1981/02/0381-131
City Hall,. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 3~ 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
DEPUTY CITY MANAGER: James D. Ruth
PUBLIC UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER: Gordon W. Hoyt
CITY ENGINEER: William G. Devitt
ELECTRICAL ENGINEER MANAGER: George H. Edwards
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
ZONING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER: Whitey Walp
Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Reverend G. Paul Keller, First Presbyterian Church, Retired, gave
the Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman E. Llewellyn Overholt, Jr., led the assembly in the
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
153: PRESENTATION - EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS~ 30- AND 25-YEAR EMPLOYEES: Mayor
Seymour, on behalf of the Council and the City, first presented a 30-year service
award to Mr. Harley Hesse, Senior Electrical Inspector, and elaborated on Mr.
Hesse's background with the City, emphasizing his dedication during that period
of time, particularly recognizing those instances wherein he performed above and
beyond the call of duty.
The Mayor then presented 25-year service awards to the following employees,
thanking them for their fine service in the employ of the City of Anaheim.
He also gave a brief background on each:
Richard Tozer, Fire Captain; Calvin Bouse, Principal Engineering Aide; Robert
Flynn, Facility Air Conditioner Repairer; Neils Nelson, Electrical Estimator;
Marvin Bushnell, Engineering Representative-Water Division; Ben Lamas, Lead
Park Maintenance Worker; Dale Wilcox, Police Lieutenant; George Platfoot, Follow-
up Investigator.
Robert Fellbaum, Robert E. Campbell and Jerry Dickenson also 25-year employees
in the Fire Department were unable to be present for the presentation.
173: PRESENTATION - JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT MASTER PLAN: Mr. Larry Slagle, Member
of the Airport Commission and the City's appointee to the Master Plan Study
Committee stated, prior to the slide presentation, he wanted to make some
comments. His recommendation as a representative of Anaheim on the Airport
Commission and a businessman in the City varied for the recommended action by
the consultant in the Master Plan. Inasmuch as the matter was going to be
before the Board of Supervisors on February 18, 1981, the Council should pro-
vide input to Supervisor Ralph Clark so that he could take the appropriate
action as to the City's feeling on the matter. The major recommendation on
81-132
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 3~ 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
the Master Plan was relative to a noise reduction policy and commercial flight
level. The Plan recommended a noise reduction of 7.5 decibels (db) and his
recommendation would be a 7.0 db reduction allowing for 62 flights, up from
55. That would represent an approximate 2% difference in the noise reduction
for a 13% increase in the amount of allowable commercial flight activity more
than offsetting the 2% loss. The Council also had a copy of a recommended
resolution in their agenda packet. He then introduced a Mr. Dennis Horn.
Mr. Horn subsequently narrated a 15-minute slide presentation summarizing the
activities that had taken place during the 1½ year project to develop a blue-
print for the development of the John Wayne Airport over the next 20 years,
the goal be±ng to provide model airport facilities with adequate air service
and a m~nimum community impact. He also elaborated on the several elements
of the Plan during the presentation. At the conclusion, he stated that final
decisions would be made on the Plan after public input was received during the
review period.
Council questioning to both Mr. Horn and Slagle followed the slide presentation,
during which Councilman Roth emphasized the need for a change in the parking
and baggage situation which he considered deplorable. He felt that flights
should not be increased until parking and baggage facilities were also increased.
He also noted that in the study there was a great deal of discussion with regard
to high density airports and the separation of commercial from private flights.
He was wondering if that had been taken into consideration.
Mr. Slagle answered that there was currently a general aviation study in pro-
gress to try and locate another County facility for general aviation.
Councilman Roth stated he did not want his remark misconstrued as not being
supportive of private aviation. He was a strong supporter of it and he wanted
to point out that they were not supporting anything curtailing it without some
additional fac±lities being available. He also asked if they had considered
restrictions of late night/early morning flights such as those instituted at
the Palm Springs Airport.
Mr. Slagle stated currently there were restrictions on the airport, as well as
aircraft weight, to preclude some of the noise when flying over residences and
adjoining developments. Those kinds of restrictions were touched on in the
resolution of the Orange County Division League of Cities supporting the
variance. Relative to increases in flights, any additional flights would be
concurrent with reductions in noise level.
Councilman Overholt then asked if they had any figures that would indicate the
amount of activity at the Orange County Airport attributable to Anaheim.
Mr. Slagle answered he did not have those figures with him, but Anaheim and
Newport Beach topped the list.
Councilman Overholt then continued that in the proposed resolution which he
understood was adopted by the Orange County Chamber of Commerce, they were
recommending a reduction to 7.0 db's rather than 7.5 as in the Master Plan.
Mr. Horn indicated on a 7.5 reduction, 86% of the presently impacted areas
81-133
City .Hall, .Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 3~ 1981, 1:30 P.M.
would be released for residential or commercial development. He asked Mr.
Slagle if he had a figure as to how the decrease to a 7.0 reduction in db's
would impact that area.
Mr. Slagle stated it would be a 84% reduction and a change in impacted areas
from 237 to 238.
Councilman Bay noted there was no indication that the recommendation was going
to serve all the air traffic needs of the County. Some of the criticism he
read in the paper was that it would not answer the whole problem for the County.
He asked Mr. Slagle if he agreed.
Mr. Slagle answered that he did agree. It would only serve a portion of the
community aviation needs, and they should develop that as an "endangered"
resource, while at the same time continuing to look at other avenues.
Councilman Overholt stated because he inhabited Newport Beach on occasions, he
too was concerned with noise and the exhaust fallout from commercial aviation.
He sympathized and empathized with the citizens of Newport Beach and their
political leaders and the ongoing "fight" to limit John Wayne Airport. As
an elected official of Anaheim, however, he had to look to the industry that
had developed in the City, being one of the two major cities most dependent upon
John Wayne Airport. It seemed it would behoove them to be supportive of a
program which would make John Wayne Airport within the bounds of reasonableness
in looking to noise reduction and the reduction of impact on surrounding terri-
tories to bring about the most efficient and effective facility to serve all
parts of the County until the great regional, international or world-wide
airport area could be found. He agreed with Mr. Slagle that the recommendations
he was making would provide more service from the John Wayne Airport. That
level of service would be provided by the adoption of the resolution as
proposed calling for a 7.0 db reduction rather than the 7.5 db reduction as
presently included in the Master Plan.
Councilman Overholt thereupon offered Resolution No. 81R-32 for adoption, in
the language as presented in the proposed City of Anaheim John Wayne Airport
position paper which was the identical language as approved by the Orange County
Chamber of Commerce. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-32: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
MAKING RECOMI~ENDATIONS TO THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REGARDING THE
JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT.
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-32 duly passed and adopted.
MINUTES: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt,
the minutes of the regular meeting held December 23, 1980 were approved, sub-
ject to typographical corrections. MOTION CARRIED.
81-134
City. Ha. ll, Anaheim,. Cali.fornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 3, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Bay moved to
waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda, after
reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to waiver is
hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the title, specific
request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such ordinance or resolution
in regular order. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEM_A~DS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $997,756.71, in accordance
with the 1980-81 Budget, were approved.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL MOTION CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Roth,
seconded by Councilman Bay, the following items were approved as recommended:
a. 160: Bid No. 3729--Thirty-Six, 4-inch, 6-inch, 8-inch and 10-inch Butterfly
Valves. Award to Certainteed Corp., Parkson Division, $12,020.40.
b. 160: Bid No. 3720--50,000 feet of No. 1/0 URD Service Wire. Award to
Qualified Electric, not to exceed $27,677.92.
c. 128: Financial Statement for the period ending December 31, 1980.
and file)
(Receive
MOTION CARRIED.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL RESOLUTION CONSENT CALENDAR: Councilwoman Kaywood
offered Resolution Nos. 81R-33 through 81R-35, awarding contracts as recommended
by the City Engineer in his memorandums dated January 28, 1981. Refer to
Resolution Book.
175: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-33: 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 EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND
WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: UTILITIES SERVICE CENTER MATERIAL STORAGE AREA IMPROVEMENTS,
W/O EAST STREET AND S/O SOUTH STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 51-
699-6329-0958M-3710A, 55-699-6329-0958M-3900A, 51-699-6329-0957M-3710A, 55-699-
6329-0957M-3900A. (Steiny and Company, Inc., $104,122)
175: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-34: 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 EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AiqD TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND
WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING
PUBLIC IM]PROVEMENT: FAIRMONT BOULEVARD ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION AND LEWIS STREET
ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 55-665-6329-75800-
36100 AND 55-665-6329-8034A-35300. (Russco Construction, Inc., $849,723.40)
164: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-35: 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 EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND
WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: OLIVE HILLS AND EASTRIDGE RESERVOIR STORM DAMAGE REPAIR, IN
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 51-484-6329-0707E-76100 AND 51-479-6329-0519E-
76020. (Holstrum Construction Corporation, $33,794)
81-135
City H~ll, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 3~ 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 Nos. 81R-33 through 81R-35 duly passed and adopted.
105/106: DONATION FROM SOROPTIMIST INTERNATIONAL OF ANAHEIM TO PURCHASE A DI-
RECTORY FOR THE GEORGE WASHINGTON COMMUNITY CENTER: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, a donation from the Soroptimist In-
ternational of Anaheim, was accepted in the amount of $I,000, to purchase a
Directory for the George Washington Community Center, as recommended in memor-
andum dated January 27, 1981 from Deputy City .Manager James Ruth. MOTION CARRIED.
Betty Lillis, President of Soroptimist International, and Lucy Smeltzer, Community
Services Chairman of Soroptimist International, presented the check to Mr. Ruth
on behalf of the Council. Mr. Ruth stated that they were very appreciative as
a Department to have such cooperation and a working relationship with such an
organization. They would make the donation very useful in the new Community
Center which they were looking forward to opening within the next three or four
weeks.
Mayor Seymour stated, on behalf of the Council and all the citizens of Anaheim,
how grateful they were for all the work the Soroptimists did for the City.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the $1,000
donation was appropriated into Program 01-344, Community Services. MOTION
CARRIED.
123: RENEWAL OF CONSORTIUM CITIES CONTRACT: Councilwoman Kaywood offered
Resolution No. 81R-36 for adoption, authorizing an Addendum to the Joint Powers
Agreement with the Cities of Costa Mesa, Garden Grove, Santa Ana, Orange and
La Habra and an Amended Agreement with the National Center for Municipal Develop-
ment, Inc., adding the Cities of Orange and La Habra, for the term ending June 30,
19_81, for the Consortium Cities Program, as recommended in memorandum dated
January 26, 1~81 from the Deputy City Manager. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-36: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITIES OF
ANAHEIM, COSTA MESA, GARDEN GROVE, SANTA ANA, ORANGE AND LA HABRA AND FURTHER
APPROVING AN AMENDED AGREEMENT WITH THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR MUNICIPAL DEVELOP-
MENT, INC. FOR THE CONSORTIUM CITIES PROGRAM, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND
CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
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-36 duly passed and adopted.
123: LEASE RENEWAL FOR DATA PROCESSING OFFICE FACILITIES: On motion by Council-
man Overholt, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, renewal of the lease agreement
81-136
Ci.t.y ~a~l~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 3, 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
with Joseph and Toma Corda, Howard and Danielle Yonet and Ellsworth R. Olsen,
at a monthly rental rate of $9,440 per month, to house the Data Processing
Department facilities at 125 East Ball Road, for the period of March 1, 1981
through January 31, 1982, was authorized, as recommended in memorandum dated
February 3, 1981 from Data Processing Director Phil Grammatica. MOTION
CARRIED.
153: ADDITIONAL POLICE OFFICER CLASSIFICATIONS FOR UPGRADE ELGIBILITY TO FIELD
TRAINING OFFICERS: Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 81R-37 for adoption,
amending Resolution No. 80R-428 relating to premium pay provisions by adding
additional Police Officer classifications to Section 6.45, which provides for
a 2.5 percent premium for employees assigned as Field Training Officers, as
recommended in memorandum dated January 28, 1981 from Human Resources Director
Garry McRae. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-37: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 80R-428 RELATING TO PREMIUM PAY PROVISIONS. (effective
January 30, 1981)
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-37 duly passed and adopted.
164: SLOPE STORM DAMAGE REPAIR - TUSTIN AVENUE~ FAIRMONT BOULEVARD~ SANTA ANA
CANYON ROAD: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 81R-38 for adoption,
declaring the urgent necessity for the preservation of property to permit the
negotiation of a Public Works Project for the repair of Tustin Avenue, Fairmont
Boulevard, and Santa Ana Canyon Road slope storm damage, Account No. 01-792-
6325-E2650, as recommended in memorandum dated January 28, 1981 from City
Engineer William Devitt. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-38: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
DECLARING THE URGENT NECESSITY FOR THE PRESERVATION OF PROPERTY TO PERMIT THE
NEGOTIATION OF A PUBLIC WORKS PROJECT FOR THE REPAIR OF TUSTIN AVENUE, FAIRMONT
BOULEVARD AND SANTA ANA CANYON ROAD SLOPE STORM DAMAGE.
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-38 duly passed and adopted.
115: ANAHEIM CIVIC CENTER - REDUCTION OF RETENTION: Account No. 48-984-6325.
Authorizing a reduction in the amount of the retention being held by City from
$200,000 to $25,000, plus attached stop notices amounting to $52,297.11 on file
with the City for this project.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the problem with the elevators had been completely
alleviated; City Engineer William Devitt answered hopefully it had been and then
deferred to Mr. Randy Bosch, Dan L. Rowland & Associates, Architects.
?
81-137
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 3~ 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Randy Bosch explained that they had the assurances of the continuing cooper-
ation of Dover Elevator Company through the General Contractor, Del E. Webb.
They had a fairly low incidence rate in the last several months, closer to
what might be expected relative to the age of the facility. He assured the
Council that everyone involved in the building would continue to pressure those
responsible to be sure that the system would continue to operate. In the mean-
time, they felt that ongoing problems which might arise would be covered under
the existing warranty.
Councilwoman Kaywood assumed then that everyone felt that the $25,000 would be
adequate to cover any contingencies at this point.
City Manager William Talley stated if it were up to him, he would not release
any funds to Dover Elevator. The staff and architect were recommending that
would be unreasonable. No matter what their protestations had been, he felt
the level of service they had experienced had been poor. He personally was
holding Del Webb and Dan Rowland & Associates responsible for the elevators.
Their personal reputation would be on the line if they did not correct the
situation.
Mr. Bosch stated they felt the issue of release of retention was a contractual
one based upon the City's contract with the General Contractor and the contents
of the specifications. In that regard, relative to their administration of the
construction documents, they could find no reason to withhold any more of the
retention. It was still the contractor's responsibility to maintain those
areas under warranty and to repair items that showed defects in materials and
labor.
