Loading...
1981/01/0681-1 City Hall., Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 6, 1981, 1:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour COUNCIL MEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ron Thompson TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: Sister Rita Carroll, St. Anthony Claret Church, gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilwoman Miriam Kaywood led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 119: INTRODUCTION: Mrs. Mary Jones, Manager of Community Affairs, Disneyland, introduced to the Council Miss Willie Van Der Zwaag, the 1981Disneyland Ambas- sador. On behalf of the Council, Mayor Seymour welcomed Miss Van Der Zwaag and congrat- ulated her on having been selected this year's Disneyland Ambassador. He also presented her with a replica of the Big "A", a white briefcase with the City seal and a dozen red roses. 119: RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT: A resolution of support unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to the organizers of the Miss Anaheim Pageant Association and extending best wishes in their efforts. Mrs. Earline Jones and Mrs. Sylvia Bula accepted the resolution. 119: RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION: A resolution of commendation was unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to the Rams football team and to Coach Ray Malavasi, commending the Rams on their first season at Anaheim Stadium and for providing outstanding football for nearly three-quarters of a million Big "A" fans. 119: RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION: A resolution of commendation was unanimously adopted by the City Council to be presented to the Arturo Toscanini Chapter of Anaheim for their efforts in promoting the Orange County Music Center and per- forming arts and further, commending Sarah Pearson for her guiding role and honorary chairmanship, and encouraging all citizens tO join in support of this worthwhile activity during the gala opening of Anaheim's newest facility, the beautiful Marriott Hotel. MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held October 7, 1980, subject to typographical corrections. Council- man Overholt seconded the motion. Councilman Roth abstained. MOTION CARRIED. 81-2 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 6, 1981, 1:30 P.M. 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 ordinance or resolution in regular order. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $642,344.40, in accordance with the 1980-81 Budget, were approved. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL MOTION CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the following actions were approved as recommended by ghe Purchasing Agent: a. 160/124: Bid No. 3719 - Carpeting of the north and south lobbies and east and west corridors of the Convention Center. Award to Custom Floors, $46,206. b. 160/140: Bid No. 3720 - Carpeting of the Haskett Branch Library. Award to Spellman Carpet Service, $14,785.13. c. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to National Car Sales for six used 1979/80 vehicles at a total price of $29,012.20. MOTION CARRIED. 103: PROPERTY TAX AGREEMENT FOR REORGANIZATION NO. 51 BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT: Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 81R-1 for adoption, consenting to the designation of Parcel Two as described in Reorganization No. 51, approved by Resolution No. 80R-342, as "developed" property pursuant to the terms of that certain Master Property Tax Transfer Agreement with the County dated October 28, 1980, as recommended in memorandum received December 30, 1980 from the Planning Department, Planning Division. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 81R-l: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CONSENTING TO THE DESIGNATION OF PARCEL TWO AS DESCRIBED IN REORGANIZATION NO. 51 APPROVED BY RESOLUTION NO. 80R-342 AS "DEVELOPED" PROPERTY PURSUANT TO THE TERMS OF THAT CERTAIN MASTER PROPERTY TAX TRANSFER AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF ORANGE AND THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DATED OCTOBER 28, 1980. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-1 duly passed and adopted. 112: COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, ET AL., VERSUS BOISE CASCADE, ET AL: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Bay, the City Attorney was authorized to sign acknowledgement of Notice of Tentative Partial Settlement in Civil Action No. 766068, County of Alameda, et al., versus Boise Cascade, et al., as recommended in memorandum dated December 30, 1980 from the City Attorney's office. MOTION CARRIED. 81-3 City H~ll~. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 6, 1981, 1:30 P.M. 105: REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON A MATTER RELATING TO ANAHEIM GOLF COURSE ADVISORY COMMISSION: Mr. Louis Dexter, 305 North Ranchito, stated that he wanted to address the Council on a matter he felt had not yet been concluded completely, i.e., that Mrs. Lorene Zibell, although she had been a member of the Golf Course Advisory Commission, was not a qualified elector in the City of Anaheim and thus not eligible to have served on that Commission. (See minutes December 16 and 23, 1980 where the matter was discussed under the Council Comments portion of those meetings). Mr. Dexter then read in its entirety his letter dated and received December 22, 1980, to the City Council (on file in the City Clerk's office) listing seven items, which items consisted of questions and topics he wished to pursue with the Council. Mr. Dexter also submitted for Council perusal evidence in support of the first six items as follows: Letter dated August 24, 1978 notifying Mrs. Zibell of her appointment to the Golf Course Advisory Commission; copy of Resolution No. 75R-221; Anaheim Golf Course Advisory Commission minutes dated August 17, 1978; memorandum dated November 17, 1975 from the City Attorney to the City Council; Council minutes of November 18, 1975; and Anaheim Bulletin newspaper article dated December 19, 1980--"Golf Course Ducks Member Contro- versy''. In concluding, from the evidence that he gathered, he felt that the Council had not done a very good job of overseeing relative to the Golf Course Advisory Commission. After Mr. Dexter concluded his presentation, Mayor Seymour stated that he would try to answer the questions posed on behalf of the Council. He first thanked Mr. Dexter for the research he had done, realizing that it was not easy to accomplish and that it undoubtedly took a great deal of time. He then addressed the City Attorney before responding to the seven items, noting that Mr. Dexter had raised the question of a possible legal problem as result of Mrs. Zibell's being on the Commission and having participated in certain actions. City Attorney William Hopkins explained that he referred to that matter in a memorandum to the Council dated December 11, 1980. In the resolution forming the Golf Course Advisory Commission, it was sta~ed that the Commission was advisory to the Council with no final actions taken by them. Thus, everything was of an advisory nature, and he felt there would be no merit to any lawsuit. He was assuming that there was nothing fraudulent or illegal involved of a conspiracy nature, and he did not feel anything of that nature was involved. Mayor Seymour then answered Mr. Dexter on items one through seven in his December 22, 1980 letter respectively as follows: (!) It was his opinion that the situation was merely a total misunderstanding, but if he (Dexter) or anyone else had information that would lead them to believe it was not, the Council would be willing to look at any possibility of fraud. He strongly felt it was a legitimate error of misunderstanding on Mrs. Zibell's part. (2) The same was true in this regard. Mrs. Zibell had an Anaheim address, but she was technically a citizen of Stanton. It was his opinion there was con- fusion, when the Council appointed her to the Commission and when he offered the motion to do so, he understood she was an Anaheim citizen. If it was his error, he apologized, and it was strictly due to an oversight. 81-4 .Qity Hall, Ap.._aheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 6~ 1981, 1:30 P.M. (3) He did not think Chairman of the Commission, Pat Patterson, was negligent in the matter and he felt there was no connection whatsoever to the 1975 action of the Commission when they asked if the Council would consider a non-qualified elector to serve, and the Council, in turn, responded unanimously by saying "no." He did not think there was an attempt on Mr. Patterson's part to cir- cumvent the process. Again he felt it was an oversight. (4) The City Attorney had already given his opinion relative to the legal aspect. Further, as Mr. Dexter indicated from his research, he found that Mrs. Zibell had done an outstanding job while she was a member of the Commission and was very dedicated. She did not commit any illegal act that they were aware of. (5) Relative to the Commission's attendance at the Los Angeles Rams-Dallas Cowboys game, December 15, 1980 as guests of Mr. Tom Liegler, Stadium, Convention Center, Golf Manager, he would hope that they did attend that game. None of the members of an advisory commission, outside of the Planning and Redevelopment Commissions, were paid for their services, and the latter did not get paid enough to put gas- oline in their cars, much less compensate for the hours of time donated to the City. They had agreed as a City Council a number of years ago that they would not pay their commissioners and that they could get enough good talent without paying for it. On the other hand, if there was a way of acknowledging their hard work, dedication and effort, then he, for one, wanted to take the opportunity to say "thank you." If they did so in this case by having the commissioners attend a football game, he felt it was "super" and less expensive for the taxpayer than putting them on salaries and giving them bureaucracies and staffs to work with. (6) Relative to alleged remarks made by Commissioner Bill Martin about Mr. Dexter, he (Dexter) was a watchdog for local government, and as such, was in the public eye just as the Council Members and Commissioners. That being so, there was going to be some mud slinging from time to time. He also did not see that the Mary Dinndorf incident was a proper comparison. He further encouraged Mr. Dexter to continue his watchdog posture in the City. (7) The Council did not exercise proper attention in this matter. Perhaps they should have done a better job of checking relative to Mrs. Zibell being a qualified elector of Anaheim. They would certainly do so in the future on each appointment. The Mayor then again thanked Mr. Dexter on behalf of the Council for bringing the matter to their attention. Councilman Roth recollected from the day the Council made the appointment to the Commission, only names were submitted and no addresses. Councilwoman Kaywood stated even though Mrs. Zibell did not live in the City Limits, she did not know if she would have questioned the address just in looking at it, if it had come through with her name. She felt that Mrs. Zibell, having served on the Commission for two years, it would be in order for the Council to send a letter of regret upon her resignation and to thank her for her prior service; Mayor Seymour felt that had already been accomplished when they asked for her resignation. 81-5 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -.January 6,. 1981, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Overholt also thanked Mr. Dexter for his research. The Council had done everything it could do as a result of his (Dexter's) bringing the over- sight to their attention, and Mrs. Zibell had resigned accordingly. He com- mended him also for complimenting Mrs. Zibell for doing a good job. The Council must make a greater effort in the future to be sure that qualified electors were appointed commissioners. Mr. Dexter stated he felt the City Attorney should also apprise the Council further of his conversations in private with Mrs. Zihell. He also felt that they were setting a dangerous precedent relative to having commissioners attend football games as guests of the City; Mayor Seymour interjected and explained that it was not a precedent, but a practice that had been instituted since the Stadium was built. In concluding, Mr. Dexter stated that when things were running smoothly, that was the time to investigate and that was why he was present. He reiterated that the Council should keep better track of the commissions they create. No further action was taken by the Council. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning Commission at their meeting held December 15, 1980, pertaining to the following applications, as listed on the Consent Calendar, were submitted for City Council information. 1. VARIANCE NO. 3183: Submitted by Robert C. and Franza R. Veltri, to retain two dwelling units on a RS-7200 zoned lot located at 227 Hillcrest Street, with various Code waivers. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-242, granted Variance No. 3183, and granted a negative declaration status. 2. VARIANCE NO. 3184: Submitted by Rafael and Esther Fernandez, to construct a detached single-family dwelling on RM-2400 zoned property located at 911 North Sabina Street, with various Code waivers. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-243, granted Variance No. 3184, and granted a negative declaration status. 3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2125: Submitted by R. H. and Theodora R. Siegele, to permit an automobile repair facility on ML zoned property located at 919 East South Street, with Code waivers of minimum landscaped setback and requested site screening. Conditional Use Permit No. 2125 was withdrawn by the petitioner, and the Plan- ning Commission granted a negative declaration status. 4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2138: Submitted by Ewald F. and Dorothy E. Dargatz, et al, to permit a public dance hall on CL zoned property located at 3244 West Lincoln Avenue, with a Code waiver of miniumum number of parking spaces. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-236, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2138, and ratified the Planning Director's cate- gorical exemption determination. 81-6 City Hall,__Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 6, 1981, 1:30 P.M. 5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2147: Submitted by Mobil Oil Corporation, to expand an existing fuel terminal on County Mi-O and Ai-O property located on the west side of Jefferson Street, south of Orangethorpe Avenue, with various Code waivers. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-237, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2147, in part, and granted a negative declaration status. 6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2151: Submitted by Abel and Carol A. Mendez, to permit a used auto sales lot on CL zoned property located at 1039 North Anaheim Boulevard, with a Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-238, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2151, and granted a negative declaration status. 7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2152: Submitted by Louis & Manuel Walter Co., et al, to permit the on-sale of alcoholic beverages in an existing motel on CR zoned property located at 1110 West Katella Avenue, with a Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-239, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2152, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination. 8. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2153: Submitted by Northwest Kendall Properties, to permit a drive-through restaurant on CL zoned property located at 510 South Euclid Street. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-240, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2153, and granted a negative declaration status. 9. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2155: Submitted by Harry S. Rinker, to permit a church on ML zoned property located at 5401 East La Palma Avenue. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-233, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2155, and granted a negative declaration status. 10. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2156: Submitted by Anaheim Hills Community Church, to permit a church and private educational facilities on County zoned RE property located on the southeast side of Santa Ana Canyon Raod, east of Eucalyptus Road, with a Code waiver of maximum structural height. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-232, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2156, and granted a negative declaration status. 11. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2157: Submitted by Rovi Pacific Realty Corporation, to permit a veterinary clinic on CL-HS zoned property located at 6509 East Serrano Avenue. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-241, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2157, and granted a negative declaration status. 81-7 City Hall~ .Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - JanuarZ 6~ 1981, 1:30 P.M. 12. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1286 - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: Submitted by Michael G. Mack/Orange County Transit District, requesting termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 1286, to permit a travel trailer and camper storage facility and a tires, batteries and accessories type retail sales and service business on ML zoned property located at 1717 East Via Burton Street. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-244, terminated Conditional Use Permit No. 1286. 13. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1359 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Leo Freedman, requesting an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 1359, to permit a ten-story hotel tower on C-R zoned property located at 1700 South Harbor Boulevard. The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 1359, to expire December 27, 1981. No action was taken on the foregoing items, therefore the actions of the City Planning Commission became final. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 80-81-13, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2119 (TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11053): Mary S. Nelson, Administrator for Ida M. Rannow Estate, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-3000, to permit a 5-lot, 220-unit condominium sub- division (25 percent affordable) on property located at the southwest corner of Cerritos Avenue and Euclid Street, with various Code waivers. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-228, granted Reclassification No. 80-81-13, and pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-229, granted, Conditional Use Permit No. 2119, in part, and granted a negative declaration status. Councilwoman Kaywood removed the subject Reclassification and Conditional Use Permit from the Planning Commission Consent Calendar and requested a review of the Commission's decision. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 80-81-17 AND VARIANCE NO. 3176: Submitted by Bill J. Nickel, et al, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200, to permit a 14-unit apartment complex on property located at 1217 South Nutwood Street, with various Code waivers. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-226, granted Reclassification No. 80-81-17, and pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-227, granted Variance No. 3176, in part, and granted a negative declaration status. Councilwoman Kaywood removed the subject Reclassification and Variance from the Planning Commission Consent Calendar and requested a review of the Com- mission's decision. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2142: Submitted by California Castles, Inc., to permit a 73-unit motel on CL zoned property located at 806 South Beach Boule- vard, with Code waivers of maximum structural height and minimum landscaped set- back. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-230, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2142, and granted a negative declaration status. 81-8 City H~i.1, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - J~p~ary 6, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood removed the subject Conditional Use Permit from the Plan- ning Commission Consent Calendar and requested a review of the Commission's decision. RECESS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess to 3:00 P.M. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (2:40 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (3:00 P.M.) PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2123 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application by Matthew T. and Cheri D. Nugent, to permit a preschool on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located at 856 South Walnut Street, with a Code waiver of maximum fence height. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-186, declared that the subject project be exempt from the requirement to prepare an environ- mental impact report, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, since there would be no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact due to this project and further granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2123 in part, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the proposed pre-school shall comply with all signing requirements of the RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural) Zone. 2. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with revised plans to be submitted to the City of Anaheim eliminating all buildings other than the existing ones. If revised plans include any additions to the existing structure, said revised plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. 3. That the existing driveway on Walnut Street be closed and standard curb and gutter be installed per recommendation of the Traffic Engineer. 4. That Condition Nos. 1, 2 and 3, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections. 5. That there shall be a maximum of ninety (90) children in the existing structure. 6. That the hours of operation shall typically be 6:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. 7. That all employees shall park in the on-site parking spaces. 8. That any mini-buses providing student transportation to and from the pre- school must be parked either on-site or at another off-site location and shall not be parked on the streets in this residential area. A maximum of six (6) mini-buses may be parked on-site. 9. That any open house or other parent-attended activities shall be limited at any one time to the parents of a maximum of ten (10) students. A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilman Bay at the meeting of November 25, 1980, and public hearing scheduled this date. Miss Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, described the location and surrounding land uses. She outlined the findings given in the staff report which was submitted to and considered by the City Planning Commission. Councilman Roth asked relative to loading and unloading of children, was the set up going to be such that vehicles would be off the street and on the pre- mises. 81-9 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 6, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Miss Santalahti answered that was correct and that was the intent of the pro- posed loop driveway. Councilman Bay noted that the applicant intended to go to 187 students and the Planning Commission approved a maximum of 90. He asked the implication of when and how the applicant would go to 187. Miss Santalahti explained if the applicant were to go to the higher number, they would have to either appeal the CUP at some later time for a greater number, or file a new CUP to expand the number of children. There would be another public hearing. The Mayor then opened the public hearing first asking to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent, then from those in favor of the proposal, followed by those in opposition. Mr. Matthew T. Nugent, owner of the property, first broached the traffic situation which seemed to be a problem with the neighbors. He first submitted to the Council proof of traffic exiting and entering Beacon Avenue onto Walnut which data was gathered on January 5, 1981 (see Vehicle Volume--Graphic Summary of Survey) made a part of the record. He sat and counted the traffic to some extent with another gentlemen who witnessed the count. The document he submitted to the Council was accurate and he would be willing to be sworn relative to its accuracy. He also had a traffic control sheet from the City showing that traffic had decreased by 100 cars on Walnut Street since 1975. He also submitted that document to the Council. He continued that at the Planning Commission meeting of November 3, 1980 (see mintues that date) there was a discrepancy as to whether or not the subject structure was of historical value. They felt there were only several things the home could be used for because it was quite large. The structure was registered with the National Historical Society, as well as the Anaheim Historical Society. He had documented proof as indicated on Page 456 of "History of Orange County, California, 1911" attesting to its historical value. He submitted the book to the Council for their perusal. Relative to the turn-around driveway previously mentioned, Betsy Ross School further north on Walnut had a turn around driveway for pick up and delivery of children which was 151 feet in a semi-circle and their driveway was approximately 100 feet. Betsy Ross had parking stalls for 350 students and they had 17 parking stalls for only 90 students. Mr. Nugent also realized there was a noise factor problem in the neighborhood and since he was a landscaper, he felt he could landscape the premises to the best interest of the neighborhood. Relative to the chain link fence and the wrought iron area, he could landscape it with a creeping fig that would adhere to either type fence to cut down on any noise. Ninety students were proposed to be on the site, but they would not all be arriving at one time during rush hour traffic. There would be children who could walk to the facility with their parents during the day which would cut down on the traffic. Also busing and car pooling would mitigate any traffic problem as well. A percentage of the children at the preschool would be those who would normally be farmed out after school until their parents could pick them up. Those children could walk from Betsy Ross to the school, do their homework and be enlightened on certain subjects until their parents could pick them up, thus creating less of a traffic problem. They could also have 81-10 City Hall,. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 6, 1981, 1:30 P.M. gardens on the premises to educate the children on nature. He and his wife had taken a small survey of how many parents worked in the surrounding areas and they devised a penciled in graph showing the location of those parents. He also submitted that document to the Council (~ade a part of the record). Relative to safety, the structure was fire sprinkler safe comparable to any major shopping center and approved by the Fire Department to be fire safe for the children. Across the street directly off of Walnut was another person in Lot 51 in favor the preschool and there were several people who did not care which way the decision would go. The preschool would be an asset to the neighborhood because of the many working parents. He felt that the City and the neighborhood would be supportive if they were fully aware of what the school was going to be all about, and that in the future they would be 100% supportive should they want to add to their enrollment. Mrs. Cheri Nugent first read the statement of compliance submitted on their behalf (see "Owners Statement of Compliance" which was made a part of the record) which contained the following pertinent points: As the owners, they wished to confirm to the Council that they were ready to comply with all traffic regula- tions and noise control regulations of the City and tested for full compliance, with the recommendation that enrollment would not exceed more than 90 children. Relative to the said petition of opposition of 400 signatures as presented at the November 3, 1980 Planning Commission meeting, it appeared that facts were misrepresented to signatories, therefore revoking some of the signatures. They were informed by some of the signators of said petition that they were told their property value would decrease from $10,000 to $15,000 if a preschool were allowed in the neighborhood, and this was their main concern. At the November 3, 1980 meeting, only one signatory, Mr. Larry Rogalla, had acknowl- edged reviewing the proposed plan for the preschool prior to the November 3, 1980 meeting. They, therefore, challenged the credibility of the petitioners who sought out signatures by misleading a percentage of the signatories. They requested that CUP No. 2123 be granted for a maximum of 90 children and also that the 6-foot fence waiver be granted. Mrs. Nugent then explained that they did not plan on having 90 children immed- iately. That was a maximum figure and they were going to work up to that. They were going to start with whatever the City would allow and comply with everything else. Councilwoman Kaywood asked the number they were going to start with; Mrs. Nugent answered, perhaps 45 to 60 students maximum at present. Ninety was a figure approved by the Planning Commission. Councilwoman Kaywood referred to the letter that referred to financing and the problems that they would incur if they did not have 180 children. Mr. Nugent explained that the financing would be cut to a minimum because there were no additions involved except for driveways, chain link fencing and interior work and thus not that much money would be involved. They would have to apply for a loan although they did not have an exact figure. 81-11 City Hall, Anahpim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 6, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood then asked if the letter was in error; Mr. Nugent answered "yes". Councilman Roth asked Mr. Nugent if he was familiar with letter dated December 31, 1980 from Cherlene Williams of Cher-Max Corporation which stated, "Please be advised unless we can obtain a conditional use permit for a 180 enrollment, that further consideration is unwarranted." He also asked if Cher-Max was financially involved. Mr. Nu§ent stated that Cher-Max was not involved financially at this time. At one time they were agents who were buying the house, but they backed out of the situation because the financing was too much for them. They (Nugents) felt that the home could handle 60 children and they could make a profit while not investing a great deal of money in the property. Cher-Max no longer had any- thing to do with the property. Councilman Roth noted that in reading the great amount of documentation on the issue, there was reference to small business administration (SBA) loans. He wanted to know if the establishment of the pre-school was contingent upon their obtaining a small business loan. Mr. Nugent answered "yes". They would have to file for a small business loan or refinance the property. He also confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood that they owned the house and were living in it at present. Councilman Overholt again referred to a letter dated December 31, 1980 from Cher-Max which, in turn, referred to a letter from the Business Development Center of Southern California dated November 25, 1980 to Mrs. Williams in which they indicated an SBA guaranteed loan would not be available unless there could be a minimum of 180 children at that location. He asked Mr. Nugent if he was now telling them that he felt he could get SBA financing. Mr. Nugent stated he felt he could obtain the financing to do what had to be done. Cher-Max had proposed to add a large 5,000-square foot building in the rear because the property was so valuable and they had to pay a high mortgage for the property originally. They felt that they would not have to add a large building in the back and they did not need 180 students. They were after only 90 students and the house could hold that at the present. He confirmed for Councilman Overholt that their basis for an SBA loan would be on an entirely different concept than the original. Councilman Bay noted that Mr. Nugent talked about a creeping fig plant on the chain link or wrought iron fence. It was his understanding that a fence with no more setback than that on the corner had to have visibility through it due to a safety factor and, therefore, the fence was going to be a fence and not a wall so that a car approaching that corner could see. He did not under- stand why he would plant a creeper on it to block the visibility, since that was the intent of having a chain link fence. Mr. Nugent stated he felt that on the backside area where the visibility was poor, he would not plant it, but just in the other areas in order to cut down on the noise factor and also beautify the fence for the neighborhood. 81-12 City Hal!, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January. 6, 1981~ 1:30 P.M. The Mayor then asked to hear from those in favor of Conditional Use Permit No. 2123. The following people spoke in favor and highlights of their presentation given below: Cherlene Williams, 940 Nantucket Street, La Habra, stated she was a partner in Cher-Max and they had originally applied to the City for a variance to conduct a preschool at the subject location with an enrollment of 180 students. At their meeting on November 3, 1980, the Planning Commission approved a request but for 90 students. Financing was not available for 90 students, and they were notified by the SBA that the property would not qualify for a loan. She clarified that they were not applying for a variance, but it was now up to the seller who was doing so. Cher-Max was out of it unless they could have an enrollment of 180 students. Rita Nugent, sister of Mmtthew Nugent, 108 Clearbrook Lane, Costa Mesa, stated she had been an educator for 22 years with two Masters Degrees and credentials to support the establishment of a preschool. She thereupon relayed her exten- sive background and qualifications in the field of education and counseling. Despite the fact that Chef-Max Corporation had backed out and claimed that they could not finance the school, that may have been based on purchase of the building proper. She felt an advantage that the Nugents had was the fact that they were already the owners. Thus the improvements could be accomplished more simply and with less additions. She would like to work with the Nugents by contracting with them to make certain the preschool was in line with all State Education Code standards and that the curriculum and other aspects of the pro- posal would be up to par as part of her license and her work. Councilman Roth, speaking to Miss Nugent, noted that current data revealed that approximately 50% of married couples today in California were getting divorced and the children of those separations were living with either one spouse or the other. The adults must, therefore, be gainfully employed because other- wise they could not make it financially. Such a situation brought about the possible urgent need for preschools to relieve the burden of caring for the child during working hours. If the parent could not work, the next step would be a government subsidy to support that way of life. He asked Miss Nugent if she had any statistics or information on the problem which existed particularly in California. Miss Nugent answered that a number of recent studies had confirmed the fact that when there was a breakup in the family and the mother was not able to work because of either the lack of skills necessary or because of the necessity to provide for the care and needs of the children, they would go on the public dole. It then became a vicious cycle of dependency on public institutions for support. The proposed preschool would be a viable option--it would not be a daycare center only or merely a holding pen, but an educational institute and thereby help in solving several problems in society. Mrs. Diane LaDuca advised she was involved in the activity with the Nugents as their real estate agent. She thereupon provided statistics also in answer to Councilman Roth's query given to her by the Orange County District Daycare Pro- gram: 51% of the mothers with children under 18 years of age were employed; 81-13 City Hal~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 6, 1981, 1:30 P.M. 49% of women with a child between the ages of 3 and 5 were working; 35% of the women with a child under the age of 3 were working, and fewer than 20% of the United States households consisted of the typical working family, i.e., a male bread winner, a full time homemaker wife, and at least one child under 18 years of age. In examining a family with two children under 18, the frequency dropped to less than 10% which were very alarming statistics for the future of child care in the United States. In the City of Anaheim from January to October 1980, the Children's Home Care Society of California, Day Care, (Orange County District Daycare Program) received an estimated 352 requests for childcare from parents for their preschool age youngsters. That was for a program that barely anyone was aware existed. She felt that the request for the CUP would fulfill a need of the community and future need that was developing. The building itself in that use would not be inconsistent with the uses of various buildings down Walnut Street where there was a car demolition business at one end, a nursing home at the other and an elementary school in between. There was discussion about property values being in danger as a result of the building being used by a preschool but considering the various uses of different buildings on Walnut Street, such as a car demolition business, it would not deteriorate the values of their homes. Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mrs. LaDuca, as a realtor and in her professional opinion, did she feel there would be any resulting decrease in the value of any of the homes in the area whether on Beacon, Chateau or Walnut. Mrs. LaDuca answered if a home were situated directly adjacent to a school, it would screen out certain buyers, but on the other hand, there were other people who did not see that as an impediment at all. With sales prices in the area being in the $81,000 range, there were very few such homes available in Anaheim in that range and consequently there would be no problem marketing the house in that neighborhood. She then confirmed for Councilman Overholt that she had no present financial interest in the transaction. Mary Short, Licensed Real Estate Agent, stated she represented Ms. Williams and initially wrote the deposit receipt for Ms. Williams and her partner to purchase the property. Since the Council was familiar with the subject property, they could see in their mind that it was a non-conforming property sitting in the midst of single-family dwellings. They spent a lot of time talking to people informing them on what they were trying to do. At this point, there were no brokerage fees due, and they were present more or less as a service today. She could understand the concern of the neighbors relative to the request for 187 students, but at this point, the Planning Commission indicated a maximum of 90 with 187 being a futuristic figure when the formerly proposed addition was completed on the property. She viewed the property as something more than a residence and that it would be enhanced and utilized in some other way and also serve as a beacon for a lot of children who have nowhere to go after the school day was over. Councilman Roth asked when they went through the Planning Commission, had she or the Nugents made any attempt to quiet the fears of the surrounding neighbors by showing plans and advising them that there had been a tremendous reduction in the number of children planned for the preschool. 81-14 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 6, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Ms. Short answered that she had not spoken with Mr. Rogalla. She originally went to him at his home hopefully to discuss the situation and was turned away. She also went to the Kinses who lived directly across the street and who had written a letter to the Council. They did spend a great deal of time going door to door and were turned away from some because they had already been approached by Mr. Rogalla. Some people, as Mrs. Nugent stated, had already signed their names, but were subsequently told by Mr. Rogalla that their pro- perty would be going down in value. She questioned how such a large stucture, 4,300 square feet, on the market for $232,000 with .67 acreage that was going to be enhanced, could depreciate surrounding property. She explained that they split up the area and visited many people and worked many evenings while they could have been out selling other properties. She did not feel the time had been wasted and that it would still be worthwhile. The property at present would take people with wealth to enhance it. She did not feel that many people would spend $300,000 or $400,000 to enhance the property which contained 14 or 15 rooms just to live there as a residence. She also explained as a result of questioning by Councilwoman Kaywood that the house was completely equipped with sprinklers from the attic to the basement. They had also had roofing inspection done and the house could be utilized for more than a residence. They also had an evaluation made of costs to bring the walls to the fire safety level, and Mr. McCloud from the City Fire Department was present at the time. The building was inspected by the State who indicated that the property at present could hold 67 children in its present state, provided that the upstairs wall would have the one-inch thickness for fire retardent purposes. There being no further persons who wished to speak in favor, the Mayor asked to hear from those in opposition. The following people spoke in opposition and the highlights of their testimoney was as follows: Mr. Larry Rogalla, resident and owner of (14 years) 1184 Beacon Avenue, stated that in regard to the letter of Mr. Kinses previously referred to, prior to the last meeting with the Planning Commission, he (Kinses) handed him a letter revoking his approval based upon the article in the packet and made a part of the record, the petition against CUP No. 2123. He thereupon submitted a letter dated November 2, 1980 written by Mr. Kinses. He did not know where the $10,000 and $15,000 figures came from relative to property devaluation. However, he had the opportunity to call seven different real estate agencies and ask them what they thought would be the results of having a preschool in the immediate area which at that time was planned for 187 children. In all cases, they said it would be a detriment. In some extreme cases, they indicated as much as $5,000 in devaluation, to the opposite extreme that it would limit the amount of people willing to purchase such a piece of property. That information was relayed to all the people he spoke to and the 413 people who signed the petition. He hoped that the Council had an opportunity to read the petition (petition against Conditional Use Permit No. 2123--October 20, 1980) as well as the names contained therein and the two-page article which accompanied it (supporting evidence against Conditional Use Permit No. 2123) which were all a part of the record having been submitted at the Planning Commission hearing. He knew of at least four other people who checked the plan and in the course of their petition route, they encouraged everyone to look at them and not take their word for it. 81-15 Citx Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 6, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Rogalla had since the Planning Commission meeting checked into a few other items of concern to the neighbors. They were as follows: Traffic: He contacted the Anaheim Police Department and found that there was an average of 25 to 30 citations written in and around the area of Walnut Avenue, the majority of which were for speeding. A record of three accidents per month occurred on Walnut Street. In contacting the Traffic Engineer that morning, he was told that 8,000 vehicles a day travelled Walnut Street and he called a second time just to confirm that high number. Assuming the pre- school had buses, they assumed with 90 children, there would be 60 or 70 additional automobiles arriving in the morning or in the evening which would add 120 to 140 automobiles in and out of Beacon Avenue during the morning and evening hours. With the 8,000 vehicles now, he found it difficult to get out onto Walnut. There were also no traffic lights or signals within their neigh- borhood and there had been many close calls within that area which was of con- cern to them. Critical need for a preschool daycare center: During the past two weeks they investigated their neighborhood, the local area as well as a larger area, from La Palma to Katella and from St. College to Magnolia. Within that area there were presently 21 preschool daycare centers. They contacted 19 of the 21 and found that only one of the 19 was at maximum enrollment. Six of the centers were within a one-mile radius of the proposed preschool daycare center. There were actually two schools located on Walnut--Betsy Ross and the M~ary Francis School, the latter being a kindergarten. In contacting them today (Mary Francis School) they indicated they could not exist because their enrollment was so iow and they made co~ents that they were planning to go into a preschool daycare center. He then submitted a handmade street map of the area under discussion showing the location of the 21 schools by red dots with a green dot indicating the proposed preschool (made a part of the record). Also during the meeting with the Planning Commission, great emphasis was placed on the critical need based upon a letter from the Betsy Ross School. He had been on the Council of that school and on the PTA along with other neighbors and was aware of the fact that Betsy Ross School had declined in enrollment by 40%. It was his personal opinion, if that enrollment state continued, there might not be a Betsy Ross School. The decline could also account for the reduction of 100 automobiles in their neighborhood relative to traffic. They were very concerned about the letter (dated September 17, 1980 signed by Val Granz, Principal, Betsy Ross School) and why it was written. It was interesting to note that during the initial contract with the Chef-Max School, the real estate agent happened to be a school teacher at Betsy Ross, Mr. LaDuca. Councilman Overholt stated that they had another letter from a Mrs. DaDurka dated October 23, 1980 which stated that she was the principal of Palm Lane Elementary School. He asked if that was the same person he (Rogalla) was talking about. Mr. Rogalla stated if he was in error, he apologized. He conceded it might be a different person with a similar name. Councilwoman Kaywood then asked Mrs. LaDuca who spoke previously her full name; Mrs. LaDuca confirmed that her first name was Diane and she was a teacher at Betsy Ross School. She clarified again that she had no financial interest in 81-16 City Ha~l~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 6, 1981, 1:30 P.M. the proposed preschool. She had been a teacher for 20 years and teacher in the subject District for 12 years and thus was very aware of the needs of children in the area. She felt it would be unlikely for a person to go out on a limb publicly as a favor for anyone else in making statements regarding the needs of children. Originally she was the real estate agent representing the Nugents when they appeared before the Planning Commission. She was the agent originally trying to market the house and she was not involved in the sale of the house to the Nugents. At this time, she had no financial interest because the house did not sell and the only time she would have had an interest was if the house sold. Councilman Overholt asked if she had an expectancy of a financial interest in the property in the future; Mrs. LaDuca stated at this time, that was uncertain. If the Nugents decided not to proceed on the preschool and not to market it, she would assume that she would try to market it again, but she did not know that, since she did not have a contract to do so. Mr. Rogalla continued it had been implied that they were a heartless group of neighbors. In an effort to find out if their concerns were out of line and to check out their feelings on the matter, he and another neighbor went to two other preschool daycare centers in similar situations. They talked to the neighbors in the vicinity of those schools first introducing themselves and explaining that a preschool was being proposed in their neighborhood and if they could offer any input on the school in their area. Four major points were brought out: (1) Constant noise; (2) those living in the area adjoining the preschool found that toys, rocks, dirt and food were constantly being thrown into their backyard on a daily basis; (3) poor supervision; (4) lack of response by the school administration to comply with commitments and to res- ponse to complaints. Councilman Roth stated that when the petition was first circulated, the request was for 187 students and now the Planning Commission had reduced that to a maximum of 90. He asked Mr. Rogalla if he felt there was still an objection to a maximum of 90 students. Mr. Rogalla answered "yes" and then proceeded to again refer to the fact that there were many other preschools in the area; Councilman Roth interjected and clarified that they were present to discuss land use, not whether a person was going to be able to make a profit. Mr. Rogalla felt as far as land use, the house was a rest home in the past and it worked out well. The present proposal would be disastrous to the neighbor- hood with regard to traffic, noise and the other items listed in their petition. Even with the reduction in the number of students, the very well-defined concerns expressed by the neighbors who lived around other pre-schools would still be valid at the subject location. Councilwoman Kaywood then questioned Mr. Rogalla relative to some of the state- ments made in the data circulated with the petition for purposes of clarification, followed by questioning by Councilman Overholt and Mayor Seymour further per- taining to his questioning of neighbors of other preschools and traffic data he had given. He also explained for Councilman Bay the procedure used in cir- culating the petition. 81-17 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 6, 1981, 1:30 P.M. The Mayor then asked to hear from staff relative to the dissenting position regarding traffic, Mr. Nugent indicating a decrease, and Mr. Rogalla an increase. Traffic Engineer Paul Singer stated that every year, except for last year because they did not have a traffic counter, they published a traffic census, that being the official traffic count in the City. The official census (1978) showed that there were 8,000 cars per day on Walnu: Street in the subject area. They had a later count in 1980 that was not published and the count showed a reduction of traffic to 6,854 which was a one-day count, but it had not been adjusted for average daily traffic (ADT). It was a "raw" count. He believed the traffic projection for Walnut would be somewhat less than 8,000 cars as it was in 1978 and that the ADT would be closer to 7,000 to 7,200 cars. The maximum capacity of Walnut Street was approximately 12,000 vehicles at design level B, a medium traveled capacity. Full capacity would be 1,500 per lane per hour. Mrs. Vivian Geske, 1170 Beacon (second house from the corner of Beacon and Pepper). She was concerned over the projected drop in property value as a result of the preschool. She was also concerned relative to the traffic on Pepper Street and the traffic that would be generated by parents bringing their children to the school from other cities by traveling through the area when exiting the Santa Ana Freeway. There had been accidents in the area and there were no stop signs on Pepper Street going either way. She presently had two children attending the Prince of Peace Lutheran School, one in kindergarten and one in nursery school. A further concern was relative to a car observed in the area which they had never seen before. Three men were sitting in it watching the children playing. She called the police and it took them an hour to respond to investigate the matter. She did not want to have to worry about somebody going to the school and sitting and waiting for a child to come walking out and having them say they were waiting for their child and subsequently picking up her child or any other child in that area. She was basically concerned for the safety of her children. Mr. Jack Goldsmith, attorney, 701 South Atlantic Boulevard, Monterey Park. He and his wife were the absentee landlords of the property at 1198 Chateau Avenue on the southeast corner of Chateau and Walnut, directly abutting the Nugent property. They shared a common boundary of approximately 80 feet and nothing separated the properties except a wire fence with variegated ivy. The rear of their house was 30 feet from the boundary line and they had owned it for 18 years and it was now being rented. If the zoning change were granted, the rental value of his property would decrease more than $100 a month, and he would probably have to sell it. Anaheim needed single-family rental property. Relative to the subject property's historical value, Mr. Nugent intimated if the CUP were not granted, the property might be demolished. He did not feel that would be the case. Mr. Nugent Cold him personally when the house was on the market, he had a buyer, but when it went into escrow the buyer dropped out. However, that was an indication that at least one person was interested in buying the property to use for himself as a single-family residence. Ref- erence had also been made to the previous use of the property as a rest home. He wanted to emphasize that possible use again for a continuation of the exis- tence of the property and for a renumerative use for the Nugents. He concluded, if there were 80 or 90 children at that location, the value of the property would be seriously adversely affected. 81-18 City Hall, Anaheim, C~lifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 6, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Stanley J. Darren, 1149 Beacon Avenue. He first asked the City Attorney (1) if it was legal to put such a large school on that small piece of land, (2) if it was legal to have published the notice for the hearing on December 25, Christmas Day. City Attorney Hopkins in answering the first question, stated if the City Council approved the CUP, it would be legal and relative to the second, after having checked that advertising did take place on December 25, stated there was nothing improper in so doing. Further, the property was posted by the Zoning Enforcement Officer on December 26 and notices were mailed to residents on December 24, 1980. Legal notices were advertised in the Anaheim Bulletin, the City's local newspaper. Mayor Seymour also explained for Mr. Darren that two of the following three ways must be accomplished to legally notify the property owners. The law stated that they must legally notify (1) by advertising in a local newspaper, (2) by posting the property, and (3) through notification by mail to the pro- perty owners of record located within 300 feet of the subject property. Anaheim not only used two methods as required by law, but all three. Mr. Darren continued that there were three schools within one-half mile and he did not see the need for more. He contended the school was not being estab- lished for Anaheim but for Orange County. The residents in their area could not afford to send their children to private schools. He wanted to know where the cars waiting to pick up the students were going to park. The road was not built for commercial but for residential use. Lois Briley, 1120 Beacon Avenue, answered, in response, to a previous question from Councilman Roth, stated she was working at a preschool and had been for eight years and tuition at their school was the lowest she was aware of--$37 per week for five full days. They were also under-enrollment. They had to terminate a teacher and combine two classes because there were not enough stu- dents. People could not afford to send children to nursery schools. Preschools were better than having to go to a neighbor but people found it more reasonable economically to go to a neighbor. Before concluding, she also reported that they did have a lot of traffic from the water slide and relative to the dis- cussion between the Mayor and Mrs. Geske regarding circulation of traffic through the area, when people learned the area, they were going to find the shortest route through it in order to drop their children off. Traveling through Pepper Street, Manchester to South Street was an easy way to get onto the Freeway, as well as going back out onto Walnut and down to Santa Ana Street to get to the Freeway to travel in the other direction. She also asked, now that the applicants were not going to have a preschool back them, if they had already been certified by the State after an onsite inspection and if the State indicated they would issue them a license. The Mayor stated they would get an answer to her question. Sharon Oslund, 1166 West Hampshire, stated the area in question was busy. Her daughter attended Betsy Ross School. With regard to preschools, the person dropping off or picking up a child had to go into the facility to sign the stu- dent in or out. The proposed circular driveway would be jammed. It would not be as much of a problem in the morning, but when picking the children up in 81-19 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 6, 1981, 1:30 P.M. the evening, cars would be parked in the entire "U" shaped drive and out in the street. She also expressed her concern relative to the noise factor that would be generated from the proposed use. There being no further persons who wished to speak either in favor or in opposi- tion, the Mayor then gave the applicants an opportunity to rebut the arguments made by the opposition. Mrs. Cheri Nugent explained that the original CUP was submitted in their name and approved by the State for a maximum of 47 children at this time. It was approved by the Fire Department as long as they brought the walls upstairs up to Code with a fire wall and that the doors open outward rather than inward. Ail that had been approved and there was record of it. Relative to the Betsy Ross School, Mr. Rogalla mentioned there had been a 40% claimed decrease. She spoke to the Principal, Mr. Granz, that morning and he told her that there were eight to ten students less than last year. As a parent and owner of the house, she had six small children ranging in age from 18 months to 10 years and knew exactly some of the problems of traffic. With all the preschools that were within one mile as so claimed, she wondered how many of those were co-ops just as the one on Santa Ana Street. A lot of parents could not utilize those schools because they were required to participate in the programs. Relative to the Police Department, she had to call them a few times herself and they always answered her calls immediately and she did not feel endangered with regard to the Police Department. Mayor Seymour stated then that the property had been approved by the State for the preschool subject to some conditions. He asked if they had been approved as operators. Mrs. Nugent stated that the people who were petitioning the first time had been, but they (Nugents) had not applied as yet. They had been licensed by the State for the rest home. Councilwoman Kaywood asked where they were planning to draw for the children who would be attending the school. Mrs. Nugent answered that there were a great number of potential people in the neighborhood with small children who presently took their children to other preschools. They would be offering the same service in the neighborhood. She looked at those people to be the first to utilize the service. She felt there was a great deal of marketing avenues they could use, such as advertising in the schools, churches, newspapers and certainly the yellow pages. She was presently an advertising director for Johnston Patios and most of their business was generated through the Yellow Pages. They would basically be concerned with trying to offer their services to Anaheim children first. She also confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood that they would probably consider using the facility as a rest home if they were not approved for preschool, and they could have six people in there at present. There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public hearing. 81-20 QitI Hall, Anaheim.~ .~aliforni~.- COUNCIL MINUTES - January 6, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Bay stated since he was the person who requested the review, he had another request before giving his opinion. He asked for a show of hands of those in the Chambers audience who were opposed to CUP No. 2123 and those in favor. There were approximately seven people present who were in favor and the remainder of those present, filling approximately one-half of the Council Chambers, were in opposition. Councilman Bay then stated that his concern when he asked that the permit be reviewed was when he first saw evidence of a petition with 400 signatures or whether it was 400 or 100 or 200, he was concerned that relative to zoning and land use, philosophically he considered its prime use to be protection of the people living in an area. He had been concerned with CUP's and variances that had been allowed in the City in some cases where perhaps the whole neigh- borhood was not concerned or totally aware of the situation or present at meet- ings to show how they felt. In this case, there was no doubt that a majority of the neighbors were opposed to the CUP. He was concerned that the applicants were requesting a commercial operation and one with known impacts to neighbors, especially noise because, above all, he felt there was no doubt about the noise around a nursery school. It was amazing to him that the Planning Commission would approve this type of CUP in a neighborhood where there was such strong evidence from the surrounding neighbors that they opposed the requested varia- tion to the norm within that residential zoning. He would not debate that there was a need for day nurseries and he did not want to imply that the people applying to run the school would not do it well or that their intentions were not good ones. That was not the issue; the issue was whether they were going to make an exception to zoning and put the proposed operation with its impacts into the middle of a neighborhood where the people were diametrically opposed to that variation. With that many people coming in and with signatures of over 400 on petitions, if that was not enough for a political body to have no question about a decision on an exception to the zoning, he did not know what it would take to convince any political body in the City that the majority still ruled. He repeated, he could not understand how the Planning Commission with as much evidence as was presented could have approved the CUP. In concluding, Councilman Bay stated he intended to move to deny the resolution when the time came to do so on the basis that the impact to the neighbors and the peace and quiet of the neighborhood justified every reason not to approve this type of CUP in that area. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council finds that this project would have no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property for low density residential land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive envir- onmental impacts are involved in the proposal, that the Initial Study submitted by the petitoner indicates no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Bay thereupon offered a resolution reversing the decision of the City Planning Commission and denying Conditional Use Permit No. 2123, particularly on the basis of the impacts to the neighborhood in the way of noise and possible traffic. 81-21 City Hall, .Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January. 6, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Before action was taken on the foregoing resolution, Councilman Roth stated that it was proper to request such a use through the CUP process. He felt that under conditions today, Disneyland could not have been built and perhaps not even an elementary school because of the traffic. He was not convinced that the traffic generated from the use would be unbearable and the City Traffic Engineer made that clear in his presentation. The street was operating at approximately 50% of its capacity. A key to the use in his mind was the con- cept of the circular driveway where loading and unloading could take place off the street. They had previously approved schools and preschools that did not have as much off-street parking or a circular driveway as the subject pro- perty. The building would have sprinklers and the Fire Department was suppor- tive. He respected all the citizens in the community and realized that a majority ruled, but that minorities had rights as well, and it was not merely a one-sided situation. He was disappointed in the fact that perhaps there were problems between the applicants the applicant's agents and the citizens of the community and the situation had reached a point of emotion rather than factual matters relating to the use of the property. He also felt that the Council should be commended for permitting an almost three-hour hearing on the matter as was taking place today showing the democratic fashion in which the Council operated in listening to all sides. Councilman Overholt noted that the residents in the area talked a great deal about the impact on their homes by reason of increased traffic. However, all objective information they had to this point indicated that the arteries in that neighborhood could stand a lot more traffic than at present and it would not be felt. The Traffic Engineer also confirmed to his satisfaction that there would not be a traffic problem. He felt the problem lay in the fact that the neighbors did not want to see a change in that neighborhood and if he lived next door or down the street from the property, he would feel the same way. Many years ago he appeared in the Chambers at the old City Hall and objected to certain things that were planned to be built behind his home just because he liked an orange grove. Eventually he lost because it was no longer an orange grove. He was very familiar with the area and was impressed with the need for preschool facil- ities. Nobody had said that they did not have a crying need for facilities where working parents could have their children properly cared for while they went out and made the tremendous income now necessary to make house payments and raise their families. Mr. Rogalla stated there was not a need in that neighborhood. He (Overholt) had not heard that the need for preschool facilities had been reduced and to the contrary, it was his understanding the need had been increased substantially. It was his guess that the facility, if the CUP were granted, would become a great asset to the parents in that neighborhood who were required to work. He was also impressed with some of the opinions of real estate experts and the fact that there was not going to be an impact on the value of property generally in the neighborhood. It was very possible that Mr. Goldsmith's property may have some impact if people did not like to live behind a facility for children. Mr. Granz, the Principal at Betsy Ross, and he presumed that Mr. Rogalla knew him well since he served on his advisory committee, stated unequiv- ocably that there was a need in that area for the kind of facility proposed to which he could refer parents with children who had to be cared for. He felt the applicants had a plan to provide a needed service and he was going to oppose the resolution to deny. 81-22 City Hal~., Anaheim, .C. alifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 6~ 1981, 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood felt this was a very difficult decision to make. She was always sympathetic to the feeling of the neighborhood and her record would attest to that. She had also seen after having served on the Planning Commis- sion and Council for ten years that there were often many fears imagined and magnified that never materialized. She had a problem for the same reason Councilman Overholt mentioned, that being the severe need for such facilities as expressed by the principals of elementary schools who saw the problems day after day. She was also personally aware of the need. Councilwoman Kaywood then asked if there was a possibility of compromise, perhaps on an approval with a one- or two-year time limit although she did not know whether the Nugents would be interested in such a compromise relative to the amount of investment involved. Such a time limit would give an opportunity to see whether the fears of the neighbors materialized. If not, it would be a plus for the neighborhood, community and City. She was undecided, but she was going to have to oppose a flat "no" as offered by the resolution. Councilman Bay noted when Mr. Rogalla stated he had visited 19 daycare centers within one mile according to the chart he saw, and only one out of the 19 had maximum enrollment, that told him 18 of those centers had room for more enroll- ment. Presuming that was true, he did not see the crying need for another day care center particularly creating the impact of the proposed school. He reiter- ated he saw no reason to agree with an exception to go into the middle of a residential area when the residents of the area opposed it. That was the principal issue. He was not against daycare centers or the one being proposed, but against where it was being proposed. Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that the 21 schools were not within one mile but more within a ten-mile radius. If they checked into the management and other aspects of each school, there would then be a basis for comparison. Mayor Seymour then stated that he did not think any argument at all had been made relative to traffic. As Councilman Overholt stated, the objective ±nfor- mation indicated that there had been a reduction in traffic and not an increase. He did not believe at all the comment relative to property values. He had never seen property in that neighborhood decline for any reason and did not believe for a moment it would decline if the use should be approved. He did believe in the arguments made relative to noise and the introduction of a com- mercial venture into a single-family residential neighborhood, surrounded by single-family residential. It was for that reason he was going to support Councilman Bay's resolution in opposition. Further, also maybe politically for some it was neat to see how many were opposed and how many were in favor-- perhaps then they would not need a City Council but just a show of hands of those present and those with the most hands raised, the Council could decide accordingly. He did not believe that was necessarily true either or had a bear- ing on the merits or demerits of the case. The one key factor in his mind and the reason he would oppose the CUP was that it was an introduction of a commer- cial venture totally surrounded by a residential neighborhood and to him that was wrong. If the property were located at Ball Road and Walnut, he would prob- ably approve it. He felt also that the property owner had not proven any type of great need. There had been no proof he had heard in the establishment of the preschool that in the event the property owner did not get the use, they would 81-23 C. ity Ha. ll.~. Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 6, 1981, 1:30 P.M. be injured financially. They had expressed that they had considered a use as a guest home which it was before. He felt that would be an appropriate use-- although business oriented, it was not a coming and going type of business and would not change the flavor of the neighborhood. Thus, he was going to support the resolution to deny. A roll call vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution of denial and the resolution failed to carry: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bay and Seymour NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Roth and Kaywood Councilwoman Kaywood thereupon offered Resolution No. 81R-2 for adoption, sub- ject to the conditions of the City Planning Commission with a one-year limit for review and with a maximum of 60 children. Subsequently if there were complaints from the neighborhood, that the CUP not be renewed. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 81R-2: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2123. Before a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour suggested that they find out from the applicants whether or not they could live with those conditions. From the audience, Mr. and Mrs. Nugent indicated they could do so. The Mayor then clarified that the applicant would be willing to invest the money necessary to improve the property, etc., knowing that at the end of one year it was possible they could lose the permit. Councilman Overholt stated that he wanted to be sure that everyone knew what the applicant had agreed to. Mayor Seymour then explained to the residents that if the resolution just offered by Councilwoman Kaywood passed with three favorable votes, it would mean that the applicants would have a right to operate a preschool on their property, sub- ject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, for a period of one year with up to 60 students. If at the end of one year, there were valid complaints from the neighborhood, another hearing would be held to determine whether or not that permit would be revoked at that time. He then confirmed for Mr. Rogalla that it would be approved according to the conditions of the City Planning Commission but only for a maximum of 60 children and not 90 children. All other conditions would remain the same. Councilman Roth again explained that there was a possibility after the applicants reevaluated the reduction from 90 to 60, that the school would never go forward. Councilman 0verholt stated it seemed to him the proposed resolution would give the applicants an opportunity to show if the school would be financially feas- ible, and they indicated it would be, to try it for a year to show the neigh- borhood that they could be good neighbors. If it was not possible for them to be good neighbors, they would all be back a year from now and the residents might get a five-zero vote in their favor. He did not want the support of the other side of the issue, as opposed to the majority of the people in the Chambers, to be interpreted as an insensitivity to their concerns. He felt the proposed resolution was a good compromise and if it did not work, a year from now it would be revoked. 81-24 Qity Mall, An~.keim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 6, 1981, 1:30 P.M. The Mayor confirmed for the residents that it would have to be a public hearing in order for the permit to be revoked. Under renewal, if there were no requests from the public or action taken by the Council, there would be a review, but no public hearing. Councilwoman Kaywood noted two hands in the audience and she wanted to have them speak before the Council voted. Ms. Rita Nugent asked if the Council had considered that one year was a very short time. Even the Small Business Administration gave a new business beginning oper- ation a chance to get on its feet and get started. The expense to have it for one year did not seem as reasonable as at least two. She was not speaking for her brother, but logic would dictate that. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that both Mr. and Mrs. Nugent nodded "yes". She felt if there was an impact, then two years would be too long. Within a one-year period, both they and the neighbors could evaluate the activity and it would not be too difficult for anybody. If there was truly going to be an impact in the area, she did not want it to go forward. Mayor Seymour added, as a business person, he would not do it. However, the Nugents had agreed and the resolution had been offered. He was going to oppose the resoluiton of approval because he did not believe it was appropriate to introduce that type of business into that residential neighborhood. After further discussion between the Mayor and Councilwoman Kaywood, Councilman Overholt again asked the Nugents if they were still in agreement with the one- year time period and the 60 children maximum; Mr. and Mrs. Nugent answered "yes". A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution of approval. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Ka~4ood and Roth Bay and Seymour None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-2 duly passed and adopted. RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for 15 minutes. (6:06 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (6:15 P.M.) PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2136: Application by John and Deanne Azizian, to retain a massage parlor on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located at 419 South Brookhurst Street, with a Code waiver of minimum distance from a church. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-202, 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. 2136. 81-25 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 6, 1981, 1:30 P.M. The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Melvena A. Trenholm, agent for the property, and public hearing scheduled this date. The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous of being heard. Mr. Richard Gilbert, attorney, stated he was representing Melvena Trenholm, a citizen of the County of Orange, conducting business in the City of Anaheim. Ms. Trenholm was in the Council Chambers today for the purpose of exercising her Constitutional right to a meaningful hearing on the issue of waiver, a condi- tional use permit to operate a massage establishment, am well as an extension of time. Ms. Trenholm recognized the Council's obligation under the Constitution of the United States to commence a meaningful hearing at this time. The ordin- ance provided for an extension on the basis of hardship. The Code did not de- fine hardship. Ms. Trenholm had been forced to close her business. She had lost her livelihood and she was suffering immediate, irreparable and substantial injury. The very fact she had been forced to close her business was in itself hardship. Fundamental fairness was essential to the very concept of justice. To deny the permit, waiver or extension of time was wholly arbitrary and ca- pricious and as such, denied Ms. Trenholm due process and equal protection under the law. Ms. Trenholm had been operating the business for approximately six years in the same location under a license given to her by the City. While other businesses in the area had attracted a criminal element such as a bar in the area, her business had no arrests for prostitution. The ordinance was being litigated in the courts and the court should be left to decide its Constitutional merits. In the meantime, he urged tha~ they be fair to all parties involved and grant Ms. Trenholm the waiver, CUP or an extension of time. It was the fair and appropriate thing to do and he moved that it be done. Councilman Bay stated that he thought the applicants in the case were John and Deanne Azizian. Mr. Gilbert explained that the owners of the property and the landlords were the Azizians, and Melvena Trenholm was the authorized agent. Councilman Overholt asked the City Attorney precisely the nature of the pro- ceeding today. If his memory served him correctly, it was that they had already dealt with the issue within the last several weeks (see minutes December 16, 1980). City Attorney Hopkins stated that the matter of the waiver was heard by the City Council and decided previously (December 16, 1980). The present public hearing was on Conditional Use Permit No. 2136, which was denied by the Planning Commission and appealed by Ms. Trenholm. The issue now was whether the Council wished to give further consideration to the CUP. He pointed out, however, that the Adult Entertainment Ordinance, Section 18.89.040 of the Code, provided that "No Conditional Use Permit shall be granted by the City of Anaheim to any Adult Entertainment business if the premises upon which the business is proposed to be located is within 500 feet of any lot zoned for residential use, or within 1000 feet of any lot on which there is located a church or educational institution utilized by minors." The information in the report indicated that the property was within 500 feet of lots zoned for residential use and within 1000 feet of a church. Thus, the ordinance was applicable in this case. 81-26 City Hall~..Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 6, 1981~ 1:30 P.M. Councilman Overholt noted that Counsel talked in terms of an extension. He wanted to know if an extension was an issue today. City Attorney Hopkins answered "no". The request for extension was previously heard by the Council on December 16, 1980. Councilman Overholt asked Mr. Gilbert if he understood that. Mr. Gilbert stated that the Council had every right to consider its past deliber- ations in the interest of justice. Councilman Overholt asked the City Attorney if it was his advice to the Council that the situation was one on the denial of a CUP. Mr. Hopkins stated that was correct. It was an appeal on the denial of the CUP by the Planning Commission. The Adult Entertainment Ordinance was the one applicable in this case and provided that no CUP shall be granted if the business was within certain locations. Counsel was arguing that that was unconstitutional, but he felt that was a matter for the Court and that had been upheld in the Court in one case. Councilman Overholt stated that the only provision in the ordinance providing for a partial and temporary relief was the extension provision on which they had a full and complete hearing and on which they had ruled. Mr. Hopkins confirmed that was correct. The Mayor then asked if anyone was present who wished to speak either in favor or in opposition to the request; there being no response, he asked Mr. Gilbert if, on behalf of his client, there was anything he wished to add before the public hearing was closed. Mr. Gilbert stated he would like to clarify one matter the City Attorney stated. He (Gilbert) was not aware the courts had ruled on the constitutionality of any aspect of the ordinance to date. He asked if the City Attorney would specify what court ruled on what specific question of the ordinance on what date and who the parties were. City Attorney Hopkins stated if Counsel would come to his office, he would be glad to give him full details. It was a case of the Foxy Lady and decided by Judge Wallen last week. Mr. Gilbert stated that was only a preliminary matter and a motion for a prelim- inary injunction. Mayor Seymour interjected and stated this was no court of law. He could argue all day long with the City Attorney, but what he needed to do was to present information or facts to the Council and not the City Attorney as to why they should render a decision favorable to his client. He asked that he not get into a litigious environment and argument with the City Attorney because this was not a court of law. Mr. Gilbert stated that he realized that he (Seymour) had personal feelings toward his client which he had expressed. He had addressed all his remarks to the Council and none directly to the City Attorney. He asked that they reach 81-27 City Hall, AnaheiM,. C.~lifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 6, 1981, 1:30 P.M. out and put aside personal feelings and recognize that an extension had been granted to other people. Mayor Seymour questioned Mr. Gilbert's statement relative to his personal feelings. He was making suggestions or allegations and while they were there in public, Mr. Gilbert should lay them out. Mr. Gilbert stated he did not think that was relevant to the issue at hand. Mayor Seymour stated in that case he would appreciate if Mr. Gilbert would keep his remarks to himself relative to what he thought his (Seymour's) personal feelings might be. Mr. Gilbert then stated that the First Amendment of the United States Constitu- tion gave him the right of free speech and irrespective of what the Mayor would appreciate, he would speak. The Mayor asked him to substantiate his statement. Mr. Gilbert asked the Mayor if he felt that he was acting in an independent manner and that he did not have any personal feelings regarding Melvena Trenholm. Mayor Seymour stated he had no personal feelings one way or another regarding his client. Mr. Gilbert stated he might be under a misunderstanding, but it was his under- standing that other massage establishments had been granted extensions and that Ms. Trenholm was the only applicant denied an extension. If he was in- correct, he would apologize but he knew of no other that had been denied. It was his understanding that he (Seymour) had engaged in heated debate with Ms. Trenholm in the past and that was what he was alluding to. Councilman Overholt asked Mr. Gilbert if he was speaking of debate which took place in the Council Chambers. Mr. Gilbert stated he was referring to debate in the news media between the Mayor and his client, to ill feelings they may have had towards each other in the past, both from political points of view or whatever. Councilman Overholt asked for confirmation that his answer was--in the Chambers and elsewhere; Mr. Gilbert answered "yes". Councilman Overholt asked the materiality of any debate that may have taken place elsewhere relative to the matter before the Council at this time. Mr. Gilbert felt it interfered with the Council's ability to render a fair and impartial decision regarding their past deliberation concerning an extension. That was the basis upon which he was asking them to reconsider. Councilman Overholt asked the City Attorney if he had a record of the number of matters they had before them on the extensions of time under the Adult Entertain- ment Ordinance. 81-28 City Hall~ Anahe,~m~,,C~lifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 6~ 1981, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Hopkins answered that he did not have a listing with him but they could check the number of cases. He estimated there were about ten Adult Entertain- ment hearings. Councilman Overholt asked if the subject applicant was the only one denied. Mr. Hopkins stated there was an Adult Entertainment hearing concerning Nicole's which was denied, a photographic type studio, and there were restrictions placed on others where he would have to check the files. Councilman Overholt, speaking to Mr. Gilbert, stated that his information was incorrect, that his client was the only one that had been denied. Mr. Gilbert stated his client was the only person engaging in a massage estab- lishment business who had been denied an extension. Mayor Seymour stated his whole thrust was that he did not feel it was the respon- sibility of the Council to get itself involved in the technicalities of law. It was not a court room and he was merely asking Mr. Gilbert to try to direct his remarks and strategy out of the court room environment and into the zoning environment, because they were present to discuss a zoning action. Mr. Gilbert stated he would again like to appeal to the Council's sense of justice and individuality to reconsider their past deliberations. No other massage establishment had been denied an extension and clearly the issues were the same when extensions had been granted. The business would be otherwise forced to close. Ms. Trenholm suffered from ~he same irreparable harm and he again asked the Council to reconsider that deliberation and extend the same privilege that had been extended to every other massage establishment in the City. Ms. Trenholm was a law abiding citizen and there had been no arrests made in the course of six years at the establishment. Other establishments had received extensions where arrests for prostitution had been made. He found it incredible that she could have received a meaningful hearing on that issue. He requested that they at least briefly reconsider that extension. Councilman Overhott asked Mr. Gilbert if he had been present at any of the hearings that were held in the Chambers on the Adult Entertainment Ordinance cases. Mr. Gilbert answered "no". There had been a substitution of attorneys. There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public hearing. Councilman Roth asked the City Attorney if Ms. Trenholm had appealed to the court on their previous action. Mr. Hopkins stated he understood there had been a case filed in Superior Court, but it had not yet been held. He then clarified for Councilman Roth the difference between the hearings, i.e., that that held on December 16, 1980 as a result of a request for an extension of the abatement period of the Adult Entertainment Ordinance and the present public hearing on Conditional Use Permit No. 2136 which was requested by Ms. Trenholm, appealing the decision of the Planning Commission. However, the same ordinance was applicable, and 81-29 City H~ll~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 6,. 1981, 1:30 P.M. within certain distance limits, the ordinance provided that a conditional use permit could not be granted. There was a procedure for rehearings, but no such request had been formally made in accordance with Council rules. Councilman Overholt stated having received in great detail evidence by the applicant in the hearing in which she applied for an extension of time to the Adult Entertainment Ordinance, were they required to give as counsel termed it, a meaningful hearing to Ms. Trenholm to ask for that same evidence over again today. It seemed to him they were being asked to deal with the same subject matter to determine whether an extension should be granted under the undue hardship clause of the Adult Entertainment Ordinance. City Attorney Hopkins stated that the matter was heard fully by the Council. Ms. Trenholm was represented by her attorney and considerable time and record was made. The Council had a procedure for rehearings and there had to be an affidavit of merit submitted to the City Clerk, and then the Council may deter- mine to rehear a matter. However, that was discretionary with the Council and an application had not been filed to his knowledge. As far as the extension was concerned, the matter was heard, decided, and the remedy would be to the courts if there were any further questions. Councilwoman Kaywood asked in what way could the Council grant a waiver in this case without setting a precedent for every other establishment with respect to the CUP. City Attorney Hopkins emphasized that the Ordinance was quite clear and stated that no CUP shall be granted by the City of Anaheim for any such Adult Enter- tainment business if located within 500 feet of a residential area or 1000 feet of a church. If a contrary provision was desired, it would be necessary for the Council to repeal that Ordinance, which would then open the door completely if they took that action. Therefore, there was no discretion involved as long as the Ordinance was in effect. Councilman Overholt stated then that they were not empowered to waive the ordinance. City Attorney Hopkins answered that was correct and the only way it could be done was to repeal the ordinance. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council ratified the determination of the Planning Director 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. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 81R-3, denying Conditional Use Permit No. 2136, based on the already stated requirements of the Ordinance in exis- tence. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 81R-3: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2136. 81-30 City Hall,. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 6, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt stated that the City Attorney had advised them that they were not in a position to waive the Adult Entertainment Ordinance and to grant the CUP. In his opinion, this was to be interpreted as a request for reconsideration of the prior matter, whether an undue hardship existed and the extension allowed. They had a lengthy and detailed hearing, as the City Attorney indicated, where the applicant was represented by Counsel. Based on the evidence presented at that hearing, they made their ruling--that an extension was not appropriate. His position would be the same at this time as it was then. He was in support of the resolution denying the CUP. A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution of denial. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 8tR-3 duly passed and adopted. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda: 108: APPLICATIONS: The following applications were approved in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Police: a. Amusement Devices Permit: Mr. T's of Anaheim No. 13, 2013 Bail Road, for various amusement devices. (John Shandra and Mark Finch, applicants) b. Private Patrol Application: Southern Counties Patrol, to provide security patrol services in the City. (Matthew D. Cohn, applicant) MOTION CARRIED. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the claim of Linda L. Zenor in the amount of $153.69 for personal injuries sustained purportedly as a result of a slip and fall accident at the Stadium, on or about November 9, 1980, was allowed. MOTION CARRIED. On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the following claims submitted against the City were denied and referred to the City's Claims Administrator. a. Claims submitted by Nicholas Del Sesto for vehicular damages purportedly sustained as a result of road gravel thrown against claimant's vehicle by a passing police vehicle, on or about November 14, 1980. b. Claim submitted by Judith Jon Hagadorn for personal injury and property damages purportedly sustained as a result of an accident on Broadway Street involving a City employee, on or about October 30, 1980. 81-31 Ci.t¥ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 6, 19.81, 1:30 P.M. c. Claim submitted by Enrique Basurto for damages purportedly sustained as a result of hole in pavement on Wagner Street, causing damage to vehicle, and for towing charges, on or about October 18, 1980. d. Claim submitted by Mmrsha Adler for personal injury damages purportedly sustained as a result of trip-and-fall accident at Anaheim Stadium near Gate 6, on or about September 21, 1980. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 81R-4 through 81R-6, both inclusive, for adoption in accordance with the reports, recommendations and certifications furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book. 164: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-4: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: WALNUT CANYON SEWER RECONSTRUC- TION, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 11-790-6325-E0300. (Mark Dakovich, Inc.) 164: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-5: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: DANIELLE CIRCLE SEWER IMPROVE- MENT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 11-790-6325-0240. (Steve Bubalo Con- struction Co.) 165/174: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-6: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: CENTRAL CITY NEIGHBORHOOD STRATEGY AREA ALLEY IMPROVEMENTS - AREA BOUNDED BY HARBOR BOULEVARD, LA PALMA AVENUE, ZEYN STREET AND NORTH STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, PROJECT ACCOUNT NO. 25-793-6325-E3350. (Sully-Miller Contracting Co.) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution Nom. 81R-4 through 81R-6, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. 170: FINAL MAP - TRACT NO. 9594: Developer--Burnett-Ehline & Company: Tract is located on the east side of Henning Way, south of Trail Drive, and contains 13 proposed RS-HS-22,000(SC) zoned lots. On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Bay the proposed sub- division, together with its design and improvement was found to be consistent with the City's General Plan, a~d the City Council approved Final Map, Tract 81-32 Cit.y Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 6, 1981, 1:30 P.M. No. 9594, as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated December 29, 1980, subject to bomdimg for the construction of an equestrian trail for an amount and in a form satisfactory to the City. MOTION CARRIED. ORDINANCE NO. 4203 AND 4204: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance Nos. 4203 and 4204 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 4203: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (66-67-71(78), CR) ORDINANCE NO. 4204: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (79-80-11, CO) 105: PROPOSED ACTION BY THE LIBRARY BOARD ON IRS MATTER: Councilman Overholt recalled that at the last meeting there was some concern that the Library Board was going to contact legislators on Internal Revenue rules on book inventories. He checked with the Chairman of the Library Board Earl Dahl who informed him that no letter had been sent. He appreciated the Council contacting him and if they had recommendations from the Council to contact the legislators, they would then feel free to do so. 105: WORKSHOP WITH PLANNING COMMISSION ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING: Councilman Overholt referred to the subject workshop that was going to be held between the Council and the Planning Commission, which he hoped would be held soon, on the question of affordable housing and condominium conversions. He asked what they could look to as a possible date. Miss Santalahti explained that they had contacted a number of cities in the last two weeks regarding how many were actually approving any affordable housing pro- jects, including conversions, under State Legislation 65915. A short report was going to the Planning Commission on Monday, January 12, 1981 and a question- naire was on its way to somewhere under 500 condominum occupants inside and out- side the City. They asked that they be returned by February 1, 1981. They expected to take the results to the Planning Commission on February 9, 1981, the date she also expected the Planning Commission to submit a number of dates to the Council for the selection of a specific time for the workshop. She confirmed for Councilman Overholt that they were talking about mid-February. Councilman Overholt expressed his concern that there were a number of projects that were going to be before the Council and since there seemed to be a 3-2 split on the Council, he wanted to get the workshop going so that they could hammer out some standards. He asked if any hearings were scheduled at present which involved affordable housing and/or conversions. The City Clerk believed that one was scheduled for the Council meeting of January 20, January 27 or February 3, 1981, however, legal publication had not been made as of this date. Councilman Overholt stated he did not know whether those hearings should be delayed until they had an opportunity to have the workshop. They were going to be making many decisions between now and mid-February. Miss Santalahti explained that they had also requested input from private sources regarding their attitudes and opinions on condominium conversions, as well as from an organization that was doing some successful conversions. 81-33 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 6, 1981, 1:30 P.M. What they found in their telephone survey was that a number of cities had condominium standards similar to their apartment standards. Of ten cities, they found none that had actually approved any affordable housing under Section 65915, but they were doing so by other methods altogether. Mayor Seymour noted that when condominium standards were the same as apartment standards, there was no need for requesting waivers. Miss Santalahti also stated that they were asked at one point whether other cities were regulating how soon after a new apartment project was constructed could they legitimately file for a conversion. They found that a number of cities asked for two to five years before they wanted to see such an application. Mayor Seymour stated as they developed information, he felt it was going to be extremely important for the Council and Commission to determine what they wanted in housing for the community. Staff could be most helpful if they could provide the Council and Commission with some statistical information relative to the question--what does it take? The Community Development Department had reported that affordable housing approved in Anaheim met the income needs of $30,000 plus family incomes. He was not sure that was what the Council wanted to achieve under the banner of affordable housing. He felt they were building housing for middle-class America, not that that was wrong. Staff had access to enough devel- opers to be able to tell them--if you end up with a density of 12 units per acre, this is approximately what that product would sell for, or 16, 20, 25 units to the acre, etc. That type of information would be most meaningful. Councilman Bay stated he was also interested in what kinds of densities per acre were going on in other cities and not just the price ranges, because there were many variables that could affect price. He did not preclude that the num- ber of units put on an acre determined =he price automatically although it had a lot to do with it. He was interested in comparison on the trend they had taken and particularly the trend the Planning Commission had taken toward density per acre, parking requirements, setbacks, height, etc., as compared to other communities. Mr. Ron Thompson, Planning Director, reported that they had contacted both of the developers involved in conversions in the County to try to get information on population characteristics. He felt there had been a change in population that might warrant modifying their parking waivers and bringing them more in line with the real world. As conversions were being processed through the Planning Cormnission, they were asking the apartment owners to tell them what they were going to do in terms of rehabilitating the structure, what they were renting for and what they were selling for. It appeared to staff that in some instances, they were actually doubling the price of housing when creating homeownership. They were trying to develop a package so that the Council could see the complete picture and in order to develop ordinances that were in line with the Council's desires and objectives. Discussion then followed between Councilman Roth and Mr. Thompson, at the con- clusion of which Mr. Thomspon pointed out that in evaluating some of the other cities, Yorba Linda, for instance, was one that did not require a 150-foot set- back for two stories. However, they did not permit any conversions or that type of development. They even had an ordinance where a two-story single-family structure could not be built next to a single-family residence. 81-34 City Hall, Anaheim, C~%if0r~ia - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 6, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Roth stated he did not think the philosophical aspect of the whole situation could be satisfied by asking 26 cities what they were doing. It all boiled down to the individual's philosophy as to whether or not they believed in growth or no growth. Councilwoman Kaywood requested that in the report to be submitted that they include information such as Mr. Thompson just relayed relative to Yorba Linde. It did not matter for them to say there was no setback requirement when, in fact, they did not permit conversions or ~he like at all. She would also be interested in piggybacking Councilman Bay's request, i.e., what densities other cities had and what waivers or bonuses had they given in. their standards. If they were just lower and had not changed, she wanted to know that am well as changes that had been made. They should not even consider the beach cities, since with the ocean amenities there was really no basis for comparison. Councilman Overholt asked if it would be appropriate to attempt to delay any of the subject issues coming before them until they had the workshop. City Clerk Roberts reported that ~he Municipal Code provided that the City Clerk shall set the date for a hearing on a zoning matter within a specified time. Three weeks was the earlies~ they could meet legal notification require- ments for a public hearing and generally it was four or five weeks. Under Agenda Item 11 today, which was set for a public hearing, the developer was asking for the hearing in three weeks. She would need direction as to whether to go ahead and set it or not. Councilman Roth felt holding off for an indefinite amount of time would inter- fere with some of the developers commitments particularly in tying up land. He would be reluctant to tell somebody they were going to study the matter and thus not have the public hearing until after the workshop. He would not have any objection in asking the City Clerk to talk to the developers and ask if they would like their hearing delayed because the City was in an evaluation process. If the developer was agreeable, that would be fine with him. Mayor Seymour, mpeaking to staff, sta~ed that also some might think they were not talking about economics, but they were, in fact, doing so. If the question of affordable housing were not involved, they would not be talking about the subject at all. The question is--do we want affordable housing and what price do we want to pay~ 169: INSTALLATION AND REPLACEMENT OF INCANDESCENT LUMINAIRES IN CENTRAL CITY NEIGHBORHOOD STRATEGY AREA: Mayor Seymour stated that he had asked and Council concurred on a report to be submitted regarding street lights (see minutes December 23, 1980), i.e., replacement of incandescent luminaires in Central City Neighborhood Area I and the concerns expressed by citizens in those neigh- borhoods that the new lights did not illuminate front and side yards. Although he appreciated the holidays had intervened, he did promise the neighborhood that he would report back to them within two weeks on the matter. He there- upon asked the City Manager if he knew when the Council was going to receive the requested report. City Manager Talley stated that he would check on the status the next day and the report would be provided next week. 81-35 City Hall, Anaheim, California - C~UNCIL MINUTES - January 6, 19~i, 1:30 P.M. RECESS: Councilman Bay moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (6:55 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (7:35 P.M.) ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Bay moved ~o adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (7:35 P.M.)