1981/02/2481R-268
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 24, 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
The Cit~ Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Sey-mour
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Norm Priest
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ron Thompson
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
HOUSING MANAGER: Lisa Stipkovich
ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER: James Armstrong
Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Reverend Gerry Schiller, Melodyland Hotline Center, gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Don R. Roth led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Seymour and
authorized by the City Council:
Red Cross Month - March 1981
The proclamation was accepted by Flo Tarlton and Bernice Douglass.
148: DISCUSSION - LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF ORANGE COUNTY: Mr. Philip Bettencourt,
representing the Orange County Chapter of the Building Industry Association (BIA)
of Southern California, Inc. and its 150-member companies in Orange County,
stated that he suspected that the discussion today was prompted by the resolu-
tion which his Board of Directors adopted (see A Resolution of the Board of
Directors Building Industry Association Opposing Gifts of Public Funds To
Political Action and Special Interest Groups--on file in the City Clerk's
office). The resolution had been sent not only to the members of the Orange
County Board of Supervisors, but also to their Congressional delegation and
each of the City Councils in Orange County regarding their concern about the
level of public funding now going to the Orange County Legal Aid Society and
to other legal action and political action groups in the United States. Their
immediate focus was the amount of the grant from the Orange County Board of
Supervisors of about $300,000 to the Legal Aid Society budget. In addition,
the Society received almost a "candy store" of public revenues sources--approx-
imately $800,000 from the Federal Legal Services Corporation, $50,000 from the
Bar Association, approximately $140,000 from the Seniors Advocacy Program
funds and approximately $40,000 in volunteer funds, in addition to the Federal
Revenue Sharing grant from the Board. Their view was that there was no one
single agency knowledgeable about the total amount of taxpayer dollars that
were going to fuel the social action organization in Orange County.
Their area of concern was housing because of the number of housing related law-
suits which had been brought against City and Water District officials in the
County. The Legal Aid Society in one form or another had been involved in
81R-269
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 24, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Housing Element lawsuits involving the Cities of Irvine, Newport Beach, San
Clemente, Laguna Beach and against other South County Water Districts. Their
concerns as housing producers were that they were-dealing with the already
difficult situation of trying to strike a balance between the housing needs
of Orange County housing consumers and the fragile alliance that existed to
get things done in the local governments of California.
The Legal Aid Society stated that their organization was representing those
less fortunate persons in society and they (BIA) had no quarrel with some
level of legal funding being provided to provide for personal civil indigent
service. However, based on their suits against other taxpayers or elected
officials who were working very earnestly to provide for housing, they felt
the matter was totally out of control. The Legal Services Corporation receives
a $75 million appropriation as recently as 1975. That quasi-government
corporation's request for funds this year was $400 million, and it was already
funding 7,000 lawyers across the country in 350 legal vigilante programs. Many
of them were well intended to provide for personal legal services for the poor
and less fortunate members of society, but a good many, they felt, were out of
control and directed more to subverting the legislative process than in dealing
with obtaining specific rights for people. Mr. Bettencourt then read a letter
on the subject from Councilman David Sills, an attorney in the City of Irvine,
to the Board of Supervisors about the predicament in the County.
Their concern as an association and as housing producers was that they not
face at every turn groups that were subsidized at taxpayers' expense with their
own agenda who were not responsible to any elected officials or for their source
of funding. Further they obviously did not agree that one group of taxpayers
ought to be subsidized to sue another group of taxpayers which was the situation
in the County, particularly in the program for the provision of indigent legal
services which was never subject to a request for proposals to provide those
services.
They were asking for the City officals of the County to join with them in trying
to determine where all the money was coming from and where it was going to. They
were not suggesting that personal legal services to indigents did not have a
place in the government system and they supported that, but they did not support
the extent to which the reckless housing lawsuits had been filed. They were out
of control.
Councilman Roth asked for clarification if what they were really concerned about
was that the class action lawsuit had an effect on reversing local control,
meaning the local elected officials and local government action.
Mr. Bettencourt answered "yes", not only that, but also indirectly and very
specifically that situation was adding to the cost of the housing. Irvine
City officials reported that in the six years that they had now been facing
an endless stream of such lawsuits, they had expended $413,000 in direct tax-
payer funds, plus 288 hours of staff time, and another $30,000 seeking legisla-
tive solutions.
Councilman Bay asked if other cities had joined with BIA on their specific
resolution to date; Mr. Bettencourt answered that he felt the wording of the
resolution was more sulfurous and fit their own circumstances where they had
81R-270
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 24~ 1981, 1:30 P.M.
been faced with tax subsidized attorneys in every City Council Chambers they had
been in. To the best of his knowledge, only the City of Orange had dealt with
a specific resolution or comparable remolution which had gone to the Board of
Supervisors. He would not imply, however, that the text of that resolution was
in keeping with what ought to be the concerns of City officials.
Councilman Bay asked for confirmation that their specific interest was not the
general purposes of the Legal Aid Society, but that purpose related to class
action suits against public entities, particularly those centered around housing.
Mr. Bettencourt answered it was particularly that around housing and there was
no quarrel with the fact that legal aid and some level of public support for
local services to provide for personal indigent counsel were necessary. That
was in the public interest.
Councilman Bay stated he also wanted to assure that they were not assuming that
a public entity should never be sued; Mr. Bettencourt stated he did not make
that assumption.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated they had information indicating that the Legal Aid
Society's financial records were audited by a national firm of certified public
accountants and those records were available for inspection. She asked if he
felt that a duplication of that process was in order.
Mr. Bettencourt answered, to the extent for which dollars were taken in for
one purpose in use for another. Legal aid was funded from five different
sources including private contributions. What was done with the funds from
private contributions was not their affair.
Mr. Robert Cohen, Executive Director of the Legal Aid Society of Orange County,
first stated that with him today was Crystal Sims, their housing attorney who
might be able to address Mr. Bettencourt's allegations regarding whether the
housing related lawsuits were frivilous and irresponsible. Also, there were
a number of groups present including the Fair Housing Council, Lutheran Social
Services, Interfaith Housing Association, League of Women Voters and a number
of other organizations who wanted an opportunity to address the issue.
Regarding how secret were their books, etc., and were their service records
open for inspection, the answer was "yes" and they would be glad to make those
available to any agency who would like to see them or any citizen. He and his
Board viewed the funds they received as a public trust for many reasons, the
primary one being they could not meet the entire legal need of the indigents
of Orange County. They were in a position to meet about 20% of the need and
that was a high figure.
Mr. Bettencourt made allegations concerning their housing lawsuits and his
resolution referred to their contract as a gift. He wanted to assure the Council
~t was not a gift of public funds but indeed a contract to provide outreach ser-
vices in four offices--Anaheim, Westminster, Huntington Beach and Placentia.
To try to provide the Council with an idea as to where the money went and what
complaints their clients had made, he prepared an analysis of their service sta-
tistics--(~e thereupon submitted to the Council 14 pages of data, the first six
81R-271
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 24, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
pages showing distribution of legal problems among cases handled for Legal Ser-
vices clients--data based on 1980 statistics--(1) Outreach Overall, (2) Anaheim,
(3) Huntington Beach, (4) Placentia, (5) Santa Ana, (6) Westminster--the next
six pages--Distribution of Cases Opened--data based on 1980 statistics--for the
six foregoing entities, and the last two pages--Profile of Legal Aid Client and
Overall Service Level for 1980 By Major Funding Source--on file in the City
Clerk's office).
Mr. Cohen then briefed the Council relative to the data contained on the last
page--Overall Service Level for 1980 By Major Funding Source, as well as Page
2 showing the Distribution of Legal Problems Among Cases Handled For Legal
Services Clients in Anaheim, and Page 13, Profile of Legal Aid Client.
Relative to Mr. Bettencourt's area of concern, he was going to have Ms. Sims
address the issue on what their housing lawsuits were about. However, out
of the 8,500 suits, Mr. Bettencourt could be talking about at most nine and
those suits, with one exception, were brought against South Orange County
Cities for one reason--to try to get them to accept their fair share of low
and moderate housing for their client's group. The beneficiaries of those
types of suits were not only their cleints, but also middle-income groups, for
example, a family of four with an income of $27,000 could potentially benefit
from their action. In one way, he could see their concern, i.e., taxpayer
money being used to sue taxpayers, but taxpayer money had always been used to
sue taxpayers and that was how the criminal justice and civil justice system
worked. It was an adversary system and not an inquiry system. One of the
driving forces in the nine matters which made them pursue an approach where
one lawsuit potentially could affect a whole group of people was the cost
effectiveness argument. It was purely a management argument and had nothing
to do with radical politics at all. Everyone referred to what they were doing
as class actions, but, in fact, they had never filed a class action in the
housing area.
Councilman Bay asked for confirmation that none of the nine lawsuits Mr. Cohen
was speaking of were class actions; Mr. Cohen answered "no".
Mr. Cohen stated the matter he found outstanding was that even if Mr. Bettencourt
felt that the nine lawsuits were the worse thing that Legal Aid had ever done,
he questioned, why attack the Outreach Program. Not only did that program have
nothing to do with the nine lawsuits or funding of them, but also the Revenue
Sharing Program actually drew Federal funds away from their ability to file
those kinds of suits into the individual service action. That Federal money
was used to match the Outreach Program. None of that money had ever been used
for the kinds of actions Mr. Bettencourt was complaining about to sue cities
but used for personal ~ndividual advocacy that even he (Bettencourt) did not
have a problem with. Even if the City wanted to take a supportive position
of Mr. Bettencourt, the focus was wrong--they would end up closing down the
Anaheim office and the other Outreach Offices. The victims would not be the
Legal A~d Society, but the 3,500 people who needed their services and could
not get them because the County appropriation was not available.
In concluding, Mr. Cohen stated with their Legal Services Corporation money,
the money that might legitimately be the subject of Mr. Bettencourt's complaint,
they followed a prioritizing process and did merely independently determine what
81R-272
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 24~ 1981, 1:30 P.M.
to do with that money. Following a survey of their client community in 1977,
they developed a work plan pursuant to the survey and one of the areas of high-
est need was housing. He felt it would be a tragedy if their County funds were
lost because of the situation, and he felt it was very likely that they would
be. He reiterated, the victims would be innocent people who needed their ser-
vice. They would again this year be conducting public hearings to determine
what their priorities should be. Pursuant to those public hearings, they would
then formulate a new work plan. He was not present to guarantee that housing
would not be a part of that work plan since it remained a high priority of their
client community, as well as of the Legal Aid Society. He was present to in-
form the Council that they would be happy to sit down and work out an agreeable
method of proceeding whereby it would be clear to everyone that litigation was
in fact, a last resort and they would do everything possible to avoid litigating.
What they would not do was ignore the rights of their client community. If they
were asked to do that, the answer would be no. If they were asked to compromise
and work out some other mechanism, they would work with the Council in doing
that. The allegations brought before them were frivilous and irresponsible
and basically affected Ms. Sims' work more than anyone at the Legal Aid Society
and she deserved an opportunity to respond.
Ms. Crystal Sims, Staff Attorney at the Legal Aid Society, stated that the BIA
had characterized their lawsuits as frivilous and irresponsible. They were
neither, and to characterize them as such was to deny that there was a housing
crisis in the County affecting almost everyone. Housing was no longer a poor
people's issue. Unfortunately, their clients were victimized by the housing
crisis more than any other groups. She thereupon gave examples to illustrate
her point. She then continued that the purpose of the lawsuits was to cause
local governments to comply with the law and to remedy a situation which was
in large measure to be blamed on local government. She did not think that the
BIA would dispute that a substantial percentage of housing costs was attribu-
table to government regulation in the form of fees and dedication requirements,
the length of the approval process and the zoning practices. The lawsuits had
been brought against cities which had been totally irresponsible in meeting
housing needs for low and moderate income people, constituting two-thirds of
the people in the County. Attorney General Deukmejian did not consider their
lawsuits frivilous and irresponsible. The Attorney General, representing the
State Department of Housing and Urban Development, had joined in their law-
suit against the City of Newport Beach and filed a cross-complaint.
Mr. Betten¢ourt made the statement that no affordable housing had been produced
in the County. She believed ~hat was an untrue statement. The suit against the
County of Orange was dismissed when the County adopted an Inclusionary Housing
Program. If they checked with people at the Environmental Management Agency,
they could get an accurate count of exactly how many affordable units had been
built. She contended that the refusal of cities in Southern Orange County to
meet housing needs only worsened the situation in Anaheim and placed a dispro-
portionate burden on the City and other communities. Many developers were very
supportive of the litigation and agreed with their contention that cities had
not been responsive to low and moderate income housing needs. She felt that
the issue was not whether the suits we=e irresponsible or frivilous or the
issue of local control, but access to justice and whether poor people should
81R-273
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 24, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
have the opportunity to use the courts to protect their legal rights to insure
compliance with the law.
Following the foregoing presentation, discussion and questioning of Ms. Sims
and Mr. Cohen followed by Council Members relative to specifics of some of the
nine lawsuits brought against Southern Orange County cities.
Mayor Seymour then asked, if the suits alleged a violation of State law and
the Attorney General's office had seen fit to join in one of them, why they
had not appealed to that office to enforce the State law and why had the Legal
Aid Society become involved in those lawsuits supported by taxpayer dollars.
Ms. Sims answered that the Attorney General's office was involved in two other
lawsuits they had brought. However, his office obviously did not have the
staff to bring lawsuits. The Attorney General was obligated by law to repre-
sent all of the people of California and the Legal Aid Society represented only
a very narrow income segment. She frequently had been in contact with the
Attorney General's office and the indication to her was that they did not have
the resources.
The Mayor asked what segment of the budget was devoted to financing the law-
suits under discussion; Mr. Cohen answered that the money came from the Legal
Services Corporation, but of the $800,000 involved, they were perhaps talking
about only 6% or 7% of that money.
Councilman Overholt asked Mr. Cohen if his organization became involved in any
criminal defense for prosecution; Mr. Cohen answered "none." He also confirmed
that they did not receive any money from the Orange County Bar Association.
They had, however, entered into an agreement with them to share income from
their referral services. They would be getting a certain percentage of their
income from the various referrals which would not be a significant amount,
perhaps $20,000. He then answered additional questions posed by Councilman
Overholt relative to the technicalities of the structure of the Legal Aid
Society and the funding sources.
Mayor Seymour then posed an additional line of questioning to Mr. Cohen and
Ms. Sills which, in part, revolved around the budget for each of the Legal Aid
Society's programs.
Councilman Bay then referred to the Roos Bill, AB2853, and stated that he
thought that bill made the decision on whether the housing guidelines were
binding or advisory. A summary of the bill stated that cities must have
Housing Element Plans by October 1, 1981. He was trying to understand how
lawsuits were filed over cities not having Housing Element Plans back in 1969
when, to his knowledge, the Roos Bill finally cleared up what the deadline was
for Housing Element Plans to be adopted by the City.
Ms. Sims explained when cities had been required to have a Housing Element Plan
since 1969. The State Department of Housing and Community Development initially
adopted Housing Elment guidelines in 1971 which were amended in 1977 and the
issue of advisory vs. mandatory had continued since that.
81R-274
City Hall~ Anahei. m~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 24, 198l, 1:30 P.M.
Myah Dunn, representing the Orange County Fair Housing Council under the direction
of the Board, stated in addition to housing counseling services, they were also
working to expand the supply of affordable housing throughout Orange County.
In both of those activities, they had worked with the Orange County Legal Aid
Society and found them to be very constructive, competent and responsible. She
wanted to comment on the resolution which Mr. Bettencourt requested Anaheim
adopt. In particular, they had information which they hoped would help the
Council evaluate whether or not the legal actions referred to in Mr. Bettencourt's
resolution were as stated, frivolous and irresponsible. She thereupon submitted
a sheet entitled--Comparative Responses To Housing Needs (on file in the City
Clerk's office). She explained that three of the referenced suits were against
Newport Beach, Laguna Beach and San Clemente. She then briefed the Council
on the sheet submitted, noting that in Anaheim over 2,000 units had been pro-
vided to provide for low and moderate income needs, whereas none of the other
three cities had yet provided even 100 units, with Newport Beach having pro-
vided only 11. The last column on the sheet verified that Anaheim had been
carrying its share of the low/moderate income housing needs. It meant that
when such cities as Newport Beach, Laguna Beach and San Clemente were allowed
to "free-load" with regard to the provisions of affordable housing for their
lower income workers, other cities in North Orange County, like Anaheim, must
assume the extra burden to provide such housing. The Orange County Fair Housing
Council believed that Anaheim should be applauding and not condemning the Orange
County Legal Aid Society for taking actions necessary to spur South County cities
to assume their fair share of the housing needs of lower income County workers.
They, therefore, recommended that Council reject Mr. Bettencourt's resolution.
Mrs. Mary Miller stated she represented the Orange County League of Women Voters
and the Central Orange County Local League which included the City of Anaheim.
The State Housing Element guidelines were designed partly to make good neighbors
of the different cities and counties sharing a region. SCAG's fair share housing
allocation model had a similar goal. The Federal Housing Community Development
Block Grant program required the preparation of housing assistance plans that
determined how the recipient cities and counties would accommodate the housing
needs of present and future workers and residents within their own borders.
The common thread running through all housing legislation of that type was the
concept of fair share. Cities that did not accept that concept and those that
attempted to side-step the responsibility to provide equal opportunity for all
economic segments of the population put an unfair burden on neighboring cities.
Anaheim had more existing affordable units than cities like Newport Beach or
Irvine, and it also had a vigorous Housing and Community Development Act pro-
gram. Anaheim was doing its fair share and more. Anaheim need not be defen-
sive about lawsuits against cities that did not comply with the law.
At the conclusion of discussion as a result of questions posed to Mrs. Miller
by the Council, she clarified the reason she was present today was to possibly
reinforce their knowledge that Legal Aid's action with respect to the other
cities was not a threat to Anaheim now or in the future unless they planned to
purposely break the law. Legal Aid was simply trying to get cities to accept
their fair share in the region and in the County and as sister cities. She
was supportive to the housing actions because it involved the law of the land.
81R-275
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 24, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. William Spear, member of the Orange County Housing Coalition and Interfaith
Housing Association, stated that the Legal Aid people worked with the Orange
County Housing Coalition in 1978 when the plan was prepared for submission to
the County for some of the initial work which resulted in the production of a
certain amount of affordable housing within the County. As a result of that
work, something in excess of 3,000 affordable units had been provided within
Orange County. Anaheim had a fair number of those units and his organization
had been very happy with the way Anaheim had progressed in that area. They
were a housing group concerned primarily with providing affordable housing for
people who needed it and in communities that were heavily industrial. Those
communities must have the people of the economic stature to work in those
areas or the entire economy of the area could diminish from lack of such. They
were asking the Council's support in continuing to help with the Legal Aid
work which had been very profitable and beneficial with respect to the housing
problems of the County.
In summation, Mr. Bettencourt stated he would like to return to the fundamental
issue they tried to address, not whether the advocacy of expanded housing oppor-
tunities was a just topic, because it was. The majority of those organizations
present had a tax subsidy of one form or another to carry on their operation
which was the essence of their issue and the one which they tried to raise.
The very disturbing thread running through the advocacy of legitimacy of the
right about what they were doing, they were saying it was in Anaheim's best
?nterest to see the rest of the cities' governments in the Fifth District sued
and that it was okey to do it with taxpayers' money because the law was being
enforced. One could imagine the many issues in which the tables could be turned,
i.e., those cities along the coast could decide that the inland cities were not
doing their fair share for recreational opportunities and, therefore, they ought
to be sued because they were not fulfilling their responsibilities. That was
just the situation they had come to. It was a group now that had grown to over
$1 million in taxpayers' funds, and they had the thinest kind of thread to their
clientele so far as the lawsuits were concerned--they involved people who lived
outside the County, there were interlocking groups, cross funds and mysterious
web of public dollars that came together to sue other groups of taxpayers to
accomplish what they (BIA) regarded as legislative determination.
The lawsuits did not deal with specific entitlements but dealt with an attempt
to remove the governing of local affairs from the City Council Chambers and
place it into the courtroom or at least to intimidate the elected public
officials so that they softened up, which was what happened in the case of
the County's Inclusionary Housing Program. He did not think that the passions
expressed in their resolution were necessarily fit for other city officials
to adopt, However, if they shared the concern that they were seeing a poli-
tical action group subsidized with taxpayers funds blossoming in the County
with no elected officials involved, and if the Orange County Board of Supervisors
supported the Legal Services Corporation helping to fund it, they ought to be
concerned. He contended that was exactly what was happening, and if they could
remove housing policy from legislative determinations and place it in the court-
room, there was a wide open range of public issues that would leave the control
of elected officials to instead be run by the attorney~. It was not healthy
for a democracy.
81R-276
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 24, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
After som concluding remmrks, the Mayor stated what was really heard today was--
"what price do we as a society pay in tax dollars to achieve affordable housing?
Do we use tax dollars to sue the taxpayers to achieve a social benefit called
affordable housing?" He would hope that the matter had not deteriorated to
that point. He had championed the cause of affordable housing and to that end,
he could support the principles and thoughts of those who had appeared before
the Council today. On the other hand, in becoming so frustrated in the attempt
to achieve that worthwhile goal, thereby rationalizing and justifying the use
of taxpayers' dollars to that end of using one tax subsidized agency to sue an-
other tax subsidized agency, they had gone much too far. As much as he would
support, had supported and would continue to support the cause for affordable
housing, he felt it was totally wrong if they prostituted the objective, as well
as to pit one community against another. That was no way to solve the long-
term problem. He saw no justification whatever for the Council to encourage
proliferation of that type of activity. If the Attorney General's office was
not sufficient to handle lawsuits of that nature, then the taxpayer of California
should decide to give the Attorney General's office more tax dollars rather than
indirectly and unknowingly create a number of mini Attorney Generals offices.
Relative to the BIA resolution, he too felt that it was "sulfuric" and perhaps
Mr. Bettencourt in him frustration was lashing out, but otherwise he would have
to agree totally with that portion of the resolution stating it was wrong to
utilize taxpayers' dollars in that case. If the Council was prepared to support
such a resolution, he would be proud not only to offer it but also to carry it
to the Orange County Board of Supervisors because he clearly believed that
activity was wrong.
Councilman Overholt stated, looking beyond the sulfuric language, he felt
that the services the Legal Aid Society provided to the County to the indigent
sector of the population was well known and he did not think even the Mayor
would suggest that that service be discontinued. They had received a letter
dated February 23, 1981 from Mr. Art Gray, a distinguished attorney in the City,
who was also a member of the Board of Directors of the Legal Aid Society and
he spoke very highly of the work being done by the Society in the area of
family law and other cases they handled. He (Overholt) felt the Mayor's con-
cern was that the Legal Aid Society in the conspiracy with other similar pub-
licly funded public agencies was becoming a political action coalition and
as he tried to clear with Ms. Sims, looking for an issue and then generating
the clientele to justify the filing of a suit on the issue. If that was what
the Legal Aid Society was doing, he was opposed to that. He for one would be
very hesitant to support a resolution that would slap the "knuckles" of an
agency providing legal services to people who could not otherwise afford those
services. He would encourage better communication between the Legal Aid Society
and BIA--Mr. Bettencourt.
He continued that it seemed that the Mayor's quarrel was not with what the Legal
Aid Society was doing, but what the direction they were receiving from the Federal
Legal Services Corporation who saw fit to put $800,000 a year into a program, some
of which was mandated to be used in so-called "impact suits". Mr. Cohen could not
give him a definition of "impact suits", but his (Overholt's) definition was one
that indeed constituted political or social action. Bodies such as Legal Aid or
some of the other organizations when banding together did impose a threat to a
public agency and did intimidate the public agency because litigation was very
81R-277
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 24, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
expensive to defend against. He felt the criticism was not of the work that
Mr. Cohen and his people were doing, but of the dictates coming down from the
Federal Legal Services Corporation and getting into the local scene.
He was not prepared to support the resolution as proposed, but would support a
resolution that would criticize that Federal agency, whatever it may be, which
placed conditions on the money that presumably was used to fund the Society in
the County which was to help the poor and indigent.
Councilman Bay stated he saw the issue as a perfect example of making many people
aware of the fact that where they thought they had some local control, they had
none. It was an eye opener to them within their parochial area to find out that
they might be dreaming when they thought they had anything to say about local
government. He personally felt that Mr. Bettencourt's resolution was a cry out
against just that, because he suddenly, along with the rest of them, had come
to the realization that was happening, and it was becoming a reality more and
more everyday.
Mayor Seymour stated in order to bring the matter to a conclusion, he would
try to offer a resolution to be sent to the Orange County Board of Supervisors
that in essence would state that the City of Anaheim opposed the funding of the
Legal Aid Society or any other organization using tax dollars controlled by the
County or City of Anaheim for litigious actions against another city or county.
Councilman Overholt stated he would oppose such a resolution. Tax dollars were
used to finance litigation between agencies--i.e., the Public Defender was on
one side of an issue and the District Attorney was on another which involved
tax dollars. He felt that the Mayor's proposed resolution was too broad.
Mayor Seymour stated, if there was appropriate action from the District
Attorney's office and the Attorney General's office, his resolution had
nothing to do with that. It had to do with funding non-profit organizations
with tax dollars to use those tax dollars to sue the very taxing agencies
through which they were funded.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that the resolution would wipe out all of the funds
that the Legal Aid Society received from County Revenue Sharing involving all of
the people that they helped in the various areas as previously mentioned.
Mayor Seymour stated it would wipe out none of those unless its Board of Directors
were so narrowly minded as to see fit to take the same tax dollars that the City
or the County of Orange were appropriating to them and in return level those
same tax dollars with a "gun to the head" approach of the very agencies they
were allegedly serving.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that Councilman Overholt had hit the heart of the
problem. If the mandate was coming to them from another Federal agency, that
was a problem and they could register their disagreement with that kind of
thing. The Mayor was saying he wanted to punish the Legal Aid Society for
carryi~ng out that mandate.
The Mayor disagreed and stated that all their Board of Directors would have
to say was that they were not going to spend the 8% to 9% of the monies given
to them in the form of mandate by the Legal Services Corporation.
81R-278
City Hall, Anah~im~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 24, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted it was $20,000 out of $800,000; the Mayor stated all
they would have to do was say that they were not going to use that money to sue
cities and counties. If they were willing to say that, he felt they ought to
support their activities vigorously and support continuation of taxpayer dollars
to subsidize that activity.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated if using the $20,000 meant that they would not
receive the $800,000, it was unreasonable to expect that they would take on
that fight themselves. It seemed to her if this was something the cities
found uncomfortable or intolerable, that kind of a message was one that should
be relayed.
Councilman Overholt asked if they could not form a resolution that would
register a position of opposition to mandating it expenditure of funds by the
Legal Aid Society for so-called "impact suits" and specifically to criticize
that type of mandate as attached to the funds that came from the so-called
Federal Legal Services Corporation.
Mayor Seymour answered that he would support that type of resolution if he
would, in turn, support a resolution or embody in the same resolution that in
the event they were unwilling to withdraw that mandate, in the next budget year
they adopt his (Seymour's) resolution and take it to the Board of Supervisors.
Councilman Overholt's portion of the resolution would be that they register
their strong objection to that type of mandate requiring the Legal Aid Society
or non-profit corporations subsidized by tax dollars to take litigious actions
against other public agencies.
Councilman Overholt stated he would go along with the proposal, but wanted to
explain his position. In the event a client went to Legal Aid and did have a
justiciable case and a municipality happened to be the target defendant in that
case, he felt that Legal Aid was duty bound in their general budget, if their
client qualified, to represent that client. He asked the Mayor, in a situation
such as that, would he be concerned about it as long as a certain portion of
the budget was mandated as being spent on that type of suit.
Mayor Seymour clarified the crux of his whole position was that when they, as
a taxing agency, or the County doled out tax dollars, that those tax dollars
were not used by the organizations receiving them to sue those taxing agencies--
that was the bottom line.
Further discussion and debate followed between Councilman Overholt and Mayor
Seymour at the conclusion of which, Councilman Overholt stated if he (Seymour)
would join in his resolution criticizing the direction that a certain sum of
money was to be spent by the Legal Aid Society in a given budget for "impact
suits", he (~Overholt) would, in turn, join the .Mayor in saying if that mandate
continued by the Federal Legal Services Corporation, that in the next budget
year they encourage the Orange County Board of Supervisors not to contribute
to the Legal Aid Program. His interest was in getting the "Feds" to give a
budget to the agency without strings attached to meet the needs of the indigents
living in the County. He could not restrict the Society in representing an
indigent who may have a cause of action against a City, County or some other
agency in the County.
81R-279
Cit%. Hall~ Ana.heim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 24~ 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour suggested that the resolution be phrased along the following lines:
(1) criticize the mandating of social impact suits; and (2) in the event that
mandate is not removed by the next fiscal budget, that they call upon the Board
of Supervisors to eliminate funding.
Councilman Overholt stated he would join in that.
Councilman Bay expressed the opinion that the subject they were dealing with took
a great deal more thought than trying to come up with a resolution at this meeting.
He was concerned with many of the basic problems involved, but he was not ready
to join in a resolution made up as they went along.
Councilman Bay stated he would personally move to continue any action on the
subject for at least two weeks so that each Council Member could have the
opportunity to digest what they heard today and then to decide if they wanted
to propose a specific resolution.
Before any action was taken, Councilman Bay continued that the proposed resolu-
tion today assumed that if the mandate relative to the $20,000 were removed,
the Legal Aid Society would no longer file any impact suits. He was not con-
vinced of that.
The Mayor suggested that the resolution be drawn including the items that he
and Councilman Overholt discussed and subsequently that resolution be sub-
mitted to the Council for consideration, possibly amendment, and action.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved that a resolution be drawn by staff along
the lines articulated and that it be submitted to the Council for subsequent
action in two weeks. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 15 minutes. (4:15 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (4:30 P.M.)
PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 80-81-21~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2614,
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11364 ~MD NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application by Ephriam Beard,
et al, for a change in zone from CL to RM-3000, to permit an 81-lot, 80-unit
condominium subdivision (25% affordable) on property located at 1241 South Beach
Boulevard, with the following Code waivers:
a. required lot frontage
b. minimum lot area per dwelling unit
c. maximum lot coverage
d. minimum landscaped setback
e. m~nimum number and type of parking spaces
The Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-4, declared that the
subject project be exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental
impact report pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act since there would be no significant individual or cumulative adverse
environmental ~mpact due to this project and further granted Reclassification
No. 80-81-21, subject to the following conditions:
'\
81R-280
City Hall~ Ana~eim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 24, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
1. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans
on file with the Office of the Director of Public Works.
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 subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
4. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory
to the City Engineer.
5. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the
appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees, as determined to be appropriate by
the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building permit is issued.
6. That completion of these reclassification proceedings is contingent upon
the granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 2164.
7. That an ordinance rezoning the subject property shall in no event become
effective except upon or following the recordation of Final Tract Map No. 11364
within the time specified in Government Code Section 66463.5 or such further
time as the advisory agency or City Council may grant.
8. That appropriate water assessment fees, as determined by the Director of
Public Utilities, shall be paid to the City of Anaheim prior to the issuance of
a building permit.
~. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay the traffic signal assess-
ment fee in (Ordinance No. 3896) in an amount as determined by the City Council,
for each new dwelling unit prior to the issuance of a building permit.
10. The seller shall provide the purchaser of each condominium unit with written
information concerning Anaheim Municipal Code 14.32.500 pertaining to "parking
restricted to facilitate street sweeping". Such written information will clearly
indicate when on-street parking is prohibited and the penalty for violation.
11. That the owner(s) of subject property shall submit a letter requesting the
termination of Variance No. 2001 and Conditional Use Permit No. 51 to the Planning
Department.
12. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1
through 7.
13. Prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject property Condition
No. 6, 7 and 11, above-mentioned, shall be completed. The provisions or rights
granted by this resolution shall become null and void by action of the Planning
Commission unless said conditions are complied with within one year from the
date hereof, or such further time as the Planning Commission may grant.
14. That Condition Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 12, above-mentioned shall be complied with
prior to final building and zoning inspections.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-5, granted Con-
ditional Use Permit No, 2164, in part, subject to the following conditions:
1. That this Conditonal Use Permit is granted subject to the completion of
Reclassification No. 80-81-21, now pending.
2. That a 6-foot high masonry wall shall be constructed along the north,
west and south property lines.
3. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos.
1 through 7.
81R-281
~ity Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 24, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
4. That Condition Nos. 2 and 3, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior
to final building and zoning inspections.
5. That prior to approval of the final map of Tract No. 11364, the developer
shall enter into an agreement with the City of Anaheim pursuant to Government
Code 65915 which agreement shall be recorded concurrently with or prior to the
approval of the Final Map and which shall provide that 25% of the units shall
be sold as low or moderate income housing as defined in Government Code 65915
and with appropriate resale controls as approved by the City of Anaheim.
6. That in accordance with Council Policy No. 542, "Sound Attenuation in
Residential Projects", sound attenuation measures shall be provided for all
dwelling units located within 600 feet of Beach Boulevard unless otherwise
approved by the City Council.
The City Planning Commission found that the proposed subdivision, together with
its design and improvements, was consistent with the City of Anaheim General
Plan and approved Tentative ~p of Tract No. 1364, subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 11364 is granted subject
to the approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2164.
2. That should this subdivison be developed as more than one subdivision, each
subdivison thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval.
3. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
4. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfac-
tory to the City Engineer.
5. That the owner of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the
appropriate park and recration in-lieu fees as determined to be appropriate
by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building permit is
issued.
6. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans
on file with the Office of the Executive Director of Public Works.
7. That street names shall be approved by the City Planning Department prior
to approval of a final tract map.
8. That appropriate water assessment fees as determined by the Office of Utilities
General Manager shall be paid to the City of Anaheim prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
9. That all private streets shall be developed in accordance with the City of
Anaheim's Standard Detail No. 122 for private streets, including installation
of Street Name signs. Plans for the private street lighting, as required by the
standard detail, shall be submitted to the Building Division for approval and
i-nclusion with the building plans prior to the issuance of building permits.
(private streets are those which provide primary access and/or circulation within
the project.)
10. That the owner(.s) of subject property shall pay the traffic signal assessment
fee (prdinance No. 3896) in an amount as determined by the City Council, for each
new dwelling unit prior to the issuance of a building permit.
11. The seller shall provide the purchaser of each condominium unit with written
information concerning Anaheim Municipal Code 14.32.500 pertaining to "parking
restricted to facil±tate street sweeping". Such written information will clearly
indicate when on-street parking is prohibited and the penalty for violation.
I2. That the on-site sanitary sewers shall be privately owned and maintained
81R-282
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 24~ 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
by the homeowners association.
13. If permanent street name signs have not been installed, temporary street
name signs shall be installed prior to any occupancy.
14. That the developer shall enter into an agreement with the City of Anaheim
pursuant to Government Code 65915 which agreement shall be recorded concurrently
with or prior to the approval of the Final Map and which shall provide that 25%
of the units shall be sold as low or moderate income housing as defined in
Government Code 65915 and with appropriate resale controls as approved by the
City of Anaheim.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman
Kaywood at the meeting of February 3, 1981, and public hearing scheduled this
date.
Miss Santalahti described the location and surrounding land uses. She outlined
the findings given in the staff report which was submitted to and considered by
the C~ty Planning Commission.
Councilman Bay asked the density bonus on the subject project; Miss Santalahti
answered 25%. She then clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood that the staff report
was, in fact, incorrect where a 35% density bonus was indicated and that should
be changed to 25% in each instance where it was indicated.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous
of being heard.
Mr. Johnathan Webb, agent for the applicant, 227 South Schaeffer in Orange, also
representing the developers of the project, Forest City Dillon, stated he was
present to answer any questions.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked how they selected the very definitely commercial pro-
perty on an 8-lane divided arterial highway for a housing project.
Mr. Webb explained that the bulk of the property surrounding the subject property,
while there was commercial frontage along Beach Boulevard, the majority of the
uses were resident±al.
Councilwoman Kay-wood stated her main concern was in their having chosen such a
speedy and noisy area. It was in no way a mostly residential.
Mr. Webb pointed out that the project was going to be approved by FHA under
their 203B Program, a single-family program, and the site had been approved
by them as suitable for residential use. They would be enclosing it and
blocking off all of it to City and FHA standards to eliminate the distractions
of the highway. The site was very close to Ball Road where there were direc-
tional signals for left-turn and other movements. He thereupon asked his
partner in the development if he had something to add.
Mr. David Cornish, 15940 Aliconi Road, La Mirada, Civil Engineer and partner
with Forest City Dillon in the development, explained that their exposure to
Beach Boulevard was only 330 feet. The site extended 660 feet back from Beach
Boulevard and was surrounded on two sides by a well established mobilehome park.
81R-283
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 24, 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
The architect had 20 years experience in doing HUD/FHA projects and they were
very strict relative to site approval. He designed the project in such a way
so that there were only three units actually fronting on Beach Boulevard and
those were being built incorporating sound attenuation measures, such as concrete
block with no windows facing on them in order to avoid any problems with sound.
They had also done very extensive sound studies for FHA to satisfy them on the
same point Councilwoman Kaywood raised. To address the problem of the traffic,
there were two access points on Beach Boulevard and those were according to the
recommendations of the City's Traffic Department.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the egress from the project would be a right turn
only.
Mr. Cornish answered that was correct although there was a break in the median
strip approximately one-half block south.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that was true if someone wanted to take their life
in their hands because it was necessary to cross four lanes to get to that
break within one-half block.
Before concluding, Mr. Cornish noted that the project was completely solar
heated, as well as solar hot water heating, and he felt that was very impor-
tant on an affordable housing program.
Mr. John Fisher, architect, 11536 Ventura Boulevard, Studio City, then presented
three slides showing the design, layout and elevation of the project on which he
elaborated.
At the conclusion of his presentation, Mayor Seymour asked if there was a deceler-
ation lane on Beach Boulevard to be used to turn into the project, noting that
it was a concern of Councilwoman Kaywood's.
Mr. Fisher answered "no". The traffic light was only 300 feet to the north and
the speed limit was 35 miles per hour. Traffic stopping for a red light would
going only 20 miles per hour when reaching the point of ingress into the pro~ect.
He pointed out, as did Mr. Cornish, that the two access points onto Beach Boulevard
were recommended by the Traffic Department, and they were not that way when they
started the project. Both would be used for ingress and egress.
Councilman Roth commented that no agency was more stringent in their requirements
than FHA and they had approved the site.
Mr. Fisher also confirmed for the Mayor that they had met every sound require-
ment and FHA requirement.
There being no further persons who wished to speak in opposition to the project,
the Mayor closed the public hearing.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she was very concerned relative to the area. The
project looked very nice. The parking was at 2.5 or a 29% deviation. She was
not going to be able to support the project even though she realized she would
be alone in so doing.
Councilman Bay asked the price of the affordable.
81R-284
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 24, 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
Mrs. Lisa Stipkovich, Housing Manager, stated the affordable units ranged'from
$78,750 to $98,900 and the reason why they were affordable was because they
had to be conditioned on the 245 and 245B financing being committed by FHA.
The monthly payments, for instance, on $78,750 worked out to $376 a month for
the first ten years for the lowest end of the affordable. It was a graduated
mortgage payment program. The 245B would hold constant for ten years and the
245 program for five years. They were two different programs with the same
concept where payments graduated as income increased.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if there were resale controls; Mrs. Stipkovich
explained the project did not involve any direct financial contribution and
the resale control mechanism would be up to the Council to set. They had made
a recommendation for a sliding scale resale control mechanism and it would
depend upon the Council's decision when they came in with the developer agree-
ment. They were not required to have 30-year controls on the project because
they were not committing any financial contribution.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked what would happen if somebody bought the housing
and they had to leave in five years; Mrs. Stipkovich answered that she did not
believe FHA had any specific requirements, and it would be up to the Council.
Councilwoman Kaywood then asked what would happen to the monthly payment and
would that remain for the next person or just the original owner.
Mrs. Stipkovich answered if it could be assumed, they would have to meet the
same income requirements.
From the audience, it was indicated that it could be assumed with the same
income restriction and they would have to work through the Housing Department.
Mr. Cornish then clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood that the program would
remain for 10 years under FHA which was the maximum period they kept to on
affordable. At that point, the payment would revert to conventional FHA
financing which was anywhere from 2% to 3% under conventional financing.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if they had built the same type of project on arter-
ial highways i'n the past; Mr. Cornish answered "yes". FHA was difficult to
get through because they were much more stringent than the City, both on their
densi-ty requirements and sound attenuation measures. This project had to be
reviewed by FHA and gain site approval before they could even present it to
the C~ty.
After further discussion between Councilwoman Kmywood and Mr. Cornish, Council-
woman Kaywood stated that she was going to change her mind. The subject project
had enough that was different about it such as the solar heating, the sound
attenuation along Beach Boulevard, the 25% bonus which was required for the 25%
affordable, and the FHA mortgage on the sliding scale which meant that people
would ~e able to have housing who ordinarily would not.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council finds that this project
would have no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact
due to the approval of this negative declaration, since the Anaheim General Plan
designates the subject property for low-medium density residential and general
81R-285
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 24~ 1981, 1:30 P.M.
commercial land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive environ-
mental impacts are involved in the proposal and that the initial study submitted
by the petitioner indicates no significant individual or cumulative adverse en-
vironmental impact and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an
EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 81R-78 for adoption, approving
Reclassification No. 80-81-21 and Resolution No. 81R-79 for adoption, granting
Conditional Use Permit No. 2164, in part, subject to City Planning Commission
conditions and recommendations. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-78: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
ZONING SHOULD BE ~MENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE
CHANGED.
RESOLUTION NO. 8tR-79: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2164, in part.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 81R-78 and 81R-79 duly passed and adopted.
MOTION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt,
the proposed subdivision, Tentative ~Map Tract No. 11364, together with its
design and improvement was found to be consistent with the City's General
Plan, and the City Council approved said Tentative Map Tract, as recommended
by the C~ty Planning Commission. MOTION CARRIED.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2130: Application by City of
Anahei. m, to permit a 157-foot high hotel and accessory uses on CR and PR
zoned property located at the northwest corner of Convention Way and Harbor
Boulevard, with a Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-2, reported
that Environmental Impact Report No. 238 was certified by the City Council
on November 18, 1980 in connection with the hotel lease and the Anaheim City
Planning Commission did review and consider the contents of said report and
finds that the proposed project is within the scope of said Environmental
Impact Report No. 238 and further, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2130,
in part, subject to seven conditions.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilman Bay
at the meeting of February 3, 1981, and public hearing scheduled this date.
City Clerk Linda Roberts announced that a letter dated February 20, 1981 had
been received by the petitioner--Anaheim Hilton Joint Venture--requesting a
continuance of the public hearing to until either March 24 or March 31, 1981.
81R-286
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 24, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour first asked if anyone was present relative to the subject and
wished to be heard; no one was present.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to continue public hearing on Conditional
Use Permit No. 2130 to Tuesday, March 31, 1981, at 3:00 p.m., as requested
by the applicant. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
MINUTES: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the
minutes the adjourned regular meeting of September 2, 1980 and the regular
meeting of December 30, 1980. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Bay moved to waive
the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda, after read-
ing of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to waiver is hereby
given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the title, specific request
is made by a Council Member for the reading of such ordinance or resolution
in regular order. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $1,408,405.79, in accordance
with the 1980-81 Budget, were approved.
160: PURCHASE ORDER FOR THREE-PHASE SECTIONALIZERS: Councilman Roth moved to
authorize the Purhcasing Agent to issue a purchase order without competitive
bids to McGraw-Edison in the amount of $15,516.54, for five three-phase
sectionalizers and mounting hangers, as recommended in memorandum dated
February 18, 1981 from Purchasing Agent Diane Hugart. Councilman Bay
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - LINE POST AND SUSPENSION INSULATORS - BID NO. 3738:
On motion by Councilman Bay, Seconded by Councilman Overholt, the low bid of
General Electric Supply was accepted and purchase authorized in the amount of
$35,816.76, as recommended by the Purchasing Agent in her memorandum dated
February. 18, 1981. MOTION CARRIED.
177/174: SECTION 8 MODERATE REHABILITATION APPLICATION BY THE ANAHEIM HOUSING
AUTHORITY: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to authorize the Mayor to (1) execute a
letter endorsing the Anaheim Housing Authority's application for 67 units of
Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation and finding the application consistent with
the City's Housing Assistance Plan and its Neighborhood Preservation activities
and, (~) to execute a Certification indicating that any relocation payments made
as a result of the Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Program will be funded under
the Community Development Block Grant Program in accordance with Moderate Reha-
bilitation Regulations Section 882.407. as recommended in memorandum dated
February 11, 1981 from Executive Director of Community Development Norm Priest.
Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
123/174: WOMEN'S TRANSITIONAL LIVING CENTER - AGREEMENT TO USE COMMUNITY DEVEL-
OPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to authorize an agreement
with Women's Transitional Living Center, Inc., in the amount of $15,000, for the
acquDsition of a facility for the temporary housing of battered women, to be
funded from 1980/81 Community Development Block Grant funds, as recommended in
memorandum dated February 18, 1981 from the Executive Director of Cow, unity
Development. MOTION CARRIED.
81R-287
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 24, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
150: WELLS FARGO BANK GAME FIELD GRANT PROGR~M TO PURCHASE SENIOR CITIZEN PAR
COURS APPARATUS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood,
the submittal of a grant application was approved in the amount of $3,000 to
Wells Fargo Bank to assist in the purchase of Senior Citizen par cours appartatus
to be installed at Pearson Park, and authorizing the City Manager to execute
said application, as recommended in memorandum dated February 17, 1981 from
Deputy City Manager James Ruth. MOTION CARRIED.
130: MODIFICATION TO CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE: Councilman Roth offered
Resolution No. 81R-80 for adoption, declaring the City Council's intent to
amend Ordinance No. 4087, granting a cable television franchise to Storer
Cable Television, Inc., to incorporate various channel configuration changes
and setting March 24, 1981, 3:00 P.M., as the date and time for public hearing,
as recommended in memorandum dated February 9, 1981 from the City Manager's
office. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-80: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO AMEND ORDINANCE NO. 4087 GRA~TING THE NONEXCLUSIVE
RIGHT, PRIVILEGE AND FRANCHISE TO LAY AND USE LINES, WIRES, COAXIAL CABLE AND
APPURTENANCES FOR TtLANSMITTING, RECEIVING, DISTRIBUTING AND SUPPLYING RADIO,
TELEVISION AND OTHER CABLE COMMUNICATION SERVICES ALONG, ACROSS AND UPON THE
PUBLIC STREETS, WAYS, ALLEYS, AND PLACES WITHIN SAID CITY OF ANAHEIM.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Roth asked how many homes would be on-line
as of this week; Mr. James Armstrong, Assistant to the City Manager, answered
approximately 60, but he would like to have the Systems Ma~nager address the
matter more specifically.
Mr. Wayne R. Houser, Resident Manager, Storer Cable TV, reported that as of
this time, 64 residents were subscribers to the service. By April i, 1981
they felt they would have their construction completed in Phase 1, and service
would be available to all the residents east of the 57 Freeway.
Councilman Roth then referred to the complaint calls he had received in the
last few days relative to the installation of the small box on the parkway
which was required in order to receive the service. The complaints indica-
ted that someone from Storer stated the boxes could have been underground,
but the City Council did not want to spend the money to do so. He asked Mr.
Houser if the could respond.
Mr. Houser first explained that they had taken steps to communicate with the
residents by sending them a letter describing the low profile box about which
Councilman Roth was speaking. Attached to the letter was a picture of the box
and the correspondence relayed the fact that the box was necessary and they
were entitled to put it in the public easement. It was the least offensive box
they could find. He felt they had been 95% successful in communicating with
the people ahead of time. The only boxes they indicated they would move were
those which might be a hazard. Overall they had been successful, but calls had
been received and they tried to respond to those promptly and efficiently. No
representatives of Storer would have stated it was the Council's fault that the
boxes were not being installed underground.
81R-288
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 24, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-80 duly passed and adopted.
105: RESIGNATION OF RON WALTZ FROM THE PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE:
On motion by
Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the resignation of Project
Area Committee Member Ron Waltz was accepted, with a letter of regret to be sent
to Mr. Waltz, and vacancy posted accordingly. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if they would like the Project Area Committee to
recommend a replacement; City Clerk Roberts stated that they had received
recommendations from the Committee in the past.
Mayor Seymour indicated in that case, they should follow their precedent.
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 of equity,
restrictions on rental and a first right of refusal to the Housing Authority
(aontinued from the meeting of February 3, 10 and 17, 1981--see mintues those
dates).
Mayor Seymour asked if their objective was to insure that for a reasonable
length of time the affordable units they approved would remain affordable,
what would occur if, rather than placing a resale price control as recommended,
they would state that the unit must be sold to an individual in that affordable
classification. In other words, if the unit was sold to a person in the 90%
of median, when ±t was resold in the first "X" number of years, did it have to
be resold to somebody in that classification. If that person was capable of
obtaining financing such as FHA 245 or the like so that they could purchase it
at fair market value, how would staff respond to that.
Mr. Norm Priest, Executive Director of Community Development, stated there would
be two responses. First, the time was carefully mandated in the law, but it was
not prec~s.e at all on how it dealt with the issue. It simply stated~ you will
insure for that 30-year period that the unit would be available for low and
moderate income housing. He did not believe the mechanism was something to
which they were frozen if it could be worked out. However, he would have to
ask the City Attorney and again the State as to whether or not that would fit
w~thin the definition of low and moderate income housing. He would have to
research that aspect.
Mayor Seymour clarified that he was talking about housing they had approved
to date and not housing where a direct financial contribution was attached to
~t. He asked how that type of mechanism would be met by staff.
81R-289
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 24~ 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Priest answered they did not have a major problem With that as far as dealing
with it on a non direct financial contribution as long as the restriction was
placed in a binding manner requiring the sale be to low and moderate income people.
The Mayor felt if they tried to restrict with financial tools rather than,
tools, that would be more palatable.
Mr. Priest stated he would like to look at that aspect and then come back to
the Council. It was sufficiently different and important that he would like
the opportunity to review it with his staff.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to continue the subject matter for three
weeks. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
120: CITIZENS FOR OCEAN ACCESS AND RECREATION: Request by Steward Case,
Executive Secretary, for a resolution supporting the development of Bolsa
Chica as a public recreational boating area, was submitted.
Mayor Seymour stated he had reviewed the request outlined in letter dated
January 30, 1981 from Mr. Case, as well as the resolution, and unless there was
something varied from what he had read, he saw no problem at all in the
resolution.
Councilwoman Kaywood referred to letter dated February 19, 1981 from Amigo
DeBolsa Chica, Doctor Peter Green, President, where they brought up an inter-
esting point without taking any sides. The letter indicated that the number
of studies made on the issue would reach a height of three feet. It was an
area that had been studied a great deal; it was not a simple issue; and it
concerned the City of Huntington Beach where it was located. It also questioned
how the City of Anaheim would like it if someone else came in to decide what
the City was going to do with property that was in Anaheim's Sphere of Influence.
She stated on that basis, she would take no action on the matter at all.
Councilman Roth suggested that they hold the matter over for one week to receive
a recommendation from Huntington Beach.
Councilman Overholt stated he imagined that Huntington Beach was well aware of
the fact that they had been solicited by Amigo DeBolsa Chica. The answer to
the question of what business was it of Anaheim's, all of the Orange County
coastline was important to the whole County. He agree with the Mayor and he
too had no problem with it. He felt there were very few places where navi-
gable boating facilities could be developed. He was supportive of the posi-
tion of Citizens for Ocean Access and Recreation.
Councilman Bay noted in going through all the material that they were given,
he did not see one resolution from a city, but many of Chambers of Commerce
resolutions from Buena Park, Orange, Santa Ana, Garden Grove, etc. He personally
was senstive about becoming involved in an area of concern that was totally
surrounded by the City of Huntington Beach with many State and County cost
implications which could involve tax money. He did not believe it was a simple
a subject as might be indicated by the letter from Mr. Case. He would support
no action on it at this time one way or the other.
After further Council discussion on the matter, Councilman Roth offered a resolu-
tion supporting the development of Bolsa Chica as a public recreational boating
ar ea.
81R-290
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 24,. 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
Before any action was taken, Councilman Bay stated that would force him to
oppose it because he felt they had not had near enough time to study all the
pros and the cons on the subject. He would like to hear from some other
people and he recalled that the League of Women Voters did a great deal of
study on the same subject. He did not know how much of that information would
be available from them on past studies. The informmtion he had in front of
him did not put him in a position where he could support the resolution as
stated.
Mayor Seymour stated he would support his request for a specific continuance;
Councilman Bay stated he would like four weeks.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to continue consideration of the subject
request for four weeks at which time it would be voted upon. Councilman
Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
108: THE INN AT THE PARK - REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF PENALTY ASSESSMENT: A request
by Diana M. Landis, Director of Finance, for waiver of penalty assessed for late
payment of the November 1980 Transient Occupancy Tax for The Inn at the Park,
1855 South Harbor Boulevard, was submitted.
The Mayor asked if anyone was present representing The Inn at the Park.
Ms. Diana M. Landis, Director of Finance of Wrather Hotels, was present and with
her, the Inn's Controller, Shirely Baxter. Ms. Landis explained that never in
the past had they protested a late penalty charge and they had always paid them
knowing they were late. In this instance, however, it was not their lateness,
but a mishandling on the part of the Post Office as explained in their letter
dated February 9, 1981. The postage meter date on their envelope showed
December 31, 1980. Ms. Baxter hand-delivered the payment to the Post Office
and it was still post-marked 14 days later. In this instance, they were
begging the Counc±l's indulgence. They felt they did everything on their
part to have the payment delivered to the City on a timely basis.
Mayor Seymour asked Ms. Baxter if she was willing to swear and attest to the
fact that she had hand-delivered the payment to the Post Office; Ms. Baxter
answered "yes".
City Clerk Linda Roberts thereupon administered the oath to Ms. Baxter that
the testimony she was about to give was true and correct to the best of her
belief and knowledge; Ms. Baxter answered affirmatively.
The Mayor asked if she did, in fact, hand deliver the payment to the Post Office
on December 31, 1980; Ms. Baxter answered that she dropped the payment in the
box at the Post Office located on Ball Road and Walnut Street.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt thereupon moved, based upon the evidence presented,
that payment be deemed to have been paid on time by delivery to the Post Office
in a timely manner. Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay asked the City Attorney if their proposed
act±on could possibly create a precedent.
81R-291
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 24, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
City Attorney Hopkins answered that anything they did set a precedent, but it was
not a legally binding precedent if the facts were such that the Council had good
cause and adequate reason to take such action. It would not be binding in a
future case that might be different in factual content.
.Mayor Seymour stated that he could support the motion, whereas the last time
they had a similar request he opposed it. The previous case was based upon
the fact that the employee of the hotel left the envelope for the postman to
pick up. What was done in this case was entirely different. Ms. Baxter
attested that she actually dropped the payment in the mail box. He felt from
that point on, it was the Post Office's responsibility.
Councilman Roth asked in the future how payments were going to be handled; Ms.
Baxter stated she was going to bring them down and deliver them personally.
Councilwoman Kaywood explained that the City's ordinance stated that the pay-
ment was due on or before the last day of the month, not mailed or postmarked;
Ms. Baxter stated she understood, but with an organization as large as theirs
with their computer systems, it was not possible for them to have their figures
out any sooner.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman
Overholt, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and
recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Censent
Calendar Agenda:
1. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and referred
to the City's Claims Administrator or allowed:
a. Claim submitted by Mercury Insrance Group, Nancy Stannard, Insured, for
vehicular damages purportedly sustained as a result of accident involving City
of Anaheim vehicle, on or about December ~, 1980, on Crescent Way near Lincoln
Avenue.
b. Claim submitted by Kang Nam Lee for personal injury and vehicular damages
purportedly sustained as a result of accident at the intersection'of Brookhurst
Street and Lincoln Avenue, caused by traffic signal malfunction, on or about
January 8, 1981.
c. Claim submitted by Mrs. Jo-Ann Hall for damages purportedly sustained as
a result of repair bill for work the City should have performed at 1939 West
Harriet Lane, on or about January 30, 1981.
d. Claim submitted by Shannon Marie Doe for personal injury damages purportedly
sustained as a result of assault and battery while incarcerated at the Orange
County Jail by an Anaheim Police Officer, on or about October 29, 1980.
The following claims were allowed:
e. Claims submitted by Ken Fischer for vehicular damages purportedly sustained
as a result of City vehicle, Unit No. 230, backing into employee's van in
employee parking lot, 1426 E. Vermont Street, on or about December 31, 1980.
81R-292
City Hall, Anaheim,. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 24, 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
f. Claim submitted by Sally K. Stiles, for Jeffrey Thomas Stiles, for vehicular
damages purportedly sustained as a result of collision with City-owned vehicle,
oa Lakeview Avenue south of La Palma Avenue, on or about December 12, 1980.
2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 105: Community Center Authority--Minutes of February 9, 1981.
b. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission--Minutes of February 4, 1981.
c. 105: Golf Course Advisory Commission--Minutes of February 5, 1981.
d. 105: Public Utilities Board--Minutes of January 22, 1981.
3. 108: AMUSEMENT DEVICES PERMIT APPLICATION: In accordance with the recom-
mendations of the Chief of Police, an Amusement Devices Permit Application was
approved for Sub-Shack, 5761 Santa Ana Canyon Road, for one "Pac-Man" video game.
(John William Ritzer, applicant)
4. 170: TENTATIVE TRACT NOS. 9602 AND 9864: Submitted by Anaheim Hills, Inc.,
to establish a 49-1ot and 34-1ot (2 open space lots) subdivision on proposed
RS-HS-10,O00 zoned property located on the south side of Nohl Ranch Road, west
of Andover Drive.
The City Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract Nos. 9602 and 9864, and
EIR No. 203 was certified on August 15, 1977.
MOTION CARRIED.
158: ACCEPTING DEEDS OF EASEMENT: Councilman Roth offered Resolution No.
81R-8t for adoption, accepting deeds of easement. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-81: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Peter R. Zotovich, et ux)
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-81 duly passed and adopted.
170: FINAL MAP TRACT NO. 10407: Developer, American National Group; tract is
located on the west side of Imperial Highway, south of Nohl Ranch Road and
contains 27 proposed RS-HS-10,O00 zoned lots.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the proposed
subdivision, together with its design and improvement, was found to be consistent
with the C~ty's General Plan and the City Council approved Final Map Tract No.
10407, as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated February 18,
tgB1. MOTION CARRIED.
81R-293
City Hall, Anaheim, California .- COUNCIL MINUTES - February 24, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
ORDINANCE NOS. 4207 AND 4208: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance Nos. 4207
and 4208 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4207: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (66-67-61 (98), CR)
ORDINANCE NO. 4208: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (80-81-15, CL)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance Nos. 4207 and 4208 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NOS. 4209 THROUGH 4211: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance Nos.
4209 through 4211 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4209: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM kMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE aNAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (75-76-20, RM-3000, Tract No.
8905)
ORDINANCE NO. 4210: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM J~MENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (78-79-24, RM-1200)
ORDINANCE NO. 4211: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (79-80-39, CL)
169: COMPLAINT REGARDING PATCHES IN THE STREET: Councilwoman Kaywood reported
that she attended the Disneyland stockholders meeting last week at the Convention
Center. One of the stockholders complained that he rode a motorcycle and
between Disneyland and the Convention Center there were patches on the street
that the City of Anaheim better smooth out because he nearly had an accident.
156: CONTINUATION OF ORANGE COUNTY CRIMINAL JUSTICE COUNCIL AFTER SEPTEMBER 30,
1981: Mmyor Seymour referred to letter dated February 18, i981 from Vicki
Evans, Chairman of the Orange County Criminal Justice Council (on file in the
City Clerk's office) and asked the Council how they felt relative to its con-
tents.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated it seemed a good idea to her to do something County-
wide where they could all save money, learn from each other and have a better
situation going.
Councilman Roth asked staff's recommendation.
City Manager Talley stated he thought the report by the County Administrative
Officer, Robert E. Thomas, dated January 12, 1981, Reference 45-A-1 (on file
in the City Clerk's office) outlined the only feasible course. If the County
was willing to take the lead and fund the program, he felt they could learn a
lot by participating to whatever extent they would be entitled to participate
inasmuch as the County controlled the Criminal Justice Council. In his view,
81R-294
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 24, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
if anyone attempted to get the cities to fund the program, he felt they were
being unrealistic. Most cities in Orange County did not have a fiscal interest
in the Criminal Justice System.
The Mayor stated then unless he heard differently, the position they would hold
at the League would be to support Mr. Thomas' position.
114: LIAISON COMMITTEE MEETING - CALIFORNIA SURF MATTERS: The Mayor reported
that he and Councilman Overholt, being members of the Liaison Committee, attended
a meeting last evening, Monday, February 23, 1981, with Mr. Liegter and City
Manager Talley, along with representatives of the California Surf to discuss
their operation at the Stadium and some of the difficulties they had been
facing. No specific actions were taken but staff was asked to discuss with
the Surf's staff what considerations the City might be willing to undertake
relative to a long-term relationship and contract with the Surf.
114: LIAISON COMMITTEE MEETING - AUDIT COMMITTEE: The Mayor reported that he
and Councilman Overholt, as members of the Liaison Audit Committee, met with
Price Waterhouse that morning. They recieved an update relative to their
internal controls report. His impression was that it looked like the City was
in fine shape. They also discussed the report that Price Waterhouse was working
on relative to the Utilities Department and the Data Processing System on work
measurement, as well as fixed assets, and tying all that into Mafis. They also
discussed the City Treasurer's function and the fact that the City Treasurer had
tendered his resignation, as well as the timing and submission of Price Waterhouse's
study, which the Council authorized relative to that position, so that Council
might consider it prior to its recruitment of a new City Treasurer.
114: COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 3~ 1981: Mayor Seymour stated he had had dis-
cussions with a number of Council Members who had suggested that perhaps since
there was a light agenda next Tuesday, March 3, 1981, and since he and Council-
man Overholt were going to be in Washington, D. C., attending the National League
of CitDes meeting, that that meeting be cancelled. In the event there were
any pressing matters, those matters could be taken up on Thursday evening,
March 5, 1~81 when they were scheduled to meet with the City Planning Commission.
If that was the desire of the Council, he believed it would be in order. How-
ever, the City Clerk had informed him that there were a number of items on the
Planning Commission agenda from the meeting of February 9, t981, that unless
Council action was taken by Tuesday, March 3, 1981, the Planning Commission
actions would be final, and that might concern one or more Council Members.
He asked that they consider that aspect before cancelling the meeting.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if those Planning Commission items were ready now
so that the Council could review them by the 7:00 P.M. portion of this meeting;
City Clerk Roberts stated that the items were available.
The Mayor suggested the Council review the matters between now and 7:00 P.M.
and request review of any matters they wished. They could also decide at that
time if there was a feeling among the Council that the March 3, 1981 meeting
be cancelled. If so, it would be appropriate that they adjourn today's meet-
ing to next Thursday, March 5, 1981, at 7:00 P.M.
81R-295
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 24~ 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
City Attorney Hopkins stated it would be appropriate for the Council if they
decided not to have the meeting at the regular time to allow the City Clerk
to come to the Council Chambers and declare the meeting was without a quorum
and at that time, she could set the time for Thursday evening.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess to Closed Session.
Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (5:50 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (7:10 P.M.)
112: CITY OF ANAHEIM VS. KAUTZ: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by
Councilman Overholt, the City Attorney was authorized to settle Orange County
Superior Court Case No. 34-25-11, City of Anaheim vs. Kautz, for the sum of
$14,219.50. MOTION CARRIED.
123/112: AGREEMENT AND RELEASE BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND R.L. KAUTZ:
Councilman Seymour moved to approve a settlement agreement and release between
the City of Anaheim and R. L. Kautz and Company and authorizing the City Attorney
to execute said agreement. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
153: SETTLEMENT WITH IBEW, LOCAL UNION 47, UTILITY Eb~LOYEES UNIT: Council-
man Roth offered Resolution Nos. 81R-82 through 81R-84, both inclusive, for
adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-82: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ADOPTING THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 47, UTILITY
EMPLOYEES UNIT.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-83: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ESTABLISHING RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR JOB CLASSES REPRESENTED BY THE INTERNA-
TIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 47, UTILITY EM]PLOYEES
UNIT, AND SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION NO. 77R-688 AND AMENDMENTS THERETO.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-84: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ADJUSTING THE SALARIES FOR CERTAIN STAFF AND SUPERVISORY JOB CLASSES AND ~MEND-
lNG RESOLUTION NO. 80R-550.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour stated he was going to oppose the
resolutions having to do with the subject labor union settlement for the
following reasons: (1) he did not believe the package that had been negotiated
between the City Manager and IBEW was in the best interest of the citizens
of Anaheim, and (2) he believed there were provisions of the settlement that
were contrary to and, therefore, in bad faith in previous settlements with
other bargaining units of the City.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolutions.
81R-296
City Hall, Anaheim,. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 24, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay and Roth
Seymour
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 81R-82 through 81R-84 duly passed and adopted.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning
Cormnission at their meeting held February 9, 1981, pertaining to the following
applications, as listed on the Consent Calendar, were submitted for City Council
information.
1. REQUEST. FOR R.~MOVAL OF SPECIMEN TREES (TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11122): Sub-
mitted by Homes by John Lyttle, to establish a 6-lot, RS-HS-22,000(SC) zoned
subdivision on approximately 6.12 acres of land located on the west side of
Country Hills Road, the east aide of Old Bridge Road and south of Mohler Drive,
and to remove 7 specimen trees from the land.
The City Planning Commission granted the request for removal of specimen trees
and granted a negative declaration status.
2. VARIANCE NO. 3175: Submitted by Bill Z. and Betty F. Wehunt, to construct
a 4-unit apartment complex on RM-1200 zoned property located at 211 East Valencia
Avenue, with various Code waivers.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-33, granted, in
part, Variance No. 3175, and granted a negative declaration status.
3. VARIANCE NO. 3197: Submitted by Raymundo I. and Charlotte H. Ramos, to
retain a fence on RS-7200 zoned property located at 2418 East Oshkosh Avenue,
with a Code waiver of maximum fence height.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-37, granted
Variance No. 3197, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption
determination.
4. VARIANCE NO. 3198: Submitted by Angel and Celia A. Ureno, to retain a fence
on RS-7200 zoned property located at 504 North Vine Street, with a Code waiver
of maximum fence height.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-38, granted
Variance No. 3198, and ratified the Planning Director's categorial exemption
determination.
5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2175: Submitted by Winston Industrial Properties,
to permit an exterminating service on ML zoned property located at 2221 East
Winston Road.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-35, granted Con-
ditional Use Permit No. 2175, and granted a negative declaration status.
81R-297
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 24~ 1981~ 1.:30 P.M.
6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2176: Submitted by Raymcnd H. and Theodora R.
Siegele, to permit an automobile repair facility on ML zoned property located
at 500 South Atchison Street, with various Code waivers.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-36, granted, in
part, Conditional Use Permit No. 2176, and granted a negative declaration status.
7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1799 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Daniel J.
Weber, Rovi Pacific Corporation, requesting an extension of time to Conditional
Use Permit No. 1799, to permit on-sale beer and wine in a proposed semi-enclosed
restaurant on CL-HS zoned property located at 6501 East Serrano Avenue.
The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Conditional Use
Permit No. 1799 to expire on January 30, 1982.
8. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2130 - AMENDING PC81-2: Submitted by the City
Planning Commission, requesting to amend an error in the conditions of approval
in Planning Commission Resolution No. PC81-2, Condition No. 5.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-41, amended
Resolution No. PC81-2, nunc pro tunc, in connection with Conditional Use
Permit No. 2130.
No action was taken on the foregoing items, therefore the actions of the City
Planning Commission became final.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2169: Submitted by Orange County Water District,
to permit a private recreational fishing facility with on-sale beer and wine
on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located at 4060 East La Palma Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-34, granted Con-
ditional Use Permit No. 2169, and granted a negative declaration.
Councilwoman Kaywood requested a review of the Planning Commission's action
on the subject Conditional Use Permit.
VARIANCE NO. 3199: Submitted by Rammohan S. Patel, et al, to expand an existing
motel on C-R zoned property located at 1211 South West Street, with a Code waiver
of minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-39, granted
Variance No. 3199, and granted a negative declaration status.
Councilwoman Kaywood requested a review of the Planning Commission's action
on the subject Variance.
PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 80-81-13, CONDITIONAL USE PER,MIT NO. 2119
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11053 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application by Mary S.
Nelson, Administrator for Ida M. Rannow Estate, for a change in zone from RS-A-
43,000 to ~M-3000, to permit a 5-lot, 220-unit condominium subdivision (25%
affordable) on property located at the southwest corner of Cerritos Avenue and
Euclid Street with the following Code waivers:
81R-298
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 24~ 1981, 1:30 P.M.
a. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit
b. Maximum structural height
c. Minimum floor area
d. Minimum recreational-leisure area (denied)
e. Minimum number of parking spaces
The City Planning Commission, pursuant.to Resolution No. PC81-228 declared that
the subject project be exempt from the requirement to prepare an Environmental
Impact Report pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act since there would be no significant individual or cumulative adverse environ-
mental impact due to this project and further, approved Reclassification No.
80-81-13, subject to the following conditions:
1. That all engineering requirements of the City of Anaheim along Cerritos Avenue
and Euclid Street including preparation of improvement plans and installation of
all improvements such as curbs and gutters, sidewalks, street grading and paving,
drainage facilities or other appurtenant work, shall be complied with as required
by the City Engineer and in accordance with specifications on file in the Office
of the City Engineer; that street lighting facilities along Cerritos Avenue and
Euclid Street shall be installed as required by the Office of Utilities General
Manager and in accordance with specifications on file in the Office of Utilities
General Manager; and/or that a bond, certificate of deposit, letter of credit,
or cash, in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim shall be
posted with the City to guarantee the installation of the above-mentioned re-
quirements prior to occupancy.
2. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim a fee,
in an amount as determined by the City Council, for tree planting purposes along
Cerritos Avenue and Euclid Street.
3. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans
on file with the Office of the Director of Public Works.
4. 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.
5. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
6. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory
to the City Engineer. (A storm drain lateral shall be constructed in Cerritos
Avenue so that ultimately all drainage from subject property will be taken back
to the proposed dra~n in Euclid Avenue.)
7. That the owner(~) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the
appropri, ate park and recreation in-lieu fees, as determined to be appropriate by
the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building permit is issued.
8. That the original documents of the covenants, conditions, and restrictions,
and a letter addressed to developer's title company authorizing recordation thereof,
shall be submitted to the City Attorney's office and approved by the City
Attorney's Office, Public Utilities Department, Buildiing Division, and the
Engineering Division prior to final tract map approval. Said documents, as
approved, shall be filed and recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder.
~. That street names shall be approved by the City Planning Department prior to
approval of a final tract map.
10. That all private streets shall be developed in accordance with the City of
Anaheim's Standard Detail No. 122 for private streets. Plans for the private
81R-299
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 24, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
street lighting, as required by the standard detail, shall be submitted to and
approved by the Electrical Division. Approved private street lighting plans
shall then be submitted to the Building Division for inclusion with the building
plans prior to issuance of building permits. (Private streets are those which
provide primary access and/or circulation within the project).
11. If permanent street name signs have not been installed, temporary street name
signs shall be installed prior to any occupancy.
12. That an ordinance rezoning the subject property shall in no event become
effective except upon or following the recordation of Final Tract Map No. 11053
within the time specified in Government Code Section 66463.5 or such further
time as the advisory agency or City Council may grant.
13. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay the traffic signal assess-
ment fee in (Ordinance No. 3896) in an amount as determined by the City Council,
for each new dwelling unit prior to the issuance of a building permit.
14. That all on-site sanitary sewers shall be private.
15. That appropriate water assessment fees, as determined by the Office of
the Utilities General Manager shall be paid to the City of Anaheim prior to
the issuance of a building permit.
16. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1
through 6.
17. Proior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject property, Con-
dition Nos. 1, 8 and 12, above-mentioned, shall be completed. The provisions or
rights granted by this resolution shall become null and void by action of the
Planning Commission unless said conditions are complied with within one year from
the date hereof, or such further time as the Planning Commission may grant.
18. That Condition Nos. 3, 5, 6 and 10 and 16, above-mentioned, shall be complied
with prior to final building and zoning inspections.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-229, granted Con-
ditional Use Permit No. 2119, in part, subject to the following conditions:
1. That this Conditional Use Permit is granted subject to the completion of
Reclassification No. 80-81-13, now pending.
2. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos.
1 through 7.
3. That prior to approval of the final map of Tract No. 11053, the developer
shall enter into an agreement with the City of Anaheim pursuant to Government
Code Section 65915 agreeing to maximum sales prices as approved by the City of
Anaheim for a minimum of 25% of the units to be low and moderate cost housing
as defined by said Government Code Section. No less than 10 units shall be
designated for sale to households having incomes 80% or lower than the median
for households in Orange County as defined by the United States Department for
Housing and Urban Development, and no less than i1 units shall be designated
for sale to households having incomes 100% or lower than the median. Said
agreement may include such additional covenants and conditions including re-
sale controls as may be required by the City of Anaheim.
Tentative Map Tract No. 11053 was considered in conjunction with the Reclassifi-
cation No. 80-81-13 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2119 and the City Planning
Commission found that the proposed subdivision together with its design and im-
81R-300
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 24~ 1981~ .1:30 P.M.
Commission found that the proposed subdivision, together with its design and im-
provement was consistent with the City of Anaheim's General Plan pursuant to
Government Code Section 6473.5 and, therefore, approved Tentative Map of Tract
No. 11053 for a five lot, 220-unit condominium subdivision (25% affordable)
subject to the following conditions:
1. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 11053 is granted subject to
the approval of Reclassification No. 80-81-13.
2. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each
subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval.
3. That the original documents of the covenants, conditions, and restrictions,
and a letter addressed to developer's title company authorizing recordation
thereof, shall be submitted to the City Attorney's office and approved by the
City Attorney's Office, Public Utilities Department, Building Division, and the
Engineering Division prior to final tract map approval. Said documents, as
approved, shall be filed and recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder.
4. That street names shall be approvod by the City Planning Department prior to
approval of a final tract map.
5. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory
to the City Engineer. (A storm drain lateral shall be constructed in Cerritos
Avenue so that ultimately all drainage from subject property will be taken back
to the proposed drain in Euclid Street.)
6. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the
appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees, as determined to be appropriate by
the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building permit is issued.
7. That all private streets shall be developed in accordance with the City of
Anaheim's Standard Detail No. 122 for private streets. Plans for the private
street lighting, as required by the standard detail, shall be submitted to and
approved by the Electrical Division. Approved private street lighting plans
shall then be submitted to the Building Division for inclusion with the building
plans prior to issuance of building permits. (Private streets are those which
provide primary access and/or circulation within the project.)
8. If permanent street name signs have not been installed, temporary street name
signs shall be installed prior to any occupancy.
9. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay the traffic signal assess-
ment fee in (Ordinance No. 3896) in an amount as determined by the City Council,
for each new dwelling unit prior to the issuance of a building permit.
10. Prior to the sale or final building and zoning inspection of any residen-
tial condominium unit, the owner(s) of subject tract shall present evidence satis-
factory to the Chief Building Inspector that the unit is in conformance with
the Noise Insulation Standards specified in the California Administrative Code,
Title 25, Chapter 1, Subchapter 1, Article 4.
11. The seller shall provide the purchaser of each condominium unit with written
~nf0rmati0n concerning Anaheim Municipal Coda 14.32.500 pertaining to "parking
restricted to facilitate street sweeping". Such written information will clearly
indicate when on-street parking is prohibited and the penalty for violation.
12. "No parking for street sweeping" signs shall be installed prior to final
street inspection as required by the Public Works Executive Director in accordance
with specifications on file with the Street Maintenance Division.
13. That all on-site sanitary sewers shall be private.
81R-301
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 24, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
14. That the petitioner shall present evidence that the proposed condominium
complex conforms to Council Policy No. 542 - "Sound Attenuation in Residential
Projects" prior to issuance of building permits.
15. That prior to approval of the final Tract Map No. 11053, the developer shall
enter into an agreement with the City of Anaheim pursuant to Government Code
Section 65915 agreeing to maximum sales prices as approved by the City of
Anaheim for a minimum of 25% of the units to be low and moderate cost housing
as defined by said Government Code Section, with no less than 10 units desig-
nated for sale to households at 80% or lower of median income, tl units at 100%
or lower of the median income, together with such additional covenants and
conditions including resale controls as may be required by the City of Anaheim.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman
Kaywood at the meeting of January 6, 1981 and public hearing scheduled this
date.
Miss Santalahti described the location and surrounding land uses. She outlined
the findings given in the staff report which was submitted to and considered by
the City Planning Commission. She pointed out that the waiver requested for
minimum recreational leisure area had been deleted by revised plans.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present.
Mr. Brian Norkaitis stated that he represented the owner and ultimate developer
of the property. He was aware that the City was in the process of considering
some changes to the ~M-3000 zoning ordinance. Since he was developing under
that ordinance and the update of the ordinance could dramatically affect the
number and type of variances that he would be applying for and requesting the
Council to approve, he felt it would perhaps be in the best interest of the
City and the developer at this time to postpone an ultimate decision on the
property until after the scheduled March 5, I981 joint session between the City
Planning Commission and the Council. He was prepared to discuss the property
tonight and to answer any questions of the Council and concerned residents.
However, he wanted to leave the decision up to the Council as to whether they
felt the additional two-week period would permit them the time to go through
the recommended staff proposals of that ordinance prior to their reaching a
decision on the property.
Mayor Seymour explained ~hat a number of proposals had been brought to them
recently in which they had taken that exact action. They had had one work
session with the City Planning Commission (see minutes February 18, 1981) and
had another scheduled March 5, 1981. On the other hand, the Council was mindful
of the large group present in the Chamber who took the time and interest to come
this evening and, therefore, it would be in the best interest of all to hear
what the people had to say and to raise their concerns and questions. However,
he would expect unless he heard differently from the Council, it probably would
be in the best interest of all to await a decision until the scheduled work
session and any others that would take place before were completed in an attempt
to try to resolve what new standards, if any, the City was going to come up with.
He thereupon asked that they proceed with the hearing.
Mr. Norkaitis stated they felt they had developed a very attractive site plan,
one that was throughly reviewed as well as unanimously approved by the Planning
Commission on December 15, 1980 (see City Planning Commission minutes that date).
81R-302
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February .24, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
He wanted to clear up some misconceptions about the project--it was not a high-
density, low-grade rental type of project and would not have a devastating im-
pact on the property values of the surrounding neighborhood. It was a well
planned community of mostly townhouse-type condominiums of a proposed density
within the General Plan designation of low-medium for that corner.
From posted exhibits of the project, Mr. Norkaitis explained that the develop-
ment had been carefully thought out and designed to fit well into the neighbor-
hood. Euclid Street was classified as a primary arterial and Cerritos Avenue
a secondary arterial. To the north was a high school, to the west a synagogue,
and to the south, was some very nice RS-7200 single-family detached units.
There was a produce market at the southeast boundary of the proposed project.
Working from the site plan, Mr. Norkaitis showed how they tried to devise a
land plan where they centralized and pulled in as much as possible the resi-
dential buildings within the development to protect their future residents from
the inner phase of the activity on the perimeter of the site and at the same
time maximize the distances between their two-story units and single-story
residential to the south. As a result, when measuring on a average line along
the southerly edge, there was a distance of approximately 150 feet between their
residential units and the residents to the south because they wanted to preserve
the privacy those people were entitled to.
They developed a loop-type street system through the project providing an ex-
cellent circulation pattern as, well as providing a buffer between the residential
use and other surrounding land uses. They designed a 20-foot landscaped berm
median along Cerritos Avenue and 35-foot landscaped berm median along the edge
of the property on Euclid Street with a 20-foot landscaped buffer zone on the
southerly edge of the property all with the idea of trying to screen their pro-
ject properly.
They centralized their recreational facilities within the middle of the project
to give the majority of the people good access and an internal circulation type
of system upon which he elaborated. They provided a 6-foot wall around the
westerly and southerly edge of the property to restrict pedestrian and vehicle
circulation between the s.ynagogue parking lot and their property as well. They
tried to devote a great deal of attention and care in designing a project that
would blend well in terms of its residential feel in the community. He there-
upon elaborated upon the exhibit showing the elevation and characteristics of
the buildings themselves. The buildings contained one-bedroom, two-bedroom and
three-bedroom units. Their two- and three-bedroom units represented 80% of
the project. They were designed for the young family, for the divorced person
and new types of family formations for those people who were sensitive to cost,
but wanted to live ~n Anaheim. Mr. Norkaitis then elaborated upon the profile
plan exhibit which he compared to the site plan more clearly depicting the lay
out of the parking areas, landscaping, orientation of buildings, etc.
Mr. Norkaitis explained that they had visited the residents directly to the
south of the property in order to demonstrate to them how they were planning
to preserve their privacy. Prior to presenting the project to the Planning
Commission, they went door to door to meet with as many of the neighbors as
possible along the edge of the property and to explain what they were planning.
81R-303
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 24~ 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Although most residents felt they would like to see the farm remain, they were
still appreciative of the concern for them and felt that the proposed project
was a good development and something that was attractive. Several residents
even indicated an interest in buying one of the units for their sons or daugh-
ters. They seemed glad that the property was being developed along the lines
of residential use vs. a high density apartment project or some other commercial
use. They felt, because they had contacted the neighbors, that at least at the
Planning Commission meeting, not one of the adjacent neighbors came forward and
spoke against the project. He had since that time met with the Rabbi who was
head of the congregation located to the west of the property and they also met
with the spokesman for the Walnut-Cerritos group to discuss their property and
plans. It was his feeling generally that the people he had spoken with over the
last one and one-half months were basically not against the property being devel-
oped along the lines of condominium type use and they did not have any specific
types of criticism with regard to their land plan in terms of circulation and
units placement or the product type being proposed. They seemed more against
the project because of the multiple variance aspects of it and they were con-
cerned about a project being built that was not consistent with the Code Anaheim
had developed.
When they compared their project to the other projects that had previously been
processed under ABll51 within the City, they felt that the standards that were
proposed compared very favorably to the types of projects that had been approved.
Mr. Norkaitis referred to Exhibit 4-e of the staff report to the Planning
Commission dated December 15, 1980, which was a part of the record, a spread
sheet showing their project and eight other projects that had either been
approved by the Planning Commission or City Council or, in some cases, both.
Relative to the density bonus, of the eight listed, theirs was lower than
seven of the net density per dwelling unit per acre. Their project was also
seven of eight of the actual lot coverage percentage where they came in at 32%.
At that point, they were below Code, 40% being allowed. The same was true for
parking ratios and recreational leisure area which they felt was an excellent
measure of a project as it became more dense. It was their feeling at that point
in time since the City had not devised a new set of standards to be used on
mixed type of projects, i.e., those with affordable and moderate, those were
the best standards they had to go on and they proceeded in good faith along
those lines.
In concluding, Mr. Norkaitis reiterated they felt that theirs was an attractive
and a quality project with good development standards, one that was consistent
with the General Plan and that provided both affordable and moderate price
housing for the first-time home buyer and designed to keep with the changing
family compositions, demographics, trends toward higher densities and smaller
square footages. It was an attempt to keep the ultimate sales price to the
buyers down without sacrificing on the environment they would be living in.
It was a development they believed would fit very well and compliment very
nicely the neighborhood they desired to build their development in.
Mr. Norkaitis then clari~f~ed for Councilwoman Kaywood that they owned the prop-
erty.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if they bought the property with the cost based on
the spread sheet referred to showing other projects approved in the City (4-e,
81R-304
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 24~ 1981, 1:30 P.M.
December 15, 1980 staff report) with a number of variances, or based on what
the normal RM-3000 Code allowed.
Mr. Norkaitis answered from the conception, their plan reflected a density in
a range they were proposing this evening; they were encouraged by the data
presented in the spread sheet.
The Mayor asked Mr. Norkaitis to expand upon the prices of the units.
Mr. Norkaitis explained for the market segment or 75% of the project, their
estimated sales price today would be starting at approximately $68,000 for the
one-bedroom units, increasing to as high as $88,000 on the three-bedroom units
with the two-bedroom units priced in between. On the average, they would be
at least $20,000 below the current average for attached projects within the
City of Anaheim. On the affordable portion, price ranges would start on the
average at approximately $40,000 and some units would be selling for $34,000,
increasing to $64,900. There were 55 units in the affordable range, or 25%
of the project.
The Mayor asked on the $34,000 to $64,000 price ranged units, what the monthly
payments would be.
Mr. Norkaitis answered there was a chart prepared by Housing and Community
Development assuming the composition of the families within the 80, 100, 120%
median range. The monthly payment for the people on the low end would be
$323 per month for an 80% median income buyer, principal, interest and taxes.
The upper end for 120% median income would be $620 per month, principal, in-
terest and taxes. Relative to the $68,000 and $88,000 units, looking at the
sales price of a $68,000 one-bedroom townhouse today and calculating 20%
against a monthly payment with an interest rate, for example, of 13½% and a
33% qualification factor, the monthly payment would be $618, principal and
interest. He did not factor anything form taxes. For the $88,000 unit, it
would be $8Q1, principal and interest. The calculations on the affordable
were somewhat difficult to communicate because there were spreads between
family size, bedroom count and various income ranges. What he was suggesting
was the average sale price for different sized units.
The Mayor then opened the public hearing.
The following people spoke in opposition to the subject project and the high-
lights of their presentation are listed below.
Miss Lisa Snyder, 1546 West Brandy, a junior at Loara High School, stated her
concern was how the development was going to effect the students of Loara.
She then cited examples of the Code waivers involved in the proposed project
which she considered gross violations. Waiver of the minimum number of parking
spaces would result in a lack of parking for tenants and guests and most of
the overflow cars would be parking in Loara's parking lot and in the neighboring
synagogue or on both sides of Cerritos. Loara's overcrowded parking lot could
not accommodate those cars and should not have to. She asked them to imagine
81R-305
City Hall~ Anaheim~ Ca.lifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 24, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
the severe traffic problems that would be created when any of the condominium
residents would leave for work at the same time Loara students would arrive
at the school, especially when one of the two driveways planned for ingress and
egress into the development was proposed to be located opposite Loara High
School's main parking lot entrance. Congestion would also increase during the
rainy season. Drainage was to be provided ultimately to a proposed drain
eventually to appear in Euclid Street. "Lake Cerritos" would be the site of
the world's largest floating traffic jam. Other violations involved structural
height and floor area. It appeared they were developing what would become a
modern slum. The violations were enough to make any concerned citizen wonder
if those persons recommending the approval of the development were at all
observing the consequences of the City's condominium law. As a result of the
Pepperwood Condominium project on Cerritos and Walnut, the City of Anaheim
passed a condominium law with certain codes for developers and builders to
follow. She questioned if those laws were passed in order to passify angry
citizens only to be ignored at a later date. She contended that one question
answered would justify the building of the condominiums--"Who or what gives
anyone the right to ignore these laws?"
Mr. Dale Stanton, 1509 Harle Place, stated he first wanted to address projects
in general. He came to Anaheim 20 years ago and the reason was for affordable
housing. Eight years ago, he appeared before the Council with the same speech,
only the project was Pepperwood development at the corner of Cerritos and Walnut,
but the question and problem were still the same. They were there then and
were present now because of density, traffic and crime. After two years of
work, he was able to persuade the Council that they had an apartment law and a
residential law and they should have a condominium law. They asked that that
condominium ordinance be set up at a density of ten units per acre. That
ordinance was passed and on the last three-quarters of the Pepperwood project,
bt was in effect. The then Councilman Seymour called and asked him if it would
be satisfactory with the Cerritos-Walnut Association if the development went
to 12.5 units per acre and he (Stanton) said "yes." Last week he found out that
the ordinance was raised to 14.5 units per acre, or a 45% increase over what was
requested in the ordinance. He maintained that the past several years, the
Planning Commission had been violating codes and ordinances even with the 45%
increase. He did not believe that the Planning Commission or the Council had
the r~ght to violate the laws of the community.
Mr. Stanton reminded the Council that at the joint meeting of the City Planning
Commission and Council (see minutes of Wednesday, February 18, 1981, 7:00 P.M.),
Mayor Seymour stated he was not sure the City was ready for affordable housing.
He might be right but to remove all doubt from everyone's mind he suggested
the following: That the Council and the Planning Commission strictly adhere
to the codes and ordinances in existence, i.e.--no variances until the Council,
Planning Commission and staff reviewed all codes and ordinances relative to
the RM-3000 zone and made the necessary changes they thought should be made.
While they were doing that, there was another impact on the community that
had not been discussed, the impact of City services, particularly the Fire
and Police Departments, wherein apartment, condominium and townhouse devel-
opments, the calls for services were two-times that of a residence and the
burglaries were twice that for a residence. Once they had revised the code
81R-306
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 24~ 1981, 1:30 P.M.
and ordinances, those revisions should be put on the ballot in a clear and
concise manner so that the citizens of Anaheim could determine their density
and environment. In looking at the yellow sheet previously mentioned, there
were violations of the law in every instance. If so many variances must be
granted, there must be something wrong with the codes and ordinances. He
might be asking them to do something that when they came up with the answer,
he may not like it, but he felt it had to be reviewed.
There was another problem involved and he did not understand why they were
present discussing the problem because in the western part of Anaheim or the
"flatlands" only 3 to 5% of the available land was left to develop. They had
developed 95% to 97% under the existing codes although many variances had been
given, and it turned out to be a good development. He did not think there was
any reason to change the next 5 to 7% of the land for people who were going
to be coming in. The young man from the Youth Commission who spoke at the
joing meeting on February 18, 1981 (see minutes that date) stated it well. He
could not afford to buy a house in Anaheim, but he did not want to see it changed.
Also a realtor spoke and with every statement he indicated that if affordable
housing was not adopted in Anaheim, it would be "gross negligence on our part."
In his last statement he stated, "Anaheim has the strictest codes of any City
in Orange County." He (Stanton) did not see anything wrong with that at all.
As he saw it, affordable housing was going to cause the City of Anaheim to get
into the real estate business because they were going to have to monitor the
buying and selling of units which would create an additional bureaucracy in the
City. It was government subsidization and the man who lived next door was going
to subsidize his next door neighbor for the affordable units. Affordable housing
h-ad to be what a person could afford. If someone could not afford to live in
the community, they would have to go some place where they could purchase housing
they could afford. The community should not downgrade itself on the 3 to 5%
developable land left for the people coming in. In concluding his remarks,
Mr. Stanton read quotes made by some of the Planning Commissioners at the City
Planning Commission meeting of December 15, 1980 when the subject project was
discussed (~ee City Planning Commission minutes that date).
Councilman Roth then asked the City Attorney to explain some of the provisions
of ABi151 mandated on cities wherein they had to provide a density bonus to
developers coming in with a project that was 25% affordable.
City Attorney Hopkins elaborated upon some of the provisions of the bill at
the conclusion of which, Mr. Stanton stated that it did not say they had to
grant every other bonus in the world for the developer to construct his pro-
ject. Giving him only a 25% density bonus would be fine.
Councilman Overholt pointed out that it was either the density bonus or two
other incentives; C~ty Attorney Hopkins then read the list of some of the
other incentives which could be provided in lieu of the density bonus.
Councilwoman Kaywood, speaking to Miss Santalahti, stated according to her
figures, the property at the 14.52 units per acre maximum resulted in a
maximum of 154 units and the 25% bonus would represent 38 additional units,
totalling 192 units, so that there were 28 more units over and above that even
with the 25% bonus; Miss Santalahti confirmed that was correct.
81R-307
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 24~ 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Bay, speaking to Mr. Stanton, stated he wanted to take the time to
read a short summary of AB2853 (Roos) passed by the State Legislature which
was now law and imposed on every city in the State. He wanted him to be aware
of what was happening at the State level to take away local control. He there-
upon read the summary at the conclusion of which he stated they were, therefore,
not "giving away the codes" because they wanted to. If people were aware of
what was going on and the changes that had taken place, they would perhaps be
more understanding of the variances and bonuses the City was dealing with
whether or not to their liking. They were going to be "jammed down their
throats" by the laws coming out of Sacramento unless the laws were changed.
Councilman Roth then referred to other instances where State law preempted local
control.
Mr. Stanton stated that he felt the project was nice looking, but it was too
dense. Even though they were preempted by a number of laws, he asked that they
live within the law and not grant excess.
Mayor Seymour stated, relative to the point he (Stanton) made that they ought
to live by the laws they established, he could not agree more. He then recounted
the events that had taken place initially revolving around the 150-foot setback
from single-family units which led them to the present work sessions with the
City Planning Commission. He also referred to the first meeting held
September 2, 1980 (see minutes that date) where amongst other items, the 150-
foot setback was discussed, as well as the general concept of affordable
housing provided by the government vs. private industry, the need to stimulate
construction of new units, and reduction of site development standards. In
the final analysis, it was decided that there was no concensus on the part of
the Council, especially regarding the 150-foot setback and that each project
would b~ considered on a case-by-case basis. In the latter part of 1980, they
again became serious about the matter because they did not like all of the
variances involved. At the last work session on February 18, 1981 (see minutes
that date), many viewpoints were expressed and a subsequent work session was
scheduled to be held on March 5, 1981. They were attempting to find a common
ground so that they did not have to have the variances. However, relative to
affordable housing, to the best of his knowledge they had not been approving
affordable housing in the community for those outside the City, but they were
talking about taking care of the people living within the City today, the first
priority being those living in the City, the second for someone working in the
City, and the third for an outsider coming into the City. He then asked Mr.
Stanton if he thought they had a responsibility to house his children or have
them fetch for themselves.
Mr. Stanton answered that he did not think the City had an obligation to house
them, which statment was met by loud applause from those present in the Chamber
audience.
.Mayor Seymour stated he felt the applause was a very clear indication of how
the people present were th~nking. He did not agree with that. He felt they
had a responsibility to house their children, but he felt that was all a matter
of p~ilosophy.
81R-308
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 24, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mrs. Esther Thomas, 1361 West Cerritos, occupant of Pepperwood, stated that the
two previous speakers had touched upon most of the items of opposition which she
wanted to discuss. She asked if the CC & R's for the project required that a
purchaser of a unit had to also be the occupant or could the units be rented out.
Their units at Pepperwood were sold with the understanding that they must be
owner occupied, but it was not being occupied in that way. If it was being
sold on the basis of the government requiring 25% affordable and they were not
going to be owner occupied, she questioned what the consequences would be. Mrs.
Thomas then relayed some of the problems occurring at the Pepperwood complex,
especially with regard to the parking situation in their project. She recalled
that Miss Snyder mentioned that the Loara High School site would be used by
occupants of the proposed complex for parking and she agreed with her.
Mr. Bob Messe, 1523 South Bayless, stated that he objected to the development
for some of the reasons already expressed. It was not consistent with City
codes, there was a large traffic impact, it was going to create parking prob-
lems and there was a drainage problem that was going to increase beyond what
they had at present. He then referred to the traffic survey done by Kunzman
Associates for the developer performed for the initial study of environmental
impacts (see letter dated September 30, 1980 from Kunzman to Mr. David Dahl,
Lindborg-Dahl) indicating that the current volume of Euclid Street was 31,000
vehicles per day. The County of Orange stated that Euclid was now at the level
of service D and 33,000 vehicles per day was the capacity for that level of
service. The developer claimed that 1,300 vehicles per day would be added
by the development to Euclid. Mr. Kunzman stated 1,870 would be added--
1,240 would be added to Euclid and 620 to Cerritos. With Euclid presently at
31,000 and Cerritos at 9,000, using that ratio, Euclid Street would experience
1,450 and not 1,240 additional vehicle trips per day. This would push Euclid
to 32,450 vehicle trips per day or 550 trips below its full capacity.
Relative to accidents, for the 12 months ending June 1978, there were tl
accidents at Euclid and Cerritos, in 1979, 16, and in 1980, 18. The accident
rate was growing and would worsen with the development. He then read excerpts
from the Planning Commission minutes of December 15, 1980 regarding the fact
that Chairman Tolar felt that at the ingress and egress point on Euclid Street,
there should be right turn only exiting the project. He (Messe) questioned
~f people really obeyed right turn only signs exiting a project, and he also
questioned how northbound traffic was going to enter the project during the
evening rush hour, as well as traff±c exiting from Mells Lane, the produce market
and Cris Avenue. The Mells Lane, Cris, Cerritos, Euclid (intersection), Herman's,
plus the problem traffic discussed could become a major snarl and could be
responsible for a higher accident rate than at present. Relative to parking,
presently there was no parking on the north side of Cerritos and there were no
plans for south side parking or for parking on the west side of Euclid. Essen-
tially there was no street parking. The present Condominium Code of 3.5 parking
spaces per unit, as he recalled, was amended to prevent on-street parking. The
project had 499 spaces for 44 one-bedroom units and 176 2- and 3-bedroom units.
One-bedroom units of 679 square feet had one-car garages and, he contended,
that "oil would never fall on the floor of those garages" because they were
going to be storage rooms. He questioned how they could allow a variance to
429.
81R-309
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 24, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Relative to drainage, Mr. Messe again read excerpts from the minutes of the City
Planning Commission meeting of December 15, 1980 regarding the presentation of
Mr. Jay Titus, Office Engineer, (see Page 80-750) wherein he discussed the drain-
age problems in that area, concluding on Page 80-751 that "this project may raise
the water level two inches." Mr. Messe maintained if the water level was raised
two inches, considering the water level at present with a slight rain being at
curb level, the Loara parking lot was going to be under water. He then sub-
mitted a series of photographs taken on Wednesday afternoon, Jaunary 28, 1981
on Cerritos Avenue looking both west and east, which photos depicted a number
of scenes showing a great deal of traffic congestion and flooding (made a part
of the record). He noted that the pictures were taken some time after the
flood waters on Cerritos were at their peak and they had subsided quite a bit.
He felt with the proposed development, the problem would be compounded geome-
trically and not arithmetically. Thus, there would be additional hazards from
additional traffic and additional flooding and no corrective measures had been
offered by either the developer or the City.
He heard a great deal about the RM-3000 Code being obsolete. Six years ago
they felt the proper size for a one-bedroom condominium was 750 square feet.
He questioned why that was now obsolete and felt that they were "hung-up" on
economics and not the quality of the present neighborhoods. He could not
believe that the developers and real estate people were as altruistic as they
seemed to be at the meeting of February 18, 1981 (see mintues that date). He
did not think the subject development or the others approved were the answer
to the affordable housing problem. He wanted to know why they were not looking
harder at affordable housing in the periphery of the industrial area where the
streets were built to move traffic, workers would be close to their work and
perhaps high-rise buildings could be built without infringing on single-family
neighborhoods, He also mentioned the possibility of manufactured housing or
the recycling of older homes needing fix-up and making fix-up mandatory within
a certain time period.
Relative to high-rise, Canyon General Hospital was approximately 8 to 9 stories
high and it fit the area aesthetically. He questioned why something like that
could not be done for high-rise condominium projects in the proper area of the
City. The Euclid-Cerritos project did not address affordable housing. He would
prefer that they keep the integrity of the established neighborhoods and not
totally destroy them while they looked for other answers on the affordable scene.
Further, they did not seem to have any rules for administering of affordable
housing as yet for non-rental policing, for by-back by the Community Housing
Department, etc. He questioned if they could really approve the project and
make the rules retroactive and if they had addressed the cost to the City of
the additional administration. He then read quotes from a survey and report
done by Conerly and Associates for the California Building Industry Association.
In concluding, Mr. Messe submitted a petition signed by 459 Anaheim residents
who were opposed to the development (made a part of the record). Based on
traffic impact, parking problems, drainage consideration, inconsistencies with
present City Codes and on so many unanswered questions regarding affordable
housing, as well as the photographs submitted tonight, and based on a neighbor-
hood desire to maintain their own standard, he asked that the City Council not
approve the development under discussion.
81R-310 ~
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 24, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. Messe if the project were built to Code with
I54 maximum condominium units, would he object to that and also if the 25%
additional bonus were added to it, making it 192 maximum units, would he
oppose that; Mr. Messe answered "no" on both counts.
David DesRoches, 508 South Anthony, first stated, in speaking this evening and
when he spoke last week at the February 18, 1981 meeting, he was not speaking
as a Youth Commissioner. Although he felt he might share some of the views held
by a great many of the people present, the views were his own and not the views
of the Commission. He was concerned with waivers, variances and changes in the
codes. It was suggested to him last week that he should read up on the subject
which he did. Relative to the State law mandating density bonuses for affordable
housing, there was a clause which stated that if the projects were considered to
be a nuisance, the bonuses would not have to be granted. He felt it would be a
proper usage of the police power of the Council in declaring the development
proposed for Euclid and Cerritos to be a public nuisance. Affordable housing
was a worthwhile goal and their hands might be tied to some extent by State law,
but they should be very sparing with variances and waivers, giving only as few
as possible, and subject the ones granted to great review. He also felt that
they should perhaps take a stand and make it known to the State officials that
they had no business regulating the zoning in the City of Anaheim.
He then spoke to the traffic problems on Cerritos at present which involved
the traffic generated from the students at Loara High School. He felt if a
high density housing development were constructed directly across the street
from the school with corresponding large numbers of children, he would hate
to see a tragedy occur. He also felt if the development were constructed with-
out the maximum number of parking spaces, many of the residents in the project
would be parking in the Loara High School parking lot and across the street from
the school disrupting dally life, thereby creating a nuisance to the area.
Finally, relative to drainage, something had to be done because the lack of it
was a hazard at present. With condominiums built in the area, it would be so
much more of a hazard and many people would lose control of their cars due to
the large amount of water in the street, or would stall. This, too, would be a
nuisance and hazard to the public safety. Waivers and low density bonsues were
necessary for affordable housing but only when there would be little affect on
the present residents and the general area. Given the circumstances under which
the condominiums were proposed, waivers and variances were not in order.
Mr. Paul Morris, 1802 Harle, stated a person's home was the last place over
which they had control and it was to be their haven of rest. A home built
with increased density, absence a place to park a vehicle, harassment by neigh-
bors, etc. were items not conducive to a place for a haven of rest. As far as
a place to live for their children, it was their job as parents to provide that
and he did not see it as an obligation of the City. The City's obligation was
to provide a place for the buyers, but not one that would turn into a night-
mare. Another obligation of the City was to look at the people already in the
area and pay some respect to their property values and the fact that perhaps
an existing home or neighborhood could also be turned into a nightmare. Building
substandard, sub-Code homes was inappropriate.
81R-311
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 24, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the project were built to Code, would he have any
objection; Mr. Morris answered "no".
Mrs. Shirley Berko, 2220 Della Lane, President of Temple Beth Emet, representing
2,100 members, explained that the Temple was located adjacent to the west of the
subject property on Cerritos. They had sent a letter to the Council stating
their objection to the many variances proposed for the property. They felt
that the Council and Planning Commission's first obligation was to protect the
residents of the community and that by allowing higher density with reduced
parking, the best interest of the community could not be served. They urged
them not to look out for the builder's profit, but what would benefit their
community. The present Code was 3.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit and they
felt that Code should be adhered to. In today's times when they found more
than one family inhabiting a dwelling, even the present Code might prove to be
too low. They could not have the Temple parking lot used as parking for the
condominiums, and they urged them to keep to the present Code of 3.5 parking
spaces per dwelling unit using subterranean or multi-level parking for the
development. They were also concerned over traffic and drainage in the area
and morally they did not feel that one life was worth an extra bedroom or one
accident worth a parking space.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the project were built to Code with the 25% addi-
tional waiver, if she would have any objection; Mrs. Berko answered "no".
Mr. Fred Bissell, 969 Cedarwood Lane, stated he held a Master's Degree in
Planning from California State University in Fullerton. The subject that had
not been broached was relative to playground spaces for children. If they
built to the 220 units and took 80% of those or 176 units, figuring three
people per unit (mother, father and child), they were talking about 528 people.
Adding the additional 44 units, keeping those at only two per unit, would be
88 more people, or a total of 616. If those numbers were changed and the 80%
i.ncreased to two children per family, the total would be 704 people and a very
high density in the area. He felt there was a misconception on the site plan.
Working from that plan and another posted exhibit, he explained that in looking
at the artist's conception of the units and where the trees and shrubbery were
included, his contention was that the area (which he pointed to on the exhibit)
was very severly limited as to access. He felt if they considered the central
areas as play areas, the grass and whatever beauty that was there would be
destroyed. He did not feel it was adequate for children and people who were
going to be living there. There was not enough recreational space for the
children. They would be providing housing for people, but he questioned the
lack of amenities for the children they wanted to attract.
Councilman Bay noted that relative to recreational facilities under the ~M-3000
Code, there was no variance involved in the proposed project.
Mayor Seymour pointed out that the Code called for 1000 square feet of recrea-
tional-leisure area for each and every dwelling unit in a condominium project.
The developer in his current proposal would be developing 1012 square feet per
dwelling unit.
81R-312
City Hall~ Ana.heim~' California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 24~ 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
Mrs. Rita Ray, 1927 Chateau Avenue, stated relative to the ABll51, at the meeting
last Wednesday, February 18, 1981, it was her understanding if it affected the
public welfare, they did not have to give a density bonus. She was also at the
Council meeting when the Code was changed in regard to single-family residences
where the State Supreme Court ruled that a household could not be limited by
numbers. At that time, the City Attorney mentioned he was going to take a
survey of other cities to see what they were doing and there was talk about a
appealing that ruling. She asked if any action had been taken in that regard.
City Attorney Hopkins explained that they had discussed the matter at the League
of California Cities meeting and appeals had been filed, but as of this date,
there had been no change in the situation as far as the Supreme Court was con-
cerned. Their survey indicated that most cities were adhering to the existing
rule.
Mayor Seymour stated relative to the State mandates, Councilman Bay very recently
drafted a letter which reflected the attitude of the Council. Prior to Council-
man Bay's letter, they took an action a couple of weeks ago and sent a copy of
that action to every legislator serving Anaheim in Sacramento telling them that
they were tired of the mandates on resale price controls, etc. He asked that
Councilman Bay read into the record his letter to Assemblyman Lewis.
Councilman Bay explained that Assemblyman Lewis sent him a copy of the Roos
Bill along with a summary of that bill and asked him (Bay) if he had any com-
ments on it. He wrote the following comments to Assemblyman Lewis with copies
to Assemblyman Ross Johnson. He thereupon read excerpts from the subject letter
as follows: "AB2853 certainly did settle the controversy about local compliance
with the law and about whether or not the Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) housing guidelines were binding or advisory on local govern-
ment. AB2853 made HCD's guidelines mandatory." The final statement in the
Roos summary which he (Bay) attached to the letter stated "...HCD's existing
guidelines would become clearly advisory as of October 1, 1981 although HDC
may still review elements on an advisory basis." In his letter he stated,
"...this f~nal statement is pure political 'hogwash' since AB2853 has already
~mposed the HCD guidelines on local government. The Anaheim City Council and
many other local governments in Orange County are becoming increasingly con-
cerned about the chronic erosion of local control by State and Federal mandates.
The housing element controversy ±s a good example of its erosion. The original
law implied a means of cooperation between local and State government to alle-
viate the housing problem. Then, HCD, a staff function, proceeded to interpret
and expand the original law as they preferred it. This action created a contro-
versy. This example of a staff function interpreting State law lends credence
to the saying, "elected officials purpose, but bureaucrats dipose."
Mr. Jack Dale, residing at 727 West Cris on the southern boundary of the project,
stated that he felt when the agent for the project spoke, he implied that every-
body along that boundary was in support of or did not have a lot of objection to
the project. That was not true. They had concerns, many of which had already
been expressed by previous speakers. There was an additional problem of traffic
along Cris Avenue even under the present conditions. Traffic would be increased
along their street and it was difficult now to get out onto Euclid. When the
representatives came to their home, they expressed a concern relative to drainage
traffic and lack of parking. Relative to the buffer zone proposed along their
81R-313
City Halls Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 24, 1981~ i:30..P.M.
boundary, they were concerned about the variance being requested, the distance
being only 105 feet. They were also concerned over whether or not the buffer
zone would become a play area and what would happen to the kinds of plants that
would be placed in that area. They thought the area would be wider and they
had concern over the kinds of foilage plants for that buffer area. He also
stated in answer to Councilman Overholt that he did not know if there was a
solution to the traffic problem by Loara High School with or without the pro-
posed project. He had spoken to the Planning Department sometime ago when
there was concern relative to the produce market. He did not think there was
an answer as far as signals because streets were offset, etc. He felt if the
number of cars increased with people trying to get onto those streets, the
problem was also going to increase.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. Dale if he would object to the project if it was
built to Code including the 25% density bonus; Mr. Dales answered "no".
Mr. Ed Davis, 1639 Camrose, stated something not discussed tonight was the
inalienable right of the builder to build and the developer to develop. That
was not the case. He stated he would object if the development was built to
Code and also to the 25% density bonus. They had a particular problem in a
particular area and he believed that a strong Planning Commission and strong
City Council many times would say to the builder, there were many things they
would do for the builder to make it easier, but on the other hand there were
things they needed from the builder to make it easier as well. They should
not deviate but perhaps be even more restrictive than the Code allowed. Mrs.
Berko stated earlier that the responsibility of the Planning Commission and the
Council was to the people who lived in their community now and not to the devel-
oper. He urged the Council to be dramatic. Everything was written to be
changed and it could be changed in the City's favor and not totally in the
developer's favor. He urged them not to compromise with the developer but in-
stead the developer had to compromise with them. They should look at the
rule and see if the builder wanted something. If so, let him give them some-
thing--less density.
Mr. ,ferry Silverman, 1913 Chanticleer, stated an item of concern to him was
the concept of giving the density bonus required under ABI151. However, every-
one who spoke tonight, with the exception of the agent, was talking about too
much density. The City Attorney spoke of alternatives to giving the density
bonus. He, therefore, suggested if the Council or staff were unable to talk
about alternatives, they could have the City Attorney address those potential
alternatives. He would be very much in favor of the project at 154 units
according to Code and existing law and statute and then to talk about the fact
that, according to the State mandate, they had to give away something. The
people were saying that the City Council ought to maintain their community in
the best way possible. If they could reduce the number of people and cars, they
would be dealing with the development suitable to their community, certainly
better than commercial. He did not want to give away even 25% in density if
they did not have to.
Mr. Wayne Bush, 1121 West Beacon, stated he was present to support the people
living next to the proposed project. He lived near Ball Road and the Santa Ana
Freeway adjacent to the water slide. Although it was a different situation, the
81R-314
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 24, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
people who stressed the parking problem were correct. They had such a problem
and when they found themselves involved in it, it was too late. There was in-
sufficient parking for the water slide and his neighborhood was congesed with
parking of vehicles in the warmer months to a point where they could not park
in front of their homes.
Martha Raymond, Mells Lane, stated she was one of the petition passers and of
all the people who were present, there were about ten who stayed away because
they felt it was not possible to "fight City Hall." She hoped that the Council
proved them wrong. Another point of concern to her was the fact that the agent
stated that the people on the southerly boundary were very pleased with the
project and one even indicated that they would like a unit for their son. Some
of those sons, or nephews, or cousins ended up being renters and it was merely
a ruse to buy something cheaper and have it end up as a rental. She hoped that
the Council would help them.
Mr. Jerry Flam, 1533 Lester, asked with the 25% bonus that the law seemed to
require in this case, did that mean they also had to forego the parking density
as well.
Mr. Benjamin Lujan, 1709 West Cris, stated if they changed the building codes
and lowered the square footage per unit, within five, ten or fifteen years he
felt they would have an even larger number of people per unit which was going
to compound the number of people discussed tonight. Instead of 600 or 700
residents in the project, there would be as much as 2,000, resulting in a very
crowded environment. He did not want the building code to be changed for this
project. However, he did feel if they were to provide housing for their child-
ren, they should come up with some answers. Many homes in Anaheim had large
b-ackyards. If they were going to change the Code to allow a builder to develop
his project, he questioned why they would not allow homeowners with large lots
to possibly construct a small unit in their backyard for their children. It
might b~ crowding the City, but if done with very careful planning, they might
be able to provide housing for the future generation of Anaheim.
Mr. Philip Soma, 252 Brentwood Place, stated he would like to offer something
for the City Attorney or Council to investigate concerning resale of the units.
Recently he was qualified to buy at Aliso Creek Villa, controlled by the Orange
County Housing Authority. He did not buy, but if he did, he would have to sign
a statement that he would be the owner-occupant of that particular condominium
for a year before he could sell it and if he had to sell it before then, he would
have to sell it to the.Housing Authority. He felt something like that could be
investigated for both the Peppertree Lane complex and the proposed project if
approved.
Mrs. Carol Antonia, 1527 Cris Place, spoke to the point they kept raising
relative to what they owed to other people in Anaheim. In 1974, she and her
husband bought a home on Cris Place. She was almost 40 years old when they
could afford that home. It took many years to be able to live in the Loara
area. They had owned a home in a less desireable area of Anaheim and made house
payments there for over 15 years to gain equity. She used to drive in the Loara
area to take her children to Trident and dreamed of the day they could live in
the Loara area. They were telling her now that she owed that same area to her
81R-315
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 24, 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
children, and she totally disagreed. She owed it to them as her chidren at
home, but if they could not subsequently afford the area, they would start in
Chino. She and her husband started in Watts.
The Mayor did not agree. He felt they would at least be self-less enough to
house their own; Councilwoman Kaywood stated what she heard the people saying
was, do not increase the density and do not destroy the living environment they
had. When it was their children's turn, they would think about it and be con-
cerned at that time, but not at the expense of changing the City.
Mr. Tom Gilday, 1513 West Cerritos, stated he looked a long time for a home to
buy and he found that home in Anaheim seven years ago and he loved it. However,
he was concerned over the fact that he would have to move. Across from the
Pepperwood complex, there were apartments and everynight somebody burglarized
somebody else's car, it was not possible to park on the street, etc. He felt,
relative to the subject project, they were talking about what he considered
substandard housing that would lead to one thing--in 15 years, the people who
could not afford it today could afford it less at that time, and it would be the
same as the situation with the apartments across from Pepperwood which he con-
sidered to be a bad area.
Mayor Seymour commented that in personally driving through Pepperwood, within
the project itself on three different evenings, he did not see a lack of parking
spaces.
Mrs. Paula Levin, 2106 West Harle, stated relative to the concern expressed by
Mr. Gilday as to why he found the streets congested with parking and not Pepper-
wood, when there were more cars in the project than there were parking spaces,
the first one in would park in the street to leave the late parking available
inside the complex.
Mr. Herbert M. Silverman, 1570 West Cerritos Avenue, expressed his concern for
the 5% in affordable housing in the community but he cautioned them not to overdo
a good thing. Being from New York he and many other people present knew what
overcrowding could do to a neighborhood. He had seen affluent neighborhoods
where parents had money and position, but where the kids ended up with drug
problems from density, close living and so on. By overcrowding, too much
density and the associated problems, he was not protecting anything for his
children, but forcing them out in five to ten years to Chino and perhaps fur-
ther, because of the deterioration that came from high density and overcrowding.
Mr. David DesRoches then asked to speak a second time and stated that the issue
was whether or not they should grant all the variances and waivers requested
for the subject project. He felt they should not for reasons mentioned. The
main reason for addressing the Council a second time was that the agent stated
that due to the fact that the RM-3000 Code was again to be reviewed on March 5,
1981, he felt a vote on the condominium project should be postponed until after
that time. He (DesRoches) stated that the affects of apathy were well known
at the Youth Commission and he believed that if a final hearing on the subject
proposed project were postponed until after March 5, perhaps the input so
necessary to achieve an equitable solution would be lacking. He thus asked
the Council to take a definite vote tonight on whether or not they should allow
the high density condominiums to exist under the present Code and if on March 5
81R-316
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 24, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
the Code was changed and the builder wanted to "give it another shot", he should
come back. Anaheim was their City and the meetings should be at the beck and
call of the residents and not the developers.
Mrs. Jo Ann Stanton, 1509 Harle, stated, earlier in the evening, the Mayor
referred to her boys. She wanted to bring him up to date and explain that her
oldest son, 23 years old, had graduated from school and he was now an engineer.
Last week she helped him move from a high density apartment on the second floor
that he "hated" after one and one-half years and he found a little house in
Lawndale that he was now renting and which he had fixed up. He had to get
away from the density factor, and she felt that might be something that was of
interest to share.
Councilman Overholt asked if she saw anyway in which the traffic situation on
Cerritos could be improved; Mrs. Stanton answered that once Cerritos itself was
improved, the situation would be somewhat improved. The last restriping, etc.,
helped to some extent with the center lane turn they had at the high school.
They still had the improvement on the agricultural area that needed to be done,
but the access problems that were going to be generated from any kind of pro-
ject were going to be very difficult to address and the approaches to the prob-
lem would have to be creative. One way would be not to have an access directly
across from the one at the high school.
Councilman Overholt stated he did not buy what had been said by some people on
the Council that they were forced to grant a density bonus and he did not think
that was the case. As Mr. Jerry Silverman stated, under ABll51 if they could
provide two incentives other than a density bonus, they would be complying with
that section of the law. Perhaps that would provide a way to allow the property
to develop in a way that was economically feasible to the developer and improve
the situation on Cerritos as well. It might be that even the drainage could
somehow be improved along with the project. In talking to City Attorney Hopkins,
the specific incentives he announced were not inclusive, and there could be other
incenti, ves they could utilize. He reiterated that he was not convinced that
the 25% bonus was an absolute requirement. There might be a combination of
factors that could be developed so that everybody would get a little of what
they wanted and that neighborhood would then be happy.
Mrs. Stanton stated she would appreciate that. They were trying to do things
along very traditional lines and she felt that perhaps they had to look at some
creati~vity in the whole process.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor gave Mr. Norkaitis
an opportunity to make his summation.
Mr. Norkaitis stated that excellent questions and concerns had been raised. He
the answered them as follows:
Concern was raised relative to plant material and the location of trees along
the southerly edge. They would be willing and would like to work with staff
and the homeowners to provide the type of screening they felt they should have;
relative to the question whether or not affordable units were built the same
way as market type units, the answer was "yes;" relative to speculation control
and concern over rentals, they had been partially addressed in terms of affordable
units and market rate units. There were further controls that they had initiated
81R-317
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 24, 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
as a builder for the last four years in Orange County. Their buyers were
required to sign agreements that they were not intending to buy the property
for rental purposes, but rather that their intent was to live in and be the
occupant of the unit. Further they had to make that same statement to lenders,
because the lenders had the same feeling.
Councilman Bay interjected and asked if they had any legally binding contract
that they must occupy; Mr. Norkaitis answered the buyers were representing to
them it was their intention to occupy and they were making the same represen-
tation to a lender. He did not think they would actually call it a contract
as such.
City Attorney Hopkins stated that the resale agreements could be worded in such
a manner that if the owner of the property decided to leave or rent, the Housing
Authority would immediately step in and take over. Those were acceptable agree-
ments and would have to be tested in court.
Councilman Bay stated in that case, they were talking about the affordable 25%.
The concerns he heard tonight were relative to speculative buyers who would
then rent the units out anyway. He wanted to make it clear when they said
something like that, they meant there was such a control or there was not such
a control. He was not indicating whether he approved of those controls or not,
but they should not imply it as a control if there was really no control. He
(Bay) was saying there was no control on the 75% or for that matter the 25%.
Mr. Norkaitis stated in terms of the control he was suggesting, it was a self-
imposed control they had as a builder. They did not want to see this project
or other projects that they sold, in turn, being sold to speculators and going
to rentals.
Councilman Bay questioned, in that case, why they did not put a CC & R on it
that absolutely stated contractually that a buyer could not buy it and rent
it; Mr. Norkaitis stated he did not think they were legally able to do that,
but they could do so through the screening mechanism where the representations
were made and by signing the agreement previously referred to.
Mr. Norkaitis continued that a concern was raised about the access points and
alignment, particularly relating the high school across the street. Both
access points were given design constraint handed over to them by the Public
Works Department of the City. It was the desire to align streets vs. off
setting them. If it was the desire of the Council to shift the access point
along Cerritos, he felt that would be an easy change and modification and one
that they would be willing to work with the City Traffic Department on.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if Mr. Norka±tis was at the meeting attended by Mayor
Seymour and two of the Planning Commissioners when they showed the initial plans
at the joint meeting with the Housing and Community Development Department; Mr.
Norkait~s answered that he was at that meeting.
Councilwoman Kaywood continued that at that meeting, they were shown a number
of different sketches including one with 150 RS-5000 homes and another the 220
condominiums. As he might recall, her question then and she was going to ask
81R-318
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 24~ 1981, 1:30 P.M.
it again, she did not understand how he could say it was either this or that
and there was nothing in between, i.e. it was either 150 houses or 220 condo-
miniums and they could not come down from 220. She asked if that was based
on the price of the land.
Mr. Norkaitis stated the two plans he believed Councilwoman Kaywood was re-
ferring to had different product types on them. One showed a zero lot line
patio home and the other showed a project like the present one where there
were 220 attached units. The problem would be from a land planning standpoint.
In shifting to a different product type with a zero lot line home, there were
only so many units they could get on that piece of property. There were in
between points by changing product types. Of the three or four plans shown
at that meeting, the two concepts involved were a single-family detached home
zero lot line concept and the other the project they were viewing tonight.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she thought she made it very clear at that meeting
if they were saying either 150 homes or 220 condominiums, she in turn was saying,
150 homes were fine, but 220 condominiums were too dense. She now saw the same
plan coming in with 220 condominiums. She asked again if that was based upon
the price paid for the land.
Mr. Norkaitis stated he was not certain if he really understood the question
in terms of whether there should be 150 homes of one type vs. 220 townhomes if
that was dependent on the price of the land; Councilwoman Kaywood clarified
that she wanted to know if the 220 units were dependent upon the price paid
for the land.
Mr. Norkaitis stated the 220 units were related to the type of product involved.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if it could not be 200, 180 or 160; Mr. Norkaitis
stated it could be any combination.
Councilwoman Kaywood then stated she had a problem with that, as well as Mr.
Norkaitis' explanation, stating that they looked at the spread sheet comparing
the eight projects already approved in the City having been very encouraged by
that and subsequently they came in with the proposed project. She did not know
if the spread sheet was in existence at that time. She beleived about four
projects had been approved much to her chagrin and against her vote. She was
also confused over why anyone would assume, based on that spread sheet, that
was the way Anaheim was going.
Mr. Norkaitis stated if they were operating in an area where there were no Codes
per se relative to an affordable project being applied on ABll51, all they could
do was to try to assemble the kind of information provided in the spread sheet
in terms of what was being built and approved within the City or jurisdiction
as they were developing it. They were comparing their project, just as the
City staff had done in their analysis for the Council, to the others, and they
felt encouraged by the very favorable comparison.
Mr. Norkaitis continued that another concern raised was the flooding problem
along Cerritos Avenue and at the intersection with Euclid. That was an issue
over which they were concerned as well and as a result, they directed a letter
to Mr. Jay Titus in the Public Works Department and asked him three specific
$1R-319
City. Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 24~ 1981, 1:30 P.M.
questions (see letter dated January 30, 1981 from Hall and Forman, Inc. to Mr.
Titus--Re: Job No. 3069--made a part of the record): (1) Where was the source
of water coming from; (2) Would their improvement of Cerritos Avenue do anything
to improve the situation; (3) If the requirement to install the lateral syste~
for the ultimate hook up at Euclid would ultimately provide a solution to the
problem. Mr. Norkaitis then referred to Mr. Titus' reply dated February 4,
1981 (which he submitted along with the aforementioned letter) and quoted~
sections of the letter, Item No. 2 and 3 on Page 1 of the letter, answering
questions 2 and 3 by the developer. He (Norkaitis) felt that the summary
statement was interesting (see Page 1 and 2 of the February 4, 1981 letter)
because the concern was raised tonight that the project would add to the already
flooded conditions of that intersection. Mr. Titus was saying, however, "... we
do not believe that the existing overall flooding conditions in this area will
be materially improved or worsened by this project."
Another concern raised was relative to the traffic capacity and congestion on
that street. He had received letter dated February 17, 1981 sent to Mr. Richard R.
Dolittle, Hall and Forman, Inc., Costa Mesa, from the Traffic Engineer's office
which he submitted (made a part of the record) as a result of their seeking
help in dealing with that question and also the question regarding the high
number of accidents that they heard had been happening at the intersection of
Euclid and Cerritos. The letter stated that Euclid and Cerritos were primary
and secondary arterials and that they were not at capacity. As well, the accept-
able collision factor for that intersection was 2.62 which was below the accept-
able collision factor rate of 3.0. The letter also stated, "records in this
office indicate four reported traffic collisions within the past four years,
1977 through 1980."
In terms of congestion, there was a report prepared by a consultant, as Mr. Messe
indicated, to try to make a determination in terms of congestion and the problems
of in-bound and out-bound traffic circulation, and that was a matter of public
record and part of the EIR attachments. The conclusion of their report was
that both Cerritos and Euclid had adequate capacity to accommodate the project
traffic.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing,
Councilman Overholt asked the possibility of their reducing the density on the
project and still having it remain economically feasible, i.e., 192 units would
b-e the 25% bonus,
Mr. Norkaitis stated it was difficult to say without going back into the project
and looking at all aspects of it, and the other areas of variances as well,
whether 19.2, 193 or 194, whatever it would be, would be an acceptable bonus
relative to their concerns from an economic standpoint.
Councilman Overholt stated in some of the data he had relayed in response to
the Mayor's questions about payments and requiring annual incomes, etc., he
considered those figures to be low compared to what they had been hearing in
other affordable projects. He asked, therefore, that Mr. Norkaitis double
check those figures.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she too was concerned with hearing that the project
was still 220 units. She would be interested in seeing what 192 would equate
81R-320
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 24~ 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
to, not having waivers on the size of the units. It was too small to keep pushing
people into smaller and smaller space with no storage whatsoever. Somebody made
the comment and she was certain it would be true that any closed garage would
then become part of the living environment, whether storage or living area and
that would create an additional parking shortage.
Mayor Seymour stated as he indicated at the outset, in recent weeks they had a
number of developers come in requesting variances and they told each of them
that they were having a number of work sessions to try to work out new standards
and they preferred to consider the project subsequent to the work sessions. He
felt this evening's meeting had been most beneficial, having had a hearing
lasting four hours with a fair cross-section of opinion. The Council should
be sensitive to the points that had been made, some emotional, some accurate,
some not accurate. They had a scheduled work session on March 5 and whatever
work sessions might follow to try to come up with some new standards or
middle ground standards as he called them. Ideally when they had done that,
as Mr. Messe and Stanton suggested, they should live with the regulations and
ordinances on the books.
For the last year, as he also indicated at the outset, the Council had been
approving such development project by project. Somewhat in defense of the
Council and the Planning Commission's actions, to the best of his knowledge,
there had not been a project built in the City that had not been built consis-
tent with the General Plan. ~hat they had learned through the work sessions
was that they had a General Plan coding every piece of property in the City and
spelling out whether it be low density, low-medium density, industrial, commer-
cial, etc., but with the site development standards, the number of square footage
per unit, the number of parking spaces per unit, etc., when laying those stan-
dards on the General Plan, there was no possible way that they could develop
to that General Plan. Thus, what they had developed over a period of time
were standards that were out of sync with the General Plan. They had developed
more regulations and restrictions to the point where now they either had to
change the whole General Plan to conform with the standards, or bring it back
to the middle so that they did not give away the environment, but yet provide
a balance so that they could develop the remainder of the City in accordance
with the General Plan. He hoped that would come out of the work sessions.
MOTION: Council discussion then followed relative to setting a continued public
hearing on the subject project at which time a decision would be made. At the
conclusion of discussion, Councilman Seymour moved to continue public hearing
on the subject reclassification, conditional use permit and tentative tract to
Tuesday, March 17, 1~81, at 7:00 p.m. Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay stated when he looked over the table
provided by staff showing project comparisons of at least eight developments
that had been approved, there were density bonuses ranging from 24, 28 and 30
units per acre. The subject project was 20.8 net density. It was no surprise
to him therefore that a developer would come in and ask for every variance in
the book just looking at the pattern that had occurred on the Council over the
period of the subject table. What concerned him, when there was strong public
indication, ~f the Council listened to that public indication such as tonight,
they would reject the project on a vote. However, they were going to continue
81R-321
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 24, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
the matter, but on the other hand if there had been about two people present and
seven developers and there was not much protest, he did not think they would
have continued the matter, but voted the variances through, perhaps on a three to
two vote such as on many of the projects thus far. He and Councilwoman Kaywood
in some cases, not all, had argued against some of the density bonuses over a
period of time. He was not in favor of the continuance, but would like to see
the project rejected tonight, since they chose to come on with their public
hearing. He felt it could be resubmitted once they hashed out through the
workshop what settlement they were going to come to. Some of the hearings he
had listened to over the last six months to a year and from what he had seen of
the variances and so forth coming out of the Planning Commission, some pulled
and put to public hearings, others passed right on through, this was the first
hearing where he had seen this much specific response from people coming in
telling the Council what they really thought about what the Council had been
doing. They had not had that on the other hearings which had a great deal to
do with the pattern forming the way it had. He did feel that tonight's message
from a great many people in the City was clear--to reject the project on the
basis of the opinion of the people living in that area. Therefore, he did not
think it should be continued but voted on.
Councilman Overholt, speaking to Councilman Bay, stated as he knew, he respected
his opinions and views to the ultimate, but he felt he had insulted his intelli-
gence. The neighborhood involved was a very unique one. It was right across
from a major high school and at the intersection of two very busy streets. It
was a neighborhood well known to all of them. He assured Councilman Bay that if
there had been nobody in the Chambers, he would not have approved the project
tonight in its present form. He felt by continuing it until after their con-
tinued workshop would give not only the neighborhood but also the developer an
opportunity to work with a project that would be compatible with the neighborhood,
acceptable to the developer and to the people living there, and that was the
purpose for the continuance. If he were to vote tonight, he would vote against
the project, but it would not be fair to the neighborhood who wanted the property
improved or to the developer who was attempting to work out something that was
acceptable.
Mayor Seymour also voiced his strong objection and feeling to Councilman Bay's
comment. He referred to the statement made that if the people were not present
tonight, it was very possible the project would be voted through. He maintained
that was a falsehood. Last Tuesday, February 17, 1981 (see minutes that date), a
condominium developer appeared before them asking for a condominium conversion.
There was no one present in the Council Chambers and consideration of his
project was continued. He (Seymour) took it personally when, through innuendos,
Councilman Bay suggested that because the people were not present, the Council
might act dishonorably,
Councilman Bay stated that was not his implication, he referred to previous
projects approved with a 144% density bonus, 100%, 68% and tonight they were
talking about 43%. When he looked at all the figures on the subject develop-
ment compared to the spread sheet, it looked favorable.
Mayor Seymour stated that was not what he was referring to. He (Bay) had made
the comment if the people were not present this evening, it probably would be
voted through and that was a falsehood; Councilman Bay stated that was his opinion.
81R-322
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 24, 19817 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kmywood stated she hoped Councilman Overholt was right, but she was
not too hopeful that the developer was going to come in with any approved change.
She again referred to the meeting that she and the Mayor attended approximately
six months ago when the developer presented his plans and she stated flatly at
that point, 220 units was out of the question and yet they still came in with
220. She did not see a difference and felt this was just a stall and what they
were looking for out of the joint meeting was for the ~Mayor to be able to get
what he had been looking for all along, to make all of the bonuses legal, so
that developers could come in for bonuses on top of bonuses. She really did
not believe he was looking to improve the situation at all.
Mayor Seymour stated he did not know why the meeting should end up to be a
personal attack by her and Councilman Bay upon him. He had tried the best
he knew how to conduct an open public hearing trying to be sensitive to every
person that had come to the podium. The hearing had gone on for approximately
four and one-half hours and for Councilwoman Kaywood to make such a statement
was not only brutally unfair, but also, he believed, untruthful as well. He
asked why the situation had boiled down to a "finger-pointing" contest at him.
Councilwoman Kaywood answered that she guessed because it was the first meeting
they had that had not been loaded with the realtors of Anaheim and she did not
know how he had slipped up on that.
Further discussion and debate followed between the Mayor and Councilwoman
Kaywood at the conclusion of which, Councilman Roth stated they had permitted
other developers to hold off their projects for a final decision until after
the work session. He had no fear that was going to make a great deal of
difference and he did not see why they should be concerned about obtaining an
additional amount of knowledge. He supported Councilman Overholt's and cer-
tainly Mayor Seymour's recommendation that they continue the matter until after
the work session.
Councilwoman Kaywood urged everyone in the audience to return when the matter
would again come before the Council on March 17, 1981, if they did not want to
see a change.
Councilman Overhoit stated he would also urge them to come back, but not for
that reason.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion of continuance. Councilwoman
Kaywood and Councilman Bay voted "no". MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOUR~N-MENT: Councilman Seymour moved to adjourn to Thursday, March 5, 1981,
7:00 P.M., for a joint work session with the City Planning Commission. Coun-
cilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (11:25 P.M.)
~ERTS~