Councilman Overholt asked the City Attorney if he shared the view of the archi-
tect as to their legal position on retentions.
City Attorney William Hopkins answered that he did. The contractual provisions
were quite clear and anything beyond that point would be inappropriate. They
could always bring action on the warranty if it were necessary to do so.
Mayor Seymour stated he felt they would be best advised to follow the advice
of the City Attorney and architect responsible for supervising and executing
the contracts.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to authorize a reduction in the amount of the
retention being held by City from $200,000 to $25,000, plus attached stop
notices amounting to $52,297.11 on file with the City for this project. Council-
man Bay seconded the motion. ~TION CARRIED.
123: GROUND WIRE CONTACT AGREEMENT WITH PACIFIC TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH COMPANY:
Mr. George Edwards, Electrical Engineering Manager, first clarified questions
posed by Councilwoman Kaywood relative to the proposed subject agreement.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Bay, the Public Utilities
General Manager was authorized to execute a Ground Wire Contact Agreement with
Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Company to attach, maintain, use, repair, renew
and remove from the City's Utility secondary neutral ground wires, facilities
and equipment to ground the Telephone Company's plant, as recommended in memor-
andum dated January 12, 1981 from Public Utilities General Manager Gordon Hoyt.
MOTION CARRIED.
81-138
City Hall., Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 3, 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
158: RESIDENTIAL RENTAL AGREEMENT WITH JOSE SABEDRA: On motion by Councilman
Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, a Residential Rental Agreement was
authorized with Jose Sabedra for property located at 1041 North Patt Street,
as recommended in memorandum dated January 26, 1981 from Executive Director
of Community Development Norm Priest. MOTION CARRIED.
123: DEVELOPER AGREEMENT, MOH-TAL, INC.~ FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING: A proposed
agreement with Moh-Tal, Inc., to assure affordable sale prices for a 30-unit
condominium project located at 715 Webster Street, was submitted.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she voted "no" on the project involved
originally because it was a 144% density bonus, but on the other hand, she did
not want to see the project be less for the first buyer and escalate from that
point. She asked the City Attorney what she might do in this case.
City Attorney Hopkins answered that her previous position would not affect
the present situation. She also had no financial interest in the matter.
saw no objection to her voting on the subject item.
He
Mayor Seymour stated as he understood the recommendation from staff, a trust
deed would be placed against the property for the difference between the sales
price and the appraised value, no interest to accrue, and at the end of a five-
year period, the trust deed would then be reconveyed unless the property were
sold prior to that time.
Mr. Norm Priest, Executive Director of Community Development, stated that was
correct.
Councilman Roth asked if he would explain what would occur if the property were
sold within that five-year period.
Mr. Priest explained that the difference in the price would be payable to the
Housing Authority for use and production of additional affordable housing.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked, where there was supposed to be a 30-year pre:edure
to insure it was affordable housing, had the City changed that to make it
simply five years.
Mr. Priest answered in this particular instance, the 30-year period was appli-
cable under State law if there was a direct contribution of public funds. In
this case, they were dealing with indirect contributions, i.e., bonuses, vari-
ances etc. In the opinion of State legal counsel it did not constitute a direct
contribution of public funds and as such did not require the 30-year provision.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if he was saying then that year six, whoever had
the property could then go on the open market and sell Or rent it for what-
ever they could get. If so, it would no longer be affordable, but the City
would have already given a large density bonus.
Mr. Priest answered that would be possible if, in fact, the difference the
Mayor referred to were paid back to the Housing Authority, i.e., the difference
between the price and the market value.
81-139
City Ha. ll,. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 3, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated in that case she had a problem, because as far as
she was concerned, to have given that kind of density bonus, parking waivers,
etc., to insure it is affordable housing for only five years was unacceptable.
If she voted "no", she did not want it to be assumed that she did not want any
control on it. If she voted "yes", she did not want it to seem that five years
was long enough for her.
Mr. Priest stated it would seem to him the alternative in that instance would
be one of two things. If the Council wanted it to be a longer restriction, it
could be amended into the agreement. They could then take it back to the owner
or developer and seek to negotiate that longer restriction into the contract
and bring it back to the Council.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood suggested that it be a ten-year period. She
thereupon moved that it be ten years instead of five. The motion died for
lack of a second.
Councilman Bay, reading from the documentation, asked what the following meant,
"at the end of one year the sales price will be adjusted in conformance with
Section 8 Fair Market Rent Annual Adjustment Factor as published by the Federal
Government."
Mrs. Lisa Stipkovich, Housing Manager, answered that if the units were sold
after one year from the date of the Planning Commission approval, the developer
would be held to those prices for one year with some inflationary factor to be
given to the units in case it took him longer to sell or process every unit.
They agreed to give him the percentage increase in the published factor that
came out in the Federal Register. This year it was 12% although it changed
annually reflecting to some degree the change in the housing market. The
developer had agreed to that.
Mayor Seymour asked what would happen if the individual who purchased the unit
decided to rent it; Mrs. Stipkovich answered the restriction did not address
that issue. It could be written into the second trust deed that he could not
rent it or must notify them. They could include something else if the Council
wished.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she thought when they discussed the situation
previously, it was specifically and absolutely to be owner-occupied. If someone
could turn around and rent even within the five years, then they could sell
for a windfall profit at the sixth year.
Mrs. Stipkovich stated on the rental, they prescreened the buyers and they
could at least look at the initial occupant. They could also write into the
second trust deeds something relating to the issue of rent control. They did
not recommend ~t for this project specifically, but they could amend the agree-
ment to include that.
Councilwoman Kaywood emphasized especially on this project where they gave a
144% density bonus, it should be one where absolutely no rentals be permitted.
Either they were creating affordable housing or they were not.
81-140
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 3~ 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Priest stated that could be amended into the agreement.
Mayor Seymour stated that obviously they had a responsibility to insure that
speculation did not take place nor advantage taken of an affordable unit that
had been created as a result of a favorable consideration by the Council. He
for one could support the concept of creating a second trust deed that would
represent the difference between the appraised value and the price that the
consumer was actually paying. Further he felt it was only prudent to establish
restrictions relative to rentals. They should be forbidden. If an individual
must move within that limited period of time, they ought to be required to
sell the property, not convert it to a rental and sit on it for a five-year
period and then profit because of the original action. He would like to see
the rental aspect covered and then over the five-year period they should also
be able to have a decreasing scale on the trust deed, something on the order,
if they did not sell the property for two or three years, they would have to
pay off 80% or 70% of the trust deed and then moving into the fourth year
perhaps only 30%. The fifth year and thereafter they would be free to recoup
that which they had benefitted from at the outset. He asked if staff had given
any consideration to that.
Mr. Priest answered "yes". What the Mayor just suggested was a process that
they followed in certain of the improvement programs. The basic reasons they
held it on a stable or non-forgiveable basis was because they felt five years
was a very minimal period for stabilizing that particular development as far
as affordable housing was concerned. They talked about the possibility of a
decreasing second over a somewhat longer term, seven or ten years. Basically
they traded off that decrease to what they thought was a minimum to stabilize
it for affordable.
Councilman Bay asked if there was some middle ground between Councilwoman
Kaywood's suggestion and what the Mayor was talking about. He suggested
perhaps leaving it flat for five years and then putting it on a curve from
flat to zero for the second five years with the intent of holding affordable
housing. That person could then sell to another low and moderate income buyer
and the second trust deed could be assumed by the second buyer and not called
at the time. It would still continue for the five-year period flat and then
start to decrease on whatever the curve would be from five to ten years to
nothing, ending at the tenth year.
Mr. Priest said they would have no problem with that.
Councilman Roth stated he did not have any objection to the five years, but in
going over that period they would start giving an undue punishment to that
individual because he was not seeking Section 8 funds or not getting a
government subsidy. He supported the five-year concept on the rental
agreement which was nothing new, since it was in the Cal-Vet loan program
today.
Councilwoman Kaywood reiterated she felt five years was too short a time con-
sidering the tremendous bonus they had given.
Councilman Bay asked if staff had considered time linear to percentage of bonus.
He was concerned that this might be a landmark decision that would form a
pattern for future bonuses when they completed their workshop with the Planning
81-14i
City H~ll~ Aqaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 3, 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
Commission. If they took a specific case, such as this, which represented a
144% bonus and set it up for five years flat and someone came in with a 25%
bonus, that would be for one year. He felt that should be relative because
there was no doubt as to the dollar value of the bonus. Somewhere they should
work together and be proportionate rather than just flat. That was the
precedent which concerned him.
Mr. Priest stated in that perspective they did not draw that comparison. What
they did though was, correctly or incorrectly, sought to look at it from a
standpoint of what they could best apply to the development to assure estab-
lising those homeowners in place for a reasonable length of time.
Mayor Seymour stated he did not agree with the linear basis concept. It could
not be based on a mathematical basis in relationship to density. It was in
relationship to fair market' value, not to the sale price the developer was being
forced to place upon the unit.
Councilman Bay agreed and stated that he felt the particular recommendation
was a good start, but that the problem was more complex than this simple an
answer.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to continue the matter for one or two weeks so
that they could look at some of the alternatives and possibilities. Council-
man Overholt seconded the motion for the purpose of discussion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated that inasmuch as the study
showed there was a seven-year turnover, she questioned whether that could be
a compromise, a seven- rather than a five-year term.
Mayor Seymour stated again he felt they were missing the point. The relativity
to the time had to do with the amount of fair market value that the family
or individual would pay to purchase the property. In this instance, Mrs.
Stipkovich estimated it was $10,000. If so, over ten years that would be sched-
uled $I,000 per year, if over five, $2,000 per year. That was the relativity.
Councilman. Bay questioned if this would also be a good subject for the planned
workshop with the City Planning Commission, because he did not necessarily want
to continue it for two weeks but to something practical.
Councilman Overholt stated the question was whether the continuance was going
to work a hardship on anybody.
Mr. Priest suggested that they pose that question to the developer since he
was present.
Mr. Mohammed Maper, President of Moh-Tal, Inc., in answer to the Mayor's state-
ment that a delay would hamper his process, but that the seven-year stipulation
would be acceptable. The continuance would work a hardship because any delay
such as rain would harm them relative to the price they had agreed upon. They
borrowed money at 22%, and it was very essential that the job not be hampered.
Discussion then followed between the Council and Mr. Mapar revolving around
Mr. Mapar's insistence that a delay would cause him problems; however, the
Council did not agree. Councilman Bay suggested an amendment to his motion
81-142
City Hall,. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 3, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
to three or four weeks. Councilwoman Kaywood suggested three weeks which would
be immediately after the workshop with the Planning Commission. Councilman
Overholt was agreeable to a three-week continuance.
Before concludimg, Mr. Maper stated that the agreement had a direct relationship
to the issuance of a building permit. If they did not get the agreement, they
could not get the building permit.
Since Mr. Mapar's remark raised the question of whether or not he was proceeding
on his project without a building permit, the Mayor suggested that they post-
pone further discussion of the matter until later in the meeting in order to
clarify it.
RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (3:20 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (3:30 P.M.)
Mayor Seymour announced that having checked with staff, it was his understanding
that Mr. Mapar had done some grading and put up a wall thus far, and he had
permits to do so. Before being able to obtain a building permit, he needed
Council action in authorizing the subject agreement. In that case, he could
clearly understand why a delay was going to harm the project.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour thereupon moved that staff recommendation be approved
and amended to include a proviso that if an owner of a unit should become a non-
occupant, the property would have to be sold. Councilman Overholt first with-
drew his second to the motion to continue and seconded the motion of approval.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay stated that he could vote for the motion
if it was clearly understood that the action would not be precedent-setting or
that it would set a pattern in that any future formula would not be affected by
it. Mr. Priest stated from staff's standpoint, they had sought to approach the
matter in the most reasonable way and had not thought of it as a precedent.
Councilman Bay emphasized that he still wanted the subject to remain open.
Councilman Overholt stated he did not consider it a precedent but some of the
Council Members had different definitions of a precedent.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked Councilman Overholt if he felt the five years was
sufficient in this case because it was $10,000 below market value; Councilman
Overholt answered, based on the price for which the units were going to be sold,
he did not think that represented a windfall over five years.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated as long as it would not be a precedent in any way
and they would discuss the matter further, rather than vote "no" which might
indicate no control, she would vote "yes"
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
81-143
City Ha!l~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 3~ 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
SETTING OF PUBLIC HEARING: Mayor Seymour explained that there was some mis-
understanding relative to the setting or nonsetting of a public hearing as it
pertained to property located at Cerritos Avenue and Euclid Street (Reclassifi-
cation No. 80-81-13, Conditional Use Permit No. 2119, Tentative Tract No. 11053).
Those in attendance on the matter today would recall that the Planning Commission
approved the project and it came before the Council on the Planning Commission
Consent Calendar on January 6, 1981. Councilwoman Kaywood set the matter for a
public hearing although the action at that time did not include any specific
date leaving it to the City Clerk's prerogative as to the date. He asked the
City Clerk to explain.
City Clerk Linda Roberts explained at the time the item appeared on the Planning
Commission Consent Calendar, Councilwoman Kaywood did request a review of the
Planning Commission's action. At that particular time just prior to a recess,
the people in the audience were asked whether they wanted a night or afternoon
hearing and the answer was an afternoon hearing. No date was given at that
particular time. During recess, she was asked when the earliest possible date
could be, and the earliest date, mechancially, would have been January 27,
19.81. At the end of that particular meeting, the Council discussed the pos-
sibility of taking no action on any items relating to affordable housing until
after a joint work session with the Planning Commission. The next day the
date for the hearing on that particular item was tentatively set for February 3,
1981. A letter was sent to the agent of the property advising it was tentative;
however, a legal notice specifying date and time certain would be sent to him.
Following the dicussion of the affordable housing issue, she then determined
to hold off processing any public hearing notification on that item.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated at the time she set the public hearing, they did
have a discussion on whether it would be a night or a day hearing and she jotted
down on her calendar January 27, 1981. She had received a great many calls on
the item as had other Council Members and when somebody indicated it was
February 3, 1981, she was still under the impression it was January 27. She
felt it was just a misunderstanding on the date set.
City Clerk Roberts stated she believed the question was, what was the earliest
date and in her mind, that did not necessarily mean that would be the date
until she checked the master calendar for other scheduled public hearings.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she knew that the Council had discussed deferring
any of the items on affordable housing until after the workshop.
Mayor Seymour stated there was discussion only, but no vote taken on whether or
not to defer.
Councilman Roth stated there was also discussion indicating if the developers
wished and had latitude in their time frame, they could ask for a delay until
after the workshop.
Councilman Overholt asked if the developer had requested a special hearing
date; Mrs. Roberts answered that this morning she had received a telephone
call and they were requesting February 24, 1981, at 3:00 P.M.
81-144
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 3, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Bay stated since then he had heard requests from the group involved
for an evening hearing. If there was representation from the group today, he
would like an indication now if they wanted it in the evening or in the after-
noon.
Mayor Seymour interjected and stated he had promised Joanne Stanton, as well as
others who called him, that if they wanted to speak to the matter, they could do
so. He felt now was an appropriate time.
Mr. Bob Messe, 1523 South Bayless, stated that they had told a great many people
to be present today and subsequently told them not to be present. Some had
taken the afternoon off from work. If at all possible, he wondered if they
could make it an evening public hearing without costing a lot of money.
Mayor Seymour stated that February 24, 1981 at 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers
was acceptable to the Council.
Mrs. Rita Ray, 1927 Chateau, questioned why the public hearing was advertised
in the legal notices section of the Anaheim Bulletin; both the City Clerk and
the Mayor then explained the procedure used in notifying citizenry of Anaheim
of scheduled public hearings.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved that the date and time for a public hearing
on Reclassification No. 80-81-13, Conditional Use Permit No. 2119, Tentative
Tract No. 11053, be Tuesday, February 24, 1981 at 7:00 P.M. in the Council
Chambers. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
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 meetings of January 13 and 20, 1981--
see minutes those dates)..
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.
At the meeting of January 20, 1981 the applicant requested an additional two-
week continuance which was approved by the Council, and public hearing was
continued to this date.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present.
Mr. John Virtue, Virtue and Scheck, Inc., Attorney for the applicant, stated
they were appealing a portion of the City Planning Commission ruling with
regard to conditions of approval in order to obtain a variance for a setback
on Manchester Avenue to construct a mortuary at Melrose Avenue. The improve-
ments involved were on Manchester Street on one side and the street that was
a part of the 20r-acre parcel at the other end, Lewis Street, not contiguous
81-145
City Hall, Anaheim, Cali. for.nia - COUNC. I.L MINUTES - February 3,. 1981, 1:30 P.M.
to the parcel on which they were requesting to build a mortuary. The improve-
ments requested involved major power lines and the moving of a Department of
Water and Power major line. The cost of the mortuary was approximately $300,000
to $350,000 and the City's estimate of the cost for the street improvements
were $100,000 to $125,000. Therefore, it seemed out of line to request those
improvements in connection with building a small building on the property.
Councilman Overholt asked if they were obi ecting to the requested improvements
on Manchester; Mr. Virtue answered "no".
Councilwoman Kaywood asked the City Attorney, with an abundance of caution,
since she owned two crypts at Melrose Abbey, if there would be any problem in
participating in the discussion and voting on the subject; the City Attorney
answered since there was no financial interest involved in the business itself,
there would be no objection to her participation.
Councilman Roth asked the City Attorney if he had an opportunity to read the
five-page document dated January 29, 1981 from Mr. Scheck, Virtue & Scheck,
Inc., relative to the variance application (made a part of the record).
City Attorney Hopkins answered that they had researched the contents of the
letter and did not agree with the conclusions contained therein, i.e., that
the City did not have the right to impose conditions. This was not a variance
but a conditional use permit and Anaheim, being a Charter City, he did not
believe that the Government Code referred to was applicable. It was his opin-
ion that the Planning Commission action in imposing the conditions was proper
but it was then up to the Council if there should be any modification. There
was an exemption if they were trying to run a road through the cemetery or
take it by eminent domain and they would then be prohibited by State law. This
was merely a reasonable and necessary item to insure the proper development of
the property.
Councilman Overholt asked how the property was presently improved contiguous
to Lewis Street.
Mr. Virtue answered that it was lawn cemetery with some wall mausoleums along
part of Lewis Street. It was totally fenced but there was some vertical wall
mausoleums next to the fence.
There being no further members of the public who wished to speak, the Mayor
closed the public hearing.
Mayor Seymour stated he felt it was totally unfair to impose any requirements
with regard to Lewis Street.
City Engineer William Devitt stated that the applicant indicated to him it was
their proposal to prepare a parcel map and basically subdivide the property.
He was required by State law to require the street improvements to be installed
for the approval of the parcel map. He wrote a letter each year to the Commis-
sioner of Real Estate that he would require street improvements in the City,
without exception, where there was a parcel map or subdivision.
81-146
City H~ll,. An. ah~im,. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Febr~.~ry 3~ 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Virtue stated that he believed a C~netery Authority was exempt from the
State Act and could parcel without conditions. He did not think the City could
impose a condition on parceling, but if that was a problem, they could waive the
parcel request.
Mr. Devitt stated if there was no request for a parcel map, the City Engineer
would not be required to approve the parcel map and thus could not impose those
conditions.
The Mayor asked Mr. Virtue if he was willing not to file a parcel map and to
leave the property in one piece; Mr. Virtue answered "yes". He was willing to
leave it in one piece.
Councilman Bay asked the City Engineer to explain the condition of Lewis Street
at present and as it was going to stay under the type of stipulation discussed.
Mr. Devitt then did so and in concluding stated that the Subdivision Map Act
stated while he must require the improvements, in lieu of that, he could
require that they make the necessary financial arrangements acceptable to the
City. Therefore, there was some consideration that the City might enter into
an agreement for a period of five years. There had been that kind of discussion
and that was why the estimate was given at $100,000 at today's cost and five
years hence, approximately $150,000 on the basis of a 10% inflation factor.
The Mayor asked Mr. Virtue how he would feel about a participation agreement
that would cause the improvements to be made sometime within the next five
years. Within that time, they would contribute a portion of the cost of
construction for widening and improvement of Lewis Street and the City would
do likewise.
Mr. Virtue stated he felt the business was so marginal that he would not be
optimistic about doing that. They intended to operate as an improved cemetery-
mortuary and he did not see the ability to generate those types of properties.
Discussion the followed between Mr. Virtue, the Council Members and the City
Attorney relative to the possibility of an agreement such as that articulated
by the Mayor, as well as the instrument to be used as security, that the contri-
bution would be made by the property owner for the improvements. In each
instance, Mr. Virtue felt Et would not be possible to accomplish.
The Mayor then asked if he understood Mr. Virtue to be saying, the only way
they could proceed financially was if they had no responsibility to Lewis
Street whatsoever.
Mr. Virtue answered "no" and that was not his point. According to the City
Council, they were supposed to come up with an instrument that he did not think
they could provide. They could make an agreement to do it which was about
the most they could do with no letter of credit, no bond or 100% cash deposit,
as previously discussed.
The Mayor then asked what such an agreement would state.
Mr. Virtue answered in talking about participation, 50-50 was unfair relative
to Lewis Street. Major improvements had to be done not just curbs and gutters.
He would suggest, assuming they could get around a letter of credit, that they
81-147
City Hall, Anaheim,. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 3, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
participate 100% in the Manchester improvements and one-third of the Lewis Street
improvements and that they give the City an agreement that they would do so in
a seven-year period.
Mayor Seymour stated, relative to Lewis Street, their only concern, he was saying
they would be willing to pay one-third of its full improvement and widening, they
would want a seven-year period in which to do it, and it would have to be a
letter agreement, rather than a bond or letter of credit.
Mr. Virtue that was correct. He confirmed for Councilman Overholt that there
would be no delay in the Manchester Street improvements because that was written
into their present construction loan agreement.
Additional discussion followed between the Mayor, Mr. Virtue and the City
Attorney relative to the mechanics of providing the security the Council was
looking for, at the conclusion of which the Mayor suggested the following:
that the Council consider giving the City Attorney and Mr. Virtue a week or two
weeks to work out the details and bring it back, that the property owner would
pay one-third of the cost of the improvements on Lewis Street within a seven-
year period, to be adequately secured some way either by the subject property
or some other property that would be acceptable to the City to insure within
that seven-year period the improvements would be made.
Mr. Virtue stated that he did not know where they were at with regard to parcel-
ization, but perhaps a lien could be given on the parcel they were splitting off
for the mortuary.
City Attorney Hopkins stated they would have to look into the matter to be certain
there was something they could enforce.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council finds that this project
would have no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact
since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property for medium density
land uses commensurate with the proposal, that no sensitive environmental impacts
are involved in the proposal and that the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner
indicates no significant, individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact
and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 81R-39 for adoption, granting Conditional
Use Permit No. 2141, subject to the conditions imposed by the City Planning Com-
mission, except for the condition as it pertained to Lewis Street. That condition
would reflect that the property owner would pay one-third of the cost of im-
provements on Lewis Street within a seven-year period and that amount would
be adequately secured by the real estate and/or other acceptable security to the
City. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-39: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2141.
81-148
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 3, 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-39 duly passed and adopted.
City Manager Talley asked if in that action, if the property were ever to change
hands, was it the Council's intent that the two-thirds was a contribution the
City would make to Lewis Street no matter what they subsequently might want to
do with the property. In order to make the improvements now, they were in effect
picking up on 1981 dollars, or somewhere around $70,000. If subsequently the
property were sold for any reason, he wanted to know if it was also the intent
that there be no obligation for them to be responsible for that amount. The
Council had waived two-thirds of the obligation at this time because of an
unusual financial circumstance.
The Mayor interjected and stated it was not because of unusual financial circum-
stance, but because of the particular use they were making of the property and
where it was located, i.e., the development of a mortuary had little or nothing
to do with Lewis Street. If the property should sell, he would want their
one-third paid off in the sale escrow and if the property should ever, either
under their ownership or future ownership, take on a different use, he would
expect that they were going to pay fully and not just one-third. The present
action only pertained to CUP 2141 and nothing else.
Councilman Bay suggested that that be so stipulated in the agreement; City
Attorney Hopkins stated they would provide for that.
The Mayor asked Mr. Virtue if he had any problem with that; Mr. Virtue stated,
to the extent that the property was security by way of a lien for the improvements
and to the extent it was sold, the obligation would be carried along with the
property. To the extent it would be subdivided for housing, the only portion
of the property left was dedicated for cemetery purposes with bodies interred,
and he did not believe it was possible to subdivide that property for any other
use except cemetery use. Thus the question was moot. He had no problem with
it.
PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 80-81-17 AND VARIANCE NO. 3176: Application
by Bill J. Nickel, et al, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200, to
permit a 14-unit apartment complex on property located at 1217 South Nutwood
Street, with various Code waivers.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-226, 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 Reclassification
No. 80-81-17, subject to the following conditions:
1. That street lighting facilities along Nutwood 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
81-149
qity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 3~ .1981~ 1:30 P.M.
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.
2. That the owner(~)of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim a fee,
in an amount as determined by the City Council, for tree planting purposes
along Nutwood Street.
3. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans
on file with the Office of the Director of Public Works.
4. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and determined
to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to commencement of
structural framing.
5. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
6. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory
to the City Engineer.
7. That the owner(_s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the
appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees, as determined to be appropriate by
the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building permit is issued.
8. That the owner(~l of subject property shall pay the traffic signal assess-
ment fee in (Ordinance No. 3896) in an amount as determined by the City Council,
for each new dwelling unit prior to the issuance of a building permit.
~. Prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject property, Condi-
tion Nos. 1 and 2, above-mentioned, shall be completed. The provisions or
rights granted by this resolution shall become null and void by action of the
Planning Commission unless said conditions are complied with within one year
from the date hereof, or such further time as the Planning Commission may grant.
iQ. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Revision No. 1
of Exhibit Nos. 1 through 4.
11. That Condition Nos. 3, 5, 6 and 10, above-mentioned, shall be complied with
prior to final building and zoning inspections.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-227, granted
Variance No. 3176, in part, subject to the following conditions:
1. That this Variance is granted subject to the completion of Reclassification
No. 8Q-81-17, now pending.
2. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Revision No. 1
of Exhibit Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and Exhibit No. 4.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman
Kaywood at the meeting of January 6, 1981, and public hearing scheduled this
date.
Miss Santalahti described the location and surrounding land uses. She outlined
the findings given in the staff report which was submitted to and considered by
the City Planning Commission. She also pointed out that requested waiver "c",
minimum recreational-leisure area, had been deleted by revised plans.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous
of being heard.
81-150
City Hall,. Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 3~ 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Bill Nickel stated he was one of the owners at 1217 South Nutwood. He had
two other partners, Bernard Stall and Fred Elfer. They were subcontractors
and not large developers. Relative to the waivers, a) was self-evident, b)
there was an 85-unit apartment complex 130 feet south of the subject property
(Corinthian) and it was all two-story and thus one of the reasons they were
asking for the waiver, c) was deleted as explained by Miss Santalahti and
d) had to do with the way the building was designed. It was actually only
one building and what they called minimum distance between buildings was
actually a courtyard provided in the center of the building for sunlight. He
had with him an updated set of plans in a one-quarter inch scale should any-
body wish to review them. He also clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood that at
this time he did not own, nor did he have any interest in the parcel to the
south. If the subject piece of property worked out well, he would like to
have an interest in it.
The Mayor surmised then that they were only dealing with waivers a) and d) since,
as Mr. Nickel explained, b) would not affect anybody tn the general area.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that the developer initially came in with 16 units
but when revised, it was reduced to 14 units although higher in actual people
density, since the project was to contain eight one-bedroom units, four two-
bedrooms and two three-bedrooms.
Mr. Nickel explained that when he originally bought the property, after having
called the City and subsequently using the information he received, he devised
a set of plans that would accept 16 units. When he subsequently went to the
City with plans, he found that he was way over what the City proposed because
of several reasons. He had purchased a piece of property and was already into
it for "X" amount of dollars under the impression that he had a 16-unit piece
of property only to find out that he did not have a 16-unit piece of property.
Working with staff under their supervision, he asked what he could do. He went
to the City Planning Commission meeting and the feeling among the Commissioners
was that he was not trying to provide housing for the people who really needed
it, the young married people. Consequently, they reduced the number of units
and ~ncreased the number of bedrooms with basically the same square footage.
When they got to the Planning Commission, there was an error in the amount of
square footage, Item a, which he did not catch nor did staff until the meeting,
and ~t was revised at that time, also at that time square footage was 911. It
was then he decided perhaps he was asking for too much and he redrew the plan
revising the units upward to 1045 square feet.
Mayor Seymour asked i£ he were not asking for the first variance, minimum lot
area per dwelling unit which dealt with density, and if he were to build the
project totally by Code, how many units would that yield.
Miss Santalahti stated that it might be only one unit less; however, since it
was a two-story project, he would perhaps lose two units.
Questions were then posed to Mr. Nickel relative to the rents to be charged in
the development at the conclusion of which, Councilwoman Kaywood asked staff
the density bonus on the project; Miss Santalahti answered it was approximately
13%.
81-151
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 3~ 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Bay stated that she quoted 42 units per acre; Miss Santalahti stated
that was the equivalent and 36 was what would be allowable net.
Mr. Nickel then submitted the revised plans to Councilwoman Kaywood for her
perusal.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked to hear from the woman who owned the property just
to the south of the subject parcel.
Mrs. W. L. Conant, 1225 South Nutwood, stated that she presently resided at
the property and had lived there for 28 years. She had been recently widowed
and had 2600 square feet in her home. She was considering selling it but not
because of the apartments. She had lived next to the Corinthian Apartments
for 10 years and had been very happy with them. She was sure that she would
sell because the home was much too large for a single person.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if she had been negotiating with Mr. Nickel at all;
Mrs. Conant answered that she had talked to him, but had made no commitment what-
soever to anyone at this time.
The Mayor then asked to hear from anyone who wished to speak in opposition.
Mr. Clair Simpson, R35 South Nutwood, stated her main objection was relative to
the density. She was unhappy and concerned with what was happening on Nutwood.
She lived across the street from the Normandy Park Apartments that were built in
19_63. At the time there were no problems with the apartments, but within the
last few years there had been tremendous problems with the parking and traffic.
Driving down Nutwood between Beacon Avenue and Ball Road any time after 5:00 P.M.
or on weekends, traffic was terrible and no parking was available. She did not
like net density being increased. The Corinthian Apartments were 27 units per
net acre and the proposed project would be 42. If the property adjacent to it
also sold, she could foresee the same thing happening. Nutwood was a feeder
into Cerritos Street going to Loara High School and there was a great deal of
traffic along that route. In answer to the Mayor question as to what density
she felt would be appropriate, Mrs. Simpson answered, the same as the Corinthian
Apartments. Miss Santalahti confirmed, in that case in the final analysis, the
subject project would yield eight units. Mrs. Simpson was of the opinion that
eight units would be very nice.
Mrs. Rita Ray, 1927 Chateau Avenue, first explained that she had been present
at the two prior Planning Commission meetings (Isee the Planning Commission
minutes of November 17 and December 15, 1980) where she registered an objection
to the proposed project on the basis of density and parking. She thereupon
briefed the Council on what had occurred at those meetings, reading from the
minutes, and expressed her concern relative to statements made by several of
the Commissioners, as well as methods used in dealing with the public. The
density was approved based on the fact that similar variances and waivers had
been granted to other properties in the same zone and vicinity. That was why
she and Mrs. Simpson were present because when they looked to see what the
other densities were in apartments in the area, they could find none like that.
She could agree that the property would be suitable for apartments, but she
disagreed with the density and building plan such as the recreational-leisure
area upon which she elaborated and also, the parking barely met Code. It was
81-152
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 3, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
of concern to her that the City Planning Commission was making such decisions.
She was also of the opinion creating more density to provide affordable housing
was a big "rip-off". Owners were going to charge as much as they could get
for units. Making apartments denser was not a solution and she objected to
waivers and variances in that area.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor gave the applicant
an opportunity to rebut.
Mr. Bernie Stall, 973 Shannon, Garden Grove, stated that the property was
surrounded on one side by a pre-school, to the rear was a wedding chapel
parking lot, the abandoned Trident Junior High School and athletic field
across the street, one single-family residence to the south, and then an
85-unit apartment house adjacent to that. They felt their apartments fit
well into the area and were asking for relief on density because of the cost
of the land, construction and financing. The project was very close to Ball
Road in relationship to traffic. The two ladies who spoke lived north of Ball
Road. Most of the people would be going out to Ball Road from the develop-
ment and thus would not be creating a traffic problem on Nutwood.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if they intended to maintain or retain and manage
the units; Mr. Stall answered "yes". He did not have any idea of the time
period but it would be at least five to seven years if not more. They projected
three and one-half years before reaching a break even point on 14 units.
Councilman Bay noted that when the Planning Commission was looking for a hard-
ship, what Mr. Stall just stated appeared to him to be a hardship from the
standpoint of cash flow. He asked Mr. Stall if he stated that to the Planning
Commission.
Mr. Stall answered, probably not clearly. He also explained as had been broached
earlier that there were two different meetings involved. At the first meeting,
the City Planning Con~nission reacted negatively to the proposal but at the second
meeting, they were more favorable. Thmt was when changes occurred and they sub-
sequently received approval of their request.
Mrs. Judy Olsen, 909 Echo, stated their home of 18 years was located north of
Ball Road behind the Normandy Park Apartments. She wanted to emphasize a
couple of problems they saw in the area, specifically to traffic and parking.
The Normandy Park Apartments were a problem and parking was horrendous from
Ball Road down to Beacon Avenue. Her main concern was also density and if
the developer was planning on buying the property just south of him, she
questioned what kind of development might be proposed. Would it coincide
wlth what he was going to do with the subject property. She also emphasized
and wanted the Council to keep in mind that Trident Junior High School was
closed and they had no idea what was going to take place there at this time.
She urged that they keep all those factors in mind before making a final
decision. Also, Nutwood was a heavily traveled road whether north or south
of Ball Road. They had counted traffic when they were fighting locating the
now Brookhurst Community Center at Modjeska Park and there was quite a lot of
traffic then and even more now.
The Mayor asked what type of density she felt the developer should have. The
Code stated 12 to 13 and he was asking for 14; Mrs. Olsen suggested eight to
ten although she felt that was perhaps unrealistic as far as the developer
81-153
City Hal!, Anahe'.~m, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 3~ 1981, 1:30 P.M.
making any money on the project at all. She reiterated she was concerned with
parking and density. It was a real problem in their area and she emphasized
she was more concerned because of Trident and what was going to happen there
and also the property to the south. She did not know what the alternative
might be.
Mr. Nickel stated relative to the piece of property to the south, he would do
the same thing with that property if he could. He bought the subject piece of
property six months ago and his smallest hope would be to be able to buy the
property to the south somewhere close to that same price. At the present time
he was not in a financial condition to do so. He would develop that property
for a lot of different reasons, not only for financial gain in the future.
Being a subcontractor, he worked with all kinds of developers and felt he was
a better, more capable developer because of that fact.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. Nickel if he were to get a 13% density bonus
on the subject proposal and attempt to buy the property just south and the
cost should be higher, would he claim that there was then a reason for wanting
more apartments on the one to the south.
Mr. Nickel answered he would not be so optimistic to think that could ever
happen. The project at present was at a breakeven point. If tomorrow he pur-
chased the other piece of property, he would take his present set of plans
and all the money he had put into it thus far and combine the two pieces of
property. He would subsequently discuss with his architect if there was some
way by owning both pieces he could come up with a more workable, better project
that would help the area. If yes, he would turn around and do that. If it
would better the community, he would redesign it. He was going to be an owner
and if he overbuilt an area, he did not think it would be attractive.
Discussion and questioning then followed between Councilwoman Kaywood and Mr.
Nickel relative to Councilwoman Kaywood's concern over parking should the
units be rented to a number of unmarried adults. Further discussion then
followed between the Mayor and Councilwoman Kaywood.
The Mayor then stated that the developer was asking to build one to two units
above Code. If he (Seymour) was concerned about that being reflected City-wide,
he would probably be opposed, but he did not see any problem. He had heard no
plausible alternatives and if they were against rent control, they had to be
for something. He did not see how anybody could say by approving the subject
project they would be giving the City away. The amount of recreational-leisure
area was in excess of the standards as far as building coverage of the site--
building over land. Also, the square footage of the units was acceptable. He
was in support of the project.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Bay, seconded by Councilman Overholt, 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 medium density
residential land uses 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 environ-
mental imapcts and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR.
MOTION CARRIED.
81-154
CSty Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 3~ 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she was about to do something that would surprise
a lot of people. She thereupon offered Resolution No. 81R-40 for adoption,
approving Reclassification No. 80-81-17, and Resolution No. 81R-41 for adoption,
granting Variance No. 3176, in part, subject to the conditions of the City
Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-40: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
ZONING SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE
CHANGED. (80-81-17~
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-41: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 3176.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated if Mr. Nickel disappointed
her, it would be the last time she would take such action. She was impressed
by many things that he had said although she did not agree with everything. If
he was concerned for the City and there were no parking waivers, since she was
extremely concerned with parking and traffic, and if the project were retained
and managed by the developer, it could be a plus for the City even with two
additional units. Also Mr. Nickel stated if he did acquire the property to
the south, he would redesign and make the project a better one. Further, she
did not agree with Mrs. Ray at one point in her presentation where she indi-
cated there was something wrong with the recreational-leisure area because it
was on the carport roofs. She felt it was a plus to get it off the ground.
In concluding, directing her comment to Mr. Nickel, Councilwoman Kaywood
stated that she did not want to be disappointed in the future in having
offered the resolutions of approval on his project.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolutions.
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-40 and 81R-41 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 80-81-20, VARIANCE NO. 3182 (TENTATIVE
NO. fl030): Application by Gerard F. and Joyce M. Warde, for a change in zone
from RS-7200 to RM-3000, to construct a one-lot, Il-unit condominium subdivision
on property located at 2035 West Katella Avenue, with the following Code
waivers:
a) minimum lot area per dwelling unit
b) maximum structural height
c) maximum site coverage
d) minimum landscaped setback
e) minimum recreational-leisure area
f) minimum number of parking spaces
81-155
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 3, 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
The City Planning Comission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-234, 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 denied Reclassification No.
80-81-20 without prejudice and denied Variance No. 3182.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by the applicant and public
hearing scheduled this date. Subsequently a letter was received from Mr. Gerard
Warde, Oranco Development, dated February 2, 1981 requesting a continuance until
after the scheduled February 18, 1981 joint workshop with the Council and the
City Planning Cormnission.
Councilwoman Kaywood questioned the reason for the request for continuance since
there was nothing affordable in the proposed project.
Miss Santalahti answered that the developer was advised when he filed the applica-
tion that with the number of waivers and the magnitude of those waivers, it was
far beyond what they expected to see the Commission approve. The only hardship
finding that the Commission could have made would have been if the developer was
proposing affordable housing. At that time, he was not interested in affordable
housing. She was assuming, however, that he was becoming more interested in the
subject.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that Mr. Warde was in the Chamber audience and she
asked if he wished to make a statement on that.
Before Mr. Warde approached the podium, Councilman Roth stated he thought they
were going to talk about all kinds of standards at the workshop session;
Councilman Bay stated he did not recall that the workshop was limited to a
discussion of affordable housing. Councilman Overholt stated that he recalled
Councilman Bay being very specific in pointing out that it should not be
limited to affordable housing, and no one disagreed.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to continue public hearing on the subject
reclassification and variance until after the February 18, 1981 Council/
Planning Commission workshop.
Before action was taken, the City Clerk stated in this particular instance,
the public hearing would have to be continued to a specific date by the Council.
Mr. Warde indicated that a continuance to two to three weeks after the workshop
would be acceptable to him.
Councilman Seymour then added to his motion that public hearing be continued
to March 10, 1981 at 3:00 P.M. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
Before concluding, the Mayor asked if anyone was present with regard to the
matter and wished to speak.
Mr. Gordon Hastings, 1771 South Dallas Drive, stated he had no argument with
the continuance, but he did not understand how it would change the variance
being requested. They were so far beyond reason according to what the
81-156
City Hall~ Anaheim,. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 3~ 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Planning Commission suggested, he did not know if that was going to make a
difference other than he heard it might have something to do with affordable
housing. He asked if it was probable that the workshop results would have
some bearing on the decision relative to the considerable variances being
requested.
The Mayor stated that he had no idea at this time and could not honestly answer
the question; Mr. Hastings stated he understood and would be back on the 10th of
March.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if any other public hearing were set for 3:00 P.M.
on March 10, 1981 and if so, that they set the subject matter to be heard as
the first public hearing that date.
A question from the audience asked if the residents would be notified once
again of the hearing date; several Council Members indicated that they would
not be notified again and that they had just set the date and time certain for
the hearing.
177: RESALE CONTROLS TO ASSURE CONTINUED AFFORDABILITY OF HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS:
In compliance with State Law, establishing resale controls in order to assure
continued affordability for 30 years, for housing developments that involve a
direct financial contribution of public funds; establishing said resale controls
in the form of deed restrictions with the Consumer Price Index as an indicator
of equity, restrictions on rental and a first right of refusal to the Housing
Authority.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to establish the subject resale controls. Council-
man Overholt seconded the motion.
Before action was taken, Mayor Seymour stated that he was going to oppose. He
felt strongly that there was much awry in the megulations being proposed and
they were being "black-jacked" by Sacramento and more specifically, the State
Department of Housing and Community Development. There was no law on the books
that stated they had to have 30-year resale price controls. It may be as stated
in the report from staff, dated January 27, 1981, "The State Department of Housing
and Community Development's legal department has determined that the recoupment
of the financial contribution does not negate the need for continued affordability."
He felt that was "hogwash" and he would fight them in court if he had a chance
before he would see that type of heavy-handedness come down from Sacramento. If
they had to go to 30-year price controls in the City, they should not be trying
to achieve affordable housing because what they were really achieving in that
was nothing more than public housing.
Councilman Roth stated he agreed and he felt they should hold off on any action
and contact their Assemblymen and State Senators for their input.
Councilman Bay asked the City Attorney if the resale controls were required by
law.
City Attorney Hopkins stated he had been told that the legal counsel for the
State indicated if there was financial contribution plus the affordability bonus,
the 30-year provision was proper. He had not had a chance to discuss the matter
81-157
City Hall, Anaheim.,. Ca~ifprnia - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 3~ 1981, 1:30 P.M.
with State counsel and he felt they should look into it further to resolve the
dispute. They should look into the ma~ter further as to whether the interpre-
tation they were making was not consistent with the actual wording of the law.
Councilman Bay asked Mr. Priest if there was any pressing time constraint in-
volved.
Mr. Norm Priest, Executive Director of Community Development, answered there
was not a pressing time constraint except in terms of such things as they had
discussed relative to Part Street or the like, where they made a direct financial
contribution. In the Council agenda packet, it was his recollection they did
include a copy of Section 65915 of the Government Code which specifically in-
cluded the provision they were talking about in that narrow case of a direct
contribution of public funds. That was why they drew the distinction between
a density bonus which was not a direct contribution but was nevertheless a
benefit to the development. That was his understanding and from that perspec-
tive, they were simply reflecting back to the Council Assembly Bill 1151
adopted in the last session of the Legislature which included a proviso for
a 30-year price control. He then read the pertinent section of Government
Code 65~16 for the Mayor's information.
Mayor Seymour then stated if that be the case, it would be his intention to
reconsider the item on Part Street. He was not going to watch them give away
the right to own property.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated in the particular instance of Patt Street, that
being the only one so far in which they were involved, they were talking about
rehabilitating, upgrading and preserving a neighborhood which was an excellent
goal for the City to work toward. Also, to say that they were depriving people,
that was "hogwash" the Mayor was talking about, because those were people who
would not have the opportunity otherwise of owning any property. For that
privilege, she felt it was a very good trade-off.
