1980/02/0580-10D
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 5~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PxESt,F~:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
DEPUTY CITY MANAGER: James D. Ruth
CITY LIBRARIAN: William J. Griffith
CITY ENGINEER: William G. Devitt
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR PLANNING: Joel Fick
REDEVELOPMENT MANAGER: Susan Shick
ASSOCIATE PLANNER: Jay Tashiro
Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Reverend G. Paul Keller, Melodyland Hotline Center, gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilwoman Miriam Kaywood led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Seymour and
authorized by the City Council:
Handicapped Awareness Week--March 9-15, 1980
119: RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION: A resolution of commendation was unanimously
adopted by the City Council and presented to Rabbi Hershel Brooks and Mr. Sporn
in honor of the Sporn Chapel dedication; further commending Rabbi Brooks and
all members of the Temple Beth Emet for more than two decades of service to
both the religious and secular needs of the community.
119: RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION: A resolution of commendation was unanimously
adopted by the City Council and presented to Mrs. Leadie Clark, Chancellor, North
Orange County Community College District, commending the District for assisting
Anaheim's Manpower Training and Assesment needs and for consistently providing
quality programs for the CETA-eligible residents of the community.
MINUTES: Approval of the minutes was deferred to the next regular meeting.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda, after
reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to waiver is
hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the title, specific
request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such ordinance or resolution
in regular order. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $1,121,925.26, in accordance
with the 1979-80 Budget, were approved.
80-110
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February.5~ 1.9.80~ 1:30 P.M.
129: DONATION TO THE CITY OF SIX SELF-CONTAINED BREATHING APPARATUS UNITS FROM
MONSANTO: Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 80R-47 for adoption, as
recommended in memorandum dated January 28, 1980 from the Fire Department, accep-
ting a gift of six self-contained breathing apparatus units from the Monsanto
Company for use in the Anaheim Fire Department. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-47: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ACCEPTING A GIFT OF SIX SELF-CONTAINED BREATHING APPARATUS FROM THE MONSANTO
COMPANY FOR USE OF THE ANAHEIM FIRE DEPARTMENT.
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. 80R-47 duly passed and adopted.
Mayor Seymour asked that a letter of thanks be sent to the Monsanto Company from
the Council.
129: PRELIMINARY PLANS - FIRE STATION #8: On motion by Councilman Bay, Seconded
by Councilman Roth, the preliminary plans and specifications for Fire Station #8
(Riverdale and Lakeview Avenues) were approved, as recommended in memorandum dated
January 29, 1980 from the Fire Department, and authorizing the architect to proceed
with the design and plan. MOTION CARRIED.
153: CREATING A NEW CLASSIFICATION OF PARK PLANNER: Councilwoman Kaywood offered
Resolution No. 80R-48 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated January 30,
1980 from Human Resources Director Garry McRae, amending Resolution No. 79R-591
creating a new classification of Park Planner and establishing a rate of compensa-
tion therefor. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-48: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 79R-591 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR
CLASSES DESIGNATED AS STAFF AND SUPERVISORY MANAGEMENT.
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. 80R-48 duly passed and adopted.
~: LOS ANGELES RAMS FOOTBALL COMPANY OPERATIONS AGRE~WiENT AMENDMENT: Council-
woman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-49 for adoption, as recommended in memor-
andum dated January 28, 1980 from City Manager William Talley, subject to the
stipulations contained therein. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-49: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AMENDMENTS TO THE LOS ANGELES RAMS FOOT-
BALL COMPANY OPERATIONS AGREEMENT OF DECEMBER 26, 1979.
80-111
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 5, 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL M~MBERS: Overhblt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: 'None
The Mayor declared Resolution No., 80R-49 duly passed and adopted.
123: LEASE OF OFFICE SPACE FOR 1980 CENSUS OPERATIONS: Mr. William Griffith,
Library Director and Census Coordinator for the City, first clarified questions
posed by Councilman Bay relative to the length of the lease time necessary to
complete the census operation.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, a lease agreement
with Magnolia Plaza, Ltd., for the rental of Suites 102 and 104 at 1125 North
Magnolia Avenue, for the 1980 Census Operations, at $1200 per month for nine
months, was authorized, as recommended in memorandum dated January 24, 1980 from
the Census Coordinator. MOTION CARRIED.
106: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, $10,800 was
appropriated from the Council Contingency Fund.$or payments of the Magnolia Plaza,
Ltd. lease agreement. MOTION CARRIED.
'123: ARCHITECTL~RAL SERVICES - GEORGE WASHINGTON SCHOOL: On motion by Councilman
Seymour, seconded by~Councilman Overholt, an agreement was authorized with the
Thirtieth Street Architects in an amount not to exceed $20,283, for architectural
services for the modification of George Washington School, as recommended in
memorandum dated January 28, 1980 from Deputy City Manager James Ruth. MOTION
CARRIED.
150: SANTA ANA CANYON'II PARK SITE PRELIMINARY PLAN: On motion by Councilman
Roth, seconded by Councilman Bay, the preliminary design plan prepared by the
firm of Saito and Sullivan for Santa Aha Canyon Park II, to be located at the
corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Quintana Drive, was approved, as recommended
in memorandum dated January 30, 1980 from the Deputy City Manager. MOTION CARRIED.
123/159: STUDY AND MASTER PLAN FOR MECHANICAL AND STREET MAINTENANCE FACILITIES~
PHASE I: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the
Study and Master Plan for Mechanical and Street Maintenance Facilities was approved,
authorizing Shan~na Enterprises, Inc., to proceed with the design and plan prepar-
ation for the Mechanical Maintenance Facility, as recommended in memorandum
dated January 30, 1980 from City Engineer William Devitt. MOTION CARRIED.
160: PURCHASE OF E9UIPb~NT - FOUR 225KVA AND TWO 150KVA THREE-PHASE-FUSED PADMOUNT
TRANSFORMERS - BID NO. 3607: On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Council-
man Bay, the low bid of McGraw-Edison-Power Systems Division was accepted, and
purchase authorized in the amount of $22,308.76, including tax, as recommended
by the Purchasing Agent in his memorandum dated January 24, 1980. MOTION CARRIED .....
105: RESIGNATION OF SALLY WHITE FROM PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION: On motion
by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the resignation of Mrs.
Sally White from the Parks and Recreation Commission was accepted with regret, with
a letter to be sent commending her for her years of service. MOTION CARRIED.
80-112
~i~y Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 5~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Overholt referred to %etter dated January 30, 1980 from Mrs. White
tendering her resignation from the s~bject Commission. He stated that Mrs.
White served on the Commission fdr five years and he served with her on that
Commission for approximately two to three years. He hoped that she could carry
through on...the Orange County Harbor, Beaches and Parks Commission to which she
had been aPpointed with the same wisdom she brought to the Parks and Recreation
Commission. It was the City's loss and the County's gain.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she had served with Sally White on the Parks and
Recreation Commission for the full five years and she echoed the sentiments
expressed by Councilman Overholt.
Councilman Bay thereupon moved that a resolution of appreciation be drawn for
Mrs. White in lieu of a letter. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
108: REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF AM]JSEMENT DEVICES PERMIT - SUPERCADE~ 252?
WEST LINCOLN: Request by Victor S. Eriksen, attorney for American Game Exchange,
in letter dated February 1, 1980, for reconsideration was submitted.
Mayor Seymour.asked the basis for reconside¥mtiq~ o~ the denial of the appli-
cation at the meeting of January 15, 1980 (see minutes that date).
Councilman Roth stated that the applicant was not present to give his side of
the case and they only heard the testimony of Mr. Hench who opposed the appli-
cation.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Seymour, request for recon-
sideration of an amusement devices permit was approved, to be reconsidered
February 19, 1980. MOTION CARRIED.
167: TRAFFIC SIGNAL - STATE COLLEGE AND WINSTON ROAD: City Manager William
Talley briefed the Council on his report dated February 1, 1980, recommending
that the Council appropriate $96,000 in Program O1-794--New Traffic Signals
for installation of the subject signal, which was requested by the Council on
January 29, 1980.
Councilman Roth moved to approve the installation of a new traffic signal at the
intersection of State College Boulevard and Winston Road appropriating $96,000
from Program O1-794 in the 1979-80 budget to accomplish the installation.
Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay asked if they explored the unappropriated
capital not yet expended in the current budget.
Mayor Seymour stated if the motion carried, the City Manager would go out to bid
on the design and specifications. By the time the signal would be installed, it
would be near the end of the fiscal year; City Engineer William Devitt stated it
would be August.
Mayor Seymour stated that they could look at the uncommitted funds set aside for
capital improvements, and they should do that in the budgetary process. The present
decision would not preclude them from making that decision.
80-113
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - ~ebruary 5~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
City Manager Talley stated that~Councilman Bay was correct, but there were unknowns
at this time which he explained reia,tive to bailout funds, Proposition 4 and Jarvis
II. Rather than reallocate anything at present, he was trying to be as flexible
as possible, while allowing the Council to be able to reallocate their priorities
any way they wished.
A vote was taken on the foregoing' motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Talley then stated, anticipating Council approval of the subject installation,
the Engineering Division proceeded to solicit proposals from four professional
firms for the design of the signal, the results of which were contained in report
dated February 4, 1980 from the City Engineer. The lowest bid was from Weston,
Pringle & Associates at $1,500, with completion of the design to be in 3 weeks.
On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilman Roth, an agreement with Qeston,
Pringle & Associates in the amount of $1,500 for signal design was approved, as
recommended in report dated February 4, 1980 from the City Engineer. MOTION
CARRIED.
105: REbiAR/<S MADE BY REDEVELOPM]ZNT COMMISSIONER MARY DINNDORF: Mayor Seymour
stated at the last Redevelopment Commission.meeting, .Redevelopment Commissioner
Mary Dinndorf made an unfortunate, embarrasing and uncalled for remark relative
to the Jewish community. As much as it may have been a slip of the tongue and
'not intended to be any type of slur, nevertheless it caused some concern in the
Jewish community, resulting in a number of calls on the Mayor's Hotline, as well
as calls received by the Council. After discussing the matter with his colleagues
on the Council, it was important that the City Council go on record apologizing
for the conduct of the Redevelopment Commissioner, and further directing a letter
of censure be sent to Corm~issioner Dinndorf remanding to her that they did not
accept that type of remark relative to any segment of the community in the future.
He wanted that put in the form of a motion and have the Council concur and send
such a letter.
Councilman Roth also asked that Commissioner Dinndorf give a public apology and
that it be added to the motion.
Councilman Overholt seconded the Mayor's motion as stated. If they apologized
for the Commissioner, it was then up to the Commissioner as to whether to take
any further action.
Councilman Bay stated that he would second Councilman Roth's amendment to the
Mayor's motion that they call for a public apology from Mrs. Dinndorf.
Mayor Seymour suggested that they were inflaming a situation that should never
have occurred and the important thing was that a particular segment of the com-
munity realize full well how strongly the City Council felt relative to the
matter. He did not feel it appropriate to direct the Commissioner to do either
one thing or the other. They could take full action and remove Mrs. Dinndorf .....
from office, which he felt would be inappropriate. The motion he made accomplished
the objective, and it was not necessary to take further action. Thus, he was
going to vote against Councilman Roth's amendment.
80-114
City' Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 5~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor thereupon called for'the question on the amendment by Councilman Roth,
seconded by Councilman Bay. Councilmen Overholt and Seymour voted "no" MOTION
CARRIED. ~
The Mayor then called for the question on the main motion as amended. MOTION
CARRIED.
120: GROCERY ITEM PRICING: Mr. Larry Evans, 2600 Ward Terrace #5t, stated that
the conditions in the supermarket regarding unit pricing were so confusing that
something must be done about it. He checked with the Board of Supervisors who
informed him that it was up to the cities as to whether or not stores were going
to eliminate unit pricing. If no ordinance had yet been proposed to keep unit
pricing, it should be done. He had been a buyer for the S. S. Kresge Company
for many years and he understood merchandising. He then gave examples of dif-
ferences in prices he noted in the items he took from the market shelf and the
pricing on the computer check-out, which prices were higher. He stated that
supermarkets had to get authority from the City Council to eliminate item
pricing. He suggested that they be turned down. The Council could force them
to unit price if the population in the City required it.
City Attorney William Hopkins explained that a~ 't~e present time, there was no
State law requiring grocery or department stores to use unit pricing, but it was
possible for a City within its jurisdiction to require that they use a unit
pricing system. It was up to each City Council to take that action.
Councilman Overholt asked if shelf pricing, as opposed to unit pricing, was
adequately displayed and maintained, and safeguards instituted to see to it that
there was accurate pricing, would that not be sufficient?
Mr. Evans answered that he did not think so, and based on his experience in
patronizing Ralphs Market particularly, he did not think they were capable of
being able to do an adequate job. In answer to Councilman Bay's question as
to why he then kept shopping at Ralphs, he answered because it was close and
he could walk to that store (Lincoln and Sunkist), especially considering the
price of gasoline today.
Mr. Sherry Baum, 815 Cataline Avenue, Seal Beach, stated ~he was present today
under a misconception that they were going to consider an item pricing ordinance.
She then referred to the hand-delivered packet submitted to the Council which
they all indicated they received. Some of the questions asked of Mr. Evans
were answered in that material. She thereupon submitted petitions to the Council
containing signatures of a small number of citizens of Anaheim and surrounding
communities favoring clearly marked prices on their consumer commodities. She
then clarified that she was the Director of the Orange County Consumer Coalition,
and she started her work for the purpose of fighting the markets who were removing
prices from cans and packages. They took markets at their word when they said
they were going to save consumers money, and in that respect, they were behind
the markets. However, they still wanted to compare the price at the point of
purchase, otherwise it was necessary to put complete and total trust in the
computer without unit pricing. The cost to consumers of price mmrking was
approximately lc per $4.00 of groceries and 10¢ per $40.00, which figures were
documented. She had not found anyone who would not pay a penny to have the
prices marked.
80-115
Ci.ty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 57 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Roth stated that (1) Ne had difficulty in telling anybody in private
industry what to do and, (2) his wife constantly complained about food prices
and did not like to shop at RalpH~ because of the scanner and, therefore, she
patronized another market. He did not believe in infringement by government on
the free enterprise system.
Mrs. Baum stated that the majority of the people supported item pricing. She
then relayed information contained in a Channel 7 Eyewitness Poll showing those
who favored the elimination of pricing--15%. Those who opposed and who wanted
to keep item pricing: Los Angeles--82%; Riverside-San Bernardino--80%; Orange
County--85%. The right of petition was as important as the right of free
enterprise. She hoped they would consider an ordinance. The cities of Cypress,
Garden Grove and last night Buena Park had passed item pricing ordinances, as
they obviously felt it was in the best interest of the citizens to do so. There
were arguments against it but she believed the voice of the people should be .
heard, since that was the kind of government they had and that was the way they
were proceeding.
Mr. Kenneth Stewart, 4551 Sharon Drive, La Palma, Director of Membership Services
of the Retail Clerks Union comprised of 22,000 members, stated that there were
many reasons for item pricing. The consumer.who was old and had trifocals or
bifocals could not see the shelf pricing if not in the right spot. The consumer
without item pricing was lost, and they were asking the Council to give deep
thought to an ordinance for all of them who would continue to be consumers the
rest of their lives.
Mr. Stewart then answered a line of questioning posed by the Council wherein he
relayed the following information. According to chain store reports, the minimal
amount of time was spent on item pricing. It was done very quickly today and
labor costs had gone down. The advantages offered in retaining the scanner
system revolved around the ordering ability provided, never having items out
of stock, scheduling help more efficiently, and absolute count on all trans-
actions, and the time of day the transaction took place. Seventy-five percent
of the savings were involved in those areas and were of benefit to the consumer.
They were totally in favor of the scanner simultaneous with price marking
because they were compatible. He disagreed that 70% of the cost was labor and
there was no factual evidence of that. P~ny people did not have the ability
to go to other stores. As a consumer, if they could not take a product home
and compare it with the last purchase, how was it possible to know they were
getting a fair deal. They felt it was the Council'~ responsibility to legis-
late in that area. Too much government was bad, but not when it was to the
benefit of the consumer.
Councilman Roth stated that chain food stores were the most competitive of
businesses today. If people stopped shopping at Ralphs and business started
to drop off, they were going to do many things to get those customers back.
Mr. Stewart agreed that competition was the key to.all businesses, and he felt
if Ralphs removed all of their prices, every chain would do likewise.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. Stewart how many jobs would be in jeopardy if
item pricing were eliminated.
80-116
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 5~ I980~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Stewart answered that they did not feel they would lose any jobs one way or
the other. There would be attrition, as well as many other facets, to consider
in the industry. They would als~o probably have more box-boys.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked boo many were present in favor of removing unit
prices; there were approximately five.
Mrs. Patricia Clancy, 303 North Bush, stated that many times an item was marked
unclearly and it did not necessarily mean that it corresponded with the shelf
price and she would call those inequities to the attention of the clerk. Many
items were not now marked such as eggs, milk, baby foods, etc. She felt it was
a great savings not to have each item individually marked because marking was
a labor consuming procedure. One of the advantages of the scanner was inventory.
She suggested that if a person felt strongly about unit pricing, they should bring
a marking pencil with them when shopping.
Dale Neil, 555 South Flower, Los Angeles, speaking on behalf of the Jewel Companies,
a new kind of grocery store, Jewel T Discount Groceries, stated he was present to
suggest that some consumers were finding that the best of all worlds was a discount
grocery, where prices were substantially reduced. That was what Jewel T was all
about. They offered approximately 500 items for sale in comparison to 10,000 in
a typical supermarket. Prices were shelf marked very clearly, and there were lists
of prices available for all consumers. Theirs was a "no frills approach to
grocery retailing. If stores like Jewel T Discount Grocery were required to
item price, their viability would be severely threatened, and he was asking the
Council to reject the request mandating item pricing.
Mr. Richard Jenning$, 403I Denver, Yorba Linda, stated that he worked for Alpha
Beta in Public Affairs and was also speaking on behalf of the Southern California
Grocers. The City Council had a rare opportunity today with one vote on a
single issue wherein they could do three things: (1) Reduce needless and
costly government regulations, (2) Help food retailers cut handling costs, the
single largest cost they faced, and (3) Help grocers introduce efficiencies
that could slow rising food prices and reduce the resulting inflation.
Government intervention now, before anyone had gauged customer reaction was
unwarranted. No consumer would be forced to shop at a store with scanners and
who have stopped item pricing. Wherever the system had been tried, acceptance
had been rapid, with dissatisfaction minimal or non-existent. He emphasized,
customer acceptance was the ultimate test of any innovation. He believed their
industry had a reputation for honesty and integrity. If the full utilization
of scanners worked, it would save their customers and the Council's constituents
money. If not, it would be out of the stores faster than government could pass
legislation. They were dependent on their customers and their stated objective
was to satisfy the customer. He asked that they allow an uninhibited climate
where both the cutomer and retailer could discover what their customers wanted.
