1981/03/2481-466
City. Hall, Anaheim,..qalifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES -.March 24~ 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
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Norm Priest
PUBLIC UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER: Gordon Hoyt
CITY ENGINEER: William Devitt
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ron Thompson
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
STREET MAINTENANCE SUPERINTENDENT: Bill Lewis
CIVIL ENGINEERING ASSISTANT: Robert Herr
~Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Reverend Gerry Schiller, Melodyland Hotline Center, gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Ben Bay led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
119: PRESENTATION: The Mayor presented a Certificate of Appreciation to
Gregory Salazar, Anaheim Police Officer, on the occasion of his retirement
and as a testimonial for his faithful service to the citizens of Anaheim.
Certificates were also drawn for Officers Robert Severe and Joseph Tmmmmro
who were unable to be present.
119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Seymour and
authorized by the City Council:
"Athletes in Action Day in Anaheim"- April 1, 1981
MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved tO approve the minutes of January 13 and
January 27, 1981 subject to typographical corrections on the minutes of
January 27, 1981. councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda, after
reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to waiver is
hereby given by ail Council Members, unless after reading of the title, specific
request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such ordinance or resolution
in regular order. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST TH~ CITY in the amount of $6,793,759.55, in accordance
with the 1980-81 Budget, were approved.
177.123: DEVELOPER AGREEMENT FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING - EDWARD PADILLA: Author-
izing an agreement with Edward Padilla & Company to assure affordable sale prices
for 11 units in a 22-unit condominium project located at 125 West South Street,
as recommended in memorandum dated March 17, 1981 from Executive Director of
Comunity Development Norm Priest.
81-467
City, Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 24~ 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Overholt moved to authorize the subject agreement. Councilman Roth
seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked, relative to the sale
prices indicated in the subject memorandum which would be held for one year,
were they only "paper" prices with almost an assurance that they would be
higher.
Mr. Norm Priest, Executive Director of Co~nunity Development, answered "no"
The units should be ready before that time and it would be a year from the
date of the agreement. Me also explained for Councilwoman Kaywood that the
agreement provided that the units be held for low and moderate income for a
five year period. At such time as it should be resold, the amount between
the initial appraised value and ~he initial sales price would be recoverable
at the time of subsequent sale, after the ~ive years, but it would not have to
be for low and moderate income.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated then, they would have no affordable housing after
five years because those units would be removed from the affordable stock.
Mr. Priest stated from the prospective of the subject development, that was
correct. However, the amount of the second trust deed would be applicable to other units
or other developments whenever it did sell and, ih effect, those would be funds
that could be applied to affordable housing at that point in time.
Councilman Roth asked how they intended to control the no rent/no lease provision;
Mr. Priest answered the only way they could do so effectively would be from the
standpoint of periodically touching base with the occupant of the unit.
Councilman Roth stated he assumed when controlling the occupants, they were
going to be made aware of the provision prior to purchasing the property, of
the no rent/no lease provision for the first five years; Mr. Priest answered that
was correct. They did that by means of a letter agreement with the purchaser.
Councilman Roth stated in seconding the motion, it was subject to his being
assured that the controls were a maximum five years on the subject project;
Mr. Priest stated the controls in terms of low and moderate income sale were
for five years. The recovery of the amount of the second would go on for a
longer period of time until a subsequent sale took place. He reiterated the
low and moderate requirement was five years only. He further explained for
the five year period that they would be dealing with low and moderate income
purchasers, the second crust deed would be assumed for the purpose of selling
to a low and moderate income buyer. Beyond the five years, it could be sold
to a buyer at any income level. At that point in time, the amount of the
initial second would be recoverable.
Councilman Bay then posed a line of questioning to Mr. Priest for purposes of
clarification. One of the questions dealt with the recourse for an owner of
one of the units who was aware that someone else was found to be breaking the
rules by renting or leasing a unit. Mr. Priest explained in that case, recourse
would be through his staff. There was an enforcement mechanism in the agreement
by which they could, in fact, insure that would not occur. He also clarified
81-468
C.i. ty Hall~ Anahe..im, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 24, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
for the Mayor that relative to such a violation, there was a penalty attached
in terms of the violation of any of the specific conditions in that, if a
rental, it would lead to cessation of utility service which was about the
only reasonable "handle" they had on a unit.
Mayor Seymour asked why they could not accelerate the second trust deed and
call it due; Mr. Priest stated that they could do so. The Mayor stated that
they should.
Mr. Priest stated they could call it due anytime a violation occurred and there
w~uld be no problem with that. It could be put into the agreement with the
buyers so that it would be clearly understood out front.
Mayor Seymour stated he would like to see that provision included in the agree-
ment, because during the five-year period they did not want the affordable
purchaser to be turning around and rentiBg the unit. They should disclose
that up front and make the penalty rather extreme for violating that aspect of
the agreement.
Mr. Priest stated if they were to approve the agreement and incorporate that
as part of the motion they would have no problem although they may wish to
check with legal counsel.
City Attorney William Hopkins stated there would be no problem with that and
it could be added to the provisions of the agreement.
Councilman Overholt asked if it would be enforceable; Mr. Hopkins answered they
would know when they had their first case in court. They had some opinions
that were written by numerous counsels and they felt it was enforceable. The
accelerated encumbrances aspect was not specifically discussed but the resale
and rental controls were discussed in great detail and they felt the rental
controls could be enforced.
Further discussion then followed between the Mayor and Mr. Priest relative to
the Mayor's question concerning other types of financial penalties that might
be enforceable. At the conclusion of discussion, the Mayor reiterated that he
felt the loan should be accelerated and for the individual to try to take them
to court. He was also looking for something beyond that that would place a
burden on the individual violating those regulations.
Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that the project received a 1OO% density bonus
when it was approved by Council. The period of time involved to insure it afford-
able would be only five years. She felt they needed to look ahead to what was
going to happen in Anaheim in five years. They were down to 3% vacant land
west of the River now. If they were going to do this and in five years what
they were calling affordable today was gone, she questioned what would happen.
Mr. Priest stated if they could look back five years, that period from 1976
to 1981 had not shown a significant change in the affordable housing. If
anything, it was worse. He was not prepared to say that the need would dis-
appear in five years. What they were suggesting, from the perspective of
trying to arrive in terms of judgment at a reasonable level of getting from
81-469
City Hall, Anaheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES -March 24, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
the developer a public benefit, i.e., low and moderate income housing, in re-
turn for the indirect financial benefit, the density bonus, they chose five
years. It might be that the Council had a different judgment perhaps three,
seven or ten years. The Council made themselves clear, for example, that
clearly thirty years was too much.
Mayor Seymour stated, as he understood, the economic benefit being received
ultimately by the buyer as a result of an exchange of value through granting
of variances, was in the form of a second trust deed. If the entire and total
economic benefit of the differential was being returned to the City at year
ene or year five, assuming year five, then the slate would be clean. In that
case, he would question what right local government or any level or government
had to control the price of that product beyond that point. That would be the
first step leading to the creation of price controls on all homes. If the
economic benefit had not been returned, then the resale price controls should
remain until such time as that had occurred.
Councilman Bay stated that he agreed with the Mayor in setting up penalties
to put some "teeth" into the no lease/no rent controls. He was not sold on
the limits of a five-year control at this time but he did not think they had
come to the point where the Council had agreed upon the term of control on
affordable housing. He did not mind the five-year control if it did not
become a precedent so that they would still be open for discussion on their
final decision. He personally preferred a sliding scale--he did not like 30
years or five years, but a sliding scale in between which he hoped they could
work out.
Councilman Overholt asked what would happen if the breadwinner died; Mr. Priest,
after a brief elaboration, stated that the agreement did not speak to a change
of location due to employment, a change in family status due to death or
divorce or some family dissolution. They felt they had coped with that by
offering a list of buyers interested in purchasing the property should it
need to be offered for sale during the first five years.
After further questions posed to Mr. Priest and the City Attorney, Councilman
0verholt stated it seemed to him a better approach would be to have a direct
contractual relationship with the buyer. They could then write into the con-
tract anything they wanted to that the buyer would accept.
Mr. Priest stated that they had utilized that on a limited basis in the case
of Cinnamon Hollow. They had a letter a~reement with the buyer directly. In
that particular instance, it spoke to conditions such as the no rent matter.
He was sure they could draw such a contract and they were open for direction
by the Council. If the second trust deed was not the appropriate mechanism
as far as they were concerned, but they preferred a direct agreement between
themselves and the buyer, that could be done as well.
Councilman 0verholt said it was appropriate to measure the differential in dollars,
the economic benefits they had been talking about. His concern was whether
it was a tool that really could be used to all of the things they were talking
about. He suggested that they use a contractual relationship to accomplish
that. If the people wanted to take advantage of affordable housing, they
should agree to abide by whatever it was they felt they had to do to protect
the affordability.
81-470
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 24, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Priest stated they could make that a condition of approval of sale.
Mayor Seymour asked what would happen in the event during that five-year period,
the buyer for the City was unable to locate a willing buyer whose income was
120% or less of median.
Mr. Priest stated if neither the buyer nor the City could find such a buyer,
there was language included where they would be able to release that. If
there were not such a buyer available, they would have to come back even ~o
~he point of coming back to the Council for release of that unit because it
would be totally unreasonable to have an owner sitting there with a piece of
property he could not do anything with.
Mayor Seymour stated it seemed to him they had a number of unanswered questions
revolving around the following: (1) higher assessments or penalties relative
to violation of the agreement not to rent; (2) whether or not the restrictions
in the exchanges from the buyer might better be proposed in a sale agreement
rather than a security instrument; (3) that eventually the developer or the
owner would have a right to go out on their own if no one could furnish him
those buyers.
Councilman Bay stated he was hoping the Mayor was leading up to a continuance
of the matter; the Mayor stated he wanted to give staff proper direction as to
some of his concerns.
Councilman Overholt stated the time period was open. He did not know whether
the Council wished to enter into that debate on the subject project which they
had already approved.
Mayor Seymour stated perhaps they should. As much as they wished to move ahead
with the project, on the other hand, he did not think they wanted to rush into
a decision and subsequently feel bad about it two or three weeks later when the
question was settled. The Council should be advised at least on this project
to give some direction to staff as to how they felt about the resale price con-
trols. He reiterated his feeling that once the economic benefit had been re-
turned, that government should no longer have the right to control price or
anything else about that housing unit.
Councilman Roth stated he could not agree more, but he wanted to hear what hard-
ship the proposed week delay would cause to the developer.
Mr. Edward Padilla, 4712 Cedar, Yorba Linda, first stated it had been difficult
for him to obtain financing. The maximum selling price on the other 11 market
units was $75,000 to $78,000. His loan was just about over with and he felt
if he could not get something resolved today, he would not be able to hold to
the indicated prices. He then explained several reasons why he felt it was
essential that the matter be settled today; Mayor Seymour did not feel that
the reasons offered would affect his project at all.
Discussion then followed between the Mayor, Mr. Padilla and staff in trying to
ascertain if the project would be adversely affected and how he (Padilla) might
proceed in the case on a continuance. At the conclusion of discussion, Miss
Santalahti stated if Mr. Padilla was willing to write a letter to the Building
81-471
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 24, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Division accepting the fact that he was going to be getting him final map, he
could commence construction on his project and he would get courtesy inspection.
Mr. Padilla stated the suggestion proposed was fine with him and he had done
that before.
Mr. Priest stated, that being the case, they would expect to be back to the
Council in one or two weeks with the agreement.
qn motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Bay, consideration of the
proposed developer agreement for affordable housing was continued two weeks.
MOTION CARRIED.
153: SOLICITATION OF PROPOSALS FOR AN ADDITIONAL CLOSED PANEL PREPAID EMPLOYEE
GROUP DENTAL PLAN: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood,
the Human Resources Director was authorized to solicit proposals for an additional
closed panel prepaid employee group dental plan for City Employees, as recommended
in memorandum dated March 24, 1981 from the Human Resources Director Garry McRae.
MOTION CARRIED.
160: PURCHASE ORDER FOR CIVIC CENTER FURNITURE: Councilman Bay moved to
authorize the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order in the amount of
$4,932.92 to McMahan Desk, for seven lateral files, four swivel side chairs,
and one each coffee and end table for the Civic Center, as recommended in
memorandum dated March 11, 1981 from the Purchasing Agent. Councilman Roth
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
153: SALARY ADJUSTMENT FOR DATA PROCESSING DIRECTOR: Councilwoman Kaywood
offered Resolution No. 81R-131 for adoption, adjusting rates of compensation
for Data Processing Director, effective March 27, 1981, as recommended in
memorandum dated March 20, 1981 from the Human Resources Director. Refer
to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-131: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 80R-578 AND ADJUSTING THE RATE OF COMPENSATION FOR AN
EXECUTIVE CLASSIFICATION.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COb~NCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Sesrmour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-131 duly passed and adopted.
160/129: AWARD OF FOUR FIRE PUMPERS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to authorize
the Purchasing Agent to issue ~o FMC Corporation an unfunded purchase order in
the amount of $518,636.80 for fabrication and delivery of four Fire Pumpers in
accordance with Bid No. 3728, as recommended in memorandum dated March 23, 1981
from the Purchasing Agent. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
81--472
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 24~ 1981, 1:30 P.M.
127/175: PROPOSED ACQUISITION OF 1.5% INTEREST IN SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERA-
TING STATION (SONGS) UNITS 2 AND 3 FROM SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON (SCE) AND
SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION JUNE 2~ 1981 TO SEEK APPROVAL TO ISSUE $92 MILLION
IN ELECTRIC REVENUE BONDS: Public Utilities General Manager Gordon Hoyt briefed
the Council on his memorandum dated March 23, 1981 (on file in the City Clerk's
office) recommending the following which covered the items discussed at joint
meeting held Thursday, March 19, 1981 between the Council and Public Utilities
Board (see minutes that date): That the City Council approve the resolution
ordering, calling, providing for and giving notice of a Special Municipal
Election to be held in Anaheim on June 2, 1981, for the purpose of submitting
t'o the voters a measure authorizing a $92 million electric revenue bond issue to
finance an additional 1.5% interest in San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station,
Units 2 and 3 (.SONGS 2 & 3); proposed Amendments to the City Charter providing
for bond anticipation notes and refunding bonds; a measure eliminating from
Resolution 74R-615 the maximum rate of interest which can be paid on previously
authorized electric revenue bonds, and authorizing the City Council to establish
the maximum rate of interest to be paid on the bonds. That the City Council,
by motion, appropriate $100,000 from the Electric Revenue Fund and authorize
transfer of funds from the Electric Revenue Fund to the General Fund to pay
the costs of the Special Municipal Election.
