjunction with Conditional Use
Permit No. 2187, to permit a recycling facility and recreational vehicle
storage yard on ML zoned property located at 919 E. South Street, with the
following Code waivers: (a) minimum landscaped setback, (b) maximum fence
height, (c) required enclosure of outdoor uses, and (d) minimum number of
parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-62, (March 23,
1981) declared that the subject project be exempt from the requirement to
prepare an Environmental Impact Report pursuant to the provisions of the
California Quality Act since there would be not significant individual or
cumulative adverse Environmental Impact.
On May 14, 1984, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-93, the City Planning
Commission revoked Conditional Use Permit No. 2187 and also revoked Resolution
No. PC81-62.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by the applicant and a
public hearing scheduled and continued from the meeting of July 3, 1984, to
this date. (See minutes July 3, 1984, where extensive discussion took place
and input received.)
Mayor Roth first asked if at this time there was additional information from
staff.
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, reported that she and Mr.
Siegele met on Wednesday, July 18, 1984, where he (Siegele) was shown a
written copy of the proposed conditions. Minor modifications were made,
reflected on the copies numbers 1 through 15 in the staff report (see staff
report dated July 17, 1984--Subject: Conditional Use Permit No.
2187--Modification of the Conditions of Approval--made a part of the record).
739
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 24~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
The City Attorney also reviewed the conditions and did have some modifications
in wording on Condition Nos. 1 and 2. (She thereupon submitted revised
wording for Condition Nos. 1 and 2--also made a part of the record.)
Assistant City Attorney Jack White then explained for Mayor Roth the
difference in wording in Condition Nos. 1 and 2 Just submitted and the same
two conditions as originally proposed contained in the July 17, 1984 staff
report.
The Mayor then asked to hear from Mr. Siegele.
Councilwoman Kaywood first asked whether the property had been cleaned up
since the hearing on July 3, 1984.
Mr. Ray Siegele, 832 N. West Street, answered yes, as far as he was
concerned. Relative to the conditions as outlined by staff (1 through 15), it
was his understanding the matter was continued to review the previous
requirements, recommendations or conditions that were preexisting in the
original Conditional Use Permit. He did not meet with staff prior to staff's
preparation of the recommendations. It was a situation where staff said this
is what they were going to present. He was concerned as to why some of the
requirements were still included, since the purpose of the continuance was to
eliminate some of the things that were not pertinent to their operation per
se. For instance, dedication of property on South Street when the property
was redeveloped. He felt that was the time the property should be dedicated.
His main point, however, was the fact that the wall as discussed previously
was well under construction and by next Friday, it would be complete.
Mayor Roth stated he did not see why Mr. Siegele should be objecting to the
dedication (Condition No. 1), since he would not have to install curbs and
gutters until there was a change in use; Mr. Siegele stated he understood and
would concede that, but it did raise a question in his mind.
Miss Santalahti explained that was part of the original application and staff
originally required that it be commenced prior to the use being established.
It was a Code requirement and a standard condition 100 percent of the time.
The Mayor then questioned Mr. Siegele relative to Conditions 2, 3, 4 and 5;
Mr. Siegele stated he had no problem with any of those. Condition No. 15 was
the only condition which he questioned which was discussed at great length
withMlss Santalahti. It involved future building or construction and the
more he thought about it the more difficult it became. Given more time, he
could come up with something more definitive, but it was too short notice and
too early to say exactly what they were going to do. He could reflect upon it
and come back with a plan, but he needed more time.
Councilman Bay stated the intent of Condition No. 15 was that there be no new
buildings or expansion. He asked if staff intended that be related to the
current use or new buildings or expansion of a different use.
Miss Santalahti answered the intent of Condition Nos. 1 and 2, was that at
some point in time, the property owner would not file for a building permit
740
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 24~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
for an expansion of the activity that might in some way be interpreted to call
upon Condition Nos. 1 or 2 being put into action.
Councilman Bay stated his concern with Mr. Siegele handling paper, which was
one of the impact problems, with the installation of the wall, slatted fences
and slatted gates, he felt that problem would be eliminated, but he did not
want Mr. Siegele limited to not being able to install covered sheds to handle
the paper if he could not solve the impact of the wind blowing that litter
around the neighborhood. He did not want to lock Mr. Siegele down on
improving his operation, such as installing new shed buildings over that paper
operation as one example. Condition No. 15 would kill the initiative for him
(Siegele) to cover that operation.
Miss Santalahti stated it was not intended to do that. She was hoping that
Mr. Siegele had some conceptual idea in terms of additional square footage
relating to the use and if staff had such an exhibit, it would be okay to
proceed.
Councilman Bay asked if they could add a time limit to No. 15 to give Mr.
Siegel time to get that concept to staff.
Miss Santalahti stated relative to Condition No. 15, in the strictest sense,
she did not think it needed to be included. If the Council wanted to strike
that, it would not be of concern to her at all. The wording of Condition Nos.