He asked that they give scanning a chance in the free marketplace.
Councilman Overho!t stated that he believed the objection was not to scanning,
but to the elimination of unit pricing; Mr. Jennings agreed. He also stated
in answer to Councilman Overholt, that he could not foresee a time when they
would remove shelf prices as well.
80-117
Citx Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 5, 19807 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Martin Baum, 815 Catalina, Seal Beach, first stated that relative to
Jewel T, the savings did not come from the removal of item pricing, but from
the fact that they did not see many products such as milk, the remaining line
of dairy products, meat, etc. There were costs to cash checks, to write out
checks, for bags, coupons could not be used and overall service was cut to an
absolute minimum. The cost to the consumer was negligible relative to item
pricing and that was the real issue--the consumers desire to see the price on
each item. He suggested that the 'Council ask those in the audience who were
in favor of item pricing.
Mayor Seymour stated they would be happy to do that, but Mr. Baum's political
maneuvers were not appreciated. The b~yor thereupon asked for a show of hands
of those in the Chamber audience who wanted to continue with item pricing; there
were approximately 75.
In summation, Mr. Evans stated after seeing all the hands raised, he saw no
reason for the Council to wait to start an ordinance compelling the supermarkets
to price each item individually.
Mayor Seymour stated that they were all in sympathy with the high cost of every-
thing these days, and especially food, and with sensor citizens who were on a fixed
income. In that regard, the emotional plea.~Of !{~S. B~um was difficult to reject.
However, it was also equally clear to him that was the easiest decision to make.
It was also his belief that well meaning intentions and humanistic desires had,
in his opinion, gotten the country into the mess it was in today. He did not know
of anything where there was government regulation where prices had been cut, but
instead the prices increased, and it would be interesting to know how much of the
rise in costs were due to government regulations. Someone had to say stop to
government regulation and allow the system to work things out. Therefore, he
could not support the request for mandating item pricing even though that was
the easiest decision to make.
Councilman Seymour moved to oppose the request to mandate item pricing.
man Roth seconded the motion.
Council-
Councilman Overholt stated that he was going to support the motion on the single
ground that he felt the real ballot box was going to be at the grocery counter.
His wife's vote when shopping would mean much more than his vote today to mandate
some type of regulation. However, he felt the grocery industry had done a poor
job of informing the consumer on the merits of the system. He did feel the
private enterprise system had within itself some means to regulate itself and
that the modifications in that system were for the ultimate benefit of the
consumer. He could see the grocery industry in a great deal of difficulty if
they did not adequately inform the consumer and the public.
Councilwoman Kaywood recalled pre-supermarket days and the transition that
took place which she called a total revolution. As a shopper, she liked to
have pricing on items. She then showed the form of shelf pricing that Ralphs
was going to institute which she felt was far superior to anything they had
up to now. She was torn on both sides of the issue, but she felt that there
needed to be an opportunity for the new system to work and that the grocers
would not continue it if they were faced with resistance. If government con-
tinued to dictate what could or could not be done, that might be detrimental.
80-118
City Hall, ~tnaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 5, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
At this point in time, she would'not vote to have the grocery stores do some-
thing that was more costly. They needed to have a chance and she was supportive
of the motion. ~
Councilman Bay stated that a technical process change was involved and there
had always been resistance to change. To ask government to tell private enter-
prise what to do was a way of eventually making the prices higher and he would
go with the motion.
A vote was taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for 15 minutes. (3:15 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (3:30 P.M.)
107: CHEROKEE MOBILE GARDENS - INCREASE IN SPACE RENTALS: Request by the
Mobile Homeowners Association to address the Council relating to substantial
increases in their space rentals.
Mr. Earl Lane, Regional Director, Golden State Mobile.Homeowners League, Region
No. 5, 760-125, West Lomita Boulevard, Harbor City, stated that he had been re-
quested by several tenants of several different parks in Anaheim to speak in
their behalf for some sort of relief in the high cost of rentals in mobile home
parks and also the demands as to upgrading parks which in some cases could be
unreasonable. Even after the savings brought about by Proposition 13 on
property taxes, the park was trying to raise space rental by $65 a ~onth which
the tenants felt was unreasonable. As well, they were being asked to upgrade
their coaches with Alcan siding which would cost up to $2000 to $2,500 each
and to change their roof line at an additional cost of to $2,000 to $3,000.
He was present to seek relief for the older tenants living on fixed incomes.
They were not asking for rent control per se, but a rent review committee to ask
the Park owners to document and to do what they said their rents were going to.
They did not feel it was fair to promise that things were going to be done and
to subsequently not do them. He suggested a rent review committee to place a
moratorium as of January 1, on any rent increases until such time as the matter
could be resolved. It was vital to put a halt to these particular types of
rentals because of the zero to 1% vacancy factor, and he would be willing to
work in any way he could to be of assistance.
Mrs. Sophie Ertl, Secretary of the Mobile Homeowners Association, Cherokee
Mobile Home Park, 235 South Beach Boulevard, first gave a brief outline as to
how the $65 a month rent increase was arrived at and also reported that the
rental agreement was to remain in effect until January 1981. Exceptions
would be direct passed through costs and cost of living increases. They could
howe'.~er, give a 60-day notice and institute another rent increase. Mrs. Ertl
then submitted a copy of a four-page letter dated November 4, 1979 from Cherokee
Mobile Gardens to the residents (on file in the City Clerk's office). She referred
specifically to page three, paragraph four:
"Inflation for the past two years came to $28.18 per month. This figure minus
Proposition 13 and the allowance from the 1978-79 program come to $23.30.
$23,30 .plus the improvement program costs of $41.97 comes to $65.27 per month."
80-119
City Ha!l~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 5~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
She expressed her concern over t'he $41.97 per month cost for improvements. She
commented further on the savings in taxes the park realized since the passage of
Proposition 13 and also stated w~en they voiced their objections at the meeting
with the owners, they received elusive answers and subsequently received the
four-page "masterpiece". The residents thought that the owners had more respect
for them than was shown in the language used in that letter..
Relative to page three, paragraph seven, regarding upgrading their coaches with
Alcan siding, if the current residents chose not to upgrade in the period of
time given, any new residents would have to complete the program in much less
time, 90 days. That meant they had to upgrade before selling or tell the buyer
he must do so within 90 days, the alternative being to decrease the selling
price $3,000 to $4,000 as a means of compensation.
She continued that they did pay their rent on February 1 to avoid eviction n~.tices,
but refused to sign the rental agreement upon the advice of their attorney as
long as unreasonable demands remained in it. She emphasized something must be
done about rent gouging in mobile home parks, and she requested that the owner,
Mr. Liggett Lancaster be called before the Council to show justification for
his actions, since they were the governing body tha~ could do something about
the situation. They hoped that the demands~wou~d'be 9verturned, especially
.the excessive rental increase. Many of the residents were widows and widowers
who could not afford the increase but there was no place for them to go. They
were making a desperate appeal to the Council and about 300 people were depending
on them in Cherokee Mobile Gardens alone. They were placing the problem in the
Council's hands and anxiously awaited their decision.
Mrs. Ertl then explained for Councilwoman Kay-wood that their last rent increase,
representing 16~i%, was two years ago, amounting to $19.
~r. Brent Swanson, attorney representing Cherokee Mobile Gardens, stated that the
principal part of his practice was representing mobile home owners, and he had
been involved in the rent control issue around the state. What Mr. Lane
characterized as rent review and not rent control was a misnomer because it
was, in facn, rent control. He felt the problems associated with rent control
were apparent to the Council. It discouraged investments, encouraged the use
of property for other uses, encouraged the deterioration of property and had
a detrimental effect on the community as a whole. The upgrading referred to
was something he had worked on with Mr. Lancaster and he assured the Council
he was familiar with the law relative to upgrading and what could be required.
The park's value was of primary importance to the residents and the appearance
very directly affected the value of their homes. It was important to note on
the average in the County over the past number of years, mobile homes had
appreciated at a rate which was a fraction of a percentage under those of
single family residences and it was related to the land on which the mobile homes
were located which was significantly appreciating each year. He then touched
upon the problems associated with rent control, concluding that the economic
statistical data had time and again demonstated that rent control was simply
not appropriate.
With regard to his client's park, the rents at present were on the average of
$125 a month. Prior to February 1, 1980, there was no rent increase for the
preceding two years and traditionally the rents had been kept quite low. The
80-120
Ci.~y Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 5~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
park was now significantly beloQ comparable parks in the area. Because of the
low rental standard, there was no r~serve available necessary to do what needed
to be'done in the way of capital~ improvements in the park, principally the
utility system. The $65 increase which went into effect on February 1, was
made up of two elements--S26 to reflect a necessity of bringing the park to
some economic market level which would begin to compare with other parks. The
remaining $39 was to be contributed to various capital improvements--roofing,
substantial repair or replacement of water and electrical systems and asphalt
work. When initially computed, that figure had been amortized on a five-year
basis, and it was not known what the ultimate financing details would be.
If there was better long term financing available in terms of a rental rate
over an amortization period, those costs would be reflected in a rental rate
reduction. It was communicated to the residents that the rent increase would
be adjusted downward based upon the actual financing costs.
Construction was expected to commence on April 1, 1980 but financing had been
delayed because of the ~ight money situation. It was essential for the well-
being of the park and the people who lived there that the capital improvements
be completed. If they were not done, the park would deteriorate in its appear-
ance and the value the residents now had in their mobile homes would be adversely
affected.
