1983/09/06City Hall,.A~aheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 6~ 1983, 10:00 A.M.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt and Bay
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Roth
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
Mayor Pro Tem Bay called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Mayor Pro Tem Ben Bay gave the Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Irv Pickler led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
119: RESOLUTION OF WELCOME: A Resolution of Welcome was unanimously adopted
by the City Council to be presented to the American Dietetic Association,
welcoming their 66th Annual Meeting, to be held September 12 through 15, 1983,
to Anaheim.
119: RESOLUTIONS OF COMMENDATION AND CONGRATULATIONS: Resolutions of
Commendation and Congratulations were authorized by the City Council, the
first commending Dr. Richard Kaywood upon his retirement from the field of
Education, and the second congratulating Public Information Officer Dean Grose
upon his leaving the City to pursue other professional endeavors. Both
resolutions were to be presented at later dates.
119: ANNOUNCEMENT: Mayor Pro Tem Bay announced that Anaheim had been
selected as the recipient of the prestigious 1983 Local Government Education
award through the International City Management Association. He complimented
Mr. Talley and his management team on the award, to be presented to the City
Manager at the International City Management Association Conference, to be
held in Kansas City on October 11, 1983.
MINUTES: The minutes of the regular meeting held July 26, 1983, were
submitted, but deferred for approval 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. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $2,162,693.19, in
accordance with the 1983~84 Budget, were approved.
714
City Hall~ Anaheim~ .C.alifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 6~ 1983, 10:00 A.M.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Overholt,
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 Overholt
offered Resolution Nos. 83R-346 through 83R-354, 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 Fremont Indemnity Company~ Ron's Plumbing, Insured,
for personal injury damages to claimant's insured's employee purportedly
sustained due to failure of City to provide a safe place to work and
failure to inform of conditions at the construction site of the City of
Anaheim Maintenance Facility, on or about April 28, 1983.
2. Claim submitted by Monica Kate Smith for personal injury damages
purportedly sustained due to an accident at the Anaheim Stadium parking
lot, on or about April 22, 1983.
3. Claim submitted by Julie Ulloa for personal property damages
purportedly sustained due to a parkway tree limb falling on claimaat's car
at 319 South Bush, on or about July 22, 1983.
B. Claims allowed payment:
4. Claim submitted by Beth Ann Rael for food loss purportedly sustained
due to actions of City Utilities Department at 2900 West Lincoln, B214, on
or about July 12, 1983. ($30.32)
5. Claim submitted by Edward H. Robles for personal property damages to
truck purportedly sustained due to an accident in which a City-owned
vehicle was involved at the Glastron/Carlson Boat Company, on or about
March 14, 1983. ($586.36)
2. 105: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. Public Utilities Board--Minutes of July 7 and 21, 1983, and July 28,
1983 (unapproved).
b. Park and Recreation Commission--Minutes of June 22, 1983.
3. 132: Receiving and filing the Productivity Improvement Analysis of the
Streets and Sanitation Control Center.
4. 119/150: Accepting a donation from the Anaheim Tennis Club in the amount
of $2,000, for the purpose of hiring a tournament director for the Anaheim
Junior Tennis Tournament, and appropriating the funds into Account
01-275-6350-5JRTY, Program 275°
715
C.ity Ha.ll~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 6, 1983~ .10:00 A.M.
5. 123: Authorizing an agreement with Timothy J. O'Neil, Cathleen A. O'Neil
and Brian J. O'Neil, owners of property located at 1420 North Lemon Street,
for installation of a traffic counter and possible future installation of a
signal at the intersection of Lemon Street and the Riverside Freeway on-off
ramp, in accordance with conditions of approval of Reclassification No.
81-82-10 (82R-306).
6. 153: Approving bid specifications and authorizing the Human Resources
Director to solicit bids for Medical Claims Administration Services, Employee
Group Life Insurance and Medical Plan Excess Risk Insurance.
7. 123: Authorizing an agreement with The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe
Railway Company, for the installation of railroad crossing protection at the
Hunter Street Crossing No. 2B-39.3-C.
8. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to
Advanced Control Systems in the amount of $10,374.22 for one each Model 8001,
19" eight color CRT intelligent data terminal and accompanying interconnect
cable for Lewis Substation, in accordance with Bid No. 3704.
9. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to
Computer Services Corporation in the amount of $25,237.54 for one Type 100,
8-phase Controller complete with Central Computer Interface, two Flow
Receivers and one CIM board and one Type 100, 6-phase Controller complete with
Central Computer Interface, for traffic signal installations at Lakeview and
La Palma Avenues and Ball Road and Sunkist Street.
10. 160: Accepting the bid of Westinghouse Electric Corporation in the
amount of $29,837 for two each, 225KVA three-phase padmount transformers~ Item
1; and two each 500KVA three-phase padmount transformers, Item 2, in
accordance with Bid No. 3998.
11. 160: Accepting the bid of General Electric Supply in an amount not to
exceed $32,123.30 for 50,000 feet of #2 15KV URD cable, in accordance with Bid
No. 4008.
12. 160: Accepting the low bid of Case Power & Equipment Company in the
amount of $23,774.74 for one industrial tractor with rear scraper, in
accordance with Bid No. 4021.
13. 160: Accepting the bid of Great Pacific Equipment Company in the amount
of $18,740.10 for one aerial manlift device and service truck body, in
accordance with Bid No. 4026.
14. 160: Accepting the bid of Fontaine Truck Equipment Company in the amount
of $17,161.40 for two Chipper Body/Hoist with cover, in accordance with Bid
No. 4027.
15. 160: Accepting the low bid of Siboney Communications Inc., in the amount
of $48,581.92, for Video Equipment, in accordance with Bid No. 4028.
716
Cit Hall Anaheim California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Se tember 6 1983, 10:00 A.M.
16. 160: Accepting the low bid of Arko Equipment Company in the amount of
$10,902.10 for one 28-foot aerial device, van mounted, in accordance with Bid
No. 40 30.
17. 160: Accepting the low bid of Western Mobile Equipment Company in the
amount of $124,090.49 for one truck-mounted digger/derrick, in accordance with
Bid No. 40 33.
18. 124: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-346: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETS~I-~INING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT:
ANAHEIM CONVENTION CENTER ARENA BOX OFFICE PARKING AREA, IN THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 64-957-7107. (Bids to be opened October 6, 1983, 2:00
p.m.)
19. 165: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-347: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE CENTRAL CITY - ANAHEIM
BOULEVARD/ZEYN STREET ALLEY IMPROVEMENT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO.
25-793-6325-E3720. (Nobest Incorporated and Nodland, R. L. (J.V.),
5106,400.20)
20. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-348: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRA~'r FOR THE ANAHEIM BOULEVARD STREET, STORM
DRAIN, ELECTRICAL AND WATER IMPROVEMENT, BROADWAY TO BALL ROAD, IN THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, A.H.F.P. NOS. 1047 & 1073, PROJECT NOS. 13-792-6325-E2580;
53-606-6329-27330-34350; 53-606-6329-17230-34350; 53-606-6329-27470-34350;
53-619-6329-90240-31500; 55-650-6325-86060-R9000; 55-650-6329-$637A-36200 !
01-676-6329-12460-37300 and 46-792-6325-E2580- (Silveri & Ruiz Constructzon
Company, 52,681,413.40)
21. 129/171: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-349: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REQUESTING THE COUNTY AUDITOR-CONTROLLER TO CANCEL CERTAIN
WEED ABATEMENT ASSESSMENTS HERETOFORE IMPOSED BY THE CITY ON CERTAIN TAX
EXEMPT PROPERTY IDENTIFIED AS ASSESSOR'S PARCELS NO. 036-063-01 AND 036-063-38.
22. 152/171: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-350: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ESTABLISHING CITY COUNCIL DESIGNEES FOR THE CORRECTION OR
CANCELLATION OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS. (City Fire Marshal for Weed Abatement
and City Engineer for §treet Lighting)
23. 114/161.157: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-351: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY 'OF ANAHEIM CONSENTING TO A JO [NT PUBLIC HEARING, ESTABLISHING A
DATE, TIME, AND PLACE THEREFOR, AND AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION AND MAILING OF
NOTICE OF JOINT PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE
RIVER VALLEY REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT. (public hearing scheduled November 22,
1983, 1:30 p.m.)
24. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-352: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE DISPOSITION OF CERTAIN CITY-OWNED PROPERTY AND
DIRECTING THE PUBLISHING OF NOTICE OF SAID SALE. (2504 West Conley Avenue,
C.P. No. 270)
717
City .Hall~. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 6~ 1.983~ 10:00 A.M.
25. 169/174: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-353: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DETERMINING URBAN LIMITS TO BE IN THE FEDERAL-AID SYSTEM.
(to reflect the 1980 Bureau of the Census boundary)
26. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-354: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION.
(Henry B. Wesseln, et al; JSL-One/G&E Anaheim Associates; Magnolia Plaza, et
al.; Safeway Stores, Incorporated; Kilroy Industries; The Wind Rivers
Condominium Association)
27. 117: Extending the Deferred Compensation investment options to include a
fixed and a variable annuity and approving the recommendations of the City's
Third Party Administrator, Great West Life Assurance Company for the fixed
annuity portion, and Massachusetts Financial Services for the variable annuity
portion.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt and Bay
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Roth
MOTION CARRIED. The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution Nos. 83R-346 through
83R-354, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted.
123: SECOND AMENDMENT TO LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH SHELTER MEDIA INC: Traffic
Engineer Paul Singer first answered questions posed by the Council for
purposes of clarification relative to the shelter program.
Councilman Pickler moved to authorize the Second Amendment to a License
Agreement with Shelter Media Limited Partnership, pertaining to notification
to adjacent property owners of a proposed installation; compensation to City;
and authorizing construction of an additional 25 shelters, as recommended in
memorandum dated August 30, 1983, from the City Engineer, William Devitt.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION
CARRIED.