Councilman Bay asked if it would help to continue the matter one week and have
the City Attorney take a look at the other side of the legal aspects of the
matter.
Councilman Roth stated he would like to contact his State Senators and Assembly-
men to get their input sometime in the next week or two. He wanted to know how
the bill got through the California Association of Realtors (CAR).
Councilman Overholt, speaking to the Mayor, stated he felt that he was taking
the lawyer to task who advised this was the law and what they had to do. He
suggested if they wanted to test it, then CAR, having been credited with coming
out with the affordable concept, should now question the limitation of aliena-
tion of affordable housing. They should file suit immediately and test it in
the courts where it ought to be fought. If it was not the law, they would not
be bound. If so, and they were going to have affordable housing, they were
bound. If a fight was to be created, it should be created by those people
interested in eliminating or reducing the period during which alienation of
the properties would be restricted.
81-158
City Hall, ~n~heim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 3, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour stated that he did not believe affordable housing had to be
accomplished that way. They were talking about a direct financial contribu-
tion. The way to attain affordable housing without giving the store away of
private property rights, was not to provide any direct financial contribution.
They had not done that on the projects they had approved today and, therefore,
the iaw did not apply. He suggested that they discuss the matter with the
League of Cities and attempt to get new legislation that would "throw it
out"; Councilman Overholt stated he was suggesting that industry do it as
well.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to continue consideration of the subject
resale control for one week and in the interim direct the City Attorney to
research the law in this regard and confirm its legality. Councilman Bay
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
123/150: TRANSPORTATION~ LUNCH AND COUNSELING (TLC) VAN TRANSPORTATION AGREEMENT:
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 81R-42 for adoption, authorizing an
agreement with the Orange County Community Development Council, Inc., in the
amount of $11,223, to provide matching funds toward the purchase of two vehicles
to transport elderly and handicapped citizens to and from TLC sites, for a 5-
year term, as recoranended in memorandum dated January 22, 1981 from the Deputy
City Manager. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-42: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AND THE ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, INC., REFURNISHING MATCH-
ING FUNDS TOWARD THE PURCHASE OF THE VEHICLES TO TRANSPORT ELDERLY AND HANDI-
CAPPED CITIZENS.
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-42 duly passed and adopted.
Councilwoman Kaywood commented that this was a very fine program and one of the
greatest needs the elderly and handicapped had.
150/106: MOTION: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman
Overholt, the transfer of $11,223 was authorized from the Council Contingency
Account to finance City's share of purchasing the above two vehicles. MOTION
CARRIED.
175: EDISON-ANAHEIM INTERRUPTIBLE TRANSMISSION SERVICE AGREEMENT: Councilman
Bay moved to authorize an Edison-Anaheim Interruptible Transmission Service
Agreement, providing for Edison furnishing (non-firm) interruptible transmission
service from every interconnection point between Edison and other utilities to
Lewis Street Substation, and authorizing the General Manager to execute same,
as recommended in memorandum dated January 27, 1981 from the Public Utilities
Board (?UB). MOTION CARRIED.
81-159
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 3, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
175: EDISON-ANAHEIM SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT - INTEGRATION OF ANAHEIM'S ENTITLE-
MENTS SERVICE SCHEDULE A AND B: Councilman Overholt moved to authorize an
Edison-Anaheim Supplemental Agreement for the Integration of Anaheim's Entitle-
ments in Service Schedule A and Service Schedule B to the Interconnection
Agreement between Anaheim and the Nevada Power Company, and authorizing the
General Manager to execute same, as recommended in memorandum dated January 27,
1981 from the PUB. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
123: CONSOLIDATION OF R. W. BECK & ASSOCIATES CONTRACT: Request for author-
ization of a new agreement with R. W. Beck & Associates, to consolidate con-
tracts for engineering services provided to the Public Utiltiies Department,
for a 5-year term, as recommended in memorandum dated January 27, 1981 from
the PUB, was permitted.
Mayor Seymour, speaking to the Public Utilities General Manager, stated he did
not know what was so wrong about the contract they had with R. W. Beck before.
He did not like the idea of the proposal because the sum of the contract would
become buried in the Utilities Department budget.
Gordon Hoyt, Public Utilities General Manager, stated he had no problem with
coming in at budget time or subsequent to that with the particular work order
projects they wanted R. W. Beck to perform for them. This was an effort to
lock in the multiplier. They had one contract at present wherein if they
wanted to add a $10,000 contract taking it up to $200,000, in doing so, it
appeared they were proposing another whole $200,000 contract. The present
proposal would mean they would now have a contract sitting in place and the
only thing fixed would be the multiplier (see Page 2 of the subject report).
They would therefore not have to rewrite the contract every time they embarked
on another job. In order to avoid that, they would change the top amount from
$210,000 to $240,000 to add a $30,000 job.
Councilman Bay stated, then the question would become one of visibility.
Pursuant to further Council questioning, Mr. Hoyt explained that it would save
some contracts administration money; there was no way that they could not in-
form the Council of rate changes in the contract and the like; he was not
opposed to raising the matter publicly every time; i~was not a problem for him
to tell the Council the amount of business they were doing with anybody during
the course of a year or in any particular period of time.
Mayor Seymour stated he did not mind looking at the R. W. Beck contract on an
annual basis, but the one under consideration was a 5-year contract.
Mr. Hoyt explained that the basic part of the contract was not going to change
even if they submitted a new one every year. They needed to come to the Council
to get authorization to use the contract, and they needed to do so every time.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked City Manager Talley if he had another explanation as
to which way would be better or cheaper if possible.
Mr. Talley stated he personally preferred annual contracts and what they were
talking about was a 5-year agreement; however, annually the amount for that plan
would be presented and if there were any amendments, they would be brought before
the Council.
81-160
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 3, 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if that would then be like an annual contract; Mr.
Talley stated he believed that was what Mr. Hoyt described.
Mr. Hoyt stated that was his intention. The numbers were changed, but they
would not need to spend time with liability sections, for instance, and every-
thing else. It would come specifically to the Council for approval.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to authorize a new agreement with R. W. Beck &
Associates to consolidate contracts for engineering services provided to the
Public Utilities Department, for a 5-year term, as recommended in memorandum
dated January 27, 1981 from the Public Utilities Board. Councilman Overholt
seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour voted "no". MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Overholt requested that in Mr. Hoyt's reports that he include the
cumulative figure so that they would be aware of what was going on and he
agreed with the Mayor on that aspect.
123: NONDISCRIMINATORY COGENERATION RATES: Councilman Bay moved to authorize
an agreement with R. W. Beck & Associates, to perform the engineering and
economic studies regarding Nondiscriminatory Congeneration Rates, as specified
under the Department of Energy Innovative Rates Program, as recommended in
memorandum dated January 27, 1981 from the PUB. Councilman Seymour seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilman
Roth, 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 and Applications for Leave to Present Late
Claims were denied:
a. Claim submitted by Pacific Telephone for damages to equipment purportedly
sustained as a result of vehicle accident at Orangethorpe Avenue and Miller
Street caused by malfunctioning traffic signal, on or about October 13, 1980.
b. Claim submitted by Farmers Insurance Group (Robert Amador, Insured) for
property damage purportedly sustained as a result of power lines falling into
yard at 228 Merrimac Drive, on or about November 16, 1980.
c. Claim submitted by Farmers Insurance Group (Reyna Rosario Silva, Insured)
for vehicular damages purportedly sustained as a result of accident involving
City-owned vehicle, Unit No. 419, on Convention Way, on or about October 31,
1980.
d. Claim submitted by Automobile Club of Southern California, Claim No. K2254721,
(Patsy P. and Joseph M. Laskoski, Insured) for vehicular damages purportedly
sustained as a result of traffic signal malfunction causing accident at North
Street and Harbor Boulevard, on or about September 19, 1980.
e. Claim submitted by Paul K. Duffy for damages purpoctedly su}tained as a
result of false arrest and imprisonment on or about December 9, 1980.
81-161
City Hall, Anahe~.~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 3~ 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
f. Claim submitted by Thomas Key for damages purportedly sustained as a result
of actions by Anaheim Police on or about October 4, 1980.
g. Application for Leave to Present Late Claim and claim submitted by Eva
Grove, for false confinement in a hospital mental ward, assault and battery
and other damages purportedly sustained as a result of actions by Anaheim
Police, on or about June 24, 1980.
h. Application to File Late Claim Against Public Entity and claim submitted
by Jeffrey D. Genet for damages purportedly sustained as a result of search
and seizure at 1421 ~ Riverwood Avenue, and arrest of claimant on or about
March 31, 1980.
2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 105:
b. 105:
1980.
c. 140:
d. 105:
e. 132:
Community Center Authority--Minutes of December 8, 1980.
Anaheim Public Library Board--Minutes of October 16 and December 17,
Anaheim Public Library--Monthly Statistical Report for December 1980.
Community Redevelopment Commission--Minutes of January 7 and 14, 1981.
Midway City Sanitary District letter, expressing opposition to the
County's proposed Solid Waste Management Users Fee.
f. 105: Anaheim Youth Commission--Minutes of January 14, 1981.
3. 108: APPLICATIONS: The following applications were approved in accordance
with the recommendations of the Chief of Police:
a. Amusement Devices Permit: Cowboy Cantina, 1731 South Harbor Boulevard,
for an electronic game table. (Alfred Klinzmann, applicant)
b. Amusement Devices Permit: 7-Eleven Store, 1201 East Santa Ana Street, for
various amusement devices. (~tephen Leroy Allison, applicant)
c. Amusement Devices Permit: 7-Eleven Store, 2538 East La Palma Avenue, for
various amusement devices. (Stephen Leroy Allison, applicant)
d. Amusement Devices Permit: Tic-Tac Foods, 500 North East Street, for various
amusement devices. (Stephen Leroy Allison, applicant)
e. Amusement Devices Permit: Pizza Baron, 646 South Brookhurst Street, for
various amusement devices. (~ecil Eugene Gatch, applicant)
f. Amusement Devices Permit: Missile Impossible, 821 North Euclid Street, #C,
for various video games. (Michael A. Pinkus, applicant)
g. Dinner-Dancing Place Permit: E1 Montecarlo, 1116 Fountain Way, for dancing
Friday through Sunday, 8:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. (Arthur Murillo Sosa, applicant)
MOTION CARRIED.
81-162
City Hall~ Anaheim~ .C~lifor~ia - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 3~ 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood voted "no" on Item No. 3f Amusement Devices Permit for
Missile Impossible at 821 North Euclid #C.
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 8q-81~21, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2164, (TENTATIVE
TRACT NO, 11364): Submitted by Ephriam Beard, et al, for a change in zone
from CL to RM-3000, to permit an 81-lot, 80-unit condominium subdivision (25%
affordable) on property located at 1241 South Beach Boulevard, with various
Code waivers.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-4, granted
Reclassification No. 80-81-21.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-5, granted, in
part, Conditional Use Permit No. 2164, and granted a negative declaration.
Councilwoman Kaywood removed the subject Reclassification and Conditional Use
Permit from the Planning Commission Consent Calendar (Planning Commission Item
from their meeting of January 12, 1981) and requested a review of the Planning
Commission's action.
Mr. Jonathan Webb, developer on the proposed project asked if a specific date
for the public hearing could be set at this time and also at the earliest
possible date.
After discussing the setting of the public hearing with the City Clerk, it was
determined that the hearing would be held on February 24, 1981 at 3:00 p.m. in
the Council Chambers.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Councilman Bay moved to recess into closed session.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (6:40 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (7:15 P.M.)
155: HEARING - ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - .MEYERS & SONS MORTUARY TRANSPORTATION
SERVICES: To consider cause, if any, why Home Occupation Permit No. 75-295
issued to Meyers & Sons Mortuary Transportation Services, at 2111 West Grayson
Avenue, should not be terminated.
Mr. Richard Behn, 608 South Harbor Boulevard, attorney representing Meyers &
Sons Mortuary Transportation Services, stated there had been an allegation
that his client violated his Home Occupation Permit (HOP) No. 75-295 with
regard to the number of vehicles operated out of the home at 2111 West Grayson
Avenue and with regard to the number of employees within the home. They had
prepared for the Council a sheet giving a summary of the calls involving the
subject transportation business. (See summary sheet dated January 1981--Meyers
& Sons--on file in the City Clerk's office). The service received calls from
the County Coroner's office with regard to a deceased person in some part of
the County. A dispatch would then be made of one of the vehicles working for
the business and that vehicle would respond to the area, hospital or accident
scene, remove the deceased person and take them to a local mortuary or wherever
designated. At no time was the deceased person or any contaminants ever brought
81-163
Qity .Hall, ~.n~..beim, Cal%foKBia .- COUNCIL MINUTES - February 3~ 1981, 1:30 P.M.
to the Grayson Street address. There were six vehicles within the business
context, one presently not operating, one parked at the residence and the
other four vehicles were at other addresses throughout the City or cities in
Orange County and not kept at the Grayson Street address.
He believed that the crux of the allegation that the business was in violation
was that a traffic hazard was being created and the vehicles were being operated
out of the home which was not true. In the summary sheet submitted, they listed
the daily calls received within the business and the daily dispatches from the
Grayson Street home itself, as well as the dispatches by phone or radio from
other places throughout the City and the County. The total calls were 414 for
the month of January, averaging 13.5 per day, and of those 13.5, 1.51 or less than
2, were dispatched from the Grayson Street address. Some days there were none
and from the summary it appeared that the most on any one day were four dis-
patches. Therefore, based on the summary, there was no increase in traffic
cver the ordinary. His client had also sent a letter to the neighbors which
he submitted (see letter dated December 5, 1980 along with a response from one
of the neighbors dated December 7, 1980, Marjorie Mazor--on file in the City
Clerk's office).
Mr. Behn continued that it was his understanding a petition was passed through
the neighborhood and that the signatures were obtained by telling people within
the area that there were bodies at the house, as well contaminated material. He
brought to the Council hearing tonight, Mr. Jerry Reed, Manager of Daly &Bartel,
Mortuary in Anaheim who could explain to the Council how the business was run
as well as Mr. Fred Appleford, President of the Orange County Funeral Director's
Association.
The second item of concern was that there were more than residents or the family
operating the business. On the lower right-hand side of the summary sheet sub-
mitted to the Council was a total for employees including his client and his
wife (eight employees). Employees No. 6, 7, and 8 were not relatives and did
not work out of the house at all but were dispatched from another portion of
the County. They might make a trip to the residence periodically or occasionally
to pick up death certificates or paper work, but no b9dies or contaminants.
