1981/01/1381-36
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 13, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
CITY ENGINEER: William G. Devitt
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ronald L. Thompson
Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Reverend Tom Favreau, Melodyland Hotline Center, gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Ben Bay led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
173: PRESENTATION - RAPID TRANSIT PLAN: Mr. Ralph Clark, appointee from the
Orange County Board of Supervisors to the Orange County Transportation Commis-
sion Board of Directors, first stated that with him today was Mr. James Reichert,
General Manager of the Orange County Transit District, who would handle the
slides during the presentation. He first explained that Orange County had a
transportation crisis which was serious because it involved more than transpor-
tation--it involved the way people lived, their lifestyle, where they worked,
and ultimately the economy. Orange County had outgrown its roadways, both
freeways and City streets, and it was projected that traffic would double by
1995. Mr. Clark then narrated an approximate 20-minute slide presentation which
was based upon the proposed Rapid Transit Plan, specifically Phase I. The high-
lights of the presentation were as follows:
The study recommended a general overall solution calling for additions and
improvements to both the highway and transit systems. On the highway side,
it called for increasing the capacity on all freeways including bus and carpool
lanes. Also recommended were two new lanes for each of the busiest arterial
highways and the construction of four new travel corridors. On the transit
side, it called for increasing the OCTD bus fleet from approximately 500 buses
at present to 800 to 1000 buses; building a fixed guideway Rapid Transit System
in the central County area and integrating the bus and rapid transit system
into a single coordinated system. The traffic congestion problem with the
highest priority was the Santa Ana Transportation Corridor generally paralleling
the Santa Ana Freeway. Relative to that aspect, the Commission conducted the
Santa Aha Transporation Corridor Alternatives Anayl$is to determine the cost
effective solutions to the problem, which study had just been completed. He
then elaborated upon the recommendations which were a result of that analysis.
In finality, the study gave top priority to developing a rapid transit system
which he explained. The study also recommended that local jurisdictions con-
tinue to pursue land use plans integrated with the transportation improvements.
Jobs and increased population densities should be encouraged around the transit
system stations and discouraged elsewhere.
In concluding, Mr. Clark stated he felt it was clear that they faced a transpor-
tation crisis in Orange County, threatening not only their mobility but also life-
style and economy. However, it was a manageable crisis if they acted now. The
81-37
City Ha. il, Anaheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES- January 13, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
promised solution was reasonable and sensitive to all issues--Rapid Transit,
more buses, widening and rebuilding the Santa Ana Freeway, building new corri-
dors, improving the arterial surface stree~ system--the highest priority pro-
viding the greatest relief and greatest benefits to the County being Rapid
Transit. A rapid transit system could be operating by the end of the decade.
They needed the City's comments, suggestions and support.
Following the presentation, both Mr. Clark and Mr. Reichert answered questions
posed by Council Members for purposes of clarification.
Councilman Overholt, speaking to Mr. Clark, sta~ed that when he mentioned popu-
lation centers to be served, he mentioned the Stadium development and the
Convention Center commercial development, but he did not mention Downtown
Anaheim. He noted that Dr. Brashear$ was in the Chamber audience and, relative
to his proposed development in downtown Anaheim, he wanted to know the County's
plans with regard to transportation. He thereupon asked Mr. Clark when that
center started to develop, did the OCTD plan contemplate that there could be
flexibility so that Downtown Anaheim, as a population center, would be adequately
served.
Mr. Clark answered absolutely. There was no doubt in his mind with the develop-
ments that Dr. Brashears indicated, it would be appropriate to have a proper
extension of the plan. They were talking about Phase I of the program, and he
emphasized that it was important that they did not become involved in bickering
as had occurred in Los Angeles. The first phase covered 23 miles called the
Santa Ana Corridor Phase, with Phase II and Phase III to follow further down
the line. Whether Dr. Brashears development would be Un Phase II or III, would
be dependent on just how far along they would be and how far the research had
gone as to where the next phase could be put to the highest and best use.
Mayor Seymour asked the time frame for Stage I, II and III of the fixed rail
system.
Mr. James Reichert stated that the ribbon-cutting ceremony on the first stage,
give or take a year, would be 1987. Stage 1 would be fully operational, but
there was no date as yet relative to Stage II.
Mayor Seymour asked how much flexibility there was in the plan in speaking
about the Brashears proposal, assuming that that project came to fruition
which was contemplated to create thousands of jobs, what would be the time
deadline for moving the Brashears project from Stage II to Stage I.
Mr. Reichert stated that they would like input from the Council as soon as
possible. They were planning to bring back the initial public comments to
the Transportation Commission on February 9, 1981. During the next phase,
which would take approximately 18 months, they would be defining specific
station locations and alignments so that anytime would be appropriate to have
comments relative to the City getting into that planning phase and the earlier
the better.
Mayor Seymour asked then if they could demonstrate a need for that link in Stage
1 to the Redevelopment project area within the next 18 months, was that the plan
was flexible enough to accept that.
81-38
City H.a..ll, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 13, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Reichert answered "yes". They would take the input and come up with a recom-
mendation for the first stage plan. He emphasized they would like to receive
that input as soon as possible.
Mayor Seymour, wanting to be certain that he understood the situation clearly,
stated if the alignment of Stage 1 and the route adoption would not be contem-
plated for 18 months, they would have that period of time in which to justify
the Redevelopment project being tied into Stage I, or if not, how much time would
they legitimately have to do that.
Mr. Reichert answered they would have that period of time totally.
City Manager William Talley stated that he wanted to be certain the Council
understood what it was hearing. Staff had been working for many months very
cooperatively with the OCTD, but it would also be fair to say what they were
hearing from Mr. Reichert today was nothing more than the data would be con-
sidered and not that Downtown Anaheim was guaranteed anything. They had
attempted on numerous occasions and with the worthwhile cooperation of not
only Supervisor Clark, but also Dr. Brashears, to attempt to get the first
starter line to Downtown Anaheim which they considered one of the keys to the
County, since it was undergoing a billion dollar renovation at present. OCTD
had always said they would accept any of the data and input submitted, but he
would be remiss if he did not say at this time, no matter what they had been
able to do, staff had been unable to convince the Technical Committee to have
Downtown Anaheim included in Stage 1. They had pointed out numerous times
to Supervisor Clark, the District, and the Commission that they believed that
was the most serious omission and that dialogue had continued for the better
part of a year. While Council should be encouraged that they had another 18
months in which to submit input, he did not want them to think that they
would be any~,more successful. If there was some way they could work toward
a commitment, he would feel much more comfortable. Otherwise, it was brought
out today that Phase II meant the 1990's at the earliest. If they were moving
to get Downtown Anaheim into Phase 1, it would place the City a decade ahead.
Supervisor Clark explained that the transit system was being updated all the
time which would answer the projected need they had right now for the Downtown
area while Phase II was being put together. To add more than the 23 miles,
which would be the backbone of the system, might not be economically feasible
at this time. Anaheim was handsomely being served at the very beginning of that
starter line.
After additional discussion between the Mayor, Supervisor Clark and Mr. Reichert,
the Mayor thanked them both for taking the time to make the presentation today.
On behalf of the Council, they were very supportive of the great efforts being
made to help solve the transportation problems in the County. However, relative
to the downtown Redevelopment Project which they considered to be, if not the
most viable office-retail-commercial type development project taking place in
the County, it was one of the top two or three, hearing that it might be con-
sidered as a spur, or part of Stage II taking them into the 1990's, they were
extremely concerned about that. Therefore, they should begin to become part
of the process as soon as possible.
81-39
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 13, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Clark commented that the Downtown was initially part of the original con-
sideration, but the figures they had on the projection of the population and
jobs did not warrant it in the initial stages.
Mayor Seymour stated they should all take a look at the numbers because he was
led to believe that there were other areas along the route tentatively suggested
and recommended where the numbers were not as good as those that they had in the
Redevelopment Project Area.
Mr. Clark emphasized that the ultimate goal was to establish a backbone line
through the central County where most of the jobs and demands were. He urged
again that they not become involved in bickering so that they could get some-
thing started. Otherwise, they would still be merely talking about the situa-
tion in 1990 if they did not get started.
119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Seymour
and authorized by the City Council:
International Year of Disabled Persons In Anaheim
Helicopter Week in Anaheim - January 18 to 24, 1981
Mr. Hap Bayley and Susie Saldana accepted the International Year of Disabled
Persons proclamation and comments were made by Mr. Howard Neufeld, Executive
Director of the Association of Retarded Citizens. Mr. James Sanchez, Los
Angeles County Fire Department and a member of the Helicopter Association of
America Board of Directors, accepted the Helicopter Week proclamation.
MINUTES: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Bay, the
minutes of the regular meeting of September 30, 1980 were approved, subject to
typographical corrections. Councilman Seymour abstained. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda, after
reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to waiver is
hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the title, specific
request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such ordinance or resolution
in regular order. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $8,983,615.34, in accordance
with the 1980-81 Budget, were approved.
150/174: GEORGE WASHINGTON COMMUNITY CENTER FUNDING: Councilman Overholt moved
to appropriate $64,311 Community Development Block Grant Contingency Funds from
Program 25-215 to George Washington Community Center Project 42-848, to complete
funding for rehabilitation of Washington School into a Neighborhood Community
Center, as recommended in memorandum dated January 6, 1981, from the Deputy City
Manager and the Executive Director of Community Development. Councilman Roth
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - 4,500 FEET OF 750KCMIL ALUMINUM C~LE - BID NO.
3717: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Seymour, the
low bid of Westinghouse Electric Supply was accepted and purchase authorized in
the amount of $14,095.11, as recommended by the Purchasing Agent in memorandum
dated January 7, 1981. MOTION CARRIED.
81-40
City_H. all~ Anaheim,. C.a. lifornia- COUNCIL MINUTES -January 13, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
160: PURCHASE OF .EQUIPMENT - VIDEO EQUIPMENT FOR POLI. CE DEPARTMENT TRAINING
SERVICES - BID NO. 3726: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman
Bay, the low bid of Instant Replay Equipment Co. was accepted and purchase
authorized in the amount of $20,601.10, as recommended by the Purchasing Agent
in memorandum dated January 7, 1981. MOTION CARRIED.
137: AMENDMENT NO. 1 - EMPLOYEE LONG TERM DISABILITY INSURANCE: Councilman
Overholt moved to authorize Amendment No. 1 to the Employee Long Term Disability
Insurance Group Policy No. 384412 issued by Standard Insurance Company, increasing
the monthly income to $4,167 for determining the monthly benefit, and authorizing
the Human Resources Director to execute same, as recommended in memorandum dated
January 7, 1981 by Human Resources Director Garry McRae. Councilwoman Kaywood
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
153: WAGE RATE ADJUSTMENTS TO CONFORM WITH MINIMUM WAGE REQUIREMENTS - SELECTED
PART-TIME CLASSIFICATIONS: Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 81R-7 for
adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated January 7, 1981 from the Human
Resources Director. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-7: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 80R-147 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR
UNREPRESENTED PART-TIME CLASSES, AND ADJUSTING THE WAGE RATES OF SEVEN CLASSES.
(effective January 2, 1981)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-7 duly passed and adopted.
153: CORECTION OF PREVIOUS SALARY RESOLUTION AND SALARY RATE ADJUSTMENT - CITY
YOUTH WORKER I: Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 81R-8 and 81R-9
for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated January 7, 1981 from the Human
Resources Director. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-8: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 80R-547, NUNC PRO TUNC, WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF
COMPENSATION FOR UNREPRESENTED JOB CLASSIFICATIONS, BY ADDING THE CLASSIFICA-
TIONS OF CETA YOUTH WORKER I AND CETA YOUTH WORKER II. (effective October 10,
1980)
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-9: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 80R-547 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR
UNREPRESENTED CLASSES, AND ADJUSTING THE WAGE RATE OF CETA YOUTH WORKER I.
(effective January 2, 1981)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 81R-8 and 81R-9 duly passed and adopted.
81-41
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 13,. 1981, 1:30 P.M.
123: SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY LEASE AGREEMENT NO. 191949:
Councilman Bay moved to authorize Southern Pacific Transportation Company Lease
Agreement No. 191949, with modification, dated December 1, 1980, for City's
electrical 69kV and communication facilities to cross the railroad lines at
Mile Posts 511.86 and 511.75 in the vicinity of Ball Road and Cerritos Street,
and authorizing the payment of a $200 Lease Fee, as recommended in memorandum
dated December 29, 1980 from Public Utilities General Manager Gordon Hoyt.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
123/174: STATE DEFERRED PAYMENT HOUSING REHABILITATION LOAN PROGRAM: Councilwoman
Kaywood offered Resolution No. 81R-lO for adoption, as recommended in memorandum
dated January 6, 1981 from the Executive Director of Community Development, au-
thorizing an agreement and other related documents with the State Department of
Housing, and Community Development in the amount of $70,000, to secure a Deferred
Payment Loan from the State for rehabilitation of homes in certain areas. Refer
to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-10: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A STANDARD AGREEMENT, AND OTHER DOCUMENTS
TO SECURE A DEFERRED PAYMENT LOAN FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-10 duly passed and adopted.
105: RATIFICATION AND APPOINTMENT TO THE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION: Council-
woman Kaywood moved to ratify and appoint Kurt Haunfelner to the Park and Rec-
reation Commission representing the AUHSD, replacing Jo Ann Barnett, for the
term ending June 30, 1984, with a letter of thanks to be sent to Jo Ann Barnett
for her many years of service. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
150: REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF PARK IN LIEU FEE - PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1548 WEST
ORANGEWOOD AVENUE: Mayor Seymour referred to letter dated January 13, 1981
from Mrs. Lucinda Hammatt, requesting a waiver of the Park and Recreation In
Lieu Fee for the subject property due to the special circumstances involved.
Memorandum dated December 10, 1980 from the City Attorney's office recommended
denial of the request. He asked the City Attorney, since the Council was
able to reduce or eliminate Traffic Signal Assessment fees, why in a situa-
tion that in his opinion was totally justified, could they not do so or how
could they insure that Mrs. Hammatt was not unreasonably or inequitably
burdened.
City Attorney William Hopkins explained that the difference was that the Traffic
Signal Assessment fee was established by Council Policy, whereas the Park and
Recreation In-Lieu Fee was established by the Subdivision Map Act and by City ordin-
ance. There was no provision for a waiver. If there was some way that Engin-
eering could arrange it so that the home was not part of the Subdivision and it
was her personal lot, that might be a possibility. Otherwise, there was no pro-
vision for a waiver.
81-42
City H~ll~ Anaheim~ Calif. ornim ~ COUNCIL MINUTES - January 13, 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour asked to hear from the Engineering Department to determine if
there was a way that Mrs. Han~natt's home might not be made a part of the sub-
division.
Later in the meeting, City Engineer William Devitt explained for the Mayor that
he knew of no way to eliminate the lot from the subdivision.
Mayor Seymour emphasized that Mrs. Hammatt was being inequitably wronged. On
three different occasions, the City had taken her property, caused her to tear
down her home and now she wanted to rebuild and she was being charged with a
large fee. He asked that Mr. Devitt find a way to assist her.
Mr. Devitt stated if it was the desire of the Council to waive the fee and by
motion directed or authorized him to not collect the fee, he would not collect
it.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she would like to have it stated in a different way.
She did not think this situation was typical of anything else and even indicating
a waiver of the fee might be erroneous. A replacement home was involved, replacing
one that was demolished by the City. She suggested if they could say that
no fee applied, it might be a better way.
Mayor Seymour was adamant in his direction that staff find a way to do what he
requested.
City Attorney Hopkins suggested that the matter be continued one week, so that
they could study the problem.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, the request of
Mrs. Lucinda Hammatt for waiver of the Park and Recreation In Lieu Fee for pro-
perty located at 1548 West Orangewood Avenue was continued one week. MOTION
CARRIED.
179: REQUEST FOR REVOCATION OF HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT - MEYERS AND SONS ESCORT
SERVICE AND MORTUARY: Request by Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth Minor for revocation of
said Home Occupation Permit was submitted.
Mrs. Alexia Minor, 2107 West Grayson, stated that the Council should have before
them some of the information regarding their plea to revoke the Home Occupation
Permit (HOP) of Meyers and Sons Mortuary Transportation Service under contract
to the Coroner. She had nothing further to add at this time.
Councilman Overholt stated as part of the documentation submitted was included
a copy of letter dated July 23, 1980 from Ron Weiss. In that letter, it stated,
"Enclosed please find a petition prepared by several clients of mine which I
believe is self-explanatory." He wanted Mrs. Minor to know that the original
petition was not included with that letter, but only a copy.
Mrs. Minor explained that she had the original. Later in the meeting after
additional discussion relative to the fact that the original petition had not
yet~been filed with the City Clerk, Mrs. Minor submitted the original petition
to the City Clerk.
81-43
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 13, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
In answer to question posed by Councilman Roth, Mrs. Minor stated that she had
lived at her present address for six years and this was not the first time she
had complained to the City about the business, but that complaints ranged over
a period of two years. Prior to that time, there were problems but she did not
know what to do about them.
Mr. Kenneth Minor stated that all of the circumstances were evident since they
moved to their present home. The business had been going on at 2111 West
Grayson for quite a few years. They strongly objected to that business being
in their neighborhood, as well as other neighbors, and they wanted some action
as soon as possible. Their house was directly next door to the business.
Mrs. Minor also explained that the people living next door to the business on
the other side, specifically Joanna Watts, had petitioned Ben and Eleanor Bay
personally prior to this time asking them to do something about eradicting the
problem. She did not know how far that had gone or why it had not been taken
care of at that time. She then explained for Councilman Overholt they had
seen an attorney because of the numerous problems with Meyers Escort Service
involving assault and attempted assaults, harrassment and slander. They had
been advised to open a civil suit.
Councilman Bay stated that they had a photocopy of a petition with only one page
with 25 signatures. He wanted to know if that was the total.
Mrs. Minor stated that they could have obtained more signatures but she felt
the petition submitted would be sufficient.
Mayor Seymour then asked if anyone was present representing Meyers and Sons Escort
Service and Mortuary; no one was present and no one else wished to speak to the
matter.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to set a public hearing for an Order to Show
Cause why Home Occupation Permit No. 75-295, Meyers and Sons Mortuary Transpor-
tation Services, should not be revoked. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, a brief discussion was held relative to the date and
time of the hearing, the City Clerk indicating that the earliest date the hearing
could be set was February 3, 1981. During the discussion, Mrs. Minor indicated
that an evening meeting would be more convenient since there were a number of
people, both husband and wife who worked during the day, who would like to attend.
Councilman Seymour included as part of his motion that the date be set for
February 3, 1981 at 7:00 p.m. Councilman Overholt was agreeable in his second.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (3:05 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (3:15 P.M.)
81-44
City Hall~ Anaheim.~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 13, 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
107: PUBLIC HEARING - REQUEST FOR A RENT MORATORIUM ON MOBILEHOME PARKS IN THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM: Request by Mr. John Dailey, Chairman, Golden State Mobile-
home Owners League, Inc., was submitted.
Mr. John Dailey, Associate Director, Golden State Mobilehome Owners League, Inc.,
(GSMOL, Inc., Region No. 5) Pacific Sunset Mobilehome Park, 211-6 South Beach
Boulevard, first explained that the great number of people present in the Chambers
audience (approximately 250) were from various mobilehome parks all over the
City of Anaheim. He first referred to a booklet previously submitted to the
Council (Mobilehome Park Information containing 14 items--on file in the City
Clerk's office) containing the support data for his request.
The mobilehome park owners either purchased or leased the ground on which to put
a mobilehome park and put in utilities, possibly slab or patio and carpet; other-
wise, that was all the expense they had. The mobilehome owners had twice to
three times more invested in their mobilehomes than did the owner in his park.
They felt they should be listened to and given a great deal of consideration.
He reported that there were 33 mobilehome parks in Anaheim and those parks were
facing rent increases in relation to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) which he
felt was a gross miscalculation (see Item 5 and 5A of the subject mobilehome
park information booklet). If the CPI were followed in determining rent increases,
rents would be doubled within four and one-half years. He then referred to the
newspaper article, Mobile Mania, written by Mr. Walt Cook (Item 6 of the subject
booklet) as well as the article by Mr. Bernie Felton, the Members Speak Out
(Item 7). He emphasized that many people in mobilehome parks were elderly
people and proud people. They did not want to be on welfare or become a bur-
den to the City through extra cost or rent subsidies. They wanted to be
independent and the only way was to establish a Rent Review Board (RRB) that
would give the owners a chance to increase their rents, but not by the high
percentages as at present. They wanted an RRB established by Anaheim con-
sisting of two members of a mobilehome park, two mobilehome park owners and
three members at large. In order to augment their request and to give the
Council more time to study the matter, in the booklet he incorporated copies
of ordinances in existence at the present time, Ordinance No. 79-485U, City
of Carson Rent Review Board, and Ordinance No. 412, Mobilehome Park Review
Committee, San Juan Capistrano, Item 12 and 13 of the booklet. Ordinance No.
545, Item 11, the City of Stanton, rent free ordinance had been continued to
a later date.
In concluding, Mr. Dailey read the two requests to the Anaheim City Council
(Item 14 in the subject booklet):
I. The Council immediately, or prior to January 1, 1981 or retroactive to
April 1, 1980, declare a moratorium on mobile home rent increases in the City
of Anaheim.
II. We request the Council establish a ~ermanent "Rent Review Board", composed
of two mobile home owners, two mobile park owners, and three impartial persons.
The board's responsibility is to review and determine the necessity and amount
of all, if any, future mobile home rent increases requested by mobilehome park
owners. Ail owners to submit justification to this board for rent increases.
81-45
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 13, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Upon Council questioning, Mr. Dailey stated that the bame rent in his park was
$185 a month and the $300 to $350 a month rents he spoke about were being
charged at Orange Tree Mobilehome Park and Anaheim Shores, a new park. He
indicated the average rent for a mobilehome park wam approximately $175 per
month. Audience reaction to that figure indicated disagreement and that it
was, in fact, higher.
Mayor Seymour stated if he owned an investment, in this case a mobilehome park,
to the degree that his profits became limited, restricted, or possibly controlled,
the next thing he would think about was that he could make more money doing some-
thing else. This led to the question of mobilehome park conversions to other
uses, dispossessing people of their homes which was a very difficult situation
for old people on fixed incomes. One of him concerns relative to a rent mora-
torium on mobilehome parks was that such action might hasten the day when the
owners, interested in profit, might seek an alternative use of the park in
order to receive a higher profit, because now they would have controlled or
taken out of the free marketplace their ability to compete on rents. He asked
Mr. Dailey if that should occur in his mobilehome park, what would he ask the
City Council t¢ do about it.
Mr. Dailey answered, he would ask the City Council to zone all mobilehome parks
as mobilehome parks only, not just his park, but all parks.
The Mayor then asked Mr. Dailey to share with them some of the cities or areas
where the concept being proposed was workimg now.
Mr. Dailey answered, it was working well in Carson. The owners of the parks
were very satisfied with the way the Rent Review Board (RRB) had been working
in that City. In Orange County, it wam working well in the City of San Juan
Capistrano where they had an RRB and the City of Stanton would have the same
this month or next. The City of Irvine had frozen rents in their two parks
for over one year, the Meadows and the Groves.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. Dailey if he had received any kind of rebate from
Proposition 13.
Mr. Dailey answered not one cent~ but he received a rent raise instead 60 days
later. He then confirmed for Mayor Seymour that the type of tenancy he had
been under since living in the park was on a month-to-month basis.
Mayor Seymour stated he often wondered why an individual who would spend $20,000
and sometimes as much as $50,000 for a mobilehome would agree to move it into a
park where all they received was a 30-day tenancy.
Mr. Dailey stated that he did it for what he felt was security, a much nicer
atmosphere, and compatibility with a group of people. He pointed out that now
a one-year tenancy could be given to tenants if they so desired.
The Mayor then asked if he bought a mobilehome today, how long of a tenancy
would he have to have in order to make some economic sense out of the risks
involved in a 30-day tenancy.
81-46
City H.a. ll., Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 13, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Dailey answered, ten or fifteen years at least. He also pointed out that
some places offered leases for a longer period than one year, although he did not
know if that was true in Anaheim. He understood that outside of Anaheim they
allowed up to five years.
In answer to questions posed by Councilwoman Kaywood and the Mayor, Mr. Dailey
relayed the following: the frequency of rent raises in his park were usually
on a yearly basis, but sometimes they received two in one year. In the 13 years
he had lived in the park, they received 16 rent raises. There were several
other parks besides Orange Tree that had given what he would consider unreason-
able rent increases where rents had been raised 25 or 35% in the Anaheim area
in the last year. He would say out of 17 parks, 12 had given unreasonable
increases. He did not have statistics to suppor~ the statement with him, but
he could obtain them as requested by the Mayor.
Councilman Roth then asked Mr. Dailey if he or his organization had a set
figure which they felt the mobilehome park owner should receive as a profit.
Mr. Dailey answered that they did not have an oppor:unity to know their scale
or investigate their books. According to government surveys, it cost an average
of $50 per space per month to maintain a mobilehome, everything included..
Councilman Roth used as an example, however, that if a park with an existing
trust deed at 6 or 7% was sold at 14 or 15%, that would cause a wide differ-
ential.
Mr. Dailey agreed but he did not believe there had been many parks in the City
of Anaheim that had changed ownership in the past four or five years.
Conversation then followed between Councilman Roth and Mr. Dailey relative to
the matter, Councilman Roth pointing out that if a moratorium or roll back were
implemented, the owner's tax, interest rate, etc., were also going to have to
be rolled back in those cases where a park had been sold. At the conclusion
of discussion, Mr. Dailey stated that they were not trying to stipulate that
there be no increases or that the owner not make a profit, as long as it could
be justified to a board. They were asking that such a board be established
for that purpose. They wanted increases to represent an equitable and fair
share and not overburden retirees and people on fixed incomes who were
eventually going to be the government's responsibility. Someone would have
to support them after their money was exhausted. If it was all spent on
rent, they were going to have to go on the welfare rolls, and they did not want
to be placed in that position.
Mayor Seymour asked if there were any mobilehome parks in Anaheim in which the
existing mobilehomes were selling for a higher price than what was paid for
those coaches initially; Mr. Dailey answered that he believed that was true
in every park, the same as with regular housing.
Mr. Dailey also expressed the feeling that theirs was a partnership role with
the owner. If they could draw up a partnership with the owner as co-owners,
that would be the best way to go. However, the park owners viewed them as
tenants and they maintained that they were not co-owners. The residents
81-47
City Hall~ Ana. hei. m., California- COUNCIL MINUTES -January 13, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
developed a bare piece of ground into a nice piece of property. They did all
the maintenance of streets and assisted with improvements. The City did not
have to do any of those things, but it was all borne by the developers, park
owners and mobilehome owners and paid for in their rent and taxes, which taxes
figured out at $2.36 for an average space in Anaheim for a mobilehome coach
per month.
Mayor Seymour then asked if they did not use the CPI relative to increases, which
he felt made sense. He did not know what could be used to replace that.
Mr. Dailey answered, the cost of living adjustment As given by the government
to people on Social Security such as 9% or whatever it might be; the Mayor felt
that was just as irrelevamt as the CPI.
Mr. Dailey felt it would be more equitable and fair than using the CPI. The
cities who had met up a RRB were using the cost of living index used in Social
Security increases. It was a guideline percentage wise.
In concluding, Mayor Seymour asked Mr. Dailey why he felt more mobilehome parks
had not been built; Mr. Dailey answered, because of the high cost of ground.
Mayor Seymour noted that Mr. Dailey made the statement that people on fixed
incomes, if they could not make it, government was going to support them. He
thus assumed from that that he (Dailey) believed in the private sector system.
Therefore if they were going to depend upon the private sector to provide that
type of housing and today the price of land was one of the reasons why mobile-
home parks were not being built, what would he think the impact of rent control
or a rent moratorium would be on the ability to develop new parks.
Mr. Dailey stated that he did not think there would be any more parks developed
in Orange County or the City because of the lack of available space, especially
in Anaheim. Mayor Seymour stated if he interpreted Mr. Dailey's thinking
correctly, (1) he felt there should be some control of the growth of rents in
a mobilehome park and (2) that there should be a great deal of control, in
fact, law that would say, this has to be a mobilehome park forever.
Mr. Dailey confirmed the Mayor's understanding was correct.
Ms. Pat Kish, Orange Tree Mobilehome Owners Association, 1400 Douglass Road,
Space 90, referred to the fact that they were present in April (see minutes
April 22, 1980) at which time the Orange Tree Mobilehome Owners Association
advised the Council of a $40 rent increase. At that time, the park owner was
in attendance and she hoped that the Council would have addressed a few questions
to him, some of the same questions that were addressed to Mr. Dailey, but they
did not do so. On the other hand, when she approached the podium, she was
questioned for 40 minutes. ~mey returned to the Council again on October 7,
1980 (see minutes that date) requesting permit zoning and a first right of
refusal in the event a mobilehome park would be sold. She referred to the
example the Mayor had given where a situation may arise due to rent control,
that in the event a park owner saw it unfit to maintain the land as a mobile-
home park and chose to change the use of the land, that was why on October 7
they asked for an ordinance which would give them the first right of refusal
in the event that situation ever took place. They also asked for permanent
zoning which would be a deterrent or stop any possibility of change of use.
81-48
City H.all~ A.n. aheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 13, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Ms. Kish's presentation was highlighted by the following points: Mobilehome
owners had always admitted that a mobilhehome park owner was in business to
realize a profit. Mobilehome owners had an investment as well. However, the
park owners investment was protected by way of a land lease agreement. In the
event the land owner was offered an attractive price, in an effort to protect
his investment, the park owner would be given the first option to buy the land.
They came to the City Council, who had the power and authority to pass such an
ordinance, to request that they also give the mobilehome owner that same pro-
tection. She emphasized that they had reached the point of outright gouging
and raping of the people which was the only description to give to what was
taking place. The Mayor had asked what was going on in other cities. She
would hope that the Mayor would like to take a leadership role.
She felt with the information the Council received today and the information
provided by Orange Tree Home Owners Association in April, if any City Council
in the County was well educated into the unique mobilehome lifestyle and the
gouging of mobilehome residents, it was the Anaheim City Council. Their request
was not a shallow one, but one shared by many people present today. They were
asking the Council for help.
In answer to a line of questioning posed by Councilwoman Kaywood, Ms. Kish
relayed the following: She felt the increases in her park had been unreason-
able as well as those given at other parks in Anaheim and in Orange County.
There had been no sharing of the relief given by Proposition 13. Those parks
in Anaheim which she felt rate increases had not been unreasonable were gener-
ally "Mom and Pop" operations, and they were not necessarily members of the
statewide park owners association. Once a park reached full capaaity, that was
the time when rent increases started. With a change in management, there was
a change in rules and regulations with the routine answer being, if you do not
like it, move!
Ms. Kish then clarified for Councilman Roth that relative to Proposition 13,
there were a "sprinkling" of park owners who did share a reduction in their
property taxes with their residents, also, the reason why the people still
wanted to locate in a park such as Anaheim Shores in spite of the publicity
regarding rent increases in mobilehome parks, was due to the unsuspecting
buyer. There were still people who felt it was a much more economical life-
style than what they were presently experiencing. Once they assumed residency,
they knew better.
Discussion and questioning followed between the Mayor and Ms. Kish revolving
around why more mobilehome parks were not being developed since, as pointed out
by Ms. Kish, if there was an abundance of park spaces, they would have a free
market, but today there was no competition. However, park development was
spaced at such intervals so that there was never an abundance of spaces. She
confirmed her suspicions for the Mayor that there might be a conspiracy amongst
mobilehome developers not to build parks. If not conspiracy, it might be good
business practice on the part of park owners and developers not to allow them-
selves to get into the position they were in 10, 12 or 14 years ago, when there
was an overabundance of spaces.
81-49
City Hall~ Anaheim~ .C. alifornia- COUNCIL MINUTES- January 13, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor did not agree. He had information from staff that the reason mobile-
home parks were not being developed today was because the price they had to pay
for the land, combined with the cost of the improvements necessary to make it a
park, would require rent in $650-$700 a month range because the density of a
mobilehome park was about 12 units to the acre, where a condominium or apartment
could be developed at 15 to 25 units to the acre. It was an economic reason.
Planning Director Ron Thompson explained that at present they were analyzing the
City's Shorb-Wells property having a land value of $300,000 to $350,000 an acre,
plus other attendant costs, and thus rents were reaching the range the Mayor was
talking about, i.e., $600 to $700 a month rent for space to anticipate a fair
return on investments.
The Mayor then discussed with Ms. Kish the number and amount of rent increases
experienced at their park since the time she lived there. It was determined
that in 10 years (1970 to present) rents increased from $85 to $90 to $153 to
$280 per month. The Mayor was trying to ascertain how much percentage increase
that represented in relation to what had transpired relative to home ownership.
In 1970, the average home price was $20,000 and today it was over $100,000, an
increase of five times in ten years, as compared to three times in mobilehome
parks. However, that did not make rent gouging right. The cost of all housing
had dramatically increased and they had a responsibility to do something about
that, the question being, was rent control one of the answers. He asked what
they should use as a course of action to try to resolve the problem.
Ms. Kish stated they had another problem.- The Mayor expressed concern if the
park owner were saddled with any kind of rent control stabilization, he would
have difficulty in selling his park to anyone else. At present, the mobilehome
owners, due to excessive rent increases were hawing difficulty selling their
homes. There was no choice. They could not afford the rent or sell their home
to get out from under. In not paying their rent by State law was grounds for
eviction including that the property itself be vacated and the home removed.
There was no place to move it to, because of the non-existent vacancy factor.
She suggested that they could dissect the San Juan Capistrano ordinance. At
present that City was considering a revision of that ordinance basing rent
increases on operating expenses, rather than the CPI figure. That would be
interesting to discuss with the Council and she was certain that the people
involved in the San Juan Capistrano ordinance would be happy to discuss it with
them. It did not necessarily have to be controlled.
The Mayor stated, speaking to the general problem of the cost of housing and
what was equitable and what was unfair, reiterated that the rent increases they
discussed at her park represented an increase of three times, whereas the cost
of home ownership had increased five times--not that it was fair, but it did
draw a comparison.
Ms. Kish felt there was no comparison whatsoever. The park owners had practically
said that they would get what the traffic would bear and the mobilehome owners
were the traffic.
The Mayor asked Ms. Kish if she believed in rent control for apartments as well;
Ms. Kish answered that she did not want to get into that and would not answer
that question. They were present today relative to mobilehome park rents.
81-50
City Ha. ll, Anaheim, Ca..1.ifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 13, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor felt they must consider all ramifications and aspects of the decision,
not what it would do just for today; Ms. Kish emphasized that they must center
in on the problems now and their problem again was the fact they were being
gouged and raped.
The Mayor then stated, with all due respect, the easiest thing would be to
answer the will of the people as it had been heard today. He tried to carry
on his responsibilities not on an emotional basis of what would make people
happy today without considering the long-term aspects of tomorrow. That might
not be met with public approval, but that was philosophically the way he felt.
Mayor Seymour then asked M~. Kish what she considered a fair return on a mobile-
home park; Ms. Kish stated she would like to get into a more detailed discussion
with him on a formula using operating expenses. She then elaborated on the
figures and formulas used with regard to San Juan Capis~rano ordinance.
There being no future questions asked of Ms. Kish, the Mayor then asked to hear
from those who wished to speak.
The following people then spoke either in favor or opposition to the two requests
presented and the highlights of their presentation are included below:
Mr. Jack Barry, Associate Director, Golden State Mobilehome League. He was
present at the City of Carson RRB meeting one week ago and as the park owners
came forward requesting rent increases, they were dealing with operating
expenses. They did consider the CPI as a porti~n:.of their presentation, but
they did not base it 100% on the CPI. There was no discussion of percentage
of profit over operating costs. Relative to housing escalating five times and
rent increases in the Orange Tree Mobilehome Park three times, on resale of his
coach, he maintained that he would not be able to realize five times the value
he paid for it. In concluding, he stated he was in favor of a Rent Review Board.
The term rent control had been used all over the State of California in meetings,
such as the one taking place, as though it was something nasty. From the outset,
he felt they had rent control--the mobilehome park owners had controlled rent.
He was not certain if rent increases were arbitrary. If the mobilehome owners
turned that control over to him, there was no way he could tell that what he
would get extra next year would not be an arbitrary figure. They were asking
for a Rent Review Board which was not arbitrary but one of arbitration. He
wanted a Rent Review Board because he did not know that his rent rate was jus-
tified as presented to him. If his or any other park owner raised his rents
to the residents and that rent raise was $1 more than justified, considering
the fact that there were 800,000 mobilehomes in the State, that would yield
a $9,600,000 rip-off in one year. If $5, that would escalate to $48 million.
Mayor Seymour agreed there was a vast difference between rent control and a
Rent Review Board. Los Angeles had ren~ control for a little over two years
now. In the year 1980, talking about apartment houses, he believed because
of rent control, the City of Los Angeles did not build or add to their apart-
ment house inventory, one apartment house that was no~ subsidized by the govern-
ment. Housing was a problem. They had to be very careful that although they
might solve many people's problems today by invoking a Rent Review Board, they
may be creating even bigger problems for coming generations. That was why he
was taking the decision very seriously.
81-51
Ci..ty Ha. ll~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 13, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Bay stated to have a Rent Review Board, there must also be rent con-
trol because there had to be "teeth" in such an ordinance. If the board felt
that an increase was not justified, it would not be allowed. If rent controls
were set up on mobilehome parks, mobilehome park owners faced with such controls,
and considering the return on their investment, might start to consider that they
had, for example, 20 acres of land that originally cost them $20,000 an acre.
Now however, if the land were developed some other way, it might be valued at
$250,000 an acre. If he (Mr. Barry) were an owner of that type of investment
suddenly faced with a rent control ordinance with "teeth" and if he were sub-
sequently offered that price for the land so that condominiums, commercial,
industrial, etc. could be developed on it, would he agree they would not then
have a single mobilehome park left in the City.
Mr. Barry answered that he could nog foresee that, but if ~ha~ hypothetical
situation did evolve, he would discuss it very thoroughly with the proposed
buyer of his mobilehome park and go through channels to make sure that he
did not rezone and put the residents out in the street.
Councilman Bay stated he wanted to pose the foregoing which was a scenario he
saw from his view of the economics relative to land in the City. It was already
happening in some parks in the City at present because of return on investment.
What he heard today, they were asking local government to stop the natural flow
of free enterprise economics by mandating controls that he believed had the
potential of wiping out the place in which they lived now and even faster than
the way it was going.
Councilman Overholt noted that Mr. Barry stated he was not asking for rent control,
but arbitration in establishing a Rent Review Board. His (Overholt's) understanding
of arbitration was a way of making a decision on disputes to which both parties
agreed. An RRB was a way of deciding disputes dictated by government. They
would establish the Board and then tell them what to do. Arbitration was some-
thing agreed to by adverse interests. He asked why his association could not
try to work with the landlord associations and devise an arbitration program.
Mr. Barry deferred to Mr. Dailey who stated that the park owners had an associa-
tion, the Western Mobilehome Association (WMA), and they had met with them on
numerous occasions but each property owner went his own way. He knew of many
park owners who did not belong to WMA and thus they could not sit down with
statewide organizations like WMA and themselves and accomplish anything
equitable--for instance, agreeing to throwing their books open and justifying
their costs. Perhaps ~he WMA members would do so, but there were 40,000 other
park owners that would not do it. They could not get a full and complete group
to go along with such a plan.
Mr. Ed Thompson, Director for Community Affairs, Western Mobilehome Association,
on behalf of the local park owners in Anaheim (also see eight-page letter dated
January 1981 from W-MA President Alan Tarlov submitted to provide input to assist
in the Council's deliberation today). It was interesting to note that thus far
there had been over eight cities and/or counties in the State that had rejected
rent control or any of the rent stabilization ideas presented to them out of 110
or 115 jurisdictions that he was aware of. What they were really talking about
were the effects of inflation and that was the issue. They were talking about
the increases in the economy in general and everything it took to survive in that
economy. Rent control did not seem to be the answer and, in fact, it caused many
81-52
City Ha. ll~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 13, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
of the problems. There had been numerous studies conducted by universities,
federal organizations and consultants throughout the country on the impacts of
rent control and they all came back with the same response, that rent control
would adversely affect development in communities. That was an absolute fact
and a significant consideration in the development of additional housing. One
of the recommendations of an advisory task force to President-Elect Reagan
chaired by the Mayor of San Diego, Pete Wilson, was that they eliminate federal
housing assistance to any community ~hat established a rent control, not to
create additional hardships, but because it was their firm belief rent control
generally had a strong adverse affect on housing availability within a commun-
ity. HUD also issued a report and also indicated, where rent control existed
in communities, there ought to be some consideration as to whether or not the
federal government should continue allocating housing funds to that community.
It was necessary to take a hard look before moving in that area. Mr. Thompson
then concluded by commenting on some of the statements that had been made
earlier in the meeting. He also pointed out there were a number of park owners
present to express their feelings in addition to Mr. Brent Swanson who might
be able to shed some light on the situation in the City of Stanton.
Mr. Thompson then clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood that if there was a man-
dated provision in the ordinance, such as that being discussed, they viewed that
as a form of rent control. Relative to the number of park owners in the City
of Anaheim who belong to the Association, he believed there were 12.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if it had come to their attention that there might
be a "gouger" among ~hem, would the Association do anything to mitigate such a
situation.
Mr. Thompson indicated they were very concerned about such situations and in
those cases where there appeared to be excessive rents being charged in one
park, they would attempt to talk to that park owner to get some background and
understanding as to what the rents were based on and encourage that park owner
to communicate with the City to try to share with them some of the basic infor-
mation that went into that adjustment.
Further discussion then took place with Mr. Thompson as a result of questions
posed by Councilwoman Kaywood, Mayor Seymour and Councilman Overholt covering
fair rate of return, his knowledge as to unreasonable rent increases in Anaheim
mobilehome parks, and procedure to receive and investigate complaints. Relative
to the latter, they would suggest tha~ the residents contact the local tenant
organization for assistance and at the same time they would personally contact
that park owner and advise him that a concern had been expressed and suggest
that if there was a problem of communication in his park, he may want to attempt
through his representatives to improve lines of communication. His organization
did not get involved in the investigation of a claim by a tenant. As well, they
had not given any formal consideration to promoting an arbitration program to
resolve disputes.
Mr. Brent Swanson, 1800 East 17th Street, Santa Ana, attorney representing mobile-
home park owners in Anaheim. Over the last four years, he had been involved in
a specialty in the practice of law representing mobilehome park owners. In that
process, he had been involved in over 40 mobilehome park issues in various counties
81-53
City Hall~ An.aheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 13, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
and cities around the State representing clients in front of the rent control
commissions that had been established under the few ordinances that had been
passed, including the one in Carson. He then clarified some of the points that
had been made: Rent stabilization was the same as rent control. It had been
the resident's way of trying to make rent control in the State more palatable.
The ordinances that had been passed in California had all been ones involving
mandatory controls on rent. In Stanton, his law firm obtained a temporary
restraining order against one going into effect and the preliminary injunction
hearing was continued until sometime in June. Irvine had not passed a rent
control ordinance or any other legislation that he was aware of. There were
ten cities in the County that had revoked rent control pleas and some more than
once. Only one city in the County had adopted rent control, San Juan Capistrano.
There was a Blue Ribbon Committee formed two or three years ago by the Board of
Supervisors in the County to examine mobilehome park problems composed primarily
of mobilehome park residents and they, too, indicated in their report that rent
control was not the way to solve the problems and issues being raised by the
residents that came before them. (Mayor Seymour interjected and asked that he
be provided with a copy of that report).
With regard to the City of Carson, he had a great deal of experience in that
City both in originally proposing the passage of the ordinance and, failing in
that effort, representing clients in front of the Commission established under
that ordinance. The best description of that Commission would be found in the
report from the Social Psychologist from Cal Sta~e Dominguez Hills, a PHD in
Social Psychology hired by the City of Carson, requested and paid for by them.
The report which he had a copy of and which he could provide to the Council
as well, outlined a parade of "horribles" and that was after the Commission had
been functioning for some period of time. It talked about all the adverse
things the Commission was doing--how they played politics, were unfair, had
no faith in the City staff who was there to assist them, etc. The actual exper-
ience in Carson had been deplorable. That Commission was inept, oppressive,
they were oriented toward the resident in their attitude and these were things
typical of the other commissions under the rent stabilization passed around the
State. They would not permit reasonable rent increases. If the Council seriously
wanted to consider rent control, he suggested that they listen to the tapes of the
Commission in Carson. He went on to explain some of the things that had trans-
pired which pointed out the actual reality of rent control in the State. It
meant no increase at all or increases that were unfair, oppressive and unreal-
istic and that was one of the major reasons why people were not building mobile-
home parks in the State.
Relative to the fair rate of return concept, it was not possible to say it was
an "X" percentage. It was dependent on where the park was located, what the
park was like, the current economic conditions.
Councilwoman Kaywood interjected and noted that Mr. Swanson mentioned that it
was unfair, oppressive and unrealistic to ask that there be a review board.
She believed the residents felt the same way in their plight. Many of them
were terrified and they simply did not have the money anymore because their
rent kept increasing. They were all on fixed incomes and did not know what
they were going to do. In speaking to Mr. Swanson, she felt if they looked
upon the situation at the human level and tried to deal with it that way, they
could come up with some solution.
81-54
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 13, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Swanson then explained for Councilman Overholt that he did not know of any
such matters that had been submitted to formal arbitration. However, it was not
uncommon for park owners to sit down with a resident group and talk about the
situation and negotiate. There were many small older parks that could not
afford an arbitrator, nor the resident. The typical arbitration ordinance
proposed around the state was mandatory arbitration which was binding arbitra-
tion. The organization he represented was a very loose trade association un-
like the Bar Association or other trade associations where there was a more
cohesive organizational structure.
Councilman Overholt stated it seemed to him that happy mobilehome owners in
parks should be an utlimate goal of the organization and it seemed to him they
had not been doing much to accomplish that, but fighting them at every turn;
Mr. Swanson disagreed.
In concluding, Councilman Overholt suggested that his organization think about
working on a program to set up an arbitration program that would try to resolve
disputes.
Mr. Swanson continued and stated that the typical mobilehome in Orange County
had appreciated at a fraction of one-tenth of one percent less than the average
stick built house. He confirmed for the Mayor that he was saying that the average
price of a mobilehome escalated 14.9% in 1980, as compared to the average price
of a stick built home having gone up 15%. He would be happy to send that
report to the Mayor as well; the Mayor asked that he do so.
Mr. Swanson then explained for Councilwoman Kaywood the function of review boards
and relayed some of the situations that had occurred and their outcome. If there
was to be a review board, people had to be appointed to it who were objective
and also people who were knowledgeable in real estate, finances, expenses, i.e.,
a knowledgeable business person. With those qualifications there might be a
possibility of getting a fair decision, but he doubted it. He did not think
they worked well. Later in the meeting, Mr. Swanson explained for Councilman
Overholt that the impartial members of a review board were appointed by the
City Council.
The mobilehome park industry could not subsidize people who were in need. That
was the role of the family and government. There was also HUD Section 8 money
extended in the last couple of years to the mobilehome park field. If it was
their thinking that the average mobilehome park resident was poor and elderly
and living on Social Security, they were wrong because that was not the profile
of the average mobilehome park resident. They typically did not tend to be
poor, but in the mid to upper income level. Most were not retired. There was
a substantial portion of the population of the typical park in metropolitan
areas who were still continuing to work and those that had worked were profes-
sionals or other successful business people.
Mr. Swanson also stated that they could not formulize rent increases. Even if
there were no empty spaces in the County, they were in competition. The typical
park in the County had a ten percent turnover factor each year and that figure
had remained fairly constant until the recent situation relative to the
financing problem. They would not get a 10% turnover on the average in the
81-55
City Hall, Anaheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES - January 13, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
County or Anaheim if rents were too high because the people who were buying did
not have to buy. They could buy or rent or go some place else. They were in
competition with the rest of the rental housing industry.
Councilwoman Kaywood then explained the task force that was set up in 1974 to
devise a General Plan for the hill and canyon area and how it worked quite
well. She felt the same could happen in this situation if there was a better
feeling on both sides, realizing that they were not dealing with the enemy but
human beings. It was unrealistic not to expect increases. The people she
knew and who had complained to her were in a terrible bind contrary to Mr.
Swanson's definition of a mobilehome owner.
Councilman Roth stated he was well aware that people living in apartments and
houses had the same identical problems relative to tremendous increases in
rents. Inflation was "killing" all of them. He then relayed the problems
present in his own family with his father and son. He was concerned about all
people in the housing industry. If the people in the audience today had been
present Tuesday after Tuesday, they would realize that a majority of the Council
had been trying to cope with the housing situation in general. They were going
to have to look at different avenues to arrive at some solution to the problem.
He then referred to a newspaper article taken from the Sunday edition (January 11
1981) of the Los Angeles Times pertaining to a 6.2% vacancy factor in San Diego
which he read--"We can thank the lack of rent control for our sound and stable
market. The high vacancy rates all over the county are proof that when~teft
alone, the free market system can work effectively and efficiently to keep rents
low and the quality of available housing high." Diminishing the supply of
housing was not'the answer. The issue was a broad one encompassing the whole
housing industry. They received ho~line complaints all the time from people
in apartments saying that they could not pay their rents. They (Council Members)
had called the landlords and expressed to them in order to make the free market
work, they could not permit gouging. Most of the time the increases had been
caused by a sale of the property with new interest rates and tax rates, resulting
in a negative cash flow. The government had been printing "phony" money and
causing the tremendous inflation spiral. Everyone was suffering and he was
suffering along with the people present today. He was not convinced that
government intervention and controls were the answer.
Mr. Singleton, resident of Friendly Village, felt that the hearing had turned
out to be a filibuster more than anything else, having drifted to subjects other
than the issue of the mobilehome and mobilehome parks. Not everybody living
in a mobilehome was destitute. However, when his rent was raised to a point
where he could not afford to pay, thus jeopardizing him to where he could not
sell his coach, then the City Council or somebody had to do something about
it because he could not make laws on his own. People in mobilehome parks were
generally below the high class average previously indicated.
Mr. Paul Bostwick, 8105 East Woodsboro, representing Midway Trailer City, stated
they were all subject to some very difficult outside influences. As the Mayor
and Councilwoman Kaywood stated, it was not practical to judge everything by an
index. It was not always relative and he did not think it always fit the case.
They had to do something about the situation, and the November elections were
evidence of that, and he felt the people would keep trying to bring things
81-56
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 13, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
back to a reasonable basis. It would not be easy and they were all going to
suffer. He would say to most of the mobilehome park tenants, they had a society
and an environment that was great. He had been in the business since the 1940's.
His parents had built the park and he was now an officer in the corporation.
Many services were provided which he described. Ail facilities were provided
by and maintained by the park owner. In the last month, they received a $320
per month increase in trash collection passed along from the City, representing
$17 a space. They received a tax increase of $4,000, or $16 a space. If only
those increases were passed along, that would be a $33 increase. He did not
think there was anybody in the City who was gouging and that they had justifi-
able records and means to prove it. He understood the feelings of everyone
present. They ail had a difficult time making ends meet today. Before con-
cluding, Mr. Bostwick touched upon the issue of fair rate of return and other
matters previously discussed.
After Mr. Bostwick's presentation, Councilman Roth stated that they were all
suffering because of situations over which they had no control. He felt it was
time for mobilehome park owners to start explaining increases to their tenants
in detail. He felt there was a definite need for better public relations
between the park owners and the residents to inform them as to what was
happening.
Mr. Bostwick agreed that there was a communication problem. There was a sti~oma
over the tenant-landlord relationship, i.e., that the other person was not going
to listen. They were receptive and understood. Their rates ranged from $110 to
$150 and ten years ago they were in the $70-$75 range. He pointed out that
landlords were human beings as well.
MOTION: At this point, (7:00 P.M.) Councilman Bay moved for a 30-minute recess
since the meeting had been in progress since 1:30 P.M., with the prospect that
the present subject could continue for approximately two more hours. Subsequently,
the rest of the agenda still had to be considered. Councilman Overholt seconded
the motion for the purpose of discussion.
Before action was taken, Council discussion ensued. It was determined that
there were five more speakers to be heard, the consensus being if their pre-
sentation was directed to the issue, it would take only a short period of time.
The foregoing motion FAILED TO CARRY by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bay
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour
Mrs. Adrienne Janis, Anaheim Shorms Estates, 1919 Coronet, #205. Anaheim Shores,
did get a rent increase before the park was filled. There was a $24 increase
throughout the entire park. When they moved in, rents ranged from $195 to $295
a month. They were now $219 to $319 a month. She then explained, in answer to
Mayor Seymour's earlier question, why they moved into a mobilehome park knowing
they would only have a 30-day tenancy. She also explained that a few residents
had inquired in the manager's office about the purchase of their property. She
assumed that the manager would have asked the owner as to that possibility. A
notice then went out inquiring as to how many were interested in purchasing their
land. The survey was performed and returned to the office on the date specified.
They did receive a notice that if they were interested in purchasing the land on
81-57
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 13, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
which their coach was situated, the minimum price was $44,000 which they considered
to be excessive. When they tried to reach Mr. Matreyek, the owner, by whatever
means, they had been unable to do so. That was an example of the lack of coop-
eration from management. She also confirmed for the Mayor that a 10% increase
over a period of one year, in her mind, was not fair and an 8% increase would
have been sufficient.
Mrs. Sergeant, a mobilehome resident in Anaheim: Something that had not been
broached today that was a disadvantage to the mobilehome owner was that their
mobilehome continued to appreciate as long as it did not go over the age the
California Civil Code stated. Her mobilehome Would be 20 years of age in 5
years. In 6 years if she wanted to stay in her home, it could not be said that
her home was appreciating, but it was then going to be depreciating. If a mobile-
home was well kept, it should have a 50-year life as on traditional single-family
homes. The mobilehome park owner's property did not depreciate, but the mobilehome
owner's home did. Until Sacramento changed that ruling, she did not think anyone
could use as an example that they as a mobilehome owner were going to continue
to gain a profit when selling. It was not the same type of a game as the mobile-
home park owner received.
Mr. Reichmeyer, resident of Orange Tree Mobilehome Park: Since the advent of
Proposition 13, he had a $107.50 increase. He was trying to sell his mobilehome
and it had been on the market for two months. As soon as he told a prospective
buyer the rent, he would never hear from him again. The possible buyers did
not even ask him the price of the mobilehome. After the meeting in April with
the Council, their park owner sent everybody a letter saying that he would buy
their coaches, give then a note and as soon as they were re~dy to move out he
would pay cash, but for the market value or bluebook value and not what the
space was worth. He called that $12,000 to $14,000. If he was asking $40,000
to sell his mobilehome, the owner would bring it down to $28,000. That was
what the space meant to him. It would put a new coach in and make his money
on that. The owner was even willing to move his coach at his own expense to
get that empty space.
Mr. George Makinishi, part owner of the Green Acres Mobilehome Park, 3050 West
Ball Road, Anaheim: Since the passage of Proposition 13, they rebated $100
for each space. WMA recommended a rebate of 80% and in his park he rebated
more. On their rent, they had no increase in 1980 and today their average rent
in his park was less than $150 a month. The increase this year was less than
10% and there were no protests to that increase. The residents thought it was
reasonable and some were willing to pay more. They had good tenants living in
their park and they had no vacancies.
Mr. Jack Dutton, Manager of the Sunkist Gardens Mobilehome Park: The owner of
the Midway Trailer City, Mr. Bostwick, touched on the subject that he wanted to
address in reference to what Mr. Dailey had said. Mr. Dailey indicated that
park owners had only a small expense putting in a pad, a carport and some utilities.
However, that was far from the truth. When building a park, it was necessary
to put in sewers, utilities, streets, a recreation center with all its amen-
ities, two to three acres of lawn, trees that had to be maintained and they
had employees to pay all the time. He wanted to clarify that for the record.
Ms. Kish mentioned that Sunkist Gardens was one that did give a tax credit
because of Proposition 13, and they did so in 1978. Also, while the CPI was up
81-58
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 13, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
10.3%, the company raised rents 8.4% and on top of that gave a tax credit
because of Proposition 13 of $7 per month which had prevailed up to January
1981, leaving a net of only a $7 increase for the park owners for the park
spaces that year. Mr. Dutton then clarified questions posed by Council Mem-
bers relative to his presentation.
Mr. Richard A. Smith, Rancho La Palma Trailer Court. He and his wife were 50%
owners at 825 West La Palma, a small park of 28 spaces three blocks east of
Anaheim Memorial Hospital. They maintained a clean and quiet park. Approxi-
mately one-half of their tenants were retired and one-half worked. Their rent
was $95 a month plus gas and electricity which they submetered. In 1978 they
shared 80% of their savings on Proposition 13 with their tenants. He felt
they had been fair. If rent controls were imposed, they would be hurt simply
because they were at a low base and if they started to apply percentages to the
low base, somebody would get hurt because the rates they were being charged
did not have a ceiling on them. What would happen, parks would start closing
down to find alternative uses for the land which was already happening in
Orange County. They wanted to maintain their park and continue as a park
operator. He then confirmed for Councilman Roth that their last base increase
was in July 1979. Last year they submetered on gas and did not lower the base.
This year they expected that same natural gas to cost them $2500 being paid for
18 spaces for about $2.50 per month per space. Ten spaces were on propane. In
1979, they went from $82.50 to $95. He then explained the nature of his park.
Mayor Seymour noted that Mr. Smith made a very good point. Rent control could
be unfair to park owners such as Mr. Smith and the other two gentlemen (Bostwick
and Makinishi). It would actually hurt those who were trying to be fair because
they would be moving off a lower base than everybody else and as a result would
be adversely impacted.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing. He then asked to hear from the Council relative to their feelings on
the issue.
Councilman Roth stated it was informative to have spent the time, five hours to
this point, and energy to hear both sides. The plea for rent control was not
new to the Council and they had been faced with the request before. He main-
tained that inflation was the problem and everyone tried to do what they could
to beat it down. Those not in government or who had never attended a City
Council meeting or paid too much attention to the whole political process of
the Country, people themselves were leaning too much towards government for
answers. If government had the answers, they would have, for instance, cured
the housing problem in New York City in 1942 at which time rent control was ins-
tituted and still in effect today. In that City, it had caused a dry up of the
lower rental properties now boarded up, resulting in a complete destruction of
good property. Thus, the situation of having government become involved in the
private sector through controls defeated exactly what the populace wanted. He
understood the frustration since his 88-year old father had just received another
rent increase in his mobilehome park in La Verne and who wanted government to do
something about it the same as he would understand the frustration of any citizen
in any rental property. To control rents in mobilehome parks would only control
rents in all rental spaces. Ms. Kish did not answer the question as to whether
she was interested in having rent controls for apartments as well. He felt one
81-59
Ci. ty Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 13, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
situation could not be divorced from the other because both were housing units.
Rent controls caused artificial shortages and developers quit building. Every-
body was going to get hurt when artificial shortages were caused. He felt that
many efforts would be made in the coming year to try to implement Statewide rent
control just as in the past. Everyone needed to rededicate themselves and
realize again that the cornerstone of the country was based on free sale and
exchange of property rights. Freedom was based on property rights. He ques-
tioned if they were willing to give up their freedoms because they felt some-
body was unjust and thus turn the reins over to a governmental body who would
be just. He had not seen that in the time he had served on the Council and
during that time he had remained very close to the various levels of govern-
ment, local, state and national.
The people who were present today asking for rent control were a product of the
society of free enterprise system. He was sympathetic particularly to the
seniors and the problems they were experiencing and he wished somehow he had
the power to drop the rents back to where they were five to ten years ago. How-
ever, he was a realist. He emphasized that they were all caught up in the in-
flation spiral. It gave him a heavy heart to realize that people worked a whole
lifetime, retired, and became dependent upon Social Security resulting in
nothing but problems because of rent increases and the like. However, he
could not destroy the system. He was again going on record, and always had been
on record, that he was opposed to any type of rent gouging and as he explained
before, he had taken it upon himself as well as his colleagues to try to con-
tact and reason with the owners where complaints had been received to emphasize
it was best for the country to solve the problems themselves without government
intervention. He appreciated all the input today and even with the signs and
placards in evidence in the audience today, he could not support the concepts
presented. He was a product of the system himself and was suffering along with
those present today, but he could not support rent control.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that there had been a great deal of talk over and
over again relative to the housing shortage and that they must create more
housing, but in the process of doing so they were going to give away the whole
store. If all that was going to do was simply raise the cost of everything
and continue to do so, they would still be leaving 60% or more of the popula-
tion out of the pie. It was a fact that they needed housing, but there had to
be a different feeling about the situation. Not everybody had to become a total
millionaire to invest in any kind of housing. She had listened carefully to
everyone and surmised that the WMA had a job to do. They had to clean up their
act and they would not be sitting here today if WMA had taken care of the prob-
lem at their level. She, too, did not want to hurt the people like Mr. Bostwick
(Midway Trailer City), Mr. Smith (Rancho La Palma Trailer Court) and Mr. Makinishi
(Green Acres Mobilehome Park). They operated very fine parks and their residents
were "happy" people. Mr. Dutton was the manager of a large and very lovely park
(Sunkist Gardens) and everyone she knew who lived there had nothing but the high-
est compliments to give for the park. She had not heard any complaints out of
Sunkist Gardens. The fact that he (Dutton) had told the owners that just util-
izing the CPI was too high and not relevant, she had to agree with that. If
people simply wanted to make all the money in the world and not look at the
other side, i.e., that people needed to have a place to live, that was also
81-60
City Hall~ Aq.a.heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January. 13, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
wrong. WMA was able to advise the park owners to give back a maximum of 80%
with regard to Proposition 13. They needed to give other advise as well and
should establish a fact finding or problem solving mechanism or whatever was
necessary to mitigate the problems. If they tackled the problem from a pre-
vention angle, they would have a much easier time than trying to bring about
a cure.
Councilman Overholt stated he had already expressed some of his thoughts in
the questions he posed. This was the second long hearing generated by Ms. Kish
since he had been on the Council, and he co~mnended her for bringing it about. It
enabled the issues to be aired and gave everybody an opportunity to say their
piece. They had heard charges and counter-charges of reasonableness and unrea-
sonableness on both sides. However, he could not see government dictating to
the mobilehome park owner what they were going to charge anymo~e than he could
see government dictating what the mobilehome owner was going to pay. The fact
that there was an organization such as WMA and the Golden State Mobilehome Owners
League and others throughout the State, in that may lie the solution to the
problem. He felt it was a matter of both interests trying to solve their own
problems. It was his guess that the majority of the Council would vote against
rent control or anything akin to it. It was obvious that other Councils did not
feel that way (Carson, San Juan Capist~ano, Stanton) and thus it would behoove the
WMA to develop a process that would enable disputes to be resolved.
Speaking to Mr. Swanson, he (Overholt) felt that he was the key and by like
token, it seemed if the representatives of the mobilehome owners association
would try to develop some kind of process whereby they could air and investi-
gate complaints and subsequently make recommendations, that could smoke out
the unreasonable actions by mobilehome park owners and perhaps the unreasonable
criticism. He felt the latter was based on ignorance of the se-called tenants,
because (1) they did not want to listen to why a rent increase was being pro-
posed, or (2) and more likely, because the mobilehome park owner would not tell
them and they did not want to open their books. He believed that the solution
was to have the two interests work the matter out. Perhaps arbitration was the
way to go and it did not have to be an expensive process to give both sides an
opportunity to air their concerns and to come up with a recommended position.
Nine times out of ten each side did accept that disposition and that would be
the end of the process. If not, it was his guess that there would be other
five-hour hearings in the Chamber and before other bodies. If the matter did
not resolve itself eventually within the organization, even the makeup of the
City Council changed from time to time. It might be that at some future date,
government would use its heavy hand, which he did not like, to encourage some
kind of solution or process that would enable them to solve the problems. He
reiterated that he was absolutely opposed to anything akin to a Rent Review
Board which, in his opinion, was another way of imposing rent control. They
would only be delegating to that body which they would compose, that which
they would otherwise do if they were to do it themselves. That was not the
answer. He encouraged the associations to work out a process to resolve the
difficulties to everybody's satisfaction.
Councilman Bay stated it was ironic for him to hear a great number of citizens
come forth with a problem that was created by the economoc problem created
by government in the first place and to ask local government for more laws to
81-61
City, ~.all~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINU~ES - January .13,. 1981, 1:30 P.M.
resolve the economic problem of rent increases by rent control. He could not
possibly support rent control in the City because rent control never solved
anything. He did not think that government by adding controls relative to
economic factors ever did anything except cost someone more money down the
line. It was his opinion if the Council instigated any kind of rent control,
for a very short time they might make about 250 people happy, but over the long
run, they would compound the problem 100 fold. It was that simple and that was
the issue--government control was not going to solve the economic problem.
Mayor Seymour stated in closing for the Council, he was pleased they had spent
the hours they had today. It had been a learning experience for himself and he
was certain he spoke for many who were present. There were some extremely
interesting points made on both sides. On one hand, there was an emotional
issue and relative to that issue, much had been said about the ravages of inflation
and its effect especially to those on fixed incomes. That was all true, but what
had not been spoken about today was the frustration level that set in on anybody
faced with increases. Although there had been rent increases in Ms. Kish's
mobilehome park increasing three-fold or 300% in the last ten years~ comparing
that substantial increase to the price increase in oil, it was nowhere comparable.
What was taking place was a venting of the frustration people felt relative to
inflation directed towards the landlord, City Council, etc. He felt that was
good but it explained, in his mind, the overall frustration with inflation as
a whole.
He felt the Council or any responsible government must look at the other side
of the coin as well. It was easy to make the decision for rent control or a
Rent Review Board, but when he looked at ~he longer term question, he was torn
philosophically. Today rent control meant that somebody was going to subsi-
dize someone else. To a point, that was acceptable because there was a great
deal of subsidy in society today. He questioned, however, if it was fair that
such a small group should be subsidizing the mobilehome tenants, i.e., the
tenant being subsidized by the mobilehome park owner. He did not believe
that was fair. If there should be a subsidy, then all citizens should con-
tribute to that. In Anaheim there was such a program and mobilehome parks
were now included, the Section 8 Housing Program, in which the federal govern-
ment assisted those in need who could not make it on their incomes to help pay
their rent. Anaheim was one of the first cities to establish that program for
mobilehome park tenants. If there was a just cause for subsidies, then all
taxpayers should pay. He maintained that it was totally wrong to lay off the
cost of a subsidy on a small group.
Relative to the mobilehome going up in value, if it were so that a mobilehome
tenant could get more for their mobilehome tomorrow than today, then it must
be a good deal and part of the deal was the amount of rent paid. If rents were
so horrible that they were just beyond reasonableness, why would somebody pay
somebody else more for that mobilehome today than yesterday. As long as the
marketplace was willing to pay more for that mobilehome today, it had to be
a good deal.
From an economic standpoint it would be unfortunate for the City to adopt rent
control. It was the cruelest hoax that could be perpetrated on a tenant and
hurt the very person it was supposed to help. There had never been any society,
city or government entity in which rent control had worked. In reading some
81-62
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 13, 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
background information relative to rent conrol, he asked to share an article
by a Professor Lindbeck, Professor of Economics in Stockholm, Sweden, the first
country he knew of that ever tried rent control. "In many cases, rent control
appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city
except for bombing." He (Seymour) felt there was a great deal of truth to
that. He knew of no place, city, county or country wherein rent control had
done anything to solve the problem. People would immediately begin to look
at alternate uses and subsequently they would have 250 people, the same people,
filling the Council Chambers once again saying that the Council should not permit
them to be displaced. They would then be faced with the hard philosophical
decision of whether or not they should control the property rights of the pro-
perty owner even if they could somehow insure that those displaced people would
be compensated by saying that they could have their property rights for an
alternative use, but they were going to have to take care of their tenants--
pay to move them, relocate them, and buy their mobilehome. The Planning Com-
mission and Council had already expressed that course of action to park owners
wishing to convert to alternate uses. However, all that was going to do was
to ultimately bring an end to mobilehome park living in the City. That was
where rent control was going to lead them. Although they might solve the prob-
lem and make most of the people present happy today, tomorrow they could be
displaced by decisions made by the Council, whether the present Council was in
office or not. He believed it would be a very grevious error to invoke rent
control in mobilehome parks.
Finally, although some would say that mobilehome parks somehow should be seg-
regated from the rest of the housing market, they could not be. They were as
much of a part of the housing market as an apartment, condominium or single-
family residence and one segment of the housing market competed against the
other. From what he observed, the style of mobilehome living, the security
and social aspects, it was a beautiful way to live. It was unfortunate that
rent raises took place and it was also unfortunate tha: they had no control
over that and the ravages of inflation.
The Mayor then thanked everyone for their patience and for their input into the
public hearing.
Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that three mobilehome park owners who came forward
and indicated they were charging approximately $150 a month rent. If they went
by the present market, they could raise their rents to $200 and $250 a month.
Her plea was therefore to the park owners, asking them to use a little conscience
and heart.
No further action was taken by the Council.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 30 minutes. (8:30 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (9:00 P.M.)
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2141 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
Application by Abbey Services Corporation, to permit a mortuary on RS-A-43,000
zoned property located at 2303 South Manchester Avenue, with a Code waiver of
minimum landscaped front setback.
81-63
Ci. ty Ha.1..1, Anaheim, Califo. rnia- COUNCIL MINUTES - January. 13, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-211, declared that
the subject property be exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental
impact report pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act since there would be no significant individual or cumulative adverse environ-
mental impact due to this project and further, granted Conditional Use Permit No.
2141.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Edgar E. Scheck, Attorney
for the applicant in a letter dated December 22, 1980, Condition No. i only of the
12 conditions imposed in the Planning Commission resolution, and public hearing
was scheduled this date. A subsequent letter dated January 8, 1981 from Mr.
Scheck asked for a one-week continuance, since they received the notice on
January 6, 1981 of the public hearing and thus did not have sufficient time
to prepare for that hearing.
MOTION: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood,
public hearing on Conditional Use Permit No. 2141 and negative declaration
therefor was continued to January 20, 1981, 3:00 p.m., as requested by the
applicant. MOTION CARRIED.
108: KONA MOTEL - REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF ABATEMENT PERIOD: Request by Andrew
Ruiz, owner, for the Kona Motel, 331 North Brookhurst Street, for an extension
of time to the period of abatement pursuant to Code Section 18.89.040 relating
to Adult Entertainment, was submitted, together with reports by the City Attorney,
Police Department and Zoning Division, with the Planning Commission recommending
approval.
Mr. Joseph Rhine, Attorney representing ~. Ruiz, 1651 Argyle, Hollywood, stated
on behalf of his client, that the situation was somewhat different than others
that had gone before the Council, the first being that Mr. Ruiz owned the motel
and thus it was different from the normal leasehold situation. He purchased
the business in 1973 and received a permit at that time, having operated the
motel for almost eight years. He noted that the Police Department recommen-
dation was important because the business, contrary to some public belief, had
no police problems. If one were to assume, for example, that prostitution was
a problem, there would ultimately have been some police problem as a result.
The only issues the Police Department mentioned were the standard issues of
obscenity prosecutions which could still be brought on any material such as
a book or a movie. Obviously, the ordinance was not directed at that problem.
He did not believe that was the intent of the ordinance, but that it was in-
tended to give people a period of time either to relocate under the zoning
laws or recover their money as many other zoning laws allowed.
Mr. Ruiz just recently became aware of the law and came to him after he had sent a
written request to the Council for the extension. He had subsequently listed his
motel for sale. While there was no traditional hardship problem, he obviously had
made some capital improvements to his motel but not in the range of a lot of money
in terms of outlay. He assumed that he (Ruiz) could recover those by the sale of
the motel. While he did install a new roof and had other traditional things done
in the last few years, it would not be an economic hardship. He should, however,
be given an opportunity to sell his motel by running his business as he had been
doing. He noted that the Council had requested in other cases where an extension of
the abatement period had been requested, that the petitioner sign an agreement that
if they did run into a prostitution problem leading to a conviction, they would
agree to abate earlier.
81-64
City Hall, Anahei~~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES -Januafy 13, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Ruiz was amenable to that if that was one of the major objectives of the
Council in enforcing the ordinance.
Mr. Rhine continued and stated that he did not know if the Council had an op-
portunity to drive by the business. It was not the usual adult establishment.
There was no sign outside of the motel which identified it as being adult and
thus the impact on the surrounding residential area would be very minor if
there was any impact at all. The only activity that was adult in that sense
was a system whereby X-rated movies could be shown to adults who wanted to
see them on closed circuit television in the privacy of their own room. It
was not like an adult bookstore or motion picture theatre that had a sign
outside the building indicating the nature of the business.
Councilman Roth interjected and stated that in driving by the establishment
there was a marquee out front stating plainly, X-rated movies shown. It was,
therefore, obvious as to what was going on; Mr. Rhine stated he had to admit
that he had not seen the motel and conceded then that it would at least have
that impact.
Mr. Rhine continued that Mr. Ruiz purchased the property and what he did at
that time was not illegal. There had been subsequent zoning regulations and
the zoning did call for a period of abatement and that was all he was asking.
He was going to try to sell the business and, if not, then he would obviously
have to abate it pursuant to the zoning regulations. In terms of the role of
government in solving problems, he requested that they look at that compromise
which fell somewhere in the middle and he could recover what would be a fair
return on his money. If he could not do it, he would have to abate it and run
it as a motel without the adult feature added. As a small businessman, he did
not know what the affect of that change would be. He had been able to run it
as a motel and had been able to make a living, but if he was told he had to try
to run it in a different fashion and make the same living, there was no answer
as to whether or not he could do so. He was asking that the Council give him
an opportunity for a reasonable period of time to try to sell it and recover
his money.
Councilman Roth noted that Mr. Rhine indicated he had not seen the motel. How-
ever, from the discus.sion, he assumed that all the rooms offered adult entertain-
ment and that a guest with a wife and children would be turned away.
Mr. Rhine indicated the whole motel was that way, but there was no legal reason
for the owner to turn anybody away. However, that had been his policy so that
he did not have to worry about children sneaking in.
Councilman Roth stated in the event an extension of time were granted, basically
what would be eliminated would be the closed circuit TV, and the motel would
become just like the rest of the motels in Anaheim. Although he normally
never spoke about the economics of a situation, but rather land use, they were
asking for some additional time which indicated to him that they were trying to
merchandise the motel as an adult entertainment operation. No prudent buyer
was going to do so upon a disclosure by the seller that an adult entertainment
ordinance was in effect in the City and had to be sold strictly as a'motel.
/
?
81-65
City Hall, Anah. eim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 13, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Rhine stated he did not know what his (Ruiz) duties were to disclose or have
his broker disclose. He would say he had to make known the problem. He could
operate the business for another 18 months or a year before selling it to a
buyer and tell the buyer of the zoning change. The buyer might say he was
going to run it as a motel only, but was going to offer $25,000 less. With
that problem in mind, perhaps he could make enough money in the next year, so
that he would come out relatively even.
Councilman Bay assumed that Mr. Rhine knew the way the ordinance was set up.
The basis of the hearing was to determine if there was proof of undue hardship
under the ordinance. He did not quite understand the hardship stated by the
applicant (see letter dated December 19, 1980, on file in the City Clerk's
office) that seven employees presently working in the business would be
replaced by one manager. He asked Mr. Rhine to explain.
Mr. Rhine stated that the client's assumption was that his business would fall
off dramatically and he could no longer afford his present payroll. He did not
have any idea what it would draw as a straight motel.
Mayor Seymour, trying to stay along the line of proving undue hardship, asked
if they were to understand that Mr. Rhine believed his client might have un-
due economic hardship and further that there was every possibility that in
the current proposed sale, he would recoup all of his capital investment.
Mr. Rhine first answered "yes" to the latter question. The motel had been on
the market for approximately six weeks and Mr. Ruiz felt he could recoup by a
sale as a motel. As to the first question, he did not think it was a supposed
loss and he did not plan on such an ordinance being enacted. He was unaware
of the situation a year ago. He had asked what bills he had incurred in the
last year. He had his mortgage payments and so on and he showed him some bills
in a secondary fashion dealing with capital improvements over the last two years,
totalling approximately $5,000, the largest being for replacement of a roof as
he previously mentioned. Assuming with property values increasing in the last
seven years, if he could sell the motel tomorrow, he could probably recoup and
make a reasonable profit on the land and structure he originally bought. What
he could not replace and what would be an obvious economic hardship was not the
property but the business and what it returned to him day in and day out in his
earning a living.
Mayor Seymour stated, relative to the roof, that would have to be replaced
whether or not adult entertainment was being provided; Mr. Rhine conceded
that was so, but he did not get the impression that was the issue.
Councilman Overholt first stated that this was not the only incidence of an
application for an extension in which the applicant owned property. There were
other cases where the applicant owned the property. The concern he had was
that Mr. Ruiz had been in business almost eight years and operating what was
now, in the ordinance, a use that as of December 20 was not appropriate. To
say that he was not going to recoup his investment, he wondered what he had
been doing for the past seven and one-half to eight years. Additionally, Mr.
Rhine stated that his client just found out about the situation. If he had
been making a living on the business in Anaheim for that period of time, it
81-66
City Hall, Anaheim~ California- COUNCIL MINUTES - January 13, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
was difficult for him to understand why he would not be very aware of the hearings
and deliberations the Council had over a year ago on the Adult Entertainment
Ordinance. His client was in a better position than many applicants who had
come before the Council who may be denied, in that he had a business that he
could continue--the motel business and the only problem was the Adult Entertain-
ment. The only issue he saw in such cases was to determine if there was undue
hardship. In the cases that had gone before them, they had sworn testimony
on substantial investments in fixtures that could not be removed and put some-
place else. Some of the hardest cases were those where somebody bought the
business in the last year and paid $35,000 or $40,000 and then found out that
the business was no longer legal in the City. That was real hardship because
they usually had a trust deed on their home to pay off the purchase price, etc.
He had some real difficulty in this case seeing that there was undue hardship
as a result of the application of the ordinance.
Mr. Rhine stated that Mr. Ruiz did not make his living from the motel because
it did not return that kind of money. He did have other business interests
outside of Anaheim and did not live in Anaheim. Apparently he was not keeping
track of all of the various meetings and final passage of the ordinance. He
did get notified somewhere along the line of the termination period and that
was why he asked for the extension and subsequently came to see him. A 24-room
motel was somewhat obsolete. They could not charge that much money unless it
was kept full. He did not make his living from the motel.
Mayor Seymour stated if they were to grant the extension, that would be pro-
longing the situation. His client would sell the motel with value regarding
the adult entertainment aspects and the'next person would really have a hard-
ship because he paid for the adult entertainment feature of the motel.
Mr. Rhine stated he would advise his client that he could not make a direct
misrepresentation. What he suspected would happen in most cases, he would
be in a position to say to somebody he had been able to make some money from
the motel. He did not believe they would be giving him a license by granting
an abatement period to misrepresent what was happening.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted the letter from Mr. Ruiz requested an extension of
one year to conform or sell and she did not know why they were even talking
about two years. Secondly, if he were to conform and operate a strict motel,
he would know whether he could make it that way and, in fact, be offering an
honest sale to anyone else. If they had an interested buyer and they showed
that buyer what they were making, but did not inform him that they could no longer
have adult entertainment, that was a very onerous situation which concerned
her greatly.
Mr. Rhine stated relative to the time period, he noticed the one year mentioned
in Mr. Ruiz's letter vs. the two-year extension. The reason he stated two years
was that all City agencies had responded as if his client had asked for two years.
In talking to him (Ruiz), he would assume that one year met his needs. He had
the motel on the market and he planned to keep it on the market until he could
sell it. If the time ran out and he could not sell it, whatever time was given
him, he would have to accept that situation. Relative to the latter comment by
Councilwoman Kaywood, he stated that he found it more onerous the other way around,
81-67
City Hall, An.ah.e. im, California- COUNCIL MINUTES .-January 13., 1.981, 1:30 P.M.
considering the time and effort Mr. Ruiz had put into his business. Mr. Ruiz
felt there was something that the City owed him to encourage that type of busi-
ness enterprise and allow him in some fashion to recover as much as he could.
If he was allowed to operate for the year extension as he had requested, he
was aware he must sell the business during that time and that he could not
misrepresent the nature of the situation to a prospective buyer. He could not
do that now.
Councilman Overholt asked if Mr. Rhine felt if his client were present and
were sworn, that he could give further evidence of undue hardship or that his
(Rhine's) overall review of the situation covered everything he would have to
offer; Mr. Rhine stated that Mr. Ruiz knew more about each individual bill.
Councilman Overholt stated in previous cases they asked if there was any objec-
tion to the petitioner being sworn in to testify under oath as to the items of
undue hardship. If Mr. Rhine wanted that opportunity, he should not be denied,
but if he felt that he covered everything that his client could offer, that was
up to him.
Mr. Rhine stated he would look for some guidance only on the one issue relative
to the bills such as those for roofing repair, painting etc. Mr. Ruiz could
tell exactly how much he spent and it might be $10,000 over the last two years
over and above his payroll. From that point of view, he did not know if the
Council would consider that as undue hardship where he had owned the property
for seven and one-half years. In pure theory at least, he would be able to
sell the land and motel at a profit and recoup something over and above his
capita] imp=ovements, as well as his original capital investment.
Councilman Overholt stated that it was not really material then.
Mayor Seymour stated from what he gathered of Mr. Rhine's presentation, he did
not see where he had demonstrated on behalf of his client that undue hardship
existed. The $5,000, maybe $10,000 worth of bills, sounded like typical type
operating expenses in running a motel and the holding of that type of property.
He had not been convinced by any evidence that there would be any undue hardship
exercised upon the motel as a result of conforming with the ordinance.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to deny the request for extension of the
period of abatement pursuant to Code Section 18.89.040 relating to Adult
Entertainment for the Kona Mo~el at 331 North Brookhurst Street. Councilman
0verholt seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mr. Rhine stated the major point he tried to make was
that the basic undue hardship was the loss of profit. If he (Ruiz) came in, he
could testify as to how much money he had made in each of the seven to seven
and one-half years. However, what he sensed in the discussion was that the
response that the Council would likely give that, was that he could make the
same profit with the non-adult characteristic to the motel. There was no way
he could get around that argument if that was what the Council chose to say.
Mayor Seymour stated he was not saying he would make the same profit or not--
he did not know. He did think because he offered Adult Entertainment at his
motel he must believe there was profit in it, or else he would not do it. For
81-68
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 13, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
him to try to measure that would be extremely difficult. What the ordinance
directed them to do was to determine whether or not the exercising and enforce-
ment of that ordinance would cause undue hardship upon the applicant which he
then expanded upon, as did Councilman Overholt earlier in the discussion. In
concluding, he stated he did not see the justification for undue hardship in
this case.
Councilwoman Kaywood reiterated that until he tried it as a sraightforward
motel, he was not going to know if there was a difference. There were many
small motels throughout Anaheim and the area.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion of denial. MOTION CARRIED.
108: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF ABATEMENT PERIOD - TENDER TOUCH MASSAGE: Request
by William N. Walker, Attorney, on behalf of the Tender Touch Massage Parlor,
219 South State College Boulevard, for an extension of time to the period of
abatement pursuant to Code Section 18.89.040 relating to Adult Entertainment,
was submitted together with reports by the City Attorney, Police Department and
Zoning Division, with the Planning Commission recommending approval.
Mr. William Walker, Attorney, stated he was representing a Mrs. Thi Nguyen, the
owner of the Tender Touch Massage located on South State College Boulevard in
Anaheim. She purchased the massage parlor in the month of May 1979 and escrow
closed in July 1979, paying at the time a total purchase price of $45,000. The
form of the payment was a promissory note which was given for $22,500 and
supported by a trust deed on her family home, as well as a security agreement
on the assets of the massage parlor. She also paid through the escrow the sum
of $22,500 in cash which then made up the total purchase price. In the 19
months since the business had been in operation, she had managed to reduce the
promissory note through payments to the seller to the extent that $16,458.29
was now due. Mrs. Nguyen worked in the massage parlor with one or two employees,
depending upon business. She made no substantial expenditure by way of improve-
ments other than adding a washer and dryer in February of 1979 for approximately
$645. The lease was assigned over and then executed anew on May 25, 1979, and
it was a standard five-year lease which would normally have, were it not for the
ordinance and circumstances, run through 1984. It was a lease without options.
The massage parlor itself, according to the accounts and records, earned $650
a month over and above the cost of her employees and the money necessary to
reduce the promissory note and the trust deed against her home. She would
like to give up the business, but she would have to give up her home in ex-
change for it. In concluding, he stated that Mrs. Nguyen's understanding of
English was better than her ability to speak it.
City Clerk Linda Roberts thereupon administered the oath to the petitioner that
the testimony she was about to give was true and correct to the best of her
belief and knowlege; Mrs. Nguyen answered affirmatively.
Councilman Overholt asked if the statements made by Mr. Walker regarding the
purchase of her business were true and correct; after some clarification, Mrs.
Nguyen attested that what Mr. Walker had stated was true and correct.
Councilman Overholt asked the hours of operation; Mr. Walker answered that her
hours of operation were 10:00 a.m. through midnight, seven days a week up until
now; Mrs. Nguyen stated she opened at 9:00 a.m. to midnight seven days a week.
81-69
City Hal!~ Anaheim~ California- COUNCIL MINUTES - January 13, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Overholt asked if his client would stipulate that her hours of
operation would be no greater than she presently operated--9:00 a.m. to Midnight
seven days a week; Mr. Walker answered, she would so stipulate.
Councilman Overholt then asked if she would also stipulate if they were to
grant the extension, it would terminate in the event of a conviction of a pros-
titution-related offense connected with her business; Mr. Walker answered she
was agreeable and would so stipulate.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked the owner from whom did she purchase the business.
Mrs. Nguyen answered Marvin and Sally Greenspan. Mr. Walker clarified that
they were the owners of the operating business which was also then known as the
Tender Touch. When Mrs. Nguyen bought it, she took it over as an operating busi-
ness with ail of the assets intact.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to extend the period of abatement on the
Tender Touch Massage for two years from December 20, 1980 to December 20, 1982
on the conditions that (1) that hours of operation be 9:00 a.m. to 12 Midnight
seven days a week and (2) in the event of a conviction of a prostitution-related
offense, the extension would terminate.
Before a vote was taken, Mr. Walker asked if they would like to have that stipu-
lation in writing; Councilman Overholt stated it was on the record. However, he
would ask if the stipulation was freely given by his client. Mr. Walker answered
that was correct.
Councilman Seymour seconded the motion.
Councilman Roth stated he was going to support the motion. He commented that
he was astounded that somebody could sell such a business for $45,000. He was
surprised that there were people who took advantage of other people so readily.
A vote was then taken on ~he foregoing motion. Councilman Bay voted "no."
MOTION CARRIED.
167: ROSSTON SCHOOLS OF MEN'S HAIR DESIGN - REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF TRAFFIC SIG-
NAL ASSESSMENT FEE: Councilman Roth moved to approve the request of Mr. Ross
Alloway, President, Rosston Schools of Men's Hair Design, requesting a waiver
of the $1,015 Traffic Signal Assessmen~ fee paid in connection with relocation
of his business to 1814 West Lincoln Avenue as a result of Redevelopment activi-
ties, as recommended in memorandum dated January 7, 1981 from the City Engineer.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motiom. MOTION CARRIED.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1905 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Request by Floyd L. Farano,
for an extension of time to Conditional Usa Permit No. 1905, to permit an auto-
mobile parking lot with waiver of permitted encroachments of a 6-foot high wall
and parking in the front setback on property located at the southwest corner of
South and Helena Streets, was submitted.
Councilman Overholt moved to approve the requested extension of time to Condi-
tional Use Permit No. 1905, to expire January 2, 1982, as recommended in memo-
randum dated January 7, 1981 from Assistant Director for Zoning Annika Santalahti.
Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
81-70
City Hail~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 13, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman
Overholt, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and
recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent
Calendar Agenda:
1. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and referred
to the City's Claims Administrator:
a. Claim submitted by Josephine C. Patti for personal injury and vehicular
damages purportedly sustained as a result of accident involving a City-owned
vehicle, at North Street and Lido, on or about December 2, 1980.
b. Claim submitted by Policarpo M. Reyes for vehicular damages purportedly
sustained as a result of incident involving City vehicle in the parking area
at 1240 South Claudina Street, on or about November 4, 1980.
c. Claim submitted by Carol L. Metz for personal injury damages purportedly
sustained as a result of man falling onto claimant at Anaheim Stadium (view
level, first base line), on or about October 26., 1980.
d. Claim submitted by Ms. Sandra Krause for personal injury damages purportedly
sustained as a result of slip-and-fall accident at Anaheim Stadium, on or about
November 30, 1980.
2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 105: Public Utilities Board--Minutes of November 20 and December 4, 1980.
b. 105: Community Services Board Resolution No. CSB80-2, establishing the
second and fourth Thursday of each month at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers
as the time and place of regular Community Services Board meetings.
3. 108: AMUSEMENT DEVICES PERMIT APPLICATION: In accordance with the recom-
mendations of the Chief of Police, an Amusement Devices Permit was approved
for The Cracker Barrel Restaurant, 801 South State College Boulevard, for one
video machine. (Harold M. Barton, applicant)
4. 140: CANYON HILLS LIBRARY, CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO. 1: In accordance with
the recommendations of the City Engineer, Contract Change Order No. 1 in the
amount of $20,841.34 was approved, bringing the original contract price to
$1,260,840.34. (J. A. Stewart Construction Co., contractor)
MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 81R-11
through 81R-12, 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.
156: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-11: 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 POLICE
FACILITY LOBBY ADDITION, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 24-988-6325; APPROVING
81-71
City Hall~. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 13, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR ~HE CONSTRUCTION
THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE
WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY
CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
THEREOF. (Bids to be opened February 5, 1981, at 2:00 P.M.)
150: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-12: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE
THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: PERALTA CANYON
PARK PREFABRICATED BUILDING/HARDCOURT AREA, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO.
47-805-7105; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICA-
TIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING
AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids ~o be opened February 5, 1981, at 2:00 P.M.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nom. 81R-11 and 81R-12 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 4203: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 4203 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4203: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (66-67-71(78), CR)
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. 4203 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 4204: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4204 for adop-
tion. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4204: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (79-80-11, CO)
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. 4204 duly passed and adopted.
81-72
City Hall, Anah. eim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES -January 13, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
178: ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS FOR FLOOD CONTROL: Councilwoman Kaywood stated that
next week she would request that they have discussion regarding assessment
districts to handle flood control matters in Anaheim.
148: SB 33 - VEHICLE INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE: Councilman Roth stated he
would like to agendize for next week a discussion for support of SB 33. He
believed that each Council Member had received documentation relative to that
bill.
131: CABLE TV: Councilman Roth asked that data be provided as to how many
people were now on-line with cable TV in the City.
105: PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD MINUTES OF DECEMBER 4, 1980: Councilman Roth stated,
after reading the December 4, 1980 minutes of the Public Utilities Board, it
appeared that sometime in the future, perhaps within three or four weeks, they
should have a joint meeting with the Board. It seemed that there were some
unsolved problems as outlined in those minutes.
169: REPORT ON REPLACEMENT OF INCANDESCENT LUMINAIRES IN CENTRAL CITY NEIGHBOR-
HOOD AREA I: Mayor Seymour stated he looked forward to receiving the subject
report during the coming week so that the Council could resolve the matter at
their next meeting.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to adjourn. Councilman Bay seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (10:02 P.M.)