1981/03/1081-346
City ~all, Anaheim, Califc.rnia - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 10, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
PUBLIC LTILITIES CENERAL MASSAGER: Gordon Hoyt
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ron Thompson
ASSISTANT UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER: Edward Alario
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
CIVIL ENGINEER - DESIGN: Art Daw
Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Reverend Tom Favreau, Melodyland Hotline Center, gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman E. Llewellyn Overholt, Jr., led the assembly in the
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
128: PRESENTATION: Mr. Irwin Bornstein, Assistant Director of Finance, accepted
the presentation made on behalf of the Council by the _Mayor, of the California
Society of Municipal Finance Officers Certificate of Award for Outstanding
Financial Reporting by the City for the 1979/80 fiscal year. Mr. Bornstein
accepted on behalf of the entire Accounting staff.
The Mayor extended congratulations for a job ~'ell done.
119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Seymour
and authorized by the City Council:
"American Legion Week" - March 15-21, 1981
"Employ the Older Worker Week" - March 8-11, 1981
Mr. Mike Canales, Post Commander of American Legion Post No. 72, accepted the
American Legion Week proclamation anC Shelia McKie, Emplo)ment Development
Department representative, accepted the latter proclamation.
MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular
meetings held September 2 and December 16, 1980, subject to typographical
corrections on the meeting of December 16, and the regular meetings of
January 6 and March 3, 1981. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Bay moved to waive
the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda, after 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. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
81-347
City Hall, Anaheim~ .California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 10, 1981, 1:30
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $8,154,908.60 for the
period ending March 3, 1981 and $9,812,272.56 for the period ending March 10,
1981, in accordance with the 1980-81 Budget, were approved.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL COl!SENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood,
seconded by Councilman Roth, the following items were approved as recommended:
a. 160: Bid No. 3741--Tire Tubular Steel Poles. Award to Pacific Union Metal
Company, $49,164.92.
b. 160/140: Bid No. 3740--Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchage
order for metal library shelving for the Canyon Hills Library to Burt C. Gentle
Co. in the amount of $52,467.88.
c. 160/140: Bid No. 3740--Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase
order for technical library furniture for the Canyon Hills Library to Burt C.
Gentle Co. in the amount of $26,987.15.
d. 160/140: Bid No. 3740--Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue purchase
orders to the following for staff and lounge furniture for the Canyon Hills
Library: Bassett Interiors in the amount of $9,606.86, Item Nos. 3, 8, 9, 10,
11 and 12; Burt C. Gentle Co. in the amount of $1,835.92, Item Nos. 13 and 17;
and HMC Corporation in the amount of $7,624.58, Item Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 14,
15 and 16.
e. 150: Continuing award of contract on the Pearson Park B.edevelopment Project,
Account No. 16/25-820-7103, to March 17, 1981.
f. 128: Receive and file Financial Statement for the seven months ended
January 31, 1981.
g. 158/174(CDBG): Authorizing the payment of a relocation claim in Case
No. PS-O-4 in the amount of $15,100. (Neighborhood Improvement Program)
h. 123: Authorizing an amendment to an agreement with John Cappelletti Assoc-
iates in an amount not to exceed $23,250, to provide for additional programming
services and to extend the expiration date to August 15, 1981.
i. 123; Authorizing an agreement with Berryman & Stephenson, Inc., in an
amount not to exceed $8,370 for consulting services, plans, specifications
and cost estimates for the Pavement Marking Program.
j. 144.123: Authorizing the Right of Way Certification and Project Admini-
stration Agreement with the County of Orange for A.H.F.P. No. 1000, Lincoln
Avenue, State College Boulevard to East Street.
k. 109/140: Approving the submittal of a grant application in the amount of
$3,510 to the California State Library Board for funding under the Major Urban
Resource Library (MURL) Program, and authorizing the City Manager to submit
same.
MOTION CARRIED.
81-348
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MISdaTES - March 10, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
CITY MANAGER RESOLUTION CONSENT CALENDAR: Councilman Seymour offered ResolutioD
No. 81R-88 through 81R-91, both inclusive, for adoptioD. Refer to Resolution
Book.
164: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-88: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL. AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST
RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PL;~T, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS
AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRanSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND
WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: LA PALPJk AVENUE FEDERAL AID URBAN PROJECT - STREET & STORM
DRAIN IMPROVEMENT - FAU NO. M-L073(1), IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS.
13-793-6325-E3230 & 51-606-6329-25610-34320. (Five States Plumbing, Inc.,
$799,375.15)
129: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-89: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DECLARING THE NECESSITY PURSUANT TO GOVERb~ENT CODE SECTIO~ 39576.5 TO
CONTRACT FOR THE CUTTING AND REMOVAL OF ALL RANK GROWTH AND WEEDS, AND REMOVAL
OF RUBBISH, REFUSE AND DIRT UPON ANY PARCEL CR PARCELS OF REAL PROPERTY OR ANY
PUBLIC STREETS WITHIN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALLING FOR BIDS THEREON, AND AUTH-
ORIZING PUBLICATION OF KOTICE THEREFORE, ACCOUNT~ NO. 01-202-6320. (1981-1982)
(Bids to be opened April 9, 1981, 2:00 P.M.)
109/150; RESOLUTIOM NO. 81R-90: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE APPLICATIONS FOR 1980 STATE GRANT MONEYS FOR EIGHT
PARKS AND RECREATION PROJECTS. ($782,567, State 1980 Park Bond Act)
109/132; RESOLUTION NO. 81R-91: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL CF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS UNDER THE SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1980. ($23,382)
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-88 through 81R-91, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
123/158: REQUEST TO LEASE FIVE ACRES OF CITY-OWNED PROPERTY: An agreement
with David Rudat in the amount of $2,500 annually, for lease of five acres
of City-owned land located on the east side of Brookhurst Street, south cf
Pacific Avenue at the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks, for the term ending
March 1, 1~84, was submitted.
Noting staff report dated February 24, 1981 from the City Engineer, Mayor
Seymour asked how they arrived at the figure of $500 per acre per year.
City Manager William Talley stated that since staff was not present to answer
the question, he would remove the item and bring it back in one week.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Overholt, consideration
of the subject request was continued one week. MOTION CARRIED.
81-349
City Hall, Anaheim, Califc. rnia- COUNCIL MINUTES - March 10, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
109/177: APPLICATION FOR STATE HOMEOk~ERSHIP ASSISTANCE PROGRAM: Councilman
Overholt offered Resolution Ko. 81R-92 for adoption, supporting the Housing
Authority's application for $1,000,000 of funding from the State of California
Homeownership Assistance Program to assist displaced families by condominium
and cooperative conversions and mobilehome park residents, as recommended in
memorandum dated February 23, 1981 from Executive Director of Community Develop-
ment Norm Priest. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-92: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
SUPPORTING THE ANAHEIM HOUSING AUTHORITY'S APPLICATION FOR $1,000,000 OF FUNDING
FROM THE ~TATE OF CALIFORNIA HOMEOWNERSHIP ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES;
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL ME~BERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COU~!CIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-82 duly passed and adepted.
153; RATES COMPENSATION FOR UNREPRESENTED PART-TIME JOB CLASSIFICATIONS: Coun-
cilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 81R--93 for adoption, establishing rates
of compensation for unrepresented part-time job classifications and superseding
Resolution No. 80R-147 and amendments thereto, effective March 13, 1981, as
recommended in memorandum dated March 4, 1981 from Human Resources Director
Garry McRae. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-93: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ESTABLISHING RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR UNREPRESENTED PART-TIME JOB CLASSIFICA-
TIONS, AND SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION NO. 80R-147 AND AMENDMENTS THER}:TO.
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-93 duly passed and adopted.
153/174; PUB~LIC SERVI~CE EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM REDUCTIONS - TITLE VI (CETA) AND
TITLE, II-D~ EFFECTIVE APRIL 9, 1981; City Manager Talley briefed the Council
on memorandum dated March 2, 1981 from Human Resources Director Garry McRae.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to approve the phase out of the Title VI Public
Service Employment Program, effective April 9, 1981, and the termination from
employment of all affected CETA participants, and approving a 14-month maxi-
mum limitation on the length of individual participation allowed in the
Title II-D Public Service Employment Program, also effective April 9, 1981.
Councilman Seymour seconded the motion~
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour stated they would all recall it was some-
time back that the Council was concerned about CETA positions filling full-time
activities and, therefore, running the risk of Anaheim becoming dependent upon
81-350
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 10, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Federal funding and not being able to withdraw. He would assume that in phasing
the program out and eliminating the positions that, in fact, there would be no
reduction whatsoever in the level of City services provided to the citizens.
Mr. Talley stated there would be no reduction in the level of normal City services.
They provided the Council with a report every quarter showing where they used
a few of the positions on special assignment on one-time only activities.
Council two years ago began phasing positions out and the current Resource
Allocation Plan was predicated on the basis that no position would be providing
standard City services. He could say next year would be no impact on that plan.
Councilman Bay asked if that might result in some increases in the part-time
employee area.
Mr. Talley answered, if the Departments could justify that in some way, there
might be such cases. However, they had phased out people working in what he
considered their normal day-to-day activities to almost nothing already in
anticipation of Congressional and administrative initiatives to further re-
duce the CETA program this fiscal year. He also felt that the former admini-
stration's unrealistic salary levels made hiring people for normal or standard
City service almost an impossibility.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
123/140: ACCEPTANCE OF SERRANO PRIVATE COLLECTION FOR SALE BY THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM LIBRARY: City Manage~ Talley anmounced that that Elizabeth Schultz
of the Library Board had a few words to say regarding the matter.
Mrs. Elizabeth Schultz, stated that the gift to the Library was the result
of a long standing friendship with Mildred Yorba MacArthur Serrano and her
husband, Horatio Serrano. They were unable to be presert today. She hoped
that they would send a Resolution of Appreciation to Mrs. Serrano so that she
would know how grateful they all were for the gift.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 81R-94 for adoption, authorizing an
agreement with Mildred Yorba MacArthur Serrano for the sale of the private
"Grant Jackson Collection" through the Library snd for a 50% share of the
proceeds with City from said sale, as recommended in memorandum dated March 3
~982 from the City Librarian William Griffith. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTIOD NO. 81R-94: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
J~PROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH MILDRED YORBA MACARTHUR
SERR~O, AN INDIVIDUAL; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK
EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT.
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-94 duly passed and adopted.
A Resolution of Appreciation ~as authorized to be mailed to Mrs. Serrano.
81-351
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 10, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
104: FOPgW~ATION OF STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 1980-7 (TRACT NO. 2875):
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 81R-86 and 81R-87 for adoption, the
first accepting the report of the Superintendent of Streets for certain improve-
ments to be made by the City under the Street Lighting Act of 1931, in connection
with proposed Street Lighting Assessment District 1980-7, and the second declaring
the City's intention to make certain improvements under the authority of the
Street Lighting Act of 1931; describing the imprcvements to be made, naming Dale
Avenue: Stonybrook Drive, Newcastle Drive, Birchleaf, Oakwilde Drive, Bronwyn
Drive and Keys Lane as streets to be improved; improvements to be made over five
years, to commence on or about July 1, 1981; and setting March 24, 1981, at 3:00
P.M., as the date and time of the public hearing. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-86: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE REPORT OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF STREETS FOR CERTAIN IMPROVEMEbTS
TO BE MADE BY THE CITY UNDER THE STREET LIGHTING ACT OF 1931.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-87: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO MAKE CERTAIN IMPROVF~,ENTS UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE
STREET LIGHTING ACT OF 1931, DESCRIBING THE IMPROVEMENTS TO EE MADE, NAMING THE
STREETS UPON WHICH THE IMPROVEMENTS ARE TO BE MADE, REFERRING TO THE REPORT OF
THE SUPERINTENDENT OF STREETS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK, FIXING
THE PERIOD OF TIME FOE WHICH THE IMP~OVEMENTS ARE TO BE MADE, AND SETTING A TIME
AND PLACE FOR HEARING PROTESTS.
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-86 and 81R-87 duly passed and adopted.
123: REVISION TO AGREEMENT FOR RELOCATION OF MWD'S WEST ORANGE COUNTY FEEDER--
WORK ORDER NO. 7-5298; Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the deletion of
the second paragraph relating to interest of Part IV, page ~ of the agreement
with the Metropolitan Water District dated January 20, 1981, for relocation of
the District's West Orange County Feeder to accommodate the Magnolia Avenue
Storm Drain, as recommended in memoranCum dated March 4, 1981 from the City
Engineer. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CAR~IED.
123/101: LEASE PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOR ANAHEIM STADIUM ADDITIONS: Councilman
Roth moved to authorize a sub-lease agreement with the Los Angeles Rams Football
Company in the amount of $231,139, plus interest, for sub-lease of certain per-
sonal property at Anaheim Stadium for the term ending December 1, 1983, as rec-
ommended in memorandum dated March 3, 1981 from Director of Finance George
Ferrone, Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTICN CARRIED.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 81R-95 and 81R-96 for adoption, the first
authorizing an agreement with the Bank of America National Trust and Savings
Association in the amount of $231,139 for lease of certain personal property
at Anaheim Stadium for the term ending December 1, 1983, ant the second autho-
rizing an agreement conveying certain personal property at Anaheim Stadium to
the Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association. Refer to Resolution
Book.
81-352
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 10, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-95: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APP~OVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A LEASE BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND
THE BANK OF AMERICA NATIONAL TRUST AND SAVINGS ASSOCIATION FOR CERTAIN PERSONAL
PROPERTY LOCATED AT ANAHEIM STADIUM.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-96: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CI%Y OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING AN AGREEMENT ON CERTAIN PERSONAL PROPER%~ OWNED BY THE CITY IN ANAHEIM
STADIUM TO THE BANK OF AMERICA NATIONAL TRUST AND SAVINGS ASSOCIATION.
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-95 and 81R-96 duly passed and adopted.
101/123: FINAL ACCEFTANCE AND PAYMENT TO STEWART-WARNER FOR WORK PERFORMED--
ANAHEIM STADIUM SCOREBOARD: Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 81R-97
for adoption, accepting the work performed by the Stewart-Warner Corporation
at the Anaheim Stadium Scoreboard, directing that the Notice of Completion be
filed, and authorizing final payment in the amount of $115,348.40 therefor, as
recommended in the memorandum dated March 5, 1981 from Acting Public Works
Executive Director Ron Thompson. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-97: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ACCEPTING THE CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION OF ANAHEIM STADIUM SCOREBOARD ACCOUNT
NO. 61-295-6896, DIRECTING THAT THE CITY CLERK FILE A NOTICE OF COMPLETION AND
AUTHORIZING THE FINANCE EIRECTOR TO MAKE FINAL PAYMENT ON SAID SCOREBOARD.
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-97 duly passed and adopted.
175: RESIDENTIAL CONSERVATION SERVICE PLAN: Mr. Ed Alario, Assistant Public
Utilities General Manager, stated there were minor changes to be made in the
plan attached to memorandum dated March 4, 1981 (on file in the City Clerk's
office) from the Public Utilities General Manager. Each of the changes had
been discussed with the Department of Energy by phone yesterday and the plan
was basically approved with the minor modifications as follows:
Page 2 of Schedule A, No. 3.(a) remove, (except caulking and weatherstripping).
Page 3--No. 5.(~) remove, (except for caulking and weathe~stripping). Page 14--
under Item 2~--(right hand column) second line, remove, DOE and insert...City of
Anaheim or .... Page 18 under Item 6 (%ight hand column)--in the second sentence
remove, "either" and ... or Class B... and change audits to audit.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 81R-98 for adoption, as recommended in
the March 4, 1981 memorandum from the Public Utilities Ceneral Manager and with
the modifications as articulated. Refer to Resolution Book.
81-353
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 10~ 1981, 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-98: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ACCEPTING AND APPROVING ANAHEIM'S RESIDENTIAL CONSERVATION SERVICE (RCS) PLAN
AS AMENDED AND AUTHORIZING THE PUBLIC UTILITIES GENERAL M~kNAGER TO SUBMIT SAID
PLAN TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE).
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywoed, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-98 duly passed and adopted.
175/127: PALO VERDE NUCLEAF. GENERATING STATION - CONSIDERATION OF SPECIAL
MUNICIPAL ELECTION JUNE 2, 1981, INCLUDING PROPOSEI~ CHARTER AMENDMENTS: City
Manager Talley briefed the Council on the recommendations eutlined in memor-
randum dated March 5, 1981 from the Public Utilities General Manager wi:ich also
under the discussion portion, outlined in detail the purpcse and reasons for
ma~ing the subject recon~endation.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted Page 3 of the proposed resolution calling for a
Special Municipal Election for the purpose of submitting a measure eliminating
the maximum rate of interest which can be paid on previously authorized electric
revenue bonds. Relative to the refunding and anticipation notes, she was con-
cerned over the proposed ballot wording which she felt would be unclear to the
average voter, in which case people would vote "no" or not vote at all. It
needed to be revised and she did not want to wait until next week to do it.
Mr. Hoyt stated they would be happy to work on additional versions of the langu-
age during the week and feed it to the Council as quickly as possible.
Councilman Roth asked relative to all the proposed items if they had been pro-
cessed through the Public Utilities Board in the last 60 days or so in order to
bring them up to speed on those matters. He had not seen any evidence in their
minutes that that had occurred.
Mr, Hoyt answered that he talked with the Board at their meeting last week
(Thursday, March 5, 1981) and indicated he was comipg to the Council today
to present the matters for preliminary discussion with a request that action
be taken the Collowing week. The Board recommended going forward with the
Pa!o Verde Project and they were putting it to the electorate as requested
by the City Council, Relative to the Charter Amendments, th~ Board was aware
of what they were doing and that matter was discussed at the time the.y issued
bonds. They did not review the specific language but did not indicate any
desire to do so. However, they could call a special meeting of the Public
Utilities Board if the Council wished. They did not have any written recom-
mendation from the PUB relative to the bond issue or th~ Charter amendments.
Those had pot been submitted to the PUB, but he mentiomed to them ~t the last
meeting that it was going to the City Council, and none of the members indicated
any need to take any action. They felt tha~t as far as Palo Verde was concerned,
it was the Council's policy that that was going to the electorate. As far as
the ~efunding measures were concerned, they had discussed those in the past.
Regarding the removal of the 8% coupon interest, they had also discussed that
81-354
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 10, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
in the past. They had sent the Board copies of the material, but it had not
gone to them on their agenda.
Councilman Roth stated he wo~ld feel more comfortable if they had received a
recommendation from the Board. He felt they really had not had a discussion
on the matter since prior to the last election ~'hen it failed. He was alse
concerned with the possibility of spending up to $100,000 for a special elec-
tion when a regular election would be held in June of 1982 and the cost would
be considerably less.
Mr. Hoyt explained that the only thing governing the time of the special elec-
tion was the desire to submit the purchase of electrical power from the Palo
Verde Nuclear Gene~'ating Station to the electorate prior to the time of making
a conm,itment. They anticipated in the current schedule that a commitment
would be required sometime in June or July, and it appeared that the final con-
tracts would be executed around September of 1981.
Councilm~,n Bay expressed his concern cver the time constraints they had to work
under. He was interested in the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNCS)
and the Council had agreed that such matters would go to the vote of the people.
However, a refunding measure was also being proposed to go on the ballot again.
Mr. Hoyt stated the real issue that needed to go on the ballot was the Palo
Verde nmtter and that Was the only issue comtrolling the time frame. However,
counsel indicated to him that there was some vagueness about ~hether or not it
was possible to call a special election for a purely advisory matter, whereas
there was no question about being able to call one for a Charter Amendment.
Thus, it was his intention to put the refunding measures on the ballot as well.
He felt this was an opportunity to have incorporated into the Charter the
ability to refund bonds as well as to issue bond anticipation notes. The
decision on pato Verde would probably be made prior to November 1981 which would
be the next possible date when an election could be scheduled. They needed to
be in a position to say "yes" or "no" prior to November. Today they did not have
a great deal of inform~tion that said it was absolutely and clearly in the best
interest of Anaheim to participate in the project. What they had was a review
by staff and their conaultants stating that they had looked at the numbers and
the schedule which the Project Manager had given them indicating there may be
significant savings to Anaheim by purchasing power from the PVNGS project
instead of purchasing from Southern California Edison (SCE). However, they
could not quantify that at this time in terms of hard dollars. The) expected
to have studies done that would permit that quantification prob~.bly by 0une.
He reite=ated~ at the moment~ they could not refer to specific numbers in
dollar costs and dollar savings in the ballot measure. Their congultant had
told them while the palo Verde project appeared to be the best managed nuclear
project that they had seem, they nonetheless felt that the Project Manager's
cost estimates and schedule were ~ptimistic.
Mr. Hoyt then explainer for Councilman Roth relative to having th~ opportunity
to refund bonds, the bonds they sold in 1980 were deep discount bonds and sold
at about a 10% discount with an 8% coupon. They c~uld refund those below par
with the floor at 95% and a ceiling of par within three years from the date that
the bonds were issued. If the bond mark~t imprcved to a point ~here they could
81-355
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 10, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
recall thcse bonds, refund them, and replace them with new bonds at a lower
true interest cost, it would be to the advantage~ of the City to do that. After
the three-year period, they would be back to the normal call provisions which
were in excess of par. If the bond market did not improve, they would do
nothing.
Councilman Bay pointed out, last year if they could have sold some bonas in May
which they ended up selling later in the year, there was a vast difference in
the percentage. There was nothing that would tell them right now whether the
bond market was goimg to go up or down but if do%~, then they would not have
the ability to do anything.
Mr. Hoyt stated that was precisely why he was making the recon~endations;
Councilwoman Kay~'ood stated that was why she brought the matter up because
somehow the wording on the ballot had to show that and the propc, sed wording
did not do so. It needed to show that there ~'as a vast savings to the voters
in having the abJ.lity to refund the bonds. When the bond nmrket was on the
move, timing was of the essence, and it was~ not possible to go out to a spe. cial
vote at that time.
Mayor Seymour asked if the proposed amendment to Section 1210 of the Charter
was the same as it appeared on the ballot the last time.
Mr. Hoyt answered "no". It was consolidated as one single item and this time
they divided it into two parts, one of the reasons being so that the voter
could make achc. ice if he wished.
Mr, Alan Watts, Special Counsel, explained that the language insofar as the
ballot proposition was concerned was the same except it was divided into two.
He suspected that the language the Mayor was referring to, i.e,, the amendment
to the Charter with respect to refunding bonds, was not the same in two partic-
ular regarda. There was some qualifications as to when the City Council may
authorize the issuance of refunding bonds. The previous language basically
provided that the Council could so act when the true interest cost on the bonds
to be refunded was reduced.
Mayor Seymour, speaking to Mr. Hoyt, stated that he did not know why he con-
tinued to come back trying to sell the Council a bill of goods so that they'
could go out and, in his opinion, attempt to con the voter when he received
clear direction last time. Relative to Section 1210.1, three Council Members
told him specifically last time they only wanted to see the City Council
empowered with the refunding right if there was to be a lower rate of interest.
That was contrary at the time to what he (Hoyt) was recommending. He wanted
an open--ended checkbook and now he was coming back with the same. He (Seymour)
was not going to approve something to go on the ballot ending up to be a blank
check for the v~ters to sign. If Mr. Hoyt was sincere about what he wanted to
do and what he and Councilwoman Kaywood just described, to be able to refn.nd
a high interest rate bond issue in exchange for a lower ~nterest rate, he should
say so, Rowever, if he wanted more power than that, he ought to be honest and
say that as well,
81-356
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 10, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Hoyt stated the reason he came back with the particular language prcposed
which was different in some respects than what was submitted last time they
talked to the City's financial advisor, and asked him what sort of refunding
provisions should be in the Charter, in his opinion, in order to permit the City
to have the maximum flexibility with its financing program ~.nd to take advan-
tage of whatever future events might come up. There were three things the
Mayor was concerned with last time--(1) that the true interest costs be less,
(2) that the maturities not be extended and (3) that they could refun~ those
bonds if there was essentially some other good reason for doing that, such
as to remove an onerous covenant in the resolution that issued the bonds.
Their financial advisors had recommended the advantages of retaining for a
future City Council the maximum flexibility on the assumption the Council would
act in the best interest of its constituents, i.e., the electric or water rate
payers of the City.
Mayor Seymour stated the present City Council, and he would hope they had not
changed their viewpoint, had acted upon a philosophical principle very consis-
tently in the past--they would not indebt their constituents for large sums of
money over long periods of time without their approval. If the measure should
get on the ballot and they voted "yes", the City Council would, in fact, be em-
powered to break that philosophical principle.
Discussion followed between the Mayor and Mr. Watts ~elative to the refunding
issue at the conclusion of which the Mayor suggested that they modify the
languag~ in their question an£ specifically state that the only time the
Council would be empowered to refund on a bond issue would be when they could
get a lower ~nterest rate at the same or lesser maturity.
Mr. Hoyt stated he would accept anything the City Council would direct. In
talking to their financial advisors, they were advising the City it was unwise
to tie their hands that tightly relative to refunding. There was no intention
to end run the voters. His only concern was, why restrict a future Council
frcm acting in a manner which they felt was in the City's best interest on what-
ever the situation may be at that time.
Mayor Seymour stated that his only concern was that the voters of A~aheim:.
before they voted on something, the Council had the responsibility to make
it very clear what they were buying if they voted "yes" and what they were not
buying, What Mr. Hoyt was selling was not what he was buying.
Mr. Hoyt stated what he was "selling" was a standard, normal, everyday bread
and butter refunding bond provis±on that every public agency had.
The Mayor then continued that relative to the Palo Verde project, he could not
support a project that they did not even know what the numbers were and they
were uncertain about the profitability. He could not tell the voters to cast
their vote not knowing how much in dollars the bonds might be and not knowing
for sure what the bottom line profit or loss of the project might be.
Mr. Hoyt state~ that he could not blame the Mayor. He would not support doing
it at this time either. However, if the matter was going to go to the voters
and the voters were going to express themselves, they had June 2, 1981 to do it,
81-357
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 10, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
or Anaheim would have to say that they could not participate in the project.
They simply did not know enough about the project now, six months before com-
mitment time, to be able to tell the numbers.
Mayor Seymour stated until they did know, he did not think it was responsible
to go to the voters and say that they really did not know about the project, but
they still wanted their vote. He could not in good conscious do that.
Mr. Hoyt then explained for Councilman Pay that he could not even guarantee
that they would have the information by June 2, 1981.
Councilman Bay stated in that case, they would be in trouble. If they could
guarantee that information prior to ballot time, the Council may come out on
a 5-0 vote advising the voters to vote "no" on the project. If they could not
even get to that point, he did not know how they could vote either now or next
week to put the measur+ on the ballot.
Mr. Hoyt explained that one cf the things they had discussed in the final analy-
sis of the question, where it said, "shall Anaheim purchase electric power under
a long-term contract from PVNGS?" to instead say, "If the City Council finds it
is in the best interest of Anaheim to participate, shall we do it?" it was a
problem they had where in today's world, if they were going to participate in
those kinds of projects and submit them to the voters in advance, they were not
always going to have all the information they wanted in order to be able to
meet the time constraints of the people who had the power to sell. This was a
situation that might arise from time to time and there was a way out. The
Council could, if it wanted to, put a measure on some ba31ot that would say
that the City Council has the power to call a special municipal election when-
ever they wanted to do so. That would get the City out from under the State's
requirements relative to elections.
Councilman Bay stated there was also another way. If they were going to be
responsible to their constituents, what he heard and had expectea to hear when
they joined the Southern California Public Power Authority (SCP~A), there
~ould be opportunities they would miss under their present policy that they
could gaim under some other policy. Perhaps they should let the voters decide
whether certain amounts of delegated responsibilit) should be given to the
Council where the Council weuld make the decision up to some limft on certain
opportunities that arose. Otherwise, they were tying their hands and then the
Council would have to answer to their constituency for opportunities missed.
There had to be something in between writing a blank check, as the Mayor des-
cribed it, and having absolutely no management flexibility to take advantage
of opportunities when they came along, such as this one.
Mr. Hoyt stated that was the problem they were laboring under now. He thought
about framing a measure as expressed by Councilman Bay, but rejected it, because
he did not think it meant what the City Council wanted to do.
Councilman Bay stated he was not saying that he wanted to do it, but perhaps
that was the question they ought to take to the people.
81-358
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTE~ - March 10, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kay~'ood stated in prior discussion when they spoke about time
restraints, she had mentioned that each of the times they had a question on
the ballot, the voters overw[:elmingly approved it. She did not want to pass
up an opportunity where there could be multiple millions of dollars saved
because of the time constraint.
Councilwoman Kaywood continued that the $84 million bond issue, one of the itmes
discussed under that wa~ that within three years they needed the refunaing
ability, but it required a Charter amendment and approval. There was the
ability to save many, many millions of dollars by having that flexibility.
She also felt that any future Council who would put the~m heads together and
vote for something that would wind up being an end ru~ on the voters would
answer to the voters at the following election. She did not see the concern
with what an unscrupulous three out of ~ive Council Members would be attempting
to do.
Councilman Roth noted that they were asking for $100,000 to hold a special
election for the Palo Verde purchase and yet they might find after the elec-
tion that it was not economically viable to participate. In trying to be
responsible to the people~ he had a problem with that.
Further discussion followed during which the Mayor asked the general numbers
involved in the project. Mr. Watts addressed the matter indicating that the
numbers they had were extremely rough and very generalized. Talking in
total terms they were looking at purchasing from th~ Salt River Project. The
SCPPA would purchase a total of 225 megawatts. They had looked at the rough
costs that had already been incurred, plus what they thought would be incurred
to completion of the units, plus finaDcing costs and reserves. For 225 mega-
watts they were looking at something like $400 million. They felt that was a
conservative number in that it was high. Anaheim's share of the 225 megawatts,
using what was agreed upon as an allocation split between all of the members
of the agency, would be approximately 7~% of th~ 225 megawatts and the cost.
The Mayor surmised then that Anaheim's cost would be approximately $30 million.
Mr. Hoyt added that was the demand portion of the cost. Associated with that
were the ongoing energy costs. In order to lock at the project wher~ it was
a purcha~se, they had to ask what was the cost of purchasing demand and energy
from the source on a long-term contract, as opp¢,sed to purchasing from SCE,
essentially on no contract. Tm issue $30 million in bonds to buy gas turbines,
for example, would not be a g~od thing because the operating cost would be
so high that it would not be advantageous. They needed to take the project
as a whole, because to take one part of the cost in isolation would not give
the answer they were looking for. They needed to know operating costs infor-
mation as well, in order to make a good decision.
Mayor Seymour stated as far as the investment made, forgetting the return for
the moment, it was a $30 million investment approximately; Mr. Hoyt con£irmed
that was correct, approximately.
Mayor Seymour stated that Councilman Bay threaded a thought that per['aps what
ought to be considered was to go to the electorate and ask them to provide
the Council with certain parameters of latitude and flexibility in making such
81-359
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 10, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
decisions. He (Seymour) would not be opposed to the type of question being
placed to the constituents as was done in 1975 with the $150 million bond
issue. It named a specific number of dollars and wrapped itself up, at least
to a certain degree, with a specific project.
