1981/07/2881-1069
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 28, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: William T. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
DATA PROCESSING DIRECTOR: Phil Grammatica
PUBLIC UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER: Gordon Hoyt
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ron Thompson
CITY ENGINEER: William Devitt
STREET MAINTENANCE SUPERINTENDENT: Bill Lewis
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
ASSISTANT TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Shirley Land
Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Reverend Robert Sivigny, Melodyland School of Theology, gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Ben Bay led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Seymour,
authorized by the City Council and accepted by Mr. Brian Reynolds:
"My Government Day" - July 28, 1981
A proclamation congratulating Bill Visser on the Silver Anniversary of
Visser's Florist and Greenhouse was authorized by the City Council, and Mr.
Bill Visser accepted the proclamation.
119: RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A resolution of congratulations was
unanimously adopted by the City Council to be presented to Mr. A. E. "Red"
Patterson for his commendable service to the Boy Scouts of America and his
dedication to the community and the game of baseball.
MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular
meeting held December 9, 1980 with corrections which she proceeded to enumer-
ate involving a number of pages, two of which the City Clerk was asked to
check against the tapes of that meeting.
Council discussion took place during the course of the corrections enumerated
by Councilwoman Kaywood revolving around the tapes of the meeting and the
written record. Councilwoman Kaywood clarified that the tape was kept no
longer than two years, after which the written copy of the minutes would
remaim. She asked the City Attorney, if the minutes were the only record left
after two years, did they have to depend on the minutes.
81-1070
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 28, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
City Attorney William Hopkins stated that would be the best evidence if the
tapes were no longer in existence; Mayor Seymour thereupon asked what would
occur if they did not have any written record but kept the tapes for 10, 15 or
20 years.
Mr. Hopkins stated in that case, the tapes would be the best evidence as far
as the proceedings were concerned as to what was said. The Government Code
required that the City Clerk keep a summary in the form of minutes, a synopsis.
Mayor Seymour then stated that perhaps Councilwoman Kaywood would feel better
about the situation if they kept the tapes for a longer period than two years;
Councilwoman Kaywood maintained that they would still have to have some
written record.
The Mayor emphasized as he had in the previous meetings that the intent of the
Council when they took action at the meeting of ~uly 7, 1981 was to eliminate
the dotting of "i's" and crossing of "t's" relative to the Council minutes;
Councilwoman Kaywood noted, however, that it was the permanent record.
Councilman Roth felt that it was perhaps appropriate to move away from the
extensive type of minutes the City had been used to. It was a luxury that
very few cities could afford. There were Boards of Supervisors and cities
throughout the State who only had a minute order showing the items on their
agenda, whether it had been approved, and the vote. If they continued spend-
ing 20 to 25 minutes each week at Council meetings on minutes, they should go
to action type minutes and the tape could be the actual record.
City Attorney Hopkins stated that he believed the City Clerk must keep
summary-type minutes and that could be done as was done by the Board of
Supervisors explaining the action taken and the general subject.
City Clerk Linda Roberts confirmed for the Mayor that written minutes were
maintained permanently.
Mr. Hopkins also explained for Councilman Bay after further discussion and
questioning that the requirement relative to a statute of limitations regard-
ing written minutes being a public record, they would have to be kept indefi-
nitely. They did not have to be a long explanation of everything that took
place, but the summary would be a permanent record.
Mayor Seymour requested the City Clerk to prepare a brief report as to what
would be the most cost effective and efficient manner of preparing and storing
minutes. It need not be a long report but if, in fact, minutes could be
achieved the way Councilman Roth described, at least on his part, it sounded
simple and direct. He believed what the Council attempted to do three weeks
ago was to simplify the process but instead, it was becoming more complex than
before. If the City Clerk would prepare a brief report for next week, they
could then take action and resolve the matter totally.
81-1071
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 28, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Overholt stated that he would be interested in seeing the report
because he felt that Councilman Roth had a good point.
MOTION: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Bay, approval
of the minutes of the regular meeting held December 9, 1980 was continued one
week. 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
ordinances or resolutions in regular order. Councilman Roth seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount .of $3,002,674.95, in accord-
ance with the 1980-81 Budget, were approved.
123: EMPLOYEE GROUP PREPAID DENTAL CARE - SAFEGUARD HEALTH PLANS, INC.: On
motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, an agreement was
authorized with Safeguard Health Plans, Inc., for employee group prepaid
dental care, effective July 1, 1981, and the Human Resources Director was
authorized to execute same, as reco~ended in memorandum dated July 22, 1981
from Human Resources Director Garry McRae. MOTION CARRIED.
140: MAJOR URBAN RESOURCES LIBRARIES (MURL) GRANT: Councilwoman Kaywood
moved to accept $3,510 made available through the Major Urban Resources
Libraries (MURL) Grant for library reference materials, as recommended in
memorandum dated July 20, 1981 from City Librarian William Griffith. MOTION
CARRIED.
150/109: APPLICATION FOR SB174 BLOCK GRANT FUNDING FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO
PIONEER AND BOYSEN PARKS AND HILLSITE NO. 1 PARK: Councilwoman Kaywood
offered Resolution No. 81R-345 for adoption, authorizing the submission of
three applications for SB174 Block Grant Funding under the State Roberti-
Z'berg Urban Open Space and Recreation Program in the amount of $157,403, for
improvements to Pioneer and Boysen Parks and the general development of. Hill-
site No. 1 Park, as recommended in memorandum dated July 20, 1981 from Deputy
City Manager James Ruth. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-345: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING THE SUBMISSION OF THREE (3) APPLICATIONS FOR GRANT FUNDS
UNDER THE ROBERTI-Z'BERG URBAN OPEN-SPACE AND RECREATION PROGRAM FOR DEVELOP-
MENT AND/OR IMPROVEMENT OF HILLSITE #1 PARK, PIONEER PARK AND BOYSEN PARK.
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-345 duly passed and adopted.
81-1072
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 28, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
106/156: POLICE DEPARTMENT EXPANSION - PURCHASE OF MODULAR BUILDINGS AND
BUDGET TRANSFERS: City Manager William Talley briefed the Council on staff
report dated July 15, 1981 from the Chief of Police recommending approval of
the concept of the purchase of the Pepsico Building System, Incorporated (PBS)
modular buildings located on Harbor Boulevard between the Police Department
and Main Library, at a cost of $316,800, to accomplish the Police Department
expansion; authorizing the City Manager to enter into a lease and purchase
agreement with a financial institution for cost of acquisition of certain
modular buildings and the necessary adjunct contracts for modification of said
buildings; and authorizing a budget transfer of $52,523 from Project Account
No. 24-990-6755 to appropriate operating accounts to secure additional items
and services in connection with its expansion.
Councilman Overholt offered a resolution of approval as recommended and moved
to authorize the necessary tranfer of funds. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded
the latter motion.
Before action was taken, the Mayor, speaking to the City Manager, noted that
this item, the productivity improvement and performance auditing training and
pilot project, the request to lease a portion of City-owned land, and contract
programming services--maintenance of City's computer system and services in
connection with the City's utility billing system--on today's Council agenda
all dealt with substantial sums of money. They were well aware that they were
going to have a meeting to amend the budget as a result of the baseball
strike. He questioned why those items were before the Council prior to the
amendment process.
City Manager Talley answered that the Council had indicated that public safety
projects and personnel should be continued at the present level. It was
recommended in the Resource Allocation Plan; however, it was not on his list
of areas for Council consideration and could be deferred. Relative to the
Pepsico people, the City's contract had been extended twice by them regarding
the lease of their trailers. He also had reasons regarding the other items if
the Council wanted to discuss those at this time. There was no reason for
bringing the items before the Council other than to keep the orderly process
of the City moving ahead in certain areas. He made a value judgment to pre-
sent them to the Council and if they were not on the recommended list ~hich
the Council received without comment, he was providing them an opportunity to
make a policy decision.
Mayor Seymour surmised that to the degree the items were approved, it would
leave them that much less flexibility as a Council to decide where reductions
or amendments were going to be made to the budget.
Mr. Talley answered, that was correct; the Mayor stated he would then vote
Discussion then followed upon Council questioning relative to what might occur
if a further delay were involved regarding the purchase of the modular
buildings. Assistant City Manager William T. Hopkins thereupon reported on the
status of the negotiations which had been ongoing for over two months.
81-1073
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 28, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Bay also agreed with the Mayor and expressed his concern with
having to consider items which would subsequently limit their decision-making
process in making reductions to the overall budget. Taking the items individ-
ually, specifically the item regarding the Police Department expansion, he
could support the resolution and motion because in his mind it had not been
included in the cuts they were going to have to make, and because of the need
and the time constraints involved. That was not necessarily true relative to
subsequent items on the agenda.
Mayor Seymour stated he supported the expansion of the Police Department when
they approved the budget, but when they would be looking for better than $1.5
million in a matter of a couple of weeks, he was opposed to the expenditure of
almost three-quarters of a million dollars. It would reduce the flexibility
of the Council to make a decision.
Mr. Talley explained that some of the items, for.example, the productivity
program, the intent of which was to save the City money. Councilman Overholt,
along with the Mayor, sat in the Audit Review sessions where, although not
assured, there was certainly a strong representation such a program would do
just that.
The Mayor stated he did not debate the worthwhileness of any of the items. He
reiterated the problem lay in the fact that if the Council approved the items,
they were putting handcuffs on themselves relative to the flexibility to
say--they would prefer to keep Policemen on the streets, rather than expand
the Police Department, or prefer to keep libraries open, rather than spend
$45,000 with Price Waterhouse relative to a productivity study.
City Manager Talley stated there was no question about that and if the Council
wanted to take that position they could pull the item off. However, regarding
the other items, the lease agreement with Rotary Offset Printers was giving
the City $1,500. He did not know why they would not want to enter into an
agreement where somebody wanted to pay the City to use a piece of unused prop-
erty. The programming contract services with the Utilities had no effect on
the General Fund. Relative to the vast majority of the money the Council
would be looking for, if they cancelled the present items or waited two weeks,
it would have no effect.
· The Mayor reiterated that he would not vote for expenditures of three-quarters
of a million dollars knowing he was going to be faced with some difficult
decisions in two weeks. He would agree with Mr. Talley that there would be no
effect relative to the lease agreement for lease of City-owned land, but he
was not convinced that was true relative to the Utility TRES system.
MOTION: After further discussion and questioning relative to the possible
effect of a two-week continuance, Councilman Overholt moved to continue con-
sideration of the necessary documents for the Police Department expansion for
two weeks. MOTION CARRIED.
81-10~74
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 28, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor also stated that he would prefer to carry the productivity improve-
ment and performance auditing and the computer programming service contracts
over as well; Councilman Bay and Councilwoman Kaywood requested that the items
be discussed at this time in any case.
116: PRODUCTIVITY IMPROVEMENT AND PERFORMANCE AUDITING TRAINING AND PILOT
PROJECT: City Manager Talley then briefed the Council on staff report dated
July 21, 1981, recommending approval of an agreement with Price Waterhouse and
Company to provide formal training in techniques of productivity improvement
and performance auditing and, further, to conduct an initial pilot project
with City staff at an estimated cost of under $45,000.
Councilman Bay noted in reading the orientation program that they were going
to pay $45,000 for what he figured out to be 574 hours of consultant time,
about $78 an hour gross. What concerned him in viewing the brief outline of
the training program and the subject, was why the professionals already on
staff did not have that training, since most of the subjects were included in
the first two years of any management course he had ever looked at.
Mro Talley answered that they had not had a formalized productivity improve-
ment training program in the City. As part of the review last year with Price
Waterhouse, they recommended that the City take a major step forward which
would have cost in excess of $100,000. The City asked for the minimum they
could get by with for an initial effort and were given a bid of approximately
$45,000. It was a recommendation of the Audit Committee that they go forward
on a modified basis and then, based upon the estimated savings to be achieved
in the first two pilot programs, to probably, but not definitely, go forward
with the more expanded effort at a later date.
Councilman Bay stated they were hiring and paying professionals to work in the
City, and he questioned why they did not have a goodly number of those profes-
sionals who knew all of those subjects.
Mr. Talley answered that they probably had a number of people who had taken
such courses, but the people working in the "hands-on" area had never had
experience in those areas. There were very few productivity improvement pro-
grams existing in the country. Price Waterhouse had installed a major one in
Dade County, and they could come to the City with proven experience.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to continue consideration of the subject agree-
ment with Price Waterhouse and Company for two weeks. Councilman Seymour
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
123: REQUEST TO LEASE A PORTION OF CITY-OWNED LAND - ROTARY OFFSET PRINTERS:
On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, a lease
agreement with Rotary Offset Printers at a fee of $1,500, to provide temporary
employee motor vehicle parking on a portion of City-owned land located at the
south side of South Street, approximately 250 feet east of The Atchison,
Topeka, and Santa Fe Railroad tracks, for the period of August 1, 1981 through
November 1, 1981, was authorized, as recommended in memorandum dated July 22,
1981 from City Engineer William Devitt. MOTION CARRIED.
81-1075
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 28, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
164: AWARD OF CONTRACT - CITRON STREET AND VERMONT AVENUE SEWER IMPROVEMENT:
Account No. 11-790-6325-E0270. Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 81R-346
for adoption, awarding a contract to Holstrom Company in the amount of $5,820,
as recommended by the City Engineer in his report dated July 20, 1981. Refer
to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-346: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST
RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS
AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND
WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TOCONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOW-
ING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: CITRON AND VERMONT SEWER IMPROVEMENT, IN THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 11-790-6325-E0270.
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-346 duly passed and adopted.
123/125: CONTRACT PROGRAMMING SERVICES - MAINTENANCE OF CITY'S COMPUTER
SYSTEMS AND SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH THE CITY'S UTILITY BILLING SYS'I'~M:
City Manager Talley briefed the Council on memorandum dated July 28, 1981 from
the Data Processing Director, Phil Grammatica, recommending approval of two
agreements for contract programming services, the first with John Cappelletti
and Associates in an amount not to exceed $330,000 and the second with TRES
Systems, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $150,000.
Councilman Overholt moved to authorize an agreement with John Cappelletti and
Associates in an amount not to exceed $330,000 for programming services in
connection with the development and maintenance of the City's computer system,
for the period of August 3, 1981 through June 30, 1982; and authorizing an
agreement with TRES Systems, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $150,000 in
connection with the City's Utility Billing System, for the period of AuBust 3,
1981 through June 30, 1982, as recommended in memorandum dated July 28, 1981
from the Data Processing Director. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour stated Mr. Talley indicated the item
was entirely for Utilities; Mr. Talley stated he had said predominantly. He
then asked Mr. Grammatica to speak to the breakdown.
Data Processing Director Phil Grammatica stated that of the $330,000 proposed
agreement with John Cappelletti and Associates, approximately 60% was a
Utilities effort and 40% going against General Fund projects.
Mayor Seymour stated he would approve the portion pertaining to Utilities,
$198,000, but not the $132,000 that did not.
81-1076
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 28, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Overholt stated he would be glad to amend his motion accordingly.
Councilwoman Kaywood accepted that in her second.
Councilman Bay noted that there were approximately 2,000 hours of consultant's
work involved at approximately $75 an hour, equalling approximately one-man
year. He questioned what kind of a position they had gotten themselves into
in Data Processing where they were going to have to pay $150,000 for the
services of one man for one year.
Mr. Grammatica stated it related to the Utilities billing system currently
in-house that was designed and programmed by TRES. None of his people had
gone into the extensive detailed level or complexity of the system requiring a
generous amount of maintenance at all times. The level of expertise required
to maintain the system was something he felt would take approximately two to
three years to gain in-house, as opposed to having the expertise from TRES
being available right now.
Councilman Bay reiterated and emphasized his concern over having to pay
$150,000 for one man's knowledge.
Discussion and questioning then followed between Council Members and staff
relative to the TRES system, as well as the cost of services for other con-
sulting firms, at the conclusion of which the Mayor stated that doubt had been
raised in his mind by Councilman Bay relative to the $150,000 man. Thus, he
was going to oppose that expenditure until he received more information.
The City Manager then asked if the motion could be separated--one authorizing
the agreement with John Cappelletti and Associates to do non-General Fund pro-
jects until the Council made a decision, and then the other motion on the TRES
System.
Councilman Overholt stated he would be glad to split the motion. Councilwoman
Kaywood agreed.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt thereupon moved to approve an agreement with John
Cappelletti and Associates for programming services relating to the Utilities
Department only in the amount of $198,000. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Talley stated they would then schedule the balance of $132,000 for Council
consideration in two weeks.
Relative to the $150,000, Councilman Overholt asked what would happen if they
continued that matter since he would like a better explanation on the $150,000
maintenance.
Councilman Roth suggested that they hold the matter over for two weeks.
81-1077
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 28, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Grammatica stated he had no problem with a two-week continuance. However,
the marketplace levels of expertise, in particular items of software, the $75
an hour figure was very good. IBM's prices per hour were running between $95
and $105 per hour. The $75 was the total cost, inclusive of expenses.
Following further discussion and debate, Councilman Overholt stated, based on
the representation of the Department Head that $75 an hour was reasonable com-
pensation for the type of expertise involved and based upon the representation
of the City Manager that the contract was cost effective, he was going to
approve it.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to approve an agreement with TRES Systems,
Inc., in an amount not to exceed $150,000 in connection with the City's
Utility Billing System for the period of August 3, 1981 through June 30, 1982.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt stated he felt where they were
getting off base relative to the matter was the $150,000 man. He felt that
colored the discussion. It was a not-to-exceed contract for the hiring of a
consultant at the rate of $75 an hour.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion and failed to carry by the
following vote:
AYES: Overholt and Kaywood
NOES: Bay, Roth and Seymour
City Manager Talley asked if they wanted the item to come back or if they
wanted a new proposal.
Mayor Seymour stated the motion failed and the spirit of his "no" vote was
that he did not like the proposal.
Councilman Roth stated his reason for voting "no" was the fact that when it
was brought to his attention that they were proposing to pay one man $150,000,
there was not enough justification for him to vote for a person for that
amount of dollars. Perhaps staff ought to give the Council more information
and bring it back.
Mr. Tall~y statad they would do that and if thay could not coma back with an
ultimate solution, they would have to figure out another way of doing it.
175: LETTER AGREEMENT - PURCHASE OF AN ADDITIONAL 1.5 PERCENT OWNERSHIP
INTEREST IN SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNITS 2 AND 3 FROM SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA EDISON: Public Utilities General Manager Gordon Hoyt first clari-
fied questions posed by the Mayor relative to the subject.
81-1Q78
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 28, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
MOTION: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, a
letter agreement was approved covering terms and conditions of the sale of a
1.5 percent ownership interest in the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station,
Units 2 and 3, by Southern California Edison to the City, and authorizing the
General Manager to execute the same, as recommended in memorandum dated
July 27, 1981 from the Public Utilities General Manager. MOTION CARRIED.
153: ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION: Request of John O'Malley to
address the Council relating to time off for jake Petrosino, an elected repre-
sentative to the PERS Board of Administration, to attend Board meetings
(continued from the meeting of July 21, 1981 at the request of Mr. O'Malley).
Mr. John O'Malley, Staff Representative of the Anaheim Municipal Employees
Association (AMEA), first submitted a letter dated July 21, 1981 from the
Association to the Mayor with copies to the Council, including attachments
thereto, A through E (on file in the City Clerk'~ office). He then read the
letter and referred to specific points in the attachments to show that the
generalizations and conclusions reached by the City Manager in his June 17,
1981 letter to the Council were basically misleading. He felt that Attachment
D3 repudiated the idea of the City Manager that Mr. Petrosino worked only for
the members who elected him (see Page 2-Attachment D3). He also worked with
public officials in attempting to enhance the system, and public officials, in
fact, worked with Mr. Petrosino.
Mr. O'Malley requested in light of the new evidence presented and the differ-
ent point of view showing that Mr. Petrosino not only represented employees
but also the City in such matters, that they rescind their action of June 30,
1981 and that they pay Mr. Petrosino his daily rate of pay while attending
PERS Board of Administration meetings and further, that they or their designee
work with him as other cities had done to improve the PERS system not only for
the members, but also for the contracting public agency.
The Mayor noted that Mr. Eggett was present and wished to speak.
Mr. Eggett, 904 South Bruce Street, spoke against the action taken by the
Council on June 30, 1981. He also questioned management's motives in recom-
mending such action to the Council. Was Mr. Petrosino the only City employee .
drawing pay while employed in extra-curricular activities. He was hoping that
ia the interest of fair play that they rescind their previous action, because
it was the proper thing to do.
The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to speak before the City Manager
responded; no one else wished to speak.
City Manager William Talley first responded that to the best of his knowledge,
Mr. Petrosino was the only City employee to have been paid for such activi-
ties. He also wanted to speak to two statements that were confusing the
issue, the first being that the action appeared to be punitive or penalizing.
On Jarmary 11, 1979 when Mr. Petrosino was elected to represent the contract
81-1079
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 28, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
agency members, his (Talley's) office at that time recommended that he
(Petrosino) request reimbursement from the Board of Administration of PERS for
his work hours expended on Board business, and he felt he was representing
members and not the City. The Council elected to have those work hours
budgeted and that was done until this year. The administration's long-
standing policy had been that representing members was not a City function,
but the members function, reimbursable not from the City, but the PERS Board
of Administration.
The second statement was that Mr. Petrosino had the action taken against him
because he represented his members too well and too effectively on behalf of
the public agency membership. He had a great deal of respect for Mr.
Petrosino and believed that he represented his membership very well. He did
not think when elected to a State-wide office he could represent them too well
or be too effective. In his view, however, representing them was not tanta-
mount to representing the City. The real issue, in his opinion, was a labor
management issue and the fact remained the PERS Board of Administration
assisted in sponsoring a bill which cost members, the cities, and other public
agencies of the State, $130 million. It was done by underestimating the earn-
ings the PERS Board of Administration would be receiving by somewhere around
$178 million and then sponsoring or supporting legislation which allowed the
privilege of being able to disburse those monies as retirement benefits with-
out local control, local approval or any local say. Anaheim for this year and
last was spending approximately $445,416 that could be used for two purposes--
(1) to lower the City's contributions and directly benefit the taxpayers of
Anaheim and, (2) to repay members and lower the rates for members. Agencies
throughout California, in his opinion, were shorted $178 million, of which
$130 million was being spent. Beyond that, a bill to amend that loophole was
fought by the Board, which was their privilege, and they also said they
intended to fight new measures to eliminate that loophole and to sponsor new
legislation to allow the privilege of doing it again in the future. That was
their position. He had spoken to Mr. Petrosino about it. He felt Mr.
Petrosino was very diligent in conducting the business of his office which was
to receive the highest rates of interest possible which he felt were
co-terminus with the City and secondly to disburse those without local agency
control or membership approval, which he felt ran directly contrary against
the members he represented, and certainly against the interest of the City.
He reiterated, it was a classic labor management issue that the management of
the City through the Council's policy-making position should not take public
funds to support the activities of people representing the membership--it was
a membership responsibility. He would be pleased to in anyway at all assist
in formulating whatever Legislation necessary so that the State of California
Board of Administration could reimburse Mr. Petrosino for all of his
activities a~ an elected member representative. His recormnendation to the
Council, however, would remain consistent--it was not an area where the City
should support employees.
81-1Q8Q
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 28, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. O'Malley countered that Mr. Talley had not laid to rest that the action
was punitive but reinforced it and he went on to state why. In concluding, he
respectfully requested that they pay Mr. Petrosino money as they had done
before and then try to change the law in the Legislature so that the system
would pay him. They should not punish him now and then have Mr. Talley say he
would assist in getting Legislation through. The way the system was set up at
present, it could not pay him and Mr. Talley was aware of that. It was an
unjust situation.
Councilman Bay stated as far as punitive action against Jake Petrosino, he
per- sonally knew as far as the Council was concerned that was not a part of
the issue whatsoever. Mr. Petrosino had been a friend of his for many years.
The issue, in his mind, had nothing to do with Jay, per se, but with the fact
that they had a Board representing the employees on a retirement system that
made decisions on investments and the way those were reported. The way he
under- stood, if the amount was understated, it would create a surplus and the
Board would then either determine what to do with that surplus or had very
strong lobbying powers with the Legislature to determine what was done with
that sur- plus without any say from local government or the taxpayers
involved. To him the issue was whether they were, in effect, paying with
taxpayer money a rep- resentative who truly represented the employees
throughout the State or whether they were going to pay someone in Sacramento
in the interest of the city and the taxpayers. If it was true that the Board
lobbied strongly for the Legislature to allow $130 million to be put back in
and added to benefits without any percentage being returned to the taxpayers
or the payers or employers involved in the process, he would listen to that
type of rebuttal, but from the standpoint of representing the taxpayers vs.
the employees of various cities, state or county functions, he did not see
where the Council had a great deal of choice choosing between those two. He
for one did not disagree that Mr. Petrosino should be paid for his time, but
the question was who should pay him back, the taxpayers, the employees
associations or PERS. His main concern was that the taxpayers were, in fact,
paying the salary of someone who, from a purely philosophical standpoint, was
not representing the taxpayers.
Mr. O'Malley stated that by saying the action was not punitive did not make it
SO. The only one paying for the decision of the Legislature and the Board of,
Administration's decision to endorse that legislation was Jake Petrosino.
After further discussion and questioning between the Council and Mr. O'Malley,
Mr. Jake Petrosino then spoke noting Councilman Bay's question about cost and
how reserves were utilized indicating he had no problem if the earnings were
shared. That was one of the "fights" they had on the Board. The League of
California Cities had always felt that any earnings should resort totally 100%
to the agency. He did not agree with that policy because the ravages of
inflation were what caused the problems of the annuitants. He and Mr. Talley
had a divergent constituency to serve and that was part of the disagreement.
Such an issue had never come up before. If they choose to let their action
stand'today, they would ask the Attorney General to intercede and they had
asked informally for them to also check their file to see if the issue had
81-1081
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 28, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
come up before relative to elected members in any other elected body in the
State. As of now, they did not have an answer. Mr. Talley had asked him at a
meeting a couple of weeks ago what he (Petrosino) would have suggested doing
in place of what was done. He indicated ghat he thought it was appropriate
for him to express his objection to the PERS Board of Administration and they
would work with him to resolve the problem. That was after the Council took
action. He would hate to think that they would set a precedent where anybody
who worked for a salary would run the risk of losing that salary for serving
in an elected office and his was a State elected office. He would hope that
the Council would be sensitive to that and for that reason would look forward
to the Council rescinding thei= action. He would give his word that he would
work to resolve the matter.
Mr. Petrosino then answered questions posed by Councilwoman Kaywood and
Councilman Roth relating to the system.
Councilman Bay was trying to understand where the $130 million came from; Mr.
Petrosino answered, out of a reserve account.
Councilman Bay then wanted to know if that was because there were underesti-
mates of the earnings that created that amount; Mr. Petrosino answered, they
earned more than anticipated.
Councilman Bay asked if it was possible theoretically for the Board to underJ
estimate the earnings and create future surpluses that could also be
disbursed; Mr. Petrosino answered "yes".
Councilman Bay stated that to him was the issue. If it was the Board's will,
they could do that.
Mr. Petrosino again answered "yes", but emphasized that such action would
damage 660,000 members and 155,000 retired members and also the system for a
good number of years. If they underestimated the earnings, they were going to
generate surpluses meaning that they had costs higher than they needed to be.
That would keep them from getting benefit improvements. The issue as raised
by Councilman Bay was one item of a large spectrum of business conducted by
the Board which may well have precipitated the Council's action to concur with
Mr. Talley's recommendation and that was disturbing.
Mayor Seymour asked if it was his (Petrosino's) intent to resign from the
Board if the Council did not rescind it's action; Mr. Petrosino answered
"no". He was absorbing the loss because the system had no way of paying him
unless they changed the law.
The Mayor asked if they were to introduce legislation to change the law to the
effect that the PERS Board would reimburse its members for their time, Mr.
O'Malley made the statement he would support that type of legislation. He
(Seymour) did not know whether or not he was speaking on behalf of AMEA.
81-1082
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 28, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Petrosino first stated he had previously made the recon=nendation as a
Board Member and the Board rejected it; Mr. O'Malley stated when he spoke, he
did so as a representative of AMEA.
The Mayor asked Mr. Petrosino that if such legislation were introduced, would
the employee association support or at least not oppose it; Mr. Petrosino
answered that he felt that was a safe assumption.
Mayor Seymour stated they were talking about approximately $4,000 a year; Mr.
Talley clarified that for the first 11 months of the last fiscal year it was
$4,000. It was dependent upon how active Mr. Petrosino was on City-time.
The Mayor then stated the action before them was not going to change anything.
Mr. ?etrosino was still going to be on the Board, the City was not going to
pay the $4,000 and if they chose not to so, it might be their way of saying
they were not happy with what happened relative to the PERS Board. He would
rather be more direct and introduce or ask that legislation be introduced that
would have the PERS Board pay their members. If they could be assured that
the AMEA would work with other employee associations to insure the passage of
such legislation, he was confident that they could get the League of cities to
support such legislation. With the two, it would seem the Legislature would
act favorably. After hearing all sides to the question, if they should with-
draw payment to Mr. Petrosino in attending the PERS Board meetings, it would
seem only consistent that they should also do the same with anybody who would
negotiate or represent an employees association. During negotiations, the
City historically had paid the salary of the negotiators or the employees
associations at salary negotiation time. It was his understanding further
that the City had the right to determine when they would not pay that as well,
but traditionally they had paid it. He did not know that this case was that
different. He too was not only concerned but interested in trying to plug a
loophole relative to what potentially could happen by underestimating interest
earnings. He believed that the PERS Board ought to pay Mr. Petrosino for his
time. That was only reasonable.
Mr. Petrosino stated he felt that was an appropriate suggestion and he also
felt it was most appropriate that the League of California Cities sponsor that
legislation. If they did, they would personally support it and he would hope
that the Board would concur. He saw no objection to that approach. They were'
concerned about people being damaged by losing salary or ?arti¢ipation.
The Mayor stated he had concern with the State's relationship with the Board
and particularly the City of Anaheim's. Being responsible for a $15 billion
fund was a tremendous responsibility. To the degree that they would have an
ear, he believed it was worthwhile.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour thereupon moved to, (1) rescind the action taken
by the Council at the meeting of June 30, 1981 to discontinue payment of wages
for time spent by Mr. Petrosino attending PERS Board of Administration meet-
ings; ~nd (2) encourage and lead the introduction of legislation to have the
PERS Board pay for their members' meeting time. Councilman Overholt seconded
the motion.
81-1083
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 28, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Before action was taken, Councilman Bay stated he could support the motion if
he would add to it something about introducing legislation for control, in the
best interest of taxpayers, of surpluses and distribution of PERS funds.
The Mayor stated that was only an oversight and he intended to do that. That
was to be considered a part of the motion.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood requested that the City Attorney prepare a resolution to
be transmitted to the Orange County League of Cities requesting support of
such legislation.
RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (3:50 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting t.o order, all Council Members
being present. (4:00 P.M.)
129: PUBLIC HEARING - 1980-81 WEED ABATEMENT ROLL: In accordance with the
notice duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin, public hearing was held to
receive a report from the Fire Chief on the cost of abatement of weeds for
each individual lot where work was performed under the 1980-81 Weed Abatement
Program and to hear any objections from property owners liable to be assessed
for the abatement.
A report was submitted from the Fire Chief dated July 15, 1981.
Mayor Seymour asked if anyone wished to address the Council regarding objec-
tions to the weed assessment; there being no response, he declared the public
hearing closed.
MOTION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the
City Council determined no written or oral objections were received from the
property owners regarding cost of abatement of weeds under the 1980-81 weed
abatement program. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 81R-347 for adoption. Refe~ to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-347: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM CONFIRMING THE WRITTEN REPORT OF THE FIRE CHIEF REGARDING THE COST OF
WEED ABATEMENT, AND DIRECTING THE FILING THEREOF WITH THE COUNTY OF ORANGE.
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-347 duly passed and adopted.
81-1084
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 28, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
174/169: PUBLIC HEARING - HARBOR BOULEVARD AND KATELLA AVENUE PROPOSED INTER-
SECTION IMPROVEMENTS: To consider the engineering design of the proposed
Katella Avenue and Harbor Boulevard Intersection Improvements Project, a
Federal Hazard Elimination Safety Project (see City Engineer report dated
July 22, 1981--also see report entitled "Design Concepts Report for Katella
Avenue at Harbor Boulevard Prepared For the City of Anaheim By Basmaciyan-
Darnell, Inc., 4262 Campus Drive, Suite D-i, Newport Beach, California 92660,
including Appendix A through D" on file in the City Clerk's office).
Subject public hearing was held in accordance with a Federal requirement if
requested by local citizens of the community. The hearing was scheduled to
provide an opportunity for public comments on major design features with
records to be kept open for 10 days after the public hearing for additional
letters or statements to be included, staff to subsequently evaluate the
comments and make a recommendation to the Council.
Public input was received from the following persons: Mr. John Teal, repre-
senting Zaby's Motor Lodge; Mario Dalessi, General Manager Jolly Roger, Harbor
and Katella; Nate Krause, 6654 Paseo Del Norte, owner of an automobile rental
agency and gift shop.
A verbatim transcript of the entire proceeding is on file in the City Clerk's
office, which transcription is a requirement under the Federal Hazard
Elimination Safety Project.
No action was taken by the Council, the purpose of the hearing being to
receive public input on the proposal by staff.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by
Councilman Bay, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the
reports and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the
Consent Calendar Agenda:
1. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and
referred to the City's Claims Administrator, or allowed for payment:
a. Claim submitted by Edward S. Solari for personal injuries purportedly
sustained as a result of police actions in the process of being arrested, on
or about May 9, 1981.
b. Claim submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Donald Gross for personal injuries and
property damages purportedly sustained as a result of inadequate traffic mark-
ings at the Convention Center parking lot, on or about April 15, 1981.
c. Claim submitted by Bobbie Joe Payton for personal injuries purportedly
sustained at Anaheim Stadium, on or about April 15, 1981.
d. Claim submitted by Julie Aklin Onken for property damages purportedly sus-
tained while claimant's car was parked at Anaheim Stadium, on or about June 9,
1981.
81-1085
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 28, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
e. Claim submitted by Leon Greenberg Company for vehicular damages purported-
ly sustained as a result of an accident involving a City-owned vehicle at the
corner of State College Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue, on or about May 21, 1981.
f. Claim submitted by James T. Vega for vehicle damages purportedly sustained
when a City driver ran into his car at the intersection of State College
Boulevard and Viking on or about May 21, 1981.
g. Claim submitted by Vicki Lynn Brown for personal injuries purportedly sus-
tained as a result of inadequate protection for students crossing Santa Ana
Canyon Road at Mohler Drive, on or about April 7, 1981.
The following claim was partially allowed:
h. Claim submitted by Eugene Michael Oster for property damages purportedly
sustained when a City truck hit claimant's car parked at 713 South Anaheim
Boulevard, on or about July 5, 1981.
2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and
filed:
a. 105: Community Center Authority--Minutes of July 13, 1981.
b. 105: Golf Course Advisory Commission--Minutes of July 9, 1981.
c. 175: Before the Public Utilities Commission, Application No. 60713, in
the matter of the application of Southern California Edison Company for
authority to revise its Energy Cost Adjustment Clause Rates in accordance with
Decision Nos. 92496 and 93129.
3. 170: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11568: Submitted by Lesney Development Company,
to establish a 25-1ot, 24-unit condominium subdivision on proposed RM-3000
zoned property located on the west side of Magnolia Avenue, south of Ball
Road. (Submitted in conjunction with Reclassification No. 80-81-45 and
Variance No. 3229 which will appear on the August 4, 1981 agenda under
Planning Commission Consent Calendar)
The City Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract No. 11568, and granted a'
negative declaration status.
4. APPLICATIONS: The following applications were approved in accordance with
the recommendations of the Chief of Police:
a. Amusement Devices Permit: Anaheim Depot Restaurant, 1055 West Ball Road,
for 1 new amusement device, total on-site, 3. (Richard M. Williams, applicant)
b. Amusement Devices Permit: Anaheim Depot Restaurant, 1055 West Ball Road,
for 2 existing amusement device.s, total on-site 3. (Dennis R. Sweeney, appli-
cant)'
81-1086
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 28, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
c. Amusement Devices Permit: The Cavalier, 417 South Brookhurst Street, for
1 existing amusement device. (Norton J. Druilhet, applicant)
d. Amusement Devices Permit: Barro's Pizza, 5031 East Orangethorpe Avenue,
for 4 existing amusement devices. (Bob J. Portale, applicant)
e. Amusement Devices Permit: Barro's Pizza, 1252 North Euclid Street, for 2
existing amusement devices. (Bob J. Portale, applicant)
f. Amusement Devices Permit: Barro's Pizza, 213 South State College
Boulevard, for 1 existing amusement device. (Bob J. Portale, applicant)
g. Amusement Devices Permit: The Pizza Store, 1061 North State College
Boulevard, for 2 existing amusement devices, total on-site, 2. (Bob J.
Portale, applicant)
h. Amusement Devices Permit: Zody's Department Store No. 110, 121 North
Beach Boulevard, for 4 new amusement devices, total on-site will be 4. (James
V. Messing, dba Video Games, Inc.,)
i. Amusement Devices Permit: Zody's Department Store No. 108, 120 East
Orangethorpe Avenue, with 4 new amusement devices, total on-site will be 4.
(James V. Messing, dba Video Games, Inc.,)
j. Amusement Devices Permit: Safeway Store, 130 West Lincoln Avenue, for 2
new amusement devices. (Michael Mendelsohn, applicant)
k. Amusement Devices Permit: George's Place, 2171 West Lincoln Avenue, for 1
existing amusement device. (Aslam A. Sheikh, applicant)
1. Amusement Devices Permit: Ratskellar, 201 East Ball Road, for 1 existing
amusement device. (Aslam A. Sheikh, applicant)
m. Amusement Devices Permit: Hyatt Anaheim, 1700 South Harbor Boulevard, for
4 existing amusement devices. (Kenneth E. Blackburn, applicant)
n. Am~usement Devices Permit: Disneyland Hotel Acitivity Center only, 1150
West Cerritos Avenue, for 4 existing amusement devices. (Kenneth E.
Blackburn, applicant)
O. Amusement Devices Permit:
3 existing amusement devices.
Inn of Tomorrow, 1110 West Katella Avenue, for
(Kenneth E. Blackburn, applicant)
p. Amusement Devices Permit: Conestoga Inn Travelodge, 1240 South Walnut
Street, for 3 existing amusement devices. (Kenneth E. Blackburn, applicant)
q. Amusement Devices Permit: Jenney's Beer and Wine, 1679 West Katella
Avenue, for 1 new amusement device. (Phil B. Scarborough, applicant)
81-1087
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 28, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
5. 151: ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NO. 80-7E: In accordance with the recommenda-
tion of the City Engineer, the request by Burnett-Ehline Properties to allow
the encroachment of a private six-inch diameter V.C.P. sewer line to be
located within the northerly six feet of Santa Cruz Street, was approved, and
a categorical exemption was determined.
6. 129: FIRE STATION NO. 8, CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NOS. 1 AND 2: In accord-
ance with the recommendations of the City Engineer, Contract Change Order No.
1 was approved in the amount of $9,665.87 and Contract Change Order No. 2 was
approved in the amount of $6,883.27, in a total amount of $16,549.14, bringing
the original contract price to $490,369.14. Account Nos. 47-914-7107 and
11-914-7107. (Magnus Company, contractor)
MOTION CARRIED.
178: SPECIAL ELECTION REGARDING SB200 - PERIPHERAL CANAL LEGISLATION: On
motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilman Bay, letter dated
July 15, 1981 from the Metropolitan Water District regarding the subject was
received and filed after a brief discussion. MOTION CARRIED.
108: A~SEMENT DEVICES PERMIT - QUILLENS LIQUOR MART: The application of
David H. Alban, dba Amusement Machines, Quillens Liquor Mart, 934 North Euclid
Street, for 3 existing amusement devices, was submitted.
Councilwoman Kaywood referred to the Hotline call, along with several other
calls she received from people, over a matter that was not addressed in the
new Amusement Devices Ordinance (4239) relative to having amusement devices in
liquor stores. Another question that had come up was the fact that she was
aware that youngsters patronized liquor stores to make certain purchases. She
wanted to know if technically they were allowed to be in a liquor store under
the age of 18.
City Attorney Hopkins answered if the liquor store sold other items and minors
were not allowed to buy alcoholic beverages, there was no reason why someone
under the age of 18 could not go into the liquor store.
Councilwoman Kaywood further noted that another concern of the Hotline ball
was that often liquor stores sold Playboy and other pornographic-type maga-
zines where the covers were publicly on view creating a very poor atmosphere
for youngsters.
Mr. Hopkins reported that they had an ordinance requiring those magazines to
be covered. If there was a specific place not complying, a report to the
Police Department should arrange for corrective action.
MOTION: On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilman Bay, Amuse-
ment Devices Permit for Amusement Machines, Quillens Liquor Mart, 934 North
Euclid Street, for 3 existing amusement devices was approved. MOTION CARRIED.
81-1088
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 28, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 81R-348
through 81R-355, 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-348: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Security
Pacific National Bank; Security Pacific National Bank; Lee Gentry)
169: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-349: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT,
LABOR, SERVICES, M~TERIALS 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: STREET
LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 1980-4, TRACT NO. 1392, IN THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 24-676-11210-37300 & 25-676-6329-11210-37300. (Smith
Electric Supply)
164: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-350: 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: SANTA ANA
CANYON SOUTH RIVER TRUNK SEWER IMPROVEMENT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT
NO. 11-790-6325-E0320. (M. Grbavac Construction)
175: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-351: 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: UTILITIES
SERVICE CENTER MATERIAL STORAGE AREA IMPROVEMENTS, W/O EAST STREET AND S/O
SOUTH STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 51-699-6329-0958M-3710A,
55-699-6329-0958M-3900A, 51-699-6329-0957M-3710A, 55-699-6329-0957M-3900A.
(Steiny & Company, Inc.)
169: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-352: 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: PERALTA
HILLS STREET IMPROVEMENT, AREA W/O CERRO VISTA WAY AND S/O SANTA ANA CANYON
ROAD, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 12-793-6325-E3390; 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 August 27, 1981, at 2:00 p.m.)
176: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-353: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS, HIGHWAYS AND
SERVICE EASEMENTS. (Abandonment No. 80-7A, public hearing to be held
August 18, 1981, 3:00 p.m.)
81-1089
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 28, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
176: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-354: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS, HIGHWAYS AND
SERVICE EASEMENTS. (Abandonment No. 80-9A, public hearing to be held
August 18, 1981, 3:00 p.m.)
103: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-355: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING THE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM OF THE TERRITORY KNOWN
AND DESIGNATED TUSTIN-ATWOOD ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. (uninhabited,
2 acres located on the east side of Tustin Avenue, approximately 248 feet
south of Orangethorpe Avenue)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL b~MBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 81R-348 through 81R-355, both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 4250: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4250 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4250: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (79-80-1, RM-1200)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4250 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 4251: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4251 for first
reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4251: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AbiENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (80-81-29, RM-3000, Tract No.
11466)
154: MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (AEDC): Coun-
cilman Bay reported on his attendance at the meeting of the AEDC on Monday,
July 27, 1981 where the election of new officers occurred. The new Secretary
and Treasurer was Bob Risteen, new Vice President, Alan Hughes, new President,
George Killichek. There were two new members, one appointed by the Council,
Mr. Walt Smith, and one appointed by the Chamber, Bob Barton. Mr. Mel Schantz
was also attendant and stated he would be willing to serve another three years
as thc Board of Realtors appointment. It was a productive meeting, resulting
in a great deal of work on an Economic Plan which was to be submitted to the
City Council. He was looking forward to the Corporation submitting it to the
Council.
81-1090
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 28, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
105: RESIGNATION OF LARRY HENDERSON FROM THE COMMUNITY CENTER AUTHORITY:
Mayor Seymour stated that each Council Member received, with much regret, the
resignation that was tendered last night by Larry Henderson of the Community
Center Authority. He felt they should have some type of special testimonial
for Mr. Henderson for his 30 years of service to the citizens of Anaheim on
this Board and on various other community boards on projects. He suggested
that they ask staff to prepare some type of testimonial that might be appro-
priate.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to accept, with deep regret, Mr. Henderson's
letter of resignation from the Community Center Authority and to instruct the
City Clerk to appropriately post and advertise the vacancy. Councilwoman
Kaywood seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood noted that they did not adver-
tise on that particular position; the City Clerk.explained that it was not
necessary to post inasmuch as there was no term involved although the Public
Information Office could be asked to prepare a press release.
The Mayor asked that that be done.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
174: SPECIAL MEETING IN WASHINGTON, D.C., RELATIVE TO BLOCK GRANT FUNDS:
Mayor Seymour announced that he received a mailgram last Friday from the
Special Assistant to the President wherein President Reagan was inviting 100
mayors, governors and members of the Board of Supervisors to Washington, D.C.,
for a special meeting with his cabinet on Monday, August 3, 1981, for a three-
hour briefing relative to what the President had in mind regarding the future
of Block Grant Funds and how they would be disbursed and managed. It was his
intention to attend that meeting, but he would be back in time for the Council
meeting on Tuesday, August 4, 1981.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: The City Attorney requested a Closed Session to
discuss litigation with no action anticipated.
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilman 09erholt
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (5:15 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (5:24 p.m.)
RECESS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess to 7:00 p.m. Councilman Bay
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (5:24 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (7:00 p.m.)
165/17%: HEARING - CITRON NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL AREA: To discuss alley
improvements in the Citron Neighborhood Council Area, generally bounded by
Santa Ana Street on the north, The A.T. and S.F. Railroad to the east, and the
Santa Aha Freeway to the southwest.
81-1091
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 28, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor asked to hear from those who wished to speak.
Mr. Mike Shanahan, 716 South Indiana Street, stated that he was the repreaen-
tative spokesman for the newly organized Citron Neighborhood Council. The
reason most of the people were present tonight was because of the alleyway
situation in the central part of the City. They had several meetings amongst
themselves in developing their Council, primarily for the purposes of obtain-
ing Block Grant funds through the Federal government. While they were happy
that that money was being made available to them, they were somewhat disgusted
that they as citizens of Anaheim were being required to do what essentially
was the City's job, one that had not been done over the last 35 years and par-
ticularly in the last 10 years. The City had allowed the alleyways in their
neighborhood to deteriorate to such a level that some of them were almost un-
driveable; they were road hazards; created filthy conditions in their homes;
bred insects; were rat infested; and basically an eyesore for the entire
neighborhood. The attitude of the City was disturbing to them in that they
had not made any type of commitment to speak of in giving the residents a
definite goal as to when the alleys were going to be improved. He then gave
an overview of what had occurred in their contact with the City with regard to
improvement of the alleys. At the conclusion of his presentation, Mr.
Shanahan emphasized that they were hoping to impress upon the Council the
existing problem relative to the alleyways. He then submitted photographs
which illustrated the poor and deteriorating condition of some of the alleys
in the subject area.
The following people then spoke and relayed the problems they had relative to
the alleys adjacent to their property and/or possible alternatives for their
particular portion of alleyways, and expressed that trees needed trimming in
some areas: Samuel Morgan, 610 South Citron Street; August Tabrock, Water and
Ellsworth; Mrs. Earl Carrol, 518 South Resh Street; Teri Murray, 618 South
Resh Street; W. L. Wimberly, 709 South Indiana Street; and Steve Heyliger, 705
South Indiana, expressed his feeling that their's was a very nice section of
Anaheim.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the hear-
ing.
The Mayor referred to report dated July 21, 1981 from the Engineering
Division--Public Works Department. As he understood, they were talking about
27,000 linear feet of alleys of which 13,000 had been improved, leaving 14,000
linear feet yet to be improved at a cost of approximately ~1 million (see
report on file in the City Clerk's office). He asked staff where they would
get that money.
Councilwoman Kaywood also explained that over the years as they had been
widening the alleys, it had been necessary to have the dedication in order to
do so. From what she heard from one of the speakers, that had not been forth-
coming. Thus she wanted to know if that was the reason the alleys were not
given ~top priority.
81-1092
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 28, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Bill Lewis, Street Maintenance Superintendent, explained that at the con-
ception of the plan, they did strive to improve the alleys to the full stand-
ard width of 20 feet. Many of the existing alleys were 15 feet as were most
in the subject area. It would be necessary to request a two and one-half foot
dedication on each side for abutting property owners in order to attain the
20-foot width. They never tried to obtain width from property owners where
permanent facilities were involved such as a block wall, garage, etc. They
felt that to be completely impractical, but there were many backyards that
were unimproved or that had minimal fencing that could be either relocated or
the alley widened without any relocation. The program had evolved to where
they now found themselves facing the subject section of town and several other
remaining areas in the City where obtaining a 20-foot right of way seemed to
be quite impractical and thus they had backed off on that to a considerable
extent. When he met with the subject neighborhood in May, he expressed that
their particular area was one where to obtain two and one-half feet along both
sides was not practical. The alley construction ~ork to be done involved pre-
dominately a narrow width of 15 feet. Efforts in alley take would be minimal
if at all.
Questions were then posed to Mr. Lewis for purposes of clarification by
Council Members Roth, Bay and Kaywood, at the conclusion of which, Mayor
Seymour stated that he felt the neighborhood had raised a very legitimate
demand. He wished that he could be as quick with an answer in response to the
specific plan asked for. He felt they owed the neighborhood that. He doubted
they could do it in one year but perhaps they could find a way to do it in two
or three years and finish the job. They had a limited amount of funds in the
Block Grant Program that had not been committed subject to the finalization of
that Plan. This year's budget particularly now being faced with losses at the
rate of $30,000 a day because of the baseball strike, they were going to have
to make cuts in the budget two weeks from now. They had made their point
clear and the Council owed them a very specific response relative to their
request for a plan. Speaking to Mr. Shanahan as the spokesman for the group,
he proposed that they ask staff to come up with a program. It was a matter of
trading off priorities and evaluating those priorities. He suggested that
staff prepare a three-year plan and that the neighborhood permit a couple or
three weeks to formulate the plan to be presented to the Council for their
evaluation. Subsequently they would be more than happy as a Council to'meet
with him and his Executive Committee to come up with a plan. They would try
to meet the demand by giving them a fixed plan to resolve the problem. Staff
would be in touch with Mr. Shanahan to set up another meeting.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 20 minutes. (7:55 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (8:15 p.m.)
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 80-81-14, CONDITIONAL USE
PERMT NO. 2121, TENTATIVE TRACT' NO. 11305 AND NEGATIVE DECLARTION: Applica-
tion by Bank of California, N. Ao 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 the
following Code waivers:
81-1093
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 28, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
a. minimum lot area per dwelling unit
b. maximum structural height
c. maximum site coverage (deleted)
d. minimum floor area (deleted)
e. minimum recreational-leisure area
f. minimum number and type of parking spaces
g. maximum fence height (deleted)
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. (See minutes of March 10, 1981).
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolut. ion No. PC80-209 granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2121, in part, subject to four conditions and also
approved Tentative Tract No. 11305 with certain conditions. (See minutes of
March 10, 1981).
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilman Bay
at the meeting of December 23, 1980 and a public hearing scheduled and con-
tinued from the meetings of January 20, March 10, April 7, May 12, and
June 30, 1981 (see minutes those dates), with extensive discussion and testi-
mony taking place at the meetings of March 10, April 7 and May 12.
The Mayor announced that the purpose of this evening's hearing was to deal
with the relocation aspects of the matter. He then asked to hear from the
attorney for the applicant.
Mr. Floyd Farano, attorney representing Westwinds, stated that he had placed a
letter before the Council and also had given a copy to Mr. Deitch, the attor-
ney for the residents (see letter dated July 28, 1981 with attachments--made a
part of the record). Mr. Farano then read his letter which contained an enum-
eration of the counterproposal submitted by Mr. Deitch on July 27, 1981. The
second page of the letter outlined alternatives by the developer to the City
Council and the attorney for the remaining tenants. Relative to Mrs. Villa,
he had stated before and would do so again, hers were special circumstances
and they would do anything and everything required to see that she was taken
care of in an appropriate manner. He also pointed out relative to Item No. 4
on Page 2, if all the tenants decided to move at the same time, that would
require a payment of $120,000 at once which they would not be able to do.
Thus, there would have to be restrictions on the number of people moving each
month based upon some kind of notice so that they could prepare ahead of time
to make certain that they would have the money. Relative to Number 5--
"Failing our ability to obtain zoning pursuant to the foregoing or any agreed
upon variation thereof, Westwinds will serve notices and immediately commence
appropriate legal action to evict all occupants of the park." Mr. Farano
emphamized that meant this week.
81-1094
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 28, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
The essence of the offer and their proposal tonight was that the City should
recognize that this was a hardship situation and that restrictions as to den-
sity could be and should be waived in favor of giving the residents additional
benefits. Failing that, Westwinds would not continue to operate--it could not.
Questions were then posed to Mr. Farano by the Council in order to clarify
certain points of his presentation.
The Mayor then asked to hear from Mr. Deitch.
Mr. Michael Deitch, attorney for the residents, first clarified the number of
tenants that were involved. There were 22 coaches in the park, one owned by a
gentleman who was presently in the Middle East. His clients had been unable
to make any contact with that individual. Therefore, he could not represent
that one person. He had a signed authorization acquired today and a list of
those people whom he represented based on the off. er that was transmitted yes-
terday. At this time, there were nine singles, seven doubles, one single,
Mrs. Hewitt, treated as a double, and Mrs. Villa. Essentially they were talk-
ing about 18 coaches represented. The offer that was transmitted to Mr.
Farano was based upon the fact that the park would be maintained in its pre-
sent condition and terms of conditions for a minimum period of 12 months from
the date the zoning was approved. It also considered the fact that the single
wides, with the exception of Mrs. Hewitt, would be paid. S5,000 in comparison
to the April offer from Westwinds of $3,400. The double wides, with the
exception of Mrs. Villa and also including Mrs. Hewitt, would be paid $7,000
in comparison to the $4,600 Westwinds proposed in April. The differential was
a result of many meetings with essentially 18 to 21 individual clients trying
to reach a common ground for settlement so that there was no discriminatory
effect on anyone or group of people and it took into account many factors
which he explained. At the present time, the proposal was what the tenants
felt was a rock bottom offer for the settlement and that had been presented to
Westwinds.
Mr. Deitch then clarified for Councilman Overholt that the figures proposed
were moving expenses since the tenants would retain ownership of their mobile-
home.
The Mayor asked if he (Deitch) could explain where the other four or five
tenants in question might be.
Mr. Deitch answered that one party was not at home or unavailable to physi-
cally sign the documents authorizing him to make the offer, two parties had
been in contact with the Senior Citizens Legal Aid Foundation in Santa Ana and
advised not to sign any papers, one party asked to withdraw. These were all
single wides.
He then clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood what he explained previously, that
the difference in the settlement figure between Westwinds and the tenants was
approximately $32,000 to $35,000 just on those numbers he represented. There
was a further item in the transmittal made to Mr. Farano and that was the
payment of actual cost and fees not to exceed $5,000 which was a part of the
proposal and continued to be so.
81-1095
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 28, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor then surmised that Mr. Farano was looking at a figure of $120,000 in
settlements compared to Mr. Deitch's figure of $129,000.
Both the Mayor and Mr. Farano discussed how those figures were arrived at, the
Mayor indicating that he figured nine singles at $5,000, seven doubles at
$7,000, Mrs. Hewitt's single considered as a double, $7,000 and Mrs. Villa,
$3,000, totalling $104,000. Four parties were not represented which were all
singles and applying the same formula at $5,000 each totalled $120,000 with
Mr. Deitch's fee of $5,000 totalling in finality $129,000.
During the course of discussion, Mr. Farano stated they were not agreeable to
paying Mr. Deitch's fees. They had agreed to do so at one point in time, but
were not amenable to doing so now.
Mr. Farano stated that there was no problem or disagreement and they were
willing to go along with Mr. Deitch's proposal, but their ability to pay was
predicated upon density. They would pay pursuant to the Deitch offer just
reviewed predicated upon 104 units.
Mayor Seymour asked Mr. Farano to clarify that he was stating if they received
a zoning approval for 104 units, they would settle on the basis outlined for
$129,000.
Mr. Farano answered "yes", excluding the $5,000 for Mr. Deitch. He also clar-
ified for Councilwoman Kaywood that in the event the zoning was granted, they
would keep the park open as indicated in Item 1, Page 2 of the July 28, 1981
letter, and exercise as much effort as possible relative to assistance. That
had always been their intention. If the zoning was there, they would continue
the park in existence for 12 to 18 months for the primary purpose of assisting
the tenants to relocate themselves. Further, if they had the zoning, they
would be able to borrow money to do things in the park. That was not the case
at present.
Mr. Thomas Weigman then approached the podium and explained that he was the
man who withdrew. They offered him $1,700 to move out and he accepted it
because he received a letter from Mr. Farano stating that they were trying to
get a shelter park. When he found out that they cancelled the shelter ~ark,
he came back to oppose, because the situation was not working out right.
Mr. Deitch confirmed for the Mayor that Mr. Weigman was not one of the 22
tenants. Up until approximately two weeks ago, he was included on the list
which was then 23. He asked to be removed and wanted to deal directly with
Westwinds and that was done.
The Mayor asked Mr. Farano if he had settled with Mr. Weigman.
Mr. Farano explained that Mr. Weigman called them about two or three weeks ago
and stated that he had promised~ the tenants he would stay with them until the
end of June and he was then going to move because he had a space in Lancaster
on which he had been paying rent for three months. He indicated that he
81-1096
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 28, 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
wanted his money, but he (Farano) indicated that he had moved and that the
$3,400 offer had been withdrawn as of June 30th and subsequently everybody was
told that Westwinds was going to revert back to the $1,700 figure after that.
His understanding was that Mr. Weigman's coach had been sold and he was not
now a resident of the park. He had signed an agreement to accept $1,700 and a
check was in the office waiting for him to move his coach off the property.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
The Mayor then asked staff the density if they approved 104 units.
Miss Santalahti answered 19.6 units to the acre or approximately 36% over
Code. The basis was 230,960 square feet of gross land area or 2,220 square
feet per unit 19.6 dwelling units per acre or approximately 35% over the
current Code. The project strictly under Code would be 76 units and if there
was a 25% density bonus available, it would be 96 units. The last proposal
they analyzed, labeled Revision No. 2, posted on the Chamber wall, would have
been 93 units.
Mayor Seymour stated that the situation was perhaps one of the worst diffi-
culties that the people had faced and certainly that the Council had faced as
an elected body. He then reviewed what had occurred since the matter was
first presented to the Council many months ago. If the Council failed to take
action, they would be putting the tenants in an almost untenable position.
Although he was one who had said they were wasting their time to continue the
matter to permit Mr. Deitch and Mr. Farano to work something out, somehow both
men, and particularly Mr. Deitch in representing a number of clients to get
that number to agree to anything, was next to miraculous. The City had a
responsibility in the project in his opinion from the standpoint that there
were 22 people involved. It was reason enough for him to approve the density
at 19.6 units to the acre and he was prepared to move ahead on the basis that
had been outlined by Mr. Farano and Mr. Deitch as a settlement of the matter.
As well, he was concerned about the other parts of the City that were in the
same or perhaps worse condition than Westwinds, for instance, the Lincoln-
Beach Mobilehome Park. On the other hand, there were some very fine mobile-
home parks in the City, and they had been requested by a number of mobilehome
tenants some time back to try and devise some type of protection for them to
insure that those parks in good condition would remain mobilehome parks and
would not be caused to face a conversion. He did not know of any permanen~
way to guarantee that, but it would be a sign of good faith on the part of the
Council and further it would send up a "bright flag" to the mobilehome owners
if the Council were to consider and impose mobilehome zoning on those parks,
thereby insuring that they would not be faced with a continuing rash of con-
versions. He realized that was another whole subject.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council does hereby approve the
Negative Declaration from the ~equirement to prepare an environmental impact
81-1097
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 28, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
report on the basis that there would be no significant individual or cumula-
tive adverse environmental impact due to the approval of this Negative Decla-
ration since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property for
medium density residential land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no
sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the proposal; that the Initial
Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant individual or cum-
ulative adverse environmental impacts; and is, therefore, exempt from the
requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Seymour thereupon offered Resolution No. 81R-356 for adoption,
approving Reclassification No. 80-81-14, and Resolution No. 81R-357 for adop-
tion, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 2121, subject to and approval by the
City Council of a final development plan that would propose a condominium
project not to exceed 104 units with the further conditions that (1) the park
be maintained for a period of 12 months after the zoning has been finalized;
(2) that the 9 tenants Mr. Deitch represents tha~ have single wides be settled
with for a sum of $5,000 each; (3) that the double wide that Mr. Deitch repre-
sents be settled with for a sum not to exceed $7,000; (4) that Ms. Hewitt be
settled with for $7,000; (5) that Mrs. Villa either be relocated to a location
satisfactory to her, or her coach is to be purchased for $3,000 and Westwinds
to assume the balance owed on her coach; (6) that the remaining 4 parties (one
that was not at home, two that were advised by Legal Aid not to sign any
papers, if they should decide to sign, and one that withdrew) be settled with
at $5,000 each, and to pay the attorney's fees for the Westwinds residents to
Mr. Deitch not to exceed $5,000.
Reclassification No. 80-81-14 conditions:
1. That the owner of subject property shall deed to the City of Anaheim a
strip of land 32 feet in width from the centerline of the street along Wilken
Way for street widening purposes.
2. That street lighting facilities along Wilken Way shall be installed as
required by the Office of Utilities General Manager, and in accordance with
specifications on file in the Office of Utilities General Manager; and/or that
a bond, certificate of deposit, letter of credit, or cash, in an amount and
form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim shall be posted with the City to
guarantee the installation of the above-mentioned requirements prior to~occu-
pancy.
3. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and deter-
mined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to commence-
ment of structural framing.
4. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
5. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satis-
factory to the City Engineer.
6. That the owner of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the
appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to be appropriate
by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building permit is
issued. ~
7. T~at an ordinance rezoning the subject property shall in no event become
effective except upon the recordation of Final Tract No. 11305 within the time
specified in Government Code Section 66463.5 or such further time as the
advisory agency or City Council may grant.
81-1098
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 28, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
8. That the owner of subject property shall pay the traffic signal assessment
fee (Ordinance No. 3896) in an amount as determined by the City Council, for
each new dwelling unit prior to the issuance of a building permit.
9 That appropriate water assessment fees as determined by the office of
Utilities General Manager shall be paid to the City of Anaheim prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
10. That the developer shall acquire access rights across the one (1) foot
strip of land at the north property line of subject property before construct-
ing any access to Cliffwood Avenue.
11. That the petitioner shall request, in writing to the Planning Department,
termination of Conditional Use Permit Nos. 37, 765 and 1206.
12. That 15-gallon trees planted on 20-foot centers, with appropriate irriga-
tion facilities, shall be installed and maintained along the east property
line.
13. That the property shall be developed as a residential condominium project
of not to exceed 104 units in accordance with a final development plan to be
approved by the City Council prior to issuance of any building permits.
14. That the property shall continue to be maintained as a mobilehome park
for a period of not less than 12 months following the date of adoption of the
ordinance reclassifying the property to the RM-3000 Zone.
15. That the following relocation assistance shall be provided by the
developer and proof of compliance in a form satisfactory to the City shall be
submitted prior to issuance of any building permits:
a. The nine (9) tenants owning single-wide coaches and represented by
Michael Deitch, Esq., shall be paid the sum of $5,000 each.
b. The tenants owning double-wide coaches and represented by Michael
Deitch, Esq., shall be paid the sum of $7,000 each.
c. Ms. Hewitt (Space 13) shall be paid the sum of $7,000.
d. Mrs. Villa (Space 23) shall either be relocated to a location satis-
factory to her; or her coach purchased for the sum of $3,000 with developer
assuming the balance owed on her coach.
e. The remaining four (4) mobilehome owners shall be paid the sum of
$5,000 each.
f. Developer shall pay to Mr. Deitch the attorney's fees incurred by the
tenants in an amount not to exceed $5,000.
16. Prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject property,
Condition Nos. 1, 2, 7, 10 and 11, above-mentioned, shall be completed.' The
provisions or rights granted by this resolution shall become null and void by
action of the Planning Commission unless said conditions are complied with
within one (1) year from date hereof or such further time as the Planning
Commission may grant.
17. That Condition Nos. 4, 5 and 12, above-mentioned, shall be complied with
prior to final building and zoning inspections.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2121 conditions:
1. That this Conditional Use Permit is granted subject to the completion of
Reclassification No. 80-81-14, now pending, and approval of Tentative Tract
No. 11305.
2. That the property shall ~e developed as a residential condominium project
of not to exceed 104 units in accordance with a final development plan to be
approved by the City Council prior to issuance of any building permits.
81~1099
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 28, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
3. That the property shall continue to be maintained as a mobilehome park for
a period of not less than 12 months following the date of adoption of the
ordinance reclassifying the property to the RM-3000 Zone.
4. That the following relocation assistance shall be provided by the develop-
er and proof of compliance in a form satisfactory to the City shall be submit-
ted prior to issuance of any building permits:
a. The nine (9) tenants owning single-wide coaches and represented by
Michael Deitch, Esq., shall be paid the sum of 55,000 each.
b. The tenants owning double-wide coaches and represented by Michael
Deitch, Esq., shall be paid the sum of 57,000 each.
c. Ms. Newitt (Space 13) shall be paid the sum of 57,000.
d. Mrs. Villa (Space 23) shall either be relocated to a location satis-
factory to her; or her coach purchased for the sum of 53,000 with developer
assuming the balance owed on her coach.
e. The remaining four (4) mobilehome owners shall be paid the sum of
55,000 each.
f. Developer shall pay to Mr. Deitch the attorney's fees incurred by the
tenants in an amount not to exceed 55,000.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-356: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO ZONING SHOULD BE Ab~NDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES
SHOULD BE CHANGED. (80-81-14)
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-357: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING, IN PART, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2121.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated she had heard that there
were two good mobilehome parks waiting in the wings for tonight's resolution
to jump in and convert to condominiums which would then be creating double and
triple the problems that they had now. While she was empathetic and sympathe-
tic to the tenants' concerns, she felt in this case, it was the owner,
Westwinds, who had created the problem by not taking care of the park, whether
the owner before them or as long as they had been there. By wanting to do the
conversion, they had created their own hardship. She saw this as the C.ity
jumping in right after the new condominium ordinance to immediately make an
exception and improve the project on the economic basis of the park owner. As
far as she could ~e, it was going to be a precedent that there would be no
way the City could back off. She looked at it as a way for the City to be
subsidizing the park owner. The more that this would happen, the worse the
problems would compound, because there was simply no space.
Mayor Seymour stated, subject to the approval of the resolutions he offered,
he was also prepared to offer a motion that would call for a General Plan
Amendment that would permanently zone those mobilehome parks in good condition
as mobilehome parks. That would do two things--(1) it said what the Council
felt about its concern for the mobilehome park tenants in the City and (2) it
told those owners that if they looked to Westwinds as some type of example
that they were going to run pellmell into conversion, they were not about to.
81-1lQ0
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 28, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
The next thing he would propose, subject to the resolutions passing, was that
the City had not been aggressive enough in locating an area that they coul~
call a relocation park. Very soon they were going to be confronte~ with the
situation at the Lincoln-Beach Mobilehome Park. They had not planned for that
relocation and were going to have to take some strong action. He was prepared
to do whatever possible to insure (1) that they establish a reasonably sized
relocation park that would handle the tenants from those mobilehome parks
living in a condition that had deteriorated t~ the point where it no longer
made economic sense to improve it; and (2) creating a General Plan Amendment
that would zone the other mobilehome parks as mobilehome parks, rather than
what had been heretofore a temporary type of use. He felt those two actions
were about as far as he knew to go.
Relative to the resolutions, he did not think they could forget that the
tenants were about to be without a place to live and if that happened, they
would be receiving nothing. Because of that concern for those tenants, he
felt it made good sense to grant the density requested at 19.6 units. They
did not have to grant one bit of extra density if they were not trying to take
care of the tenants and the economic problems that they faced.
Councilwoman Kaywood felt that to talk about Lincoln-Beach at the same time
was not fair because that was truly a single unique situation where the park
was built on a dump site. Relative to the proposal from Westwinds where they
talked about 93 units which was the revised plan, 25% was affordable and that
would meet the Code. It would be 76 units to Code, 19 for the bonus, total-
ling 95. When they were predicating their settlement on the 104 units, they
were talking about all non-affordable and that had not been addressed at all.
Mayor Seymour stated that in order to keep the tenants in an affordable condi-
tion, they were waiving the affordable aspects of the project and adding 11
more to it.
Councilman Roth state~ that the Council was interested in the plight of the
tenants, as well as property rights. He felt that the Mayor had proposed a
happy medium, and he would support the resolutions as indicated.
Councilm~n Overholt stated that he had not heard that Messrs. Farano and
Deitch had reached an agreement. He asked if they both understood the condi-
tions attached to the Mayor's resolutions.
Both gentlemen indicated that they did; Councilman Overholt then asked if
those conditions were acceptable to both as far as their clients were concern-
ed.
Mr. Deitch answered that they were acceptable to his clients; Mr. Farano
answered that they were also acceptable to his.
Councilman Overholt asked if h~ (Farano) was going to pay the attorney's fee;
Mr. Fazano stated that he did not plan on it, and although they were not happy
about that aspect, they would pay the fee.
81~1101
Cit~ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Jul~ 28, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Overholt agreed that under the pressures that had been put upon the
attorneys, the tenants and owners that they had come closer tonight, within a
hairline of coming to terms. The density bonus they were being asked to pro-
vide was not such a serious one that they felt they were jeopardizing either
the project or the community, and he would also support the resolutions. He
complimented both attorneys.
Mr. Farano reiterated that they would like to see some kind of flexibility and
perhaps some specific arrangements, acceptable to the Council, between them-
selves and Mr. Deitch as far as notice was concerned for payment under the
plan and the number of persons that would move in one month. They would
request if Council adopted the resolutions that there be some reservations for
he and Mr. Deitch to tender a plan acceptable to all parties as far as notifi-
cation and number of people moving, all of which was calculated to insure that
the mobilehome owners would have the money to pay the people at the time they
moved.
The Mayor stated he had no problem with that, but the spirit of his resolution
was that Westwinds not ask any of those people to physically move out until
the owners put the money in their hand.
Mr. Farano explained that the practice that had been carried on thus far with
over 22 people was the agreement was signed, and at the time the coach was
moved out, they were handed a check the day they moved out; Mayor Seymour
stated that was fine.
Mr. Farano also confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood that they would not move
the remaining tenants around in the park as the numbers decreased, but they
would be left as at present.
Councilman Bay, speaking to staff, stated it was his understanding that the
new RM-3000 ordinance on gross was 14.5 units per acre; Miss Santalahti
answered, 14.3. She took the actual land area divided by 3,000 equalling 14.3.
Councilman Bay stated then when talking about 19.6, it worked out to a 35%
density bonus and under the authority of the R_M-3OOO, a 25% maximum density
bonus was allowed. They were, in effect, within 10% of that maximum in this
case. There was no doubt in his mind that the hardships involved justified
that 10% additional bonus, since they had a number of cases prior to the
settlement of the RM-3000 zoning where they had 55, 60 even some 100% bonuses
that did not necessarily match the present hardship. This was perhaps a more
difficult decision for he and Councilwoman Kaywood, since the other Council
Members had fought for higher density in most of the zoning in the City since
he had been on the Council. However, he did agree with the work and negotia-
tions that had gone on, and without a doubt the City had some past responsi-
bility on how the park got there, the lack of control on it, the way it was
zoned and how it had been handled. This was an exceptional case and he could
go with the resolutions as stated. However, it did not set a precedent for
settling similar problems, because he still wanted to stand on the RM-3000
with a maximum 25% bonus as they had planned.
81-1102
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 28, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated the 25% bonus they had talked about was based on
affordable and she felt it needed to be reiterated in this case; it was
creating the affordable for those people impacted by it. She, too, would go
along with it only on the condition that the General Plan Amendment for per-
manent zoning would take place and that those other mobilehome park owners who
were looking for the decision on tonight's final outcome that there was not
going to be a mass exodus of existing mobilehome parks in the City. She had
reservations and concerns, because she felt that to a very large degree, the
hardship was self-imposed, but she would not want to impose the additional
hardship on the existing tenants who were innocent of any part of it and just
happened to be living in the park.
Mrs. Lorraine Allison, one of the tenants, then asked to speak. She stated
that the $5,000 and $7,000 sounded great, but she wanted to know where they
were going to live. She was one of the 22 tenants who did not agree to settle
because she would have no place to live. She was also concerned over what
would happen to the other senior citizens who would have no place to live or
to move to. They could not afford rents of $300 and up. She emphasized that
their plight was a serious one and they wanted an answer to their dilemma.
Mayor Seymour stated he saw no alternative. Either they made the decision
they were about to make this evening or they would not even see $5,000 or
$7,000. They would just be asked to move their coach. They did not have all
the answers and what they were doing was about the best they knew how to do.
Government could not do everything for everybody.
A roll call vote was then taken on the foregoing resolutions.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 81R-356 and 81R-357 duly passed and adopted.
MOTION: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kayw6od,
staff was directed to prepare a General Plan Amendment to consider the perman-
ent zoning of existing mobilehome parks in the City.
Before a vote was taken, the Mayor stated that they had to try to get a handle
on those mobilehome parks in the City in good condition and the mobilehome
owners must be told loud and clear that there could be no conversion. At the
same time, however, they had to address the mobilehome park that was in the
same condition as Westwinds or Lincoln-Beach. He did not know how staff would
go about that and he appreciated that and was very sensitive to it, but that
would be the spirit. Somehow they also had to address the issue so that they
would not be building false assurances in those parks that were in poor condi-
tion, ~ut yet they were building real assurances in those parks that should
not be converted.
81-1103
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 28, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Seymour then stated that he knew staff had been working very hard in
trying to identify a relocation park in the City and that those efforts had
generated one small potential site for approximately 65 spaces. It was his
personal opinion that that was not going to be sufficient. He thereupon
offered the following motion.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to direct staff to evaluate the Shorb Wells
property and consider it as a possibility for a relocation park. Councilman
Overholt seconded the motion.
After a brief Council discussion relative to the Mayor's proposal, a vote was
taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Miss Santalahti stated that some kind of action should be taken on the
Tentative Tract No. 11305. The developer had indicated that in 6 weeks, he
could come back with a revised plan. They would have to readvertise because
of the increased units. She suggested that they continue that item for 6
weeks.
MOTION: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood,
consideration of Tentative Tract No. 11305 was continued to September 8, 1981,
3:00 p.m. MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjorn to Wednesday, July 29, 1981, at
8:30 a.m., 7th Floor Conference Room of the Anaheim Civic Center, for the pur-
pose of a Closed Session. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED. (9:45 P.M.)
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK