Loading...
1981/01/20 81R-73 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 20, 1981, 1:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: ABSENT: PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour COUNCIL MEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts PLAIqNING DIRECTOR: Ronald L. Thompson ASSISTANT PUBLIC UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER: Ed Alario REAL PROPERTY AGENT: Matthew Boscia ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING MANAGER: George Edwards ASSISTANT TO CITY MANAGER: James Armstrong Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: Pastor George Brown, Day Star Christian Center, gave the Invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Ben Bay led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 119: RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A resolution of congratulations was unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to Mr. Hal Flesnor and Olaf Anfinson on the occasion of the 55th anniversary of the Anaheim Toast- master's Club #2, January 26, 1981. 119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Seymour and authorized by the City Council: "Worldwide Kiwanis Week in Anaheim" - January 18 to 24, 1981 The proclamation was accepted by David Taylor, Kiwanis Club of Greater Anaheim, Layne Kulwin, Kiwanis Club of Anaheim and Jack Sides, Kiwanis Club of Anaheim Hills. MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held September 9 and September 16, 1980, subject to typographical corrections. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour abstained on the minutes of September 9, 1980. MOTION CARRIED. WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda, after reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to waiver is hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such ordinance or resolution in regular order. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $1,099,377.91, in accordance with the 1980-81 Budget, were approved. 160: PURCHASE OF TREE STUMP CUTTER: On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the Purchasing Agent was authorized to issue a purchase order, without competitive bidding, to Vermeer of California at a total price 81R-74 City Hall, Anaheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES - January 20, 1981, 1:30 P.M. of $14,045 for one stump cutter, as recommended in memorandum dated January 14, 1981 from Purchasing Agent Diane Hugart. MOTION CARRIED. 123/174: GRA~T AGREEMENT - VOCATIONAL EDUCATION COORDINATION AND JOB SEARCH ASSISTANCE PROJECT UNDER CETA: Councilman Overholt moved to authorize a grant agreement with Orange County Manpower Commission in the amount of $12,835 for the period of October 1, 1980 through March 31, 1981, to provide funds for the Governor's 6 percent Vocational Education Coordination and Job Search Assistance Project under C.E.T.A., and authorizing the City Manager to sign the agreement and modifications thereto; and appropriating $12,835 to Program 17-354, CETA Sub-Contracts, as recommended in memorandum dated January 14, 1981 from Human Resources Director Garry McRae. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 164: AWARD OF CONTRACT - STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT: Account Nos. 47-791-6325-El170 and 01-791-6325-El170. Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 81R-13 for adoption, awarding a contract, as recom- mended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated January 13, 1981. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 81R-13: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIP- MENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT, FROM PLACENTIA AVENUE TO SYCAMORE STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 47-791-6325- Ell70 AND 01-791-6325-El170. (H. A. Sessler, Inc., $476,329) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-13 duly passed and adopted. 123: RELOCATION OF PIPELINE TO ACCOMMODATE MAGNOLIA AVENUE STORM DRAIN W6RK ORDER 7-5298: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, an agreement was authorized with the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California in the amount of $40,000 for relocation of their pipeline to accom- modate the Magnolia Avenue Storm Drain, W.O. 7-5298; and authorizing the Finance Director to issue a warrant in said amount to the District, as recom- mended in memorandum dated January 14, 1981 from the City Engineer. MOTION CARRIED. 132: PILOT PAPER RECYCLING PROGRAM FOR CIVIC CENTER: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to implement a paper recycling program on a limited Or pilot project basis to be accomplished with the assistance of Anaheim Paper Mill Supplies, Inc. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Mr. Vincent Taormina, President, Anaheim Paper Mill Supplies, Inc., clarified that his company would actually be doing the recy- cling. Anaheim Disposal was an affiliate and his company was a recycling and 81R-75 City Hall, Ana.heim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES -January 20, 1981, 1:30 P.M. refuse hauling firm. Technically they were two different companies. Councilman Roth first stated that he felt the program was an excellent idea. He asked the amount of time involved in order to implement the program on a pilot basis; Mr. Taormina stated 60 days would be an acceptable period to see if the program was feasible. Councilman Roth then stated he felt that the key to the program would be in the process of segregating the various types of paper. He asked what kinds of facilities the City would have to have so that they could make the separations between the various types of paper involved. Mr. Taormina stated that he and Mr. John Roche, Facility Maintenance Superin- tendent, had discussed the matter and perhaps barrels would be used. The more he thought about it, he felt that one central location on each floor would be the most feasible for everybody, but he would discuss tha~ matter further with Mr. Roche. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she had been asking that such a program be initiated for years and she was delighted to see that it was finally going to take effect. Mr. Taormina stated he would like to come back in 60 or 90 days to report on the situation. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. 175: TRI-PARTY LEASE AGREEMENT - NO. BN-72182-22: On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, a Tri-Party Lease Agreement was authorized with The Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company and Southern California Edison Company (License Agreement No. BN-72182-22) for Electrical Distribution System Ground Guy Wire on the south side of Orangethorpe Avenue, west of Imperial Highway; and authorizing the payment of a $75 license fee by billing from the Joint Pole Committee, as recommended in memorandum dated January 13, 1981 from Public Utilities General Manager Gordon Hoyt. MOTION CARRIED. 174: SUPPLEMENT NO. I0 TO LOCAL AGENCY-STATE AGREEMENT NO. 07-5055 - RAISED PAVEMENT M~ARKING PROGRAM: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 81R-14 for adoption, authorizing Supplement No. 10 to the Local Agency-State Agreement No. 07-5055 to provide for the placement of pavement markers and markings at various locations within the City, as recommended in memorandum dated January 14, 1981 from the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 81R-14: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING SUPPLEMENT NO. I0 TO LOCAL AGENCY-STATE AGREEMENT NO. 07-5055 AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID SUPPLEMENT. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-14 duly passed and adopted. 81R-76 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 20, 1981, 1:30 P.M. 158: SALE OF CITY-OWNED LAND: City Manager William Talley noted that in the January 9, 1981 staff report from the City Engineer, three parcels were listed. He explained, however, that Parcel No. 1 at the southwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and the Santa Ana River, staff was requesting that that be deleted from the proposed resolution, since they had more work to do on it and would like to bring it back to the Council in approximately three weeks for further action. The proposed resolution, therefore, would cover the other two parcels only-- the north side of La Palma Avenue, east Van Buren Street and the other at the easterly terminus of Valdina Street, south of La Palma Avenue, west of Brookhurst Street. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 81R-15 for adoption, approving the sale of two excess parcels of City-owned land at the locations indicated above, inviting sealed bid proposals to be submitted February 12, 1981, 2:00 p.m. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 81R-15: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE CITY CLERK TO ISSUE LEGAL NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE PURCHASE OF SURPLUS CITY PROPERTIES. Before a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour asked relative to the parcel the City Manager requested be set over for a f~ew weeks, he wanted to know what type of work they had to do relative to that parcel. Mr. Talley stated they were looking at examining whether or not when they went to bid if it would be appropriate to restrict the use for certain purposes including some relocations. He asked the Planning Director, Executive Director of Community Development and the Deputy City Manager to see whether or not it would be appropriate for the Council to restrict these us~s, rather than just sending it out for a total development proposal. The Mayor felt that made sense. He then commented on the third parcel located at the end of Valdina Street. He did not mind public bidding on it if someone could build on that property, but, if not, it would only be useful to two people, the adjoining property owners. Mr. Ron Thompson, Planning Director, stated it would be a buildable parcel. It was a recorded parcel and zoned for single-family land use. He was not certain if it was even necessary to have a variance in order to build. He felt it would be possible to construct a 1225-square foot dwelling unit on the property without a variance, although it would have to be a long narrow house. The Mayor stated if not buildable, he hoped that they notified the two adjacent property owners in more than a public advertising way, so that they would have an opportunity to bid on the property. Mr. Matt Boscia, Real Property Agent, explained that the properties had been offered to all of the adjoining owners. The property owner to the west, a single-family residential home, came in with a written offer of $5,000 which was all he thought he could pay. The school district whose property was located to the south declined any invitation to accept on any part of the property and the property to the east--Murray Manor, had no interest whatsoever. Consequently, they did get an independent evaluation of the property. 81R-77 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 20, 1981, 1:30 P.M. The Mayor stated he did not want to see a builder bid on that property and then come to the Council saying that he bought it because he thought he could put a home on it and now staff was telling him that he could not do so. He asked if there was some way when offering the property for sale, they could tell the public or the potential bidders how they could or could not build on it. He wanted to know how the City could protect itself from a builder coming to the City re- questing a variance and pleading ignorance in that he was led to believe that he could do something with that property. Mr. Thompson suggested in the legal advertisement it could be requested that anyone interested in the property contact the Planning Department. Councilman Bay asked if the fair market estimate was based upon the property being buildable. Mr. Thompson answered "yes". He reiterated that it was a single-family neigh- borhood, but a two-story residence could be built on it which would fit within the setbacks, but it would have to be a custom designed structure. Mr. Boscia stated he had sent letters out to a multitude of people who had expressed a desire and interest in excess City-owned property and the very things he (Seymour) mentioned today were superimposed in those letters, i.e., what they could do with those properties. Mayor Seymour stated in the escrow instructions, when they did find the highest bidder, he wanted to see a statement that would protect the City from what he had described from happening. A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-15 duly passed and adopted. 117: SALE OF CITY PROPERTY: Councilman Roth moved to accept the offer of Hartfield-Zodys, Inc., to purchase three shares of the Company's common stock which the City accepted in 1976 as partial payment of the payment plan for an unpaid utility bill (Bankruptcy proceedings), and authorizing the City Treasurer and City Attorney to execute the documents necessary to complete the transaction, as recommended in memorandum dated January 15, 1981 from the City Attorney's office. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 105: APPOINTEE TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION - MAGNOLIA SCHOOL DISTRICT: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the recommendation of the Magnolia School District in their letter of January 12, 1981 and appointing Richard K. Schimeall to represent the District on the Parks and Recreation Commission, replacing Steven H. Staveley, for the term ending June 30, 1981, with a letter to be sent to Mr. Staveley thanking him for his excellent service. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 81R-78 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January. 