1981/04/0781-546
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 77 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 MANAGER: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Norm Priest
PUBLIC UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER: Gordon Hoyt
HOUSING MANAGER: Lisa Stipkovich
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Reverend Jerry Schiller, Melodyland Hotline Center, gave the Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman E. Llewellyn Overholt, Jr., led the assembly in the
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Seymour and
authorized by the City Council:
"Meals On Wheels Week" - May 4-10, 1981
The proclamation was accepted by Elizabeth Dickerson.
119: RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A resolution of congratulations was unan-
imously adopted by the City Council to be presented to Mary Bonino Jones as a
recipient of the "Spirit of Life" award from the City of Hope.
MINUTES: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Bay, the
minutes of the regular meeting of January 20, 1981, were approved, subject to
typographical corrections. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda, after
reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to waiver is
hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the title, specific
request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such ordinance or resolution
in regular order. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $3,062,419.26, in accordance
with the 19~8Q-81 Budget, were approved.
153/161: AUTHORIZATION OF NEW POSITIONS OF STENO-CLERK AND OCCUPANCY SPECIALIST
FOR THE HOUSING AUTHORITY: Councilman Overholt moved to authorize the new posi-
tions of Steno-Clerk and Occupancy Specialist for the Housing Authority as part
of the newly awarded 51 Section "8" Existing and 101 Moderate Rehabilitation
program, as recommended in memorandum dated March 31, 1981 from Executive Director
of Community Development Norm Priest. MOTION CARRIED.
81-547
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 7, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
164: EXTENSION OF TIME - ASSESSMENT OF LIQUIDATED DAMAGES - MARK LANE AND
NORTHFIELD SILT REMOVALS: On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by
Councilwoman Kaywood, a 17-working day extension of time was granted to the
contract with Empire Pipe Cleaning and Equipment, Inc., for construction of
Mark Lane and Northfield Silt Removals, and assessing liquidated damages in
the amount of $1,800, as recommended in memorandum dated March 27, 1981 from
the City Engineer. MOTION CARRIED.
123: RENTAL AGREEMENT - EL CAMINO BANK BUILDING: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, an agreement was authorized with the
Redevelopment Agency in the amount of $50 per month for rental of the first
floor and mezzanine of the E1 Camino Building, 203 East Old Lincoln Avenue,
for a two-month period ending May 23, 1981, as recommended in memorandum
dated April 1, 1981 from the Deputy City Manager James Ruth. MOTION CARRIED.
123: RECREATION SYSTEMS, INC. - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR RIVERDALE AND PON-
DEROSA PARK PROJECTS: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Council-
man Roth, an agreement was authorized with Recreation Systems, Incorporated in
the amount of $35,600, to furnish professional services for the Riverdale Park
development and the Ponderosa Park community building project, as recommended
in memorandum dated March 31, 1981 from the Deputy City Manager and the trans-
fer of $24,700 was authorized from Account No. 16-802, Eucalyptus Park, to
Account No. 16-822, Riverdale Park project. MOTION CARRIED.
123/175: ESTABLISHING THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE EDISON-ANAHEIM INTERRUPTIBLE
TRANSMISSION SERVICE AGREEMENT: On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by
Councilman Overholt, the effective date of the Edison-Anaheim Interruptible
Transmission Service Agreement approved by the City Council on February 3,
1~81, was established as January 30, 1981. MOTION CARRIED.
105/135: GOLF COURSE COMMISSION REPORT - OPERATION OF THE CITY'S TWO GOLF
COURSES: A Golf Course Commission report recommending that the City Council
make a final determination during budget public hearings as to the appropriate
action to be taken in regard to the operation of the City's two golf courses,
was submitted. City Manager William Talley briefed memorandum dated April 1,
19~1 from his office.
Mr. Robert Messe, Chairman, Golf Course Advisory Commission, 1523 South
Bayless, stated there were a few items which were of concern to him regarding
the latest recommendation from the City Manager's office to delay the matter
through the budgetary procedures. One concern was the fact that the contract
of Bob Jones, the Pro at the "Dad"Miller Course was up at the end of April or
May. The situation put him in a position where he was concerned about his
future, the inventory in his pro shop, etc. Secondly, the City's employees
had to b~ considered and they would like to know where they were going. Thirdly
both Hugh McKay and Associates and California Golf and Tennis, the two proposers,
had devoted a great deal of time and energy to the matter and he did not know
if it was fair to them to delay another 85 to 90 days. (See memorandum dated
March 23, 1R81 to the C~ty Council from the Golf Course Advisory Commission,
four pages--subject: Recommendations by City Manager on Proposal for Private
Management of the Anaheim Public Golf Courses). Fourth, if they knew where
81-548
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 7, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
they were going, they could proceed with informing the architect as to what
their next step would be. If the City retained management of the Course,
they would ask the architect to proceed so that they could identify some land
as discussed in the report (see Page 2 of 4 of the March 23, 1981 report).
Councilman Roth asked if the location of the land was identified as yet; Mr.
Messe answered "no". Councilman Roth then continued, that being the case
was reason alone to delay the matter. He was interested in selling any piece
of saleable property not involved in the flood plain. If they could sell a
couple of million dollars worth of property, that would be a deciding factor
Mr. Messe felt that the land was there but they did not know precisely where
or how many acres were involved.
Mayor Seymour noted the following in the March 23, 1981 report (Page 2)--"The
projections used to analyze the proposals do not track inflationary trends in
the area of revenues, but do track inflation only when it comes to projecting
expenses." He presumed, therefore, the Commission disagreed with the Program
Development & Audit (P.D. & A.) analysis.
Mr. Messe stated they disagreed in the projection relative to revenues, but
they felt that staff had done a good job in projecting expenses. When it came
to projecting revenues, staff took a more conservative, pessimistic view.
Mayor Seymour noted also on Page 2 the report stated--"Golf staff is in the
preliminary stages of their budget forecast and their figures show breakeven
in two to three years." He asked what it would show for next year's budget.
'Mr. Messe answered, for the year ending June 1982, it would probably show a
$5,000 or $6,0Q0 loss for the combined courses.
The Mayor then asked if the Commission had a feeling as to what they would
project as far as a profit or loss beyond the two or three years; Mr. Messe
answered that the debt service would be paid off in ten years.
Councilman Bay asked when guesstimating that in a couple of years they would
break even, did that include some healthy increases in green fees and golf
carts.
Mr. Messe felt it would, and every course in the country was going to be faced
with the same problem.
Councilman Bay also noted the following statement which caused him to wonder
if Mr. Messe had some ideas on changing the method of overhead. (Page 2)
"The private sector can hire low cost labor, provide fewer benefits and not
be burdened with seemingly exorbitant inter-departmental and indirect over-
head charges."
Mr. Messe answered that "seemingly" modified the whole thing. What they were
trying to say, Golf Course staff, the whole golf course budget and their opera-
tion were bottlenecked somewhat by what he would say were seemingly exorbitant
charges of overhead and indirect costs not based by the private sector. They
understood that and that was the way the City was keeping the books at present,
although it had not always been that way. They were paying for a Personnel
81-549
City Hall~ Anaheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES- April 7~ 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Department, a City Manager's office, a City Council, a Golf Course Advisory
Commission--a number of indirect costs.
Councilman Roth suggested then that would probably be a good reason to turn
the Courses over to free enterprise; Mr. Messe stated, however, that they
would then be giving a bulk of the profits to private enterprise when they
had been pushing the "boulder up the hill" for many years and now were about
to get it over the top.
Councilman Bay noted previously Mr. Messe indicated they needed approximately
60 days to get more information from the architect. He asked, therefore, if
they moved to receive and file the report, in effect, tabling the subject for
60 days, if at the end of that time they would have enough additional informa-
tion to make a decision.
Mr. Messe stated they would have more information, but whether they would have
all the data necessary was questionable.
Discussion then followed between the Mayor, Mr. Messe and City Manager Talley
revolving around the MayorTs question as to when the first letter went out to
California Golf and Tennis inviting them to bid, i,e., the start of the whole
process. During the discussion,~Mr. Talley explained the reason for staff's
recommendation was that the staff of the Golf Courses believed they could
bring the courses into balance, meaning they were hoping through a series of
changes and operating procedures, which included contracting with the private
sector, they could offset the huge subsidies that the Anaheim Hills Golf Course
required which everyone admitted was at least a couple of hundred thousand
dollars, by a profit from the Muni Course. They were banking on three things,
in his opinion--(~) that they could get more productivity out of their people
and the administration was ready to bet on the public employees and felt they
could accomplish that. (2) They were also banking on another "splendid" winter
such as this year which substantially distorted any figures because they had
almost no rain. (~ They were banking on the fact that the Commission would
take a more agg=essive role in doing two things--the first, recommending more
competi, tive or higher rates to offset the huge deficit and secondly, identifying
some land that could be sold to produce the needed capital improvements. The
C~ty was saying--their facts were in, perhaps they could disagree with them, but
they did not have any facts to argue against. He felt that during the budget
hearings, they would show how, under the most benign of circumstances it could
be balanced by bringing substantial cash reserves of the "Muni" Course if the
aforementioned commitments would be made. In reading the report, there was not
one figure or fact ~n it but a lot of subjectivity that they had been dealing
with for nearly four years. There was nothing to address either way. They
believed that the Commission was ready to move forward aggressively, and he would
recommend that whatever their program, that it be compared to the budget whenever
one was presented.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. Talley to respond to the "seemingly exorbitant
overhead charges" and also a question for both, if they felt by raising the
fees ~t would lower the amount of play.
Mr, Talley stated he would not address the second question. On the first, they
had commissioned, as Council was aware, a nationally recognized company to re-
view the City's entire accounting process on administrative overhead. They had
81-550
City Hall, Anaheim,. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 7~ 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
come in with a recommendation they were following. If they put the courses in
the private sector, some of the work they did now would not be required. On
the other hand, he felt if they took every item that they felt was exorbitant
out of the Anaheim Hills Golf Course to see whether or not the money coming
in equaled the money going out, there was nobody that would argue that it did
not, nor would it in the foreseeable future. It was dependent upon a transfer
from the Anaheim Municipal Course, benign winters, and an increasing, more
aggressive fee schedule in the future.
Mr. Messe commented, unless there had been a change, the charge of the Commission
was to come close to breakeven between the two courses, and that golf should not
cost the City of Anaheim very much when putting the two courses together. He
felt, however, that they could price themselves out of the market. There was
no question about that in any area of the business world. They would be very
careful not to overcharge to the point where they would lose the market.
Councilman Overholt, speaking to Mr. Messe, stated in reading their report,
he found their recommendations to be a statement of philosophy and one with
which he agreed 100%, i.e., if they could operate the resources in the City
in the form of Anaheim Hills and "Dad" Miller Municipal in such a fashion so
as not to make it a tremendous drain on the City, he was all for that. He was
concerned that the situation had gone on for too long and he shared Mr. Messe's
concerns as previously articulated. H'e was impressed with the City Manager's
comment today that he had confidence in his employees to come up with a much
more sensible project, budget-wise, in the hearing and he would like to see that.
He did not see included in the recommendation that land would have to be sold,
but they considered it as a possibility of raising additional revenue. To
hold up the matter just to determine what land, if any, could be sold, did no
concern him one way or the other.
The Mayor agreed with Councilman Overholt. He felt that the matter had gone
on long enough. It was approximately four or five years ago that the question
began to be debated. He maintained it was ridicilous and unconscienceable to
prolong the matter. He was prepared to put an end to the charade today. It
was easy to debate over the golf courses and what they cost. He questioned how
much the park system cost and how many acres of real estate in the City were
devoted to parks. Lf they looked at their parks in the same fashion as the
Golf Courses, he wanted to know how they would stack up as a loser. He did
not know, but suspected it would be in the millions of dollars and not a couple
of hundred thousands, of dollars. He was also concerned relative to the con-
cessionaires at the Golf Courses, not only the pros, but also the food conces-
sionaires as well.
The Mayor continued that they were over the hard years on the Golf Courses and
had been through those years since 1970. Now they had two or three years to a
breakeven and ten years to a pay off the debt at the Anaheim Hills Course
which was the primary reason that the Golf Courses had a difficult time carrying
themselves., He wondered why no one on the Council or the City Manager had not
suggested that they go out to bid to maintain all parks, and the exterior land-
scaping maintenance on all public buildings. Perhaps that would be a good idea.
He was suggesting that somewhere there was an undying commitment to see the Golf
Courses rolled over and handed to a private management company who would enjoy
nothing but a windfall profit in a couple of years. He felt they had beat the
issue long and hard enough and the time to take action was now.
81-551
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 7, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour thereupon moved to accept the recommendation of the
Golf Course Commission, to reject the bids of the private management companies
and to instruct the Golf Course Commission and Mr. Liegler and his staff to
move forward with the policy generated on November 11, 1976; in the spirit of
that policy, report back to the Council as to what improvements could be made
through the sale of land and improved operations and maintenance, with the
clear understanding that the City was going to continue to hold its Golf
Courses, rather than turn them over to private management companies. Council-
man Overholt seconded the motion.
Before action was taken, Mr. Talley stated that on a number of occasions, the
City had investigated the advantages of utilizing private contractors for the
parks system. It had engaged private people for private maintenance at the
smaller facilities and also taken contracts for maintenance of buildings in-
side. That was an ongoing procedure. The other area, even followingthe Golf
Commission's recommendations, that largely hinged on the ability to redesign the
Anaheim Hills Course so that it could be played better or more efficiently. As
the Council was aware, the City was having a substantial problem in balancing
the budget this year, and there would be the necessity for investing multi-
hundreds of thousands of dollars in that course. He would hope that Council
would direct the Commission and City staff to attempt to find the money to do
that. With the original Council Policy when the Anaheim Hills Golf Course was
founded it was to have that Course in balance in three years.
Mayor Seymour stated he would suspect if he (Talley) had a private contractor
take a look at the parks and their maintenance, he would probably conclude in
that process that it was not of economic benefit to the City. Relative to
looking for a commitment of capital to be invested, he was prepared to direct
him to look for that capital. He was sure it could be achieved. He empha-
sized that after approximately 11 years of "blood, sweat and tears", he did not
want to turn the Golf Courses over just at the time when in the very near future,
they were going to move into the black.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated they were faced with cuts they had never been faced
with before on the State and Federal levels. She had always been on record as
favoring the City keeping the Golf Courses. She emphasized there was no
question that the courses would remain Golf Courses. There was no other
viable alternative since the Anaheim Hills Course was in the path of a reservoir
and must be kept as a course. Searching for money or trying to sell off excess
land had also been ongoing. They had to see that specific land and know what
uses it was going to be put to. When speaking of the concessionaires, she
felt they would do a fine and excellent job with the knowledge and hope that
they could continue to do so. She found the Mayor's arguments somewhat
offensive. Now was not the time to make a determination on the matter. The
Golf Course Commission needed about 60 days for several things to come together
and she wanted them to have that time. She did now want to vote on the matter
precipitously or in an emotional atmosphere.
Mayor Seymour stated he would hope that if the Council was intending to defeat
the current motion, they would have the courage to face their electors and ask
for an evening meeting when the public was present before taking some action
which he felt was not in the best interest of the citizens.
81-552
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 7, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Roth emphasized that the missing key was in the architect's report
as to what needed to be done to the course to make it playable and economically
viable and also what the cost was going to be. He wanted to know how soon the
Council would be receiving that report.
Mr. Messe stated it was going to take approximately 60 days to come up with
something saying, here is what we want to do, and here is the excess land we
think can be sold to pay for what we want to do, etc.
Councilman Roth stated that was a good idea and businesslike approach. He
wanted to have all the information beforehand.
Mayor Seymour stated their best estimate of what improvements would run was
in the vicinity of $500,000 to $1.5 million; Mr. Talley stated the first he
heard was approximatley $400,000 to $1.2 million.
The Mayor further stated they could not take an asset such as the Golf Courses
and manage them on a day-by-day basis. It was necessary to do so on a long-
term basis. He asked if the Council, on a long-term basis, was prepared to
invest $500,000 to $1.5 million to insure the high quality of maintenance,
service and recreational activity provided at those two courses. He was
prepared to commit to that, and once they did so as a long-term goal, they
would be prepared to move ahead logically and methodically.
Mr. Messe explained when he stated that they could come with a budget that
would lose $5,000 or $6,000 for fiscal year 1982 that did not include any
capital improvements to the Anaheim Hills Course. On a short-term basis,
they could operate those two courses on practically a breakeven basis.
Mr. Talley stated he had to take strong exception to that. The philosophy of
increasing the play and the cost for play was based upon a course that was
not only more attractive, but also one that could handle greater play. They
could not say that they were going to increase the play and increase the
revenue and not perform the improvements.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated her big concern, if they were looking to cut $i
million to $1.5 million out of necessary services in the City, was that they
were going to have a highly emotional night hearing with one side pitted against
the other. By no means was the feeling a unanimous one relative to the Golf
Courses. There were many people who were very concerned about any money at
all going into the Courses. ~he felt they were a very important amenity to
the City regardless of where a person lived. She had always been on record
i,n that regard, but felt they would be better served to postpone the matter
at this t~me unti,1 they had the necessary information. Further, another very
serious poll. tidal decision would be involved. If certain land was pinpointed
as unnecessary to the Anaheim H~lls Course and could be sold for residential
purposes and the residents in the area objected, that was a difficult decision
they would have to make. She maintained that they had to have the information
first in order to make an intelligent decision.
Councilman Overholt stated he would welcome a discussion on the budgetary
analys£s if they could make it a breakeven situation. He felt that both courses
were tremendous assets just as the City's parks. Many people never used the
81-553
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 7~ 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
parks, but yet they were assets of the City and retained for all citizens. The
same was true of the courses.
Councilman Bay stated they had spent a great many months trying to get more
factual information in order to come to some decisions and now they were
within 60 days of that point. As of now, he had not seen anything that told
him where the City stood on the upcoming budget and where the revenues had
been sliced. He would not support the motion because it was calling for an
immediate decision, one which he did not feel they had to make right now. He
still preferred at least a 60-day delay on the decision. He wanted to see
what the Commission would come back with based on what the architect would
say needed to be done with the Anaheim Hills Course. He looked at the last
six or seven years deficit that the taxpayers of the City would pay. He was
not saying that at this time he favored giving the course away to private enter-
prise with a good profit potential, but he would argue jumping to a decision
right now when they were on the verge of acquiring the necessary information
to make that decision.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Council Members Kaywood, Bay
and Roth voted "no". MOTION FAILED TO CARRY.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to receive and file the Golf Course Commission
report and to table action on it for 60 days at which time more information
would be available ~n order to make a final decision. Councilman Roth seconded
the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated she did not want it mis-
construed that she was for selling, leasing or giving the courses away. It
was a matter of getting more information and facts before voting.
A vote was then take on the foregoing motion by Councilman Bay. Councilmen
Overholt and Seymour voted "no". MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved that prior to any decision of turning the
Golf Courses over to private golf course management, that that decision be
rendered in an evening public hearing. Councilman Bay seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
123/170: DEVELOPER AGREEMENT FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING - EDWARD PADILLA AND FINAL
MAP . TRACT NO, 11256: .An agreement with Edward Padilla & Company to assure
affordable sale prices for 11 units in a 22-unit condominium project located
at 115-124 West South Street (~ontinued from the meeting of March 24, 1981--see
m~nutes that date~, was submitted.
Mr. Norm Priest, Executive Director of Community Development, briefed the Council
on his three-page memorandum dated April i, 1981 (on file in the City Clerk's
office~ recommending the authorization of an agreement between the C~ty and
the developer, Edward Padilla & Company, to assure affordable sale prices for
i1 units in a 22-unit condominium project located at 115-129 West South Street
and also a ~ayers agreement between the City and the buyers of the affordable
units located at ll5-12~South Street (~opies of the agreement were attached
to the memorandumS.
81-554
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 7~ 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Roth then asked for clarification relative to Item 3, Page 2 of the
subject memorandum which was provided by Mr. Priest and Mrs. Lisa Stipkovich.
Further Council discussion followed on the matter during which Councilwoman
Kaywood posed additional questions to staff relative to some of the points con-
tained in the report.
At the conclusion of discussion and questioning, Councilwoman Kaywood stated
she was looking to protect the City and in her view, the affordable housing
could be gone in one year or it could happen in six months. If the owner-
occupant was able to sell for much more than the second trust deed, that would
all be profit to him. She questioned then where the incentive would be to
remain in the unit and sell it to a second person who would qualify at the
lower rate.
Councilman Bay stated that the incentive was only in the second trust deed
being brought to bear and that was the only control that they had. If there
was a large profit because of the price of housing going up on top of that,
he did not see how they could control more than the difference being put in
the second trust deed, and that was the whole idea.
Councilman Overholt left the Council Chambers. (2:50 P.M.)
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that was her concern. In the meantime the City
had doubled the density and then was left with the higher density.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to authorize an agreement with Edward Padilla
and Company to assure affordable sale prices for 11 units in a 22-unit condo-
minium project located at 115-129 West South Street and the buyers agreement
between the City and buyers of affordable units located at 115-129 West South
Street, as recommended in memorandum dated April 1, 1981 from the Executive
D~rector of Community Development. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Coun-
cilwoman Kaywood voted "no". Councilman Overholt was temporarily absent° MOTION
CARRIED.
FINAL MAP - TRACT NO. 11256: Developer Edward Padilla; tract located on the
north side of South Street, 200 feet west of Anaheim Boulevard at 115-129 West
South Street, and contains one proposed PD-C zoned lot.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Bay, the proposed sub-
di, v~sion, together with its. design and improvements was found to be consistent
with the City's General Plan, and the City Council approved Final Map - Tract
No. 11256, as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated March 18,
19_81. Councilwoman Kaywood voted "no". Councilman Overholt was temporarily
absent, MOTION CARRIED.
10.8: ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT APPLICATION: Application by Jose Gusman Castellanos,
Never On Sunday, 281~ West L~ncotn Avenue, for several dancers on stage, seven
n~ghtm a week, I~:OQ a.m. to 2:QO a.m. (Dontlnued from the meeting of March 31,
19281--see m}nutes that date~, was submitted.
81-555
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 7~ 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Roth referred to memorandum dated April 3, 1981 from the City Clerk's
office indicating that the Magnolia School District Board was opposed to any
expansion of the subject business. He asked if the application was for expan-
sion.
Councilman Overholt returned to the Council Chambers. (2:57 P.M.)
City Attorney Hopkins explained that the permit was for entertainment activity
to be conducted at the existing business. The School District had no authority
under the ordinance to approve or disapprove an entertainment permit applica-
tion, however, the District could express their concerns and objections for
Council considerations.
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to deny the subject application.
Before any action was taken, Councilman Bay asked the City Attorney on what
grounds the Council could deny the application.
The City Attorney answered that at this time, he found no grounds on which they
could legally deny the application. The Orange County Health Department had
approved the sanitary conditions (~ee their letter dated February 20, 1981), and
the Chief of Police had recommended approval of the entertainment permit. He
(Hopkins). found nothing in the ordinance that would authorize a denial in this
particular case.
Councilwoman Kaywood's motion died for lack of a second.
Councilman Roth moved to approve the subject entertainment permit application
i,n accordance with the City Attorney's opinion that they had no other alterna-
tive in thus case. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Councilwoman Kaywood
voted "no"~ MOTION CARRIED.
156: DRUG PARAPHERNALI,A ORDINANCE: Councilwoman Kaywood referred to the
subject ordinance which was upheld by the Appeals Court overturning last
January~s Superior Court decision stating that the City's ordinance was
unconstitutional. She noted ~n a Westminster appeal, Justice Margaret Morris,
noted "it was ludicrous to suggest the affect of the ordinance could possibly
outweigh the community interest in protecting its children from indiscriminate
exposure to commercial exploitation by business devoted to the sale of parapher-
nali~ for the sale and abuse of drugs." She asked whether the City could now
proceed to enforce the ordinance.
City Attorney Hopkins answered "yes". He continued that, as they were aware,
the ordinance merely required that they keep the paraphernalia segregated in
a special area and that parents accompany any minors to the facility. They
were now. free to enforce that, providing there was no appeal. At this time,
there was no appeal of the decision that they received.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she would hope to see that they began enforcement.
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 75-76-22 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Request by Robert Kaczmarek,
The Baldwin Company, for an extension of time to Reclassification No. 75-76-22,
proposed RS-5000(~C) zoned property located on the south and west sides of Nohl
Ranch Road, east of Anaheim Hills Road, was submitted.
81~556
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 7, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the subject
request for an extension of time was approved, to expire April 27, 1981, as
recommended in memorandum dated March 7, 1981 from Assistant Director for
Zoning Annika Santalahti. MOTION CARRIED.
VARIANCE NO. 2780 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Request by Ada Mary Woll, for an
extension of time to Variance No. 2780, to permit a large equipment rental
yard with various Code waivers on ML zoned property located at 4460 East La
Palma Avenue, was submitted.
On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilman Roth, the subject
request for an extension of time was approved, to expire April 27, 1986 as
recommended in memorandum dated Arpil 7, 1981 from the Assistant Director
for Zoning. MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilman
Seymour, 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 C~ty's Claims Administrator or allowed payment of:
a. Claim submitted by Pacific Telephone (~ase No. H146-0087) for damages to
underground facilities purportedly sustained as-a result of City Water Division
excavation activities at the east end of Walnut Canyon Road, on or about
February 11, 19_81.
b. Claim submitted by Mary V. Gerdes for personal injury damages purportedly
sustained as a result of fall in front of Union Hall due to broken cement, on
or about February 11, 1981.
c. Claim submitted by Allstate Insurance (0necimo Cruz, Insured) for vehicular
damages purportedly sustained as a result of accident involving City driver, on
or about March 5, 19B1.
d. Claim submitted by Pacific Telephone (Case No. H146-29) for damages to
facilities purportedly sustained as a result of City storm drain construction
project at Acaci~ and La Palma Avenues, on or about January 12, 1981.
The following claims were allowed:
e. Claim submitted by Pacific Telephone (~ase No. HO40-823U) for damages pur-
portedly sustained as a result of Water Division operations at the intersection
of Lewis Street and Katella Avenue, on or about January 22, 1981.
f. Claim submitted by Robert J. Kelley for vehicular damages purportedly sus-
tained as a result of accident caused by City-owned truck, on West Street,
south of Broadway, on or about January 14, 1981.
2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 105:. Community Redevelopment Commission--Minutes of March 11, 1981.
81-557
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 7~ 1981, 1:30 P.M.
b. 105: Anaheim Park and Recreation Commission--Minutes of February 25, 1981.
c. 105: Anaheim Housing Commission--Minutes of March 4, 1981.
d. 173: Application.No. 60174, Kintetsu International Express (USA), Inc.,
for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity.
3. 108: APPLICATIONS: The following applications were approved in accordance
with the recommendations of the Chief of Police:
a. Public Dance Permit: Anaheim Soccer Club, for a dance to be held April 18,
1981, 6:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m., at the Anaheim Convention Center. (Felipe Jesus
Guerena, applicant)
b. Public Dance Permit: Cinco de Mayo Queen Dance, to be held May 1, 1981,
7:00 p.m. to 12:00 Midnight, at the Martin Recreation Center in La Palma Park.
(Felipe Jesus Guerena, applicant)
c. Amusement Devices Permit: J. R. Subs, 1025 North Moraga, for six arcade
machines. (Jeff Tawasha, applicant)
d. Amusement Devices Permit: Rio Vista Liquors, 2829 East Lincoln Avenue,
for video and pinball machines. (Earnest Eugene Schmidt, applicant)
4. 170: TENTATI.VE TRACT NO. 11347 (REVISION NO. 1): Submitted by M. J. Brock
and Sons, Inc., to establish a 91-lot, ~ gunit (22 open lots) condominium sub-
division on RS-A,.43,QQQ zoned property located on the north side of Falmouth
Avenue, and the south side of Coronet Avenue west of Romneya Drive.
The C~ty Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract No. 11347 (Revision No. 1),
and EIR No. 113 was certified 'March 16, 1974.
5. 170: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11464: Submitted by M. J. Brock and Sons, Inc.,
to establish a 66-1ot, 56-unit (il0 open lots) detached condominium subdivision
on RS-A,43,00D zoned property located on the north side of Falmouth Avenue, and
the south side of Coronet Avenue, west of Romneya Drive.
The City Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract No. 11464, and EIR No.
113 was certified on March 16, 1974.
6. 170: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 109_83 (~ORTION A): Submitted by Kent Land Company,
to establish a 164-1ot, 162-unit,.RM-3000 zoned subdivision on property located
at the southeast corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Weir Canyon Road. (Sub-
mitted in conjunction with Variance No. 3195, which will appear on the April 14,
1~81 agenda under Planning Commission Consent Calendar)
The City Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract No. 10983 (Portion A)
and certified ESR No. 241.
7, 17Q: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 1Q984 (~ORTION B): Submitted by Kent Land Company,
to establish a 151-lot, 150~unit RS-5000 zoned subdivision on property located
on the east side of Weir Canyon Road, south of Santa Aha Canyon Road.
81-558
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 7~ 1981, 1:30 P.M.
The City Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract No. 10984 (Portion B)
and certified EIR No. 241.
8. 170: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11400: Submitted by Vermont 4-Plex, to establish
a l-lot, 21-building, RM-1200 zoned subdivision on property located at 629 West
Vermont Avenue°
The City Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract No. 11400 and declared
a negative declaration status.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she needed to know the purpose in selling off the
4-plexes. They were substandard to begin with and they were low on parking
even with any improvements they would make--what would be served for the City
in approving it.
Miss Santalahti answered that two subdivisions had been done before by the same
developer. They were being subdivided by buildings. She also believed there
was a statutory air space subdivision. The buildings were going to be sold and
thus the use was going to be retained as apartments. There was no actual change
to the use.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if there had been a problem with the lack of parking.
Miss Santalahti answered, when the review was held at the Departmental Committee
meeting prior to the Planning Commission hearing, there was no commentary made
by anybody about any parking problems. While there was not much parking, a
fair amount of street parking was available. She did not think the City was
buying a number of problems by having 21 new owners as suggested by Council-
woman Kaywood. They were required to have an Association for the maintenance
of the private streets and landscaping with the project. They also had not had
any problems with the other two subdivisions.
MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 81R-161
through 81R-168, 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-161: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM ACCE~TING AN EASEMENT DEED CONVEYING TO THE CITY 0F ANAHEIM CERTAIN
REAL PROPERTY FOR AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES. (R/W
#28Q0-15~ (_Anaheim Boulevard widening}
16~: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-162: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE
THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: SYCAMORE
STREET-WEST STREET STREET IMPROVEMENT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS.
12-792-6325-E2660 & 12-793-6325-E3470; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES,
DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE
CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECI-
FICATIONS, ETC; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A
NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be
opened May 7, 1981, at 2:00 p.m.)
81-550
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 7, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
169: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-163: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE
THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: LINCOLN AVENUE
STREET AND STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS, FHWA DEMONSTRATION PROJECT PROGRAM NO. 54
SULFUR EXTENDED ASPHALT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS..13-793-6325-E3320,
51-606-6325-26720-34340 AND 24-793-6325-E3440, A.H.F.P. 1000; APPROVING THE
DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE
WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY
CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
THEREOF. (Bids to be opened on May 7, 1981, at 2:00 p.m.)
164: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-164: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE
THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: WATER IMPROVE-
MENTS IN CAMINO GRANDE, FROM NOHL RANCH ROAD TO 2215 FEET WEST OF NOHL RANCH
ROAD, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 53-607-6329-1709A-34350; APPROVING
THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE
WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY
CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
THEREOF. (Bids to be opened on May 7, 1981, at 2:00 p.m.)
164: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-165: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR,
SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING
POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND
COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: MARK LANE SILT REMOVAL -
NORTHFIELD SILT REMOVAL, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 11-790-6325-E0280
AND 11-790-6325-E0290. (Empire Pipe Cleaning and Equipment, Inc.)
164: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-166: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR,
SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING
POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND
COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: HIDDEN CANYON PUMPING STATION,
IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 51-619-7105-92180-32420. (Peter Kiewit &
Sons' Company~
164: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-167: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR,
SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING
POWER, FUEL AS~ WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND
COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: HIDDEN CANYON RESERVOIR, IN
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 51-619-7105-92180-31200. (Peter Kiewit & Sons'
Company~
113: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-168: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CITY RECORDS MORE THAN TWO YEARS OLD.
(Finance Department records)
81-560
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 7, 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-161, 81R-162, and 8IR-164 through 81R-168
duly passed and adopted.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Roth
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-163 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Roth abstained from voting on Resolution No. 81R-163, since the
improvements involved included the street areas surrounding his business
office.
142/179: ORDINANCE NO. 4217: Councilman Overholt offered Ordinance No. 4217
for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4217: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SUBSECTION .0518
OF SECTION 18.31.020, SUBSECTIONS .012 AND .020 OF SECTION 18.31.061, SUBSECTIONS
.011, .012 AND .032 OF SECTION 18.31.062, AND SUBSECTION .010 OF SECTION 18.31.066,
AND ADDING NEW SUBSECTION .060 TO SECTION 18.31.050, AND ADDING NEW SUBSECTION
,Q!3 TO SECTION 18,31.062, OF CHAPTER 18.31 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (RM-3Q00 zone standards)
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated what they would wind up
doing by the ordinance was to raise the land costs, thereby raising the price
all the way through. It would have irrevocable results throughout the City.
The higher the density and the closer the units, the greater the fire hazard.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing ordinance.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Roth and Seymour
Kaywood and Bay
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4217 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 4218 AND 4219: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance Nos. '4218 and
421~ for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4218: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (69-70-43(5), ML)
81-561
City Hall: Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 7, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
ORDINANCE NO. 4219: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (75-76-22(2), RS-5000, Tract
No. 9215 and 10940)
105: ORANGE COUNTY SENIOR CITIZENS COUNCIL: Councilwoman Kaywood reported
that she attended the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) luncheon
on Friday, April 3, 1981 and she wanted to place in nomination the name of
Mr. Herman Sigmund for the Orange County Senior Citizens Council. Mr. Herb
Eggett recommended Mr. Sigmund. He had been in Orange County for a few years
and she met him at the luncheon. He had also become extremely active in the
AARP and a person who would be a credit to the City. They would have to place
his name in nomination at the League of Cities meeting on Thursday, April 9,
1981. It was on the agenda and the opening was in the Third and Fourth Super-
visorial Districts, since Mr. A1 Hudson resigned.
Councilman Roth stated he would like to pass that through Anaheim's Senior
Citizen's Commission for their support although he realized the time was short;
Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out if they passed up the opportunity, someone
from another City could be selected.
Councilman Roth stated he knew Mr. Sigmund and he was a fine gentlemen, but
preferred to have the proposed nomination passed through the respective
Commission.
Mr. John Shanahan, Chairman of the Anaheim Senior Citizens Commission, who
was present in the Council Chambers, stated that he was not personally ac-
quainted with Mr. Sigmund although his background looked quite credible. The
Commission would be meeting on this coming Thursday at 1:30 p.m., and they
could inform the Council as to the Commission's feelings on the nomination
of Mr, Sigmund right after the meeting.
Councilwoman Kaywood also stated that she would like Mr. Sigmund to attend the
Commission meeting; Mr. Shanahan stated he would personally contact Mr. Sigmund
that evening.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recommend the nomination of Mr. Herman
Sigmund for the Orange County Senior Citizens Council and that the Anheim
Senior Citizen Commission ask Mr. Sigmund to attend the Thursday, April 9,
1981 Commission meeting, so that the Commission could make a recommendation
to the Council accordingly. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
Mr. Shanahan was then instructed to contact the City Clerk with the information
which the City Clerk would subsequently relay to the Council before the League
of Cities meeting.
114: AUDIT COMMITTEE LIAISON MEETING: Mayor Seymour reported on the Audit
Committee Liaison meeting held that morning attended by he and Councilman
Overholt. They reviewed the work that had been completed at least in draft
form by Price Waterhouse relative to the City Treasurer's function, the defi-
nition of his job and setting objectives and how he might do a better job, and
also over a report relative to an effort to be made through the City Manager's
office, to increase productivity within departments. No decision was made and
the Council would be receiving copies of those reports in a timely fashion.
81-562
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 7, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: The City Attorney requested a Closed Session to
discuss litigation with action anticipated.
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilman Bay
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (3:28 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (3:50 P.M.)
112: HOERAUF VS. CITY OF ANAHEIM, ET AL: On motion by Councilman Seymour,
seconded by Councilman Bay, the City Attorney and Ruston & Nance were author-
ized to settle Orange County Superior Court Case No. 29-72-00, Hoefauf vs.
City of Anaheim, et al, for a sum not to exceed $6,500. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: Councilman Bay moved to recess to 7:00 P.M. to hold a continued
public hearing on Reclassification No. 80-81-14, Conditional Use Permit
No. 2121 and Tentative Tract No. 11305. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED. (3:51 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (7:10 P.M.)
101/123: ANAHEIM STADIUM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND TRANSFER AGREEMENT: City
Manager Talley briefed the Council on memorandum dated April 6, 1981 from his
office recommending the execution of an agreement between Anaheim Stadium, Inc.,
and the City for the transfer and replenishment of the Stadium Capital Improve-
ment Funds.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to authorize the Mayor to execute the agree-
ment between ASI and the City of Anaheim for the transfer and replenishment of
the Stadium Capital Improvements Fund. Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 80-81-14~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO, 2121, TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11305 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application by
Bank of California, N. A. Trustee, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to
RM-3000, to permit a 2-lot, 99-unit condominium subdivision (Revision No. 1)
on property located at 2170 South Harbor Boulevard, with various Code waivers.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-208, declared
that the subject project be exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR
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. 80-81-14
subject to 15 conditions.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-209, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2121 in part, subject to four conditions and further,
approved Tentative Tract No. 11305 subject to certain conditions.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilman Bay
at the meeting of December 23, 1980 and public hearing scheduled and continued
f=om the meetings of January 20, 1981 and also March 10, 1981 (see minutes those
dates)_.~ Extensive 'discussion and testimony took place at the meeting of March 10,
19_81.
81-563
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 7, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Miss Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, explained that the two
drawings displayed on the Chambers wall--Revision No. 1, was the exhibit
approved by the Planning Commission for a total of 99 dwelling units with four
waivers of minimum lot area, maximum structural height, minimum recreational
leisure area and minimum number and type of parking spaces. That included 25%
affordable units. The developer, prior to the first hearing by the City Council,
submitted a revised plan, Revision No. 2 of Exhibit No. 1, which was also posted
on the Chambers wall. It reduced the number of units to 93, retained the
25% affordable and still included the same four waivers although modified. Under
the new ordinan6e adopted this afternoon by the City Council (Ordinance No. 4217)
which would become effective in 30 days, the first two waivers, "a", minimum
lot area per dwelling unit and "b", maximum structural height, would both be
deleted and only "e", minimum recreational-leisure area, and "f", minimum
number and type of parking spaces, would remain.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present.
Mr. Floyd Farano, attorney, 2555 East Chapman, Fullerton, agent for the applicant,
stated before he made his presentation, he wanted Mr. Mohen of Dan L. Rowland &
Associates, architects of the project, to discuss a few details of the logistics
of the project.
Mr. Dale Mohen, Dan L. Rowland & Associates, 1000 West La Palma, explained that
the project, as revised, was made up of 93 units incorporated on 5.3 acres of
land area. Six of the units were in one-story buildings as indicated on the
posted site plan, 42 of the units were within two-story buildings, and 45 were
made up of one-story units and also another one-story plus loft unit, making
a total of three stories. Those were located at the center of the project.
There were a total of 228 parking spaces, averaging 2.5 spaces per unit. Some
of the units contained attached garages and those were located around the
perimeter of the project. The rest had carports and open space parking for
visitors. Ail of the units faced an interior open space with the park area
and street area surrounding them. There were a few units situated at Cliffwood
Drive and the front of the units were actually facing that street with a small
fence around the front patio also, the exterior design was a contemporary
mediterranean design concept, and the finish would be bascially stucco and wood.
Upon Council questioning, Mr. Mohen relayed the following: There was a con-
tinuous private street in the development encircling the project which followed
the private street standards in the City; relative to parking, based on the
new standards, the waiver would be on the garages because some of the units
did not have garages and in order to have them, they would have to decrease
the density considerably; on the requested waiver "e", minimum recreational-
leisure area, they were providing 880 square feet per unit and the Code re-
quired 10QQ square feet.
Miss Santalahti then clarified the parking waiver for Councilman Bay. The
modification made to the Code also took into consideration units that were
larger than 1225 square feet and located on private streets, On that basis,
since there were six such units in the project, the overall parking ratio
should have been 2.56 for the project and her calculations showed that it was
2.45.
81-564
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 7~ 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Farano stated, relative to the statistics, using 2.50 and not 2.56, that
computed out to 232.5 required spaces and their plans showed 230. Percentage-
wise, they were within 98.9% of the Code requirements. Relative to recreational
area, they were within 88%. The way they calculated, they were somewhere be-
tween 2.5 and 3.5 parking spaces short. If the Council wished, he felt they
could pick those up. On the recreational-leisure area, he did not know if they
could pick that up without deleting a number of units, but it seemed to him 88%
was reasonable to consider to be a substantial compliance.
Mr. Farano then made his presentation to the Council, the highlights of which
were summarized as follows: Relative to the impacts of the report, the law
required certain formalities to be observed by a developer of a mobilehome
park where the use was changing. They analyzed the laws of the State and
reviewed the City Attorney's memorandum dated March 16, 1981 (made a part of
the record), prepared at the direction of the Council, and felt that the memo-
randum presented to the Council prior to the March 10, 1981 meeting entitled--
"Comprehensive Mobilehome Park Development Impact Report" (made a part of the
record) was in compliance with all laws of the State. The only addendum would
be the qualification of the appraiser, Alan Brown. They had distributed copies
of Mr. Brown's qualifications to the Council (made a part of the record) and
to Mrs. Dietch, attorney representing the Park residents. A copy was also dis-
tributed to the park tenants and they had Proof of Service on every one of those.
The cost figures in the report as to refurbishing were predicated upon actual
engineering studies. Their projections as to cost of rebuilding the park in
its entirety and conforming with the City ordinances were predicated upon Mr.
Thomas Kerr, one of the authorities in the State relative to the cost of
development and redevelopment of mobilehome parks in his published book.
Insofar as the profile and present condition of the tenants and their tenancies
in the park, when they begin the application, there were 45 permanent residents
in the park, not i'ndividuals, but separate mobilehome units. Since then, ten
tenants had moved their mobileh0mes from the park, and they paid those people
pursuant to the conditions that the Planning Commission set forth in its
approval of the application. They understood and had indications that four
additional persons were moving and had actually placed deposits on mobilehomes
in other parks, thus leaving 31 mobilehomes to deal with.
As far as notices to the tenants of the application and notice of the change of
land use, Et was served on or about September 19, 1980 on each and every one of
the residents and they also had proof of service that a copy was served to
each resident.
Relative to the appraisal, they did retain the appraiser in confidence; however,
he was present tonight. He appraised each and every one of the homes and there
were some discrepancies as the Council pointed out last time, as did several of
the mobilehome owners. Mr. Brown reviewed all of the appraisals and made some
m~nor adjustments to four of them, the rest being accurate. He took into con-
sideration the comparable sales listings in the Orange County area and Blue Book
value. Ail of the figures were available to the Council in a work sheet form
for their inspection.
Mr. Farano then narrated a short slide presentation showing many of the mobile-
homes in the park, as well as the condition of the park in general. The park
was in need of updating and rennovation which would cost approximately $618,000,
81-565
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 7~ 1981, 1:30 P.M.
resulting in a rent increase of approximately an additional $235 per month per
space. Westwinds Mobilehome Park had outlived its life expectancy, having been
built 25 years ago on an interim land use basis. Mr. Farano then briefed some
of the statistics given in the aforementioned impact report relative to the
average age of the coaches in the park (see Page 9 and 10 of that report). Of
the coaches remaining at this time that were 18 years of age or older, there
were 12, or 35%, and those 17 years or older, 18, or 53%.
Mr. Farano then explained that the three relocation assistance plans proposed
as follows: (also see Page 15 of the subject impact report):
Plan A: For persons and individuals living on a fixed income or disabled in
some way, the owner would pay 100% of the knockdown, set-up cost and trans-
portation with 50 miles. For those persons not on fixed incomes, the owner
would pay 50% of the knockdown, set up costs and transportation within 50
miles.
Plan B: Designed to give credit to the age of the coach, the time the person
had been in the park and based upon its appraised value. Example: They would
take the appraised on-site value with the home sitting exactly as it was right
now in accordance with the appraisals that had been determined. They would
subtract from the on-site value, the off-site value and then establish what
they considered to be part management responsibility of 70% of the amount
remaining. (See example and formula used starting on bottom of Page 15 and
top of Page 16 of the report). The reason for taking 70%, those knowledgable
of mobilehome parks were aware that 70% of the value of the home was derived
from ~he setting in which it was located. Further, in order to give some
weight to the person who owned the mobilehome and not penalize them on
a short tenancy in the park, they gave up to 10% for every year they lived in
the mobilehome, irrespective of the age of the coach. (See example Page 16
of the impact report). Because there were so many long-time tenancies
involved, 18 to 22 years in the park, they assigned a value of not less than
$1,000 to be paid to any person. Again, they would keep the coach, receive
their money, but under that circumstance, would pay their own moving costs.
Plan C: This plan was proposed by the Planning Commission at the December 1,
l~8Q Planning Commission meeting ~see City Planning Commission minutes that
date) and accepted by the developer. They would pay the owner of a single-
wide tra~ler the sum of $1,700 to move and the owners of a double-wide,
$2,3Q0. This was the formula that everyone, except one person who had moved,
had accepted. In this case again, the owner would keep his mobilehome.
Mr. Farano then clar±fied that the mobilehome residents were not bound to any-
one of the formulas, but could take their choice.
Mr. Farano continued that they were in touch with Mr. Dietch by telephone
since the meeting of March 10, 1981, but no face-to-face meeting ever occurred
because it appeared that the alternatives Mr. Dietch proposed were not accep-
table. Those proposals were (~) that the residents would be able to continue
living in the park as it existed today; (2) that the residents would be able
to move into a park in Orange County and that they assist them in doing so and
(~) that the residents be paid full value for their coaches. Relative to the
first proposal, the answer was unequivocably, "no" and that one way or the
81-566
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 7~ 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
other, the park was not going to remain in existence; on the second proposal,
they were all for that if there was any way they could manage it. As part of
the plan, they proposed to offer relocation assistance. On the last proposal,
their response was negative because they felt it was confiscatory and a
punishment to the developer.
In concluding, Mr. Farano stated that their letter to Mr. Dietch was before
the Council (see four page letter dated April 3, 1981--made a part of the
record). He then reiterated that the destiny of the Westwinds Mobilehome
Park was limited and because of the fact as presented in a number of other
material considerations, they could not see that park continuing in existence.
The Council should also take note of the fact that they had been accused of
many things. They could understand and had a great deal of feeling for the
people living in the park and their circumstances. Whether they realized it
or not, they spent a great deal of time on the issue as was exemplified in the
impact report they submitted. Mr. Farano stated they also had books, records,
'.and appraisals available tonight for anyone who wished to see them (which were
later submitted to the Council). Mr. Brown was also available for any questions.
Councilman Bay then stated he assumed that Westwinds was a limited partnership;
Mr. Farano answered "yes". Councilman Bay continued that he also assumed
the members of the partnership were public information.
Mr. Farano sstated he could not answer that, but he had not found anything sec-
retive about the organization thus far. He had a copy of the trust deed and
would not release that information because it was private unless his client
told him to do so. If they wished disclosure of that information, he would
be happy to ask.
Councilman Bay stated he was not concerned with the silent owners, but he was
curious about who the two operating owners were if that was the type of
limited partnership involved. If there was any conflict of interest whatso-
ever on the Council with any of the members of the partnership, if it was a
completely hidden partnership name-wise, he did not know how the Council
was going to know if any member would have a conflict of interest.
Mr. Farano stated he did not know how to answer that. Westwinds was primarily
a Beverly Hills based organization and one of the principals was located in Las
Vegas, Nevada, in the construction business in that City. If a question of that
sort was in the minds of the Council, he was certain his client would divulge
the names of all of its principals to the City Attorney for his examination.
He would not expect, and would not expect them, to do so publicly.
Councilman Overholt asked if there was a certificate of limited partnership on
file with any public agency; Mr. Farano stated that he did not know and he
had never seen that certificate. Councilman Overholt thereupon asked if the
representative of the client present tonight had a copy of the certificate,
would he produce it if filed with a public body. Mr. Farano stated if filed
with a public body, they would produce a copy of the certificate.
81-567
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 7~ 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Overholt noted further if such a certificate were not filed, there
would be no limited partnership.
Mayor Seymour stated before proceeding he would like to ask Councilman Bay for
clarification as it sounded as if there might be some intimation that one or
another Member of the Council could possibly have a conflict of interest and
none of them would want to face that possibility at least knowingly. If he
had some information, he asked that he make it public.
Councilman Bay stated he did not have such information, but not knowing the
ownership, he questioned how any of the Council Members could determine if they
had a conflict.
The Mayor asked the City Attorney for a clarification of conflict of interest;
the City Attorney answered, financial interest under the Fair Political Reform
Act required some foreseeable income that would be derived from a financial
interest in the project.
Mayor Seymour then surmised that under those circumstances, each of the Council
Members should know the answer to that question.
Councilman Bay then reiterated, there was no implication on his part; he was
just trying to understand the legalities. If "foreseeable" was the key word
in the law, he saw no problem; the City Attorney confirmed that was the key
word.
Mr. Farano then reported, in response to Councilman Overholt's previous ques-
tion, that they did not have a copy of the trust document in the Chambers, but
his associate had gone back to the office to retrieve it and would return with
it. The title report developed for the application indicated that the legal
title was held by the Bank of California, Trustee.
Mayor Seymour noted the staff recommendation contained in memorandum dated
April 7, 19~l--"That any action taken by Council approving a conversion of
the Westwinds Trailer Lodge to another land use, not be taken until after a
plan is submitted providing for adequate compensation for the displaced
permanent mobilehome pa~k residents. Said plans should consider the particular
needs and desires of each household and should consist of an acceptable com-
bination of relocation and/or financial assistance." Mr. Farano had spelled
our three alternatives which he indicated had been approved by the Planning
Commission. The Mayor asked where there was a difference of opinion.
Miss Santalahti answered that their great concern was that the specifics
of the tenants were not being addressed. For' example, if young couples with
children had lived in the park for a year, their needs would be very differ-
ent from the retired person living there for 20 years in an old unit. To
uproot that person and pershaps move them out of Orange County had to be a
much more tramatic experience. They did not have any dollar amounts they
could attach to that type of situation. What she would like to have seen in
the impact report was an evaluation on the occupants in the park and what kind
of people they were talking about and their particular needs. Her feeling was
81-568
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 7~ 1981, 1:30 P.M.
that there had to be a kind of sympathy, courtesy or a moral dollar amount
attached to the mobilehomes. If perhaps they had an idea of the incomes, they
could almost say that some deserved twice as much or deserved the actual finan-
cial cost to relocate and the further away from the park, perhaps they should
receive twice the dollar amount to compensate for the loss of their home at the
present location. She had no dollar amounts, but her feeling was perhaps that
it should be twice as much as being offered. There would definitely have to
be some kind of report giving the profile of the tenants and they should be
encouraged to get that kind of information together. If Mr. Farano devised a
questionnaire and the tenants could fill it out in some way that it would not
be used against them, perhaps staff could do an evaluation of the numbers.
Mr. Farano stated that they had sent out questionnaires, written letters and
urged people to cooperate relative to the survey and assured them it would
be held in confidence. Their response was very limited. If that information
was deemed a part of the impact report, then they were not able to comply with
it; however, it was not as though they had not tried to do so. The response
they got was not significant and did not enable them to give that profile.
Mayor Seymour asked if he would provide the Council with the questionnaire sent
out with whatever responses they received; Mr. Farano stated he would do so and
he had the information with him tonight.
Miss Santalahti stated she felt they were complying with whatever the State was
asking for, but the applicant filed his petition prior to the State requirement
being effective. In submitting that particular report to the Council, he sub-
mitted it perhaps retroactively when he really did not need to it, because the
original application came in before the law went into effect. The issue was
that the tenants in the subject park may be different from tenants in other
parks and different from each other and thus deserved Something different from
what others should have. It was more of a moral obligation and the tenant
profile would be helpful. Perhaps there was some other way that it could be
handled so that they could get the information in a way that was more acceptable
to the tenants. Otherwise, Council decision would have to be based on the in-
formation they had with them.
Councilwoman Kaywood then asked Mr. Brown, the appraiser, if he could shed
some light on Plan B which she found very difficult to understand from Mr.
Farano~s prior explanation, especially with regard to the 70% factor (see
Page 16 of the subject impact report).
Mr. Alan Brown, Mobilahome Appraiser, explained that the in-park value was the
total value with the space, the mobilehome and all the amenities included. The
out-of-park value was something far less and what they called the actual cash
value. By deducting the actual cash value from the in-park value, they
received a different figure and several factors came into play affecting that
value. Part of those were the location and the very fact that the mobilehome
was located on a space in a mobilehome park. The applicant was admitting to
70% of that value, the additional 30% were the improvements, the maintenance of
the home and upgrading of the home. That would be the tenant's contribution to
the equity or the difference in the two values. He reiterated they were saying,
3Q% of the value was caused by the tenant and 70% by the park, and the home
being on a location.
81-569
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 7~ 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour stated he felt Councilwoman Kaywood's concern revolved around
the question of equity as he (Brown) described it. He asked who suggested
that 70% and 30% were good numbers, why not 100% for the tenant and owner.
Mr. Brown stated his feeling was that it should be 50-50; Mr. Farano suggested
70%. A little greater portion of the value of the home was determined by the
tenant's care of the home. He did not believe that the 70% was fair, but 50-50
would be more equitable.
Extensive discussion then followed with Mr. Brown, the Council and Mr. Farano
relative to the formula under Plan B during which Mr. Brown clarified that
the formula used had not been determined by him but by the applicant. Mr.
Farano also explained that Mr. Brown did not determine the formula, his office
did but he (Brown) verified the credibility of the 70-30 spread; Councilwoman
Kaywood stated, or 50-50 or whatever, the point being, however, that Mr.
Brown was adding to it and he (Farano) was deducting it.
Councilman Overholt stated the formula was something Mr. Farano developed
designed to ease the burden on someone who recently purchased and that was
all; Mr. Farano concurred, he never said it was anything else.
Councilman Overholt stated that they came up with what he would call a fiction
(in-law) saying,-in essence, when buying in the park, 70% of the difference
between the off-site and on-site value was the buyer's equity and as they
stayed longer, the equity diminished to where it was a token $1,000. It was
the buyer's equity and not the land owner's equity.
Mr. Farano stated he felt that. was correct. He did not think they meant to say
anything else, It was not the landowner's equity, it was the proportion of the
difference between the on- and off-site value contributed by the very presence
and state of the park.
Mr. Farano then stated that he had now received a copy of an amendment to Trust
Agreements PT2176 dated DecemBer 16, 1979 showing the title, Bank of California,
Trustee and the beneficiary of the trust, Westwinds Investment, Ltd., a limited
partnership. That was as far as he was going to go. If the Council or City
Attorney wanted to see it, they were welcome to it. (Later in the meeting,
the document was made a part of the record).
Councilman Overholt asked what the title report said about Westwinds; Mr. Farano
answered, the Bank of California, Trustee. He did not believe it said anything
at all about Westwinds.
Mayor Seymour asked that the Council be able to view the Trust Agreement as
well as the title report; Mr. Farano submitted documentation to the Council.
The Mayor then opened the public hearing to those who wished to speak.
Mr, Michael Dietch, Attorney representing the park tenants, stated the preliminary
discussion with Mr. Farano was a presentation regarding meeting the current or
future Code requirements for the development. He understood that the new
ordinance was not going into effect for another 30 days. Even with the new
81-570
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 7, 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
ordinance, the application failed to meet the current or future Code require-
ments, those requirements having been relaxed quite significantly. Relative
to the use of the terms substantial compliance with the Code, the project stil
did not satisfy the new requirements, the point being, either the venture
satisfied the City's new Code requirements or did not. If the.Council pro-
posed to proceed with the venture, he would request that they insist that it
comply with all the requirements of the Code.
When he originally appeared in front of the Council, he requested to know
whether the applicant had standing to be an applicant and he was still re-
questing that determination. The application had been made on behalf of the
Bank of California. The Bank of California was shown as the title holder as
a trustee, yet the applicant was Westwinds Investments Ltd. He questioned
the fact that they were not the true applicant ~nd whether the Bank of California
had the authority to be the applicant for a partnership which was presumably in
existence at this point in time and which proposed to do the development.
The Mayor interjected and stated he (Dietch) was then concluding, on the
second point that the hearing was improper; Mr. Dietch confirmed that was
correct~ The Mayor then asked to hear from the City Attorney on that point.
City Attorney Hopkins stated that the applicant was the Bank of America as
trustee and they had no evidence that trusteeship was not properly established.
Under the circumstances, until they had some evidence that there was a defect
in the trusteeship, he would rule that the hearing was proper.
Mr. Dietch continued that the statement was made on behalf of the applicant
that the park was in a state of neglect, needed substantial amounts of money
for repairs, and that the applicant had been in possession of the park since
December of 19~79. However, the need for repairs had been in existence for
that period. If they were necessary repairs and the tenants were paying space
rent, he questioned why the landlords did not have the defects cured during
that 15-month period. He also knew of no health, safety and building code
citatioms that had been served on the park for defects during that period.
The slides used to illustrate the coaches failed to illustrate those that were
brought into the park in 1980, those being more of a modern age and some double
ones. Even though the word mobile was used, homes were not mobile. The tenants
lived in the coaches because it was their home and not a means of investment.
Mr. Dietch then alledged that Plans A, B and C were discriminatory on their
face as they affected those people on fixed incomes vs. those who were not,
and on the basis of those who had lived in the park less than five years vs.
those who lived there longer. The purchase value for a mobilehome did
~nclude the site and the condition of the mobilehome. The slides also illustrated
that the homes and their spaces were well maintained and properly cared for.
Relative to the appraisals, there was a gross discrepancy in the appraisals
presented at the last two meetings. Both people who acted as appraisers on
behalf of the tenants and on behalf of the landlord were both in the area of
sales of mobilehomes and thus should be on equal footing as to what a coach
was worth, either in place or not in place. Yet there was a wide variation in
the value of the homes, tt would be his suggestion that an independent
appraiser, one not connected with a dealership, possibly be appointed to
come up with an independent value for the mobilehome should a workable plan
be suggested and accepted by the tenants.
81-571
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 7, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Discussion then followed between Councilman Roth and Mr. Dietch as a result
of Councilman Roth's question relative to the 12-month notice to be given
to the tenants in accordance with State law which had been served (see minutes
March 10, 1981 where the matter was also discussed).
Mr. Dietch stated although proper notice had been given, there were other
factors involved. The California Civil Code also stated that a park owner,
and this was true in 1979 and 1980, must give each tenant a set of rules and
regulations and each year must give them a copy of the current Civil Code
requirements. The Civil Code in 1979 and 1980 stated if a tenant requested
a lease of not less than 12 months, it must be given to that tenant by the
park. Yet, the tenants had not received any current rules and regulations,
nor any notices or listing of the current California Civil Code requirements.
If they had been, he would assert that they would have requested long-term
leases and would have been granted those leases under the Code.
Councilman Roth asked the City Attorney to speak to that aspect; City Attorney
Hopkins stated what Mr. Dietch just stated was correct as far as the Civil Code
provisions were concerned; however, there was a remedy provided in the Civil
Code that the tenants could seek in a court. As far as the City enforcing
that, it was not a matter that the City had any enforcement power over. The
only section dealing with the City's activities was Government Code Section
66427.4 which required the filing of a report which must address the avail-
ability of adequate placement space in mobilehome parks and must refer to
the impact of conversion upon displaced residents. That must be given to
the residents of the park at least 15 days prior to the hea~ing. As stated
previously, it provided that the City Council or Planning Commission may, and
the word "may" was important, require the subdivider to take steps to mitigate
any adverse impact on the ability of the displaced mobilehome park residents
to find adequate space in a mobilehome park. That was the only section they
felt was relevant--the mitigation factor and providng the report. If there was
a failure to provide that report, then there would be a question about the
validity of the Council action. Mr. Farano indicated that he had appeared
and served the report as required by the Government Code.
Mayor Seymour asked Mr, Dietch in his representation of the tenants, what
efforts he had made to try to mediate the differences between the tenants
and the owners.
Mr. Dietch then explained for the Mayor what had transpired in the period from
March 10, 1~81 to the present which in essence amounted to approximately two
telephone calls representing the sum total of about one-half hour wherein he
put forth four proposals. H~wever, he had been unsuccessful in mediating the
matter,
Mayor Seymour then asked the representative of the tenants and since he could
not mediate the matter with the park owners, would he be willing to cooperate
i-n providing the necessary information.
Mr. D~etch asked the Mayor to tell him what information was needed and he would
get it from his clients.
Mayor Seymour, after having confirmed with Mr. Dietch that he had seen the
questionnaire referred to by Mr. Farano, asked if he (Dietch) would be willing
to provide that information to the City staff.
81-572
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 7, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Dietch answered he believed they would provide that information if it could
be provided without any names. They could submit one per coach with some indi-
cation that there would not be any names associated with it; the Mayor questioned
how with no name they could take care of the individuals' needs.
The residents present were then asked if they would have any objection to giving
to staff a full financial disclosure relative to income, age, etc; Mr. Dietch
answered the indications he got, with the exception of one or two, that infor-
mation would be provided to staff. He confirmed for Councilman Roth that the
information would be provided with names.
Miss Santalahti explained that they would work out charts with profiles of the
tenants and information where everybody would be added together. They would,
for instance, do as Housing did where point grades were given for people who
moved into affordable units.
Councilman Overholt then asked Mr. Dietch he felt if Mr. Farano's proposal
was fair and, if not, did he have a proposal which he felt was fair.
Mro Dietch first answered that he did not think the proposal was fair and
neither did his clients. Further, assuming that his clients could not reside
in the park and assuming that they were not able to find a space in Orange
County, they were then faced with a mobilehome with no place to put it. A
fair and reasonable offer would be if the applicant wanted to purchase those
mobilehomes, his clients would be more than happy to sell them at a fair price
on an in-place basis because that was the way his clients purchased the mobile-
homes. The other alternatives were indicated in the letter dated April 3, 1981
by Mr. Farano~to him (~ubmitted earlier in the meeting) where there were four
alternatives in descending order, the first starting with remaining in the
park, the second relocating in Orange County and he believed two others.
The Mayor stated he only saw three-(3) remain in the park; (2) find another
park in Orange CQunty (3) full value for the coaches; Mr. Dietch clarified
that was correct,
Councilman Overholt asked Mr. Dietch his rationale for asserting that his
clients were entitled to the on-site value of the mobilehome.
Mr. Dietch answered that the applicant stated they purchased the propoerty in
December 1R79. The value of that property had to be established at that point
in tithe and part of the price of appreciation was due to the fact that the
tenants, had moved onto that property and created improvements of their own on
the property. He maintained that not only had the landowner through his
capital improvement caused an appreciation, but also the tenant had caused an
appreciation upon which he elaborated further. The majority of the tenants
purchased their coaches in place. The price they paid was not a wholesale
value, but a fair going value which included value for the location, etc.
Further it was interesting to note that no one actually had Mr. Brown inside
their mobilehomes for appraisal. Whatever appraisal was made was done from
the exterior. Therefore, the true value could not be ascertained without
looking at the inside. He further explained for the Mayor that he would say
the greater percentage of value was attributable to the tenants. He would
81-573
City Hall; Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 7~ 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
assert 100% although he could not stand on that, but he felt it was in the area
of 70 to 80%. They deserved something for being moved out. The majority lived
in Anaheim for many years and theirs was low cost or affordable housing. If
the project was approved, that low cost housing would done away with. Senior
citizens were involved whose physicians were local and the younger people were
employed in the area. They deserved some consideration before they were thrown
out, in addition to 70 or 80% factor. He would argue that legally by employing
an appraiser who was knowledgeable in the construction and development industry
and by his surveys, come up with the values--i.e., the actual cost of the mobile-
home. There was also a nebulous figure--how did that equate dollars and cents
to a human being's state of mind.
Mayor Seymour stated he was referring to two things: (1) Trying to put a
dollar value on the contributions the tenant had made, and (2) putting that
in context with what the law stated.
Mr. Dietch conceded that the law made no requirement other than the Government
Code as far as compensation. There was no dollar figure but it stated, may
be established by local ordinance.
The Mayor pointed out that there were two legal aspects: (1) A lease, short-
term in nature, and (2) the State law. He questioned, however, what they
had when it came to money.
Mr. Dietch reiterated, the Government Code Section placed it entirely on the
Council's shoulders by the term, "may"--that the City Council or local muni-
cipality may affect an ordinance to mitigate'the losses to the tenants.
The following people then spoke to the matter and included is a summary of the
comments and concerns:
Mr. George Layman, 119 Fifth Street, Seal Beach, representing his mother-in-law,
a tenant in the park, Celia Stone, Space 8. There was one classification of
tenant not addressed, a tenant who by choice decided to sell his mobilehome.
In all fairness to those tenants who chose to sell their mobilehomes and have it
relocated at the buyer's choice; they too should be deserving of some compensation
and included in the plan. I,t should be the difference of value in on-site vs.
off-site because the tenant was being forced to sell the coach for something
less than it would be if the park were not being closed. If they chose to sell
her mobilehom~, it would be somewhere in close proximity to off-site value. He
asked that that issue be addressed at this time.
Mrs. Pat Kish, 14QQ South Douglass Road, Space 94, first suggested that perhaps
the City should conduct the survey which the people were rather reluctant to
participate in when it was conducted by Mr. Farano. Earlier in the evening,
the life expectancy of a park was mentioned. There had been no determination
to her knowledge as to a park's life expectancy. Relative to the slide show,
no double wides were shown. Mention was also made that not too much space was
available in the park. She asked that they look at the proposed plan presented
by Mr. Farano. The proposed space for the condominiums was not very large,
averaging around 800+ square feet to approximately 1,100 or 1,200 square feet.
They had before them a proposed condominium project of 99 units (revised to 93),
as opposed to an existing housing community of 106 units utilizing the land to a
81-574
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 7, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
greater advantage at approximately 20 units per acre in comparison to the
proposal. Any proposed change of use of the mobilehome park produced an
~mmediate decrease in the value of the mobilehomes. She suggested if the
Council granted a change of use, thereby displacing the residents of the
park, that the following "better formula" be used: the off-site value of
the home plus the cost of disassembling and reassembling, plus the set-up
costs, plus the transportation costs, plus one year's rent in a park in
Orange County, most preferably within the City limits of Anaheim. In the past
six years, she had talked with many brokers and the Blue Book value was
rarely used because mobilehomes sold for what the market would bear. Once
again she wanted to remind the Mayor and the City Council that on October 7,
1980 (see minutes that date) when she and the mobilehome residents present
had requested permanent zoning and first right of refusal, it was now over
five months and they still did not have the courtesy of an answer on either
request. It was now quite obvious why she came before the Council on October 7.
Her final request would be for the Council to deny the subject request for a
change of use, to allow the existing housing community to go on, and take into
consideration the financial and emotional hardship that it would create on
the people within the park.
Mayor Seymour asked Miss Santalahti and City Attorney Hopkins to respond to
the question of permanent mobilehome park zoning and the first right of
refusal to purchase.
Miss Santalahti explained on the issue of permanent zoning in Anaheim, mobile-
home parks had always been instituted under conditional use permits. Effectively
it was the same because the property owner could come in and request rezoning
and the Council and Commission may or may not grant it. There was always that
power of rezoning the property or granting some other use and terminating the
use permit. The 1969 General Plan went further and stated that mobilehome parks
are appropriately developed in medium density residential zones. In fact,
Westw~nds was, ~n such a General Plan designated area.
City Attorney Hopkins stated relative to the first right of refusal, they
researched the San 3uan Capistrano ordinance and they believed there were
constitutional questions involved because of the restriction on the right
of the property owner to dispose of his property and if tested in court, might
be found to be unconstitutional.
Mr. Theodore J. Weigman, resident of Westwinds for 14 years, stated he would
like to know from the City Attorney just what his rights were as a renter in
the community; C~ty Attorney ~opkins stated those rights were contained in
Chapter 2.5 of the Civil Code of the State of California. They were quite
lengthy, but he proceeded to read a number of them for Mr. Weigman.
Mr. Weigman then asked if the piece of property on which his mobilehome was
located belonged to him while he was paying rent and utilizing it within the
rules and regulations of the park; Mayor Seymour answered "yes". Mr. Weigman
then asked, why they should discriminate against him by only giving him $1,000
for improving and taking care of that property for the 14 years he had been
located there.
81-575
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 7~ 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour explained that the law stated he did not have the permanent
right to use the property and that right could be taken back by the mobile-
home park owner.
Mr. Weigman then stated if the proposed condominium was going to be family-
oriented, and there were going to be children, there was no provision made
for playgrounds. He then read a letter which the tenants received in 1973
announcing that the owners were going to make certain improvements and to
facilitate the improvements, rents were going to be increased $5 a month
beginning February 1, 1974 and that it would be the last rent increase they
would receive in the foreseeable future. On November 12, 1974, they received
another letter raising their rents by 10%, or $7 a month, beginning January 1,
1975 due to inflation. He submitted both letters (made a part of the record)
which he felt were pertinent to their lease or rental contracts. If necessary,
they would seek through court action a refund of all money, interest and
penalities for monies accepted under false pretenses. He then read the
following: (1) We the residents of the Westwinds Trailer Lodge request to
be relocated to another Orange County park, preferably in Anaheim, with no
more rent than we are paying now, acceptable to us. (2) We request to be
reimbursed for our cost of moving. This is to include awnings, skirting,
porches, steps and all other fixtures as may be required by the accepted park,
including carports. (3) Ail legal expenses incurred in the defense of our
park.
Mr. Weigman stated that was one proposal by the park tenants and the following
was another: (~) We will accept the Grover Mobilehome appraisal in cash, the
in-park value, or space which we have now; (12) We will accept a cash settlement
for our inconvenience or cost of moving and all of our legal defense of the park;
(~) Another proposal--another mobilehome in an Orange County park, or Anaheim
preferably, acceptable to us of equal value, i.e. another coach entirely; the
cost of moving and the legal expenses.
The following five people then spoke and relayed the concerns they expressed
previously at the prior meetings of the City Planning Commission, November 3
and November 17, 19_8Q, and the Council meeting of March 10, 1981 (see minutes
those datesl:
Telsie Hewlitt, Space 13 (~ovember 17, 1980 and March 10, 198i meetings);
Lucie Villa, Space 23 (~ovember 3, 1980 and March 10, 1981 meetings); Francine
Czupak (~ovember 17, 1980 and March 10, 1981 meetings); Jay Brannner, Space 9
(~March iQ, 1981 meeting); and Don Campbell, Space 40 (March 10, 1981 meeting).
Mr. Brammer also submitted a petition to the Council dated March 5, 1981
signed by 20 tenants of the park indicating that they had never known of any
major repairs to plumbing, natural gas lines, sewer or water lines, nor had
they known of any buyers except a very minor incident involving the damage
of a chair and, further, that their use of the pool did not exceed 10% (made
a part of the record). Further, Mr. Campbell stated that anything he received
as an offer, he would like to have it in black and white before talking. He
also suggested that someone should do actual footwork out in the field to
find out where they could put a trailer, how much old trailers were selling
for and where one could be placed if the tenants could afford to buy one.
Loans. were not made to retired people.
81-576
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 7, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mrs. Lois Ash stated she was representing her mother, Helen Berg, Space 22.
She moved into the park in August of 1979 in a new coach in place. She paid
approximately $23,000 with about $2,000 in improvements which represented
almost her entire life savings. When she received the verbal notice to move
last September, she had a stroke. They had been out to Rialto and Hemet to
try to relocate the coach and possibly sell it. There was no way they could
put her mother where the ownership of the park suggested, because it would be
over 50 miles and she would not be with her family. They could not put an 80-
year old woman out in that area. The plan was not feasible at all for her.
She then asked if there was an appraisal on her mother's coach.
Mr. Brown produced a copy of the appraisal on Space 22 and the Mayor informed
Mrs. Ash that the market value was $13,860 and cash market value was $4,384.
Mrs. Ash stated if they could find a spot for her mother that was reasonable,
within 20 miles of her (Mrs. Berg's) family, (they lived in Lakewood and
Cerritos), they would be glad to move the mobilehome at the developer's cost.
The Mayor then stated that they had received input from a good cross-section
He now asked to hear from the applicant in response.
Mr. Farano stated one thing they could do was to put the appraisal to a test.
They were willing and anxious to conduct the appraisal question in the following
manner: If the mobilehome tenants wanted to obtain their own appraisal, they
would have theirs, together with the tenant's appraisal, submitted to an inheritance
tax referee and let the judgment fall where it may.
Councilman Overholt interjected and asked if it was trua that their appraiser's
company sold the coach in the park (to Mrs. Villa) a month before they serve
the eviction notice and if at that time, did the appraiser's company know that
they were going to sell the park; Mr. Farano answered "yes" to the first
question and "no" to the latter.
Councilman Overholt then stated that relative to his suggestion on the inheri-
tance tax referee, they usually appraised for the application of a tax, but as
a matter of course did not appraise for the purpose of sale. If they were
going to use that route, they should be very careful in their selection.
Further discussion followed between Mr. Farano and Council Members Kaywood
and Overholt relative to appraisals wherein Mr. Farano stated that their
~ntention at the time was to obtain an honest appraisal of value of what
the coaches were worth, on-site and off-site. His suggestion to give the
transaction credibility was that it be submitted to an inheritance tax
appraiser. Ifthat was not a.good idea, maybe they could look for a better
ore.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if it would be a better idea to go to a new appraisal
chosen by staff, perhaps one who would be disinterested as far as the tenants
and park owner and get a new appraisal on the whole thing.
Mr. Farano stated he did not know, but they could explore that. The reason
he suggested an inheritance tax appraiser was because of their training; they
were generally regarded as experts in the determination of value.
81-~77
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 7, 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Overholt stated he was going to have to give the appraiser the
formula and the formula was different in his mind than it was in the minds
of the tenants. Was the appraisal going to be the value on-site at a going
mobilehome park, or the value off-site, or on-site in a mobilehome park that
was closing. That was a formula that would have to be given to an appraiser.
Mr. Farano stated that both on-site and off-site should be determined.
Mr. Farano then relayed the following answer to some of the concerns previously
expressed by the tenants or their representatives: Relative to Mr. Layman
representing Celia Stone, Space 8, her's was a 1963 coach and she was a
resident of the park since 1968. The on-site value by Mr. Brown was $7,155
and the off-site, $1,590. Applying the formula, she would be paid $2,727 and
she would keep her coach.
Relative to Mr. Villa, Space 23, they thought they had a space for her via the
former owner of Westwinds but the owner reneged on it. They were at one time
prepared to pay Mrs. Villa because they thought hers was a special case and
should be treated as such. They had tried and would continue to try to move
her to any park of her choice they they could get her into; however, the chances
of being relocated in Orange County were not good.
Relative to Mrs. Ash, representing Helen Berg, Space 22, there was the possi-
bility of a space at Catalandia in Paramount which would perhaps meet the
requirement that Mrs. Berg not be more than 20 miles away from her family, and
they would work toward that.
Relative to Miss Hewlitt, Space 13, she had been in the park since 1979, prior
to the present ownership. He did not think that Westwinds should be responsible
for promises made in 1973 or 1974 or for anyting that happened prior to 1979.
Miss Hewlitt would fall under Alternate Plan B and she would have the ability
to keep her coach and sell it for whatever she could get.
Relative to Mrs. Czupak, hers was an appraisal that was corrected. She had
lived in the park for four years and owned a 1966 20X40 coach appraised by Mr.
Brown at $~,765 on-site and $6,011 off-site. The other appraisal she had,
$23,500 on-site and $8,000 off-site, made him wonder about the credibility
of it, because there was not much difference between the two off-site appraisals.
The owners had been accused of being secretive and misrepresenting information;
however, they had done and would continue to do everything they could to be
open, §.ince that was the ease, he felt that the tenants ought to make the
same kind of disclosure, He had no problem with staff receiving the surveys
~nd the ~nformati~n. He reiterated, if they were going to be forced to full
d~sclosure, the mobilehome tenants had the same responsibility. Otherwise it
would be a one-sided situation. They had assured the tenants in every way
that their questionnaires would be received in confidence.
Mayor Seymour then asked, of the 31 remaining tenants, did Mr. Farano have a
list of how many had been there for one year, two years, three years, etc;
Mr. Farano answered, "yes". The average tenancy was rather long because there
were a number of people who had been in the park for at least 15 or 20 years
or longer,
81-578
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 7~ 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked then if Plan B would be a moot point because if the
tenants were in the park over seven years, they would get nothing; Mr. Farano
stated anyone that had been in the park longer then five years would, under
that Plan, receive a minimum of $1,000, but they had to remember, that was
calculated to relieve some of the short-timers that made a large and recent
investment coming into the park.
Mr. Farano then answered the Mayor's question that there were 20 residents who
had been in the park seven years or less, and 26 who had been there 10 years
or less.
Mayor Seymour stated it was obvious to him that the park was not going to
remain a mobilehome park, for in order to do so, it would require a investment
of $600,000 to $700,000. If that investment was made, rents were going to be
somewhere between $235 to $350 a month. If that took place, Mrs. Kish would
be back with many more people saying they could not let the rents go up and
anything that would be embodied in that, including rent control on which the
Council had already stated its position in opposition. He believed, therefore,
it was impractical to consider it as an ongoing mobilehome park.
The density of the park was 20 units to the acre, better than double the current
standards and thus it was almost as though it needed to be reused in some other
way. The density being proposed with the condominium project was less than the
existing density. He reiterated, in his mind, it was going to be used for some-
thing else, whether it be for the proposed condominium development, a commercial
office, retail development or apartments, he did not know. If they accepted
that premise, they must get to the question of how the displaced tenants could
be treated fairly which was a very difficult question. There was no law
written on it and the State law only required 12 months' notice and that was
all. The City, the developer and Mr. Dietch, representing the tenants, all felt
a moral compunction to somehow be fair, the problem being, nobody had a form-
ula. Mr. Farano was correct in saying, unless they came up with some kind
of formula, they would always have an individual case and he (Seymour) did not
know how they would ever resolve each and every individual case to everybody's
satisfaction, short of just paying the figure Mr. Dietch quoted, the in-house
park value of each and every mobilehome. He (Seymour) did not believe it was
equitable, tt was not recognizing the fact that the mobilehome owner and the
onwer before the present one had invested a great deal in the park, as well as
the tenant having paid considerable rent for their space. Fairness in his mind
was not in-house park value, but on the other hand, it was also not off-site
value, but somewhere in between.
Mayor Seymour then stated in the interest of finding a common ground, he would
like to propose the following, Me prefaced his proposal by explaining that the
reason he asked how many of the 31 residents had lived in the park seven years
or less and how many ten years or less, he was trying to get a handle or how to
(3) protect most of the people and (2) what was fair and equitable for return
of that differential between on-site and off-site value over a period of time.
In his opinion, there was no guarantee or permanancy in the increase of value
and thus it had to stop at some time. The law of the State of California
stated it stopped within 12 months after giving notice. They were trying to
find a way to go beyond that 12-month legal notification and find equity. His
81-579
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 77 19817 1:30 P.M.
proposal was as follows: (1) That the developer pay all assembly, disassembly,
and transportation cost of moving the mobileho~e within a radius of 50 miles.
(2) That the developer pay the difference between on- and off-site value to
anybody who has resided in the park for ten years or less on a prorated basis,
10% each and every year. (If just moved in, 100% one year, 90%; 2 years, 80%;
etc.) The value of on-site and off-site, if they could not agree to that,
would be subject to the evaluation of an inheritance tax appraiser. (3) The
developer to provide a unit in the condominium project to rent, if that is
possible, to the 31 (or whatever the number) for a period of the difference
between how long the tenant has been living there and ten years. If living
there one year, provide a rental unit in the project for nine years; if two
years, then for 8 years, etc. (If nine years, provide one year.) The rent
that would be charged would be the current rent the tenants are paying on their
space, to be increased with an inflationary index such as the Consumer Price
Index.
Mr. Weigman asked about those living in the park for over ten years; the Mayor
answered, in his opinion, as a tenant of the mobilehome park, he did not have
any rights of permanency, meaning forever, for that incremental value between
off-site and on-site. He had rights to about ten years and the longer he had
been living there in that ten year period, those rights were reduced. He was
not one of the 26 the proposal would fit, but one of the five that it did not
fit at all. The other alternative, they could continue the matter and have
staff gather all the personal data, but what would happen would be that, they
would end up doing as he had done in his foregoing proposal.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she looked at the proposal as a punishment to those
living in the park over 10 years and they were only talking about five people.
They should not be singled out and she did not see any equity in that. She
knewthat the original proposal was to build a number of apartments and the
reason people were turned off was because of the size of units at 400 square
feet. Re!at,ye to the Mayor's proposal under Number 3, she asked Mr. Farano
~f he was willing to go back and provide some apartments.
Mr. Farano answered that he doubted it. They were having a problem because of
the size and were just barely going to make 25% affordable. Based on the density
they were talking about now, it was not possible for them to do that financially
at this time.
Mrs. Trudi B-rammer, speaking for the tenants, (Mr. Dietch had left the meeting
earlier in the evening), explained that at the time Mr. Farano devised the
first formula in November, they requested the tenants to make a survey and they
did so. She presented it to Mr. Sklaar, Park Manager, in plenty of time for
the November 17, 19_8~ Ci~ty Planning Commission meeting. They were then suppose
to have a conference with Mr. Farano who suggested that they get together at
his office, They called him many times and he was never available to them.
They proceeded with a survey and presented it and that was the only survey
she knew of, She emphasized that they had cooperated.
Relative to the formula proposed by the developer, they were supposed to have
seen it about two weeks prior to its being presented to the Planning Commission
at the meeting. They were supposed to have had it well in advance of the meeting
for their evaluation, but the calls to Mr. Farano's office brought no results.
81-580
City Hall~ Anaheim~ C.alifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 7, 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
The first time they saw the formula was at the December 1, 1980 City Planning
Commission meeting and they really had no decision to make. It was put in
their hands and the Planning Commission accepted it. The tenants had no way
to accept it or reject it; they had no word to say in the matter. For them
to make any statement now as to what they could accept or not accept, she did
not see how they could do it except for the original demands they made. They
would like to be moved within a reasonable distance so that they could not
lose their homes and jobs. They were reasonable people contrary to what Mr.
Farano would lead them to believe. Anyone who had tried to deal with Mr. Sklaar
had found out one thing--they could take it or leave it. She reitereated she
did not see how, at this moment, they could accept a proposal--it would not be
fair to their people. They had nothing to say about the other formula and cer-
tainly nothing to say about the appraisals. They made appraisals at their own
expense and if they had to do so again, that was exorbitant. Their appraiser
went inside the mobilehomes and Mr. Farano had never had anybody step inside
any of the homes. They had to have the opportunity to review the formula and
to think the matter over. Considering the management and the promises that had
been made to them and considering the people who were allowed to move into the
park in full knowledge of the owner that they were going to be given an eviction
notice, as well as the promise of a clubhouse, and ail the things that had shown
bad faith, she would have to ask the City of Anaheim, could they put their
stamp of approval on that kind of management and organization.
Councilman Bay suggested that Mrs. Brammer take the Mayor's proposal and sub-
sequently meet with her people and attorney so that they could evaluate it.
At the same time, (_1) Mr. Farano could also evaluate it and (2) the data
discussed could be provided to staff. After that, they could come back in a
certain amount of time to see if something could then be worked out;'otherwise,
they could go on for three or four more nights and not get anywhere. They had
to start from the number one assumption that the park was not going to remain
a mobilehome park and work something out that was best for both sides. The
Mayor had presented a proposal to start the negotiations.
Councilman Overholt stated at the Planning Commission meeting, according to
the information he received from Mrs. Brammer, they had closed the public
hearing and held the matter over to a later date and at that later date,
there was dialogue wifh Mr. Farano being at the podium most of the time and
there was discussion between the Planning Commission, staff and Mr. Farano.
The residents felt they did not have a chance to talk. If they were going
to close this public hearing which was not yet closed, he felt there should
be a clear understanding as to what was going to happen in the future if they
did not come to an ultimate decision tonight, so that Mrs. Brammer and her
people would not feel they were being shut out of their legal rights.
Mrs. Brammer stated that previously, they did not hear the words, the hearing
was closed at the Planning Commission meeting (November 17, 1980--see minutes
that date) and they did not understand that. When they attended the December 1,
19_8Q meeting, they had no idea they were not going to be allowed to give input.
However, they had been given ample opportunity to testify tonight and certainly
at the March 10, 1981 Council meeting (see minutes that date).
Councilwoman Kaywood added that what did come out in the meeting tonight was
that the park would definitely not remain a mobilehome park. Everybody should
81-581
City Hall~ Anahe'.~m~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 7~ 1981, 1:30 P.M.
be looking on their own as well for a space. She understood Mr. Farano to say
that they would move anyone. If they could find something in Anaheim or Orange
County and he could not, if it was acceptable, they would move there. She
should take that back to her people as well and it may be that 31 spaces would
open up in the area and then it would not be a big problem.
Councilman Bay also emphasized that they should tell their attorney, Mr. Dietch,
that the clock was running on the eviction notices under the State law, and the
Council could not override the property rights of the owner under that law.
Councilman Bay then asked if the data collection by staff that they talked
about earlier should go on between now and next tS me they met.
Mayor Seymour stated in answer, Mr. Farano made an accurate statement relative
to the fact that unless they came up with a formula, there was no possible way
to make 31 decisions individually based upon the collection of facts they had.
No plan was going to be fair to everybody, but to try to be fair to a majority
of the people, there was going to have to be some kind of formula.
Councilwoman Kaywood felt that unless they had the data, there was no place to
start.
The Mayor stated there was a place to start and he would describe it in general
terms. (~!) There was a piece of property about to change use; (2) they had to
determine a reasonable value between on-site and off-site and for what period
of time. The aifference between those two values would not go on forever;
Councilwoman Kaywood stated, however, they were only talking about five addi-
tional people.
Mrs. Brammer then reported that she had been advised by the tenants present
that they would be very much interested in whatever suggestion the Mayor would
make, If they could get a copy of the proposal at the earliest convenience,
they would try to give it their very best.
Mayor Seymour stated he felt something constructive had come out of the meeting
this evening. If he was reading the Council correctly, he believed they were
of a mind that, in fact, the property was going to change use. He also suspected
that a majority of the Council was going to say they would approve a condominium
development on that property as long as it met the new Code and process. He
suspected the Council also said this evening that somewhere there was a middle
ground and they would be hopeful that for whatever period of time they were
going to have to continue the matter, that Mr. Farano accomplish that middle
ground. ~f not, the Council would do so at the next meeting. He wanted to
hear from the Council as to how they felt because if they could not find some
common agreement on the direction, they might as well make a decision this
evening.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated it was clear that the use would change. 'Nobody
was disagreeing with that, not even the tenants. As far as approving the con-
dominiums, if they met the new Code, she felt that too was very clear. The
whole reason for having changed the Code was that there be no variances
granted. The new Ordinance was passed on a three-two vote today and would
not be effective for 30 days. She would not believe it if any variances were
granted from that new ordinance. One problem she saw, and she felt the two
81-582
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 7~ 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
attorneys had to get together on it, was for those mobilehomes that would be
moved, there was really no problem. It was those who could not be moved and
what they would do with those people, would be the problem.
Councilman Roth also agreed that the park would eventually no longer be a mobile-
home park and that was an important question that was answered tonight. The next
best thing was to work out a compromise that would be a viable return to the
tenants for the move--both sides had to get together. He also agreed, even
though one of the variances may be technical in nature, he would not support
the project. The proposed development would have to fit into the standards
adopted today and effective in 30 days.
Councilman Bay stated he was very much like to have some check point on time.
He would like the Council to receive feedback via the City Clerk from either
side, so that after a week or two or whatever the Council would decide, they
would not find out that there were no negotiations in progress. He wanted
a report back to the Council before the time they set ran out so that they
could see that negotiations were proceeding.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she would object to closing the hearing tonight,
but it may not be unreasonable at all to say that at the next final meeting,
they would reach a decision within one hour or two, so they would not go into
another marathon meeting, such as tonight, which was now going into its seventh
hour.
Councilman Overholt stated that he too believed that the life of the mobile-
home park was limited and also that the proposed project should comply with
what would be the new Code. He did not consider the variances technical in
nature, but they were so close that he did not think it would be a problem
for the developer to bring them into Code. The problem was as set forth in
the Government Code that Mr. Hopkins read, that the Council was going to take
steps to mitigate any adverse impacts of the conversion on the ability of the
displaced mobilehome residents to find adequate space in a mobilehome park
That was the extent of their responsibility. The Mayor's proposal was a
good start, He did not completely agree with his concept of value. What
troubled him was the day before the notice was served, everybody in the mobile-
home park had a value on their property which was the fair market value as of
that day and when the notice was served, those who had been there over ten years
had minimal value, if any, and those there one year, had a lot of value. If
they were talking purely in terms of relieving the hardship on a person who had
moved into the park and paid a great deal of money, they should deal with that
question, At any rate, it was a good start if Mr. Farano and Mr. Dietch put
their efforts together and tried to work something out, they would probably
come up w~th something, It might net be something everybody was totally happy
with, but it would certainly be better than to have the Council make a decision
and impose it not knowing as much about the problems as Mr. Farano and Mr.
Dietch and the tenants.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to continue a decision on the matter for
two weeks,
Before action was taken, Mr. Farano sta~ed he had no objection to the Council
being kept informed of the status of the matter. They would work toward that
and would be the first to contact Mr. Dietch tomorrow. Me did not know if
two weeks would be long enough.
81-583
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 7, 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor suggested that they set the matter for two weeks with a status report
of progress to be submitted by the applicant in one week, with the final decision
to be rendered by the Council on April 21, 1981 if possible. If not, then the
matter would be continued additionally.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded b. he motion. MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT: By general consent the Council adjourned. (1:25 A.M., April 8,
1981)
~ERTS, CITY CLERK