1981/02/1081-183
City Hall~. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 10~ 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
DEPUTY CITY MANAGER: James Ruth
CITY ENGINEER: Willaim Devit~
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
ELECTRICAL ENGINEER MANAGER: George Edwards
REDEVELOPMENT MANAGER: Robert Lyons
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
HOUSING MANAGER: Lisa Stipkovich
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: Councilwoman Miriam Kaywood led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
119: RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A resolution of congratulations was unani-
mously adopted by the City Council to be presented by Councilman Roth to
Supervisor A. A. McCandless, Riverside County, upon completion of a 4-year term
as Chairman of the South Coast Air Quality Management District Board.
MINUTES: Approval of the minutes was deferred to the next regular meeting.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda, after
reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to waiver is
hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the title, specific
request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such ordinance or resolution
in regular order. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $2,058,585.91, in accordance
with the 1980-81 Budget, were approved.
160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - ONE UNIT MASTER AND REMOTE SUPERVISORY CONTROL
SYSTEM - BID NO. 3704: On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Council-
woman Kaywood, the low bid of Advanced Control Systems was accepted and purchase
authorized in the amount of $39,488.18, as recommended by the Purchasing Agent
in her memorandum dated February 4, 1981. MOTION CARRIED.
160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - 27 MALIBU POLICE PATROL VEHICLES - BID NO. 3731:
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the low bid of
Eddie Hopper Chevrolet, Inc., was accepted and purchase authorized in the amount
of $198,144.02, as recommended by the Pur6hasing Agent in her memorandum dated
February 4, 1981.
81-184
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 10, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - 1~728 SINGLE-PHASE METERS - BID NO. 3735: On
motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the low bid of
Maydwell and Hartzell (Sangamo), was accepted and purchase authorized in the
amount of $37,732.61, as recommended by the Purchasing Agent in her memorandum
dated February 4, 1981. MOTION CARRIED.
150: PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR PONDEROSA PARK SECURITY LIGHT-
ING PROJECT: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to authorize an agreement with Mullen &
Associates, Inc., in the amount of $600 for the preparation of plans and speci-
fications for the Ponderosa Park Security Lighting project, as recommended in
memorandum dated January 29, 1981 from Deputy City Manager James Ruth. Council-
man Overholt seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Roth asked why the job could not be done
inhouse instead of engaging a consultant; since appropriate staff was not
present to answer the question, City Manager William Talley suggested that the
matter be delayed one week in order to provide an answer.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to continue consideration of the subject agree-
ment for one week. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she would like to
have the question answered later in the meeting rather than delaying another
week on security lighting.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion of continuance. Councilwoman
Kaywood voted "no". MOTION CARRIED.
Later in the meeting, Deputy City Manager James Ruth explained that they did
not have anybody within the Parks and Recreation Department qualified to per-
form the needed work. He understood the Engineering Division could not do it
because of other commitments in terms of projects and getting the job out to
bid during this fiscal year. Their concern revolved around the fact that they
were subject to a great deal of pressure from the residents in the area of
Ponderosa Park who were anxious to have the lighting installed as quickly as
possible. In order to expedite the work, they proceeded to acquire a consul-
tant as they had done at times in the past. Relative to the hours of engin-
eering work involved, it was not only the engineering, but the inspection out
on the job and the supervision of the installation itself which would entail
perhaps 30 or 40 hours.
Mayor Seymour asked City Manager Talley if he had any feelings on the situation.
A small amount of money was involved which he felt could be handled inhouse.
Mr. Talley stated he would be glad to get an answer to that question before the
end of the day.
Mr. William Devitt, City Engineer, explained that the Engineering Division
did not perform electrical engineering work and if it were to be done, it would
be handled by the Electrical Division.
Mr. George Edwards, Electrical Engineering Manager, stated that the electrical
engineers were primarily utility engineers and they did not normally get in-
volved in designing customers' facilities. However, they did have the expertise
to do the job. He did not know the schedule of the Parks Department, but his
81-185
City H~ll, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINU. TES - February 10, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Department's work schedule did not include performing the subject job. Probably
less than four days work was involved and considering the Parks Department's
requirements and what ~he consultant was going to provide, he was not certain
his department could do it for the $600 fee.
Councilman Overholt, based upon the explanation provided, thereupon moved to
authorize an agreement with Mullen & Associates, Inc., in the amount of $600
for the preparation of plans and specifications for the Ponderosa Park Security
Lighting project, as recommended in memora~dum dated January 29, 1981 from the
Deputy City Manager. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, the Mayor stated he was going to oppose the motion
because he felt it was ridiculous considering the talent the City had, what
they were paid, and the size of staff and that for four days work, they could
not perform the job involved. If they were saying they could not do the work
as cheaply as the consultant, then perhaps they ought to look at farming out
a lot more of the engineering work.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she recalled they had a similar conversation some
time ago wherein they discussed wanting to keep City staff as small and tight
as possible and that if any extra jobs came up, they would use a consultant.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilmen Roth and Seymour
voted "no". MOTION CARRIED.
153: DISABILITY RETIREMENT APPLICATION FOR JOHN L. MC GOLDRICK, JR.: City
Manager William Talley briefed the Council on report dated February 3, 1981
from the Safety Employees Disability Retirement Committee recommending that
the Council grant an industrial disability retirement to the applicant, John L.
McGoldrick, Jr., to be effective February 11, 1981. In accordance with Council
Policy, he had reviewed all documentation and did endorse the recommendation
of the Committee.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 81R-51 for adoption, granting an indus-
trial disability retirement for John L. McGoldrick, Jr., as recommended by the
Safety Employees Disability Retirement Committee, with the concurrence of the
City Manager. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-51: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT JOHN L. MCGOLDRICK, JR. IS DISABLED WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT LAW FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS
DUTIES IN THE POSITION OF MASTER PATROLMAN INTERMEDIATE.
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-51 duly passed and adopted.
81-186
City ~all~ An.aheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 10, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
107/174(CDBG): AWARD OF CONTRACT - DEMOLITION AND SITE CLEARANCE, 1018 NORTH
PATT STREET: Contract No. BG8-1. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No.
81R-52, awarding a contract, as recommended by Executive Director of Community
Development Norm Priest in his memorandum dated February 4, 1981. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-52: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE
BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIP-
MENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND
PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENT: DEMOLITION AND SITE CLEARANCE FOR WORK TO BE DONE AT 1018 NORTH
PATT STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CONTRACT NO. BG81-1, ACCOUNT NO. 25-214-
6640. (Wizard of Wrecking, Inc., $2,674)
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-52 duly passed and adopted.
169: AWARD OF CONTRACT - SCOUT TRAIL STREET IMPROVEMENT: On motion by Council-
man Bay, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, award of contract on the subject street
improvement was continued one week. MOTION CARRIED.
123: OLIVER~ STOEVER & LASKIN - LEGAL SERVICES: On motion by Councilman Overholt,
seconded by Councilman Bay, an agreement was authorized with Oliver, Stoever &
Laskin for legal services in the acquisition of real property, effective
March 1, 1981, as recommended in memorandum dated February 2, 1981 from the
City Attorney William Hopkins. MOTION CARRIED.
123/158/170: OFF-SITE STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT NO. 9594: Councilman
Bay moved to authorize an agreement with Burnett-Ehline Company and Charles W.
and Carol A. Homer, David M. and Lynda L. Ward and Robert J. and Betty L. Stewart,
relating to dedication of an easement for construction of off-site storm drain
improvements for Tract No. 9594, as recommended in memorandum dated February 2,
1981 from the City Attorney's office. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
105: DESIGNATING TERMS FOR YOUTH COMMISSIONERS: Scott Freeman, Charles Edward
Smith and Kimberly T. Patin were appointed to the Youth Commission on Janua=y 27,
1981, however no :erms were designated. There is one :erm ending December 30,
1981 and two ending December 31, 1982.
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to designate the term ending December 31, 1981 for
Youth Commissioner Charles Edward Smith. Councilman Bay seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour noted That historically they had drawn
numbers in determining the Terms for members of boards and commissions.
Councilman Overholt stated he was going to oppose the proposed motion. In fair-
ness, the terms should be chosen by lot since they inadvertently neglected to
81-187
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 10, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
determine the terms when appointing the Commissioners; Mayor Seymour agreed and
also because he would be concerned about the precedent :hey would be setting if
they did not follow that procedure.
A vote was taken on the foregoing motion. Council Members Overholt, Bay, Roth
and Seymour voted "no". The motion failed to carry.
Lots were then drawn, the first name to be designated for the term ending
December 31, 1981.. Councilman Overholt drew the name of Scott Freeman.
Councilman Roth moved that the designated terms for the subject Youth Commissioners
be as follows: for the term ending December 31, 1981, Scott Freeman, and for the
two terms ending December 31, 1982, Charles Edward Smith and Kimberly T. Patin.
Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
164: FORMATION OF ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS - $10 MILLION STORM DRAIN ISSUE: Con-
tinued from the meeting of January 27, 1981--see minutes that date.
Councilman Overholt asked if staff had anything to add in addition to a report
dated February 5, 1981 submitted jointly by the City Engineer, Acting Public
Works Executive Director, and the Senior Assistant City Attorney.
City Engineer William Devitt answered that he had nothing additional to offer.
Councilman Overholt stated, in essence, the recommendation meant that they
would hire a law firm on an hourly basis for a maximum of $25,000 with some
assurances from one member of that firm, Ms. Peggy McElligott, that she was
confident her firm (Wilson, Morton, Assaf and McElligott) could resolve the
matter to a successful conclusion. He questioned what would happen if they
could not do so.
Mr. Devitt answered in that case, they would have thrown the dice and lost;
Councilman Overholt asked how confident the law firm was that they could
deliver?
Mr. Devitt answered that Ms. McElligott expressed a very high degree of confi-
dence and the fi~m had an excellent reputation.
Councilman Overholt conceded if they could deliver, it would make sense to pro-
ceed with the proposal.
The Mayor asked what deliver meant; Mr. Devitt answered, to establish procedures
where they could proceed with a bond issue that would stand up legally in court.
Mayor Seymour felt it would have ~o be more than that because what he (Devitt)
just stated would be tantamount to challenging the vote of last November 4,
1980.
Mr. Devitt explained that counsel would have to develop some innovative pro-
cedures that would develop approval and not be in opposition to that vote.
The Mayor stated he agreed with Councilman Overholt :hat it would be wise to
move ahead if they had a very high percentage chance of success. The concern
that the Council had expressed before was whether they could create assessment
81-188
CitM R~ll, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 10, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
districts. The report did not indicate that there were any other alternatives
and thus they were all assuming that they were, in fact, talking about an
assessment district of some type. Secondly, they had talked as a Council
about spreading the cost of the assessment districts or district over the
entire population of the City. He asked specifically if those two objectives
could be achieved with the law firm.
Mr. Devitt reiterated that Ms. McElligott indicated she had a high degree of
confidence she could do that. He believed that there was an element of risk
and they should be fully aware of that. City Attorney Hopkins might wish to
express his confidence in that firm since he was perhaps more knowledgeable
of them.
The Mayor asked City Attorney Hopkins what would be wrong with asking them to
put their proposal in writing and telling the Council how they were going to
accomplish the objectives with some credibility.
City Attorney William Hopkins explained that they did have an outline of the
procedures and a letter previously sent to the City on November 26, 1980 which
roughly outlined the procedure. However, if Council desired, they could ask
Ms. McElligott to prepare a specific letter giving more details which would
clarify some of the questions now posed. As Mr. Devitt had indicated in the
staff report, there were many problems that would be faced diagramming the
City and preparing the estimated cost. While Ms. McElligott was confident
that could be accomplished, there were some very difficult procedures that
had to be followed.
Mayor Seymour stated he felt they would like to hear more credibility or support
from the Bonding Underwriter as well, or a law firm who handled underwriting, just
as they had done with the Utilities and the Stadium and the Convention Center.
Mr. Hopkins stated if the Council desired, he would request Ms. McElligott to
provide a more detailed letter as to their procedures and they could also
endeavor to get a bonding firm or consultant to give them something in writing.
Councilman Roth stated he would like to have an estimated cost per lot or house-
hold. Also, it was interesting to note that they had been leaning toward what
people did on City Proposition "C". The vote was overwhelming in favor which
indicated to him that many people wanted storm drains. However, when the
electorate voted on State Proposition "4", it was a different story. The City
vote resulted in a "yes" vote of 10,192 and a "no" vote of 56,950. Either they
did not know what they were voting for, or they were very smart in their
voting, saying that they wanted storm drains, but they did not want to pay for
them. He would like to have his colleagues during the period that the City
Attorney was going to pursue the matter further, to also ask the City-County
Government Committee of the Chamber of Commerce to look into the matter. If
they wanted to sell the proposal to the public, they should get those people
to support them on the issue.
Council discussion then followed relative to the Chamber's recommendation of a
"yes" vote on City Proposition "C" and a "no" vote on State Proposition "4" and
their possible rationale for so doing.
81-189
City. H~ll~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 10, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Bay then stated he was opposed to the recommendation, but if they did
proceed on it, he questioned why they could not include an incentive clause in
the agreement with the law firm, i.e., if they did not come up with an answer
they would get "X" amount, but if they did so, they would get that much more.
Mayor Seymour asked Councilman Bay why he would be opposed.
Councilman Bay answered, on the basis of what he had said when they discussed
putting Proposition "C" on the ballot. At that time, he said that he had no
confidence whatsoever that Proposition "4" was going to pass Statewide, although
he was confident that Proposition "C" would pass. After looking at the way
Proposition "4" was written on the State ballot, he was convinced it would not
pass. He could foresee what was going to occur when their constituents said
"yes" on storm drains when State law prohibited payment of the bond obligation.
He thereupon gave a scenario of what he felt would occur and then stated that
he could also foresee someone challenging the way they were handling the
matter, even after spending a small fortune in trying to work it out, with the
possibility of losing that amount and also considering the numbers of people
quoted by Councilman Roth who were against Proposition "4". They all did not
misread that Proposition. He felt if it were challenged politically or legally
as a subterfuge to circumvent Proposition 13, that it would generate a great
deal of good debate on both sides of the issue.
Councilwoman Kaywood contended that the wording of Proposition "C" on storm
drains was very clear and open on the ballot and 68% of the voters said "yes"--
they wanted to pay for them by the general obligation bond method. She main-
tained there was mass confusion on Proposition "4" and she did not think one
had anything to do with the other. If they could form an assessment district
or find another way to pay for the storm drains at the same price per person,
there was no subterfuge or question involved.
Councilman Bay stated he did not disagree as long as it was open and above board.
Considering all the problems as outlined in the staff report, if they were going
to a legal firm asking them to tell how they were going to accomplish the
desired objective, they must look at the cost of doing so. It could be that
the cost would be twice as much as if they had permission to process bonds in
the regular manner.
Mayor Seymour asked if there was any opposition on the Council to moving ahead
as generally discussed, i.e., asking the law firm recommended for specific
recommendations and if they were going to tie them into counsel for bond
underwriting in some way, as Councilman 0verholt was intimating, as well as
seeking input from the Chamber. It would be interesting to ask the Chamber
why they recommended a "yes" vote on "C" and a "no" vote on Proposition "4".
Councilman Bay stated there was no opposition from him; Councilman Roth asked
the estimated cost to move ahead, the cost to the taxpayers on the report
requested.
City Attorney Hopkins answered that they would try to get the law firm to fur-
nish that without any cost. If they wanted to charge, he would report that
to the Council.
81-190
City hall., Ana~eim~ California. ? COUNCIL MINUTES - February 10, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved that a repor~ be requested from the law firm
of Wilson, Morton, Assaf and McElligott as to their procedures and to clarify
Council questions; obtain a report from a bonding firm or consultant on the
matter, and request input from the Chamber as to why they recommended a "yes"
vote on City Proposition "C" and a "no" vote on State Proposition "4". Council-
man Overholt seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt wanted to clarify a statement made
by Councilman Bay. It was not his (Overholt's) intention to determine an
illegal way of accomplishing what they wanted to do. The charge was to deter-
mine a legal way and, secondly, since the filing fee for a civil suit was $75,
anybody with that amount of money could challenge anything.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
108: ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT AND AMUSEMENT DEVICES PERMIT - NEVER ON SUNDAY: Request
for the subject permit submitted by Mr. Jose Gusman Castellanos, Never On Sunday,
2810 West Lincoln Avenue, for a live band Friday through Sunday, 10:00 a.m. to
2:00 a.m. and for various amusement devices for that establishment (continued
from the meeting of 3anuary 27, 1981--see minutes that date).
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood, on the basis of the Health Department report of
January 29, 1981 and the wishes of the Magnolia School District, moved to deny
the request for both an Entertainment Permit and Amusement Devices Permit for
the subject business. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
177: RESALE CONTROLS - GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65916: Establishing, in com-
pliance with State law, resale controls in order to assure continued afford-
ability for 30 years, for housing developments that involve a direct financial
contribution of public funds; establishing said resale controls in the form of
deed restrictions with the Consumer Price Index as an indicator or equity,
restrictions on rental and a first right of refusal to the Housing Authority
(continued from the meeting of February 3, 1981--see minutes that date).
City Attorney Hopkins stated that the report prepared dated February 6, 1981
needed some clarification. He had a discussion with the legal counsel for the
State of California Housing Authority that morning. The direct quote of the
Government Code 65916 was as stated in the report (see first page of the report,
first sentence of the second paragraph). That would apply to Charter cities and
thus would be applicable to the City of Anaheim unless there was a court test
as to whether that City Charter application was.proper. To date, they had
found no court cases involved. The legal counsel for the State had inter-
preted density bonus provided under Government Code 65915--as was relayed to
him that morning--if there was any financial contribution whatsoever, then the
30-year resale controls must be applied. They had also interpreted, if there
was a density bonus and only a density bonus, they would not have to have 30-
year resale controls. If there was a density bonus, plus a financial contribution,
then the 30-year resale controls would be applicable. That was slightly different
from what was stated in the February 6, 1981 report, because originally there
was some argument as to whether their density bonus would trigger the 30-year
resale controls. He reiterated, their interpretation of that was that you must
have the density bonus, plus a financial contribution, in order to require
the 30-year resale controls.
81-191
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 10, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Bay stated there did not seem to be much question on the first part
of the motion but on the second part, before the Council moved to do anything,
he would suggest Chat they get a written opinion from the Attorney General on
the interpretatio~ received by phone. He wanted to see a written interpretation
of that section of the Code. He was asking for that specifically because Section
65915 had been directly quoted and used in the Planning Commission functions as
as the reason for numerous waivers, variances and changes to ordinances on at
least five or six developments already in process in the City. He felt they
would want to be very sure on a high level ruling of the interpretation of
that clause. The way it was written in the report, the first indication
received would certainly have impact not only on what they were doing or
going to do, but impact on what they had already done.
Before action was taken, the City Attorney pointed out that the Attorney
General's opinion could take as long as three or four months to receive. It
would also be necessary to have one of the State legislators make the request.
Councilman Bay suggested that perhaps the question may already have been posed
to the Attorney General; City Attorney Hopkins stated they would check that
out.
Councilman Bay suggested that they continue the matter on a week or two-week
basis until they found out the minimum flow time on getting that answer.
Councilman Roth reported that Assemblyman Ross Johnson had already been alerted
relative to the Council's problem on the question as of yesterday.
Mayor Seymour stated his concern with Councilman Bay's motion was that, according
to his understanding, there would be no way of implementing motion No. 1, as
long as the second motion was left hanging and one was dependent upon the
other, or they must establish how they were going to achieve the 30-year price
controls.
Councilman Bay explained he moved the first motion on the 30 years because he
did not think there was any legal argument at this time to it not being a
requirement where direct funding was involved. They may disagree with it,
but there was no question in his mind that the law as stated now, and agreed
to by the City Attorney, where there was direct financial contribution, they
were "stuck" with the 30-year resale controls. The second one was a question
only in that they had a telephone conversation giving what they thought was
going to be the interpretation of the Code from Sacramento. He was saying
that was quite a bit to hang their hat on considering the import of the effect
of that if it did turn out to be 30 years. However, he was not against delaying
both motions until the matter was cleared up, but he did not think there was
much question on the first section.
Councilman Overholt seconded the motion for the purpose of discussion.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she believed last week Mr. Norm Priest stated
that there was some time problem in delaying the matter because of the Patt
Street project.
Mrs. Lisa Stipkovich, Housing Manager, explained that the Request for Proposals
(RFP) was out on the Patt Street project now. They had also done an analysis
81-192
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 10, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
and felt they could work with it either way in terms of the resale control
issue. Depending upon the bids that were received from the builders, they
could go with a land write down approach or with pulling out the land cost.
Either way, they felt they could make it a reasonable affordable price. Ob-
viously with the public investment, it would make it much more affordable and
that was where the question arose.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the second p~ocess would work wihh no direct contri-
bution.
Mrs. Stipkovich explained that they did an analysis regarding the land cost on
the parcel dividing it by five units and perhaps spreading it disproportionately
making the 235 ybuts a tdw~r portion of that land cost. If the projects
the developer submitted could be built for a reasonable cost, they could still
sell within the 235 limits and pull out the land costs. Therefore, there would
be no direct financial contribution on that project. In that case, the 30-year
deed restriction issue would not necessarily impact that project. It was her
understanding, only where there was a direct financial contribution were they
required to have 30 years continued affordability. It would be up to the
Council to decide what type of resale controls they would set on that project
if they could pull all of the public investment out of the project when they
sold it. The RFP could continue to be solicited; they could receive proposals
and could work with it either way. She felt that when the proposals came in
on March 2, 1981, the Council could make a decision at that time.
Mayor Seymour again expressed his concern and opposition to 30-year price controls
as previously articulated at the prior Council meeting (see minutes February 3,
1981) especially that such controls would only lead to public, socialized
housing, resulting in resale price controls on all housing in the State. They
did not have to have direct financial contribution in order to achieve affordable
housing and they had already achieved projects in the City without resale price
controls.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour thereupon offered a substitute motion that they
would not have that type of housing in the community (involving a direct
financial contribution of public funds) and they would achieve affordable
housing by another method.
Before any action was taken, the Mayor continued that if they adopted that
position now, they could then work through Sacramento so that they could
change the law.
Councilman Overholt stated that he and the Mayor agreed on a number of things,
but they disagreed on some things he stated today. The Mayor stated a philos-
ophy that it was wrong that the law stated they must and, therefore, we will.
He (Overholt) felt that was what the Country was based on. If they believed
the law was wrong, then they should take steps to change it. He wanted to
point out that the Mayor was not saying what he really thought. If it was
the law, they would follow the law. If they did not like the law, then they
would attempt to change it. His understanding was that the issue before them
was related to affordable housing in which a direct financial contribution of
public funds was involved and both items referred to that type of housing. He
was not going to vote favorably on the motion today because he wanted to see
Mr. Hopkins determine whether there was an Attorney General opinion, but if
they did act favorably, it was still up to the Council to determine if they
81-193
City ~all~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 10, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
were going to get involved in affordable housing where there was a direct fi-
nancial contribution. That was where they would make their statement. They
could then lobby, legislate and perhaps be party to a lawsuit as discussed at
the previous meeting to try to change the law. He did not see the requested
action today as being inconsistent with his (the Mayor's) position and he agreed
with that position; the Mayor disagreed and stated it was totally inconsistent.
After discussion between the Mayor and Councilman Overholt on that issue, the
Mayor pointed out that they did not have to take that action today or ever;
City Attorney Hopkins confirmed that was correct unless they intended to give
direct financial aid. They could give the density bonus without having resale
controls.
Councilman Overholt suggested then that they get to that issue, i.e., does the
Council under the present law ever intend to approve a direct financial contri-
bution to affordable housing?
The Mayor stated that was the issue.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved that the Council go on record as opposing a
direct financial contribution to housing as long as it was required to enforce
30-year resale price controls. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mrs. Stipkovich pointed out that on the Patt Street
project on the proposal out now, five units were involved but it was also
her understanding of the State law if they had four units or less in a
development and they were proposing to put two units on each site, it would
not trigger the 30-year restrictions. They could, therefore, have a direct
financial contribution if there were four units or less and either recoup
their money by some method through a second trust deed or whatever, but still
have that first initial financial contribution creating affordable housing and
not have to worry about the 30-year deed restrictions.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if on that particular parcel that would then lower
the density.
Mrs. Stipkovich stated one possibility would be to lower the project to four
units or if they did an analysis after they received the proposals, they could
still sell it within the 235 and 245 limits and recoup the land cost. That
would be another way to go and those were the two options that she saw.
Mayor Seymour stated that the motion would then embody what Mrs. Stipkovich
just described to permit that.
Mrs. Pat Clancy, 303 North Bush, stated they were speaking of direct public
funds and, for instance, in the Patt Street area, most of the land ready for
development was bought by public funds. There was also a development under
consideration in the downtown area called the Mazza property supposedly for
condominiums. That land was also bought by direct public funds. She wanted
to know, therefore, if that land would also be included or excluded.
The Mayor felt that was a very good question because as he wrestled with the
concept for them today, he asked the same question. He presumed then that
Redevelopment law must be different from the particular law under discussion.
81-194
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 10, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Bob Lyons, Redevelopment Manager, stated he did not have an answer relative
to the Mayor's statement at this time. However, he knew that the Mazza proposal
was still being reviewed by staff and the Commission, and he would be glad to
obtain that answer.
Discussion then followed between the Mayor and Mrs. Clancy on the question she
posed; in concluding, the Mayor stated they would try to obtain an answer for
her.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mrs. Clancy if she was for or against a term limit;
Mrs. Clancy stated at this time she could not say one way or the other, but there
were obviously many loose ends that had to be pulled together.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she did not know who devised the 30-year limit and
she thought it was going too long. On the other hand, five years, if they
were serious about building and watching affordable housing for a group who
could not murchase otherwise, they were being hypocritical to say five years,
because that was nothing. They would be giving special privileges to one person
who would get a windfall profit. They would no longer have affordable housing
but substandard housing at a very high price. Five years would not do it, per-
haps rem and certainly 15, but not five.
Mayor Seymour stated he would prefer to return to a free marketplace because
government regulations made the situation so complex that undoubtedly it would
conclude with total regulation. That was another reason why he was so fearful
of taking this step. The alternative to that would be to create new standards
which would lead to the marketplace to determine what the price would be.
Because the standards would afford housing at a lower price because of den-
sity, for example, there would be no need whatsoever to implement resale price
controls and he looked forward next week to discussing that with the Planning
Commission.
Councilman Bay stated there we=e many open questions on both issues and the
ones just discussed. He was very concerned with the Mayor's substitute motion
on the floor. He did not basically disagree with his (Seymour's) philosophy on
the matter, but he was very concerned if such a motion were pass.~d at th~s time
they would be locking themselves down. He felt a better move for the Council
at this time would be to wait until they obtained more information and specifically
information on phone interpretations relative to the second motion, particularly
Section 65915 from an authoritative source. It would be a serious mistake to
go with the substitute motion at this time or his own original motion. He
agreed with the Mayor's arguments on that motion and he would gladly withdraw
his original motion in favor of continuing both the issues until they had a
great deal more information.
Mayor Seymour stated he had no personal qualms about stating publicly that if
the price tag for affordable housing was 30-year resale price controls, he would
vote against affordable housing every time. He saw it giving away private property
rights that they would never be able to get back. As well, as he previously
stated, he was not convinced at all that affordable housing could only be
achieved through a direct financial contribution.
After further discussion between the Mayor and Councilman Bay on the foregoing
motion, Councilwoman Kaywood reported that she had received a letter from Ali
Labib, Chairman of the Board of Urbanites, Inc. As the Council would recall,
81-195
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 10~ 1981, 1:30 P.M.
on December 9, 1980 (see minutes that date), they considered an item (Variance
No. 3170) involving a three-story 48-unit apartment development on La Palma
and East Street. During that hearing, she had asked the difference in the
price of the land if it was apartments or condominiums or the number that were
to be approved. At that time, she stated that she would be willing to go with
38 condominiums, rather than 48 apartments. The agent, developer, and others
involved had a conference in the hall and when they returned to the Council
Chambers, rejected her alternative of 38 condominiums. The letter was now
stating that they were interested in her proposition, but as she remembered, it
was not open-ended,, and was for that meeting.
She thereupon asked that the Planning Director, Ron Thompson, find out the
cost of the land or how many different costs the land had and what the approved
number of units would be according to the City's existing Code. She could then
probably answer the letter. This illustrated exactly what she was talking about,
that nothing was coming in lower priced, but it was just that one person was bene-
fitting out of proportion.
Councilman Roth asked what Councilwoman Kaywood stated had to do with the issue
under consideration; Councilwoman Kaywood answered, what the Mayor had stated
about going to the free marketplace to determine prices.
Councilman Overholt stated he was supportive of the motion on the floor as the
second and he was then going to request that the other two items, the two
proposed motions, be continued one week to determine if there was an Attorney
General's opinion. He felt approval on the Mayor's last motion was on a matter
separate from approving the two requested motions.
Councilwoman Kaywood clarified that the 30-year price controls was subject to the
appreciation of the CPI, preventing rental, assured compliance with the Housing
Code and assured the buyer of equity buildup to the cost of living income per
year. It was not just the price that was paid.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to continue the two original proposed motions
for the period that would be required for the City Attorney to check to see if
there was clarification by the Attorney General. Councilman Bay seconded the
motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt clarified that his motion was to
give the City Attorney time to determine whether there was an existing Attorney
General's opinion on the issue.
City Attorney Hopkins stated he was told this morning that there was no existing
Attorney General's opinion, but that was not by the Attorney General's office
itself. Theremay be one in the mill requested by someone else that had not
been issued as yet, and he would clarify that.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if one week would be sufficient; after a brief dis-
cussion concerning the time frame necessary, Councilman Overholt stated that
the motion would be to continue the matter one week, but in the event the City
Attorney had information beforehand that he would submit it.
81-196
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 10, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor then clarified the motion as follows: That the matter be continued
one week and the City Attorney to contact the Attorney General's office to
determine if there was an existing Attorney General's opinion, if one is in
process or when one might be expected.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Roth asked if it would be appropriate to send letters to the City's
Assemblymen and State Senators on the whole provision of Section 65915 and
expressing their concern on the 30-year price controls. They could then
initiate appropriate action to amend the law.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved that a letter be sent under the Mayor's
signature to Anaheim's ~ssemblymen and State Senators, expressing the Council's
opposition to the subject legislation. Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked if they were going to state
a specific time or just indicate opposition to 30-year resale controls.
Councilman Roth stated he preferred something that would state not more than
five years and then let local government make the determination if they needed
a longer period of time.
Mayor Seymour stated he believed the intent of the motion was merely to let
Anaheim's delegation in Sacramento know that the Council was opposed to such
controls and as they evolved through their work session with the Planning
Commission and continued discussions on affordable housing, they might evolve
a position and at that time would be able to articulate it.
Councilwoman Kaywood then posed questions to Mrs. Stipkovich for purposes of
clarification.
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.)
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2142 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
Application by California Castles, Inc., to permit a 73-unit motel on CL
zoned property located at 806 South Beach Boulevard, with Code waivers of
maximum structural height and minimum landscaped setback.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-230, declared
that the subject project be exempt from the requirement to prepare an environ-
mental impact report, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act, since there would be no significant individual or cumulative adverse
environmetanl impact due to this project and further granted Conditionl Use
Permit No. 2142, subject to the following conditions:
1. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans
on file with the Office of the Executive Director of Public Works.
81-197
City H~ll~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 10, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
2. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and determined
to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to commencement of
structural framing.
3. That fire sprinklers shall be installed in all kitchen efficiency units and
smoke detectors shall be installed in all units.
4. That the owner(s) of subject property shall submit a letter requesting the
termination of Variance Nos. 2293 and 2245 to the Planning Department.
5. That a 6-foot high masonry wall shall be constructed along the south and
east property lines and the easterly portion of the north property line abutting
RM-1200 zoning.
6. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Revision No.
1 of Exhibit Nos. 1 through 4; provided; however, that kitchen efficiency units
may be installed in no more than 25% of the units, with a maximum of 6-cubic foot
refrigerators; two-burner stoves, excluding oven and baking facilities; and
single compartment sinks; except that the manager's unit will be allowed to
have full kitchen facilities.
7. That any parking area lighting proposed shall be down-lighting of a maximum
height of 12 feet, which lighting shall be directed away from the north, east
and south property lines to protect the adjacent residential uses.
8. That Condition No. 4, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to the
commencement of the activity authorized under this resolution, or prior to the
time that the building permit is issued, or within a period of one year from
date hereof, whichever occurs first, or such further time as the Planning
Commission may grant.
9. That Condition Nos. 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7, above-mentioned, shall be complied
with prior to final building and zoning inspections.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman
Kaywood at the meeting of 3anuary 6, 1981 and public hearing scheduled this
date.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous
of being heard.
Ms. Beverly Jackson, 806 South Beach Boulevard, reading from a prepared statement,
stated she had owned the subject property for seven years and had to work hard
to keep up the payments on the land during that time. She had been asked to
sell many times, but she wanted to develop her land to its utmost and fullest
potential. Anaheim, being the capitol of the tourist world and always needing
more rooms for tourists, she intended to build a motel that would be affordable
to the average tourist. It would be clean, well-built, and a credit to the
neighborhood. The surrounding area could be considered a motel row, since there were
many motels along Beach Boulevard. The plan she proposed would also be a
service to the City because of the room tax it would generate as well as the
additional real estate tax. She had two variances on the property that were
still in effect from the time Mr. Asawa owned the property ten years ago, one
for a car and trailer sales park lot, and the other for an office building.
She had reviewed both of those uses and felt :hat the value of the land was
too high for such businesses to pay for themselves. Also, Highway 39 was a
very busy street and not exactly suitable for condominiums or rental units.
The property was zoned commercial and considering the development along Beach
Boulevard, a 73-unit motel ~uld be the best and highest use in her estimation.
81-198
City Hall, Anaheim, Californim - COUNCIL MI..NUTES - February 10, 198t, 1:30 P.M.
She had opposition from an owner of rental property located on Stonybrook,
Mr. Covey, the property adjacent to hers on the north. The proDerty was zoned
R-2 just as the property directly to his (Covey's) on the east, a huge multiple
complex know as Stonybrook Apartments. Across the street to the north of the
Covey rental was a junk yard storage lot. Today she stopped at the Covey
property and talked to his tenant and asked her if she would mind a new motel
being built behind her. She stated it would not bother her at all.
In concluding, Ms. Jackson stated that in the seven years she had owned the
land, that particular property adjacent to her north (the Covey property) had
been rental property. No homeowner had lived there in seven years. With the
foregoing in mind, she hoped that the Council would grant her the subject CUP
No. 2142 so that she could begin her development.
The Mayor then asked to hear from anyone who wished to speak in opposition to
the requested CUP.
Mr. Rick Covey, 6787 Emerson Drive, Buena Park, owner of the single-family
home to the north of subject property at 2966 Stonybrook then spoke in
opposition. The highlights of his presentation were as follows: He owned
the home for approximately seven years and it was unique being the only
structure on the cul-de-sac and very private. There were no neighbors
across the street, to the left, the right, or behind his property. There
was a large vacant lot behind his property owned by Ms. Jackson and to the
west another vacant lot which he believed belonged to the service station.
A storage yard was located across the street with no structures on it. There
was a CB shop located right at Beach Boulevard and to the east of his property,
65 feet to 75 feet away, a single-story apartment complex. His home was a nice
four-bedroom, two-bath home in good condition renting for $675 per month. A
great deal of enjoyment offered by the property was its back yard area with a
barbeque pit and swimming pool close to the property line. The proposed three-
story structure would block much of the sun and detract from the privacy of the
property. His biggest concern was relative to the pool area where people who
would want to rent or purchase would do so because of the backyard area. It
would definitely hurt the rental value of the property, as well as the resale
value sometime in the future. Those were his main concerns and he would like
to get some help from the Council if at all possible.
Councilman Roth asked Mr. Covey if he was working as a realtor; Mr. Covey
answered "yes". Councilman Roth then continued, assuming chat he (Covey) was
a knowledgeable realtor, when he purchased his property, he undoubtedly saw
the large vacant piece of property located ~o the rear of his property. Par-
ticularly being located along Beach Boulevard, he felt that both he and Mr.
Covey, being in the real estate business, had a feeling about what was going
to occur with such property. Motels had been built in the area starting in
the early 1960's indicating it was a widely accepted area for hotel-motel
use.
Council questions were ~hen posed to Mr. Covey for purposes of clarification.
The Mayor also posed questions as to how Mr. Covey would see the properties to
his west and north in the future.
81-199
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Febrpary 10, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
In answer to the latter, Mr. Covey stated possibly a commercial store or a
small office building. He would not be nearly as concerned if the develop-
ment were not at the back of his property because it affected the pool area.
If the development were across the street, it would not affect the backyard at
all. The pool was as close to the rear property line as it could get and a
32-foot high structure was going to block a great deal of the sun. Even a
two-story structure would eliminate a good part of his concerns.
Councilwoman Kaywood then asked Mr. Covey if Ms. Jackson had approached him
about purchasing his property.
Mr. Co~ey answered "yes" and then explained what had transpired in that regard
starting in November 1980 to the present. He did not have a current appraisal
on the home, but in 1978 it was appraised at $78,000 and today it was worth
approximately $95,000.
Mayor Seymour asked if they were to understand that he and Ms. Jackson had
reached an agreement relative to price in terms of sale.
Mr. Covey answered, a verbal agreement.
There being no further persons who wished to speak in opposition, the Mayor
gave Ms. Jackson an opportunity to rebut.
Ms. Jackson noted that Mr. Covey indicated that they had talked about her pur-
chasing the property which would have been simple. It still seemed to her that
the price was $80,000. After originally speaking to him, nothing was definitely
settled. She maintained it was only a deal when reduced to writing. She would
still like to buy the property and not have any problems. Relative to the
windows proposed in the motel that would look out on his tenant's house, they
could eliminate those windows on the second and third floors. On the bottom
floor, they would have a fence large enough to eliminate any visual intrusion.
Councilman Overholt asked her to comment on the criticism that a three-story
structure would interfere with the light in Mr. Covey's backyard.
Ms. Jackson stated they had to have a setback line from that swimming pool of
at least eight or ten feet and they were ~alking about another ten feet to the
back of her project or approximately 18 feet. Perhaps in the winter months
a shadow would be cast on part of his property, but not in the summer monthm
when there was highest pool usage.
Mayor Seymour asked Ms. Jackson if she could give some reason other than an
economic gain for granting the waiver.
Ms. Jackson answered that the area called for the largest type of motel she
could put on the proper:y; she was going to have several units on the bottom
floor for the handicapped; a new motel would be an addition to the area.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted in the Planning Commission staff report that she
had posed that the 25 units on the third floor would have kitchenettes, and the
Code provided a maximum of 25%, or 18 units.
81-200
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 10, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Ms. Jackson stated she believed the variance called for the whole entire top
floor to have them; Councilwoman Kaywood stated it was not listed, but only
the maximum structural height and the minimum landscaped setback.
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, stated that they did put a
condition in the Conditional Use Permit specifying a maximum of 25% was all
that was allowable unless otherwise granted.
Ms. Jackson added that they also would have an extensive sprinkler system in
those particular units.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked Ms. Jackson as far as the economic feasibility of
the project, had she considered the least number of units she could have or
another possible use that would still make it economically feasible.
Ms. Jackson answered that she first looked into an office building but she
would lose money. She then looked into a shopping center and she could start
constructing that tomorrow which she was sure would not be as nice to be next
to as a motel. She would think that the neighborhood would rather have the
motel. With 73 units, she would just about make expenses in winter and make
a little money in the summer. Any units less than that, she would lose money
in the winter time.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked the maximum size and number of units that would be
permitted within Code with no waivers.
Miss Santalahti answered in this particular case, the actual reason for the
waiver was the agriculturally zoned property which was developed with a service
station and currently closed (.later in the meeting Ms. Jackson indicated it was
open). When Ms. Jackson originally filed a CUP, the waiver for landscaped set-
back (10 feet required) would have applied to the property owned by Mr. Covey.
However, that plan was revised and currently the two waivers being requested
were from the service station site and that was the basis of the Planning
Cormnission's granting the CUP, that that site was General Planned for something
other than single-family, as well as the fact that it had been developed in
the current manner.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if it was 150 feet away from the Cinderella homes;
Miss Santalahti answered, the actual Code requirement was that within 150 feet
of a single-family zoned boundary, the commercial building height shall not
exceed one-hal~ the actual setback distance and thus at 150 feet, they could
have a 75-foot high building and at 20 feet, a 10-foot high building.
Mayor Seymour asked for confirmation that if the closed service station were in
operation, the waivers would not be necessary.
Miss Santalahti stated it would actually have to be rezoned. The way the Code
was worded, that property would have to be zoned either commercial or multiple-
family residential.
81-201
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 10, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour asked if the service station property were rezoned commercial,
would the waivers be necessary.
Miss Santalahti stated she did not believe the waivers would be necessary.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked the distance involved from Mr. Covey's property;
Miss Santalahti stated that the revised plans did put in a ten-foot setback
southerly of his property. That was all that would be necessary with a three-
story structure. When commercial was next to commercial or apartment zoning,
there was no building height limitation. It was a straightforward 10-foot
landscaped setback.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated the only problem she had was the fact that a solid
residential neighborhood was involved and any intrusion into that could only
defeat the purposes the Council stated and stood for, and she had a orob-
lem with that.
Mayor Seymour countered, however, that there were no waivers required as a
result of the residential to the south; Miss Santalahti confirmed that was
correct.
The Mayor continued that if, in fact, the closed service station property were
to be rezoned commercial, there would be no need for waivers at all; Miss
Santalahti again confirmed the Mayor's understanding.
Councilwoman Kaywood explained that at the Planning Commission hearing,
Commissioner Tolar felt even though it may not be zoned that way, a residen-
tial home was involved and the value of that home, as well as the liveability,
would be hurt. Normally, the Commission did protect the R-1 zones and whether
the people were renters or homeowner occupied, there was an obligation to pro-
vide protection. She felt the same way. As wel%, there were no three-story
motels in that area to her recollection, only two stroies.
Miss Santalahti stated that they had been receiving a number of waiver requests
for parking. This project was not requesting a parking waiver and three stories
was a permissible height in a commercial zone if set ba~k fmom single family
She did not believe there were any three-story motels in the area, but the sub-
ject project was being developed basically within the constraints of the Code,
except for the service station site.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated although she had been to the area several times,
it was hard to contemplate something before it was constructe~ It seemed
to her that three stories was definitely overbuilding the property. She then
asked if the parking was to be underground; Ms. Jackson answered "no", that it
was of~street, ground level parking.
Councilwoman Kaywood concluded that a residence was involved currently being
used as a residence, and a three-story structure would be very harmful to it.
Mayor Seymour stated knowing Mr. Covey, he understood his feelings. On the
other hand, when he bought the property, he had to realize what he was buying
into considering the uses surrounding his property and the fact that it should
have been obvious the whole section surrounding him was going to be commercial.
81-202
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 10, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
His initial feeling was if the applicant was asking for some waivers from Mr.
Covey's property so that she could achieve a higher density, that would be
wrong, either that or follow through and purchase that residential property
for parking. The facts were, relative to the City's ordinances and site
development standards, what was being asked for were two technical waivers.
If the service station property were zoned commercial, Ms. Jackson could pull
a building permit with no need for a hearing before the Planning Commission
or anything else. Inasmuch as he understood Mr. Covey's concern, what he was
asking them to do and what Councilwoman Kaywood was suggesting, was that in the
interest of protecting his (Covey's) property, that they go above and beyond
the City standards to protect his property. He did not find fault with the
proposal because of the waivers being requested in his mind were nothing more
than technical waivers.
Councilman Roth agreed with the Mayor. Further, the applicant had agreed to
eliminate windows on the second and third floors to preclude any visual intrusion
into the backyard. This was also one of the few projects brought to the Council
where no parking restrictions were being requested. As well, there was no doubt
in his mind that the highest and best use of the property was reflected in Ms.
Jackson's proposal.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that at the Planning Commission meeting, Ms. Jackson
stipulated that she would have a sprinkler system in all the units with kitchen-
ettes and smoke detectors in each unit. With 18 kitchenette units permitted,
she asked if she would then have all 25 units with the sprinkler system on the
top floor, or just the 18.
Ms. Jackson stated, considering it was the third floor, she would be much
happier and feel safer if there was a sprinkler system in each of the units
on the top floor.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she would then not oppose the project if all the
third floor units had sprinklers in them and that definitely no parking
waivers would be requested.
Mayor Seymour asked since she intended to operate the motel herself, what length
of tenancy she would expect in the 25% that would be efficiency units.
Ms. Jackson stated she imagined one week.
Mayor Seymour explained ~hat they had problemm in the City, depending on the
rates charged for a kitchenette unit, some might find that type of alternate
housing less expensive than moving in:o an apartment. In order to assure tha:
did not happen, he was looking for some stipulation as to the length of tenancy
she intended to permit to insure ~hat she or whoever might end up with that
property did not turn it into a substandard apartment house. He asked if she
would be willing to stipulate as to the length of tenancy she would expect
in the kitchenette units.
Ms. Jackson stated that at this time, she did not know and she should probably
check with other owners.
81-203
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 10~ 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she believed there was an ordinance specifying a
maximum of 30 days; City Attorney Hopkins stated that was correct.
Ms. Jackson stated she would be very happy to stipulate to the 30 days.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council finds that this project
would have no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact
since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property for medium density
residential or general commercial land uses commensurate with the proposal; that
no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the proposal and that the
Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant individual
or cumulative adverse environmental impact and is, therefore, exempt from the
requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 81R-53, granting Conditional Use
Permit No. 2142, upholding the findings of the City Planning Commission and
subject to their conditions with the added stipulations that tenancy will be
30 days maximum; sprinklers and smoke alarms would be installed in all third
floor units; no parking waivers to be requested; no windows on the second and
third floors as they would affect Mr. Covey's property. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-53: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2142.
Before a vote was taken, Miss Santalahti explained that relative to the elimina-
tion of the windows on the second and third floors, they could work out the front-
age on Mr. Covey's property and say for that amount of frontage, there shall be
no windows.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution.
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-53 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2148 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Ap-
plication by Atlantic Richfield Company, to permit a convenience market with
gasoline sales on CL(SC) zoned property located at 5700 East La Palma Avenue,
with Code waivers of a) maximum size of price signs, b) prohibited freestanding
signs, c) maximum number of wall signs.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant ko Resolution No. PC80-231, declared
that the subject project be exempt from the requirement to prepare an environ-
mental impact report pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act since there would be no significant individual or cumulative adverse
environmental impact due to this project and further, denied Conditional Use
Permit No. 2148.
The decision of the City Planning Commission was appealed by P. D. Lippert, agent,
and public hearing scheduled this date.
81-204
City Ha!l~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 10, 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous
of being heard.
Mr. Thomas Goodman, attorney, 505 City Parkway West, Orange, speaking on behalf
of Atlantic-Richfield (Arco), first noted that they met last on December 23, 1980
(see minutes that date on another service station conversion to a mini-mart
(Ball Road at West Street). He noticed on the agenda that three Code waivers
were listed and at the Planning Commission hearing (December 15, 1980), they
abandoned the request for those three waivers with the exception that the
pricing signs would not put them in violation of State law. He believed, how-
ever, that the City and State standards were identical. The subject location
was different from some of the other locations proposed for the mini-mart con-
version in that, for example, at the Ball Road and West Street location it was
good for the property owner and had no detrimental effects to the City. At
the subject location, the City had a tremendous traffic flow problem. There-
fore, the location was not only good for the property owner, but also exceedingly
good for the City relative to that traffic flow problem.
Mr. Goodman explained that when the shopping center was first constructed, more
land should have been dedicated to allow La Palma Avenue to be widened, but it
was not and they were faced with the problem today where the traffic on La
Palma was very bad and was not going to get any better. Thus, in addition to
the normal benefits to the City such as a change from a service to a sales tax
base, and the fact that the location was in the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone
and they would clean it up and beautify it, they also had a rather unique
situation. At the Planning Commission hearing (see minutes December 15, 1980)
as pointed out by Commissioner Tolar, the problem and main concern in denying
the application was that the conversion to a mini-mart would increase traffic
and, therefore, make a bad situation worse. He had previously submitted to
all members of the Council some documentary evidence showing that the contrary
was true--that mini-marts did not increase traffic, but instead decreased it.
He would have preferred to have had a large statistical sheet that he could
submit to the Council from Arco. The reason they did not have that was due
to the fact that the mini-mart concept was relatively new and more importantly,
since the conversions to mini-marts occurred in the last two to three years,
for a period of that time, they had been gasoline allocation and thus there
was no way to give a true accurate projection of the picture. He had presented
to the Council statements which they obtained from various owners of stations
who had owned them before and after conversion. The reason why there was a
decrease in traffic, in converting to a self-service station, there were a
number of people who did not care to pump their own gas and as a resul~ they
experienced a decrease in traffic and gallonage flow. As the gallonage would
go down~ the traffic would go down and as the traffic decreased~ the congestion
at the corner which was admittedly bad right now had to improve. Therefore,
to grant the CUP in the subject location would be a benefit to the City. They
could leave the use as it was at present which would happen if the CUP were not
granted, but it would not help matters.
The Mayor then asked to hear from those either in favor or in opposition to the
requested CUP; there being no response, he closed the public hearing.
Councilman Overholt referred to the telephone message to the Council from Mary
Ruth Pinson dated February 10, 1981. She had planned to be present but was
81-205
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 10, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
unable to attend the meeting. She asked that her opposition be taken into
consideration since she was a resident of the area. Her concerns were relative
to (1) traffic, (2) parking, (3) decrease of service station use, (4) potential
sign abuse, (5) potential increase in crime with all-night market operations
and, (6) expense to the City due to Item No. 5.
In answer, Mr. Goodman stated that they were not requesting any changes in parking
and the parking would actually improve with a mini-mart because they would not
have a number of vehicles being repaired; they were saying that a decrease of
service station use would be an advantage instead of a disadvantage; sign waivers
were no longer being requested except that State law mandated that pricing signs
be a certain size; it was a 24-hour operation providing the area with a conven-
ience market; however, mini-marts used the same philosophy as 7-11 markets and
it was clearly posted that the safe used was a drop box, that the manager had
no cash and no more than $25 in change at a time. He also clarified that they
would be selling beer and wine only and no hard liquor.
Councilman Bay then referred to the mailgram dated February 9, 1981 received
from Mitzy Ozaki, 340 Timken Road, which he read into the record (made a part
of the record). It urged that the petition be denied on the basis of traffic
congestion, parking and that there was no need for a convenience market in the
area. She also referred to the problems that occurred at that station during
the last gas shortage where cars were lined up "from Arco extended on Imperial
from La Palma south beyond the freeway on-ramp causing traffic problems."
Mr. Goodman first commented on the latter. If there was another gas shortage,
that would occur in any case, but it would be much less likely to occur in a
self-service station. Relative to the statement in the mailgram, "if one
entrance to the premise is closed as proposed, there will be on site congestion,"
one entrance to the premises had never been acceptable to Atlantic Richfield.
Ms. Ozaki was quite correct in that it would make no sense whatsoever and would
create a horrendous traffic flow problem. That was a condition that was re-
quested by the staff and not even strongly considered by the Planning Commission
because it was so ludicrous in its nature. It was discussed in great detail and
concluded by all the Planning Con~nissioners that there was no reason to close
one driveway and, if so, he agreed it would create a traffic flow problem.
However, that was not what they were asking for. As far as the supermarket
and retail stores, unfortunately those in the local area were not open 24 hours.
The only place was an Albertson's market at Santa Aha Canyon Road and Imperial
Highway. From a convenience standpoint, many citizens who wanted one item did
not care to go into a supermarket and stand in line to make their purchase. In
summary, he was saying that the negative effect on traffic was going to occur
whether or not the CUP was granted; there would be a beneficial effect on
traffic; they would request that both existing entranceways be open
to provide a proper internal traffic flow, and since there were no convenience
markets in the area on a 24-hour basis, one should be made available to such
a large population center as Anaheim Hills. He also confirmed for the Mayor
that the gas pumps would be open on a 24-hour basis and he stipulated if the
CUP were approved, the pumps would remain open the same hours as the mini-mart.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that there were very few gas stations in the vicinity
and she recalled that was done deliberately for good planning so that there
would not be a continuation of the proliferation Chat took place west of the
81-206
City Hall, A~!aheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 10~ 1981, 1:30 P.M.
River with four service stations at every intersection. She found it difficult
to understand why they would ask to reduce the service in an area where there
was no competition. There was a station directly across the street, but nothing
else for miles around. Since conversion would represent a decrease in service,
they were looking at safety hazards for the motoring public, the point being,
the citizens in the area did not want a proliferation of service stations and
they did not want to have one of their existing stations which provided needed
service turned into something different, taking away the use at that corner.
If Arco did not want it, she was certain many major oil companies would be
happy to have that corner.
Mr. Goodman then explained as he had done at the hearing of December 23, 1980--
(see minutes that date) that they sold oil, gas was available on a 24-hour basis,
as well as air and water, the facilities for which were located around the
corner from the island.
Mayor Seymour agreed with Mrs. Ozaki's mailgram relative to the long lines
during the gas shortage. That was true everywhere in California. However,
if they did have gas available 24 hours a day, should such lines develop
again, many citizens would be able to go out at midnight to buy gas and
experience shorter lines. He felt that the proposal would provide an additional
service to the citizens in the area, i.e., the ability to buy gasoline on a
24-hour basis because it was so limited in its availability in the area at
present.
The Mayor then asked to hear from the Traffic Engineer as to his professional
opinion relative to the proposal.
Mr. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, stated the particular location was quite
congested. They hoped that some measure of improvement would be affected
when the State changed the controls at that location.
The Mayor interjected and stated as he recalled, since he had a meeting with
some of the property owners in that area, that the projection for the install-
ation of a left-turn signal was to be in the Fall; Mr. Singer stated it was
going to be in April or May of this year.
Mr. Singer then continued relative to the subject corner, by simple calculations,
if the service station turned into a market, there would be a greater demand
for a number of trips and, therefore, it would have a more significant impact
than the service station. Any retail use was going to attract additional trips
even if stop-off trips. The intersection would experience a heavier frequency
of use as opposed to traffic traveling through the intersection. Traffic now
would make a stop, pull in and have a double turn. Also, they should keep in
mind that an exit from the station to continue traveling on Imperial Highway
would have to result in a "U" turn someplace along the line on La Palma Avenue.
That situation existed with the present service station and all those properties.
Councilman Roth asked Mr. Singer if he had taken into consideration a full-
service station vs. a self-service. As he explained previously, his wife
would not go into a self-service station even if there was a great difference
in price in gasoline. That being the case with many people, those stations
experienced a decrease in the amount of pumping of gas.
81-207
City Hall~. Anaheim, qalifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 10, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Singer stated that he did not know of any studies conducted and he did not
have a record of any such study differentiating between self-service and full-
service stations. He believed the volume of traffic was constant and they were
using a constant for the number of service stations and by introducing a
secondary use, even though someone did not want to get any gas, but would want
to get that carton of milk would stop, and them~ore increase the number of
motions in and out of the station, eventually resulting in a "U" turn. He did
not have information on the current traffic count at the intersection of La
Palma Avenue and Imperial Highway but there were approximately 30,000 cars on
Imperial Highway and approximately 12,000 on La Palma Avenue.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated while it was being touted as a plus that since there
was no service, there would be fewer people, she contended when they had fewer
service stations, that was a disservice to the canyon to take away the existing
service. It was not an area in which to consider removing the service station.
Mayor Seymour stated what they were saying in adopting that philosophy or policy
was that, (1) they intentionally created a shortage of gas stations, which they
did, and now they were saying, (2) because they had done that, they were going
to restrict an opportunity to offer a variation of service to the citizens in
the area. He did not understand that logic. To the fact that there were some
who would only want full service, he could understand that. There was a trade-
off involved and in this particular location, the trade-off was first to save
some gasoline because it would be possible to pick up some convenience items
at the same time as purchasing gas and secondly, particularly for the subject
area, it would be the ability to buy gasoline on a 24-hour basis which he felt
was extremely beneficial to the community in that area. As well, the proposal
was not going to impact any residential neighborhood relative to the comings
and goings to the business on a 24-hour basis.
The Mayor continued that before Mr. Goodman came back with the Arco proposal
for Broadway and Euclid which was the other location they were interested in
converting in Anaheim, he suggested that he obtain a consultant's opinion
relative to what the owners of such mini-marts were saying, those at E1 Toro,
Tustin and Placentia, that the concept would decrease traffic. He agreed
with Mr. Singer, he had not seen any such professional report and he would
like to see that. The bottom line in the subject proposal, however, was that
he was convinced of its benefits and with the elimination of waivers relative
to signs, he was not opposed. He felt it was a positive proposal using an
an example a similar operation north on Imperial Highway which he believed to
be in the City of Brea and one which Councilman Roth had mentioned several
times. It was a very clean operation and he had never seen anybody hanging
out at that location. It was a credit to ~he co~nunity. Thus, if the con-
cept was good for Tustin, Brea and Placentia, he did not see how it could
hurt the subject area.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she was sure the Mayor remembered from Planning
Commission days, as well as CQuncil, hhe planning that went into the area was to
not repeat any of the mistakes that had been made before. They listened very
closely to the residents there and were very concerned as to what they wanted.
She was concerned that they were taking a giant step away from the initial plan-
ning and that it was a disastrous one; the Mayor did not agree.
81-208
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 10, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Bay stated that the issue at the Planning Cormnission relative to the
subject proposal was traffic and today it was traffic. He had seen no evidence
that a mini-mart combined with a self-service station reduced traffic. Mr.
Singer's professional opinion was that adding a mini-mart would add to the
traffic. Now that he found out the signs were waived, the Planning Commission
had denied the proposal specifically because it was going to increase traffic
at the intersection of La Palma Avenue and Imperial Highway where they already
had approximately 42,000 cars, counting both streets. He had to go with the
Traffic Engineer until he saw something or proving that the Traffic Engineer's
opinion was wrong. Therefore, he would support the denial based upon the same
reason the Planning Commission voted denial--because of the traffic impact.
Mayor Seymour asked Councilman Bay if they were to continue the matter for
a week and Mr. Goodman was able to bring back proof that gallonage decreased
at those stations using the mini-mart concept, would that in any way influence
him relative to the traffic question.
Councilman Bay answered that it would not from ~he standpoint that gallonage
differential would not prove to him that was an automatic reduction in traffic
because there were many variables to be considered. He was not arguing with
the fact that they could use more information, but he would still have to go
with Mr. Singer's professional advice.
Councilman Overholt stated he had concern with the traffic data before them
which was not much. Mr. Goodman could not provide anything definitive nor
could the Traffic Engineer because no studies were available. They, therefore,
had nothing definitive with which to work and if they were going to act today,
it was going to be on the basis of what at least three Council Members felt
the traffic situation to be at the subject intersection. It was his guess the
use was not going to increase traffic. He believed that the mini-mart aspect
on a 24-hour basis in that area would be a real plus for the community. There
was a mini-market in his area that did not pump gas, but to be able to know
that the commodities they carried were available on a 24-hour basis was a
comfort to a person like himself with a family of seven when they needed some-
thing in the middle of the night and being an operating business during those
hours sometimes gave an added safety factor. Traffic was his only concern and
his hypothesis was that conversion of the service station to a mini-mart self-
service gas concept was not going to have any effect on traffic. He asked if
figures were available as to how many vehicles went in and out of the facility
on a daily basis now as a full service station.
Mr. Goodman stated he did not have those figures available but if it was sig-
nificant to vote on the matter for any member of the Council, given a period
of time, he could and would engage a traffic engineer to provide the appro-
priate figures and appropriate studies. Realistically, he would need approx-
imately 30 days. The time limitation would not be a problem.
Councilman Overholt stated then that if the time was not a problem, he would
encourage the Council to give the applicant an opportunity to present that
data.
81-209
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 10, 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour felt the suggestion was a good one especially because Mr. Goodman
was going to be before the Council once again relative to conversion of the
station at Broadway and Euclid and they should know what the numbers were going
to be in any event.
Mr. Goodman stated he was going to provide the data in any case. He suggested
that the matter be continued approximately 30 days and if they needed more time,
they could continue it further.
Mr. Singer stated he would very much appreciate a study of the nature under
discussion because the subject was coming up more often. In order to make a
study that was going to be significant and available for other locations, he
did not believe that 30 days would be adequate.
Mr. Goodman stated he would attempt to obtain all the information possible but
they must realize it was and would be extremely difficult for anyone to put
together a definitive survey of the type requested. He would engage a traffic
engineer and would make the most definitive study possible but he could not
promise what he was going to get for the Council. He then asked Mr. C. T.
Fokerson of Atlantic Richfield to speak to the issue.
Discussion then followed between Council Members and Mr. Fokerson and Goodman
relative to the kind of information the study might provide and should provide
At one point, the Mayor suggested that Arco undoubtedly had a very detailed
statistical report they received as they pumped the gallons and sold the bread
in the 300 such operations in California as reported by Mr. Fokerson. He would
think that Arco Corporate Headquarters would take a very close look at that
data before pushing that marketing concept all across the country. That was
also the type of data they were interested in.
Councilwoman Kaywood was interested in being provided with some data about
other locations geographically--what they were like, whether isolated, in a
residential or commercial area, how congested was the subject area, etc. for
comparison purposes.
Councilwoman Kaywood also wanted to know how many people stopped to patronize
only the mini-mart itself without buying gas and asked to be provided with that
information as well.
MOTION: After a short discussion as to an appropriate date for continuance,
Councilman Overholt moved that consideration of Conditional Use Permit No. 2142
be continued to March 17, 1981 at 3:00 p.m. Councilman Seymour seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
134: AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF A PROPOSED PARK SITE UNDER GPA 155:
City Clerk Linda Roberts referred to letter dated February 6, 1981 from Mr. Dan
Salceda, Anaheim Hills Inc., requesting a public hearing to provide the Council
with a park site progress report per the terms and conditions of approval of GPA
155. She also pointed out for Councilman Bay that there was a need for a public
hearing because the initial conditions of approval were imposed at the public
hearing.
81-210
City Hal%~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 10, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
MOTION: After Council discussion as to an appropriate date for the public hearing,
Councilman Overholt moved the hearing be set for Tuesday, March 17, 1981 at
3:00 P.M. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman
Kaywood, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and
recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent
Calendar Agenda:
i. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission--Minutes of January 21, 1981.
b. 156: Police Department--Monthly Report for December 1980.
c. 105: Park and Recreation Commission--Minutes of December 10, 1980.
d. 178: Orange County Water District Representatives Report--summary of 1980
activities and report on local and statewide water conditions.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked that a letter of thanks be sent to Mr. Gus Lenain
from the Council for the excellent job he had done.
e. 148: Orange County Fair Housing Council, Quarterly Report for October,
November and December 1980.
f. 105: Public Utilities Board--Minutes of December 18, 1980 and January 15,
1981.
g. 105: Senior Citizen Commission--Minutes of January 8, 1981.
2. 108: APPLICATIONS: The following applications were approved in accordance
with the recommendations of the Chief of Police and the Fire Marshal:
a. Private Patrol Application: Kubik's Security, 2546 West Lincoln Avenue
#C, to provide security guard services in the City. (Daniel Joseph Kubik,
applicant)
b. Public Dance Permit Application: E1 Torito-Who Song & Larry's Cantina, 2020
East Ball Road, for a dance to be held February 14, 1981, 9:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m.
(Elaine Ann Arana, applicant)
3. 170; TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11347: Submitted by M. J. Brock & Sons, Inc.,
to establish a 125-unit, 153-1ot detached condominium subdivision on RS-A-43,000
zoned property located on the north side of Falmouth Avenue and the south side
of Coronet Avenue, west of Romneya Drive (submitted in conjunction with Condi-
tional Use Permit No. 2143 which will appear on the February 17, 1981 agenda
under Planning Commission Consent Calendar).
The City Planning Commission approved Tenative Trac~ No. 11347 and certified
EIR No. 113 March 16, 1974.
81-211
City Hall, Anaheim, Cal.ifornia...-. COUNCIL MINUTES - February 10, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
4. 170: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11211 (REVISION NO. 1): Submitted by Cheryl Jo
Mmtlock, to establish a 49-1ot, 44-unit condominium subdivision on RS-A-43,000
zoned property located at 649 South Beach Boulevard (submitted in conjunction
with Variance No. 3196 which will appear on the February 17, 1981 agenda under
Planning Commission Consent Calendar).
The City Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract No. 11211 (Revision No. 1)
and granted a negative declaration status.
MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 81R-54
through 81R-60, both inclusive, for adoption in accordance with the reports,
recommendations and certifications furnished each Council Member and as listed
on the Consent Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book.
158: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-54: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Elbert F.
Christensen, et ux.; Orangethorpe Professional Office Center; Santa Fe Land
Improvement Co.; Hillview Associates; Eric Nash, et ux.)
158: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-55: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING AN EASEMENT DEED CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN
REAL PROPERTY FOR AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES. (R/W
#2800-26)
158: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-56: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING AN EASEMENT DEED CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN
REAL PROPERTY FOR AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES. (R/W
#2800-27)
158: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-57: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING AN EASEMENT DEED CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN
REAL PROPERTY FOR AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES. (R/W
#2800-48)
158: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-58: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING AN EASEMENT DEED CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN
REAL PROPERTY FOR AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES. (R/W
#28OO-61)
176: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-59: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE AND ABANDON A CERTAIN PUBLIC SERVICE
EASEMENT. (80-5A, setting public hearing for March 31, 1981, 3:00 P.M.)
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-60: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
TERMINATING ALL PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 919
AND DECLARING RESOLUTION NO. 67R-174 NULL AND VOID.
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-54 through 81R-60, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
81-212
City H.all~ ~naheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 10, 19.81, 1:.30 P.M.
ORDINANCE NO. 4206: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4206 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4206: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (70-71-47(24), ML)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4206 duly passed and adopted.
173: P.U.C. HEARING ON YELLOW CAB COMPANY: Councilman Bay asked the City
Attorney the s~atus of the Public Utilities Commission hearing on the Yellow
Cab matter.
City Attorney Hopkins answered that there had been no notification as yet as
to when the hearing would be set. He did request one and the Commission in-
dicated they would consider the request. He would follow up to see if he
could get a date certain.
108/156: ADULT ENTERTAINMENT ORDINANCE - STATUS REPORT: Councilman Bay requested
a status report with regard to the City's Adult Entertainment Ordinance, i.e.,
how many Adult Entertainment businesses were still open in the City, a lis~ of
those open because of court rulings, those who changed their business license
in some way, and if any such businesses were still open illegally at this time.
City Attorney Hopkins stated the report would best be prepared by the Police
Department and he would contact Lt. Wilcox accordingly. His office had some
of the information and ~here were numerous cour~ cases pending at present.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Councilman Bay moved to recess into Closed Session.
Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (5:20 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (.7:25 P.M.)
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in joint session with the Public
Utilities Board.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMERS: 0verholt, Kayw0od, Bay, Roth and Seymour
COUNCIL ME~ERS: None
PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD MEMBERS: Anderson, Haynie, Townsend, White
Keesse, Kiefer and Stan~on
PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
PUBLIC UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER: Gordon Hoyt
ASSISTANT PUBLIC UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER: Ed Alario
UTILITY MANAGEMENT SERVICES MANAGER: Darrell Ament
SPECIAL COUNSEL TO PUBLIC UTILITIES: Alan Watts
81-213
City Hall, Anaheim., California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 10, 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
Chairman Keesee called ~he Public Utilities Board meeting to order.
Mayor Seymour requested that Councilman Roth define the topics for discussion
at this session, since it was at his request that the session was originally
scheduled.
Councilman Roth set forth the following areas for discussion, indicating that
these were generated as a result of his notation from the minutes of the Public
Utilities Board meeting that there was some need for direction or qualification
of these following subjects: (1) That there appeared to be some concern on the
part of certain Board Members that if they are required to review the budget of
Public Utilities and they needed further management information to complete
this task, were they permitted to seek this type of information. (2) The fact
that there have been occasions when the Public Utilities Board meeting has
been called to consider one or two seemingly minor items and therefore the
time has come to distinguish whether or not the Board is required to hold all
of these meetings or should they look at priorities and dispense with the holding
of a meeting under certain circumstances. (3) The remarks he has noticed re-
garding the Public Utilities Board receiving voluminous amounts of mail to read
and then being required to render decisions on a recommendation the very next
day or within a relatively short time frame.
Regarding Item No. 1 above, Board Member Stanton stated that if the Board is
to review budget figures, they must know what is behind the numerical infor-
mation, otherwise how can they make the determination such as whether a budget
is high or low. If not supplied With the information that backs the numbers up,
the Board can have no idea as to whether these numbers are valid.
Board Member Townsend commented that he was personally of the opinion that Mr.
Hoyt was going overboard in explaining matters in great detail. He indicated
that he had great confidence in the day-to-day operations of the Utilities
dealing with the people running it.
Mayor Seymour requested that the City Manager and City Attorney present their
viewpoints regarding the charge to this appointed Commission.
Mr. Hopkins reviewed the powers and duties of the Public Utilities Board as set
forth in the Anaheim Municipal Code Section 1.04.730.010 through .070. He
summarized that what is most significant about these sections, is that in all
cases the Board is making recommendations and is therefore strictly an advisory
board to the City Council.
In response to Mayor Seymour Mr. Hopkins concluded that if required to make a
recommendation on the Utilities Department budget, then the Board should have
made available to it whatever it needs to make a proper recommendation.
Mr. Talley advised that he strongly disagrees with this viewpoint. He summarized
that the problem is that the Charter can be interpreted either loosely or tightly,
and in his opinion under the present writing, the Public Utilities Board could
construe their duties in such a manner so as to be able to substantially affect
the administration of the Department, which represents to him substantial inter-
ference with the City's administration and a lot of redundancy. He emphasized
81-214
CitZ Hail,. Anaheim, California .- COUNCIL MINUTES - February 10, 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
that the Council cannot give to a Board or Commission more powers than they have,
and if the ordinance establishing the Board, by setting forth ".030, Make recommen-
dations to the City Council concerning the duties and qualifications of the Public
Utilities Director and other employees of the Public Utilities Department",
allows them to become involved with duties and qualifications of every employee
of the Public Utilities organization, how the work is organized, who employees
report to; what kind of management process is being used; then, in his opinion
this goes far beyond what anyone other than the City Manager should be able to
do. As an example, Mr. Talley referred to the recent renewal contract for guard
services at the substation, which was a purely administrative matter, but was
brought before the Public Utilities Board for a recommendation prior to pre-
senting it to Council. He remarked that he did not think the Board would want
to be bothered with administrative details like this, but, this is the level to
which the lines of communication between this Board and the Council have come.
Mr. Talley presented the position that a clear and definite line should be drawn
between administration and policy matters; that if the Council is not satisfied
with the way the Department is run, they should approach that subject through
the City Manager. Otherwise, he was of the opinion that there could be advisory
boards and commissions for each and every department, and the City Manager
could virtually be tied up in meetings with them 40 hours per week. He stated
that he views this process as a departure from the intent of the Charter wherein
a Council-City Manager form of government was set forth, with Department Heads
reporting to the City Manager.
Mr. Talley added that to date, there have been no problems created, but he feels
this is because of the caliber of the Board Members and the cooperative attitude
of the Public Utilities General Manager. Nevertheless the situation lends
itself to the possibility of problems, given a different Board Member struc-
ture or a different personality in the position of Public Utilities General
Manager or City Manager.
In response to the Mayor's question as to where he would envision the line
should be drawn, Mr. Talley stated that it appeared to him that the Council's
great need is to have expert advice in generation and rate-setting policies and
that is what he envisioned the Board to be of greatest value. Mr. Talley
emphasized that this is just a viewpoint, but he has never discussed ~his with
either the Public Utilities General Manager or the Public Utilities Board.
Councilman Bay questioned whether Mr. Talley was suggesting that the solution
to the problem was to rewrite the ordinance, to which Mr. Talley replied neg-
atively, that this is a policy matter and he has no suggestions on it, rather
he is pointing out the potentials of the situation.
Councilman Overholt interjected that in his opinion the fact that the Board
may only make recommendations ~o the Council precludes i~ from being able to
actually interfere in administrative matters.
Mr. Talley read from Section 607 of the Charter which specifically deals with
a noninterference issue "except for the purpose of inquiry, the City Council
and its members shall deal with the administrative service under the juris-
diction of the City Manager solely through the City Manager, and neither the
City Council nor any member thereof shall give orders to any subordinate of
the City Manager, either publicly or privately."
81-215
Cit~ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 10, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour noted that Mr. Talley had not mentioned in his discussion any
debate on the part of the Utilities Board regarding the budget and questioned
how he felt this should be delineated.
Mr. Talley voiced the opinion that there should be a clear separation of purchase
power and operating practices of the Department.
Since the current Public Utilities General Manager was instrumental in the drafting
of the ordinances establishing the Public Utilities Board, Mayor Seymour asked
him to comment on what intentions he had at the time this was drawn up.
Mr. Hoyt summarized that following an all-day meeting in January of 1976, the
City Council, by motion, determined that since the Utilities issues to come
before them appeared to be increasingly complex they needed a citizens group
prepared to deal with these problems and to give them the time and study re-
quired, as an assist to the Council, and further to assure themselves that there
was adequate community review.
Mr. Hoyt recalled that his recommendation at the time the establishment of a
Public Utilities Board was under consideration was that this board be semi-
autonomous, similar to the board in the City of Riverside and that this board
be created by Charter amendment. However, the Council did not agree and instead
adopted an ordinance creating an advisory board, but using the same general frame
work as was presented. Mr. Hoyt further explained that once the Board actually
began meeting on a regular basis he would bring administrative matters to the
Council who would ask "has the board seen this?" This was interpreted by him
to be an indication that everything, including the more trivial, routine admin-
istrative matters, should be taken first to the Public Utilities Board. He
advised that he would personally be delighted to use the Board's time only on
policy items. He reported on the public hearings on rate matters which were
specifically delegated to the Board, and which he considered a very good
function for them to perform in lieu of the Council.
Mr. Alan Watts, Special Counsel to the Public Utilities Department, who was also
involved in the drafting of the ordinance creating the Public Utilities Board,
advised that it was certainly not the intent to have the Board acting contrary
to the provisions of the Charter, as mentioned by the City Manager, nor that
there be any interference in administrative details or day-to-day operations,
that basically they would consider policy questions. He remarked that with
ordinances of ~his type, there is a good deal of interpretation which occurs,
by Council, Board Members and Senior staff, in order to make it workable in
accordance with the desires of all three groups.
Mayor Seymour called to attention the fact that the City's Public Utilities
Department is after all an enterprise function and therefore the Council should
expect this Board to be involved at about the same level as the Community
Center Authority and, to a lesser extent, the Anaheim Stadium, Inc. His charge
to the Commission was and still is that they see the Utilities Department is
run like a "taut ship", and the Council cannot hold the Public Utilities Board
responsible if they did not submit items to ~hem for consideration.
Mr. Talley stated that in his view the Charter charges him as City Manager with
the responsibility of running a "taut ship" and not the Public Utilities Board,
and that the City Charter established a form of government which delegates cer-
tain duties and responsibilities. Under the present interpretation, Mr. Talley
81-216
City Hall, Anaheim, .California .y COUNCIL MINUTES - February 10, 198.1, 1:30 P.M.
explained that if he should feel that administrative interference exists, but
the Council does not, then it does not exist, and there is no alternative for
him except to hire an attorney on his own and take the Council to court, which
would be a suicidal action. Therefore, whether or not such interference exists,
the City Manager is forced to accept it and in his opinion this is not a very
workable process. He therefore concluded that there is a basic conflict in
philosophy from his view that the Public Utilities Board should not be respon-
sible for recommending the budget.
Public Utilities Board Members Stanton, Haynie and Kiefer all expressed view-
points that, if the Board is involved in rate setting and generation policy
matters, how is that Board to know whether or not the rates are accurately
reflective of the cost for services unless they are knowledgeable of the labor,
capital expenditures and cash flow situations of the Utilities. Further how
would they know if participation in an additional generation project is warranted.
Board Member Kiefer went even further to say that if the Public Utilities Board
has any weakness at all, it is that they are not giving the Council as strong
recommendations on the budget as they might. He emphasized that he is making
these remarks not with the intent of overextending the powers of the Public
Utilities Board, since it is his viewpoint that the City has been extremely
fortunate in collecting the management group which it has in the Utilities
Department. Nevertheless, Board Member Kiefer stated that he feels each year
when he makes his contribution to the budget recommendation, he does not have
the visibility to be able to say for sure whether it is too high or too low and
in what areas.
Board Member Anderson also disagreed with the City Manager's view that the Board
should remain concerned only with generation and rate setting matters. He also
emphasized that the Board is aware and agrees that it is the City Council who
must make the final determination, certainly no member of the Board wishes to
usurp anyone's authority, that they are proud of the City and proud of the way
it's working. He did not think there should be any adversary of antagnistic
relationships.
Board Member Stanton recalled that the charge to the Board as stated by the City's
current Mayor, then a Councilman, was to see that the Public Utilities Department
is operated in a manner in which it will be in the best interest of the citizens
of Anaheim.
Mayor Seymour called for a readout from the City Council on the matter under
discussion. Councilwoman Kaywood expressed the viewpoint that if there is a
potential problem in the ordinance, it should be changed or clarified to take
away the potential for interference, as the curren: Public Utilities Board,
City Manager, Utilities General Manager and Council will not always be the
ones to be operating under the guidelines of the written ordinance. She re-
ported that she was glad to hear from everyone that none of the potential
abuses have actually occurred, but still felt that the situation warrants that
the ordinance be reviewed and redrafted so that it more accurately reflects
what the Council wishes the Board's responsibilities to be.
Council Members Overholt and Mayor Seymour both expressed the belief that the
strictly advisory capacity of the Board would be sufficient to keep it in
check and therefore neither could see a current need to redraft the ordinance
81-217
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 10, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
which established the Public Utilities Board. Councilman Overholt felt in
particular that rewriting the ordinance to limit the specificity of the functions
of the Board would be in effect limiting the City Council as they would not
be empowered to ask the assistance of the Board's recommendations under certain
circumstances. He felt that there were situations, such as a total reorganization
of the Department, in which the Council might ask the Board for recommendations
regarding duties and qualifications of the Utilities General Manager and other
employees. The bottom line is that if the Board has not performed in the manner
desired, the Council has the power to change it.
Councilman Bay stated Chat he was certain all members of the Public Utilities
Board understand the basic management principle behind the noninterference
section of the Charter, i.e., that if you hire a City Manager and pay him good
money Co manage, you do not undermine his authority. He voiced his concern
that with Section .030 of the ordinance relating to the recommending by the
Public Utilities Board as to the duties and qualifications of the Public Utilities
General Manager and ocher employees of the Department. He voiced the opinion
that this action does not belong in this ordinance; that it invites usurption
of that management principle outlined above, which he thinks is very critical
co good management in the City. He would therefore like to see Council consi-
der removal of that one section (1.04.730.030) as it should not be there to
possibly mislead any future Board or Council. He stated that he felt ic was
time the Council looked at the powers and duties as written for each and every
Board and Commission, even those in the Charter.
Mayor Seymour reaffirmed that he had made the charge to the Public Utilities
Board that they see the Utility is run in the best interest of the citizens of
the City of Anaheim. He noted thaC there is no member of the City Council who
has the time or energy to wade through the reams of material which the Public
Utilities Board reviews prior to making its recommendations to the Council. He
emphasized chat he for one needs the Public Utilities Board to do the job they
have been doing. He further stated that he has total confidence in his own
ability to speak out when he sees an abuse of power. He voiced the opinion
that rewriting the ordinance will not make any difference as to whether or
not the Board is performing as the Council wants them to. He concluded that
he wishes the Public Utilities Board ko have the broadest authority possible,
so long as they remain a recommending body.
Item No. 2: Concerning the problem of having relatively minor items only on
an agenda, Mayor Seymour suggested that the Public Utilities Board has the
powers Co establish their own policy on this issue; and chat they might deter-
mine to have their secretary call and informally poll the Board for some direc-
tion, as needed.
Item No. 3: Concerning Item No. 3, the receipt of voluminous amounts of materials
shortly before a meeting, Council Members were sympathetic, however, indicated
that they experienced the same problems as do other Boards and Commissions.
Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that this usually occurs in an emergency con-
text and that dealing with emergency situations is part of the job of the Board
as well. Mayor Seymour again expressed his gratitude and dependence on the
Board for assisting the Council with review of the extremely complex matters
involving Public Utilities.
81-218
Cit% H~.i~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 10, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Hoyt explained that a power supply is a fast moving business and opportunities
come and go quickly, therefore, the need for last minute deliveries of reports
and material. Whereas, he would like to prepare Executive summaries of the
contracts and reports, in an abundance of caution, he still feels the Board Members
and Council should have the entire package at their dimposal for review prior to
making decisions.
In additional discussion relative to generation policy, Council Members Roth
and Bay questioned whether the Public Utilities Board feels they will come to
some point at which they will recommend no further participation until some
of the generation projects are on line. Councilman Bay was concerned that a
certain percentage of the city's energy demands will be set a~ide so as to be
able to take advantage of any technological breakthroughs which will be coming.
Mayor Seymour summarized that from what he ham heard this evening it does not
sound as though the charge to the Board has changed. If anything, he personally
would want them to be more aggressive. He restated his concern regarding the
City's demand projections, since it appears other Utilities are taking a new
look, he was of the opinion that Anaheim should also be wary of these.
Mayor Seymour further reaffirmed that the City Council has on at least two or
three occasions unanimously stated that its policy on new future capital com-
mitments for generation projects would be to go to the voters for their author-
ization. He stated that he would appreciate it, time-wise, if this intent of
the Council to go to elections, would be taken into consideration by the Public
Utilities Department and the Board to allow the necessary time for that process.
Board Member Townsend stated his concern for the City as far as the generation
projects in which the Utilities is already committed, noting that management
should take into consideration the state of today's economy, and the fact that
with some turn of events there would be a dramatic effect on the City's ability
to pay its indebtedness. He urged that the City Council, ms the Manager,
develop some contingency plan in the event of economic collapse.
Mayor Seymour responded however, that the citizens in two election decisions
have given the Council clear direction that they (1) desire to own their own
utility and (2) that they wish to generate their own power vs. purchasing it
from Southern California Edison. He admitted that the Council is carrying a
large load with lots of responsibility and they don't know all of the answers,
but noted that he firmly believes that they can do just as good a job as
Edison.
At the conclusion of discussion, Councilman Overholt stated that this is the
first time the Council has met with the Public Utilities Board since he has
been on the Council and that he welcomed the opportunity when the meeting was
first suggested, as he feels there is nothing like the synergism created when
getting the two groups together.
Board Member Haynie advised that the National Geographic Magazine has put out
a special edition on energy and highly recommended that all Public Utilities
Board and Council Members obtain a copy and read it, as it will give them a
sense of what they.are up against. Further he invited Mr. Talley to attend
any of their sessions for further discussion of his concerns.
81-219
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 10, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Ro=h moved to adourn. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (9:02 P.M.)
OBERTS, CITY CLERK