20, 1981, 1:30 P.M. 106/150: REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF PARK IN LIEU FEE - PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1548 WEST ORANGEWOOD AVENUE: Request by Mrs. Lucinda D. Hammatt, requesting a waiver of the Park and Recreation In Lieu Fee for property located at 1548 West Orangewood Avenue (continued from the meeting of January 13, 1981--see minutes that date). Mayor Seymour, noting that Mrs. Hammat~ was in the Chamber audience, explained that they had found a way to meet her request as outlined in memorandum dated January 15, 1981 from the City Engineer. On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, the Finance Director was authorized to issue a warrant in the amount of $578 to Lucinda D. Hammatt, which represents the amount the City would have included in the negotiations with the Hammatts for the Orangewood Avenue street widening project, had the Park and Recreation in lieu fee been an issue at the time (the Hammatts had the understanding they would not be required to pay those fees) as recommended in memorandum dated January 15, 1981 from City Engineer William Devitt. MOTION CARRIED. 169: STREET LIGHT REPLACEMENTS IN CENTRAL NEIGHBORHOOD STRATEGY AREA #1--LEMON STREET TO ZEYN STREET, LA PALMA AVENUE TO SYCAMORE STREET: Mayor Seymour stated that the Council would recall several weeks ago (see minutes December 23, 1980) he brought to the Council's attention the street light problem in and around the downtown area. They had been furnished with a copy of the report from Mr. Ed Alario, the Assistant Public Utilities General Manager, dated January 16, 1981. Citizens who were concerned about the matter were present today. He asked at this time that Mr. Alario present his report and subsequently if any citizen who would care to provide input that they do so, after which the Council would make a decision. Mr. Ed Alario first stated that his report was in regard to the subject strategy area. He thereupon submitted an addendum to the report which was a copy of Schedule "C" already provided in the January 16, 1981 memorandum with some modifications. They took six of the 9,500 lumens and replaced them with the larger unit of 30,000 lumens in six of the units on Zeyn Street. The diagram showed the old incandescents (2,500 L., Type IV - previous system) and how the light was distributed, how the mercury vapors were distributed (7,500 L., Type V - previous system), the high pressure sodium (9,500 L., Type II - new system) and the high pressure sodium (30,000 L., Type II - new mystem), the covered areas indicating the areas that would still not receive any light with the new lighting pattern. The green in the diagram represented those five or six areas which would not be quite as well lit. However, there were many areas that had much greater lighting. (A gentleman from the audience asked to be provided with the January 16, 1981 report which was provided by staff). The new lights were designed so that the coverage was in the street. They did not cover the yard or sidewalk areas to the degree that they were covered in the past. The old light in the area were more front yard lights than street lights (see page 1 of the subject report). Something the diagram did not show was the fact that there were areas that would be shadowed because of the foliage. He then briefed page 2 of the report relative to a question posed by Councilman Roth as to the specific purpose of the conversion to new light standards, the main factor being energy savings. 81R-79 ~ity Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 20, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Mayor Seymour stated he was totally supportive of energy conservation, but pro- posing schemes such as those presented he felt were totally wrong. In reducing significantly the amount of light that had been enjoyed by those downtown neighborhoods, they were being penny-wise and pound foolish. He did not want estimate costs that would increase as a result of increased burglaries, rapes and personal bodily attacks, as well as the mental well-being of citizens. He would hope that the federal government or the State Utilities Commission would never go so far in their interest of conserving energy to put the City in dark- ness after midnight as a means of so doing, as previously outlined by Mr. Alario. It would be a bad trade-off, and having spent time in those neighborhoods, the people were fearful. He would hope also that they as a Council would not get "hung up" in the rather minor dollars involved in energy conservation as it would affect that particular neighborhood. He felt they may have to adopt different schemes for different areas of the City. Mr. Alario then answered questions posed by Councilwoman Kaywood and Councilman Overholt for purposes of clarification at the conclusion of which, the Mayor asked to hear from those present to give input on the matter. Mrs. Galen Phipps, 320 North Lemon, then relayed the reasons why she felt they needed more light in the 300 and 400 block of North Lemon Street along Pearson Park. They realized the lights were changed in order to save energy; however, they felt making the area safe for people who would like to use the park and for those living on Lemon Street was more important than saving a little energy. They were told when the lights were going to be changed there would be bright lights along Pearson Park. A well lit area was one of the best ways to prevent crime. There were many undesirables in the park at night and since the lights had been changed, they had problems with those people coming out of the park and prowling around their property, whereas they did not have that problem before. The man who installed the lights stated they were 100-watt bulbs. There were only four lights on the whole side of Pearson Park, all located on the west side of Lemon Street, except for one light on the east side at the corner of Sycamore and Lemon. On the streets they had checked, the lights were alternated on both sides of the street. They only had lights on the west side. They could not understand why they did not get as much light as the Telephone Company and other areas where they did not have the problems they had with undesirables in the park at all hours of the night. Many of the people living in the area were older people and afraid to step outside their doors after dark. The people in the area were interested in the upgrading of Pearson Park and felt that good lighting was most important. She emphasized that they felt that the present lighting system was inadequate for the location and hoped that the Council would consider giving them a better lighting system. Mr. Carl Anderson, corner of Sycamore and Lemon: He had complained about the new street lights several times to members of City staff and the community without anything being done. The lights produced very little illumination. Relative to energy conservation, he had asked for a study several times but had not received it. The old light standards were being taken out because they were no longer maintainable, yet Mr. Norm Priest, Executive Director of Community Development, had a hold on 35 to 40 of the old standards to be placed in Heritage Square. He questioned, if they were no longer maintainable, why were they going to be used for Heritage Square. He then explained that three 81R-80 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 20, 1981, 1:30 P.M. weeks ago he had been robbed. The intruders broke into his garage because there was no longer any light illuminating ~he alley and the back of his pro- perty. The weekend before last at 3:00 a.m., he caught four more intruders attempting to get into his garage, but with the assistance of the Police Depart- ment, they were apprehended. He reported that the car they were living in was a yellow Vega but it was, in fact, a silver Vega because the light produced yellow. He hoped that the Council Members considered the situation carefully. Their area was not lit. They needed to keep crime down and needed light to do it. Mrs. Sandy Lamar, 619 North Zeyn Street: The City removed ten street lights on her block from Alberta to Wilhelmina and installed two in their place. It was not fair to take out ten and put in two at opposite ends of the block, leaving a void in the middle. They did not have adequate light and her yard was not lit as it used to be and the same was true of her next door neighbor at 615 North Zeyn. She had a nine-year old son and Pearson Park was "gay" and a bad place for the City to have removed all the lights. She then elaborated upon the problems at Pearson Park which she maintained was poorly lit, especially on Chartres Street by the tennis courts where the "gays" met. She had been told by City employees not to let her children go into the men's restroom at the Park because of the activities occurring there which did not stop no matter who walked in. Her children would not be able to play outside at night during the summer because if she was not with them, she would not know if they were safe. They had wanted to live on that block because of the good lighting. She was con- cerned for her safety and the safety of her three children. She reiterated it was not fair for the City to have reduced the lighting and also that no notice had been given to anyone. Mr. William Erickson, 301 East North Street: His wife had previously been to the Council at the invitation of the Mayor (see minutes August 5, 1980) because of the street lighting program that took place in their area. She worked dili- gently with Mr. Alario and members of the Utilities Department. Her presence at least warned the Council of the effect of the street lighting that was being installed at present. The Utilities Department tried to help her out by put- ting one light in the alley which did not suffice and another light in the other alley which also did not suffice. There were a number of neighbors not satisfied with the present set up. With all the corrections that were made, they still had a "lousy" set up relative to lights on their s~reet. His personal opinion was with the amount of expenses involved, if there was less lighting than before, it was a poor situation and other people, after the new lights were installed, would agree with ~he rest of them. They were happy with the other lights and not the new ones. Mr. Roy Mittman, 726 North Zeyn: Since the lights were now spread much farther apart, they were in a situation where they had a very large and broad palm tree that totally blocked the main light source to the point where they had no light source at all. It was mentioned that if a brighter light source was put in the same fixture, that might alleviate the problem. However, with the palm tree they had and perhaps that others had, a brighter light would not give any more light than what they had now. 81R-81 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Janu?ry. 20, 1981~ 1:30 P.M. Mayor Seymour felt that a good cross-section of citizens had been heard from although he realized they represented only a small number of those citizens in that area who felt much the same way. He did not think that any of the Council Members or the people who spoke were technically equipped to make a technical decision to determine how many lumens a light should be etc. On the other hand, the people who spoke today, as well as the Council, were totally competent and capable of making a decision and a general policy statement as to the brightness of light they would like to see in and around the downtown area. In his opinion, there was a difference when speaking of that area since they were attempting to revitalize the neighborhood around the Redevelopment project, and the City was making a huge capital investment in the many improve- ments taking place. The citizens living there were also making large capital improvements in rehabilitating their homes, the bottom line being, they were devoting a great deal of time, energy and money to insure that those neighbor- hoods remained viable and not become another Redevelopment project. It seemed logical to him, therefore, with the total commitment of the City, as well as the property owners in insuring that revitalization took place, to not spend money to properly safeguard that asset would be foolhardy. He believed they could respond with a general policy statement that would make some sense and provide the additional safety the people were looking for. He therefore sug- gested the following for the Council's consideration: In the area bounded by Lemon Street to Zeyn Street and La Palma to Sycamore, that the Council Policy be, where replacing old light standards, that they be replaced with as much or more light than was there before, i.e., the lumens or brightness of the light. Personally, he would like to see more light provided, but they should provide at least the amount that was there before they decided to change the lights. In those downtown areas that did not have any lights at all, they should con- sider as the new standard the lighting the City currently had installed in the 500 to 600 block of Zeyn Street. He suggested the foregoing as a general policy, rather than the Council trying to decide the number of lumens, the type of standard, etc. He was confident that staff could respond if they should be concerned about the cost of such a policy in that area. He believed they could deal with the situation on a more secure basis if they spoke of policy such as that which he had outlined. MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to establish a Council Policy for the Central Neighborhood Strategy Area No. I--(1) where replacing old light standards, that they be replaced with standards that give as much or more light (brightness) than existed prior to the replacement (equal to or greater than) with the same amount of coverage; (2) in areas within those boundaries that do not have lights at present, install the same lighting as installed in the 500 to 600 block of Zeyn Street, brightness as well as coverage. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she also felt that a street light was considered by citizens to be a personal matter. She agreed that in the area around Pearson Park and where there was existing lighting, when replacing that lighting, it should be as good or better. The streets needed to be well lit because it was not possible to always count on drivers 81R-82 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 20, 1981, 1:30 P.M. to observe those crossing the street. Where neighborhood crime was as high as it had been in the areas around the park, the proposed lighting was the smartest preventive method to use. Mayor Seymour stated that he and Mr. Alario met yesterday afternoon and dis- cussed generally what he just offered. He asked if that was a specific enough policy so that his staff could carry out their responsibility and, if so, if that policy was carried out in that particular area, did they have any idea what the additional cost might be. Mr. Alario answered, not if they attempted to cover "greater than" because there were some areas with the 30,000 lumens that were not covered even with the new big light. The only way that could be corrected would be to relocate certain poles in order to alleviate any of the non-coverage. He did not know how many poles they were going to be moving. If they had actually designed the plan to cover everything in the beginning, they might only be talking about a few additional poles. As of now, however, it was going to involve relocation in order to pick up the areas not covered. Discussion then followed between the Mayor and Mr. Alario relative to facili- tating the policy at the conclusion of which, the Mayor reiterated what they were trying to say was--provide the same light as was provided before with staff being directed to figure out the best way to do so in the most effective and efficient manner. Councilwoman Kaywood asked if a fast interim move would be to put larger wattage in immediately and then decide what to do from there. Mr. Alario answered that could be done very easily in one or two days if they had the proper heads. City Manager Talley stated that he understood the direction in this brief area. He pointed out that staff had been talking about providing street lighting and the Council was talking about neighborhood lighting. Mayor Seymour stated, when talking about street lights, what came to mind was what they perceived to be street lights. When the City Manager said street lights, he meant just that, not sidewalk or front yard lighting but lighting for the street and no more. Had he (Seymour) known that at the outset, he would have indicated that such a program was not going to work. Mr. Talley stated what he was then going to do on future installations, was going to request when the bidding was brought to the Council for approval that they also bring a plan similar to the one presented today that would show exis- ting and proposed coverage so that they could comment accordingly. Mayor Seymour stated the reason he offered the motion as a policy statement was because he did not want to have to deliberate such technical matters every Tuesday or everytime they went out to bid which would involve citizen input as well. However, when going out to bid if staff reported in order to meet the Council Policy, it would cost $800,000 more than it would have in that neighbor- hood, the Council would want to know about that. He asked, however, that staff not come to the Council to ask where to place every light. 81R-83 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 20, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Talley agreed but what he was suggesting, if they moved a light, there was going to be a possible complaint. He would think that no matter how much they tried, in each new neighborhood, there were going to be citizens who would call requesting that the light be placed back in front of their home. While they could follow the policy, it was not going to eliminate all complaints. Mrs. Phipps asked to speak again and pointed out the Mayor indicated that the lighting should extend from La Palma to Sycamore. If so, that would exclude the 300 to 400 block of North Lemon and she wanted to see it extended. Instead of La Palma to Sycamore, she suggested that it be from La Palma to Cypress. Mayor Seymour stated he intended that to occur and that wam his error. He then asked staff in what areas downtown had they replaced lights or the area that the program had covered thum far. That was the area he would like to cover. Mr. George Edwards, Electrical Engineering Manager, stated in addition to the area that they had been talking about, they also replaced the lights from Cypress to La Palma and Anaheim Boulevard over to the railroad tracks. South of North Street was done several years ago under the Community Development Block Grant and those were mercury vapors. From North Street to La Palma, north of North Street were the high pressure modium inm~alled just last year. The Mayor asked if they had received any complaints from that neighborhood; Mr. Edwards stated just the ones relayed by Mr. Erickson. Mr. Erickson clarified that they had no complaint with North Street but a com- plaint on Philadelphia and Mills Drive where other people were complaining about where the new lighting was installed. Mayor Seymour then added the following to his motion which was accepted by Councilman Overholt in his second: In the neighborhoods already covered where new standards are installed, north of North Street, east of Anaheim Boulevard, and Cypress Street up to North Street and moving east, staff to provide Council with a rough estimate of what the cost might be to bring those areas up to the foregoing policy, expanding the area to Pearson Park on Lemon Street. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion, including the addendum as artic- ulated by the Mayor. Councilman Bay abstained. MOTION CARRIED. Since they were on the subject of street lights, Councilman Roth referred to a letter received from a Mr. Bradley in the area of La Palma and Harbor where there were no street lights at all. Mr. Bradley noticed that the old standards were being removed from the downtown Redevelopment area. He wam quite anxious to provide him own lighting at his own cost, installation and all. He reported that Mr. Edwards was extremely cooperative in his endeavors to do so. Mr. Bradley then proceeded to try to buy one of the lamp standards but was told by the Purchasing Division that they were now not going to sell the standards on an individual basis, but were going to sell the entire lot under public bidding. He (Bradley) sent an order to the City but had received no response to date. Councilman Roth then stated that he did not see anything wrong with selling a light standard one or two at a time to a citizen where no lighting existed, especially when the citizen was going to bear the entire cost of purchase and installation. 81R-84 Cit~ Hail, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 20, 1981, 1:30 P.M. City Manager Talley stated that staff was already looking into that situation; Mr. James Armstrong, Assistant to the City Manager, stated that he had discussed the matter with the Purchasing Agent yesterday and she indicated there were inaccuracies in the letter and was preparing a response. MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to direct staff to offer the old light standards on a single sale basis and subsequent to that, that they consider a bulk sale if any were left. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she recalled sometime ago she was involved in asking that they save some of the old light standards for Heritage Square and her understanding was that they were so old they were falling apart. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilwoman Kaywood abstained. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she would like to see the report from staff first so that she would know what was going to be saved for Heritage Square. Later in the meeting, Councilman Roth recognized that selling of the light standards might have pitfalls in not going out to the competitive bidding. He viewed the light standards as being of historical value just as with the old parking meters removed from the Redevelopment area, some of which were sold. The light standards, therefore, should fall under the same category or procedure used in handling the old parking meters. City Attorney Hopkins explained that the Charter provided for personal property to be sold in accordance with the procedure established by the City Manager. RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 15 minutes. (3:50 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (4:05 P.M.) The Mayor first referred to ~he following item out of order scheduled to be heard at 7:00 p.m., since a request for continuance had been received. PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 80-81-14 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2121 (TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11305): Application by Bank of California, N. A. Trustee, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-3000, to permit a 2-lot, 99-unit condominium subdivision on property located at 2170 South Harbor Boulevard, with various Code waivers. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-208, declared that the subject project be exempt from the requirement to prepare an environ- mental impact report pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, since there would be no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact due to this project and further granted Reclassif- ication No. 80-81-14, and pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-209, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2121 in part. 81R-85 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 20, 1981, 1:30 P.M. A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilman Bay at the meeting of December 23, 1980, and public hearing scheduled this date. City Clerk Linda Roberts announced that a request had been received from the attorney for the applicant dated January 14, 1981 that public hearing on the application be continued to February 17, 1981. However, she did not believe that the proposed joint work session with the Planning Commission would be scheduled that early and it might be appropriate to continue the matter to March 10, 1981, at 7:00 P.M. MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to continue consideration of the subject reclassifi- cation No. 2121 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2121 to March 10, 1981 at 7:00 P.M. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Seymour stated that all the people in the neighborhoods had been notified and that a posting would also be made on the entrances to the Council Chambers. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2141: Application by Abbey Services Corporation, to permit a mortuary on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located at 2303 South Manchester Avenue, with a Code waiver of minimum land- scaped front setback (continued from meeting of January 13, 1981). The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-211, declared that the subject property be exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act since there would be no significant individual or cumulative adverse environ- mental impact due to this project and further granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2141. The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Edgar E. Scheck, Attorney for the applicant, in letter dated December 22, 1980, Condition No. 1 only of the 12 conditions imposed in the Planning Commission resolution, and public hearing scheduled January 13, 1980. A subsequent letter dated January 8, 1981 from Mr. Scheck requested a one-week continuance, since they received the notice on January 6, 1981 of the public hearing, and thus did nog have sufficient time to prepare for that hearing. Mayor Seymour stated he understood the applicant wished an additional continuance. He asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present; no one was present. Councilman Roth stated the applicant had been present earlier and had indicated to him (Roth) that he wished a continuance. Mayor Seymour stated he was told they wanted a two-week continuance. MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to continue public hearing on Conditional Use Permit No. 2141 to February 3, 1981, 3:00 P.M. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2137: Application by Harvey S. and Norma M. Owen, to retain a massage and sauna bath establishment on CG zoned pro- perty located at 1730 South Euclid Street, with a Code waiver of minimum distance from residential zone. 81R-86 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 20, 1981, 1:30 P.M. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-203 reported that the Planning Director had determined that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 1, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for an environmental impact report and is, therefore, categori- cally exempt from the requirement to file an EIR and further denied Conditional Use Permit No. 2137. The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Gwendelyn Ard, agent for the property, and public hearing scheduled this date. The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present. Ms. Gwen Ard stated that she had submitted letters from neighbors in the area and also from the different businesses. Generally overall nobody had any objections to the massage parlor remaining at that location. They had not caused any problems to the neighborhood. Councilwoman Kaywood noted on the petition that was submitted there were 22 signatures on the sheet that she had which indicated that the entire petition contained 199 signatures. In looking at the residents, she noted addresses in Riverside, Santa Ana, Hawthorne, La Cresenta, Canton, Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc. She asked where those names came from. Ms. Ard stated most of them were from customers that had patronized her business. They were visitors to Anaheim attending conventions or who were on vacation. Mayor Seymour stated it would be important to know of the 199 signatures that were obtained, how many were from Anaheim; Ms. Ard did not know. The original full petition had previously been submitted. City Clerk Roberts confirmed that she had the petition; the Mayor asked if someone could count to see how many people from Anaheim signed the petition. Later in the hearing, City Clerk Roberts announced that of the 199 who signed the petition, 57 appeared as Anaheim addresses. Councilman Roth noted that in the documentation submitted, nothing was listed relative to hardship, i.e., investment and improvements in the property, etc. Ms. Ard stated that they went through that aspect the last time she appeared before the Council (see minutes December 16, 1980), on her request for an ex- tension to the period of abatement under the Adult Entertainment Ordinance. Mayor Seymour stated as he recalled at that time Ms. Ard was granted an exten- sion of the abatement period to ~he Adult Entertainment Ordinance not for two years but a period tied into her lease; ~. Ard interjected and stated, 18 months. The Mayor then confirmed that the matter at hand was relative to a conditional use permit. Ms. Ard stated that she had appeared before the Planning Commission and was told that they were not authorized to issue a variance and that only the City Council was empowered to do so. Mayor Seymour asked in order to refresh their memory that she relay in capsule form her previous request relative to economic hardship, for example, that her lease was still in effect for 18 months and other reasons. 81R-87 City Hall, ~Raheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 20, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Ms. Ard stated she would like the business to continue. It was a good health service for the people visiting as well am the people living in the area. The economic hardship aspects involved were the initial investment, as well as the upkeep and the different improvements she added during the time she had the business, as well as the one and one-half years on the lease at $600 per month. Councilman Bay asked for confirmation that an extension had been granted, and if so, asked the action on the CUP vs. the extension; the City Attorney stated that the period had been extended to December 20, 1982 (actual expiration date of the abatement period June 20, 1982--see minutes December 16, 1980) under the Adult Entertainment Ordinance. The present matter was a request for a CUP. It should be noted, however, that the Adult Entertainment Ordinance prohibited any CUP being granted if the premises were within 500 feet of a residentially zoned lot and 1000 feet of a church, and the subject property was within those limitations. Thus, the ordinance prohibited the granting of a CUP under those conditions. Mayor Seymour stated on the one hand the Council had extended to Ms. Ard the right to operate her business, and this was a public hearing on a CUP which, if granted, would be in violation of the ordinance because they could not take such action; the City Attorney confirmed that was correct. The Mayor asked, therefore, in disapproving the request for a CUP, what would happen. The City Attorney explained that Ms. Ard would still have the extension of the abatement period whic~ was granted on December 16, 1980 allowing her to operate to the expiration of her lease even if the CUP were denied. The Mayor stated his understanding was ~ha~ they could not technically grant a CUP; Mr. Hopkins confirmed that was correct. A provision of the Adult Entertainment Ordinance was that a CUP could not be granted, but the business was granted an extension of the abatement period to the expiration date of the lease. Ms. Ard was under the impression the Council could grant a variance; Mayor Seymour then explained the situation for Ms. Ard, concluding that a denial today would not change the Council's prior decision of December 16, 1980. Councilman Bay stated he did not understand if the CUP were denied as of this date how that would not void out the extension of the abatement period.~ Mr. Hopkins explained that an extension was granted but now it was a matter of not granting a CUP which otherwise would permit the business to operate indefinitely. Councilwoman Kaywood asked if it were beyond the scope of the Council to approve such CUP's, why they were even brought before the Council. City Attorney Hopkins answered that the applicant had a right to appeal to the Council from a decision of the Planning Commission and they were exercising that right. 81R-88 City Hall, Anaheim, California - ~QUNCIL MINUTES - January 20, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Miss Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, explained for Councilwoman Kaywood that when a petitioner wanted to file, even when they were informed that there was little chance in gaining approval, they were still permitted to file, but they were definitely informed. Councilman Roth asked if they could expect to have an additional hearing on all those denied in the past. Mr. Hopkins answered he would doubt if all of them would do so. They were told that the Adult Entertainment Ordinance prohibited the granting of a CUP if they were within the limits as articulated and thus it was somewhat of a useless act. There might be various motives for making an appeal, some having legal implications. Councilman Overholt amked if he interpreted Mr. Hopkins' counmel to mean when they did come to the Council on a CUP, they were entitled to a full and com- plete hearing. Mr. Hopkins answered they they were entitled to a hearing to have the Council consider a reversal of the decision of the Planning Commission, but under the Adult Entertainment Ordinance, the Council did not have the power or authority to grant a CUP. However, they may be exhausting their administrative remedies. Councilman Overhoit then asked Ms. Ard if she had anything else to present; from the audience, Ms. Ard answered "no". The Mayor then asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition. Ms. Virginia Larson stated she lived in Anaheim on County property and she was the manager of Maison de Massage located on subject property for almost four years. In that time, growth had taken place all around them and there was no way that their business had deteriorated the neighborhood. There was no rear entrance to their establishment and no sign indicating they were a massage parlor. After the expiration of the time extension, the price of real estate would have almost doubled, making it difficult to move to a new location. She then asked what they were basing the Adult Entertainment Ordinance on and wanted to know what made the business an Adult Entertainment, since there was no age limit for a massage. The City Attorney explained that the Adult Entertainment Ordinance was enacted to control certain types of businesses which they felt had a detrimental effect on a neighborhood if concentrated in certain areas. The Supreme Court of the United States had approved the type of ordinance such am that in Anaheim which involved the City of Detroit, whereby the ordinance attempted to move Adult Entertainment type businesses into areas where they were not concentrated away from residential property or schools. That was the objective of the Adult Entertainment Ordinance. Ms. Larson stated she understood that but they were more than 1,000 feet from another massage establishment and thus not concentrated in that particular area. 81R-89 City Hall, Anaheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES- January 20, 1981, 1:30 P.M. The City Attorney pointed out however, that they were within 500 feet of a residential lot. Ms. Larson asked if the City would be willing to give them a location or a list of locations that fit the qualifications or were there any such locations in Anaheim. The Mayor stated that they were not in the real estate business and it would be the responsibility of the principals involved to find such a location. The Mayor then asked if anyone else wished to speak. Mr. Marvin Martinson, 1781 Tiara Street: He explained that Tiara Street was only one block long and dead-ended on Sumac. They had a relatively quiet neighborhood except for the massage parlor located there, the location being where the residential area met the business district. In the center of the block there was a parking lot plus a dirt lot. At night 40-foot truck trailers would pull in with their Thermo-King refrigerators running which was very annoying when trying to sleep. When leaving, the truck would fire up its diesel engine. So that the girls would know he was leaving, he would sound his horn. Their neighborhood was not what it used to be. He had 25 signatures of the people in the neighborhood opposed to what was going on. Mayor Seymour stated for clarification, it was his understanding that the hours of operation of the establishment could not go beyond midnight and they would be operating illegally beyond that time. City Attorney Hopkins stated that in the abatement action taken by the Council, hours were stipulated 8:00 a.m. to 12 midnight, Monday through Saturday, and 1:00 P.M. to 12:00 midnight on Sundays (see minutes December 16, 1980). The Mayor stated if the activity was going on beyond midnight, he or the Police Department would be happy to receive a complaint, and the business would be shut doM° In concluding, Mr. Martinson stated the signatures he gathered were from the people in the neighborhood and not residents from other locale. The location of the massage parlor was a mistake and that mistake needed to be corrected. Ms. Larson, in order to clarify the situation, explained that on one side of the massage parlor there was a bar and on the other side a beer bar and both were open until 2:00 a.m. Thus, there could be any reason for the trucks to pull into the vacant lot. It did not mean that it was the massage parlor's fault that they were there or that the trucks would stop parking at that location. Mayor Seymour stated if they were disturbing the peace, they could enforce that situation one way or the other. Ms. Larson then clarified that the hours of the massage parlor were 8:00 A.M. to 12:00 midnight, Monday through Saturday, and 1:00 P.M. to 12 midnight Sundays. 81R-90 CitZ Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 20, 1981, 1:30 P.M. There being no further persons who wished to speak, the b~yor closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council ratified the determination of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 1, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 81R-16 for adoption, denying Conditional Use Permit No. 2137, upholding the findings of the City Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 81R-16: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2137. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-16 duly passed and adopted. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2150: Application by James P. and Phyllis J. Crawford, to expand an existing trailer park and tent facility on CR zoned property located at 1336 South Walnut Street. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-219, 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 since there would be no significant individual or cumulative adverse environ- mental impact due to this project and further granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2150, subject to the following conditions: 1. 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. 2. That appropriate water assessment fees as determined by the Office of Utilities General Manager shall be paid to the City of Anaheim prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3. That prior to issuance of a building permit, street lighting facilities along Walnut Street shall be installed as required by the Office of Utilities General Manager, and in accordance with specifications on file in the Office of Utilities General Manager; and/or that 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 installation of the above- mentioned requirements prior to occupancy. 4. That trash storage areas shall be developed substantially in accordance with approved plans on file with the Office of the Executive Director of Public Works. 81R-91 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 20, 1981, 1:30 P.M. 5. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit No. 1. 6. That Condition Nos. 4 and 5, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections. A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman Kaywood at the meeting of December 23, 1980, and public hearing scheduled this date. · he Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous of being heard. Mr. Robert E. Treese, Vice-President of Wrather-Vacationland, General Partners of Vacationland, Ltd., stated he was present to answer any questions. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that in June of 1978 (see minutes (June 27, 1978) the Council granted Conditional Use Permit No. 1826 permitting a trial period of 28 tents at the subject facility and the present request was to expand that use to 60 tents. At that time, they placed a 30-day maximum restriction on tenancy, but the Planning Commission minutes reflected that due to a conflicting requirement by the State, they must allow people to stay longer than 30 days. She asked~ Mr. Treese to speak to that. Mr. Treese explained that that was a State law which had taken effect on January i, 1981 under the mobilehome law which their attorneys were examining at present and which also applied to RV parks requiring additional period of tenancy. Relative to people residing in the park for nine months or longer, they were required to give them a 12-month lease. Councilwoman Kaywood asked how long most of the tent residents were staying in the park. Mr. Treese answered, probably less khan 10 days. He would say that 80% of the overall number of guests throughout the years stayed less than a week. Further, they had only one complaint on the tent facility that was registered with the Planning Department based on the fact that they could not accommodate a gentle- man and his family because the tent facility was filled at the time. Otherwise, they had been very pleased with the results and the orderly conduct and it had been a test for them as well. They wanted to maintain a certain high standard as with all the other Wrather properties in Anaheim. The people who patronized the tent facility were split approximately 50-50 between individuals and young families. Councilwoman Kaywood stated her concern was the new law with the result that they could end up with permanent tent residents in the City. Mr. Treese stated they were concerned with that as well. The opinion as of yesterday was that the tents might not fall under the law and not be defined as an RV. That was still being investigated since the law was so new. 81R-92 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 20, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that was her objection and it remained her objection if tents were included under the new law. They had previously found the same situation in RV parks where there were supposed to be transient guests who ended up as full-time residents with children attending local schools. She realized the impact of the economic situation made it difficult for people and perhaps it was the only place they could live, but she did not want to encourage such a situation. Mr. Treese agreed and they discouraged that to the best of their ability within the law. If they could not, they might have to then review whether or not they would accept tents because they did not want to have them on their property for lengthy periods of time. He was not certain how they could remove them should that situation arise. It would be through an eviction process, but he did not know the terms of that as yet. He was hoping that the attorneys would come to the conclusion that tents did not come under the definition of an RV. Mr. Treese then clarified for Councilman Bay if an RV customer were in the park for a period of nine months or longer, and demanded a one-year lease, they would have to accommodate that request under the new law. There were three categories of tenants in RV parks under the new law: (1) Those there less than 30 days, (2) those there 30 days to less than nine months and, (3) those there nine months or longer. The method of removal of those guests was different under each of the circumstances. Once the guest was in the park for 30 days or longer, they had most of the rights of a tenant in an apartment building or mobile home park. Once there nine months or longer, they would then start dictating certain policies of the park. He then clarified for the Mayor and Councilwoman Kaywood that they set up their tenancy for 28 days, but if they or any other RV park chose to grant 30 days or more, it could result in a permanent tenancy. If someone wanted to stay a few days longer than 28 days, that would take them into the 30-day permanent tenancy situation. They would, however, eject them after 28 days because that would be the only way they would be able to maintain a guest status. Mayor Seymour asked if the Conditional Use Permit were approved, would he have any objection to a condition being placed on that approval that neither RV guests nor tent facilty guests could stay longer than 28 days. Mr. Treese stated he would not object but that condition may be in conflict with the law. He was not certain they could turn someone down once they were in the park and wanted to renew unless there were certain violations of park rules. They already had tenants who were in the park beyond 28 days and they had to renew them after the 28-day period. Mayor Seymour stated, separating those guests from all new guests coming into the park, would he object to some re- striction that indicated they could stay no longer than 28 days. Mr. Treese answered "no", but he still felt it would be in conflict. They could not terminate a person's tenancy in the park unless there were certain conditions involved and non-renewal of the 28-day period could be construed as a termination of tenancy if it was a new guest. He confirmed for Councilman Bay that a 30-day tenancy did not mean a thing, but that a person in the park for 28 days was subject to the park's rules and regulations. They could give them a 72-hour notice and if they violated certain rules and regulations, they could be terminated. If over 30 days, however, then it would be more like a 30- to 60- day eviction period for violation of park rules. Although there was a condition 81R-93 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 20, 1981, 1:30 P.M. placed upon the original CUP that length of tenancy was 30 days, he did not feel that they violated that condition because they did not take any tenancy for longer than 30 days~ although occasionally they did renew for a second 30-day period. It was not their understanding they would be in violation of the CUP in that case. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that was her understanding, since they specifically indicated a maximum of 30 days to avoid permanent residents living in substan- dard dwellings or in tents. After additional questions posed to Mr. Treese by Councilwoman Kaywood and Council- man Overholt for purposes of clarification, the Mayor asked to hear from members of the public in opposition or in favor of the subject CUP. Mrs. Betty Ronconi, 1241 South Walnut, stated that she knew there were permanent residents living in the park because people who stopped in to see them informed them of that fact. They did not have any problem with noise coming from the area. The only problem was that she did not believe they had properly completed the approach into the emergency gate. It was still dirt and there was a water drainage problem. Water was always draining from the area starting on West Street draining down on the surface of Walnut Street, Goodhue, Hampstead and finally ending up in the storm drain. It had not been too bad living across the street. It had been quiet at the park and it was nice. With the expansion of the trailers further west, it might create some problems visually. From the inside of their house, they still could look down and see the tops of tents. The trailers were taller than tents and extended above the top of the wall. She requested that they extend the wall about three feet to block the view from the inside of their homes. They were also concerned that the emergency gate would be used for an entrance and exit onto Walnut Street and they did not want that. They had enough problems with traffic at present and she reiterated that water was a problem. She thereupon submitted a letter dated January 20, 1981, signed by others in the neighborhood as well, listing the concerns as articulated (made a part of the record). Councilwoman Kaywood asked approximately how many people were permanent residents of the park that she knew of; Mrs. Ronconi answered, two different families, and one child was going to school. She also clarified for Councilman Overholt that those families were not living in the cent portion, but the RV portion of the park. Mr. Ralph Summerlin, 1307 Walnut Street, stated that "tent city" turned out pretty and even nice. He understood that now, however, they were about to be subject to campers, trailers and all manner of vehicles pulling into the same area which had been approved previously for tents. Mayor Seymour interjected and explained that was not the case and he asked staff to clarify the matter. Miss Santalahti stated that the CUP request was to expand the 28 tents to 60 tents and the trailer park was not proposed for expansion. Mr. Summerlin stated he had seen vehicles parked in the subject area; Mayor Seymour stated, if so, that would be in violation and that he should call the Planning Department so that they could correct the matter. 81R-94 City Hall~ Anaheim., California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 20, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Summerlin continued that the use of the gate on Walnut Street might be another problem. If an emergency gate, any emergency vehicle would mire down up to its axles trying to use it, because it was only a trough of running water and thus the earth was all soft. Another problem was relative to the dog run (see minutes June 27, 1978). It still ran east and west on the south side in the residential area the same as before. It was in the identical position it was prior to being moved. The dog run was on the south side in a residential area. He had requested that it be moved to the center, but it was moved to the south side of Tennis Land. He did not know of anyone being bothered by the dog run but felt the original deal was not carried out proper%y in his opinion. The Mayor stated that the hearing was relative to whether or not they would grant or deny the applicant's ability to increase the number of tents. He asked Mr. Summerlin, on that issue, did he favor or oppose such an expansion. Mr. Summerlin stated he would oppome until there was a roadway that would accommodate fire equipment. The Mayor asked if that emergency entrance was paved, would he then support the granting of the CUP; Mr. Summerlin answered, "yes". Mrs. Priscilla Pruett, 1245 South Walnut, asked if there was anything that could be done about the water. That was her complaint. They had a trough of water running in front of their house all of the time which she considered to be a health hazard (on the west side of Walnut Street). City Engineer William Devitt, in response to the Mayor, stated they would in- vestigate that situation before the week was out. The Mayor asked Mrs. Pruett if she was for or against the granting of the CUP; Mrs. Pruett answered that she would go along with Mrs. Ronconi and Mr. Summerlin, as long as they kept the situation under control and they did not have any trouble. They had not experienced any noise but if they expanded to the fence or moved vehicles around in the summer, they might have problems. In the summer months they did move motor vehicles into the tent facility area and parked them. Last July 4th they had vehicles parked all the way to the exit gate. The Mayor stated if they did so, a complaint should be filed. Mr. Matthew Nugent, 856 South Walnut, stated his concern was relative to the safety of the people in the park. He could visualize a Santa Ana wind blowing in and before the Fire Department was called, it could wipe out the park. If the 60 tents were spaced at prope~ distances, that might be satisfactory. He confirmed for the Mayor that he was not opposed to the request for a CUP, but only that it could present a fire hazard. Councilman Bay asked if there was any restrictive control with regard to space between tents. Miss Santalahti explained that the Fire Department had seen the plot plan pro- posed and all they required was the fire hydrants be placed according to their standards. Otherwise, she was not aware of any specific distances. 81R-95 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 20, 1981, 1:30 P.M. In summation, Mr. Treese stated that all tents being sold today were fire re- tardant or fire resistant so as not to be a fire hazard. He did not see that as being a major problem in the facility. On occasion at their initiation and request, he asked the Fire Department to come to the facility to look at a certain vehicle or circumstance that they did not have the authority to in- vestigate for safety purposes. They were very much cognizant of the safety of their guests. To clarify a point he made earlier relative to length of stay of their guests, in the tent facility, they were mostly short term. When he indicated a week to ten days, that was the average throughout the park and not specifically the tent sites. Thosa were much shorter term. Relative to the paving of the emergency exit, that was part of their plan as they had sub- mitted it. Councilman Overholt noted that relative to the dog run, on the former CUP, one of the conditions was that it be relocated on the easterly portion of the pro- perty and oriented in a north-south direction. Mr. Treese stated he felt there was a misunderstanding. On the original dog run, they were going to relocate it on the section where the tents were located. They wanted to run it in an east-west direction. The direction from the Council was to turn it north-south and put it on the far easterly portion. After evaluating the circumstances, they decided, and believed with the concurrence of the Planning Department, to not move the dog run at all. They had it isolated to an area where they felt it was least detrimental to the park, residents in the area and guests at the tennis club. The dog run had been maintained, it was chemically treated periodically and cleaned three to four times a day. It was on the southern end of the property going east and west between the tennis courts on Tennis Land and the agricultural property. Councilman Roth stated that they wanted a commitment and stipulation that the emergency gate exit leading onto Walnut would only be used on an emergency basis and not used to permit RV's, tents, automobiles, delivery trucks or any- body to go through that gate; Mr. Treese so stipulated. Mayor Seymour noted that some of the neighbors indicated that on July 4th last and perhaps other occasions when there was an overflow in the park, that they parked vehicles and collected fees in the area where such activity was not allowed. Mr. Treese stated he would have to investigate that matter and would do so today. He knew of one occasion there were two or three unoccupied vehicles stored in that area on a temporary basis while repairs were in progress. How- ever, he did not know the answer to the other situation, and he would instruct the manager that such occurrences not take place in the future. Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that Mrs. Ronconi indicated if the wall were raised a couple of feet, it would assist the residents living across the street. She asked if it was engineered to be added to or if that could be done. Mr. Treese stated he did not think it could be. The grading was done for the Conestoga Inn, it dropped the grade down three or four feet from their level. They then had to go down very deep to put the footings in, etc. He would say it was virtually impossible to accomplish. 81R-96 City Hall.:.. Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 20, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood stated she was concerned with the permanent residency. She asked if they were to approve the CUP for one year for the expansion to 60 tents to be sure there were no problems, would that be satisfactory. Mr. Treese answered "no" it would not be economically justified because they had a large shower facility and public picnic areas planned. Ail those amenities would be very costly and in one year would not return the original investment. They did not need such facilitiem now for the 28 tents because there were facilities nearby, but not enough to handle an expansion to 60. For the first class operation they wanted to have, it would not work. Councilwoman Kaywood asked if it would be feamible for two years. Mr. Treese stated he would have to run some numbers through to see. He was looking at a return for something like 40 months and that was before the prime interest rate had escalated to its current level. He understood Councilwoman Kaywood's problem and he repeated, they had the same concern. they saw a situation developing as described, they would devise alternatives that would be suitable to the caliber of operation they would like to have. If Councilwoman Kaywood stated if they were to put a time limit on the CUP, that could also be a protection for them; Mr. Treese answered that it was also a detriment on their investment. He would tend to plead the history of the Wrather Corporation in Anaheim and the standards they tried to maintain as the standards they would follow. The Mayor closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - IfEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council finds that this project would have no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact, since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property for commercial recreation land use commensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive environ- mental impacts are involved in the proposal and that the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Kaywood offered a resolution to deny Conditional Use Permit No. 2150 based on the fact that they would have no control on the length of time anybody could stay in the park and, ~herefore, could be faced with permanent tent residents. Before action was taken, Mayor Seymour stated he was going to oppose the resolu- tion because he believed that the property owner would extend the ultimate in control relative to permanent tenancy. Considering the quality of operation that the Wrather Corporation had provided in the City with a proven track record, he was confident that they would police the length of tenancy. If, for example, the State should mandate that permanent tenancy must take place, he felt they would have a change of use application that would probably do away with the permanent tenancy requirement. 81R-97 City Hall, Anaheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES -January 20,. 1981, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Roth stated he was going to oppose the resolution, since it would deny a segment of society the opportunity to be able to visit the City in a more economical fashion. The best response had been with regard to the neighbors. Their concern centered around the emergency exit and the applicant had stipulated to correcting that situation. If there was a problem, there could be an order to show cause hearing as to why the permit should not be revoked. Councilwoman Kaywood clarified that she in no way was attempting to deny a segment of society to come to Anaheim and Disneyland. Her concern was relative to the possibility of having permanent residents living in tents because of the new State law usurping the City's rights and those of the Wrather Corporation running their park as they wished. Councilman Overholt stated he was going to oppose the resolution for all the reasons stated. He also felt ~hat tenting would be the way of tomorrow for young and old alike. Councilwoman Kaywood thereupon withdrew her resolution of denial. Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 81R-17 for adoption, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 2150, upholding the findings of the City Planning Commission and subject to the Planning Commission's conditions. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 81R-17: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2150. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated she would vote in favor with the understanding that they were not going to wind up with full time tent residents in Anaheim. A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-17 duly passed and adopted. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2122 AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11286: Application by Lewis L. Wright, Jr., to permit a 1-lot, 156-unit, 66 percent affordable condominium conversion on RM-1200 zoned property located at 2633 East La Palma Avenue, with the following Code waivers: a) b) c) d) e) f) minimum lot area per dwelling unit maximum structural height maximum site coverage minimum floor area minimum recreational-leisure area minimum number and type of parking spaces The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-210, reported that the Planning Director has determined that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class i, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the 81R-98 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 20, 1981, 1:30 P.M. requirements for an environmental impact report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR and further granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2122, in part, subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to the recordation of a final tract map and sale of any unit, the applicant shall present evidence satisfactory to the Chief Building Inspector that each unit is in conformance with the Noise Insulation Standards specified in Chapter 1 of the California Administrative Code, Title 25. 2. Prior to the recordation of a final tract map and sale of any unit, the applicant shall present satisfactory to the Chief Building Inspector that the uni~ is in conformance with the requirement of Council Policy 542, Sound Attenuation in Residential Projects. 3. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specification on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit No. 1. 4. That the westerly driveway apron on La Palma Avenue be increased in width to a minimum of 24 feet. 5. That Condition Nos. 3 and 4, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections. 6. Prior to recordation of a final tract map, 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 Map and which shall provide that 66% of the units shall be sold as low or moderate income housing as defined in Government Code 65915 and with appro- priate resale controls as approved by the City of Anaheim. The Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract No. 11286, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 11286 is granted subject to the approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2122. 2. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. 3. That the original documents of the covenants, conditions, and restrictions, and a letter addressed to developer's title company authorizing recordation thereof, shall be submitted to the City Attorney's office and approved by the (a) City Attorney's Office and Engineering Division (b) City Attorney's Office, Public Utilities Department, Building Division, and the Engineering Division prior to final tract map approval. Said documents, as approved, shall be filed and recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder. 4. That all private streets shall be developed in accordance with the City or Anaheim's Standard Detail No. 122 for private streets, including installation of Street Name signs. Plans for the private street lighting, as required by the standard detail, shall be submitted to the Building Division for approval and inclusion with the building plans prior to the issuance of building permits. (Private streets are those which provide primary access and/or circulation within the project. 5. If permanent street signs have not been installed, temporary street name signs shall be installed prior to any occupancy. 6. Prior to the sale of any unit, the applicant shall present evidence satis- factory to the Chief Building Inspector that the unit is in conformance with the Noise Insulation Standards specified in Chapter 1 of the California Admini- strative Code, Title 25. 81R-99 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 20, 1981, 1:30 P.M. 7. The seller shall provide the purchaser of each condominium unit with written information concerning Anaheim Municipal Code 14.32.509 pertaining to "parking restricted to facilitate street sweeping". Such written information will clearly indicate when on-street parking is prohibited and the penalty for violation. 8. 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 Map and which shall provide that 66% of the units shall be shold 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 December 23, 1980, and public hearing scheduled this date. The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous of being heard. Mr. Rick Ford, Dana Pacific Planning, Dana Point, representative of the applicant, stated he was present to answer any questions. Councilwoman Kaywood stated the questions would not necessarily be of Mr. Ford. She was appalled at the number of waivers being considered in Anaheim and the fact that they were talking about apartments which simply were not being built in the City, since they were economically infeasible to build. Thus, to even think about removing 156 units from the small amount available was very hypocritical as far as she was concerned. The law provided that relative to affordable housing, it was to be on new construction and not the conversion of something existing. When the apartments were built in 1966 or 1967, waivers were granted at that time and they were already substandard relative to existing apartments. To talk about turning them into condominiums as a conversion to her was unthinkable. As a starter, she asked where they would put automobiles on street sweeping days with the small amount of parking available. Mr. Ford answered, in changing the status of singular ownership to multiple ownership, they would not be changing the situation as far as parking was con- cerned. He did not see how they would be compounding the situation as suggested by Councilwoman Kaywood. Potentially there were avenues that the homeowners could use to control RV's or excess vehicles the property owners might have. Other than that, he did not see how there would be that much difference whether apartments or condominiums. He recognized that there was a different standard for both. Studies had been done in some areas indicating that condominium own- ership had more cars than apartment ownership, but he did not know the quality of the analysis as far as comparing square footages of condominium units to the number of spaces available. It was typical in Orange County that condominiums were considerable more deluxe than apartments and it was not surprising to find the average condominium in Orange County did use more cars. They were talking about changing an apartment complex into affordable ownership units that were not typical of Orange County and that was why the project was an asset to the City. In Anaheim, there were 35,000 plus apartment units and none priced in the range in the CUP. They did need to pay attention to apartment units, but the situation was not as critical a situation as low cost housing for indivi- duals. 81R-lO0 Ci. ty Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 20, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood countered that there was a 1% or less vacancy factor in apartments and questioned how Mr. Ford arrived at his conclusion. Mr. Ford stated the vacancy factor alone was not as significant a factor as a combination of the vacancy factor in the velocity in which people moved from their homes. In the subject complex there was an approximate 200% turn over per year which was typical of Anaheim. Therefore, at any given time a 1% vacancy factor did not indicate an inability for people to find apartments. Anyone coming to Anaheim today could find an apartment to rent. If not, he suggested that they could call him. Councilwoman Kaywood asked how many people in the 156 units were interested in purchasing one of the condominiums if converted. Mr. Ford answered that there were not very many and they had three or four positive responses at present. Councilwoman Kaywood surmised in that case that they would then be displacing people in 152 units. Mr. Ford stated in this particular situation, they were dealing with an educational problem. There were people who already preferred to rent, combined with people who never had an opportunity to own their own home. They were implementing a workshop to work with all of the current tenants to inform them of the benefits of home ownership. In addition, with the approval of the program, they would be pro- viding each of the existing residents with CPA time to enable them to under- stand the tax ramifications. He believed ~hat most people understood that home ownership was considerably less expensive when taking into consideration the tax implications. They had one meeting with 28 or 30 tenants which was held upon direction of the Planning Commission. They anticipated two more workshops where they would be meeting with a more significant number of tenants to give as much information as would be necessary for them to make a proper decision. They had worked very closely with the City's Housing Authority in devising a program. In analyzing the incomes of the existing residents based on their applications at the time they entered the building, they found that the program addressed 76% of the residents which meant that 76% would be qualified to be able to afford to purchase or participate in the program. Councilwoman Kaywood asked if that would be with the subsidies; Mr. Ford answered some were with the subsidy and some weren't. Some people were making $40,000 and others $8,000. Part of the program involved the subsidized Section 8 Program while on another there was no price control. It was a combination of both trying to address the complete spectrum of tenants. He did not know how many of the tenants were on Section 8 at present and as far as the number proposed, they had 28 units designated for Section 8 or approximately 18% of the building. After further discussion with Councilwoman Kaywood relative to that aspect, he stated the point was that instead of tenants having to wait in the long line of the list of people waiting for housing assistance, those tenants would be moved to the head of the line under their program. Councilwoman Kaywood asked, if 104 of the tenants were presently eligible for a subsidy, where they would relocate those people. Mr. Ford explained that 115 out of 156 would qualify to either buy or participate in Section 8 or in the program and did not need to be relocated. 81R-lO1 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 20, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that would be true only if they wanted to par- ticipate; Mr. Ford stated he anticipated that more than three or four would ultimately be interested in buying. However, for every one person in the building now in the qualified income category that did not wish to buy, there were probably 10 or 15 people in Anaheim who would want to do so and that was the point they were trying to make. Councilwoman Kaywood maintained this was a unique and different approach. In the past, condominium conversions that had gone forward were on the premise that at least, or more than, half of the existing tenants would jump at the opportunity to buy if there was a conversion. The reasoning in this case was incredible. It was like saying, no one here wants to buy but there are people all over the City who would love to do so, thereby displacing all the present tenants because others would like the opportunity. She repeated, she found that to be incredible. Councilman Bay asked the approximate sale price of the one- and two-bedroom units. Mr. Ford answered as follows: one-bedroom units--25 units were locked in at $43,000; 10 units at $53,000, remaining non-confined units (no controls) between $54,000 and $58,000. Two-bedroom units--10 units at $47,000; 10 units at $55,000; five units at $57,000, and the remaining non-confined units between $57,000 and $62,000. Councilman Bay then asked the construction required to make the changes to con- vert the apartment complex to condominiums. Mr. Ford stated that the primary requirement involved sound attenuation. In analyzing the STC readings--noise between units and interior to exterior noise levels--the units would have to be remodeled and improved to meet current standards. In addition, they would be separating the electrical metering of all of the units so that they would be individually metered. The plumbing had been a sporadic problem in the project having been handled on a piece-meal basis. They would be redoing the plumbing but not to individual water meters or gas meters. At present there were individual water heaters. He confirmed for Councilman Bay that the noise attenuation was the largest factor. They would have to improve the noise level between ceiling and floor and side-to-side walls and then the interior to exterior, especially that section facing out towards the intersection of the freeways. The most tangible change would be in the legal status of the complex. Councilman Roth stated a disturbing thing to him was the tendency in selling the program to promote the concept of Section 8 housing where costs would be subsi- dized. Even as a supporter of free enterprise and property rights, he reiterated it was disturbing that their program involved taking renters and putting them on government subsidies. He asked Mr. Ford to explain why. Mr. Ford answered that it was a combination of things. The first was to come with an idea to satisfy a property owner's request. They then met with the City's Housing Manager, Lisa Stipkovich, who had certain prerequisites, goals and charges outlined by the City Council as needs of the City. In the subject 81R-102 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January..2.0, 19.81, 1:.30 P.M. complex there were elderly people who had been in the building for approximately ten years when their rent was $100 now escalating to $300 a month. There was a definite problem and Section 8 helped to solve that problem for those people. He, therefore, understood the positions of the Housing Authority, but he did not know that was the only answer. Councilwoman Kaywood asked if most of the tenants were elderly or if there was a mix; Mr. Ford answered that it was a good mix and most were not elderly. Councilwoman Kaywood then asked, of the appliances that were in the apartments now, were they there when the apartments were new; Mr. Ford answered "yes". Councilwoman Kaywood stated that was a big concern to her. The method formulated to allow people to have a down payment was to take the $2,500 instead of new appliances. She believed they were doing that because the tenants did not have the money. If two weeks later the appliances broke down, the residents would have to replace them at a single purchase cost. Mr. Ford stated the intent of the program was to give a one-year warranty on the appliances. The Mayor asked to hear from those in opposition to the proposal and the granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 2122. Mrs. Hanna Malmatz, stated she had lived at the subject apartment house for almost seven years. She could not see how those apartments could convert. No one was interested in the conversion and people had moved out since the subject had arisen. They were not interested. Flyers and questionnaires were sent to the tenants and only 60 were returned to the manager. Out of 60, only two said yes. The others did not care to answer. People did not care what they were earning, they were just not interested in condominiums. She had many friends in the complex and had spoken to a number of engineers from Autonetics as well as retired residents. They wanted to rent and did not have the money to purchase and at present the interest rate was very high. Although $57,000 was not a lot of money for a condominium today, it was not worth it for the way the apartments were situated. She was also told that they could not make the complex sound proof upstairs, but that it could only be done when the building was constructed. There were only two or three people present today because nobody was interested enough to come in to talk. They were just waiting to be moved and getting paid for doing so. She did not feel that many tenants were presently being subsidized. She was concerned over the prospect of dis- placing so many tenants, as well as herself and her daughter. She asked that the Council consider the matter carefully. She was taking the responsibility for all of the tenants and she indicated to them that she would go to the Council meeting and try to see what she could do. Councilwoman Kaywood asked for clarification that Mrs. Malmatz stated she was speaking on behalf of other tenants; Mrs. Malmatz answered "yes," for at least 100, although there may be less because there had been a lot of turnover lately. She also confirmed that she was sure that no one was on the Section 8 Program at present. She also clarified for the Mayor that she did not think the pro- posed $1,500 moving allowance was unfair. The difficulty was in the fact that there was no place to go, considering the different circumstances of people such as herself which she elaborated upon. 81R-103 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 20, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Floyd R. Lund stated that he was a tenant of the complex and had been for seven years. He was 80 years old and felt that he could not move for several reasons which he explained. He was not interested in buying at his age. He knew of no tenants of the 15 or 20 people with whom he associated who wanted to buy. His rent at present was $305 a month and it was about a year ago that he had a rent increase. The Mayor then gave Mr. Ford an opportunity to make his summation. Mr. Ford stated that he was not buying the building but merely representing the applicant and property owners. The main issues he saw were the improvements as far as appliances, the government subsidy program and relocation assistance. He did not feel it was necessarily the property owners' wishes to ask the govern- ment to subsidize people's rent, but that they wanted to accomplish some housing goals which had been expressed to them. If there was an alternative to that such as simply fixing the rent without government subsidy, he would be more than happy to implement it. He was not present advocating Section 8 assistance, but there was a housing problem and there were elderly people like Mr. Lund who needed special consideration. They performed an analysis on the cost of home ownership besides the Section 8 rental assistance. On the $43,000 program, analyzing the cost of ownership with the $2,500 down payment provided, the cost worked out to be $438.90 total, including principal, interest, taxes, insurance, dues and utilities. The problem with the analysis was that it was based on a 12% interest rate. After taxes it was more of benefit for a single person, resulting in a monthly cost of $409. That cost was relatively fixed for the rest of the person's life or for the period that they would live there. That low cost unit was the next step up from the government subsidy and there were 25 of those units. Relative to relocation, they were prepared to relocate people with dogs and children. They could relocate the present tenants because their rental his- tories were good and plenty of rentals were available. Even though the vacancy factor was l%--that represented 350 units per day that were vacant. Relative to improvements to the building, there would be more done than just the basic construction needed to bring the building up to current health and safety standards. It was good business practice to make the building as attractive as possible upon which he elaborated. The intent was to provide an avenue that the bank would accept allowing a tenant to own his own unit. Mr. Ford then answered questions posed by Councilwoman Kaywood relative to the warranty on the appliances and noise mitigation measures that would be taken, at the conclusion of which the Mayor closed the public hearing. Councilman Bay noted in this particular case the word "construction" was used throughout. He wanted to know in the City Attorney's opinion, would the 66% affordable proposed necessitate waivers and variances ~o existing ordinances, if those were legally justified on a condominium conversion. City Attorney Hopkins explained that in December of 1980, they sent a memoran- dum to the Planning Commission indicating that in his opinion the law providing for the density bonus and other incentives under Government Code Section 65915 could only apply to construction. The law referred to construction in three 81~-104 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 20, 1981, 1:30 P.M. different places, and it was the opinion ~hat a conversion did not meet the require- ment for a density bonus because it was not new construction. Therefore, it would not, in his opinion, qualify for the density bonus. Councilman Bay noted that the opinion given by the City Attorney was not avail- able to the Planning Commission at the time they made their decision; Mr. Hopkins stated that he did not believe it was brought up at that time. Councilman Bay stated in his view, the 66% affordable factor was very germain to the decisions on the waivers. If that legal opinion was not available to the Planning Commission at ~he time of a decision, he could not possibly vote for a resolution to approve the requested CUP on that basis. If the Planning Commission was of the opinion that the affordability percentage in this particu- lar case gave them the right under the law to make such a decision and that was not necessarily true, he did not see how they could possibly approve the CUP at this time. In the joint workshop with the Planning Commission they were also going to have to include existing condominium conversions, since major waivers to the City's ordinances were involved. City Attorney Hopkins stated the Planning Commission resolution approving the CUP indicated that waivers "a", "e" and "f" were granted on the basis that they were covered by the Governmen~ Code and undoubtedly they did have that in mind. Councilwoman Kaywood also noted that in Government Code Section 65916 where it spoke of financial contributions to housing development, she was wondering if any of the waivers would place them under that section. It went on to speak of assuring continued availability for low and moderate units for 30 years. She questioned if that would also be a part of the proposal. City Attorney Hopkins stated again the Section referred to construction, and it would not be applicable to condominium conversion. Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the proposed affordable housing would apply to the 400 units SCAG had spoken of with regard to low and moderate income. Miss Santalahti answered "no", she did not believe they would because they were not under the 80% of the median household income levels. Councilwoman Kaywood stated that this would not be creating housing, but dis- placing people. Councilman Roth, speaking to Mr. Ford, stated that although he felt his presen- tation was well done, he had two problems with the proposal. First they had done a poor job of public relations with respect to the tenants. He was sup- portive of conversions, and he pointed to a conversion that took place at an apart- ment complex on Brookhurst Street and Ball Road. There had been enough meetings so that everyone was aware of what was taking place and the tenants were in harmony He felt in the present case, the applicants had been remiss in doing a selling job. As well, they were offering the bait of Section 8 which he found to be un- acceptable, and he had a problem with it. He was not interested in denying the CUP completely, but would like to see it denied without prejudice and have the applicants come back after reviewing the situation. Perhaps after the Council and the Planning Commission had a workshop to discuss standards, they subsequently might 81R-105 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 20, 1981, 1:30 P.M. be able to offer something more palatable. He reiterated that he supported con- versions, housing, the free enterprise system and property rights, but he was not certain that the applicants had done their homework relative to their request. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council ratified the determination of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 1, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 81R-18 for adoption, denying Con- ditional Use Permit No. 2122 reversing the findings of the City Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 81R-18: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2122. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated that her resolution of denial was based on many things. The project did not apply to the low cost housing that Anaheim was supposed to come up with. It was incredible that even though the bait of Section 8 housing had been held out, only two or even four people out of 156 units were favorable. That was an indication that something was wrong. No new apartment houses were being built and there was a great need even if the 1% vacancy factor equaled 150 units. %~ere was supposed to be a turnover in apartments and many people preferred apartment living or a tran- sient place in which to live. They would be displacing the people in at least 152 units which would perhaps be double that number of people. Mayor Seymour stated that he was going to support the resolution. Even though he was one of the champions of the affordable housing quest, everything had a price tag. They needed affordable housing in the community, but he could not see providing it if they were going to totally destroy their environment and standard of living. Those were general terms and subject to interpretation but, in his interpretation of that principle which he believed in, the proposal as it measured up in relationship to other conversions they had approved was far from acceptable to him, both in parking standards, as well as density on a con- version program. In personally walking the project and imagining young families living in that environment, he did not think it was conducive to good family living. He reiterated, although he strongly supported affordable housing, the price tag to gain the affordable housing in this case was too high. The lack of tenant interest and, therefore, the displacement of tenants without a clear understanding of where they were going to go was of concern to him as well. He also did not believe the vacancy argument and it was not easy to find another apartment in which to live. He would be concerned that, having approved the conversion, he for one might go out to visit the complex afterwards and conclude that he wished he had not gone that far. A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution. 81R-106 City Hall,, Anaheim, California -. COUNCIL MINUTES - January 20, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-18 duly passed and adopted. Before concluding, the Mayor, speaking to Mrs. Malmatz, stated if for some reason the tenants received a rent increase in the next six months and they came to her indicating that they now wanted rent control, she should remind them that the Council wanted to keep the complex an apartment house. She should know that the Council did not believe in rent control. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda: 1. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and referred to the City's Claims Administrator: a. Claim submitted by Pacific Telephone for damages to cable sustained purpor- tedly as a result of Water Division operations at Lewis Street and Howell Avenue, on or about December 3, 1980. b. Claim submitted by Donald Wickenkamp for damages purportedly sustained as a result of cigarette being thrown in Anaheim Stadium, on or about December 12, 1980. c. Claim submitted by Erick Hindle, a minor and Claudette Hinkle, mother, for personal injury damages purportedly sustained as a result of snake, bite received at Oak Canyon Nature Center, on or about October 19, 1980. d. Claim submitted by Eve Kasell, Paintings of the World, for damages purpor- tedly sustained as a result of water being turned off for a portion of the day, and when turned back on, pressure ruptured a pipe, on or about October 13, 1980. 2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: a. 105: Golf Course Advisory Commission--December 18, 1980. bo 107: Planning Department, Building Division--Monthly Report for December 1980. c. 105: Senior Citizen Commission--Minutes of December 11, 1980. d. 107: e. 109: (on file) Planning Department, Building Division--Annual Report for 1980. California State Board of Equalization--Annual Report for 1979-80. 81R-107 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 20, 1981, 1:30 P.M. 3. 108: APPLICATIONS: The following applications were approved in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Police: a. Amusement Devices Permit Application: Rainbow Liquor & Food Mart, 3200 West Ball Road, for various amusement devices. (Nelson S. Foltz, applicant) b. Amusement Devices Permi~ Application: Triple Crown Pizza, 3450 West Orange Avenue, for various amusement devices. (Nelson S. Flo~z, applicant) c. Amusement and Entertainment Premises Application, Pool Rooms: Bob's Family Billiards, 3015 West Ball Road, for 14 pool tables. (Bob L. Wallace, applicant) MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Seymour left the Council Chamber. (6:45 P.M.) Mayor Pro Tem Overholt assumed chairmanship of the meeting. 108: ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT APPLICATION: Submitted by Jose Gusman Castellanos, Never On Sunday, 2810 West Lincoln Avenue, for a live band Friday through Sunday, 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. Councilman Bay referred to letter dated January 14, 1981 from the Magnolia School District, Mr. Arch Haskins, District Superintendent of Schools and Secretary of the Governing Board. The letter stated that the District Board of Trustees had considered the Amusement Devices Permit submitted by the applicant and it was the unanimous feeling of the Board to register an objec- tion to any type of expansion, increased services, games, or anything that would make the business more attractive to the community. He wanted the Council to be aware of the letter from the School District regarding the application. MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to deny the subject Entertainment Permit Applica- tion. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, City Manager Talley pointed out that the letter written by the District was with reference to an Amusement Devices Permit Application for the subject business to be considered by the Council at the next meeting, January 27, 1981. The Entertainment Permit being considered today was with reference to a permit for a live band. He reiterated that the District was protesting an Amusement Devices Permit which would be before the Council at next Tuesday's meeting. Councilman Roth withdrew his second to the motion. City Clerk Roberts explained if the Board of Trustees had the authority, they would be voicing their opposition to the Entertainment Permit Application as well. The Code provided that they did have right of approval on an Amusement Devices Permit Application, but she was not certain they had that right on the Entertainment Permit which was before the Council today. City Attorney Hopkins stated that the matter could be continued one week when the Amusement Devices Permit would also be before the Council. The ordinance did provide that the School District's approval would be requested on Amusement 81R-108 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES.- January 20, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Devices. In this particular matter relative to the Entertainment Permit, the District could express its disapproval, but it was not a part of the ordinance. MOTION: Councilman Bay changed his original motion to continue consideration of the subject Entertainment Permit for one week. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour wam absent. MOTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 81R-19 through 81R-23, both inclusive, for adoption in accordance with the reports, recommendations and certifications furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resoldtion Book. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-19: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Bank of America, N.T. & S.A.; Alan R. Talt, et al.) 158: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-20: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING AN EASEMENT GRANT DEED CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CER- TAIN REAL PROPERTY FOR AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES. (R/W #2800-57, Anaheim Boulevard widening) 158: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-21: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING AN EASEMENT GRANT DEED CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FOR AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES. (R/W #2800-66, Anaheim Boulevard widening) 167: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-22: 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: 'TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND SAFETY LIGHTING AT THE INTERSECTION OF STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD AND WINSTON ROAD, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 01-794-6325-E4170. (Grismom & Johnson, Inc.) 124: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-23: 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: CONVENTION CENTER NORTH EXHIBIT HALL ELECTRICAL SYSTEM UPGRADING, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 64-308-7107. (Mel Smith Electric, Inc.) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Overhol~ None Seymour The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 81R-19 through 81R-23, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. 81R-109 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 20, I98I, 1:30 142/149: ORDINANCE NO. 4205: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4205 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. ~205: AN ORDINA~NCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM .~MEh~ING TITLE ~ CHAPTER 14.32, SECTION 14.32.191 OF THE ~NAHEIM ML'NICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PARKING RESTRICTIONS. (rela~ing to a 72-hour parking res~riczion on streets, City-owned and/or maintained property, parking lo~s and parking s~ruc"~u~~es) RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: By general consent, ~he Council recessed into Closed Session. Councilman Seymour was absent. (6:52 P.M.) AFTER RECESS: Mayor Pro Tem Overholt called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present, wi~h the exception of Councilman Ses~our. (7:08 P.M.) 153: SICK LEAVE PROVISIONS ~ECUTIVE ~ND .~DMINISTRATIVE MANAGm~I~N~, CITY M_AaNAGER, CITY ATTORNEY, CITY_ CLEP~K: Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 81R-24 for adoption. Refer co Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 8iR-24: A RESOLUTION OF ~HE ~ z ~ C~f COUNCIL OF THE C~£ OF ANAHEIM ~MENDiNG RESOLUTION NO. 80R-588. Roll Call Vo~e: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MLMBERS: COb~CIL MEMBERS: CO[~CIL M~!BERS: Kaywood, Bay, Roch and Overho!: None Seymour The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 81R-24 duly passed and adopted. A~JOL~fENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilman Overholc seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. 7:I0 P.M.)