1983/10/11City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 11, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
The City Council 'of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRE SENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: James D. Ruth
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR: Garry O. McRae
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ronald Thompson
DIRECTOR PARKS, RECREATION & COMMUNITY SERVICES: Christopher Jarvi
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
POLICE DETECTIVE: Charles Swanson
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MANAGER: John Buchanan
HOUSING MANAGER: Lisa Stipkovich
Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: The Reverend Paul Keller (Retired) gave the Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Irv Pickler led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Roth and
authorized by the City Council:
World Food Day, October 16, 1983.
119: RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A Rasolution of Congratulations was
unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to Mr. John Law,
Chairman, 25th Anniversary Committee, on the occasion of the 25th anniversary
of Servite High School being established in Anaheim, and recognizing the
school as a credit to the Anaheim community, also congratulating the members
of the Servite family for their first 25 years of excellence.
119: PRESENTATION - ~3,000 FROM THE ANAHEIM HILTON HOTEL.: Chris Jarvi,
Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services, introduced Mr. Holger
Gantz, General Manager, Anaheim Hilton Hotel, who, in turn, presented a check
to the City to be used for the Kids for Parks Program. Mr. Gantz also stated
that it was not only a pleasure to come into the City to do business, but also
to become a part of the City.
On behalf of the~ Council and the City, Mayor Roth thanked Mr. Gantz and the
Hilton Hotel for their generosity. He also noted that in 1984, Mr. Gantz,
presently the General Manager of the Hilton Inn at the Park, was going to
become the general manager of the new 1680-room Anaheim Hilton Hotel located
across from the Convention Center.
789
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 11, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular
meeting held September 13, 1983. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda,
after reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to
waiver is hereby given by all Council M~mbers, unless after reading of the
title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such
ordinances or resolutions in regular order. Councilman Bay seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of ~4,152,876.31 for the
period ending September 30, 1983, and $3,775,162.15 for the period ending
October 7, 1983, in accordance with the 1983-84 Budget, were approved.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Pickler, the following items were approved in
accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each
Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Councilwoman Kaywood
offered Resolution Nos. 83R-389 through 83R-396, both inclusive, for
adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
1. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as
re c omme nded:
A. Claims rejected and referred to Risk Management:
1. Claim submitted by Eloise B. Rockey for personal injuries purportedly
sustained due to a slip-and-fall accident at the Anaheim Hills Public Golf
Course, 6501 Nohl Ranch Road, on or about August 23, 1983.
2. Claim submitted by The Zenith Company for repayment of Workers'
Compensation benefits based on an accident involving a City-owned vehicle
on Mount Diablo Boulevard at its intersection with Lafayette Circle,
Lafayette, on or about June 28, 1983.
3. Claim submitted by Management Company for property damages to air
conditioning units purportedly sustained due to an exploding transformer
near the Casa Madrid Apartments at 2301 East Ball Road, on or about
August 7 and 8, 1983.
4. Claim submitted by Robert H. Rosenhamer for personal property damages
to appliances purportedly sustained due to improper electrical wiring from
pole to house at 249 South Broadview, on or about August 6, 1983.
5. Claim submitted by Richard E. Oswald for personal property damages and
food loss purportedly sustained due to a prolonged power outage at 704
South Knott, #D-4, on or about August 6, 1983.
790
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 11, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
6. Claim submitted by Istvan Toth for personal property damages to parked
automobile purportedly sustained due to an exploding capacitor in front of
2841 West Ball Road, on or about August 6, 1983.
7. Claim submitted by Nancy Sidlow for personal property damages and food
loss purportedly sustained due to a prolonged electrical outage at 869
South Wayside, on or about August 6, 1983.
8. Claim submitted by~Debi Young for personal property damages to
refrigerator purportedly sustained due to a power surge at 2950 Rome
Avenue, on or about August 6, 1983.
9. Claim submitted by Hilda S. Moreno for personal property damages
purportedly sustained due to a parkway tree limb falling on claimant's
parked automobile in front of 411 East Cypress Street, on or about
August 24, 1983.
10. Claim submitted by Michael Mark for Tamie Mark, daughter, for
personal injuries purportedly sustained due to negligence on the part of
swimming instructors at the Magnolia High School swimming pool, on or
about August 19, 1983.
11. Claim submitted by Robert M. Towe for personal property damages to
storage shed and equipment purportedly sustained due to a fire started by
a fallen electrical wire in the back yard at 325 South Kenmore Street, on
or about August 25, 1983.
B. Application for Leave to Present a Late Claim denied:
12. Application for Leave to Present a Late Claim submitted by Harold
Bolton for personal injuries purportedly sustained due to negligence on
the part of the City on Lincoln Avenue, 119 feet east of Melrose, on or
about August 27, 1982.
2. The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 156: Police Department--Monthly Report for August 1983.
b. 105: Housing Commission--Minutes of August 3, 1983.
c. 105: Senior Citizens Commission--Minutes of August 11, 1983.
d. 105: Community Services Board--Minutes of August. 11, 1983.
e. 173: 24-Hour Airport Express, Inc., requesting the Public Utilities
Commission to consider a route Revision Docket, adding the Holiday Inn and
Quality Inn to Route No. 6, to Los Angeles International Airport.
f. 105: Park and Recreation Commission--Minutes of August 24, 1983.
791
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 11, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
g. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission--Minutes of September 7, 1983.
h. 105: Public Library Board--Minutes of July 20 and August 17, 1983.
3. 108: The following applications were approved, or approval was ratified,
in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Police.
a. Public Dance Permit, Manuel Gomez, Anaheim Dance Promotions, to hold a
dance at the Anaheim Convention Center on October 8, 1983, from 6:00 p.m.
to 1:00 a.m.
b. Dinner Dancing Place Permit, Nelson Kal-chun Wang, Lord Nelson's
Restaurant, 500 North Euclid Street, Suite 317, to permit dancing Sunday
through Saturday, 8:00 p.m. to Midnight.
c. Dinner Dancing Place Permit, Patrick L. Daniel, Cero's, 316 South
Euclid Street, to permit dancing seven days a week, 9:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m.
4. 153: Authorizing an amendment to Group M~dical and Hospital Service
Agreement (116 TEFRA) with Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., making
Medicare benefits secondary for active employees ages 65 through 69, and
authorizing the Human Rmsources Director to execute same.
5. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-389: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 83R-267 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF
COMPENSATION FOR UNREPRESENTED PART-TIME JOB CLASSIFICATIONS. (to permit
payment of retirement benefits to part-time employees hired 30 hours per week
on an on-going basis, effective October 7, 1983)
Director of Human Resources Garry'McRae answered questions posed by Councilman
Bay relative to the subject wherein he (McRae) explained that State law
required the payment of retirement benefits to part-time employees hired 30
hours per week on an ongoing basis.
6. 101/173: Approving the request of Amtrak to utilize Fun Bus as a bus
operator for service to the Anaheim Amtrak Station.
Mayor Roth asked the City Clerk to prepare a letter from the Council to be
sent to Mr. Valen, owner of Fun Bus, thanking him for his Company's
willingness to provide bus service to the Anaheim Amtrak Station.
7. 151: Authorizing an encroachment license agreement with Anaheim Hills
Racquet Club, Ltd., to permit maintenance of landscaping by the Club on the
west side of Anaheim Hills Road between La Paz Way and Nohl Ranch Road, and
waiving the encroachment processing fee therefor in view of cost savings and
benefits to City. (82-11E)
8. 158: Finding a sale to be in the best interest of the City and waiving
the competitive bid requirements of Charter Section 1222; approving the sale
of excess City-owned property located on the west side of Fairmont Boulevard,
792
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 11, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
south of Santa Ana Canyon Road, to Alfred R. and Florence A. Geisweidt in the
amount of ~4,100; authorizing an escrow to be opened therefor not to exceed
30 days; and authorizing execution of the deed therefor.
9. 158/174: Authorizing payment to Jack Nosek in the amount of ~6,000 for
dedication of a road and public utility easement at 810 West Romneya Drive, as
required for the Community Development Block Grant Project Romneya Drive
between Citron and West Streets.
lO. 119/150: Accepting a donation from the Anaheim Hilton Hotel in the
amount of ~3,000 for the Kids for Parks Program and appropriating said funds
into Program 281.
11. 12'3: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to
Western Counties Maintenance, Inc., in the amount of ~154,528.20 for the
renewal of existing janitorial service agreement for the term October 1983
through September 30, 1984.
12. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a change order to
Purchase Order 19840M in the amount of ~27,233.24 for additional work required
to overhaul four aerial manlifts and one digger-derrick, in accordance with
Bid No. 3905.
13. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue purchase order to G.M.C.
Truck & Coach in the amount of ~32,544.12 for two 24,000# G.V.W. truck
cab/chassis, in accordance with Bid No. 4018.
14. 160: Accepting the bids of McGraw Edison in the amount of $32,247.32 for
two each, 225 KVA and two each, 750KVA three-phase padmount transformers, Item
Nos. 1 and 2; and General Electric in the amount of ~27,025.76 for two each
1000KVA, three-phase padmount transformers, Item No. 3, in accordance with Bid
No. 4035.
15. 175: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-390: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COM]~LETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT:
YORBA SUBSTATION STEEL POLE FOUNDATIONS, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO.
55-668-6329-84810-36400. (Bids to be opened November 3, 1983, 2:00 p.m.)
16. 175: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-391: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE WATER IMPROVEMENTS OF WELL SITE
39, SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ORANGE AND WESTERN AVENUES, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
ACCOUNT NO. 53-619-6329-90290-31500. (Tennyson Pipeline Company, contractor)
17. 176: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-392: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS,
HIGHWAYS AND SERVICE EASEMENTS. (83-6A, located west of Beach Boulevard,
north of Rome Avenue, public hearing scheduled November 8, 1983, 1:30 p.m.)
793
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 11, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
18: 156: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-393: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO CONDUCT AN AUCTION OF
UNCLAIMED PROPERTY ON OCTOBER 22, 1983. (in the event of inclement weather,
conduct said auction on October 29, 1983, 9:00 a.m.)
Directing the City Clerk to publish a legal notice of said auction and of the
City's intent to transfer certain unclaimed property to the Purchasing
Division for City use.
19. 183.137: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-394: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING PROJECT OF QUALITY SYSTEMS, INCORPORATED FOR
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BOND FINANCING AND THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS THEREFOR. (in
the amount of $5 million for a computerized information processing systems
design and marketing center to be located in Project Alpha in the Northeast
Industrial Area)
183.137: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-395: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM CALLING HEARING ON THE ISSUANCE OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY OF ANAHEIM INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BONDS AND PROVIDING NOTICE
THEREOF. (November 8, 1983, 1:30 p.m.)
Finding that the proposed project will have no significant effect on the
environment and approving the Negative Declaration.
20. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-396: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION.
(Ibis/Anaheim, Ltd.; Jack Nosek, et al.; Roger W. Pannier, et al.)
21. 165.i74: Authorizing the City Manager to accept Purchase Order No.
P09-00-202-83 in the amount of $10,800 from the Federal Highway Administration
and to implement a project to revise the California Pavement Management System
Microcomputer Program for the City.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
N one
N one
MOTION CARRIED. The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 83R-389 through 396, both
inclusive, duly passed and adopted.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City
Planning Commission at their meeting held September 19, 1983, pertaining to
the following applications were submitted for City Council information.
1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2467: Submitted by Lutheran Bible Institute in
California, to permit temporary student housing (mobilehomes) in conjunction
with a private junior college on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located at 641 So.
Western Avenue, with a Code waiver of minimum structural setback.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2467 was withdrawn by the petitioner.
794
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 11, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
2. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 82-83-4 (READVERTISED) AND VARIANCE NO. 3306
(READVERTISED): Submitted by Gfeller Development Company, Inc., (Lincoln
Beach Mobile Manor Park), for a change in zone from RM-1200, CL and
RS-A-43,000 to RM-1000, to construct a 639-unit condominium complex on
property located at 2925 West Lincoln Avenue, with the following Code
waivers: (a) required lot frontage, (b) maximum structural height, (c)
minimum floor area, (d) minimum landscaped setback, (e) minimum
recreational-leisure area, (f) minimum distance between buildings, and (g)
minimum number and type of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution Nos. PC83-163 and
PC83-164, amended the conditions of approval. EIR No. 253 was previously
certified on January 24, 1983.
3. VARIANCE NO. 3346: Submitted by Gfeller Development Company, Inc.,
(Lincoln Beach Mobile Manor Park), to establish an 18-lot, 639-unit
subdivision on RM-iO00 zoned property located at 2925 West Lincoln Avenue,
with a Code waiver of required lot frontage.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-165, granted
Variance No. 3346. EIR No. 253 was previously certified on January 24, 1983.
4. VARIANCE NO. 3347: Submitted by Robert M. and Constance S. Rosso, to
retain a garage conversion on RS-5000 zoned property located at 1100 Clifpark
Circle, with a Code waiver of minimum number and type of parking spaces:
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-166, granted
Variance No. 3347, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption
de te rmina t i on.
5. VARIANCE NO. 3348: Submitted by Linda H. Pressel, to construct a room
addition on RS-5000 zoned property located at 4643 East Greenwood Drive, with
a Code waiver of maximum lot coverage.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-167, granted
Variance No. 3348, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption
de te rmina t i on.
6. VARIANCE NO. 3349: Submitted by David G. and Marcia R. Franzen, to
construct a room addition on RS-5000 zoned property located at 4805 Garland
Street, with a Code waiver of maximum lot coverage.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-168, granted
Variance No. 3349, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption
de te rminat i on ·
7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2488: Submitted by Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-Day Saints, to expand an existing church facility on RS-A-43,000 zoned
property located at 4000 West Orange Avenue, with a Code waiver of minimum
number of parking spaces.
795
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 11, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-169, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2488, and granted a negative declaration status.
8. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2493: Submitted by Susan Manuel, (Chu's
Kitchen), to permit on-sale beer and wine in an existing restaurant on CL
zoned property located at 5031 "E" East Orangethorpe Avenue, with a Code
waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-171, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2493, and granted a negative declaration status.
9. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1890 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Frank
Krogman, requesting an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 1890,
to permit on-sale beer and wine in an existing restaurant on CL zoned property
located at 2610 West La Palma Avenue.
The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Conditional Use
Permit No. 1890, to expire September 25, 1984.
10. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2106 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Ruth
English, requesting an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 2106,
to retain two aviaries on RS-7200 zoned property located at 2520 and 2526 West
Clearbrook Lane.
The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Conditional Use
Permit No. 2106, to expire September 22, 1984.
11. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2104 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by George
T. Nichols, (The French Quarter), requesting an extension of time to
Conditional Use Permit No. 2104, to permit a public dance hall on CL zoned
property located at 919 South Knott Street.
The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Conditional Use
Permit No. 2104, to expire September 2, 1984.
Councilman Bay stated he had considered setting the item for a public hearing,
since they had received complaints from the subject area, and especially
because there always seemed to be a problem not knowing which of the three
establishments in the area were causing the problems. He asked if there was
anything at the Planning Commission or staff level indicating the subject
business was not a part of the problem.
Annika gantalahtl, Assistant Diractor for Zoning, explained that when they did
some enforcement a few months ago, staff looked at the situation and found
that the French Quarter had instituted sound attenuation measures in terms of
constructing doorways that were soundproof, etc. It was their feeling this
business was not causing a problem; Councilman Bay stated that was what he
wanted to know and, therefore, he would not set the matter for public hearing.
796
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 11, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
12. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2238 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by
Penhall International, requesting an extension of time to Conditional Use
Permit No. 2238, to permit a 7-lot, 8-unit industrial condominium complex,
with a Code waiver of required lot frontage on ML zoned property located at
1776 West Penhall Way.
The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Conditional Use
Permit No. 2238, to expire July 27, 1984.