1 and 2 should prevent any operational changes.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated it seemed to her that Mr. Siegele was constructing
more block walls because of the shredded paper.
Miss ~antalahti stated that Mr. Siegele indicated that there would be a block
wall almost to the front existing block wall rather than any chain link
fencing, which was addressed in Item 8.
Mr. Siegele stated he would have a complete block wall all along the easterly
and northerly property lines, with the exception of a 20-foot gate at the
northerly property line. On the easterly lines, the walls overlapped. The
operation had a 20-foot offset by 63 feet to provide access into the property,
thereby precluding any vision into the wall looking west from the alley.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak.
Marllyn Helm, 700 South East Street, stated many things had been done and the
course taken was in the right direction. Relative to the conditions, she had
reviewed those yesterday. Basically she felt there were still some things
that needed to be considered. Condition Nos. 1 and 2 still had to do with the
criteria of sidewalks and that was something that still should be looked into
at some future date. The sidewalks restricted the driveway. At the present
time, there was an open space drive and they did not use just the driveway,
but also the parking area to drive on and off the property. She was concerned
that as long as Mr. Siegele did not change from a recycling center, no matter
what he did, he was not going to have to install sidewalks. At present, there
was a constant flow of people in and out of the facility. If the sidewalks
were not installed now, it should be left open for consideration at a future
741
City Ha11~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 24, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
time. She doubted it would be developed for a use other than a recycling
center and it was still a dangerous situation. Also, the driveway to the west
was in a state of disrepair and it was not possible to walk across it, making
it necessary to walk in the street. That driveway should be paved and made
usable for the purposes of safety. In concluding, Mrs. Helm stated Mr.
Siegele had made many improvements, but they were made because they were
required. The Council should consider that factor and the permit, if granted,
should have a yearly review. At the end of that time, they would have the
benefit of a year's experience and if favorable, the permit could be granted
for an open length of time.
Mayor Roth also pointed out that the CUP could be revoked at any time for
sufficient cause.
Mr. Vincent Pietrok, 1080 South Street, stated that in a short period of time,
many improvements had been made and if it continued, there would not be so
much of a problem with the facility. There was another problem relative to
shopping carts that were brought to the center every day, from three to ten
carts. Mr. Siegele should be willing to get those carts off the street,
especially those in front of the Hitachi building. The carts ended up in that
facility's parking lot and the alley and stayed there until the shopping cart
people picked them up. He felt that Mr. Siegele could help do something about
the situation; Mayor Roth suggested that the Council could encourage Mr.
Siegele to recommend that to the people who brought the carts to the business.
Mayor Roth asked Mr. Siegele to make his summation.
Mr. Siegele explained, in response to the children and sidewalks, in talking
to a ~eacher at Thomas Jefferson Elementary School, the children were not
crossed at South Street from the school. They were supposed to walk down the
south side of the street. Further, he had a conversation with Mr. Kevin Smith
of Hitachi that morning and they agreed that shopping carts had been a problem
for a long time. He (Siegele) had designated an area within his yard with a
sign stating, "Park Carts Here" and the cart service people would come to that
area and pick them up.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked Miss Santalahti if there were any further concerns;
Miss Santalahti answered if Mr. Siegele could operate within the scope of the
fencing, height of the storage, etc., it should be acceptable. Otherwise, she
would like to have seen the dedication and street improvement.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the City would be getting the dedication now or
not; Miss Santalahti answered they would get the dedication when the property
was developed with another industrial use. If Mr. Siegele made substantial
modifications, the Planning Department would probably be back asking for
further street improvements, but basically with the existing buildings and
some potential buildings for recycling, staff would not be asking for
dedication other than Mr. Siegele would have made the irrevocable offer, which
would be recorded. That was done with properties for preexisting development
and the subject buildings did predate Mr. Siegele's use.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Pickler, seconded by Councilman Bay, the City Council approved the negative
742
City Hall~ Anaheim~ Californ/a - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 24~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
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. Councilman 0verholt was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 84R-292 for adoption, reversing
revocation of Conditional Use Permit No. 2187 by the City Planning Commission,
but subject to the following conditions:
1. That within a period of ninety (90) days from the date of this
resolution, the owner(s) of subject property shall by recorded deed
irrevocably offer to dedicate to the City of Anaheim a strip of land 32 feet
in width from the centerline of the street along South Street for street
widening purposes, which offer of dedication shall be accepted by the City
prior to issuance of a building permit for development of the property, in
whole or part for any use other than the subject recycling center.
2. That prior to occupancy of any new buildings constructed in
connection with development of the property for any use other than the subject
recycling center, all engineering requirements of the City of Anaheim along
South Street including preparation of improvement plans and installation of
all improvements such as curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street grading and paving,
drainage facilities or other appurtenant work, shall be completed; the
developer shall post a performance bond in such amount as approved by the City
Engineer guaranteeing installation of such improvements prior to issuance of
building permits for such new use; and the owner(s) of the subject property
shall record a covenant agreeing to the obligation contained in this condition
within ninety (90) days from the date of this resolution.