108: REHEARING - ENTERTAINMENT APPLICATION~. THE HUMDINGER ~4: Lloyd Charton,
Attorney, representing Scott Ernest Slayton, for reconsideration of the denial
action on the Entertainment Permit Application for The Humdinger #4, 2660 West
Lincoln Avenue, to permit one dancing girl, seven days a week, from 11:00 a.m.
to 2:00 a.m. (see minutes of May 31, and July 19, 1983)
Mayor Pro Tem Bay asked to hear from the applicant.
Mr. Lloyd Charton, Attorney, representing Ralph and Scott Slayton, owners of
the Humdinger Bars, first noted that Mayor Roth was not present and the last
time he was before the Council (July 19, 1983) on the matter, he (Roth) made
some favorable comments.
718
Cit Hall Anaheim California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Se tember 6 1983 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Overholt interjected and inquired as to the point of Mro Charton's
observation; Mr. Charton explained that Mr. Slayton noted that Mayor Roth was
not present at the meeting, that he was in favor the last time, and he
wondered what they should do. Perhaps the Council would want to put the
hearing off or go forward.
Councilman Overholt asked what he wished to do; Mr. Charton answered, to
continue the matter until Mayor Roth was present.
MOTION~ Councilman Pickler moved to continue the rehearing for one week for
full Council action. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Councilman
Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
PUBLIC REQUESTS - CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood,
~econded by Councilman Pickler, the following items were approved in
accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each
Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Councilman Overholt
offered Resolution No. 83R-355 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
]. 108~~of Council Policy No.
~OLICY NO. 539: Request Dy S~epnen ~ ..... ~, retain an existing
539, p~rtaining to establishment of game arcades, to
amusement arcade on RM-1200 zoned property located at 1700 North Temple
Street, was approved in accordance with the recommendation of the Zoning
Division.
~ · · ' 335, tO install an
~de ~ for termination of Condztzonal Use Permlt No.
automatic car wash on property located north and east of the northeast corner
of Cerritos Avenue and Anaheim Boulevard, as a condition of approval of
Conditional Use Permit No. 2463. Conditional Use Permit No. 335 was
tez~inated in accordance with the recommendation of the Zoning Division.
3. RESOLUTION NO. 83R-355: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM TEKMINATING ALL PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. 335 AND DECLARING RESOLUTION NO. 63R-96 NULL AND VOID.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt and Bay
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Roth
MOTION CARRIED. The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No~ 83R-355 duly passed
and adopted.
142/171: ORDINANCE NO. 4448~: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4448
~or adoption. Refer to Ordiaance Book.
719
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 6~ .1983~ 10:00 A.M.
ORDINANCE NO. 4448: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FIXING AND LEVYING A
PROPERTY TAX ON FULL CASH VALUE OF ALL PROPERTY WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1983-84. (.00977 percent per hundred
dollars of full cash value)
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Pro Tem Bay questioned City Manager Talley
relative to the tax rate. Mr. Talley reported the following: That the tax
rate was slightly more than last year, since last year they undercollected
approximately $50,000. The total revenue amounted to $619,751, which was what
they needed for the indebtedness.
Mayor Pro Tem Bay stated he wanted it understood that they were not increasing
taxes in the City under the Ordinance.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing Ordinance.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt and Bay
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Roth
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Ordinance No. 4448 duly passed and adopted.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4449: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4449 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4449: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (61-62-69(93), ML, north side
of La Jolla Street, west of Red Gum Street)
139: COUNCIL POSITION ON SB 920: Mayor Pro Tem Bay referred to a letter
dated August 26, 1983, from Senator John Seymour, regarding the amendment to
his Senate Bill 920 so that the AB 8 deflator could be suspended for the full
1983-84 fiscal year. To his knowledge, the Council had not yet taken a
position upon the bill. According to Senator Seymour, SB 920 proposed only
the reduction as planned in ~he City's Resource Allocation Plan of
approximately $1.8 million versus AB 223, which was the subvention loss with
the deflator going into'action on October 1, 1983. If SB 920 passed, the
differential would be $3.468 million, giving the other $600 million across the
State. He wondered if they should take a position on SB 920 today, and if
there was an urgency in getting information up to Sacramento by the City.
City Manager Talley stated they would have a staff report ready by 1:30 p.m.;
Mayor Pro Tem Bay stated they could then take action on SB 920 at that time.
MOTION: Later in the meeting (3:43 p.m.), Mayor Pro Tem Bay acknowledged
receipt of staff report dated September 6, 1983, from Cynthia Cave,
Intergovernmental Relations Officer, regarding SB 920. He thereupon moved
720
.City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September..6~ 1983~ 10:00 A.M.
that the Council support SB 920 and that that support be cou~uunicated to
Sacramento. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. Councilman Roth was
absent. MOTION CARRIED~
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: The City Manager requested a Closed Session to
discuss labor relations, personnel matters and pending litigation with no
action anticipated; The City Attorney requested a Closed Session to discuss
litigation and potential litigation with action anticipated.
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilman Pickler
seconded the motion. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED. (10:32
a.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor Pro Tem called the meeting to order, all Council
Members being present with the exception of Mayor Roth. (1:35 p.m.)