Mr. Hoyt stated present today were Mr. Bob MacDonald of James J. Lowry and
Associates, Mr. Ed Long of Mudge Rose Guthrie and Alexander and Special Bond
Counsel Alan Watts.
Mayor Seymour suggested that they discuss each item separately, the first
being the proposed resolution dealing with the Electric Revenue Bond.
Councilman Roth noted the figures reflected from 1983 to 1992 there would be
a $40 million savings to the City of Anaheim. He wanted to know if those savings
would be passed on to the City's rate payers so that they would always be below
Southern California Edison's rates during that period of time.
Mr. Hoyt answered that the savings would be passed to the consumers. At the
moment, he saw nothing on the horizon that would indicate why their rates
would be higher than SCE's during that period at all. There was a Charter
Amendment which required that they base their rate making on cost of service.
That essentially guaranteed that any savings would go right to the customer.
He emphasized, whatever savings there would be would follow right through to
the rate payers.
Councilman Bay stated in the wording of the ballot measure, they added refunding
tied directly to the San Onofre portion. Since they had refunding proposed in
a separate ballot issue, he asked why or what was Mr. Hoyt's logic behind in-
cluding refunding on the San Onofre resolution and was it absolutely necessary
to that project.
Mr. Hoyt answered that they had been given two charges by the Board and
Council at the Thursday meeting--draw one item totally related to San Onofre
and then add the other items recommended to give them the appropriate finan-
cing capability to operate the business. The first resolution was drawn
81-473
City Halls Anaheim~ California -. C. OUNCIL MINUTES - March 24~ 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
specifically geared to do everything they needed to do in connection with San
Onofre.
Councilman Bay surmised then what they were looking for on the San Onofre deal
alone, was they foresaw a need to refund bonds somewhere in that program or
the possibility of refunding to save money.
Mr. Hoyt answered absolutely. They were going through a high interest rate
period at present. Their advisors told them it was entirely possible that
interest may go down in the future. Whatever they could do in terms of
refunding to maximize the benefit for the rate payer, that was what they
wanted to do.
Mayor Seymour asked to be given some examples of the conditions under which
they might want to refund; Mr. Hoyt deferred to Mr. Bob MacDonald.
Mr. MacDonald, Executive Vice President of James J. Lowry and Associates stated
the $40 million savings figure that Mr. Hoyt mentioned over the first 10 years
was based on a rate of interest of 11%. Economists were saying hopefully things
were going to improve and they may be in a market where interest rates could
conceivably be lower. In the event it became possible to sell the debt to
replace the outstanding 11% debt, all they would be doing was to augment or
increase the $40 million figure. They would be lowering the annual debt service
payments. They were providing themselves with the opportunity, which may or
may not come about, to do that, increase their savings. They also may want to
refund the San Onofre bonds and do a one time coverage.
Mayor Seymour asked how in the latter example might they as the City's financial
consultant do that to achieve a greater ability to bond.
Mr. MacDonald stated that would not give a greater ability to bond, but what it
may do, and this was a hypothetical situation somewhat later downstream, it
could enable them to charge less to rate payers. They were looking at $92
million and that was it. It could be supported for example, with a maximum
debt service of $10.3 million, $92 million in today's market would be sup-
ported by annual payments of $10.3 million. If at some point in time in the
future that $92 million could be supported by $9 million by a lower coupon,
that was the only option they were looking for. They were looking for
financial flexibility. Lower debt service, meaning lower annual debt service
payments as a result of lower interest rates and change of investment were
the only two cases under which they might want to refund.
Additional discussion followed between the Mayor, Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Hoyt
relative to the refunding issue at the conclusion of which, the Mayor asked
either Mr. Watts or the City Attorney if it was possible under the financial
scheme being discussed--using Mr. MacDonald's example--if they decreased
their debt service through refunding by $2 to $3 million, what might they be
able to do with that money.
Mr. Alan Watts, Special Counsel, Rourke and Woodruff, answered that in his
judgment, the Council at that time would have to go through the following
thought process. As Mr. Hoyt had just explained, the Council would have to
81-474
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 24~ 1981, 1:30 P.M.
fix the rates for electric service based upon cost of service. They knew from
the previously passed Charter Amendment that rates would be based upon cost of
service and there could only be a 4% transfer on the last year's gross revenues
to the General Fund° The question then would be, is there some activity in
connection with the operation of the electric utility that the Council would
want to spend that money on. If there was a logical purpose in connection
with some activity that the Council wished to budget in the operation of the
Electric Department, that would be a cost and to that extent, xes. The one
thing the Mayor was alluding to, for example, power pro~ect "X", could they
spend money for that. He would say yes they could assuming that $2 or $3
~illion actually met whatever the obligation was.
Mayor Seymour stated that had been his obi ection throughout the whole situation.
He agreed with Mr. MacDonald that they should refund if it was of benefit to the
rate payers, but there was no assurance it would go back to the rate payerm and
that was the hang up he had with it.
Mayor Seymour continued that he had no difficulty with either spelling out
specifically under what conditions they would refinance, i.e., for a specific
and lower interest rate with some type of assurance that they were not going
to launch off into another power project without the voters' approval, or he
had no difficulty and would support the resolution without the refunding
capacity. They would then take the refunding question up at some later date
and merely place the one issue, the San Onofre question, on the ballot to
achieve that goal.
Councilman Bay stated he was not hard and fast for keeping the three words--
"and refunding bonds" in the San Onofre question. It was going to be hard for
him to say that he would vote for the first subject and remove, "and refunding
bonds" from that whole portion until he knew what the Council's decision was
going to be on the refunding issue itself. He preferred that the ballot issues
be placed on the ballot with the refunding bonds out of the question on San
Onofre. He also preferred very strongly that the issue on Page 8 of the
proposed resolution relative to refunding go on the ballot for a decision
from the people. He felt he understood the Mayor's reticence relative to
refunding of bonds, but he was not sure that when they talked about refunding
as a specific issue in itself and it went on the ballot that way, if they
wanted to discuss the possibility of how that refunding would be used speci-
fying that it would specifically go to rate reductions. He was willing to
listen to those arguments. At this time, he saw no need to risk the San
Onofre package by insistln§ the refunding go into that particular ballot
question. He reiterated, however, that he would still argue strongly on
refunding going on the ballot as a separate question.
Mr. Hoyt stated after a quick discussion with Bond Counsel that they probably
could write language that w~uld say--to the extent that savings can be identi-
fied and are realized from the refunding, those savings shall follow through
to the rate payer, or something like that.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if by using those funds it eliminated the need for
an increase, but it did not bring about a decrease, would that wording jeopardize
the issue.
81-475
City Ha. ll, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 24~ 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Watts recognizedthe point Councilwoman Kaywood was making and stated that
was an issue that concerned them as well. Instead of talking about "reducing"
rates, if at the same time the Council was looking at a rate increase and by
utilizing those funds it could avoid or delay that increase, the Mayor's ob-
jective would be accomplished. In formulating the wording, however, they
would want to assure they did not lock themselves in.
The Mayor stated that if they could so structure the language on the refunding
question and he liked Councilman Bay's idea of removing it from the San Onofre
question, that would answer his concern as previously expressed in keeping
Che matter separate. Then to go on to the refunding issue and applying some
type of language that would guarantee whatever savings that resulted were
passed back to the rate payers, he would not only vote for that, but also
lead the charge.
Councilman Bay stated he had a strong feeling if they could clear up that matter
when talking about refunding as a separate issue on the present ballot and also
clear up the concerns the Mayor expressed and come up with a 5-0 support vote,
that would be the optimum. That way they could all go out and support it because
he had every confidence that if they could do that, the ballot issues would
pass.
Councilman Overholt asked if the refunding issue was absolutely essential to the
success of the San Onofre funding; Mr. Hoyt answered "no".
Councilman Overholt then asked if any effort had been made since the Thursday
meeting to develop language that would insure return to the rate payer the
benefits of refunding.
Mr. Hoyt answered "no". What he felt their charge was after the last meeting,
was to develop language which would protect the community from a future Council
issuing short-term or long-term debt not approved by the voters. They did that
and now the Council was suggesting that they change the wording on the refunding
issue to add that any savings resulting from a refunding would be returned to
the rate payers. They needed action on the resolution today and he would
suggest if that was the Council's contention, that they leave the meeting and
subsequently return with some new language.
Councilman Overholt stated that would be his suggestion. He felt they had two
dissenting votes on the Public Utilities Board on the question in general not
critical of the San Onofre project. He was extremely concerned that if they
use this opportunity to bring in some housekeeping measures, they might cloud
the San Onofre issue. He believed that issue was more important to the com-
munity whether or not they got refunding capabilities in this election. He
too was for the "rifle shot" approach just as the Mayor. If they could come
back with something that would give the rate payers the assurance they would
benefit directly from refinancing, he would support that. He shared the Mayor's
view but they were faced with the additional question of whether they wanted
to bring all the issues into the present proposed election.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she felt rather than piecemeal, one election at a
time, with ten questions coming over a ten- or twenty-year period, when it was
an item that they knew was important and relating to other bonds they had
81-476
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 24~ 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
issued, the question should be put on the ballot. With the facts the voters
could understand all the other issues were a part of it. It probably did not
even need to be included in the San Onofre issue and to just remove "and
refunding bonds" would clarify that portion. She agreed with Councilman Bay
that the item on Page 8 should be a separate question entirely, but that it
should appear on the ballot.
Councilman Overholt stated in explaining the benefit of the flexibility of
having refunding capabilities last Thursday, Mr. Lowry pointed out the
situation where they might have bonds with a balloon payment at the end of
20 years and they might want to be in a position to issue refunding bonds
so that they could extend beyond that 20-year period to avoid the hardship
of a balloon payment. He asked Mr. MacDonald if he would ever recommend that
the Council approve bonds with a balloon payment. He could not think of a
situation where he could ever approve such a payment.
Mr. MacDonald stated it was a financial option which the Council coul~d' pass
on or not pass on. They were trying to bring up certain options which other
municipal electric systems had. With a balloon, he fully recognized the
situation Councilman Overholt was talking about, being concerned about the
ability to stretch out debt at that point in time. He could also, for example,
point to situations where if they had a letter of credit from a bank to pro-
vide the take out for that balloon, it might be something they would want to
avail themselves of. Then the burden of selling bonds by that time would be
off their shoulders.
Mayor Seymour stated he believed he heard Councilman Bay, himself and Council-
man Overholt say that perhaps they ought to get the refunding question out of
the San Onofre question. Councilwoman Kaywood and Councilman Roth then indi-
cated that was their feeling as well.
Mayor Seymour then stated, that being the case, the Council was prepared to
move ahead on that particular question. He asked if it was possible to con-
sider adding some wording to the first question roughly as follows: The
question started, "in order to provide more economical electric service.."--
after electric service, place a comma and insert the words, "an estimated
savings of $40 million over the initial ten years," and then continue with,
"...shall the City of Anaheim... "--then going a step further by saying, "an
estimated savings of $40 million over the initial 10 years after all expenses
and debt service." Somewhere in the question, he would like to tell the voter
that if they voted yes, what they could expect.
Councilman Bay suggested they hold their vote on that particular ballot issue
and question until they talked about the whole package. Otherwise, he favored
the addition suggested by the Mayor; Councilwoman Kaywood added that she did
as well.
The Mayor, moving to Page 8 of the proposed resolution, stated he believed it
was also a consensus of the Council that if they could draft language to insure
and guarantee the voters that any savings as a result of refunding be returned
to them, that question would be given positive consideration. Councilman Overholt
had dissented and he (Seymour) might do so as well, dependent upon the wording.
81-477
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 24~ 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
There was concern expressed that it could cloud the San Onofre issue. However,
for rewriting purposes, they should also look at the question on Page 8.
Mr. Watts stated the issue to him seemed to be in talking about savings
attributable to a refunding being passed back to the electric rate payers. It
was a legal matter that must be dealt with in the Charter Amendment which pre-
ceded the ballot proposition and the resolution. It was a question the Council
must decide, a policy matter, as to what language would be put in the ballot
proposition (page 8). He felt that they wished to attempt to deal with it in
both places. (That was the consensus of the Council).
Councilwoman Kaywood stated her concern in that respect as she mentioned before,
if there was a possibility that it would prevent a rate increase, that the lang-
uage be flexible enough to permit that, so that they would not get locked into
something they did not intend.
Councilman Overholt stated he felt there was a tim~ problem too, and there should
be some time limitation reflected as well.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated on the other items she felt that all the issues
should be listed, the anticipation notes and the 8%, as well as the refunding.
Thus, number one or "A" would would be the San Onofre question, and "B", "C"
and "D" would be the other three issues.
It was thereupon agreed that the proposed language be amended in accordance
with the wishes expressed by the Council and brought back for a final decision
later in the meeting.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (3:33 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mmyor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (~3:45 P,M.)
Later in the meeting, (.6:05 P.M.) Mr. Hoyt stated he believed they had accomplished
most of the changes desired. He asked that Mr. Ed Long, Bond Counsel, Mudge Rose
Guthrie & Alexander, review the new resolution and cover the changes made.
Mr. Long, working from the proposed resolution, then explained that the change
on the f~rst page wQuld be found in many places throughout the documents--the
deletion Qf the refunding bonds from the San Onofre bonding proposition which
continued on Page 2. One other change inserted at the bottom was a conforming
type of change and they would add the same language in manY other places in
the resolution. Deletion of the refunding bonds continued on Page 3 and
other deletions at the top of Page 4 from that portion of that Charter Amend-
ment were also deletions of the refunding bonds.
Getting into more substantive matters, Rider 4, following Page 4, had been
drafted in response to the Mayor's request that more illucidation of the
savings concept be given in the ballot proposition, W~th respect to each
of the ballot propositions, they were authorizing financial matters or
Charter Amendments. Because of that and because they were tied to financing
and his firm as Bond Counsel was extremely interested in the manner in which
they were adopted, they needed to make sure no problem was created or flexi-
bility removed in the usability of the changes by anything set forth in the
ballot proposition.
81-478
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 24, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
There was a suggestion that they referenced in the ballot proposition on San
Onofre the amount of savings that had been estimated by the engineer. Mr.
Long emphasized that he would strongly advise against that. Those savings were
estimated on the basis of numerous assumptions which may or may not turn out to
be the case. On top of that, he was concerned that they were going to issue
the bonds sometime later and by that time, perhaps the engineers would have
elaborated further and found that $40 million was not a good number, but per-
haps $35 or $25 million would be a better number. He did not want go have a
ballot proposition passed on the amounts of savings to be realized. It would
cause him a legal problem issuing a legal opinion.
There were other minor changes on Page 4 and on Page 5, there was a change to
Section 11 to make it clear that the Charter Amendments were not only talking
about just the electric utility but also both public utilities of the City.
The next change on Page 7 related to the refunding revenue bond proposition.
They were charged to come back with a treatment of a payment or receipt of the
savings by the rate payers in the amount of the refunding. It came to their
attention in that discussion, they could not pay the electric rate payers
savings from a refunding in connection with a housing deal. They limited the
refunding authority to the electric and water systems. The idea evidenced in
Rider 7 was that if there was a refunding and after the refunding had taken
place in any one year there was a reduction in debt service, principal and
interest, on the bonds now outstanding, and less than the principal and interest
on the bonds that were outstanding and had been refunded, that difference had
to be reflected in the rate-making process of the City and had to take place
within a year after the year in which the savings accrued.
The remaining change on that page going to the bond anticipation notes was in-
tended to deal with some concern that was expressed that the proposition was
not very clear. He had one special constraint with respect to that proposition
that he must deal with and that was "in anticipation." That was basically in
the California Government Code and he needed to have it incorporated in the
proposition as now proposed. The hope was that they could deal with the
language issues that had been raised in the manner set forth on Page 7.
The changes on Page 8 on the refunding bond_proposition were to indicate that
they were only talking about electric and water bonds refunding authority and
the other was the inclusion of Rider 8 pointing out in the ballot proposition
the use of debt service savings in establishing utility rates. Those were
basically a summary of the changes made.
Councilman Overholt stated, relative to Rider 7, discussing a reduction ih
principal, it did not seem to have a time concept connected with it.
Mr. Long stated that it was intended to be that way, but that in the third line
reference was made to the fiscal year. He then elaborated upon that aspect in
more detail. They could make that more clear by saying in the sixth line,
"... principal and interest paid on the refunding bonds, in such fiscal year."
He would also make the corresponding change two lines down after the word
"bonds".
Councilman Overholt stated, his other reaction, since the dollar amount of savings
had been removed from the proposed ballot language, it took the impact out of the
proposition by just talking about savings.
81-479
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 24, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Long recommended that they not get the ballot proposition directly involved
£n the figure of $40 million or amy figure. Discussion followed with Mr. Long
specifically on that issue wherein the Council offered possible alternatives
to stating the amount of savings such as, substantial savings, savings in
excess of, etc., the consensus being, that without giving a figure, the impact
to the voters Qould be diminished. Mr. Long remained constant in his opinion
that the ballot proposition was something that he needed to rely on and be
comfortable with for bonding purposes. He did not want to have the situation
where someone~would come in and bring a lawsuit when they were trying to issue
bonds, thereby holding up issuance of the bonds because the proposition stated
~40 million worth of savings. Bond issues were held up for months and years
based on frivolous actions. He had no desire to see the proposition subject
to attack along that line. Picking a number was something they could not
accept.
Both Mr. Watts and Mr. MacDonald agreed with Mr. Long; Mr. Watts giving a scenario
of what could occur if a specific number were indicated and Mr. MacDonald following
up on the scenario by adding another caution to it.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if that would also be true if the number were not
indicated in the ballot proposition itself, but instead made a part of the
Council arguments.
Mr. Watts stated they would have no problem in putting numbers in the ballot
argument.
The following changes in ballot wording as outlined in the proposed resolution
were then suggested by Council Members with the guidance of both Messrs. Watts
and Long:
Instead of Rider 4, under the Electric Revenue Bond proposition (Page 4), Section
8, first sentence to read, "In order to obtain substantial savings and provide
more economical electric service..." (Mr. Long indicated, consistent with what
he said before, they could live with that and be comfortable giving their bond
opinion).
Under Section 10, Page 5, Line 4 of the ballot wording, cross out, "...in order..."
repetition.
Under Section 12, Page 7, Line 5 of the ballot wording, "...prior to the sale
of revenue bonds..."
Under proposed Rider 8, first line, "...provided t-hat any principal and interest..."
(_in lieu of debt service).
MOTION: At the conclusion of discussion relative to the proposed ballot language
changes, Councilman Seymour moved that the question relative to anticipation
notes (Section 12, Page 7) be removed from consideration for the June ballot.
Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, the Mayor stated the only reason he had for making the
motion, he was concerned as was evidenced by the language amendments they were
trying to accomplish, that it was going to confuse the issue. If they wanted to
come back to anticipation notes sometime in the future, that would be fine, but
he did not want to see it cloud the issue.
81-480
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - M,,a~ch 24, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if they would need the anticipation notes for some-
thing else already issued or coming up.
Mr. Hoyt answered that they must absolutely have them for San Onofre which was
included in that question. He could not see that they absolutely had to have
them for anything else. He would like to have them because it would give them
a lot of flexibility and make some of the fuel management problem they were
going to see in the future somewhat easier, but they were not an absolute must
nOW.
Mr. MacDonald explained that what the bond anticipation notes would enable them
to do was to save money during the construction period. He confirmed for Coun-
cilwoman Kaywood the question was not vital to the present ballot.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she felt if they could put everything on the bal-
lot, which would make the Charter more in tune with today's world, it would
be well to do so. However, if there was any concern that there would be unan-
imous Council support for it or that it could be confusing, she did not want
to see anything else jeopardized by it.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion by the Mayor, eliminating the
separate bond anticipation notes question. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Seymour thereupon offered the resolution relative to their further
participation in the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station.
Before any action was taken, Mr. Hoyt stated he was not certain that the
resolution was listed correctly on the agenda. The resolution as it would
be made now would contain everything but bond anticipation notes.
Councilman Overholt stated he was not prepared to vote on that resolution in
that way.
Mayor Seymour stated they were talking only about one aspect, the Electric Revenue
Bond proposition for San Onofre and nothing else as shown on Page 4 of the proposed
resolution. The bond anticipation notes voted on was not in connection with San
Onofre.
Councilman Bay stated he was concerned with the order in which they were taking
the questions. Re would like to have some feeling from the Council on the other
issues prior to firming up the San 0nofre question.
Mayor Seymour then explained that he had no problem whatsoever with the refunding
issue the way it was now set up and worded. He felt the rate payers and tax
payers were totally assured by the wording that whatever savings would result
or accrue out of refunding that it was going to return to them in the form of
lower rates or adjusted rates in their favor and thus he was prepared to support
it. He did not think it would confuse the main issue which was San Onofre, the
reason being, if there had ever been a time when interest rates and the fluctua-
tion of interest rates had been paramount in the public's mind, it was today.
Since the proposed Charter Amendment reflected a guarantee that whatever savings
accrued would go to the rate payer, he could totally support it.
81-481
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 24~ 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Overholt stated there was also the other issue regarding the existing
bonds on which the Mayor may want to state his feelings, the 8% and whether he
would feel it would confuse the issue.
The Mayor stated he would like to do that, but he was not so sure that it would
not confuse the issue; Councilman Overholt agreed.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated it was a separate issue so there could be a "yes"
or "no" vote on any of those. They had $47.5 million that they could not do
anything with because of that.
Mayor Seymour asked if they were absolutely precluded from doing anything with
the $47.5 million.
Mr. Hoyt answered "no." They could sell those bonds, but the market was nothing
like 8%.
Mr. MacDonald stated a quick analysis of the $47.5 million remaining authoriza-
tion, if they were to sell that in the market today, the net use back to the
City would only be $35 million and that was the problem.
Mayor Seymour asked how much money was needed for Palo Verde; Mr. Hoyt answered,
approximately $30 million.
The Mayor stated they could then sell that authorization and have enough money
for Palo Verde; Mr. MacDonald stated when deep discounting the bonds to that
point, they were talking about selling the bonds at 75¢ on the dollar. That
was a very deep ~iscount to go to the market with.
The Mayor stated they would like to keep their option open for Palo Verde, but
if they sensed there was going to be enough confusion over the Palo Verde issue
that they would lose San Onofre, he questioned what they would gain.
Councilman Bay stated he did not agree that it would cause confusion. He did
not think that the risk factor of the particular issue going on the ballot was
worth $17.5 million in possible mark down on the bonds if they decided they
would have to go to that extreme. As long as the whole ballot issue was going
to be concentrated on utilities, he saw no problem at all with putting that
particular issue on the ballot and letting the people make the decision. He
did not think it was going to cloud the ballot at all.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she had to agree with that. This was a Special Elec-
tion and there was nothing else either State or Federal that would be on the
ballot. It was strictly confined to utility items and she believed stating on
the ballot argument exactly what Bob MacDonald said, in order for them to mar-
ket the $47.5 milion remaining bonds now, all they could get was $35 million,
the people would understand that. They needed to put it on the ballot and give
the people the opportunity to vote on it.
Mayor Seymour pointed out that they needed to have a project for that.
Councilman Overholt stated that he was going to vote against putting the 8%
discount issue on the ballot. That issue alone was one that could be attacked
by opponents.
81-482
City Hall, Anaheim: California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 24, 1981~ i :30 P.M.
Councilman Roth suggested that they put that question on the ballot in 1982.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour thereupon moved that the ballot question shown on
Page 5 of the proposed resolution relative to permitting an increase over the
8% raise be removed from consideration of placing it on the ballot at this
time. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay stated he felt they were kissing the
possibility of the Palo Verde opportunity good-bye the minute they did that,
as well as opportunities that might occur between now and the next time they
t~lked about putting something on the ballot. He reiterated, he did not think
it would cloud the ballot at all. The prime issue was whether the Council
wanted to take the responsibility of deciding whether they wanted to sell
bonds or not which the people had already approved, and now they merely wanted
them to approve a change on the interest. The Council could then have that
tool to work with for potential savings to the tax payers and rate payers in
the City. He felt it was a very important point and they were saying they
were going to bmve a certain number of dollars that were there to be used if
the Council w~anted to take its responsibility and make a decision to use them
or not.
Mayor Seymour maintained that it would be irresponsible if they were to lsse
the San Onofre opportunity because they crossed the "hog line" in trying to
get a positive expression from the voters.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she felt it was clear that if they did not put it
on the ballot, they were not giving the people the opportunity to vote on it
and there was no other way to look at it.
Mayor Seymour stated he would put it on the ballot at the next opportunity;
Councilman Overholt again agreed that this was the wromg time to put that
question on the ballot.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Council Members Kaywood and
Bay voted "no". MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Seymour then returned to the original proposition on Page 4 of the pro-
posed resolution.
Mr. Watts them read the title of the resolution as amended. He also clarified
for the Mayor that it included both the portion on Page 4--the Electric Revenue
Bond proposition--and on Page 8, the Electric and Water Refunding Revenue Bonds.
As well, the body of the resolution would be amended to reflect the changes
discussed.
Mayor Seymour asked if there was any misunderstanding or doubt as to the language
om the ballot propositions for either one of those two by anybody; there was no
response. The Mayor stated in that case, if the resolution passed, those would
be the two propositions that would on the June 2, 1981 ballot.
Councilman Seymour thereupon offered Resolution No. 81R-138 for adoption as
discussed and amended accordingly. Refer to Resolution Book.
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 24~ 1981
81-483
~ 1:30 P.M.
127: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-138: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA, ORDERING, CALLING, PROVIDING FOR AND GIVING NOTICE OF
A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN SAID CITY ON JUNE 2, 1981, FOR THE
PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TO THE QUALIFIED VOTERS OF SAID CITY: A PROPOSITION
FOR THE ISSUANCE OF ELECTRIC REVENUE BONDS AND REVENUE BOND ANTICIPATION NOTES
BY SAID CITY AND AMENDING THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM IN CONNECTION
THEREWITH; AND A PROPOSITION AMENDING THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM TO
PROVIDE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF REFUNDING REVENUE BONDS.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour stated what they had experienced in the
l'ast week and one-half, in his opinion, was typical of what the great City of
Anaheim was all about. He did not know of any other City in the country that
had the ability to pull its act together so quickly to take full advantage of
an opportunity that presented itself. He was very proud of Mr. Hoyt, Mr. Watts,
Mr. MacDonald and his firm and Mr. Long and his firm--all the people involved.
They had done an excellent job. He was equally as proud of the Public Utilities
Board for reacting so quickly as well and proud of the City Council. He had
never seen the Council fail to react to an opportunity and move in unison toward
it.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:-
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
Non e
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-138 duly passed and adopted.
123: MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to employ Mudge Rose Guthrie and Alexander
and Rourke & Woodruff as Co-Bond Counsel in connection with the financing of an
additional 1.5% interest in SONGS, Units 2 and 3, as recommended in memorandum
dated March 20, 1981 from Public Utilities General Manager Gordon Hoyt.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
123: MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to employ James J. Lowrey and Associates
as Financial Advisor in connection with the purchase of an addtional 1.5%
interest in SONGS, Units 2 and 3, as recommended in memorandum dated March 20,
1981 from the Public Utilities General Manager. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
123: MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to employ R. W. Beck and Associates as
the Engineering Consultant in connection with the financing of an additional 1.5%
interest in SONGS, Units 2 and 3, as recommended in memorandum dated March 20,
1981 from the Public Utilities General Manager. Councilman Roth seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
106/127: MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to appropriate $100,000 from the
Electric Revenue Fund to the General Fund to pay the cost of the Special
Municipal Election to be held June 2, 1981. Councilman Overholt seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
81-484
City Hall, Anaheim~. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 24~ 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Noo 81R-139 through 81R-141, both
inclusive, for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
127: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-139: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ORANGE
TO RENDER SPECIFIED SERVICES TO SAID CITY RELATING TO THE CONDUCT OF A SPECIAL
MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN SAID CITY ON TUESDAY, JUNE 2, 1981.
127: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-140: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE CANVASS OF THE SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO
BE HELD ON TUESDAY, JUNE 2, 1981, TO BE MADE BY THE CITY CLERK.
127: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-141: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING CERTAIN OF ITS MEMBERS TO FILE A WRITTEN ARGUMENT FOR AND
AGAINST THE BALLOT MEASURES RELATING TO PROPOSITIONS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF ELEC-
TRIC REVENUE BONDS AND REVENUE BOND ANTICIPATION NOTES RELATING TO THE SAN
ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION AND AMENDING THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
TO PROVIDE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF REFUNDING REVENUE BONDS.
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-139 through 81R-141, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
127: MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to direct the City Clerk to transmit a copy
of said measures to the City Attorney for preparation of an impartial analysis.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Before closing, Mayor Seymour stated he would have an argument in favor drawn
by Friday, March 27, 1981 and placed in the Council boxes. That would give
them the weekend to improve upon it and then submit it to the City Clerk by
5:00 P.M, on Tuesday, March 31, 1981.
RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for 25 minutes. (7:20 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (7:45 P.M.)
REEESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (3:33 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (3:45 P.M.)
PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 3199 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application by
Rammohan S. Patel, et al, to expand an existing motel on C-R zoned property
located at 1211 South West Street, with a Code waiver of minimum number of
parking spaces.
81-485
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 24~ 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-39, declared that
the subject project be exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental
impact report pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act since there would be no significant individual or cumulative advers~ envi-
ronmental impact due to this project and further granted Variance No. 3199
subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay the traffic signal asses-
sment fee (Ordinance No. 3896) in an amount as determined by the City Council,
for commercial buildings prior to the issuance of a building permit.
~. That appropriate water assessment fees as determined by the Office of
Utilities General Manager shall be paid to the City of Anaheim prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
3. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos.
1 and 2; and/or provided; however, that no more than two (2) kitchen efficiency
units may be installed, with a maximum of 6-cubic foot refrigerator; two-burner
stoves excluding oven and baking facilities, and single compartment sinks;
except that the manager's unit will be allowed to have full kitchen facilities.
4. That Condition No. 3, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to
final building and zoning inspections.
5. That prior to final zoning, the existing driveways servicing the property
shall be widened in accordance with the City Traffic Engineer's recommendations.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman
Kaywood at the meeting of February 24, 1981, and public hearing scheduled this
date.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present.
Mr. John Swint, agent, 707 West North Street, stated he was present to answer
questions.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that the driveway on Ball Road stated exit only.
Her concern was that ~f somone were going east on Ball Road, they would have
to turn south on West Street and enter the property from that street.
Mr. Swint answered it was not mandatory because anyone who came in accidently
off of Ball Road would be able to turn into any of the parking stalls on the
west side of the property because they were all 90 degree parking. It would
not make any difference how they entered. It would be better for everyone
concerned if they came in off of West Street and exited on Ball Road.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she was concerned also that they had gotten away
from the original intent when waivers to parking were given in the area.
Mostly it was directly across the street from Disneyland or the Convention
Center and the individual motels were taking a daily count on how many empty
spaces they had so that they could do with less. This had not been done
recently at all. Another concern was relative to what was contained in the
staff report, that those who had been granted a waiver did have a bus loading
area and the subject motel did not.
81-486
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 24
~ 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Swint explained that almost all of the other motels were fairly large and
able to take a bus load. The subject motel was so small that they could not
take any bus trade nor did they solicit bus trade. They were so close to the
bus line at the Disneyland Hotel, patrons could walk or take a taxi to the
motel.
Councilman Bay stated the issue was a pattern that the Planning Commission
had followed in giving close to a 30% less-then-Code parking waivers, based on
people coming by means other than automobiles. When variances or waivers were
g, iven long enough, they became the rule rather than the exception. His only
question on the subject request was, what justified the 30% reduction in this
particular case. He asked if Mr. Patel had a van to pick up customers; Mr.
Swint answered "yes".
Councilman Bay then asked if there were figures that would justify a reduction
to the Code requirement on parking of one-third, just how many people did Mr.
Patel pick up in the van.
Mr. Swint answered that they had facts from other motels and all of them operated
in the same manner. They had proven that today, very often, there would be full
occupancy with only half the lot filled. That had been the experience for quite
some time and he was on his 130th motel. He designed the subject motel originally.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition to the subject request
for a variance; no one was present in opposition; he therefore closed the
public hearing.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she still had great reservations relative to the
matter. She would like more recording, as they used to do, showing that there
were a lot of empty spaces to justify adding on to the motel with no parking.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Overholt, seconded by Councilman Bay, 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 A~mheim General Plan
designates the subject property for commercial recreation land uses commensurate
with the proposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the
proposal and that Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no sig-
nificant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact and is, there-
fore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman 0verholt o£fered Resolution No. 81R-132 granting Variance No. 3199,
upholding the findings of the City Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-132: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 3199.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated she was going to vote in
opposition. It was a congested corner and she was concerned that a blanket over-
all approval was not the way ~o go in such cases.
$1-487
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 24~ 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour stated he was going to support the resolution, endorsing the
recommendations of the PC. He felt it was a well founded ~act that recently
the Council unanimously took action to look at the City's parking standards,
particularly in the commercial-recrea~ional area and in the Redevelopment
project area. There was a realization on behalf of those present at the Council
Liaison meeting as well as the Council that parking standards were antiquated.
He did not see the recommendation of the Planning Commission being out of line
relative to that. Staff had suggested as well that parking standards needed to
be reviewed and made more flexible.
vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution.
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-132 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2174 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Ap-
plication by Watt Commercial Properties, Inc., to permit a drive-through restau-
rant on CL zoned property located at 209 West Lincoln Avenue.
The City Planning Commission declared that the subject project be exempt from
the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report pursuant to the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act since there would be
no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact due to
this project.
Since there was a tie vote by the Planning Commission on the subject conditional
use permit at their meeting of February 9, 1981 (.see City Planning Commission
minutes that date), the matter was referred to the City Council for final action,
and public hearing scheduled this date.
Councilman RDth stated when a tie vote occurred and an abstention was involved,
he was under the assumption that the abstention went to the approval.
City Attorney Hopkins stated in this matter, the records reflected that Commis-
sioner Bushore indicated he thought he had a legal objection to justify his
abstaining. If it was merely because he did not want to vote or did not feel
that he should, the tie vote would be resolved as indicated; however, when there
was a legal objection based on something that perhaps involved the Fair Political
Practices Act, that did not apply and a tie vote would result.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted, if that was the case, he (Bushore) abstained from
the vote, but did not abstain from the discussion. She asked what that meant.
Mr. Hopkins answered apparently, at least at the time of the vote, Mr. Bushore
expressed the comment that he felt he might have a legal objection.
Councilman Bay noted it was not too often when a tie vote occurred, but when it
did and there was an abstention, he felt that the conflict of interest should
be defined, but he saw no definition in the Planning Commission minutes of
February 9, 1981.
81-488
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 24, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Hopkins explained that he made inquiry on that this morning and Mr. Bushore
apparently expressed sufficient doubt that the Assistant City Attorney, Jack
White, felt there was a legal objection.
Councilwoman Kaywood wanted to know if there were two sets of standards. On
the Council, if there was a conflict, the Council Member did not take part in
the discussion. She asked if that was a requirement.
The City Attorney answered that if the Council Member or Planning Commissioner
knew at the outset that they had a conflict, it would be better if they abstained
f~om any participation in the discussion. It could be at the last minute, just
before voting, the person suddenly realized they did have a conflict and at that
point expressed the desire to abstain. Tbmt situation appeared to be what
happened in this case. There was a legal requirement to abstain from discus-
sion as well, but it may not be realized until the time of the vote as he had
just explained.
Planning Commissioner Gerald Bushore, 548 South West Street, stated that he
consulted with Mr. White prior to the action in that the property involved was
in the Redevelopment area. He did not have a financial conflict as such and
would not have benefitted in any way financially. However, he did have a con-
tract with the Redevelopment Agency as one of their acquisition agents. That
was all long past and he did not actually acquire any of the properties within
that area. Since he did not have a financial conflict, he (White) advised him
to act on the matter. It came down to the point where it was quite clear that
there were three Commissioners on one side and three on the other, and he found
himself in a swing vote situation. The part he took in the discussion was very
minimal only dealing with land planning. When it came down to the wire, he
discussed the matter with Mr. White privately, and it was determined that the
best thing to do would be to abstain.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous
of being heard.
Mr. Walt Mitchell, Pioneer Take-Out Operation, 3663 West Sixth Street, Los
Angeles, stated they were requesting approval of the conditional use permit.
The project was in the Redevelopment area and had previously been approved
for a drive-through restaurant contingent upon a CUP. He then showed a
rendering of the project which they had submitted to the Redevelopment Commis-
sion showing the comparability with the surrounding architecture and colors. They
had been working with the Redevelopment Agency in resolving the roof screening
problems. He believed that they had something that would be acceptable at this
point. They had also been working with the Building Division in making sure
that the material to be used would also be acceptable to them for fire zone and
other requirements.
Councilman Roth stated that since the area was being proposed for possible
high-rises, looking down on a roof and seeing air conditioning, pipes,
plumbing, etc. would have a detrimental effect.
Mr. Mitchell stated whatever they would agree to do would be fully with the
review and approval of the Redevelopment staff and they were working on that
at present.
81-489
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 24~ 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if there was an inside area as well as the drive-
through portion and, if so, how many seats were involved; Mr. Mitchell answered
that they did have a seating area and there were approximately 38. It was a
drive-through facility with vehicle access on the outside of the building and
there was no walk-up. He also explained for Councilwoman Kaywood that the
majority of their business was basically for take home consumption and not
normally a product consumed in the car or while driving. They had a very
strict maintenance policy with their store employees that they were to police
the grounds once in the morning and once in the evening. Inside the store
there were trash receptacles for disposal.
Mr. Bob Shield, Watt Commercial Properties, Inc., stated that they were the
developers for the Anaheim Towne Centre and this was the last phase of the
project. They were requesting Council approval based on the following: The
fast food concept for that pad was originally approved in their Redevelopment
agreement with the City and reiterated in their subsequent City site plan
approvals. The tenant, Pioneer Chicken, was a strong, reputable tenant with
a good track record and would conform architecturally to the scheme of the
shopping center. They would also screen their roof-mounted equipment to the
satisfaction of the Redevelopment Agency.
There being no further persons who wished to speak either in favor or in
opposition, the Mayor closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Seymour, seconded by Councilman Bay, 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 General
Commercial land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive environ-
mental impacts are involved in the proposal and that the Initial Study sub-
mitted by the petitioner indicates no significant individual or cumulative
adverse environmental impacts and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement
to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 81R-133 for adoption, approving
Conditional Use Permit No. 2174, subject to the conditions as~recommended
by the City planning Commission and subject to the stipulations made by the
applicant relative to design, signing and screening of roof-mounted equip-
ment. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-133: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2174.
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-133 duly passed and adopted.
104: PUBLIC HEARING - STREET LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 1980-7: To
consider objections to the improvements of the proposed Street Lighting
Assessment District No. 1980-7 for Dale Avenue, Stonybrook, Newcastle,
Birchleaf, Oakwilde and Bronwyn Drives and Keys Lane in Tract bio. 2875.
81-490
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 24.~ 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Overholt asked the City Attorney for a ruling. He explained that
one of the speakers today was going to be Mr. Sam Isaac whom he represented
from time to time, but not on this particular issue. He asked if there was
any reason why he (_Overholt) could not participate in the subject matter.
City Attorney Hopkins asked if there would be any financial interest involved
in the vote; Councilman Overholt answered "no".
Mr o Hopkins then stated, if none, he would rule there would be no conflict.
The Mayor then asked to hear from anyone who would care to speak to the matter.
Mr. Bill Whittington, 719 South Newcastle, stated he was opposed to the proposed
lighting. His was a quiet little neighborhood and the modern street lighting
proposed would be in contrast with the cottage type homes in their tract. The
charge was approximately 30 plus dollars a year and there were quite a few
people on a fixed income. Every penny counted to some of those people. When
the petition was circulated, he was not sure that everyone understood there
would be a charge. He was approached with a petition but he was not aware there
would be a charge. He would like to have some of the people reconsider or be
better informed as to what the matter was all about before the issue was voted.
Councilman Roth asked if he had received the March 10, 1981 letter from the
Acting Public Works Director addressed to all the property owners located in
Tract No. 2875 within the proposed Lighting Assessment District giving the cost
breakdown of the project.
Mr. Whittington answered "yes" and he also assumed the neighbors received the
same.
Mayor Seymour noted on the petition to the City Council to create a maintenance
district under Street Light Act of 1931 that out of 78 lots involved, there were
only 13 or 14 who did not sign the petition in favor and that was a substantial
number. Mr. Whittington stated he felt they understood what they were signing,
but he did not think they considered the contrast in the decor of modern street
lighting with the neighborhood. Not everyone had the courage to come down and
protest something of this nature.
Councilman Bay noted that on the petition approximately mid-way down the page,
chat the cost wag indicated in large block letters. He frankly did not know
how anyone could read and not 5e aware o~ the estimated annual cost.
Councilman Roth explained that they viewed street lighting as a safety factor
not only fr°m the standpoint of burglaries, but also to protect children,
pedestrians, etc.
Mr. Whittington stated he had the same concern but in their particular community,
he did not think lighting was going to enhance that.
Questions were then posed to Mr. Bob Herr, Civil Engineering Assistant, by the
Council relative to the technical aspects of lighting coverage.
81-491
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 24, 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
At the conclusion of discussion, Mr. Whittington concluded his presentation by
stating that he did not particularly care to pay for something he did not want
in the first place.
Mr. Sam Isaac, 732 South Newcastle Drive, stated he personally circulated the
petition on two different occasions, the first time being 8 or 9 years ago and
there were three people involved. One individual never did circulate the
petition and thus they were now 8 or 9 years behind relative to lighting for
the community. Sometime back, his home was burglarized and in checking the
neighborhood, he discovered that 25 or 30% of the homes had been burglarized
o~er the last 25 years. In circulating the petition, he met with a tremendous
amount of enthusiasm in favor. They had seen their community abused to the
extent that people would come to the area, young people in their cars late at
night, eat their fast food, deposit trash on front lawns and leave--because it
was a dark neighborhood. He tried to explain all of the terms and provisions
of the petition to the people. There were old people in the neighborhood and
the consensus of opinion amongst them was that they needed more protection
and they wanted the protection lights could afford. There were about five
people who did not want to sign the petition not because they had objections,
but because they did not want to be a party to it. He had no organized oppo-
sition to the petition as he traveled around. He reiterated the latter was
explained in detail and if he were to canvass the neighborhood again, he
could get even a higher rate of response.
The Mayor asked if in his opinion people clearly understood what they were
signing; Mr. Isaac answered absolutely.
There being no further persons who wished to speak either in favor or in
opposition, the Mayor closed the public hearing.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 81R-134 for adoption, declaring no majority
protest to Lighting Assessment Distrct No. 1980-7. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-134: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
DECLARING THAT THERE WAS NOT A MAJORITY PROTEST AGAINST STREET LIGHTING ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT 1980-7, TRACT NO. 2875.
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-134 duly passed and adopted.
130: PUBLIC HEARING - MODIFICATION TO STORER CABLE TELEVISION~ INC.~ FRANCHISE:
To consider proposed amendments to the Storer Cable Television, Inc., Franchise,
(Ordinance No. 4087) to incorporate various channel configuration changes, as
recommended in memorandum dated February 9, 1981 from Assistant to the City
Manager Jim Armstrong.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition;
there being no response, he closed the public hearing.
81-492
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 24, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
ORDINANCE NO. 4214: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4214 for first
read lng.
ORDINANCE NO. 4214: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING ORDINANCE NO.
4087 GRANTING THE NONEXCLUSIVE RIGHT, PRIVILEGE AND FRANCHISE TO LAY AND USE
LINES, WIRES, COAXIAL CABLE AND APPURTENANCES FOR TRANSMITTING, RECEIVING
DISTRIBUTING AND SUPPLYING RADIO, TELEVISION AND OTHER CABLE COMMUNICATION
SERVICES ALONG, ACROSS AND UPON THE PUBLIC STREETS, WAYS, ALLEYS, AND PLACES
WITHIN SAID CITY OF ANAHEIM.
1~3: TERMINATION OF CONTRACT WITH B-1 ENTERPRISES AND CONSENTING TO THE ASSIGN-
MENT OF CERTAIN MONIES: City Attorney Hopkins stated that he was proposing a
resolution because of an unusual situation that had occurred. Several weeks ago,
March 10, 1981 (see minutes that date), a resolution was adopted terminating the
agreement with B-1 Enterprises for construction work on Acacia Street. Today
he was proposing a resolution rescinding Resolution No. 81R-104 and consenting
to the assignment of certain monies. The City Engineer had been in contact
with other contractors and the bonding company and could report as to why the
action would be appropriate.
City Engineer William Devitt explained that the bonding company indicated it
would be their preference to have the work assigned to John Artukovich and
Company, a well-known construction contractor in Southern California. They
had devised an agreement between B-i, Artukovich and the bonding company
assigning the contractual work to Artukovich. It was the bonding company's
recommendation that they could expedite that work if they rescinded the reso-
lution that was aqted upon on March 10, 1981 and give the work back to B-1
who would assign it to Artukovich, and the City would work directly with
Artukovich.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 81R-135 for adoption,-rescinding
Resolution No. 81R-104. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-135: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 81R-104 AND CONSENTING TO THE ASSIGNMENT OF CERTAIN
MONIES.
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-135 duly passed and adopted.
112: CIVIL RIGHTS LITIGATION AGAINST MUNICIPALITIES: City Attorney Hopkins
briefed the Council on his memorandum dated March 20, 1981 recommending support,
as recommended by the National Institute of Municipal Law Officers (NIMLO),
urging the United States Congress to amend Title 42 U.S. Code Sections 1983
and 19_88 limiting the liability of municipal governments to limit attorney's
fees in actions alleging violations of civil rights. Attached to the memo-
randum was a copy of the National League of Cities report sent to City
Attornies by NIMLO.
81-493
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 24, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Coumcilman Bay asked the support of the Council in forwarding the proposed
resolution to Anaheim's Senators and Congressmen, as well as the League of
Cities and to each City in the County.
Mayor Seymour stated he totally supported the position.
Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 81R-136 for adoption. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-136: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
URGING THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES TO AMEND TITLE 42 UNITED STATES CODE
SECTIONS 1983 AND 1988 TO LIMIT THE LIABILITY OF MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS AND TO
LIMIT ATTORNEY'S FEES IN ACTIONS ALLEGING VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL RIGHTS.
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-136 duly passed and adopted.
105: RESIGNATION OF HELEN SWEET FROM THE GOLF COURSE ADVISORY COMMISSION:
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to accept the resignation of Helen Sweet from the
Golf Course Advisory Commission with regret, as outlined in a letter dated
March 10, 1981 from Mrs. Sweet. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman ~mywood asked that a letter of appreciation be sent to Mrs.
Sweet for her dedicated service and also that the Commission be asked for a
recommendation for another appointment.
148: CITIZENS FOR OCEAN ACCESS AND RECREATION: Requesting a resolution sup-
porting the development of Bolsa Chica as a public recreational boating area
(continued from the meeting of February 24, 1981--see minutes that date).
Councilman Overholt stated that he was still in favor of the proposed resolution
and was prepared to offer it.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she still felt since the matter was within the Sphere
of Influence of Huntington Beach that it was improper for them to act on it.
Councilman Bay stated he would speak against the resolution primarily because,
while he agreed that Sphere of Influence was important, the most important con-
cern was the fact that he had not seen another City that had taken action,
only Chambers of Commerce approvals. He was concerned also with the eventual
cost involved, with the development coming back into the County that all the
cities of the County would be sharing. He personally did not wish to speak
for it or against, but he would speak for no action by the City on the issue
at this time.
81-494
City Hal.l, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -March 24, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour stated he did not see a great deal of difference between the
proposed resolution and a resolution that the Council unanimously adopted
relative to the changing of standards at the Orange County Airport. The air-
port attracted other cities and the Council saw fit to vote on it o The bottom
line on the subject resolution in his opinion was whether or not the County
would be served by more aquatic and marine services and, therefore, he would
have no difficulty in supporting it.
Councilman Roth stated he did not have any problem with it. The resolution
was not to the point where it was going to cause anything to happen, but would
~how that Anaheim was interested in providing an additional amount of boating
opportunities along the coast.
Councilman Overholt felt an economic factor was involved as well, the boating
industry in Orange County had been a significant industry and it appeared it
might be drying up due to lack of facilities for boaters. They would merely
be indicating they were in favor of trying to preserve for all the people in
Orange County, boating-recreational opportunities and encouraging the contin-
uation of a very important industry in the community.
Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 81R-137 for adoption, supporting
the development of Bolsa Chica as a public recreational boating area using
the form of the sample resolution that had been submitted to the Council.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-137: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
SUPPORTING THE DEVELOPMENT OF BOLSA CHICA AS A PUBLIC RECREATIONAL BOATING AREA.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Roth and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bay
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
Mayor Seymour stated it was his understanding the only time a Council Member
could abstain was when a conflict was involved.
City Attorney Hopkins explained that the City Council approved a resolution
which provided that where a Member abstained for any reason other than a legal
reason~ such as a financial interest~ the abstaining vote would count toward the
majority vote as the wording of the motion or the resolution was proposed. If
there was no legal reason, it would go toward the majority vote.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she was then going to change her vote to "no" because
she felt the matter was inappropriate for the City to be voting on.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Roth and Seymour
Kaywood and Bay
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-137 duly passed and adopted.
81-495
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -March 24, 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
165: STATUS REPORT - POSTED STREET CLEANING PROGRB_M: Continued from the meeting
of February 17, 1981--see minutes that date.
Councilman Roth stated, before discussing the March 18, 1981 report from Mr.
Lewis, he wanted clarification on the following. At the meeting of February 17,
1981, he broached the matter where an area was posted for "no parking" from
8:00 A.M. to 12 Noon and a person, after the sweeper had passed, reparked his
car at 10:00 A.M. He questioned how that person could then receive a ticket
at 11:00 A.M.
Mr. Bill Lewis, Street Maintenance Superintendent, answered that was not their
program and he did not know how that could happen. Their program provided that
the citation issuance would go only with the sweeper and only at that time. The
hours were posted for four hours, no parking and within the legal realm of law
enforcement, there could be citations issued at any time during that four hours.
He reiterated their Department policy was that the citation was only issued with
the sweeper.
Councilman Roth stated that was how he understood the program; however, he had
a memorandum dated March 24, 1981 from a Gerald Neilson, 1014 West Water Street,
who observed a sweeper going by at 8:15 a.m. and then at 11:12 a.m., a citation
was issued to Mr. Gerald Bushore and consequently Mr. Bushore asked him (Roth)
how that could occur. The policy should be set once and for all--once the
sweeper went by and the curb was swept, a person should have the right to re-
park his car in that location.
Mr. Talley stated that was unequivocably the policy. He did not know whether
the sweeper went by or went by sweeping the curb, but they would be glad to check
the time the sweeper swept the curb and what time the ticket was issued. If
there was a controversy, they would cancel the ticket.
Mr. Lewis reported that Mr. Bushore did call the matter to their attention
earlier that afternoon and they had committed to investigate it.
Mr. Talley stated the date of the violation as indicated on the citation just
submitted by Mr. Bushore was February 12, 1981. To say that it was untimely
was the least statement he could make, but they would get right on it.
Councilman Roth then commended Mr. Lewis and his staff because the amount of
criticism from the public relative to the program had diminished 1000% as far
as he was concerned.
Mr. Gerald Bushore, 548 South West Street, stated he was not present to protest
the ticket. The day his car was parked in the street during street sweeping
hours was February 12, 1981, Lincoln's Birthday, and he was confused because
he thought it was a holiday and, therefore, perfectly safe to park there. He
applauded the street sweeping program and it was not his intent to belittle it.
It was a new system, there wer~ bugs in it, and his intention was to see that
it was administered fairly and justly to everyone.
Councilman Overholt asked Mr. Lewis if a citation was issued and someone called
to complain, did he feel it was out of his hands.
81-496
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 24, 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Lewis answered "no". If a person took immediate action in calling them
and they found some mitigating circumstances, they took action to adjust that
if done within 48 hours.
Councilwoman Kaywood commented that one of the hotline calls they received was
a woman who was opposed to changing the program to alternate side sweeping and
that for the first time the streets were clean in their neighborhood and every-
body was enjoying that.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood thereupon moved that they not change anything
a~d accept the program as it was now structured and that they receive and file
the report of March 18, 1981. Councilman Bay seconded the motion.
Mayor Seymour then spoke against the motion. There were a number of areas in
the City developed many years ago, 20 and 25 years, at which time adequate off-
street parking was not planned for. In those older neighborhoods, there was
no choice but for people to take their car to private property in a commercial
shopping center where they were violating the law in so doing or pulling their
cars on a front lawn to avoid a ticket. He felt that was unfortunate and un-
called for. He was not suggesting that they undertake a program where they
would have alternate side sweeping throughout the City, but that they use good
common sense in recognizing there were some areas where it was impossible with-
out tremendous difficulty and undue hardship on the citizens in those neigh-
borhoods to put their cars off the Street to permit street sweeping. To
blindly apply the program throughout the City was patently unfair. He would
favor the recommended study program which would take four small neighborhoods
throughout the entire City and test alternate side posting, as well as sweeping
which would provide equity in the program.
Councilwoman Kaywood felt that the $10,000 involved for "no parking" signs, the
labor required, and reducing the alley cleaning accordingly was not a good trade.
Councilman Roth asked if the motion to receive and file meant that the study
program for alternate side posting would then become a dead issue; Mayor
Seymour answered "yes"; it was a do-nothing motion.
Councilman Roth felt that perhaps they did not have to initiate a $10,000
program, but instead take the worst area in the whole City and institute a small
pilot program. After further discussion on the matter between the Mayor and
the City Manager, Councilman Roth reiterated his suggestion that they hold off
accepting the study until one area could be defined, not four, and to try a
pilot program in that one area.
Mr. Lewis stated they could establish a pilot program in any one area the
Council would so designate.
Councilwoman Kaywood felt perhaps a letter or questionnaire could be sent to
the four areas indicated in the staff report, hand-delivered, asking if they
wanted to be part of a pilot program. If 51% indicated they did not want it
changed, she did not want to see it changed.
81-497
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCI.L MINUTES - March 24, 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour noted that Mr. Lewis indicated the neighborhoods were selected
at random. In reviewing the neighborhoods, for his own part, he could onlY
see one area that he could recall had what he considered to be a high density,
Katella, Euclid, Nutwood, Humor, Sumac, Sallie, Crestwood and Easy Way. Logic
would tell him where they had a parking problem was in a high density area.
He asked why other low density areas were selected.
Mr. Lewis answered that he did not research to the point of determining how
many living units per acre existed in those areas. He merely selected four
what would appear to be, typical apartment house areas.
A vote was then taken on the motion to receive and file the report. Council-
men Overholt, Roth and Seymour voted "no". MOTION FAILED TO CARRY.
Mayor Seymour then stated that somebody on staff knew the locations of the
City's parking problems.
Mr. Lewis stated they prepared a map covered with red dots, each representing
a citation that had been issued. In areas where apartment houses existed, there
were more red dots, leading the observer to the conclusion that more citations
were being issued per house. Since they were high density areas, he would
doubt that point, but there certainly were more citations issued per curb mile.
In any case, they did have such a map prepared.
Mayor Seymour stated that he was amazed that the Chevy Chase area did not show
up on that chart; Mr. Lewis stated it did show, but since the area had been
called to their attention several times, he ran a tabulation of the citations
issued in that area. In the one month period from January 15, 1981 to
February 12, 1981, they issued an average per week of 15 citations on the
streets in that area in multiple family housing as follows: Chevy Chase,
Blu~ay, Wren, Robin, Arlington, Marlboro and Brewster. Of those seven
streets, they issued 15 citations per week average during that one-month period.
The second month, February 19, 1981 to March 19, 1981, they issued an average
of 7.5 citations per week. On some of the streets they issued none on various
weeks.
Mayor Seymour stated he would like to run a pilot program to determine whether
or not the program was going to work better for the neighbors. Although not
the specialist and expert, he would say that such a program should be instituted
in the Chevy Chase, Robin, Bluejay neighborhood. That was the most populated
area with parking problems that he, as a layman, knew in the City. The others
he would think of would be Haster and Orangewood, and west of Ninth Street and
south of Cerritos. They were highly dense apartment house areas. He did not
know whether they wanted to continue the matter to think about that or not.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she felt it imperative before trying anything at
all that they canvass the neighborhood.
Mr. Talley suggested that they take a three or four week opportunity to canvass
the neighborhood and bring back a suggested letter to distribute, or they could
work on a plan on the three neighborhoods proposed by the Mayor and bring that
back to the Council.
81-498
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES .- Ma..rc..h .24, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour then moved to continue the matter for two weeks to
do as the City Manager articulated.
Before further action was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked if they wanted to
work on a plan and canvass at the same time; Mr. Talley stated he was trying
just to get some direction. He felt there were three Council M~nbers who
wanted staff to bring back a plan on canvassing and sweeping, and that sweeping
beyond what they were presently doing was desired by a majority of the Council.
Councilman Overholt stated he felt they should conduct a pilot program, but he
Was not hung up on adding all three of the neighborhoods. If one neighborhood
would do it, they should see how that would work out because it might not work.
MOTION: After further discussion between the Council and also with the City
Manager, Councilman Seymour moved to continue the matter for three weeks to
permit staff to come up with a proposed alternate side sweeping program for
the following three areas: (1) Chevy Chase, Robin, Bluejay area; (2) the
Haster-Orangewood apartment house area; (3) the apartment house area south of
Cerritos and west of Ninth Street. Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt stated he was going to oppose the
motion because he felt they should have a pilot program that was meaningful
before affecting all of those neighborhoods. They might find it would not
work.
Mayor Seymour stated the areas he just outlined were probably less in population
in apartments than what the staff report proposed. They were proposing four
neighborhoods and he was recommending three on a pilot.
Councilman Overholt stated he did not want to hold staff to that. He wanted
them to come back with a recommendation for a pilot program and maybe less than
three or four would be enough to do it. He did not want to tie their hands.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Council Members Overholt,
Kaywood and Bay voted "no". MOTION FAILED TO CARRY.
Mr. Talley stated, using the direction of the Council on three areas, they
could meet with the Neighborhood Council in one area possibly in the order
named. If it Seemed to be working out, they could then pick another and
another if they wanted to. He did not think that a pilot program had to be
done altogether all at once. If ~hey wanted to minimize the investment, they
could go out and talk to the Chevy Chase Neighborhood Council (Patrick Henry).
If they did not want it, they could move on to the next area.
The Mayor stated that was perhaps the best counsel they had, the problem being
that there were no people to his knowledge living in the apartment house area
that sat on that Council.
Mr. Talley asked that they let staff work for three weeks and to bring back
a program to the Council in the order of the three neighborhoods. If they
recommended less than three, they would do it in that order.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to direct staff to submit a program in three
weeks as discussed to be devised in the order of the three areas suggested.
Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
81-499
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - ..March 24, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
177: RESALE CONTROLS - GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65916: Continued from the
meetings of February 3, 10, 17, 24 and March 17, 1981--see minutes those dates.
Mr. Norm Priest, Executive Director of Community Development, referred to the
two proposed motions appearing on the agenda which had been discussed at some
length in previous meetings and continued to this date. What they were bring-
ing to the Council today technically speaking was not in line with either of
those motions in that what they were suggesting for Council consideration was
not in the strictest sense a resale control, at least not in the price mechan-
ism, and it did not involve a deed restriction.
Mr. Priest then briefed the Council in detail on his report dated March 18,
1981, subject: Shared Appreciation Mortgage (SAM) Concept As A Continued
Availability Mechanism (_on file in the City Clerk's office), recommending that
the Council review the concept of Shared Appreciation Mortgage (SAM) and if
acceptable, direct staff to formulate a mechanism for implementing the SAM
which "shall assure continued availability for low- and moderate-income units
for 30 years" (Government Code 65915) in cases where there is a direct financial
contribution of public funds. He also briefed the attachments to the report,
Charts 1, 2 and 3. In concluding, Mr. Priest stated that they had not brought
the matter to the Council as a finished program but recognizing it was an issue
in which the Council was deeply concerned. They wanted Council's reaction to
it before they thought the matter through in every detail. If it was something
they did not see any merit in, they would not spend any more time on it. They
might see some definite improvements that should be considered and they would
appreciate that input. If it was something they felt staff should pursue that
economically and philosophically made sense, they would like the opportunity to
proceed and meet with the City Attorney and begin to formulate it as a program
which they would then bring back to the Council for further consideration.
Councilman Bay stated if the reason for suggesting the concept was based on the
30-year law relative to direct financial contribution to housing, in his opinion,
he did not know why they were beating that subject to death. He thought the
Council made it clear they were not going to okey any direct financial contri-
bution to housing with the 30-year resale control tied to it.
Mr. Priest stated they had absolutely no misunderstanding as to Council's
direction. However, they had been asked on two or three occasions to look
at every aspect of the issue. A few weeks ago, the .Mayor asked if they had
looked at the subject possibility. Frankly, they had not looked at the Shared
Appreciation Mortgage (SAM) concept, but they thought it had some merit. The
suggestion had two elements to it and one was not the 30 years. The first thing
it allowed them to do was to get into the low and moderate income range and make
an investment. The second thing it allowed them to do, as the Mayor had
indicated, they could dial it up or down dependent on the ability of the pur-
chaser. They looked at ways in which they might be able to increase or decrease
their investment. Further, as pointed out, they felt it likely that it would
trigger a 30-year mechanism, but at the same time they brought it back to the
Council, because in looking at it, they were not sure they were absolutely
opposed to a 30-year mechanism so much as an artificial constriction of pricing,
or, in short, trying to control the market. The concept they were proposing
did not seek to control the market but would allow the housing pricing to move
with the market because their investment would move with it.
81-500
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 24, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour asked if it did not control the market, how did it trigger the
30-year price mechanism.
Mr. Priest deferred to the City Attorney.
City Attorney Hopkins explained that they had not spent a great deal of time
studying the matter but their offhand opinion was that the contribution under
the SAM program was going to the buyer and not the developer. The 30-year
mechanism was triggered when the City made a contribution to the developer.
There was some investigation to be done, but they felt that the contribution
w~s to the buyer and not the developer.
Councilman Roth stated he did not like the situation because it seemed to him
that government was getting into the housing business. He was interested in
knowing if the majority of the Council voted favorably, where would they get
the money to implement the program.
Mr. Priest answered that they had looked at several possibilities, one being
that they would look to some limited funding. They were not talking about a
massive amount of funding. They would probably be limited to the amount of
money they had to invest. There might be thousands of units in which they
could invest, but they simply would not have the funds to invest in thousands
of units.
Mayor Seymour stated that he and Councilman Roth, both being in the profession
they were in, dealt with government assisted financing for housing everyday. The
subject program was no different. They both knew that the commercial bank and
savings and loans would be offering the type of mortgage under discussion and
some were already doing so. He did not see that it should be labeled with
public housing. As he read the staff report, he felt on the whole that Mr.
Priest and his staff had done a "super" job. The whole situation involved
trade-offs and he felt the Shared Appreciation Mortgage came closer to achieving
the objective of affordable housing, that is, providing people who could not
afford housing a way to do so without going into a very expensive program or
the type of program such as Section 8 or 235. Because of the concept of SAM,
the program would self-fund. Perhaps they could set priorities, rather than
resale price controls, structure the affordable unit to an income group 120%
or less of median and then first offer it to an outside SAM so that the City
would not get involved. If there were no SAM's on the outside, the second fall-
back position would be the City. In the event the City did not have the
financial capability to handle it, the unit would then go market rate and
market methods. He would like to see a continuation of the concept to the
second trust deed that would return the economic benefit advanced. The SAM
was the best he had personally seen. It was the least bureaucratic and govern-
ment controlled relative to the free marketplace that there could be. He
applauded their efforts in what they were trying to do. He felt they were
working with very creative and innovative concepts that would become a way of
life.
Mr. Priest stated one of the things he thought they put in the report which
they had also discussed and something which might make a great deal of sense
with corporations, was to try to expand the program out with their employees.
81-501
City Hmll~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 24, 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
Mmyor Seymour stated he was so convinced of the Shared Appreciation Concept as
being the closest free enterprise way to go, he would be prepared to support a
bond issue on it for the affordable units they had created; it was a good way
to keep them affordable. In SAM, they would be dealing with the buyer and
they could dial the SAM to suit the type of buyer involved.
Councilman Roth stated he was supportive of Shared Appreciation Mortage concept.
He had a problem, however, when trying to compare government dollars and mort-
gages as compared to savings and loans, pension funds, etc.
Mayor Seymour suggested that they set it up to give the private mector "first
crack" at the loan and let them make the SAM. If available, fine, but if not,
provide them a backstop.
Councilman Roth stated that was where he was coming from, but when they started
talking about bond issues or looking for Block Grant funds and getting involved
in the real estate business, he had a problem with that.
Mayor Seymour stated, unless there was a total economic collapse of real estate
values, there was no possible way the program could cost the taxpayers one dime.
The person paying for it would be the one buying the home under the SAM.
Mr. Priest stated if the Council wished them to pursue the matter, one of the
things they did with the Marks-Foran issue, and they were also doing with other
savings task forces, it was not at all difficult for them to contact three,
four or five local lenders to discuss with them what they thought of the
approach and what might they do to make it fly.
Mayor Seymour felt they would be happy to service the loans so that no bureau-
cracy would meddle with them and they would be totally serviced by the private
sector.
Councilwoman Kaywood then posed questions to Mr. Priest on the program for
purposes of clarification.
Councilman Overholt then asked Mr. Priest, if the Council were to indicate an
interest relative to the proposed program, what would be his next step.
Mr. Priest answered one of their first things they must do was to discuss the
matter with the City Attorney and his staff and think through the legalities
of the program. They would then want to sit down with some private lending
institutions and get their viewpoints, how they felt about it, and how they
might proceed. They would then expect to come back to the Council soon with
the terms or skeleton of the program and how it would work. As he stated at
the outset, he recognized they were not directly responsive to the two motions
but he felt, based on their earlier direction, they were on the agenda merely
to keep the matter open and he was not uncomfortable that they were not res-
ponding to those. They were dealing with a different program now than what
either of those motions dealt with.
Councilman Overholt stated he had the same concerns as Councilman Roth expressed,
but he could appreciate what such a program might accomplish and would be inter-
ested in seeing it further developed.
81-502
City Mall, Aqaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 24,.1981~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Roth stated he felt Mr. Priest had the right idea. He (Roth) was
not interested in merely dropping the matter, but felt they should move ahead
and meet with savings and loans. They might also want to meet with the Finance
Committee of the Anaheim Board of Realtors, made up of mortgage bankers, etc.
In that way, they could receive tremendous range of good thinking and support
on the matter.
MOTION: Councilman Ro~h moved to direct staff to proceed to explore the Shared
Appreciation Mortgage (.SAM) concept with the industry, savings and loans, and
the Finance Committee of the Anaheim Board of Realtors and subsequently come
b~ck to the Council with additional input. Councilman Seymour seconded the
motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt stated that he was going to
support the motion because he felt they needed more information but he was
still concerned as to what their exposure might be if there was a turn in
the economy.
Councilman Bay asked if it was possible once the motion was voted on to have
removed from future agendas the motion relative to the 30-year resale control
on direct financial contribution.
Mr. Priest stated they would have no need to continue that motion but would
proceed with the direction given in Councilman Roth's proposed motion.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she saw in the proposal that it answered the ques-
tions, objections and concerns she had with the other procedure. It would keep
affordable housing, it would eliminate someone getting a one-time windfall and
they would still have the original housing available to the same target group.
It sounded like a very good way to ~o.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for 25 minutes. (7:20 P.M.--
recess was called after the discussion relative to the San Onofre Nuclear
Generating Station issue)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, for the purpose of
conducting a joint work session with the Planning Commission, all Council
Members being present. (7:45 P.M.)
PRES ENT:
AB$ENT:
PRES ENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS: Fry, King, Bushore, Bouas and
Herbst
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS: Barnes and Tolar
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ron Thompson
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
81-503
City Hall~. Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 24, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Acting Chairman of the City Planning Commission Gerald Bushore called the City
Planning Commission meeting to order, all Commissioners being present with the
exception of Commissioners Barnes and Tolar.
179: WORKSHOP - CITY PLANNING COMMISSION/COUNCIL: To consider RM-3000 Zone
Code a~nendments relating to project density, structural height, minimum floor
area (.bachelor units) and parking, and a Council Policy relating to density
bonuses. (see minutes from the two previous workshops held February 18 and
March 5, 1981).
Miss Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, stated that the material
presented to the Council and the Commission under memorandum dated March 19,
1981 from the Planning Department consisted of three basic amendments to the
RM-3000 standards--(.1) pertaining to the parking requirements, (2) establishing
a performance standard way of interpreting the allowable building height next
to single-family zoning and, (3) minimum floor areas allowing bachelor units
in 20% of the total project. The final attachment to the memorandum was a
Council Policy specifying if the developer provided 25% of the project for
affordable housing, he shall be granted a maximum 25% density bonus.
The Mayor then asked if there were any questions of the Council or the
Co~m~ission relative to the staff report or the changes before them.
With reference to the 150-foot setback, Commissioner Lew Herbst asked if it was
not to exceed one-half the distance, if that would be 75 feet if they met all
conditions.
Miss Santalahti answered, not necessarily, but it would be based on the actual
height of the building. If the finished grade level height to the top of the
building were 25 feet, there would be a structural setback of 50 feet. If the
building height of 10 feet, the setback would be a minimum of 20 feet. It was
similar to the commercial zone standard.
Commissioner Herbst stated there were existing houses that had been in Anaheim
for many years. The City bad been adhering to the 150 foot setback for some
time and all of a sudden they might get down to 20 feet in some cases. He
recalled that the nearest they had come to date was approximately 68 feet.
There was a possibility that they would be encroaching upon the visibility, air
and light of an existing residence and those were things about which he was
concerned. He felt the proposed ordinance might be loosely worded and could
be construed in several ways; therefore, it needed to be more precise. The
people who owned existing homes deserved more than protection against visual
intrusion. He reiterated, he wanted to be certain they were not getting the
setback down to a point where they were encroaching UPon the people already
living in the City.
The Mayor suggested that they might add some language stating, "however, in any
event, it shall never be less than..." If so, what would he (Herbst) suggest
that number be.
Commissioner Herbst stated they had reached a compromise to date where they
deviated from the 150 foot setback down to approximately a 68 foot setback.
81-504
City .Hal. l~ Anaheim~ California- COUNCIL MINUTES -March 24~ 19.81~ 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor asked the Commission how they felt about that number.
Commissioner Paul King stated he had always wanted condominiums classified as
a home because they were nothing but homes. He felt they should be built
within the 150 foot setback.
The Mayor asked if he would oppose or object to an amendment to limit that
setback not to be less than perhaps 50 feet, 60 feet, or 40 feet.
Commissioner Glen Fry stated, his personal opinion, in no event shall it be
l~ss than 50 feet; Commissioner Mary Bouas stated she felt the same way, and
Con~nissioner Bushore also concurred.
Mayor Seymour surmised then that, in essence, the Commission was recommending
that they put a bottom on the setback that could not go less than 60 feet.
Miss Santalahti stated the particular standard was proposed specifically with
the idea that a developer could not put a two-story building at the 20-foot
setback for a 40-foot building which was the normal minimum for a structure.
The standard was the exact same wording used in the commercial zone. Currently,
a commercial building could be constructed with that setback.
Commissioner Herbst stated the only difference relative to the afforementioned
was the Planning Commission policy that there also be a 20-foot buffer zone.
Commissioner Herbst then continued that relative to the two parking spaces per
unit, he had no quarrel with that except that there was a difference between
a planned community development with 2.5 parking spaces with private roads and
no on-st=eet parking and a planned community development with on-street parking.
He felt there was a difference with regard to guest parking. He saw no allow-
ance for guest parking in decreasing the parking from 3.5 to 2.5. In many areas,
particularly the hill and canyon, there were private streets and, dependent upon
how the project was designed, if there were only two spaces in a garage with
no other spaces for guests to park along that private road, he felt in certain
instances there should be so many parking spaces per 100 allowed for guests
over and above the 2.5.
The Mayor asked Commissioner Herbst to give that some thought as they went
through the public hearing.
Con~issioner Bushore recalled tha~ some time ago when they first ~alked about
changing the parking standard he expressed the same concerns in the hill and
canyon area and that was why ~hey had the 3.5 parking spaces. He had some of
the same concerns as Commissioner Herbst. When they first started talking about
the ordinance, they had some problems with tracts where there were 2.5 parking
spaces required, but with no guest parking. The intent of the 3.5 spaces, as
he recalled, was to not only cover the situation where private str~eets were
involved, but also to secure guest parking in some of those private communities.
Councilman Roth stated he agreed and what they were talking about, whether the
hill and canyon area or the "flatlands", was that the Code Section needed to
include a definition indicating that certain standards were applicable only
where there were mo private streets. Private streets would be an entirely
81-505
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 24~. 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
different situation. If they did not indicate Some differential between pri-
vate and public streets, a developer would then have to come in for variances
and that was something they were trying to avoid.
Commissioner Herbst stated he agreed, but when they allowed a project with
private streets, the developer also gained more density because of the width
of the road and not allowing street parking. There was a possibility that
they could make a differential where there were private streets.
Councilman Bay asked the City Attorney if there were any new laws in the state
Delating to the use of solar energy and solar cells on roof tops relative to
the setback or height to any property from the standpoint of shading, for
example, a two- or three-story structure within so many feet on a southern
exposure to an area where people intended to use solar equipment on their roof
where an actual shading would occur cutting off the sunlight to that area.
City Attorney Hopkins stated there was one provision of the State law that dealt
with the solar problem and they did have an exemption that the City took advantage
of. He knew of no other law but he would defer to the Assistant City Attorney
Jack White to see if he knew of any such legislation.
Mr. Jack White stated there was one provision of the State law relating to
private easements between property owners that did not directly affect the
City. He was not aware of any provisions that directly related to the City's
Zoning Ordinances that would be applicable.
Councilman Bay stated he was concerned that if they changed the ordinance and
set up a certain distance, for example, twice the height for setback and perhaps
there was a project with three- or four-story apartments or whatever creating
shade, where they introduced a legal problem between the two parties by the
way the Zoning Ordinance was applied.
Mr. White answered that he did no't think so because the Zoning Ordinance regu-
lations were minimums. In addition there may be by private easement, deed
restriction, or contract between private owners even greater restrictions.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked on the parking standards where it was proposed to
be exactly the same for bachelor, one-, two-, three- and four-bedroom units,
would that make any sense.
Miss Santalahti stat~ the survey they conducted during January broke down
the car count per unit type based on bedrooms and bedrooms plus dens. In that
survey, they found that one-bedroom units and dens and two-bedroom units had
1.8 vehicles per household; two-bedroom and den units had 2 cars per household,
three-bedrooms also had 2 and something larger than that had 2.3. Thus, the
2.5 standard was intended to reflect two cars for the typical household with
one-half for the guest space. Normally the larger projects had been a distri-
bution of unit sizes other than a few of the smaller projects. They had not
all been three bedroom units.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she could not conceive of the proposed standard
being acceptable for a four-bedroom unit.
81-506
City H. all~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES ~ March 24, 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor then opened the public hearing and asked to hear from anyone who
wished to speak either pro or con on the proposals. (Although there were a
substantial number of people present in the Chamber audience, no one wished
to speak. See minutes of the previous meetings of February 18 and March 5,
1981 where extensive testimony was given by the public).
Since no one wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Herbst again spoke to the parking standards. One of the reasons
they previously instituted the 3.5 parking spaces was in the hill and canyon
area where they became involved in private streets. They were also giving in
to private streets in the western part of the City. The number of cars in
the hill and canyon area due to lack of public transportation was also heavier
than in the flatlands. Perhaps they should set the standard at 2 3/4, rather
than 2.5 with so many spaces to be assigned for guest parking.
Miss Santalahti stated they had discussed the matter and Commissioner Herbst
was correct that the 3.5 parking space standard was adopted at a time when
they were seeing a number of projects in the hill and canyon area which were
quite different physically than what they had seen in the flatlands. It was
their general feeling that it was not so much the hillside area, but the unit
' sizes--they were not 700- or 900-square foot condominiums, but 2500 square feet.
They discussed the possibility of including another section stating that if
the unit size, for example, exceeded 2,000 square feet, you shall provide 3.5
spaces per unit, which would be more in line with a single family house.
Mayor Seymour asked what square footage they would be recommending--2,000 or
would it be more practical to make that 1,500 square feet.
Miss Santalahti stated that 1,500 might be more practical since a single-family
minimum size was 1,225 and thus 1,500 might be a bit more reasonable.
The Mayor stated if it were 1,500 square feet, what they were suggesting, in
the event of 1,500 square feet or greater, was then the parking standard shall
be 2.75.
Miss Santalahti stated possibly even higher--3.5 was the number she stated
originally because that was the standard. A typical single-family house would
have five parking spaces, two in the street, one in the driveway, and two in
the garage. If a condominium were similar physically to a single-family struc-
ture, it might be appropriate to look at something approaching that standard.
She felt five was altogether too high, but possibly three or 3.5.
Commissioner Herbst stated that condominiums today were the marketplace and
more and more familes were going to be living in condominiums because of the
price range. They should be careful not to box themselves in, particularly in
allowing a planned community development with private streets. That was his
basic concern--the private street area.
Mayor Seymour asked Miss Santalahti if they took her idea of 1,500 square feet
and excess and also tied into private streets with three parking spaces, would
they still be protecting themselves.
Miss Santalahti answered they probably would be. It was likely that the private
streets gave less of an alternative for anybody to park.
81-507
City Hall,. Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 24, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor stated then, if built with private streets and the size of the unit
was 1,500 square feet or greater, there would be a mininum of three spaces;
Councilman Bay suggested, and/or.
The Mayor, in answer to Councilman Bay's suggestion, stated "no". Although he
may be right, he was not sure that was what he was hearing from staff.
Commissioner Herbst stated he would also like to see the guest parking standards
within a minimum of 200 feet or within so many feet from each unit.
Miss Santalahti explained that in the current set up on condominiums, they would
always see that item at a public hearing in connection with a Tentative Tract
Map. They definitely looked at that matter from a staff level. They preferred
to see guest parking distributed and there was an effort made to discuss that
with the developer and most were prepared to do that. Smaller projects had a
tendency to use the odd parts of their project for parking, but it was not
typical. Generally speaking, most projects had guest parking within 200 feet.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated relative to the three- and four-bedroom units, she
found it extremely hard to believe if the condominium was going to be replacing
the single-family home that they were going to have cars suddenly disappear.
She had not seen that happen. Her great fear was to lock the City in. Not only
were they going to have street sweeping problems, but also it was something
where they could not go back and get the space once it was gone.
Miss Santalahti suggested perhaps it would be appropriate to drop that figure
from 1,500 to 1,225 or square footage which would bring them under the square
footage for a four-bedroom unit or even make it 1,350. Minimum house size was
1,225, but that was not the normal house size.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she did not think it should be any higher than that
if that was the requirement for a home.
Commissioner Glenn Fry agreed with Councilwoman Kaywood. Perhaps they should
use the 3.5 figure for parking for 1 250 square feet or greater.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour thereupon moved that the accepted recommendations
in the proposed ordinance changes as amended be approved, subject to the following
changes:
Subsection .012 of Section 18.31.062 - 150 foot setback - that language be
developed so as to state that, in any event, it shall not ever be less than
a minimum of 50 feet.
Subsection .010 of Section 18.31.066 - parking - that language be developed to
change it to read that in the event the square footage shall exceed 1,225 feet
and there shall be private streets, that the minimum parking standards be in-
creased to 3.5 parking spaces per unit, two of which would have to be enclosed.
Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated she was hearing something
new now. What she understood was 1,225 square feet with or without private
streets, that it be 3.5 parking spaces. The Mayor's motion was only if private
streets were involved.
81-508
CitZ Hal!~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - .March 24, 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor clarified that his motion, was only if there were private streets.
The staff survey concluded that they did not have the problem unless there
were private streets.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated the discussion was if they were going to be elim-
inating single-family homes and having more condominiums, there would be a
higher automobile population. If a unit was that large, there were going to
be more people and more cars.
Oommissioner Herbst then noted that the present ordinance stated if closer
than 25 feet from the curb, they would have to have automatic garage door
openers as a safety factor. He asked if it had'any reflection on the matter
under discussion or if that was another part of the ordinance.
Miss Santalahti answered that technically it was another part of the ordinance.
That was currently only in single family zones; Commissioner Herbst asked, why
not put that in the condominium ordinance as well.
Mayor Seymour stated, in his opinion, that would be going too far; Commissioner
Merbst stated, he was saying if they did not have a 25-foot setback, they would
have to have automatic garage door openers.
Commissioner Mary Bouas asked if tandem parking counted in the 3.5 parking
spaces.
Miss Santalahti answered that was handled two ways. They had counted tandem
parking in condominium projects only for the units served. They could not
count someone else's driveway space. They had counted tandem spaces when a
unit had a 25-foot clearance and assigned only to that unit, but not assigned
to any other unit.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she had a concern, and another as well if she was
the only one concerned, that after the many years with very good reason for
the 150-foot setback, suddenly they were dropping it by two-thirds and no one
seemed concerned. It was necessary to one's mental health to have open
space and to be able to reach out and stretch without hitting their next door
neighbor. What they were talking about was not going to be lowering the cost
of anything. It would be raising the cost of the land because they could ~et more
density on it. If what they were doing, was to say--let's get more units half
again as much on the same parcel of land to where the cost was raised half
again, it would be exactly the same price for half of what they ought to be
getting. In that way, the whole City would be very badly short changed.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked for clarification again. The Mayor was specifically
ignoring whatever size the unit might be, only indicating if on a private
street, it would require 3.5 parking spaces.
The Mayor stated that was correct, 1,225 square feet and in excess of that, on
private streets.
Councilwoman Kaywood then asked if the unit was 1,500 or 1,800 square feet with
four bedrooms, if he still felt 2.5 parking spaces were sufficient.
81-509
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 24, 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour answered, including the parking availability on the public street,
"yes".
Commissioner Herbst stated as he understood, if on a private street, they would
have 3.5 spaces, but on the public street it would be 2.5.
Mayor Seymour answered that the minimum on a public street for a bachelor unit would
be not less than 2 and not less than 2.5 for one-bedroom or larger.
The Mayor then wished to express how he felt relative to the changes. Regarding
5he change in the setback, he felt they had the best of both worlds. They were
going to insure that there was no visual intrusion and were already set up to
handle that. Now they wanted to be sure that they were providing for some
reasonable amount of Space no matter how the project was designed architec-
turally for transfer of light and air. He felt the 50-foot setback for two
stories in a condominium project provided a greater space from the single-
family to the condominium than singl~-family, two-story would provide in itself.
In review of the new standards in cities throughout the County, they would find
the proposed action was about consistent with what those other cities were
doing. Relative to the parking spaces, they should be sensitive to what hap-
pened on private streets and the amount of parking made available and also with
the larger square footage units as had been experienced in Anaheim Hills. It
was in the Anaheim Hills area, as the City Planning Commission would recall,
where condominium projects were being built that caused the parking standards
to go to 3.5 and only because they were having a problem in the hills and no-
where else in the City. The rest of the recommendations staff had been making
and had made and that the Planning Commission had reviewed, he felt were
adequate.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked again, with a. three- or four-bedroom condominium
over 1,225 square feet, if he felt that 2.5 parking spaces were adequate for
the entire family plus guest parking; Mayor Seymour answered "no". That was
why he said it must be on a public street to meet that standard. If not on a
public street, it would have to go to 3.5 parking spaces.
Councilman Bay stated the motion tended to tighten up somewhat on an ordinance
that he did not agree with in the first place. He reiterated he did not agree
with the changes in the ordinance; however, he could vote for any tightening to
that ordinance, and he intended to because everything he heard attempted to
clarify it. Although he might not be able to stop it becoming an ordinance,
he would vote for anything that might help it if they were going to be stuck
with it.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion as articulated by the Mayor.
Councilwoman Kaywood voted "no". MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood commented that she felt it was a sad day for the City of
Anaheim.
City Attorney Hopkins stated they had an ordinance for first reading but
suggested that the cbmnges as outlined be made and the ordinance brought
back to the Council again for first reading.
81-510
City Ha!l,, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 24~ 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Bay asked if at the second reading when the vote was taken on the
ordinance was there going to be a public hearing at that time.
Mr. Hopkins explained it would just be a regular ordinance pursuant to the
Charter. The first reading would take place next week and the final adoption
of the ordinance the following week.
Councilman Bay assumed if a group of people were present the day they voted
on the final adoption of the ordinance, they were not necessarily going to be
hea=d; the Mayor stated, to allay Councilman Bay's fears, he had never known
tJue Council to refuse to hear from anybody.
City Clerk Roberts announced that the next item to be considered relative to
the matter was the proposed Council Policy regarding the density bonuses.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to approve the proposed Council Policy on
density bonuses as recommended by the Planning Department and Community
Development Department in memorandum dated March 19, 1981. Councilman
Overholt seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood referred to the following which
was a part of the proposed policy, "The City of Anaheim shall enter into an
agreement with the developer to either grant a density bonus of not more than
25% over the otherwise allowable residential density under the applicable
zoning ordinance or provide not less than two other bonus incentives..."
She felt something that should be made very clear, when granting the bonus
incentives, if the developer did not pay for them as they normally did, the
taxpayers would pick those up.
Mayor Seymour asked for clarification that the Council Policy was drawn in
accordance with State Law mandating bonuses.
City Attorney Hopkins answered that it was drawn accordingly, the only differ-
ence being the proposed policy stated "...a density bonus of not more than 25%..."
They were limiting it to 25% but the law permitted more than that if desired.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated they were changing the Code to allow another 25%
so, in effect, they were changing it to a 50% density bonus or two others.
City Attorney Hopkins explained the policy stated a density bonus of not more
than 25%.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion, adopting the following Council
Policy. Councilwoman Kaywood voted "no". MOTION CARRIED.
COUNCIL POLICY NO. 543 - DENSITY BONUSES
It is the policy of the City Council that when a developer agrees to
construct at least 25 percent (25%) of the units of ,a housing develop-
men= for persons and families of low or moderate income, as defined
by Sec:ion 50093 of the Health and Safety Code (50% to households at
120 percent of the median or below and 50% to households at 100 percen~
of :he median or below), the City of Anaheim shall enter into an agree
ment with the developer to either grant a density bonus of not more
than 25 percent over the otherwise allowable residential density
under the applicable zoning ordinance or provide not less than two
other bonus incentives as discussed in Government Code Section 65915.
81-511
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 24, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
The determination of the incentives to be awarded to the developer
shall be at the sole discretion of the City of Anaheim, provided,
however, no developer shall be required to enter into an unacceptable
agreememt as a prerequisite to approval of a hoqsing development.
This policy shall apply to new housing developments consisting of
five (5) or more dwelling units..
Example:
If a developer's one acre site is zoned for a maximum of eight (8)
units per acre, the developer could agree to set aside two (2) units
for low or moderate income persons and ask for a total density of ten
(10) units. If the City approved the project, it would have to grant
the ten units or provide two other bonus incentives.
Councilman Bay stated they now had a policy stating very cleverly the limit on
density and/or bonuses within the State law and he could agree with that. The
question now, every time they~discussed the ordinance over the past several weeks,
he heard the comments, if they could get the ordinance "modernized", they could
handle matters without variances. In his opinion, how they got to where they
were presently at was due to the pattern of variances that had been granted
in the City compared to surrounding cities. They had somewhere between 200 and
300 variances coming through the system in a year. That was extremely high in
comparison to anything occurring around the County. The arguments were that
the ordinances were too tight and now they were going to loosen them and make
them more reasonable. What he would like to see and possibly on next week's
agenda was a Council Policy statement "beefing up" the fact that they were
not going to continue with the number of variances and waivers they had in the
past--that it be a policy of the Council, along with the ordinance change, that
the intent was to make waivers and variances an extreme rarity. It was going
to require some direction from the Council to the Planning Commission in a
stated position just how rare those variances were going to be. If not, a
year from now they would be saying again that it was necessary to change the
standards. He reiterated the Council should come through with an additional
Council Policy along with the ordinance change whether it be this week or next
week or when they finally voted on the ordinance restating the Council policy
on variances.
The Mayor stated he had no difficulty with ~hat provided that the Council
Policy would further provide for the flexibility required to approve technical
variances, i.e., true variances as a result of the size, shape and irregularity
of a particular parcel of property involved. On the other hand, if they were
going to draw a Council Policy stating it would be rare, he did not know what
they meant when stacked up against a technical waiver. If Councilman Bay
could come up with some wording that would still permit a legitimate technical
variance to a hardship created as previously articulated, that would be
acceptable to him.
After a further brief discussion between Councilman Roth, Bay and the City
Attorney, regarding the matter, the Mayor stated that they should direct the
Planning Commission that with the new standards, they should only grant those
variances they were granting prior to a year ago which were variances granted
81-512
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 24~ 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
on the basis of true hardship. They had nothing to do with affordable housing.
They should return to that same policy now.
ADJOURb~{ENT - PLANNING COMMISSION: Commissioner Herbst moved to adjourn..
Commissioner Fry seconded the motion. Commissioners Tolar and Barnes were
absent° MOTION CARRIED. (8:50 P.M.)
The City Council then returned to the regular agenda.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman
B%y, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and
recommendations furnished each Council M~ber and as listed on the Consent
Calendar Agenda:
1. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and referred
to the City's Claims Administrator:
a. Claim submitted by Rollin Ao Bixby for vehicular damages purportedly sustained
as a result of accident involving City-owned vehicle one block west of West
Street and Lincoln Avenue, on or about February 18, 1981.
b. Claim submitted by Mark Hayden Parenteau for personal injury damages pur-
portedly sustained as a result of actions by Police personnel during arrest
of claimant, on or about November 30 and December 1, 1980.
c. Claim submitted by Vivian June Richer for damages purportedly sustained as
a result of failure of Police Department to take action to correct problems
claimant experienced during January, February and March of 1981.
d. Claim submitted by Safeco Insurance Companies (Robert and Barbara Osborn,
Insured) for vehicular damages purportedly sustained as a result of accident
at Lincoln Avenue and Euclid Street caused by traffic signal malfunction, on
or about January 8, 1981.
e. Claim submitted by Pa~ricia Dembek for damages purportedly sustained as a
result of power surge during repair of transformer serving 2564 West Rome
Avenue, on or about February 27, 1981.
f. Claim submitted by Opal M. Steib for vehicular damages purportedly sustained
as a result of parkway tree falling on hood of automobile parked in front of
1226 East Turin, on or about February 20, 1981.
g. Claim submitted by Richard E. Dierking for personal injury and property
damages purportedly sustained as a result of accident at Euclid Street and
Glenoaks caused by lackof adequate warning of street construction project,
on or about January 15, 1981.
h. Claim submitted byAmerican States Insurance (Hep Grading, Insured) for
vehicular damages purportedly sustained as a result of parkway tree limb
falling on automobile parked on Janss Street at the intersection of North
Street, on or about 3anuary 20, 1981.
i. Claim submitted by Robert Ponce for vehicular damages purportedly sustained
as a result of hole in pavement in Orangethorpe Avenue, westbound, near 800 E.
Orangethorpe, on or about March 6, 1981.
81-513
City .H. all.~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 24, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
j. Claim submitted by Art S. Rabinowitz for damages purportedly sustained as
a result of power surge at 6401-79 Nohl Ranch Road, on or about February 15,
1981.
k. Claim submitted by Kerry M. Lord, for Tricia Lynn Maddox, for personal
injury damages purportedly sustained as a result of fall at John Marshall
Elementary School campus, on or about February 2, 1981.
1. Claim submitted by Mrs. Arthur W. Cain for damages purportedly sustained
as a result of~ food spoilage caused by power shortage at 141 Cerro Vista Way,
~n or about February 20 and 21, 1981.
m. Application For Leave To Present Late Claim and claim submitted by Nancy
Gayle Petreny for personal injury damages purportedly sustained as a result of
slip-and-fall accident at Anaheim Stadium, on or about October 26, 1980.
2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 105: Anaheim Housing Commission--Minutes of February 4, 1981.
b. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission--Minutes of February 25, 1981.
c. 105: Community Center Authority--Minutes of March 9, 1981.
d. 105: Golf Course Advisory Commission--Minutes of February 25 and March 11,
1981.
e. 175: Before the Public Utilities Commission, Application No. 60321, in the
matter of the application of Southern California Edison Company for authority
to modify its Energy Cost Adjustment Billing Factors and to make certain other
rate char~es in accordance with Decision No. 92496.
f.' 175: Before the Public Utilities Commission, Application No. 60339 and
Advice Letter No. 1254, in the matter of the application of Southern California
Gas Company, to increase revenues under the Consolidated Adjustment Mechanism
to offset changed gas costs resulting from increases in the price of natural
gas purchased from E1 ~aso Natural Gas Company, Transwestern Pipeline Company
and Pacific Interstate Transmission Company; to adjust revenues due to increases
in natural gas supplies; to adjust revenues to reflect undercollection of
franchise fees, uncollectible expense and California taxes on income; to adjust
revenues to reflect increased carrying costs on the value of natural gas stored
underground; and to revise Section H of the preliminary statements of its tariffs.
g. City of Santa Aha Resolution No. 81-30, authorizing support of Senate Bill
65, which would exempt e~aergency vehicles from current State e~nission standards.
h. 105: Community Services Board--Minutes of February 12, 1981.
i. 105: Senior Citizens Commission--Minutes of February 12, 1981.
j. 105: Public Utilities Board--Minutes of February 5, 1981.
81-514
City .Hall, Ana. heim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -March 24, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
3. 108: APPLICATIONS: The following applications were recommended to be
approved by the Chief of Police:
a. Entertainment Permit: Moroccan House Restaurant, 2871 West Lincoln Avenue,
for Belly Dancing seven nights a week, 8:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. (Dawoud B.
Dawoud)
b. Amusement Device Permit: The Sub Shack, 5761 East Santa Ana Canyon Road,
for one video game. (John William Ritzer, applicant)
e. Amusement Devices Permit: State College Car Wash, 400 North State College
Boulevard, for one cocktail-type pinball machine. (John William Ritzer, appli-
cant)
MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution Nos. 81R-142
through 81R-150, 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-142: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Klm Renee
Ratzlaff; Lincoln School Property; Richard J. Guercio, et ux.)
158: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-143: 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
#2800-52)
158: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-144: 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
#2800-53)
158: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-145: 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
#280.0-59~
169: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-146: 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: CONSTRUCTION
OF STEEL POLE FOUNDATIONS ALONG MIRALOMA WAY AND AVENUE IN THE VICINITY OF
ORANGE FREEWAY (ROUTE 57~, IN THE CITy OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 55-668-6239-
80580.-36400; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICA-
TIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING
AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened April 16, 1981, at 2:00 p.m.)
159: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-147: 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: MECHANICAL
81-51.5
City Hall.~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MarCh 24~ 1981, 1:30 P.M.
MAINTENANCE FACILITY NATURAL GAS REFUELING STATION, 518 S. ANAHEIM BOULEVARD,
IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 72-325-6325; APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS,
PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZ-
ING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS,
SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH
A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be
opened on April 23, 1981, at 2:00 p.m.)
150: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-148: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR,
SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING
POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND
COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: SCHWEITZER PARK IMPROVEMENT,
IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 16-817-7103. (Mark A. Henne, contractor)
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-149: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
TERMINATING ALL PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 714
AND DECLARING RESOLUTION NO. 65R-581 NULL AND VOID.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-150: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
TERMINATING ALL PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH VARIANCE NO. 2769 AND DECLARING
RESOLUTION NO. 76R-92 NULL AND VOID.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 81R-142 through 81R-150, both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted.
170: FINAL MAP - TRACT NO. 11256: Developer, Edward Padilla for a 1-lot, PD-C
zoned tract located on the north side of South Street, 200 feet west of Anaheim
Boulevard.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, consideration
of Final Map of Tract No. 11256 was continued to April 7, 1981. MOTION CARRIED.
ORDINANCE NO. 4212: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4212 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4212: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNI'CI~PAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (76-77-56, RS-7200, Tract No.
9_876)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay and Roth
NOES: COUNCI'LMEMBERS: None
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4212 duly passed and adopted.
81-516
City, Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 24~ 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor explained the reason for his abstention was due to the fact that he
believed the subject property was near his home.
ORDINANCE NO. 4213: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4213 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4213: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-56, RS-7200)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
Nome
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4213 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 4215 AND 4216: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance Nos. 4215 and
4216 for first reading.
142/107: ORDINANCE NO. 4215: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING
CHAPTER 15.50, TITLE 15, OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE BY REPEALING SECTION
15.50.513 AND ADDING A NEW SECTION 15.50.513 IN ITS PLACE AND STEAD RELATING
TO THE UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE.
ORDINANCE NO. 4216: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (70-71-47(26), ML, Lakeview-
Orangethorpe No. 5 Annexation)
i40: DEMONSTRATION OF COM CATALOG SYSTEM: Councilman Overholt announced that
there was going to be a demonstration and exhibit of new COM catalog system at
the main library on Thursday, April 9, 1981 at 3:30 PoMo The purpose for the
advance notice was so that the Council Members would keep that afternoon open
to attend the event.
148: ORANGE COUNTY LEAGUE OF CITIES ASKING FOR SUPPORT OF SB215: Councilman
Roth noted in his mail an item from the Orange County Division League of Cities
asking for support of the Foran Bill, SB215. He wanted to know if the philosophy
of the Council was to support that bill.
The Mayor stated he could bring Councilman Roth up to date on that. Staff
wanted the support of the Council for that bill and, in fact, had prepared
letters for him ($'eymour) to sign. He was inclined to sign them but on the
other hand wanted Council approval on a position on the bill before signing.
He gave the letters back to the Deputy City Manager James Ruth last Tuesday
and indicated that he first wished to get Council approval. Mr. Ruth had
since not returned°
Councilman Roth wanted to be assured that~they would discuss the matter since
the increases proposed in the bill were-quite substantial involving vehicle
registration fees, driver's license fee~, identifiction cards and increase in
fuel costs.
81-517
Ci. ty Hall, Anahe..'_zm, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 24~ 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: Mayor Seymour request a Closed Session to discuss
a personnel matter with no action anticipated; the City Attorney requested
a Closed Session to discuss litigation with no action anticipated.
Councilman Bay moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilman Roth seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (9:03 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (9:55 P.M.)
'~DJOURNMENT: Councilman Bay moved to adjourn. Councilman Roth seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED. (9:55 P.M.)
~ERTS, CITY CLERK