Mr. Behn stated thet felt what happened in this case was a conflict, personality
clash within the neighborhood. There were some people who thought there was some
dastardly thing going on and bodies being stored and that was not true. A copy
of the petition that was obtained by Mrs. Minor had been supplied to the Council
listing a number of grievances on the first page (ion file in the City Clerk's
office). He counted the allegations as follows:
1. The Zoning Division had been called a number of times by Mrs. Minor. They
had come out and made inspections of the business and at no time found anything
improper.
2. The home was not a pit stop. The vehicles were not stored there and if a
vehicle needed to be repaired, it was done at some other place. 2b. Simply was
not true.
3. He did not know how they could arrive at the fact that the Meyer's business
was a health hazard since there were no bodies or stored contaminants at the
home. 3a. Those things were done at the mortuary and not at the home. 3c.
Relative to someone being treated for exposure to hepatitis, a number of years
81-164
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 3, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
ago, they were called in on a precaution and two days later that precaution was
terminated simply based on one of the deceased persons being picked up. There
had never been any disease or hepatitis and they had never been called before
the Health Department for anything.
4. With regard to the approximate 20 children living in the Grayson area, he
suggested to the Council that the two trips a day did not constitute a hazard.
5. Relative to the extra traffic, he felt that had already been abutted.
He then confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood that there was only one vehicle stored
at the Grayson Street address except for personal vehicles. The others were
stored at the drivers' homes or apartments and other places within the County.
After questions posed to Mr. Behn by Council Members for purposes of clarification,
the Mayor asked to hear from anyone else in favor of Meyer's & Sons Mortuary
Transportation Services retaining their HOP.
Mrs. Lane Lordan, 2016 Grayson Avenue, stated she lived directly across the
street from the Minors' home, the Meyer's lived kitty-corner from her home.
She knew there was an objection to anyone parking in front of the Minors'
home. She then relayed an indident involving her babysitter having parked
her car in front of the Minors' home. When she went to leave, the car had been
egged and the air let out of four tires. Mrs. Minor had verbalized on several
occasions that whoever parked their car in front of her home did so at their
own risk. She was not alleging that Mrs. Minor was involved, but was merely
saying that it happened. Also, there was some anger connected with anyone who
was a friend of Mr. and Mrs. Meyers and she (Lordan) was one of the Meyers'
friends. She had lived there for 19 years. She then relayed other incidents
which had occurred involving the Minorm' and their children.
Mr. Jerry Reed, Manager, Daly & Bartel Mortuary, explained that the Meyers had
a verbal agreement with them if that at any time they had another mortuary they
were serving out of the immediate area that they were more than welcome to bring
the deceased to Daly & Bartel and leave it until another service could come and
pick it up. State Board was very strict about how remains were handled. When
picking up a body no matter where it might be, it had to be taken wherever it
was designated to go. He considered it profound in his business for anybody to be
accused of doing such a thing with human remains, i.e., taking them to a private
home. Some of the statements that had been submitted to the Council previously
were absurd. Those types of things done with remains were taken care of inside
of the mortuary, not in public streets or in people's residences. From his
business experience with the Meyers, they had never had any problem. There
were many mortuaries in the County who dealt with the Meyers, as well as the
Coroner, and without them, they were doing an injustice because there was no
other first call service capable of performing the service performed by Meyers
Transportation.
Mr. Reed then answered questions posed by Council Members revolving around the
process involved in picking up the deceased, delivering it to the mortuary, the
equipment and linens involved in so doing, etc., to the point of departure of
the transportation service from the mortuary.
81-165
City Ha!~, Ana~.~i~, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 3, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mrs. Pat Rice, 2110 Grayson Avenue, directly across from the Meyers stated
their business in no way, as far as she was concerned, bothered her or her family.
She was home all day and noticed the traffic. It was not an excessive amount
of traffic and she reiterated the business in no way bothered her. She had
lived there for 8½ years, and the Meyers and their business as well, caused
her no problems.
Mr. Fred Appleford, President of the Orange County Funeral Director's Association,
stated he also maintained his personal business in the City of Brea. He was
present to represent himself personally and his relationship with Meyers & Sons
Mortuary Transportation Services and their employees. A question had been posed
as to whether there were any mortuaries not operating on a 24-hour basis. The
answer was no. There were many hours of the day when they were not able to
respond to their own calls and, therefore, endeavored to call an extremely
reliable service to represent them which was very important to their reputation.
He would say, without question, he would call on Meyers & Sons Transportation
Services. They were professionals in their area of the mortuary business. The
question of linens had come up. As Mr. Reed mentioned, they operated under the
laws of the State and County of Orange in order to maintain and protect the
human element. Meyers, representing the mortuary, conducted themselves in the
same manner as they, as licencees, would perform their service. It was regret-
table that an issue such as this would become before the Council and members
of the community. He would ask Meyers Transportation to represent him personally
in a very sensitive manner and he felt that explained his position and the posi-
tion of the Orange County Funeral Director's Association.
Councilman Roth asked if he could conceive under any conditions that any remains
could be brought to the property on Grayson.
Mr. Appleford answered no he could not. It had been explained that they were
a dispatch and transportation service and their responsibility was to immediately
transport the human remains to the assigned place. There would be no reason at
any time to have human remains at the residence. Relative to the type of equip-
ment used--it was transportation equipment and they maintained at all times a
hospital gurney or a stretcher, the same type of basic equipment that many
ambulances in Orange County would maintain and with the same sterile effect.
They had the same regard for human remains.
Mr. Lee Lance, 2124 West Grayson Avenue, three houses down from the Meyers on
the other side of the street, stated that he did not know the Meyers and he
did not recognize other names of people living on the street. To the best of
his knowledge and belief, the Meyers were the best of neighbors. He had no
complaints and knew of no one who had complaints. He knew of no reason why
they should not be permitted to continue in business as in the past five years.
He had not heard of any of the personal indidents or the neighborhood feud.
Mr. Bill Watts, 2117 West Grayson Avenue, stated that he was able to judge
coming and goings since he lived next door to the Meyers on the other side
(the Minors were the neighbors on the one side of the Meyers and the Watts
neighbors on the other). As well, their houses were "L" shaped and thus they
faced each other. Relative to the "egging" incident, he saw it after it had
happened. The moving of vehicles in and out of the Meyers' driveway in no way
81-166
City Ha~l,. Anaheim,. ~alifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 3~ 1981, 1:30 P.M.
affected their relationship. They had no problems of any kind with the Meyers
and he was proud to have them as neighbors. In answer to questions posed by
the Council, he stated that he worked on shift work at times and even in that
case, nothing disturbed him, and his family was not bothered by anything going on.
He had no financial interest at all in the Meyers' operation.
Mrs. Jean Ownby, 2116 West Grayson, kitty-corner across the street, stated she
had been in the Meyers' home, but not the Minors' Their home was "immaculate".
There were never too many people going in and out of the home. The vans going
in and out were of no bother to them. The Meyers were good neighbors.
Mrs. Joan Watts, 2117 West Grayson (next door), stated she was home all day
and it gave her a great sense of security having the Meyers home and operating
their business out of their house because someone was there 24 hours a day.
If an emergency arose, she knew she could count on them. The traffic pattern
was a deterrent to anyone casing the neighborhood. She knew the Minors mainly
thrQugh their children. Once in a while her children (Watts) played with
their children.
The Mayor then asked to hear from those who were in favor of the revocation of
Home Occupation Permit No. 75-295.
Mr. Kenneth Minor and Alexi Minor, 2107 West Grayson Avenue, next door to the
Meyers. Mr. Minor stated they were present to restate the objections they had
already made against Meyers & Sons Mortuary Transportation Service or any other
fictitious name they might use to operate out of the house with that business.
He explained his wife was going to read a few of the violations they would like
to note and subsequently had people to speak to verify what they (the Minors)
had seen.
Mrs. Alexia Minor, explained she had stated the violations as causes as to why
they wanted the Meyers' business removed from hhe area and simply located to a
proper area:
Cause No. 1: A residential area was an improper location for a business of the
type and size being conducted regardless of whether the City granted them a
license or not. There was an invasion of personal privacy when any business
carried on its business outside the front door of the occupancy licensed home.
Cause No. 2: Other persons other than members of the resident family engaged
in the business in violation of the City's Home Occupation Permit.
Mr. Minor interjected and stated he had a copy of the registration that the
Meyers had to file in order to obtain an HOP which he submitted. Mrs. Minor
was and would be referring to many of :he points listed on that registration
form (~ee "Registration of Home Occupations"--defining home occupations under
Section 18.01.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code also listing Section 18.02.052.040
through .050--on file in the City Clerk's office).
Cause No. 3: There was a significant increase in vehicular traffic generated by
the Home Occupation itself taking no caution for small or great numbers of child-
ren.
81-167
City Hall~. An~h~%m~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 3, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Cause No. 4: The Code stated no commercial vehicles shall be used for delivery
of Home Occupation related material to or from the premises. Many of the vehicles
were commercially licensed by the DMV. At least one vehicle, a carrier of two
gurneys, was not commercially licensed which was in violation of the Vehicle
Code.
Cause No. 5: Materials were stored in obvious sight. The garage door was almomt
always open and cleaning supplies were in dimect sight as well as gurneys. She
thereupon submitted two photographs (made a part of the record) which she felt
demonstrated that point.
Cause No. 6: Additional noise from rewing engines getting warmed to go at all
hours and electrical distrubances or radio CB interference from home occupation
residents and vehicles were picked up on several residents' TV's and radios
periodically.
Cause No. 7: Harrassment-Assault, attempted assault with a deadly weapon, a
matter of police record done to Alexia and Kenneth Minor and children by Meyers
& Sons and employees. Harrassment from Meyers employees to daughters of Mary
and Tony Paladino--harrassment to sons of Daniel and Cecilia Wood by Meyers &
Sons. Ail of the above commenced shortly after verbal objection to Meyers busi-
ness. A report was made to Zoning authorities about the problem.
Councilman Overholt asked Mrs. Minor to elaborate or offer evidence of specific
acts of harrassment. The purpose of the hearing was for her to present evidence
of facts of things that happened.
Mr. Minor then elaborated on the incidents of alleged harrassment that took
place. After concluding, Councilman Roth stated in the event the HOP was
revoked and the Meyers were still living at their residence, Mrs. Minor may
have the same problems. Her insinuations were all on the persons, rather than
the business and the HOP. He felt that the situation as just explained by
Mrs. Minor was a civil matter and not relevant to their present deliberations.
Mr. Minor stated the problem they might have as far as any animosity between
the Meyers and themselves was secondary. That was not there before the
problem with their objection and some of the other neighbors' objections to
the HOP. That came afterward. He had nothing against the Meyers other than
some of the acts that their employees and sons had committed.
Councilman Roth stated they should stick to the essence of why the HOP should
be revoked and not get into the civil matters.
Mr. Minor stated he agreed with that and they had not intended to draw out the
allegations but the questions from the Council required that they do so.
Mrs. Minor also agreed. She wanted to put those matters behind her. They had
nothing to do with the items being presented to the Council. The incidents
had made them uncomfortable and only occurred after their opposition to the
Meyers. Other than that, she felt it was something they could handle on their
own and she did not expect the Council to alleviate that.
81-168
City H.all: Anah~im~' California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 3, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Cause No. 8: There was a possibility of contamination or health hazard because
of the nature of the business and what they felt were improper cleaning procedures
both vehicles and gurneys in the driveway which carried the dead at one time.
She bad talked to a Mr. Misner, a Deputy to the Coroner, and he could not guarantee
her that she could not become exposed or contaminated if they were indeed per-
forming improper procedures.
Councilman Roth stated that was another hypothetical situation; Mr. Minor agreed.
He noted Mr. Behn had stated that they had been treated four or five years ago
with regard to hepatitis, merely a general procedure. He had a bill from Palm
Harbor General Hospital dated March 31, 1980 indicating treatment of one of
the employees of Meyers & Sons Transportation in the emergency room which he
submitted to the Council (pn file in the City Clerk's office).
Councilman Roth asked the cause; Mr. Minor conceded that would be hypothetical
and he could not say.
Councilman Bay stated thus far they had made allegations--he was still waiting
for proof; Mr. Minor suggested that they now hear from some of the other people
to substantiate their claims.
Mrs. Minor wanted to explain one more cause, that being there were two seperate
businesses of the same nature advertised in the Yellow Pages directly underneath
each other--one, Meyers & Sons Mortuary & Transportation Services, 2111 West
Grayson and the second, Jay Morris and Son listed at the same address. They
checked and found that there was no business license for Jay Morris and Son.
The Meyers had said that they were apparently an answering service for a loca-
tion in Sacramento, but they had not found that Jay Morris and Son existed. It
was a commercial advertisement and she questioned, therefore, if they were not
a commercial business (copy of Page 150 of the Yellow Pages was submitted showing
the advertisement--made a part of the record).
Mr. Minor noted that the attorney mentioned that there were only a few trips
coming and going and they objected to that. He was wondering perhaps if the
record submitted by Mr. Behn (summary sheet) was purely from one company and
they had another company running out of the home. The numbers of calls and
traffic coming and going was not what they had stated; it was much more.
Councilman Overholt asked if either Mr. or Mrs. Minor prepared the petition
that was circulated; Mrs. Minor answered that she and her neighbors had done
SO.
Councilman Overholt read Item No. 2b of the petition: "vehicles are cleaned,
mechanically maintained, gurneys stripped, and cleaned outside in full view of
all people." He asked Mrs. Minor if she ever personally observed the cleaning
and stripping of gurneys on the Meyer's property.
Mrs. Minor answered "yes". She had seen it so many times that she was sure and
she was not the only one. They took the sheet off the gurneys and it was bloody.
Councilman Overholt asked Mr. Minor if he had ever observed that in the driveway
of the Meyers' property.
81-169
City Hall, A~.aheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 3~ 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Minor answered that he had seen them many times washing off the gurneys in
the middle of the driveway in visible sight of the.whole neighborhood. He had
not seen the sheets.
Councilman Overholt asked, before they cleaned them, were the gurneys soiled as
far as he could observe; Mr. Minor stated he never got close enough to tell. He
had not seen the sheets but the rags used to wipe off either the inside of the
vehicle or the gurney and the rags had red material on them.
Mr. Tony Palladino, 2102 West Grayson, across the street from the Meyers, stated
he could not see why a business of that type should be in the neighborhood. He
had three girls who knew everybody but he did not know the Meyers that well.
He saw a lot of cars all the time in front of their home and water running down
the driveway many times. The business belonged in a commercial district and he
questioned why the residents should be subjected to the situation. The Meyers
were good people and good business people. He had heard the Minors' children
tell him specific things which perhaps the Meyers were not aware of, but the
people who worked for them were. The employees had said and done things to the
kids. They should become aware of certain incidences.
Mayor Seymour asked what specifically he was referring to; Mr. Palladino stated
he had told him that one "guy" from next door would look into the windows. An-
other time when she was outside playing, one of the boys from next door threw
a stone at her. They had seen somebody washing the linen that had blood on it
or some material that they cleaned the sheets with and the smell was offensive.