No doubt his client had not done a good Job of communicating with the people.
However, only a small group out ef the total of the park was dissatisfied.
Residents h~d indicated to his client that they were in favor of the program
and understood that it needed to be done. The llth hour approach as evidenced
by those in the Chamber was an indication that there was a strong feeling among
the majority of the residents that the increase was inappropriate and their
concern was to resolve the problem. If it was the desire of the Council, they
would offer the following approach which they felt to be a reasonable solution.
It was possible to phase the capital improvements, the first phase being done
in the next 12 months, costing approximately $202,000, and the second in 1981-82
costing approximately $110,000 using a 10% inflationary factor. There was a
necessity to combine the electrical and water work because the same trenches
could be used for both of those systems which also cause less disruption. If
they could find financing to open a 20-year amortization period at 15%, then
the amortization of phase 1 would work out to approximately $16 a month in
the first phase for the capital improvement program. Taking that approach,
they could reduce the increase to a total of $42, or a $23 reduction. Because
they had not yet commenced construction, they would propose to collect the $26
inflationary factor amount commencing February 1, and it would be $16 for the
capital improvement program would not begin to be collected until approximately
two months from now at the commencement of construction.
They had collected the first $65 increase from the residents effective February 1
and thus $26 from $65 left a balance of $39. They proposed that the $39 be
credited on the March 1980 rent statement so that they would receive the overage
that had been collected. He felt that approach was a very fair one, indicative
of an effort to resolve the problem. There was no doubt that the capital im-
provements would have to be done. Although phasing the program would be some-
what more expensive if inflation continued as expected it would have a less
immediate impact upon the people concerned.
80-121
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MIh~JTES - February 5~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
In closing, Mr. Swanson urged the Council to consider that alternative which
would treat all parties concerned fairly.
Mayor Seymour stated it was important that they clarify what Mr. Swanson had
said. As-he understood, as of February i rents were increased $65 per month per
space and. most residents, if not all, had already paid that increase but refused
to sign the rental agreement. He (Swanson) was suggesting that they reduce the
rental increase relative to the capital expenditure portion to $16 a month to
cover phase I of the capital improvement program and, further, they would not
begin charging that $16 a month until such time as they began construction. As
of February 1, they would initiate what they called an inflationary cost rent
increase of $26 and they would then be crediting $39 on the ~rch rental statement.
Therefore, what the tenants would be faced with rather than a $65 increase, would
be a rental increase of $26 per month as of February 1 and when construction
began on the capital improvement program, a $16 a month increase would take
place. He assumed when they commenced phase II, $110,000, another rent adjust-
ment would be made at that time.
Mr. Swanson clarified that the Mayor was correct in all aspects of his understanding.
Mr. Joe Cleverton, 1616 South Euclid, stated that ~obile home parks were a unique
situation in that they were a monopoply and a captive use. If the residents did
not like what was done to them, they could not do anything about it because they
had no method of retaliation. There was nowhere to go and in many cases many
coaches could not be moved for one reason or another. Nine out of ten of
the residents had more of an investment in the park than the owners themselves,
and it was an unfortunate situation because the residents had to abide by the
rules. He considered it to be tyranny since the coach owners could not discuss
anything at an open meeting because the park managers were present and those
who did speak, were subsequently discriminated against one way or another. The
same was true of his speaking at today's meeting. If word was relayed to his
manager, he could expect a retaliation in kind.
He felt it was necessary for government to place regulations and controls on
the situation because in the case of mobile homeowners, he repeated it was a
captive tenancy and there were approximately 60,000 residents in Orange County
in mobile home parks that needed relief regarding this very serious problem.
They had no money and the burden of expense in trying to present their case
fell entirely on the individual, as well as proof and prosecution. There were
flagrant violations of the Civil Code in his park but he questioned who was
going to prosecute those violations. Relative to rental increases, since they
were a captive group, they could not move because there were no vacancies else-
where. Eventually rents could get so high that the people would have to move
out even if they had to give their coaches away because people would not purchase
the mobile homes. He suggested that a committee be appointed so that proposals
could be developed in a more clear manner.
Mr. John Daly, Golden State Mobile Home League, 211 South Beach Boulevard, and
resident of Pacific Sunset Mobile Home Estates stated he had been a resident of
that park for 12 years and just had a 12% increase. He explained that Buena
Park was taking under advisement a mobile home rent review commission and that
was basically what they wanted--something that would be set up by the Council.
80-t22
City Hall2 Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 57 19807 1:30 P.M.
He referred to the copies of several different ordinances wherein a mobile home
rent review commission had been established in some cities throughout the State
and those were working well. He,questioned if a rent review board was so
terrible, why would the mob£ie4home park owners want a rent initiative, it was
not rent control, but a rent initiative for the mobile homeowners themselves and
they were not protecting the park residents at all with that initiative. He
suggested that they set up a commission of whatever number, representative of
~he mobile home people, the Council and someone who could "care less" in order
to get an unbiased opinion.
Mrs. Ertl stated in answer to Mr. Swanson's remark that most of the people in
the Cherokee Mobile Gardens agreed with the proposal, they had in their associa-
tion which was formed after they received the rent increase to protect themselves,
117 out of i59 potential members who were opposed to the increase and the proposal.
When they moved into the park seven years ago, they paid $85 a month and rents
were increased little by little. Before February 1, they were paying $134 and
as of February 1 they were paying $199. If theirs was a comparable park to
those who paid $200, she failed to see it. Buena Villa was a brand new beau-
tiful park and they were paying $208 a month. Also, their people could not
understand why the residents who had $30,000 to $40,000 invested in some of
their homes had to pay for the improvements.
Mayor Seymour stated that a 50% increase even with capital improvements all at
one time was difficult to absorb for anyone, but she did not respond as to how
they felt about Mr. Swanson's alternative program.
Mrs. Ertl stated that according to that alternative, they would still have to
pay for the park imprpvements whether now at $65 or part of it in April and
part of it two years hence. That was their objection. ~]ey did not mind
paying a rent increase on an inflationary basis, but questioned why they should
be responsible to put in sewer lines.
Mayor Seymour stated that he would be upset to be asked to pay for capital im-
provements all at one time, but for the residents to think that they should not
pay for them at all was not realistic. He questioned who was going to pay for
such improvements.
Mrs. Ertl stated she imagined they were all of the opinion that they would pay
for capital improvements one way or the other. The November 4, 1979 letter did
not state that after the capital improvements were installed at the $41.97 cost
per month that the rent increase would then be decreased accordingly. She also
felt that there should be a rent review board. The City of Westminster and
others had one consisting of members who were park owners, two members who were
park residents and three at large members. That would be so much better than to
have all the people upset and in a state of confusion.~
Councilman Bay asked if she would agree that the hearing today was almost putting
the Council in a position of that rent review board.
Mrs. Ertl stated she did not mean to do that, but she hoped that they would con-
sider it or something that would help them.
80-123
.City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 5, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Discussion then followed between'Mayor Seymour and Mr. Lane relative to the
operation of a rent review commission, the issue of rent control, and what it
would take to build more mobile ~ome parks in the County. Mr. Lane felt that
rent control would not be the answer. Mayor Seymour stated he felt Mr. Lane
would agree if there were reasonable vacancies of 10% to 15% in mobile home
parks, the owners would not be so dictatorial. Mr. Lane also felt that they
should allow people to buy a lot in a residential area and put the mobile home
on.it and not be entrapped by a park, not only in Orange County, but also in
Los Angeles County, because they were having the same problems.
Mr. Swanson again explained the proposal he had made for purposes of clarification.
He also answered questions posed from the audience as follows: they expected the
second phase of capital improvements to start in approximately one year; the $39
would be returned for one month only and before the rent increase to $65 agaiD,
they would have to give a new notice. They anticipated that would not be necessary
for at least 12 months.
Councilman Overholt felt it might be important to recognize the fact that the
residents' base rent was being rai~ed approximately 20% for the two-year period.
The Mayor then concluded taking public testimony and in closing stated, it was
clear that this was a classical illustration of a situation wherein senior
citizens were caught up in the inflationary cost of living, having to face a
tremendous increase in rent. It was also classic because it was a situation
where proper discretion was not used initially to ease the cost of increases
and such actions resulted in rent control in other cities. The counter proposal
made by Mr. Swanson if, in fact, it was a counter proposal, was not unreasonable.
(1) They were asking to raise rents to cover the cost of inflationary rises over
the next two years, and (2) asking to recover some capital improvements over a
20-year life. He was showing good faith by virtue of the fact that the rent
would not be increased on those capital improvements until such time as construc-
tion co~nenced. He felt it was reasonable and fair. In reality, a rent review
process had taken place today and to that degree the residents had been success-
ful. He did not know that the Council should do a great deal relative to whether
or not they still felt it would be unreasonable. The answer to the whole situation
was to increase the supply of mobile home housing and perhaps the Council was going
to have to take a second look at permitting a mobile home on one zoned piece of
land.
RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for i0 minutes. (4:45 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (4:55 P.M.)
161.123: PUBLIC HEARING - SALE OF PROPERTY~ I~SONIC BUILDING ASSOCIATION OF
ANAHEIM: Public hearing was held by the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency/City
Council to consider proposed disposition and development agreement with the
b~sonic Building Association for sale of certain property within Redevelopment
Project Alpha.
Chairman/Mayor Selgnour asked if a representative of the Masonic Building Associ-
ation wished to address the Redevelopment Agency/City Council.
