1980/10/1480-1314
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 14, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: William T. Hopkins
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Norm Priest
CITY ENGINEER: William G. Devitt
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ron Thompson
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
HOUSING MANAGER: Lisa Stipkovich
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING ASSISTANT: Shirley Meredith
Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Dr. Frank M. Henderson, Grace Lutheran Church, gave the Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Ben Bay led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
119: LETTER OF SUPPORT: A letter of support was presented to Mr. John Osborne,
Orange County Chapter, President of the United Nations Association of the U.S.A.,
acknowledging United Nations Day in Anaheim, October 24, 1980.
119: RESOLUTIONS OF COMMENDATION: Resolutions of commendation were unanimously
adopted by the City Council and presented to Robert Beltran, Julio Cabrera and
James Buddemeier for their heroic actions in saving the lives of two Anaheim
citizens on Saturday, September 13, 1980, where by their cooperative efforts,
they managed to rescue the couple from their burning home. In the opinion of
responding fire fighters and Chief Bob Simpson, the actions by Robert, Julio
and James, "without a doubt saved the lives of two Anaheim citizens".
119: RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A resolution of congratulations was unan-
imously adopted by the City Council to be presented at a later date to Monsignor
Nash, the priests, sisters, and parishioners of St. Anthony Claret Church, upon
their 25th anniversary of their location in Anaheim.
MINUTES: Councilman Roth moved to approve the minutes of September 23, 1980,
subject to typographical corrections. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda, after
reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to waiver is
hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the title, specific
request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such ordinance or resolution
in regular order. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
80-1315
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 14, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $8,643,555.84, in accordance
with the 1980-81 Budget, were approved.
RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess into Executive
Session. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (1:50 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (2:08 P.M.)
123/177: SELECTION OF CITY CALIFORNIA HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY (CHFA) LENDERS
AND ALLOCATION OF CHFA FUNDS: Councilman Overholt moved to approve the selec-
tion of lenders and allocating City California Housing Finance Agency funds in
the amount of $1,000,000 for its Home Ownership-Home Improvement Program for
1980-81 and authorizing a Lender Allocation Assignment Agreement therefor, as
recommended in memorandum dated October 6, 1980 from Executive Director of
Community Development Norm Priest. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Roth stated he was going to abstain from
voting on the subject item.
Mayor Seymour then asked the City Attorney relative to Councilman Roth's
abstention, if he too should abstain. He did not see this item the same as
the Marks-Foran issue. He understood this would be for people who now own
their own home and who make improvements to their property and not for those
purchasing.
City Attorney William Hopkins stated that if this would in any way result in
his possibly having a gain in a financial status because of the loan program,
he would recommend abstaining.
The Mayor stated, with an abundance of caution, he would abstain; Councilman
Roth clarified that was also his reason for doing so.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilmen Roth and Seymour
abstained. MOTION CARRIED.
160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - TWO, SIX-YARD VACUUM STREET SWEEPERS - BID NO.
3693: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the
low bid of Public Works, Inc., was accepted and purchase authorized in the
amount of $118,296, as recommended by the Purchasing Agent in his memorandum
dated October 7, 1980. MOTION CARRIED.
160: PURCHASE OF RADIO EQUIPMENT AND ACCESSORIES FOR USE BY POLICE DEPARTMENT:
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the Purchasing
Agent was authorized to issue a purchase order to Motorola, Inc., in the amount
of $61,983.50, for radio equipment and accessories to be used by the Police
Department, as recommended in memorandum dated October 7, 1980 from the Pur-
chasing Agent. MOTION CARRIED.
153: EFFECTIVE DATE OF RESOLUTIONS COVERING WAGES~ HOURS AND WORKING CONDITIONS:
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-459 for adoption, as recommended
in memorandum dated October 8, 1980 from Human Resources Director Garry McRae,
concurring that resolutions covering employees, wages, hours and conditions of
employment adopted prior to November 6, 1980, shall be effective October 10, 1980.
Refer to Resolution Book.
80-1316
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 14, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-459: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
PERTAINING TOT HE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF MMPLOYMENT OF
CERTAIN EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-459 duly passed and adopted.
174/150: ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT AWARD FOR ORANGE COUNTY REVENUE SHARING FUNDS FOR
JOHN MARHSALL PARK: Councilman Bay moved to authorize an agreement with the
County to accept a grant award in the amount of $55,000 from Orange County Revenue
Sharing Funds for development of John Marshall Park and authorizing the City
Manager to execute same; and further, appropriating said funds to Account No.
16-812-7103, as recommended in memorandum dated October 7, 1980 from Deputy
City Manager James Ruth. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
150: AWARD OF CONTRACT - JOHN MARSHALL PARK DEVELOPMENT: Account No. 16-812-
7103. Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 80R-460 for adoption, awarding a
contract as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated October 6,
1980. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-460: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST
RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS
AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND
WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: JOHN MARSHALL PARK DEVELOPMENT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
ACCOUNT NO. 16-812-7103. (Goodman & Peloquin, Inc., $342,505.12)
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-460 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Bay congratulated Mr. Ruth and his operation in their efforts to
piecemeal the money together so that the park could be completed.
169: AWARD OF CONTRACT - DALE AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENT: Account No. 13-792-
6325-E2630. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-461 for adoption,
awarding a contract, as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum
dated October 3, 1980. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-461: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST
RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS
AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND
80-1317
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 14~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: DALE STREET IMPROVEMENT, 380' S/O TO 900' S/O CRESCENT
AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 13-792-6325-E2630. (Coxco Associates,
$10,840)
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-461 duly passed and adopted.
158: CONVEYANCE OF A ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A
PORTION OF WEIR CANYON ROAD: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-462
for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated October 14, 1980 from the City
Engineer, authorizing an agreement with the City of Yorba Linda for conveyance
of a road and public utility easement to said City for the construction of a
portion of Weir Canyon Raod within the City-owned Shorb-Wells property located
south of Esperanza Road and east of Imperial Highway, and authorizing execution
of an easement deed therefor. Refer to Resolution Book
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-462: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT FOR CONVEYANCE OF EASEMENTS
TO THE CITY OF YORBA LINDA.
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-462 duly passed and adopted.
123/170: ASSIGNMENT OF SPECIAL WATER FACILITIES REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT, %RACT
NO. 8464: Councilman Roth moved to authorize the assignment of Johnson, Levine
and Company's interest in the May 24, 1977 Special Water Facilities Reimburse-
ment Agreement relating to Tract No. 8464, to Alfred Kuhn, as recommended in
memorandum dated October 2, 1980 from the Public Utilities General Manager Gordon
Hoyt. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
153: EMPLOYEE GROUP LIFE INSURANCE PROGRAM: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
accept the proposal of Equitable Life Assurance Society and Massachusetts
Indemnity to provide group life and medical plan excess insurance coverages,
effective January 1, 1981, and directing the Human Resources Director to pre-
pare the required insurance application and documents therefor, as recommended
in memorandum dated October 8, 1980 from the Human Resources Directr. Council-
manf Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
160: PURCHASE OF GILSONITE EMULSION: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded
by Councilman Bay, the Purchasing Agent was authorized to issue a purchase
order to Burris Oil and Chemical Company without competitive bids in an
amount not to exceed $25,000, for the purchase of 20,000 gallons of Gilsonite
emulsion (GSSIH), as recommended and discussed in memorandum dated October 10,
1980 from the Purchasing Agent. MOTION CARRIED.
80-1318
City Hall, Aqaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 14~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
153: IMPLEMENTATION OF MEDIATOR'S FINDING - UNIT DETERMINATION: City Manager
William Talley briefed the Council on memorandum dated October 9, 1980 from
the Human Resources Director which explained that the following job classifi-
cations were created by City Council action on May 13, 1980 and were assigned
to the Utilities Employees Unit represented by the International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers (IBEW), Local 47: Facility & Event Electrician, Facility
Air Conditioning Repairer, Lead Facility and Event Electrician, and Lead
Facility Air Conditioning Repairer. The Anaheim Municipal Employees Association
(AMEA) contested the assignment of the four new job classifications to the
Utilities Employees Unit and requested mediation of the dispute.
A meeting was held on October 9, 1980 wherein mediator, Tom McCarthy of the
California Department of Industrial Relations, found that the four c!assifica-
tions shall be assigned to the General City Employees Unit represented by the
AMEA. As a result of that meeting, before the Council was the finding of the
mediator which was accepted by the City Management Representative and represen-
tatives from IBEW and AMEA. He was, therefore, introducing a proposed resolu-
tion that the City rescind Resolution No. 80R-210 and amend Resolution No.77R-703
which established rates of compensation for job classifications represented by
the AMEA, General City Employees Unit. He pointed out, however, that under date
of October 14, 1980, they received a communication from Mr. Dallas Lore, Business
Manager, IBEW, Local 47, who was also a signatory to the October 9th agreement,
rescinding his decision to accept the decision made by the mediator and re-
questing that the Council not act on the matter at this time. He stated in
his letter that the mediator would not have rendered the decision previously
agreed upon without 100% acceptance of those signing. He had been advised that
Mr. Don Miller and Mr. Jack Murray of Local 47 were present today and Mr. O'Malley,
AMEA representative, was also present in the Chamber audience.
Mr. Don Miller, 1669 Camrose Way, first submitted documents to the Council
signed by all the employees involved in the subject action expressing their
disfavor with the transfer and wishing to express their desire to voice their
right to choose whom they wanted to represent them, the IBEW or AMEA. On May 13,
1980 the Council passed a resolution combining the Stadium and Convention Center
electricians with the electricians who were assigned to the Valley Yard, making
one group, Facility and Event Electricians. He noted the semantics in changing
the name from Stadium and Convention Center to Facility and Event Electricians.
Prior to that time, they were assigned to Tom Liegler's Department, the Stadium,
Convention Center and Golf Division, and they worked for him. About the first
of the year, the City opted with a reorganization to assign them to the Public
Works Department and remove them from the Stadium~ Convention Center, and Golf
Division, but they would still report to the two facilities and be supervised by
Mr. John Roche. At that time, it was again explained that there would be no loss
of identity, malice toward them, or anything of that ~ort. gubsequantly on
May 9, their name was changed, they were combined, and they were again told
they should not be alarmed or worried. Now they found out that they were
going to be reassigned to the Anaheim Municipal Employees Association which,
as far as dollars, cents, and wages was concerned, those had not been concur-
rent relative to IBEW wages. They were actually playing with their pocketbooks
and people's livelihoods were being affected by moving them from pillar to post
without any say by the individuals themselves. They had not been asked if they
concurred. They wanted to be represented by the IBEW since they had been members
for 13 years as Stadium and Convention Center Electricians. They had served
80-1319
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 14, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
the City in that capacity and contributed throughout those years at the Stadium
and Convention Center with regard to improvements, etc. They were certain
everybody would substantiate that as far as the Departments they had worked
for. He felt now that the City was doing them an injustice by changing their
alliance with IBEW to the AMEA.
Mr. Jack Murray, Associate Steward at the Convention Center, 27 West Jay Loop,
Irvine, stated there was not much more that he could add without reiterating
the facts just presented. However, they felt it was a bad travesty, for lack
of a better phrase, of human rights or infringing on dignity to be bandied back
and forth with little or no regard as to their feelings in the matter. He
realized the City was acting as management and they were acting as the employees,
but it seemed that there should be more consideration for the dignity of the
people involved in the transaction. It was not of their seeking and it was
more or less an action to benefit the City. They thought they were complying
in good faith to the development or management of a central work force that
would best utilize the manpower available to handle not only the Stadium and
Convention Center, but also the City general facilities as well.
They did have a representative of IBEW present who may or may not wish to address
the Council in regard to the statement submitted by Dallas Lore as to his res-
cinding the signature of understanding. He (Murray) happened to be at the
meeting where Mr. Lore made the statement verbally that he was signing the
statement issued by the mediator as a symbol that he understood the decision,
not necessarily that he agreed with it. He did not know if the Council would
allow the various Union and Association representatives that were concerned to
speak on the matter at this time.
Mayor Seymour stated that they would be happy to hear from the IBEW representa-
tive, but he first had questions of Mr. Murray. He (Murray) indicated he was
present at the time the mediator met with Mr. Lore and representatives of the
AMEA, as well as City management. The finding of the mediator that was signed
by Mr. Lore clearly indicated that there was concurrence with the finding of
the mediator. The last sentence of the findings stated, "These job classifi-
cations shall be assigned to the General Employees Unit of representation,"
followed by signature lines starting with the word, "accepted, and signed by
Dallas R. Lore", as accepting the mediator's findings.
Mr. Murray stated he could not deny that. However, at the time, it was explained
to him that the mediator was more or less a cut and dried procedure and that the
meeting would not be open to histrionics or emotional outbursts, and it was con-
cluded in a very gentlemanly way in that both sides shook hands, but that "come
out fighting" would be later. He could only repeat at the time, Mr. Lore did
make the verbal reservation that he was not necessarily in concurrence. He
(Murray) was there purely as a second voice and although he did not concur, he
had no say in the meeting. That, primarily, was the whole point--they had no
say at all in the matter.
Councilman Bay surmised this was simply a matter of rank and file opinion vs.
the officials of the unions opinion; Mr. Murray answered "no", not necessarily
in view of the representatives withdrawal. Apparently he had the right to do
so although he did not know all the ramifications. Certainly it was an expression
80-1320
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 14, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
of the rank and file that they did not wish to transfer from the IBEW to the AMEA.
They had been associated wSth the IBEW since their inception in the unit. There
were other things that entered into it. He understood the original agreement
between the City and Orange County Labor Council at the inception of the Stadium
and Convention Center group was that there would be unit personnel employed on
the premises. Mr. Miller was in on that original organization of the unit,
whereas he (Murray) came in about four months later.
Mr. David McMillan, business representative, Local Union 47, IBEW--AFL-CIO, 12401
Pellisier Road, Whittier, stated that last week when Dallas Lore signed the findings
of the meeting, he made it plain that they did not agree, and they were pursuing
it, if they could, through the arbitration procedure and that was what they
wished to do at this time. They had no idea at the time it would be made a
resolution immediately. He reiterated, they made it very clear that they did
not agree and they were asking the Council to postpone their decision so that
they could go through the arbitration procedure on the issue.
Mayor Seymour then recognized Mr. O'Malley of the AMEA.
Mr. John O'Malley, staff representative, Anaheim Municipal Employees Association,
stated with respect to whether or not Mr. Lore signed the document with reserva-
tions, in those terms, the document spoke for itself. There was no coercion and
no pressure. It was not signed asking, did they agree with the decision that had
come about, yes or no, but it was signed after they knew what the decision was.
He contended they signed it for one reason only, it was an appropriate bargaining
unit, whereas it was inappropriate as it had been passed earlier. Mr. O'Malley
then relayed the historical background on the subject unit from 1969 to date
and the reasons why they considered it inappropriate for the unit to be repre-
sented by the IBEW instead of the AMEA. In concluding, Mr. O'Malley stated
they were requesting that the Council follow the rules and apply the decision
as indicated. He pointed out that the affected employees were not alleging
there was coercion or that they did something wrong. They were not even alleging
that the rules were not followed. They were saying, after it was all over--we
had second thoughts and we want you to change it. The AMEA did not think that
was proper.
Mr. O'Malley also wanted to point out that every year in April if employees were
dissatisfied with their representation, they had the right to file a petition
and ask that the unit be modified. There was a caveat to that--if an agreement
was in effect, they could not do it every April, but only in the April prior
to the expiration of the agreement. Thus, they had an opportunity to vote as
tO whether or not they wanted to be in the unit, but not at this time. If
everyone voted each time they established a unit, the situation would be chaotic.
He respectfully requested that the Council implement the decision of the mediator
on the matter.
Mayor Seymour stated it seemed there was an attempt to mediate the matter and
that although the mediation found that all parties were in agreement, prior to
the mediation and settlement coming to the Council, there was obviously dis-
agreement now. They had received a written statement of withdrawal of accep-
tance by Mr. Lore, that put the Council in a most uncomfortable position and
although the City Manager was recommending that the original finding of the
mediator be adopted by the Council, the original finding of the mediator no
longer existed.
80-1321
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 14, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour thereupon moved that the matter be taken back to
mediation and, if necessary, through arbitration. .Councilman Overholt seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
123: ENGINEERING SERVICES - DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE TWIN PEAKS RESERVOIR:
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, an agreement
was authorized with Woodside/Kubota & Associates, Inc., in an amount not to
exceed $115,000 for engineering services relating to the design and construction
of the Twin Peaks Reservoir, as recommended in memorandum dated October 6, 1980
from the Public Utilities Board. MOTION CARRIED.
103: PROPERTY TAX EXCHANGE AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY - "FAIR SHARE" OF PROPERTY
TAX REVENUE: Discussion relating to a property tax exchange agreement with the
County for property annmxed to City between January 2, 1978 and July 24, 1979
(continued from meetings of April 8 and 29, May 27, July 8, August 12 and Septem-
ber 16, 1980).
City Manager Talley stated at the meeting of a League of California Cities,
Orange County Division, last Thursday, October 9, 1980, it was pointed out that
negotiations had not been completed and there was some concern voiced by the
City representatives about the intent to complete the negotiations. Subsequently
he called the chief negotiator for the County, Mr. Oftelie of Supervisor Clark's
office, and was assured that the only reason a meeting did not occur was due to
the vacationing of the chief negotiator for the County. Mr. Oftelie told him
he felt if they could have one more meeting of approximately three to four hours,
he thought an agreement could be reached the following day. Therefore, it was
his opinion that some time in the next 15 to 30 days, the matter could be concluded.
He (Talley) countered and stated his Council was becoming concerned about the
situation. Mr. Oftelie knew that the City of Anaheim could resolve its problems
with the County on a day's notice. Mr. Oftelie was very convinced that they
were almost there and asked for a couple more weeks. There had been no change
in the County policy and it was their intent to complete the matter expeditiously.
Mayor Seymour added that he had a telephone conversation with Mr. Haskell of
the League of Cities on the matter, and he too agreed to one more meeting and
hopefully during the meeting they would find agreement.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to continue consideration of the matter for
another two weeks. Councilman Bay seconded the motion with the understanding
that they would make a decision at that time if the County had not succeeded
in solving the matter.
Before a vote was taken, Mr. Talley stated he understood their decision would
be whether or not to go in and negotiate the agreement that was being considered
by the other cities. If the Council wished, they had the opportunity to do so
for the better part of a year, however since there was no pressing reason to
do that, he had been reluctant to do so.
Councilman Bay stated he did not disagree that they had the option. They had
delayed that option and now were about to do so for another three weeks on
promises again that it was going to be settled. He got the feeling somewhere
if there was some threat of unilateral negotiations, that the overall negotia-
tions were never going to get settled.
80-1322
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 14, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour stated the City had not been damaged one iota as a result of not
forcing their hand relative to Anaheim's position. What they had attempted to.
achieve, and he was hopeful that it would be achieved, was to provide a
position of support for the League of Cities and the other cities in Orange
County who looked to Anaheim as offering its help in helping them resolve some
matters. Since the issue had not hindered or caused the City anything at all,
he would hope they would "hang tough" with the cities within the League in
helping them to achieve agreement. On the other hand, they were aware in the
event the day would come wherein Anaheim could suffer one penny's expense as
a result of delay, they could quickly resolve the matter as far as Anaheim was
concerned as they had been led to believe by Supervisor Clark.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion of continuance. MOTION CARRIED.
123/177: AGREEMENT WITH THE ORANGE COUNTY FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL - 6TH YEAR
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM: Continued from the meeting of
September 30, 1980 for staff to supply requested documentation--see minutes
that date.
On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, a third
agreement with the Orange County Fair Housing Council in the amount of $15,000
as a part of the 6th Year Cormnunity Development Block Grant Program for Fair
Housing Activities, as recommended and discussed in memorandum received
September 24, 1980 from the Community Development Department. MOTION CARRIED.
167: TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND INTERCONNECT - CANYON INDUSTRIAL AREA - FAU PROJECT
M-3041(74): Staff recommendation contained in report dated September 22, 1980
was that the contract be awarded to Steiny and Company, Incorporated, the lowest
and best bidder, in the amount of $596,400. The proposed award was contested
by Electrend, Inc., at the meeting of September 30, 1984 (see minutes that date)
and award continued to October 7, 1980. Staff requested a further continuance
of one week as outlined in report dated October 3, 1980 from the City Engineer,
which continuance was granted.
Report from the City Engineer dated October 10, 1980 recommended that the Council
reject all bids for the subject project and approve'and authorize the readverti-
sing of the subject project.
The City Clerk announced that a Mr. Gire, representing Steiny and Company, and
a Mr. Harry Thomas, representing Electrend, Inc., were present to speak to the
matter.
Mr. Lee Gire, representing Steiny and Company, stated by way of a brief back-
ground, the project was bid on August 21, 1980. The engineer's estimate was
$788,000 and his client's bid was approximately $200,000 under the estimate
for a total of $596,400. The second bid from Electrend was $83,520 over his
client's bid, totalling $679,920. The second bidder had, through various
correspondence and discussion with the City Engineer and he believed the City
Attorney, raised certain objections to what would be the norm in awarding of
the project to the low bidder. The first objection went to a signal arm
specification that was contained in the plans and specifications. It did not
name a supplier, but gave a description of what the City Engineer wanted. The
80-1323
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 14, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
basis for the objection was that the signal arm specification was only made
by one company--a subsidiary of his client. The fact of the matter was that
it was not true. It could be made by other companies, including Indicator
Control Corporation, who furnished a signal arm under the particular specifi-
cation on a job in the City, in particular, as equipment at the intersection
of State College Boulevard and Winston Road. There was no factual basis for
the protest in that regard.
The second basis for the protest had to do with 18 junction boxes set forth
in this specification. The specifications stated they were manufactured by
Computer Services, a subsidiary of his client's. Computer Services bid both
to his client and Electrend $200 for each of the 18 junction boxes for a total
of $3,600 which they felt was diminimous when compared to the difference of
over $83,000 in the two bids and had nothing to do with his client being below
bidder. The purported basis for the protest was a Government Code Section 4380
quoted by the attorney for Electrend, that specifications specifying only one
concern are in violation of the statutes. However, the attorney quoted only
half of the section. The other portion specifically stated that where in
applying this mection the agency is aware of only one manufacturer, then they
only had to name one manufacturer or equal. That was the case here. There-
fore, there was no violation of the Government Code Section, should that Section
apply, or the general construction specifications for public works.
The third item referred to by the second bidder had to do with control modifi-
cations. There was no question the contract called for control modifications
solely manufactured by Computer Services Company, a subsidiary of his client
and there was no question that was the way it had to be because of interface
with existing City equipment. Again, there was no violation of Government Code
Section 4380 which recognized that where the product was designed to match others
in use in a particular public improvement, calling for a designated material
was authorized. It should be pointed out that the bid items making up the total
modification totalled $16,152. The same prices were given both Steiny and the
second bidder. Adding up the three items which the second bidder was complaining
about, it was short of $80,000 or short of the difference between the two bids.
Accordingly, the three items which were being complained of, even if they did
have a basis, in fact, had no basis upon the overall outcome of the bids.
The real bone of contention had nothing to do with proprietary items or advan-
tage to his client, but with the fact that Electrend believed the City should
rewrite the specifications with respect to soil conditions, i.e., that the
City should go out and determine the soil conditions, make the necessary tests
with respect to the intersections where the signals were going to be installed,
go to that expense and take that expense away from the contractor. If the City
did this at their expense, all bidders could save some money. In construction
law, when a municipality or public agency did this, then it would be leaving
itself open to liability should the contractor encounter soil conditions dif-
ferent from those specified in the contract. Accordingly, they believed that
what the City had done in this case in leaving that determination to the con-
tractors was appropriate and something that was done by other agencies in this
type of contract.
80-1324
City Hal~,. Anaheim,. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 14, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
They also received a copy of an undated letter to the City of Anaheim addressed
to the City Council from Mr. Harty Thomas for Hill, Farter and Burill, attorneys
representing Electrend (see letter received October 13, 1980--Re: Bidding on
Traffic Signals and Interconnect "Canyon Industrial Area" Project) wherein it
stated, because Steiny was working in other areas for the City, they would have
an advantage as to the soil conditions in the area under contract. He main-
tained that was nonsense. Also, Electrend was seeking to pacify the City by
saying, if they threw out all bids, they would indemnify the City should an
award be made at a higher amount than the Steiny bid. However, in reading
the indemnity it was based upon the City doing several things--taking $16,000 ~"
of equipment out of the bid and going to the work and expense of specifying
soil conditions and locations. They were really not indemnifying the City
should the total cost to the City be more than Steiny's bid, all things con-
sidered.
Mr. Gire then addressed himself ~o certain statements in the letter from Mr.
Thomas that were not based upon fact. One was that he stated the signal
mounting hardware manufactured by "A-i" was less durable than other types
of hardware. That was not a fact and not backed up by any expert evidence
whatsoever.
He also stated that the controller was inferior to the State specified model.
That was not a fact--it met State standards and it was being used on a State
project in the City of Anaheim. He then attempted to blame an accident that
occurred some time ago on a controller manufactured by Computer Services. The
fact was the controller that Computer Services had supplied would not turn green
as he indicated happened in the accident, but would have turned red.
He next tried to infer that a supplier, Econolite, did not give a letter in
the matter supporting his position because he was informed that Econolite was
now engaged in substantial overseas contracts with Steiny. That was not a fact.
He also indicated that many bidders unnamed did not bid the project because of
the specifications. Again, there was no basis of fact to support that statement.
Basically what they had was a second bidder significantly over the low bidder
who had gone through the specifications, fly-specked them, and subsequently
approached the. City and stated if they rewrote the specifications, they would
bid it again and maybe give the City a better price.
His client, Steiny and Company, had a good relationship with the City. They
had been low on other projects competitively bid and performed them to the
City's satisfaction. They bid the subject project on the same specifications
as everyone else--there had been no violation of State law or any other law,
and to allow a second bidder to "fly-speck the specifications in this manner
and put the City to the additional expense of having to rebid it and taking the
gamble of higher bids was not appropriate, and it was not fair to the City and
to his client.
Mr. Harty Thomas, appearing on behalf of his client, stated he was also authorized
to appear on behalf of a taxpayer and resident of the City, Gary Cook, to register
protests on behalf of his client concerning the bidding procedures involved in
the subject case. Mr. Cook of their office appeared at the meeting two weeks
ago, September 29, 1980 (see minutes that date) and stated the basis of the
80-1325
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 14, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
protest. Mr. Gire had also reviewed them and he feit he did not need to go
over them again at this time. It was with great reluctance that they had
to appear and register their objections. His client felt that there had been
a great miscarriage of justice and they wanted to be able to rectify it, not
only on their behalf, but also on behalf of the City itself. They felt the
City could do better and they hoped that they could point the way.
Mr. G±re had gone through Electrend's objections and stated what he believed to
be the truth of the matter and answers to those objections. Frankly, he had
previously not heard some of the points made and had not had an opportunity
to review those in detail with his client. They had been relying upon com-
munications they had with the City Traffic Engineering Department with respect
to the points they made which they reviewed and explained their position on
them. With regard to those points, they felt they were easily met--that
Steiny was wrong and they were right. Relative to the junction boxes, while
they may disagree relative to the interpretation of the law on the matter,
they believed that the specifications were improperly and ultimately illegally
drafted. He felt that no one could disagree that the bidding process itself
was somewhat tainted and palpably unfair, at least to his client, if not to
the other potential bidders on the job. For example, on the junction boxes,
the specifications stated that they must be manufactured by Computer Services.
In order for Electrend to get a bid on that item, they would have to go to their
competitors and get that bid from Steiny and Company. They were told by the
City Traffic Engineer that there was no equivalent product and they would have
to use that one. Now, after the bidding had been completed and opened, sud-
denly they were told there was an equivalent product. They felt if they
relied upon that, at the very least they should be entitled to rely upon it
and not be told afterwards, there was an equivalent. There were other points
he could respond to, but he did not want to try the merits of their claim
before the Council, since he did not think it was the appropriate forum.
All they were asking was for another bidding session, that they be given
another chance and that other competing electrical contractors be given that
chance as well.
He had discussed the matter with Mr. Mac Slaughter of the City Attorney's office
and he (Slaughter) informed him it was feasible to have the project rebid. He
also understood there was no significant or material prejudice that the City
would suffer if it was rebid. It could be done quickly and should not result
in great delay. Electrend felt there was nothing the City could lose by re-
bidding. They furnished a letter of indemnification to show the seriousness
with which they took the matter and their good faith in presenting the claims
to the Council and the City. They were willing to back up what they were saying
with their money. If the project went to a second bid and it did not result
in a lower bid, they might have to step forward and make it good to the City,
and they were willing to do that. The City had nothing to lose, but it could
gain. They believed they could underbid Steiny by several thousand dollars just
based on the figures they used on the last round of bidding and that represented
a significant and real savings to the City and citizens of Anaheim and a real
benefit would accrue from following the course they were asking the City to
follow.
Regardless of the legal merits of their claim, while there was reasonable room
for dispute on the legalities, he did not think there was any room for dispute
that it was in the best interest of the City to do as they asked.
80-1326
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 14, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour, speaking to the City Attorney, noted it was his recommendation
that they reject all bids and readvertise; City Attorney Hopkins stated that
was correct. The letter he and the City Engineer signed recommended that the
Council reject all bids.
Councilman Seymour offered a resolution rejecting all bids in accordance with
the recommendation.
Before any action was taken, Councilman Overholt asked the City Attorney if he
had reviewed the letter of indemnification of October 13, 1980 from Electrend
and also asked who prepared the attached list of alternate specifications, the
reason being that the indemnification was conditioned on Anaheim using those
alternate specifications.
City Attorney Hopkins first answered that he had reviewed the October 13, 1980
indemnification letter and then deferred to Deputy City Attorney Malcolm
Slaughter who had been working on the matter.
Mr. Malcolm Slaughter stated that he discussed the matter with the City Engineer
that morning. The specifications of that indemnification as drafted by the
proposer which was in response to a suggestion from his office, would not be
acceptable to the City am presently drafted. If it was the City's intent to
avail itself of that indemnification, changes were going to have to be made
in it to reflect what the Engineering Office felt were appropriate specifi-
cations.
Councilman Overholt stated that meant that they did not have an indemnification
agreement at the moment; Mr. Slaughter answered "yes" since they would not be
able to meet the conditions of the indemnification.
Mr. William Devitt, City Engineer, stated that of the several alternative
suggestions to the specifications, there were some they could agree to while
others they could not. That was the reason why the indemnification as structured
presently did not have any merit. Mr. Slaughter suggested that they might take
a 15- or 20-minute break to discuss the City's view with Electrend to see if they
would concur with that point of view. They did not regard the indemnification
as satisfactory at this time. Councilman Overholt stated he would feel much
happier about taking action on the resolution if 10 or 15 minutes would give
them assurance of having an enforceable indemnification agreement with Electrend.
Mayor Seymour was agreeable and stated he would withdraw his resolution until
that time.
Discussion then followed relative to a possible week's continuance and the
ramifications of such a continuance at the conclusion of which, it was decided
that during the recess period, staff was to confer with Electrend relative to
the indemnification, after which they would make their decision.
Councilman Bay stated he would be interested in any amended specifications par-
ticularly the aspect on soil conditions and testing especially if it was any
intention that the City was going that route; City Engineer Devitt assured
Councilman Bay that there was absolutely no intention of recommending any changes
in that respect.
80-1327
City .Hall~ An.a.heim, California - COUNCIL MI.NUTES - October 14, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
RECESS: Councilman Roth moved to recess. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED. (3:20 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (3:35 P.M.)
Mayor Seymour again referred to the indemnification matter on the subject project
and asked City Attorney Hopkins if he had any word as yet from either Mr. Slaughter
or Devitt; City Attorney Hopkins answered that he had received no comment from
them.
Mayor Seymour then stated that although they would prefer to have the indemni-
fication, he was his personal feeling they were not going to get it. Even
without it, he felt their best course of action was to reject all bids as the
City Attorney had recommended.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 80R-463 for adoption, rejecting all
bids. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-463: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
REJECTING ALL BIDS RECEIVED UP TO THE HOUR OF 2:00 P.M. ON THE 21ST DAY OF
AUGUST, 1980, FOR TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND INTERCONNECT - CANYON INDUSTRIAL AREA
FEDERAL AID URBAN PROJECT M-3041(74).
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-463 duly passed and adopted.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-464 for adoption to rebid the
subject project. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-464: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE
THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: TRAFFIC
SIGNALS AND INTERCONNECT CANYON INDUSTRIAL AREA FEDERAL-AID URBAN PROJECT
M-3041(74) ACCOUNT NO. 01-795-6325-E5070; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES,
DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE
CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECI-
FICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A
NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be
opened November 20, 1980, at 2:00 p.m.)
Before a vote was taken, Mr. Slaughter entered the Council Chamber and reported
that they had met with Electrend and their attorneys. In discussing the alter-
nate specifications under the proposed indemnification, it was suggested that
they would be striking Nos. 1 and 3, No. 2 was acceptable to the Engineering
Division, No. 4 had been rewritten and it appeared that No. 5 could be rewritten
although they were right in the middle of the language when they heard the
Council reconvene. He felt it was something they could resolve, but as of yet,
the final language had not been hammered out.
80-1328
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 14, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution on the rebidding.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MMMBERS:
COUNCIL Mtl~BERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-464 duly passed and adopted.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2082: Application by
Orange County Transit District, to permit a bum transit facility on ML zoned
property located at 1717 East Via Burton Street, with a Code waiver of maximum
fence height in front setback.
The OCTD, lead agency for the project, prepared an Initial Study of environmental
impacts and determined that the project would not cause significant environmental
impacts and subsequently prepared a negative declaration. The Anaheim City Plan-
ning Commission received, reviewed and considered the environmental effects of
the project to permit a bus transit facility in the ML (Industrial, Limited) zone
with said Code waiver and denied said declaration, pursuant to Resolution No.
PC80-131, and further, denied CUP No. 2082.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by the OCTD and public
hearing scheduled and continued from September 23, 1980 (see minutes September 23,
1980 wherein extensive testimony was given on the matter).
Mayor Seymour first asked staff if they had anything further to report at this
time. He noted that the matter was continued for three weeks with the idea of
having the OCTD meet with staff and the industrialists in the area.
Mr. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated that representatives of OCTD and the
City met and discussed the various alternatives that could take place. They
tentatively discussed the Via Burton and State College Boulevard realignment.
At the time, they were still under the impression it was approximately $200,000,
but since then, they had a refinement and the cost now determined to be $240,000.
The realignment would provide added capacity to State College Boulevard, thus
permitting all bus turn movements to take place northerly of the intersection
of Via Burton and both left and right turns could be executed without delay
to through traffic and without undue back-ups to traffic~ since most of the bus
movements took place during off-peak periods. At a later meeting, the Chamber
of Commerce met and, although he had attended, Mr. Larry Sierk could best report
on that meeting.
Mr. Larry Sierk, President of the Chamber of Commerce, stated a meeting was held
on October 3, 1980, attended by 10 to 12 representatives of the area, as well as
two representatives from OCTD including Mr. Jim Reichert. At the meeting, seven
points were discussed and agreed upon:
1. No raised median on State College Boulevard now. If needed at a later time,
it could be installed because of traffic on both sides of State College Boule-
vard.
80-1329
City Hall, Anaheim., C~lifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 14, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
2. No buses on Via Burton.
3. They favored a northern access corridor to the OCTD Maintenance and Operation
Facility.
4. OCTD would contribute up to $200,000 for off-site improvements. In a later
letter they received, it could have been inferred that the $200,000 would be
used for the north access corridor. In that letter, they quoted an approximate
price of $400,000 for northern movement directly out of the facility and out
onto Orangethorpe.
5. The City of Anaheim would coordinate between the OCTD, Anaheim and Fullerton
to finance the north access corridor. Later in the drafting of the letter by
some of the business people, they questioned why Anaheim should be the coordin-
ator when it was OCTD's problem. Therefore, the letter read, the OCTD should
coordinate the project.
6. That the Via Burton realignment be set for later consideration.
7. That the raised median on State College Boulevard that would prohibit left
turn in and out of the Maintenance and Operation Facility also be set for later
consideration.
Mr. Sierk continued that relative to the $200,000, it was offered by Mr. Reichert
in that meeting to help solve some of the off-site problems. The second key
point as previously mentioned was that OCTD be the coordinator between Fullerton,
Anaheim and OCTD with regard to the financing of the north access corridor because
of the fact that it would be a private road for buses only through that portion of
Fullerton onto Orangethorpe.
In looking at Baxter Street, one-half of which was in Fullerton and one-half
in Anaheim, if the facility were built, there would be no need to expend funds
to develop Baxter Street north from Via Burton. That portion could end up a
"no man's land" or a piece of ground that could hardly be used. The thought
he had was that Anaheim and Fullerton dedicate Baxter Street so that it could
be developed as part of the facility instead of creating a piece of property
that probably could not be used for anything. Consequently, it would save
Anaheim and Fullerton from having to develop a street that would lead to no-
where. The cost could be included in the OCTD project and by dedicating the
property to them so that they could extend their project and thus it would
not end up as a trash heap or dump site in between Favorite Food and OCTD. That
was his thought based on a northern access directly out of the facility.
Mr. Sierk concluded that covered the points in the meeting and there were
people present from the area who would like to speak to the subject, speci-
fically to the City staff report, as well as the Engineering report on the north
access corridor.
Councilman Bay asked for clarification that Mr. Sierk was saying that there was
still a difference of opinion as to who would coordinate between whom; Mr. Sierk
answered in the original agreement, it was the consensus that Anaheim would
coordinate and that really was not agreed upon by everyone. After the meeting,
a letter was drafted indicating that OCTD would be the coordinator.
80-1330
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 14, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Roth asked if it was the Chamber's recommendation that OCTD should
be the coordinator; Mr. Sierk answered that was the opinion of the business
people in the area.
Councilman Bay added, but that was not necessarily the opinion of OCTD; Mr.
Sierk answered that was correct; it was not. Their opinion was that it should
be Anaheim.
The Mayor then stated that although they normally heard from the proponent and
subsequently the opposition, since they started off with Mr. Sierk, they should
now follow through by requesting any expressions from the industrial area.
Mr. David Hinshaw, attorney representing Fluidmaster, stated that he had also
been asked to speak for the other industrial property owners in the area.
Those industrial users were opposed to bus traffic on Via Burton and also on
State College Boulevard. They felt, despite the traffic projections, it
would cause traffic problems which would be OCTD's traffic problems, not Anaheim's
and that the best solution would be the private road, the northern corridor
access, out to Orangethorpe.
As a response to the Engineering Division's recommendation and discussions stating
that the private access to Orangethorpe Avenue would cost $650,000, Fluidmaster
commissioned a budget estimate for the project from an engineering firm in Los
Angeles (see report dated October 20, 1980, No. 80-86 from Donald R. Warren
Company/Engineer--subject: Preliminary Budget Estimates For Extending Baxter
Street to Orangethorpe Avenue--made a part of the record) which he submitted
to the Council. It showed the estimated cost of the project to be $400,000.
He also submitted a copy of the blueprint provided by the engineers.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the two estimates considered a comparable road
or was there a differenc~
Mr. Hinshaw answered that the engineer considered a 40-foot road which was the
same width as Via Burton. It had been pointed out that a narrower road might
suffice, in which case, the cost would be less. He also explained for Council-
woman Kaywood that the $600,000 estimate was provided by City staff, and he did
not know what it was based on.
Mr. Singer clarified that the width of the road staff considered was a standard
private street, 28 feet wide.
Mr. Hinshaw noted that the proposal included a bridge and culvert. Under sub-
paragraph a) of the discussion portion of the October 8, 1980 report from the
City's Engineering Division, in addition to the $650,000 cost, it was pointed
out that the project would require the full support of the City of Fullerton.
He stated that, in fact, the OCTD could operate by eminent domain and condemn
the parcel, and it would not require cooperation of Fullerton at all.
Mr. Hinshaw continued that the Planning Commission was unanimous in denying the
CUP partially based on a petition signed by 200 people and also based on 54
persons who attended the hearings who were opposed to the CUP. One of the
bases was that air pollution problems might be caused by the project and
80-1331
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 14, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
diesel engines were much more polluting than gasoline engines. He thereupon
submitted a recent excerpt from Science News which documented that fact. The
Planning Commission also pointed out they should not override the present
zoning in the area because of the air quality and because of traffic congestion.
Mr. Reichert had suggested in his August 28, 1980 letter to the City Clerk in
paragraph five that there was going to be no traffic impact on Via Burton or
State College Boulevard due to the proposal, but yet they were unwilling to
commit themselves to the terms of the proposed traffic pattern. They were not
willing to confine their traffic to the proposal they had made.
In concluding, Mr. Hinshaw stated that there would be considerable harm to the
area businesses in the proposal in that they had vacant property that they would
like to develop and planned to develop. They wanted the Council to go on record
to assure them that they would be able to develop that land in the future. They
were apprehensive that if the bus terminal were allowed, the traffic would become
so bad they would not be able to develop their land for industrial uses. This
point was also made by the Planning Commission who stated that the use would
adversely affect adjoining land.
Councilman Bay interjected and noted that the blueprints submitted indicated
that Baxter Street extended all the way through to Via Burton.
Mr. Hinshaw stated he believed that the same road could head out of the parking
lot of the bus terminal facility without using Baxter Street. It was not im-
proved past Via Burton at present.
Councilman Bay asked, if the estimate was based on the full extension of Baxter
Street at 40 feet, from Via Burton all the way north to Orangethorpe Avenue,
would the estimate have been less if that was a private road from the OCTD pro-
perty north to Orangethorpe.
Mr. Hinshaw answered that he did not know, but he did not think that the street
extended all the way from Via Burton north, but just north from the OCTD property
line.
Councilman Bay assumed that the much lower estimate was based on the fact that
the street was coming only from Orangethorpe across the channel to the OCTD
property and that it did not include the other one or two blocks of Baxter
Street down to Via Burton, thus resulting in the difference in estimates. He
asked Mr. Singer if he assumed the same.
Mr. Singer stated that he could not tell from the drawing because it showed
the street going from 0rangeth0rpe Avenue all the way to Via Burton.
From the audience, a gentleman, believed to be Alfred Schoepe, indicated that
the street was extended from the property line across the channel to Orange-
thorpe Avenue, but~not to Via Burton.
Mr. A. J. MacDonald, Industrial Consultant of Fluidmaster, stated he was present
at the discussions they had with the Chamber of Commerce. Ail the way through
the Planning Commission to the City Council, the Garden Grove OCTD Maintenance
and Operation Facility was used as a similarity that they could expect on State
College. Thus far he had not heard that they would receive anything that
Garden Grove received. The facility in Garden Grove had an exit and an entrance
80-1332
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 14, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
and they were asking for the same thing. Also, Garden Grove had an extra gate
on the side street making three openings. They failed to say that the Garden
Grove site was inadequate for a proper installation and thus, it was necessary
to take over a road in the back belonging to the Southern Pacific Railroad and
in doing so, instituted an eminent domain procedure. They said it was necessary
to take that area over in order to advance their facilities and create a
different situation than the one they had. Evidently they were not happy with
Garden Grove themselves. He then submitted copy of documentation No. 33-03-46
from the Superior Court of Orange County, Condemnations proceedings, (made a
part of the record) and referred to page 3 of the declaration signed by Mr.
Michael Mack, the Manager of Engineering of OCTD, which he read. He then
stated that the General Manager of the Orange County Transit Authority told
them a~ the meeting that that particular roadway was an abandoned piece of
property, and they were going in for eminent domain and it had nothing to do
with their facility except for the storage of buses. If that were true, then
the one statement to the court (paragraph two, page three--38-03-46) was wrong.
The testimony that had been given to the Council in the past was to use the
Garden Grove facility as criteria for the Anaheim facility. He contended the
truth of the matter was that that facility was not operable now in an efficient
manner without taking over the aforementioned property. He wanted that clarified
by the General Manager of the OCTD. They stated to the Council that it was
a facsimile of what Anaheim was going to get. If that were so, he would stipu-
late to that and forget the whole thing provided that they did give Anaheim
the same thing as Garden Grove.
In concluding, Mr. MacDonald reiterated that they were asking for only one
thing--that the Council give them the same thing the Garden Grove OCTD facility
had and, if not, why must they suffer with the new facility. He also felt that
the Council should look into the truth pertaining to the Garden Grove facility.
Carl Obin, employed by Trent Tube Company, Fullerton, stated that his company
was opposed to a northern access. It would go through their property which
they owned and the property was an integral part of their operation used for
storage of material. They would oppose that type of move in Fullerton.
Mr. Bernard Higgins, Operations Manager, Bekins Moving and Storage, stated,
also in attendance in the audience was Mr. Jim Smith, Administrative Manager
for Beacons. They were both present today to express their opposition, as
well to the installation of the OCR]) bus maintenance yard and facility at the
subject site. They continued to oppose the facility but had reluctantly
subscribed to the compromise that had been negotiated between the businessmen
in the area and representatives from the 0CTD in regard to a private corridor
that would run through to Orangethorpe Avenue. They felt that might provide a
viable alternative to the traffic congestion and the environmental impact that
would develop if the facility were approved.
He had been asked by the businessmen at the meeting last week to address himself
to a figure which the OCTD had allueded to as their operating costs per mile of
$1.93. Apparently that figure had surfaced with repect to the various ingress
and egress alternatives previously discussed. He imagined the OCTD offered
various statistics indicating that, among the alternatives, they would have
to take into account the extra costs which would accrue because of the extra
mileage using the exit to Orangethorpe as opposed to State College or Via
80-1333
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 14, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Burton. He had been asked to indicate Bekins Moving and Storage operating
costs, not that they would in any complete sense compare to the operation of
the bum terminal. He did a study of their operating costs in 1979 because
that year amongst the highest in total operating costs and the figure he
arrived at was $1.20 per mile. That included insurance costs, depreciation
costs, tax and license on the vehicles, fuel costs, equipment and repair, and
tubes and tires. He felt that the fleet maintenance costs he
experienced as a private businessman operating a trucking-transportation fleet
would be comparable to that of OCTD. After explaining in more details certain
aspects of their operation and the equipment they used, he concluded that with
just a cursory look into their fleet costs contrasting it with the $1.93 figure
given by OCTD, there was reasonable room for speculation that either private
business was able to operate and could only operate at a much lower cost, or
' s~mething seemed untoward in the statistics presented.
In concluding,'Mr. Higgins emphasized that Bekins was also in opposition to
the proposed facility. In operating their fleet of 36 tractor and semi-trailer
combinations in Orange County, approximately 40% was based in Anaheim, just up
the street from the proposed site. Bekins did not violate the peak hour
traffic situation either. He staggered his crews and they had constant through
traffic into and out of their terminal every day. He had no doubt that at times
they created a considerable nuisance or aggravation for the community around
them. If they created that kind of conflict which they did at times with an
operation involving 14 trucks, setting all of the studies, facts and statistics
aside, he would have to conclude that a fleet of 260 buses and 200 to 250
employees was going to create havoc in that small community.
Mr. Higgins then answered a line of questioning posed by the Mayor, Councilmen
Overholt, Bay and Roth relative to the types of vehicles used in his fleet, as
well as the operating characteristics of his facility.
Mr. Ira Newman, 1300 North State College Boulevard, stated relative to the
center medians the Traffic Engineer was recommending be approved, those would
cost the average corner businessmen 15% to 25% loss in business according to
Chevron. If they were designed so that cars could not turn left into a business,
to him, that would be fatal.
There being no further persons who wished to speak in opposition, the Mayor
then gave Mr. Reichert an opportunity to answer some of the questions raised.
Mr. James Reichert first stated it was difficult to compare their operating
costs with Bekins and he had never heard that comparison before. He did not
know how many miles per gallon Bekins got on their operations. The Mayor
pointed out that the short trips OCTD had did reduce their mileage and their
rate was about four miles per gallon. That was also considered in terms of
all the extra weight they had to carry, i.e., wheelchair lifts. The wheelchair
lift they were forced to put in their vehicles resulted in increased operating
costs. Without going into a detailed analysis of their operating costs, and
there were differences, he could not get into comparing specifically what those
differences were.
80-1334
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 14, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
The other point mentioned by Mr. MacDonald in terms of the extra land they were
in the process of purchasing next to the Garden Grove facility planned to be a
part of their County-wide rapid transit system, that property was part of the
old Red Car system abandoned by the Southern Pacific Railroad. They were in the
process of securing seven miles of that from the Railroad. They did take
immediate possession of a piece of that land to be used for a temporary storage
of buses. Because of last year's energy crisis, the Transit District Board
purchased an additional 100 buses in order to have service available for
passengers. Because they did go out of sequence with that purchase, they
needed to have some extra land in order to park those vehicles. As soon as
the Anaheim Division was approved, those vehicles would be spread across their
divisions and some would be operating out of Anaheim. They had gone into eminent
domain With the Southern Pacific Railroad, the purpose being to determine the
purchase price. They had abandoned that right of way, it had been through the
Public Utilities Commission, and they had concurred with the abandonment. As
soon as they had another facility ready for operation, that property would no
longer be used.
Relative to their position on traffic, he maintained the basic decision from the
Council was whether the property would be developed or not. They still felt
that they would be providing a minimum impact as far as traffic. They had
agreed that there would be no bus traffic on Via Burton and had committed to
that. The only question now was how much of a problem bus traffic would be
on State College Boulevard. They had heard from City staff that with the
proper corrections, the traffic impact on State College Boulevard would be
minimized. He felt that the facility would provide a minimum of traffic and
there would not be any problem with traffic on Via Burton during peak hours.
When they met with the business community at the Chamber meeting, they did
offer the $200,000 figure to be used to the greatest advantage to satisfy any
of the traffic impacts around the area. That was an open commitment to the
City so that in their deliberations, they would be able to decide the best
way to minimize traffic in that area.
Councilman Bay asked if the eminent domain action in Garden Grove was a friendly
condemnation; Mr. Reichert answered "yes" and it was merely to establish a fair
market price.
Councilman Bay also asked if Mr. Reichert was aware of the new estimate of a
little less than $400,000 for the north access.
Mr. Reichert answered, "yes". That figure was mentioned at the meeting with
the Chamber but it was difficult to compare estimates. That figure was a
current day estimate, whereas they would be letting the contract, if they were
to share in that access, about two years from now. Thus, their price included
the cost escalation and also included traffic lights and other amenities. In
doing so, $100,000 or $200,000 could be added rapidly.
Councilman Overholt asked Mr. Reichert to speak to the possibility of providing
a north access corridor to the facility. He wanted to know if it was OCTD's
position that they were putting up to $200,000 and that would provide what was
necessary, including the northern access, but other than that, it would be
Anaheim's problem.
80-1335
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 14, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Reichert felt it was not only theirs, but everyone's problem. In talking to
the various industries, they could not agree on what the specific impact would
be. OCTD's view was that it would be minimal with bus traffic only on State
College Boulevard and City staff was of the same opinion. If a traffic problem
resulted on State College Boulevard, they were saying the only reasonable thing
to do would be to go to the north corridor and that was the reason why they
were saying they favored such a corridor. Since their facility would be pro-
viding only a minimum impact, he could not recommend to his Board that they
should spend $600,000 of taxpayer's money. They felt, however, that since there
would be some impact, they would cost share the expenditure for the access
corridor with the parties involved if necessary. That was where he made the
commitment of the $200,000 which he felt he could recommend to him Board.
Councilman Roth asked if in the event the fRc{lity were approved, could OCTD
stipulate that a complete traffic study of the area would be accomplished and
paid for by OCTD should the Council receive complaints relative to the bus
traffic on State College.
Mr. Reichert saw no problem in that, but they would have to be careful as to
how it was done. If they did it themselves, they would be suspect and thus,
he would want to work closely with City staff.
Councilman Roth felt it important that the citizens and people in the area have
some assurances in the event that they wer~ right and OCTD staff was wrong, that
there be alternatives borne out by a thorough traffic study.
Additional questions were posed to Mr. Reichert by the Council relative to the
size of their operation and its similarity to the Garden Grove operation. During
the discussion, Mr. Reichert confirmed that he felt the proposed facility and
the one in Garden Grove were comparable.
Councilman Overholt then asked relative to their pledge of $200,000 to resolve
potential traffic problems, if the north corridor were found to be a solution
Yo those problems, who would be interested in paying the balance of the cost
for that access.
Mr. Reichert first answered, the local property owners, which hopefully they
would be one and the City of Anaheim.
Councilman Overholt questioned why the City would want to do that; Mr. Reichert
answered, because it would be a general problem. He questioned if any other
developer who came ipto the area would be required to solve the entire traffic
problem in that area. It was a question he could not answer.
Councilman Overholt stated he was trying to find out at worst case if the only
relief that could be provided was by a north access corridor, who would pay
for that access, since $200,000 would not be sufficient to build it.
80-1336
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 14, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Reichert reiterated, looking at the total impact, OCTD and their traffic
consultant and City staff did not feel it was going to be that large of a
problem. That could be their assurance. Their facility in Garden Grove
prompted similar questions originally, but it had developed over a period of
time that those fears had not been materialized. If the previous studies had
showed otherwise, then he would have to recommend to his Board to put in more
money to solve the problem because they would be causing it.
Councilman Overholt stated that was what he wanted to hear--if the problem
became insurmountable, OCTD would consider participating on an even greater
basis than the $200,000. Mr. Reichert stated at the time if that was the
case, they would, like any other property owner in the area, try to come up
~ith the best way to resolve the problem.
Councilman Bay asked approximately how many of the 240 buses per day would be
running into Fullerton; Mr. Reichert did not know and indicated it would be
difficult to answer. He also confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood that the
facility would be serving all of Northern Orange County and that buses would
be going into and through Fullerton, as well as all the north County area.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Councilman Roth stated he would like to have a statement from the Traffic Engineer
Paul Singer relative to the impact of the buses on State College Boulevard, par-
ticularly with the knowledge of their hours of operation.
Mr. Singer answered that obviously at the present time the property did not cause
any impact on State College Boulevard or Via Burton. Any additional traffic,
especially by buses, was going to have an effect on the traffic on State College
Boulevard. However, due to the operational hours and the added capacity that
could be imparted on State College Boulevard by realignment of Via Burton, that
impact could be mitigated.
Mayor Seymour noted that in their agenda packets they had a report relative to
an hourly breakdown of traffic that he assumed was applied in the event OCTD
were to receive a CUP. He asked how the number would vary on that report if
that parcel were developed with industrial-type uses similar to those which
existed at the present.
Mr. Singer answered that there would be a significant change in the peak hour
structure. They had prepared a report for the Planning Commission dated July 22,
1980 wherein they divided the property into three acceptable parcels as originally
structured and assigned building sizes that were maximum allowable and, therefore,
extracted a number of square footage. Since they calculated traffic impact by
square footage of building divided by the use, they came up with an estimate of
the type of traffic impacts it could produce. They used normal industrial use
common in development today, i.e., large buildings subdivided into smaller
businesses with the parking being the criteria of the size of the building.
From that, they developed a table showing that the combined parcels would
produce an impact of a.m. peak hour traffic for the total parcels of 933 trips,
and 888 trips in the p.m. peak hours, representing in round figures approximately
200% to 300% of what the OCTD was projected to impact during those peak hours.
This was relative to both Via Burton and State College Boulevard. He was re-
ferring to the property and not the streets, i.e., what the property would gen-
erate in the way of peak hour traffic regardless of what street it was placed on.
80-1337
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 14, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Bay asked when they did the report, did they assume the only ingress
and egress was Via Burton or did they also have an opinion on State College
Boulevard.
Mr. Singer first answered "yes" and reiterated that they did not address them-
selves to the streets, but rather to the property and what it would generate.
Mayor Seymour surmised then, if the property were developed with uses similar
to those already developed on the property, then during the a.m. and p.m. peak
hours, the use would generate somewhere between 200% and 300% more traffic than
the proposed use by OCTD; Mr. Singer answered that was correct.
Mayor Seymour asked Mr. Singer what formulas or standards were used in the
study.
Mr. Singer stated he used the formula utilized throughout Orange County. The
basis for traffic generation in industrial use was between 10 to 30 trip ends
per 1000 square feet of industrial building. They took the mean and used 20
trips per 1000 square feet of building, all trips which totalled 265,000
square feet for all three buildings (4001, and 143,000 and 98,000 in the~other
two). The standards had been tested in Anaheim and they were accurate. Those
standards had been developed under several studies conducted throughout the
County and adopted by the County of Orange am a standard and they were tested
from time to time.
Councilman Bay stated that he heard something new today from Bekins, that
the~ large tmuck traffic was off-peak and that the Traffic Engineer's
current estimate and traffic figures were based on counts gathered as recently
as 35 to 45 days ago which covered the 24-hour period; Mr. Singer answered that
was correct.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted in the staff report to the Planning Commission it re-
ferred to the Traffic Engineer's memorandum wherein it stated that the prohibi-
tion of parking on Via Burton would substantially reduce the existing traffic
congestion in the area. She asked if there was a request from the industrialists
to implement off-street parking only, and if there had been any accidents because
of impaired visibility due to the parking on the street?
Mr. Singer answered "no" to both questions and added that there was no significant
accident problem. The area appeared to be and was congested during certain times.
The removal of parking would alleviate that; however, am always in such matters,
they did contact the adjacent property owners for their recommendation and no
such request had been made by the industrial area.
Mayor Seymour then asked Mr. Reichert for confirmation that there would be 581
employees at the facility; Mr. Reichert stated that the number of employees was
581. He also explained that the other questions the Mayor mentioned before in
terms of the size of their facility, 225 buses in and out, when he (Reichert)
indicated the size of the facility was around 240, that was the number of buses,
but the in and out would be approximately 225 because the other buses would be
in their normal maintenance cycle.
80-1338
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 14, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour stated it appeared to him that the industrialists located within
the area had a rightful concern for what was going to be developed on the property
and he empathized with that. He could also understand their desire to create a
northerly corridor because the traffic situation or that which would be created
by the development of the property, they would obviously like to improve circu-
lation to whatever degree possible. On the other hand, it was clear to him, even
given a reasonable chance of error on the traffic counts and proposed counts,
that a difference of 200% to 300% in traffic if developed with the type of
development already existing was the alternative, the better alternative would
be the subject proposed use. That would be true even if the studies were only
50% correct. If the property were to be developed by a private developer into
industrial use, he could not believe that the City would require that private
developer to expend either $400,000 or $600,000 of public improvement to that
northerly extension prior to being able to obtain a building permit. That
developer would cry "foul" because he would be making improvements not for
that property, but for the entire area. He did not believe that the Council,
acting in the spirit of equity and fairness, would impose that on a private
developer, particularly if .the Traffic Engineer would recommend that was not
needed. It seemed what was being asked by some, this was a public agency and
they had plenty of money and, therefore, we should take advantage of them. He
did not subscribe to that. Also, although arguments could be made that there
was no tax revenue from the OCTD and their operation, that could be debated.
OCTD suggested that they did and described how and the opponents were saying
that they did not generate such tax. He did not think that subject was issue
for this particular zoning decision.
Anaheim, being the largest City in the County, had a responsibility to improve
the transportation system. The location of a facility in North Orange County
to serve North Orange County was appropriate for Anaheim. He did not know how
they could say, the project did not have everything they liked so it should be
moved to Buena Park or Fullerton, etc. They must face the responsibility of
carrying a burden to insure that public transportation would help clean the
air and make it easier to get to and from work. The proposal before them
merited those considerations, but he would have some concerns relative to
giving OCTD a "blank check" relative ~o the operation and development of the
facility. He felt that the City should accept the $200,000 appropriation for
OCTD to improve traffic circulation with the improvement of the Via Burton
realignment. Secondly they should limit the amount of employees and bus vehicles
in and out of the facility each day so that in the event OCTD found that it was
reasonable, for example, to double the bus traffic or the amount of employees
which actions could impose some severe traffic conditions on the area. There-
fore, he suggested that they consider a limitation on the CUP that would limit
the maximum number of buses in and out to 240, and the maximum number of
employees not to exceed 600. In the event there should be an expansion of
the use, the OCTD would be required to go through an additional public hearing
to justify an increase in activities at that site. With those requirements
attached to the CUP, they would be protecting the City and the industrialists
against some of their fears which he felt were unfounded at the moment.
He continued that Councilman Roth made a good suggestion that if some of the
unfounded fears were realized, that OCTD play the lead role in providing the
outside traffic consultant relative to appropriate alternatives for a solution
to those problems and that they participate in those Solutions. With the
debate that had taken place and the studies provided, clearly the traffic con-
siderations that had been bandied about could not be justified by any rational
80-1339
City Hall,. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 14, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
or logical application of traffic standards. He was therefore prepared to go
ahead with the proposal.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Seymour, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council finds that the Orange
County Transit District lead agency for the project had prepared an Initial
Study of environmental impacts and has determined that the project would not
cause significant environmental impacts and further that the City Council finds
that this project would have no significant individual or cumulative adverse
environmental impacts and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare
an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 80R-465 for adoption, granting Condi-
tional Use Permit No. 2082, subject to the following Interdepartmental Committee
Recommendations and the additional following conditions: (1) that not in excess
of 240 buses be permitted ingress and egress to the property in any 24-hour
period; (2) that not in excess of 600 employees be permitted ingress and egress
to the property in any 24-hour period; (3) that OCTD upon request by the City
to provide outside consultant traffic research for alternatives to a traffic
solution and that OCTD participate in such a solution; (4)°that no median
islands be created that would block ingress and egress to local businesses
on State College Boulevard.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-465: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2082.
1. That the owner(s) of subject property shall deed to the City of Anaheim a
strip of land 53 feet and 30 feet in width from the centerlines of the street
along State College Boulevard and Baxter Street for street widening purposes,
including standard symmetrical cul-de-sac at the north terminus of Baxter Street
and 15-foot property line radius at Via Burton Street.
2. That all engineering requirements of the City of Anaheim along State College
Boulevard and Baxter Street, including standard symmetrical cul-de-sac at north
terminus of Baxter Street, including preparation of improvement plans and in-
stallation of all improvements such as curbs and gutters, sidewalks, street
grading and paving, drainage facilities or other appurtenant work, shall be com-
complied with as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with specifi-
cations on file in the Office of the City Engineer; that street lighting facil-
ities along State College Boulevard, Baxter Street, and Via Burton Street shall
be installed as required by the Office of Utilities General Manager, and in
accordance with specifications on file in the Office of Utilities General Manager;
and/or that a bond, certificate of deposit, letter of credit, or cash, in an
amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim shall be posted with the
City to guarantee the installation of the above-mentioned requirements prior
to occupancy.
3. That sidewalks shall be installed along Via Burton Street as required by
the City Engineer and in accordance with standard plans and specifications on
file in the Office of the City Engineer.
4. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans
on file with the Office of the Executive Director of Public Works.
5. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and determined
to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to commencement of
structural framing.
6. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
7. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory
to the City Engineer..
80-1340
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 14, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
8. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay the traffic signal assessment
fee (Ordinance No. 3896) in an amount as determined by the City Council, for
industrial buildings prior to the issuance of a building permit.
9. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos.
1 through 11.
10. That Condition Nos. 1, 2 and 11, above-mentioned, shall be complied with
prior to the commencement of the activity authorized under this resolution, or
prior to the time that the building permit is issued, or within a period of one
year from date hereof, whichever occurs first, or such further time as the
Planning Commission may grant.
i1. That the owner(s) of subject property shall submit a letter requesting the
termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 1286 to the Planning Department.
12. That Condition Nos. 3, 4, 6, 7, and 9, above-mentioned, shall be complied
with prior to final building and zoning inspections.
13. That raised medians be constructed on State College Boulevard to control
left-turn access lanes to subject property.
14. That trash compaction and weight of refuse to be removed from subject
property shall be subject to approval of the Streets Maintenance and Sanita-
tion Department.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay asked about the $200,000 appropriation;
Mayor Seymour added that the OCTD appropriate $200,000 to the City of Anaheim
to be used for the improvement of the Via Burton realignment.
City Manager Talley stated that the latest estimate produced last week was
approximately $240,000. He presumed that implicit in the resolution then was
that the City would provide the other $40,000.
Mayor Seymour stated that he understood in conversations with the Traffic
Engineer that the acquisition of property and then the realignment of Via
Burton would result in surplus property estimated to bring in some $75,000
upon resale. That was why they were able to come in with the realignment
at the $200,000 or less figure.
Mr. Talley stated if that was the information staff provided, they would live
with it.
Planning Director Ron Thompson, stated that the $240,000 figure that was given
to the Council and the Engineering Division staff report dated October 8, 1980
was a refinement of the $200,000 which reflected an escalation. The Engineering
recommendation would be the $240,000 rather than $200,000.
Miss Shirley Meredith, Assistant Traffic Engineer, stated the $240,000 was what
she understood that figure to be; Mr. Thompson also confirmed for the Mayor that
the $240,000 did allow for resale of the property.
Mayor Seymour then amended the condition to clarify that the $200,000 appropriation
would be received by the City and allocated as first priority to the realignment
of Via Burton and they could then redefine those figures further and, if necessary,
make a decision as a City to contribute either $40,000, $35,000 or $25,000 after
the situation was finally resolved, the point being, the $200,000 should be
specifically set aside to mitigate traffic conditions at Via Burton and State
College Boulevard and not to be touched for some other project.
80-1341
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 14, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Talley stated the reason he asked, Mr. Reichert had informally advised him
that if in an implementing staff report the figures that were refined only last
week did amount to $240,000, they (OCTD) would be prepared to live with that
figure.
Mayor Seymour stated, in other words, OCTD was willing to appropriate the funds
necessary for the realignment of Via Burton. He asked Mr. Reichert if that was
correct; Mr. Reichert answered that it was correct as long as there was a cap
on the amount.
Councilman Overholt stated that he would like to have Mr. Reichert respond to
the proposed limitation of 240 buses and 600 employees. He wanted to know if
those were limitations Mr. Reichert could live with.
Mr. Reichert answered that they could live with those numbers.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked for a further stipulation that they were willing
to pay the $240,000 for the realignment of Via Burton.
Mr. Reichert answered again that they could live with the 240 bus limitation
and the 600 employees and, in addition, in trying to be a good neighbor, when
he heard the estimate for Via Burton to be $240,000, he indicated he would
recommend that amount to his Board. However, he would like to have the. dollar
figure stated by the Council.
The Mayor amended the figure to $240,000; Councilman Bay suggested that perhaps
stipulating $240,000 maximum would be better and if the project cost less, that
would be all they had to pay.
Mr. Reichert was in agreement with the suggestion made by Councilman Bay.
Mayor Seymour then clarified that the fifth stipulation in the resolution was
as follows: (5) that they accept the $240,000 maximum appropriation from the
OCTD to be allocated as the first priority to the realignment of Via Burton.
Councilman Overholt stated that the Mayor had spoken for him as well in expressing
his views and concerns. They were trying to develop something everyone could
live with. He felt that the proposed facility would add to the County and, in
fact, to Anaheim.
Councilman Roth stated he felt the OCTD did a fine job as well. They started out
at an approximate $50,000 figure and they had now agreed to up to $240,000. The
situation was one which indicated to the citizens and the business community
that the Council was willing to spend the time and effort to work the situation
.out. He felt the facility was going to be a fine one, especially considering
the stipulations attached to it.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution as amended.
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-465 duly passed and adopted.-
80-1342
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 14, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 15 minutes. (5:15 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (5:30 P.M.)
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 80-81-3, VARIANCE NO. 3161
(READVERTISED), (TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11178) AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Appli-
cation by Ebrahim Talebi, et al, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to
RM-3000, to construct a 1-lot, 30-unit condominium subdivision on property
located at 715 South Webster Avenue with Code waivers of: (a) minimum lot
area per dwelling unit, (b) maximum mite coverage, (c) minimum floor area,
(d) minimum landscaped setback, (e) minimum recreational-leisure area, and (f)
minimum number and type of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-132 declared
that the subject property be exempt from the requirement to prepare an envi-
ronmental impact report pursuant to the provisions of the California Environ-
mental Quality Act since there would be no significant individual or cumulative
adverse environmental impact due to this project and further approved Reclassif-
ication No. 80-81-3, subject to the following conditions:
1. That an ordinance rezoning the subject property shall in no event become
effective except upon or following the recordation of Final Tract Map No. 11178
within the time specified in Government Code Section 66463.5 or such further
time as the advisory agency or City Council may grant.
2. That completion of these reclassification proceedings is contingent upon
the granting of Variance No. 3161.
The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-133, granted
Variance No. 3161, subject to the following conditions:
1. That this Variance is granted subject to the completion of Reclassification
No. 80-81-3 and Tentative Map of Tract No. 11178 now pending.
2. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Revision No.
1 of Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2.
3. That Condition No. 2, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to final
building and zoning inspections.
4. That the developer shall enter into an agreement with the City of Anaheim
pursuant to Government Code Section 65915. Said agreement shall be recorded
concurrently with or prior to the final map and shall provide that 100% of the
units shall be sold as low or moderate income housing as defined in Government
Code Section 65915. Said agreement shall include approximate resale controls
as approved by the City of Anaheim.
A review of the Planning Commission decision was requested by Councilman Bay
at the September 16, 1980 meeting and public hearing scheduled and continued
from October 7, 1980 to this date.
Miss Santalahti described the location and surrounding land uses. She outlined
the findings given in the staff report which was submitted to and considered by
the City Planning Commission.
80-1343
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 14, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Miss Santalahti continued that since there was a second public hearing on
today's agenda for another condominium project which included low and moderate
cost units, she wanted to make several comments on the subject of development
waivers being granted for similar projects. The Planning Commission, as well
as the Planning Department staff, felt some concern about the issue because of
a trend that appeared to be developing. They planned to be discussing the
matter at the Planning Commission meeting next Monday, October 20, 1980.
Developers had been showing considerable interest in constructing "affordable"
units if they could be assured of receiving substantial zoning waivers. Staff
was particularly concerned since potential developers apparently were basing their
proposals on those that preceded them. State legislation mandated when a
developer agreed to construct at least 25% of a project for persons of low
or moderate income, a City shall enter into an agreement with a developer to
either grant a density bonus of at least 25% over what was otherwise allowable,
or provide not less than two other bonus incentives for the project. To date,
three proposals had been approved by the Planning Commission--an 86 unit con-
dominium at the south end of Citron Street with 21% being affordable; the tract
currently before the Council consisting of 30 condominium units at 715 Webster
Avenue with 100% being affordable, and the other, Item 11 on today's agenda,
consisting of 60 condominium units at 649 South Beach Boulevard in which a
minimum of 47% would be affordable.
The proposals thus far submitted to the Commission and all those currently under
discussion at a staff level included significantly more than a simple 25% density
bonus. Three major waivers~including density had typically been granted and
typically exceeded the Code by 25%. For instance, in the three aforementioned
projects, the densities ranged from 66% to 144% higher than Code, the minimum
recreational leisure areas, 22% to 70% smaller than required, and the minimum
number of parking spaces, 29% to 57% of the requirement. Of the three projects,
two received eight waivers and one received six. While there appeared to be
a general relationship between the number of low and moderate cost units in a
project and the magnitude of the waivers, all of the projects had more than
double the 25% density bonus they were mandated to grant.
In view of similar projects which would be coming to public hearings in the
near future, the Planning Commission would probably be considering establishing
guidelines or perhaps recommending adoption Of Code standards for projects
which included low and moderate units. In this way, developers and others
could be given a clearer idea of the City's objectives in terms of low and
moderate co~t h0u~ing.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous
o~ being heard.
Mr. Floyd Farano, 2555 East Chapman, Fullerton, attorney representing the ap-
plicant stated that he had read the application and staff report and was pre-
pared to come to the Council today to state that. it seemed the only problem
they had was circulation, but he was going to abandon that technique. He found
it difficult to listen to the number of waivers requested for the project and
to find a way to think that it was easy and uncomplicated. It was even more
complex when considering the fact that the very same project with the exception
of subterranean parking was approved as an ~-1200 apartment h~ilding. Howitzer
when talking about affordable housing, or a piece of property or a part of a
80-1344
City Hall, Anaheim., California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 14, 198Q., 1:30 P.M.
piece of property that a person could buy, it required eight waivers. They
had to talk about that because that was the crux of the whole philosophical
discussion.
One impression he did have was that there was a considerable question concerning
parking and the absence thereof. Councilman Bay had some feeling that there
was a parking problem, and in his (Farano's) opinion, that was probably the
easiest issue to dispose of and discuss. He then submitted a sheet to the
Council representing the results of a survey taken by his client for a period
of two weeks, one through the week, time including street sweeping days, and
another through the weekend period. He then briefed the Council on that
survey as outlined in the document submitted (made a part of the record). He
also submitted a set of pictures (made a part of the record) that were taken
in the area showing the parking situation during street sweeping day, Saturday
parking, weekend traffic, the parking situation on a work day, one pointing
out that guest parking was prohibited in the parking lot, and other photographs
depicting weekday parking revealing that out of 14 developments, there were
six with vacant spaces. He had to conclude that with the 57 spaces that had
been provided for in the plans, even if there were cars on the street, their
experience with condominiums in the size and range they were talking about
would not develop anymore of a parking problem than an apartment of the same
size.
Mr. Farano then stated that the most serious question revolved around the
affordable housing aspects of the project. The number of waivers made it
clear when requiring RM-3000 zoning for condominiums with the attendant
waivers, they were perhaps not ready for affordable housing. The only way
affordable housing in the category they were talking about could be purchased
was for the City of Anaheim to presell and prequalify everyone who wanted to
buy a unit in a price range of $51,000 to $77,000. The developer had agreed
to make the units available for the recommended sales price as recommended by
the City's Housing Manager.
Mr. Farano then submitted a sheet attached to which were sales data depicting
four houses recently sold, three of which were two bedroom and one three bed-
room ranging from 550 square feet to 900 square feet with prices ranging from
a low of $55,000 to a high of $76,000. He also submitted photographs of a
very small house sold in October for $46,000, the point of the last picture
being that for $5,000 more, or $51,000 a person was going to be able to pur-
chase a new residence with comparable or more square footage than that house.
He emphasized the City had to address itself to the issue because, if not,
there was not going to be any such thing as affordable housing in Anaheim in
his opinion.
Before concluding, Mr. Farano stated that one of the most difficult things to
reconcile was the fact that the proposed units in exact numbers and design with
the exception of subterranean parking had been approved for apartments.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked the size of the lot with regard to the last picture,
the house that sold for $46,000.
Mr. Farano answered, 50 feet by 150 feet.
The Mayor then asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition to the proposed
project.
80-1345
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 14, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Tyson Clark, stated he lived at 2500 West Lorena Drive, directly behind
715 Webster Avenue, where they planned to build the condominiums. He under-
stood that the parking lot for the project was directly behind his lot. Out
of the whole lot, there was not more than 15 feet that would not extend from
his backyard where there would not be parking. They also wanted to install
a six-foot wall. He talked to a Mr. Roberts earlier and he said they were
going to install a seven-foot planter space with trees. He did not think it
was going to do much for his property because he had a chain link fence on his
property and with a six-foot wall and parking at that location, he did not think
it would work.
Miss Santalahti then answered questions posed by Mr. Clark clarifying the mean-
ing-of certain zoning designations', as well as giving a brief explanation re-
lating to the environmental impact report negative declaration status.
Mr. Clark stated the plans had been changed quite a few times. Mr. Farano was
talking about the parking and the street sweeper. In that area, the street
sweeper went by on Wednesdays, the same as on his street. There were 57 park-
ing spots for the project and there were 30 units and most normal families had
two cars which would make 60 cars. He wanted to know where they were going to
park. Also, he had a young family and he did not want his family, while
playing in their backyard, to have to worry about someone dropping over the
six-foot wall. He then confirmed for Councilman Roth that he had been a
resident at that location for 24 years.
Councilman Roth stated he wanted to understand Mr. Clark's objections. He under-
stood he was opposed to the applicant wanting to build a six-foot block wall
fence on him property which would be constructed between his property and the
new project. Also, the developer was going to install a planter area with
trees which would be an additional buffer to the block wall fence and Mr. Clark
was objecting to that as well.
Mr. Clark stated that he was not objecting to the wall and the trees, but he was
objecting to the parking abutting his property. The developer he talked to
earlier had developed other apartments on the street which had underground
parking and he questioned why they could not do that here.
Councilman Roth explained that the developer was trying to provide housing that
other young people like himself could buy and they were trying to be fair to
the young people today. They were trying to look at a piece of property in
the light of developing it into some sensible cost for the segment of society
who did not have anything.
Mr. Clark stated they were talking about an individual like him who wanted to
keep what he had and having it encroached upon by a group of people who wanted
to make more money.
The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to speak in opposition; there was no
response. The then gave Mr. Farano an opportunity for rebuttal.
Mr. Farano stated for purpose of clarification, there would be 15 cars parked
on the west side of the property where Mr. Clark lived. He also asked his
client about the conversations he had with Mr. Clark and he had not developed
any of the property along Webster and, therefore, it must have been a case
of mistaken identity.
80-1346
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 14, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
The only other comment he had, Gilbert Street was largely developed with
apartments-residential, and he was certain the proposed project would not in
any way detract from the appearance. Concerning the R-1 $46,000 residence
that was depicted in the photographs he submitted, that was purchased not
with the idea of knocking it down, but it was a "fixer upper" deal.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked who the developer was on the project; Mr. Farano
answered Ebrahim Talebi.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. William Phelps' part in the project; Mr. Farano
answered that he was the designer of the project itself and he believed the
designer of the project originally and about the only thing that had changed
was the subterranean parking.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated, like all the apartments on Webster Avenue that he
built; Mr. Farano answered "yes". She then asked if that was more or less
expensive.
Mr. Farano answered that subterranean parking was abandoned because it was
considerably more expensive.
Councilman Bay stated, relative to the pictures of the four small homes ranging
from 550 to 900 square feet that sold at such high prices, those did include
four, five or six thousand square feet of land on each one. He would say they
were buying more land than house.
Mr. Farano did not know if that was true or not. He understood that the houses
were fix-ups and were going to be lived in. The point he was trying to convey,
if the prices on those homes were the lowest that could be paid for a single-
family residence, resales ranged from $150,000 and up in Orange County. He
was making the comparison as to the type of housing available vs. the kind of
housing that the project would offer at $51,000 to $77,000.
Councilwoman Kaywood commented that on the $46,000 house, if the lot was 75,000
square feet, in relation to the subject project, he was talking about putting
six homes on that particular lot. She personally did not want to burden any-
body living in a permanent house, as compared to an apartment that was transient,
with the kind of waivers proposed.
Councilman Roth felt that Mr. Farano had described the state of the market
today and the picture of the properties in the $45,000 to $55,000 range were
not even liveable. There was nothing in Anaheim that could be bought and
that was liveable for under $80,000. It was a sad situation, and therefore,
when a person could purchase a unit for $51,000, it made a good comparison
for affordable housing of this nature.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
Councilman Bay stated first that he understood the need for housing and that
they were talking about dollars and economics. The issue on the subject develop-
ment, and some more like it on the way, was not whether they were going to start
bending some of the rules to do what they could to come up with affordable housing.
80-1347
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 14, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
He wanted to make it clear at the outset that he was not anti-affordable housing,
but he felt it was time the Council drew some lines somewhere as to what degree
they were going to go in their attempts to come up with some of the affordable
housing needs in the City and many cities in the County and perhaps all of
California. To him, the subject project went beyond the limits he was ready
to go to. Ail he could do when something like this appeared on the Planning
Commission Consent Calendar was to do nothing or set it for a public hearing
in order to voice his opinion. He set it for a public hearing because it was
time Council made up its mind as to how far they were going to go.
When he saw issues come to the Council involving the Canyon area where there
were attempts to raise the density, he did not hear any speeches on affordable
housing, nor did he see any move to allow higher density in a place where it
might not be feasible to develop anything else bUt condominiums, in one flat
portion of the canyon that could be found. The present project was another
example of the flatlands of Anaheim--an in-fill lot--and there were a number
of other lots along Webster which he observed as he drove the area on Sunday
from Orange Avenue to Ball Road. He would guess that further to the north
there were lots about the same size as the subject property and he saw that
there was still some parking available on the street. He could not do much
with the numbers indicated in the study submitted, but he did feel that the
situation turned out to be as Mr. Farano said, what he would call RM-1200.
The present rules stated RM-3000 and that was the reason for the great number
of variances, waivers and deviations. He felt Mr. Farano put his finger on
the heart of the issue--were they really going to have an RM-1200 in the City
because that was the case here. He was not ready to go to RM-1200. In this
place and in various other places where there were in-fill lots all over the
flatland of the City, if the subject project was improved as is and they
started thinking that they were going to go to RM-1200, they would be setting
the pattern for that to happen all over the City. The resultant impacts to
the existing residents would grow and grow and perhaps they would have an exodus
of R-1 people leaving the City because of those impacts. He felt there should
be some give to meet the economics of the situation. The State had already
given them some guidelines in the 25% density bonus. The subject project was
a 144% density bonus and that was going too far. He wanted to hear some
dialogue from the Council on where they were going to attempt to draw a line
on just how far they were going to go on density bonuses in order to come up
with some share of affordable housing.
In response, Councilman Roth stated that with regard to the Canyon area, very
close to where he lived they gave Jim Beam approval to construct a .condominium
project on Canyon Rim Road and Serrano, counter to the argument that they did
not do things in the Canyon as they did in the flatlands. Further, he found
it to be very interesting in reviewing his agenda packet that on Item No. 12,
they were going to be asked to approve an application for $130,000 for SCAG
to fund two staff positions in formulating an affordable housing program.
Evidently there was a program for affordable housing or else they would not
need $130,000 for staff people. He realized those people would be used to
screen prospective buyers for the units where the City traded densities and
variances. He did not think it was out of line and felt that they had an
obligation to provide housing alternatives. When he saw a development of the
sort proposed and if he denied it, he would be denying khose people the right of
home ownership at the most affordable price he had seen in a long time.
80-1348
City Hal~, .Anaheim, California - COHNCIL MINUTES - October 14, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated in talking about a bonus, there was such a thing
as a limit. When the State required 25%, how they could get from 25% to 144%
and say that was fine, she did not know, and she had a lot of trouble with it.
They had seen what had occurred throughout the City in older apartments where
there were no Code requirements and now they were looking to go right back to
the same situation. For example, she referred to the problems in the area of
Robin and Bluejay where there was no off-street parking because the standard
was only one or 1.5 parking spaces per apartment. It was absolutely inadequate
for the people living there, to say nothing of anybody else who came to visit.
They could not get off the street since there was no place to go. The result
was a dirty, filthy place which nobody liked, the living standard was no good
and the prices they could get were not good. To turn around and say, because
there was a shortage they were going to compound the problem in Anaheim and
the City could live with it for 100 years, there was no way she could be a
party to that. They just went through, and were still going through, two
weeks of smog problems with smog alerts every day and that situation was not
going away by itself. They were going to stack more and more people on top
of each other. Another problem in the mid-80's
might be an acute water shortage, since there was a question as to whether or
not the Peripheral Canal would be built. Just a few years ago, they had no
executive housing in Anaheim. Situations changed and although they could not
see ahead into the future, they knew the experience of the past. As well, not
too many years ago they had an oversupply of apartments with a high vacancy
factor and now that vacancy factor was down to 1 or 2%. No new apartment
houses were being built and now people were talking about converting to condo-
miniums and there was hypocrisy right there. She was not going to say, where
150 parking spaces were necessary, that 57 would be fine, because that would
give someone affordable housing. It was not fine, and she wanted to look at the
situation with her eyes open and hoped that the rest of the Council would do the
same and not create insurmountable problems for Anaheim. There was a housing
shortage throughout California, and not just Anaheim, and there was no way that
Anaheim alone was going to be able to solve it or should try to be the only one
to do so. Giving a 25% density bonus should be very reasonable and she could
not see doubling it and certainly not quadrupling it.
Councilman Roth stated that building shelter for their citizens was certainly
not going to eliminate smog in the community. He also commented that it was
interesting to note that the Council, because of the pressures for a need for
housing, approved a Section 8 housing project at Imperial Highway and Orange-
thorpe Avenue with strings attached relative to subsidizing most of the costs
of the rentals. In that case, the Federal government was telling them that
they had to put air conditioning in the units and other amenities and if they
did not tackle the houming problem on a local level, the Federal government was
going to do it for them and cell them how they were going to subsidize it.
Mayor Seymour stated it was several months ago that he suggested to the Council
that they needed to address themselves to the affordable housing situation in
the City. When he raised the question, it was not that he had in mind to over-
populate the City, nor to see a City developed into housing that was undesirable
or that would lead to some type of slum environment in the future. He suggested
that they take some action relative to their site development standards and
reconsideration of those standards. The matter that brought the situation to
the fore was an apartment project on La Palma Avenue and as a result, they met
80-1349
city Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 14, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
with the Planning Commission with the idea of developing new mite development
standards relative to some relief of the regulations and restrictions that would
encourage affordable housing. They had such a meeting and debated long that
evening (see minutes September 2, 1980) as to whether or not they should continue
with the 150-foot setback from single-family residences or two story apartment
houses regardless of the fact that Anaheim was the only City in Orange County
to have such a restrictive site development standard. They concluded by saying
they just did not know how to change the standards, but were going to have to
look at the situation on a project-by-project basis. Councilman Bay had now
asked the Council what standards it would be willing to apply, whereas he (Seymour)
asked that question months ago and Councilman Bay was part of that process. He
did not know whether they could come up with such standards and, frankly, he did
not think that they could do so. They could not take the in-fill lots yet to be
developed in the City and dictate what they were going to be. It was going to
be necessary for the most part to look at them on a project-by-project basis.
However, to suggest that the question had not been raised before the Council
or the Planning Con~nission was not so.
Relative to the idea that they were going to create a City that would not have
enough water and would be choking in its own smog and engulfed in traffic tie-
ups because of approval of affordable housing, they had to understand the mag-
nitude of what they were talking about concerning the affordable housing needs
in the community. It was his understanding, according to the SCAG proposals
and formulas, that the City was 400 units short of affordable housing and there
were approximately 90,000 dwelling units in Anaheim. He, for one, felt that they
should not carry any bigger burden than their share of affordable housing and he
did not think they should become the Orange County home of affordable housing.
Thus, when looking at the City's fair share or a little over 400 units in com-
parison to the 90,000 dwelling units presently in the City, it was a "fly speck".
Their challenge was to try to find where in the community they could go without
destructing to any greater degree than necessary the lives the living standard
of their constituents, citizens and taxpayers where they could find room for
affordable housing. The problem of affordable housing was going to be handled
and the responsibility met in one of two ways--either it could be met by the
private sector or by the public sector. They could offer bonuses of all kinds
on standards to entice and provide an incentive so that they private sector could
meet those responsibilities, or they could say no, and therefore, public housing
would replace that private housing, which housing would be paid for by the tax-
payers rather than by the individual citizen who owned their own property and
were paying their own way. He, for one, would opt to the greatest degree possible
for private housing. He had concerns as well as to how far the City, County,
State or Nation could go in carrying the burden of subsidized rental programs.
He predicted that it would not be too many years in the future before the back
of the middle-income taxpaye~ would be broken by the billons of dollars, and
growing in leaps and bounds, of Section 8 subsidized rental programs, as well
as public subsidized home ownership programs.
The Mayor then elaborated upon the fact that young people were now excluded
from the opportunity of home ownership as well as other facets of the housing
market, at the conclusion of which, he emphasized that they needed a way to
accept their fair share of affordable housing which was approximately 400
units in a City of 90,000 families. He felt that the development standards
had to be changed and Mr. Farano presented an excellent point, if they believed
in affordable housing, it was necessary to offer alternatives to make it happen.
80-1350
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 14~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
If they were not prepared to give those trade-offs to make the project happen,
then the question was what were they prepared to do in order to deliver 400
units.
After further dissertation by the Mayor, he concluded that the State perceived
that the housing crisis experienced today in California and the housing afford-
ability question was not a local matter any longer, but a matter of State-wide
concern. Their resolution of that problem would be a mandate from Sacramento
what every community in California was going to do about housing. He did not
think that was the appropriate way to go, but that it should be self-determined
on a local basis. If they were to ignore their responsibility for affordable
housing, they would continue to invite State mandates giving them conditions
they would not be happy with. Ail in all, he felt that the particular project
before them should be approved as the Planning Commission approved it.
Relative to the specific concerns raised, Mr. Clark raised some good ones in
talking about setbacks. The alternatives to those setbacks and the intrusion
into him environment could be much worse than that if there were other types
of development. If the apartment house that was originally proposed and approved
for that property were to be built, Mr. Clark's property would be impacted
equally as much and, therefore, he did not find fault with the project as did
Councilman Bay and Councilwoman Kaywood, and he was prepared to support the
Planning Commission recommendation on the matter.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council finds that this project
would have no significant individual or cumulative adverse enviror~ental impact
due to its approval since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject pro-
perty for a medium density residential land uses commensurate with the proposal;
that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the proposal and that
the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no signficiant indivi-
dual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts and is, therefore, exempt from
the requirement to prepare an EIR.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt noted that Mr. Gerald Bushore was
present in the Chamber audience and he asked him his interest in the transaction.
Mr. Bushore answered that originally the gentleman approached him on selling
the piece of property because they could not build it as apartments.
Councilman Overholt interjected and asked simply if he had a financial interest
in the matter; Mr. Bushore answered at the present time he did not. There had
been some discussion before when the City talked about pre-marketing the units,
that he would act as the marketing agent.
Councilman Overholt asked for confirmation that he had no present financial
interest whatsoever; Mr. Bushore answered that was correct.
Councilman Overholt then asked if he contemplated having a financial interest
based on the Council's ruling today.
Mr. Bushore stated that he could possibly. There were some out of pocket costs
involved on which he expected to be reimbursed.
80-1351
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 14~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Overholt, speaking to the City Attorney, explained that he sometimes
represented Mr. Bushore and his corporation. His concern was whether he should
be voting on the matter, since he was the attorney for Mr. Bushore's real estate
corporation.
City Attorney Hopkins answered, if the action would in any way increase his
financial income as a result of his vote, it would be advisable to refrain
from voting.
Mr. Bushore stated that he would accept no financial part of the project what-
soever, including any expenses that he had already incurred. He looked at the
project as deciding whether or not they would have affordable housing because
if the subject project were not approved by the Council, they might never see
the project built there or anything like it again at the. prices indicated.
Councilman Overholt explained that he did not wish to restrict Mr. Bushore, but
he also did not wish to vote on something if he had a conflict of interest.
Based upon the City Attorney's advice, he was going to abstain.
City Attorney Hopkins stated the Councilman Overholt would have to determine
in his own mind as to the foreseeability of income; Councilman Overholt stated
he could have foreseeable income from Gerald Bushore Realty at some future
date as in the past, but not necessarily related to this transaction.
The City Attorney confirmed it would have to be something related to the partic-
ular transaction and if unrelated, he did not see any problem; Councilman Overholt
stated he would not undertake any assignment connected with the particular trans-
action and thus he was going to vote on the matter and he was going to be sup-
portive of the motion and also the resolution.
Councilwoman Kaywood questioned Mr. Bushore regarding his statement that the
climnts turned to him because they could not build apartments. She asked him
to explain.
Mr. Bushore reported that they started talking about the project around February
when the prime rate was up to 20% and there was no financing available. He
further explained what occurred at that time. The other gentlemen were present
today completely at his suggestion and the reason they had gone along with
the project was due to the fact that the plans were already in existence and
they did not have to expend any mome money for plans because it was already
approved apartments. Originally they had no intention of building condomin-
iums on that site, but it seemed that everything just fell into place.
Councilman Bay stated that he felt with some minor modifications, he could
approve the project from the standpoint of supporting affordable housing, but
he could not approve the parking at the proposed minimum, nor did he approve
of that high a density bonus because with a couple of less apartments and with
more parking, it could have been a development that was reasonably closer to
what he could go along with. He felt it was going to set an extremely dangerous
precedent for the future. He was not going against any of the arguments made
by Councilman Roth or Seymour or the need for affordable housing and the fact
that they had to give--he was talking about the degree of give. He was not
going to support the resolution because they were giving away too much at this
point. They could still have affordable housing without giving away that much
of a density bonus and all the other waivers to the extent proposed. It was
beyond what he could go along with.
80-13S2
Cit~ Hal.l,. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 14~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Overholt, responding to Councilman Bay, stated he heard him say in
prior hearings that they take each matter on its own meris. As the Mayor had
stated, they had to do that for a while and thus he did not think they were
setting a precedent. He happened to believe that the location on Webster was
a good one for the subject project and he had visited the area that morning.
He sympathized with Mr. Clark, but if an apartment house were built on the prop-
erty he would have the same problems. He reiterated that he felt it was a
good area for the project and they were looking forward to what the Planning
Con~nission was going to do in trying to establish some guildelines. He agreed
that their responsiblity was to make possible so-called affordable housing
for the young people who needed a place to live and that was why he was sup-
portive.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she would like to read what they voted on that
morning with regard to residential rehabilitation standards. She thereupon
read from Page 8 of the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency--Residential Rehabilita-
tion Standards--Paragraph 300--"Construction of Additional Floor Area to
Relieve Overcrowding and Obsolescence--Additional bedrooms may be constructed
so that on the average a bedroom is provided for each 1.3 persons residing in
the dwelling unit. Indoor recreational space or family meeting area shall be
provided, not less than 40 square feet per person." She wanted to know, once
they allowed a 144% density bonus on the present project, how they were going to
tell the next person they could not have the same.
Councilman Seymour suggested that they were going to have to look at the indi-
vidual project. Relative to her comments as to their vote that morning on
the Marks-Foran Residential Rehabilitation Program, that covered housing less
desirable than the subject project before them to be approved. The standards
that were approved that morning would be applicable to the little house depicted
in the photographs presented.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she felt they were saying exactly the same thing
and her concern had always been in prevention rather than trying to cure a
situation. They did not want redevelopment projects all through the City and
she believed that was exactly what they were creating.
After further Council discussion, debate and questioning during which questions
were also posed to staff, a vote Was taken on the Environmnetal Impact Report
Negative Declaration motion. Council Members Kaywood and Bay voted "no".
MOTION CAitRIED.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 80R-466 for adoption, approving
Reclassification No. 80-81-3, and Resolution No. 80R-467 for adoption, granting
Variance No. 3161, as recommended by the-City Planning Commission. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-466: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT A CHANGE OF ZONE SHOULD BE GRANTED IN A CERTAIN AREA
OF THE CITY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED. (80-81-3, RM-3000)
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-467: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 3161.
80-1353
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 14~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated she had a very great fear
that the developers and builders had now determined that Anaheim was "open
season" and that they could come in with whatever they wanted to and it was
going to be approved.
Mayor Seymour stated he had much the same concerns, but he had confidence within
himself that once they had absorbed their fair share of affordable housing as
defined by regional needs, he could in all candor then tell developers to go
and build somewhere else.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked the City Attorney whether they were going to be
able to tell them that. If the present project were approved, as well as the
next one they were going to consider and they had 400 or 500 abominations as
she called a 144% density bonus, were they going to be able to tell the next
person "no?"
City Attorney Hopkins answered that they were going to have to deal with each
project on a case-by-case basis. It would be a Council decision, but if a project
were identical, it would make it more difficult to turn the proposition down. He
reiterated, however,, that any decision would be on a case-by-case basis,
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she realized anybody could sue anyone for any-
thing and wanted to know what their chances would be in court with a similar
or even better project with less waivers, and they turned it down.
City Attorney Hopkins stated it would be a matter as to whether the Council's
findings were based on adequate facts and the reasoning used in making the
decision which would vary from location to location.
Councilwoman Kaywood considered it disgraceful that for the first time she had
seen that they had no longer cared about the residents,, the people who lived
in the City and they were, instead, talking about the great unknown who were
not here and might not be here.
Mayor Seymour contended those very same people were here residing in the 50%
of dwelling units in the City, in apartments, wanting to own a piece of the
action. They had a responsibility to those tenants in Apmheim to provide them
with an opportunity to own their own home.
Councilwoman Kaywood thereupon asked Housing Manager Lisa Stipkovich if it were
true that no one would be permitted to be approved to buy one of the units un-
less they were already an existing Anaheim resident?
Mayor Seymour ~tated he did not know if they could legally do that, but if they
could, he would vote for it in a second.
Ms. Stipkovich answered that she did not know if they could legally do so, but
what they were proposing and what the Housing Commission recommended was a pref-
erence list. They were utilizing a point system where Anaheim residents were
given a higher number of points as well as people employed in Anaheim who wanted
to live in the City, but could not afford to do so. Those were the two criteria
that ranked the highest along with first-time home buyers and special consider-
ation for people with families.
80-1354
City H~iA~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 14~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
A vote was then taken on the two resolutions offered for approval of the reclass-
ification and granting of the variance.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Roth and Seymour
Kaywood and Bay
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 80R-466 and 80R-467 duly passed and adopted.
107: PUBLIC HEARING - HOUSE MOVING PERMIT: Request by Richard E. Dittberner,
to move a single family structure from its present location at 3630 Westiminster
Avenue, Santa Ana, to 1130 Rosemont Street, was submitted, together with a report
by the Planning Department recommending approval.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to be heard on the subject request for a house
moving permit; there being no response, he closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman
Roth, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the City Council ratified the determin-
ation of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the
definition of Section 3.01 of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the require-
ments for an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically
exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 80R-468 for adoption, approving the
subject house moving permit as requested. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-468: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GRANTING A HOUSE MOVING PERMIT TO RICHARD E. DITTBERNER TO MOVE A DWELLING FROM
3630 WESTMINSTER AVENUE, SANTA ANA, TO 1130 NORTH ROSEMONT STREET, ANAHEIM,
CALIFORNIA.
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. 8OR-468 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO.~ 80-81-5~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2102~
(TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11211) AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application by Cheryl Jo
Matlock,. for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-3000, to permit a 1-lot,
60-unit affordable condominium project on property located at 649 South Beach
Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-136, declared
that the subject project be exempt from the requirement to prepare an envi-
ronmental impact report pursuant to the provisions of the California Environ-
mental Quality Act since there would be no significant individual or cumulative
adverse environmental impacts due to this project and further, approved Reclass-
ification No. 80-81-5, subject to the following conditions:
80-1355
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 14~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
i. That an ordinance rezoning the subject property shall in no way become
effective except upon or following the recordation of Final Tract Map No.
11211 within the time specified in Government Code Section 66463.5 or such
further time as the advisory agency or City Council may grant.
2. That completion of these reclassification proceedings is contingent upon
the granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 2102.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-137, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2102, subject to the following conditions:
1. That this Conditional Use Permit is granted subject to the completion of
Reclassification No. 80-81-5, now pending.
2. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos.
1 through 4; provided, however, that: a 6-foot high fence shall be constructed
around the entire site except for the setback along Beach Boulevard and that said
fencing shall consist of masonry blocks adjacent to all commercial uses, and
open guest parking spaces may be reduced in size to minimum dimensions of 17
feet by 7½ feet.