107: NEARING - APPEAL OF NOTICE OF VIOLAT.ION OF UNIFORM HOUSING CODE--502
NORTH ZEYN STREET: Mary Ann Simpson, Attorney, representing Robert and
Patricia Carson, appealing a Notice of Violation of the Uniform Housing Code
on property located at 502 North Zeyn Street. Submitted was a report dated
August 31, 1983, from the Code Enforcement and Housing Supervisor, John W.
Poole.
City Attorney William Hopkins stated they had been informed the problem
regarding the painting of the house had been resolved and there was no further
need to consider the matter.
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, explained that staff
inspected the property last week before the August 31 staff report was
prepared and found that a substantial amount of painting had been completed.
An inspection of the property earlier this morning revealed that the painting
had been completed.
Mayor Pro Tem Bay asked if anyone was present who wished to speak to the
matter; no one was present.
It was determined that the hearing was not necessary, since the Planning staff
reported that the necessary work had been completed.
179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2453 AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION: Marcel G. and Edna V. Mayer, to retain a second-family (granny)
unit on RS-7200 zoned property located at 1232 West Romneya Drive.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-112, 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 medium density residential land uses commensurate with
721
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 6~ 1983~ 10:00 A.M.
the proposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the
proposal; and that the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no
significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts; and
further granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2453, subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the existing structure shall be brought up to the minimum standards
of the City of Anaheim, including the Uniform Building, Plumbing, Electrical,
Housing, Mechanical and Fire Codes as adopted by the City of Anaheim.
2. That appropriate water assessment fees shall be paid to the City of
Anaheim, in an amount as determined by the Office of the Utilities General
Manager.
3. That the occupancy of the granny unit shall be limited to one or two
adults both of whom are sixty (60) years of age or older.
4. That the owner(s) of subject property shall record a covenant against the
property restricting the occupancy of the granny unit to one or two adults
sixty (60) years of age or older. Said covenant shall be submitted to the
Planning Department for transmittal to the City Attorney's Office for review
and approval prior to recordation.
5. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos.
1 and 2.
6. That Condition Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5, above-mentioned, shall be completed
within a period of 90 days from the date of this resolution.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman
Kaywood at the meeting of July 5, 1983, and public hearing scheduled and
continued from the meeting of August 9, 1983, to this date.
Councilman Overholt stated he represented Marcel G. and Edna V. Mayer with
respect to matters involving their home, but he was not representing them in
the subject application. Since he felt it inappropriate to act on the matter
or be present, he would absent himself from the dais during the hearing and
abstain from voting on the matter.
Councilman Overholt left the Council Chambers momentarily (1:36 p.m.), and
then sat in the audience until completion of the hearing.
Mayor Pro Tem Bay acknowledged the stated conflict of interest. He thereupon
asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
Mr. Marcel G. Mayer, Tuscon, Arizona, stated he was the present owner of the
property. He had sold the property, but the owner defaulted and he had to
repossess it. Then, in answer to questions posed by Council Members, Mr.
Mayer reported the following: The addition on the property was there when he
722
Cit Hall Anaheim California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Se tember 6 1983, 10:00 A.M.
bought the home 18 years ago and the property was previously in the County
when the structures were built, the pool cabana had been removed, the unit was
approximately l0 years old when he bought it and he did so to bring his mother
and father to live there.
Miss Santalahti explained, in answer to an earlier question by Councilman
Pickler~ that they did not know if it was found that the property was up to
Code. No construction work had been done since the property was annexed to
the City and therefore, they did not have a typical record as they otherwise
might have.
Mr. Mayer stated he would like to have the property inspected and brought up
to Code if necessary, in case he had to go to the bank for a loan.
Mayor Pro Tem Bay, speaking to staff, stated normally when structures were
built in the County and then annexed to the City, he assumed there were
grandfather clauses on additions built before annexation.
Miss Santalahti explained that if an addition were legally constructed, it
would be grandfathered, but if not constructed under Code in the County When
either, it was not considered grandfathered in the normal sense.
properties were annexed, the County forwarded boxes of records, but since it
was a number of years ago, they were unable to find anything in the Building
Division at all on the subject. They could not prove whether or not the
property was inspected.
Mr. Mayer stated it might be able to be traced through Earl's Plumbing, since
Mr. Nellisen (father) had previously owned the entire property.
Miss Santalahti then explained further that when the Planning Commission
approved the Conditional Use Permit, it was subject to the structure being
brought up to Code and that CC&R's be recorded restricting the occupancy of
the "granny" unit to one or two adults, 60 years of age or older. If the
Council approved, that action should cover the necessary conditions and the
owner would be expected to come to the City for inspection.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she set the matter for a public hearing, because
she had received a number of complaints due to the fact that the unit was
being ranted out; Mr. Mayer stated that it was. When he sold it, the new
owner rented it out, but he did not know to whom. Tha property was not
presently in escrow, but it was for sale. He had a potential buyer, but this
buyer could not afford to purchase it unless he could receive revenue from the
small house.
Since there were no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor Pro Tem
closed the public hearing~
Mayor Pro Tem Bay stated it seemed odd to him that on a piece of property that
existed many years before it came into the City that the CC&R's established by
the Planning Commission would limit the rental portion of the property to two
723
City Hall.~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 6~ 1983~ lp:O0 A.M.
people, 60 years of age or older. That could have a great deal to do with the
value of the property, and he questioned it on the basis that there were
probably not many places in the City that came in under grandfather clauses.
He asked the Council if it was their concern that the unit be restricted to
two people of a specific age group on a CC&R as far as using it for a rental.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated it was a single-family residential area and if
they were going to start with a wide-open rental unit, they were going to make
it a multiple-family residential area without benefit of a zoning change.
There had been a very noisy and disruptive person or persons living there and
if it was a wide-open rental, it would impact all the single-family homeowners
in the area with the number of vehicles and everything else.
Mayor Pro Tem Bay reiterated his concern that due to the length of time the
unit had existed, it was used for other people to live in. He questioned why
it went to the Planning Commission and where they gained their authority to
put new restrictions on something existing that long.
Miss Santalahti explained that if it existed legally and there were building
permits on the property specifically for the dwelling unit, it never would
have been brought to a public hearing. When the complaints were received,
there was no evidence that the structure was legal, since no documentation
could be found.
Mayor Pro Tem Bay pointed out that they also had no proof that there were no
permits or inspections and it was the Council's prerogative to agree or not
agree with the CC&R's or with the inspection, and there was no legal problem
either way, because they did not have any proof from a starting point.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated, absent having any papers to show it was built
legally and with a permit, the assumption was stronger that it was not built
legally. The reason it went to the Planning Commission was due to the
constant complaints for at least two years relative to the behavior that was
going on out of those rental units. The cabana was also rented out, which was
a substandard arrangement. The additional unit was 520 square feet and if
they were going to open it up as a complete rental unit, that was a terrible
infringement upon the residents of that single-family neighborhood.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Bay, seconded by Councilman Pickler, the City Council finds that subject
project will 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 medium density
residential land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive
environmental impacts are involved in the proposal; that the Initial Study
submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant individual or cumulative
adverse environmental impacts; and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement
to prepare an EIR. Councilman Overholt abstained and Councilman Roth was
absent. MOTION CARRIED.
724
City .Hal.l, Ana.heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 6~ 1983~ 10:00 A.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered a resolution denying Conditional Use Permit No.
2453 on the basis that it was a single-family residential zone and a rental
unit was inappropriate.
Before action was taken, Mayor Pro Tem Bay spoke against the resolution on the
basis that strictly under the grandfather clause, the unit had existed and
there was a provision within what the Planning Commission granted, relating to
the CC&R's to restrict use to not over two people in only this portion, since
the cabana no longer existed. That fell under the "granny" regulations of the
State, as reported by Miss Santalahti. He did not consider it a precedent
case, because it had existed for so long. He had heard about but had not seen
any evidence of the complaints in the hearing today. He agreed with the
Planning Commission's position and, therefore, could not support the
resolution to deny; Councilman Pickler agreed.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if they were talking about restricting the rental
to someone 60 years of age or older; Councilman Pickler clarified that was the
way it was approved by the Planning Commission and that condition would stand.
A vote was then taken on the resolution of denial and failed to carry by the
following vote:
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler and Bay
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Roth
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 83R-356 for adoption, granting
Conditional Use Permit No. 2453, subject to the City Planning Commission
conditions. Refer to Resolution Book.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler and Bay
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER$: R0th
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 83R-356 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Overholt returned to the dais. (2:05 p.m.)
Later in the meeting, with all Council Members present except Mayor Roth,
Mayor Pro Tem Bay reported that he was informed by the City Attorney that
three votes were required to pass a resolution. He (Bay) was under the belief
that when the Council convened with a quorum, a majority vote would pass a
resolution.
725
City Hall~. Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 6~ 1983~ 10:00 A.M.
City Attorney Hopkins explained that a motion could be approved with a
two-to-one vote, but the City Charter was specific about ordinances and
resolutions requiring three votes. In 1979, the Council passed a resolution
whereby that if one less vote was available and it was an abstention, the vote
of that person who abstained would apply to the "yes" vote, or to the vote of
the majority, but that would require that there be no conflict of interest
within the Political Reform Act of 1974. He asked Councilman Overholt if he
felt it would be a problem and he (Overholt) was not certain of the amount
involved. It could be that there was a conflict of interest.
Councilman Overholt stated apparently if he had collected by way of fees less
than $250 in the last 12 months from Mr. Mayer, he would not have a conflict,
but he could not without first checking his books, state it was less than
$250. If it was less, then he would vote on the resolution.
Discussion then followed between Council Members and staff on the course of
action that would then be necessary to conclude the matter. At the conclusion
of discussion during which several alternatives were proposed, Councilman
Overholt suggested that if they were going to have a Closed Session, that they
keep the hearing open and during that period he would determine by having his
records checked if, in fact, fees collected from Mr. Mayer over the last 12
months for professional services amounted to $250 or not.
Mayor Pro Tem Bay then trailed the item as being incomplete for lack of a vote
in conformance with the City Charter; later in the meeting, after a Closed
Session (5:01 p.m.), City Attorney Hopkins stated he discussed the matter with
Councilman Overholt, who informed him that he did not have a conflict of
interest within the meaning of the Political Reform Act of 1974. Therefore,
Resolution No. 79R-404 was applicable on his abstention in the matter and
Councilman Overholt's vote shall constitute concurrence with the majority
vote, and the City Clerk shall set forth in the minutes that the matter passed
pursuant to the rule the Council adopted in 1979.
Mayor Pro Tem Bay stated that would make Councilman Overholt's concurring vote
with the resolution, and the resolution was to approve Conditional Use Permit
No. 2453. He then clarified that Resolution No. 83R-356 was carried by the
following vote:
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler, Overholt and Bay
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Roth
179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2470 AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION: Application submitted by Christian Center Church of Orange
County, (First Church of the Nazarene), to permit a private pre-school with a
maximum enrollment of 100 students in an existing church facility on
RS-A-43,000 zoned property located at 1340 North Candlewood Street, with a
Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
726
Cit Hall Anaheim California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Se tember 6 1983 10:00 A.M.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-126, disapproved
the negative declaration from the requirement to prepare an Environmental
Impact Report on the basis that there would be significant individual or
cumulative adverse e'nvironmental impacts involved in the proposal, and that an
Environmental Impact Report would be required prior to approval of this
project and further denied Conditional Use Permit No. 2470.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by the applicant and
public hearing scheduled this date.
The Mayor Pro Tem asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
Holland Lewis, Pastor, Anaheim First Nazarene Church, 866 South Jaspar Street,
stated he was speaking for the people of the Church and the Research Committee
for a pre-school daycare center to be offered to the people in their
community. He was present to represent the interests they had in serving the
Community, as evidenced by the results of the survey they had taken of those
who favored such a proposal (see petition signed by approximately 27 people
living in the immediate vicinity of the Church, in favor of the pre-school,
submitted under letter dated September 2, 1983--made a part of the record).
They had sought to deal with the traffic situation, which he understood was
the basis of the objection to the pre-school. He then described what they had
done relative to signing and other measures taken to slow down traffic leaving
the property. The objection was also in relati°n to the fact that a
100-student limit for students in day care, child care and pre-school would
mean 200 additional cars coming onto the Church grounds. He then gave several
reasons why that number would be reduced, such as carpooling, more than one
child in a family attending the school, the school hours would spread the
traffic activity on the prime streets, etc. He felt that they perhaps should
have communicated more clearly with their neighbors relative to their future
objective. For the last seven years, they have been asking their people to
make sacrificial steps for investment that would allow them to acquire
property that would move them through to East Street to make them more
accessible to those coming to their Church and to alleviate traffic flow on
the main streets of Norwood, Kenwood, Candlewood, Morona and other major
streets. After further elaboration, Pastor Lewis stated they were only
present for one reason, to help people. He would not deny there would be some
inconvenience, but felt they had reduced it. They were appealing, for some
slight inconvenience, to help children and families in the early stages of
their lives. He reiterated, their single objective was to serve.
There being no further persons who wished to speak in favor of the Conditional
Use Permit, Mayor Pro Tem Bay asked to hear from those in opposition.
The following people then expressed their major points of opposition:
Mr. Duane Stout, 1316 Candlewood (resident for 28 years), expressed his
concern that when the other church was there, cars were parked up and down the
streets and they had meetings four and five times a week. The original
granting of the permit was limited to Sunday and Wednesday nights, but it went
727
City Hall.~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 6.,. 1983~ 10:00 A.M.
beyond that. They were also concerned about the nine residences the Church
had purchased in the neighborhood and that they would eventually be used for
classrooms as Melodyland had used them before. It was a single-family
development and they wanted it to remain that way. Traffic was still too
fast, and 200 cars traveling down a small street was quite a bit. He felt it
would have been appropriate if prior to this meeting, the Church had discussed
these items with the neighbors.
Gerald Tige, 1322 Candlewood, reported that traffic kept getting heavier. The
Church had installed signs requesting that their congregation drive slowly,
but people by nature did not drive as slow as they were supposed to, which
presented a danger to children. When representatives of the Church came
around, they said they planned to have only 25 students in pre-school and day
care for the first year or two, but he felt they would try to build it up
faster than that. One of the major points of concern was relative to who was
going to run the school. At the Planning Commission level, they could not get
an answer as to whether the Church would run it or a private party. The
Church also owned the house next door to their house, which was in the
opposite direction of East Street, and they were afraid that it would
eventually expand to a school, rather than just a pre-school, or else it would
be torn down to construct a parking lot or other facilities, which would make
it noisier.
Ira Pfluger, 1317 North Candlewood, original owners in the tract, stated they
had considerable trouble with the previous tenants in the Church. She then
expanded upon the problems involved relative to traffic and parking on
Candlewood, which was only one block long, to the freeway. She also relayed
an incident which occurred wherein a woman parked in her driveway to attend
Church services. She also expressed concern the traffic would start early in
the morning, that she and her husband were retired and slept until 8:00 a.m.,
which would be disrupted by early daily traffic.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, Mayor Pro Tem Bay asked
Pastor Lewis to make his s,,mmation.
Pastor Lewis then spoke to the concerns expressed. On the issue as to who
would run the school, he explained that they wanted to go on record as
desiring a pre-school, but there was no way to determine who would run it at
this time. There would be some kind of Church connection or he would not call
for a vote on it by the Church Board. If it would not enhance what they were
trying to do, help people, they had no reason to do it. He emphasized they
had no hidden motives. In answer to additional questions posed by Council
Members, he relayed the following: There was no way the Church would
authorize anyone to run something that they did not have the right to bring to
an end if it was not in keeping with their standards, or that would be hurtful
to the community; the hours of operation of 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. were
accurate, as was true in relation to any pre-school daycare center; drop off
of children would occur on their property; pre-school would be held five days
a week, Monday through Friday.
728
Cit Hall Anaheim California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Se tember 6 1983 10:00 A.M.
Mayor Pro Tem Bay closed the public hearing.
Mayor Pro Tem Bay stated he was interested in one stipulation on the issue.
From what he had heard, the Church Board would be answerable to the
neighborhood on policy questions regarding impacts created by the school,
regardless of who operated it. He wanted the stipulation that the Church
would be responsible for the pre-school operation, whether they leased to
someone else or someone else ran the school.
Pastor Lewis stated that was correct. Responsive was the word that came to
mind, and they would be in a position to be responsive to such complaints. He
also clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood that the same people would be running
the pre-school and daycare center.
Councilman Overholt stated his problem was traffic and the Church did not have
access to a main artery; Councilman Pickler stated the opposition was relative
to traffic and it was going to be there. He still wanted to get a feeling
relative to his earlier suggestion of having the Pastor and the people in
apposition get together and subsequently return in two weeks to see if they
could resolve some of the problems discussed.
Councilman Overholt stated he would support that, but he was not too
optimistic unless access was gained through East Street. The traffic was not
only going to occur Sunday and Wednesday, but also Monday through Friday, and
that was the real problem. The location did not give access needed to get
people in and out without bothering the neighbors in the single-family
residences. Perhaps the neighbors could give some ideas as to where they
could gain access.
MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to continue the public hearing on
Conditional Use Permit No. 2470 and EIR finding therefor to September 27,
1983, 1:30 p.m., to allow the Pastor and applicant to meet with the people in
opposition to explore a possible resolution to the problems. Councilman
Overholt seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Pro Tem Bay stated he would have to speak
against the motion from the standpoint that he did not think there was
anything wrong with the dialogue between the neighbors and the Church, but he
aid not believe that all the dialogue in the world was going to solve the
problem of how many cars were going down Norwood and Candlewood. He also was
not sure that access from East Street could solve the problem in t~e near
future. He was, therefore, opposed to a delay because he felt there were
enough facts to make a decision today.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion of continuance- Councilman Bay
voted "No." Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
179: CONTINUED PUB~I~ n ove, to
...... - ...... from 11611 We
requesting to move a ~
580 Greenwich Street. Submitted was a report from the Building Division dated
August 18, 1983, recommending approval of the move-on.
729
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 6~ 1983~ 10:00 A.M.
The Mayor Pro Tem asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
Mr. William F. Palmer, owner of the property at 580 Greenwich Street, stated
he was present to answer any questions relative to the garage he requested to
move on to his property. He then answered questions posed by Council Members
Kaywood and Pickler wherein he explained that he was not running a business at
his home, there were six vehicles at his house and one boat; he was not aware
of the CC&R's which were signed by people in the area; his house had an extra
large side lot and the reason he was requesting the garage move-on was to be
able to drive his boat through the garage into the back; there was no car
repair going on at his property; And he did not know he had to go to anyone
but the City for permission for the move-on.
City Attorney Hopkins then confirmed for Councilman Overholt that the Council
was not charged with the enforcement of the CC&R's.
Councilman Bay stated if the City had a choice of approving or not approving a
move-on of a garage with conversion of an existing three-car garage to living
space, obviously in opposition to the CC&R's as stated exist on the title, he
felt that would influence the Council's decision on the move-on if it was
going to create a violation to those CC&R's.
The City Attorney then read the three findings necessary when granting a house
moving permit; Councilwoman Kaywood noted that if 51 percent or more of the
neighbors were in opposition, there could be no move-on.
Councilman Pickler stated in driving through the area and looking at what Mr.
Palmer wanted to move on to his property, he felt it would detract from that
area. It was a beautiful area, as was Mr. Palmer's house, but he did not feel
the architecture of the proposed move-on would fit in with the other homes in
the neighborhood. He suggested that if Mr. Palmer had communicated with his
neighbors to show them what he was doing, there might not have been any
opposition.
Mr. Palmer stated his house was open to the neighbors and always had been and
they were free to consult with him. His yard was double the size of the
others and the structure would be just as attractive as the others. He never
even thought about going to the neighbors because it was not a major issue.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. Palmer if he would like a continuance to give
him time to show his neighbors a sketch of the final product or if he would
like to have a decision today; Mr. Palmer stated it did not matter, but if he
could not have a move-on, he wanted to know if it was possible to build,
instead. He was told that the property could be covered with a permanent
foundation up to forty percent and he was well within that; Councilwoman
Kaywood reiterated, with a move-on, it was necessary that a majority of the
neighbors approve.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked for a show of hands of those present on the subject
move-on; six were present.
730
Councilman Bay suggested that they continue the public hearing, .'~at he first
asked if anyone else wished to speak, either in favor or in opposition.
Andrus, 571 South Greenwich, stated he lived across the street
Mr. Delbert L. . ere ~ood friends. He would like to see Mr. Palmer move
and he and Mr. Palmer w ~- ~- see a ~able garage instead of a
but would pre,er no b . .
the garage on, ,
Spanish-style garage, and he would like to see a drawzng as suggested
· ressed opposition simply because of the
Mr. Willer. 550 Gre~nwzc~:_el~ve_on would have on the neighbor~??d.~. ~ did
thetzc repercussions un= ~v _ =~.~ ;. ~h ~hm o arcn~cecuu== in the
o~s ' ~ .......... ther
%~t think a flat roof was gozng to ~ ....
neighborhood. He also felt that Mr. Palmer converting his garage to living
· to uestion. He then reiterated that a flat
quarters later on.was ~boe~t___~__. The houses zn the area were ~n~
anish-style root would no~ uu~t- e-car arages exzst~ng an~ ~
S~ · th thre g
$ 80,000 to $200,000 przce range wx Even
would now make a five-car garage, which they did not feel was necessary.
if Mr. Palmer supplied a drawing and the structure did fit in, he would still
have serious reservations about converting the garage.
pointed out the garage conversion was a separate issue;
Councilwoman Kaywood confirmed for Mayor Pro Tem Bay that the conversion issue
Miss Santalahti then
was not a part of the hearing, but would require a separate actzon. If the
Council approved the move-on, the garage would be available for parking and
Mr. Palmer could work with the garage to make it a permanent habitable space.
At present, he could not get permits without the new garage being part of that
permit. He could come in today, get a building permit to construct the new
garage, and include in that the conversion, and it would be done at a staff
level, with no public hearings necessary-
Mayor Pro Tem Bay clarified for Mr. Willer if the Council approved the move-on
now or later and once that was done, that would fill the Code requirement for
, if the applicant saw fit to convert the
parking under the Code. Therefore quarters, he could do so through a permit
existing garage into larger living
process, without a new hearing that would involve the neighbors.
Mrs. Idel Matthews stated she was living with her daughter who brought her
there so she would not have to go to a rest home or live alone. That was why
her son-in-law was making the garage into a living space for her. She was
certain, knowing his work, that it would not detract from that beautiful home.
Steve Palmer stated he was the only son living at home. He explained that the
City only needed plot plan dimensions of the area and if they had known
something else was necessary for the Council to look at, they would have
supplied a rendering of the building. He then described what they were going
with the move-on, specifically the effect they were going to achieve
to dothe garage roof, which they felt would blend in with the architecture of
to
with
the neighborhood- He could submit drawings to show to the neighbors get
-" their approval.
731
City Ha.l.l~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - SePtem~e~ .6.~. 1983~ 10:00 A.M.
MOTION: After Council discussion relative to an appropriate meeting time,
Councilman Pickler moved to continue the public hearing on the move-on of a
garage from 11611 Westminster Avenue, Garden Grove, to 580 Greenwich Street,
to Tuesday~ September 13, 1983~ at 1:30 p.m. Councilman Overholt seconded the
motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt emphasized that there were CC&R's
placed on the property recorded in October of 1977. Those documents contained
the address of three men at 655 Brea Canyon Road in Walnut who composed the
architectural committee, and they were the ones who considered the
architectural appropriateness of proposed structures. He was concerned about
the Council getting into what kinds of roofs people were going to construct.
He felt if the architectural committee approved what Mr. Palmer was going to
do, he would be "home free." Although it may be true that a majority of the
neighborhood would also have to agree, as reiterated by Councilwoman Kaywood,
that committee might be helpful in protecting the people. He gave a copy of
the CC&R's to Mr. Palmer.
Mayor Pro Tem Bay pointed out that the CC&R's prohibited turning the garage
into additional living quarters; Mr. Palmer stated he would not do it without
the permission of the City.
A vote was then taken on the'foregoing motion. Councilman Bay voted "No."
Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Councilman Pickler moved to recess into Closed
Session. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Councilman Roth was
absent. MOTION CARRIED. (3:45 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor Pro Tem called the mseting to order, all Council
Members being present, with the exception of Mayor Roth. (5:01 p.m.)
112: SOLICITATION AT ANAHEIM STADIUM BY REPRESENTATIVES OF ISKCON:
Councilman Bay moved to approve conditions for solicitation at the Anaheim
Convention Center by representatives of Iskcon (also known as Hare Krishna) to
be submitted to the United States District Court, Central District of
California, in connection with Case No. Civ. No. 83 1911R (Carreras and
Marsden vs. City of Anaheim). Councilman Pickler seconded the motion.
Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Pickler moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood
seconded the motion. Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED. (5:04 p.m.)
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK
732