Mr. Watts asked if he was suggesting something in the nature of an advisory
question which would say, we would like to perhaps invest "X" dollars in this
particular project, as long as the Council would understand that they would
be talking about investment costs as distinguished from operating costs snd
also recognizing if it was going to cost more than that, they could not buy'
as much.
The Mayor answered that he would be willing to explore that. If in a delib-
erate fashion they got some response from the Public Utilities Board, response
from the Chamber of Commerce, the community at large, maybe public hearings
to discuss such a process--go through an orderly political process, culminating
in such a generally stated question, he would not be opposed to that.
Mr. Hoyt stated it might also be phrased, "from time to time, opportunities arise
that would involve investments on cur behalf of "X" dollars and when such oppor-
tunities presented themselves should the City Council exercise its judgment
and participate or not". The Mayor concurred. That way they could capitalize
on what Councilman Bay called opportunities, but at the same time as an elected
body, they could be straightforward with their constituents laying out some
numbers on the investment, so that they could make intelligent decisiops.
Mr. Hoyt stated if that process would wind up with the voters approving such
a plan, that would make them far preferable partners in those kinds of projects
than they were at the moment.
Councilman Overholt stated: it seemed to him, Mr. Hoyt was now getting down
to the issue. The whole prccess today begged the question--is it workable to
be in the Southerr~ California Public Power Authority where every specific
intended participation has to go to the vote of the people. He asked Mr.
Hoyt if that was not what he was really asking.
Mr. Hoyt stated that was a problem. It was a problem now with Falo Verde but
with the next project it may not be where they might have all the cost data
in advance to put it to an election.
Councilman 0verholt asked if he was not saying, generally speaking, it was
unworkable in working with the other members of the authority for Anaheim to
have to put every specific intended project to the vote of the electorate;
Mr. Hoyt answered it made it very difficult to work with Anaheim.
Councilman Cverholt then stated the question the Mayor was starting to develop
and which Councilman Bay initiated--was there a way in which they coold get
the authority of the electorate to participate as partners in the Authority
without having to go to the vote of the people everytime. He asked Mr. Hoyt
if that was what they were really talking about; Mr. Hoyt answered "yes", and
stated that the direction they were heading was a "super" direction.
Councilman Overholt continued if it was unworkable to be in the Authority and
requiring a vote of the people on every specific project and the Council con-
tinued to hold that view, per'haps their participation in the authority was
81-360
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL ~INUTEg - March 10, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
clouded for the future. If the Council felt they should establish prccedures
whereby the constituents had an opportunity to say "yes" or "no" on investments
of large sums of money, they should work out a program where they could get
that kind of mandate or lack of mandate from the people. He heard coming from
the discussion that maybe they could get a more general authority, rather than
a specific authority, on a specific minute project that would have to be sought
every time something like this came along.
Mr. Hoyt felt that the discussion was leading to a single advice from the voters
saying that when matters came to the City Council involving expenditures of not
over $50 million, the City Council would have an opportunity to exercise its
judgment in executing long-term contracts, should the Council do it without
further recourse to the electorate.
Councilman Bay stated, howe~er, if that question were asked, they would have to
put a time limit on it as well.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if it was possible to have such a phrasing done in
time for next week.
Mayor Seymour stated he would not even begin to approach it. He wanted to see
a full-blown public process as he previously articulated and he would even con-.
sider a citizens co~,,ittee to study it.
Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out if it was not done, they would be definitely
bypassing the opportunity to participate in the Palo Yerde project.
Discussion followed between the Mayor aha Councilwoman Kaywood on that point.
MOTION: At the conclusion of discussion, Councilman Seymour moved to ask the
Public Utilities BoarC to~ within a public process, recommend to the City
Council a proposed ballot propositiom that would empower, if favorably passed,
the City Council on a limited dollar basis and on a limited period of time,
to make investments into electrical generation projects. Councilman Ruth
seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour, to further elaborate, stated that the
public precess would mean, the Fublic Utilities Board and if the Council in
some reasonable period of time, one, two or three weeks, wanted a citizens
committee appointed to co-study the potential question with the Public Utilities
Board that would be acceptable. Perhaps there could be some work sessions with
the Council and the Public Utilities Board, definitely some public hearings,
involve the Chamber of Commerce, and any other interested groups in that pro-
cess.
Councilman Bay suggested a targeted completion date.
Mayor Seymour stated if there, was to be a question placed on the, ballot, that
it be placed on the ballot at the next General Election, which would be in
November, so that as a City they would not have to bear the entire cost of
such an election. If November of 1981, fine; if June of 1982, that was also
acceptable.
81-361
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 10, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Watts stated for their information he would think they would be looking at
late July or August 1 work product completion.
Mayor Seymour, speaking to Mr. Hoyt, stated with that time frzme in mind, work
product complete potentially by July, that should give a calendar within which
to work. If it carried over to June of 1982 to coincide with the Municipal
Election, that would be fine too. He had no opposition to that and was not
trying to rush the question.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated there was a great possibility if they waited until
as late as 1982, they could be missing an opportunity of savir, g millions of
dollars in refunding without having the ballot question on and approved.
Mr. Hoyt stated it was difficult to know where the bond market was going to
go. He would like to have that in place as early as possible so the Council
could exercise its authority when it wishe6 to do so. He did not see anything
critical between now and November or perhaps nothing from November to next
June.
Councilman Overholt asked if they pursued their course, in his (Hoyt's) pro-
fessional opinion, would that mean they were out as far as participating in
the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station.
Mr. Watts answered that it was likely but not absolutely the result. Mr. Hoyt
was very inventive and he may be persuasive with his fellow members on the Board
of Directors.
Mr. Watts then explained the nature of the agreement between gCPPA a~d the Salt
River Project. Assuming that the SCPPA moved ahead and bought the interest in
the project and Anaheim decided not to participate, in any event, they would be
bringing an ordinance for the City to adopt which would authorize the SCPPA to
finance the purchase. That crdinance would not obligate the City to purchase
any of that interest. All members whether or not they participated in the
purchase would have to authorize the ordinance or the Authority would not be
able to issue its financing.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if he was saying that Anaheim would have the opportunity
to block the sale until, or if, they were able to participate in it.
Mr. Watts answered that legally he would have to say there was that opp¢~rtunity,
but there was also a move and a coumter-move. He would suggest that would not
be a wise move because the counter-move to that would be for the members of the
Authority to form a new Authority and exclude Anaheim from it
A vote was then taken on the f~regoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
The Mayor stated if they had any further thoughts relative to the appointment
of some citizens committee to work with the Public Utilities Board, they might
discuss that at next Tuesday's meeting and take appropriate action.
175: PALO VERDE WATER POWER PROJECT - PRELIMINARY PERMIT: Public Utilites
General Manager, Gordon Hoyt briefed the Council on his memorandum dated March 6,
1981 recommendimg the filing of an application for preliminary pezmit for the
subject project.
81-362
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 10, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour asked if the matter had been presented to the Public Utilities
Board. ~
Mr. Hoyt answered "no". He had learned about the opportunity of being able
to file a competing application after the Public Utilities Board meeting on
last Thursday. By filing they were only buying time.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to authorize the Public Utilities General
Manager to file an application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
a Notice of Intent to file jointly with the City of Riverside an application
for ~reliminary permit for the Palo Verde Water Power Project, FERC Project
No. 3699-000. Councilman Bay seconded the motion.
Before a vote was tauten, Mayor Seymour stated he was going to oppose the
motion, his main contention and point of opposition being that Mr. Hoyt should
have made the opportunity to discuss the matter with the PUB eitter at a special
meeting or by a telephone po~l.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Roth an~ Seymour
voted "no". MOTION CARRIED.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATICN NO. 80-81-20, VARIANCE NO. 3182,
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. llOS0: Application by Gerard F. and Joyce M. Warde, for
a change in zone from RS-7200 to RM-3000, to construct a one-lot, ll-unit con-
dominium subdivision on property located at 2035 West Katella Avenue, with
the following Code waivers: (continued from meeting of Februar~ 3, 1981)
a) minimum lot area per dwelling unit
b) maximum structural height
c) maximum site coverage
d) minimum landscaped setback
e) minimum recreational-leisure area
f) minimum number of parking spaces
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-234, declared that
the subject project be exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental
impact report pursuant to the provisions of the California Envircnmental Quality
Act since there would be no significant individual or cumulative adverse environ-
mental impact due to this prcject and further denied, without prejudice, Reclas-
sification No. 80-81-20.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution NO. PC80-235, denied Variance
No. 3182.
Tentative Map Tract No. 11030 for a one-lot, ll-unit condominium subdivision
was also denied by the City Planning Commission.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by the applicant, Gerard
Warde, and public hearing scheduled for February 3, 1981 (see minutes that date,
and continued from that date at the request of the applicant).
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.
81-363
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTE~. - March i0, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous
of being heard.
Mr. Gerard Warde, applicant, Oranco Development, 4334 East La Palma, stated that
relative to the requested waivers a) through f), they could now comply with a),
minimum lot area per dwelling unit, under the new regulations the Council approved
at the City Planning Commission/Council work session on March 5, 1981 (see minutes
that date). They could also now comply under waiver c), maximum site coverage,
and waiver f) minimum number of parking spaces. Relative to requested waiver
b), maximum structural height, there was no visual view from the second story
to any of the residential areas surrounding the property. Relative to waiver
d), minimum landscaped setback, the 12-foot propc, sed setback was at the rear
property line of the adjoining property. Further, they could incz'ease the
recreational-leisure area (waiver "e") to 558 square feet per unit. Under the
Anaheim regulations on affordable housing, 25% of the units would have to sell
at $55,000. He did not know where anyone could buy a three-bedrcom condominium
of 1300 plus square feet for $55,000. He did not think it was right for them
to require the remaining people to carr}' the tariff of the 25%. If they were
granted some relief, they could also present the units for sale as affordable
units to people instead of cutting them down, so that they wooldlose money on
the three and make it up on the remaining units. They were also in a part-
nership with a savings and loan on the project ant they were going to be very
competitive with their financing.
Councilman Bay stated the staff quoted 20.75 net density on the project. It
was his understanding on the decisions granted by a r~ajority of the Cou~cil
last Thursday night (see minutes March 5, 1981) the dwelling units would go
up to 18 units per acre on non-affordable, 14 to 18. He asked Mr. Warde why
he felt 20.75 net density met the new requirements.
Mr. Warde stated if he understood correctly, the area was to be calculated on
the gross acreage and not net acreage. Working on the net acreage, they made
up with more lot area per dwelling unit.
Councilman Bay asked staff if they agreed with the statement that with the
change in policy that the project as presented, non-affordable, met the
changes.
Miss Santalahti answered that calculations showed rather than having 3000
square feet as required by Code, or 2114 under the current proposal, if the
Code were modified, they would have 2536 square feet per unit which was still
about 15% less tham the sqoare footag~ per dwelling unit required, so they
were still off on that particular calculation. The staff report presented to
the Council stated that there would be effectively an increase cf about 12 to
25% in usable land area for the density calculation. In an extreme sittation,
a developer might actually be able to show 25%~more units than he would have when
they used the net lot area calculation that they currently used. That was an
extreme case. They could not automatically assume that every project was going
to be 25% higher~ It may be in some cases and it would not be in cther cases.
This one, for instance, being so close to single-family already and a restricted
two-story situation going in at the same time. Seven units on .6 acres of land
with a potential 14.98 units times .6, they were not going to get 18 or 20 units
but only seven or eight.
81-364
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 10, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Overholt asked Miss Santalahti to comment on Mr. Warde's comments
on the other variances. He first asked Mr. Warde, when he indicated that he
could comply, did that mean that he felt he did comply under the action of
the Council last week or that he was going to change his ratios.
Mr. Warde stated that they could comply on the 2.5 spaces relative to parking.
Miss Santalahti explained when she analyzed the proposal, the three waivers a),
c) and f) were modified, a) being the density. The maximum site coverage re-
quirement of 40% now, 49.7 being the proposal under the current Code, they
figured about 41.4. He was 1.4% off which was very minor. Relative to f),
minimum number of parking spaces, he would have to add parking. Instead of
providing cnly 64% under the current Code, he would be providing ~9% if the
Code were modified, but he had indicated a willingness to put in a 2.5 ratio.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she had a concern with that. He was talking in terms
of 11 three-bedroom units of over 1300 square feet and with three bedrooms they
were still going to say th~..t 2.5 parking spaces were sufficient.
Miss Santalahti answered that the survey they did, they judged units based on
one-,two- and three-bedrooms and found that the deviamce was a point cne, point
two difference. For instance, a one-bedroom may have generated 1.6 or 1.7 cars
per unit and a two-bedroom generated about 1.8 and a three-bedroom generated
about 2.0 and then adding one-half guest space. They felt that the difference
was so minor that in a normal project, it would not have much of a practical
effect, a normal project meaning one that had a distribution of unit types
and was larger than 11 units.
Councilwoman Kaywood thereupon stated they were going to find out after they
were wrong that it was a big mistake. As well, there was no parking on Katella
and she questioned what would happen in that case. They were building in some-
thing that was irrevocable as far as mistakes were concerned. To give two
parking spaces plus one-half for guests to a large three-bedroom unit she felt
was as unrealistic as the City had ever been on anything.
The Mayor then asked to hear frcm those presept in favor of the project; no
one was present. He then asked to hear from those in opposition.
Mr. Sidney Smith stated he owned a condominium next door in Casa Emperador.
They did not object to them building on the subject property but they expected
the developer to meet all the City's requirements and, if so, they would not
object. They were propoming to build 11 units with parking facilities for
only two-thirds of the people and the rest would have to park some place else.
They would bring boats, trailers and RV's such as was the case in the area
at present. There was no parking on Katella and they, therefore, would park
on Dallas which would be atrocious. They also objected to the two-story
because they would look right down the back of the condominiums. The entire
area was already one-story, such as Casa Emperador, where they had 74 units on
13 acres in comparison to putting 11 units on one-half acre. The applicant
stated he could comply with the requirement of the 3000 square feet. He did
not see how he could do that when the entire area was approximately 23,000
square feet. Every one of the variances should be denied because there was
no legitimate reason for them. The Codes should be lived up to. The Council
81-365
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March I0~ 1981, 1:30 P.M.
should not allow the variances because they would not only hurt the value of
their property, but also everybody else's propert)around it. He maintained
the man was prcposing to build an instant slum and the Council should deny
all the variances. He also did not consider the $55,000 Mr. Warde was pro-
posing to sell the units representative of so-called affordable housing.
Councilmam Bay clarified that he did not think the applicant stated he was going
to gell the units for $55,000, but that he would have to sell 25% of them at
$55,000 to meet the affordable rate.
Mr. Gordon Hastings, 1771 South Dallas Drive, stated he lived directly across
the street from the proposed entrance to the proposed complex. Dallas Drive
was a virtual cul-de-sac only a few small streets branching off it. It was
all residential and there was no parking on Thursday because of street sweeping.
There was a provision for a 20, 30 or perhaps 40-loot setback on the subject
prope~rty. He did not know if that was included in the acreage after the set-
back was given to the City or as it was now. He felt that it was something
worth mentioning. Relative to traffic, they had no parking problems now because
it was strictly residential and quite adequate. However, it would be obvious,
because there was no parking on Katella, Dallas Drive would be subject to
street parking. He would be concerned about that particularly in view of the
children in the neighborhood. A continuum of traffic that would come in off
Katella and make "U" turns and come in and park, could create quite a problem.
Also, the proposed development would be the only two-story structure in the
area which, regardless of the fact that those structures may not have view
windows overlooking the property, it would not confrom to the general appear-
ance of the neighborhood. He confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood that he would
have no problem with the project if they built seven units to the acre.
Margaret Geil, 1775 South Dallas Drive (southwest corner Dallas and Katella),
stated she was objecting on the same basis that the other gentleman. She felt
she could testify better than anyone regarding traffic. She had a large palm
tree on the corner that had been hit twc or three times by traffic coming
arcund the corner fast without the traffic that would be added with the project.
She objected to the two stories and did not want to have a two-story looking
down on her. It was definitely a one-f~mily area and a nice area.
Mr. Leland Woods, 2028 Midwood Lane, directly adjacent to the northeast corner
of the subject property, stated he was objecting strenuously to the twc-story
structures. They were going to be looking right into his backyard. It would
cut of~ his air circulation, and there would be an increase in the noise. Since
Casa Emperador had been converted to condominiums located to the east side of
his home, they had increased their parking space by moving it up to approxi-
mately 12 feet from his bedroom window. Since the conversion, he had been
subjected to a lot of noise from cars coming and going at all times of the day
and night. He did not see any reason why he should have to he plagued with
cars behind him, to the side, plus some 13 cars that parked on his street at
present. He objected to anything greater than dividing the prcperty into a
three residential type of property as on his street.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor gave Mr. Warde
an opportunity for rebuttal.
81-366
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 10, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Warde reiterated there would be no windows overlooking any of the residen-
tial property surrounding the subject property, balconies or anything. As far-
as the boats and RV's, they planned to control that situation with the CC&R's
by not allowing them to be parked on the property. They would have to find
parking areas appropriate for such vehicles. They would have two-car garages
for each unit, as well as guest parking. He did not see that parking would be
a problem or anybody looking down on the residential area from the second
story.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Councilman Bay asked if he (WarCe) was saying that in the development the only
windows would be to the south
Mr. Warde answered, on the front of the buildings looking to the street that
the> would construct, there would be no win~ows looking down on the existing
residential, but there would be some windows on the first floor.
Councilman Bay asked for confirmation that there would be no windows on the
exterior of the development on the west, north an~ east; Mr. Warde answered
that was correct, on the second story level, but not on the first; however,
those would be blocked with walls, etc.
Councilman Bay asked if he had requoted his statement on the price correctly,
i.e., he (Warde) did not say he was going to sell units for $55,000; Mr. Warde
answered that he could not sell the units for $55,000. According to the
Anaheim Housing Authority, he would have to sell them at $55,000 to qualify as
affcrdable housing. The price range was going to be somewhere around $105,000.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that the neighbors stated they had no objection to
his building to Code which would be seven units. She asked how that would
work out.
Mr. Warde stated he would have to go to apartments if they pinned him down to
that.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated, however, that would be with a reclassification
because the present zoning did not permit that.
Mayor Seymour asked the reason why the Planning Commission gave a denial without
prejudice.
Miss Santalahti explained that they felt the property would apprcpriately be
rezoned for condominiums and thus granted the reclassification without prejudice,
but with the many waivers involved, it was not appropriate in this particular
area. The General Plan called for a low-medium density.
Mayor Seymour stated the Council and Planning Commission having just last
Thursday generally agreed, although not specifically, as to what the new
site development standards would be for a condominium development, he believed
that the granting of the requested waivers would be inconsistent with those
standards. A majority of both the Council and Planning Commission agreed to
develop new standards and also agreed that variances would not be granted on
81-367
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 10, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
an economic hardship, but granted only in cases where they were techr~ical in
nature. To approve the present project would be a violation of the principles
agreed to last Thursday. He could not support the project because of its
inability to meet the new standards in process and, therefore, would need
variances extended beyond a technical variance request.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT RETORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Seymour, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council finds that this project
would have no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact
since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property for low-medium
density land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive environmental
impacts are involved in the proposal and that the Initial Study submitted by the
petitioner indicates no significant, individual or cumulative adverse environ-
mental impact and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR.
MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman seymour offered Resolution No. 81R-99 and 8iR-100 for adoption, the
first denying Reclassification No. 80-81-20, and the second denying Variance
No. 3182, in accordance with the findings of the City Planning Commission and
additionally that the project does not conform to the standards most recently
adopted by the City Council and Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution Hook.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-99: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT A CHANGE OF ZONE SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED IN A CERTAIN
AREA OF THE CITY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED. (80--81-20)
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-100: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
DENYING VARIANCE NO. 3182.
Before a vote was taken, the Mayor stated in the event that the project could
conform to the new standards, he would support an approval.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated where the property was next to R-1 with people im-
pacting Dallas Drive by parking on it, anything beyond their present Code as it
existed allowing seven units would be a severe blow to the neighborhood. A
vote was then taken on the foregoing resolutions.
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-99 and 81R-lO0 duly passed and adopted.
MOTION: Cou~cilman Seymour moved that after reviewing the proposed subdivision,
together with its design and improvement, that the site is not physically suit-
able for the proposed density of development and, therefore, the City Council
does hereby density Tentative Map of Tract No. 11030 for a one-lot, Il-unit
condominium subdivision. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
176; PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 80-5A: In accordance with application
filed by Mr, Steven Long, Larmor Development Company, public he~ring was held
on proposed abandonment of a former Edison Company's easement located north of
81-368
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 10, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Cerritos Avenue, west of State College Boulevard, pursuant to Resolution No.
81R-59, duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in
accordance with law.
Report of the City Engineer dated January 2, 1981 and a recommendation ky the
Planning Commission was submitted recommending approval of said abandonment.
Mayor Seymour asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no
response, he'clomed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman
Roth, seconded by Councilman Bay, the Cit~ Council ratified the determination
of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the definition of
Section 3.01, Class 5, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for
an Environmental Impact Report ant is, therefore, categorically exempt from the
requirement to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Roth offere.d Resolution No. 81R-101 for adoption, approving Abandon-
ment No. 80-5A. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-101: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF HE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ORDERING THE VACATION AND AB;~DONMENT OF A CERTAIN PUBLIC SERVICE EASEmeNT. (80-5A)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth ant Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-101 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITION~L USE PERMIT NO. 2161 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Ap-
plicatiop by Lease-All La Palma, Inc., to permit an enclosed restaurant with
on-sale beer and wine on ML zoned property located at 4095 East La Palma Avenue,
was submitted.
The City Planning Commissien, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-9, declared that
the subject prcject 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 sigmificant individual or cumulative adverse environ-
mental impact due to this project and further granted Conditional Use Permit No.
2161 subject to the following conditions:
1. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos.
i and 2.
2. That the proposed use is hereby granted for a period of three (3) years
subject to review for possible extensions of time upc.n written request from
the petitioner to determine whether the use has had an adverse affect on sur-
rounding businesses.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman
Kaywood and the meeting of February 3, 1981, and public hearing scheduled this
date.
81-369
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 10, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous
of being heard.
Mr. Tony Natali, agent for the applicant, 1594 South Anaheim Boulevard was
present.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked for clarification, if when the list of uses was
approved on the CUP, was a restaurant specifically left out.
Mr. Natali answered "yes". It was left out at the guidance of staff indicating
the Commission would like to review any type of restaurant or coffee shop as
a separate matter so that there would be better control. The feeling was that
such a use should be more thorc, ug~ly looked at. Theirs was a sandwich shop
and their research indicated without a beer and wine license it could be a very
marginal businesg. The area was aomewhat limited as far as places to eat.
Councilwoman Kaywood commented, therefore, since there was no competition, they
would not need beer and wine.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition;
there bei, g no regponse, he closed the public hearing.
Councilwoman Kaywood referred to the City Planning Commission minutes of January 12,
1981 (see mintues that date) where Chairman Tolar, speaking on behalf of Commissiener
Hezbst who was absent, stated he (Herbat) "...has a real problem in approving on-
sale beer and wine in the industrial zone because there are people who frequent
the sandwich shop who operate machinery." She maintaine~ that they could not
overlook the problem alcoholism posed in the United States today. Mr. Natali
stated that there was no place to eat in the area. If that was true and they
had good sandwiches, there would not be a problem. Beer and wine did not belong
in that kind of an area.
Council discussion the followed wherein Councilman Bay stated that he did not
think the Council wished to put itself in a position of starting to make moral
judgments or legislate whe was going to drink and who was not going to drink.
If someone working in any of the industrial firms came back from lunch having
drunk too much, it was up to supervision to take disciplinary action. The issue
of a conditional use permit, in his mind, was not whether it served beer or
wine, but whether it would serve the industrial area. There ~as a definite
need in the area for places to eat.
Councilwoman Kaywood maintained that beer and wine did not belong in the indus-
trial area and she would vote against it.
ENVIRONMENTAL I~ACT RE~ORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood~ seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council finds that this project
would have no signJ, ficant individual or cumulative adverse enviror~mental impact
due to the approval of this negative declaration since the Anaheim General Plan
designates the subject prcperty for general industrial land uses commensurate
with the proposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the
proposal and that the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no
significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impa.ct and is,
therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
81-370
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 10, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered a resolution denying Conditional Use Permit No.
2161. The resolution failed to carry by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywoed
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Bay, Roth and Seymour
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 81R-102 for adoption, granting Con-
ditional Use Permit No. 2161, subject to City Planning Commission recon~enda-
tions. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION IO. 81R-102: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF %HE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2161.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Bay, Roth and Seymour
Kaywood
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-I02 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2166 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Ap-
plication by Beverly Jean Trotter, to permit a contractor's storage yard on CG
zoned property located at 415 South Lemon Street, was submitted.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-12, declared that
the subject project be exempt from the requirement to prepare an envircnmentai
impact report subject to the provisions of the Califor~;ia Enviornmental Quality
Act since there ~ouid be no sigr~ificamt individual or cumulative adverse environ-
mental impact due to this project and further granted Conditional Use Permit No.
2166 subject to five conditions as outlined cn Page 2 of the Resolution.
A review of the City Planning Commission's decision was requested, by Council-
woman Kaywood at the meeting of February 3, 1981 and public hearing scheduled
this date.
City Clerk Linda Roberts announced that a request had been received from the
applicant's agent for withdrawal and te:mination of all proceedings.
The Mayor' asked if anyone was present and wished to be heard; there being no
response, he closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Roth= seconded by Councilman Seymour, 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 medium deneity residential land uses commen-
surate ~ith the prcposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved
in the~ proposal and that the Initial Study submitted by the ~etitioner indicates
no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact and is
therefore, exempt from the requirememt to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood offer'ed Resolution No. 81R-i03 for adoption, terminating
all proceedings in connection %ith Conditional Use Fermit No. 2166, as requested
by the applicant's agent. Refer to Resolution Book.
81-371
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 10, 1981, 1:30 ~.M.
RESOLUTION ~0. 81R-103: A RESOLUTION GF THE CITY COUI~CIL OF THE CITY OF A~AHEIM
TERMINATING ALL PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH CO~,ITIONAL USE PERMIT 'NG. 2166
AND EECLARING RESOLUTION NO. PC$1-12 NULL AND VOID.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMMERg:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymou~~
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-103 duly passed and adopted.
123: PRe: TOUPS COR~'ORATION, 1979-80 REPORT TO BONDHOLDERS ON CITY'S WATER
SYSTEM: On motion ky Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood,
an agreement was authorized with PRC Toups Cor~ortion in an amount not to
exceed $1,500, for the preparation of the 1979-80 Report to Eondholders on
the City's water system, as recommended in memorandum dateC March 2, 1981
from the Public Utilities Board~ MOTI~ CARRIED.
164: TErmINATION OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WITH B-1ENTE~RISE£ CORPORATION--
ACACIA STREET STORM DRAIN PROJECT: City Attorney William Hopkins br~.efed the
Council on the proposed resoluticn terminating the constructior, contract with
B-1 Enterprises Corporstion and authc~rizing solicitation of bids for perfor-
mance of the uncompleted work cn the Acacia Street Storm Drain Project. He
stated it would require four votes of the Council because they were recommending
that the mattez be handled as a matter of urgent necessity for the preservation
of life, health and prcperty, and it would enable the City Engineer tc obtain
the services of another contractor withoot going out to bid.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 81R-104 for mdoption. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-104: A RESOLITION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
TERMINATING THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACI WITH B-1ENTEF~RISES CORPORATION; AND
AUTHO£IZING SOLICITATION OF BIDS FOR PERFORM~HqCE OF THE UNCOMt~LETED WORK.
Before a vote was taken, the Mayor asked with passage of the resolutioD, what
the City was prepared to do to relieve the problems of the citizens in that
area. With the termination of the contract, it would seem they could provide
whatever City services might be necessary to accommodate the people in the area.
Mr, Art Daw, Civil Engineer, stated that the City had already taken some action.
He then deferred to Mr. Dave Nelson, Field Engineer, to itemize some of the
specific work that had been accomplished to date.
Mr, Nelson explained that over the last week or so they had used City ,forces
snd filled in the excavation left by the contractor at the intersection of
Romneya and Jcacia, They also provided additional barricading on the project
and had employed contract sweepers. They also had obtained the services of a
private barricading company to help in policing the job and to provide mainten-
ance of the barricades. They had done some additional grading at the La Palma
Avenue end to improve access for the citizens that had to cross over a portion
of the storm, drain already- constructed but not finished.
81-372
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 10, 1981, 1:30 r'.M.
The Mayor asked~ in essence, then Jf they were doing everything possible to
satisfy citizer, complaints; Mr. Nelson answered that they were doing everything
reasonable to keep access opem during the construction project. The citizens
for the most part were very understanding.
The Mayor suggested with the Council's apprcvaJ, that they serd a letter cut
to the neighborhood, perhap~ a mailing of 250 to 500 residences indicating what
happened, the actiom they had taken, the date the project would Le completed,
and also th~nking them for their patience.
Mr. Nelson stated that such a mailing would he a good_idea.
Councilman Roth stated he had a note from Mr. Bob Green, Manager of the Anaheim
National Bank, asking for immediate action for ~ncreasing the traffic flow along
La Palma Avenue. The Mayor's idea was an excellent one and they should spe-
cifically notify Mr. Green because of the concern he expressed,
Mr. Nelson stated that the Anaheim ~ational Bank was involved with the La Palma
Avenue/State College Storn Drain which was another project. They broke ground
on that project and them it started raining.
Courcilman Roth stated that now, in addition, the) had the problem at La Palma
Avenue and Acacia Avenue and thus, that area had been impacted in both direc-
tions.
Mayor Seymour again reiterated his concern that there be communication with the
people on the matter since they had wa~ted so long for the drain to be installed
in the firat place. He asked if they could not get a comraunication out to the
neighbcrhood in the mail wittin a week, that staff could come back next Tuesday
and advise why they were unable to do so.
City Manger Talley stated they would get a communication cut this week and if
they had to, they would send two mailings out telling them what had been done
and what they were going to do. The letter would be cut by Friday or staff
would talk to him before Tuesday.
A vote was then taPen on the foregoimg resolution.
Roll Call Vote;
AYES:
NOE~.:
ABSENT:
CODNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COI~CILMEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-104 duly passed znd adopted.
148: OPPOSING THE MANDATING OF SOCIAL IMt~ACT SUITS BY THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY
OF ORANGE COUNTY: Opposing the mandating of Social Impact Suits and declaring
that if said mandating is not terminated~, the City will recommend to the Orange
County Board of Supervisors that funds to the Legal Aid Eoc~ety be discontinued
(requested at the meeting of February 24, 1981--see minutes that date).
Mayor Seymour,.refe~ring to the pr¢.psoed resolution submitted, stated he was
concerned relative to the wording cf the first paragraph on Page 2 which stated
at the end "...Orange County Board of Supervisors that County funding ¢,f
81-373
City Hall, Anaheim? California - COUNCIl MINUTES - March 10, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
political anC social impact suits be terminated." He stated that was not what
they had previously discussed but that Cour~ty funding to the Legal Aid Society
be termfnated. Thus, the wording, in his opinion, dramatically changed the
impact of the resolution.
City Attorney Hopkins stated that the prcposed amendment was merely ~ draft that
could he adjusted.
The Mayor stated if they were going to keep to the spirit about which they
spoke at the February 24, 1981 meeting, the wording should be as follows:
"...Orange County Board ef Supervisors that County funding to the Orange
County Legal Aid Society be terminated."
Mr. Hopkins stated there were several suggestions they made frcm modifications
as well, specifically, Paragraph 6 of the draft resolution, Page t. He reco-
mmended that it be ch~.nged to read, "Where~s, such lawsuits may pose a threat
to public agenices in that they could be used to attempt to coerce local public
officials to accede to the political and social demands of the filers; and..."
Councilman Seymour thereupon offered Resolution No. 81R-i05 for adoption, as
amended as articulsted by himself and the City Attorney. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTIOM NO. 81R-105: A RESOLUTION OF %HE CITY COL~C1L OF THE CItY OF ANAHEIM
OPPOSING THE blAb]DATING OF SOCIAL IMPACT SUITS AND DECI~RING THAT IF SAID MANDATING
IS NOT TERMINATED THE CITY WILL RECOMMEND TO THE ORANGE COI~TY BOARD OF SUPERVI-
SORS THAT FUNDS TO THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY BE £ISCONTINUED.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt recalled the events leading up
to the proposed resolutio~ wherein he had initially suggested that they pro-
vide a forum for both the Euilding Industry of America represented by Mr. Philip
Bettenccurt aha Mr. Robert Cohen, Executive Director of the Legal Aid Society
to present both sides of the issue publicly (see minutes of February 24, 1981).
In concluding, he stated he had no concern whatsoever in sug.porting the proposed
resolution.
Councilman Bay recommenCed tha~ the resolution be sent to the City's Congres-
sional and State representatives and the other 25 cities in the County.
The Mayor stated he would be happy, on behalf of the Council, to take the
resolution to the next Crange County Divsion of the league of Cities meeting
and attempt to get the League to adopt a position on the resolution. He asked
that the City Cler~ ina~ure that a copy of the resolution and a properly worded
letter be sent to each of the cities in the Orange County Division ot the
League of Cities and ask that it be plsced on their agenda for their approval.
A vote was thep taken cn the foregoing resolution.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
~BSENT~
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEM}~ERS:
COUNCIL MEMB~.RS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resetution No. 81R-105 duly passed and adopted.
81-374
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Marc.h 10, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor also commended the Council and particularly Councilman Overholt for
suggesting that there he a fort. m for the pro and con argument on the issue. The
easy political way out would have been to duck the issue, but they did not do so.
123: INDEPENDENT FINANCI~ AUDIT FOR 1980-81: Councilm~,n Seymour offered
Resolution No. 81R-106 for adoption, authorizing an agreement with Price
Waterbouse & Co. in an amount not to exceed $49,50C to perform a financial
audit of the financial statements of the City, including a compliance audit,
for the fiscal year ending June !0, 1981, as reco~,enaed in memorandum dated
February 24~ 1961 from the Audit Committee. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-106: A RESOLUTION OF THE CI%Y COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING %HE IERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH PRICE WATERHOUSE & COM-
PA~Y TO PERFORM AUDITING SERVICES AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOE AND CI%Y CLERK TO
EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON BE~iALF OF THE CITY.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
AB$EN%:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Eeymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-106 duly passed and adopted.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Cou~cilman Roth, seconded by Councilman
Overholt, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the ~eports and
reconm~endationa furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent
Calendar Agenda:
1. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims wer~ denied and referred
to the City's Claims Administrator:
a. Claim submitted by Francisco J. Arzmte~ a minor, for personal injury damages
purpcrtedly sustained as a result of City-owned vehicle striking claimant on Ball
Road near Harbor Boulevard, while claimant was crcssing the street, on or about
January 29, 1981.
b. Claim submitted by Rosalie Goodreau for personal injury damages purportedly
sustained as a result of slip-and-fall accidert in parking lot of the Anaheim
Hills Golf Club, due to inadequate lighting, on cr about November 15, 1980.
c. Claim submitted by Florence E. Aikman for personal injury damages purpor-
tedly sustained as a result of trip-andLfall accident in the Convention Center
parking lot, on cr about December 30, 1980.
d. Claim submitted by Thomas M. Kelly for damages purportedly sustained as
a result of delay of Court filing of papers by City personnel, on or about
January 8, 1981.
e. Claim submitted by Scott Alan Fergugon and Michael Todd Boyd~ minors, by
their Guardian Ad Litem~. Francine Diane Ferguson, for damages purportedly sus-
tained as result of the death cf Robert Leon Ferguson, purportedly caused by
81-375
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 10, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
negligent maintenance, design and construction efa power pole at 620 East
Katella Avenue, and Kate]ia Avenue, on or about July 31, 1980.
f. Claim submitte~d by H. K. Edgerton for persoral injury damges purFortedly
sustained as a result of golf cart steering failure at H. G. "Dad" Miller
Municipal Golf Course, on or about November 4, 1980.
g. Claim submitted by IT Corporation for damages purported]y sustained as a
result of emergency cleanup and disposal of hazardous chemicals pursuant to
agreement between claimant and the City of ~Anaheim, on or about November 27,
1980 and dates subsequent.
h. Claim submitted by K & G Development, a partnership, for damages purportedly
sustained as a result of failure of City to supply water, sewer and storm drain-
age to property at 3600 East Orangethorpe Avenue, a construction development,
on or about June 6, 1980.
i. Claim submitted by Mrs. Diana Rae Brown for personal injury damages pur-
portedly sustained as a result of material from fireworks display at the
Halloween Pre-Parade Show in Glover Stadium, La Palms Park, blowing into eyes
of claimant, on or about November 1, 1980.
j. Claim submitted by John 5enaer for damages to property purportedly sustained
as a result of power surge, after power failure at 1608 Mells Lane, on or about
January 24, 1981.
k. Claim submitted by Stephen Micha.el Thompson for vehicular damages purportedly
sustained as a result of accident on Magnolia Avenue north of La Palma Avenue
caused by lack of adequate lighting and warring signs, on or about January 3,
1981.
1. Claim submitted by Bradley Eric Faust for damages to vehicle purportedly
sustained as a re&ult of object dropped by Utilities personnel while working
on street light in front of 9627 Ball Road, on or about January 21, 1981.
m. Claim submitted by Jeff[ey E. Jeeves for personal injury damages purpor-
tedly sustained as a result of action by Police personnel (during investiga-
tive services to the Anaheim Police Department), on or about November 7, 1980.
2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 105: Community Services Board--Minutes of January 8, 1981.
b. 175: Before the Public Utilties Commission~ Application No. 58739, in the
matter of th~ apg, lication of Pacifice Creative Service (California), Inc., for
a certificate of public convenience and necessity for passenger sightseeing
service in Alameda, Contra Costa, Los Angeles, Marin, Fresno, Mar~posa, Merced,
Monterey, Orange, Sacramemto, San Diego, San Francisco, San Joaquin: San Mateo,
Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Solan¢, Sonoma, Stanislaus, Tuolumne and Yolo Counties.
(Exhibits on file)
c. 105: Community Redevelopment Comanission--minutes of February 11 and 18, 1981.
d. 140: Anaheim Public Libra.ry--Montkly Statistical Report for January 1981.
81-376
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 10, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
e. 105: Anaheim Public Library--Minutes of January 21, 1981.
f. 175: Before the Public Utilities Commission, Application No. 59818, in
the matter of the application of Western Travel Plaza, Inc., a California
corporation, for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to operate
as a passenger stage corporation pursuant to the provisions of Section 1031,
et. seq. of the California Public Utilities Code in the counties of Alameda,
Contra Costa, Los Angeles, Matin, Fresno, Mariposa, Merced, Monterey, Orange,
Sacramento, San Diego, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Solano, Sonoma,
Stanislaus, Tuolumne, and Yolo.
g. 175: Public Utilities Department, Customer Service Division--Monthly Report
for January 1981.
3. 108: APPLICATIONSY The following applications were approved in accordance
with the recommendations of the Chief of Police:
a. Public Dance Permit Application: Bmpresa Frias, for a dance to be held
March 14, 1981, 6:00 p.m. to i:00 a.m., at the Anaheim Convention Center.
(Cruz Munoz Frias, applicant)
b. Public Dance Permit Application: E1 Torito-Who Song & Larry's Cantina, 2020
East Ball Road, for a dance to be held March 17, 1981, 9:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m.
(Elaine Ann Arana, applicant)
MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution Nos. 81R-107
through 81R-111, both inclusive, for adoption in accordance with the reports,
recommendations and certifications furnished each Council Member and as listed
on the Consent Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book.
158: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-107: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Homes by John
Lyttle; The Gunston Hall Company, Inc.)
158: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-108: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING AN EASEMENT DEED CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN REAL
PROPERTY FOR AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES. (R/W #2800-14)
158: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-109: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (2800 Mira
Loma Ltd.; Saddleback Associates, Inc.; Peter R. Zotovich, et ux.; Doherty-
Gill, Inc.; Martin Luther Hospital Center, et al.)
115: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-110: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE
THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: CIVIC CENTER
HANDICAPPED ACCESS IMPROVEMENT, 200 SOUTH ANAHEIM BOULEVARD, IN THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 48-984-6325; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES,
DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE
CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECI-
FICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A
NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be
opened March 26, 1981, at 2:00 p.m.)
81-377
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COIIMCIL MINUTES - March 10, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Councilweman Kaywood stated they had not been provided with a detailed design
plans, profiles, etc. on the Handicapped Access Improvememt.
City Manager Talley explained that the specifications provided that the con-
tractor shall specify the type of door design they would use and the City was
going to review the various alternatives from a maintenance, energy anC cost
standpoint and subgequen~ly recommend to the Council the type of door and price
after the bids were received.
Councilweman Kaywood commented that the type of doors used should not be able
to continue to fly open by themselves, that the wind coold not blow them open,
that an animal coold not trigger it, anC that childrer, could not play with it.
129: RESOLUTION NO.~ 81R-111: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COI~CIL OF THE CITY OF
ANahEIM FINDING AND EETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE
THE CONSTRUCTION A~D COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: STRUCTURE
MODIFICATION AND REMODEL AT FIRE STATION NO. 6, 1330 SOUTH EUCLID STREW:T, IN
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,. ACCOUNT NO. 24-915-7107; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS,
PROFILES, DR_WINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR IHE ¢ONSTRIICTION THEREOF; AUTHOR-
IZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDanCE WITH SAID PLANS,
SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING TH~: CI%Y CLERK TO PUBLISH
A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PRCPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be
opened April 2, 1981, at 2:00 ~.m.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUICIL ME, BEES:
COUNCIL MEMBER~.:
Overholt, Kaywcod? Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-107 thrcugh 81R-111, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
170: FINAL MAP TRACT NO. 11256: Developer Edward Padilla; a 1-lot, PD-C zoned
tract located on the north side of South Street, 200 feet west of Anaheim
Boulevard.
The City Clerk announced that staff had reque£ted that the item be removed from
the agenda and regcheduled at a later date since it appea~ed that Condition No.
10 Lad not beem fully met by the developer.
On motion b~ Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, consideration of
the Final Map of Tract No. 11256 was removed from the agenda to be rescheduled
at a later date. MOTION CARRIED.
ORDINAb~CE NO. 4209: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4209 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4209: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 CF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (75-76-20, RM-3000, Tract No. 8905)
81-378
City Hall, Anaheim, Califcrnia- COUNCIL MINUTES - March 10, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COI~CIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay and Roth
NOES: COU~ICIL MEn, BEES: None
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Ordinance Fo. 4209 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO.. 4210: Councilnu~n Roth cffered Ordinance No. 4210 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinapce Boo~.
ORDINAlqCE NO. 4210: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM A~[ENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAI~.EIM MUNICIPAl° CODE RELA%ING TO ZONING. (78-79-24, RM-1200)
Roll Call Votei
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COL"NCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBER~:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Roth and Seymour
Kaywood and Bay
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance Mo. 4210 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO~ 4211: Councilman Roth cffered Ordinance No. 4211 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4211: AN ORDINANCE OF %HE £ITt OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAI. CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (79-80-39, CL)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMEERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4211 duly passed and adopter.
114: REPORT ON NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CALIFOrnIA CITIES CONFERENCE IN WASHINGTON,
D.C. - FEBRUARY 28 %0 MARCH 3, 1981: Mayor Seymour gave the following report
on the subject conference as attended by him and Councilman Overholt: He was
involved in a meeting with Amtrak relative to the City's train station and
they were able to leave %'ashington with four pieces to the puzzle that needed
to be completed prior to the construction of the station, those being (1) a
site lease from Amtrak, (2) an cperating agreement, (3) plans and specifica-
tions, (4) proforma operating statement. Pam Lucado, Associate Planner~
brcught all four back frcm Washington with hez'. The last road block to the
train station was working out a satisfactory operating agreement between
Amtrak and Anaheim. The agreement might not be favorable to Anaheim in that
Santa Fe who owned the track and right-of-way had included in their lease to
Amtrak and, in turn, Amtrak to Anaheim in the operating agreement terms that
may be onercus to the City--(!) a 30-day right on the part of Santa Fe to move
the imprcvements out and, (2) an open-end lease at the end of the three-year
period. At the end of three yea~s, the land rent would be up for full negotia-
tion~ Those terms needed to be ~orked out with Amtrak but, having done so, they
81-379
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 10, 1981, 1:30
would be approximately 60 days away from con~truction. For that one meeting
alone, he felt the trip was most rewarding and beneficial.
In addition, he and Councilman Cverho!t attemded a meeting with some high policy
advisors in the Reagan administration, perhaps third line management, relative to
President Reagan's budget reductions and how they might play a role in the
development of new regulations which meant the eliminatiom of red tape and
more direct responsibilities to the local community. Anaheim was saying they
would like to be part of that procesg to insure more local control and reapon-
sibility along with the authority for the expenditure of those funds.
First, they totally supported President Reagan's budget cuts and were prepared
to "bite the bullet" with the rest of the country and the rest of the countzy's
cities, but they would be concerned that new formula~ that might be created
would work to the disadvantage of the community in two areas--(1) transporta-
tion and the fact that Anaheim had transportation prcblems within the City and
County and, (2) as it pertained to housing and the improvement of existing
neighbcrhoods, as well as the creation of new housing. They did not want to
be treated unfairly or adversely in those two areas which they ~elt were the
economic corne~stone£ to their economy in Orange County. They urged that they
be allowed to participate in the redr~wing of the regulations so that the form-
ulas were not unfairly drawn.
They also attended a luncheon at which President Reagan spoke. At that meeting,
the whole tone was ~he most positive, upbeat, enthusiastic environment he had
witnessed in all the years he had gone back to Washington. The new administra-
tion was on the move and no doubt were prepared and wanted to take a new course
of action that would cause them to tighten their belts. The majority of the
cities represented were enthusiastically supporting the President, but some of
the largest cities auch as Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, etc., were cautiously
optimistic because of their dependence on federal funds.
Subsequent to that, he and Pam Lucado met witt the Chief Legal Counsel for the
Senate Com~ittee on Commerce and Transportation, a Mr. Scocoza. They wanted to
ascertain what he sa~: as foreseeable cuts in Amtrak and for the future of the
"Los-San Line", the railroad line from Los Angeles to San Diego. Mr. Scocoza
was very positive about that run and stated it was perhaps the most profitable
ru~ in the country. Thus, if there were to be cuts, logic would dictate that
they not cut that run.
He also met wiCl a representative of the Urban Mass TraBsit System aha had an
opportunity to share J~abeim's concerns relative to the Santa Ana Corridor
Study which concerna had already been transmitted to the Orange County
Transportation Commission, Orange County Transit District and Supervisor Ralph
Clark. It revolved around the misging link into central Anaheim. They were
most appreciative of the input and indicated that they would give Anaheim's
concerns ever? consideration in the process.
Other meetings were with Congressmen Patterson and Dannemeyer, some members of
their staff and fenator Cranston's andHayakawa's ~taff wherein they shared
the same concern~ as they had shared with President Reagan's top administrative
officisls. He also met with Congressman Badham and discussed Anaheim's con-
cerns relative to the Prad¢ Dam and the flooding conditiona that would be
experienced. Congregsman Badham did say (1) the top bureaucracy that would
now be in charge of the Army Corps of Engineers was a persom he (Badham)
81-380
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 10, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
had a great deal of faith in and (2) he indicated an interest when it was ~ug-
gested that he be Drovided with some of the numbers relative to the amount of
flood ~nsurapce premiums paid by the people of Anaheim in the business and in-
dustry of Anaheim that may be redt, ced or eliminated as a result of the improve-
ment~.
Councilman 0verholt stated the only true capital city conference events he
attended were the luncheon with the President and the reception which was for
all attemdees. Anaheim was a memb~:r of thE: Consortium of six cities and upon
arrival, they first had a meeting with the representatives of the cther five
cities and their Man in Washingtcn, Bill Morgan, as well as Sandy Horowitz, and
everything thereafter~was scheduled out for them. He them elaborated upon some
of the meetings he attended and concluded that when elected officials went to
Washingtom, it had great benefit when dealing with other staffs of elected
officials. Mr. Morgan did an excellent job but without the support of elected
officials being present occasionally, it was much more difficult for Mr. Morgan
to act in the interest of ~he City. As far as accomplishments, the time was
spent very effectively and he felt the benefits to the City were going to be
far-reaching.
Before closing, Mayor Seymour stated as his colleagues and the press were aware,
very seldom did he ever take a pogition in opposition to the press's reporting,
but on the particular matter at hand, he felt he would be negligent in his respon-
sibilities if he did not do so. The way the media had covered the ~ubject
conference had been totally unlair, specifically as it pertained to Anaheim.
The media had painted it editorially and in some reports as a political "junket".
He challenged them to research the expense acccunts of the present City Coumcil
and all Council's since 1974 and compare the spenCing recorf for such trips with
any City in the County. They' would find that Anaheim had keen most prudent and
judicious when undertaking much a trip. As it pertained to the present trip ~.n
particular, it was no political junket and as long as he was Mayor of the City,
the~e would be no political junkets anywhere. This was a trip to accomplish
specific business. Further, he would suggest contrary to the previous President's
administration, the City of Anaheim had a unique, special and exciting opportunity
before it. They were witnessing at the federal level a transfer of power from
the federal government to State and local government. They had an excellent
opportunity, particularly with a Californian in the ~ite House with much of his
staff being from California, as well as understanding the meeds of California,
to capitalize on that. To not take full advantage of that opportunity' and be
part of the process of rewriting the book of the transfer of power from
Washington back to Anaheim would be unforgiveable. He was prepared to accept
the criticism of the press, if ~hat wa~ the way they chose to treat the matter,
relative to participation in that process. He felt it ~'as totally reasonable
and he would be remiss in his responsibilities as Mayor not to participate.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess into Closed
Session at the request of both the City Manager to discuss personnel matters
with no action anticipated and also the City Attorney to discuss litigation
matters with action anticipated. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED. (5:30 P.M.)
81-381
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 10, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (7:00 P.M.)
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - RECI,ASSIFICATION NO. 80-.81-14~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. 2121, TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11305 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application by
Eank of California, N. A., Trustee, for s cha.nge in zone from RS-A-43,000 to
RM-3000, to permit a 2-lot, 99-unit condominium subdivision on property located
at 2170 South Harbor Boulevard, witt the following Code waivers: (continued from
the meeting of January 20, 1981--sea mintues that date)
a) miniunmm lot area per dwelling unit
b) maximum structural height
c) maximum site coverage
d) minimum floor area
e) minimum recr~ation&l-leisure area
f) minimum number and type of parking spaces
g) maximum fence height
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-208 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 signJ.ficant individual or cumulative adverse environ-
mental impact due to this project and further, granted Feclassification No. 80-81-14
subject to the following conCi=~ons:
1. That the owner(s) of subject prcperty shall deed to the City of Anaheim a
stzip of land 32 feet in widtk from the centerline cf the street along Wilken
Way from street widening purposes.
2. That stzeet lighting facilities along Wilken ~ay shall be installed as re-
quired by the Office of Utilities General Manager, and in accordance with
specifications on file in the Cffice of Utilities General Manager; and/or that
a bo~d, 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-~entioned requirements prior to occupancy.
3. That fire hydrapts shall be ins~talled and charged as required and determJ.ned
to he necessary by the Chief of the Fire Pepa.rtment prior to commencement of
st:uctural framing.
4. That subject property shall be served by unCerground utilities.
5. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory
to the City Engineer.
6. That the ow~zer(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the
ap~.ropriate park and recreation in-lieu ~eea, as deternincd to be appropriate by
the. City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building permit is issued.
7. That an ordinance rez¢.ning the subject property shall in no event become
effective except upon or following the recordation of Final Tract Map No. 11305
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 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.
9. That apgropriate water assessment fees, as determined by the Office of Utilities
General Manager, shall be paid to the City of Anaheim prior to the issuapce of a
building permit.
81-382
City Hall, Anaheim= Califcrnia- COUNCIL MINUTES - March 10, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
i0. That the developer shall acquire access rights across the one (1) foot
strip of land at the no~th property line of subject property before construc-
ting any access to Cliffwood Avenue.
11. That thc petitioner shall request, in writing to the Planning Department,
termination of Conditiomal Use Fermit Nos. 37, 765, and 1206.
12. That 15-gallon trees planted on 20-foot centers, with appropriate irri-
gation facilities, shall be installed and maintaine~ along the east property
line.
13. That subject prcperty shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Revision No.
1 of Exhibit No. 1, and Exhibit Nos. 2, 3 anC 4 submitted in connection with
Conditional Use Permit No. 2121.
14. Prior to the intrcduction of an ordinance rezcning subject property,
Condition Nos. 1, 2, 7, 10 and 11, above-mentioned, shall be completed. The
g. rovisions or rights granted by this resolution shall become null and void by
action of the Planning Commission unless said conditions are complied within
one year from thc date hereof, or such further time as the Planning Commission
may grant.
15. That Condition Nos. 4, 5, 12 and 13, above-mentioned, shall be complied
with prior to final building an~ zoming inspections.
The City Planting Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-.209, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2121, in part, subject to the following conditions:
i. That this Conditional Use Permit is gra~teC subject to the completion of
Reclassification No. 80-81-14 now pending and approva~ of ~entative Tract No.
11305.
2. That subject property shall be developed substantially in ~ccordance with
plans an~ specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Revision No.
1 of Exhibit No. 1, and Exhibit Nos. 2, 3 and 4.
3. That prior to zpproval of th~ fimal map cf Tract No. 11305, the developer
sh~ll enter into an agreememt with the City of Anaheim pursuant to Government
Code Section 65915 agreeing to maximum sales pric~s 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 ~ection 65915, together with such additiomal
covenamts and conditions including resale contrcls as may be required by the
City of Anaheim.~
4. That the proposed ~se is hereby granted ~ubject to the petitioner's stipu-
lation that~prior to approval of the final map of Tract No. 11305, the developer
shall enter into an agreement with each of the 45 permanent mobilehome house-
holds or sha~l submit evidence, satisfactory to the City, of willingmess to enter
into zn agreement or shall furmis~ proof thereof to the City agreeing to provide
relocation assistance to said 45 houseLolds in accordance with Alternatives "A"
"B" or "C" as follows and as heretofore stipulated to by the developer on
December 1, 1950:
Alternate "A" for mobilehomes less than 5 ~ear$ old: Developer pays 100% knock-
down, transportation and set-up charges to znother mobilehome park loczted with-
in 50 miles of the Westwin~s Trailer Lodge for tenamts cn fixed incomes; or the
develop~.r pays ~0% of those chzrg~s for tenants not on fixed incomes. Relocation
assistance will be provided without charge by the developer.
or
Alternate "B" for mobilehomes mor~ tha.n 5 ~eazs old: The temant retaims the
81-383
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COU~ICIL MINUTES - March 10, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
unit and the developer pays cash according to a formula based on how long the
tenant has ow~,.ed the mobilehome in Westwinds Trailer' Lodge. The tenant then
pays all moving costs. The formula consists of (1) subtracting the appraised
off-site mobilehomevalue from the appraised on-site value and (2) applying
an equity residue factor ef 70% to the difference thereof (the equity residue
factor is reduced by 10% for each year the tenant has lived in Westw!nds
Trailer Lodge). The result will be the cash amount which the developer will
pay to the tenant, prcvided that the minimum payment will be $1,000.
or
Alternate "C" for mobJlehome homes regardless of age; The tenant retains the
unit and the developer pays cash amounting to $1,700 £or single-wide mobile-
homes coaches and $2,300 for double-wide coaches. Said amounts, according to
the developer, are the actual costs for relocating such coaches within a 50-
mile radius of Westwinds Trailer Lodge.
The City Planning Commission ~pproved Tentative Map of Tract No. 11305 (Revision
No. 1) for a 2-lot, 99-unit condominium subdivisioD, subject to the following
conditions:
1. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 11305 is granted subject to
the approval of Reclasaificatiom No. 80--81-14 and Conditional Use Per~it No. 2121.
2. That should ~his subdivision be developed as more than cne subdivision, each
subdivision thezeof sha.ll be submitted in teDtative form for approval.
3. That all lots within this tract sha].l be served by underground utilities.
4. That the original documents of the coven~nts, conditions, and restrictions,
and a letter addressed to deve]oper's title company authorizing recordation
thereof, sh~ll be submitted to the City Attorney's office and approved by the
City Attorney's Off~ce, Public Utilities DepartmeDt, Building Division, and
the Engineering Division prior to final tract map approval. Said documents,
as approved shall be filed and recorded in the Cff~ce of the Orange County
Recorder.
5. That street names shall be approved by the City Planning Department prior to
approval of a final tract map.
6. That drainage of subject propert~ shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory
to the City Engineer.
7. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the
appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees, as determineC to be appropriate by
the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building permit is issued.
8. That all private streets shall be developed in accordance with the City of
Anaheim's Standard Detail No. 122 for ~rivate streets. Plams 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 kuilding
plans prior to issuance of building permits. (Private streets are those which
provide primary access an~/o~ circulation within the project.)
9. If permanent street name signs have not been installed, temporary stzeet name
signs shall be installed prior to any cccupamcy.
10~ 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.
11. That fire hydrants shall be insta]led and charged as required and determined
to be mecessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to commencement of
81-384
City Hall, Anaheim, California-- COUNCIL MINUTE~ - March 10.. 1981, 1:30 P.M.
structural framing.
12. That appropriate water assessment fees, as determined by th~ Director of
Public Utilities, shall be paid to thE: City of Anaheim prior to the issuance of
a building permit.
13. That the developer shall acquire access rig?its across the one (1) foot strip
at the north property line of subject property Lefcre constructing an access to
Cliff~ood Avenue.
14. That an ordinance rezoning th~z subject property shall in no event become
effective except upon or following the recordation of Final Tract Map No. 11305
within the time specified in Government Code Sectiom 66463.5 or such further
time as the advisory agency or City Council may grant.
15. That prior to apprcval of the final map of Tract No. 11305, 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, together with such additional
covenants and conditions including resale controls as may be required by the
City of Anaheim.
16. That prior to app~ovgl of the final map of Tract No. 11305, the develope~
shall enter into an agreement with e~ach of the 45 permanent mobilehome households
or shall submit evidence, satisfactory to the City, of willingness to enter into
an agreement or shall furnis~ proof 'thereof to the City agreeing to provide re-
location assistance to said households in accordance with the applicable alterna-
tive£ "A", "B" or "C" as heretofore stipulated to by the developer as follows:
Alternate "A" for mobilehomes less th~n 5 yea~s old: Developer pays 100% knock-
down, transportation and set-up charges to an¢.ther mobilehome park located with-
in ~0 miles of the Westwinds Trailer Lodge for tenants on fixed incomes; or the
developer pays 50% of those charges for tenants not on fixed incomes. Relocation
assistance will be provided without charge by the developer.
Alternate "B" for mobilehomes more than 5 years old: The tenant retaina the
unit and the developer pays cash according to a formula based on how long the
tenant has owmed the mob~le~ome in Westwinds Trailer Lodge. The tenant thE:n
pays all moving costs. The forn~ula consists of (1) subtzacting the appraised
off-site mobilehome value from the apg. raised on-.site value and (2) applying
an equity residue factor of 70% to th~ difference thereof (the equity residue
factor is reduced by 10% for each year the tenant has lived in Westwinds
Trailer Lodge). The result will be the cash amount which the developer will
pay to the tenant, provided that the minimum payment will be $1,000.
Alternate "C" for mobilehome homes regardless of a~e; The tenant retains the
unit and the developer pays camh amounting to $1,7OO for single-side mobilehomes
coaches and $2,300 for double-wide coaches. Said amounts, according to the
developer, are th~: actual costs for relocating such coaches within a 50--mile
radius of Westwinds Trailer Lodge.
A review cf the Plan~ lng Commission's decision was requested by Councilman Bay
at the meeting cf December 23, 1980, and public hearing scheduled January 20,
1981 ~nd continued from theft date,
City Clerk Linda Roberta announceC that they had received a request from the
attorney for the applicant, Floyd Farano, in letter dated March 6, 1981, for a
continuance to April 7, 1981, 7:00 P.M.
81-385
City Hall~ Anaheim, Califc.rnia - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 10, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor stated they understood the request for the continuance that was hand-
delivered on Friday. However, the Council also understood the large group was
going to be present this evening as was the case. They felt, therefcre, it
would be better to proceed with the hearing rather than having the residents
attend only to be told that the meeting would be continued. Although the
Council was understanding of the reason for the request for continuance, witt
the obvious public turnout, they should conduct the public hearing.
Mr. Floyd Farano, ~ttorney of the applicant, stated he very much regretted having
asked for the continuance at this point in time. They did everything that they
could, including sending notices, and their request for comtinuance was delivered
to everyone. They did not like the idea of springing surprises and the only
reason they requested a contipuance was because of the fact that the Council
was about to act upon a change in site development standards for conaominiums
which would have a very large bearing on their application. He realized that
the application was divisible to th~~ extent that it also involved a change of
use of a mobilehome park, but they were zt a loss to know how to ~roceeC with
their application until they had the cpportunity to determine the ordinance as
it would exist after the Council adopted it by laying it over their plan. They
did not kn¢.w at this point in time how that would affect them. They were not
prepared to proceed at this time, but if the Council wanted to listen to argu-
ments of the opposition, the5' would cooperate ~n any way they could, but they
were not prepared tonight to present evidence. The Council had before it a
significant amount of material that they prepared in compliance with the State
law concerning an environmental impact report on the change of use, and it had
been made available to all residents of the par~, as well as to the City itself.
He reiterated, they wot~ld cooperste in any way possible but would like to request
at this time that there be a continued hearing at whicb time they would be
allowed to present their evidepce at a later date~ preferably after the date
that the Council woold act upom the proposed ordinance. That was precisely
the reason they asked for April 7, 1981, rather than a week after the March 24,
1981 work session, so that they would have an opportunity to determine the
effects ef the new ordimance on their application.
Mayor Seymour then exFlainea what the Council's action had been cna number of
other projects that were somewhat in the same position as the subject project,
that being they had continued them pepding the work sessioms of the Council
and the Planning Commission. However, in some cases, they heard all the testi-
mony~ heard ~ brief presentation from the applicant to explain the prcject and
after taking that testimony, continued that matter until finalization of the
proposed amended ordinances. He would expect that was what the Council would
do this evening, He suggested that Mr. Farano present the project, that they
take testimony from all the people who had taken the time to be present and
the~ continue the matter for 8 final decision until such time as the Council
finished its work ~ith thE: Planning Co~,~issiop on the site development ordin-
ances.
The consensus of the Council was as the Mayor articulated.
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, first stated Mr. Farano had
submitted a set of revised ~lans in the middle of February. She then explained
that the two top drawings displayeC on the Chamber wall, the elevation and site
81-386
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 10, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
plan, were the plans approved by the Planning Commission and the drawing on
the bottom right was the revised plan, Revisiop No. 2. She would, therefore,
amend the staff report as she went through it to reflect the revised set of
drawings. She then described the location and surrcunding lamd uses, She
outlined the findings givep in the staff report which was submitted to and
considered by the City Planning Commis$iom. She also noted that the revised
plans were now prcposing a two-lot, 93-unit condominium subdivision, whereas
the initial plans called for 99 un~ts. Parking was now at a ratio of 2.5
parking spaces per unit, as opposed to 2.33 initially proposed.
Councilman Bay asked the den~,ity per ac~e existing vs. the change that they
made last Thursday at the City Planning Commismiop/Council work session.
Miss Santalahti explained for the 93 units cn the current Code regulation, 3,000
square feet was required and the proposal was for 2,011, or 67% of Code. Taking
the Code modification being comsidered, that would bring it to approximately 2,426
square feet, or about 81% of the Code requirement of the 3,000 square feet. The
proposeC changes would make no difference in the minimum recreational-leisure
area waiver, the parking waiver woold ~e modifie~ to the extent that they were
'providing 2.5 spaces per unit; however, not in a garage. Thus, there was still
a parking type of waiver required.
Mayor Seymour asked for confirmation of the waivers being requested even with
the standards presently under conaideratiom; Miss Santalahti answered waivers
a), b), e) and f), even considering the revised plans,
Miss Santalahti explained further for Councilwoman Kaywood that the revised
drawings, in addition to the modifications of the waivers, it also changed
and relocated some of the two-story units further away from the east property
line. There were some that were about 20 feet away and now the closest ~as
approximately 80 feet. They also realized the irregularly shaped units in
the center of the project which were a skewed alignment originally as well as
deleting any driveway access to Cliffwood Avenue to the north. The Mayor then
opened the public hearing to hear from any and all who wished to speak to
the prcject.
The following people spoPe in opposition to approval of the project and alse
included is a summary of their comments and concerns:
Mr, Charles Dearborn, 2241 S. Oertly, property owner in the housing tract ad-
jacent to the park. The individual prope.rty owners in the area were getting
squeezed out by the many apartments and condominiums being built in that area.
He did not want to see an ~ncrease in density and would favor the existing
mobilehome park use.
Mrs. Alice Ievesque, Space 25. She was speaking for those ~enior citizens in
the park who could not be ~resent topight. They would have no place to go if
the park ~ere converte~. Her mobilehome was her only form of "affordable"
living. They felt they were being discriminated against as senior citizens.
Builders and planners were destzoying the cnly affordable housing they could
live in, She did not want to be a public charge; they were at the Council's
mercy and they should come to a solution in orde~ to help them in their plight.
81-387
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL ~INUTES - March 10. 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Miss Telsie Hewlett, Space 13 (also aee testimony given at the Planning Commis-
sion meeting of November 17, 1980). She was an ~nskil]ed worker and financially
no better off th~n senior citizena. It took almost three ant one-half years for
her to save enough money for a down payment on her mobilehome which she purchased
in February 1980 and she lived in the park because it wam close to her work.
She then explained, upon questioning by Councilmen Roth and Bay, that she had
received a 12 months' notice of eviction, that she was not offered any kind of
lease initially, and she purchase~ he~ mobilehome in the park, in her mind?
on a life-time basis without thinking about it as being on a month-to-month
basis~
Councilman Roth ask~.d the City Attorney to explain the ramifications cf the
serving cf the 12-month notice to the residents of the park.
City Attorney William Hopkins explained that the Civil Code Section applying
to mobilehome parks (798.55etaeq and 789.6) provided that the change of use
of the pa~k or any portion there~of provided, as a reason for ternination of
tenancy, and required a 15-day notice ini~ia!ly that there was going to be ~ome-
thing presenteC to the Cit> Council and the second part required management to
give the tenanta 12 months' written notice of the proposed change. That was
provided by the Civil Code which was beyond the control of the City Cour, cil or
City ordinances. Since the procedure was specified in the Civil Code it, there-
fore, preempted any ordinance that the City might try to enfcrce in that area.
Mr, Michael E. Deitch, attorney representing the tenant~, of ~estwinds Mobilehome
Park and Trailer lodge, 18411 South Crenshaw Boulevard, Suite 422, Torrance,
thereupon briefed the appeal previously submitted and made a part of the
record--"Appeal To Anaheim City Council From Decision of Anaheim City Planning
Commission," received December 19, 1980 (three pages containing ~even items).
Some additional points note~ by Mr. Deitch were as followa,: At this point in
time, the tenapts had no idea who had the authority to issue the Notices and
Determinations; and to request an application for the developmen~ of that prop-
ert~ to a use. other thap as a mobilehome park. A title search made oo
October 20, 1980 listed the bank as the trustee. Howe,-er, the tenants had
received notices from Westwind Investmenta and more recently on December 11,
1980, a notice was issued to a tenant by a Robert CranCall identified on the
notice as the owner-manager. He requested that the Council at some point in
time duripg the hearing determfne who did have the authority to issue Notices
of Determination for the par~.
Relative to Item No. 5 of the appeal, he stated that the General Plan should
provide and did provide for adequate housing for the people involved but by the
very ~ction undertaken by the Planning Commission in allowing the requested
waivers they ~ere, in effect, abrogating the 1969 General Plan.
Mrs. Francin~, Czupack, Space 43 (~Iso see testimony given at Planning Commission
meeting of November 17, 1980). She was a disabled gen~or citizen with sericus
health problems, the prognosis being that at this point in time she had only
approximately six years to live, Two years ago she invested her entire savings
of $15,000 into the purchase o~ her mobilehome and she had ~o more funds to
purchase another mobilehome. If Westwinds tried to relocate her, she would
be forced to drive freeways and she did not do so. That woold send her to her
death even befcre the six years.
81-388
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES o. March 10, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Mark Quijada, Space 37 (also see testimony given at the Plapning Commission
meeting of November 17, 1980). He and his mothe~ had a rare h:one disease and
their mobilehome had special built-in features to accommodate them. They had
a 1979 Kingston double wide, 20X31, which the park appraised at $3,952 not
coonting the lot and $7,440 cn the lot. An appraiser they engaged gave an
appraisal of $14,900 off lot and $29,995 on the lot. He had previously been
on welfsre but now had z good job with a caring employerc He could not afford
to move again and his mother needed local medical care. He did not want to go
back on welfare. If they decided to approve condominiums being built on the
park property, he wanted $15,095 which was the difference in the appraised
value on and off the lot.
Note: Later in the meeting appraisals were submitted to the Council on the
following people which included an appraisal by the Park's apprafser and an
appraiser hired by the tenan! (made a part of the record): Margaret Reding,
Space 19; Harvey and Candy DeHart, Space 68; Mark Quijada, Space 37; Telsie
Hewiett, Space 13; Robert anC Clair EnnJs, Space 18; Rachel Demarest, Space
31; Franc~e Czupack, Space 43; Trudy and Jay Brammer, Space 9; Lorraine
Allison, Space 39.
Mr. Carey Fox, 238 West Tiller, tract jugt south of Westwinds. He was concerned
about the future of the residents in the park, his future, and that of his
neighborhood as well. Their tract had very little police and traffic problems
or problems of any kind. He was concerned about having new people come in to
dispossess the people already living in the ~ark whc were quiet and good neigh-
bors.
Mrs. Candice DeHart, Space 68. She and her husband and son were residents of
the park since 1976. They had lOX50 mobilehome and wanted to sell it and
move out of the park. They were told their trailer was too old and it would
bare to he a move-out. Management convinced them to upgrade the park by buying
a double-wide which would give th~ more space and they did so in December 1978.
Less than two years later they received a not~ce that they had to move. They
pa~d $18,D00 for their home and now they owed more than $18,000 because cf
the interest rates, The pa~'k appraiser appraised their mobilehome at $10,000
and if left in the park, $23,000. Their own appraiser appraised the home at
$27,~00. She was the mai~ support of her family at present. If they had to
move out, she would lose her job and would be unable to support her family.
They needed to have the ~ark remain as a park. She did not know how the owners
could get away with giving them & false sense of security and then take the
park away frcm them. Something had to be done.
Margaret Reding, Space 19. Her mobilehome was a 1960 model and could not be
located anywhere in the area. She then relayed the considerable amount of
money she had spent within the last three years upgradir, g her home at some
considerable sacrifice. Only one day after the completion of installation
of new carpeting, she was served with the 12-montl notice that the park was
beiDg converted to a condominium. She referred to the appraisals obtained
and the discrepancy, as did other tenants, betweer the Park's appraisal and
their owner appraiser. She ~as speaking not only for herself, but for other
serior citizens in the park who were not able to attend or to speak tonight.
They could not sleep, their families were becoming aggravated with them and
81-389
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTE£ - March 10. 1981, 1:30 P.M.
they could Eot lea~ a normal life kecause~ of the stress and concern over what
was hapgening. They asked the following: That they be able to continue to
live at the pazk or, if not, that their homes be moved to another location close
ky or they be given cash to buy another mobilhome comparable to th~irs in the
immediate neighborhood.
Mr. Don Campbell, Space 40. He had an 83-year old father living with him and
he gave a synopsis of his father's personal history showing that he was a proud
and independent man. There was no ~'ay that he could move his father if that
became necessary and, therefore, he was going to be the Council's prcblem and
not his, because his father had too much pride and would not leave the park.
Mrs. Lucy Villa, Space 23 (also see testimony given at the Planning Commission
meeting of November 3, 1980). She and her husba.nd moved into the park in
August of 1980 and put every penny they had into the purchase of their 20X40
1978 mobilehome. One month later, September 1980 they were served with the
12 months' notice. She did not know wha. t they were going to do or how they
were going to survive. They could not move to Corona as was suggested, and she
was very concerned about the large debt they had incurred. She felt what had
been done to them was not right and questioned why they had not told them that
the park w'as being planned for conversion to condominiums and why they had
accepted the~: at the park.
Mrs. Trudy Branm~er, Space 9 (see testimony given at FlanniDg Commission meeting
of November 3, 1980). Her job was dependent on her being able to get to it which
would be impcssible to do if sh~ had to move 50 miles away. The previous speakers,
residents of the park, were only.a sm~,ll fraction of the suffering occurring
in the park. She then referred to the park appraisal made on her home which
she felt was an error. Her home was 60 feet long and 20 feet wide and the
photograph cf it (~hicb she submitted--made a part of the record) clearly shewed
it to be double-wide, whereas the apprsisal by the park stated that it was
single-wide. She then pointed out a number of additional discrepancies rela-
tive to her particular case which was true of almost every other appraisal
made, As well, the pazk appreiser had never been identified. She also briefed
the Council on the appraisal of Mrs. Rachel Demerest, Space 31, who was not
able to speak this evening (isee appraisal, report submitted).
Mrs, Brammer then spoke to the matter of the cwnership of the park which was
very questionable and she relayed the history of th~ ownership from 1972 to
the present; however~ in the final analysis, it was not clear who the owne~
was at present and if they were going to sue somebody, she questioned who they
would sue.
Councilman Ruth interjected &nd asked the City Attorney if the policy of Title
Insurance, as Mr. Deitch indicated, showed the ~ank of California as trustee
of the ~roperty and if it was a question of ownership, would that not be a
civil matter rather than a matter to be determined ky the City Cou[cil.
City Attorney Hopkins answered it would be a civil matter and the attorney for
the~ persops who would desire to file suit would have to research the matter to
~ind out who the proper parties would he to name as defendants.
81-390
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 10, 198}, 1:30 P.M..
In concluding, Mrs. Brammer stated that the was concerned relative to the
future of ~obilehome parks. She felt this was a test case, an¢ if approved,
it would be an example for other developers to feel that they could also do
the things being requested. She was also concerned relative to the request
for continuance and the possibility of having to go through the process all
over again. There wag suffering among the residents every time they had to
be gathered in and these had been some attrition along the way. She felt that
was one of the planned procedures they were facing.
At the conclusion of Mrs. Brammer's presentation, Councilman Roth asked if
there was a requirement in the law mandating that a set amount be paid for
relocation of displaced park residents.
Mr. Deitch answered in the Government Code Sections which he referred to earlier
and which were indicated in the appeal presented to the City Council, there
were two Sections of the Code which had become effective as of Jan%~ary 1, 1981,
which he £elt may be applied retroactively--65863.7 and 66427.4--"A municipal
government shall have the authority and shall introduce and provide local
ordinances to provide for relocation of tenapts." That %as the whole basis
of AB2234 enactef as cf January 1, 1981. It did not, however, state a specific
dollar amount or time, but that the local government had that authority.
Councilman Bay asked if it stated where they were supposed to get the money;
Mr. Deitch answered that it did not.
City Attorney Hopkins stated that the section he believed was being referred to
was 66427.4, stating "A legislative body or an advisory agency which authorized
by local ordinance to apprcve, cooditionally approve~ or disapprove the map,
may require the sub¢iivider to take steps to mitigate any adverse impact of the
conver'sion on the ability of displacing mobileh¢,me park residents to find
adequate space in a mobileh¢,me Dark." It did not specify amounts. The law
did not go into effect until January 1, 1981 and the Planning Commission action
was prior to that date and thus there would be a question as to whether a court
would enforce that ret~'oactively.
Councilman Overholt asked Mr~ Deitch, aside from all the legal technicalities,
was it the position of his ellen, s that they felt the Council should see to it
that relocation not impact them adve~rsely, as opposed to the position that the
Council should, under no circumstances, allow that property to be developed
into condom~niums~
Mr. Deitch stated that the City adopt~d certain ordinances specifying density,
lot areas, parking, etc., and if those were valid ~equirements? why was there
such a gross deviation not in cne area of waiver, but in seven, eight to ten
areas of wa~ver~ The first approach would be that~the zequirements on the
books in the C~ty would not be satisfied by the applicant. Assuming that the
applicant could satisfy the current Code requirements and that they give a
proper 12-month notice followed by a proper 60-day notice after all permits
were approved, for a minimum of 14 months.' notice, it would be their position
~hat the tenants should be provided with relocation assistance under the
Government Codes.
81-391
City Hall, Anaheim, Californis - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 10, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Jay Brammer, Space 9, stated that on September 19, 1980 they received the
12 months' eviction notice to make way for the ~ezoning of the mobilehome park
for condominiums. He did not believe this could happed in the Onited States,
that they could be "kicked out" witk.out just compensation. He could not
desert his friends in their hour of need who were on Social Security, retirement
senior citizens, those with health problems and those dependent upon their jobs.
Mr. Harvey DeHart, Space 63 (see testimony given at the Planning Commission
meeting cf November 17, 1980) stated he was speaPing for th~ people at the
park. He was wo[ried about them and felt they were getting a "dirty deal".
Fortunately, he had a place to move to, but that was not the case for most of
the people in the park.
Mr. Charles Grazisno, Space 87. He had retired six and one-half years agc. and
was living in a travel trailer in the peak. He did not have to stay there, but
he knew some of the people in the park who did. If the Coumcil allowed the
rezoning of the park, he questioned where the residents would go. He felt
that some would have to go on welfare, rest homes and as a result some might
become very ill. He then mentioned the discrepancies in appraisals and the
fact that many residents had put their life savings into their mobilehome.
The mobilehome business was really not mobile. He then elaborated upon the
variances being ~equested and he was astounded by the magnitude of those requests.
The Mayor stated that if the Council said "no" to the developer, i.e., if no
variances were granted and the developer were forcea to comply to the letter
of the law, did he then expect the Council to somehow stop the developer.
Mr. Graziano answered that he did mot think they were going be able to stop
hims. but the developer co[~ld not put condominiums in unless the zoning were
chapgeC.
The Mayor answered~ "no", If the prope, rt)' owner ~'anted to develop apartments-
in sccordance with the ~ity's General Plan and he complied with all the laws,
the Council would not have any power beyond that.
Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that the property was now zoned RS-A-43,000
which meant one house per acre, unless the Cou~cil changed that.
Mayor Seymour asked iC the General plam called for the property to be low-
medium density; Miss Santalahti answered "yes". It was a multiple-family zone,
Mr, Graziano urged that they stc.p the developer from attempting to "rip the
peep!e off."
Mr, Roger Condon, Space 3, (~ee testimopy given at the Planning Commission
neeting of November 3, 1960). His concern was relative to whether or not the
notice of eviction was valid and else questioned the retroactivity of the new
legislation as discussed earlier which became effective January 1, 1981.
A dicussion followed on those points which were clarified by the City Attorney.
It was brought out again during the discussion that the matters were of civil
co~cern, not for the determinatiom of the Council, and ones that should be tried
in court, The purpose for the present heating was relative to a zoning matter.
81-392
City Hall, Anaheim, Califo:nia - COUNCIL MINUTE~.- March 10~ 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood then askeC thE: City Attorney, relative to the gtaif report
to the Planning Commissiom of December 1, 1980, Page lh. Item 31--"In conclusion,
the Planning Commission should note that the Westwinds Trailer Lodge is zoned
RS-A-43,000 which ~.llows only one-single-family dwelling and agricultural uses
or the existing trsiler park until such time as the City of Anaheim apg, roves
other zonimg. It would appear incumbent upon the Planning Commission to consider
rezoning the property only after the developer has submitted an ~cceptable plan
that is sensitive and responsive to the needa of this park's permanent residents."
Thum, there was nothing that they had by ~ight--nothing at all. She asked the
City Attorney to either confirm or disagree with that conclusion.
City Attorney Hopkins stated that he did agree with what the report said.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated, therefcre, that some of the previous discussion
from the Cou~cil indicated that the developer build comdominiums or apartments,
but the developer could not build anything unless the Council granted him a
reclassification,
Councilman Overholt, following up on Councilwoman Kaywood's conclusion, asked
the City Attorney if that wag an accurate statement.
City Attorney Hopkina answered that the staff report ~as accurate.
Councilman Overh¢,lt asked if the developer could build homes on one-acre parcels
since that was the present zoning; Mr. Run Thompson, Planning Director, stated
that he could have one home and five acres of strawberries.
Councilman Cverholt stated then that the developer could do that without coming
to the Cour~cil, but still he =equired to comply with the Civil Code in giving
notice to the resJdepts.
City Attorney Hopkins clarified if he changed the use of the ~ark in any manner,
he would have to give notice. It would only be relative to a reclassification
that he would have to come to the Council.
Councilman Overholt reiterated that he would gtill be required to comply with
~tate law by giving notice to the people in the mobilehome park. It was
separate matter and & legal matter and ~f the owner did not comply with the
law,, they had a remedy, but it was not what they were talking about tonight.
Mrs. Winnell LaVonne Layman, Seal Beach, representing her mother, a resident
of the Westwinds Mobilehome Park. ~t had been brought to her attention that
if the people l~ving in the mobilehome ~ark coold not fin~ dwellings within
their means, that the developer was required to provide a double-wide mobile
home. There was no place for her mother to go. They offered her Riverside,
but she did not want to legve Anaheim.
Mayor Seymour asked the City Attorney if there was such a State Law requiring
the deve%ope= to provide a double-wide mobilehome in the instance as explained
by Mrs. Layman.
81-393
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUN£IL MINUTES - March 10, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
City Attorney Hopkins stated he knew of no such law- Apparently someone had
made a statement that that was accurate. If he could be provided with the
Code Section, he could research the matter, but he knew of no such law; Mr.
Deitch also stated that he also knew of mo such law.
Mrs. Lorraine Allison, Space 39. She explained that they had been told there
was a park in Corcnm that had six spaces for them. They wept to Corona and
saw spaces that would take an RV cf less than 40 feet, not a mobJlehome length.
The spaces they saw for the six mobilebomes were homes already in the park with
"For Sale" signs in the windows. There were no empty spaces for a mobilebome.
They also told them that they could go to Rialto, but there they would not take
the clder homes but only newer ones. The spaces suggested at Riverside were
$195 a montL or nore and they could not afford that. They had to have a place
to live. They were still going to live a few years longer and wanted one more
place to live. If they wanted the park, that was fine, but they ~ad to find
them a place to live. She wanted to live as a human being and not be shuffled
arcund.
In concluding, Mr. Deitch stated his appearance tonight was baseC on a formal
appeal to the City CouncJ.1 which was filed witt the City Clerk within the time
period allotted for filing an appeal on the Planning Commission action. Based
on that, it was his opinion that as a formal appeal, it extended the finality
of the zoning request. Since it did ~o past Januar~ 19£1, any State legisla-
tive action coming during the period of time of the extension would take
effect and the City Council may then also enact any orCinance passed on that
legislation. The request for a zoning variance had not yet become final because
of the formal appeal. Therefore, any State law within that time perioC would
take effect.
City Attorney Hopkins gtated he could not agree with that and they would have
to do some reserach. The Planning Commission's decision was final unless
reversed by the City Councfl, and the~ would want a court's decision as to
whether it could be applied retroactively.
Mayor Seymour than gave Mr. Farano an opportunity to spea~ to the testimony
given~
Mr. Floyd Farano then clarified gome of the questions that had been posed
as follows~ The Planning Commission hearing of December 1, 1980 was to a
public hearing, the public hearing was closed at the prior hearing (see
Flanning Commission~ minutes December 1, 1980). They had not done anything
unfairly or in bad faith, but tri~d to announce everything th~y had done.
Relative to the appraisals and the discrepancies, they could not account for
that. They retained the services of appraiser, Mr. Brown and he did not know
bis address. The appraisals were legitimately done and the person was not
related to or in any way interested in the developmemt. He did not know
whether Mrs, Brammer got the right appraisals, since the discrepancie~ were
obvious, especially from the photographs submitted, and be would look into
that matter.
81-394
City Hall, Anaheim,. California - COUNCII~ MINUTES - March 10, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
They did not agree that the law that went into effect January cf 1981 controlled
their situation. During the Planning Commission meetings in November (see
Planning Commission minutes November 3 and November 17, 1980) the point was
made that they were tr~ing to tush the development through in order to avoid
the January 1, 1981 law. They were not trying to do so and he had even tried
to get a continuance tonight. At that time, they stated that they would make
themselves available anG stipulate to making a plan available to the Commission
that they could act upon. The law stated that they must present a plan that
the municipal body could act upon and decide whether or not it ~as adequate
for replacement purposes. As far as he was concerned, the 21-page envirommental
impact report that was submitted was in compliance with the Code sections Mr.
Deitch talked about tonight. (See Comprehensive Mobilehome Park Conversion
Impact Report submitted under letter dated Februmry 18, 1981 from the Law
Offices cf Floyd L. Farano---made ~ part of the record). The people were right
relative to the fact that mobilehomes were Cifficult to relocate.. They had
made efforts to do so. The average age of every mobilehome in that park was
around 18 years old. There were not many spaces available and there were
many reasons why that was so, upon which he elaborated. As part of their
overall plsn, thet told the residents they would retain the servZces of a
person, at present the manager cf the park, as a relocation persen who would
represent them and the park and ~hose sole duty from now until the park was
closed some 18 to 24 months hence, was to find a place for them to live.
They were restating that now.
Relative to Mrs. Villa's case, without wanting to dispute her statement of
value, it was true that she moved to the park and ~ut her home there in
August of 1980. She did mot buy from the park management. At the time of
the hearing before the Planning Commission, they had paid something like
$27,000 for the mobilehome and tonight it was $54,000. Perhaps she was
multiplying $496 a month times 72 months. They had made an extra special
effort on behalf of Mrs. V%lla and found at least one space in Crange County
not too far away that woul~ take her. They would continue to do their best
and continue to work with the people during the next 18 to 24 months.
Relative to the park itself, it was 26 )'ears old, 20 units to an acre, and by
today's development standards ~n the City, that was not quite three times the
density that mobilehome parks were accepted on. They retained the services
of a licensed engineer to l~ok ~nto the park utilities, electricity, sewer and
every mechanical aspect of the park. The result of the study was before the
Council tonight. Virtually every mechanical part of the park was outdated,
worn OUt and it did not even have the necessaz, y capacity for water for a fire
hydrant, He submitted that the Council would not permit living conditions
like that to exist anywhere else in the City. The park was not going to stay
a mobilehome park, Management was not going to take the responsibility for
the safety of the people in the park, knowing the conditiom it ~as in right now.
It would cost $655,000 to refurbish the park. He reiter8ted, the mobilehome
~ark would not remain a mobilehome park.
At first the developer was willing to build 33 8partments of between 450 and 500
square feet to make available to people on fixsd incomes, whether senior citizens
or disabled, and they would be permftted to rent those apartments at $154 a month
ad infinitum, subject only to the cost of living increase in the Long Beach area.
81-395
Cit}' Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 10, 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
There was only one person who talked seriously to them about that and as a result
of the total lack of interest, the developers decided not to do
In concluding: Mr. Faran¢, state~ they had discussed the matter with Mrs. Hattom's
attorney, she being the previous owner of the park, and he was happy because
she received payments every month. Shortly after the first or second hearing
they :eceived a call from an attorney in Riverside who repre.sented Mrs. Hatton.
She held a trust deed upon which the beneficiary under the tru&t made monthly
payments. The trustee was the legal owner and Westwi~ds was the beneficial
owner in the trust.
After further discussion and questioning between Mr. Farano and Cour, cil Members,
the Mayor closed the public hearing.
From the audience, a quemtion was asked as to the ownership of the park and the
address so that they could have theft information which was necessary relative to
a rent refund from the State of Califor=ia.
Mr. Farano answered that he did not have the address. The cwner of the property
was the trustee and he was not sure for their purposes that the)wanted the
tr~stee's name and address. However, the par~ manager would have an answer for
them befo~'e noon tomorrow.
Upom questioning hy Councilman Overholt, Mr. Farano stated that the Bank of
California was the trustee for Westwinds Development and the address was as
reflected in the file--Bank of California, N. A., Trustee, 845 South Figuerca,
Los Angeles, California 90054, trustee for Westwinds development, a limited
partnership.
Mayor Seymour stated that their concern was relative to two points and two
decisions--(1) a proposed change in. land use to a condominium project with
certain variances and (2) how would the City Council inmure that the te~nants
of the mobilehome park were being treated fairly. Relative to the legal
strategies and questions raised by Mr. Deitch, the Council should not involve
itself with the fine details of those questions, i.e., who owned the ~ark,
was legal notice served, etc. Tho~e were for the courts to determine.
Relative to the question of zoning and type of land use change, the City Council
through a number of work sessions, had been trying to develop some changes to
its site development standards. They had done that although they did not see
the words on paper or the ordinances that would have to be introduced to affect
those staDdards. He was h~pefu] that the ordinances would be adopte, d and when
they were adopted: barring any reasonable request for a tech~ical waiver, the
subject project, if approved for a condominium, would have to conform to those
new standards, and variances would rot be granted unless of a technical nature.
Relative to the question of whether or not the people were being treated fairly,
he had not seen anywhere near enough information to lead him to believe that
they were being treated fairly. There appeared to be discrepancies in the
appraisals, They would then have to go beyond those appraisals and take, for
example, the case of Mrs. Villa to ascertain if she paid $54,000 or $27,000.
If what she said was so, she was mislead and there was responsibility there
81-396
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINI:TE$ - March 107 1981, 1:30 P.M.
on the part of the park owners to try to ta~.e care of Mrs. Villa and people
in the quand~y she had been gut in. The bottom line, as far as he was con-
cerned--subject to the finalization of the ordinances relative to the changes
in site development stapdard$, Wa~, he waa not interested in variapces unless
they were of a very technical nature.
Secomdly, they had to try the best they knew how to in~ure if the condominiums
were approved, the tenants were properly taken care of. On the other hand if
there were discrepancieg in represe~ntaticns made by park residents relative to
mobilehome prices, that too, was not fair or ~eaaona~ble. Somewhere they had
to try to find a balmnce. If the matter was continued to ApCil 7, 1981, he
would encourage Mr. Farano, the tenants and Mr. Dietcb to get off the legal
technicalities and get down to finding some common ground.
Councilman Roth felt the Mayor had covered the situation. He also felt that
the Council would be interested in having the City Attorney provide them in-
formation in writing on some of the laws pertaining to the 12-month notice
requirement, if there were any ~equirements of the developer to pay for re-
location and mobilehomes, etc., so that they would be apprised of those matters
by the next hearing.
The City Attorney stated he would provide the report.
Councilman Overlolt stated that would be interesting, but it would not go to
the two issues that the Maycr had articulated and he agreed those Were the
issues. He did not see anything unus~:al relative to the appraisals where
there was ~n appraisal by a qualified appraiser on the part of someone who
would like to keep the value low and an appraisal by a qualified appraiser
on the part of someone who would like to make the value high where the two
appraisals were opposite poles. As the Mayor said, Mr. Far,no and Mr. Dietch,
as the representatives cf the two interests, should get together and figure
out some way to come up with ~ome appraisals that ~ere not at opposite poles
and also to find some way to mediate those. The Council had a good track
record of being concert, ed about its citizens whether they be owners, tenanta,
or whatever, to be sure that they were fairly treated.
MOTION: Councilman S~ymour moved to continue public hearing and fi~,al consi-
deration of Reclassification No. 80-81-14, Conditional Use Permit No. 2121
and Tentative Tract No, 11305 to April 7, 198], at 7:00 P.M. Councilwoman
Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS - CL¢SED SESSION: The City Manager requested a Closed Session to discuss
a personnel matter with ~o action anticipmted; the City Attorney requested a
closed $.ession to d~scuss litigation with action anticipated.
Councilman Bay moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilwoman Kayweod
seconded the motion. MOTION CAR~iIED. (~1:05 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymoor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (~2;14 A.M.)
112: HOHAM VS. CIIY OF ANAHEIM: On motion by CouncilmaD Seymour, secended by
Councilwoman Kaywood~ the City Attorney and Ruston & Nance were authorized to
settle Orange, County Superior Court Case No. 31-00-21, Hoham vs. City of Anahe%m
for ~ sum not to exceed $7,500, MOTION CARRIED.
81-397
City Hall~ Anaheim, Ca~ifqrnia - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 10, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
112: EHRICH VS. CITY OF ANAHEIM: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded
by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Attorney and Ruston & Nance were authorized
to settle Orange County Superior Court Case No. 32-01-52, Ehrich vs. City of
Anaheim, for a sum not to exceed $9,000. MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Bay moved to adjourn. Councilwoman l~ywood seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (12:15 A.M.)
LIND~ D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK