1982/03/09City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 9~ 1982, 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CiTY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
RECREATION SERVICES MANAGER: David A. Sommers
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ronald L. Thompson
HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR: Garry McRae
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Norman J. Priest
ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR--ZONING: Annika Santalahti
HOUSING MANAGER: Lisa Stipkovich
Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: The Reverend Rick Gastil, Melodyland Hotline Center, gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman E. Llewellyn Overholt, Jr., led the assembly in the
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
119/128: PRESENTATION: Mayor Seymour, on behalf of the Council, presented
the California Society of Municipal Finance Officers Certificate of Award for
Outstanding Financial Reporting for Fiscal Year 1980/81, to Mr. George Ferrone,
Finance Director, and Mr. Irwin Bornstein, Assistant Finance Director. The
Mayor elaborated upon the great benefits that accrued to the City as a direct
result of the outstanding financial reporting being acknowledged today through
the subject award.
119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Seymour
and authorized by the City Council:
"Week of the Handicapped" - March 14-21, 1982.
MINUTES: Councilman Roth moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting
held January 19, 1982. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Bay moved to
waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda, after
reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to waiver is
hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the title, specific
request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such ordinance or resolution
in regular order. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
219
.City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 9~ 1982~ 1:30 P.M
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $2,253,273.73, in accordance
with the 1981-82 Budget, were approved.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL MOTION CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman
Roth, seconded by Councilman Bay, the following items were approved as
recommended:
a. 123/125: Authorizing the Data Processing Director to enter into an agree-
ment with WANG Laboratories, Inc., for the lease purchase of office automation
equipment, and with Bank of America for 10 percent financing thereof, at a
total monthly cost of approximately $12,500.
b. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to award a purchase order to
Creative Lighting in the amount of $20,151.20, for 40 sport flood fixtures
for the relighting of the Convention Center Arena.
c. 123: Authorizing an agreement with Donald J. Fears, Architect, A.I.A.,
in an amount not to exceed $7,600 for architectural services for certain
improvements at Anaheim Stadium, the locker rooms and restrooms near Gate 7
and the restrooms near Gate 8.
d. 128: Receiving and filing the Monthly Financial Statement for the
seven months ended January 31, 1982.
e. 153: Accepting the proposal of Practical Management Associates to
conduct a supervisory seminar, "Communicating Through Objectives," at a
cost not to exceed $4,750, on June 7, 1982, and authorizing the Human
Resources Director to issue a letter of acceptance.
f. 123: Authorizing an agreement with D~nn Properties for the installation
of railroad p£otection at Hunter Avenue and The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe
Railroad Company rail line at no cost to the City.
g. 151: Authorizing an encroachment permit to Camping World of California,
Inc., for use of City easement on property located east of West Street, north
of Ball Road.
h. 151: Authorizing an encroachment permit to Lloyd S., Annette P., Billy
Clinton, and Mariiyn E. Cope, to allow the encroachment of a one-story
concrete cinder block building on 3.77 feet of City right-of-way at the
northwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Sabina Street.
MOTION CARRIED.
150/160: 1982 TROPHY AND AWARDS BID: City Manager Talley briefed the Council
on memorandum dated March 3, 1982, from the Purchasing Agent, John Thomason,
recommending the issuance of a purchase order to Ail American Trophy in Fullerton,
220
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 9, 1982, 1:30 P.M.
in the amount of $11,681.20 (including tax), for the 1982 trophy and awards
bid in accordance with Bid Specification No. 3843. He added that Mr. Paul
Pink wished to address the Council.
Mr. Paul Pink, Awards by Paul, 1302 South Magnolia, stated it was his under-
standing that the Selection Committee narrowed its selection to two companies,
Awards by Paul and Ail American Trophy, and that Ail American Trophy was
selected because the trophies were slightly larger. He felt the overriding
decision should not be the size of the trophy, but that his firm was located
in Anaheim and the competing firm was not. Money was not the factor since
both firms bid the same price. He emphasized that his firm paid taxes to
operate in the City and supported many charitable and civic projects. He felt
they could offer excellent service and be sympathetiu to the needs of the City.
He, therefore, requested that the contract be awarded to Awards by Paul.
Discussion and questioning followed between Council Members and staff, including
Dave Sommers, Recreation Services Manager, and the Purchasing Agent, John
Thomason, at the conclusion of which City Manager Talley suggested that they
could rebid the item.
MOTION: Councilman Roth thereupon moved that the 1982 Trophy and Awards purchase
be rebid. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
During the discussion, Mayor Seymour stated that although he felt the blind
process used in the selection was appropriate, no consideration was given that
one of the bidders was located within the City, and they did have a Policy
relative to doing business with firms mn the City; City Manager Talley clarified
that there was a Policy by Council directive, that they give a one-percent
advantage to an Anaheim firm when all other things were equal.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL RESOLUTION CONSENT CALENDAR: Councilman Roth
offered Resolution Nos. 82R-116 through 82R-122, both inclusive, for adoption,
as recommended. Refer to Resolution Book.
153: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-116: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ~NAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT KENNETH MELLOTT IS DISABLED WITHIN
THE MEANING OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT LAW FOR THE PERFOR~taJqCE OF
HIS DUTIE§ IN THE P0§ITION OF FIRE CAPTAIN I. (e~£ective December 21, it§l)
140: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-117: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM DESIGNATING THE NAME OF THE LOCAL HISTORY ROOM AT THE CENTRAL
LIBRARY AS THE ELIZABETH J. SCHULTZ ANAHEIM HISTORY ROOM.
140: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-118: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE PAVEMENT MARKING DEMONSTRATION PROGRAbI,
IN THE CiTY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 17-796-6325-E6020. (Consley & Montigny,
$231,920)
221
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 9, 1982, 1:30 P.M.
167: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-119: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM AWARDINC A CONTRACT FOR THE INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND
SAFETY LIGHTING AT NOHL RANCH ROAD AND SCOUT TRAIL, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
ACCOUNT NO. 24-794-6325-E4180. (Grissom & Johnson, Inc., $45,375)
164: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-120: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE BURRUEL CANYON STORM DRAIN, IN THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 01-791-6325-E1250. (James I. Langford, J.V.,
$99,320)
153: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-121: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM ADOPTING A LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AND ANAHEIMMUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, GENERAL CITY EMPLOYEES UNITS.
(providing conditions under which employees temporarily upgraded to Librarian IV
shall be compensated)
153: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-122: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM ADOPTING A LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AND THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION. (providing night shift
premium for certain employees working 2:30 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. at the Police
Department)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 82R-116 through 82R-122, both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted.
153: RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR UNREPRESENTED PART-TIME CLASSIFICATIONS:
Superseding Resolution No. 81R-93, establishing rates of compensation for
unrepresented part-time classifications and creating part-time classifica-
tions of Facility Coordinator and Aquatics Coordinator, effective March 12,
1982 (see minutes--March 2, 1982).
City Manager Talley briefed the Council on memorandum dated March 5, 1982,
from the Human Resources Director, Garry McRae, recommending the creation
of two new classifications of Facility Coordinator and Aquatics Coordinator,
that there be no change in the rates of compensation for the classifications
of CETA Youth Worker I and II, and that new rates of compensation be assigned
to part-time classifications~ as listed in the report.
Councilman Bay again expressed his concern, as he did at the previous meeting,
that they were talking about $98,557 overall. He did not see raises to the
extent proposed across part-time help as being absolutely necessary.
222
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 9, 1982, 1:30 P.M.
Both City Manager Talley and Human Resources Director Garry McRae explained
the necessity for such increases which, in the final, analysis, amounted to a
5.5 percent increase across the board and, excluding CETA, a 4.3 percent in-
crease.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 82R-123 for adoption. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 82R-123: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ESTABLISHING RATES OF COI,~ENSATION FOR UNREPRESENTED PART-TIME JOB
CLASSIFICATIONS, AND SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION NO. 81R-93 AND AMENDMENTS
THERETO.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 82R-123 duly passed and adopted.
123/177: COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE ORANGE COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY AND THE
ANAHEIM HOUSING AUTHORITY TO FINANCE THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN APARTMENT PROJECT:
Authorizing an agreement with the Orange County Housing Authority and the
Anaheim Housing Authority, to finance the construction of an apartment project
in the amount of $4,052,700, to be located at the southwest corner of Lincoln
Avenue and Westchester, as recommended in memorandum dated March 3, 1982, from
the Executive Director of Community Development, Norman Priest.
Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 82R-128 for adoption. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 82R-128: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE ORANGE COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY AND
THE ANAHEIM HOUSING AUTHORITY TO FIN~MCE AN APARTbfENT PROJECT IN THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor geymour wanted to know the reason {or Coumcil-
woman Kaywood's and Councilman Bay's opposition to the same: Resolution offered
under the Housing Authority meeting earlier today.
Councilman Bay stated his opposition was primarily that Section 8 Housing in
general was a large portion of the Housing Element proposed and voted for
by a majority of the Council. At the time, he voted against the Housing
Element on the basis of the Section 8 portion of it, as well as other Federal,
State and County housing funds. To him, those funds, dependent upon the
223
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - ~rch 9, 1982, 1:30 P.M.
political situation of the country, would be temporary. When getting to
certain things within the Housing Element, the way he saw it at the time,
he differed philosophically with some of the items in it. The reason he
voted against the subject project under the Housing Authority was due to
the fact that he did not recall ever seeing the project at the Council
level since he had been on the Council, nor was he certain that it was
identified as a Section 8 Housing development at th~ time that the zoning
hearings took place. He was not opposed to Section 8 Housing per se.
Assistant Planning Director for Zoning, Annika Santalahti, then gave the
general background of the project stating that it was initially approved
in Fiscal Year 1978-79 as a straight RM-1200 development with two minor
waivers. Density and all other standards complied with Code.
At the conclusion of further Council discussion and questions to staff, the
Mayor suggested that the matter be trailed to later in the meeting to give
staff an opportunity to further research the specific questions asked by
Council Members.
Later in the meeting, the Executive Director of Community Development, Norman
Priest, gave the chronological history of the project since it started through
the City, the project having been presented to the Council initially on
October 17, 1978. As well, he clarified the specifics of the project, the
two waivers requested, etc., and gave the votes that took place when the
project was considered both at the Planning Commission and Council level.
Lisa Stipkovich, Housing Manager, also clarified questions posed relative
to Section 8 Housing and gave the present status of that Federal program.
Mr. David Dahl, Lindborg-Dahl, confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood that there
was no connection between The William Lyon Company and the project u~der
discussion.
In concluding, Mayor Seymour stated that as reported by staff, that as
many times as the Section 8 aspect, as well as the project, was voted on
at the Council since 1978, there was never a negative vote cast.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she was going to support the project in this case.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing Resolution.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEI~BERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour
Bay
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 82R-128 duly passed and adopted.
224
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 9~ 1982, 1:30 P.M.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for ten minutes. (3:02 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, ail Council Members being
present. (3:17 p.m.)
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINC - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2288 AND EIR NO. 251:
Submitted by the City of Anaheim, to permit an il-story, 160-foot high, 1600-
room Convention Hotel and accessory uses with on-sale alcoheiic beverages, on
PR zoned property located on the south side of Katella Avenue, west of Harbor
Boulevard, with a Code waiver of minimum number and design of parking spaces.
This matter was continued from the meeting of February 16, 1982, where extensive
discussion took place and input received (see minutes that date) and subsequently
continued to March 2, 1982, when it was again continued to this date for full
Council action.
Mayor Seymour asked first to hear from the applicant, with any new and different
information than that offered at the meeting of February 16, 1982.
Mr. Bruce Gelb, legal counsel for C-D Investment, who in cooperation with Hilton
Hotels, had proposed the subject project, 9911 West Pico Boulevard, Suite 51,
Los Angeles, stated they had chosen not to introduce any new evidence at today's
hearing, but they would like an opportunity to respond if there was any opposition.
Members of~the Hilton Hotels Corporation were present, as well as Mr. Doug Holm
of C-D Investments if there were any questions.
The Mayor then asked to hear from Ms. Marlene Fox.
Ms. Marlene Fox, Attorney, 567 San Nicolas Drive, Newport Beach, representing
the Wrather Corporation, first asked if the document dated February 26, 1982,
from Justin Farmer, Transportation Engineer, submitted last week under cover
lettez dated March 1, 1982, had been made a part of the record; City Clerk
Linda Roberts answered, "yes."
Ms. Fox then asked if the model of the subject area prepared at the request of,
and owned by, the Wrather Corporation, consisting of two parts, could be marked
for identification purposes and subsequently maintained by the City as part of
the administrative record. After discussions between Council and staff, it was
finally determined that a photograph would be taken of the model and that the
City would retain the photo and the model returned to the Wrather Corporation
(model to remain with the City until photographed by Wrather and the photograph
then exchanged for the model). In response to Ms. Fox, the City Attorney stated
they would stipulate to the model being admissible at trial, if necessary.
Ms. Fox then referred to the previous documentation submitted and made a part of
the record and added that she had no intention of repeating anything, but wished
to point out two or three items as follows: With regard to the response to
comments to the EIR, both written and oral, that had been made at the public
hearings, it was their position that up to the present date, there had not
been adequate response, specifically to the actual size of the project currently
225
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 9, 1982, 1:30 P.M.
before the Council, and the cumulative impact, together with the other construc-
tion projects in the Anaheim Convention Center area. Relative to the zoning
designation, an issue which she raised at the last meeting, they had received
no response. She then referred to the Code section listing the required
findings that must be made in connection with the approval of any CUP wherein
five speci£ic findings were listed (Anaheim Municipal Code 18.03.030-.035).
She emphasized that four of the findings (.032, .033, .034, .035), upon which
she elaborated, could not be met based on the overwhelming evidence they
submitted and introduced into the record at the various public hearings prior
to this time. Further, in addition to the other items already listed, to which
they had not received adequate responses, numerous questions had been raised
with regard to the economic impact and there were no answers~as to the dis-
crepancies that had been presented up to this point. In the event the Council
should proceed, those questions remained unanswered, just as those relative to
traffic and circulation, parking, air quality and water. She was ready to
respond to any questions.
The Mayor asked if anybody else wished to speak in opposition to the project;
there was no response. He, therefore, gave Mr. Gelb an opportunity for re-
buttal.
Mr. Gelb stated, at the time of the Planning Commission meeting, they went through
the various items Ms. Fox referenced relative to granting a CUP. They had also
introduced a great deal of evidence showing how the various problems referenced
in the EIR had been mitigated and offered a benefit to the adjoining land owners,
both economically as well as environmentally. In concluding his remarks, Mr. Gelb
asked that the Council certify EIR No. 251 and grant the Conditional Use Permit
applied for.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
The Mayor, speaking on behalf of the citizens, stated to ensure economic vitality
and future growth, they could not be complacent with their place in the competi-
tive tourism business and industry and, therefore, he believed they had to move
ahead with the subject project. It represented $160 million worth of construc-
tion, new jobs and new revenues to the City, as well as to the business
community. Although it would cause some shift and chan§e for a while as it
settled in among its fellow members of the hetel industry within Anaheim,
he was also confident that they had done everything they could possibly do to
mitigate any negative circumstances, both esthetically~as well as economically.
There were overriding considerations to the negatives set forth in the EIR
that merited the approval of the EIR, as well as the Conditional Use Permit.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 82R-124 for adoption, certifying
E1R No. 251, having been reviewed by the City staff and recommended by the
City Planning Commission as being in compliance with City and State guidelines
and the State of California Environmental Quality Act, and adopting a Statement
of Overriding Considerations, as recommended by the Planning Commission. Refer to
Resolution Book.
226
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 9, 1982, 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 82R-124: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM (A) CERTIFYING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 251, (B) MAKING
CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, AND (C) ADOPTING A STATEMENI OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL ~MBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 82R-124 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 82R-125 for adoption, granting
Conditional Use Permit No. 2288, subject to the following conditions
recommended by the Planning Commission:
1. That a qualified archeologist and/or paleontologist shall be retained
on-site, as needed, to monitor grading operations on subject property.
2. That the traffic signal assessment fee for commercial buildings shall be
paid in an amount determined by the City Council (Ordinance No. 3896).
3. That a bond, certificate of deposit, letter of credit or cash in the
amount of forty-thousand dollars (~40,000) shall be posted with the City of
Anaheim to guarantee improvements at the intersection of Katella Avenue and
Harbor Boulevard. Said improvements shall include turn lane storage
facilities, signing, channelization and removal of on-street parking on
Katelia Avenue.
4. That the number, type, and location of replacement parking spaces for the
Anaheim Convention Center shall be subject to the review and approval of the
Anaheim City Council.
5. That a Development Phasing Plan shall be submitted for review and approval
by the Convention Center Authority. Said plan shall set forth an acceptable
schedule interfacing construction activities with Convention Center activities.
6. That a Parking Security and Control Program for operation of the proposed
parking structures (proposed hotel and Convention Center replacement parking)
shall be submitted to the City Police Department for review and approval.
7. That an Emergency Access Plan shall be submitted to the Fire Chief for
review and approval.
8. That a detailed Traffic and Parking Operations Plan shall be submitted to
the City Traffic Engineer for review and approval. Said plan shall address
location of construction fencing, haul routes, parking access, traffic
restrictions, temporary median access and lane closures, modification of bus
routes, emergency access, location of flagmen and construction signing and.
marking.
227
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 9~ 1982~ 1:30 P.M.
9. That a construction truck routing plan for the construction phase of the
hotel, hotel parking and Convention Center replacement parking shall be
submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval.
10. That a comprehensive Signing Plan for vehicular and pedestrian~circulation
shall be submitted to the City Traffic Engineer for review and approval.
11. That the design and location of all taxi and bus loading and unloading
areas shall be subject to review and approval by the City Traffic Engineer.
12. That an on-site secondary water system shall be reviewed and approved by
the Public Utilities Department.
13. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved
plans on file with the Office of the Executive Director of Public Works.
14. That the developer shall confer with the City to construct the necessary
sewer line improvements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
15. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibits No.
1 through 21 provided, however, that ail parking spaces designated as
"standard" shall have minimum dimensions of 8-1/2' x
16. That the proposed hotel shall comply with all signing requirements of the
CR (Commercial, Recreation) Zone. No sign or other advertising devices shall
be placed so as to exceed the height permited by the Height Standard Guideline
for such zone (156 feet at subject location).
17. That appropriate water assessment fees as determined by the Office of
Utilities General Manager shall be paid by the developer to the City of
Anaheim prior to the issuance of a building permit.
18. That prior to the issuance of building permits the developer of subject
property shall submit a letter requesting termination of Conditional Use
Permit No. 2130.
19. That Conditions No. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 12, above-mentioned,
shall be complied with prior to ths commencam~nt of th~ activity authorlmed
under this resolution, or prior to the time that the building permit is
issued, or within a period of one year from date hereof, whichever occurs
first, or such further time as the Planning Commission may grant.
20. That Condition No. 10, 13, 14, 15, and 16 above-mentioned, shall be
complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections.
21. That the developer shall provide and maintain a television antenna or
cable system, without charge to the residents, to assure satisfactory
television reception to any residences which are unable to receive a
satisfactory level of television signals as a result of interference caused by
the project structures.
Refer to Resolution Book.
228
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 9~ 1982~ 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 82R-125: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTINC CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2288 WITH A WAIVER OF MINIMUM
OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN CONJUNCTION THEREWITH.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
0verholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 82R-125 duly passed and adopted.
176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 81-18A: In accordance with application
filed by Madole & Associates, Inc., public hearing was~held on proposed
abandonment of a former Southern California Edison Company public utility
easement acquired by the City, as successor, located west of Rio Vista Street
and south of Lincoln Avenue, pursuant to Resolution No. 82R- 97, duly published
in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance with law.
Report of the City Engineer, dated January 28, 1982, and a recommendation by
the Planning Commission were submitted recommending approval of said abandon-
ment, subject to two conditions:
1. Developer must install a new i2 KV underground electrical service at no
cost to the City per requirements of the Electrical Division of the City of
Anaheim, before the existing pole lint can be removed and the easement abandoned.
2. That an easement deed for public utility purposes to accommodate the new
electrical underground service be recorded, prior to the final approval of
this abandonment.
Mayor Seymour asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no
response, he closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman
Bay, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council ratified the determination
of the Flanning Director that the proposed activity falls within the definition of
Section 3.01, Class 5, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for
an Environmental Impact Report and is, theretore, categorically exempt from the
requirement to ~ile an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 82R-126 for adoption, approving
Abandonment No. 81-18A as recommended by the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 82R-126: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
~AHEIM VACATING A UTILITY EASEMENT SOUTH OF LINCOLN AVENUE AND WEST OF
RIO VISTA STREET. (81-18A)
229
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 9, 1982, 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overhclt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 82R-126 duly passed and adopted.
107: PUBLIC HEARING - HOUSE MOVING PERMIT: Request of the Anaheim
Redevelopment Agency to move a single family structure from its present
location at 211 North Claudina Street to 902 East Cypress Street. Submitted
was a report from the Zoning Division recommending approval subject to the
construction of a double garage and all plumbing, electrical and heating
systems being brought up to current building code and sound attenuation
requirements.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak relative to the requested House
Moving Permit.
Lt. Col. Earl Rhodes, 120 North Vine Street, Chairman of the Project Area
Committee (PAC) and a resident within three-hundred feet of the proposed move-
on, asked if the house was to be faced to the west, facing a new street that
would be cul-de-saced to the west. Mayor Seymour confirmed that was correct.
Mr. Rhodes stated that PAC approved the proposed move-on, both the design and
concept. As a resident, he attended the neighborhood meeting which took place
and their concern was that the lots were large enough to entice future homes of
a magnitude that would be an asset to the neighborhood and so that the greenbelt
to the west of ~he street would not be too wide an area. He believed that staff
had accomplished that.
Patricia Whitaker, Neighborhood Restoration Coordinator, stated that the
original site for the structure~ was to be 75 feet wide by a depth of 96.5
feet. Upon the recommendation of PAC, various neighborhood groups and the
Historic Review Committee, staff tried to maximize the depths of the lots.
They were forced to back into the depth by taking into consideration the
required open space to service the railroad tracks and also for a sound wall
along with the proposed street. They found that potentially they were looking
at a depth of approximately 148 feet, which would give them a very large 10t
by any standard (75 X 148).
Mr. Alan Clendenon, 900 East Cypress, stated he was in the process of
restoring the Cahan house. He was speaking as a citizen, and also as
Chairman of the ad hoc Historical Review Committee. Speaking on behalf of
the Committee, everyone was in agreement that the house should be moved and
encouraged having as large a lot as possible to express the heritage involved
with the house being moved, and others that might be moved in the future. He
was also in complete agreement with what everyone else had said thus far.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
230
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 9, 1982, 1:30 P.M.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman
Roth, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the City Council ratified the determination
of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the definition of
Section 3.01, Class 5, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for
an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the
requirement to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 82R-127 for adoption, approving the
requested House Moving Permit. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 82R-127: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING A HOUSE MOVING PERMIT TO MOVE A SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE
TO 902 EAST CYPRESS STREET IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 82R-127 duly passed and adopted.
156: DRUG PARAPHERNALIA LAWS: Councilwoman Kaywood announced that the courts
were upholding drug paraphernalia laws and some changes were being looked into
such as outlawing "head shops" altogether, and possibly strengthening the law.
She wanted staff to look into anything that was new with regard to possibly
strengthening our paraphernalia law.
City Attorney Hopkins explained that the Supreme Court recently decided to
permit local governments to regulate head shops and to prohibit persons under
18 from purchasing items in those stores. There was another, more recent
decision, which upheld, or at least did not strike down laws which prohibited
head shop sales entirely. At the present time in Sacramento, legislation was
being considered to shut down the head shop business in California entirely.
It was presently in Committee and if the State did so, it would very likely
prohibit head shops entirely in California. He had the documents and would
submit those to the Council.
166: ECSTASY #1 SIGN ON BROOKHURST STREET: Councilwoman Kaywood noted that
tha ~ubjact ~ign wa~ ~till in plac~ on Br00khur~t Strait (watt ~id~ b~tw~n
Broadway and Orange) and she asked if they had the legal authority to see
that the sign was removed.
City Attorney Hopkins stated he had checked with Planning Department and they were
looking at the matter from a planning and zoning standpoint. He also asked the
Police Department to look into the matter. They might be able to get the owner
of the property to remove the sign voluntarily. A report would be submitted on
the status.
231
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 9, 1982, 1:30 P.M.
105: REPORT RELATING TO THE STATUS OF THE YOUTH COMMISSION: Mayor Seymour
noted the recommendation from the Anaheim Union High School District Board of
Trustees contained in letter dated March 2, 1982, from Cynthia Grennan,
Superintendent, that the Youth Commission be given another year to function
under its new by-laws.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved that the Youth Commission be given an additional
year to function under its new by-laws, as recommended. Councilwoman Kaywood
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
108: APPLICATION FOR A TAXI CAB PERMIT - LIBERTY CAB: Application by Samuel C.
Vasquez, doing business as Liberty Cab, 983 North Elm Street, Orange, for a
permit to operate two taxi cabs within the City Limits (continued from the
meeting of March 2, 1982), was submitted, together with reports by the Police
Department and License Division.
Mr. Samuel C. Vasquez, 1218 West Birch, Orange, Liberty Cab Company, 983 North
Elm Street, Orange, stated that he was applying for a Taxi Permit to operate
in the City of Anaheim. He thereupon read his letter, dated February 26, 1982,
which was submitted to the Council on that date (on file in the City Clerk's
office), giving the background of his business, currently permitted in Garden
Grove, Orange and Villa Park. He maintained that since the Rams and Angels were
attracting large audiences, and with more business conventions, the City would
have a peak taxi period all year long, thus necessitating the need for more
service.
Mr. Vasquez then answered questions posed by the Council -wherein he stated he
would basically be operating im the Disneyland area with his two cabs; he
could service a call in the Anaheim Hills area; he would be the dispatcher,
he did not have radios for dispatch at this time but used pocket patches at
present; and his business was a sole proprietorship.
Councilman Roth expressed the difficulty he had was in the fact that a cab
service was expected to provide service City-wide, and not just provide it
in the "c~eam-of-the-crop" area--the Disneyland/Hotel.-Motel recreation area.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that when two cabs were involved, that did not
constitute a taxi service. While she could appreciate that everyone would
like to get their start in Anaheim in the Disneyland/Convention Center area,
it was not fair to the City as a whole.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to deny the application for a Taxi Cab Permit
submitted by Samuel C. Vasquez, dba Liberty Cab Company. Councilman Roth seconded
the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt stated he was going to support
the motion on the basis of the recommendation from the Police Department that
there was no established need for another cab service in the City at this time.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
232
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 9, 1982, 1:30 P.M.
114: ANAHEIM SISTER CITIES COMMITTEE: Request from Mr. Hal Parker, Chairman
for the establishment of a two-year Friendship and Cultural Exchange Program
with Pescia, Italy, and the establishment of a Sister-city relationship with
the City of Bielefeld, West Germany (continued from the February 23, 1982,
meeting), was submitted.
The Mayor announced that Mr. Parker had to leave the meeting and requested a
one-week continuance.
MOTION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt,
consideration of the above requests was continued one week. MOTION CARRIED.
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 73-74-28 AND VARIANCE NO. 2566 - EXTENSIONS OF TIME: The
Gunston-Hall Company, Inc., requesting an extension of time to Reclassification
No. 73-74-28 and Variance No. 2566, to establish an 18-lot, RS-HS-22,000(SC)
zoned subdivision on property located at the northeasterly corner of Avenida
Santiago and Hidden Canyon Road, southeasterly of the intersection of
Serrano Avenue and Hidden Canyon Road.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to approve the requested extensions of time on
the subject Reclassification and Variance, to expire March 14, 1983, as
recommended in memorandum dated March 1, 1982, from the Assistant Planning
Director for Zoning, Annika Santalahti. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
129: APPLICATION FOR A PUBLIC FIREWORKS DISPLAY PERMIT: Councilman Overholt
moved to approve the application for a Public Fireworks Display Permit submitted
by Disneyland, to discharge fireworks on March 27, 1982, at approximately 9:00
p.m., in the Park, as recommended in memorandum dated March 1, 1982, from the
Fire Marshal, Garth Menges. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman
Bay, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and
recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent
Calendar Agenda:
1. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were filed against the
City and action takan as rec0mm~nded:
Claims denied and referred to Risk Management:
a. Application for Leave to Present Late Claim submitted by Automobile Club of
Southern California, Joan V. Molyneux, Insured, for personal injuries and property
damages purportedly sustained due to a faulty traffic signal at State College
Boulevard and Walnut Street, on or about August 11, 1981.
b. Claim submitted by Olack Alba for personal property damages to car purportedly
sustained due to a barricade over a manhole on Lincoln Avenue, on or about
November 18, 1981.
233
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUN~CIL MINUTES - March 9, 1982, 1:30 P.M.
c. Claim submitted by Anna Byrum for personal injuries purportedly sustained
due to a slip-and-fall accident at Anaheim Stadium, on or about December 20,
1981.
Claims denied and referred to Bayly, Martin and Fay/San Antonio:
d. Claim submitted by Wendy Lee Camara for assault, battery, false arrest and
imprisonment purportedly sustained due to actions of employees of the Anaheim
Police Department, at La P~lma Avenue and State College Boulevard, on or about
November 11, 1981.
e. Claim submitted by Donn P. Worrell for personal property loss of son's
bicycle purportedly sustained due to actions of an Anaheim Police Officer at
855 South State College Boulevard, on or about December 4, 1981.
f. Claim submitted by David Michael Brewer for assault and Battery, unreasonable
force, negligent hiring and supervision, purportedly sustained due to actions of
Anaheim Police Officers in the City Jail, on or about January 15, 1982.
2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission--Minutes of October 28, November 18
and 25, December 23, 1981, and January 13, 1982.
b. 175: Before the Public Utilities Commission, Application No. 82-02-40,
in the matter of Southern California Edison Company for authority to
establish a Major Additions Adjustment Clause, to implement a Major Additions
Adjustment Billing Factor and an Annual Major Additions Rate to recover the
costs of owning, operating and maintaining San Onofre Nuclear Generating
Station Unit No. 2, and to adjust downward net Energy Cost Adjustment Clause
rates to equal the increase in Major Additions Adjustment Clause rates.
c. 105: Golf Course Advisory Commission--Minutes of February 18, 1982.
3. 108: PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT APPLICATION: Submitted by Felipe Jesus Guerena,
Anaheim Cruz Azul Soccer Club, for a dance to be held M~rch 14, 1982, 6:00 p.m.
to 1:00 a.m., at the Anaheim Convention Center, and approved in accordance with
the recommendations o£ the Chie£ o£ Police.
MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 82R-129
through 82R-136, both inclusive, for adoption in accordance with the reports,
recommendations and certifications furnished each Council Member and as listed
on the Consent Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book.
158: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-129: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Beth
Adams, Ltd.; Margaret Sharp Gibson, et al.; Anaheim Savings and Loan Association;
C.K. Limited Partnership; Gerald Lee Hanger, et ux.)
234
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 9, 1982, 1:30 P.M.
158: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-130: A RESOLUTION OF THE CItY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING AN EASEMENT DEED CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN
REAL PROPERTY FOR AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES. (R/W #2800-37
Anaheim Boulevard Widening)
158: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-131: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING AN EASEMENT DEED CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN
REAL PROPERTY FOR AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES. (R/W #2800-41
Anaheim Boulevard Widening)
158: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-132: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING AN EASEMENT DEED CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN
REAL PROPERTY FOR AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES. (R/W #2800-46
Anaheim Boulevard Widening)
158: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-133: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING AN EASEMENT DEED CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN
REAL PROPERTY FOR AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES. (R/W #2800-58
Anaheim Boulevard Widening)
164: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-134: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT:
ANAHEIM BOULEVARD STORM DRAIN - ANAHEIM BOULEVARD AT BROADWAY IN THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 46-791-6325-E1270, APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES,
DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE
CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECI-
FICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A
NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be
opened on April 8, 1982, at 2:00 p.m.)
164: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-135: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF AIqAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT:
36-INCH TRANSMISSION MAIN IN SANTA ANA CANYON ROAD, PHASE I, IN THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 53-610-6329-1701A-34390, APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS,
PROFILES, DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING
THE CONSTRUCTION 0F SAID PUBLIC IMPR0VEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS~
SPECIFICATIONS, 5TC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH
A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be
opened on April 8, 1982, at 2:00 p.m.)
150: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-136: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COb~IETION 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 COb~LETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: PONDEROSA
PARK SECURITY LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO.
25-818-7107. (Laubach Electric)
235
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 9, 1982, 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 82R-129 through 82R-136, both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted.
142/179: ORDINANCE NO. 4312: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordimance No. 4312
for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4312: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING NEW SUBSECTION
.080 TO SECTION 18.04.042 OF CHAPTER 18.04 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (Relating to setbacks adjacent to freeway rights-of-way)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MF. MBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4312 duly passed and adopted.
142/180: ORDINANCE NO. 4313: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4313 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
O~INANCE NO. 4313: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION
7.34.150 OF CHAPTER 7.34 OF TITLE 7 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING
TO BINGO GAMES. (To conform to revision to Penal Code Section 326.5)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4313 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 4314: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 4314 for adoption.
Rafer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4314: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING, TO ZONING. (63-64-62(26), RM-1200, Tract
No. 11583)
236
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 9, 1982, 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4314 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 4315: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4315 for first
reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4315: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18
OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (66-67-61(100) CR)
148: NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES MEETING - 1982: Councilman Overholt reported
on his attendance at the National League of Cities Meeting which took place in
Washington, D.C., February 27, 1982, to March 2, 1982, the major issues being
the economy and Federal budget. He commented on the excellent booklet that
Cindy Cave, Intergovernmental Relations Officer, had prepared for him on the
budget, Federalism, grants, etc., which he was going to circulate among the
Council and subsequently have returned to him.
148: OPPOSITION TO EXPANSION OF THE CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD (CARB) AND
REALLOCATION OF AIR POLLUTION FUNDS: Councilman Roth referred to letter dated
March 1, 1982, from Thomas F. Heinsheimer, Ch8irman, South Coast Air Quality
Management District Board, relative to the fact that CARB was expanding at the
expense of local government. In view of the letter, he was requesting support
of Mr. Heinsheimer's request which was to oppose the absorption of local
assistance funds in the CARB's budget as expressed in the Resolution attached
to the letter.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 82R-137 for adoption. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 82R-137: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM OPPOSING REALLOCATION OF AIR POLLUTION FUNDS.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 82R-137 duly passed and adopted.
105: APPOINTb~NT TO THE SENIOR CITIZEN COb~ISSION: Councilman Roth asked the
City Clerk to agendize next week the appointment of a replacement for the
vacancy on the Senior Citizen Commission left by Elsie Bonnett. He clarified
for the Mayor that Mr. Herman Siegmund had submitted a letter of application
advising of his desire to serve on the Commission.
237
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 9~ 1982, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Roth suggested instead that they move on the matter today. Council-
woman Kaywood nominated Herman Siegmund. Councilman Roth seconded the nomination.
Before further action was taken, the Mayor asked if there were any further
nominations; there being none, Councilman Overholt moved to close nominations.
Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Herman Siegmund, 950 North Fern Street, was thereupon unanimously appointed
to serve as a member of the Senior Citizens Commission, filling the vacancy left
by Elsie Bonnett, for the term expiring June 30, 1983.
108/114: LIAISON CO~iMITTEE MEETING - SHOPPING CENTER AT LA PALI~A AND EUCLID:
Councilman Bay reported that three meetings had taken place since the January 5,
1982, Council meeting during which a number of problems were revealed by neighbors
surrounding the Center (see minutes that date--Arcade Application from The
Pizza Store and Closure of Francis Drive). He and Councilman Overholt were
serving on the committee that was formed, but he (Bay) was unable to attend
the third meeting which involved two major owners in the Center. Work was
being done, progress was being made and the Planning Department would be
submitting a status report including a mail-out to be sent to homeowners in
the area informing them of the progress to date.
Councilman Overholt stated an important factor was that Alpha Beta had been
completely cooperative, and one of the other major owners in the Center whose
property needed attention took the time to meet with the staff and pledge their
cooperation, which was very encouraging.
167: REQUEST FOR SAFE CROSSING BETWEEN THE MEDICAL TOWERS ~ND MARTIN LUTHER
HOSPITAL ON ROMNEYA DRIVE: Mayor Seymour reported that Mr. Jim Farley of Martin
Luther Hospital spoke with him relative to his (Farley's) concern about
the pedestrian traffic crossing from the medical office towers across the street
from Martin Luther Hospital. People would park at the towers and walk to the
hospital across Romneya Drive where traffic moved very fast. Martin Luther Hospital
was interested in a report from the Traffic Engineer with regard to a crosswalk
at that location, or some type of safe crossing. He asked that staff call Mr.
Farley to let him know the matter was being worked on and asked that the Traffic
Engineer prepare a report.
107/156: COMPLAINT RELATIVE TO THE ANNA DRIVE AREA: Mayor Seymour announced that
over the weekend, he spoke with Lorraine Hartnell who had reported that her
18-year 01d son was allegedly brutally beaten walking down La Palma Avenue near
Anna Drive, and the Police Department was working on that problem. Mrs. Hartnell
felt that the problem stemmed from some gang-related activities that might be
taking place on Anna Drive. She subsequently pursued the matter and called
various City departments to see what the City would do in trying to clean up a
particular neighborhood. She was told by someone in the Police Department that
she should not go into that neighborhood because it was unsafe, and from
Len Reitz, Building Inspector, that he could not go in and enforce the Building
Code, even though he knew it was a problem area, unless some citizen was willing
to walk the street and note the addresses and conditions, thereby filing a
complaint. Although he (Seymour) was not criticizing the Police Department or
Mr. Reitz, he felt the system was falling apart. Subsequent to that, he received
238
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 9, 1982, 1:30 P.M.
a call from Sheri Pignone who had talked to Mrs. Hartnell, advising that the
Council needed to take a look at neighborhoods like that of Anna Drive and do
something about them. He assured both women he would bring the matter to the
Council with the idea that, with Council support, they would instruct staff,
Len Reitz, to go into the Anna Drive area and enforce whatever health, safety
and standards codes they had to enforce. If they were going to act consistent
with what he thought the Council's philosophy and policy would be on the
presentation of the Task Force, then the "ball was in the Council's court"--
identify those neighborhoods and ask staff to look into the matter, rather than
have a citizen do so.
Councilman Bay stated that the policy and principle of enforcement had been
by complaint. He spoke with Mrs. Hartnell at length yesterday and discussed
the matter with her, and also discussed some of the State and Federal laws, as
well as some of the processes within the City on enforcement of Civil Codes.
He emphasized that they did not have blanket enforcement on Civil Codes. He
felt they would be causing a problem for themselves, legally, if they sent a
Code Enforcement Officer to the area to start writing citations. Although he
was as concerned as the Mayor about such problem areas, what they discussed
during the previous hearings with the Task Force was the problem between those
two principles--blanket enforcement versus enforcement by complaint. He
advised Mrs. Hartnell to start a petition in hers and the surrounding single-
family area and subsequently, come to the Council to start the action necessary
under the Nuisance Ordinance on that area. If they wanted to do anything
sooner, they should encourage citizens to make complaints. He did not want
to break the principle of operating by complaint.
The Mayor stated, as a citizen and taxpayer he was complaining about Anna
Drive as it horseshoed just south of La Palma Avenue and was asking, as a citizen,
that there be some enforcement in that portion of Anna Drive; Councilman Bay
stated that he could go along with that.
City Manager Talley confirmed for Councilman Bay that the staff had the complaint
under advisement.
Later in the meeting, Councilwoman Kaywood reported that she had received at
least a dozen calls from people complaining that they were told that they had
to go door-to-door in those terribly run-down neighborhoods to make complaints,
because the City would not go in and do so. She felt with their having put
extra money and extra police on, and then to have that kind of response, was
a very short-sighted and unacceptable situation.
Further discussion followed between the Mayor and Councilwoman Kaywood wherein,
in the final analysis, the Mayor confirmed that they did give direction that
the Housing Code Inspector was now to go into Anna Drive, door-to-door, to clean
up that street.
175: COMPLAINT FROM JOAN HUETTE - DIFFICULTY IN REACHING UTILITY SERVICE BY
PHONE: Mayor Seymour referred to Hotline complaint dated March 3, 1982, from
Joan Huette, relative to the problem she had reaching Utility service on the
phone. He had been assured on two or three occasions, by staff, that the
problem had been resolved. He considered the problem encountered, as reported
in the Hotline complaint, as "criminal",and he wanted the situation corrected.
239
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 9, 1982, 1:30 P.M.
City Manager Talley stated he would have staff investigate the matter since
supposedly all of the technical telephone problems had been resolved and the
situation as explained by Mrs. Huette should not have existed.
RECESS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess to 7:00 p.m. at the Brookhurst
Community Center, 2271 West Crescent. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED. (5:11 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order at the Brookhurst Community
Center, all Council Members being present with the exception of Councilman Bay,
who was unable to attend because of illness. (7:10 p.m.)
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bay
PLANNING COMMISSION b~MBERS: Fry, King, Bushore, Tolar, Herbst
and Bouas
PLANNING COmmISSION MEMBERS: Barnes
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ronald L. Thompson
ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR--ZONING: Annika Santalahti
ASSISTANT PLANNER: Dean Sherer
Planning Commission Chairman Gerald Bushore called the Planning Commission to
order, all Commissioners being present with the exception of Charlene Barnes.
107: JOINT WORK SESSION: City Council and Planning Commission to consider
issues relative to mobilehome parks.
Mayor Seymour first welcomed the large audience of approximately 800 people
to the meeting, and then explained the purpose of the meeting and how it would
be conducted. He gave the background on how the meeting finally came about,
in summation explaining that (1) the City Council felt responsible, rather than
to work on a park-by-park basis "piecemeal" as far as people being threatened by
conversion, that they try to address all the parks in the City, identifying
those parks which would be appropriate for zoning as a mobilehome park, (2)
identify those very few parks that may be candidates for conversion and (3)
identify and proceed with the development of one or two mobilehome relocation
parks.
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Planning Director for Zoning, read the staff report
from the Planning Department to the City Manager/City Council/Planning Commission,
dated March 9, 1982 (submitted under memorandum dated March 4, 1982), entitled,
Mobilehome Park Study (on file in the City Clerk's office), attached to which
were attachments Exhibit A through Exhibit I.
240
Brookhurst Community Center, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES
March 9, 1982, 7:00 P.M.
The following people then spoke in favor of permanent zoning for mobilehome
parks. Many expressed their concern over the displacement dilemma with which
they and all residents would be faced should their park be converted to another
use, as well as the economic hardship and the psychological and emotional trauma
involved, especially for the elderly. Alleged harassment by park owners was
also a major concern expressed, as well as continual rent increases. Questions
were also raised relative to certain aspects of the proposed ordinance contained
in the packet submitted by staff and specific concerns were addressed relative
to Orangewood Acres wherein those affected urged the Council to vote "no" on the
proposed conversion:
Glen Irving, 211 South Manchester, Orangewood Acres; Richard Burke, 5815 East
La Palma, Space 22, Friendly Village Mobile Home (also submitted a petition
signed by the majority of the residents of Friendly Village Mobile Home Park
which contained a covering letter which he read); Dale SmUt , 501 East
Orangethorpe, Space 45, Rancho La Paz; Cal Shorey, 300 West Katella, Riviera
Mobile Home Park; Pat Kish, 1400 Douglass Road, Space 90, Orangetree Mobile
Home Park (also gave chronology of her contacts with the City, starting in
August of 1980, in her efforts to have agendized permanent zoning for mobile heme
parks and first right of refusal); John Daly, 2il South Beach Boulevard,
Space 6, Pacific Sunset Mobile Home Park and Associate Director of the Golden
State Mobile Home League; Ella Jane Shorey, 300 West Katella, Riviera blobile
Home Park; Skip Singleton, Friendly Village Mobile Home Park; Doris Singleton,
Friendly Village Mobile Home Park; Judy Graham, Riviera Mobile Home Park; John
~honey, 211 South Beach Boulevard, Space 89, Pacific Sunset Mobile Home Park;
Cindy Hair, Friendly Village Mobile Home Park, Space 290; b~ry Dove, Riviera Mobile
Home Park, Space 95; Eleanor Clark, Orangewood Acres; Bonita Meek, Riviera b~obile
Home Park; Victor Jantz, Attorney, currently representing the tenants in the
Orangewood Acres case and in the Riviera case, which would soon follow. He also
ran the Senior Citizens Advocacy Program and he emphasized that what they wanted
to have occur more than anything would be to have permanent zoning for mobile home
parks.
Pat Kish also made the following proposal to be utilized as criteria for the
permanent zoning and a shelter park: Establish a task force with representation
from the various factions, i.e., residents, park owners, developers, and ample
staff as$istance~ and that the Task Force be ordered to report back in two weeks
with their findings. Relative to the permanent zoning as to which parks may qualify
and which may not--establish a base year during which the park was built, determining
the validity of the conditional use permit on which the park was built, and in
the absence of.a valid CUP, that the park did need development standards equivalent
to those existing parks with a CUP, establish a minimum number of spaces and
minimum number of acres for each park, determine the general condition of park
amenities so that they met the House and Safety Codes, and if individual homes
were in need of upgrading, that complete information be distributed pertaining
to rehabilitation loans available. Where conditions required major repair work
and the probability of passing those costs on to the homeowners in the form of
rent increases, she suggested specific wording prohibiting that type of action
and another alternative that major repair costs may be assessed to the residents,
and that assessment fees be discontinued when the cost of the major repair work
was recovered. She also requested consideration by the Council to enact an
urgency ordinance creating a moratorium on mobile home park conversions until
the work had been completed by the task force.
241
Brookhurst Community Center, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES
March 9~ 1982~ 7:00 P.M.
The following people then spoke to the issue with an opposing view: Brent
Swanson, partner in the law firm of Lazoff and Swanson, 203 North Golden
Circle, Santa Ana, representing mobile home park owners; Paul Bostwick, owner
of Midway Trailer City, 8105 Woodsboro.
Mr. Swanson, representing some of the mobile home park owners in the City, stated
that undoubtedly there was a likelihood that over a period of many years, the
issue that was going to be facing the City was that of mobile home parks being
converted to other uses. He then elaborated upon the concerns that some of
the park owners had, the major points being that owners were led to believe
that they had certain expectations and rights in terms of dealing with their
property. He stressed among other things that mobile home park residents had
limited rights and were not buying a permanent, long-term use of that mobile
home park. The basic contractual bargain that had been made between the
residents and the mobile home park owner had been on the basis of a short-term,
interim use. The resident had not paid for, nor bargained for, a permanent mobile
home park and that was the important aspect for evaluating peoples' rights in
these situations. The issue of relocating was something they had to deal with
and they expected to do so. The Council had the legal wherewithal, if parks did
change their use, to see that the proper thing be done. They were not without the
right to protect the residents when such changes occurred. Many of the parks
were old and worn out and to keep them in business was not economically possible,
since rents would be disproportionate to the housing value received.
He expressed the opinion that the question was the potential use of the property
insofar as it affected all of the residents of the City. Their objective
should not be to discourage conversion. They were dealing with a long-term
issue and there was not enough information available to them this evening
to identify all that was involved. He concurred with Mrs. Kish and Mr. Daly
that there was a need for a task force to look at the matter very carefully.
They had not identified all the issues, let alone what the answers might be.
His clients would be happy to cooperate with the City and participate as much
as they would be allowed to do so. Most of the park owners in the community
did not plan to have an immediate conversion of the park. They would welcome
an intelligent, concerted effort in dealing with the issue. If they did not
take the time to do it right, someone was going to get hurt, and both the
residents and the owners would be mistreated. He urged the formation of a
task force to deal with the issues presented in an intelligent and fair manner.
Mr. Paul Bostwick, whose family had been in the mobile home park business since
1945, stated as an owner, he believed what was being proposed was unnecessary
relative to permanent zoning ~ince they now had all the powar~ they needed. He
maintained that they were falsely giving hope to people by presenting something
that was a "whitewash" and they were also breaking trust with the property
owners who bought the property, had it zoned, and built the mobile home parks
with the understanding of the zoning it was under at the time. If they wanted
to institute changes with new parks, that was acceptable and their right. It
was necessary to look more in depth at who owned the land and what it leant
itself to. He also urged an in-depth study of the issue.
242
Brookhurst Community Center~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES
Mmrch 9, 1982, 7:00 P.M.
At the conclusion of the foregoing input, Mayor Seymour stated, after having
reviewed all the staff information and having visited a number of parks in the
City, the vast majority of them were in very good condition and, therefore, it
was appropriate that zoning be applied to them. However, Mr. Jantz mentioned
permanent zoning, which meant forever, and he did not know of any way to apply
permanent zoning forever. That cduld'not, and should not, be promised because
it was misleading. On the other hand, when talking about zoning on a mobile
home park as a mobile home park, it was worthwhile for the elected officials to
speak their piece as they went through the process to look into the future, a
minimum of five to ten years, to provide some peace of mind to those who live
in the vast majority of the mobile home parks in the City. He felt they should
be considering a zoning for mobile home parks. It also might be that the
proposed ordinance needed some refinements. It was necessary that it be applied
from a standpoint that many of the parks were different. At least 90 percent
of the 32 mobile home parkg should be zoned as mobile home parks, but they had
to take it step-by-step to be sure, as they applied that zoning, they were not
going to create another problem a short time later.
Further, he believed that the shelter parks issue must be pursued and they
needed to have more recommendations on the shelter park concept--how long would
someone be able to live there, how long would the park remain, etc. They should
also take another look to see if there were other potential candidates for a
shelter park site such as the potential use of a school site, as was proposed
by one of the speakers. They also needed to set relocation standards, look at
the rehabilitation of the older parks and older mobile home park units along
the lines of the rehabilitation program instituted in some single-family residential
neighborhoods with regard to low-interest loans, and in return, as a mobile home
owner, to either use an assessment formula or at least place a limit on rent
increases as a result of rehabilitation of a park, etc.
To draw all the loose ends together, and there were probably others, the Mayor
suggested that the Planning Commission and City Council take action to do two
things--appoint a task force to answer questions raised, come up with recommendations,
and report back to the City Council. He suggested that the task force be comprised
of three members of the mobile home park community, Pat Kish, John Daly and Glen
Irving, three people representing mobile home owners, Brent Swanson and perhaps
two others, along with three Planning Commimsioners who could provide much needed
leadership in trying to resolve the recommendations, with one of the Planning
Commissioners to be chairman of that task forca. That group would be supplied
with whatever staff was necessary, not only to ensure a timely report, but also
the gathering of data that would be needed. The Mayor continued that he would
also like the Council to take action and go on record that there would be no
more mobile home park conversions in the City, i.e., finalized conversions, until
such time as the Council had taken final action on the task force recommendations.
In the interim, neither the Planning Commission nor the City Council would approve
a building permit, zoning, or a CUP on any proposed conversions. It did not
mean that any proposer would not have the liberty to work with staff in outlining
what they wanted to do. It was not a moratorium, but no voting would occur until
after they took final action with regard to the task force recommendations.
243
Brookhurst Community Center~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES
March 9~ 1982~ 7:00 P.M.
The Council was supportive of the Mayor's task force concept; Councilman Overholt
further commented that he felt there were serious legal problems involved that
the Council could not deal with. Somewhere along the line, either the courts
or the legislators were going to have to develop case laws to define the interests
of the mobile home owner and the mobile home park owner. He felt that Mr. Jantz
should be a part of the task force.
Gerald Bushore, Chairman of the Planning Commission, stated that the Commission
also favored the task force concept and any of them would be glad to serve on
it, and he would be glad to serve as Chairman. With as much haste as possible,
they would visit each and every mobile home park and apprise the situation.
They could visit two or three parks a week, meet with the representatives
so designated, and hopefully come up with some recommendations as soon as
possible, within the next month or two.
Planning Commissioner Lew Herbst emphasized it was time that the human element
be put in proper perspective and this should be the responsibility of the Council
and the Planning Commission.
Mrs. Kish, Mr. Daly, Mr. Swanson, Mr. Irving and Mr. Jantz then clarified that
they would be glad to serve on the task force; Mrs. Kish expressed concern
relative to the time frame that would be involved; Mr. Swanson suggested that
he and Mr. Jantz lend their assistance and participate when needed, but that
they not serve as one of the three members representing the owners, since a
great deal of the work would be dealing with non-legal matters. He suggested
Alexander Alex, as well as Paul Bostwick and Ed Evans, as park owner participants
who were moderate, well-reasoned people who had good relationships with their
residents and who also possessed technical expertise.
The Mayor then confirmed for Mr. Jantz that no final action would be taken
on the proposed conversion of Orangewood Acres scheduled to be held before the
Council on March 16, 1982.
The Mayor then suggested that Mr. Swanson and Mr. Jantz could serve as ex-officio
members of the task force with no voting powers.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved that a task force be set up immediately to
consider, but not limited to, the following: Zoning for Mobile Home Parks;
refining the proposed ordinance; looking at each and every mobile home par~;
seeking additional recommendations on the shelter park concept and additional
potential sites; accommodating as many people am possible in shelter parks;
setting relocation standards; looking at rehabilitation of older mobile home
parks and units - a program similar to the rehabilitation program in residential
neighborhoods; and any other related issues.
244
Brookhurst Community Center, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES
March 9, 1982, 7:00 P.M.
The Task Force was to consist of the following members:
Mobile Home Park Residents: Pat Kish, John Daly, Glen Irving
Mobile Home Park Owners: Ed Evans, Paul Bostwick, Alexander Alex
Planning Commissioners: Gerald Bushore and two other Commissioners
Ex Officio Members: (no voting power) Brent Swanson, Vincent Jantz
Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Councilman Bay was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved that there will be no further public hearings
before the Planning Commission or City Council to consider the issuance of
building permits, change of zone, or CUP's on any mobile home park conver-
sions until such time as the Task Force has reported its recommendations to
the City Council and the Council has taken action on those recommendations.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Councilman Bay was absent. MOTION
CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT: By general consent, the Planning Commission adjourned. (10:29 p.m.)
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilman Overholt seconded
the motion. Councilman Bay was absent. MOTION CARRIED. (10:30 p.m.)
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK
245