3. That a minimum of 47% of the units shall be sold as low and moderate cost
housing as defined in Government Code Section 65915, in price ranges approved
by the City of Anaheim and with appropriate resale controls also approved by
the City. The developer shall, therefore, enter into an agreement with the
City of Anaheim pursuant to Government Code Section 65915, which agreement shall
be recorded concurrently with or prior to the final tract map.
4. That the original documents of the covenants, conditions and restrictions
shall provide that any tandem parking spaces shall be specifically assigned to
occupants of the units which the tandem parking spaces are intended to serve.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman
Kaywood at the September 16, 1980 meeting and public hearing scheduled this
date.
Miss Santalahti described the location and surrounding land uses. She outlined
the findings given in the staff report which was submitted to and considered by
the City Planning Commission.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous
of being heard.
Mr. Tom Matlock, President of Sunday and Company, 1821 Derby Drive, Santa Ana,
stated whether the project would become 100% affordable or 47% affordable would
be determined by whether or not he could get the County to cross boundary lines
in Anaheim and put some bond monies into the project, so that they could get
some low cost mortgage money. If he could do that, the whole site would go
affordable according to the guidelines Ms. Stipkovich and he had discussed. If
not, at least 47% of the project would be affordable regardless of the financing.
He understood that one of the bones of contention was the tandem parking proposed.
He talked to his engineer and if they were specifically requested to do so, he
would make the spaces tandem garages and put garage doors on them, thus elimin-
ating any question about them being allowable as parking spaces. If they were
80-1356
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 14, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
open area parking spaces rather than garages, he had made recommendations to
the people preparing their CC&R'm that they be common area, rather than indivi-
dual. There would be assigned parking units for nobody else's use, but the
care and maintenance of those areas would be left up to the homeowner's associ-
ation, rather than to individual units, in order to keep the project as nice as
possible.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked how many tandem spaces there were and also asked for
an explanation regarding putting a door on the spaces; after clarification by
Miss Santalahti, Mr. Matlock first answered that there were 32 spaces in front
and 32 spaces in back. Relative to the spaces, if he made them garages rather
than carports, it would be a considerable expense to him, but he did not think
that there then could be an objection from the Council. It would be a long and
narrow garage but it would, in fact, be a garage. Although there were probably
not many such garages in existence, there were also not a lot of affordable
projects in existence, and he doubted if they would see another one on Beach
Boulevard.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she questioned it being on Beach Boulevard
at all since it was not exactly a residential area. She then asked the selling
price of the units.
From the audience, Ms. Stipkovich answered $52,900 to $83,000 if they were 47%
affordable.
Councilwoman Kaywood inquired as to the homeowners fee; Mr. Matlock that they
had not finished the budget yet. On another affordable project he had constructed
in the County area, the association dues were $47.53 which he felt would be
considerably more than what the fees would be on the subject 60-unit project.
The homeowners' association dues were set by the association.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if that amount was taken into account in qualifying
people for the units.
Mr. Matlock stated he could not answer that because they had not reached that
point as yet. However, in the County, they had a meeting on February 6th on
the project that he built there and the fee was not considered a part of the
monthly payment.
Ms. Stipkovich answered that it was not part of what they analyzed presently
but when the buyers were prequalified, it was considered. She also clarified
that there was a requirement that the units be owner occupied, and the minimum
time limit related back to the resale controls. They were recommending that
there be a deed restriction where the unit could not be leased or sold without
a first right of refusal.
Mayor Seymour asked, relative to the homeowners' association fees and the amount,
was it true that typically the lower the density, the higher the individual
homeowner assessment fee; Mr. Matlock answered affirmatively. He continued
that the only reason the units were affordable was due to the fact that he
was taking less profit out of the project. In such cases, the developer him-
self actually designated "X" number of units he would physically take less
80-1357
City Hall, Anaheim, q~lifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - October i~., 1980, 1:30 P.M.
profit on. As an example, Bud Warmington did a 396-unit project in the County
and the County awarded him some additional credits for doing the whole project
affordable. Those credits were now on the market at $15,000 a unit and that
was considerable less than the market value for which they were selling the
units. Therefore, they did not want anybody turning them over for a first
resale profit anymore than those who were going to approve the project.
Further discussion followed between Councilwoman Kaywood and Mr. Matlock at
the conclusion of which, the Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition
to the proposed project. There being no response, he closed the public hearing.
Councilman Bay asked the density bonus on the project; Miss Santalahti clarifed
that it was 100% as Mr. Matlock had previously stated.
Councilwoman Kaywood, speaking to the Mayor, stated he had given an impassioned
plea if they did not do it themselves, the State would step in and tell them
what to do. Apparently, the State had already done so since they were requi=ing a
25% density bonus, and in this case, Anaheim was giving 100% and the one before,
144%.
Mayor Seymour stated he did not know of any specific legislation mandating that
any city in California provide a 25% bonus in exchange for 25% affordable housing.
He asked staff if there was some law to that effect.
Ms. Stipkovich reported that there was a new bill adopted and effective Janaury 1,
1981 which at the time was called AB 1151. It said that any developer that comes
to a City with a project that had at least 25% affordable housing, that City was
required to give him at least a 25% bonus or two other bonuses, and they went
on to describe those other bonuses.
The Mayor asked to be provided with a copy of the bill because he was not
familiar with it although it did not surprise him to have that type of leg-
islation passed. In answer to Councilwoman Kaywood's question, such legi-
slation was coming at a very rapid rate, and he would predict in the next
legislature, they were going to see bills that would mandate a City to approve
the project, going through the whole process of a Planning Commission hearing
and City Council hearing, within a period of 120 or 150 days. Regardless, they
were going to see other bills introduced as well that would mandate community
· acceptance of minimum square footage homes. There were all types of legislation
afoot that would dictate local land use policy which he would oppose because he
felt it was a local determination.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted in just looking at what the State required and the
600% more given on the last project, she would say that .Anaheim might be ahead
of the State.
Mayor Seymour stated that he did not vote yes on the last project nor would he
on the present one based on percentages.
Further discussion and debate followed between the Mayor and Councilwoman Kaywood
revolving around the density bonus issue at the conclusion of which, Councilwoman
Kaywood stated that when giving a 144% density bonus as on the'last project with
80-1358
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 14~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
people "sitting on each other heads" with no control on the resale they would;
in fact, have substandard living going at a very high price on a resale, and she
was very concerned about that; the Mayor did not agree with Councilwoman Kaywood's
view.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council finds that this project
would have no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts
due to its approval since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property
for General Commercial and/or Medium density Residential land uses commensurate
with the proposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the
proposal and that the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no
significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts and is,
therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. Councilwoman Kaywood
~oted "no". MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 80R-469 for adoption, approving Reclassif-
ication No. 80-81-5 and Resolution No. 80R-470 for adoption, granting Conditional
Use Permit No. 2102, as recommended by the City Planning Commission. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-469: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
ZONING SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE
CHANGED. (80-81-5, RM-3000)
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-470: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2102.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Bay, Roth and Seymour
Kaywood
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-469 and 80R-470 duly passed and adopted.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (7:30 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (7:40 P.M.)
174: PUBLIC HEARING - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDING: To receive
input on an application for bonus CDBG funding in the amount of $130,000 for
which the City has made application through the Southern California Association
of Governments (SCAG).
Mr. Norm Priest, Executive Director of Community Development, first clarified
questions posed by Councilman Roth with regard to criteria (F) and (G) on page
3 of the subject application titled--Procedure and Criteria for Evaluating Pro-
80-1359
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 14, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
posal$: Software Activities. In essence, they were saying they would show
priority to Anaheim residents and thus could not count the two points indicated
because of that position.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked on the shared housing, ~he recently read about some
mixtures where it was not confined just to the elderly and apparently it was
working very well. Younger people were able to do gardening and some of the
heavy work that older people could not do. She wanted to know if any thought
had been given to that type of shared housing.
Mr. Priest answered "yes" and. when they presented it to the Housing Commission,
there was a very strong feeling on the part of certain members that it might
very well be a program that would have an improper connotation and also provide
an opportunity for "misbehaving." They suggested, therefore, that it was not
an appropriate program for senior citizens.
Mayor Seymour asked for clarification that under the shared housing concept,
if they were or if they were not supporting members of the opposite sex un-
related and ur~arried sharing accommodations.
Mr. Priest answered that he did not believe they had restricted it to or set
it up for senior citizens. The original indication was of the same sex, but
he did not know if it specifically spoke to the situation one way or the other.
It was within the scope of the Council, and there were no guidelines as to how
it must be set up and structured.
After further clarification by Mr. Priest on certain aspects of the program,
the Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak relative to the application for bonus
Community Development Block Grant funding. There being no response, he closed
the public hearing.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, submission of
the application for bonus Community Development Block Grant funds to the
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) was approved, authorizing
the City Manager to sign the necessary documents, as recommended in memorandum
dated October 7, 1980 from the Executive Director of Community Development.
MOTION CARRIED.
REQUEST FOR A WAIVER OF PENALTY ASSESSMENT - WANDERLUST MOTEL: Request by
Anita. Bige, for a waiver of the penalty assessment for late payment of the
August 1980 Transient Occupancy Tax, was submitted.
Mayor Seymour asked if a representative from the Wanderlumt Motel was present;
no one was present.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved that request for a waiver of the penalty
assessment for late payment of the August 1980 Transient Occupancy Tax by
Wanderlust Motel be denied. Councilman Bay seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt noted letter dated October 1,
1980 from the owner of the Wanderlust Motel wherein it was indicated that they
mailed their check by delivery to a postman which was their normal way of
mailing their payment. He wanted to know if it was required that the payment
80-1360
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 14, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
be in the City offices by the deadline (October 1, 1980) or that it be posted
b~ that deadline.
City Attorney Hopkins stated the requirement was that it be in the office but
where proof was provided that the payment was posted in time or on the last
day, consideration had been given in those cases. Usually, however, that
involved the Post Office verifying that the deposit was made on the last day
of the month.
Councilman Overholt noted this was a situation where they posted it in their
usual manner. They put the mail in the box and the postman picked that up.
Under normal circumstances, it would be posted on the day of pick-up. However,
the check was later found in the parking lot. He asked if that was the situation.
City Attorney Hopkins answered, not quite. Their letter stated they assumed
that happened. If there was any proof that the mail was put in the box on the
last day of the month and the Post Office verified it, as they had done on pre-
vious occasions, then they would consider it was properly posted.
Councilman Overholt stated his concern was the fact that the Wanderlust Motel
apparently generated considerable revenue for the City as a result of their
operations and they indicated they mailed their payment in the usual manner
as they had done month after month for the past two years. Assuming they were
telling the truth, that it was found in the parking lot, if there was a way
for them to supply "sufficient proof" by a sworn statement, he would not want
to foreclose them from the opportunity.
Councilman Roth stated in a previous case involving the Stoval's,they gave them
a week to obtain a letter from the Post Office and to submit it to the Council.
City Attorney Hopkins stated that could be done.
Mayor Seymour stated the problem in this case was that he did not know how they
could get such a letter or any verification that the check was picked up.
Councilman Overholt stated all they would need was a sworn statement from the
mailman who usually served their route who on a monthly basis picked the pay-
ment up out of the motel's mail rack.
Mayor Seymour questioned what would occur in the event the Postman who worked
the route was unable to make much a declaration; Councilman Overholt conceded,
in that case, the motel would have a problem.
Mayor Seymour suggested that he withdraw his motion and afford them the oppor-
tunity to provide proof, if possible, and continue the matter for two weeks.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to continue consideration of the subject
request for a waiver of the penalty assessment for late payment for two weeks
and in the interim that the owner be contacted to see if proof could be pro-
vided to substantiate the circumstances causing late payment. Councilman
Seymour seconded the motion.
80-1361
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 14, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Before a vote was taken, City Attorney Hopkins stated that he would request
that they submit some proof to be provided by the next Council meeting.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1584 AND VARIANCE NO. 2766 - EXTENSION OF TIME:
Request by charles J. Priolo, Jr., Ervin Engineering, for an extension of time
to Conditional Use Permit No. 1584 and Variance No. 2766, to establish a model
home complex, with certain Code waivers, on RM-3000 zoned property located on
the east side of Anaheim Hills Road, south of Santa Ana Canyon Road, was sub-
mitted.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, extension of
time was approved for the subject CUP and variance to expire on January 27,
1981, as recommended in memorandum dated October 8, 1980 from the Assistant
Director for Zoning. MOTION CARRIED.
108: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF ABATEMENT PERIOD - ACROPOLIS HEALTH SPA: Request
by Luis Lee and Theodora Helen De Carvalho, owners of the Acropolis Health Spa,
2620 West Lincoln Avenue, for an extension of the abatement period pursuant to
Code Subsection 18.89.040 relating to Adult Entertainment, was submitted.
Mayor Seymour noted that Mr. De Carvalho, the applicant, had been sitting in
the Council Chamber all afternoon.
Councilman Roth asked him his hours of operation.
Mr. Luis Lee De Carvalho, co-owner of the Acropolis Health Spa, stated 10:00 a.m.
to Midnight, six days a week. They were closed on Sundays.
Mayor Seymour asked if the City Attorney had seen the five year lease referred
to in letter dated September 25, 1980 from Mr. De Carvalho attached to which
was Schedule A--Cost of Improvements and Alterations, and Schedule B--Summary
of Total Cost (on file in the City Clerk's office).
Mr. De Carvalho answered "no", but he had a copy with him.
The Mayor thereupon asked the City Attorney to review the lease and to let the
Council know the expiration date.
Co6ncilman Overholt stated that Mr. De Carvalho had submitted part df his letter
under penalty of perjury, but he asked if he would have any objection to being
sworn; Mr. De Carvalho had no objection.
The City Clerk thereupon administered the oath t~at the testimony Mr. De Carvalho
was about to give in the matter was true to the best of his knowledge and belief.
Mr. De Carvalho answered affirmatively.
80-1362
City. Hall,. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 14, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour asked Mr. De Carvalho if he had known about the Adult Entertainment
Ordinance, would he have opened up his business; Mr. De Carvalho answered "no"
he would not have gone to that great extent of remodeling.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the expenses listed in the attachment to' his letter
were what he had put into the business; Mr. De Carvalho answered that was correct.
City Attorney Hopkins reported that the term of lhe lease was August 1, 1979
terminating on July 31, 19E4, or a period of five years. The air conditionifig
lease as well extended from November 1, 1979 to October 31, 1984, which infor-
mation verified the statements made.
Mayor Seymour, considering what had been stated and provided by the proprietors
of the Acropolis Health Spa relative to the leasehold improvements that they
made and the financial responsibility appurtenant thereto and their lease not
expiring until 1984 and the financial responsibilities of carrying out that
lease as well as the financial responsibility involved in the air conditioning
and improvements, it was his understanding that the lease, as w&ll as the im-
provements, were made prior to the adoption of the ordinance.
City Attorney Hopkins stated that was correct. They were made in 1979 and they
did not adopt the ordinance until after the leases were signed.
Mayor Seymour then stated since they made the improvements in good faith and
entered into the leases in good faith and also, since they knew of the type
of business that the owners conducted, they ought to grant the request for
extension.
Councilman Overholt stated that regrettably the kind of business they conducted
was not the issue--the issue was whether or not it was reasonably necessary to
grant the extension to avoid undue hardship. He would agree that in view of
the investment completed prior to the passage of the ordinance, that to not
grant the extension would certainly work undue hardship, but that was the only
issue before them.
MOTION: The Mayor first stated that he concurred. He thereupon moved to
approve the request for an extension of the abatement period pursuant te
Code Subsection 18.89.040 relating to Adult Entertainment for the Acropolis
Health Spa, to prevent undue hardship. Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the extension was for
the full two years; Mayor Seymour answered that the request was for two years
and that would be the intent of the motion.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Bay voted "no".
MOTION CARRIED.
80-1363
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 14, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Before concluding, Councilman Overholt, speaking to Mr. De Carvalho, noted that
he had a substantial investment in his business and he was not aware that
there would be any way to grant a further extension. Therefore, they should
make plans to wind up the business on or before December 20, 1982.
129: PUBLIC FIREWORKS DISPLAY PERMIT: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded
by Councilman Overholt, an application for a Public Fireworks Display Permit
submitted by Disneyland Park to discharge fireworks on November 1, 1980, at
7:30 P.M., at Glover Stadium, La Palma Park, during the Annual Halloween Parade
celebration, was approved as recommended by the Fire Marshal. MOTION CARRIED.
129: PUBLIC FIREWORKS DISPLAY PERMIT: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded
by Councilman Bay, an application for a Public Fireworks Dispaly Permit submitted
by Western High School to discharge fireworks on October 18, 1980, at 8:00 P.M.,
at Handel Stadium located on Western High School property, 501 South Western
Avenue, was approved as recommended by the Fire Marhsal. MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman
Overholt, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and
recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent
Calendar Agenda:
1. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and referred
to the City's Claims Administrator or allowed payment:
a. Claim submitted by Barry W. Powell for damages purportedly sustained as a
result of the seizure and storage of claimant's vehicle at the direction of the
Anaheim Police Department on or about August 12, 1980.
b. Claim submitted by James Allen Hamilton for false arrest and personal injuries
purportedly sustained as a result of claimant's false arrest and imprisonment
by Anaheim Police Department on or about June 21, 1980.
c. Claim submitted by Gary M Greenwood for personal injuries and damages pur-
portedly sustained as a result of the improper arrest of claimant and physical
abuse prior to and during said arrest on or about June 18, 1980.
d. Claim submitted by Steven Kenneth Foster for personal injuries and property
damage purportedly sustained as a result of defective design and maintenance of
traffic signal controls at the intersection of Sunkist and Lincoln Avenue 6n
or about June 24~ 1980.
e. Claim submitted by Alfred E. Southern for personal injuries purportedly
sustained as a result of a fall caused by indentation in the ground at La
Palma Stadium (Glover Stadium) football field (police agility course/high jump)
on or about July 31, 1980.
f. Claim submitted by Gladys Caperton for vehicular damages purportedly sustained
as a result of curbside grate breaking when claimant was parking her vehicle on
the north side of Broadway, east of Atchison Street, on or about September 19, 1980. --~
g. Claim submitted by Helen M. Hipple for personal injuries purportedly sus-
tained as a result of slip-and-fall accident at Anaheim Stadium on or about
July 14, 1980.
80-1364
City Hall, Anaheim, C~lifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 14, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
h. Claim submitted by Nicolas Goncher for damages purportedly sustained as a
result of Customer Service personnel leaving water valve on when employees turned
on service at claimant's property, 1011 Home Place, Anaheim, on or about September
26, 1980.
i. Claim submitted by George Stookey for personal injury damages purportedly
sustained as a result of slip-and-fall accident at the Anaheim Convention
Center, Aisle N12, on or about August 24, 1980.
j. Claim submitted by Abraham Guzman for personal injuries purportedly sus-
tained as a result of illness caused by backed up sewer near claimant's work
area, on or about June 10, 1980.
The following claim was recommended to be allowed:
k. Claim submitted by David S. Salerno for monetary damages purportedly sus-
tained as a result of Santa Ana Police determining one moped purchased at
Anaheim Police Auction was stolen, on or about August 30, 1980.
2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 107: Planning Department, Building Division--Monthly Report for September
1980.
b. 105: Anaheim Golf Course Advisory Commission--Minutes of September 18, 1980.
c. 105: Public Utilities Board--Minutes of September 4 and 18, 1980.
d. 105: Anaheim Youth Commission--Minutes of September 10, 1980.
e. 105: Community Center Authority--Minutes of September 29, 1980.
3. 17Q: TENTATIVE TRACT NOS. 10996, 10997 AND 10998: Submitted by Texaco
Anaheim Hills, to establish 3 tracts consisting of 22 RS-HS-22,000(SC) lots
and 14 RS-HS-43,000(SC) lots on property located at the southwest corner of
Avenida de Santiago and Hidden Canyon Road.
The City Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract Nos. 10996, 10997 and
10998, for 22 RS-HS-22,000(SC) lots and 14 RS-HS-43,000(SC) lots, and certified
EIR No. 236 at their meeting held October 6, 1980.
Ms. Ferric Cohen, Chairperson of the Committee to Save Weir Canyon and also rep-
resenting a coalition of organizations such as the Sea & Sage Audubon, the Sierra
Club, the Juaneno Band of Mission Indians and other community organizations,
stated she respectfully requested a public hearing on the items listed under
Item No. 17 of the agenda (Tentative Tract Nos. 10996, 10997 and 10998). She
asked that they waive the appeal fee. She believed the appeal procedure was
designed for contractors, developers and landowners and the $600 plus fee, or
one-half of the original filing fee required for an appeal, was excessive for
them and deprived them of an opportunity to be heard.
Mayor Seymour asked for confirmation that she was requesting that the tenta-
tive tracts be set for a public hearing at no expense to those she represented;
Ms. Cohen answered affirmatively.
80-136S
city Hall, Anaheim, Calif. orn~a.- COUNCIL MINUTES - October 14, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour then asked the City Attorney if the tentative tracts were under
the right of ~ppeal for a public hearing.
City Attorney Hopkins answered "yes". With respect to the request for a waiver
of the appeal fee, if a Council Member considered requesting a review of the
Planning Commission action, it would avoid the problem.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated, as she understood, the item on the reclassification
and the removal of the specimen trees would be considered on the October 28, 1980
Council agenda. She asked if that were automatic or if a hearing could be set at
that time.
City Clerk Roberts confirmed that the item would automatically appear on the
October 28, 1980 agenda. At that time, a Council Member may request a review
of the Planning Commission's action or a member of the public could appeal the
action.
Mayor Seymour asked if Ms. Cohen represented the organization that challenged
the EIR in court; Ms. Cohen answered "yes".
The Mayor thereupon asked where she got the money to do that; Ms. Cohen said
through volunteer contributions. Most of them were volunteers and they had
to pay court costs just like anybody else. Those costs came from volunteer
dollars.
Councilman Bay asked if the subject tracts were those that went with the general
plan hearing that they had some time ago when they heard from all the people who
were present.
Planning Director Ron Thompson answered that they were within that area.
Councilman Bay asked Ms. Cohen if the purpose of the public hearing would be to
come in with something new other than what they heard at the general plan amend-
ment (No. 155) hearing (see minutes June 30, 1980).
Ms. Cohen answered "yes"; the Mayor asked what would be new.
Ms. Cohen stated that she did not want to take up the Council's time or else
she would have had her cohorts present. She was asking their indulgence to
set a hearing on the matter.
Councilman Roth stated there was only one problem with that. She was making
a request that they spend $600 of the general taxpayers' money for their cause,
and he stated that he was not of a mind to do so. If the cause was important
enough that they could sue the City, certainly they could afford to pay the fee
for the appeal.
Mayor Seymour asked if the three subject tract maps were in conformance with
the General Plan that the Council approved, if they were in total conformance
with no variances or waivers.
Miss Santalahti answered "yes" that they were in conformance with the General
Plan with no variances and no waivers.
80-1366
City Hail, Anaheim, California - couNcIL MINUTES - October 14, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour thereupon stated that he, for one, could not support Ms. Cohen's
position. The Council heard through the public hearing process from all of
the people she represented and that was relative to the General Plan Amendment,
with the tract maps coming on the heels of that hearing, which took place in
June. He did not see justification for her request.
Ms. Cohen stated she thought the Council had been very fair today to let the
public be heard. She would be surprised if they did not continue that process.
Mayor Seymour stated the City Attorney indicated they had a right of appeal.
Ms. Cohen presumed then that they wished to treat volunteer citizens as they
did developers, contractors and builders; the Mayor questioned why they should
be treated any differently.
Ms. Cohen stated she believed the requirement was established for that purpose
and not for public citizens.
Mayor Seymour stated he believed she was incorrect and he asked the City Attorney
if that was why it was established.
City Attorney Hopkins answered "no". The requirement was~for anyone who filed
the appeal, because there was a cost to the City for advertising and processing
the appeal.
Mayor Seymour stated that she (Cohen) had not convinced him of the merit to
conduct another public hearing and that they should waive the fee. If they
had not had such a lengthy hearing only a short time ago, he would be sympa-
thetic to her request, but the previous hearing was a very long one in which
they heard from anybody who cared to speak (see minutes dated June 3, 1980
where extensive testimony was presented).
Ms. Cohen stated she was not denying that; however, much had happened since
that time. It was a matter of regional significance, not only of importance
to Anaheim but also, now in process, was an Orange County park road feasibility
study. Orange County was conducting a Weir Canyon Park Road Feasibility Study
and the area was significant am a regional park.
The Mayor asked how the subject property would be impacted by that; Ms. Cohen
stated she was not prepa=ed to conduct a public hearing now. She wished it
were possible for her to have people present who could discuss the matter
further. She felt it was very significant that the County was interested in
the area for a regional park, and that was one of the important items they would
like to discuss and there were others.
Councilman Overholt stated that he did not think the Council's intent, nor their
expression of not being willing to waive the fee, was to deny Ms. Cohen other
remedies which were available to her, and one was the right of appeal. They
were unwilling to have the taxpayers finance the filing fee and that was the
only issue today. He reiterated, they still had that remedy which was avail-
able until October 21, 1980 at 5:00 P.M. to file an appeal. They were not
denying that privilege, but felt that the taxpayers should not fund the filing
fee.
80-1367
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 14, 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
Ms. Cohen stated she felt denied and wanted to tell each Council Member that
she felt that they had not been responsive to citizen interest. Those she
represented had been fighting the matter with the City for over a year. The
community organizations involved in the issue have been trying to inform public
citizens and officials of the matter for 10 years. It was very unusual that
volunteers would have that kind of sustained interest. There were no special
interests here. If they had been forced into court and that matter was going
to be used against them, it was important that they be aware that they felt
that was the only alternative. However, they could provide them with other
alternatives.
Mayor Seymour stated that nobody was objecting to their rights. They could
exercise their appeal rights just as anybody else.
Ms. Cohen thanked the Council for their time.
MOTION CARRIED.
108: AMUSEMENT DEVICES PERMIT APPLICATION: At the request of staff, the
application for an Amusement Devices Permit for the Ungambling Casino, 3456
Orangethorpe Avenue, for one video game, was continued for two weeks. (James C.
Meader, applicant) MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilman Roth offered Resolution Nos. 80R-471 and
80R-472 for adoption in accordance with the reports, recommendations and certi-
fications furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar
Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book.
158: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-471: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Baldwin
Company, Ltd., Kennedy and Hause)
164: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-472: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE
THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: SLOPE STORM
DAMAGE REPAIR, TUSTIN AVENUE, FAIRMONT BOULEVARD AND SANTA ANA CANYON ROAD, IN
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 01-792-6325-E2650; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS,
PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING
THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPEC-
IFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A
NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be
opened November 6, 1980, at 2:00 P.M.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 80R-471 and 80R-472 duly passed and adopted.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning
Commission at their meeting held September 22, 1980, pertaining to the following
applications, as listed on the Consent Calendar, were submitted for City Council
information.
80-1368
~ity Hall~. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 14, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
1. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 80-81-11, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2108 AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION: Submitted by Eric and Heidi E. Nash, for a change in zone from
RS-7200 to CL, to permit commercial use of a residential structure on property
located at 627 South Harbor Boulevard, with a Code waiver of minimum number of
parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-159, granted
Reclassification No. 80-81-11, and granted a negative declaration status.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-160, granted in
part, Conditional Use Permit No. 2108, and granted a negative declaration status.
2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2104: Submitted by Larry R. and Judith I. Smith,
to permit a public dance hall on CL zoned property located at 919 South Knott
Street.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-157, granted in
part, Conditional Use Permit No. 2104, and ratified the Planning Director's
categorical exemption determination.
3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2106: Submitted' by Bruce Waltz and Ruth J.
English, to retain two aviaries on RS-7200 zoned property located at 2520 and
2526 West Clearbrook Lane, with a Code waiver of minimum setback for bird
aviaries.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-158, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2106, and granted a negative declaration status.
4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2111; Submitted by Lakeview Plaza Investment
Co., Ltd., to permit on-sale beer and wine in an existing restaurant on CL(SC)
zoned property located at 420 North Lakeview Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-161, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2111, and granted a negative declaration status.
5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2112: Submitted by SDC/Beard-Euclid, to permit
on-sale beer and wine in an existing restaurant on CL zoned property located at
1191 North Euclid Street.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-162, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2112, and ratified the Planning Director's cate-
gorical exemption determination.
6.. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2113: Submitted by Orange County Water District
to permit a concrete and asphalt recycling operation on RS-A-43,000 zoned pro-
perty located on the east side of Richfield Road, south of La Palma Avenue.
The City Planning Commimsion, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-163, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2113, and granted a negative declaration status.
7. VARIANCE NO. 2981 - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: Submitted by Eva Castillo,
requesting to terminate Variance No. 2981, to permit a single-family residence
on RM-2400 zoned property located at 736 North Pauline Street.
80-1369
City H~ll, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 14, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-164, terminated
Variance No. 2981.
8. VARIANCE NO. 3055 - REQUEST Fp? TERMINATION: Submitted by Paul F. Schule,
requesting to terminate Variance No. 3055, to convert an existing single-family
residence into an industrial use on ML zoned property located at 1152 North
Kraemer Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-165, terminated
Variance No. 3055.
9. VARIANCE NO. 789 - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: Submitted by Chris Musella/
Braille Institute, requesting to terminate Variance No. 789, to erect a sign
on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located at the southwest corner of Crescent and
Dale Avenues.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-166, terminated
Variance No. 789.
10. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 78-79-43, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1972 AND VARIANCE
NO. 1972 AND VARIANCE NO. 3092: Submitted by Alfred D. Paino, requesting an
extension of time to Reclassification No. 78-79-43, Conditional Use Permit No.
1972 and Variance No. 3092, for a change in zone from CL to RS-7200, to waive
maximum wall height and minimum lot area on Portion "A" located on the east side
of Hayward Street; and to permit a batting cage and recreational complex on
Portion "B" located at 727 South Beach Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Reclassification
No. 78-79-43, Conditional Use Permit No. 1972 and Variance No. 3092, to expire
July 2, 1981.
11. VARIANCE NO. 2849 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Vic Peloquin, requesting
an extension of time to Variance No. 2849, to permit the retail sales of sandwiches
on ML zoned property located at 3445 "C" East La Palma Avenue.
The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Variance No. 2849,
to expire September 27, 1981.
12. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 79-80-8 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Daniel A.
Salceda/Anaheim Hills, Inc., for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-3000
in conjunction with Tentative Tract No. 10784, to permit a 19 lot, 16-unit
RM-3000 condominium subdivision on property located on the north side of Canyon
Rim Road, west of Serrano Avenue.
The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Reclassification
No. 79-80-8, to expire September 10, 1981.
13. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1890 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Frank
Krogman, to permit on-sale beer and wine in an existing restaurant on CL zoned
property located at 2610 West La Palma Avenue.
The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Conditional Use
Permit No. 1890, to expire September 25, 1982.
80-1370
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 14, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
14. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 77-78-61., CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1854 AND VARIANCE
NO. 3027 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Paul Gardner, for a change in zone
from RS-A-43,000 to CL, to permit a racquetball facility while retaining the use
of an existing office building on property located at 3109 West Orange Avenue.
The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Reclassification
No. 77-78-61, Conditional Use Permit No. 1854 and Variance No. 3027, to expire
June 5, 1981.
15. VARIANCE NO. 1421 - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: Submitted by William P. Bredger,
to permit the conversion of a guest house to living quarters on RS-A-43,000 zoned
property located at 2612 West Lincoln Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-167, terminated
Variance No. 1421.
16. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 79-80-31 - AMENDING PC80-60: Submitted by the Planning
Commission, requesting amendment to Planning Commission Resolution No. PC80-60,
due to typographical error in Condition No. 1 in connection with Reclassication
No. 79-80-31.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-168, amended,
nunc pro tunc, Resolution No. PC80-60.
No action was taken on the foregoing items; therefore, the action of the City
Planning Coranission became final.
142/149: ORDINANCE NO. 4170: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4170 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4170: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 14,
CHAPTER 14.32, SECTION 14.32.158 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING THERETO
SUBSECTION .050 RELATING TO PARKING RESTRICTIONS. (no parking, midnight to
6:00 a.m., Parkview Avenue, both sides from Orange Avenue to Stonybrook)
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. 4170 duly passed and adopted.
142/149: ORDINANCE NO. 4171; Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4171 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4171: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 14,
CHAPTER 14.32, SECTION 14.32.190 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
PARKING. (No parking at any time, Avenida de Santiago, both sides, from its
westerly terminus to Hidden Canyon Road)
80-1371
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 14, 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. 4171 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 4172: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4172 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4172: AN ORDIANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING SUBSECTION .070
TO SECTION 14.32.450 OF CHAPTER 14.32 OF TITLE 14 OF THE' A~AHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO PARKING. (authorizing Convention Center security guards to issue
citations to persons illegally parked in "Permit Parking" areas adjacent to
Convention Center)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4172 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 4173: Councilman Overholt offered Ordinance No. 4173 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4173: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TI%LE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (72-73-34(1), CO)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4173 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 4174: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 4174 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4174: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (74-75-21(3), ML)
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. 4174 duly passed and adopted.
80-1372
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 14, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
ORDINANCE NO. 4175: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4175 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4175: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (80-81-10, CL)
ADJOURNMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to adjourn. Councilman Bay seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 8:20 P.M.