3. That trash storage areas shall be provided, as required by the
Streets and Sanitation Division.
4. That prior to commencement of structual framing for any new
buildings, fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and
determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department.
5. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner
satisfactory to the City Engineer,
6. That the existing planter and landscaping therein located in front of
the six (6) foot high block wall facing South Street shall be permanently
maintained.
7. That within a period of ninety (90) days from the date herein, a
minimum eight (8) foot high concrete block wall shall be constructed along the
entire north property line and the northerly approximately four hundred (400)
feet of the east property line. Said block wall along the east property line
shall extend southward to the existing most northerly building.
743
City Hallt Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 24, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
9. That within a period of ninety (90) days from the date herein, any
gates providing access to subject property shall minimally consist of
chain/ink fencing interwoven with cedar or redwood slats.
10. That the primary interior driveway connecting South Street and the
Rose Street alley shall have a minimumwidth of twenty (20) feet and shall be
kept clear at all times of any stored materials in order to accommodate
emergency vehicles.
11. That within a period of ninety (90) days from the date herein, all
parking spaces located outside the enclosed area and adjacent to South Street
shall be clearly marked (painted). Said spaces shall comply with the layout
and design standards specified in Chapter 18.06 of the Zoning Code.
12. That within a period of one-hundred twenty (120) days from the date
herein, any unpaved area of the facility used for storage, processing of
vehicle circulation shall be paved.
13. That trucks containing recyclable materials shall not be stored
outside the perimeter of the enclosed yard. Any areas outside the enclosed
yard intended to be used by trucks or other vehicles shall be fully paved and
shall be clearly designated (painted) as parking spaces in accordance with the
layout and design standards specified in Chapter 18.06 of the Zoning Code.
14. That no recycling materials and no bins containing such materials
shall be stored at a height exceeding eight (8) feet unless the enclosing
wood-slatted fencing or block walls are similarly raised in height to fully
screen such a use.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 84R-292: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM MODIFYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2187, AND THE CONDITIONS
CONTAINED THEREIN, AS SET FORTH IN PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC82-62.
(R. CHECK ABOVE RESOLUTION TITLE, TOO, JUST IN CASE. THANKS. P.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Pickler and Roth
None
Overholt
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 84R-292 duly passed and adopted.
Before concluding, Mayor Roth asked if there was a time scheduled for
completion of the block wall.
Miss Santalahti answered 90 days.
134/155: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 188 AND EIR
NO. 265 (OAK HILLS RANCH): To consider an amendment to the Land Use Element
of the General Plan, alternate proposals of ultimate land uses including, but
744
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Jul~ 24~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
not limited to Hillside Estate Density Residential, Hillside Low Density
Residential, Hillside Medium Density Residential, General Commercial, and
General Open Space for an area of approximately 600 acres bounded on the north
by the Wallace Ranch, east and south by the Irvine Company property and west
by the Texaco-Anaheim Hills Inc. property. (continued from the meeting of
June 5, 1984)
At their regular meeting held May 15, 1984, the City Council set this date and
time for a public hearing on the subject General Plan and Environmental Impact
Report.
At their meeting of June 5, 1984, where extensive discussion, questioning and
input were received (see minutes that date), the Council moved that the public
hearing be continued to July 24, 1984, in order to be able to obtain
additional information which they felt was needed to make a decision on the
matter.
Subsequently letter dated July 18, 1984 was received from Mr. James Dennehy
asking that the public hearing be continued to August 14, 1984 and the request
for continuance was granted by the Council.
The Mayor asked if anyone was present to speak to the matter; there was no
response.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to continue the public hearing on General Plan
Amendment No. 188 and EIR No. 265 to Tuesday, August 14, 1984, at 1:30 p.m.,
as requested by the applicant. Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
Councilman Overholt was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
179: CONTINUED REHEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2461: Application
submitted by Riviera Mobilehome Parks, to amend conditions of approval of
Conditional Use Permit No. 2461, to permit two 14-story, 200-foot high office
complexes on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located at 300 West Katella Avenue.
Environmental Impact Report No. 262 was certified by Council at'the meeting of
January 24, 1984 as being in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act along with the statement of Overriding Considerations.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-18, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2461 subject to certain conditions and the City
Council at their meeting of March 27, 1984, granted Conditional Use Permit No.
2461 subject to all City Planning Commission conditions including additional
conditions as stipulated in Resolution No. 84R-124 (see minutes of March 27,
1984). A rehearing was requested by the Attorney for the applicant relating
to the imposition of certain conditions and the request for a rehearing was
granted by the Council at their meeting of April 3, 1984 and continued from
the meeting of May 15, 1984.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 2460 AND 2462: Application
submitted by Riviera Mobilehome Parks, to consider amendments to Condition No.
23 to Resolution No. 84R-35, Conditional Use Permit No. 2460 and Condition No.
18 to Resolution No. 84R-37, Conditional Use Permit No. 2462, as conditions of
approval, that the owner(s) of subject property shall pay its proportionate
745
tit7 Hall~ Anaheim; California - C0~NCIL ~INUTES - Jul7 24, 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
share, and shall execute and record an agreement in a form approved by the
City Attorney's Office obligating owner(s) to pay its proportionate share, of
the cost of certain off-site public improvements and services pursuant to that
certain assessment district or benefit area to be hereinafter established by
the City of Anaheim, pursuant to the requirement of Development Agreement No.
83-01 between the City of Anaheim and Anaheim Stadium Associates, for
Conditional Use Permit Nos. 2460 and 2462, to permit a 17-story, 171-foot
high, 852-room hotel with accessory uses and on-sale alcoholic beverages on
proposed C-R zoned property and two 234-foot high, 180-unit condominium towers
with various Code waivers on proposed RM-1000 zoned property, respectively, on
property located at 300 West Katella Avenue.
Environmental Impact Report No. 262 was certified by Council at the meeting of
January 24, 1984 as being in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act along with the statement of Overriding Considerations.
City Clerk Sohl announced that a letter dated July 20, 1984 had been received
from Floyd Farano, Attorney for the applicant requesting a continuance of the
public hearing on Conditional Use Permit No. 2461 and also on Conditional Use
Permit Nos. 2460 and 2462, consideration of amendments to those use permits,
to August 28, 1984, but she believed now that Mr. Farano was requesting a
continuance to September 25, 1984.
Mayor Roth noted that it was determined there would be no Council meeting on
Tuesday, September 25, 1984, due to the League of California Cities annual
conference which was being hosted by Anaheim.
After Council discussion with input from Mr. Floyd Farano, attorney for the
applicant, relative to an appropriate date, it was determined that October 9,
1984 was an agreeable date for both the continued rehearing on Conditional Use
Permit No. 2461 and public hearing on Conditional Use Permit Nos. 2460 and
2462.
Jack White, Assistant City Attorney, then clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood
that two types of hearings were involved, the first on CUP 2461 was a
rehearing and opened the entire conditional use permit. The second relative
to CUP Nos. 2460 amd 2462 was a request to modify certain conditions of
approval that would only place those conditions in the issue.
MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to continue the continued rehearing on
Conditional Use Permit No. 2461 and public hearing on Conditional Use Permit
Nos. 2460 and 2462, certain conditions of approval, to Tuesday, October 9,
1984, at 1:30 p.m. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Councilman Overholt
was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 3400: Application submitted by San Roque,
Inc., to retain an existing block wall and swimming pool on RS-HS-22,000(SC)
zoned property located at 6899 Avenida de Santiago, with Code waivers as
follows: (a) maximum fence height, and (b) minimum front yard setback.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-103, reported
that the Planning Director or his authorized representative has determined
that the proposed activity falls within the definition of categorical
746
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIl. MINUTES - July 24~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
exemptions Section 3.01, Class 5, as defined in the State EIR guidelines to
the requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and is therefore
categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR and further,
denied Variance No. 3400.
The decision of the City Planning Commission was appealed by the applicant and
public hearing scheduled this date.
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
Mr. William J. Anthony, 16902 Bolsa Chica Road, Huntington Beach, owner of the
property, was present with Mr. Elmer Allen, Associate, San Roque, Inc., 267
Knox Street, Costa Mesa. Mr. Anthony explained that they submitted a complete
set of plans for approval by the Homeowners Association in 1980 and also
submitted those plans to Texaco Anaheim Hills for architectural review
approval. Prior to final approval from them, they submitted plans through
City Plan Check and received approval both from Plan Check and the Homeowners
Association. Last year they had to resubmit plans to the City for Plan Check
because a year had expired. They were reapproved by Plan Check and building
permits issued. He brought with him the permits and stamped plans. A~ter
construction started, they were stop ordered on the fence and pool because of
a complaint. They asked all of the neighbors verbally if they complained and
were told they had not complained and the City did not reveal who complained.
The Council would note in the slides that were about to be shown, the question
seemed to be the height of the wall and the distance of the wall from the
curb. A house was located on each side of the subject property and both walls
were higher and both went directly to the curb. When he checked with the
City, he found that neither of those had a variance, but they had submitted
plans and they were approved.
Councilman Bay asked if the plans were approved unconditionally; Mr. Anthony
answered that there were three conditions that did not involve the pool or the
wall. The conditions were stated in letter dated December 23, 1980
(previously made a part of the record). Mr. Elmer Allen, owner of the
property, then narrated a slide presentation which consisted of slides showing
the wall, its orientation, the pool which was partially constructed, and other
slides showing the adjacent houses and improvements constructed thereon.
Councilman Bay asked to hear from staff on the specific reasons why the
applicant was told to stop construction; Miss Santalahti stated she would have
to check with the Building Division. The matter came to the attention of the
Zoning Division as a complaint.
The Mayor asked to hear from those present in opposition.
Charles Cundiff, 6951 Via Elestrebo, member of the Anaheim Ridge Homeowners
Association, stated the Association was opposed for the following reasons:
The Association did not have a copy of the plans that were ever approved by
the Association, either by the Anaheim Ridge or the Master Association. They
had asked for a copy of the plans to see if something was approved by the
Association and found nothing.
747
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 24~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
Tallas Margrave, 6503 Seneca Avenue, stated it was always the policy in
Anaheim Hills with the sub-associations that the plans must go to the
sub-associations first and the master associations second and then back to the
homeowner, so they always required three sets of plans. Anaheim Ridge Estates
had not been able to find a set of stamped plans, nor had the Master
Association. Under the CC&Rs, once plans were approved, if construction had
not commenced within one year, approval expired. Relative to the neighbor's
fence, it was wrought iron and with regard to the neighbor to the west, Dr.
Lester, a lawsuit had Just been filed against him by Anaheim Ridge Estates and
the Master Association to remove the improvements shown in the slides. There
had been about three cases in the last year where the Building Department had
issued plans without Master Association approval. Had the Building Department
gone through the process originally agreed to, they would probably be saving
the Association and Council time.
Mayor Roth asked Mr. Margrave if he tried to work out some arrangement with
Messrs. Anthony and Allen that would be acceptable to the Homeowners
Association.
Mr. Margrave answered the way the procedure was set up, the Master Association
left it up to the sub-associations.
Mr. Cundiff stated he did not believe they could work anything out with Mr.
Anthony unless he complied with the CC&Rs. If they gave him approval, they
could not tell another person he could not do the same. They would have to
submit plans to go before the architectural review committee, get that
committee's approval, and be treated as each and every other neighbor. If
they could get a copy of the plans, he would be interested in knowing if the
improvements were built in accordance with those plans. The Association
needed a copy of the plans if they were available.
Mr. Margrave stated the whole matter could be mitigated if they could get a
copy of the plans. If Mr. Anthony would provide those, the Association would
pay to have them reproduced. The reason they were present today was in the
past as they tried to get a compromise, they were ignored.
Mr. Jim DeForrest, 6901 Avenida de Santiago, stated that the applicant built a
spec house and was going to sell it. They were not going to be his
neighbors. He was the one that was going to have to look at the wall and
also, the wall was 18 inches above street level, making it higher. He did not
understand people wanting a variance. He did not believe they had a variance
from the Association. He reiterated he would have to look at the wall every
day. If his own fence was too high, he would take it down. If the owners
lived in another community, they could care less.
Mr. Anthony, in making his summation, addressed other issues he felt were
involved and in concluding stated that he, too, was a member of the Homeowners
Association. He also owned a second lot and had been paying dues since 1979.
Originally, he owned five lots. They had never been contacted by any person
from the Homeowners Association to sit down and discuss the issue. At no time
were they ever given a copy of anything to say the CC&Rs had been changed and
the plans were good for only one year. Further, the wall was not blocking
748
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 24, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
anyone's view since it was in the front of the house. If they had been
contacted and asked if they would install wrought iron on the top, bottom or
middle of the block wall, he did not see any reason why they would not have
done that.
Mayor Roth stated he favored the suggestion by Mr. Margrave that the best
thing to do was for Messrs. Anthony and Allen to meet with the Association and
work out an acceptable plan, but first of all to provide a set of plans. He
was, therefore, inclined to continue the public hearing rather than deny or
approve the request. This would give Mr. Anthony an opportunity to get a set
of plans for the Homeowners Association and subsequently meet with them to
work something out.
Mr. Anthony stated he would have no objection to doing that.
Mr. Margrave stated the Association would need at least three weeks, so that
the sub-association would first have an opportunity to review the plans, and
then the Master Association, although special meetings could be held instead
of adhering to their regular meeting schedules.
Miss Santalahti stated the Chief Building Inspector checked the files and
found that the applicant had a pool permit but not a block wall permit. Two
things could be done which would comply with Code and the variance would not
have been necessary--move the wall back 15 feet from the private cul-de-sac or
if the block wall were only 30 inches solid and the remainder wrought iron,
that would also comply with the Zoning Code. She did not believe a stop
notice was issued, but a notice of violation and order to comply was sent out
by Code Enforcement regarding the block wall.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to continue the public hearing on Variance No.
3400 to Tuesday, August 14, 1984, at 1:30 p.m. Councilman Pickler seconded
the motion. Councilman Overholt was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked how many were present on the issue; there were
approximately four people present.
Mr. Jack White, Assistant City Attorney, in order to clarify the matter
relative to submittal of plans, explained that there was no legal requirement
that the plan~ be approved by the Association before the City could issue
building permits. It had been a policy of the Building and Planning
Department, but a policy only. The permit Just continued was on a Zoning
variance and the Council's decision would not necessarily depend upon whether
or not it was disapproved or approved by the Association, but by the testimony
given as to whether the project met the zoning criteria of the Zoning Code.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2574 AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION: Application submitted by Carlos R. and Leonor Conant, to
consider expansion of a day care center to permit a maximum of 12 children on
RS-7200 zoned property located at 1321 North Moraga Street, with Code waiver
of required loading and unloading area for children, and revised plans.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC84-98, approved the
negative declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative
749
Cdt7 Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 24, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
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. 2574, subject to certain conditions:
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present.
Mrs. Leonor Conant, 1321 North Moraga, was present to answer questions.
Councilman Bay stated he understood Mrs. Conant was presently operating a day
care center for up to six children and the request was to increase that number
to 12. His concern was relative to the petitions the Council received and a
great deal of opposition in writing that was submitted to the Council allowing
that type of commercial operation in the middle of a residential area. A
second story was being added to the subject home and he asked Mrs. Conant if
she had revised the plans that were submitted with the Conditional Use Permit
to show the enlargement of the home to a second story; Mrs. Conant answered,
yes.
Councilman Bay explained his reason for setting the matter for a public
hearing was to listen to the concerns of the residents.
Mr. Carlos Conant, 1321 North Moraga, explained that on June 22, 1984, he
spoke to 21 families up and down his street. He had a letter he read to them
stating that he and his wife were planning on adding a second story to their
home, the reason being they needed five bedrooms for their family. All 21
signed the paper in approval with no complaints.
Councilman Bay stated he was not convinced the second story was an issue; the
issue was increasing the day care operation to up to 12 children.
Mr. Conant stated they had been running day care for the past seven years from
6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and six cars were involved. The increase would add
only six more cars and he did not see any problem with that.
The Mayor asked to hear from those who wished to speak in favor or in
opposition, preferably a spokesman from each group. He first asked for a show
of hand8 of those present in support~ there were 12 people present in
support. The F, ayor asked how many of those in support were neighbors,
residents in the area, and how many of those present had children in the day
care. There were four people who were residents in the area and eight people
who had children in the day care center.
Mr. Ronald Peterson, 1313 North Moraga, stated he had lived in the
neighborhood for only five years. He felt that Mr. and Mrs. Conant were
capable of doing what they were doing but he (Peterson) was interested in the
addition of the second story and thought that was the issue at stake.
Mayor Roth reiterated that the issue was the request to increase the operation
from six to 12 children; Mr. Peterson stated he could only speak on behalf of
the abilities of Hr. and Mrs. Conant. He did not fully understand the
750
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Jul7 24, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
complete impact the change would have on his own property. He did not think
safety would be an issue if people complied with the law.
The following people spoke in favor.
A,n Harkey, 130 South Thompson, Fullerton, stated her children were cared for
by Mrs. Conant and commented on the quality of care provided, concluding that
if anybody was qualified to be in the child care business, it was Mrs. Conant.
Randy Rosenbauer, 8455 Kington Way, La Palma, stated his infant daughter was
cared for by Mrs. Conant. Mrs. Conant's social worker was also present and
could bring testimony as far as the increase in number of children and
hardship from six to 12. Once increased, it would require additional
supervision and assistance within the home and Mrs. Conant had that. Traffic
would not be a factor due to the different delivery and pick up times. All
children were not at the day care center during the same time periods. If
traffic records were checked, he doubted whether they would reveal a traffic
problem or hazard. In searching for a qualified person, they found Mrs.
Conant to be most suited. They had been utilizing her services for two weeks.
The following people spoke in opposition.
Mr. J. D. Mcllhenny, 1262 Moraga, stated that the capabilities of the
applicant were not up for discussion today, but the day care center itself,
which he did not believe belonged in a residential neighborhood. The Conants
had three children and the license allowing six children included the three
already living in the home, leaving room for only three additional children.
Assistant City Attorney Jack White then clarified for Councilman Bay that his
interpretation of the Zoning Code provided that the six children were
exclusive of household children. It meant six coming in from the outside.
Mr. McIlhenny then stated relative to traffic, theirs was a small community,
two blocks long, with 37 houses. He explained the traffic circulation pattern
used by vehicles to travel through the neighborhood. Four trips a day came by
his house, multiplied by the number of children would be a high figure. Also,
directly across the street from the Conants there was another licensed child
care facility at 1320 Horaga, Mrs. Loyce Bird, who had a license for six
children and she was using it. She received her license in November of 1983
and it would expire in November, 1985. They were not talking about one child
care facility, but two, and now they were talking about increasing the total
number to 18. The neighbors concurred that their neighborhood and street was
contributing enough with two six-child child care facilities and should be
enough to ask of them. Mrs. Bird was already interested in asking for 12
children when he talked to her. He asked that they leave Mrs. Bird at six and
the Conants at six children each.
Ella Leonard, 1329 North Alamo, stated she also objected to another day care
center. If this was allowed, there were going to be others. They had enough
traffic now. She had no objection to more day care centers, but there were
other places to put them. She was not opposed to the six children.
7.51
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL ~/NUTES - July 24, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Barbara McIlhenny, 1262 Moraga, asked for clarification. She had called
Family Day Care Home Licensing in June and the Conants were issued a license
for 12 children. It was not for six but for 12.
Mayor Roth stated they could have made an application for 12, but it was
subject to the approval of the City Council.
Mr. White stated that the State license was independent of the Zoning Code
provision. They were present today to review the aspect of whether the Zoning
Code would authorize the Conants to have 12 children. They needed both the
State license and City zoning approvals.
Charles Eckart, 1325 Alamo, stated he was opposed to the increase in
children. If they were allowed to have 12, then the people across the street
would have to have 12.
Jim Lipuma, 1312 North Moraga, stated his main concern was where it would all
stop. Six children were sufficient. There was another lady across the street
caring for six at present and another toward the other end of the street
caring for two or three. He was concerned over the impact on the future of
that neighborhood. If they ended up with six or seven day care centers in one
area and people came in to buy a home and they found out, he was concerned
what it would do to resale prospects. He then referred to a list of day care
centers in the area which had previously been submitted to the Council.
Carol Wheylan, Social Worker, County of Orange Day Care Licensing, 1801 North
College Avenue, Santa Ana, first stated that Mrs. Conant had been licensed for
six children for the past seven years. During that time, her office had made
eight inspections and had no adverse complaints or found any deficiencies.
Mrs. Conant was currently licensed for 12 children from the Day Care License
Department which included her own three children. She was required to have an
assistant whenever the number of children in her home exceeds six, including
her own. The operation of a large family day care home, 12 children, was
considered a residential use of property in accordance with current State law
(SB 163). She then clarified for Councilman Pickler that M_rs. Conant could
have no more than 12 children under the age of 12 in her home at any one time.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mrs. Wheylan how many people who were licensed
actually took care of infants; Mrs. Wheylan answered her estimate was
approximately 30 percent.
Councilman Bay asked the number of day care centers, at six or 12, or the
total that were already licensed in the City of Anaheim; Mrs. Wheylan stated
roughly there were approximately 12 large family day care homes (12 children)
in all areas of Anaheim west of State College Boulevard, although some might
be in County islands. There were 48 in the County. There were approximately
1500 day care centers with six or less in the County of Orange totally. She
would guess that of that 1500, approximately 150, and possibly as high as 200,
were located in Anaheim.
The Mayor asked the applicant to make a s-mm~tion.
752
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 24~ 1984, 10:00 A.M.
Mr. Conant first stated that from his home it was possible to leave the
neighborhood from the north or the south and, therefore, traffic would not
always have to travel straight down the street. Further, Mr. McIlhenny, being
a subcontractor, had a business license and there were trucks traveling up and
down the street because of that. There was also a large truck parked in his
driveway. He also submitted a letter from his neighbor next door who was not
able to be present, but who was in favor.
Councilwoman Kaywood then asked Mrs. Conant if she had received any complaints
from her neighbors at any time; Mrs. Conant answered, never. The first time
was when they were asking for 12 children.
Councilwoman Kaywood also asked if the Council were to grant her a one year
trial with 12 children were they making any kind of physical changes that
would be an expense and a concern if they were not allowed to have 12 children
after one year; Mrs. Conant answered, #no', the addition was to accommodate
her mother-in-law who was going to live with them because she was almost
blind. It had nothing to do with the children.
Barbara Wright stated she was the next door neighbor to the north. She had no
objection and there was also no traffic problem. She did not work and was
most aware of the fact that there was no traffic problem.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Councilman Pickler stated his concern was the same as those residents who felt
they would be inundated with day care centers for 12 children. The City had
no control over six. He felt it was time to set up guidelines and suggested
that the Planning Department develop such guidelines, i.e., that only one day
care center with 12 children be allowed within one mile of each other or two,
etc., something they could follow as a Council.
Mr. White explained that the State had preempted the City with regard to day
care centers having six children and those over six were controlled by a
conditional use permit and each conditional use permit legally in theory would
stand or fall on its own merits and not as a precedent on what was done
somewhere else.
A~ter further discussion between Councilman Pickler and Mr. White, Councilman
Bay stated the first thing the Council should know any time they received a
request for approval of an application for a day care center for 12 children
were the number of centers up to six children already in the area. The
subject neighborhood had very limited access. He lived in that neighborhood
but across Brookhurst Street, which had a similar layout. Those areas were
designed that way to be peaceful, residential neighborhoods. The issue was
encroachment of a business operation into a residential area and it was one
within the purview of the Council to decide whether they were going to allow
that type of operation to increase in residential neighborhoods. There were
20 citizens opposed, enough to state their opposition, and four neighbors in
favor, with six users of the service who did not live in the area.
Councilwoman Kaywood interjected and stated there was also another letter in
favor from a neighbor.) The only guidelines the Council used thus far, they
753
Ctt7 Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 24, 1984, 10:00 A.M.
rejected one day care center because there was opposition, and approved
another because there was no opposition. If the Council was going to bend the
criteria of protecting single-family residential zoning in the City,
guidelines should be established. There were six other preschools and day
nurseries less than two miles from the subject location that the City knew of,
plus the one across the street, which was a complete surprise. Looking at the
approximate number of day care centers quoted across the County, he considered
Moraga Street, a two-block area, had more than its share of the average of day
care centers across residential in the City.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated the capability of the people involved was
extremely important and the need could not be discounted. Anaheim was a
family-oriented city. The Council did care about people, but that included
children and the children being cared for in this case were infants, which
filled another need. What she noted on the petition in opposition was that
both Mr. and Mrs. signed so the number could be cut in half. There were four
neighbors in support as well as two letters, making six in support. If they
wanted to consider those and say that Mr. and Mrs. were considered to be 12,
it was pretty even. When someone stated there were four cars going up and
down the street, she did not think four cars was a tremendous amount of
disruptive traffic. With a one year approval on a CUP, the Conants should be
given an opportunity to show whether they could care for 12 children without
disturbing the neighborhood and for the neighbors to see if it really was
going to be a burden.
Councilman Bay clarified that the four cars were for each child, coming in,
dropping off and going out and the same in the evening. With 12 children,
there would be 48 trips; Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out the most they could
have was nine children, because the Conants had three children.
Councilman Bay then stated it would be 36 extra trips on the street.
Mayor Roth stated, looking at this particular piece of property and the
ingress and egress, the use would generate more traffic and it was in the
middle of a residential area. This day care center had received the most
opposition of any that had been before the Council.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Bay, seconded by Councilman Pickler, the City Council approved the negative
declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative declaration
together with any comments received during the public review process, and
further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received
that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant
effect on the environment. Councilman Overholt was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Bay offered a resolution denying CUP 2574 due to the impact of the
commercial operation in a residential area and reversing the findings of the
City Planning Commission.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Pickler stated he was going to vote
against the resolution, since he felt one of the most important factors was
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 24~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
the capabilities of those running the day care center. In the future,
however, he wanted to know what was in the area before voting.
A vote was then taken on the resolution.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCLLMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Bay and Roth
Pickler and Kaywood
Overholt
Assistant City Attorney White stated there had been no action. The resolution
failed to carry unless a member of the Council wished to offer another
resolution or indicate a change in their vote. The Council might wish to
continue the matter to the next meeting for full Council action.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered a resolution granting Conditional Use Permit No.
2574 for one year to ascertain what the impact would be after that period, the
same approval as granted by the City Planning Commission.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to continue the public hearing on Conditional
Use Permit No. 2574 for full Council action.
Before action was taken, Councilman Pickler asked if they would againhave to
go through a public hearing; Mr. White answered no. The absent Council Member
at any hearing could review the tape recording and documentary evidence
available. If at that time he or she indicated they had adequate information
in their own mind to act upon the matter, they would be in a position to vote
at a subsequent meeting.
After a brief discussion regarding the most appropriate date for continuance
of the public hearing, Councilman Bay amended his motion that the public
hearing be continued to Tuesday, August 14, 1984, at 1:30 p.m. Councilman
Roth seconded the motion. Councilman Overholt was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 83-84-35~ VARIANCE NO. 3409 AND
NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application submitted by David S. and Marion Graaf
Collins, for a change in zone from RS-7200 to CR, to permit a 17-unit bed and
breakfast motel on property located at 1077 West Ball Road and 942, 946 and
952 South Flore Street, with the following Code waivers: (a) minimum number
of parking spaces, (b) maximum structural height, (c) minimum structural
setback, and (d) maximum wall height.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution Nos. PC84-129 and
PC84-130, 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
Reclassification No. 83-84-35 and Variance No. 3409.
755
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 24~ 1984~ 10:00 A.M.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by the applicant and
public hearing scheduled this date.
City Clerk Lee Sohl announced that a letter had been received from the
applicant requesting a continuance to August 7, 1984 or later.
Mr. David Collins, who was present in the Chamber audience, stated only one
person spoke in opposition at the Planning Commission meeting. They could fit
into any agenda.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to continue the public hearing on
Reclassification No. 83-84-35 and negative declaration therefor to Tuesday,
August 21, 1984, at 1:30 p.m. Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
Councilman Overholt was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilman Bay seconded the
motion. Councilman Overholt was absent. MOTION CARRIED. (4:27 p.m.)
LEONORAN. $0HL, CITY CLERK
756