13. TENTATIVE TRACT NOS. 10996, 10997 AND 10998 - EXTENSIONS OF TIME:
Submitted by The Gunston Hall Co., Inc., requesting extensions of time to
Tentative Tract Nos. 10996, 10997 and 10998, consisting of 22,
RS-HS-22,000(SC) an'd 14, RS-HS-43,000(SC) lots at the southwest corner of
Avenida De Santiago and Hidden Canyon Road.
The City Planning Commission approved extensions of time to Tentative Tract
Nos. 10996, 10997 and 10998, to expire October 6, 1984.
14. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10984, REVISION NO. 1, REVISED SPECIFIC PLANS:
Submitted by Kaufman and Broad, Inc., requesting approval of revised specific
plans for Tentative Tract No. 10984, Revision No. 1, to permit a 151-lot,
150-unit, RS-5000(SC) zoned subdivision on property located at the east side
of Weir Canyon Road, south of Santa Ana Canyon Road.
The City Planning Commission approved the revised specific plans for Tentative
Tract No. 10984, Revision No. 1.
15. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 81-82-17 - RESOLUTION NO. PC82-46: Submitted by the
Planning Commission Secretary, requesting to amend Resolution NO. PC82-46,
nunc pro tunc, to correct the wording in Condition No. 20 relating to
Reclassification No. 81-82-17, a change in zone from RM-1200 and CG to
R~f-3000, on property located on the southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and
Citron Street.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-173, amended
Resolution No. PC82-46, nunc pro tunc, to correct the wording in Condition No.
20 relating to Reclassification No. 81-82-17.
16. TENTATIVE TRACT NOS. 10983 and 10984 - EXTENSIONS OF TIME: Submitted by
James E. Croshy Engineering, Inc., requesting extensions of time to Tentative
Tract Nos. 10983 and 10984, consisting of a 164-1ot, 162-unit, RM-3000(SC)
condominium subdivision, and a 151-lot, 150-unit, RS-5000(SC) single-family
subdivision, respectively, on property located on the southeast corner of
Santa Ana Canyon Road and Weir Canyon Road.
The City Planning Commission approved extensions of time to Tentative Tract
Nos. 10983 and 10984, to expire September 23, 1984.
797
City Hall, Anaheim, Califdrnia - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 11, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
17. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 180: Submitted by Evangel Church of Southern
California, Inc., to consider an amendment to the Land Use Element from the
current hillside low-density residential designation to the general commercial
designation on approximately 2.9 acres bounded on the north and east by the
Riverside (91) Freeway, on the south by Santa Ana Canyon Road, and on the west
by a single-family subdivision.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-172, denied
General Plan Amendment No. 180, and disapproved a negative declaration status.
18. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11830, REVISION NO. 1: Submitted by Gfeller
Development Company, Inc., (Lincoln Beach Mobile Manor), to establish an
18-lot, 639-unit, RM-iO00 zoned subdivision located at 2925 West Lincoln
Ave nue·
The City Planning Commission, at their meeting held October 3, 1983, approved
Tentative Tract No. 11830, R~vision No. 1.
No action was taken by the City Council and the foregoing items; therefore,
the actions of the City Planning Commission became final.
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 83-84-1: Submitted by Norbert A. Water, for a change in
zone from RS-A-43,000 to CL, to construct an 80-unit motel and cocktail lounge
on property located on the north side of Bali Road, east of Sunkist Street,
immediately west of the Orange (57) Freeway.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-161, granted
Reclassification No. 83-84-1, and granted a negative declaration status.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman
Kaywood and, therefore, a public hearing would be scheduled at a later date.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2475 (READVERTISED): Submitted by Norbert and Ruth
M. Waters, to permit an 80-unit motel and cocktail lounge on CL zoned property
located on the north side of Ball Road, east of Sunkist Street, immediately
west of the Orange (57) Freeway, with the following Code waivers: (a) minimum
structural setback, (b) maximum structural height, (c) permitted location of
freestanding sign, and (d) maximum fence height.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-162, granted, in
part, Conditional Use Permit No. 2475 (Raadvertised), and granted a negative
declaration status.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman
Kaywood and, therefore, a public hearing would be scheduled at a later date.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2492: Submitted by William Van Den Hurk, (Ail Car
Equipment Company and Apple Auto Leasing), to retain an automotive repair and
leasing facility on ML zoned property located at 1874 South Santa Cruz Street,
with a Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
798
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 11, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-170, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2492, and granted a negative declaration status.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by the applicant and,
therefore, a public hearing would be scheduled at a later date.
PUBLIC REQUEST - CONSENT CALENDAR: Councilman Roth moved to approve the
following item in accordance with the recommendation of the Zoning Division,
to expire October 27, 1985. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion.
1. 179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2252--EXTENSION OF TIME: Request
submitted by Charlotte Rhodes, for an extension of time to Conditional Use
Permit No. 2252, to retain a retail carpet sales facility on ML zoned property
located at 3035 La Mesa Avenue.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked that the record be
researched to clarify whether or not she voted "no" on the granting of the
Conditional Use Permit and, if so, that hers again be recorded as a "No" vote
on the motion.
Later in the meeting, City Clerk Linda Roberts confirmed that Councilwoman
Kaywood had voted "No" originally; Councilwoman Kaywood thereupon voted "No"
on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4453: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4453 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4453: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (70-71-47(31), ML, west side
of Jefferson Street, south of Orangethorpe Avenue)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
N one
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4453 duly passed and adopted.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4454: Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance No. 4454 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4454: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (81-82-17, RM-3000, south and
east of the southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Citron Street)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
N one
N one
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4454 duly passed and adopted.
799
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October ii, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4455: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4455 for
first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4455: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING SECTION
18.02.031 AND AMENDING SECTIONS 18.02.030 AND 18.02.032 OF CHAPTER 18.02 OF
TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
106/148: BOOKMOBILE OUTREACH PROGRA~M: Mayor Roth explained that the slide
show on the Bookmobile Outreach Program was available and ready for showing to
the various service clubs for soliciting their support for that program. He
had the privilege of making a presentation at the Anaheim Host Lions Club
where it was well received and a representative from the club was going to be
coming in with a check for ~2500 to assist in support of that program.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: The City Attorney requested a Closed Session to
discuss litigation and potential litigation with action anticipated.
Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilwoman Kaywood
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (10:36 a.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (1:28 p.m.)
112: JOHNSON VS. CITY OF ANAHEIM: Councilman Roth moved to authorize the
City Attorney and Ruston & Nance to settle Orange County Superior Court Case
No. 37-27-02, Johnson vs. City of Anaheim, for a sum not to exceed ~6,800 plus
costs. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
112: CITY OF ANAHEIM VS. CELANESE CORPORATION: Councilman Roth moved to
authorize the City Attorney to settle Orange County Superior Court Case No.
39-37-57, City of Anaheim vs. Celanese Corporation, by accepting the sum of
550,000. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
112: SCHULMAN VS. CITY OF ANAHEIM: Councilman Roth moved to authorize the
City Attorney and Rourke and Woodruff to settle Orange County Superior Court
Case No. 35-29-05, Schulman vs. City of Anaheim, for a sum not to exceed
~60,O00. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
112: PAGE VS. CITY OF ANAHEIM: Councilman Roth moved to authorize the City
Attorney to settle Orange County Superior Court Case No. 37-27-26, Page vs.
City of Anaheim, for a sum not to exceed 520,000. Councilman Bay seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Chairman Roth reconvened the Anaheim Redevelopment
Agency, all Agency Members being present, for the purpose of conducting a
joint public hearing with the City Council. (1:30 p.m.)
161.155: JOINT PUBLIC HEARING - DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIR REPORT FOR
REDEVELOPMENT PARCELS NOS. 8 AND 9: A joint hearing between the City Council
and the Redevelopment Agency to receive public comment on a draft subsequent
environmental impact report relating to the Redevelopment Project Alpha
800
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 11, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
downtown area, Parcel Nos. 8 and 9 located at the northeast corner of Harbor
Boulevard and Broadway. Submitted was a report from the Executive Director of
Community Development, Norman Priest, dated September 26, 1983, recommending
that the Agency receive any public comments on draft subsequent environmental
impact report for the proposed project, a copy of which had been distributed
to the Agency on August 24, 1983.
Mr. John Buchanan, Development Services Manager, briefed the Agency on the
report, as well as certain aspects of the Summary--Draft Subsequent
Environmental Impact Rmport--Redevelopment Parcel Nos. 8 and 9, dated August
1983, specifically noting that the most significant impact posed by the
project was the increase on local transportation and circulation systems.
(See Page 2 of the Summary.)
After Mr. Buchanan's presentation, Mayor/Chairman Roth asked to hear from any
member of the public who wished to comment on the draft supplemental EIR
report for Redevelopment Parcels Nos. 8 and 9; there being no response, he
closed the public hearing.
No further action was required of the Council/Agency.
161.123: JOINT PUBLIC HEARING - MARY FERGUSON DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT: A joint public hearing between the City Council and the
Redevelopment Agency to consider the proposed Disposition and Development
Agreement with Mary Ferguson for the sale of real and chattel property located
at 902 East Cypress Street and a two-story residential structure located at
217 North Claudina owned by the Redevelopment Agency. Submitted was a report
from the Community Department dated October 3, 1983.
Mrs. Lisa Stipkovich, Housing Manager, briefed the staff report which
recommended approval of the sale, the construction drawings and finding that
the proposed sale would have no significant effect on the environment, so that
a subsequent EIR report need not be prepared.
The Mayor/Chairman asked to hear from those who would like to speak, either in
favor or in opposition.
Dinah Torgerson, 216 North Claudina Street, representing the Claudina Street
Property Owners, then read a prepared statement (on file in the City Clerk's
office), the essence of which was as follows: They were asking that the
Council/Agency refuse the bid received and instead offer the old Backs house
for restoration on its historic site, either as a commercial or residential
project. They wanted to see it restored where it belonged, in their
neighborhood, which they had worked so hard to restore.
Mary Ferguson, 4411 Los Feliz Boulevard, Los Angeles, proposed new owner of
the Backs house, explained that her plans included restoring the house,
reviving its residential features, and providing an environmental setting for
the house that would enhance its historic beauty. She looked forward to
taking pride in the ownership of the house and regaining its residential
801
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 11, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
qualities. She considered the City's plan to develop a Heritage Square to be
ideal for the Backs house. She was ready to continue with her plans. She
also reported, on questioning by Council/Agency Member Kaywood, that she
estimated it would take six to nine months total to complete the restoration.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor/Chairman closed
the public hearing.
Council/Agency Member Roth offered Resolution No. ARA83-38, ARA83-39 and
83R-397 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated October 3, 1983, from
the Community Development Department. R~fer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. ARA83-38: A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
CERTIFYING AN INITIAL STUDY WHICH FINDS AND DETERMINES THAT THE PROPOSED SALE
AND DEVELOPMENT OF CERTAIN PROPERTY LOCATED IN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ALPHA
WILL HAVE NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND THAT A SUBSEQUENT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NEED NOT BE PREPARED.
RESOLUTION NO. ARA83-39: A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
APPROVING THE PROPOSED SALE OF CERTAIN REAL AND CHATTEL PROPERTY IN
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ALPHA; APPROVING THE PROPOSED DISPOSITION AND
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PERTAINING THERETO; AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF SAID
DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
RESOLUTION NO. 83R-397: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM CERTIFYING THE INITIAL STUDY WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED DISPOSITION
AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND MARY
FERGUSON, DEVELOPER; FINDING THAT THE CONSIDERATION FOR THE SALE OF THE
PROPERTY THEREUNDER IS NOT LESS THAN FAIR MARKET VALUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH
COVENANTS AND CONDITIONS GOVERNING SUCH SALE; AND APPROVING THE SALE OF SUCH
PROPERTY AND SAID DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL/AGENCY MEMBERS:
COUNCIL/AGENCY MEMBERS:
COUNCIL/AGENCY MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickier, Overholt, Bay and Roth
N one
N one
The Mayor/Chairman declared Resolution Nos. ARA83-38, ARA83-39 and 83R-397
duly passed and adopted.
MOTION: Agency Member Roth moved to approve the construction drawings
relating to the subject structure. Agency Mem~ber Bay seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURbRMENT OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Agency Member Bay moved to adjourn.
Agency Member Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (1:45 p.m.)
802
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 11, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
107.161: PUBLIC HEARING - HOUSE MOVE-ON: Request submitted by the
Redevelopment Agency, requesting to move a house from 217 North Claudina, to
902 East Cypress Street. Submitted was a report from the Building Division
dated September 27, 1983, recommending approval of the request and that the
City Council direct the Agency to initiate a rezoning petition on the
industrial zone of the property.
The Mayor asked to hear from anyone who wished to speak, either in favor or in
opposition; there being no response, he closed the public hearing.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 83R-398 for adoption, approving a
permit to move a house from 217 North Claudina to 902 East Cypress Street.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 83R-398: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING A HOUSE MOVING PERMIT TO MOVE A SINGLE-FAMILY STRUCTURE TO
902 E. CYPRESS STREET IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-398 duly passed and adopted.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2479: Application by Ewald
F. Dargatz, et al, (Games Plus), to permit on-sale beer and wine in an
existing billiard parlour on CL zoned property located at 3242 West Lincoln
Avenue, with a Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-145, reported
that the Planning Director had determined that the proposed activity falls
within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 1, of the City of Anaheim
guidelines to the requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and is
therefore categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR and
further, denied Conditional Use Permit No. 2479.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by the applicant, and a
public hearing scheduled thi~ dat~.
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
Mr. George Katsampes, 3242 West Lincoln, outlined the reasons why they
appealed the Planning Commission's decision. At the time of application for
the CUP, they did not have any food items of any kind inside the center and
one of the Commissioner's stated he voted "no" because of that fact. They now
served food items--they had a lunch menu serving sandwiches, burritos and all
types of snack items, fruits and juices. Further, there were four other
centers in Anaheim operating in the same manner, and he felt the Commissioners
803
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 11, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
were not aware of that type of center, those being, Bob's Family Billiards,
3015 West Ball Road, Linbrook Family Billiards, 2220 West Lincoln, Big John's,
807 East Orangethorpe, and Cue and Cushion, 10576 Magnolia. When he spoke to
them, the Planning Department felt if he could open the business and show what
kind of center it was, he would have a better chance of getting the on-sale
beer license. He thereupon submitted photographs showing the business from
both the outside and inside (made a part of the record). They had opened on
June 4, 1983, and business had been such where it was operating in the red
ever since. They had many customers who came in and subsequently asked if
they served beer. When they were told "no," the customers would go back to
the table and finish up their game and subsequently leave the premises and not
return again. They were operating in the red because of that one
accommodation they could not offer. With it, the business could survive and
maintain itself. At the Commission meeting, beer was being looked upon in
terms of hard liquor. He felt it was an accommodation that was offered in
many different areas. He then clarified that although the application
indicated they were applying for a beer and wine license, they were not going
to serve wine and they wanted a beer license only, which he believed was
designated a Number 20 license. From his experience in the business, it did
not pose any kind of problem. They had a strict policy in their other
establishment that a person must be clocked in on a pool table in order to
purchase beer. A person could not come in and treat it like a bar.
In concluding, Mr. Katsampes stated if there was any doubt at all about
granting them the right to seek the beer license from the State, he asked that
they consider a six-month or one-year probationary period to see if what he
was saying was not so. Otherwise, it would be financially devastating, since
they had a long-term lease. They would experience a great deal of hardship if
denied ·
Councilwoman Kaywood noted at the Planning Commission meeting that concern was
expressed over the fact that there were no food items going to be served. She
also asked if the other billiard parlours mentioned were frequented by
children.
Mr. Katsampes answered the latter question, stating that they were all
unrestricted. He also explained that his other business was an identical
center in Costa Mesa, which had been in operation for 15 years, and they had
an excellent record with that city. He clarified that the Planning Commission
was not aware of the fact that they had put in facilities to serve food from a
regular snack bar.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak, either in favor or in opposition;
there was no response.
The Mayor then asked staff's interpretation of the part that the ~ood played
in the decision of the Planning Commission.
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, stated that the Commission
brought up two points, one being that they were accustomed to seeing food
service of some sort with most on-sale proposals. However, the fact that
804
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 11, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
children would be on the premises because of the video games was also an
important part of their decision. She also stated in answer to Councilman Bay
that she could not confirm or deny the statement the applicant made that there
were at least four other places in Anaheim with more than five video games
that also had billiards and sold beer, but it did not sound unlikely.
Councilman Pickler asked to hear from Detective Swanson on the issue;
Detective Charles Swanson stated that the Police Department concurred with the
Planning Commission's decision and that serving food would not make any
difference. They were concerned with the fact that there were video games and
there were children in the area frequenting the establishment.
Councilman Pickler stated he did not think it was so much the food, but the
presence of children, since there were video games and pool tables and they
were going to be exposed to the serving of beer.
Mayor Roth stated he had a problem because they were saying it was okay for
the other four establishments to serve beer under the same circumstances, but
it was not okay for the applicant.
Councilman Bay stated his problem was also the applicant citing other similar
operations. They did not have a police report but heard the opinion, the
Planning Commission's denial was on a five-to-two vote and knowing that food
was going to be served, one Commissioner may have changed his vote, making it
a four-to-three decision. He (Bay) felt the fairest thing the Council could
do was to take the applicant up on his offer of a six-month trial.
Councilman Bay thereupon offered Resolution No. 83R-399 for adoption, granting
Conditional Use Permit No. 2479 for six months, reversing the findings of the
City Planning Commission, but subject to the following Interdepartmental
Committee recommendations and including the stipulations that food would be
served and that beer be the only alcoholic beverage:
1. That prior to Planning Department approval of an ABC (Alcoholic Beverage
Control) license for on-sale beer and wine, 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.
2. That the owner of subject property shall submit a letter requesting
termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 414 to the Planning D~partmant.
3. 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.
4. That prior to the commencement of the activity authorized under this
resolution, or prior to the time that a building permit is issued, or within a
period of one year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first,
Condition No. 2, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for
further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with
Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
805
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 11, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
5. That prior to final building and zoning ins~ctions, Condition No. 3,
above-mentioned, shall be complied with.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 83R-399: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF T~LE CITY OF
~N~EIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PEP, MIT NO. 2479.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay stated that during the trial period,
if there were problems, and he was certain the Police would keep an eye on it,
the decision could be reversed easily by the Council. Nm did not see any
strong reasons not to give the applicant a chance for a six-month trial.
Councilman Overholt'asked if Mr. Katsampes would be willing to stipulate to
the following: That he continue to serve food and that beer would be the only
alcoholic beverage sold; Mayor Roth added, that there be a six-month review.
Mr. Katsampes stipulated to all the foregoing.
Councilman Pickler maintained that there must be a reason for the Police
Department agreeing with the Planning Commission and before he voted, he
wanted to have a report from the Police Department informing them of any
problems they might have had with the other similar establishments.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that there was a difference between a six-month
trial and a review in six months; Councilman Bay stated they were approving
the CUP for six months, meaning that at the end of that period, they would
have a renewal hearing.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution, including the stipulations.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Bay and Roth
Kaywood and Pickler
N one
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-399 duly passed and adopted.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 2483: Application submitted
by by Edward A. Blank, et al, to permit a t~d and breakfast inn on RS-A-43,000
zoned property located at 856 South Walnut Street, with a Code waiver of
minimum landscaped setback.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-148, 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 ~naheim C~neral Plan designates the
806
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 11, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
subject property for low-density residential land uses commensurate with the
proposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the
proposal; and that the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no
significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts; and
further granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2483, subject to certain conditions.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilman
Pickler at the meeting of September 13, 1983, and a public hearing scheduled
this date.
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
Mrs. Lois Ramont, 2516 Ames, stated that she and her partner, Marilyn Watson,
felt that a bed and breakfast (B&B) inn on the property at 856 South Walnut
would be a better use for the property, since it would be compatible with a
residential neighborhood. The house was 4,500 square feet on three-quarters
of an acre with room for ten parking spaces off street. It had previously
been a rest home and there were two conditional use permits previously
granted, one for a preschool for 90 children and one for a church with 125
members. Their proposal would be a quirt use, they would restore the
property, landscape the yard, and there would be no large signs, because they
did not want it to look commercial. People would come there because it was
quiet and an alternative to going to a hotel or motel.
Mrs. Ramont continued that they had sent out 449 letters to the surrounding
homes. They received three calls and all three were in support. They were
not happy with that response and so went door to door. They contacted 239
homes--of those, 10 were vacant, 8 were negatives and 15 were undecided.
However, of those they talked to, 90 percent were in favor of the B&B. She
thereupon submitted a map of the area, color coded to show those homes who
favored the B&B, those opposed (8), those in favor but who did not sign a
petition, undecided, vacant and unable to make personal contact. She also
submitted petitions signed by approximately 264 residents of the neighborhood
who were in favor and another petition containing signatures of approximately
140 other residents from varying parts of Anaheim, as well as approximately 38
County residents. She also explained, in answer to Councilman Overholt, that
they owned another business in Anaheim for eight years, the Roundtable
Restaurant at the Peppertree Faire, and they were also managers of that
building.
Upon further Council questioning, Mrs. Ramont reported that as
owner/operators, they would not be living in the house, but either one or both
would be on the premises from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. They were going to have
a caretaker who would live in the garage, which was planned to be converted
into an apartment consisting of only a bedroom and bath. They planned to
restore the garage to look like a carriage house. They would still have ten
off-street parking places available.
The Mayor asked to hear from those who wished to speak in favor.
807
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October lip 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Mr. David S. Collins, 1077 West Ball Road, first stated that he lived next
door to a lO0-unit motel with parking against a nearby wall, and he hardly
heard anything. On the subject property, it would be no closer than 45 feet.
If the property was not preserved, the structure would be torn down and the
land used for some other kind of residential development. It was historically
and architecturally a very interesting house.
Mr. Dick Ramont (husband) stated they intended the use to be a first-class
establishment and a drawing card. They had engaged Thirtieth Street
Architects to take charge of the restoration, who were experienced in that
area.
Mr. Paul Long, agent for the Blanks, 1333 South Euclid, explained that he was
the listing agent on the property, and all the recent activity on it had been
for B&B use, which appeared to be the highest and best use.
The Mayor then asked to hear from those who wished to speak in opposition;
since there was no response, the Mayor closed the public hearing.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the Council were to approve the use for a
two-year period, how much of an investment would be involved in the event
there was an impingement on the surrounding neighborhood; Mrs. Ramont answered
almost one-half million dollars, and they would need'at least five years.
Mayor Roth then told of his favorable experiences when utilizing bed and
breakfast inns. The concept was not new and they were established throughout
the United States. When there was no opposition from the surrounding
community, the use deserved their attention. In this case, the size of the
property, the available off-street parking, and the applicant's intent to
invest a great deal to preserve one of the most beautiful homes in West
Anaheim caused him to be supportive of their request.
Councilman Pickler stated he still felt that as a Council, they should have
guidelines to work with and he had asked staff for a recommendation or an
ordinance as something they could work with for the whole City when they
received requests to establish bed and breakfast inns. The joint meeting with
the Planning Commission relative to B&B's was scheduled for this evening and
he did not want to take action before receiving the requested input. He
suggested that they continue the subject public hearing one or two weeks until
they had something on the books.
Councilwoman Kaywood felt that this was a unique and historic house on a large
lot and it had overwhelming neighborhood support. Of all the proposals that
had been made for the use of the home, the last two for a church and a
preschool approved, but which did not materialize, the B&B would have the
least impact on the neighbors. The house had eight bedrooms and, therefore,
there could be no more than eight couples. No matter what they agreed to at
the evening meeting, it would be totally separate and apart from the subject
proposal. She was prepared to vote on the issue now.
8O8
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 11, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Overholt questioned if a delay of the final decision of the Council
for one week would prejudice the project in any way; Mr. Long interjected and
after further discussion with Councilman Overholt on the issue, he (Long)
concluded by stating that the escrow had already been extended twice on the
other side, and the seller had moved to San Diego. He was not the broker for
the other side, but the broker on the subject transaction. If they received
approval today, they could still not close escrow for an additional 30 days
because of financing.
Councilman Overholt asked if he was in a position to extend the escrow one
more time if he made a phone call explaining the situation. As one Council
Member, he did not want to be forced into making a decision, since he would
also like the opportunity of discussing the bed and breakfast issue with the
Planning Commission and amongst the Council at the joint meeting.
Mr. Long stated he was told by the realtor that there would be no more
extensions allowed. They had already gone through that twice with the person
in San Diego and, he reiterated, he was told there would be no more
extensions. He would, however, be happy to make the call.
By general consent, the item was trailed until later in the meeting to give
Mr. Long an opportunity to make the call as requested.
Later in the meeting, after a short recess (3:04 p.m. to 3:13 p.m.), Mr. Long
stated that the agent for the seller of the property who moved to San Diego
was present in the Chamber audience.
Mayor Roth explained that a meeting was to be held that evening with the
Planning Commission wherein staff would also be present relative to the
subject of bed and breakfast inns. One alternative would be to continue the
subject CUP for one week and the other, to trail the matter until after this
evening's meeting and then take action.
Helen Carey, 9272 Greenwich, was favorable to the latter suggestion. Her
people had already moved to San Diego and had opened a business there. They
had expected escrow to close August 15, 1983, and it had been extended twice.
She could not reach her client and would not be able to do so until
approximately 5:00 or 6:00 p.m.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved that the matter be trailed to 7:00 p.m. to
be dealt with after the joint meeting with the Planning Commission.
Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay stated he felt strongly that the
Council was being pressured into a decision today and he did not look forward
to a long workshop where afterward they would still have to consider the
subject, which involved the precedent of a commercial operation in residential
zoning that did not presently exist in the City. He would prefer a one-week
continuance.
809
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 11, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Mrs. Carey expressed her willingness to assist in any way and she was hopeful
of reaching her client after 5:00 p.m.; after further Council discussion, it
was determined that Mrs. Carey would inform the City Clerk just before the
7:00 p.m. meeting if she was able to reach her client to ascertain if a
one-week continuance would be agreeable. If so, the matter would be continued
accordingly. If not, the matter would be trailed until after the workshop.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion by Councilman Overholt, which
was dependent upon the answer to be given by Mrs. Carey that evening. MOTION
CARRIED.
Later in the meeting (7:18 p.m.), City Clerk Roberts announced that Mrs. Carey
had submitted a letter stating that her client, Mr. Duane Stearns, would
extend his escrow for one week to October 18, 1983 (letter made a part of the
re cord).
MOTION: Councilman Overholt thereupon moved that the public hearing on
Conditional Use Permit No. 2483 be continued to October 18, 1983, at 1:30
p.m. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 83-4A: Tait and Associates, Inc., to
abandon portions of three public utility easements acquired by the City for
sewer and drainage purposes, located east of Citron Street and south of
Lincoln Avenue.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to continue the public hearing on the
subject abandonment to November 8, 1983, 1:30 p.m., to allow for readvertising
to correct the legal description of easements. Councilman Bay seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 83R-400 for adoption, declaring the
City's intent to vacate certain public streets, highways and service easements
and rescinding Resolution No. 83R-363. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 83R-400: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS, HIGHWAYS AND
SERVICE EASEMENTS AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 83R-363. (83-4A, located east
of Citron Street and south of Lincoln Avenue, public hearing scheduled
November 8, 1983, 1:30 p.m.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-400 duly passed and adopted.
810
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 11, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 83-5A: In accordance with application
filed by Sun-Ray Engineering, public hearing was held on proposed abandonment
of restricted vehicular access rights to Gilbert Street as dedicated to the
County of Orange and acquired by the City as successor in interest by
annexation, pursuant to Resolution No. 83R-371, duly published in the Anaheim
Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance with law.
Report of the City Engineer dated August 31, 1983, was submitted recommending
approval of said abandonment.
Mayor Roth asked if anyone wished to address the Council.
Mr. James McIntire, 2121 Cloverfield, Santa Monica, indicated he was present
as the developer of the property.
There being no other persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 83R-401 for adoption, approving
Abandonment No. 83-5A. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 83R-401: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM VACATING VEHICULAR ACCESS RIGHT TO GILBERT STREET FROM AND TO PROPERTY
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF GILBERT STREET, NORTH OF BALL ROAD. (83-5A)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-401 duly passed and adopted.
CONDOLENCES TO THE FAMILY OF JOHN STEFFY: Mayor Roth noted the recent passing
of Mr. John Steffy and his long-time involvement in public service in the
community. He asked that the City Clerk prepare a letter of condolence from
the Council to be sent to Mr. Steffy's family.
RECESS: Councilman Roth moved to recess to 7:00 p.m. for a joint meeting with
the Planning Commission. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED. (3:25 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (7:18 p.m.)
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRMAN: Mary Bouas
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Charlene LaClaire, Paul King, Lewis Herbst,
Gerald Bushore
811
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 11, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
PLANNING~COMMISSIONERS: E. Chuck McBurney, Glenn Fry
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: James D. Ruth
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ronald Thompson
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
179: JOINT PUBLIC HEARING: A joint public hearing with the Planning
Commission to discuss philosophy and policy relating to various
Planning/Zoning matters, the first item relating to bed and breakfast inns.
Submitted was a 7-page report from the Planning Department/Zoning Division
dated October 4, 1983, recommending that the Council adopt the proposed
ordinance attached thereto pertaining to bed and breakfast inns. The report
included a discussion relative to the potential problems involved, which would
most directly impact the surrounding properties, as well as an analysis and
explanation of the proposed ordinance.
The Mayor asked first to hear any opening remarks from members of the Planning
Commission.
Mary Bouas, Chairman of the Planning Commission, stated that as evidenced by
the Commission's voting record on bed and breakfast (B&B) projects that had
come before them that the Commission was very much in favor of having B&B inns
in Anaheim. In her opinion, it was something that they needed in the City;
Lew Herbst, Planning Commissioner, felt that since Anaheim was a visitor and
convention city with more than 10,000,000 visitors a year, it would be
important to develop B&B inns in Anaheim. He also had comments on the
proposed ordinance as follows: He disagreed with the parking requirements,
since he felt they were way above what they should be. He recommended that
one parking space be required for each guest room, one for each other person
in the household and one for an employee. Further, as long as the house was
historical, regardless of the zone, if it qualified under certain conditions,
that it be allowed. He was otherwise agreeable with the remainder of the
proposed ordinance.
Charlene La Claire, Planning Commissioner, stated that relative to signing,
she was concerned about the word "illuminated." If B&B inns were going to be
located in residential areas, she felt an illuminated sign would be an
intrusion. A light on the sign was one thing, but an interior illuminated
sign could be vary bright.
Councilman Bay interjected and stated that before they discussed how they were
going to control B&B's, since he did not agree that they should have them at
all, he wanted to make his position clear. He considered the issue to be a
"blockbuster" precedent in allowing commercial intrusion into residential
zones in the City and to him, it was a major change in zoning. He did not
know the majority feeling across the City. A lot of people were looking
toward the Olympics and also looking at it as a way to capture some of the
tourist trade. Historically, B&B's were in rural areas where hotels and
motels were not available, with exceptions such as San Francisco. He viewed
812
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 11, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
tourism being brought into residential areas in the form of bed and breakfast
inns no different than considering the possibility of allowing people to run a
restaurant in their house. He felt they should be strongly considering the
impact that any commercial intrusion into residential areas would have and the
potential misuse. He could not use as an example any of the B&B's requests
they had considered thus far, because they were the best of examples and
probably the best of all was the one before them today. As presently
proposed, a CUP went with the property and if it was in the middle of a
residential zone and the property changed ownership with completely new
managers, he could see potential misuses.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked for clarification that the CUP went with the land;
City Attorney Hopkins answered that it went with the land as far as the
particular time of the CUP was specified and it would continue to go with the
land if the property was sold; Councilman Overholt asked why the CUP could not
be limited to a particular applicant, if it could be limited as to time.
City Attorney Hopkins stated that the particular applicant could be named, but
normally they did not do that; Councilwoman Kaywood stated, therefore, it
would not have to go with the land and they could specify that it go with a
particular owner, use or address.
City Attorney Hopkins stated that they could specify conditions that would
limit the CUP.
Later in the meeting, after discussion between Council, Commissioners and
staff relative to the proposed parking requirement, which Mr. Herbst felt was
too stringent, Councilwoman Kaywood noted that most of the older homes that
would be used for a B&B were on larger parcels of land. That was why she felt
they used the CUP, in order to look at each proposal individually, and she
would always want to retain the right to do that.
Councilman Bay also asked for clarification that when the property was sold,
the CUP would then be voided for that particular applicant; City Attorney
Hopkins stated that he thought it could be voided.
Miss Santalahti then pointed to a specific case that Councilwoman Kaywood had
recalled where a project was tied into a property owner. They were required
to file a covenant or deed restriction on the property stating that when it
came up for sale~ that the particular use would be terminated. The Zoning
Ordinance did not have that kind of requirement in it~ but it was specifically
applied in that case.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated, therefore, that they could specifically tie that
into every B&B; Miss Santalahti answered that was correct.
Councilman Pickler clarified that he was not against the profit motive, but
owners were going to use as many rooms as possible, which was going to create
a problem with parking and circulation. Three of the areas surveyed by staff
allowed B&B inns only in historical locations. He agreed with Councilman Bay
that such places were usually established in areas where there were no
accommodations, such as was done in Europe.
813
__ City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 11, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Commissioner Herbst stated since B&B's would not be allowed* in RS-7200
single-family homes, another point he wanted to make was if a historical home
was involved or one that would qualify as such, that that be an exception.
Discussion then followed between Councilman Bay and Commissioner Herbst
relative to the criteria to be used by staff in determining a structure of
historical significance. It was necessary, if approved, to specify limits and
to use such a set of criteria.
Councilwoman Kaywood reiterated an issue she had broached before, for the
benefit of the Fire Department, Police Department and Paramedics. Many homes
and stores in Anaheim did not have a street address that was visible. She
would like to see large numbers on front doors. Many people now had
spotlights in Neighborhood Watch areas and throughout the City. She saw no
reason why that light could not be on between midnight and 6:30 a.m. She felt
in that way, it would not look like'a commercial establishment. Relative to
the minimum of 2,000 square feet, she felt there could be a nice three-bedroom
home that was nowhere near that size where one bedroom would be used
occasionally for a B&B without disturbing anybody in the neighborhood. They
could even be in an RS-7200 single-family zone if there was sufficient parking
and it met all the other Code requirements. She then expressed her concern
with Section 5 of the proposed ordinance relating to the conversion of
residential structures. The two cases that had come before them did not
involve a conversion, but merely an empty or extra bedroom and not a
conversion. Later in the meeting, she also stated she would be very much
opposed to anyone converting their apartments to B&B's, referring to Page 6 of
the staff report, thereby reducing the apartment housing stock or going into
something needing a great deal of care. She felt that would be a mistake,
since the whole idea was to look like a single-family home.
Commissioner LaClaire then confirmed for Councilman Overholt that her concept
relative to signing would be a wooden sign on the house, illuminated by a
light of some sort, but not an interior illuminated sign. She did not want to
see a four-foot sign, eight feet high, illuminated that would be seen for
several blocks.
Mrs. Ramont (the applicant on Conditional Use Permit No. 2483, which was
discussed at an afternoon public hearing) stated she had never been to a B&B
where they had huge signs. The idea was to try to have the inn appear as a
home, and not a commercial establishment. She then answered questions posed
by Councilwoman Kaywood and Commissioner Bushore. She had stayed at bed and
breakfast inns and had visited quite a number as well. Advance reservations
were necessary, a directory of such inns usually included a brief description
summarizing its historical background and she had an opportunity to review the
proposed ordinance.
Extensive discussion and questioning followed between Council and Commission
Members and staff relative to various aspects of the proposed ordinance as
well as the staff report. During the discussion, Councilman Overholt asked to
814
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 11, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
hear from Mrs. Wright (see minutes of August 9, 1983, where Mrs. Wright's
request for a CUP to establish a bed and breakfast was denied by the Council
on a three-to-two vote).
Mrs. Margo Wright, 1327 South Hickory Street, stated she would like to use her
home for an occasional guest on the holidays. When she heard about the
limitation of 2,000 square feet, it would automatically eliminate 90 percent
of the homes, and as a part of that 90 percent, she did not feel good about
the proposed ordinance.
Discussion then followed relative to the use of a Home Occupation Permit (HOP)
in Mrs. Wright's case; Miss Santalahti explained that under an HOP, a person
could have a business license on a piece of property as long as they did not
violate certain limitations. Under that ordinance, two guests over a weekend
would not violate the intent of the HOP.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that concerned her even more. By allowing HOPs
all over the City, they would have things taking place that the Council would
not be able to control. She would prefer to see B&B's in an ordinance where
the Council could have control on any violations that might occur.
Councilman Overholt stated since Mrs. Wright's guests were occasional, Miss
Santalahti was saying that could be covered by an HOP. Perhaps that was
another concept they had to deal with, the occasional overnight guest as
opposed to a regular overnight guest.
Mayor Roth asked the Commission and Council to sum up their position on the
proposed B&B ordinance.
Commissioner Kin~: He favored B&B inns as long as a reasonable ordinance
could be worked out; Commissioner LaClaire: She felt with a CUP and with the
proposed ordinance, they would have a handle on B&B establishments. She did
not feel they would be running a risk, but they would be doing so if not
established under a CUP. Otherwise, they were needed in Anaheim. Relative to
signing, she reiterated, she would like to see a small sign, two square feet
on each side, non-illuminated, or a plaque on the house. She would not be
opposed to a small spot illuminating the sign, but no neons or interior
illumination. Commissioner Bushore: Everything covered by the Commission and
Council was adequate and a proper ordinance could be designed. He did not
want to see B&B's restricted from the City, since they would be taking away a
property right. He was proud of the fact that in Anaheim, anyone could ask
for whatever they wished through a use permit,~whereas a number of cities were
constantly regulating what anyone could ask for. Commissioner Herbst: He
reiterated his concern relative to the parking requirements and wanted to see
it reduced as he previously discussed. He also wanted to see a historical
site incorporated in the R-1 zones. Relative to the 2,O00-square foot
limitation and the restriction in the hill and canyon area, the latter
broached by Mr. Bushore, perhaps they were going too far and there could be a
compromise to 1800 or 1500 square feet without eliminating 99 percent of the
815
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October liD 1983, 10:00 A.M.
homes in Anaheim. If someone had a home in Anaheim Hills and otherwise
qualified, he did not see why they should eliminate those requests, since the
owner had the right to ask.
Chairman Bouas: Stated she was in accord with all of the Commissioners and
felt that B&B's were definitely needed in Anaheim. She did comment on
questioning by the Mayor that at this time, the square footage should be left
at 2,000. Perhaps there would be a circumstance where a smaller house would
be an acceptable location; however, they would be better off if the house were
larger. The historical element was also important.
Councilman Overholt stated he shared the views of Commissioners LaClaire and
Herbst, but with regard to parking, there should be one parking space for each
bedroom, one for each non-resident employee, plus one additional space. He
had some concern relative to the 2,000 square feet as a minimum house size if
it was true that it would eliminate 90 percent of the houses in Anaheim. He
agreed with Mrs. Wright that they would then be overlooking good potential
sites for B&B's, but an applicant could come in and ask for a variance.
Relative to historical significance, he felt those standards were going to
have to be those of the Planning Commission and Council. A house could also
be of architectural significance without being a historical structure.
Discussion then followed on questioning by Councilman Bay relative to the
number of 2,000-square foot homes in Anaheim, whether a B&B establishment
could refuse occupancy to anyone, what legal basis, if any, would the Council
have in allowing a B&B for one property owner, while refusing another in close
proximity, etc.
Councilman Bay then summed up, stating that he did not know the majority
opinion of the constituency in the City. There was inadequate public input
from a broad base that could tell him there was a majority opinion favoring
B&B's. He wanted to hear a great deal more public opinion through public
hearings, inviting all sections of the City, so that citizens' views could be
heard before he was ready to support an ordinance encouraging B&B inns.
Councilwoman Kaywood felt with a controlling ordinance and the CUP process,
that the Planning Commission and Council would have a very good handle on
precisely what would go in. She saw no reason to inventory all of the
2,000-square foot single-family homes in the City, because they may never
receive a request from any one of them. To have wide public hearings
throughout the City, she felt no one would attend unless they were
specifically interested in it and because a neighbor or themselves were
interested in starting one. If the neighbors were vehemently opposed, she
would also be opposed. Otherwise, she did not see a problem if they complied
with all the standards and the neighbors were in favor. She agreed with the
signing and parking recommendations as discussed. She would also like to see
included in the ordinance smaller homes, but with a minimum square footage
where there was limited use for no more than eight or ten times a year and for
no more than two guests or one or two bedrooms. By that means, they could
have a very good handle on the situation and any kind of violation could
immediately be cause
816
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 11, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
for revocation of the CUP. As far as limiting how many per street, if it
would come to that, they had done the same with gas stations with no problems,
and also with billboards and signs. She was in favor and felt that staff had
prepared a good report.
Councilman Pickler stated he felt as Councilman Bay. As long as they received
applications, he wanted something as a guideline that they could follow.
Regarding a special condition for Mrs. Wright, that was something that should
be looked at later. He was agreeable to the size of the signing and parking
as discussed. Councilman Bay had mentioned allowing a CUP for one and not the
other. That was difficult to answer and maybe establishing mileage from one
to the other could help. Going against public opinion in the area would also
be a big factor. However, he felt they were getting into an area that he did
not think belonged in Anaheim. The density itself did not foster the idea of
the establishment of a B&B, especially since there was no shortage of rooms in
the City, He felt they should definitely keep it to 2,000 square feet.
Mayor Roth stated to say that there should be no B&B's in Anaheim was doing
nothing but putting their heads in the sand. They were responsible to the
citizens and he felt very secure they were not going to harm the City. There
was a place for B&B establishments and what better way was there in order to
preserve some of the City's outstanding landmarks. He was supportive of the
proposed ordinance but with the following amendments: That signing was not to
be more than two square feet in area, non-illuminated except by a spot or
porch light; that parking requirements be one parking space for each bedroom,
one for each non-resident employee, plus one additional space.
Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4456 for first reading with the
foregoing amendments.
ORDINANCE NO. 4456: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING AND ADDING
VARIOUS SUBSECTIONS, SECTIONS AND CHAPTERS OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO BED AND BREAKFAST INNS.
Questions were then posed to staff by Council Members to clarify several
aspects of the proposed ordinance relative to where in the ordinance the use
was limited to the zone specified in the staff report, signing, etc.
M/ss Santalahti also confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood that Section 5 of the
proposed ordinance referred to conversion of multiple-family; Councilwoman
Kaywood then stated she objected to that. She did not want to see an
apartment converted to a bed and breakfast inn.
Miss Santalahti stated she would make certain that apartment buildings were
specifically excluded.
Mr. Herbst stated he would like to see a building of historical or
architectural significance allowed in any zone. There were such buildings
that although they were not historical, were architecturally significant for
the period.
817
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 11, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Miss Santalahti suggested perhaps that could be specified, requiring that any
of the proposals must be in a building of unique architectural/historical
significance and the Planning Commission or City Council would make that
specific determination.
Councilman Overholt then asked if the historical or architectural factor would
then be built into the ordinance, or would it be outside of the ordinance;
Miss Santalahti clarified that they would simply identify those two factors as
being a requirement before being able to make an application in any other
residential zone than permitted in the proposed ordinance. It would be a
matter of policy.
Councilman Overholt questioned why that could not be made a part of the
ordinance under .010 of Section 2, stating that said use shall be located in a
building of historical or architectural significance, since Mr. Herbst
expressed the concern if it were not written into the ordinance, it would only
be a matter of policy and could get "lost;" Miss Santalahti stated they could
do that.
Councilman Overholt then askad, based upon prior representation and City
Attorney concurrence, could Mrs. Wright obtain a Home Occupation Permit to do
what she wanted to do; M/ss Santalahti stated the issue was discussed with the
attorneys previously and thus far, they had not approved such Home Occupation
Permits. If she met and complied with the requirements of the HOP, she could
be issued a business license and if she did not violate it, could continue the
ope rat i on. '
Councilwoman Kaywood reiterated she had a problem with that and perhaps the
Council should see a list of what was being approved administratively without
the Council knowing about it under the guise of a Home Occupation Permit. She
requested a list of uses under the HOP.
Mayor Roth clarified that the ordinance had been offered for first reading and
the public and Council could speak to the issue again in one week when it was
offered for final reading. Also, as a result of the previous discussion,
another amendment was added to 'the proposed ordinance as follows: That those
structures of historical or architectural significance (to be determined by
the Planning Commission and City Council) be allowed as bed and breakfast inns
in any zone.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 5 minutes. (9:34 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (9:42 p.m.)
179: BILLBOARDS: Assistant Director for Zoning Annika Santalahti explained
that a staff report was in process and would be presented to the Council at
the meeting of October 18, 1983. She gave an overview of the events that had
taken place leading to the preparation of the report, which was previously
requested by the Council.
818
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 11, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Each of the Council Members then expressed either their philosophy relative to
the issue of billboards generally or more specifically, those that might be
allowed oriented toward the freeways, reiterating concerns and/or questions as
articulated at previous meetings on the subject of billboards. The consensus,
however, was that it would be more appropriate to wait for receipt of the
staff report which was to be submitted for the agenda of October 18, 1983, and
to be discussed at that time.
Mayor Roth asked to hear from the Planning Commissioners.
Chairman Bouas stated the Planning Commission felt that since the City had an
ordinance, the Commission stood by that ordinance and until it was changed,
that was what they would do.
Commissioner Herbst stated the ordinance required that a billboard be no
larger than 300 square feet and some applications were coming in requesting
1200 square feet. That was not within reason. Also, there were other boards
he felt did not belong, because they blocked the view of someone else.
Further, he was very much opposed to the City going into competition with free
enterprise on billboards. It was acceptable in or around the Stadium, but
otherwise, it was wrong for government to be competing.
Commissioner 'LaClaire stated that since she was on the Commission, and before,
it was the philosophy of the City to decrease signing. Through the years,
that is what they tried to do. She felt they should be careful what they did
relative to billboards. They had received many compliments at the League of
Cities meetings on how nice the City was, because Anaheim did not have a great
number of billboards as elsewhere. It was one of the things that attracted
people to the area and one of the reasons why they had areas such as the hill
and canyon.
Commissioners King and Bushore had no comment at this time.
The Mayor noted that representatives of the billboard industry were present
and he asked if they wished to speak now or wait until the October 18, 1983,
meeting; there was an indication that they would rather wait to speak at the
meeting in one week.
Before concluding, Councilman Pickler asked if at all possible, for the
Council to receive the report from the Planning Department before they picked
up their agendas on Friday in order to give them an opportunity to more
thoroughly analyze and review its contents.
ADJOURNMENT - PLANNING COMMISSION: Commissioner Bouas moved to adjourn.
Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. Commissioners McBurney and Fry were
absent. MOTION CARRIED. (10:12 p.m.)
ADJOURNq~ENT - CITY COUNCIL: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn.
Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (10:12 p.m.)
Councilman
819