80-124
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 5~ 1980~ !:30 P.M.
Mr. S. F. Roberts, representing~$aid association, indicated their satisfaction
with the proposed disposition and development agreement.
Chairman/Mayor Seymour asked if anyone else wished to address the RedeveloPment
Agency/City Council; there being no response, he declared the joint public
hearing closed.
Mr./Councilman Roth offered Resolution Nos. ARA80-8 and ARA80-9, and further
offered Resolution Nos. 80R-50 and 80R-51 for adoption, approving the proposed
disposition and development agreement and finding no additional Environmental
Impact Reports are required.
Mr./Councilman Bay reported that he failed to see in subject agreement any
wording to insure that a provision of free parking for employees, members and
guests would be carried on to any tenants of the proposed facility so that
there will be no impact on the surrounding neighborhood. He was of the o~inion
that there should be a parking agreement included for all new downtown deVelop-
ments to avoid the problems which could be created by parking charges.
Dan L. Rowland, 1000 W. La Palma Avenue, Architect .for the proposed development,
addressed the Agency/Council noting that although such a parking agreement might
have no impact on the Masonic building now or in the foreseeable future, this
might not be the case for other possible projects in the Redevelopment area,
and such a parking agreement should not be imposed on future projects. He
called attention to other developments in the vicinity having pay parking,
such as the Bank of America building at the southeast corner of Broadway and
Harbor Boulevard, and was of the opinion that if such a parking agree~nent was
to be a standard condition, the same should be imposed on a community-wide basis
and include such facilities as Disneyland.
Redevelopment Manager Susan Shick noted that if too many conditions were imposed,
the City's Redevelopment land could become less desirable; she felt that the
issue could be more feasibly addressed to the City's Redevelopment areas south
of Lincoln Avenue, rather than setting a precedent in the area in question,
where the majority of parking will be for the Masonic Lodge.
In reply to question by Mr./Councilman Bay, Ms. Shick reported that leasing of
a portion of the Civic Center parking structure was involved in the Heil and
Stookey agreement for the Willdan Office Building at the northeast corner of
Broadway and Anaheim Boulevard, approved by the Redevelopment Agency and City
Council July 3, 1979. Although no charges would be made for those using the
parking structure, tenants of the Willdan Building could be charged a use fee
as a condition of ~heir lease.
Mr./Councilman Bay pointed out that when the agreement for the Willdan Building
was approved, it was made very clear that, in order to avoid any additional
parking in the surrounding area, employees and customers could not be charged
for parking. He noted that when the Bank of America commenced charging for
parking in their structure, a parking impact was noted both at the Central
Library and the Police Department in the vicinity. In looking at the overall
development area, he felt guidelines should be established for future parking.
80-125
Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 5~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
Ms. Schick was of the opinion that imposition of a parking co~dition on smaller
developers might be a hardship. She further noted that the development in
question had been actively in progress for approximately one and one-half years.
Mr. Rowland noted that the development in question has reached the disposition
and development agreement stage and the project is fixed; although it is not
anticipated at this time, if future conditions required paid parking, the
developer would return for consideration thereof bv the Redevelopment Agency
and City Council. ~ .
Chairman/~yor Seymour suggested that if the parking restriction issue were to
be considered, studies be made and public hearings held by the Community
Redevelopment Commission and Redevelopment Agency to consider standardizing
the parking requirements in the Redevelopment area.
In reply to question by Mr./Councilman Roth, Redevelopment Manager Susan
Schick stated groundbreaking should take place in the fall of 1980.
Resolution Nos. AFa~-80 and ARA80-9, previously offered by ~r./Councilman
Roth, were restated. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. ARA80-8: A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
MAKING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS NECESSARY FOR THE PROPOSED DISPOSITION AND
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ~NAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND THE
MASONIC BUILDING ASSOCIATION OF ANAHEIM FOR THE SALE A~$ DEVELOPMENT OF
CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY.
RESOLUTION NO. ARAS0-9: A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
MA~KING CERTAIN FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE CONSIDERATION TO BE RECEIVED BY
THE ~AHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PURSU~WT TO A DISPOSITION ~\~ DEVELOPMENT~
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 7~D THE MASONIC BUILDING
ASSOCIATION OF ANAHEIM FOR THE SALE A~D DEVELOPMENT OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY;
APPROVING THE PROPOSED SALE OF SAID REAL PROPERTY AND THE DISPOSITION AND
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PERTAINING THERETO: ~MD AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION ~D
IMPLEMENTATION OF SAID DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
AB SENT:
AGENCY MF~ERS:
AGENCY MEMBERS:
AGENCY MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Se>m~our
None
None
Chairman Seymour declared Resolution Nos. ~RAS0-8 and ~1A80-9 duly passed and
adopted.
City Council Resolution Nos. 80R-50 and 80R-51, previously offered by Council-
man Roth, were restated. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-50: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF A~MAHE!M
MAKING ENVIRONMENTAL FIDNINGS NECESSARY FOR THE PROPOSED DISPOSITION AND DEVELOP-
MENT AGREEMENT BE~fWEEN THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND THE I'h\SONIC BUILDING
ASSOCIATION OF A~NAHEIM FOR THE SALE AND DEVELOPMENT OF THAT CERTAIN RF_A~L PROPERTY
IN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ALPHA.
80-126
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 5~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-51: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CI2~ OF ~A}{EIM
~LAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE CONSIDEraTION TO BE RECEIVED BY
THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PURSUANT TO A DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT
AGREemENT BETWEEN THE ~NAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND THE ~SONIC BUILDING
ASSOCIATION OF ANAHEIM FOR THE SALE AND DEVELOPMENT OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY;
APPROVING THE-PROPOSED SALE OF SAID REAL PROPERTY; CONSENTING TO THE PROVISION
OF CERTAIN PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS BY THE AGENCY; AND APPROVING THE DISPOSITION
~ND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PERTAINING THERETO.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL ML~IBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 80R-50 and 80R-51 duly passed and adopted.
ADJOUR~N-MENT: There being no further business to come before the Anaheim
Redevelopment Agency, Mr. Roth moved to adjourn. Mr. Overholt seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED. (5:22 P.M.)
121: HEARING - CONDemNATION - PROPERTY LOCATED BETWE~EN OWENS DRIVE ~ND THE
NORTH END OF DANIELLE CIRCLE: Finding and determining the public interest
and necessity for acquiring and authorizing condemnation of certain real
property located between Owens Drive and the north end of Danielle Circle
as required for storm drain, sewer and public utility purposes, belonging
to Rolf and HeideMarie Krumes.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak to the subject.
Mr. Rolf Krumes, 5211 Eveningview Road, owner of the property that was being
considered for condemnation, first posted a map on the Chamber wall depicting
his and surrounding property. He stated that he was not very happy with the
concept of the condemnation, but was willing not to oppose it if the City
could show a certain amount of flexibility as to how the condemnation was.
going to proceed. The City requested a 15-foot easement along the southerly
portion of his property. He o~ed the entire piece of property on which
he was planning to build a home for himself, his brother, and a Mr. Ritner.
They had worked out a driveway system to serve all three houses. When he
granted the easement to the City to build a sewer along Owens Drive, at
that time the issue of a sewer along the .southerly portion was not an issue.
His basic concern lay in the fact that the City was asking for a 15-foot
easement not only for the sewer, but also for access. The flexibility that
he would ask the City to show was not to pave the 15-foot easement. As an
alternative, he was recommending that the City utilize the driveway to
service the lower manhole and use the easement that they already'obtained from
Mr. Owens to service the upper manhole as opposed to a 15-foot paved road or
other road right along the edge of his property and denying him the opportunity
to landscape the area. Before all of the grading had taken place, there were
a considerable number of trees that had since been taken out, and it was his
intention to reestablish those trees and also to reestablish the rural atmos-
phere of the area. Further, he had designed a house that would no longer
80-127
City ~a~l, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 5~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
fit on his property as a result'of the width of the easement. He asked that
the City make some modifications on.that width. One of the other things he
would ask, it had always been h£s intent to tie into the ~ens Drive sewer,
the location of which he pointed to on his map (believed to be located on the
southerlyboundary). He did not want to be forced into having to subsidize
the project by tying into the other sewer line located in front of his house.
His second major concern was that Anaheim approched him with an offer to
acquire the property, but he was certain nobody would be willing to sell
that amount of property for the amount of money offered. He was taking issue
with what supposedly a qualified appraiser stated the property was worth.
He felt it would be totally out of line with the current market value. He
reiterated that the City be somewhat flexible as to how they implemented
the condemnation so that they would not destroy the basic concept he had
in the development of his property and to be reasonable relative to compen-
sation. He had no choice but to go along with the condemnation.
Councilman Roth asked who was going to benefit from the sewer to the south.
Mr. Krumes pointed to the houses that he felt would benefit. He intended to
bring dow~ a single line to Owens Drive. His q~ncerq was that th~ easements
for the line were already established, but he would be opening himself up to
a liability not knowing what the cost of hookup to the southerly line would
be. He did not want to hook up to the new sewer line but to the one already
established because he did not want to be assessed for the new line.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if he had engaged an appraiser to come up with an
alternative figure; Mr. Krumes answered no, but he knew of people who had sold
property recently in that area. In this case, they were talking about a
factor of two or three of the assessed valuation of the property. Even a
stressed sale was a factor or two higher than what the City offered.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if he was willing to get his own appraisal to come
up with a different figure; Mr. Krumes stated he was willing to do so.
The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to speak; no one wished to do so.
City Engineer William Devitt stated that some of the issues Mr. Krumes brought
up could be readily resolved and they had a~tempted to negotiate wi~h him for
in excess of a three-year period, but they had not been successful. In terms
of utilization of his driveway, rather than the construction of an access
driveway to that manhole, he saw no problem with that. He was giving some
consideration to the elimination of a manhole and it might well be in the
final design, there would not be a manhole located in that easement.
Relative to the appraisal, inasmuch as they were not able to come to any rea-
sonable negotiating position with Mr. Krumes, they did have an appraisal made
on the property. It was quite comprehensive, performed by Mark Hasker Byer
M.A.I., dated November 5, 1979, and on the basis of his appraisal, they did
make the offer to Mr. Krumes, which was considered unacceptable by him. That
was the reason why they were at the point they were at today.
80-I28
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 5, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
In answer to Council questioning~, Mr. Devitt explained the easement did service
Mr. Owens' property. Included in the staff report was a map indicating Right
of Way 2377B, showing Danietle Circle which served four parcels of land owned
by Mr. Owens. The sewer cam~ out of the Danielle Circle cul-de-sac into
proposed 15-foot easement and then towards Owens Drive with the connections
to the existing sewer. He clarified there would be no problem with Mr. Krumes
hooking up to the Owens Drive sewer line, and they would not object to that.
Inasmuch as they were building a sewer in that easement, it would undoubtedly
be cheaper for him, but if he did not choose to use that, they would not object.
Mr. Devitt stated further that during the two years of negotiations the proposal
that Mr. Krumes just presented, was not discussed insofar as the driveway was
concerned. It was only very recently that he prepared the map presented, and
he had perhaps four or five meetings with Mr. Krumes in the past and had not
previously seen that driveway.
Councilman Bay than stated he wanted to have it clear whether the difference of
opinion in the negotiations was solely on the price for the easement, or whether
all the negotiations on the various ways the sewer could be installed, plus the
access, was part of the issue.
Mr. Devitt answered that there was another issue much more prominent in all
past discussion. Mr. Krumes had been attempting to resolve the arrangement
with Mr. Owens where they would have a secondary outlet to Danielle Circle
and that had been a matter of contention between Mr. Owens and Krumes and
the major factor of discussion over the past several years, and one which
had caused the associated delay. Initially their first thrust was always
to have the developer make the approach to the downstream owner to acquire
that easement, and Mr. Owens had been trying for a number of years to obtain
the easement but unsuccessfully. %hat was the reason the City was involved.
In terms of need, he (Devitt) had expressed a strong opinion that they would
not permit construction or occupanc~ of homes in that area without being
connected to a sanitary sewer. They had problems with septic tanks in the
area very close to the subject property, with which the Council was familiar,
on Timken Drive whose septic tanks were spilling out in do~stream areas and
causing problems. He would require that a sanitary sewer be constructed and
septic tanks not be permitted, if that was his choice.
Councilman Roth asked about the possibility of not needing ~he additional man-
hole. The elimination of that manhole would have a definite effect on the
development of the property if it was not installed.
City Engineer Devitt stated he would make the decision now that he was willing
to eliminate that manhole. Also it would not be their intent to install any
paving but that they would have a clear easement if an emergency would develop.
Mayor Seymour stated if he understood, Mr. Krumes' problems had been solved,
except for the price.
Mr. Krumes answered that it was sounding that way.
80-i29
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 5~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
b~yor Seymour noted a stipulati6n had already been made that there would be no
paving and no manhole and now they ~ere down to the price. He contended there
was do doubt that the installatibn of the line would be of benefit to his (Krumes')
property; Mr. Krumes disagreed that the sewer would be of any benefit to him.
After further discussion, the b~yor stated that Mr. Krumes was then asking for
a condemnation because he was leaving them with no choice.
Mr. Krumes did not feel that the appraisal made was correct and wanted the oppor-
tunity to bring in his own appraisal; the Mayor encouraged such an appraisal.
City Attorney Hopkins stated if Mr. Krumes wished to discuss the matter further
with the City Engineer, that was appropriate, but the action before the Council
was a resolution finding and determining the public interest and necessity for
acquiring and authorizing condemnation, and it required four affirmative votes.
Mayor Seymour explained for Mr. Krumes that the City Attorney was indicating if
he wanted to further negotiate the matter, the condemnation action by the Council
would not preclude him from doing so.
There being no further persons who wished to. speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 80R-52 for adoption, as recommended by
the City Engineer, along with the stipulation that there will be no paving and
one manhole would be deleted as articulated by the City Engineer. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-52: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
FINDING AND DETEP~MINING THE PUBLIC INTEREST ~ND NECESSITY FOR ACQUIRING A~D
AUTHORIZING THE CONDEMNATION OF CERTAIN RLtL PROPERTY.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL M~[BERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The l~ayor declared Resolution No. 80R-52 duly passed and adopted.
134: PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 156 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
To consider an amendment to the Land U~e Element of the General Plan to change
the current Commercial Recreation designation to Medium Density Residential for
approximately 8.2 acres located immediately north of the Santa ~na Freeway on-
ramp from Ball Road and extending north on both sides of Citron Street to Vermont
Aven~,
The City Planning Con~is~ion, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-11, approved
Exhibit "B" (Medium Density) and further recommended that a negative declara-
tion from the requirement to prepare an EIR be approved on the basis that there
would be no significant individual or cumulative environmental impact due to
the approval of the subject General Plan Amendment.
80-130
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 5~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Jay Tashiro, Associate Plan~er, briefed the staff report to the Planning
Commission dated January 14, 198~, indicating that the property owner/City-
initiated General Plan Amendment was to change the current Commercial-Recreation
designation to Medium Densi~y4Residentiai. The property owner-initiated amendment
involved a parcel consisting of 4.4 acres; the City initiated a portion of 3.8
acres.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that Mr. Tashiro stated Exhibit "B" would allow 36
units to the acre and that would be for apartments.
Mr. Tashiro explained that the petitioner indicated they were requesting Medium
Density because they did not comply with Low-Medium which allowed up to 18
dwelling units and instead they were requesting 19.5.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous
of being heard.
Mr. Jim Barisic, owner of the Barisic Company, 18002 Skypark Circle, Irvine,
stated that the project represented a culmination of a number of months of
effort on his part, that of the architect, engineels, City staff and the
Planning Commission, to bring to fruition the conclusion of a new affordable
housing development consisting of 86 condominiums. A number of changes had
been incorporated since the original proposed development, and the present plans
reflected unanimously staff concurrence to insure a quality, reasonable priced
development.
He emphasized that he and his partners had put in writing a guaranteed optimum
sales price for the units of $57,000 for the smaller two bedroom condominiums
and $73,000 for the largest two bedroom, two bath unit. They
had met at great length with the C£ty Attorney and the HouSing Authority to
assure the City they meant what they said. He was before the Council with a
unanimous approval of the Planning Commission. There also had been numerous
phone calls from people asking to be put on the waiting list and calls from
adjacent landowners to the Planning staff saying that the City needed such
development. He could not think of a more appropriate use and hoped that the
Council concurred.
Mr. Barisic then explained for Councilwoman Kaywood that they had 2.7 parking
spaces per dwelling unit; Councilwoman Kaywood stated that one of the problem~
they were having throughout the City was an attempt to sweep the streets,
with no place for many people to park. They went to a requirement of
3.5 parking spaces for the specific reason that there was not enough parking,
and she was concerned if they were going to approve 2.7, what kind of problems
they would be running into in the future.
Mr. Barisic stated that he was concerned about that as well and that point was
brought up early in the project. Subsequently they employed the services of
an environmental consultant to analyze the problem and based upon the findings
enumerated, on a local, state and federal level, it was found that the higher
the density of development, the lower the economic strata occupying and buying
those units. There was a direct correlation between that and the decrease in
the need for additional parking. Further, based upon the research, they ended
up with 12 more parking spaces than what would be needed.
80-131
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 5~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Bay then asked for ciarification of the square footage and also that
there would be at least 18 condominiums at $57,000 and the rest not more than
$73,000. ~
Mr. Barisic answered that the 2-bedroom, 1-bath units would contain 884 square
feet and the larger unit, 1015 square feet. He also confirmed Councilman Bay's
understanding relevant to the price of the units.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if there was anything included to preclude two families
from buying one unit.
Mr. Barisic stated they had not thought too much about that. 2~he whole orientation
and design of the project was for young families. It was family oriented and
designed for families.
Mayor Seymour asked how they were going to keep speculators out.
Mr. Barisic stated that they wanted owner/occupied residents, and they would do
everything possible to eliminate speculators.
Mr. Michael Collins, attorney, explained on-the.i8 lower priced units, the
Planning Commission conditioned its approval on their entering into an agreement
acceptable to the City Attorney's office restricting resale of the units.
Relative to resale, there was a restriction suggested by the Housing Authority
of a five-year duration on the 18 units which they were not opposed to. That
restriction required the Housing Authority to certify that any resale of a unit
within the five-year period be to a low- or moderate-income family. It did
not necessarily mean that the price could not escalate, but that between the
escalation price and the escalation, if any, in the definition of low- and
moderate-income under the Code, there could be no appreciation that. was not
consonant with the cost of living and the rise in the median income level. It
was designed to insure that the super affordable homes remained available to
those people who needed such housing. No speculator was going to buy one of
the smaller units because they could do nothing with it for five years. If
CHFA funding was available, and even the $73,000 figure was affordable housing
under CFHA guidelines for Orange County, then the Housing Authority people agreed
to endorse the request that CHFA make a commitment for the whole project. If
that Occurred, there would be no speculators because they would insist upon owner
occupancy and below market rate financing would be available.
Councilman Roth asked when they intended to close escrow.
Mr. Collins answered that they hoped to start some of the predevelopment and
grading work as soon as next month and to start construction of the units in
June and be closing escrow before the end of the year.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
80-132
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 5~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Bay, seconded by Councilwoman Ka)~ood, the City Council finds that this project
would have no signifi6ant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact
since no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the proposal and ~hat
the initial study submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant or cum-
ulative adverse environmental impact and is, therefore, exempt from the require-
ment to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman' Roth offered Resolution No. 80R-53 approving General Plan Amendment
No. 156, Exhibit "B" as recommended by the Planning Commission and subject to
all conditions and stipulations. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-53: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF A~{EIM
APPROVING AN ~MENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATED AS
AMENDMENT NO. 156, EXHIBIT "B".
Before a vote wam taken, Mayor Seymour stated that staff, the Planning Commission
and Council as well as the developer were truly to be co~ended. It was a project
the Council was going to be able to hold up as an example of government joining
hands with the private sector and providing proper incentives to bring about the
proper construction and delivery of housing~needs. · He again commended the
developer and probably more importantly staf~f, Planning Commission and Council
for having the courage to be flexible. The project could very well become a
prime example of what could be done in a progressive thinking community.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution.
Roll Call Vote:
AY ES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL M~IBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The }~yor declared Resolution No. 80R-53 duly passed and adopted.
CONSENT CALENDAR IT~IS: On motion by Councilwoman Ka~¢ood, seconded by Councilm~n
Overholt, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and
recommendations furnished each Council Member and as li~ted on the Consent
Calendar Agenda:
1. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and re-
ferred to the City's Claims Administrator, and the Application for Leave to
Presen~ Late Claim was denied:
a. Claim submitted by Pamela Barnes for vehicular damages purportedly sustained
as a result of accident caused by City driver in Stater Bros. Market parking lot
at Magnolia Street and Broadway, on or about October 19, 1979.
b. Claim submitted by Peter C. Brown for damages purportedly sustained as a
result of water service turn-off at 442 Paseo Serena in error, on or about
January 7, 1980.
80-133
~i.ty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 5~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
c. Claim submitted by Hagop DeirhenJian for damages purportedly sustained as a
result of power service interruption to claimant's place of business at 1007
North Euclid, on or about December 31, 1979.
d. Claim submitted by Rene F. Guns, Owner, McMahan Tire Service, for damages
purportedly ~ustained as a result of power failure, at place of business at 623
South Anaheim Boulevard, on or about October 23, 1979.
e. Claim submitted by James Houlihan for personal injury damages purportedly
sustained as a result of slip-and-fall accident on sidewalk along Canyon Rim
Road near its southwest corner intersection with Night Hawk Circle, on or
about December 14, 1979.
f. Claim submitted by Rose M. Mirabile, Owner, Pirate Cavern, for damages pur-
portedly sustained as a result of power service interruption to claimant's
place of business at the rear of 1029 North Euclid, on or about December 31, 1979.
g. Claim submitted by Donald L. Priest for damages purportedly sustained as a
result of loss of electricity at 600 Beach Boulevard, Apt. No. 6, caused by
power turn-off in error on or about January 16, 1980.
h. Claim submitted by Roy Tanaka, Tei's Hair Styling' for damages purportedly
sustained as a result of power service interruption to claimant's place of
business at 915 North Euclid, on or about December 31, 1979.
i. Claim submitted by Victoria We~t for personal injury damages purportedly
sustained as a result of accident caused by City driver at 400 East Vermont
Avenue, on or about December 26, 1979.
j. Claim submitted by Taras G. Gorbenko for vehicular damages purportedly
sustained as a result of hole in Magnolia Street north of La Palma Avenue
(west side of street), on or about January 19, 1980.
k. Claim submitted by Janice E. Fowler for personal injury damages purportedly
sustained as a result of hole in bridge over dry bed on 15th fairway of Dad
Miller Golf Course, causing claimant to injure her ankle, on or about November 7,
1979.
1. Claim submitted by Joseph H. Fortunato for vehicular damages purportedly
sustained as a result of accident caused by cement laying in Anaheim Boulevard,
north of Lincoln Avenue, on or about January 15, 1980.
m. Claim submitted by Donald F. Maguire for property damages purportedly sus-
tained as a result of substance leaking from utility pole onto patio at I161 South
Hilda Street, continuing since July 1979.
n. Application for Leave to Prement Late Claim submitted by Morris John
Gennarelli for personal injury damages purportedly sustained as a result of
actions by Anaheim Police during arrest on the Disneyland parking lot, on or
about August 20, 1979.
80-134
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 5~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M..
2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. i40: Anaheim Public Library-~Mo~thly Report for December t979.
b. 105: Anaheim Public Library--Minutes of September 19, 1979.
c. 173: Orange Coast Sightseeing Company--Notice of Application for Fare
Adjustment.
d. 173: Airport Service, Incorporated--Notice of Application for Fare
Adjustment.
e. 119: Resolution adopted by the Board of Trustees of the North Orange County
Community College District in support of the Community College Week, February
i6-23, 1980.
MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 80R-54
and 80R-55, both inclusive, for adoption in accordance with the reports,
recommendations and certifications furnished.each4C~uncil Member and as listed
on the Consent Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book.
i58: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-54: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCI% OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECOP~ATION. (Gordon L.
Hodge; Nick P. Lococo)
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-55: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TErmINATING ALL PROCEEDINGS IN CON~ECTION WITH VARIANCE NO. 3026 ~ND DEC~\RING
RESOLUTION NO. 78R-563 NULL AND VOID.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL M~IBERS:
COUNCIL M~[BERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The P~yor declared Resolution Nos. 80R-54 and 80R-55, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
CITY PLANNING COb~ISSION IT~IS: The following actions taken by the City Planning
Commission at their meeting held January 14, 1980, pertaining to the following
applications, as listed on the Consent Calendar, were submitted for City Council
information.
1. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 79-80-17: Submitted by Anaheim Redevelopment Agency,
for a change in zone from CG to CO, to construct an office building on property
located on the northeast corner of Broadway and Anaheim Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-1, granted
Reclassification No. 79-80-17, and granted a negative declaration status.
80-135
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 5, !980, 1:30 P.M.
2. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 79-80-1'9 AND VARIANCE NO. 3129: Submitted by Chapman
and Orangethorpe Associates, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to CL, to
construct a commercial shopping denter on property located on the northwest
corner of Orangethorpe Avenue and Imperial Highway, with a Code waiver of
maximum structural height.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution Nos. PC80-2 and 3, granted
Reclassification No. 79-80-19 and Variance No. 3129, and granted a negative
declaration status.
3. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 79-80-21, VARIANCE NO. 3125, EIR NO. 228, (TENTATIVE
TRACT NO..10956): Submitted by W. F. Realty Corporation, for a change in zone
from CG to RM-3000, to establish a l-lot, 142-unit condominium subdivision on
property located on the south side of Wilken Way, east of Harbor Boulevard,
with Code waiver of minimum building site area per dwelling unit.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution Nos. PC80-9 and 10, granted
Reclassification No. 79-80-21 and Variance No. 3125, and certified EIR No. 228.
Councilwoman Kaywood expressed her concern over denpity and that the Code
required a 3,000-square foot minimum, and the applicaot requested 2,343 which
was quite a change. She was also concerned with the price of the townhomes
of between $80,000 and $120,000, the latter being quite high.
4. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 79-80-22 ~ND VARI~YCE NO. 3127: Submitted by T. Keith
Pocock and City of Anaheim, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to ~M-3000, to
construct a l-lot, 86-unit condominium complex on property located at the southerly
terminus of Citron Street, south of Vermont Avenue, with various Code waivers.
The City Planning Comanission, pursuant to Resolution Nos. PC80-12 and 13, granted
Reclassification No. 79-80-22, and granted a negative declaration status.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted this was the item previously discussed under General
Plan Amendment No. 156 and instead of the required 3,000 square feet, it was 1794
square feet. It was only a short time ago that they went from 4,000 to 3,000
square feet and in this case they were cutting the square footage almost in
half. She was concerned about that situation and did not want those items
to slip by the Council. The GPA Just approved was something that was necessary
as long as it did not occur all over the City. She wanted to be certain that
they would review all such cases. According to the figure they had, the
density was 24 to the acre net. She asked to have the difference between 19.5
and 24 explained.
Miss San~alahti stated that she did not have a reason for the difference. Zoning's
interpretation of density was based on net and they subtracted all streets and alleys
in a project.
Councilwoman Kaywood then asked if in that case 19.5 and 24 were one and the
same.
Mr. Joel Fick, Assistant Director for Planning, stated that bliss Santalahti
was correct. The i9.5 figure reflected the gross acreage which was addressed
by the General Plan, whereas the opposite figure reflected the net acreage.
80-136
City.. Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINU%ES - February 5, 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated if they were going into 24 with a shortage of park-
ing, she would be watching the situation very closely.
5. V.kRI~NCE NO. 3113 (TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10989): Submitted by Paul Chiavatti,
et al, to convert an existing 60-unit apartment complex into a l-lot, 60-unit
condominium subdivision on RM-1200 zoned property bounded on the north by
Brownwood Avenue, on the south by Catalina Avenue, on the east by Aladdin
Street and on the west by Valley Street, with various Code waivers.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-4, granted
Variance No. 3113, and granted a negative declaration status.
Councilwoman Kaywood first asked if the 19.4 density was net or gross.
Miss Santalahti answered that it was net and it specifically excluded streets~.
Councilwoman Kaywood continued that it was a conversion into condominiums and
her feeling was that, as expressed many times, they were not building as many
new apartments necessary to meet the needs of the City and thus she had a
problem in having the old apartments that had not been maintained turned into
condominiums. She had driven out to that area and ~he asked if approval of
the project would ultimately mean the other thr~'e sections were going to become
condominiums.
Miss Santalahti explained this differed from the project that was considered
under the General Plan. In converting, they were going to be required to submit
guidelines to the Housing Department, setting aside a certain number of units
as rentals.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that when she drove by the area today, the streets
were lined with curb to curb parking. There were just too manX cars and she
did not know how the streets could be swept. She was concerned about that
project and would have to abstain. She noted they had three similar projects
on one agenda and if they slipped through that way, they would be creating a
precedent whether they liked it or not.
Mayor Seymour stated that Councilwoman Kaywood would have to either set the
matter for a public hearing or abstain; Councilman Bay suggested that in
essence Councilwoman Kaywood had recorded her opinion.
Miss Santalahti confirmed that the project would have to go on the market in
the manner in which they had agreed. If not, they would have to go back to
the Planning Commission to amend the condition~ of approval.
6. VARI.iNCE NO. 3126: Submitted by Euclid Shopping Center, to erect a free-
standing sign on CL zoned property located at 1620 West Katella Avenue (Adam
and Eve Health Club), with a Code waiver of maximum area of free-standing sign.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-5, granted in
part, Variance No. 3126, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical
exemption determination.
80-J '.',.7
City Ha!l~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL .MINUTES - February 5, 1980, 1:30 P.?!.
7. VARIANCE NO. 3128: Submitted b~ Paul T. and l.lonica F. t~agata, co conscrucu
a room addition on RS-5000(SC) zoned property located at 289 Paseo Rio Blanco,
with a Code waiver of maximum lo~ coverage.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution 2;o. PC80-8, granted Varf.mce
No. 3128, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination.
8. COIJD!TIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2037: Submitted by Dunn Properties Corporation,
to permit an automobile body shop on 2.IL zoned property located an !895 Sounh
Santa Cruz Street.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-7, granted Condi-
tional Use Permit No. 2037, and granted a negative declaration status.
9. CONDITIONAL USE PE~IT NO. 2048: Submitted by Maurice Pinto, to permit
cocktail lounge on CL zoned property located south and east of the southeast
corner of Vermont Avenue and Harbor Boulevard, with certain Code waivers.
The City Planning Commission granted a negative declaration status, and abe
petitioner withdrew Conditional Uae Permit No. 2048.
!0. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2053: Submitted by Joyce Forest, to permi~ 2n
au~omobiie service station on CL zoned property located at 230!) West Lincoln
Avenue.
The City Planning Comanission, pursuant :o Resolution No. PC80-O, granted Condi-
tional Use Permit No. 2053, and granted a negative,declaration status.
11. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 78-79-14 AND VARI.~CE NO. 3054 - F:,iTE~YSION OF TIME:
Submitted by Alvin F. Siewert, requesting a retroactive extension of ti~te to
Reclassification No. 78-79-14 and Variance No. 3054, to establish a 70-uniz
apartment complex on proposed ~4-1200 zoned property located at 1803 South
>[inth Street, with certain Code waivers.
The City Planning Commission approved an excens!on of cime co Reclassification
No. 78-79-14 and Variance No. 3054, to expire October 23, i980.
!2. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 78-79-25 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERP-[IT NO. 1935
OF TI~: Submitted by Anaheim Hill~, Inc., requesting an extension of time to
Reclassification No.-78-79-25 and Conditional U~e Permit No. 1935, to establish
a 27-1ot, 25-unit planned unit development on proposed RS-HS-10,000(SC) zoned
property located east of Imperial Highway and south of ~:oh! Ranch Road, with
certain Code waivers.
The City Planning Commission approved an exnension of time to Reclassification
No. 78-79-25 and Conditional Use Permit No. 1935, :o expire January 29, 198]0
13. CONDITIONAL USE P~RHIT ~O. i359 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Leo
Freedman, requesting a retroactive extension of time to Conditional Ume Permi~
No. 1359, to establish a ten-story hotel tower on C-R zoned property located
at 1700 South Harbor Boulevard, with a Code waiver of minimum number of parking
spaces.
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 5, 19807 1:30
The City Planning Commission approvgd an extension of time to Conditional Use
Permit No. 1359, to expire December'27, 1980.
!4. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 79-80-18 - RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. PC79-227: Submitted
by the Planning Commission Secretary, requesting that Resolution No. PC79-227 be
rescinded to correct clerical errors, and adopt a new resolution granting
Reclassification No. 79-80-i8, a change in zone from Orange County Zone A-1 to
RS-A-43,000 on property located east of the northeast and southeast corners of
Orchard Drive and Lakeview Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-14, rescinded
Resolution No. PC79-227 and granted Reclassification No. 79-80-!8.
15. VARI.~NCE NO. 3123 - AMENDING PC79-232: Submitted by the Planning Commission
Secretary, requesting amendment to Planning Commission Resolution No. PC79-2~2,
to correct a typographical error in connection wi~h Variance No. 3123, to permit
a chain link fence interwoven with aluminum ~la~s for required enclosure of an
outdoor use on property located on the north side of Miraloma Avenue, west of
Red Gum Street.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Rm.solut. i~n No. PC80-t5, a~:.cnded Resolution
No. PC79-232, nunc pro nunc, in connection with Variance No. 2123.
No action was taken by the Council on the foregoing items, therefore the actions of
the City Planning Corar. ission became final.
142/149: OR.Oi,]~ICm NO. 4098: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance l.:o. 40~8 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINanCE NO. 4098: ~ ORDINANCE OF 2~E CiTY OF AN~IEIM ~=~fENDI]~G 'fITLE 14,
CHAPTER 14.32, SECTION 14.32.190 OF ~{E ~NAHEIM ~NICIPAL CODE BY ~DDII~G THERETO
SUBSECTION .1080 RELATING TO PAILKING RESTRICTIONS. (no parking on both sides of
Blue Gum, from North City Limits to La Palms Avenue)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL I{~IBERS:
COUNCIL M~IBERS:
COUNCIL M~MBERS:
Overholt, Ka)-wood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4098 duly pa~sed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 4099: Councilwoman Kat~ood offered Ordinance No. 4099 for adoption.
Refer ~o Ordinance Book.
ORDiNA~NCE ~,0 4099: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ~CLtHEI..~ AP~a~D~,o TITLE 18 OF
THE D~NA2{EIb[ MUNICIP~L CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (72-73-46(2), CO)
80-~9
~ity Rally, An~eim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES- February 5~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4099 duly passed and adopted.
148: LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES FIRST ANNUAL DIVISION CONFERENCE: Councilwoman
Kaywood reported on her attendance at the League of California Cities First
Annual Division Conference, Saturday, February 2, 1980, where the main topic
of discussion was the formation of the Orange County Subregional Planning
Council. If passed at the February 14, 1980 League meeting, elections would be
held immediately for representatives to that Council. She suggested that those
not familiar with the proposal acquaint themselves with it before next week. It
was going to be much like the AHFP with the County, and funding would be a part
of it. Therefore, it was a matter of prestige for cities and staff to be involved.
She was recommending that someone from Anaheim be on the committee and although
time-consuming, it would be very important.
Mayor Seymour then asked relative to Councilwoman Kaywood's recommendation that
they consider a potential appointee from the Council to serve on that committee
to be discussed in one week.
Councilwoman Kaywood then stated that relative to the City Selection Committee,
the mayors would be voting on that item right after the regular meeting, and one
item would be to appoint a representative to the South Coast Regional Coastal
Commission. There was a letter from Mayor Rick Erickson of Garden Grove who
was resigning from the Commission as of April 14, 1980, and he recommended his
alternate, Councilwoman Jackie Heather of Newport Beach to be the 4elegate.
RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: Councilman Roth moved to recess into Executive Session.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (6:38 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (7:07 P.M.)
112: SOON DISTRIBUTORS VS. CITY OF ANAHEIM: On motion by Councilman Seymour,
seconded by Councilman Roth, payment was authorized of an additional $2,000 to
Arbitrator, George E. Marshall, Jr. for Hearing Officer services in connection
with the claim of Soon Distributors vs. City of Anaheim concerning impounding
of newsracks pursuant to Anaheim Code Section 4.82.100. MOTION CARRIED.
112: MENDOZA VS CITY OF ANAHEIM, ET AL: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded
by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Attorney and Veatch, Snow, Carlson, Quimby and
Gunsaulus were authorized to settle Orange County Superior Court Case No. 27-48-32
(Mendoza vs. City of Anaheim,.et al) and Orange County Superior Court Case No.
27-59-36 (Carrasco vs. City of Anaheim) for a sum not to exceed $5,000. MOTION
CARRIED.
80-140
City Hal!, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 5~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
112: MERCER VS. CITY OF ANAHEIM~ ET AL: On motion by Councilman Seymour, secondeu
by Councilman Overholt, the City Attorney and Kinkle, Rodiger and Spriggs were
authorized to settle Orange County Superior Court Case No. 27-95-15 (Mercer vs.
City of Anaheim, et al) for an amount not to exceed $12,500.00. MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Overholt moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 7:09 P.M.