1982/09/14City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 14, 1982, 10:00 A.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
CITY ENGINEER: William Devitt
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY: Jack L. White
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ronald L. Thompson
ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR--ZONING: Annika Santalahti
ASSOCIATE PLANNER: Pamela A. Lucado
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: The Reverend David Beadles, Anaheim United Methodist Church, gave
the Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Ben Bay led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Roth
and authorized by the City Council:
1. 8th Annual Senior Health Fair, September 19, 1982.
2. Cystic Fibrosis Week in Anaheim, September 19-25, 1982.
3. Civic Responsibility Week, September 19-25, 1982.
4. Constitution Week, September 17-23, 1982.
The first proclamation was accepted by Mrs. Ruth Bruhns; the second was
accepted by Mary Schreager; and the third by Commander Richard R. Pignone and
Quartermaster Elmer Luchau, members of the VFW Garden Grove Post 6475.
119: RATIFICATION OF RESOLUTION OF COMI~ENDATION: The City Council
unanimously ratified a Resolution of Commendation presented to Councilman
E. Llewellyn Overholt, Jr., on Monday evening, September 13, 1982, for his
dedication and contributions, not only as a Councilman for the City, but als0
as an active and giving member of the Anaheim Family YMCA.
MINUTES: Councilman Pickler moved to approve the minutes of the regular
meetings held June 29 and 3uly 6, 1982, and the adjourned regular meetings of
June 29 and August 20, 1982. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
Councilman Pickler abstained on both June 29, 1982 meetings, and Councilman
Overholt abstained on the August 20, 1982 minutes, since they were absent.
MOTION CARRIED.
799
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 14~ 1982~ 10:00 A.M.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Bay moved to waive
the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda, after
reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to waiver is
hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the title,
specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such
ordinances or resolutions in regular order. Councilman Pickler seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $12,220,447.29, in
accordance with the 1982-83 Budget, were approved.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Pickler,
seconded by Councilman Roth, the following items were approved in accordance
with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each Council
Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Councilman Pickler offered
Resolution Nos. 82R-454 through 82R-458, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer
to Resolution Book.
1. 118: The following claims and amended claims were filed against the City
and action taken as recommended:
A. Claims denied and referred to Risk Management:
1. Claim submitted by Robert, Hedda Marie and Karen Marie Conkley for
personal property damages at 1230 South Euclid, #19C, purportedly
sustained due to negligence on the part of City employees in connection
with the fire which occurred on April 21, 1982.
2. Claim submitted by Lance Connor for personal property damages at 1612
West Juno Avenue, #7, purportedly sustained due to negligence on the part
of City employees in connection with the fire which occurred on April 21,
1982.
3. Claim submitted by Sam Eden for personal property damages at 1230
South Euclid, #7D, purportedly sustained due to negligence on the part of
City employees in connection with the fire which occurred on April 21,
1982.
4. Claim submitted by Russell Sheffler for personal property damages at
1660 west Palm Lane~ #8~ purportedly sustained due to negligence on the
part of City employees in connection with the fire which occurred on
April 21, 1982.
5. Claim submitted by Harriett Shaffer for personal property damages at
1613 West Ball Road, #33, purportedly sustained due to negligence on the
part of City employees in connection with the fire which occurred on
April 21, 1982.
8OO
.City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 14, 1982, 10:00 A.M.
6. Claim submitted by Helen V. Buckley for personal property damages at
1660 West Palm Lane, #86, purportedly sustained due to negligence on the
part of City employees in connection with the fire which occurred on
April 21, 1982.
7. Claim submitted by Kenneth and Bessie Cunningham for personal property
damages at 1639 West Ball Road, No. 6, purportedly sustained due to
negligence on the part of City employees in connection with the fire which
occurred on April 21, 1982.
8. Claim submitted by Cheryl Browne for personal property damages at 1660
West Palm, #105, purportedly sustained due to negligence on the part of
City employees in connection with the fire which occurred on April 21,
1982.
9. Claim submitted by Bertha Jorgensen; Gustavo Vallejo (Brother); and
George Allen Vallejo (20 months) for personal property damages at 1613
West Ball Road, #7, purportedly sustained due to negligence on the part of
City employees in connection with the fire which occurred on April 21,
1982.
10. Claim submitted by Wanda Venegas and Nathan for personal property
damages at Palm Villa, 1230 South Euclid, #24-A, purportedly sustained due
to negligence on the part of City employees in connection with the fire
which occurred on April 21, 1982.
11. Claim submitted by Kenneth and Alma Porter for personal property
damages at 1230 South Euclid, #2C, purportedly sustained due to negligence
on the part of City employees in connection with the fire which occurred
on April 21, 1982.
12. Claim submitted by Judith Holm for personal property damages at 1660
West Palm Lane, #95, purportedly sustained due to negligence on the part
of City employees in connection with the fire which occurred on April 21,
1982.
13. Claim submitted by Mary Lyons for personal property damages at 1603
West Ball Road, #2~ purportedly sustained due to negligence on the part of
City employees in connection with the fire which occurred on April 21,
1982.
14. Claim submitted by Jean M. Probst for personal property damages at
1645 West Palm Lane, #12, purportedly sustained due to negligence on the
part of City employees in connection with the fire which occurred on
April 21, 1982.
801
Cit~ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 14~ 1982~ 10:00 A.M.
15. Claim submitted by Karl Mendoza for personal property damages at 1220
Palm Way, No. 5, purportedly sustained due to negligence on the part of
City employees in connection with the fire which occurred on April 21,
1982.
16. Claim submitted by Melony Will; Donald Will; and James Will, a minor
for personal property damages at 1612 Juno, purportedly sustained due to
negligence on the part of City employees in connection with the fire which
occurred on April 21, 1982.
17. Claim submitted by Fred, Carol and Mark Endlich for personal property
damages at 1230 South Euclid, #23D, purportedly sustained due to
negligence on the part of City employees in connection with the fire which
occurred on April 21, 1982.
18. Claim submitted by Garry Dowty for personal property damages at 1639
West Ball Road, #7, purportedly sustained due to negligence on the part of
City employees in connection with the fire which occurred on April 21,
1982.
19. Claim submitted by Carol and Larry Doeling for personal property
damages at 1660 Palm Lane, #56, purportedly sustained due to negligence on
the part of City employees in connection with the fire which occurred on
April 21, 1982.
20. Claim submitted by Linda Hebert for personal property damages at 1660
West Palm Lane, #103, purportedly sustained due to negligence on the part
of City employees in connection with the fire which occurred on April 21,
1982.
21. Claim submitted by Theresa Sawyer, Tina Edwards, Debra Fraizer and
Christina Sawyer for personal property damages at 1633 West Ball Road, #2,
purportedly sustained due to negligence on the part of City employees in
connection with the fire which occurred on April 21, 1982.
22. Claim submitted by Edith K. Shoop for personal property damages at
the Seville Apartments, #29, purportedly sustained due to negligence on
the part of City employees in connection with the fire which occurred on
April 21, 1982.
23. Claim submitted by Bernarda Hernandez for personal property damages
at 1230 South Euclid, No. 2OB, purportedly sustained due to negligence on
the part of City employees in connection with the fire which occurred on
April 21, 1982.
24. Claim submitted by June Garrity for personal property damages at 1660
Palm Lane, #103, purportedly sustained due to negligence on the part of
City employees in connection with the fire which occurred on April 21,
1982.
8O2
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 14, 1982, 10:00 A.M.
25. Claim submitted by Margaret Frees for personal property damages at
Palm Villa #19D, purportedly sustained due to negligence on the part of
City employees in connection with the fire which occurred on April 21,
1982.
26. Claim submitted by Donald Frees for personal property damages at
Palm Villa #19D, purportedly sustained due to negligence on the part of
City employees in connection with the fire which occurred on April 21,
1982.
27. Claim submitted by Tony, Peggy, Karen and Mark Ramine for personal
property damages at 1230 South Euclid, #6, purportedly sustained due to
negligence on the part of City employees in connection with the fire which
occurred on April 21, 1982.
28. Claim submitted by Herman, Theresa, Theresa and Edwardo Reinhold for
personal property damages at 1230 South Euclid, #2lB, purportedly
sustained due to negligence on the part of City employees in connection
with the fire which occurred on April 21, 1982.
29. Claim submitted by Charles Rinehart for personal property damages at
1612 Juno, #4, purportedly sustained due to negligence on the part of City
employees in connection with the fire which occurred on April 21, 1982.
30. Claim submitted by Lawrence E. Farrar; Virginia Farrar and Kelly
Farrar for personal property damages at 1623 West Ball Road, #5,
purportedly sustained due to negligence on the part of City employees in
connection with the fire which occurred on April 21, 1982.
31. Claim submitted by Claire Jeremias for personal property damages at
1230 South Euclid, #6C, purportedly sustained due to negligence on the
part of City employees in connection with the fire which occurred on
April 21, 1982.
32. Claim submitted by Phyllis Kern for personal property damages at 1230
South Euclid, #26C, purportedly sustained due to negligence on the part of
City employees in connection with the fire which occurred on April 21,
1982.
33. Claim submitted by Edith Kotkin for personal property damages at 1645
West Palm Lane, #17, purportedly sustained due to negligence on the part
of City employees in connection with the fire which occurred on April 21,
1982.
34. Claim submitted by Pakran Karagheusian for personal property damages
at 1660 West Palm Lane, #71, purportedly sustained due to negligence on
the part of City employees in connection with the fire which occurred on
April 21, 1982.
803
City Hall, Anaheim~ .California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 14~ 1982~ 10:00 A.M.
35. Claim submitted by Jeanne McCrae and Sy Perlowitz for personal
property damages at 1220 Palm Way, #27, purportedly sustained due to
negligence on the part of City employees in connection with the fire which
occurred on April 21, 1982.
36. Claim submitted by Rick Wells and Gloria Wells for personal property
damages at Charlton Square Apartments, #2, purportedly sustained due to
negligence on the part of City employees in connection with the fire which
occurred on April 21, 1982.
37. Claim submitted by John Wilson and Mary Ellen O'Connell for personal
property damages at 1613 West Ball Road, No. 5, purportedly sustained due
to negligence on the part of City employees in connection with the fire
which occurred on April 21, 1982.
38. Claim submitted by Karen and Bob Moss; Alex Moss, a minor, for
personal property damages at Palm Villa Apartments, purportedly sustained
due to negligence on the part of City employees in connection with the
fire which occurred on April 21, 1982.
39. Claim submitted by Betty McCay for personal property damages at 1645
Palm Lane, #16, purportedly sustained due to negligence on the part of
City employees in connection with the fire which occurred on April 21,
1982.
40. Claim submitted by Geraldine M. St. John for personal property
damages at 1645 Palm Lane, #6, purportedly sustained due to negligence on
the part of City employees in connection with the fire which occurred on
April 21, 1982.
41. Claim submitted by Leroy and Dorothy Thompson for personal property
damages at 1640 West Ball Road, #112, purportedly sustained due to
negligence on the part of City employees in connection with the fire which
occurred on April 21, 1982.
42. Claim submitted by Charles W. Norton for personal property damages at
1625 West Ball Road, #8, purportedly sustained due to negligence on the
part of City employees in connection with the fire which occurred on
April 21, 1982.
43. Claim submitted by Esmat Qursha for personal property damages at 1230
South Euclid, #2D, purportedly sustained due to negligence on the part of
City employees in connection with the fire which occurred on April 21,
1982.
44. Claim submitted by Robert Briggs for personal property damages at
1622 West Juno, #1, purportedly sustained due to negligence on the part of
City employees in connection with the fire. which occurred on April 21,
1982.
804
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 14, 1982~ 10:00 A.M.
45. Claim submitted by Virginia Briggs for personal property damages at
1622 West Juno, #1, purportedly sustained due to negligence on the part of
City employees in connection with the fire which occurred on April 21,
1982.
46. Claim submitted by Elizabeth Briggs for personal property damages at
1622 West Juno, #1, purportedly sustained due to negligence on the part of
City employees in connection with the fire which occurred on April 21,
1982.
47. Claim submitted by Sue Farfone for personal property damages at 1645
West Palm Lane, #8, purportedly sustained due to negligence on the part of
City employees in connection with the fire which occurred on April 21,
1982.
48. Claim submitted by Louise Villa for personal property damages at Palm
Villa, 1230 South Euclid, #25C, purportedly sustained due to negligence on
the part of City employees in connection with the fire which occurred on
April 21, 1982.
49. Claim submitted by Nancy and Nicholas Apollo (a minor) Kvist for
personal property damages at 1230 South Euclid, #22-B, purportedly
sustained due to negligence on the part of City employees in connection
with the fire which occurred on April 21, 1982.
50. Claim submitted by Luella A. Bye for personal property damages at
1660 West Palm Lane, #50, purportedly sustained due to negligence on the
part of City employees in connection with the fire which occurred on
April 21, 1982.
51. Claim submitted by Elmer Lee and Gairung L. Cisco for personal
property damages at 1645 West Palm, #54, purportedly sustained due to
negligence on the part of City employees in connection with the fire which
occurred on April 21, 1982.
52. Claim submitted by Beverly Johnson for personal property damages at
1660 West Palm Lane, #16, purportedly sustained due to negligence on the
part of City employees in connection with the fire which occurred on
April 21, 1982.
53. Claim submitted by George Kramer for personal property damages at
1660 West Palm Lane, #34, purportedly sustained due to negligence on the
part of City employees in connection with the fire which occurred on
April 21, 1982.
54. Claim submitted by William S. Langston for personal property damages
at 1660 West Palm Lane, #9, purportedly sustained due to negligence on the
part of City employees in connection with the fire which occurred on
April 21, 1982.
8O5
Ctt Hall, Anaheim California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Se~ 10:00 A.M.
55. Claim submitted by Marjorie Smith for personal property damages at
1613 West Ball Road, #5, purportedly sustained due to negligence on the
part of City employees in connection with the fire which occurred on
April 21, 1982.
56. Claim submitted by Jack, Mildred, Hope and Lea Rudko for personal
property damages at 1230 Euclid, #1SA, purportedly sustained due to
negligence on the part of City employees in connection with the fire which
occurred on April 21, 1982.
57. Claim submitted by Norman, Sheila and Jody Brender for personal
property damages at 1230 Euclid, #18C, purportedly sustained due to
negligence on the part of City employees in connection with the fire which
occurred on April 21, 1982.
58. Claim submitted by Barbara, Richard Jr., Thomas and Stephen Martin
for personal property damages at 1603 West Ball Road, #5, purportedly
sustained due to negligence on the part of City employees in connection
with the fire which occurred on April 21, 1982.
59. Claim submitted by Donald E. Sargeant and Susan Glebel for personal
property damages at 1629 West Ball Road, #7, purportedly sustained due to
negligence on the part of City employees in connection with the fire which
occurred on April 21, 1982.
60. Claim submitted by Kiyoshi Satori and Takako Satoh for personal
property damages at 1230 South Euclid, #lO-C, purportedly sustained due to
negligence on the part of City employees in connection with the fire which
occurred on April 21, 1982.
61. Claim submitted by Henry J. Kent for personal property damages at
1690 West Ball Road, #6, purportedly sustained due to negligence on the
part of City employees in connection with the fire which occurred on
April 21, 1982.
62. Claim submitted by Samih S., Salway, Samer Aboutablib and Anap Nasr
for personal property damages at 1230 South Euclid, #26B, Palm Villa
Barcelona, purportedly sustained due to negligence on the part of City
employees in connection with the fire which occurred on April 21, 1982.
63. Claim submitted By Joe, Eva, Christopher and Donna Arbuso for
personal property damages at 1230 South Euclid, #250, Palm Villa,
purportedly sustained due to negligence on the part of City employees in
connection with the fire which occurred on April 21, 1982.
64. Claim submitted by Willetta Moss for personal property damages at
1230 South Euclid, #7-D, purportedly sustained due to negligence on the
part of City employees in connection with the fire which occurred on
April 21, 1982.
806
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 14, 1982~ 10:00 A.M.
65. Claim submitted by Mary Smithson and Steven Lee Campbell for personal
property damages at 1609 West Ball Road, #3, purportedly sustained due to
negligence on the part of City employees in connection with the fire which
occurred on April 21, 1982.
66. Claim submitted by Nicholos and Belinda Seriganis for personal
property damages at 1639 West Ball Road, #9, purportedly sustained due to
negligence on the part of City employees in connection with the fire which
occurred on April 21, 1982.
67. Claim submitted by Gloria Schaefer for personal property damages at
1660 West Palm Lane, #7, purportedly sustained due to negligence on the
part of City employees in connection with the fire which occurred on
April 21, 1982.
68. Claim submitted by Mohammed Masri for personal property damages at
1623 West Ball Road, #6, purportedly sustained due to negligence on the
part of City employees in connection with the fire which occurred on
April 21, 1982.
69. Claim submitted by Carl Sanders for personal property damages at 1660
West Palm Lane, #71, Charlston Space 71, purportedly sustained due to
negligence on the part of City employees in connection with the fire which
occurred on April 21, 1982.
70. Claim submitted by William B. Robertson for personal property damages
at 1660 West Palm Lame, #10, purportedly sustained due to negligence on
the part of City employees in connection with the fire which occurred on
April 21, 1982.
71. Claim submitted by Debbie (Mealy) and Mike Hickey for personal
property damages at their residence, purportedly sustained due to
negligence on the part of City employees in connection with the fire which
occurred on April 21, 1982.
72. Claim submitted by Paul Gerkey for personal property damages at 1230
South Euclid, #26C, purportedly sustained due to negligence on the part of
City employees in connection with the fire which occurred on April 21,
1982.
73. Claim submitted by Paul, Yvette and Shana Goins for personal property
damages at 1230 South Euclid, #16A, purportedly sustained due to
negligence on the part of City employees in connection with the fire which
occurred on April 21, 1982.
74. Claim submitted by Annette Kay Coyne for personal property damages at
1660 West Palm Lane, #92, purportedly sustained due to negligence on the
part of City employees in connection with the fire which occurred on
April 21, 1982.
807
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 14~ 1982~ 10:00 A.M.
75. Claim submitted by Debbie and Wayne Homan for personal property
damages at 1633 West Ball Road, #3, purportedly sustained due to
negligence on the part of City employees in connection with the fire which
occurred on April 21, 1982.
76. Claim submitted by Rudolph Lnenick for personal property damages at
1660 West Palm Lane, #64, Charleston Square, purportedly sustained due to
negligence on the part of City employees in connection with the fire which
occurred on April 21, 1982.
77. Claim submitted by Allen S. and Charles Park; and Lucia Nataf for
personal property damages at 1230 South Euclid, No. 17C, Palm Villa
Apartments, purportedly sustained due to negligence on the part of City
employees in connection with the fire which occurred on April 21, 1982.
78. Claim submitted by Irene Pernosky for personal property damages at
1660 West Palm Way, #38, purportedly sustained due to negligence on the
part of City employees in connection with the fire which occurred on
April 21, 1982.
79. Claim submitted by Oscar and Antonia Almeda for personal property
damages at Charleston Square, purportedly sustained due to negligence on
the part of City employees in connection with the fire which occurred on
April 21, 1982.
80. Claim submitted by Clifford and Rosalie Keiser for personal property
damages at their residence, purportedly sustained due to negligence on the
part of City employees in connection with the fire which occurred on
April 21, 1982.
81. Claim submitted by Lori Nelson for personal property damages at the
Charleston Square Apartments, purportedly sustained due to negligence on
the part of City employees in connection with the fire which occurred on
April 21, 1982.
82. Claim submitted by Clarence Anderson for personal property damages at
1613 West Ball Road, #18, purportedly sustained due to negligence on the
part of City employees in connection with the fire which occurred on
April 21, 1982.
83. Claim submitted by Stephan and Pierangela Pezzini for personal
property damages at 1645 Palm Lane, #34, purportedly sustained due to
negligence on the part of City employees in connection with the fire which
occurred on April 21, 1982.
84. Claim submitted by Harry McWhirter, Scott and Torrey (minors) and
Nancy for personal property damages at 1230 South Euclid, #2B, purportedly
sustained due to negligence on the part of City employees in connection
with the fire which occurred on April 21, 1982.
8O8
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 14~ 1982~ 10:00 A.M.
85. Claim submitted by Barbara Mazac for personal property damages at
1230 South Euclid, #7-D, purportedly sustained due to negligence on the
part of City employees in connection with the fire which occurred on
April 21, 1982.
86. Claim submitted by Thomas R. Markin and Joy M. Jones for personal
property damages at 1660 West Palm Lane, #69, purportedly sustained due to
negligence on the part of City employees in connection with the fire which
occurred on April 21, 1982.
87. Claim submitted by Abraham Falik for personal property damages at
1660 West Palm Lane, #9, purportedly sustained due to negligence on the
part of City employees in connection with the fire which occurred on
April 21, 1982.
88. Claim submitted by John and Linda Gaddis for personal property
damages at 1660 West Palm Lane, #39, purportedly sustained due to
negligence on the part of City employees in connection with the fire which
occurred on April 21, 1982.
89. Claim submitted by Ralph Begneaud for personal property damages at
1640 Ball Road, #103, purportedly sustained due to negligence on the part
of City employees in connection with the fire which occurred on April 21,
1982.
90. Claim submitted by Judy and Richard Martin for personal property
damages at 1603 West Ball Road, #5, purportedly sustained due to
negligence on the part of City employees in connection with the fire which
occurred on April 21, 1982.
91. Claim submitted by James Austin for personal property damages at 1660
West Palm Lane, #92, purportedly sustained due to negligence on the part
of City employees in connection with the fire which occurred on April 21,
1982.
92. Claim submitted by Alex C. and Jason (a minor) Watt for personal
property damages at 1603 West Ball Road, #3, purportedly sustained due to
negligence on the part of City employees in connection with the fire which
occurred on April 21, 1982.
93. Claim submitted by Robert Asalos for personal property damages at
1220 Palm Way, #6, purportedly sustained due to negligence on the part of
City employees in connection with the fire which occurred on April 21,
1982.
94. Claim submitted by Sherry and April Loman and Jennifer Mills for
personal property damages at 1603 Ball Road, #7, purportedly sustained due
to negligence on the part of City employees in connection with the fire
which occurred on April 21, 1982.
809
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 14, 1982, 10:00 A.M.
95. Claim submitted by Dorothy and William Macias for personal property
damages at 1660 West Palm Lane, #62, Charleston Square, purportedly
sustained due to negligence on the part of City employees in connection
with the fire which occurred on April 21, 1982.
96. Claim submitted by Ben, Judith and Kelly Lee Van Morter for personal
property damages at 1660 Palm Lane, #24, purportedly sustained due to
negligence on the part of City employees in connection with the fire which
occurred on April 21, 1982.
97. Claim submitted by Yvetta Silverman for personal property damages at
1660 West Palm Lane, #43, purportedly sustained due to negligence on the
part of City employees in connection with the fire which occurred on
April 21, 1982.
98. Claim submitted by Sandy, Gary, Laura Lynn, Kimberly and Amy Clark
for personal property damages at Palm Villa, #24C, purportedly sustained
due to negligence on the part of City employees in connection with the
fire which occurred on April 21, 1982.
99. Claim submitted by Thomas F. and Myrtle Norton for personal property
damages at 1230 South Euclid, #lB, Palm Villa Apartments, purportedly
sustained due to negligence on the part of City employees in connection
with the fire which occurred on April 21, 1982.
100. Claim submitted by Lloyd E. and Madeline Bradly for personal
property damages at 1220 South Palm Way, purportedly sustained due to
negligence on the part of City employees in connection with the fire which
occurred on April 21, 1982.
101. Claim submitted by Ann and Gayle Robinson for personal property loss
at 1230 South Euclid, #26-D, purportedly sustained due to negligence on
the part of City employees in connection with the fire which occurred on
April 21, 1982.
102. Claim submitted by Janet A. Smith for personal property loss at 1220
South Palm Way, #26, purportedly sustained due to negligence on the part
of City employees in connection with the fire which occurred on April 21,
1982.
103. Claim ~ubmttted by Lumb, rmen~ Mutual In~urane, Company. ~ugop
Peirmenjian, dba, Anawood Cleaners, Insured, for personal property loss at
1223 South Euclid Avenue, purportedly sustained due to negligence on the
part of City employees in connection with the fire which occurred on
April 21, 1982.
104. Claim submitted by Lumbermens Mutual Insurance Company, Henry and
Barbara Reinholtz, Insured, for personal property loss at 1602-1608 West
Juno Avenue, purportedly sustained due to negligence on the part of City
employees in connection with the fire which occurred on April 21, 1982.
810
Cit~ Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 14, 1982, 10:00 A.M.
105. Claim submitted by Lumbermens Mutual Insurance Company, Carl H. and
Peggy Boatright, Insured, for personal property loss at 1618 Juno Avenue,
purportedly sustained due to negligence on the part of City employees in
connection with the fire which occurred on April 21, 1982.
106. Claim submitted by Lumbermens Mutual Insurance Company, (Prudential
Investment, a Ltd. Partnership), for personal property loss at 1314 South
Euclid Avenue, purportedly sustained due to negligence on the part of City
employees in connection with the fire which occurred on April 21, 1982.
107. Claim submitted by Nanette C. Boutte for personal injuries
purportedly sustained due to a slip-and-fall accident at Anaheim Stadium,
on or about July 10, 1982.
108. Claim submitted by Catherine E. Whelpley for injuries to her son
purportedly sustained due to a loose street sign falling on her son's head
at 2103 East Viking, on or about June 1, 1982.
109. Claim submitted by Charles F. Pacier for personal property damages
purportedly sustained due to actions of a City crew at 1241 North Minteer
Street, on or about May 27, 1982.
110. Claim submitted by Pacific Telephone Company for property damages
purportedly sustained due to failure of City to maintain facilities in
safe condition at 2206 East Center, on or about June 21, 1982.
111. Claim submitted by Jim Ziemer for personal property damages
purportedly sustained due to a chuck hole in the street at the
intersection of Miller and Crowther, on or about July 5, 1982.
112. Amended claim submitted by Allstate Insurance for damages paid to
their insured in the vicinity of Euclid Street and Ball Road, purportedly
sustained due to negligence on the part of the City in connection with the
fire which occurred on April 21, 1982.
113. Amended claim submitted by Robert A. and Margaret I. Tippet for
personal property loss at 1645 West Palm Lane, #38, purportedly sustained
due to negligence, carelessness and wrongfulness of the City in connection
with the fire which occurred on April 21, 1982.
114. Amended claim submitted by Joseph and Yetta Silverman for personal
property loss at 1600 West Palm Lane, purportedly sustained due to
negligence, carelessness and wrongfulness of the City in connection with
the fire which occurred on April 21, 1982.
B. Claims denied and referred to Governmental Programs Division, Markel
Services, Inc:
115. Claim submitted by Dee Roohinia for personal property damages
purportedly sustained due to actions of Anaheim Police Officers at 7591
Tenth Street, #23, Buena Park, on or about August 11, 1982.
811
Cit~ Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 14~ 1982~ 10:00 A.M.
116. Claim submitted by Motta Brothers Shell Service for property damages
purportedly sustained due to actions of an Anaheim Police Officer at 763
Sepulveda at Maple, E1 Segundo, on or about July 22, 1982.
C. Claims allowed payment:
117. Claim submitted by Donald J. Bartz for personal property damage to
claimant's vehicle by a City employee backing a City vehicle into
claimant's vehicle at 1954 West Glenoaks, on or about July 11, 1982.
($918.64)
118. Claim submitted by Helen Lockman for personal property damage to
claimant's unoccupied and parked vehicle by a City employee who was
driving a City vehicle in the Convention Center parking lot, on or about
August 2, 1982. ($373.16)
2. The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 107: Building Division Report--Month of August 1982.
b. 173. Before the Public Utilities Commission, Application No.
82-08-55, in the matter of the Application of FunBus Systems, Inc., for a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to operate round trip,
loop sightseeing tours between points in Orange County and Los Angeles.
3. 123: Authorizing an agreement with William M. Mercer, Inc., in an amount
not to exceed $6,000 for actuarial services.
4. 123/150: Authorizing an agreement with Ken Matsuoka, Electrical Engineer,
in the amount of $1,900, for engineering Services to design power
redistribution and voltage conversion plans for Pearson Park.
5. 123/140/160: Authorizing an agreement with Sylvania Lighting Services
Corporation in the amount of $22,494.24 for re-lamping and related services
for the libraries for a term of three years, in accordance with Bid No. 3885.
(continued from the meeting of August 31, 1982)
6. 123: Authorizing an agreement with Warner-Lambert Company for the
maintenance of railroad crossing protection at Hunter Avenue and The Atchison,
Topeka, and Santa Fe spur line, Crossing No. 2B-39.3C.
164: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-454: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE
THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: CONSTRUCTION
OF WATER IMPROVEMENTS ON WEIR CANYON ROAD FROM SOUTHERLY OF LA PALMA AVENUE TO
THE RIVERSIDE FREEWAY NORTHERLY OFF RAMP, ACCOUNT NOS. 54-605-6329-17160-34350
AND 54-605-6329-17150-34350; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS,
AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION
812
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 14, 1982, 10:00 A.M.
OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS,
ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE
INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FGR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened
October 21, 1982, 2:00 p.m.)
167: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-455: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE STREET LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO.
1981-6, TRACT NOS. 2228 AND 2705, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO.
24-676-6329-12110-37300. (Mendoza Electric, $86,444)
175: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-456: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE UTILITIES SERVICE CENTER, 901 EAST
VERMONT, MATERIAL STORAGE AREA PAVING, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS.
51-699-6329-0957M-3710A AND 55-699-6329-0957M-3900A. (Porter Construction
Company, $53,924.26)
164: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-457: 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: AMTRAK
STATION SEWER, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 43-790-6325-E0410. (Five
States Plumbing, Inc., contractor)
169: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-458: 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: OERTLEY
DRIVE STREET IMPROVEMENT FROM ORANGEWOOD AVENUE TO SOUTH CITY LIMITS AND
TILLER AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENT FROM HASTER STREET TO OERTLEY DRIVE, IN THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 25-792-6325-E2760. (Gosney Backhoe and
Equipment, contractor)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
None
MOTION CARRIED. The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 82R-454 through 82R-458,
both inclusive, duly passed and adopted.
108: APPLICATION FOR ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT: Submitted by Ronald R.
LaTremouille, for the Gold Room, 508 South Knott Street, to permit small bands
of four or less, including si~ing and girls dancing, from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00
a.m. daily, in accordance with the recommendation of the Chief of
Police--continued from the meeting of September 7, 1982.
813
Hall Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Se~lO:O0 A.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to deny the subject Application for an
Entertainment Permit for the Gold Room, 508 South Knott Street, on the basis
that there were eleven bars between the 500 and 1200 block of South Knott
Avenue. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Roth asked if anyone was present representing
the Gold Room. No one was present.
Councilman Bay, speaking to the City Attorney, stated he presumed it was
within the Council's prerogative to refuse such requests in areas where there
was an overabundance of such businesses; City Attorney William Hopkins stated
he would recommend a finding by the Council that it would not be in the best
interests of the City and the health and welfare of the citizens, because of
an extensive number of entertainment businesses in the subject location.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion of denial, including the finding
as articulated by the City Attorney. MOTION CARRIED.
123: SEWER AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE CITY OF ORANGE -
WINDMILL LANE AND RIDGE GATE ROAD: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to authorize an
agreement with the City of Orange in the amount of ~10 per lot per year, to
permit Orange usage of Anaheim sewer lines in Windmill Lane and Ridge Gate
Road for a maximum of thirty residential lots, term ending June 30, 1983, as
recommended in memorandum dated September 1, 1982, from the Street Maintenance
Superintendent, William Lewis. Councilman Roth seconded the motion MOTION
CARRIED. .
123/124: EARTHWORK PROVIDED BY C-D III AT ANAHEIM STADIUM ON THE AMTRA~
.PROJECT: Councilman Pickler moved to authorize staff to deduct an additional
$22,772.50 from the building fees for the Convention Center parking structure
under construction by C-D III, in exchange for the earthwork provided C-D III
at the Stadium for the Amtrak project; and authorizing C-D III to pay Kenneth
G. Osborne & Associates ~2,285, for related civil engineering services
provided to City, as recommended in memorandum received September 8, 1982,
from Pamela Lucado, Associate Planner. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The follow-lng actions taken by the City
Planning Commission at their meeting held August 23, 1982, pertaining to the
following applications were submitted for City Council information.
1. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 82-83-6 AND COMDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2363:
Submitted by Joseph B. Edwards, et al, for a change in zone from RS-7200 to
CL, to permit the commercial use of a residential structure on property
located at 1694 West Sumac Lane, with the following Code waivers: (a) Minimum
number of parking spaces, and (b) Required location of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution Nos. PC82-159 and
PC82-160, granted Reclassification No. 82-83-6 and Conditional Use Permit No.
2363, and granted a negative declaration status.
814
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 14, 1982, 10:00 A.M.
2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 1166 AND 1645 - EXTENSIONS OF TIME: Submitted
by Town Tour Fun Bus Company, requesting extensions of time to Conditional Use
Permit Nos. 1166 and 1645, to permit a bus terminal and to allow bus storage
and repair facilities on CG and proposed CL zoned property located at 304 East
Katella Way and 1825 Mountain View Avenue.
The City Planning Commission approved extensions of time to Conditional Use
Permit Nos. 1166 and 1645, to expire August 16, 1983.
3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1883 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Collins
Limited Partnership, requesting an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit
No. 1883, to permit on-sale beer and wine in an existing restaurant on ML
zoned property located at 1514 West Broadway.
The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Conditional Use
Permit No. 1883, to expire August 28, 1984.
4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2207 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Sand
and Gravel, Inc., requesting an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit
No. 2207, to permit a portable concrete batch plant on RS-A-43,000(SC) zoned
property located on the west side of Richfield Road and south of La Palma
Avenue.
The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Conditional Use
Permit No. 2207 to expire June 1, 1983.
5. TENTATIVE TRACT NOS. 10996, 10997 AND 10998 - EXTENSIONS OF TIME:
Submitted by The Gunston Hall Company, requesting extensions of time to
Tentative Tract Nos. 10996, 10997 and 10998, consisting of 22 RS-HS-22,000(SC)
and 14 RS-HS-43,000(SC) zoned lots on property located on the southwest corner
of Avenida de Santiago and Hidden Canyon Road.
The City Planning Commission approved extensions of time to Tentative Tract
Nos. 10996, 10997 and 10998, to expire October 6, 1983.
No action was taken by the City Council on the foregoing items; therefore, the
actions of the City Planning Commission became final.
174/169: HAZARD ELIMINATION SAFETY PROJECT - REQUEST TO PRESENT ALTERNATE
PLAN: Mayor R0th explained that on September 7, 1982, when the design under
the subject project was approved as one of the items on the Consent Calendar,
the owner of McDonald's (Ball Road), Mr. Stephen L. Schuster, was present in
the Chambers audience, but did not realize that it was approved as part of
those Consent Calendar items. Mr. Schuster subsequently contacted him and,
upon his request, wrote a letter to the Council dated September 9, 1982, in
which he requested that the Council conduct another hearing on the subject, so
that he could present an alternate plan for consideration (letter on file in
the City Clerk's office with alternate plan attached). He asked the Traffic
Engineer to address the issue.
815
Cit Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Se~10:O0 A.M.
Mr. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, explained that the idea of providing a
median along the portion of Ball Road between Harbor and Anaheim Boulevards
was to significantly reduce the number of collisions that had taken place
(also see Mr. Singer's memorandum of September 13, 1982). Any uncontrolled
left turns would only serve to perpetuate the situation. Unless the project
funded by the Federal Highway Administration was submitted as presently
designed, it was unlikely that it would qualify under the Hazard Elimination
Project because they would not be able to eliminate certain collisions. He
urged that the design as approved on September 7, 1982 (see minutes that
date), not be changed, since if additional median cuts were made, they would
not be gaining anything. Mr. Schuster's alternate plan would simply be a
beautification project and would not qualify under the hazard elimination
funding. He then clarified for Councilman Overholt that the delay that would
be involved in granting another public hearing would not harm the project.
MOTION: Council discussion then followed wherein the Mayor and Councilman
Overholt were amenable to having Mr. Schuster again address the Council to
present his plan. Councilman Roth moved to grant a rehearing in order to give
Mr. Schuster an opportunity to speak and present his alternate plan.
Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
Council Members Kaywood, Pickler and Bay did not feel that any purpose would
be served by holding another hearing, since Mr. Schuster had the opportunity
to speak in opposition to the plan, which he did at the public hearing of
July 6, 1982 (see minutes that date--verbatim transcript, on file in the City
Clerk's office). Further, Mr. Singer also confirmed that Mr. Schuster's
alternate plan, as submitted under a letter dated September 9, 1982, was
essentially the same as the plan he proposed at the meeting of July 6, 1982,
during which time there was a full and complete hearing.
Councilman Pickler suggested that the matter be continued for two weeks to
give Mr. Schuster an opportunity to speak at that time, but he did not want to
hold a full public hearing again.
Councilman Roth amended his motion that Mr. Schuster, only, be heard in two
weeks in order to present his alternate proposal.
A vote was then taken on the fore~otn~ motion as amended. MOTION CARRIED.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4363: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4363 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
~RDINANCE NO. 4363: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING ORDINANCES
NO. 4345 AND 4346 NUNC PRO TUNC. (Bauer Ranch Development, 77-78-64(1) and
(2))
816
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 14~ 1982~ 10:00 A.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4363 duly passed and adopted.
119: MISS AMERICA 1982-83, DEBRA SUE MAFFETT (MISS ANAHEIM): Councilman
Overholt prefaced his remarks by stating that the bottom line of pageants such
as the two recognized in Anaheim (Miss Anaheim pageant, preliminary to the
Miss California and Miss America pageants, and Miss Anaheim pageant,
preliminary to Miss U.S.A., Miss Universe pageants) was the self-betterment of
the young ladies involved. Debra Sue Maffett, Miss Anaheim/Miss California,
who was crowned Miss America on September 11, 1982, was a good example of the
benefit of the pageants. He thereupon commended those women in the Anaheim
community involved in both the Miss California and Miss U.S.A pageants,
namely, Earline Jones, Executive Director, Miss Anaheim Scholarship Fund, and
Shirley Bula, and Fran Mauck, Executive Director, Miss Anaheim preliminary to
Miss U.S.A., for giving the young ladies an opportunity to develop their
talents. He wished both pageants the very best in the future and expressed
how pleased he was in having Miss Maffett capture the Miss America title.
Councilwoman Kaywood also expressed how proud she was of the fact.
Mayor Roth also commented on the honor bestowed upon Miss Anaheim and reported
that telegrams had been sent to Miss Maffett on behalf of the Council and the
City, the first urging her on to victory, and the second commending and
congratulating her on that victory. He stated that Debbie Maffett was the
epitome of what they were trying to do in the City of Anaheim, and it was just
another start of bigger and better things to come. The City was not only
proud of her victory, but also in her having brought world-wide media
attention to the City. He also highly commended those who were responsible
for assisting in making the honor a reality.
108: PERMIT APPLICATION REQUEST: Councilman Pickler, referring to an item
discussed earlier in the meeting involving an application for an Entertainment
Permit, suggested for Council consideration the possibility of a survey of the
residents in a particular area when such permits were requested. The former
item was a request for an Entertainment Permit in a residential area where it
would affect a number of people residing in that area. If he were a resident
therein, he would like to give input that would assist the Council in making a
decision. He viewed it as a preventive measure where if the people
surrounding the location knew something was going to happen, they could do
something about it before, and not after.
Councilman Bay assumed that Councilman Pickler was suggesting that they look
into the possibility of using the present amusement arcade approval system on
permits of the type under discussion which, in effect, increased the activity
817
Cit~ Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 14, 1982~ 10:00 A.M.
of a business; Councilman Pickler confirmed that was his intent. Councilman
Bay continued that what they would be interested in then were the
technicalities involved in defining which permits would fall under that system
if, in fact, they decided to use the same citizen input system as with arcades.
Staff was thereupon requested to submit a report on the possibility and
feasibility of using the arcade approval system on permit applications.
115: PODIUM IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS: Mayor Roth referred to memorandum dated
August 19, 1982, from John Roche, Facility Maintenance Superintendent,
relating to a modification to the podium in the Council Chambers. He asked
that the Council review the memorandum so that at next week's meeting, they
could give some direction to the City Manager to correct what he felt was a
hazard.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: The City Manager requested a Closed Session to
discuss labor relations and personnel matters with possible action
anticipated; the City Attorney requested a Closed Session to discuss potential
litigation with no action anticipated.
Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilman Pickler
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (11:05 a.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order at 12:18 p.m., all
Council Members being present.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for a lunch break. (12:18
p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (1:40 p.m.)
PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 82-83-1, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2354
AND WAIVER OF COUNCIL POLICY NO. 543: Application by George M. Kubo, et al,
for a change in zone from CL and RS-A-43,000 to RM-3000, with waiver of
Council Policy No. 543 pertaining to density bonuses, to permit a 35-unit
affordable condominium complex on property located at 721 South Beach
Boulevard, with the following Code waivers: (a) Minimum lot area per dwelling
unit, (b) Maximum structural height, (c) Minimum landscaped setback, (d)
~_{n~mum s~de yard setback, (e) Minimum r~ereat~onal/l~i~ur~ ar~a, and (f)
Required screening of parking facilities.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC82-141, declared
that the subject project be exempt from the requirement to prepare an
Environmental Impact Report, pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act on the basis that there would be no significant
individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact due to the approval of
this negative declaration, since the Anaheim General Plan designates the
818
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 14, 1982~ 10:00 A.M.
subject property for medium density residential land uses commensurate with
the proposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the
proposal; and that the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no
significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts due to this
project; and further granted Reclassification No. 82-83-1, subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the owner(s) of subject property shall deed to the City of Anaheim,
land for a 32-foot radius modified cul-de-sac.
2. That (a) all engineering requirements of the City of Anaheim, along
Hayward Street including preparation of improvement plans and installation of
all improvements such as curbs and gutters, sidewalks, street grading and
paving, drainage facilities, or other appurtenant work shall be complied with
as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with specifications on file
in the Office of the City Engineer; and that security in the form of a bond,
certificate of deposit, letter of credit or cash, in an amount and form
satisfactory to the City of Anaheim shall be posted with the City to guarantee
the satisfactory completion of the above-mentioned improvements. Said
security shall be posted with the City prior to approval of improvement
plans. The above-required improvements shall be installed prior to occupancy.
3. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved
plans on file with the Office of the Executive Director of Public Works.
4. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and
determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to
commencement of structural framing.
5. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
6. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner
satisfactory to the City Engineer.
7. That the owner of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the
appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to be appropriate
by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building permit is
issued.
8. That a modified cul-de-sac shall be provided at the terminus of Hayward
Street subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
9. That the original documents of any proposed covenants, conditions, and
restrictions, and a letter addressed to developer's title company authorizing
recordation, shall be submitted to the City Attorney's Office and approved by
the City Attorney's office and Engineering Division prior to the final tract
map approval. Said documents as approved shall be filed and recorded in the
Office of the Orange County Recorder.
819
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 14~ 1982~ 10:00 A.M.
10. That completion of these reclassification proceedings is contingent upon
the granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 2354.
11. That prior to the issuance of building permits, the owner(s) of subject
property shall pay the traffic signal assessment fee (Ordinance No. 3896), in
an amount as determined by the City Council, for each new dwelling unit.
12. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim a
fee, in an amount as determined by the City Council, for street lighting along
Hayward Street.
13. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim a
fee, in an amount as determined by the City Council, for tree planting
purposes along Hayward Street.
14. That a 6-foot masonry wall shall be constructed along the east and west
property line(s).
15. That the developer shall enter into an agreement with the City of Anaheim
pursuant to Government Code 65915 which agreement shall be recorded
concurrently with or prior to the approval by the Final Tract Map for subject
property which shall provide that 30% of the units shall be sold as low or
moderate income housing as defined in Government Code 65915 and with
appropriate resale controls as approved by the City of Anaheim.
16. That prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall present
evidence satisfactory to the Chief Building Inspector that the proposed
project is in conformance with Council Policy Number 542, Sound Attenuation in
Residential Projects.
17. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos.
1 through 4, provided, however, that prior to issuance of a building permit,
revised plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Commission
including four (4) on-site recreational vehicle parking spaces.
18. That prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject property,
Condition No(s). 1, 2, 12 and 13, above-mentioned, shall be completed. The
provisions or rights granted by this resolution shall become null and void by
action of the Planning Commission unless said conditions are complied with
within one year from the date hereof, or such further time as the Planning
Commission may grant.
19. That Condition Nos. 3, 5, 6, 8, 14 and 17, above-mentioned, shall be
complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC82-142, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2354, subject to the following conditions:
820
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September. ~4., .19.8.2., 10:00 A.M.
1. That this Conditional Use Permit is granted subject to the completion of
Reclassification No. 82-83-1, now pending.
2. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos.
1 through 4, provided, however, that revised plans shall be submitted to and
approved by the Planning Department and shall include four (4) on-site
recreational vehicle parking spaces.
3. That Condition No. 2, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to
final building and zoning inspections.
4. That the developer shall enter into an agreement with the City of Anaheim
pursuant to Government Code 65915 which agreement shall be recorded
concurrently with or prior to the approval of the Final Tract Map for subject
property which shall provide that 30 percent of the units shall be sold as low
or moderate income housing as defined in Government Code 65915 and with
appropriate resale controls as approved by the City of Anaheim.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman
Kaywood at the meeting of August 17, 1982, and public hearing scheduled this
date.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present.
Mr. Jim Barisic, developer, agent for the applicant, 18002 Sky Park Circle,
Irvine, explained that working with the Anaheim Housing Authority and the
Planning Commission, they agreed to a 100 percent affordable project. They
were willing to do that and still maintain some level of profitability. He
understood the greatest concern was relative to density, although he did not
know how to respond to that. He was present to answer any questions.
Councilwoman Kaywood expressed her concern that the project had a 41 percent
density bonus and even though he was willing to go 100 percent affordable,
that was strictly to the original and first buyer. Once the first buyer sold
the unit, all that they could have under Federal law was 30 percent affordable
that could be controlled. On the balance of 70 percent, those people could
sell the following week, rent it out, do whatever they wished, and to her that
was counterproductive to what they were talking about. There would be no more
affordable, just higher density for the City. Further, they were talking
about a ~1,000 a month mortgage payment which to her was not affordable and so
far out that it did not make any sense.
Extensive discussion followed between Councilwoman Kaywood and Mr. Barisic
relative to specifics of the project, as well as the financial ramifications,
during which they discussed certain aspects of Cinnamon Hollow (Citron Street)
and the Wind River Project (just north of the subject proposed project), Mr.
Barisic's first and second affordable projects in Anaheim. At the conclusion
of discussion, Councilwoman Kaywood reiterated that she did not see that the
City was providing affordable housing without appropriate resale controls, and
there was no benefit to the City in having additional density.
821
Clt~ Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September. 14~ 1952~ 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Pickler noted that Council Policy No. 543 permitted the granting of
a 25 percent density bonus and 41 percent was being requested. The Code
requirement was for 24 units and the developer was proposing 35. A 25 percent
density bonus would yield approximately 30 units. He asked Mr. Barisic if he
could live with that.
Mr. Barisic stated that every unit loss would cost him over $30,000. It was
purely an economic issue.
Councilman Pickler expressed his concern that there was a great deal of vacant
land in the area, and if they kept going piecemeal, increasing the density as
they did so, the area would be saturated. He also did not feel that the
proposed project was affordable.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak, either in favor or in opposition;
there being no response, he closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council finds that subject
project will have no significant individual or cumulative adverse
environmental impact due to the approval of this Negative declaration since
the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property for medium density
residential land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive
environmental impacts are involved in the proposal; that the Initial Study
submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant individual or cumulative
adverse environmental impacts; and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement
to prepare an EIR. Councilman Bay voted "no." MOTION CARRIED.
Before further action was taken, Councilman Bay stated that with regard to the
requested six additional bonuses, in addition to the 41 percent density bonus,
if they had to go that far against their zoning ordinances and standards in an
attempt to provide "affordable" housing, then he could not agree with the
basic concept. If there was no other way to provide dwelling units other than
cutting their standards to the point of making something affordable, and then
only 30 percent of the units would be controllable beyond the first buyer,
then they were missing the object of providing affordable housing. With the
subject property in that specific location, it was not economically feasible
to provide affordable as it was defined.
Mayor Roth stated that the Executive Director of Community Development was
looking for land for government to buy in order to provide some affordable
housing, and if they did not bend with and nurture such projects in some way
possible, they might as well give up.
Further discussion followed wherein Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that a 25
percent density bonus would give Mr. Barisic 30 units; however, he indicated
he could not live with that. Mr. Barisic then explained that he could live
with anything if he could go back and get the land owner to work with him.
However, the owner had been very firm in his negotiations.
822
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Se?tember 14, 1982~ 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Bay stated if they were so concerned about providing more housing,
particularly in the flat land of the City, there must be other ways to go
about doing so. He suggested that they put more effort on the immigration
department if they wanted to do something about what was happening to some of
the problem areas in housing all over the City, and there might be other
things that they had not looked at. The trend was coming from the Planning
Commission and staff, people with objectives in mind of providing housing,
whether Section 8 or subsidized by the Federal government or some other
government. This was a case of subsidizing building dwellings by putting what
they were giving away on standards on all the people living around it, and
those living in the rest of the City. That was handing a subsidy in the form
of waivers of standards from every citizen in the City, without their direct
consent. He was concerned with the policies that continued on within their
housing over the so-called crying need to furnish housing for the world in the
City. He was concerned over some of the things being asked through the
Planning Commission, such as a 41 percent density bonus, plus all the other
waivers and variances, as those that were going to be the rule. It was not
his rule.
Councilman Overholt stated that he agreed with both sides of the question.
However, the applicant indicated his willingness to attempt to work out a
modification that would result in a 30 percent density bonus. He asked how
procedurally they could give him that opportunity.
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Planning Director--Zoning, stated that they could
approve the Reclassification without any specific exhibits, and grant the CUP
for 31 units, which would establish a 30 percent density bonus. It would
modify the waivers, but not eliminate them.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 82R-459 for adoption, approving
Reclassification No. 82-83-1, in accordance with City Planning Commission
recommendations. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 82R-459: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO ZONING SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES
SHOULD BE CHANGED. (82-83-1)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt and Roth
Bay
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 82R-459 duly passed and adopted.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 82R-460 for adoption, granting
Conditional Use Permit No. 2354, but for 30 units only, which represented a 25
percent density bonus. Refer to Resolution Book.
823
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 14~ 1982, 10:00 A.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 82R-460: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2354.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt and Roth
Bay
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 82R-460 duly passed and adopted.
Mayor Roth stated he was in support for the reason that 30 units were better
than none.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to deny the waiver of Council Policy No.
543 relative to density bonuses. Councilman Bay seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Roth asked if the denial on the waiver would
affect the project; Miss Santalahti answered that, as approved, it would not
affect the project at all.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 3284: Application by Ann Catherine Wong Cohen,
to construct an addition to a single-family residence on RM-1200 zoned
property located at 942 North Claudine Street, with the following Code
waivers: (a) Maximum lot coverage, (b) Minimum side yard setback, (c) Minimum
rear yard setback, and (d) Required type of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC82-148, declared
that the subject project be exempt from the requirement to prepare an
Environmental Impact Report, pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act, on the basis that there would be no significant
individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact due to the approval of
this negative declaration, since the Anaheim General Plan designates the
subject property for medium density land uses commensurate with the proposal;
that the initial study submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant
individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact, and further, granted
Variance No. 3284 subject to the following conditions:
1. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit No. 1.
2. That the existing structure shall be brought up to the minimum standards
of the City of Anaheim, including the Uniform Building, Plumbing, Electrical,
Housing, Mechanical and Fire Codes as adopted by the City of Anaheim.
3. That Condition Nos. 1 and 2, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior
to final building and zoning inspections.
824
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 14, 1982~ 10:00 A.M.
4. That the existing and proposed sewer tie-in shall comply with the
applicable City Code.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman
Kaywood at the meeting of August 17, 1982, and a public hearing scheduled this
date.
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
Mr. Eric Lederer, 31841 Via Oso, Trabuco Canyon, described the property,
photographs of which were posted on the Chambers wall. The present structure
was 544 square feet and the lot was 54.5 X 35.7. He originally planned to fix
up the property and resell it, but when he consulted a loan representative, he
found that no lenders were willing to lend on that size property. If he could
add to the property and make it large enough so that a lender would be willing
to finance it, that would eliminate the problem. He and his architect
subsequently devised plans for the property, which were also posted, and those
plans necessitated the requested variances.
Mr. Larry Halonen, 23501 Via Alondra, Trabuco Canyon, then described the
technical features of the existing structure which they were proposing to
straddle with a second floor of 816 square feet, but yet not add any weight to
the first floor.
The Mayor asked to hear from those who wished to speak, either in favor or in
opposition.
Mr. Charles Edwards, 214 East La Palma, stated he had lived in the
neighborhood for many years and also owned the property adjacent to the
subject house to the north. Three houses were subdivided on the lot now.
There was a problem with the existing house in that there was no sewer hookup
except to his property, and there were no gas and water line hookups. The
property was bought as an investment and not in the interest of the purchaser
becoming a homeowner in the area. He was not objecting to the two-story
except that his garage was bigger than the existing house. Before the Council
took action, he asked that the Building Division inspect the property prior to
any additional weight being placed on the roof of the present structure. He
was opposed to the requested variance.
Mr. Bill Erickson, 301 East North Street, stated although he was not a
resident within a 300-foot radius, he was speaking as a concerned citizen. He
was concerned with the variances requested and urged the Council to vote "no"
on the variance.
In summation, Mr. Lederer stated when he found out he was to have a public
hearing before the Council, he felt he should go to the area and talk to the
immediate residents, which he did the previous evening. He also spoke with
Mr. Edwards who made him aware of the sewer problem. He (Lederer) assured him
that he was as concerned over that situation. In speaking with the neighbors,
825
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 14~ 1982~ 10:00 A.M.
he showed them the plans and discussed what he was going to do with them.
They understood he was going to be looking down on them from the second floor
and would be approximately three feet from their side lot. However, they were
more concerned with having something done with the present state of disrepair
existing on the property. He then submitted a petition (made a part of the
record) signed by three of the neighbors in favor of his request for variance.
Both Mr. Lederer and his architect, Mr. Halonen, then answered questions posed
by the Council with regard to the plans for the property. Mr. Lederer was
interested in providing a three-bedroom, two-bathroom dwelling, since that
would be more marketable for a family than a a two-bedroom home.
Councilman Bay asked, looking at the total size of the lot, if it were
possible to reduce the 816 square-foot second floor and come back with
something that would be feasible, but without going quite as large on the
second story. The question basically was whether they were going to overbuild
the lot.
Mr. Halonen explained that the variances required were not caused by the
square footage and the size of the second floor. It was a matter of providing
sufficient on-site parking, since the existing structure already created side
yard and rear yard setbacks. They could reduce the size of the second floor,
but it would not alleviate the side yard and rear yard setback problem.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the
public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - DENIAL OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by
Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Pickier, the City Council finds
that this project would have a significant individual or cumulative adverse
environmental impact, and therefore, denied the negative declaration status.
MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated, as Mr. Edwards pointed out, the subject property
was initially one lot divided into three. She did not favor putting a second
story on the existing unit, creating a house larger than intended on such a
small lot.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 82R-461 for adoption, denyin~
Variance No. 3284, reversing the findings of the City Planning Commission.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 82R-461: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DENYING VARIANCE NO. 3284.
826
Cit~ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 14, 1982~ 10:00 A.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 82R-461 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2356: Application by Abel and
Carol A. Mendez, to retain a used auto sales lot on CG zoned property located
at 1039 North Anaheim Boulevard, with Code waiver of minimum number of parking
spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC82-151, disapproved
the negative declaration from the requirement to prepare an Environmental
Impact Report on the basis that there would be significant individual or
cumulative adverse environmental impacts due to the approval of the negative
declaration, that the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property for
general commercial land uses commensurate with the proposal; that sensitive
environmental impacts are involved in the proposal; and that the initial study
submitted by the petitioner indicates significant individual or cumulative
adverse environmental impacts, and also, denied Conditional Use Permit No.
2356.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by the attorney for the
applicant, and a public hearing scheduled this date.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present.
Mr. Rudolfo Montejano, Attorney, explained that he was retained by the lessee
and owners on August 18, 1982. On May 20, 1982, the owners paid an attorney
and his apparent agent the sum of $300 to commence work. Mr. Jess Payan, who
claimed he had prior experience in setting up used dealerships, told his
clients that he and his attorney would handle all of the paper work necessary
in order to get the matter approved. Based on those representations, they
commenced business, but unknowingly they did not have a permit to do so. They
made approximately $600 in payments to the attorney, Mr. Buckley, and to Mr.
Payan. He thereupon submitted copies of the checks (made a part of the
record) to show that his clients acted in good faith to get the matter
processed properly. Unknown to them, however, was the fact that the matter
was proceeding through the City and Planning Commission, but they were not
notified of this by their attorney or alleged agent. No one was present when
the matter came before the Planning Commission and it was continued until
early August. The hearing again came and went with no appearance by the
attorney or agent, and no notice was given to the owners. The matter was
subsequently denied and it was then than they approached him (Montejano) to
represent them. The owner of the business, Mr. Chavez, and the property
owner, Mr. Mendez, were present today. He clarified that he represented both
the owner of the business and the property owner.
827
Cit~ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 14, 1982~ 10:00 A.M.
Mr. Montejano then referred to the staff report to the Planning Commission
dated August 9, 1982, and answered the findings of fact under Items (18) (a)
through (e). He also referred to the prior Conditional Use Permit where it
was found there would be no adverse environmental impact. The problem lay in
the fact that the prior owners of the business did not comply with the
conditions of the CUP or the ordinances of the City. He further noted that
the request included a Code waiver of the minimum number of parking spaces,
two instead of five. If necessary, the waiver of three spaces would be
eliminated and they would be willing to accept five instead of two. If the
City felt that five were required or permitted, that should not be an increase
on the traffic burden.
Relative to Item (19) (b) on Page 2-d of the staff report, he felt that was
answered by the report. Theirs was an irregularly shaped lot and involved
only a small area. It was formerly a gas station now used for auto sales. It
was in an area that could be termed "used auto sales row," where the City had
made exceptions to ordinances and standards on that strip and adopted a
general implied policy of allowing used auto sales and auto repair. If CUP
2356 was not allowed, it would be discriminatory, since they had allowed the
same for those in surrounding properties. The new owners were willing and
able, in good faith, to comply with all conditions imposed by the staff. The
test would be in the performance aspect and if they did not comply, they
should not be in business.
Councilman Bay asked for clarification that they were stipulating to five
parking spaces on the property, since there was no on-street parking and, if
so, that would reduce the number of cars for sale from 15 to 12.
Mr. Montejano answered they would be willing to comply with the Code and have
three additional cars on the lot in order to stay in business.
Councilman Bay expressed his concern over what the owner had done in the past
when they had serious problems with a previous tenant. He wanted to hear from
the owner and have him explain what he had attempted to do regarding the
problems with his past tenant. The CUP was on the property and not the tenant
and that was why he was interested in knowing further what the owner was going
to do to see that the property was kept up and the ordinances met. He was not
concerned with the new tenants if those tenants could leave and two months
later another business utilize the premises.
Mr. Montejano then introduced Mr. Hernandez, the business manager for the
owner of the business, to translate for the owner of the property, Mr. Mendez.
Mr. Fortunado Hernandez, acting as interpreter, then questioned Mr. Mendez
relative to Councilman Bay's concern regarding the upkeep of the property and
conforming with City ordinances. He (Hernandez) stated that Mr. Mendez
answered that he would take charge of all the things that had to be done so
828
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 14, 1982~ 10:00 A.M.
that it would satisfy the C~uncil and everyone involved. He was not aware of
the things that were happening until he saw a number of cars on the property
when the business was being operated by the previous tenants. He understood
fully, now, that it was his responsibility from this time on.
Councilman Overholt clarified that was the point they were trying to make, and
if there were violations, those violations would interfere with Mr. Mendez's
use of the property; Mr. Hernandez stated that was understood.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the
public hearing.
Mr. Montejano confirmed that they would stipulate to the conditions as drafted
by the staff, and as modified by the Council.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Pickler, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council finds that subject
project will have no significant individual or cumulative adverse
environmental impact due to the approval of this Negative declaration since
the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property for general
commercial land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive
environmental impacts are involved in the proposal; that the Initial Study
submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant individual or cumulative
adverse environmental impacts; and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement
to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 82R-462 for adoption, granting
Conditional Use Permit No. 2356, reversing the findings of the City Planning
Commission, but subject to all Interdepartmental Committee recommendations as
follows, which recommendations incorporated the stipulations by the applicant
and additional stipulations by the Council:
1. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved
plans on file with the Office of the Executive Director of Public Works.
2. That there shall be no more than 12 for-sale cars on the premises at any
one time.
3. That all mechanical and related work shall be conducted wholly inside the
existing building and shall be limited to the for-sale cars only.
4. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
~lan~ and ~p~eifieation~ on fil~ with th~ City of Anaheim marked Exhibit N0~.
1 and 2; provided, however, that there shall be a minimum of 5 on-site
customer/employee parking spaces.
829
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 14~ 1982~ 10:00 A.M.
5. That Condition Nos. 1 and 4, above-mentioned, shall be completed within a
period of thirty (30) days of approval by the Planning Commission.
6. Review in six months.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 82R-462: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2356.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 82R-462 duly passed and adopted.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: By general consent, the Council recessed to Closed
Session. (3:45 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (5:47 p.m.)
123: TRANS PACIFIC ADMINISTRATORS~ INC..~ - WORKER'S COM]~ENSATION PROGRAM: On
motion by Councilman Pickler, seconded by Councilman Overholt, an agreement
was authorized with Trans Pacific Administrators, Inc., to provide supervision
and administration of Worker's Compensation Program, effective September 14,
1982, and waiving Council Policy No. 401. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: Councilman Roth moved to recess to 7:00 p.m. at the Brookhurst
Community Center, 2271 West Crescent Avenue, for the purpose of a public
hearing on the Mobilehome Park Overlay (MHP) Zone. Councilman Pickler
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (5:50 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order at the Brookhurst
Community Center, all Council Members being present. (7:22 p.m.)
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pickler, 0verh01t, Bay and Roth
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ronald Thompson
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY: Jack L. White
ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR--ZONING: Annika Santalahti
179: PUBLIC HEARING - MOBILEHOME PARK OVERLAY (MHP) ZONE: To consider a
proposed ordinance adding a new Chapter to Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal
Code relating to Zoning, to add a Mobilehome Park Overlay (MHP) Zone.
830
Brookhurst Community Center - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 14~ 1982~ 7:00 P.M.
The City Planning Commission, at a special meeting held August 9, 1982,
recommended to the City Council that the draft ordinance pertaining to the
Mobilehome Park Overlay Zone (MHP) be adopted, subject to certain recommended
changes on Pages 5, 9 and 10, as well as Section .0403, as stated in a letter
dated August 20, 1982, to the City Council from the Planning Commission, which
was an excerpt from that special meeting.
Mayor Roth first welcomed those in attendance (approximately 200 people) and
asked that staff brief the audience on the recommended proposed ordinance
which was the culmination of many months of meetings of a special task force,
the Mobilehome Park Task Force, formed by the City Council at a joint work
session with the Planning Commission on March 9, 1982 (see staff report to the
Planning Commission dated August 9, 1982, and also see Council minutes of
March 9, 1982).
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Planning Director--Zoning, reading from a
prepared statement, explained that the proposed ordinance contained two basic
parts--Part One creating a Mobilehome Park Overlay Zone for the City, and Part
Two establishing minimum relocation benefits which must be paid to any
displaced owner of a mobilehome by a developer prior to conversion of any
mobilehome park to another use. The statement explained in summary form the
ramifications of the overlay zone as well as relocation assistance.
The Mayor then asked to hear from those who wished to speak to the proposed
ordinance.
The following people then spoke either to the ordinance, posed questions,
offered suggestions thereto, or questioned the effect or lack of it the
ordinance would have in their individual case. Questions were answered by
Assistant City Attorney Jack White, who also clarified certain aspects of the
proposed ordinance when requested by the Mayor in response to questions by
mobilehome owners:
Mr. Carl Shorey, 300 West Katella, Riviera Mobilehome Park, referred to his
letter dated August 11, 1982, also signed by Dale Smith, which was answered by
the Mayor on August 26, 1982. Two subjects in the letter not clarified were
the issues of the mobilehome owner who worked or had a business within the
125-mile radius and who could not relocate 40 or 50 miles away because of that
fact. There should be some consideration given on the part of businessmen or
working people, so that they could stay within some reasonable distance. The
second issue was relative to who would pay for costs now being required by
some parks, asking for two months rent in advance, and also a security
~epos~t, suck costs amounting to approximately ~gO0, as well as a~t~onal
costs for moving furniture or putting it tn storage.
Assistant City Attorney Jack White clarified that the 125-mile figure was one
used only for the purpose of the owner of the mobilehome park preparing and
analyzing other mobilehome parks in making his report on the relocation
impact. It did not mean any tenant would be required to locate within 125
831
Brookhurst Community Center - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 14~ 1982~.. 7:00 p.M.
miles or without. The tenant had the right to relocate anywhere and benefits
were not dependent or coutingent upon how far away the actual relocation was
made, but based upon what it would cost to move the mobilehome to an average
comparable mobilehome park as determined by a survey of parks within 125 miles.
Relative to the latter costs, the only benefits under the proposed ordinance
which would be paid, or the three benefits previously mentioned by Miss
Santalahti--estimated cost of disassembly and reassembly of the mobilehome and
accessories, estimated cost for transportation of the mobilehome to an average
comparable mobilehome park within a 125-mile radius, and any estimated
additional costs necessary to meet the improvement requirements of an average
comparable mobilehome park within a 125-mile radius. The proposed ordinance
did not provide for any payment of the cost of security deposits, first and
last months' rent, or furniture moving or storage.
Mr. Dale Smith, 501 East Orangethorpe, Rancho LaPaz Mobilehome Park, stated
with regard to the ordinance, he was satisfied, but not contented. He felt
they were moving in the right direction, but it was not the answer to all the
problems. He hoped that the Council would support the ordinance and, before
concluding, he commended the Planning staff.
Mr. John LaViolette, 5815 East La Palma, Space 16, President of Friendly
Village of Anaheim Residents Association, posed questions, first relative to
the sequence of events in the case of a mobilehome park conversion, and then
relative to specific sections of the proposed ordinance, which were answered
by Mr. White. Mr. LaViolette also offered several suggested changes of
wording, some deletions and additions in the proposed ordinance with regard to
reasonable duplication fees for copies of the impact report, that relocation
benefits should be changed to relocation compensation, that estimated costs be
changed to actual costs so that there would be no question in the future, and
that the actual costs of transportation should include the extras of moving
and storing. Relative to Page 5, Section .050, they believed the title of
that paragraph should be changed to Comparable or Acceptable Relocation
Unavailable, referring to the employed person in Anaheim as previously
discussed. They suggested that paragraph read, "In the event relocation of
the mobilehome is not acceptable to the mobilehome owner, the fair market
value or equivalent living accommodations will be acceptable at the discretion
of the mobilehome owner. Fair market value will be established by a licensed
assessor as of the date immediately prior to the announcement of the
conversion plans plus appreciation to the date of the move." If some
provisions as just discussed could not be made, they took violent exception to
the 125-mile radius. Assuming adequate compensation could be made if a person
could not be relocated, then they would not take exception to the 125-mile
radius. He then asked how Section .0403 read at present, since it was amended
by the Planning Commission.
Miss Santalahti explained that the words, "an amount equal to 80 percent..."
was totally deleted. In other words, it was to be an amount equal to 100
percent and not 80 percent of the estimated cost. Also deleted was the sixth
line where the parentheses began. All of that was deleted until five lines
further. It was also changed on Page 9 as well. However, the remainder of
the ordinance was exactly as submitted to the Planning Commission.
832
Brookhurst Community Center - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 14, 1982~ 7:00 P.M.
Mrs. Laverne Merrill, 1224 South Beach Boulevard, Trails End, posed questions
relative to the accommodation of wheelchairs and ramping; Mrs. Ward, Riviera
Mobilehome Park, was concerned that the ordinance did not concern travel
trailers that were located in mobilehome parks; Kathy Wright, 5815 East La
Palma, suggested that a board be established to determine a person's need if
they were not relocatable and to establish a fair market price for their coach
with that amount to be paid to them; Nella Shorey, Riviera Mobilehome Park,
maintained that the mobilehome park owner should be responsible for 100
percent of the residents, since they were not told when they rented that
theirs was a temporary use; Mary Dove, Riviera Mobilehome Park, explained that
she and others had mobilehomes that were over 20 years old, but in good
condition. They were decent to live in, they were kept up and were honorable
in the community. She, therefore, questioned why they were not movable; Karen
Lytle, 1009 South Harbor Boulevard, Orangegrove Mobile Village, was concerned
over deterioration of her park caused by the owners not maintaining it; Judy
Graham expressed her concern over the procedures used in arriving at
compensation amounts. She did not believe it was clear whether they were
average amounts or whether they were specifically geared to each mobilehome
park; John Lovicki, Orangegrove Mobilehome Park, asked, relative to the
12-month eviction notice, and where the land was vacant for two years, were
the tenants entitled to relocation benefits.
Mr. Charles Farano, Attorney, 2555 East Chapman, Fullerton, representing a
mobilehome park owner in Anaheim, requested a remand on the ordinance. He
explained that a number of tenants developed into what they call the bad
tenants--violating rules and refusing to pay rent, when it came to payment of
relocation benefits, they became the most vociferous. He, therefore,
requested that the Council consider remanding the statute and adding a
provision stating that the park owner under no circumstances be required to
pay relocation benefits of any type where the tenant was in arrears on his
rent, or where the owner had some kind of judgment against the tenant. Other
than that, he was speaking in favor of the rights of the property owner. He,
too, was satisfied but not content in that he fully believed that the land
owner was being saddled with a problem not entirely his fault. He believed
the ordinance would be cutting into the property rights of the land owner and
asked that the Council consider that in their final deliberations and to think
about the precedent they were about to set.
Brent Swanson, Attorney, representing Mobilehome Park Owners, 203 North Golden
Circle Drive, Santa Aha, first asked that the 80 percent payment relocation
provision (Section .0403) that was changed by the Planning Commiss~on be
restored to its original form. It was a provision that the Task Force agreed
upon and it was unanimous, as was true of all the other provisions. If there
was a change to be made, he suggested that it be made in the 10 percent
figure, rather than the 80 percent, which was in the original Task Force
draft. Mr. Swanson then spoke to some of the concerns expressed by the
residents, particularly pointing out that in the case of Mrs. Wright, if she
decided not to move, she could retain her coach and sell it to someone else or
relocate it. She could retain the coach even though relocation benefits were
paid to her and that was true of all residents.
833
Brookhurst Community Center - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 14~ 1982~ 7:00 P.M.
Mr. John Daly, Task Force Member, in answer to Councilwoman Kaywood, stated
that the 10 percent figure (Section .0403) was a consensus of the full Task
Force; however, he did not agree with it entirely himself. After discussing
the issue for approximately four hours at one meeting, he finally accepted the
10 percent.
Mr. Dale Smith maintained that they would create an administrative "can of
worms" by going the percentage route. If they were going to use a percentage
formula, it would result in more problems, and he urged them not to do so.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the
public hearing.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. White the feeling behind the Planning
Commission changing the 80 percent to 100 percent when the matter was
discussed at the end of the Planning Commission hearing.
Mr. White explained that the discussion took place after the public hearing
was closed. Some of the reasons given for changing the figure from 80 percent
to 100 percent were that it would be difficult, if not impossible in their
opinion, to undertake the task which they and the City Council would have of
determining which 10 percent of the residents would get 100 percent of the
benefits. Rather than do that, they were more inclined to have everybody
receive 100 percent rather than to determine which 10 percent would get all,
and which 90 percent would only get 80 percent.
Councilman Bay noted that in an earlier discussion between Councilman
Overholt, Mr. Swanson and Mr. White, the use and definition of the words
"mean" and "median" were clarified. As a result of that discussion, he
recommended that Page Two of the ordinance, Section .010, first sentence, that
"median" should be changed to "mean"; Mr. White agreed with that.
Councilman Bay then referred to the sections wherein it was imdicated that
reasonable duplication fees would be charged for copies of the Conversion
Impact Report. He wanted to know if there was any estimation of the size of
such a report.
Miss Santalahti stated she had the impression it would be somewhere between 10
to 20 pages. The concern was that some parks contained up to three hundred
residents, and if copies of the report had to be provided to each, it would
become expensive. However, a copy would always be available to be reviewed.
The intent was that if the residents wished to do so, they could purchase a
copy, but otherwise they would always be able to review a copy. There was no
intent that a free copy be given to all residents.
Councilman Overholt suggested that the wording, wherever it appeared in the
ordinance, be modified to say, "such mobilehome owners shall be notified as to
the availability of said report, for examination,..." something along that
line, so as not to preclude the owners from studying the report; staff agreed
to the recommendation.
834
Brookhurst Community Center - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 14~ 1982~ 7:00 P.M.
Councilman Pickler, referring to the percentage issue once again, stated he
would like to revert back to the 80 percent formula originally decided upon,
since the Task Force spent a great deal of time in arriving at the conclusion
that it represented the tenants' and owners' consensus, but then changed at
the last minute by the Planning Commission.
Councilman Overholt disagreed and stated he would be opposed to changing the
recommendation of the Planning Commission. As pointed out by Mr. Smith, if
they put themselves in a position in which they were granting greater
compensation to a select group, they would be in a position of having to make
evaluations. It seemed to him that the Planning Commission was well advised
not to get into that game.
Councilwoman Kaywood referred to Page Six, Section .070, second line from the
bottom of that paragraph, which stated, "said notice may include at the
owner's option..." She asked if that should be the park owner's option or the
mobilehome owner's.
Mr. White answered that the intent of that was Section 1162 of the Code of
Civil Procedure; allowed notice to be given either by personal delivery or by
leaving a copy at the place of residence, and then placing a copy in the
mail. It would be at the option of the park owner, since he was the one
giving the notice.
Councilwoman Kaywood suggested that it would help to clarify which owner by
inserting the word "park", and also to be repeated on Page Eleven; Mr. White
agreed.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council finds that this
project would have no significant individual or cumulative adverse
environmental impact and, therefore, approves a negative declaration for the
adoption of Ordinance No. 4364 pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4364 for first reading, with the minor
changes as articulated, but retaining the amendment made by the Planning
Commission on Page Five, Section .0403, deleting, "An amount equal to 80
percent of..."
ORDINANCE NO. 4364: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING NEW CHAPTER
18.92 TO TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE AND AMENDING SECTIONS
18.01.140 AND 18.01.190 OF CHAPTER 18.01 AND SECTION 18.02.051 OF CHAPTER
18.02 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
The Mayor then asked staff to explain the procedure that they would follow
after the effective date of the ordinance, which would be thirty days after
its final reading in one week.
835
Brookhurst Community Center - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 14~ 1982~ 7:00 P.M.
Miss Santalahti stated that they would probably discuss with the Task Force
which parks should be considered for rezoning. There were 32 mobiiehome parks
and it would be a difficult task for staff to prepare the necessary
advertisements for all. A petition file would be prepared for each mobilehome
park in the City, and they would probably process more than one at a time.
They would prepare a mailing list for all of the property owners within 300
feet, and also a list for all the tenants in the park. Public notices would
go out ten days prior to the public hearing to all of those people, plus the
park owners, and the hearing would be conducted in the normal manner. The
Planning Commission could take final action on the rezoning to include the
overlay zone, unless somebody either appealed their action or the City Council
decided to take action on it. If the items were approved, it would go to the
City Council 22 days later on the Consent Calendar and, if no appeal, Council
would probably introduce the ordinance on the 22nd day and seven days later,
they would adopt it, and thirty days later it would become effective.
Mayor Roth then thanked the audience for their attendance.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilman Overholt seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (9:58 p.m.)
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK
836