These were kids talking who were three, four and five years old.
The Mayor asked if he had ever seen or observed any of those things going on
himself personally; Mr. Palladino stated he had seen some of the people who
worked for the Meyer's whether sons or employees playing baseball, hitting
each other, playing around, there were always five or six cars parked across
the street, etc.
Mayor Seymour stated then that the fact he (Paltadino) would like to share with
the Council was that he had observed employees or relatives playing baseball
on the lawn and horsing around.
Mr. Palladino §tated that he had also seen them throwing stones at one of the
children next door.
Mr. Larry Haberstick, 2103 West Grayson, stated he had no personal animosities
against the Meyers but he knew of situations brought to his attention by his
wife and things he had seen himself. Relative to the vehicles, there was a
blue van, a brown van and a station wagon used in the business and he saw those
coming and going two or three times a day. He was on shift work and thus was
at his home sometimes during the day. The activity varied and he did not keep
track. About 4¼ years ago, his wife had visited the Meyers and when she was
there, Mrs. Meyers told her personally that she had to throw some sheets away
because she could not get the blood off of them. She tried washing them but
it did not work. Also, one other time, his wife had rested her arm on a box
while she was talking and Mrs. Meyers indicated she should not put her arm on
the box becaused it contained the remains of somebody. His wife could authen-
ticate that statement and she was present tonight. He had also seen gurneys
at the residence, not in the driveway, but mostly by the open part of the garage.
81-170
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 3, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Bay asked if he had seen any cleaning of §urneys or taking sheets
off of gurneys personally; Mr. Haberstick stated that personally he had not.
Mr. Clyde Minor, 4459 Harriet Lane, father of Kenneth Minor, stated he did not
think there was any question about the quality of service provided by the
Meyers and he did not think that had anything to do with the situation. He
maintained they should not be allowed to have a license to operate a business
of this type in a residential zone. As far as the animosity involving some of
the residents mentioned, his son had those things happen to his car also. He
felt that did not have any bearing on the case. Relative to the vans, he did
not believe there would be any objection to having the vans if they kept them
closed up. Having them open up where small children in the neighorhood could
see them was not what the City or anybody would want. He explained for
Councilwoman Kaywood the objectionable thing about that situation was the fact
that the van, being on the street and opened up with gurneys in them, small
children could observe an object that held dead people. He reiterated they
should not be allowed in public areas but in a commercial zone. He operated
three businesses in the City, but in a commercial area. In concluding after
further questioning by Councilman Overholt, Mr. Minor stated that the Meyers
were probably good business people and he did not object to their operating the
business, but should realize they had a problem with respect to that business,
and he did not feel it should be operated in a residential zone.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor then gave Mr. Behn
an opportunity for rebuttal.
Mr. Behn stated what they had here was a neighborhood conflict, some people who
were upset with some other people. They had a business which in the context of
the society was something repugnant with regard to transportation of deceased
persons. There was anger that was brought up in the neighborhood and he felt
they were having the hearing as a result of that. His clients had come forth
and brought Mr. Reed and Appleford to testify as to how the business was run
as well as the neighbors directly across the street and on each side of that neighbor
and the neighbor who was sharing basically the driveway with them, the Watts.
The evidence was quite clear that they had not violated their Home Occupation
Permit. The parties in opposition presented general allegations and no speci-
fic facts. One person testified that four years ago his wife was told that
there were some remains present. His client, if he called upon her, would deny
that. There had never been any rer~ains at the residence. He believed that the
HOP ought to be continued and that the evidence from the neighborhood and the
peQple who had first-hand knowledge from the mortuaries was overwhelming that
they had not violated the permit. The evidence presented to the Council with
regard to the traffic, the calls out of the home, would indicate they had not
violated that section. There was no increase in traffic and there were no
persons outside of the residence, outside of the immediate family, who were
working within hhe home. They had not violated conditions of the HOP.
Councilman Overholt asked Mr. Behn the residence of Mr. John Meyers, the manager
and driver and what were his management duties.
Mr. John Meyers stated that he lived at 1178 North Lombard, Anaheim, approximately
two blocks from his parents' home.
81-171
City H~ll~ ~nahgim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 3, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Behn then answered relative to John Meyers' duties. He was dispatched and
drove one of the vehicles which stated his residence. When a call came in, he
was dispatched from his residence to pick up the deceased person and deliver it
to a mortuary or the Coroner's office. He then returned to his residence. He
drove that vehicle and he was on call. If he visited his parents, he brought
the vehicle to their residence. He lived and worked out of his own apartment
and not out of the residence at 2111 West Grayson except on specific occasions
when his father was on vacation or something like that.
Mr. John Meyers then explained for Councilman Overholt that he also handled
complaints from the employees or mortuaries. The complaints were directed to
either himself or his father or mother and then they would look into the
situation. He was at his parents' house a good deal.
Councilman Overholt then asked Daniel Meyers' residence address.
Mr. Daniel Meyers stated, 2103 South Mountainview, Anaheim.
Councilman Overholt asked if Rosemarie Meyers was his wife. (It was confirmed
that she was John Meyers' wife). He noted on the summary sheet it was indicated
Rosemarie Meyers, part-time office help. He asked her duties.
Mr. Behn stated he believed she answered the telephone and made a dispatch from
time to time at the home.
Councilman Overholt asked at what location she worked; John Meyers answered,
both residences. He also had an extension into his home and she answered the
phones at their residence or his parents' house also at 2111 West Grayson.
Councilman Overholt questioned Mr. Behn relative to the business known as Jay
Morris and Son; Mr. Behn answered that he did not know and today was the first
he had heard of it.
From the audience, a gentleman believed to be Art Meyers, father, stated that
the name John Meyers & Son was located in Sacramento. Approximately three
years ago he and Mr. Morris went into an advertising campaign wherein Mr. Morris
placed ads in several of the funeral directory books sent out by mortuaries
throughout the U. S. He wanted to expand into Southern California and thought
it would be a good idea if he had a contact in this locale so that he could
use it as an advertising tool. Since that telephone had been installed, they
had received approximately eight calls on it. They did not answer it as
a business and never received a call on that line that resulted in any payment
whatsoever from the listing. If it was objectionable, he would have it removed
tomorrow. He had no business license from the City of Anaheim under John Meyers
& Son.
Councilwoman Kaywood then posed a line of questioning to John Meyers in which
he revealed the following: His home on Lombard was an apartment; he did not
have a Home Occupation Permit to keep the vehicle at the apartment. It was
parked in the street and sometimes he had to park two or three blocks away
because of the many vehicles parked on the street. He had only one single
garage and it would not accom~nodate a van. He had a personal car as well, mainly
used by his wife.
81-172
City Hal~%, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 3, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour then asked questions of both John and Daniel Meyers relative to
whether or not they had ever washed down a gurney or any equipment on the
driveway or anywhere outside of the home at 2111 West Grayson.
John Meyers answered, not in the driveway. He had wiped the legs of the cot.
They had to be oiled and greased periodically so that they were clean and
presentable.
Daniel Meyers s~ated he had done nothing other than polishing which was done
inside the garage but not out in the driveway. Sometimes it was done with
the garage door open.
John Meyers then confirmed for the Mayor that his wife was a part-time employee
of the business when his parents were out of town or when his mother had some
type of appointment, his wife answered the phone. Since it was a 24-hour
service, someone had to be present to answer phones at all times.
Councilman Bay asked if to any of their knowledge during the years they had
been in business on Grayson, had they run an escort service on that location,
a motor vehicle escort for funeral services.
John Meyers answered "yes"; Councilman Bay asked if they were still doing so
from that location.
Mr. Meyers answered that they dispatched them. Someone would call and they
would give them a ride the next day. They no longer came by the residence or
anything of that nature. Only one motorcycle was kept at the residence and it
was his father's.
Councilman Bay asked if three of the drivers, Joe Amato, Larry Lavers and Harry
Grahl lived in Anaheim.
Mr. Meyers answered that Mr. Lavers and Grahl both lived in La Palma and Mr.
Amato lived at his (John Meyers' residence). He was his brother-in-law. Mr.
Amato used a silver station wagon and he (John) used the brown van.
The Mayor surmised then that John Meyers lived at 1178 North Lombard and had
a telephone that tied into the business. He asked if he also received dispatch
calls and left from that location with the van; Mr. Meyers answered "yes", he
could do so.
Mayor Seymour asked if he ever realized he might need an HOP as well.
Mr. Meyers answered that he was in the process of trying to move to find a home
and then he was going to get a permit. He was moving within two weeks.
In answer to Councilman Overholt, John Meyers explained that he formerly lived
with his parents but he did not work for the business at the time. He stated
he started approximately five years ago when he was living in Glendale. He
had not lived with his parents within the last five years. Also, he had not
been continuously empioyed by the business during that time. He had been back
two years now and had worked for them three different times in the past five or
six years.
81-173
City Hall~. Ana~ei~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 3, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
Councilman Roth then asked Mr. Whitey Walp, Zoning Enforcement Officer, what
he had found when he visited the premises.
Mr. Whitey Walp, Zoning Enforcement Officer, explained that he was first at the
Meyers residence in April of 1978. In his conversation with Mr. Meyers at the
time, it was determined they were, in fact, in violation of the HOP. He (Walp)
wrote a written Notice of Violation and served it to Mrs. Meyers who signed for
the notice. The notice indicated they must immeiately cease having employees
at the residence and their equipment must be kept away from the residence other
than one vehicle. From that time on, he had made eight trips to the Meyers'
residence and had conversations with either Mr. or Mrs. Meyers at those times.
He also made approximately 12 trips by the residence because of the controversy
involved to see if there were any violations which he did not document in his
records. Those trips were not made due to any complaints. Since that date in
1~78, he personally had not observed any violation of the HOP. However, Anthony
Montoya, Zoning Enforcement Specialist, had taken over the west end of Anaheim
in March of 1980. On one occasion, November 23, 1980, he observed what could
be construed as a violation. There was an employee at the residence in the
process of washing a fish tank, but his activity had nothing to do with the HOP.
Mr. Montoya did serve a Notice of Violation and at the time told Mr. Meyers
that according to their HOP, employees were not to be at the residence. The
matter was discussed with City Attorney Hopkins who did not feel there was any
justification for the Notice of Violation. If employees were present and
working on one of the vehicles or performing some service in connection with
the HOP, that would be in violation.
The Mayor noted that Mr. Walp indicated it would be in violation to have equip-
ment other than one vehicle at the residence.
Mr. Walp explained the way they came to that conclusion, an occupant of the
house would use the vehicle. As he recalled, when that was indicated to Mr.
Meyers, he stated his sons were not living at the house at the present time
and they were not permitted to come to the house to pick up vehicles and go
out on dispatch calls or to perform any service from that residence. If he
wanted to allow them to use the vehicle for transportation and take it to the
residence, he could phone them when they had a dispatch and tell them to make
a pick up at a specific location, but they were not to operate the extra vehicles
from the home. Mr. Meyers was in agreement with that.
Councilman Overholt surmised then that the conversation with the Meyers was in
April 1978 and Mr. Walp told him his sons would not be permitted to work at
that particular residence in that business for any purpose. Mr. Meyers had
said he would see to it that would not happen; Mr. Walp confirmed Councilman
Overholt's understanding.
Mayor Seymour stated they had had a full hearing on the matter and there was
little doubt that two different problems were involved--one was a neighborhood
problem, neighbor against neighbor, and clearly the Council legally did not
have the authority to correct that situation and also had no way of controlling
it from a political standpoint. The other question was whether or not Meyers
and Sons Mortuary Transportation violated their HOP. In his opinion, he felt
they had seen enouzh ev%dence to determine that there had been cleaning and
81-174
City Ha.ll, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 3~ 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
storage of equipment and materials in clear sight in violation of hhe HOP as
presented in the two photographs. They heard testimony from the two Meyers
sons that they had cleaned equipment in the garage and the garage door was
open. It had also been clearly testified to that there were employees on the
premises. Mr. Walp presented evidence of one citation involving employees on
the premises. There was testimony from John Meyers that his wife did answer
the telephone on a part-time basis, which he assumed was on a regular part-
time basis, as an employee on the premises. Further information from Mr. Walp
according to his definition and agreement by Mr. Meyers, that equipment other
than one vehicle would not be on the premises. They had received testimony
that there was, in fact, more than one vehicle involved.
MOTION: In separating the emotion from the issue, the Mayor stated it was clear
that there had been continuing violations of the HOP. He therefore moved that
Home Occupation Permit No. 75-295 for Meyers & Sons Mortuary Transportation Services
at 2111 West Grayson Avenue be revoked based on the findings as outlined and
articulated. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt stated the issue was not the integrity
or quality of the Meyers' business or whether they were the best transportation
business in Orange County. The question was whether their business in that
residential area violated the provisions of the HOP Code. The Mayor had set
forth the facts in this case. Looking at the registration form before them,
it stated "no persons other than members of the resident family shall engage
in the Home Occupation." He maintained that the sons did not reside at 2111
West Grayson and truthfully testified that they had been involved in that busi-
ness at that residence. The registration form also stated that, "no commercial
vehicles shall be used for delivery of home occupation related materials to or
from the premises." Mr. Walp indicated it was all right to have one vehicle on
the premises, but the evidence indicated there was more acitivity than that.
Another provision was that "no outdoor storage of materials and/or supplies or
other outdoor activity related to the home occupation shall be permitted." They
received testimony that gurney washing and polishing had taken place. Open
garages with gurneys would make it appear to children and adults alike that
a business was going on. It seemed that the business was thriving and was
getting too big for that location and the reason leading to the grounds for
revocation. It meant that Meyers and Sons Transportation Services was going
to have to find a commercial location and pay rent to continue in business and
still be an outstanding business in the community.
Councilman Roth stated he found the situation to be a difficult one. The whole
hearing pointed to the fact that more than the Home Occupation Permit was in-
volved. He felt it was strictly a civil matter but because of the resultant
problems, he would support the motion for revocation with much reluctance.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated after listening to the amount of testimony given
by neighbors who were home all the time and the Watts who lived directly next
to and facing the Meyers who stated they had no problem with the business, the
decision was a very difficult one. She realized that the sons did not reside
at the home, but being sons they had every right to be there. Considering the
pictures of the garage that were submitted, she wished some of her neighbors
had as neat a garage. Also she had neighbors who had five and six vehicles
with no business going on. She did not know what to do concerning this par-
ticular case.
81-175
City Hall, An~heim~ CAlifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 3, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Overholt stated that the Code provided that no persons other than
members of the resident family will engage in the HOP. The sons, being adults
and not living on the site, were not resident family.
Councilman Bay stated that he lived on the subject block and had for 20 years
and everybody was aware of that fact. He had a number of friends on both sides
of the argument. He had listened to the testimony and asked questions. He could
also follow the legal reasoning by Councilman Overholt. Frankly, however, he
considered himself too close to the problem and thus intended to abstain because
of that. He did not believe he should vote on either side of the issue.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion of revocation. Councilwoman
Kaywood and Councilman Bay abstained. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood commented that she could not make up her mind.
Mayor Seymour asked the City Attorney the grounds for an abstention.
City Attorney Hopkins explained that grounds would be a financial interest in
the business. In the event a Council Member abstained for some reason other
than a violation of the Fair Political Practices Commission regulations, then
their vote would go toward the motion that was made, in this case to revoke the
permit, and it would be counted as a vote in favor of the motion.
Mayor Seymour stated then that the motion carried unanimously.
Councilman Roth asked a reasonable period of time to terminate the business; City
Attorney Hopkins explained that such a time period would be at the discretion of
the Council. Normally 30 days would be considered reasonable unless something
grossly objectionable was involved.
Mayor Seymour suggested that the Council consider 60 days.
Mr. Art Meyers explained that he had a radio license and it would take approximately
90 days or longer to make changes in applying for a new location. If the period
was shorter than 90 days, he might not be able to have use of his communication
system.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to grant a 90-day period for termination of
the subject business (Home Occupation Permit No. 75-295). Councilman Overholt
seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked staff with revocation of
the HOP, was there any reason why Mr. Meyers could not have his own vehicle
which was used in the conduct of his business at his home.
The City Attorney answered there would be no provision against his personal
vehicle and he did not think that was something the Council could rule on.
Councilwoman Kaywood contended with the HOP there were certain controls the
City had, but without it there could be none.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Bay abstained. MOTION
CARRIED.
81-176
City Hall, Ana.heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 3, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Overholt, following up on Councilwoman Kaywood's previous question
asked the City Attorney if there was any reason why Mr. Meyers with his
single vehicle would be prevented from cleaning his vehicle or gurney in his
own driveway.
City Attorney Hopkins answered he did not believe there was any law against
cleaning a gurney. If it was a sanitary problem, the Health Department might
want to look at the situation.
Councilman Overholt stated he assumed Mr. Meyers was not going to clean the
gurney or perform other activities at his home.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated those were the thoughts going through her mind. The
revocation might not change anything, and they would lose any control they had.
Mayor Seymour stated that clearly by revoking of the permit, they could not
conduct a business at the home, i.e., dispatch calls, drive vehicles away from
the home to handle a call, service any equipment--anything that would be
related to the business.
The City Attorney confirmed that was correct.
112: FOWLER VS. CITY OF ANAHEIM: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by
Councilman Overholt, the City Attorney was authorized to settle Orange County
Superior Court Case No. 33-34-23 (Fowler vs. City of Anaheim) for a sum not to
exceed $4,000. MOTION CARRIED.
139/173: SENATE BILL 33 - VEHICLE INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE: Supporting the
passage of Senate Bill 33, vehicle inspection and maintenance (continued from
the meeting of January 27, 1981--see minutes that date). Submitted was a letter
from the Chamber of Commerce, giving their comments on the proposed legislation.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to continue consideration of the subject bill for
two weeks. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
114/134/139: ROOS BILL NO. 2853: The City of Fullerton, urging support of an
amendment to the Roos Bill No. 2853, relating to requirements of the Housing
Element of cities' General Plan (~ontinued from the meeting of January 27, 1981--
see minutes of that date).
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to delay consideration of any action on the sub-
ject bill until after February 26, 1981 as requested in memorandum dated February 2,
1981, from the Deputy City Manager James Ruth. MOTION CARRIED.
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 73-74-28 AND VARIANCE NO. 2566 - EXTENSION OF TIME: On
motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the request by Daniel A.
Salceda, Anaheim Hills, Inc., for an extension of time to Reclassification No.
73-74-28 and Variance No. 2566, proposed 18-lot, RS-HS-22,000 subdivision on
property located at the northeasterly corner of Avenida Santiago and Hidden
Canyon Road and southeasterly of the intersection of Serrano Avenue and Hidden
Canyon Road was approved, to expire March 14, 1982, as recommended by the Zoning
Division. MOTION CARRIED.
81-177
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 3, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution Nos. 81R-43
through 81R-50, both inclusive, for adoption in accordance with the reports,
recommendations and certifications furnished each Council Member and as listed
on the Consent Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book.
158: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-43: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (James M.
French, et al.; Karen Pickens; General American Insurance Company, three deeds;
Shafco Industries, Inc.; John Priem; Abel Mendez, et ux.)
158: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-44: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING AN EASEMENT DEED CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN
REAL PROPERTY FOR AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES. (R/W
#2800-22)
158: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-45: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING AN EASEMENT DEED CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN
REAL PROPERTY FOR AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES. (R/W
#2800-23)
158: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-46: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING AN EASEMENT DEED CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN
REAL PROPERTY FOR AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES. (R/W
#2800-24)
158: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-47: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING AN EASEMENT DEED CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN
REAL PROPERTY FOR AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES. (R/W
#2800-49)
158: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-48: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING AN EASEMENT DEED CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN
REAL PROPERTY FOR AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES. (R/W
#2800-60)
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-49: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
TERMINATING ALL PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 935
AND DECLARING RESOLUTION NO. 67R-307 NULL AND VOID.
151: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-50: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN ENCROACRMENT PERMIT AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID ENCROACHMENT PERMIT WITH
VAN DOREN RUBBER COMPANY. (80-2E) (Categorically Exempt)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 81R-43 through 81R-50, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
81-178
City .H. all, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 3~ 1981, 1:30 P.M.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning
Commission at their meeting held January 12, 1981, pertaining to the following
applications, as listed on the Consent Calendar, were submitted for City Council
information.
1. VARIANCE NO. 3175: Submitted by Bill Z. and Betty F. Wehunt, to construct
a 5-unit apartment complex on RM-1200 zoned property located at 211 East
Valencia Avenue with various Code waivers.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No PC81-1, denied Variance
No. 3175, and granted a negative declaration status.
2. VARIANCE NO. 3185: Submitted by Grove Construction, to retain a non-conforming
fence on ML zoned property located at 1177 North Grove Street, with a Code waiver
of required enclosure of outdoor uses.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No PC81-14, granted Variance
No. 3185, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination.
3. VARIANCE NO. 3186: Submitted by Southern California Edison Company, to
retain an office trailer on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located at 2719 West
Lincoln Avenue, with a Code waiver of permitted accessory uses and structures.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No PC81-15, granted Variance
No. 3186, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination.
4. VARIANCE NO. 3187: Submitted by Philip Trupiano, et al, to construct a room
addition on RS-lO,000 zoned property located at 1124 West La Entrada Circle, with
a Code waiver of minimum rear yard setback.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No PC81-16, granted Variance
No. 3187, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination.
5. VARIANCE NO. 3188: Submitted by Juan P. and Martha E. Reynoso, to retain a
fence on RS-7200 zoned property located at 516 West Victor Avenue, with a Code
waiver of maximum fence height.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No PC81-17, granted Variance
No. 3188, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination.
6. VARIANCE NO. 3189: Submitted by Harry R. Bratt, to establish a 2-lot sub-
division on RS-iO,O00 zoned property located at 900 North West Street, with
various Code waivers.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No PC81-19, granted Variance
No. 3189, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination.
7. VARIANCE NO. 3190: Submitted by Walter D. and Janette R. Posey, to construct
an office building on CL zoned property located at 2180 West Crescent Avenue, with
a Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No PC81-20, granted Variance
No. 3190, and granted a negative declaration status.
81-179
City H~ll, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 3~ 1981, 1:30 P.M.
8. VARIANCE NO. 3191: Submitted by Robert W. and Toni L. Kawick, to retain a
fence on RS-7200 zoned property located at 2432 East Underhill Avenue, with a
Code waiver of maximum fence height.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-18, granted Variance
No. 3191, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination.
9. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1939 (READVERTISED): Submitted by San Antonio
Church, requesting deletion of Condition No. 8 of Resolution No. PC79-60 per-
taining to landscaping in Santa Ana Canyon Road in connection with Conditional
Use Permit No. 1939, to permit a church with accessory school facilities on
RS~A-43,000 zoned property, with a Code waiver of maximum structural height,
located on the south side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, on the west side of Solomon
Drive.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-6, denied the
requested deletion of Condition No. 8 of Conditional Use Permit No. 1939,
and previously approved Negative Declaration status on March 26, 1979.
10. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2159: Submitted by Tamotsu and Kazuko Ota, to
retain an automotive transmission repair shop on CG zoned property located at
920 North Anaheim Boulevard, with a Code waiver of minimum number of parking
spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-7, granted Condi-
tional Use Permit No. 2159, and granted a negative declaration status.
11. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2160: Submitted by Ralph Gabriel Alexander, to
permit a recycling center on ML zoned property located at 1874 South Anaheim
Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-8, granted Condi-
tional Use Permit No. 2160, and granted a negative declaration status.
12. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2163: Submitted by Franchise Realty Interstate
Corporation, to permit a drive-through restaurant on CL zoned property located
at 2411 West Ball Road.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-10, granted Con-
ditional Use Permit No. 2163, and granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2163.
13. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2165: Submitted by D. Raymond and Ada May Woll,
et al, to permit the expansion of an existing equipment rental yard to include
a concrete mixing operation on ~L(.SC) zoned property located at 4460 East La
Palma Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-11, granted Con-
ditional Use Permit No. 2165, and granted a negative declaration status.
14. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2167: Submitted by Ahmanson Trust Company, c/o
The Macklin Company, to permit an industrial office complex on ML(SC) zoned pro-
perty located at 5500 East La Palma Avenue.
81-180'
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 3, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-13, granted Con-
ditional Use Permit No. 2167, and granted a negative declaration status.
15. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1884 - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: Submitted by
Jeff L. Reber, Equitec Properties Co., requesting termination of Conditional
Use Permit No. 1884, to permit a semi-enclosed sandwich shop on ML zoned pro-
perty located at 1266 East Katella Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-21, terminated
Conditional Use Permit No. 1884.
16. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1783 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by M. W.
Mayfield - Budget Rent-A-Car, requesting an extension of time to Conditional
Use Permit No. 1783, to permit an automobile rental agency and incidental auto-
mobile repair on C1 zoned property located at 3200 West Lincoln Avenue, with a
Code waiver of maximum width of access drive.
The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Conditional Use
Permit No. 1783, to expire December 19, 1981.
17. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1670 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Warren W.
and Nancy J. Jaycox, requesting an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit
No. 1670, to permit a trucking terminal and truck repair on ML zoned property
located at 1016 East Katella Avenue, with a Code waiver of required enclosure
of outdoor uses.
The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Conditional Use
Permit No. 1670, to expire December 6, 1981.
18. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1917 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by George
Nelson, requesting an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 1917, to
expand a truck and trailer rental yard on CG zoned property located at 600 and
626 South Anaheim Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Condtional Use
Permit No. 1917, to expire December 4, 1982.
19. VARIANCE NO. 2696 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Vonda S. Mason, requesting
an extension of time to Variance No. 2696, to establish retail sale and outdoor
storage of building materials on ML zoned property located at 517 through 519
East Katella Avenue, with certain Code waivers.
The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Variance No. 2696,
to expire April 28, 1981.
20. ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT: Submitted by the Orange County Flood
Control District, requesting a determination as to conformity of the proposed
acquisition of property located between the Carbon Creek Channel and the River-
side Freeway, with the City of Anaheim General Plan.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-22, determined
the acquisition to be in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan.
81-181
City Hall,. A~!a.heim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 3~ 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
21. REVISED RECLASSIFICATION FORMS: Staff submitted revised Reclassification
Forms in accordance with Section 18.03.050.010 of the Code, specifiying that
the Planning Commission shall prescribe the form in which applications are made
for zoning matters.
The City Planning Commission approved the revised Reclassification Forms.
No action was taken on the foregoing items; therefore the action of the City
Planning Commission became final.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2130: Submitted by the City of Anaheim, to permit a
157-foot high hotel and accessory uses on CR and PR zoned property located at
the northwest corner of Convention Way and Harbor Boulevard, with a Code waiver
of minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-2, granted, in part,
Conditional Use Permit No. 2130, and certified EIR No. 238 on November 18, 1980.
Councilman Bay removed the subject Conditional Use Permit from the Planning
Commission Consent Calendar and requested a review of the City Planning
Con~nission's action.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2161: Submitted by Lease-All La Palma, Inc., to permit
an enclosed restaurant with on-sale beer and wine on ML zoned property located at
4095 East La Palma Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-9, granted Condi-
tional Use Permit No. 2161, and granted a negative declaration status.
Councilwoman Kaywood removed the subject Conditional Use Permit from the
Planning Commission Consent Calendar and requested a review of the City
Planning Commission's action.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2166: Submitted by Beverly Jean Trotter, to permit
a contractor's storage yard on CG zoned property located at 415 South Lemon
Street.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-12, granted Con-
ditional Use Permit No. 2166, and granted a negative declaration status.
Councilwoman Kaywood removed the subject Conditional Use Permit from the
Planning Commission Consent Calendar and requested a review of the City
Planning Commission's action.
ORDINANCE NO. 4206; Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4206 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4206: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (70-71-47(24), ML)
148: BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION (BIA) RESOLUTION ASKING THAT THE COUNTY
RECONSIDER FINANCIAL SUPPORT OF THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF ORANGE COUNTY INC.:
Councilman Overholt referred to letter dated January 27, 1981 received from
Phillip Bettencourt, Executive Director of the BIA, Orange County Chapter.
81-182
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 3, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Attached to the letter was a resolution asking County officials to carefully
reconsider their continued financial support of the Legal Aid Society of Orange
County, Inc., the main reason being the lawsuit the Society brought against
the City of Irvine.
Councilman Overholt explained further that he had done some inquiry on Legal
Aid and from what he had been able to find out, they were primarily federally
funded. It would be his reccmmendation if they wished to obtain some informa-
tion preliminary to taking action, that they invite Mr. Bettencourt and the
Chairman in charge of Legal Aid, Mr. Bob Cohen, to speak to the Council in
order to provide both sides of the story.
Councilman Roth was of the opinion that with President Reagan's proposed cuts
in the federal budget, the Legal Aid Society would be one of the first programs
to go.
Councilman Overholt stated he did not know if that would happen, but it might be
a real issue.
After a brief discussion, it was determined that both Mr. Bettencourt and Mr.
Cohen would be invited to speak at the Council meeting of Tuesday, February 24,
1981.
ADJOURNMENT: By general consent the Council adjourned to TueSday, February 10,
1981, at 11:00 A.M. (9:40 P.M.)
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK