1979/02/2079,205
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 20, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the C~ty of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
CITY ENGINEER: William Devitt
UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER: Gordon Hoyt
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ronald L. Thompson
FINANCE DIRECTOR: George P. Ferrone
ADMINISTRATIVE AIDE: James Armstrong
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR PLANNING: Joel Fick
Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Rabbi Hershel Brooks of Temple Beth Emet gave the Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilwoman Kaywood led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Seymour and
approved by the City Council:
"Red Cross Month In Anaheim" - March 1979
The proclamation was accepted by Bea Douglas, Chairman.
119: PRESENTATION - "OUTSTANDING AWARD" FOR CITY'S FISCAL FINANCIAL REPORT:
Mayor Seymour presented Mr. George Ferrone, Finance Director, with an "Outstanding
Award" from the California Society of Municipal Officers for the City's Fiscal
Financial Report for the period ending June 30, 1978. He commended Mr. Ferrone
on behalf of the Council in having received the award for the second consecutive
year.
MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of August 8, 1978.
Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Roth moved to
waive the reading, in full, of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent
to the waiver of reading is hereby given by all Council Members unless, after
reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the read-
ing of such ordinance or resolution. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $806,025.43, in accordance
with the 1978-79 Budget, were approved.
79-206
~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 20~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
160: CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Kott,
seconded by Councilman Roth, the following purchase was authorized, as recommended
by the Purchasing Agent:
1. Bid No. 3503: Line Post and Suspension Insulators and Hardware - Award to
General Electric Supply, $40,780.39 for Items 1 through 5 and to Maydell and
Hartzell, $3,326.31 for Items 6 and 7. MOTION CARRIED.
160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - ACSR WIRE - BID NO. 3499: City Manager William
Talley clarified questions posed by Councilman Kott regarding the subject
purchase.
On motion by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilman Roth, the low bid of Graybar
Electric was accepted and purchase authorized in the amount of $79,801.90 including
tax, as recommended by the Purchasing Agent in his memorandum dated February 14,
1979. MOTION CARRIED.
164: AWARD OF CONTRACT - STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD SEWER LATERAL: (Account No.
11-790-6325-0140) Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 79R-95 for adoption
awarding a contract as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated
February 12, 1979. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-95: 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 PERFORMINC ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD SEWER LATERAL, S/O SYCAMORE STREET,
IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. ACCOUNT NO. 11-790-6325-0140. (Fleming Engineering, Inc.,
$6,597)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-95 duly passed and adopted.
123: CITY-WIDE SPEED/ACCIDENT STUDY: Councilman Roth offered Resolution No.
79R-96 for adoption as recommended in memorandum dated February 7, 1979 from
the City Engineer approving an agreement with JHK and Associates of Santa Ana
for professional traffic engineering services in an amount not to exceed $29,950.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-96: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH JHK AND ASSOCIATES IN
CONNECTION WITH A SPEED/ACCIDENT STUDY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR
AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT.
79-207
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 20, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour stated it was his understanding the
purpose of the subject was to conduct a speed, accident and safety study. His
concern for some time had been relative to the setting of traffic lights. Through
persona] experience and those of a number of citizens, at times when traffic
could move freely especially through streets such as Euclid, Harbor, State
College, Brookhurst, Ball Road, the main thoroughfares in the City, that the
lights during those particular times when there was little traffic flow, were
not synchronized in such a fashion that by going the speed limit, it was possible
to progress straight through. His interest was in saving gasoline since prices
were escalating toward one dollar a gallon, as well the fact that the Federal
Government was going to institute the Air Quality Management Plan (AQM]?). He
wanted to be certain that the City was doing all possible to limit stop-and-go
type traffic that consumed a lot of gasoline as well as create smog in the area.
The bottom line was how to come up with a program oriented at the idea of keeping
traffic moving especially on certain streets at certain hours.
City Engineer William Devitt stated that over the last three years, they had
engaged in the development of an interconnect system where traffic signals on
the main arterials such as Katella, Harbor and others were interconnected so
as to develop an advance lead notice on traffic conditions. They would probably
ultimately develop a total interconnect system on arterial highways, and he was
certain that would be the answer to the questions raised.
The >~yor was interested in knowing, (1) the timetable involved and (2) what type
of projected savings of gasoline could be expected relative to volume of traffic
existing on those types of streets and therefore what type of cleaner air could
be expected as a result of such a program. If that would take professional help
to determine, he would look to tile proposed contract or an expansion of that
contract.
~r. Devitt believed the proposed study would be very helpful in that respect
and perhaps a continuation of that would develop in the future with City staff.
Some of the initial informational phases could be obtained from the proposed
study.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the traffic signal assessment was also supposed to
be for the purpose the Mayor discussed, among other things.
Mr. Devitt explained that it was primarily for the purpose o~ constructing traffic
signals and upgrading signals.
Councilwoman Kaywood then asked if there was less money available now than there
was a few months ago.
Mayor Seymour interjected and stated they were aware of her opposition to decreasing
those assessments as the Council had done from time to time. He did not feel that
had anything to do with the subject he brought up. As Mr. Devitt pointed out,
the proceeds of the traffic assessment fund were primarily for new signals and not
for the timing or interconnecting of signals.
Councilwoman Kaywood commented that she understood Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer,
to have stated it was for upgrading older signals which did not have interconnect
ability. In answer to the Mayor, she confirmed that she was not opposed to the
information he requested and felt it was very essential.
79-208
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 20, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing Resolution.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-96 duly passed and adopted.
123: CABLE TV TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE: Councilman Kott referred to the report
dated February 5, 1979 from the City Manager's office and noted that the bid
of the recommended consultant, Alta California Services Inc. of Menlo Park,
submitted was $17,090, but the agenda ]item requested $22,000 for the payment
of the contract, tie wanted to know why there was a difference in the two
amounts and what the additional money requested would cover.
Mr. Jim Armstrong, Administrative Aide, explained that the $17,000 figure excluded
expenses. City Manager Talley explained that the additional amount requested was
an estimate of what the amount of expenses mlght be.
Councilman Kott stated that he did not oppose cable TV, but due to the unaccoun-
tability for the expenditure of public funds over and above the contract, he
would have to oppose the agreement.
Mr. Talley explained that any expenses that would be advanced would have to be
in accordance with the contract and subsequently approved by the Council, and
in either case, be fully documented and on file in City offices. If the Council
desired, he would amend his recommendation to merely the amount of the contract
and prior to the person incurring any expenses, they would be reviewed by the
Council.
Dr. Ron Dyas, member of HACb~C, stated that the additional amount was for the
market study. However, they should bear in mind that the money that would be
advanced for the technical assistance would not be borne by the City. The money
was just an advance by the City and whenever the cable franchise was
awarded, the City would be reimbursed for the amount specified. That information
was contained in the proposed contract between Alta Services and the City.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked the time frame involved.
Dr. Dyas explained that when they interviewed the consultants, they indicated
once the contract was agreed to, they felt that within three weeks from that
date, they would be ready to request proposals. From that point, it would
depend on the time alloted for the consultant of the City to study the bids and
for the Council to act upon it, which he assumed would be a three-week time period.
The Mayor and Councilman Roth thanked Dr. Dyas for lending his expertise in the
matter, as well as the time and efforts spent on the project.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 79R-97 for adoption as recommended in
memorandum dated February 5, 1979 from the City Manager's office. Refer to
Resolution Book.
79-209
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 20, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-97: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH ALTA CALIFORNIA SERVICES INC. TO PROVIDE CATV
CONSULTING SERVICES AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID
AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-97 duly passed and adopted.
MOTION: on motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, $22,000
was advanced from the Council Contingency Fund for payment under said contract
said amount to be paid when the CATV franchise was awarded. MOTION CARRIED.
175: EXPENSES INCURRED BY BOND COUNSEL FOR ELECTRIC REVENUE BONDS: Councilman
Roth moved to approve a Letter Agreement dated February 9, 1979 with O'Melveny
and Myers, Bond Counsel, relating to expenses incurred with issuing Electric
Revenue Bonds for the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Units 2 and 3 (SONGS).
Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, both City Manager Talley and Utilities General Manager
Gordon Hoyt explained for Councilman Kott why O'Melveny and Myers was requesting
a payment of $10,000 at this time (see their letter dated February 9, 1979 in
memorandum dated February 13, 1979 from Mr. Hoyt). It was basically to compen-
sate them for attorney's time expended on the Electric Revenue Bond sale on two
occasions. Both the agencies involved decided not to go forward with the bond
issue. Mr. Hoyt then gave the historical background relative to what transpired
concerning the two bond sale cancellations, the cause for which revolved around
Edison's investment tax credit problems and the IRS belief relative to that
issue.
Mayor Seymour then referred to the February 9, 1979 letter from O'Melveny and
Myers, Page 2 stating, "the Letter Agreement of November 18, 1974 provides for
a 'reasonable fee based upon the time expended' in the event a bond issue is
abandoned." Mr. Hoyt indicated it was not going to be abandoned and that a
ruling would probably be forthcoming in March that would enable Utilities to
proceed with the bond sale. If that were true, with all of the business the
City t~ad done with O'Metveny and ~ers, it seemed that they could wait until the
issue was concluded.
Mr. Hoyt stated that he did not believe the entire $10,000 would be covered by
their fee at the end of the bond sale because a portion represented efforts which
had been lost and were not recoverable so that part of the $10,000 would be in
addition to the quoted percentages of the bonds.
Mayor Seymour stated that he would prefer to wait until the situation was clear
and when they knew that not only would they have a bond issue to sell, but also
that it was prudent to sell it.
79-210
City Hall~ Anaheim, Ca_l_ifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 20, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Hoyt stated that assuming it was a fifty million dollar bond issue, O'Melveny
and Myers would receive some forty-three thousand dollars based on the percentages
for services rendered. The original contract provided that they be paid approxi-
mately forty thousand dollars for that amount of bonds.
Councilman Overholt, speaking in defense of the legal profession, stated that
the thrust of the O'Melveny and Myers letter was for a modification of the
existing agreement so their lawyers would not have to wait forever to get paid
for the work they had done. He asked Mr. Hoyt when he anticipated that there
would be activity on the bond issue.
Mr. Hoyt explained that there was activity taking place at present, and it was
anticipated that the sale would take place in April 1979. It was very much in
the City's interest to have the sale take place as quickly as possible in order
to limit their exposure to the 9% interest rate which was being paid to Edison
for the amount they invested on the City's behalf for the San Onofre Projects
since November 1, 1977.
Councilman Overholt was of the opinion that it was unfair to leave O'Melveny
and Myers hanging for what appeared to be an indefinite period of time.
Mayor Seymour stated that in light of the contractual relationship the City had
with them over many years, he saw no problem if they had to wait until April.
Mr. Hoyt pointed out that there was no assurance at this time that the revenue
ruling to be issued by the IRS would be acceptable.
The Mayor asked if that were the case, would Mr. Hoyt advise the Council that they
had abandoned sale of the bonds.
Mr. Hoyt emphasized that would not be his intent because he would want to pursue
the bond sale. He considered the advantages to the City to be so great there
was nothing he would want to do to preclude their chances of proceeding on the
project.
Councilman Overholt asked if it would be appropriate to defer action on the motion
until a date certain in April. In that way, it would give two months for the
Council to do something more definitive.
MOTION: Councilman Kott moved that the item be continued until either the bond
sale was abandoned, or the City was ready to sell. Councilman Seymour seconded
the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt stated the motion indicated an
indefinite time, but if the date of April 24, 1979 was stipulated, he would
support the motion.
Councilman Roth stated that he would withdraw his original motion and support
continuance to April 24, 1979; Councilman Kott was agreeable.
A vote was then taken on the motion to continue the matter to April 24, 1979.
MOTION CARRIED.
79-211
C£ty Hall~__~An~heim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 20., 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
150: PEARSON PARK POOL DEMOLITION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded
by Councilman Overholt, the award of bid for the Pearson Park Pool demolition
contract was continued to March 6, 1979. MOTION CARRIED.
112: AUGMENTATION OF CERTAIN BUDGET ACCOUNTS IN THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE:
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, request for
augmentation of certain budget accounts in the City Attorney's office in the
amount of $55,000 to be funded from the Council Contingency Fund for liability
claims and litigation, was approved as recommended in memorandum dated February 12,
1979 from the City Attorney's office. MOTION CARRIED.
113: DEPARTMENTAL CONFLICT OF INTERESTS CODES - AMENDMENT TO EXHIBIT "A": On
motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, amendments to
Exhibit "A" of the City Manager, Community Development, Finance, Library, Data
Processing, Human Resources, and Parks, Recreation and Community Services
Departments' Conflict of Interest Codes with respect to designated employees
required to file Statements of Economic Interest, were approved as recommended
in memorandum dated February 12, 1979 from the City Attorney's office. MOTION
CARRIED.
147: SANITATION DISTRICT - CONSIDERATION OF WAIVER OF SANITATION FEES: Council-
man Roth reported that at the February 14, 1979 Sanitation District meeting, the
request for waivers of fees by both the Cities of Brea and Anaheim were discussed
and reviewed amongst the members of the Sanitation District No. 2. It was
revealed that there were a smaller percentage that were more in favor of the
request from the City of Anaheim than the request from the City of Brea, and
personalities entered into the picture. The result was that the Mayor and Mayor
Pro Tem of Brea were somewhat upset with Anaheim for having piggy-backed their
request and the matter deteriorated to the point that Brea withdrew their
request and then Anaheim's request was denied. He believed, however, that
there was a possibility that the Executive Committee was going to review the
whole matter with respect to government bodies having to pay the fees, and he
conveyed that discussion to Public Works Executive Director Thornton Piersall.
170: SPECIMAN TREE REMOVAL: Mayor Seymour stated that the Council had received
numbers of calls about speciman trees being removed, cut, etc. and the past week-
end brought the situation to a head. He had received a call from Herb Christiansen,
President of the Peralta Hills Homeowners Association and also received a letter
from Mr. Christiansen which he read aloud to see if the Council was interested
in instituting some action (see letter dated February 20, 1979 on file in the City
Clerk's office). The letter pointed to the urgent need for placing "teeth" in
the tree preservation ordinance as well as asking for a moratorium to be placed
on tree removal in Peralta Hills until the ordinance was amended.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she was also going to broach the issue because
she had received a call reporting that one of the new owners in the area was
cutting trees down and deliberately chose the weekend when no one could stop the
process. The Police were also called out, but were unable to do anything. She
called the Assistant City Manager who talked to the party involved. One tree had
been cut because it was dangerous, but prior to that, a bulldozer had been used
to destroy some roots so that two of the trees were dead. They agreed just to
remove those three trees and then hold off for the time being. If a moratorium
79-212
City H__all, _Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 20~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
would prevent trees from being destroyed, she was supportive, following which
immediate action should take place to put "teeth" into the ordinance.
Councilman Roth asked for confirmation that if tree removal was set by ordinance,
the violation of that ordinance would be a misdemeanor.
City Attorney William Hopkins stated that was correct. There was a provision in
the Anaheim Municipal Code that made any violation of the Code a misdemeanor unless
it was an infraction under the new Cbarter Amendment. The City Attorney's office
was not contacted relative to the situation under discussion and if there was a
violation, he wanted to see the report and it might be that they could file a
complaint for violation of the ordinance.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that the problem was if the tree was gone, it was
impossible to replace a 100-year old tree.
Councilman Roth stated it appeared that there were "teeth" in the ordinance already.
He also mentioned the fact that there was a constitutionality problem relative to
a person removing trees on his own property. His understanding was that some of
the tree ordinances had been struck down and before they started to amend the
ordinance, it would be wise to first look at the constitutionality aspect.
Mr. Hopkins stated that they had heard of several, cases where courts had struck
down tree ordinances. Anaheim's ordinance had not yet been tested in court but
that would be one way of finding out how strong it was constitutionally.
Councilwoman Kaywood questioned that there was a communication problem between
the City Attorney's office and the Police. Two officers were on the scene and
they could do nothing and they were unable to reach the Zoning Enforcement Officer
because of the three-day holiday weekend.
Mr. Hopkins stated that if they would have called him, he would have looked at
the facts to determine if a complaint could have been issued.
Councilwoman Kaywood commented that the situation was an interesting one because
the person cutting down the trees was Dr. Howard Garber.
Mayor Seymour stated that later word revealed that Dr. Garber was trimming tha
trees.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that was after he had been in the process of removing
them and said that he would "trim" them down tO 2 feet if that was permissible.
Mrs. Jan Hall, 545 Tumbleweed Road, stated she received an emergency call on
Saturday and she went to the canyon to investigate the matter. The Police had
been called and a neighborhood scene had ensued. Dr. Garber had topped his
trees to 35 feet. One dead tree was removed which had been dead long before
the grading started, and she had pictures that were taken many months before.
On her way to Dr. Garber's, there were chainsaws at two other locations and trees
being cut down, with no one complaining. The chaos was only at Dr. Garber's hous~
79-213
City Hall2 Anah~.im, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 20, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
He had removed a dead tree and thought he was able to do so without a permit.
She showed him the Code which pointed out that he had to have a permit to remove
the dead trees as well. He thereupon stopped the removal and he had done nothing
wrong.
Councilman Roth stated that his recommendation at this point would be for the
City Attorney to define the penalties under the ordinance for a misdemeanor
and to report to the Council on those penalties, as well as to submit a report
on the constitutionality aspect.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour thereupon moved that the City Attorney be directed
to investigate the constitutionality of the City's tree removal ordinance as
currently structured and submit recommendations to the Council and to consider
a $500 fine and replacement of each tree by not less than a 20-gallon specimen
of the tree removed, as penalties for violation of the ordinance.
Before any action was taken, Councilman Roth asked if he would add to the motion
that a definition also be submitted to the Council relative to a misdemeanor
violation.
The Mayor stated for the record that if they were going to have an ordinance,
they were going to enforce it and there would be some "teeth" in that ordinance.
That was the thrust of his motion. He would not argue over how it would
finally come out in constitutional form.
Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
Councilman Overholt asked the penalty for conviction of a misdemeanor at present.
City Attorney Hopkins stated it was $500 or 6 months in jail or both. If a Court
were to decide to order someone as a condition of probation to replace the trees,
that might be possible. They would have to file a complaint and take it to court.
Councilman Overholt stated that it seemed to him one of the problems with enforcing
the tree ordinance was that due notice or a warning did not seem to have any
impact. He suggested if it were possible that the ordinance be structured so that
if the homeowner or whoever removed the tree after due notice, it would expose them
to even greater penalties. He believed that was the problem. They had no way
of stopping the process at the time the tree was coming down. It was merely
a suggestion and not a direction. Mr. Hopkins stated it would be at the court's
discretion, but the ordinance could be worded so that the judge could consider
that point.
Mrs. Hall stated that the problem was unless a neighbor was unhappy about the
tree removal, no one would say anything. In one case there would be a problem,
whereas in another it was acceptable.
The biayor stated it would be appropriate for the City Manager to talk to the
Chief of Police to be sure that officers patrolling the hill and canyon area
were informed that there was a tree ordinance and to let them know what it was
all about.
79-214
~ity Hall, Anaheim, Cali[ornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 20, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
140: APPOINTMENT TO ADVISORY BOARD OF THE SANTIAGO LIBRARY SYSTEM: On motion
by Councilman Kott, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, Jean McClain was appointed
to the Advisory Board of the Santiago Library System as recommended by the
Anaheim Library Board in memorandum dated February 14, 1979. MOTION CARRIED.
173: OCTD - APPOINTMENT TO THE DISTRICT'S CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE: (Request
for new appointments to the Advisory Committee - OCTD letter of January 4, 1979)
Councilman Kott nominated Mr. George Gable, 6401 East Nohl Ranch Road, No. 56,
as appointee to the Citizen's Advisory Committee.
Councilwoman Kaywood nominated Mrs. Billie Bird, 329 South Gain.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Kott, nominations for
appointments to the District's Citizens Advisory Committee were closed. MOTION
CARRIED.
Mayor Seymour stated that those two names would be recommended to the OCTD Board
of Directors for appointment to the Advisory Committee.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if it would be possible to submit other names later
if necessary.
Mayor Seymour answered that once the Committee was structured, it might be difficu]
but as long as it was not structured he believed it would be appropriate.
129: PUBLIC FIREWORKS DISPLAY PERMIT: Application submitted by Astro Pyrotechnics
on behalf of the California Surf Pro Soccer League, to discharge fireworks
February 23, 1979, between 7:15 P.M. and 9:30 P.M.
Councilman Kott moved to approve the application for a Public Fireworks Display
Permit submitted by Astro Pyrotechnics. Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated the request involved
setting off charges and not an actual display. There had been complaints about
the noise from the neighboring City o~ Orange by the people living in that
particular area. She would therefore have to oppose the application.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilwoman Kaywood voted "no."
MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITemS: On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilman
Roth, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and
recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent
Calendar Agenda:
1. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and referred
to the City's insurance carrier or the se]f-insurance administrator:
a. Claim submitted by Daniel l~ayne .~ensen for personal injuries purportedly
sustained as a result of actions by Anaheim Police on or about October 29, 1978.
79-215
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 20, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
b. Claim submitted by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company on behalf
of Donald Coulter, insured, for vehicle damages purportedly sustained as a
result of traffic light malfunction causing an accident at Ball Road and Sunkist
Street on or about November 29, 1978.
c. Claim submitted by Salvador Garcia for loss of food purportedly sustained as
a result of electric service cut-off sometime between January 22 and January 29,
1979.
d. Claim submitted by Lorene C. Jackson for personal injuries purportedly
sustained as a result of fall over obstacle on concrete at rear entrance of
Convention Center on or about October 27, 1978.
2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 105: Community Center Authority - Minutes of February 5, 1979.
b. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission - Minutes of January 31, 1979.
Co
175: Utilities Department, Electrical Engineering Division - Monthly report
for November 1978.
d. 156: Police Department, Revision of December 1978 Crime and Clearance
Analysis.
e. 105: Project Area Committee - Minutes of January 23, 1979.
f. 105: Public Utilities Board - Minutes of January 18, 1979.
g. 175: Utilities Department, Customer Service Division - Monthly report
for January 1979.
3. CHANGE ORDERS: The following Change Orders were approved in accordance
with the recommendations of the City Engineer:
a. Peralta Hills Street Improvement - Change Order No. 1 - Authorization for
Change Order No. 1, in the amount of $[5,303, R. J. Noble Company, contractor,
bringing the total contract price to $151,066.90.
b. Anaheim Civic Center - Change Order No. 4 - Authorization for Change Order
No. 4, in the amount of $16,506, and grant extension of time of twenty-four
days due to inclement weather, Del E. Webb, contractor, bringing the total
contract price to $11,977,079.
MOTION CARRIED.
114: EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES PLAN FOR ORANGE COUNTY: The City of Garden Grove
Resolution No. 5717-79, endorsing the Emergency Medical Services Plan for Orange
County and the submittal of a grant application for implementation.
Councilwoman Kaywood moved that the Council support the concept of the Emergency
Medical Services Plan for Orange County and staff was directed to prepare a
letter to be sent supporting the Resolution. Councilman Overholt seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
79-216
Ci_t~ Itall, Anahe_ij.t_,_ _?~_[ i.[ ,)r~[,.,',_ - {:()~,Nt:I 1, ?I_I_NU?;:~_ _-__F_e_b_ruary 20, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman K~ywood offered Resolution Nos. 79R-98
through 79R-106, both inclusive, l{~r adoption in accordance with the reports,
recommendatLons and cert i fications furnished each Council Member and as listed
on the Consent Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book.
158: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-98: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTIN(; CERTAIN I)EEI)S AN[) ORI)ERIN(; THEIR RECORDATION. (Tod J. Brown,
et ux., 1)omin[c (;. Etcl~andy, et al., Elden W. Bainbridge, trustee, Tomas Martinez,
et ux., Julius Williams, et ux., Manual Valdez, et ux., Zion Evangelical Lutheran
Church, R. (;. Garland (:orp., Bernard W. tienrichs, et ux.)
164: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-99: A RESOI21'I'[ON OF 214E CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDIN(; AND DETERMININ(; TtiAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE
THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPIA.TFION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: PROJECT ALPHA
OFF-SITE MAIN, IN THE CI'I~' OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 51-606-6340-25070-34350;
APPROVING TttE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; A~!TliORIZiN(; THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT
IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING
THE CITY CLERK TO PUBi,ISt! A NOT[CE INVIT1NG SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
THEREOF. (Bids to be ~pened March 15, 1979, 2:00 P.M.)
169: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-I00: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND I)ETERMININ(; TttAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE
THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLI(] IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: NOHL RANCH
ROAD STREET IMPROVEMENTS - PHASE I I, IMPERIAL HIGHWAY TO NOHL CANYON ROAD,
ACCOUNT NOS. 13-792-~>325-7130, 13-194-6325-4090, ',)1-794-6325-4090, A.H.F.P.
NOS. 908 AND 909; MEATS AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENT S/O NOHL RANCH ROAD, ACCOUNT
NO. 13-792-6325-2150, A.H.F.P. NO. 846, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM; APPROVING
THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AN[) SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
THEREOF; AUTHOR1ZIN(; TtiE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE
WITH SAID PLANS, SPECII.'ICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY
CLERK TO PUBLISIt A NOT1GE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
THEREOF. (Bids to be t~l~t~ned March 22, 1979, 2:00 P.M.)
164: RESOLUTION NO. 79R--1(~1: A RESOI,UTION OF TIlE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM EINDIN(: AND 1)ETERMtNIN(; TtIAT P/IBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE
THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPI,ETION OF A t'UBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: HIDDEN CANYON
PUMPING STATION, IN THE CITY OF ANAttEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 51-619-7105-92180-32420
AND tiIDDEN CANYON RESERVOIR, ACCOIINT NO. 51-619-7105-92180-31200; APPROVING
THE DESIGNS, PI,ANS, PROFII,ES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
THEREOF; AUTIiOR [Z IN(: TIlE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE
WITH SAID PLANS, SPE(:IF[CA'FIONS, ETG.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY
CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITIN(; SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
THEREOF. (Bids to be opened March 29, 1979, 2:00 P.M.)
176: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-102: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DECLARINt; ITS INTENTION TO VACATE AND ABANDON A CERTAIN PUBLIC SERVICE
EASEMENT. (78-l/A, to abandon a portion of an existing public utility easement
located 1,125 lt, c,t north of Bali Road, from 364 feet west of to 251.75 feet
west of Beach Boulewtrd, public hearing set for March 13, 1979, 3:00 P.M.)
79-217
City Hall~ Anah.eim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 20, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
176: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-103: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTERTION TO VACATE AND ABANDON A PORTION OF A CERTAIN
PUBLIC STREET AND FIXING A DATE FOR A HEARING THEREON. (78-20, to abandon
existing road and public utility rights over a portion of a frontage road located
on the west side of Anaheim Boulevard, south of Cerritos Avenue, public hearing
set for March 13, 1979, 3:00 P.M.)
176: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-104: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE AND ABANDON A CERTAIN PUBLIC STREET
AND ALLEY AND FIXING A DATE FOR A HEARING THEREON. (78-23, to abandon a recorded
irrevocable offer of dedication for street purposes of Lots B and C, Tract No. 3886,
located south of Lincoln Avenue, west of Westchester Drive, public hearing set
for March 13, 1979, 3:00 P.M.)
176: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-105: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE AND ABANDON A CERTAIN PUBLIC STREET
AND FIXING A DATE FOR A HEARING THEREON. (78-24A, to abandon that portion of
Woodland Drive dedicated for public use located 900 feet north of La Palma Avenue,
east of Magnolia Street, public hearing set for March 13, 1979, 3:00 P.M.)
169: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-106: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR,
SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING
POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND
COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: PERALTA HILLS STREET IMPROVE-
MENTS: CERRO VISTA DRIVE-1233' E/O CERRO VISTA WAY TO CERRO VISTA WAY; PERALTA
HILLS DRIVE-2760' E/O CERRO VISTA WAY TO CERRO VISTA WAY; CRESCENT DRIVE-300'
W/O ROYAL OAK ROAD TO PERALTA HILLS DRIVE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO.
13-793-6325-3120.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-98 through 79R-106, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning
Commission at their meeting held January 29, 1979, pertaining to the following
applications, as listed on the Consent Calendar, were submitted for City Council
information.
1. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 78-79-25, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1935, TENTATIVE
TRACT NO. 10617~ EIR NO. 224 AND REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF SPECIMAN TREES: Submitted
by Texaco-Anaheim Hills, Inc., for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000(SC) to
RS-HS-10,000(SC) to permit a 27-1ot, 25-unit planned unit development on property
located on the east side of Imperial Highway, 1650 feet south of Nohl Ranch Road,
with a request for removal of specimen trees and code waivers of: (a) requirement
that all lots abut a public street, (b) maximum structural height, (d) minimum
side yard setback.
79-218
City Ha_lip. Anaheim, C;tlilornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 20, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution Nos. PC79-21 and PC79-22,
granted Reclassification No. 78-79-25 and Conditional Use Permit No. 1935, and
approved Tentative Tract No. 10617 and Certified EIR No. 224.
2. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 78-79-26, VARIANCE NO. 3071, TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10476
AND EIR NO. 223: Submitted by Sand Dollar Development, Inc., for a change in
zone from CG to RM-4000 to establish a 2-lot, 235-unit condominium subdivision
on property located on 17 acres on the north side of Chapman Avenue east of the
centerline of Harbor Boulevard with code waivers of: (a) minimum building site
area, (b) required orientation of buildings to arterial highways.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-19 and PC79-20,
granted Reclassification No. 78-79-26, granted in part Variance No. 3071, and
certified EIR No. 223.
3. VARIANCE NO. 3073: Request submitted by Mark R. and Kathleen A. Eggen, to
establish a two-lot subdivision of porperty located at 904 North West Street
with code waivers of: (a) minimum lot area, (b) minimum lot width.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-24, granted
Variance No. 3073 and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption
determination.
4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1932: Submitted by J. Harold and Marion Smith,
to permit a construction storage yard on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located
at 3311 West Ball Road with code waivers of: (a) maximum fence height,
(b) permitted encroachment into required yard.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-25, denied
Conditional Use Permit No. 1932 and denied negative declaration status.
5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1934: Submitted by Marcia Ann Halligan and
Raymond G. and Estelle K. Spehar, to permit on-sale alcholic beverages in a
proposed restaurant on CL(SC) zoned property located north and east of La
Palma Avenue and Imperial tIighway.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-23, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 1934 and ratified the Planning Director's categorical
exemption ~tarmina~'ion.
6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1937: Submitted by Victor J. and Sylvia S. Vidal,
to permit on-sale beer and wine in a proposed restaurant on CL zoned property
located at 3331 East Orangethorpe Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-26, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 1937 and ratified the Planning Director's categorical
exemption determination.
7. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 77-78-1, TENATTIVE TRACT NOS. 8116, 8117, 9602 and
9864 - REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME: Request by Anaheim Hills, Inc, for
a one-year retroactive extension of time to Reclassification No. 77-78-1 and a
one-year extension to Tentative Tract Nos. 8116, 8117, 9602 and 9864 for a
change in zone from RS-HS-43,000(SC) to RS-HS-10,000 to establish a 173-1ot,
171-dwelling subdivision on property located on the south side of Nohl Ranch
Road, approximately 1300 feet west of the centerline of Royal Oak Road.
79-219
City. Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 20, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
The City Planning Commission granted extensions of time to Reclassification
No. 77-78-1 and Tentative Tract Nos. 8116, 8117, 9602 and 9864, to expire
August 15, 1980.
8. VARIANCE NO. 2459 - REQUEST FOR.A~.. EX%ENSION OF TIME: Request by Emil A.
Blankmeyer for a retroactive extension of time to Variance No. 2459, to permit
a saw sharpening operation in an existing residential garage on RM-1200 zoned
property located at 403 East Broadway Street.
The City Planning Commission granted an extension of time to Variance No. 2459,
to expire December 21, 1982.
9. VARIANCE NO. 2466 - REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME: Request by Kiely
Corporation for a retroactive extension of time to Variance No. 2466, to
permit the establishment of a professional office complex on Industrial zoned
property located on the south side of Katella Avenue, approximately 435 feet
east of the centerline of State College Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission granted an extension of time to Variance No. 2466,
to expire January 18, 1980.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1938: Submitted by Arthur H. and Betty A. Shipkey,
to permit an automobile repair facility on CL zoned property located at 424 North
East Street.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-27, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 1938 and the Planning Director further determined
that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 1
of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirement for an Environmental Impact
Report and is therefore categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR.
Lt. Col.Earl Rhoads, 122 North Vine Street, requested this item to be removed from
the Consent Calmndar for discussion. He stated he Was speakin~ on behalf of
his son who lived directly south of the subject location. He was not able to
attend the Planning Commission meeting relative to CUP 1938, but indicated
there was some serious errors in the staff report as submitted and subsequently
passed by the Planning Commission. He referred to the section titled, Develop-
ment Pr0~osal, Page 10-a, (7) of the report and noted that the petitioner sub-
mitted plans indicating a 3-foot wide landscaped area, excluding the driveway,
adjacent to both Sycamore and East Street, whereas the report stated, "said plan
further indicates a 10-foot wide landscaped area, planted with tall, dense shrubs,
proposed adjacent to the south and east interior property lines. Said south and
east property lines are further screened by an existing 6-foot block wall." He
stated that was not true. Approximately 30 feet on the east property line
adjacent to Sycamore Street and on the west part of the property line adjacent
to East Street, the height of the fence was 3 feet. On the northeast corner
of his son's property at 1207 East Flower, the 6-foot fence was 4 feet high. He
called Whitey Walp, the City Zoning Enforcement Officer, and told him that the
staff report was in error.
Mayor Seymour stated if ~. Rhoadm was referring to the south and east property
lines, a condition of approval was the stipulation that a 6-foot high masonry
wall be constructed along the south and east property lines.
79-220
Hal 1L_Anahei__~jm_,,_.j2L1 !.f-_~.[?!.~ - _('?U_~N_C [_1,~ M [ NUTES - February 20, 1979, 1: 30 P.M.
Mr. Rhoads stated he would address that aspect, but again referred to the staff
report as submitted to the Planning Commission, Page lO-b, under Evaluation No. 15,
"Submitted plans iudicate a lO-foot wide landscaped buffer adjacent to the
RS-7200 zone to the south and cast." He stated he would like to see a 20-foot
buffer, but could live with a lO-foot buffer if one of two things happened,
(1) the property was lowered 2 feet or (2) the 4-foot fence was raised 2 feet.
The time to address that issue was now.
Mayor Seymour reiterated the requirement was for a 6-foot high masonry wall to
be constructed along the south and east property line.
Mr. Rhoads emphasized i~' the Eouncf] was addressing only the staff report as
submitted stating that the south and east property lines were further screened
by a 6-foot high block wal], that was not a statement of fact. He wanted that
on the record so that it would be done before the location was occupied. He
also stated that although the project was adjacent to a single-family area,
there was no reference to the decibel rating of noise which he thought could be
added as a condition.
The Mayor stated that the decibel rating was stipulated in an ordinance and there
was no need to include that condition. He then explained that the Council could
do one of two things - set the matter for a public hearing, or accept the rec-
ommendations and requirements of the Planning Commission. He felt that Mr.
Rhoads' concerns were answered by the requirements imposed.
Ms. Santalahti confirmed that was correct.
Mr.. Rhoads stated he wanted his remarks on the record so that they would know
what was presented as a complete staff report was not correct; the Mayor assured
him that his remarks were a matter of record.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the 6-foot wall would be at the highest point.
Ms. Santalahti stated that ft would be measured from the highest adjacent
property lines. It had to measure 6 ~eet from the lowest side. A new wall
would have to be fnstalled if the existing wall was too low.
Mr. Glen Hines, 1235 East Sycamore Street, gave the historical background of
the subject property which had been neglected and run down for over 15 years.
At one time, a request for commercial zoning was turned down by the Planning
Commission but approved by the City Council. The neighbors took pride in their
property and maintained it, but wheu the City was talking about an Alpha situation
~n downtown Anaheim, they questioned why they had to be the Omega since their
area was being degraded. ~en they opposed the commercial zoning, the thrust
of the opposition was toward commercial development in a solid block of R-1.
The Mayor stated that they did not waist to see that area become an Omega, but
maintained that the Plannlng Commission's approval would give the opportunity
to improve the situation compared to what it was at present, provided staff
and Planning Commission's recommendations were carried out. Staff was alert
to the fact tt~at each ~nd everyone ~f tt~e conditions be implemented.
79-221
Ci..ty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 20, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Council took no further action on CUP 1938.
RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (2:55 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (3:05 P.M.)
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 3067: Application by Canyon Plaza Center,
to erect a shopping center identification sign on CL(SC) zoned property located at
the northeast corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Imperial Highway with code
waivers.
A review of the Planning Commission's action was requested by Councilman Kott
at the January 9, 1979 meeting and a public hearing scheduled and continued from
January 30, 1979, to this date.
Mayor Seymour stated that he had an office which was a tenant in the Keystone
Savings and Loan Building on the property adjacent to the subject property and
would therefore abstain from participating in the hearing. He thereupon turned
the meeting over to Mayor Pro Tem Kaywood.
Councilman Seymour left the Council Chamber. (3:08 P.M.)
Mayor Pro Tem Kmywood asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present
and desirous of being heard. No one was present.
Mayor Pro Tem Kmywood then asked if anyone wished to speak to the matter.
Mrs. Jan Hall, 545 Tumbleweed Road, stated that on February 13, 1979 HACMAC met
with 15 of the Canyon Plaza merchants. They all received a letter dated February 9,
1979 from Mr. Harry Rinker, general partner of the shopping center, stating they
would no longer ask for the waiver, and it would be up to the merchants to work
out the identification with citizens in the community. Ail of the problems of the
center were discussed at that meeting with the merchants, and it was agreed they
would go back to the owners, which they had done and asked for a monument sign
on the corner similar to the one Anaheim Hills and Anaheim Hills Realty had
constructed. They agreed that it was a better use of signing and, as well, they
were trying to keep the monument sign theme going in that area since it was
the gateway to their neighborhood. The merchants agreed that they liked the
monument signing as much as the one proposed on the building and it was a better
identification. They had since talked to Mr. Rinker and he stated he would
meet with HACMAC within the next 10 days. He was presently obtaining drawings
of the monument sign for approval. Although she did not have the authority to
withdraw the request for variance, she presumed it would die, since they were not
going to put signs on the Tower Building. She noted that Mr. Craig Wells~
Discovery Management, the company who managed the Center, was in the audience
and he was representing the merchants.
Councilman Roth wanted confirmation that Mrs. Hall was now saying that the applicant
did not need a variance to install a monument sign; Mrs. Hall stated that was correct.
79-222
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 20, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Pro Tem Kaywood asked if the sign at the corner would be one-sided or
two.
Mrs. Hall explained that they originally asked for a sign that would extend
around the corner with two faces on it, but there was a large grade difference
at the corner. Thus, they were not certain as to what Imperial Properties
could devise so that the signs could be engineered into that area. If it
could not be a two-sided sign, then it would be a sign on the corner of Imperial
and one on Santa Ana Canyon Road at an angle. She explained that everyone was
agreeable and that HACMAC unanimously endorsed the monument signing. As well,
the merchants and the o~ers seemed happy with that concept. Mr. Rinker also
indicated he would be paying for the sign.
Councilman Kott asked the size of the sign.
Ms. Santalahti explained that the maximum height would be about 30 inches. She
presumed it would be approximately 30 square feet or within those limits.
From the audience, Mr. Wells indicated that he was happy with the decision.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor Pro Tem closed
the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMfPTION: On motion by Councilman
Kott, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council ratified the determination
of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the definition
of Section 3.01, Class 11 of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirement
from an Environmental Impact Report and is therefore categorically exempt from
the requirement to file an EIR. Councilman Seymour was temporarily absent.
MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 79R-107 for adoption denying Variance
No. 3067, reversing the findings of t[~e City Planning Commission, since the
Variance was no longer necessary. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-107: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DENYING VARIANCE NO. 3067.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
TEMPORARILY ABSENT:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott and Roth
None
Seymour
None
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 79R-107 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1926: Application by the Bila
Family Trust, to permit office uses in a residential structure on C-O zoned
property located at 1511 East Lincoln Avenue with code waivers of: (a) location
of parking spaces and (b) maximum sign area.
79-22 3
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 20~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-2, reported that
the Planning Director or his authorized representative has determined that
the proposed project falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 1 of
the City of Anaheim's Environmental Impact Report guidelines and is therefore
categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR and further granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 1926 in part subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner(s) of subject property shall deed to the City of Anaheim
a strip of land 53 feet in width from the centerline of the street, including
15 foot property line radius, along Lincoln Avenue for street widening purposes
2. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay the traffic signal assessment
fee difference between residential and commercial use amounting to $180.00 per
100 square feet or fraction thereof prior to the issuance of a building permit
and as adopted by the City Council.
3. That the existing structure shall be brought up to the minimum standards
of the City of Anaheim, including the Uniform Building, Plumbing, Electrical,
Mechanical and Fire Codes as adopted by the City of Anaheim.
4. That the existing driveway approach to Lincoln Avenue shall be removed and
replaced with standard curb, gutter and sidewalk in accordance with standard
plans and specifications on file in the office of the City Engineer.
5. 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 No. 1.
6. That Condition Nos. 1 through 3, 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 ninety (90) days from date hereof, whichever occurs first, or such further
time as the Planning Commission may grant.
7. That Condition Nos. 4 and 5, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior
to final building and zoning inspections.
Appeal of the Planning Commission decision was filed by Mr. Frank Bila, and
public hearing scheduled this date.
The City Clerk announced that a letter had been received from Mrs. Flora Stanton
urging that the residential look of the neighborhood be retained and that any
signs be small in size.
Councilman Roth stated he was going to abstain from participating in the hearing
since his partner sold the subject piece of property to the applicant, Mr. Bila.
Councilman Overholt stated that he was going to abstain because he had a
professional relationship with Mr. Bila.
Councilman Roth and Overholt left the Council Chamber. (3:19 P.M.)
79-224
City Hall, Anaheim, Cali£ornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 20, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour entered the Council Chamber. (3:20 P.M.)
Ms. 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. Frank Bila, 1511 East Lincoln, stated that he recently purchased the property,
which was not under CL, as an investment for a rental and it was a mess when he
purchased it. Subsequently, he thoroughly cleaned the premises which pleased
the neighbors since they signed his request for a Variance. The Planning Commission
requested that he park in the five spaces to the rear and the one space in the
front and also permitted a 16-square foot sign. He contended that since the property
should be functional and competitive as a rental unit, he wanted the Council to
relocate the parking space in front anti permit the landscaping.
Councilman Kott wanted to know if he was asking that it be moved to the west; Mr.
Bila answered, yes.
Mr. Bila continued that he agreed to seal off the Lincoln Street driveway as
recommended by the Traffic Engineer and he had deeded what was requested by the
City. He also confirmed for the Mayor that the sign would be 16 square feet.
He was certain there was agreement with everything except the aesthetics of the
project.
Ms. Santalahti explained that the discussion on how waiver (a) was approved
by the Commission under Item 3 (Page 1 of PC79-2) revolved around the fact
that where parking space number 6 was presently shown, the Commission required
that that be a landscaped area. The request would be modifying that regulation
and reducing the front landscaping from 25 feet to approximately 6 feet.
Mr. Bila interjected that inadvertently, the Commission left him without any
sidewalk at all.
Ms. Santalahti stated that perhaps it would be preferable to have the landscaped
strip in front of, rather than behind, the parking space. That would be accom-
plished by moving the space towards the garage and reversing the planter ~o that
it would buffer the parking space as well.
Councilman Kott asked if it would he acceptable to bring the landscaping south
and the parking to the north.
Mr. Bila stated he believed he could work that out.
The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to speak either in favor or in opposition.
Mr. Robert Ray, Parkview Convalescent Hospital, directly across the street from
the property, stated that a great improvement had taken place on the subject
property since Mr. Bila had acquired it. What was once an eyesore had become
a nice looking building. Anything that was being done on the property was not
out of line with what had already been done to property presently existing in
the vicinity, tie was in favor of the subject request.
79-225
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 20, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
There being no further person who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman
Kott, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council ratified the deter-
mination of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the
definition of Section 3.01, Class 11, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the
requirement for an environmental impact report and is therefore categorically
exempt from the requirement to file and EIR. Councilman Overholt and Roth
were temporarliy absent. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Kott offered Resolution No. 79R-108 for adoption granting Conditional
Use Permit No. 1926 subject to providing a 15-foot wide landscaped strip adjacent
and parallel to Lincoln Avenue, with the remainder to be asphalted and used for
one parking space. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-108: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1926.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
TEMPORARILY ABSENT:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Kott and Seymour
None
Overholt and Roth
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-108 duly passed and adopted.
Councilmen Roth and Overholt entered the Council Chamber. (3:31 P.M.)
121/124: HEARING - CONDEMNATION: Finding and determining the public interest
and necessity for acquiring and authorizing condemnation of certain real property
located at the southeast corner of West Street and Convention Way, from Edward F.
and Hazel M. Powell and Ida M. Carey, as required for the Anaheim Convention
Center Betterment II Expansion.
City Attorney Hopkins briefed the Council on his report dated February 9, 1979
relative to the subject recommending the adoption of resolution of necessity
authorizing acquisition of 13.568 acres of property at the southeast corner of
Convention Way and West Street for the Anaheim Convention Center Betterment
II Expansion, which required four affirmative votes.
The btayor asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or opposition; there
being no response he closed the public hearing.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 79R-109 for adc~ion as recommended
by the City Attorney in his report dated February 9, 1979 and subject to the
findings as outlined. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-109: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
FINDING AND DETERMINING THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY FOR ACQUIRING AND
AUTHORIZING THE CONDEMNATION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY.
79-226
Ci~ty Hail, Anaheim, Calitornia- COUNCIL MINUTES - February. 20, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Kott, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-109 duly passed and adopted.
155/107: RECOMMENDATIONS - RENTAL HOUSING NEEDS AND MOBILE HOME SUBDIVISIONS:
City Planning Commission relating to the Development Permit Process, State
Legislation for assistance in meeting rental housing needs, and mobile home
subdivisions.
Mr. Joel Fick, Assistant Director for Planning, reported that the Planning Commission
had received a comprehensive presentation from staff on February 12, 1979 relative
to mobile homes subdivisions, development processing time and rental assistance
which was a result of Council's direction to staff on November 7, 1978 (see minutes
that date). He explained there were s~.vera] individuals who offered'input at
that meeting and who might also wish to do so today. He referred to the detailed
staff report to the Planning Commission dated February 12, 1979 giving the back-
ground, findings, and reports and recommendations regarding the subject areas for
the purposes of encouraging low or moderate income housing in the City.
The following persons gave their input on the issue:
Mr. C.V. "Tappy" Culver, Field Representative, 161 East Orangethorpe Avenue,
Suite 7, Placentia, California Manufactured Housing Association. He was very
interested in seeing more affordable housing in the community and was pleased
that the Council was taking that into ~onsideration. They were in the process
in Sacramento of changing the tax laws from in-lieu fees to property tax. In
their estimation, in-lieu taxes would not give the City and County their fair
proportion of taxes derived from site-built homes. They had a Blue Ribbon
Committee in San Diego and their recommendations to the city was to go ahead
with the building of condominiums, mobi]e home parks and mobile homes on private
property.
Mayor Seymour explained that the request to staff was the result of the Council's
concern with the vacancy factor in Orange County and the rising rent taking place
in mobile home parks affc~cring senior citizens on fixed incomes and the rising
rents taking place in apartment houses especially since the passage of Proposition
13. Council philosophy was in opposition to the concept of rent control because
of the very disastrous and negative effects it had on increasing the supply of
affordable rental housing which was the answer to the low vacancy and high rent
factor. It was important to increase the supply of housing. It was with that
in mind that the Council directed the Planning Commission and Planning Department
to devise ideas and proposals which, if the Council approved, might be implemented
so that Anaheim could do its job in a positive vein to increase the supply of
rental housing in the City. One of the recommendations from the Planning Commission
was to create mobile home park condominiums wherein the owner of a particular lot
in that park would be protected from ever-increasing rent. The Council might have
some questions of Mr. Culver since he had the expertise and represented the man-
ufactured housing industry.
79-227
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 20, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Roth first asked and Mr. Culver confirmed that manufactured housing
and mobile homes were one and the same. Councilman Roth then continued that the
Council had been lobbying the hardest relative to the problem of rent increases
in mobile home parks which was as much of or equal to the problem of rent increases
in apartments. The highest amount of complaints he received however came from
the mobile home parks in the City. He wanted to know why there was such an
accelerated amount of rent increases taking place in parks.
Mr. Culver answered that it was due to supply and demand and the way to correct
the situation was to supply more such housing. They were not in favor of rent
control as an alternative. He then explained what his organization was doing
relative to the matter.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked regarding converting existing mobile home parks to
condominiums, would that help or hinder those living on fixed incomes.
Mr. Culver stated if they owned their own lot, they would not have to pay continuing
rent. If the majority of the park wanted to go to the condominium concept, they
should be able to do so.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted however that those who did not want to do so, if they
had to move, would have no place to go. As well, it was brought out at a League
of Cities meeting that people who retired fifteen years earlier with what they
thought was a good annual income were wiped out with double digit inflation,
and thus the conversion to condominiums would present another problem for them;
Mr. Culver agreed.
Mr. Culver then answered a line of questioning by Councilman Overholt relative to
typical leasing terms of a mobile home and other rental arrangements typical in
mobile home parks. Mr. Culver also confirmed it would be very difficult to
relocate mobile homes that were already in place or to locate new units as well.
Mrs. Patricia Dean, Attorney, Legislative Coordinator for the thirteen Western
States for the Western Manufactured Housing Institute (the trade association of
the manufacturers of mobile and modular homes).
Mrs. Dean first defined and elaborated upon the terminology involved in the
discussion and used in the staff report such as subdivisions, the park concept,
condominiums, mobile homes, etc., for purposes of clarification. She also
explained that the only basic difference between a manufactured and modular home
was that the manufactured home was built to the HUD code and the modular was built
to the Uniform Building Code. The HUD Codes preempted all State construction
codes and if such a home was built and installed on a permanent foundation, it
could be taxed as real property and could be lived in as a permanent home.
Concerning mobile homes, the Federal definition was that it be at least 8 feet
in width and at least 40 feet in length designed to be used with or without
a permanent foundation and that was where there was a difference with present
State statutes. Those were the opinions of the Attorney General and not the
Statutory Laws of the State at this time.
Mrs. Dean also stated that she was a resident of Anaheim and had been for some
ten years and wanted to stay in the City. However, she did not qualify as low
income, nor a senior citizen. She wanted a quality manufactured home and also
79-228
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 20, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
wanted to be able to put it where she wished and did not want to live in a park.
Although parks were needed and necessary, there was a large segment of the public
in the County who wanted to live in a modular home, but outside a park. She
asked that they consider the concept that the San Diego Blue Ribbon Committee
devised, the mini-subdivision. She thereupon submitted a copy of the report to
be copied for the Council in which the concept was discussed which contained a
density of 6 or 7 homes to the acre on four or five acres with no extra amenities,
but just space for the homes.
Mayor Seymour interjected and pointed out that if Mrs. Dean had an opportunity
to review the staff report, a lot of what she was saying was already included
in the report and being recommended to the Council today, such as the specific
recommendation of five acres with a density of nine units to the acre.
Mrs. Dean pointed out that they were talking about a park or a walled concept
and she did not want to live behind a wall. She was talking about permanent
houses, subdivisions that were taxed and also financed for 25 to 30 years. The
Veterans Administration would finance mobile homes on their own lots for 30 years.
Councilman Roth wanted to know what they could do about reducing the costs of
housing today. For instance a lot in Anaheim Hills would cost between $50,000
to $55,000, containing seven or eight thousand square feet with all improvements
installed. If the modular unit cost approximately $50,000, then between the
lot and the house with landscaping, it would escalate to $110,000 or $115,000.
Earlier in the meeting he had mentioned the Covington Brothers modular homes
being championed by Mr. Bill Erickson. He believed that their concept had merit
and even in the Redevelopment area. A certain amount of acreage could be set
aside and lots could be broken down to five or six thousand square feet and
subsequently private industry could place Covington Brothers modular homes
on those lots.
Mrs. Dean stated Councilman Roth was talking about 900- to 1000-square foot homes
for low-income or moderate housing. She was talking about moderate income, but
there was no reason why the two could not intermix, 1000- and 2000-square foot
homes.
Mrs. Pat Kish, Housing Consultant for Supervisor Ralph Clark. Mrs. Kish stated
that first and foremost she was speaking as a mobile home owner in Anaheim. She
was also a memb~r of the Nationa] Mobile Home Council, as well as several organ-
izations. She emphasized that re].ative to the vacancy factor for mobile homes,
it was zero and worse if a mobile home owner wanted to move his home. She then
explained the plight of senior citizens being priced out of their homes as well
as the fact that they could not sell them because incoming people would be faced
with an immediate rent increase. There were no controls or regulations governing
~he amount of rent increases or the frequency in mobile home parks.
Mrs. Kish stated that she was pleased to have worked with the City's Planning
Department and she considered the recommendations contained in the staff report
to be excel]ent~ She would like to see the requirements lowered from 10 acres
to 5 acres and one thing with which she was in agreement with Mrs. Dean was
79-229
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 20, 1.979, 1:30 P.M.
relative to the block wall concept. She would favor landscaping rather than a
block wall because their homes were pleasing to look at. She wanted the Council
to adopt the recommendations provided by the Planning staff. She was certain
other cities in the area would soon follow suit and it would please her to see
Anaheim taking the first step in seeing that some choice was available to the
people.
Mrs. Kish continued that the own-your-own lot concept would alleviate some of
the problems. Those wishing to go to that concept would then create a vacancy
factor in existing rental parks and also create a competitive situation. The
reasons rents were skyrocketing was due to the fact that no competition existed
in the mobile home industry. They needed help and the City Council, by approving
the recommendations from staff, would be a great thing to have happen in the
County of Orange.
Councilman Roth asked if she was recommending the deletion of all amenities
if acreage was reduced to five? As a realtor in discussing their situation
with developers, a constant theme was that it would not make any sense unless
there was a minimum of 20 acres with regard to all the amenities that had to be
installed. If the acreage was lower, but nobody was interested because there were
no amenities, it would cause a dilemma.
Mrs. Kish answered that not all of them needed the luxurious club house, swimming
pool, etc.
For clarification, Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mrs. Kish if she was agreeing
with Pat Dean in eliminating any acre designation and the placement of modular
housing on any lot.
Mrs. Kish did not agree completely with that. She explained she had not been
an advocate of allowing the placement of the manufactured home on any piece of
ground. Although it was attractive and affordable, she was concerned that
because of those two factors, there would be situations where two or three
families would share in the purchase of the structure and then not properly
maintain it, causing it to lose its attractiveness and desirability. She stated
she was an advocate of a clustering of mobile homes, but not on individual lots
wherever they might be.
Relative to the question of taxes, Mrs. Kish stated there had been several efforts
made in Sacramento to change the tax structure from in-lieu to ad valorem. People
living in rental parks were objecting because they were paying a proportionate
share of property taxes in their rent. They realized, however, that in order to
get something they had to give something and thus, the trend of thinking was changing.
They had no problem with changing the tax structure on mobile homes, but favored
allowing the people in rental parks the choice as to whether or not they wished to
remain on in-lieu or go to ad valorem.
Mr. Culver stated that the buyer of a new mobile home would not have a choice
of in-lieu or ad valorem. The only people with a choice would be those now
living in mobile homes. They would be "grandfathered" on the in-lieu tax but
79-230
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 20, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
if they chose to go to ad valorem, they could do so. New buyers of new or used
homes would go on ad valorem.
Mr. Tom Catterson, West Street, stated he had taken a survey among renters in
apartment houses around Anaheim and they were overwhelmingly for some kind
of rent control. He wanted to know before he went back to them how soon the
City Council was going to decide on a rent freeze.
Mayor Seymour stated he could speak for the Council who had, on a number of
occasions, unanimously opposed rent control as an answer to the problem. Today
they were discussing positive alternatives that might get to the heart of the
problem which the Council viewed as too much demand chasing too little supply.
They were considering and encouraging input as to how to increase the supply of
rental housing. They believed if they could do that, the problem would resolve
itself as it had in the past on a number of occasions. He then recounted what
had occurred in the late 1960s in Orange County when the situation was very
favorable to renters because there was 10 to 15% vacancy factor at that time. If
the pendulum would once again swing bringing an increase in the supply of housing,
they would not hear about the problems of rent control.
Mr. Catterson stated that there were a lot of houses that were not now being
occupied by people living in California, but instead by people from the east
who were increasing the population. If a glut of apartment houses was built,
be maintained that they would be orchestrating a big city and spoiling the
atmosphere of Anaheim.
The Mayor stated there was no intent to glut Anaheim with apartments or any other
form of rental housing, but they were instead seeking positive action without
invoking rent control.
Councilman Roth stated that Walker & Lee performed an excellent survey of people
who were buying homes in the area, and the majority were coming from a 25-mile
radius of the new tract. As well, the people moving to Anaheim Hills from the
"flatland" were vacating $60,000 houses which was the lowest price available
for a new family, and that created a favorable situation. He noted that Mr.
Catterson had been before the Council previously where he suggested that the
Council stop growth in the community. It appeared to him (Roth) that was the
element that caused artificial shortages, increased costs, and rent control. Mr.
Catterson was saying there was too much growth, and he wanted it stopped.
Mayor Seymour stated that he believed they would all favor that, but he (Catterson)
was saying to the Council he realized there was too much demand chasing too
little supply, but he did not want to increase the supply, and therefore there
should be rent control.
Mr. Catterson stated that Anaheim was the largest growing city in Orange County,
and the only alternative he could see was rent control. He thanked the Council
for answering him and stated he would bring their message back to his people.
The Mayor stated that he hoped Mr. Catterson would also take back to them the
word that Anaheim, in taking the lead position in Southern California, was trying
to devise positive alternatives to rent control.
79-231
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 20, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Kott stated that what they were basically talking about was inflation,
and he encouraged Mr. Catterson to tell all the people to write their Federal
legislators to repeal the Federal Reserve Act and then perhaps they could over-
come the problem.
No other member of the public wished to speak.
Mayor Seymour explained that in November (see minutes November 7, 1978), he
brought to the Council what he considered to be a few basic problems that, if
researched by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission, there might be
positive alternatives to the question of rent control. He commended the staff,
as well as the Planning Commission, for the excellent job they had done and he
concurred personally with most of their recommendations. However, there were
a couple that he would like to see further amended. Relative to the building
permit process (see Section A in report dated February 15, 1979), the insti-
tution of a priority plan for checking mobile home parks, they did not feel
that was a viable alternative, and he disagreed. He was of the opinion that
all residential rental property should be included not only in the "super stamp"
procedure, but also should be given priority. They were faced with a 0 to 2%
vacancy factor in rental housing, and he maintained that situation demanded an
aggressive action in order to remedy it. He suggested therefore that a priority
be given to any residential rental property plans going through the City and
further that such preferential or priority treatment be provided until such
time as the vacancy factor reached a more normal rate of at least 5%.
Relative to Section B, Alternative 3, staff comprehensiv, ely evaluate, existing
housing needs, problem-solving strategies and courses of action through the Housing
Element, he believed that to be an excellent recommendation, but he wanted to add
one more thought to it. As staff goes through that process, that they consider
a density bonus to be provided to the rental housing developer in exchange for
some type of agreement that would insure that for at least a 5-year period, rents
would not escalate as they were doing today, or not exceed the Consumer Price
Index, or a concept of ~type.
Relative to Section C, mobile homes subdivisons, regarding various permits and fees
incurred by the Department, he was aware that they had appropriated funds in the
Housing Community Block Grant Program for low income housing. He wanted to know
as a potential use if those funds could be used to offset the fees which would
encourage that type of housing. He believed that would be a positive incentive if
it could be worked out, and he wanted that aspect researched.
Relative to the conversion of mobile home parks to mobile home condominiums, he
considered it to be unwise for the Council to institute that action at this time.
Councilwoman Kaywood previously brought out the point that in the event of conversion,
there would be those who would not wish to convert and who could not then find
other parks in which to live. In that event, they would be hurting the people
they were trying to help and thus he felt they should wait, and not pursue that
aspect at the present time.
79-232
City Hall, Anaheim, Ca]iforni_a__- ?_UNC_!L~MIN_UTES - February 20, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor continued that by creating mobile home subdivisions or condominiums, or
offering a density bonus to builders, Anaheim would be taking the lead role among
cities in Southern California and perhaps the entire State. In doing so, they
might merely be solving other cities' problems, since citizens from other areas
would absorb the units created in Anaheim. Therefore, he wanted to know if there
was some legal way to restrict the purchase of mobile home/condominiums, or at
least give first right of refusal to existing Anaheim residents. He asked if
there was a legal way to do that if it was tied in to the conditions of approval
for a CUP.
City Attorney Hopkins explained that there had been some litigation in Northern
California regarding such a restriction, and the last court decision that he
recalled was not favorable to that type of restriction. However, he would
research the matter and relay that information to the Council.
Mayor Seymour stated that the bright side of that question was that in the City's
Section 8 Housing Program citizens of Anaheim were given the first right of
occupancy. If that could be done under a Federal program, he questioned why it
could not also be done under a local program.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she was impressed with the chart on the development
processing and could see very few instances where from the staff point of view,
there was any delay. Often it was the developer who came in with something that
was unacceptable and subsequently caused major delays. Relative to the availabilit~
of acreage in Anaheim, she was concerned that there were only 667 acres left for
development, 56 of which were in the agricultural preserve and would be tied up
for 10 years, and other parcels had buildings on them, so not all of the land was
necessarily available. It was owned by someone and they may not wish to sell it.
Anaheim was therefore almost completely filled up. There were also 35 mobile home
parks in the City out of 250 existing in Orange County. Four hundred sixty-three
acres were devoted to parks equaling 4% of the City development, containing 4500
spaces and 7700 people or t.7 people per unit in parks. There was a very real
problem in the whole area relative to low and moderate income housing, and senior
citizens on fixed incomes were being forced out of their homes.
Councilwoman Kaywood continued that Anaheim was not going to be able to solve
the problem for everyone. She liked the idea broached by Pat Dean that of buying
a single lot or a small parcel and also setting aside a certain amount of residential
acreage to be able to put in moderate housing. It would also be necessary to
review the City's Building Code, and something was going to have to be ironed
out between manufacturers and the building and construction industry, to be able
to construct better housing much cheaper for people in Iow and moderate income
areas. It was necessary to disperse that housing instead of creating or moving
a slum. She maintained that Anaheim was doing a great deal and she was highly
complimentary of the staff report. She commended the Planning staff, the
Planning Commission and Pat Kish for her input. She hoped that all cities and
counties would do as much as Anaheim and perhaps rethink the whole idea of a
park concept. She also noted that the Planning Commission did not accept a
location automatically in a low density area, and she agreed with that. She was ~_
aware that the need was very real, but if too dense housing was going to be put
in anywhere, thereby destroying the way of life of Anaheim and the reason why
people came to live in the City, they would be doing an even greater disservice
to the citizens.
79-233
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 20, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Roth stated he had previously gone on record as opposing rent control
as an absolutely unnecessary evil and anything they could do to broaden the
ownership of affordable housing they should do. He was looking at the housing
stock that would be afforded by mobile home parks such as the location of the
oldest mobile home park in the City at Harbor and the Santa Ana Freeway. It
was a very valuable piece of property that was below standard. He would expect
that someday someone would come in and construct a high-rise hotel on the site.
Some RV parks were indicating that the costs were now so prohibitive near the
Disneyland area that they would rather modify to some high-rise hotel type concept,
and thus the City would lose more of its housing stock. The economics were such
that in order to construct a mobile home park, it was necessary to have a large
piece of real estate. If it could be 5 acres, it would be lessening the requirement
of providing amenities. He was particularly interested in Mr. Erickson's recommen-
dation relative to the corridor area and those areas that would be designated as
residential property and for staff to look at Covington Brothers modular type
housing. In that way, they might be able to provide an additional amount of
housing stock along those lines, and he recommended that they follow through on
that aspect.
Councilman Kott contended the issue was supply and demand and even if they did
all of the things recommended, the demand could go up and the prices would
escalate as well. Everyone was to be complimented on trying to come up with
solutions, but inflation, escalation of wages, etc., were not being talked
about, and they were the underlying factors that had to be considered.
Councilman Overholt complimented the staff on an excellent report and expressed
his appreciation to both Pat Dean and Pat Kish for assisting and helping the
Council make a decision. He agreed with the Mayor in being opposed to rushing
into the condominium concept. The idea was to ease the pressure on existing
manufactured housing developments by encouraging swift further development along
those lines. To go into condominium conversions at this time would scare a
number of people who lived in mobile home parks. If the majority of the
Council voted to go to the condominium concept, those people would not be able
to proceed in that type of program. He again expressed his personal appreciation
to everyone who participated in the subject.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour thereupon moved the following as listed in report
of February 15, 1979, Section A, Building Permit Process: to accept the Planning
Commission recommendations as outlined and also the following: (alternatives
! through 4 with noted changes) Institution of "super stamp" procedure for all
residential rental properties, staff to provide handouts to developers speci-
fically outlining requirements; Institute priority plan-check procedure for
residential rental properties until such time as vacancy factor reaches 5%,
staff further investigate and prepare criteria for fee reimbursement on
residential rental property. Councilman Kott seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated she was going to have to
disagree with the motion. She felt they would be plunging into something that
was going to be contrary to the facts of life of Proposition 13. Property tax
had been tremendously lowered and the fees charged by the City, as she recalled,
79-234
City Hall~ Anaheim, Cali.for___nia - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 20, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
did not even begin to cover the cost. Mr. Thompson confirmed that the fees
charged covered approximately one-half the cost involved. Councilwoman Kaywood
responded she did not favor waiving the fees because the City should not contin-
ually be on the short end with the institution of a priority plan-check, less fees,
until a 5% vacancy factor occurred. An escalation in building would subsequently
occur and everyone from the County would be coming to Anaheim and they would
not ever reach a 5% vacancy factor. She therefore offered a substitute motion
to approve the Planning Commission recommendation regarding the "super stamp"
procedure without change.
The Mayor interjected and stated that if his motion failed, Councilwoman Kaywood's
motion would then be in order. He explained however, that his motion did not
include the elimination of fees, but was directing staff to prepare some criteria
for consideration of fee waiver to the degree that they could find revenues
somewhere else to pay for those fees. If that would encourage development, they
should institute such action. Relative to the priority plan-check, either they
should recognize the severity of the problem of non-vacancies in rental housing
in the City and do something about that situation, or take an "omtrich" approach
which would indicate the problem was not there. His mail reflected a significant
and overwhelming concern on the part of renters for rent control and he was
certain everyone's mail indicated the same. He supported the opposition to
rent control on one hand, but unless they were going to offer some very positive
alternatives, they would be saying that although they understood the problem,
they were unwilling to do much about it.
Councilwoman Kaywood reiterated a point she brought up previously, that the
percentage of rental property in the City at present was higher than that of
home ownership, approximately 52%. She would be very concerned about turning
Anaheim into a city of renters, rather than home owners.
The Mayor stated that his motion would not bring about such a situation. The
intent was those properties that would normally be developed as rental, be given
priority as far as cutting red tape and bureaucracy to get those projects through
and up as quickly as possible.
Councilwoman K~nywood reiterated that she did not see delays occurring in the
development process [~eing caused by the City.
Councilman Roth stated he would have to support the motion. The greatest demand
from people was for rent control, wheiher involving apartments or mobile homes.
His opposition to rent control was well known, but he had to look at every alternative
and something had to be done so that free enterprise would take over and increase
the City's housing stock. If something was not done, he and the Council were going
to have to "bite the bullet" of rent control.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilwoman Kaywood voted "no".
MOTION CARRIED.
79-235
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 20, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood explained that she was opposed to that portion but was in
favor of the other procedures.
Councilman Seymour moved on Section B, State Legislation, to accept the Planning
Commission recommendations as outlined (Alternatives 1 through 4) with additional
consideration on Alternative 3, that staff consider concept of offering a density
bonus. Councilman Kott seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked if, with the density bonus,
the blayor was looking to include the amenities that would go along with it, not a
clubhouse or pool, but standards as required by the City. She referred to Page
13-f(4) of the staff report, Item B - maximum density. Seven mobile home lots
per gross acre are permitted (9 if specified design amenities are incorporated
into the layout of the building).
Mayor Seymour stated he was looking beyond mobile home subdivisions and parks
and looking at the entire residential rental property when giving a density
bonus. That meant more density than what existed before, but in exchange for
some insurance or guarantee that rents would not be unreasonably raised.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she was not talking just about mobile homes either.
She wanted to be certain they would not be creating a slum, and that with
higher density, the project would still be one of quality.
The Mayor stated that it was necessary to get a program going before it was able
to be analyzed.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Seymour moved on Section C, Mobile Home Subdivision, to accept the
Planning Commission recommendations as outlined (Alternatives 1 through 7).
Councilman Kott seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
ORDINANCE NO. 3975: Councilman Kott offered Ordinance No. 3975 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3975: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING NEW CHAPTER 4.07
TO TITLE 4 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO BUS SHELTERS.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Kott left the Council Chamber. (5:10 P.M.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
TEMPORARILY ABSENT:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour
None
Kott
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3975 duly passed and adopted.
79-236
City HalI, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Febr.uary 20, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
ORDINANCE NO. 3976 THROUGH 3978: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 3976
through 3978, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 3976: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (61-62-69(88), ML)
ORDINANCE NO. 3977: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (63-64-62(19). RM-1200)
ORDINANCE NO. 3978: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MIDNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (70-71-25(6), RS-5000, Tract
Nos. 9171 and 9172)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
TEMPORARILY ABSENT:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour
None
Kott
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 3976 through 3978, both inclusive, duly passed
and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 3979: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 3979 for first
reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 3979: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (65-66-24(21), ML)
Councilman Kott entered the Council Chamber. (5:14 P.M.)
MINI-SCHOOL NURSERY AND DAY CARE CENTER: Councilwoman Kaywood reported on the
recent Grand Opening of the Mini-School Nursery and Day Care Center on La Palma
Avenue. She was impressed with private enterprise's answer to such a large
need. The Center could accommodate 180 children from 3 months to 5 years. One
hundred thirty youngsters were enrolled before the doors opened, and she com-
mented that it was a very nice addition to Anaheim.
163: ANTI-BUSING RALLY AT PETER MARSHALL SCHOOL: Councilman Roth reported on
another anti-busing rally held at Peter Marshall School where approximately 400
people were in attendance. He advised them that the Council had passed a una-
nimous resolution opposing busing. It was a good evening and the people were
writing letters to their legislators.
CONSTRUCTION BEIN(; UNDERTAKEN IN THE CITY OF CORONA BY KAUFMAN AND BROAD:
Councilman Kott referred to memorandum dated February 15, 1979 from the Planning
Director regarding the subject. Mr. Ron Thompson thereupon answered questions
posed by Councilman Kott for purposes of clarification.
119: ORANGE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT - COMMUNITY PRIDE PROGRAM: Mayor Seymour
stated he would like the Council to consider a resolution, the purpose of which
would be to assist Gene Beyer of the Orange Unified School District in carrying his
79-237
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 20, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
"Community Pride Program" into Anaheim, which program had met with much success
in the City of Orange. He thereupon read the resolution which the Council
might support to be used solely as a fund raiser, since the program was totally
funded by private donations. He was not asking the Council to vote on the
matter this week, but asked their indulgence to permit the resolution to be
drawn as he had read it. He also had a copy of a brochure explaining the program
which had been in existence for approximately 3 years that would be available
in the City Clerk's office for Council perusal.
RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess into Executive
Session. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (5:25 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (5:40 P.M.)
112: CITY OF ANAHEIM VS. GUITRAU, ET AL: On motion by Councilman Seymour,
seconded by Councilman Kott, the City Attorney was authorized to settle Orange
County Superior Court Case No. 26-58-86, Complaint in Intervention (City of
Anaheim vs. Guitrau, et al), for $8,000 as proposed by Attorney8 for Defendants.
MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn, Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 5:40 P.M.
LINDA D. ROBERTS, cITY CLERK