1981/05/1281-686
City Hall, A~aheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 12, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
l~ne City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session·
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL }~EMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
COUNCIL }hYJ,[BERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
DEPUTY CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
PLanNING DIRECTOR: Ron Thompson
TR~FFiC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
REAL PROPERTY AGENT: Matt Boscia
ASSiSTaNT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Sister Rita Carroll, St. Anthony Claret Church, gave the Invoca-
tion.
FLAG SALUTE: ~ounciiwoman Miriam Kaywood led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
11~: PROCLAmaTIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Seymour
and aut~orized by tae City Council:
"Buddy Poppy Days in Anaheim" - May 15-16, 1981
"Community College Week" - May 10-16, 1981
khe guddf Foppy Bays proclama:ion was accepted by Katherine Davis and the
Community College Week proclamation was accepted by Logan Wheatley and bir.
Weinrich.
119: RESOLUTION OF CONGRaTULATiONS: A resolution, of congratulations was
unanimously adopted by the City Council to be sent to Dr. Max A. Schneider,
incoming President of the National Council on ~%lcoholism, Orange County
Chapter.
MINbTES: ~pproval of the minutes was deferred Co the next regular meeting.
WAIVER OF kEADING - ORDINANCES ~D KESOLUT!ONS: Councilman Bay moved ~o waive
nhe reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda, afner
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, speci-
fic request is made by a Council Member for che reading of such ordinances or
resolutions in regular order. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. ~OTION
CARRIED.
Fi:~\CIAL DE~bt. JDS AGAI~$W :HE CiTI in the amount of $9,~51,259.01, in accor-
dance wit:: the 1980-81 Budget, were approved.
CI:Y ~AGtX: RESOLUTION CO::Sk:~Y CALENbt~%: Councilman Roth offered Rasolution
::os. 81R-210 through 81~-212, bo:h inclusive, for adoption. Refer to Resolu-
tion Boo~.
81-687
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 12, 1981, 1:30 P.~[.
113/153: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-210: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
Ci'i'Y OF ~AtiE~ APPROVING AN ~DMENT TO THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE FOR
THE HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTmeNT.
loW: RESOLUTION NO. 8iR-211: A RESOLUTION OF THE CiTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RES-
PONSIBLE BIDDER FOR ThE FURNISHING OF ALL PL~{T, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS
aiqb ~QUIPb~NT ~D ALL UTILITIES Az~D TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING PO~R, FUEL ~ND
WATER, ~D PERFO~I~G ~LL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT ~ND COb~LETE THE FOLLOW-
lNG PUBLIC II.~ROVEM£~T: REPLACEMENT OF INCANDESCENT STREET LIGHTS WITH HIGH
PRESSU~m SODI0bi ~U~INAIRES, IN THE CITY OF ~AHE~i, ACCOUNT NO.
24-677-632~-115i0-37300. ~Hi-$odium Conversion Company, $41,~91)
169: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-212: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEA_LED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RES-
PO~SiBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF 'ALL PLAiqT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS
AND E~UIPMENT ~D ALL UTILITIES ~D TRAI~SPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND
WATER, ~{D PEr, FORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT ~ajqD CO£iPLETE THE
FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: NOHL RANCH ROAD STREET IMPROVEFLENT, IN THE CITY
OF ~NAtiEIM, ACqOUNT NO. i2-79%-6325-~2680. (Industrial Fence and Supply,
Inc., $13,587.57)
Roil Gall Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL P~MBERS:
COUNCIL ME~IBERS:
Overhoit, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
No ne
%{~e blayor declared ~esolution Nos. 81R-210 through ~1R-212, both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted.
i09/177: PARTICIPATION IN THE STATE DEFERRED PAYMENT HOUSINC REHABILITATION
LOA~ PROGRAM: Counciiwom~n Kaywood offered Resolution No. 81R-213 for adop-
nion authorizing Amendment i~o. 1 to Contract No. 80-HRL-08 with the State of
California, increasing the amount of the loan ~o $120,000, for ~he further
participation in n~e Sna~e Deferred Payment Housing Rehabilitation Loan Pro-
~ram, effective April 10, 1981, as recommended in memorandum from Executive
Director of Community Development Norm Priest. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-213: ~ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TH£ CITY OF
~'A~EIM, CALIF0~IA, AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A STAND'RD AGREemenT NO.
80-MLK-O~, A~NDbiEi~T NO. 1, ~qD OTtiE~ DOCUMENTS TO SECURE A DEFEi~KED PAYMENT
L0~ FROM THE STAYE OF CALIFORNIA.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSEST:
COUNCIL MEb£BERS:
COUNCIL P[Ei. IBERS:
COUNCIL b,EMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Koch and Seymour
None
None
The 2.1ayor declared Resolution No. 81R-213 duly passed and adopted.
81-688
City hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 12, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
153: CREATION OF NEW PART-T~ JOB CLASSIFICATION - PARK RANGER: Council-
woman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 81R-214 for adoption, amending Resolution
Ho. 81R-93, to establin a new part-time job classification of Park Ranger,
effective May 22, i981, as recommended in memorandum dated May 6, 1981 from
Human Resources Director Garry McRae. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-214: a RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
~NAHE~i EST~ad3LISHI~G A NEW PA~tT-T~ JOB CLASSIFICATION, AND ~MENDING
RESOLUTION NO. 81%-9~.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood commented that they might look
into putting t~e position under the Police Department instead of Parks.
City blanager William Talley stated the Police Department had a strong feeling
that it did not in their mind represent a police function.
i~yor Seymour stated this might be an appropriate time for him to ask the
Council's consideration relative to what he considered to be a deplorable con-
dition existing in Pearson Park. As the Council was well aware, they had com-
mitted millions of dollars of funds in improvements to Pearson Park. They
made a massive ~capital commitment to that park but in talking to people living
around i~, they would neither permit their children, nor did they feel safe
themselves in going into that park because sexual deviants are found there as
well as "riff raff" who became intoxicated creating an undesirable environ-
ment. There was a time when Police patrolled on foot in the park. He had
discussed the matter with the Police Chief and the Chief provided the Council
or at least the City Manager with a report relative to the criminal activity
taking place in that park. He had no idea what the cost might be and before
ma~ing any decision, t~e Council would want to know that cost. Tne Park
Ranger program, although very good, was not suitable to handle the problems at
Pearson Park and he was, therefore, asming that in budget deliberations a pro-
posal from the Police Department to provide some type of full-time patrol be
considered, or whatever el~e the Chief might recommend to insure that Pearson
Par~ was returned to the ~ime when it was the most beautiful and used park in
the City. He was suggesting that they receive from the Chief his recommenda-
tions as to how they could restore a safe environment in that park and to
include that in the budget proposal.
Mr. Tailey sta~ed ~he Chief would be directed to prepare his recommendation
and present it a~ the Police Department budget hearing to be held next week.
Councilwoman Kaywood commented that there were other parks with similar prob-
lems where the residents were equally fearful of using the park and this was
~he reason for the Park Ranger program. Whether the situation was so far gone
a~ Pearson Park that the Ran~er Program would not work, or whether they could
tire more or coordinate better wit~ the Police Department, she felt it needed
~o be loo~ed in~o.
l.£ayor Seymour stated ~e would certainly consider "beefing" up the Park Ranger
program in ot~er~parks bu~ he fei~ that where they needed full-time Police
patrol was at Pearson Par~.
81-689
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 12, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Bay stated if they concentrated the Police on Pearson Park, they
might solve the p~oblem at that park, but it then might move up to La Palma or
some other park. He suggested when the Chief looked at the situation, he also
look an the alternate solutions if they merely moved the problem rather than
resolving it.
~ vote was then taken on tae foregoing resolution.
Roll Call Vote:
AYmS:
NOES:
COUNCIL bLEMBERS:
COUNCIL bLEMBERS:
COUNulL
Ove~holt, Kaywood, Bay, Ruth and Seymour
No ne
line Mayor declared Resolution ~o. $1R-214 duly passed and adopted.
153: ABOLISHING CERTAI~ UNUSED STAFF AND SUPERVISORY JOB CLASSIFICATIONS:
Councilman Ruth offered Resolution No. 81R-215 for adoption, amending Resolu-
tion No. 8OR-550, to abolish certain unused Staff and Supervisory job classi-
fications, as ~ecommended in memorandum dated May 6, 1981 from t~e Human
Resources Dire6tor. Refer to Resolution Book.
Pdi~O~UTION i{O. 81R-215: A KESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CiTY OF
ANAHEIM ABOLISHING CERTAIN UNUSED STAFF ~N~D SUPERVISORY JOB CLASSIFICATIONS
A~D A~NDIi~G RESOLUTION NO. 80R-550.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSEmT:
COU~C IL PLEb[BERS:
COUNCIL I~tEMBERS:
CO O-NCiL biEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Ruth and Seymour
None
No ne
The l~iayor declared Resoluoion No. 81R-215 duly passed and adopted.
123: AGREE~iENT WITH ANAhEIbl PLAZA FOR A b~LL DISPLAY: Councilwoman Kay-wood
moved to autmorize an agreement with Anaheim Plaza for the presentation of a
mail display on ?lay 6 and 17, 1981 as presented by the Parks, Recreation and
Communiny Services Department; effective date of agreement, April 21, i981,
and authorizing the Deputy City Manager to execute same, as recommended in
memorandum dated blay 1, 1981 from Deputy City Manager James Ruth. Councilman
Bay seconded the motion, blOTION CARRIED.
150/174: OA.~GE COUNTY R~VEi'~UE SHARING FUNDS TO COP~TINUE SLi~IOR CIiIZENS DAY
CARE CENTER SERVICES: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 81R-216 for
adoption, authorizing the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department
to submit a funding proposal to the County for a grant in the amount of
$15,~0 for Revenue Sharing Funds to continue services of the Senior Citizens'
Day Care Center, and agreeing ~o contribute matching funOs and services there-
for, as recommended in memorandum dated Piay 5, 1981 from the Deputy City
>~anager. Refer to Resolution Book.
81-690
City Hall, Anaheim, balifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 12, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-216: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
~N~HEIM AJFPROVi~G A.-N aPPLICATION TO TH~ COUNTY OF ORANGE FOR REVE~UE SHYING
FUNDS TO CONTINUE SERVICES OF THE SENIOR CITIZENS' DAY CARE CENTER AND AGREE-
I~G TO CONTRIBOT~ [v~T~HING FUNDS AND SERVICES THEREFOR.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay noted that matching funds were re-
quired for the grants in this case amounting to $17,380 plus the grant which
included $7,820 from the Council Contingency Fund and approximately $9,560
worth of staff's services, for a total cost of a little over $33,000 for the
year. In reading the staff report, at the present, the program involved 21
senior citizens at ~1,600 per participant each year or ~130 a month. He was
personally pleased with the program, but to make it more economically feasible
on a lower individual cost breakdown, he encouraged increasing the number of
participants if possible. If they could increase the number to 35 or so, the
individual cost would decrease without adding any cost to the program.
A vo~e was then taken on the foregoing resolution.
Roll Cail Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
CO0~qCiL ~.~EMBERS:
COUNCIL MEbiBERS:
COUNCIL MEMD~RS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Ruth and Seymour
No n e
bio ne
The biayor ~eclared Resolution ~o. 81R-216 duly passed and adopted.
106: FISCAL YEaR - 1980/81 APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT: Councilman Ruth offered
Resolution No. U1R-217 for adoption, amending Resolution No. 80R-286 estab-
lishing an appropriations limit of $74,167,072 for the Fiscal Year 1980/81
pursuant to Article XIII ~ of the State Constitution, as recommended in memor-
andum dated ~y o, 1981 from Run Rothschild, Program Development and Audit
Hanager. Refer to ~esolution Book.
RESOLJTiON NO. 8iR-217: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
~N~HEIM ~NDING RESOLUTION NO. 80R-286 NUNC PRO TUNC ESTABLISHING ~N APPRO-
PRIATIONS LIMIT PURSUanT TO ARTICLE Xilt B OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION.
Roll Call Vote:
aYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNC IL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL b~EMBERS:
CO Ui~ CIL biEMBERS:
Overnolt, Kaywood, Bay, Ruth and Seymour
No ne
No ne
The Hayor declared Aesolution No. U1R-217 duly passed and adopted.
169/104: AWARD OF CON%RACT - STREET LIGHTING ASS£SSP~NT DISTRICT NO. 1980-7
(i~CT NO. 2875): Account No. 24-675-6329-11410-37300. Councilman Bay first
moved to declare that the irregularity in the bid by Pete's Electric for
Stree~ Lighting assessment District ~o. 1980-7 (Tract ~o. 2875) be waived as a
~ecnnical error as recommended in memorandum dated Hay 6,.1981 from City
Engineer William bevit~. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
81-691
City Hall, Anaheim, ~alifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 12, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 81R-218 for adoption, awarding a con-
tract to the lowest and most responsive bidder, Pete's Electric, as recom-
mended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated May 6, 1981. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-218: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
~NAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST RES-
PONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PL~T, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS
AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND
'WATER, ~ND PERFO~ilNG ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COb~LETE THE FOL-
LOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: STREET LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. i980-7,
TRACT NO. 2875, IN THE CITY OF ~NAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 24-676-6329-11410-37300.
(Pete's Electric, $36,483.20)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
~OES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEiiBERS:
COUNCIL PLE~IBERS:
CO UNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Rot~ and Seymour
None
~one
The l~layor declared Resolution No. 81R-218 duly passed and adopted.
158: ABANDO~NT OF AN UNUSED VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS EASY'LENT -
LINCOL~ aVENUE NORTHERLY TO THE JULIETTE LOW SCHOOL PROPERTY: Councilwoman
Kaywood offered Resolution No. 81R-219 for adoption, authorizing the abandon-
ment of a ve~icular and pedestrian access easement from Lincoln Avenue nor-
therly to the Ouliette Low School property and authorizing the biayor and City
Clerk to execute a quitclaim deed therefor, as recommended in memorandum dated
May 5, 1981 from the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-21~: A RESOLUTION OF THE CI~fY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE ABANDONMENT OF A~ UNUSED VEHICULAR A2{D PEDESTRIAN
ACCESS EASEMENT A~N'D AUTHOR~iZiNG THE biAYOR A~ND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE A QUIT-
CLAIM DEED THEREFOR.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour asked if the matter had been reviewed
by the Rams Football Organization.
Later in the meeting, bir. Boscia confirmed than he had sen~ a copy of the pro-
posal to the Rams office and received a phone call indicating there was no
problem. Frank Lowry, Senior Assistant City A~torney, had also been in con-
tact with them and they had no problem.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
~OES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL biEMBERS:
COUNCIL ~hE~iBERS:
COONCIL biEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Ruth and Seymour
None
~one
Mayor deciared Resolution No. 81R-219 duly passed and adopted.
81-692
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 12, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
158: ACCESS TO FAIRMONT BOULEVARD FOR THE CHRISTENSEN PARCEL, 200 SOUTH
FAIPR,IONT BOULEV~ID: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 81R-220 for
adoption, authorizing the execution of an easement deed granting vehicular
access rights across City-owned property to Elbert F. and Marie ~aristensen,
and authorizing the execution of an easement deed therefor, as recommended in
memorandum dated April 29, 1981 from the Engineering Division, Public Works
Department. Refer to Refolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-220: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING ~D DIRECTING %HE b~YOR ~ND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AN EASE-
MENT DEED iN FAVOR OF ELBERT F. CHRISTENSEN ~qD MARIE CHRISTENSEN. (200 South
Fairmont Boulevard)
Roil Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSEi~T:
COUNCIL bLEMBERS:
COUNCIL ~,LEMBERS:
COU£NCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-220 duly passed and adopted.
153: DISABILITY RETIREbLENT APPLICATION OF ROLLIN L. BORNE: City ~mnager
William Tatley briefed the Council on report dated April 21, 1981, Pu01ic
Safety Employee Disability Retirement Committee recommending that the Council
grant an industrial disability retirement to the applicant, Rollin L. Borne,
to be effective ~y 6, 1981. In accordance with Council Policy he had
reviewed all the recommendations and did endorse the recommendation of the
Committee.
Councilman Roth thereupon offered Resolution No. 81R-221 for adoption, grant-
ing an industrial disability retirement to Rollin L. Borne, as recommended by
the Safe~y Employees Disability Retirement Committee and with the concurrence
of the City P~nager's office. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 8i~-221: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
~NA//EIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT ROLLIN L. BORNE IS DISABLED WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE PUBLIC EI.~LOYEES' RETIREMENT LAW FOR THE PERFORbLA~CE OF HIS
DUTIES IN THE POSITION OF FIRE,LAN.
Koli Call Vote:
AY ES:
NOES:
ABSEN%:
CO U i~C iL ~.iEbiBEi<S:
COUNCIL bLEMBERS:
COUiqCIL ~'LEi~I~ERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Rotn and Seymour
No ne
None
'Fne ?iayor declared Resolution l'~o. 814-221 duly passed and adopted.
158: OPTION AGREEI. LENT BETWEE~ THE CITY OF A2~AHEIM AND AP{AHEIM Y~MORIAL
HOSPITAL [A~AHE~i ~iE~IORIAL ~NOK): Executive Director of Community Develop-
ment ~orm Pries[ referred to his memorandum dated May 12, 1981 relative to the
subject agreement which was pursuant to his May 5, 1981 memorandum and presen-
tation the same date (see minutes May 5, 1981). He also confirmed for Coun-
cilwoman kaywood that if Anaheim Memorial Manor purchased the property it
would be used for housing for seniors as outlined in the agreement.
81-693
City Hail, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 12, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to (1) waive bidding requirements of
Caarter Section 1222 for parcels 27 and 32 of Assessors Map Book, Book 34,
Page 46 and a portion of parcel 11, northeast of the Orange County Flood
Control easement, Book 34, Page 5, and; k2) approve the Option Agreement with
Anaheim Memorial b~nor, authorizing the Mayor to execute said agreement.
Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Seymour asked if he was reading the Option
Agreement correctly thag a minimum lO0-unit senior citizen low income housing
project would be developed on the site; b~. Priest answered that was correct.
The Mayor asked in that case what the density would be.
?Z. Priest answered that he did not know whether the specific plan covered all
four acres at this point in time.
From the audience, the architect for Anaheim Memorial Manor answered "yes" and
it was going to De approximately 25 units to the acre.
The Mayor asked how they could commit to tha~ type of density without a public
hearing.
Mr. Priest stated there was no guarantee that the zoning and density could be
approved but it was a contingency. If it could nog be obtained, ~he hospital
in protecting itself would not want to go forward. They were not seeking to
have the Council inappropriately agree to zoning, density or anything else
today. Councilman Bay stated he would like the City Attorney's opinion on the
legai implications of an option such as that written into the contract--Option
~{o. 2, Page 2 of the b~y 12, 1981 memorandum from Mr. Priest--"that a minimum
of lO0 units of senior citizen, low income housing project would be developed
on the site." As he stated last week, which tee newspapers ignored, he voted
~o sell the property and that was all he voted on. He made it very clear that
di~ no~ mean prior approval of the plan for 100 or 150 housing units on the
property. He wanted to make it clear today, that if he was voting to sell the
prope£ty without the bidding that was one aspect. He then referred to Section
4, Page 2 stating the following, "]iA~qOR intends to construct a minimum 100
unit senior citizen housing development on aforesaid property, and the exer-
cise of this option is expressly conditioned upon PtAI~OR being able to obtain
from CITY a general plan amendment and zoning approval for its project on the
aoove described PROPERTY." He wanted to make sure when he voted on the motion
that there was absolutely no implication that when the public hearings
occurred relative to zoning there was any implication in the agreement pre-
suming he was going to vo~e for that type of density on the property.
City Attorney William Hopmins stated this was merely the intention the devel-
opers had and his voting on the matter would not bind the City because it was
conditioned upon the City granting a Ceneral Plan Amendment approval. If not
approved, then his vote on the option would not bind him in any way.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
112: REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: The City Attorney requested a Closed Ses-
sion to discuss litigation and potential litigation with action anticipated.
81-694
City hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL blINUTES - May 12, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilman Bay sec-
onded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (2:25 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, ali Council Members
being present. ~3:30
112: JOHNSON VS. CITY OF ANAHEIbi AND INTERINSURANCE EXHCANGE-AUTOMOBILE CLUB:
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City
Attorney and Kinkle, Kodiger & Spriggs were authorized to settle Orange County
Superior Court Case 30-93-78,, Johnson vs. City of Anaheim, and North Orange
~oun[y Municipal Court Case A-21431, Interinsurance Exchange-Automobile Club,
for a sum not to exceed $3,253.66. MOTION CARRIED.
li3: REQUEST TO ADDRESS T~E COUNCIL - LOUIS DEXTER ON STATUS OF ANAHEIi~[
STADIUM, INC.: bir. Louis Dexter, 305 North P. anchito, summarized the reason he
was present, the background of which was contained in his affidavit dated May
5, 19St attached to his two letters also dated May 5, 1981, one asking that he
be placed on tne Council agenda of PLy 12, 1981 and the other a covering let-
ter for the affidavit (on file in the City Clerk's office). He then briefed
the information contained in the affidavit, the essence of his request being
to obtain the Council's approval for the City Attorney to obtain an "opinion"
from the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) as to whether members of
the City of Anaheim <California) Stadium, Inc. (ASI) were public officials
wisnin the meaning of the Political Reform Act. He would prefer that the City
of ~naheim seek such an opinion rather than forcing him to formally complain
to the FPPC.
Looking at a previous ruling the FPPC made in Pico Rivera where the City
Attorney there asked for an opinion and the way ASI was and had been run from
its inception, he felt it would qualify as a public and not a nonprofit entity
and, if so, the members of that organization saould file disclosure under that
Act. ~ne precedent had already been set in asking the City Attorney to
request an opinion from FP~C with Mr. Frank Lowry in 1977 relative to ticket
reporting. ~ir. Lowry sen~ a request to the FPPC after he (Dexter) filed a
complaint with the then Councilman Ko tt to amend his statement to include some
baseball tickets. T~at was in addition to the previously-mentioned case in
Pico Rivera. In looking at the ruling~ ail four of the characteristics cited
as reasons for calting an organization public and not nonprofit applied to
ASi, in his opinion and in the opinion of several other people that he talked
to. ke did have conversations with Mr. Art Gray, Secretary of ASI before he
sent his letter to FPPC, who stated he hoped before he (Dexter) did anything,
since the people involved in the organization were very dedicated, that he ask
any decision made be prospective rather than retrospective.
?Ir. Dexter then reiterate~ that he preferred not to place himself in a posi-
tion of filing a complaint and he would wait until 5:00 P.M. today as indica-
ted in his affidavit which was sent to i~r. Tea Prim, Executive Director of the
FPPC, to see if the Council was going to authorize City Aatorney Hopkins to
ask for an opinion. If not, tomorrow morning as soon as possible he would
then forward his official complaint. He had not had any conversation with a
member of ~he City Council, but in talking to Councilman Overholt the other
day, ae na~ voiced the apprehension that maybe the ASI people would think Mr.
Dexter was bein& led on by someone on the Council or in the City >lanager's
office, bit. Dexter assured that was not the case. There was a cloud of doubt
in his mind relative to ASI as well as some other people.
81-695
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 12, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
i.~yor Seymour asked who those other people were; Mr. Dexter answered that he
would rather not say at this time because some of them were a source of infor-
mation to him. Re (Seymour) should probably be talking to the Secretary of
ASI to get als ideas. They had been aware of the matter for over a month now
and he was not going to wait any longer.
Mayor Seymour speaking to Mr. Dexter stated as he had on previous occasions
that he was a "watchaog" of the City Council. They understood and respected
the interest he had shown in the subject. As one member of the Council, how-
ever, ne would like to know if he were to honor the request, that it was more
Broad-based than one individual. Mr. Dexter indicated there were a number of
others.
Mafor Seymour noted that it was now near 4:00 P.M. and what he was saying,
either the Council honor his request by 5:00 P.M. or he was going to make it
an official complaint. The affidavit and covering letters were submitted on
May 5. Although he wanted an immediate answer, on the other hand, he sug-
gested that they talk to the Secretary of ASI, an attorney representing that
organization, ~o get their opinion.
Discussion theJ followed between the Mayor, ~. Dexter and staff relative to
the initial letter submitted to the FPPC by Ytr. Dexter dated April i4, 1981
which was received in the City Clerk's office April 13, 1981 (on file in the
City Clerk's office). The affidavit was not received until May 5, 1981.
Mayor Seymour stated ne would be more than happy, if they were given an oppor-
tunity, to sit down with the City Attorney and the Attorney for ASI to see if
taey wanted to reverse a previously rendered opinion by the FPPC. They did
have an opinion on the matter given in approximately 1976 where Mr. Gray the
then and current Secretary of the corporation, reported that because they were
structured in a rather different manner than a typical public body, they did
not come under the FPPC. At the time they drafted the ordinances requiring
elected officials as well ~s the appointed bodies such as the Planning Commis-
sion to file under FPPC regulations, the City Attorney agreed they did not
need to include ASI in that ordinance. With teat said and done, he was still
willing to go to ~St and sit down with their attorney and the City Attorney
and perhaps the Board of Directors of ASI to discuss the matter. However, if
he (Dexter) was going to demand an action today, he for one was not going to
suDject himself to some type of "hip snot" decision which was going to affect
a Board of individuals who, in Mr. Dexter's own wo£ds, served the City
extremely well and had devoted years of their time. He would not be threat-
ened by one citizen coming forth stating that the Council do this by 5:00 P.M.
or else.
?~. Dexter reiterated the fact tha~ his initial letter to the FPPC was dated
April 13, 1981 and thus he did not feel he was putting a "shotgun" ~o their
needs.
T~e Mayor stated the only time he knew Mr. Dexter wanted to appear before the
Council was last Wednesday and if not allowed to appear at the next Council
meeting, he was going to file a complaint. He agreed that he should appear.
81-696
City Hall, Anaheim, California- COONCiL MINUTES- Hay 12, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
He would ~ope that Mr. Dexter, in turn, would respect his desire to meet with
the attorneys as he had articulated, before he would tell 15 highly principled
men who, on a volunteer basis, had dedicated 15 or 16 years of their lives to
public service that he did not care about them.
Mr. Dexter stated he would like to think that he as an individual had as much
right as a group to appear before the Council and call their attention to
something that he felt needed correcting.
P~yor Seymour stated he honored that and began his remarks today by commending
him; however, he should not confuse that with his giving him the keys to the
City so that he could do anything he wished.
Mr. Dexter stated he would not be giving anything away. The question was
whether ~SI was a public entitity in the eyes of the law or not; ~yor Seymour
stated the other question being, in determining the answer to that question,
would they go about the matter in an orderly fashion or "shoot from the hip".
He for one would be happy to go about it an orderly fashion.
Mr. Dexter stated if they could tell him how long that would be, he might be
willing to wai~; the Mayor suggested that it be done by next Tuesday. If not,
he could still file his complaint.
Mr. Dexter as~e~ for an official confirmation of that from other members of
the Council.
P[OTION: Councilman Seymour moved that they prepare a response to Mr. Dexter's
request by next Tuesday, b~y 19, 1981. Councilman Koth seconded the motion.
Before a vone was taken, Councilman Overnolt and Councilwoman Kaywood stated
they supported the motion. Councilman Bay commented that he had no problem
since he never had that much concern over FPPC rulings or rules and who should
or should not fill out forms. He did not see any problem either way but he
did see some costs involved with a retrospective ruling vs. a prospective
ruling. He preferred the prospective ruling. He was going to support the
motion because he could also see the ~1ayor's point and ne stated they should
communicate with the ASI Board who had spent many hours, months and years
working for the Stadium.
A vote was then ~aken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARKiED.
In closing, the Y~yor stated they would take the matter up as the first item
on t~e agenda on next Tuesday.
PUBLIC HEARIiqG - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-2i AND VA~IlA~NCE NO. 2310: Appli-
cation by Harry S. Rinker, to consider amending conditions of approval, rela-
ting to Reclassification No. 71-72-21 and Variance No. 2310, CL zoned prop-
erty, located at the northeast corner of Santa Aha Canyon Road and Imperial
Highway, was submitted.
81-697
~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL ~INUTES - biay 12, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Before proceeding, Mayor Seymour stated he was going to abstain from discus-
sion and voting on the subject matter Oecause he was a tenant within the
Canyon Plaza Shopping Center. he thereupon turned the ~airmanship of the
meening over to ~layor Pro Tem Roth.
Mayor Seymour left the Council Chambers. (3:55 P.M.)
b~yor Pro Tem Roth first asked no hear from staff on the matter.
Traffic Engineer Paul Singer briefed staff report dated April 7, 1981 from the
City Engineer, again recommending that renewed requests from Canyon Plaza
Shopping Center for access from Imperial Highway be denied; however, should
the Council approve the access, that Conditions a, b and c listed on Page 1 of
the report be imposed. A fourth condition not listed but which should also be
imposed was that should the use of the temporary access, if permitted, be ter-
minated, than the applicant replace it at his own cost. In concluding, Mr.
Sin~er explained that they had a recent report from the Police Department, the
standard monthly traffic collision report dated March 1981, indicating that
the location of the most frequent traffic collisions in the City was that por-
tion of roadway on Imperial Highway between Santa Aha Canyon Road and the
Riverside freeway which should be considered in their deliberations on the
maCter ·
~ouncilman Overnolt noted the conditions of approval, if they chose not to
deny the request, provided that the Canyon Plaza Shopping Center enter into a
lease agreement with the City for the dedicated access rights for a period of
six month~ or one year. He asked Mr. Singer, of the two alternate terms, did
he nave a preference and, if so, why.
Mr. Singer stated his preference would be the six-month period because it
would be a greater incentive for the applicant to pursue the final resolution
of the access through a normaity signalized intersection. Temporary access
for six months would be fe~asible dependent upon when the time would start run-
ning. If the time would Start after the completion of the access, then he be-
lieved it would be feasible because renewal could be taken up every six months
as necessary until the permanent solution was brought forth.
~ayor Pro Tem Rotn asked to hear from the applicant.
blt. liarry Rinker, major partner, Canyon Plaza Shopping Center, Imperial High-
way and Santa Aha Canyon Road, sta~ed the hearing had been requested by him as
owner of the Center, based upon the urging of the merchanns association and
all the merchants in Canyon Plaza Center totaling approximately 70 stores. He
was requesting a temporary ingress only from Imperial Highway and not an
egress. Ar. Rinker then reviewed the historical background of the configura-
tion of the Uenter, including the difficulties encountered by the tenants par-
ticularly on the westerly portion of the property (see minutes August 5,
19~O--Page 60-971 and also letters dated January 30, 1981 from l~r. Rinker to
the City Traffic Engineer and letter ~ated April 2, 1981 to ~he City Clerk's
office--made a part of the record). Since his last presentation, Griswold's
~estaurant nad ceased operations in that loca[ion.
81-698
City hail, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 12, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Bay asked Mr. Rinker's current action on attempting to get the sig-
nalize~ intersection at the Freeway off ramp as well as current action with
Caltrans and any difficulties he may be encountering.
b~. Rinker answered that they were very enthused about pursuing a full and
adequate signalized intersection as depicted on a chart displayed on the
Caamber wall (an intersection at the freeway off ramp). Their traffic
engineer supported that as the ultimate and logical solution to the problem.
They were 100% behind that in every way and assured the property owner to
their north (Shantz) of that as well as staff. The temporary access, which
would oe at t~eir expense entirely including reinstatement to its original
condition once the permanent access was provided, was simply to accommodate
the merchants who could not wait months or even weeks to facilitate traffic
flow, particularly into the western portion of the center so that they could
start doing some business. The only reason any of them were staying in busi-
ness today was the fact that they hoped to be able to get that access. If the
request was approved today, they intended to initiate a crash program of
engineering in order to begin and complete construction of the access.
~iayor Pro Tem Roth then asked to near from the merchants in the Center who
wis~ed to speak to the issue.
b~. Gene Adams, Store Director, Albertson's Market, 5757 Santa Aha Canyon
Road, Canyon Plaza Stopping Center, stated that lack of adequate access to the
shopping center had caused somewhat of a problem. Their customer count from
last year was basically even whereas customer count was up 12% at their other
4~7 markets, excluding new stores, based on other things the company had done
to increase their customers. Their sales volume was at a break-even point and
it was next to impossible to operate at a profit when the cost of doing busi-
ness was catching up with weekly sales. They felt another entrance to the
center would bring an additional 10% increase in business which they needly
badly. He also commented in closing that he had never seen an accident on the
stretch of road referred ~o earlier.
William D. Lusk, Vice-Chairman of the Board, Jonn D. Lusk & Sons, Irvine,
stated that the subject center was in obvious trouble. They had to have easy
access, the key word 0eing easy. The City could help by approving a safe
right-turn-access-only as requested. He could not think of anything that was
much safer. He as~e~ that the Council favorably consider Mr. Rinker's request.
P~. ~lton ~anford, President of Griswold's, stated they had some very severe
management problems at their restaurant in that location and, therefore, they
closed. However, where the lack of access really came home was in trying to
find a satisfactory replacement for the building previously occupied by
Griswol~'s. Usually if the only problem had been management, there were
enough sophisticated people in the business WhO would want no "snap up" the
location. He had several people out to loom at the site an~ the unanimous
opinion was that the general area was outstanding, the building itself was
outstanding, but the access was "horrible". Those sophisticated entrepreneurs
were not apt to locate where they were faced with negatives. With even a tem-
porary access, he knew several who would be anxious to take over the site.
81-699
City hall, Anaheim, California - COONCIL MlsbTES - l.lay 12, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
P~rs. Jean Lempkin, Grandma's Cupboard, stated she was again present to plead
to the Gouncil that they give every consideration possible to allowing another
entrance into the center (see minutes August 5, 1980--Page 80-972 where pre-
vious testimony was given by Mrs. Lempkin). She as well as others had spent
their life savings in order to be able to go into their own business and they
were trying very hard to make their businesses viable. ~e was also speaking
for Leiiani Robinet from Robin's Nest who could not be present today.
b~yor Pro Tem Moth then asked for a show of ~ands of tmose in the Chamber
audience who were present in support of the granting of an access from
Imperial ttighway into the Canyon Plaza Center; there were approximately 40
people present in support. The i~yor Pro Tem then asked to hear from those in
opposition.
Mr. Floyd Farano, attorney, 2555 East Chapman Avenue, Fullerton, representing
the interests of Mel Schantz and others who owned property immediately to the
north stated t~at he concurred that t~ere was a problem and something should
be done; however, t~ey were trying to look to the long range because it was
not only the shopping center that was involved. To the east of Via Cortez,
Mrs. b£aag owned approximately 20 acres and immediately to the north, Mr.
Schantz and others owned approximately 11 acres. Via Cortez and the one in-
gress and egress off of Santa Aaa Canyon Koad was the only ingress and egress
to the center, he also relayed the historical background of the center with
the aid of the posted charts of t~e property. Everyone knew going in that
there would be no ingress and e~ress on imperial and the center was improved
wit~ that in mind. During Council's last hearing on the subject (August 5,
1980) staff was directed to explore the possibility of a controlled intersec-
tion where t~e Rinker and Schantz property a~utted which woul~ mean modifying
tee on ramp of the freeway and cross traffic on the west side of Imperial
Higmway. They felt that was the only plan tmat would be the salvation of the
development of the Schantz and Maag property. He thee briefed his letter
eared bmy ii, 19~i. ~ey did not think the overall solution for tne entire
area should be sacrificed~for an immediate and easy patchwork solution.
After briefing his letter of May 11, 19~1 (made a part of the record), he read
Item !, 2(a) through (d), Pages 2 and 3 of the letter, number one asking that
the Council ~eny the plan of Canyon Plaza and number two, if the Council
approved, that Items (a) through (d) be conditions of approval. Whatever was
done nad to be for the benefit of both parties (Schantz and Rinker) or it
would benefit neither.
bir. Farano, upon questioning by Councilwoman Kaywood, and working from the
posted chart, showed how the requested easement agreement (see (d) in May 11,
1981 letter) would permit a full circle of ingress and egress through the
$c~antz property.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that he was basically trying to make it easier for
his client to exit from his property; Mr. Farano agreed.
81-700
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - b~y 12, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood then broached the historical background of the Schantz
property as well as the fact that no access was to be given off of Imperial;
Mr. Farano also confirmed that his client did not have an approved plan for
anything on his property. Further, he was not opposing the Rinker plan--they
were not really in support or opposition but they were concerned if the tem-
porary solution Oecame permanent, there would be more problems than already
existing.
Councilman Overhol5 asked bir. Farano if he could represent that this client
was as eager as Mr. Rinker to have a four-way intersection constructed and
that he would work with the Rinker interests to that immediate result; Mr.
Farano answered "yes"
Councilman Bay asked for clarification that Mr. Farano's concern was over the
fact that if a temporary ingress was approved that in some way would delay the
final solution, the major intersection.
Mr. Farano felt that there was a good possibility that the final ingress and
egress would be forthcoming but if Caltrans could find any reason to side step
an issue, they would do so. If the situation was not completely solved, he
did not think they were going to get the attention from Caltrans that they
needed. Upon questioning by Councilman Bay as to what could be done to bring
Caltrans to [hat final solution, bir. Farano expressed the feeling that nothing
was going to be done until Orange County had its own Caltrans district in 1982
and that heavy pressure by the City would be needed at that point in time.
hayor Pro Tem Roth stated that appeared to be contrary to Mr. Singer's state-
ment to nlm rwo or three days ago that Caltrans was ready to act immediately
if they could all get together and work toward a common goal.
b~. Singer explained tnac he had contacted Caltrans regarding the matter and
indicated anytime they were ready to proceed, that a letter be submitted. His
office would concur with ~e letter since they had no problem in permitting
ingress and they would state that in writing provided there be a stipulation
that it would not cost the City anything. Yhey would also wish to retain the
right [o approve one plans. He specifically asked the question as to how long
tnt permit process would take and ne was told within six months after submis-
sion of final plans; however, since Caitrans had not budgeted for the project
and should they ~ave to go into any budgetary procedure, it would protract the
period several years.
Councilman 0verholt snared ne felt that was what Mr. Farano was referring to.
he was looking for funds and if ene funds were not available, then it might be
a long time before the problem was solved unless the property owners were
willing to provide those funds. He asked Mr. Singer if that was not the prob-
lem; ~r. ~inger answered, nhat was exactly the problem.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that was something ~ney should get out in the open
now since the City did not have the project budgeted and if Caltrans did not
have the budget either, they should hear from the owners as to whether or not
they were willing ~o finance it.
81-701
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Nay 12, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Farano conceded that the financing of the project was a problem and they
were goins to have to do something about it. They were well aware of it but
they were not to the point where they had anything concrete that they could
bring before the Council at this time. Lie had figures ranging from $750,000
co $250,000.
hr. ~inger stated that he nad oust spoken with bm. Rinker's consultant and
they both agreed that it Would probably be in the range of $250,000 to
$300,000. The cost estimate on the temporary access being requested on
Imperial would be approximately $20,000 to $30,000 to install, and $10,000 to
$15,000 to remove.
Since no one else was present to speak in opposition to the request, the Mayor
Pro Tam gave Mr. Rinker an opportunity to rebut.
b~. Kinker stated that he had attempted to make it clear everytime that they
were i00% in favor of ttm signalized intersection. If the present request was
granted temporarily, they would have his cooperation in attempting in every
way to obtain a permanent solution. The need for the access as a temporary
measure was simply to take care of the merchants in the shopping center.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if he were willing to stipulate to putting in the
permanent solution; Plr. Rinker stated they intended to make an application
just as soon as forms could be drepared. In concluding, he referred to the
City Engineer's report of April 7, 1981 under recommendations calling for a
period of six months or one year. He nad no objection to a time period but
that it not come oefore the Council since there was no way that the solution
could be achieved and approved within six months or even a year. As long as
they were making progress and there was cooperation, he would ask that the
agreement be worded so that it would continue until such time as the condi-
tions beyond their control could be met.
Mr. &lan Watts, Attorney ~ppearing on Oenalf of Mr. Rin~er, stated that he
suggested to him (Rinmer)~that if there was concern either by the Council or
by any of the property owners who may be affected, that in lieu of having a
termination date on any agreement either six months or a year, that it be
structured for a longer period of time but with the agreement having built-in
periodic review dates which could be six months or such other time as the
Council might see fit. These would be expressed review dates and presumably
b~. Kinker would be able to make a showing to the staff of the progress they
were accomplishing with Caltrans. ?nat seemed a more equitable and time
efficient way of dealing with the problem but at the same time demonstrating
to everyone concerned that there be some showing of progress towards a
permanent solution.
Councilman Overholt stated he would like to see letters and an effort being
made. He felt it should be six months subject to an extension on a proper
showing and that was the way tis vote was going to be.
i.ir. Rinker stated the other question he had was Item c of the City Engineer's
report--"Tnat the applicant improve the exit radius from the existing
mid-block driveway on Santa Ana Canyon Road which is subject to damage by
81-702
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL M1NUT~S - May 12, 1981, 1:30 P.bi.
trucks." That dealt with the driveway access point of Santa Ana Canyon Road
into the Center. If that was an obligation on their part, they would fix it
regardless of whetter the request was approved or not. It was unrelated to
the present issue entirely and should not be tagged on as a condition. Coun-
cilman Overholt asked to near from Mr. Singer on the matter; ~. Singer ex-
plained that at the time Santa Aha Canyon Road reached 25,000 edt, Mr. Rinker
was obligated to construct median islands in that ingress and egress point.
At the time of the design of the egress point, they had recommended certain
radii; however, Mr. Rinker with his attorney appeared before the City Engineer
and insisted that the radii he suggested would work. In fact, it had not
worked to the point where there was a storm drain inlet at that radius and it
broke down due to ~ruck traffic, it was inadequate for truck turn movements
and since ~ir. Rinker was making a request, and while he was doing construction
on the site, it would be a ~ood time to also repair that radius and enlarge it
to what it should have been originally.
~. Ki~ker responded tna~ his findings and his file on the matter were 180
degrees contrary to Mr. Singer's. he would recommend they appoint any person
they felt would be a fair judge as to the responsibility of curb radius and if
it was found to be their fault, they would put it in just as fast as their
ensineers could get to ~he site. As a suggestion he would be happy to have
the City's former birector of Public Worms be the person appointed to make the
determination and he would abide by tis decision. ~e would also be glad to
pay any costs involved. He would hope that the Council would not impose Con-
dition c upon him in view of the offering just made and that they would consi-
der it unfair to include it as a condition just because they nad to have
ingress.
Councilman Overholt asked if the City Attorney could make the decision based
upon the files; Mr. Rinker answered that he would accept that. Councilman
Over~olt thereupon suggested that the City Attorney research the matter to
determine whether Mr. Rinker nad an obligation to change the radius.
Councilman Bay referred t6 item (d) of the May 1i, 1981 letter from Mr. Farano
relative to Canyon Plaza being required to enter into an easement agreement
wita his client. ~is asked Mr. Rinker's feeling on that.
~. Farano pointed to the location of the easement which included 30 feet of
the Kinmer property and 30 on the Schantz property from Via Cortez on the east
~o the western end of the property an~ that that easement be extended to per-
mit ingress or egress however it was arranged. He believed that his clienn
had already discussed that with bir. Rinker and he (Rinker) indicated that ne
would be agreeable to their using w~anever access was provided on Imperial
highway,
l~myor Pro Tem Roth stated that the Schantz (Katella) property had no plans or
improvements on it at present and it was something in the future.
>~. farano stated there was a reclassification being held in abeyance and not
aczed upon because taey could not satisfy t~emseives nor the City on an appro-
priate circulation plan.
81-703
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 12, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Watts stated in addition to that, the reason there was no easement across
that property was because the existing CUP, as a result of the last time the
matter appeared at the Planning Commission at least two years ago, required
that in order for an easement to go from b~r. Rinker to the Katella Realty
property, than a circulation plan and study nad to be done, the problem being
they nad not yet been done. As soon as these were accomplished, they would be
more than prepared to discuss the easement problem.
There belts no furtner persons who wished to speak, the Mayor Pro Tem closed
the public hearing.
~ayor Pro Tem Roth then announced that after the hearing started, he had been
advised by the City Attorney that it would be necessary to continue the matter
for approximately six weeks because an EIR must be advertised by the City
Clerk to be prepared by the developer or a negative declaration made by Plan-
ning. He questioned the City Attorney why the condition now appeared because
at the last hearing, it was not required.
The City Attorney stated this was a request to amend the conditions of
approval relating to the reclassification and if the amendment were made, in
b_is opinion, it would be one that would affect the area and would require an
EIK or negative declaration because of the change in conditions.
The Mayor Pro Tem emphasized that in fairness to the number of people present
today plus the applicant and the amount of time spent that when a request for
a puoiic hearing was submitted, the EIR situation should have been determined
prior to today's Council meeting.
Councilman Overholt stated he was not prepared to act against the advice of
the City Attorney but would ask if there was some way in which they could
express their views today.
'~e City Attorney stated t~nere was no reason why their opinions could not be
expressed as well as having taken input from the people present but the tech-
nical requirement of either a negative declaration or an EIR was something
that nad to be considered.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if immediate steps were taken to get the four-way
signalized intersection, did staff know how quickly it could be accomplished.
~. Singer answered [ha~ once plans were completed and an EIR prepared, then
the permit procedure for an encroachment permit would take between three to
six months followed by advertising and then going to construction. He would
say on the optimistic side should everyone proceed immediately with the plans,
specifications, approvals, discussions with Caltrans, etc. it would probably
taka approximately 18 months.
Councilman Overholt stated t~e tenants of the Center were crying for relief
and the City and people in the area were crying for a permanent solution to
the problem. The Council had a responsibility to cooperate relative to both
and also to encourage immediate efforts toward a permanent solution even
81-704
Lity hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 12, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
requiring financial participation by t~e property owners to accommodate that
solution. When they took final action, he was going to support an action or
provide for a six months lease providing for right turn ingress only from
Imperial Highway into Canyon Plaza Shopping Center~ that upon determination of
the lease, the ingress to be restored to its original state by the applicant;
that the lease period of six months start upon completion of the access and
that the lease be subject to an extension upon a snowing that a permanent
solution of the intersection plan was being diligently pursued. He would also
request in deference to Mr. RAnker and ~.~. Singer's disagreement that the City
Attorney assist both in coming to a solution as to whether or not Mr. RAnker
was required to do some remedial work on the median island.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she would echo everything Councilman Overholt had
said. She had one further concern that with all the traffic converging on a
right turn for a freeway onramp and that being listed as the nighest area of
access in the City, that the temporary access be monitored for accidents and
that they all work as di±igently and as fast as possible to get the permanent
intersection constructed. She emphathized and sympathized with all the
tenants of the center and wanted to see something done at this point.
Councilman Bay'stated that the last time the request was before the Council,
he was in support and ne was in support now; however, anytime there was in-
gress only he felt it necessary to have it restricted and suggested that be
done by means of a "tire ripper." he asked if that had been considered.
~lr. Singer stated that was not a condition but the design could accommodate
~nat, or it could be made a condition.
Councilman Bay stated that when they voted on the matter, he would recommend
~at tney have a definite way to s~op any egress from that point. If a tire
ripper was the answer, ne was going to ask that be stipulated in the design.
b~yor Pro Tem Koth stated.~e was opposed originally to the access because he
was concerned there were ~o assurances that a permanent solution would be
forthcoming. Now that there were assurances of cooperation between Katella
Realty and b~r. Rinke£, he felt that would be a solution to the problem. He
would support the request when it came back to the Council and hoped that a
permanent solution would be forthcoming.
Mayor Seymour entered the Council Chambers. (5:20 P.M.)
MOTIOm: uouncilman Overholt moved to continue final consideration of the
request for access to June 30, 1981 since tk~e environmental status had to
first be advertised and considered. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the
motion. Councilman Seymour abstained. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Aa/wood commented that relative to the permanent solution, she
topee there was not ~oing to be a pro01em later on as to who was going to pay
for it because, in the final analysis, it would make both properties more
vaiaa0ie.
81-705
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 12, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mayo~ Seymour again assumed C~airmanship of the meeting.
PUBLIG HE~iliNG - CONDITIONAL USE PEP~MIT NO. 2184 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
Application by Kaymond G. Spehar, et al, to expand an existing drive-through
restaurant on CL(SC) zoned property located at 5701 East La Palma Avenue, with
Code waivers of minimum number of parking spaces and minimum length of
drive-through lane, was submitted.
%he City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-67, declared
that the subject project be exempt from the requirement to prepare an environ-
mental impact report pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmen-
tal ~uality Act since there would be no significant individual or cumulative
adverse environmental impact due to this project and further granted Condi-
tional Use Permit Plo. 2184 subject ~o the following conditions:
1. Chat the owner,s) of subject property shall pay the traffic signal assess-
ment fee (Ordinance No. 3896) in an amount as determined by the City Council,
for commercial buildings prior to t~e issuance of a building permit.
2. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved
plans on file with the Office of the Executive Director of Public Works.
3. That the owner(s) of subject property shall submit a letter requesting the
termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 1492 to the Planning Department.
4. ~at subject property s~all be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with t~e City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos.
1 through 4; provided, ~owever, that the existing median break in La Palma
Avenue located opposite the existing 30-foot wide central driveway into the
stopping center (approximately 240 feet easterly from Imperial Highway) shall
be closed no prohibit left-turns into and out of the shopping center at that
access point.
5. That Condition No. 3, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to the
commencement of the activity authorized under this resolution, or prior to the
time that the building permit is issued, or within a period of one year from
date hereof, whichever occurs first, or such further time as the Planning Com-
mission may grant.
~. That t~e proposed expansion of a drive-through restaurant snell comply
wi~h ali signing requirements of the CL(SC) (Commercial, Limited - Scenic
Corriaor Overlaf) Zone.
7. ~hat Condition ~os. ~, 4 and 6, aDore-mentioned, shall De complied with
prior ~o final buildin~ and zoning inspections.
The decision of the City Planning Commission was appealed by the applicant.
%~e Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present.
~. Don Glenn, representing Carl Karcher Enterprises, 1200 North Harbor Boule-
vard, stated tna~ basically they were appealing Finding No. 2 of the Planning
Commission Resolution No. PC81-67 which was also Condition No. 4 of that same
Resolution. The condition was added during the Planning Commission hearings
stating ~hat ~he median on La Patma Avenue, 240 feet east of the intersection
of Imperial Highway shall be closed. They were appealing that condition
because they had always felt that it was beyond the scope of the application
requiring them to mitigate a problem created by several factors in that area.
In was part of an overall larger plan and more than their
81-706
City Hail, Anaheim, California- COUNCIL MIbFOTES- May 12, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
application originally intended. The problem was not created by a left-turn
access at that point, but created by the left-turn cue lane for westbound
traffic on La Palma. That particular problem was proposed to be mitigated by
the signalization of that intersection to which they had agreed to a pro rata
share contribution. Their proposed application intended to mitigate their
contribution to a portion of the problem of the stacking in the shopping
center isle. They enjoyed a large drive-through business at that location and
at the insistence of the shopping center, they were asked to do something
about the situation since on many occasions there were four or five cars in
the main access isle to the center. They met with the shopping center two
years ago and due to the efforts of Mr. Spehar, the shopping center owner, and
their own efforts they were able to come to some agreement with the tenants of
the center. It was necessary that They were in agreement with the center
because they nad to become a part of the CC & R's for a common ingress and
egress and parking access in the center. It would be impossible for them to
fulfill their obligation to the shopping center by agreeing to the particular
condition imposed. They were not in agreement with the condition from a prin-
cipal standpoint in terms of traffic flow. ~ey fel~ that the access point
was not a problem if the level of service on La Palma were operating properly
and they would.expect that level to improve with the signalization of that in-
tersection, he respectfully requested the Council to eliminate that condition
in its entirety so that they might proceed with their development plan. If
the Council did not see fit to do that, he asked that they at least observe
the new traffic signal in operation for a period of six months.
>~. Glenn continued they did not anticipate starting on the project, were it
To be approved by the Council today, for approximately six months and it would
be another six months under construction. They would not be in operation un-
til February of 1982 which would allow the Council to observe the conditions
that would exist in the near future because of the signalization of the inter-
section. He felt confident if the Council were to do that, they would see a
dramatic improvement both with the signalization alone and what they were pro-
posing to do. ~fhey nad w~rked with Mr. Singer in suggesting an alternate
solution that would allev{ate the traffic pattern of the intersection and the
particular access points substantially. They felt they had an agreement which
was to limit the right turn only ingress from t~at driveway so that there
woul~ be no left-turns. They nad also proposed a minor modification of the
maia driveway to the shopping center to increase it to four lanes, two lanes
in and two lanes out, with the egress portion being a left-turn lane and
right-turn lane. He also pointed out that if there was substantial modifica-
tion of the original application, it was unlikely that they would receive per-
mission from the tenants in the shopping center to go forward wit~ their
expansion,
Councilman Bay then made an analogy of the subject situation with that exist-
ing at the Carl's Jr. facility at iraemer and La Palma. He asked if it was
being implied that the same situation would ~esult in this case.
iraffic Engineer Paul Singer answered in this particular location, it was only
a smal± portion of the problem and ~heir largest problem at the subject inter-
section was no~ the same condition just described but rather that the
left-turn pockets (2) were very short, periodically overflowing into the
through lanes and not being able to execuce eastbound left-turns into the
stropping center. It was the opposite of wna~ he described at Kraemer and La
Paima because getting in was the real problem.
81-707
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 12, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Singer then explained that representatives from Carl Karcher Enterprises
and his office had met on several occasions and had worked out a viable solu-
tion to t~e problem. The Planning Commission imposed an additional condition,
i.e., to close the median, and that was not his recommendation. He recom-
mended widening the central driveway providing two exit lanes and one ingress
lane wide enough so that traffic could circulate well onto the property with-
out being forced to go to the vicinity of the driveway leading directly to the
drive-up window. If anything, a slight modification to the median island
should be made to provide a continuous left-turn lane instead of the addi-
tional "bubBle" that was there. They had also discussed tnat and it seemed to
be satisfactory to the applicant.
Mr. Glenn stated it was basically the same plan he had sent with the appeal
lerner (see letter dated April 16, 1981 from Bob Holden--made a part of the
record).
~yor Seymour stated that he had met with tile Karchers and the owner of the
station and motel some time ago and they were promised that the signal would
be installed this fiscal year. He asked when it was going in; Mr. Singer
explained that last week they received correspondence that Caltrans was in the
process of bidding the job, an award to be made May 30th with construction to
commence sometime in the middle of June. He had so informed Mr. Spehar of
that development.
The b~for asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition; there being no
response, he closed the public hearing.
Mayor Seymour then stated he felt this was a situation where the Planning Com-
mission, in good conscience and in trying to work out a difficult situation,
had compounded the problem. He was familiar with the difficulties the shop-
ping center experienced and felt that the recommendation being made by the
Traffic Engineer of widening the central drive, permitting access to continue
into ~hat central drive, ~liminating the "bubble" and approving the continuous
left-turn lane would make'a vast improvement whether or not Carl's was going
~o expand at all. He felt ~hat was a good recommendation.
EAViRONPZNTAL I>iPACT REPOKT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Rotn, seconded by Councilwoman ~aywood, the City Council finds that suOject
project wily have no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmen-
tal impact since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property fo~
~eneral Commercial iand uses commensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive
environmental impacts are involved in the proposal; that the Initial Study
su0mitted by the petitioner indicates no significant individual or cumulative
adverse environmental impacts, and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement
~o prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 8LK-222 for adoption, granting
Conditional Use Permi~ No. 2184 amending Condition No. 4 of the Planning
Commission resolution allowing the median break to remain, that the central
drive be widened to accommodate the two lanes in and two lanes out and that
the "bubble" De eliminated, thus providing a continuous left-hum lane as well
as ali of the other conditions imposed. Refer to Resolution Book.
81-708
City ~ali, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL hlNUTES - ~lay 12, 1981, 1:30 P.~.
FdZSOLUTION NO. 81R-222: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
~nmI~i GR~NTING CONDIi'IONAL USE PE~IT NO. 2i84.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay asked if tna~ met with the Traffic
Engineer's approval; b~r. Singer answered "yes".
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution.
Roti Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEb~ERS:
COUNCIL b~MBERS:
COUNCIL P~MBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
No ne
None
The b~ayor declared Resolution No. 81R-222 duly passed and adopted.
10~: PUBLIC HEARING - RESOURCE ALLOCATION PLaiN 1981/82 (BUDGET):
To consider
the proposed 1981/82 Resource Allocation Plan.
The Mayor asked if any member of the public wished to speak to the proposed
1951/~2 Budget~ If nog, Budget wor~ sessions were continuing and open to the
public, one of which was held that morning (also held April 28 and May 5,
19U1--see minutes those dates) and another scheduled for 9:30 a.m. next
Tuesday, May i9, 1981.
No one f~om the public wished to speak to the proposed Budget at this time.
b[OTION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt,
consideration of the 198i/82 Resource Allocation Plan was continued one week.
blOTlON CARRIED.
129: APPLICATIO~ FOR PUBLIC FIREWORKS DISPLAY PERMIT: On motion by Council-
man Bay, seconded by CounCilman Roth, application for Public Fireworks Display
Permin from Astro Pyrotechnics to discharge fireworks at Anaheim Stadium on
Friday, l,lay 15, 1981 at the California Surf Game between 7:30 p.m. and mid-
night; displays to be without noise after i0:00 p.m. was approved as recom-
mended by the Fire ~rshal. MOTION CARRIED.
173: RESCINDING aI~PROVAL OF JITNEY SERVICE FOR YELLOW CAB COMPANY: Council-
man Rotn stated that they had discussed the controversy revolving around the
Yellow Cab Company of Northern Orange County operating a jitney service
between Anaheim and the City of Orange on certain designated routes, which
service was approved by the Council on April 14, 198i (see minutes that date).
MOTION: Councilman Roth thereupon moved to rescind the majority action of the
Council on April 14, 1981, approving the service; that a letter be sent to the
Public Utilities Commission to oppose the jitney service being requested by
Yeiiow Ceo Company, and that the letter arrive no later than May 21, 19Sl.
Councilman Seymour seconded the motion understanding that the action was (1)
to rescind the previous action taken by the Council and, (2) to oppose the
filing before the PUC.
81-709
City hail, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - l,~y 12, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt asked if the City was not already
on record opposing the PUC request by Yellow Cab.
City Attorney Ropkins stated that was correct. They had filed the necessary
papers of opposition and the matter was merely continued and, therefore, they
would continue to pursue the opposition.
Councilman Overholt presumed the intent of the motion was that the letter to
the PUC indicate that their action had been rescinded so that it would not un-
duly interfere with the hearing before the Commission. On the ground that
their action was now moot since Yellow Cab was proceeding with their applica-
tion to the PUC, he would support the motion.
Councilman Bay stated he assumed they were going to have representation at the
P0C from the Gity Attorney's office; City Attorney hopkins confirmed that was
correct. It nad been contemplated all along because the matter was continued.
Councilman Bay was also asked that the people involved be in. formed of today's
action by the City Clerk's office.
Mayor Seymour Jtated perhaps there might be different reasons among the
Council Members for supporting the motion rescinding their previous action as
well as continuing opposition before the PUC. Councilman Overholt made his
clear in that it was now a moot question. He (Seymour) supported the motion
because as he voted the last time, it was truly a matter of supporting local
business as opposed to that out of town and keeping sales tax revenues within
the City. In the last hearing, in his opinion, the merchants in Anaheim Plaza
were not notified and he felt it should have been opened to a rehearing to
have those merchants voice their strong opposition.
Councilman Overholt recalled that after the approximate two and one-half hour
hearing which took place on April 14, 198i (see minutes tmat date) a majority
of the Council voted to allow Yellow Cab a nine-month trial basis on that pro-
posed oitney service durihg which they would serve the Crystal Cathedral in
Garden Grove and also The City Shopping Center. The action also provided that
in the event another shuttle service particularly (Anaheim) Plaza Transporta-
tion should request the privilege of stopping at the Crystal Cathedral, consi-
deration would be given to that even during the nine month period. S~bse-
quen~ly a reque~ for re~earin~ was submitted by Mr. Topper Smith, ~he Manager
of anaheim Plaza Center. I~ was ~is recollection that Mr. ~uck Cooper
(Hickory Farms) President of the Merchants Association participated exten-
sively in the hearing as well as representatives of many of the hotels in the
tourist area. Based upon what they had before them at that time, he made what
ne taough~ was a ~ood fait~ honest decision, however, this was followed by
pressure, criticism and hardly less than veiled threats. Now the question was
moot oecause Yallow Cab chose to go to tme PUC. They could have gone there in
the first place and, in his opinion, probably received permission to do
exactly as they requested. They instead chose to come to th~ City and ask for
its blessin~ w~icn was a major factor in the decision he made in supporting a
nine-month trial. He felt that it was entirely consistent for the City to
oppose taeir application at the PUC because i~ was something the local com-
munity ought to have some say in.
81-710
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - I~lay 12, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour reiterated that none of the merchants at Anaheim Plaza were
notified when they conducted the previous public hearing and a decison
rendered.
A brief discussion followed relative to the lack of notification during which
staff indicated that the request by Yellow Cab heard on April 14, 1981 was not
an advertised public hearing and t~e file would have to be checked to ascer-
tain to whom notification had been sent (a later check revealed that a copy of
the letter sent to Yellow Cab notifying them that they were scheduled to be
~eard by the Council on April 14, 1981 was also sent to ~he Orange County
Transit District, (Anaheim) Plaza Transportation, Lozano Taxi Service and
Funbus which was the normal procedure when such transportation matters arose.
Councilman Roth suggested that they set a policy to advise people accordingly
in order to avoid rehearing; b~yor Seymour stated on a matter of the subject
type he agreed, but at least what they could have done was agreed to the
requested rehearing.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that Monica Keppel of Plaza Transportation and
Chuck Cooper for the Merchants Association were present at the previous hear-
lng and at no point was a continuance requested, which would probaoly have
been ~ranted.
councilman Bay stated he was personally pleased that the Council was rescind-
ing its original motion and opposing Yellow Cab in t~e PUC action. He there-
upon called for t~e question.
A vote was taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALEND~R ITEMS: On motion by ~uncilman Roth, seconded by ~uncilman
Bay, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and
recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent
Calendar Agenda:
1. 118: CLA~IS AGAINST THE CITY: ?ne following claims were denied and
referred to the City's Claims Administrator, and Application for Leave to
Present La~e Claim was denied:
a. Claim submitted by Ro~ald E. Gibson for personal injury damages purported-
ly sustained as a result of assault and battery by Police officers in the
vicinity of Lincoln Avenue amd Anaheim Boulevard, on or about February 23,
1981.
b. Claim submitted by blrs. W. R. Wiaans for damages purportedly sustained as
a result of Police personnel breaking into dwelling at 922 West North Street
a~ter being called by neighbors, on or about April 20, i9~1.
c. Claim su0mitted by ~homas ~. Roberts for vehicular damages purportedly
sus:aine~ as a result of "Keep Right" sign at corner of Balsam and State
~Coliege Boulevard being bent into the rigmt-of-way on or about April 15, 1981.
c. Claim submitted by Wetly %reece for personal injury damages purportedly
sustained as a result of slip-and-fall accident at Anaheim Stadium, on or
a~out april 17, 1981.
81-711
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 12, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
d. Application for Leave to Present Late Claim submitted by Frank Joseph
Monterosso for personal injury damages purportedly sustained as a result of
assault and battery by a fellow student at Danbrook Elementary School, on or
about April 21, 19~0.
The following claim was allowed:
e. Claim submitted by Leonard Peverieri for vehicular damages purportedly
sustained as a result of debris thrown from center divider by City equipment,
Santa ana Canyon Road near Imperial Highway, on or about February 17, 1981.
3. lOU: APPLICATIONS: In acccrdance with the recommendations of the Chief
of Police, the following applications were approved:
a. Amusement Devices Permit: byron Click, A-1 Liquor, 970 South Anaheim
Boulevard, for various amusement devices.
o. Amusement Devices Permit: Jack Hakaru Ho jo, Fun Arcade, 2624 West La
Palma Avenue, fo£ various amusement devices.
c. Dinner DanCing Place Permit: Vincent Lignowski, Cero's, 316 South Euclid
Street, for dancing seven nights a week, 8:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m.
d. Amusement Devices Permit: Kenneth E. Blackburn, Vacationland R-V Park,
1343 South West Street, for various amusement devices.
4. 131: RIGHT OF WAY CERTiFICATION--STADIUM TRAFFIC CON"£~OL iMPROVEMENT: In
accordance with the recommendations of the City Engineer, right of way certi-
fication was approved for the construction of a traffic signal, changeable
message signs and channelization modifications. (FAU NOS. LO30, 5250 and Mill)
MOTION CARRIED.
108: ~iUSEb~NT DEVICES PE~.IIT: Darrell Robert PlacPherson, J's Supercade, 428
North Lakeview, for various amusement devices and two pool tables.
Councilwoman Kaywood removed subject application for permit from the Consent
Calendar. lhey had received letter dated May il, 1981 from the Anaheim
C~amber of ~ommerce in opposition as well as others asking that the mat~er be
removed from the Consent Calendar so ~hat it could be discussed.
b~yor Seymour first asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present;
there was no response. He assumed, ~herefore, that those who were present in
the Chamber audience were present in opposition. If they were going to hear
the matter they should near both sides. ~e asked if it would be too inconven-
ient for them to return a week from now when the applicant would nave an
opportunity to be present.
From the audience, a gennleman indicated that since t[~e nad been si~ning for
five tours, he requested tha~ they be given permission to express their opin-
ion a~ this time. They could give the othe side an opportunity to express
~neirs at another time.
81-712
City Hall, ~naheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 12, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
The ~layor indicated that would be acceptable.
Mr. Richard Reed stated as of today, he was one of the merchants adjacent to
the subject premises at 440 North Lakeview in the Lakeview Shopping Center, a
gift and novelty store, lout's Truly. The reason he was present today on
their first day of business was due to the fact that he was adamantly opposed
to tme Council granting the applications for the amusement devices at the sub-
ject location. The cermet was a family-oriented one, relatively new, clean
and well kept. Those present were a contingency of small shop owners all in
opposition to the permits being requested. Since he had been in police work
for 11 years, he felt he could address the Council with a level of expertise
with regard to the type of clientele drawn to such a business. Both the pool
hall and amusement arcade itself created certain problems. In the case of a
pool mall espcially since they did have a liquor store in the shopping center
and also a sandwich business which served beer and wine, there was going to be
alcohol accessibie to the participants in the arcade. In addition, the pool
~ame lent itself strongly to the gambling element. As a result of gambling
and playing of pool, there would be violent crimes within the location and a
tremendous increase in youth gathering at the location itself. The shopping
center at present had a big alley behind it where employees parked and it was
not illuminate~. The location of the proposed amusement center was going to
be in the heel of the "L" shaped center where people playing the arcade games
would parm. As recently as this week, the owners of the shopping center had
gone to all of the residents within the center and advised them of a parking
problem occurring in the center requiring all employees to now park in the
alleyway behind the businesses. This would pose a tremendous problem and
woul~ place the Ousiness owners themselves in jeopardy because of the late
nougs and the problems created by the clientele who would be patronizing the
arcade. He personally knew t~at the sidewalk areas were posted now in the
shopping center that there was no bicycle riding or skateboarding permitted by
yet tmey still had an ongoing problem because of the youth in the area who did
bota in the center. %~e business would strongly encourage a truancy element
as well. In concluding, b~ stated he was personally opposed and if there was
any particular type of business he would be more opposed to, he could not
think of it at t~is ~ime.
b~..~i Je!ani stated he owned the Bath Boutique in the center at 410 North
Lakeview. he wished to express ~is strong opposition to granting an arcade
permi~ for J's Arcade in the center based on the followig points: Lakeview
Plaza was situated in a residential community. The lot on the north side of
the s~opping center was vacant and provided access to the Santa Aha River
be~. Since the lot and the river bed were not lit, it would provide a perfect
place for arcade customers to get involved in serious criminal activities. At
present they nad the problem of skateboards and bicycles. Granting the permit
would ~reatly increase ~he number of teenagers going to the Cen~er who would
use the corridor going through the center thus increasing the risk of skate-
board and bicycle accidents to the people, plate glass and other equipment in
the center. There was also a strong possibility that their insurance rates
for theft, plate glass and human injury might go up and most of the shops
could not afford any increase at this point, l~ost of the operators of the
shops were women who were there late hours thus being forced to go out into an
area which was not lit in those late hours. I[ would also increase the common
area fees for the shopping center because of the
81-713
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 12, 1981, 1:30 P.bl.
possibility of increased maintenance. He asked that they deny the request for
the permits and that the Council re-evaluate the situation and give the resi-
dents a chance to voice their opinion. As he understood, most of the owners
in the center were not aware of the application.
Sandra Becket, Uniform Closet, Lakeview Plaza, stated she had been in business
for two years and the building in which she was located was the building that
J's ~upercade would share. It was not attached to the other buildings. ~e
building was not built for noise. She could hear conversations in her build-
ing going on next door at World Travel. They would not be able to conduct
business with ali the noise that would be generated. She also explained the
problem of skateboards going through windows and customers almost being'
knocked down by bicycles as well as motorcycles that had raced through the
walkway near net shop. She felt that the arcade was going to add to the prob-
lems ~ney already had since the center management did not back them up or give
them much help. The merchants had been having a hard time making a go of it
and they did not want to have a problem that was going to take away from their
business. Some of her customers were nurses from Canyon General Hospital
across the street and she knew they were not going to want to patronize her
shop with kids,hanging around late at night and she was also concerned about
leaving the building at night as well.
Jodi Bruce, World Travel, 430 North La~eview, explained that they had over
$25,000 worth of expensive computers in her office and she felt that might be
a problem with all the pinball machines up against the walls since J's Super-
cede was soing to be right next door. They had a good clientele which they
built up over the two years they were located there. They had been broken
into once and a skateboard had gone through their plate glass window already.
T~ey felt they were going to have more problems because the delicatessen
across from their office and J's Supercade served wine and beer; they had no
security guard and it was dangerous at night because there were mainly all
women going out to the back parking lot. She was speaking for World Travel
and all the merchants. ~. Keith Fillington and Mr. Gary McArthur, owners of
the Betsy Ross Restaurant were unable to be present today but they were
strongly opposed also. They felt this to be a prestige area. Mr. MacPherson
lived in Garden Grove and worked in Long Beach for 22 years and they felt that
was perhaps that was where ne should locate his pinball arcade.
From the audience, a woman who owned the flower shop and unable to appear at
the podium stated ~hey were very much opposed. She then relayed incidents
that had occurred at the center involving an attempted break-in, a knife
attac~ and loitering. %~ere was a great security risk at present and she felt
~he proposed business would magnify it.
There being no further people who wished to speak, the Mayor stated he sup-
posed that the Council may De inclined to take action on the matter today even
tnousn the applicant was not present. Last week they had a situation in the
west side of Anaheim which was almost similar where the Council denied the
permit although a representative of the applicant was present, he asked how
the Council felt.
81-714
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 12, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Roth stated he was willing to take an action to deny it today.
However, last week and this week he was seeing a situation where government
was getting involved in the rights of store owners to use their stores the way
they saw fit. Perhaps when people leased stores they should look carefully at
the lease to see if an arcade or whatever would be permitted. He saw it as a
problem area that was going to increase due to the fact that arcades were
becoming more popular and financially lucrative and he was supportive of the
profit motive. Perhaps the Council was going to have to look at such situa-
tions and set up a procedure such as used on a house moving permit, meaning
that the only way a house could be moved onto a lot in Anaheim was by a 51%
approval of the people in the surrounding area. No doubt if they denied the
permits today the applicant was going to be in saying that he was not advised
or informed and, therefore, he wanted another hearing. It was time for the
Council to establish a policy.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated they had a number of Aetters in their packet and a
few that came later opposing the arcade. One asked the question, "Is it
proper for a business to begin operation and install electrical and plumbing
facilties well in advance of City Council approval. This business has been
actively makin~ improvements since May 5." She felt they should act in order
to be sure that the applicant did not continue to throw his money into some-
thing he was not going to be able to do. There was also a notice that they
now had 16 other businesses of the same type in Anaheim. They all knew of her
concerns from the beginning relative to such businesses which had prolifer-
ated. She had heard complaints from people who did not like the situation.
She was ready to take action today.
Councilman Overholt asked if Mr. MacPherson had knowledge that the matter was
coming before the Council today; the Deputy City Clerk stated all applicants
routinely received postcards when their applications were going to be on the
Council agenda.
Councilman Overholt then s~ated he was prepared to take action.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to deny application for an Amusement
Devices Permit for various amusement devices and Amusement and Entertainment
Premises Permit for two pool tables for J's Supercade, 428 North Lakeview,
submitted by Darrell Robert MacPherson. Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
Pmyor Seymour stated he supported the motion but strongly believed that all
parties should be able to speak thier piece. If Mr. MacPherson should walk in
tomorrow and s~ate that since he was not present, he did not know of the mat-
ter coming before the Council, and he had something to say, he (Seymour) would
vote just as quickly to hear what be'would have to say and then render another
decision.
Councilman Overholt advised that he should be assured that they all felt the
same way.
Councilman Bay stated he was going to support the motion because he felt in
this case that the permit should be denied, however, without casting any
aspersion upon the applicant because the issue had nothing to do with the
gentleman trying to go into'business. This was merely based on the fact that
the surrounding businesses, approximately ten, plus a dentist from whom they
nad received a letter, and that was sufficient for him.
81-715
City Hall, Anaheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES- May 12, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Roth stated he hoped that the Council would ask staff to look into
some method before they got to this stage which would provide a gauge of
acceptance of arcades by those surrounding the proposed business.
Mayor Seymour stated this was the only type of use that they had become in-
volved in where they'heard from citizens that they did not want the business.
They had massage parlors and those type of businesses to deal with and they
were dealt with differently. He would be concerned about passing an ordinance
or creating a polic~ that would invade private enterprise. He was concerned
about overreacting.
Councilman Roth stated he still felt. they were going to see many requests for
arcades throughout the City and were going to be going through the same type
of situation. He suggested that they wait until the next time and bring the
matter up again.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she had a great deal of empathy with what Council-
man Roth was saying because if they had one arcade business going in, and with
three, four or five other establishments put out of business or forced to move
because of it, that would be a very unfair situation.
From the audience, again the representative from the flower shop wanted to
emphasize the fact that they had no iii will towards the gentleman involved
and sincerely wished him well in his business; however, the provision of the
building he intended to occupy was one of the worst places in the center that
he could locate his business, in the opinion of the other merchants.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion of denial. MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 81R-223
and 81R-224, both inclusive, for adoption in accordance with the reports, rec-
ommendations and certifications furnished each Council Member and as listed on
the Consent Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book.
158: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-223: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
A~NJJ~IEIMACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS ~ND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Robert A.
Blackwood, et ux.)
150: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-224: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
AN~2iEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT,
LA, OR, SERVICES, MATERIALS A~ND EQUIPblENT ~D ALL UTILITIES AND TRA~NSPORTATION
INCLUDING POWER, FUEL ~ND WATER, AND THE PERFORbLANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO
CONSTRUCT A~ND COFfPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: PEP. ALTA
CA~NYON PARK AREA DEVELOPIiENT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHE~[, ACCOUNT NO.
16-805-7103. (Hondo Company, Inc.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNC IL ~IEMBER S:
COUNCIL ~1BERS:
COUNCIL b~MBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
No ne
The M~yor declared Resolution No. 81R-223 and 81R-224, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
81-716
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - bray 12, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
CITY PLANNING CObLMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City
Planning Commission at their meeting held April 20, 1981 pertaining to the
following applications were submitted for City Council information.
1. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 80-81-24 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2171: Sub-
mitred by Maurice Pinto, for a change in zone from RS-7200 to CL, to permit
commercial use of a residential structure located at 406 West Vermont Avenue,
with the following Code waivers:
a) permitted location of required parking
b) maximum structural ~eight
c) minimum landscaped setback
d) minimum wail height
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-78 and PC81-79,
granted Reclassification No. 80-81-24 and granted in part, Conditional Use
Permit No. 2171, and granted a negative declaration status.
2. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 80-81-26 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ,NO. 2202: Sub-
mitted by Herbert E. and Elizabeth C. Christensen, for a change in zone from
RM-1200 to CL, to permit automobile-related uses located at 1200 West Cerritos
Avenue, with the following Code waivers:
a) minimum landscaped setback
b) required site screening
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution Nos. PC81-84 and PC81-85,
denied Reclassification No. 80-81-26 and granted Conditional Use Permit No.
2202, respectively, and granted a negative declaration status.
3. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 80-81-30: Submitted by Robert Marvin Law, for a
change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to CO, for property located at 408 South Beach
Boulevard. '~
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-90, granted
Reclassification No. 80-81-30, and granted a negative declaration status.
4. VARIanCE NO. 3209 (TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11362 (REVISION NO. 1): Submitted
by Conrad J. and Josephine M. Letter, to establish a 1-lot, 6-unit condominium
subdivision on P.P~1200 zoned property located at 1260 East La Paima Avenue,
with the following Code waivers:
a) maximum structural height
b) maximum site coverage
c) minimum recreationai-!eisure area
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-87, granted, in
part, Variance No. 3209 (Tentative Tract No. 11362 (Revision No. 1), and
granted a negative declaratiom status.
5. VARIANCE NO. 3210 (TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11320 (REVISION NO. 1): Submitted
by Orange County Public Relations, Inc., to establish a 23-1ot, 22-unit condo-
minium subdivision on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located on the south side of
Ball Road, west of b~gnolia Avenue, with a Code waiver of required lot front-
age.
81-717
City Hall, Anaheim, California- COUNCIL MINUTES- May 12, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-91, granted
Variance No. 3210 (Tentative Tract No. 11320 (Revision No. 1), and a negative
declartion was previously approved.
6. CONDITIONAL USE PER,lIT NO. 2197: Submitted by Winston Industrial
Properties, to permit a metal foundry on ML zoned property located at 2201
East Winston Road.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-86, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2197, and granted a negative declaration status.
7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2198: Submitted by Beth Adams, Ltd., et al, to
permit retail antique sale on ML zoned property located at 131 West Katella
Avenue, with a Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-83, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2198, and granted a negative declaration status.
8. CONDITIONAL USE PEP, MIT NO. 2201: Submitted by Clyde M. Ikuta, to permit a
van conversion facility on ML zoned property located at 2511-N West La Palma
Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-82, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2201, and granted a negative declaration status.
9. VARIA/~CE NO. 2696 - EXTENSION OF T~: Submitted by Raymond M. Lowe, re-
questing an extension of time to Variance No. 2696, to establish retail sale
and outdoor storage of building materials on ML zoned property located at 517
~hrough 519 East Katella Avenue, with various Code waivers.
The City Piannin~ Commission approved an extension of time to Variance No.
2696, to expire April 28, 1984.
10. RECLASSIFICATION NO.'80-81-7 - AJPPROVAL OF REVISED PLANS: Submitted by
Bill Ware, requesting approval of revised plans for Reclassification No.
80-81-7, to permit an office complex on proposed CO zoned property located at
600-650 North Euclid Street.
The City Planning Commission approved revised plans for Reclassification No.
80-81-7.
11. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 80-81-31 AND VARIJ~CE NO. 3208 (TENTATIVE TRACT NO.
11482): Submitted by Laurence R. Leggett, et al, for a change in zone from
RS-A-43,000 to RS-7200, to establish a 9-lot subdivision on property located
at 1524 and 1532 West Orangewood Avenue, with the following Code waivers:
a) required lot frontage
b) minimum lot area
c) minimum lot width and frontage
d) maximum lot coverage
e) minimum front yard setback
f) minimum rear yard setback
g) permitted orientation of buildings
81-718
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 12, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-80 and 81,
granted Reclassification No. 80-81-31 and Variance No. 3208, and granted a
negative declaration status.
Councilwoman Kaywood also referred to Item 25 on the Coucil Agenda requesting
waiver of Council Policy No. 538, in conjunction with the subject Reclassifi-
cation No. 80-81-31 and Variance No. 3208. One side fronted onto an arterial
and the Council Policy noise requirements stipulated that there be a 40 foot
setback and this was five feet. She was wondering whether that was addressed
at all.
Miss Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning stated they would still expect
them ~o comply with the sound attenuation requirements although now they were
not doing so in connection with the setback. Normally they would either have
no windows or windows that were double paned or possibly have higher than a
6-foot block wall if there was an open yard area with windows facing it. They
would have to protect ~ne residential integrity of the yard.
No action was taken on the foregoing items, therefore, the actions of the City
Planning Commission became final.
RECALSSIFICATION NO. 80-81-32 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2199: Submitted
by David Aiani, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to CL, to permit a cock-
tail lounge in an existing motel on property located at 823 South Beach Boule-
vard, with a Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-88 and 89,
granted Reclassification No. 80-81-32 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2199, and
granted a negative declaration status.
Councilwoman Kaywood had a question on the subject reclassification and CUP
which was granted by the Planning Commission at their meeting of April 20,
1981. The application involved the Razzmatazz Motel asking for a cocktail
lounge in the existing motel. She was certain the Mayor would remember since
they were both on the Planning Commission at the time that the applicant had
asked for a coffee shop in conjunction with the motel. The coffee shop became
King Henry VIII Restaurant and they had no parking. She went there one
evening and they were valets telling people to park across the street in a
residential area. She asked if this was in addition to the Razzmatazz or in
place of it. They had been granted permission to have the coffee shop under a
condition'that no bar or cocktail lounge would be established there.
Miss Santalahti stated this would be in the existing motel and it replaced the
coffee shop/restaurant.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the Planning Commission was aware of the stipu-
lation that there be no bar or cocktail lounge; Miss Santalahti stated she did
not believe that was brought up but the file was available to the Planning
Commission.
b~yor Seymour interjected and stated when matters were presented on the
Consent Calendar, they did not conduct mini public hearings. The process was
clear, either the matter be set for a public hearing or they take no action.
81-719
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 12, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood thereupon set the matter for a public hearing.
114: WAIVER OF COUNCIL POLICY: Laurence R. Leggett, et al, requesting a
wazver of Council Policy No. 538, in conjunction with Reclassification No.
80-8i-13, Variance No. 3208 and Tentative Tract No. 11482, pertaining to the
required building setback on lots adjacent to arterial highways.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, waiver of
Council Policy No. 538 in conjunction with the subject reclassification,
variance and tentative tract was approved. MOTION CARRIED.
142/172: ORDINANCE NO. 4224: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4224
for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4224: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 14,
CHAPTER 14.40, SECTION 14.40.060 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING
THERETO SUBSECTION .085 PERTAINING TO SPEED LIliITS. (pertaining to thirty-
five mile per hour speed limits for Clementine Street, between Manchester
Avenue and Katelta Avenue)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEa~BERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL ME}~ERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
No ne
The P~yor declared Ordinance No. 4224 duly passed and adopted.
142/129: ORDINANCE NO. 4225: Councilman Overholt offered Ordinance No. 4225
for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4225: aN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 6,
CHAPTER 6.40 OF THE ~NAHEI~I MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING SECTION 6.40.215 THERETO
PERTAINING TO ENFORCF~IENT'PROVISIONS. (citations related to fireworks)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEM~ERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The b~yor declared Ordinance No. 4225 duly'passed and adopted.
142/129: ORDINANCE NO. 4226: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4226
for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINanCE NO. 4226: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHELM AMENDING TITLE 16,
CHAPTER 16.08 OF THE ~NAHE~i MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING SECTION 16.08.100 THERE-
TO PERTAINING TO ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS. (pertaining to fire enforcement)
81-720
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 12, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL ~MBERS:
COUNCIL ME~ERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4226 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 4227: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4227 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINA~CE NO. 4227: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHE~i A~NDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (73-74-46(12), PC(SC), Tract
Nos. 10585 & 10586)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEP~ERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL ~MBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
~e Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4227 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 4228: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4228 for first
reading.
ORDINA~NCE NO. 4228: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AM_ENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHE~I MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (61-62-69(91), ML)
173: GENERAL MOTORS ENERGY ASSESSMENT MEETING: Councilman Bay announced that
there was going to be a General Motors Energy Assessmet meeting coming up in
Detroit Wednesday, Thursda? and Friday of next week, May 20 through 22. He
suggested that he receive~permission from the Council to go on that trip.
MOTION: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by CoUncilman Overholt, per-
mission was granted for Councilman Bay to attend the General Motors Energy
Assessment meeting to be held in Detroit, Wednesday through Friday, May 20
through 22, 1981. MOTION CARRIED.
108: REQUEST TO PLAY BINGO THREE DAYS DURING AN ANNUAL FIESTA - ST. aNTHONY
CLAIIET CHURCH: Mayor Seymour noted that Sister Rita Carroll was still present
in the Council Chambers. Father Nash, the Pastor of St. Anthony Claret,
called him and he was concerned with their up coming fiesta during which they
wanted to play bingo for three days. The Council was obviously aware of the
one day a week limitation but there was a provision in the ordinance that any
flexibility of that ordinance be granted by the Chief of Police only. The
Chief was out of town bu~ he talked to him through Captain Kennedy. The Chief
would not and did not grant approval for the three days requested by St.
Anthony's. Mis purpose in broaching the matter was the fact that the majority
of the Council who voted for the ordinance, specifically Councilman Overholt,
stated when asked by both he and Councilman Roth to be more flexible in the
81-721
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 12, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
ordinance, he (Overholt) suggested that they try it for a year and then to
take a look at it to see if it could be made more flexible at that time. It
was in that spirit that he was coming back to the Council to bring the matter
to their attention and to ask for their consideration. Mayor Seymour invited
Sister Carroll to come forward and address the matter if she wished.
Sister Carroll explained that for sometime, the Fiesta and the playing of
bingo during that. Fiesta had been a custom at St. Anthony's. They never had
any difficulty in terms of problems with bingo. Also, they did not have bingo
at all during the year but only during the Fiesta. Father Nash was unable to
be present today and the heads of the committees and parishioners were waiting
a response because they were meeting ~omorrow night to make the final arrange-
ments for the Fiesta which was to be held on this weekend. .The Fiesta was the
only big event in the year and bingo was an event the older people looked for-
ward to.
Mayor Seymour confirmed what Father Nash told him--they had a Fiesta once a
year and once a year they liked to play bingo three days in a row during that
Fiesta and that was the extent of it.
Councilman Ove~holt asked the City Attorney what power the Council had to act
on the request relative to the existing ordinance.
City Attorney Hopkins stated the power to make that determination was given
exclusively to the Chief of Police. It was a provision stating, "The Chief of
Police may permit a licensee to conduct bingo games for more than one day
during any seven day period provided that such permission shall be limited to
bingo games which will be conducted in conjunction with an established annual
event held by the licensee such as an annual bazaar or festival." The way the
ordinance was currently written, it would be the determination of the Chief of
Police that would prevail.
P~yor Seymour stated the ~formation he received from he Chairman of the Com-
mittee was that he did no~ feel the L~ief really reviewed the request but that
it was reviewed at a lower level. He did not know if that were true, the bot-
tom line being, if the Chief were present today, he (Seymour) believed he
would say "no".
City Manager Talley agreed since the Chief had a policy that as long as he had
any say in the matter, he was going to limit bingo.
Councilman Overholt noted that without the Chief's permission, they could con-
duct bingo for two days; City Manager Talley stated they could if they
construed Friday and Saturday to be part of one week and Sunday another.
Councilman Overholt stated that would be up to the City Attorney. He asked if
they could run bingo two days, once on Saturday and once on Sunday.
City Attorney Hopkins answered he believed that would be permissible. Sunday
would be construed to be the first day of the week.
81-722
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - ~y 12, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Overholt stated being sympathetic to St. Anthony Claret, he felt
that was what it was going to have to be. As the Mayor mentioned, there was
an indication that perhaps at some future date the bingo ordinance could be
relaxed somewhat in order to permit organizations such as this to have more
bingo, but he did not think they were in a position to amend the ordinance
overnight. The ordinance stated that the Chief had the power to permit or not
permit. It seemed to him that at this late date they must abide by the ordin-
ance which meant they could play two days, Saturday and Sunday or Friday and
Sunday.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she wanted to be sure that that could not be con-
strued for anybody else running bingo games in Anaheim, that~they could run
them Saturday and Sunday and skip a week and do it that way again.
City Manager Talley stated he was sure they could do so. If they wanted to
run bingo Saturday and Sunday every two weeks under what the City Attorney
just said, that would be entirely in order.
~yor Seymour stated he was not asking for any rush but he was hopeful of two
things: (1) that the Council would say it was time that they in a delibera-
tive fashion perhaps take a look at the bingo ordinance to make it more flex-
ible so that church organizations such St. Anthony Claret could have that
flexibility and, (2) he was hopeful that there was some way the City Manager
could somehow convince the Chief of Police to permit St. Anthony's to play
three days.
City Manager Talley stated if they wanted that power, in his view, they should
change the ordinance to say that the Council could do it because it would
absolutely destroy the administrative process if they directed the Manager to
overrule the Chief. Unilaterally it was his decision and not appealable to
anyone.
Councilman Bay stated the~were not going to do that; Mr. Tailey stated he was
just saying that they might want to consider that. He would predict that
without exception when the requests were presented to the Chief, he was going
to do only one thing with them.
Mayor Seymour, speaking to Sister Carroll, stated it sounded like the best
they were going to be able to do, they could play Saturday and Sunday or
Friday and Sunday. Subsequently the Council in a very deliberative fashion
would undertake a study of that whole ordinance to try to make it more flex-
ible.
Sister Carroll asked if it was possible for some of then to approach the Chief
personally; the Mayor stated the Chief would be back in town tomorrow morning
and they should feel free to call upon the Chief to find out for themselves.
Councilman Bay asked for clarification from the City Attorney if it was saying
that without a permit or a bingo license someone could play two days a week;
City Attorney Hopkins stated that St. Anthony Claret presently had a permit.
81-723
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 12, 1981, 1:30 P.M~
Councilman Roth stated due to the fact that the Fiesta was going to be coming
up out in the Canyon area in a month or two, he felt there should be some con-
sideration given to a church who ran a bazaar or carnival on a once-a-year
basis to be permitted to play bingo three days.
Further discussion followed wherein the Mayor interjected and stated they were
not going to try to deliberate the matter presently. The subject was on the
table, the Chief would respond, the City bianager would prepare a report as
well as t~e Chief of Police; Mr. Talley asked if he wanted a report. The
Mayor answered "yes".
Councilman Overholt stated he would like to define the biayor's remark that the
subject~was on the table.
Mayor Seymour stated that they would, in a deliberate fashion, look at the
bingo ordinance to determine if a majority of the Council wanted to make it
more flexible.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour thereupon moved that the Council in a deliberative
fashion undertake the report prepared by the Chief of Police, City Manager and
City Attorney's office and conduct a reanalysis of the bingo ordinance to make
it more flexible to try and accommodate those worthwhile organizations in the
City. Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
MOTION: Before action was taken, Councilman Overholt stated he was going to
move to continue the motion for one week. Councilman Bay seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
156: COMPLAINT - VANDALISM AND GRAFFITI - 631 SOUTH biANCHESTER: Mayor
Seymour referred to the two letters received during the last week dated May 1
and May 7, 1981. He asked that the City Manager sit down with the Chief of
Police and Mr. Wurth, L. M. Wurth & Company relative to the problems as
explained in his letters.~ Before Mr. Wurth came to the Council as well as the
rest of the tenants in th~ center and that entire neighborhood, he felt it
would be best if first the City Manager, the Chief and Mr. Wurth met to see if
some plan could be worked out at that level to try to rid the neighborhood and
particularly the businesses involved, of the crime they had been experiencing.
153: RESOLUTIONS RELATING TO REORGAIqlZATION P~AN: City Manager Talley intro-
duced the following resolutions which had been introduced to the Council in
Closed Session, which resolutions were in accordance with his memorandum dated
April'28, 1981 (on file in the City Clerk's office) submitted to the Council
at the Budget work session of that date (see minutes April 28, 1981): (1) a
proposed resolution amending Resolution No. 80R-578 creating the new classifi-
cation of Deputy City Manager-Public Works and that classifications of Assis-
tant City Manager and Finance Director receive salary adjustments, and that
the classification of Public Works Director be abolished; (2) a proposed res-
olution amending Resolution No. 80R-577 and 80R-550 creating the new classifi-
cation of Assistant Director for Recreation and Community Services and that
the exsiting classification of Recreation Superintendent be abolished; that
the classification of Assistant City Manager receive a salary adjustment and
be moved from the Staff and Supervisory Management Group to the Administrative
Management Group.
81-724
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 12, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
The resolutions, when approved, would allow him to begin the reorganization
changes, the effective date being July 3, 1981; however, with their passage,
he would instruct the various Departments to begin the reorganization immedi-
ately so that by 3uly 1 they would be in place.
Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 811t-225 and 81R-226 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 811t-225: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM A~NDINGRESOLUTION NO. 80R-578.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-226: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM A~NDING RESOLUTION NO. 80R-577 AND RESOLUTION NO. 80R-550.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour asked the total cost of the changes and
increases, i.e., the salary increases of the five positions involved on an
annual basis.
Mr. Talley answered, approximately $18,200 including burden, on an annual
basis. ·
Councilwoman Kaywood asked what the savings would be; Mr. Talley answered,
approximately $53,000 which would mean approximately $71,000 in addition in
the first year. The projected savings if the reorganization continued would
be $45,930. It would then be his intent in mid-year 1982-83 to make another
major change, which should result in at least a savings of that magnitude.
Mayor Seymour stated he believed they had plenty of discussion on the item and
the Council knew how he felt. He strongly opposed the recommended salary
increases based opon the fact that those positions, along with all the'others,
less than six months ago received an 11% increase in pay. The proposed in-
creases would result in total pay increases for those positions of anywhere
from a low of 17.6% increase up to 25.2%. He thought it to be outrageous and
saw no justification whatsoever. He would like to have a report from the City
Manager that would indicate go him comparison of those positions with similar
positions in the State of California because he felt that they were paying
those people perhaps the very best in the State. He thaught the increases to
be totally improper and was appalled and shocked that the Council would grant
those kinds of pay increases within a period of less than six months.
Councilman Overholt stated as the one who offered the resolutions and as he
had told the Mayor privately, he thoroughly respected the Mayor's position,
but he had lost sight of the fact that the reorganization plan was designed to
reduce costs to the taxpayers in the amounts the City Manager stated. The
fact that additional responsibilities were assigned to certain members of City
staff requiring an increase in their saiaries commensurate with those addi-
tional responsibilities was not the point. The point was the ultimate savings
going to the taxpayer and the taxpayer was the bottom line. That was his
reasons for offering the resolutions.
The .Mayor stated when the reorganization was reversed and the salaries did not
commensurately roll back ne was going to remind Councilman Overholt of that.
81-725
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 12, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Overholt then asked the Mayor, but for the salary increases to par-
ticularly three positions, was he generally supportive of the reorganization?
The Mayor answered not at that price tag.
Councilman Overholt then presumed the salary increases to which the Mayor
objected were the sole reason for his nonsupport.
The Mayor stated "no" and as he shared with Councilman Overholt privately, he
had other reservations about the plan, but he would be willing to set those
reservations aside.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolutions.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood and Roth
Bay and Seymour
None
The Mayor dec%ared Resolution No. 8tR-225 and 81R-226 duly passed and adopted.
RECESS: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Bay, the
Council recessed briefly before considering their evening public hearing.
MOTION CARRIED. (6:55 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (7:25 P.M.)
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 80-81-14, CONDITIONAL USE PER-
MIT NO. 2121, TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11305 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application
by Bank of California, N. A. Trustee, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to
RM-3000, to permit a 2-lot, 99-unit condominium subdivision (Revision No. 1)
on property located at 2.i~70 South Harbor Boulevard, with Code waivers.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-208 declared
that the subject project be exempt from the requirement to prepare an E IR,
pursuant to the provisions of the Caiiforna Environmental Quality Act since
there would be no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental
impact due to this project and further granted Reclassification No. 80-81-14
subject to 15 conditions.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-209 granted Con-
ditional Use Permit No. 2121, in part, subject to four conditions and also
approved Tentative Tract No. 11305 with certain conditions.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilman Bay
at the meeting of December 23, 1980 and a public hearing scheduled and con-
tinued from the meetings of January 20, March 10 and April 7, 1981 (see min-
utes those dates) extensive discussion and testimony took place at the meet-
ings of March 10 and April 7.
81-726
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 12, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour stated the Council felt they had all the testimony needed rela-
tive to the question of the condominium aspects of the development. However,
they did not feel that either the applicant or the attorney for the tenants
had really attempted to bargain or negotiate in good faith in trying to
resolve the negative econdmic questions. The basis of the continuance was to
provide some time for those meaningful negotiations to take place. What they
wanted to concentrate on this evening were those negotiations and any further
suggestion relative to the financial remuneration of the tenants. He asked
that the testimony be restricted to the economic question.
The Mayor then asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
Mr. Floyd Farano, 2555 East Chapman, Fullerton, attorney representing West-
winds first stated that they filed a list of the limited partners with the
City Clerk's office of Friday, May 8, 1981 (made a part of the record). They
neglected to file the requested status report on last Friday but they did not
have anything to report; however, a report was filed thereafter which was sub-
mitted to the Council (made a part of the record--see documentation with
covering page, May 12, 1981, to the Members of the City Council, Westwinds
Development which also included, Settlement Recapitulation; April 21 letter to
Michael Oietch'from Charles Farano (Exhibit A) containing the proposal made by
Mr. Dietch and staring on Page 3 of the letter, counterproposal of the appli-
cant; letter dated May 8, 1981 to Charles Farano from Michael Dietch rejecting
the counter offer and setting forth alternatives (Exhibit B); tenants proposal
of April 14, 1981 with a column listing the counter proposal amounts dated
April 21, 198i (Exhibit 1) proposal comparison, Exhibit 2). Mr. Farano then
read and/or briefed the information contained in the documentation submitted.
They wanted to avoid litigation and arbitration of each and every mobilehome
and, therefore, offered the following counter proposal irrespective of the age
of the coaches involved (see page 3 and 4 of the April 21, 1981 letter to Mr.
Dietch): (1) That each tenant be allowed to retain ownership of his or her
mobilehome; (2) that each tenant who owns a single-wide mobilehome receive the
sum of $3,400; (3) That e~ch tenant who owns a double-wide mobilehome receive
the sum of ~4,600; (4) ~h~t the developer pay the'attorney's fees for the
tenants, not to exceed $3,000.
In concluding his presentation, Mr. Farano stated they found it difficult to
believe that the proposal they made which they felt was coming close to a real
solution was rejected. It was not in good faith for the tenants to come back
and say they were going to wipe everything out and now they wanted more than
the first time. The developer wished to give some recognition to the fact
that there were nine people who were willing to deal with the developer on a
basis similar to that prescribed by the Planning Commission. He found it dif-
ficult that the 11 people who would have received more under their plan found
themselves in the position they were in right now. He did not know where they
were or where they were going to go as far as negotiations because the tenants
did not want to negotiate. They had reached a point where they could go no
further and thus they wished to propose the following:
That the Planning Commission's plan of December 1980 be reinstituted as to all
tenants with the one exception, Mrs. Villa, to be treated as a special circum-
stance and whatever it would take to get her moved into a place she was com-
fortable with. Her's was a special and different set of circumstances and he
did not think anything he said applied to her.
81-727
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 12, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Bay stated he did not know what made Mr. Farano think he could
negotiate with two flat figures, $3,400 for single wide and $4,600 for double
wide and expect to get the majority of the tenants to settle on that.
Mr. Farano stated it was plain to see after the last hearing that there was
going to be a contest as to the.off site and on site appraisal of each and
every mobilehome, or 35 contests that someone was going to have to adminis-
ter. He did not have a plan that was going to be successful as far as deter-
mining the difference in what their appraisal said vs. the tenants appraisal.
He felt that the idea of the inheritance tax appraiser as proposed at the last
meeting (see minutes April 7, 1981) had merit.
Councilman Roth referred to Page 5 of the document, "To the members of the
City Council, Westwinds Development" which Mr. Farano had read, Paragraph 2,
which stated that the owner could close the park at anytime. He asked the
City Attorney if he agreed.
City Attorney Hopkins stated they agreed to the extent that a 12 month notice
could be given together with the other statutory requirement of 60 days but
he questioned the opinion that the mobilehome park could cease operating
without following the statutory requirements.
Councilman Overholt, speaking to Mr. Farano, stated he surmised that the
reason he felt negotiations had broken down was because of bad faith on the
part of the mobilehome owners and their attorney; Mr. Farano answered, he felt
that was the case. Their proposal was completely wiped out and he did not
think that was good faith.
The Mayor asked to hear from Mr. Deitch.
b~. Michael Deitch, attorney representing the tenants first referred to
Exhibit B and bk. Farano's package which was his (Deitch's) letter dated May
8, 1981 to Mr. Farano's o~fice, the first alternative proposed: A.1. Locate
coaches within the City of Anaheim. That line item as well as the entire pro-
posal was meant to reduce the cost To the developer by asking the City Council
to appropriate or provide land existing within the City of Anaheim on which
tenants could place their mobilehomes and if need be, they would pay for the
spaces. The total cost to the developer would be items 2 and 3 which would be
greatly reduced over the initial proposals: 2. Developer to pay all tear-
down, transport and set up costs; 3. Developer to pay legal fees incurred on
behalf of 'tenants.
It was hereby requested on behalf of the tenants that_Item A.1. be allocated
by the City to take care of the displaced tenants. In doing so, they would
create a development which would assist people who had supported the City for
a great number of years, those who could not afford to leave the area because
of jobs, medical treatment, etc. and at the same time assist the developer in
his many problems.
Since the initial proposal in April, several items had come forth from his
clients: They had attempted to locate parks within a 50-mile radius which
would take their mobilehomes. They were being informed those parks that had
spaces would only take coaches 1970 or newer, preferably newer. Additionally
81-728
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 12, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
they had been almost "attacked" by dealers offering $1,000 to $2,000 to each
of the tenants for their mobilehome to be sold off site. The tenants could
not afford to "dump" the mobilehomes, but on the other hand, had no place to
move them.
Councilman Bay interoected and questioned A.1., Exhibit B. When this letter
was sent to Mr. Farano, he asked whether it was supposed to indicate that the
City of Anaheim was to provide the land because he did not read it that way.
Mr. Deitch answered he did not know what Mr. Farano assumed but the indication
was that the land be provided by the City, provided meaning--that the City
would provide a piece of property on which tenants could move their mobilehome
and agree to pay for a space. He did nog have a dollar figure but would have
to go back to the s-mmary which was provided by his clients to the Planning
Department on their financial situation. A price would have to be established
on terms that the people could afford to pay at a reasonable interest rate,
not the rates being charged by the lending institutions at the present time.
A reasonable rate would be in the area of ten to twelve percent.
Councilman Overholt asked Mr. Deitch why he felt negotiations had broken down.
Mr. Deitch answered that the circumstances which occurred after the April
meeting which he attended in Mr. Farano's office in Fullerton, a number of the
people had first hand experience in trying to locate in existing parks but
were being told their coaches were too old. If they wanted to buy new mobile-
homes, the park would sell those to them. The dealers were not making offers
at the off site value or anywhere near that but at substantially less than
that value. The other item which had come up, they were finding out that the
weigh stations were requiring additional axles and wheels to be placed under
the mobilehomes for ~ransit involving $300 to ~600 additional monies for
moving a mobiiehome. They had found it an impossible economic situation. The
solution would be to request the establishment of a shelter park to accommo-
date the residents. ~
Councilman Overholt then asked if they anticipated subsidy by the City; ~.
Deitch answered it would be nice but he did not ghink that they would get it
They did not have a subsidy in mind but that the City would make available a
parcel of property and possibly develop it but that the people would pay their
own way. In talking with the individual clients, none had indicated any
request to accept charity but they all volunteered to pay their own way.
b~yor Seymour felt that was 180 degrees from what he had just told him; Mr.
Deitch stated the tenants were willing to pay their own way within their own
economic status.
Councilman Overholt posed additional questions to Mr. Deitch relative to the
shelter park aspect and ogher related issues at the conclusion of which Coun-
cilwoman Kaywood asked if he (Deitch) was aware that there were nine or eleven
tenants who wanted co deal with the developer at this point.
Mr. Deitch answered that he had approximately 40 clients and he was not aware
of those. He was not saying there were nine or more, he was just no~ aware of
them.
81-729
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 12, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Farano then stated that he did not like to be in a position to negotiate
before the City Council. However, he discussed the matter with his client
when the idea was mentioned of acquiring land. As far as they were concerned,
if there was any possibility of something of that nature happening, they said
they would pay $3,400 and $4,600 respectively, and that totaled approximately
$150,0OO. oHe did not know how far that would go towards establishing some
kind of a park but if the people themselves did something to contribute, that
might be a matter for consideration by the Council.
Mayor Seymour stated when he (Farano) indicated they were going to contribute
$3,400 and $4,600, it was his understanding they would do so only if the City
Council approved the density of 104 units.
Mr. Farano stated that was correct although the total was 96 units without the
affordable. Mayor Seymour, speaking to both Mr. Farano and Mr. Deitch, stated
that they had not helped the situation at all and, in fact, put the Council in
a more difficult position. On one hand, Mr. Deitch, whether he said it or
not, wanted a handout. On the other hand, the developer wanted a density
bonus or another handout. The Mayor then again opened the meeting to public
input asking t~at testimony be confined to the economic remuneration package.
The following people then spoke and relayed their concerns relative to econom-
ic considerations as also previously expressed at the Council meetings of
March 10 and April 7, 1981 (see minutes those dates): Mr. Mark Quijada, Space
37, noted that the offer was $4,600 for a double wide-coach. Not counting
interest or anthing else, he still owed $15,995 on his mobilehome, a 1978
double-wide. To move his mobilehome into a park that would accept it would be
so far out of the way for him to drive to work and back, he would have to sell
his home and find new shelter. If he received 34,600, he would stll owe
$11,995 on his home and he would have to move it.
bZ. Roger Condon, Space 3, reading from a prepared statement elaborated upon
the problem of mobilehomejTpark conversions which was spreading throughout
California. He then referred to a request he had already submitted to staff
(see report dated May 7, 1981 from the Assistant Director for Zoning, sub-
ject: Westwind Trailer Lodge--Survey Results, Page 3, second to last para-
graph which was with reference to b~. Condon's situation--made a part of the
record). The circumstances at the park had forced him to check into alternate
housing and he found he had to move out of the area and seek employment in
another area. He requested an immediate response to his personal proposal.
He purchased a coach for $8,200, put $500 down on it three years ago and had
made payments for the past three years with a balance still owing of approxi-
mately $6,200. If he was evicted from the park, his bank was going to expect
full restitution of the amount owed on the mobilehome before he could move it
or do anything with it. He was requesting pay off by the developers if they
wanted nlm to move and there were also a few other people in the same circum-
stance with older mobilehomes. Perhaps this would be a fair and just way to
treat them. He reiterated his proposal was the settlement of his note with
the bank of $6,200 at the present time.
Telsie Hewlitt, Space 13, first asked what was fair about the offer. She had
agreed to nothing as far as settlement. Ail she wanted was to sell her coach
for what she owed on it accept the $3,600 and she would leave. She confirmed
for the ~yor that she wanted $13,000, the approximate balance owed on her
coach, plus the $3,600.
81-730
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 12, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Francine Czupack, Space 43, emphasized that the stress placed upon her since
the situation had occurred at the park relative to its conversion was contri-
buting to her already serious health problems. What she wanted was the price
of her home and the owners could then have her mobilehome and she would go.
Her home was now valued at $23,500. She did not presently have a loan on it.
When she moved into the park, she put every dime she had on the home.
Mr. Theodore Weigman, Space 10, explained that there were four permanently
disabled people in the park. He questioned what they were going to do rela-
tive to the medical assistance they received and needed. He could get around
better than most but he was totally disabled as well. If they had to move to
Riverside or San Bernardino, they could not get medical assistance unless they
came back to Anaheim because they would have to wait for a year. They could
not just be turned out. They were discriminating against the elderly citizens
and they had to have someplace to go. He wanted to be treated fair and he
wanted to stay in Anaheim.
During the course of questioning of Mr. Weigman by Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr.
Weigman indicated that Mrs. Leila Hatton, former owner of the park, had stated
that the park ~ould always remain a park and she was still a co-owner of that
park.
Mayor Seymour stated, to correct the record on Mr. Weigman's understanding,
they had been furnished by Mr. Farano with a copy of the list of all the
owners of the property, general partners and limited partners, and Leila
Hatton's name did not appear anywhere.
At the end of each presentation, Mayor Seymour questioned the residents rela-
tive to the fact that as outlined in Exhibit 2, the last page of the documen-
tation submitted by Mr. Farano, their attorney, Mr. Deitch offered settlements
for their particular cases in various amounts as listed. In each instance,
the residents indicated they had not agreed or would have nothing to do with
such a settlement. '~
bir. Trudy Brammer, Space 9, stated relative to the question of ownership, that
was something they were very much worried about the whole time. ·
M_r. Brammer stated that Mrs. Hatton was at her house within the last two weeks
and she could not explain the ownership situation at that time. She wanted to
clear up another question relative to the differences in the proposals, i.e.,
the amoun~ that i,~. Deitch indicated the tenants were supposedly willing to
accept. Those amounts were based on a formula which they presented, but Mr.
Farano applied that formula to his own appraisal. Thus, they did not accept
those figures and never had. The figures they had in front of them were
figures they never accepted because it was entirely the owners appraisal.
The i~ayor appreciated Mrs. Brammer clarifying that point but also asked for
further clarification relative to Exhibit 2 in defining what was meant under
the Deitch column.
81-731
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES- May 12, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Deitch explained in Mr. Farano's letter of April 21, 1981, Exhibit A, that
was true representation of the offer that was made in his office by him
(Deitch) on behalf of the tenants, Items 1 through 5. Relative to Item No. 3,
they did talk about an inheritance tax referee who was experienced in that
type of appraisal. The so-called Deitch values were not true Deitch values.
The formula put forth was applied to the appraisals which Mr. Farano had
obtained from Mr. Brown. Applying the same formula to the appraisals they had
obtained independently, the formula would yield a substantially higher dollar
figure, he would estimate approximately 50 to 75% greater, for an estimated
total dollar amount of ~250,000.
Mrs. Brammer continued that the financial situation was that which they found
most impossible. If they accepted Mr. Farano's $4,600 or ~3,400, that amount
would only move them, but where, since there was no place to go. She then
reiterated the problems with which they were faced relative to any move they
might make. Some kind of shelter park must be made available. There were at
least two other parks in Anaheim who were going to be in the same spot as well
as parks in the City of Orange. Further, they would not be welcomed guests in
Riverside even if they could find a space there.
P~yor Seymour ~hen asked Mr. Farano to make his summation.
Mr. Farano stated ne believed there was very little to say. He reiterated,
however, if an acceptable plan was adopted and approved by the Council, the
developer had committed himself to continue to assist the mobilehome owners to
relocate. The 18-month offer still applied during which time they would ex-
pend their efforts to relocate people. He felt it was going to take the 18
months they had said it would take. About 12 or 13 people had actually moved
from the park and there were couple of families who were waiting to move and
who had spots picked out but who were also waiting to see how the situation
would come out. He was not saying it was going to happen tomorrow or next
month but that was one of the reasons why the developer said they would not
start development for 18 ~r 24 months last September when everything started.
He believed that the 18 m6nths still applied during which time they would con-
tinue to expend their efforts to relocate the people and he felt that they
needed those 18 months. Also, Mr. Deitch and Mrs. Brammer were correct when
they stated that the formula proposed by Mr. Deitch on April 14, 1981 was
worked out against the appraisals they had because that was all the informa-
tion they had.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated from his letter (Farano) she got the impression
that in September the notices were going out and the park was closing down.
Now she heard him refer to 18 months to work with the people.
Mr. Farano explained the letter stated that absent a plan or development of
the property itself, the park would commence closing procedures on
September 19, 1981. The 18 months would apply if there was going to be a
development of the park. The management had agreed to and would take an 18
month period of time in which to relocate the residents. If no development,
the park would begin its closing procedures on September 19, 1981. The 18
months would be from the time of approval of the proposed development.
81-732
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 12, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated if in the event they were to go through with the
"threat", and legally they had the right to do that, and they closed the park
in September and walked away from the property or cleared and planted straw-
berries, at some future date she felt his clients would want to have some kind
of zoning to do something with the property. If they were to attempt to sell
it with the understanding that the zoning was agricultural and nothing could
be built on it, they probably would not have too many offers.
~. Farano then confirmed for Councilman Overholt that since the last hearing
(April 7, 1981) they had not successfully relocated anyone with the exception
of Mrs. Stone, Space 8. Further, it was not his statement that Mrs. Hatton
had no interest whatsoever in the property. He had stated she did not own the
property; however, she had a beneficial interest. They had given the City a
title search that showed that UCB owned the property and they had a signed
statement authorizing their firm to appear on their behalf as the legal owner
of Westwinds. He did not feel that Mrs. Hatton's interest in the property was
appropriate in the zoning action.
Councilman Bay then asked on the CUP, did the present request for zoning meet
the new RM-300O standards without any variances.
Mr. Farano answered that the 93 units including the affordables were about
five-tenths or six-tenths short.
i~iss Santaiahti explained that the property with affordable units under the
new Code would permit 96 units. The proposal they had seen under the latest
Revision No. 2 was for 93 units with 25% being affordable, Code allowance
without any affordable was 76 units.
Councilman Bay restated his question, under the affordable and the new RM-3000
Code, would the proposal as now presented in the hearing meet the requirements
without any variances.
~. Farano answered "no". They were approximately 100, llO or 120 feet short
on the recreational space and they were short some covered parking spaces but
the overall parking was correct. They were supposed to have 1,000 feet of
recreational space and he believed they had 888. Their proposal had 2.50
parking spaces per unit and the new Code required 2.65 or 2.56.
b~ss Santalahti stated they were a fraction under on the parking spaces and
the recreational space was under.
Councilman Overholt then read from the Government Code Section at the conclu-
sion of which he stated that Mr. Farano's client as of this morning had not
taken steps to mitigate any adverse impact of the conversion on the ability of
displaced mobilehome park residents to find adequate space in a mobilehome
park as outlined in the Code.
Mr. Farano disagreed. Either his office or Mr. Sktar had spent literally hun-
dreds of hours looking for mobilehome parks for the residents to move to. The
ones who had gone to Rialto were found by Mr. Sklar. Virtually everyone who
had moved thus far had found that place as a result of their efforts.
81-733
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 12, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Overholt asked what would happen if he as a Councilman stated he
would not act on this request until they had accomplished relocation of every-
body or had settled with them.
Mr. Farano stated they would take it as a responsibility and accept it as a
condition by the Planning Commission, the responsibility to help the people to
relocate. They were not through yet and he supposed that the Council could
wait until that time. They had to have an approval of a concept of develop-
ment before they could go forward to discharge that responsibility. They had
been doing it now based upon the direction of the Planning Commission and
their own desire to help the people move.
After further discussion and questioning between Councilman Overholt, Mayor '
Seymour and Mr. Farano, the Mayor closed the public hearing.
Councilman Bay then reiterated what he had said the first time they discussed
the matter. He did not think the Council could solve the problem. He saw it
as a wide range problem not only throughout Orange County, but also throughout
the State. He did not know a solution but he did know that some misconcep-
tions on both sides were not helping anybody to get to the solution of the
problem. He kept hearing an assumption with which he did not agree and he was
going to explain why. Government at any level was not responsible for the
financial or the legal mistakes made by its citizenry nor was government res-
ponsible to assure everybody who made those financial or legal mistakes that
it was the government's responsibility to make them solvent again. That might
sound very cold and harsh but as long as he kept hearing from the people in-
volved, as much as he sympathized and empathized with their position, he would
still not ever admit that any level of government was responsible for their
financial mistakes. When they expected that the value of that land in the
mobilenome park was somehow theirs for more than a 30 day period, they had no
legal basis for that. In his opinion, they had no moral basis as well. He
knew that they perhaps disagreed with him completely but that was the way he
felt about it. If there ~as some way that the developer could help or that
government could help, they were there to try to do so. He did not agree with
the demands that had come before the Council from the people that they had to
solve all their economic problems and he also did not think that they believed
that. He had hoped that the negotiations that occurred during the interim
would be give and take on both sides since there was a time constraint leading
to legal eviction of the residents. There was also a time constraint on the
developer as to how long he was going to retain the investment money from the
people investing in that property. He reiterated, he did not agree that the
Council had to be caught in the middle to solve the problem one way or the
other. All they could do was to try to encourage negotiation for the fairest
settlement possible. Under the law, they were limited as well and there were
still property rights to be considered. The owners of that property regard-
less of how or why they acquired it had rights under the constitution of the
country which the Council also defended as was stipulated in their oath of
office.
He did not know where they should go from this point but if there was any hope
of better negotiation, he would be the first to go along with that. He was
81-734
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 12, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
not ready to approve the zoning as presented by the developer and was still in
the hopes that there could be negotiations to improve both sides of the mat-
ter. He was also not impressed by Mr. Deitch's side of the negotiations or
overly impressed by the developers side. They asked at the last hearing that
both sides negotiate in good faith and that status reports be submitted every
week. They really had not had those reports every week. They had received
reports from the developer that included some proposals by Mr. Deitch but ~hey
had not had a status report from Mr. Deitch or Mr. Farano that gave a clear
picture of what was transpiring in the negotiations. All they could do was to
continue to try to encourage some negotiation toward the best settlement pos-
sible. They could not give away public funds, and to solve the problem as the
tenants felt it ought to be solved was going to take a great deal of money.
Mayor Seymour asked the City Attorney if it would be construed to be a gift of
public funds in the event increased density were granted to the developer in
exchange for a higher settlement payment to the tenants of the park.
City Attorney ~opkins answered that the City would not be giving any money.
If the density bonus were granted, it would be in accordance with the Code
provisions and what the developer did as far as settling the occupants would
be his own affair. The Council would make its decision based on the evalua-
tion made of the overall project.
Mayor Seymour stated that he agreed with most of what Councilman Bay stated
but on the other hand, he did not believe that the two sides would ever by
themselves settle their differences amicably. In his opinion what would
undoubtedly happen, either the Council would make a settlement almost acting
as a jury and they would have to settle on some monetary number. If the
Council did not do it, then a judge was going to settle the matter and from
what he understood of the facts, the question the judge was going to settle
was not how much money the tenants were going to get, but whether or not the
park owner had the ability to lock up the park and throw the Key away. He did
not think the tenants unde%stood that. Some judge would make a decision as to
the legal property rights'of the park owner as opposed to the tenants and he
did not believe that would equate to dollars and cents. He felt that ~he
realization had set in on the developer that if they did not attempt to nego-
tiate in equity, they were not going to be able to build on the property. On
the other side, he did not believe the tenants understood or had to conclude
from the testimony he heard that there was no understanding that the time
clock had been running and when it stopped, they would have to move their
coach and nothing would be paid. He did not know that there was any possible
way for the Council to settle the matter while making everybody happy. It was
also not a matter of dialing how much density it would take to satisfy all the
financial requirements of the people present tonight. This was probably one
of the most difficui~ decisions he had been faced with in his seven years on
the Council; however, he would attempt to make some type of decision this
evening rather than making no decision with the matter concluding as he sug-
gested, that the park would be closed by the owner.
Councilman Overholt stated it was his feeling that it was up to Mr. Deitch or
whoever was going to present the tenants individually or as a group to advise
them as to what their legal remedies might be. He did not think that there
had been any plan devised to mitigate the adverse impact of the conversion.
81-735
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 12, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Anytnin~ he could do to encourage the parties to continue to work to try to
come up with a plan, as a Councilman it seemed that was his duty at this
point. At some future point, any of the parties could litigate the matter in
the courts but the problem with that area of the law was that there was not
much law related to it. His inclination was to continue the matter again and
based upon what occurred this evening, encourage Mr. Farano and Mr. Deitch or
whoever was going to be negotiating to work harder to see how many other
people could be relocated.
Councilman Roth stated he agreed with the statement of urging further negotia-
tions. He would also like to have Mr. Deitch submit a specific plan to the
Council along with some dollar amounts so that they could evaluate that. At
present, he could not see where the Council was going to acquire funds to
build a mobilehome park for displaced tenants. He urged further negotiations
for another 45 days with progress reports to be submitted from both attornies
in the interim. He emphasized that come September, there was going to be a
day of reckoning for everybody.
Mayor Seymour asked for input from the parties involved relative to a 45 day
continuance fo~ further negotiations and their feeling as to progress thac
might be made.
Mrs. Brammer stated that given 45 days, it was possibly they might be able to
accomplish something. She could not speak for her people at this time but
they would try to get them together to ask their opinion.
b~yor Seymour then asked for a show of hands from those residents present if
they believed that another 45 days would help relative to further negotiating;
17 people raised their hand.
b~. Farano stated that they would negotiate and never refuse to talk to some-
one, He also suggested that since very often in difficult cases a court would
supervise negotiations themselves, that a member of the Council sit as a part
of the negotiating team or supervise them in what they were doing however,
they were willing to proceed with or without the approval of that suggestion.
The Mayor then asked those residents present if they empowered Mr. Deitch to
represent them, would they buy what he negotiated; only 11 raised their hand
and comments were heard from the audience that they did not agree with the
formula and further that they would like to get together with Mr. Deitch to
see what ~e wanted to negotiate for them.
The Mayor conceded that he felt they were going to have to try it again for
the 45 days as suggested.
Mr. Deitch stated he was available to meet with his clients at the only time
they were all available, on Saturdays and Sundays in their park. He was
available to act as a negotiator and would do so if requested and if he could
get basic ground rules that the majority would rule and whatever path they
would take. He did not want to deal on 27 or 28 individual cases at this
point in time. He would like to find a common determination for each party
with some personal insight also included.
81-736
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 12, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to continue the matter to June 30, 1981 at 7:00
p.m. and in the interim progress reports to be submitted by the attorney for
the developer and for the tenants. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNmeNT:
at 9:30 a.m.
P.M.)
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to adjourn to Tuesday, May 19, 1981
Councilman Roth seconded the motion, blOTION CARRIED. (10:08
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK
BY
DEPUTY
81-737
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 12, 1981, 10.00 A.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in adjourned
regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: 0verholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William 0. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
DEPUTY CITY CLERK: Leonora Sohl
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: William T. Hopkins
DEPUTY CITY MANAGER: James Ruth
ASSISTANT FINANCE DIRECTOR - RESOURCES: Ron Rothschild
ASSISTANT TO CITY MANAGER: James Armstrong
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ron Thompson
STREET MAINTENANCE SUPERINTENDENT: Bill Lewis
CITY ENGINEER: William Devitt
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COM}~UNITY DEVELOPMENT: Norm Priest
HOUSING MA~NAGER: Lisa Stipkovich
Mayor Seymour called the adjourned regular meeting to order for
the purpose of a budget work session with various City
departments.
CITY COUNCIL: City Manager William Talley referred to Page C-12, Proposed
1981-82 Resource Allocation Plan, reflecting a total appropriation of
$1,222,225. No capital improvement projects were involved. Position control
summary page E-3 --the Control Center contained the Council personnel itself,
funds for the annual audit, the Council Contingency Fund in the amount of
$150,000, and the Visitor and Convention Bureau, $832,644. Mr. Bill Snyder,
President of the Visitor and Convention Bureau (VCB) was present to answer
questions.
Mayor Seymour referred ko Page C-13 noting the labor dollars for 1980-81 pro-
jected reflected a percentage of 93.1 compared to 1981-82 of 161.9%. He
wanted to know the percentage increase in labor dollars.
Mr. Ron Rothschild, Assistant Finance Director-Resources, stated it was a
61.9% increase comparing the projected expenditure for 1980-81 of $41,903 with
the proposed 1981-82 proposed budget figure of $67,862 as reflected on that
page.
The Mayor asked what was encompassed in the 61.9% 'increase in the cost of
labor.
Assistant City Manager William T. Hopkins answered the difference lay in the
fact that 1800 hours in the City Clerk's office, which was used almost 100% in
assisting Council in many of their appointments, and other activities had been
allocated to this particular program. That reflected the major portion of the
difference in the labor cost.
Mayor Seymour asked why they did that; Mr. HopMins stated primarily because
the time in that position was spent almost totally in Council activities. The
City Clerk maintained the overall supervision of that function but for cost
allocation, it seemed more appropriate to allocate that to the Council budget
since that was where the effort was being spent.
81-738
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 12, 1981, 10.00 A.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that gave the Mayor a full-time secretary but the
Council still had nothing; Councilman Bay stated he would not say that since
the Clerk handled the invitations for the whole Council.
Mr. Talley confirmed the persons hours were spent on City Council activities
and, accordingly, placed in Control Center 31.
Mr. Bill Snyder, President, Visitor and Convention Bureau, then gave the his-
torical background of the Bureau since its inception showing the growth of the'
program over the years, all that they had accomplished, and all that he fore-
saw for the future. Their budget requested an increase of 8-4% over last year
recognizing a slight addition for travel expenses and also for instituion of
an advertising program picked up by a direct mail campaign.
Questions were then posed to Mr. Snyder relative to a possible decline in
Visitor and Convention business due to the economic situation as well as in-
crease in fuel prices. Mr. Snyder felt that business would still be up some-
what according to the bed tax which projected occupancy rates of hotels.
Mr. Talley s~ated that they were predicting a 15% increase in the room tax.
Mayor Seymour then referred to the line item budget, Program 103, Page 5.
There were two items in that program where he was concerned about the per-
centage increases, specifically building and facility rent increasing from
$24,790 to $38,888 or 56.8%. Another related to contracts services for the
City up 22.9%. He asked what might be the explanations for that.
~. Jim Armstrong, Assistant to the City Manager, answered the building and
facility rental was for the Cultural Arts Center. The City for sometime had
paid the maintenance on that building and the figure presented was a better
allocation of the cost and reflected a much higher increase in utilities.
Relative to contract services, those were the costs incurred by the City de-
partments in support o~ the Halloween Festival. The Police Department also
asked for an additional amount because they had incurred more costs with re-
gard to the Festival than budgeted last year.
Mr. Taliey stated while they were on the subject of facility rental, Council
should be aware they were going to see throughout the budgets cost in the mag-
nitude of 50% and more for office rental maintenance because of utilities and
the fac~ that the budget was substantially underestimated. The 50% was,
therefore, not going to be an unreasonable increase that was going to be re-
commended to Council. The figures for 1981-82 reflected not only a more ac-
curate figure plus increased utility costs, but also makeup for the under
budgeting of 1980-81.
Mayor Seymour asked why they missed the budget so badly in 1980-81; Mr. Talley
stated that was to be discussed next and Mr. Roche was present at this time.
Councilman Bay stated he was also very interested in other Operating Costs and
why the percentages were so high.
81-739
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 12, 1981, 10.00 A.M.
After a brief discussion on the amount allocated to the Council Contingency
Fund, the Mayor asked, how much was left in the fund at present; Mr. Ron
Rothschild answered in approximate terms $150,000 which amount was not carried
over from year to year, but allowed to lapse and a new appropriation of
$150,000 made for the ensuing year. He confirmed for Councilman Bay that they
zero budgeted on all divisions.
PUBLIC WORKS: City Manager Tailey referred to Pages C-lO4 through C-159,
Administration, Streets and Sanitation, Parkway Maintenance, Facility Main-
tenance, Engineering and Mechanical Maintenance which collectively totalled
$24,769,000. Capital Improvement Projects were shown on Pages D-30 through
D-34 and collectively amounbed to $13,670,O00--Position Control E-23 and E-28
through 35. The major items representing change from the prior year: first he
was recommending that the department employ an Energy Manager for an approxi-
mat8 cost of $50,000 to work internally in City activities in attempting to
reduce some of the more than $1 million accounts where they were using energy
now; the continuing problem of street maintenance and improvements where the
cost of the material was going up at a much greater rate than the revenues
coming in; the major areas of financing, the maintenance garage, traffic sig-
nals and storm drains. As Council would recall, they recommended considera-
tion of certificates of participation for some of the major areas. Antici-
pated in the plan would be fee increases for Facility Maintenance, street
cleaning and traffic signal assessment and in August, at the completion of ne-
gotiations, solid waste collection as well.
Mr. Ron Thompson, Acting Public Works Executive Director, stated that the
Public Works Department was of the opinion that the service levels recommended
in the program would remain at the same high level as the current fiscal
year. He noted, however, that the $13 million plus Capital Improvement budget
that Council reviewed two weeks ago was being severely impacted by increases
in construction costs u~on which he elaborated. During the next fiscal year,
Public Works was going ~o be placing a great deal of emphasis on increasing
productivity, reducing industrial accidents, sick leave usage, and devising
better ways to perform tasks. He gave an example of the latter in the parkway
maintenance program, Program 241 to 243, Page C-136.
Councilman Bay asked what the deficit would be if they did not raise the cost
of street sweeping.
Councilman Bay stated although he did not need it right now, he would like to
.know the dollar figure with no increase in street sweeping revenues.
After speaking with other members of staff, Mr. Lewis answered that it would
be $292,000, present service level; Mayor Seymour asked relative to the
$292,0OO, the revenue amount last year; Mr. Lewis stated he would have to get
an answer to that question.
Mayor Seymour then stated he would like to know the projected number of sewer
maintenance revenues in excess of sewer maintenance costs for fiscal year
1981-82; Mr. Lewis answered that they had budgeted them for a "portion". In
their program budget, they identified each activity separately and established
their service fees to balance those costs. Service fees for sewers were pro-
osed to increase four cents--the total difference in revenue over cost was
7,000 out of a $367,900 budget.
81-740
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 12, 1981, 10.00 A.M.
The Mayor then posed questions to Mr. Lewis relative to street sweeping during
which he asked how much a mile it cost for street sweeping; Mr. Lewis answer-
ed, $7.85 per mile which represented all of their costs.
The Mayor then asked what a commercial vendor would charge; Mr. Lewis present-
ly did not have a figure for that. Their last comparison was made a year ago.
The Mayor stated he generally would like to know what was out in the market-
place, if there were other cities contracting with private vendors and their
cost per mile. He asked Mr. Lewis to develop some numbers per mile in order
to determine if $7.85 was a good or bad deal.
Councilman Bay asked relative to the Capital Improvements, how much money out
of all Capital Improvements was going to Storm Drains, after eliminating the
Storm Drain in the Patt Street area and the major redevelopment project storm
drain, No. 17, and also if the storm drains in progress right now were in-
cluded in the proposed budget as a carryover.
City Engineer William Devitt stated they submitted a sheet which showed the
storm drain program (see summary, Capital Improvement Projects 1981-1982 and
attachments submitted at the Budget worksession of April 28, 1981). There was
a minor amount of storm drain work being done in the next fiscal year, dis-
counting the District No. 17 storm drain. Eliminating Patt Street and Dis-
trict No. 17, the only items left were the $210,000 Buruel drain and the
$70,000 Cerritos drain or $280,000 total. There was also an FAU project on La
Palma, from Magnolia to the Freeway, amounting to approximately $300,000, a
street improvement project which did include a storm drain.
Councilman Bay stated what he would like to see, since they had a clear vote
of the people indicating that they would have gone to bonding if the State law
allowed, taking all thejcapital improvement projects, and breaking out all the
storm drainage and listing that on one sheet to provide him with a total dol-
lar figure.
Mr. Talley then stated in the Traffic Engineering recommendation on Traffic
Signal Assessment Fees, a 15% increase was recommended in existing fees be-
cause of costs. He asked if they wished that presented to them as part of a
budget hearing now or in a wrap-up session. He was trying to determine the
Council!s pleasure on some of the issues where they had a recommendation on
fee increases but no discussions had taken place.
Councilman Roth stated he for one, relative to traffic signal fees, would like
to know when they last increased those fees, the percentage and how much in-
come was derived from The last increase, etc.; Mr. Talley explained that was
included in the report of April 24, 1981 which he briefed (see memorandum
dated April 24, 1981 from the Traffic Engineer--subject: Signal Assessment
Fund--Status Report on file in the City Clerk's office).
Councilman Bay stated his feeling on all increases, street sweeping, sewer
maintenance, whatever should be held until they could look at them from the
standpoint of having looked at the whole budget. He felt it was important to
know the dollar figures if, for example, they did not raise street sweeping
fees, how much revenue would they then not have and the impact on the total
budget.
81-741
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 12, 1981, 10.00 A.M.
Mr. Talley stated that on June 9th they would bring all of those increases be-
fore the Council at the conclusion of the hearings.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT: Mr. Talley referred to the Control Centers involved,
Pages C-lO7 through C-121--the Planning Commission, Administration, Business
License and Building totalling $2.3 million. Position Control, E-24 through
E-27. There were no Capital Improvements involved.
Mr. Thompson stated it was the opinion of the management staff of the Planning
Department that the proposed budget would provide adequate funds to maintain a
high level of planning, building and business license service to the citi-
zens. Three years ago when Anaheim experienced its highest year of building
activity, they had 32 people in the Building Department and they now had 24.
Four of those positions were CETA and one more permanent position was cut back
this year · Zoning Enforcement had been "beefed up" and last year they were
given an additional individual for zoning enforcement. They found it would be
most cost effective to cross-train Business License personnel inasmuch as they
had two Business License enforcement officers who filled in on all of the zon-
ing issues. 'They now had four Enforcement Officers who were able to zero in
on any special enforcement program the Council may consider appropriate.
Next year in the Planning area, the Community Atlas (see Anaheim Atlas sub-
mitred at the April 28, 1981 meeting) would be completed and they would be re-
questing the Council to adopt portions of it as a master EIR. It was expected
to save considerable time for the citizens and developers in the environmental
review process because they would be able to focus in on those things that
were of specific concern and to use the information they had accumulated and
refer to that rather than going through extended EIR's. They would be up-
dating the General Plan in accordance with the new State consolidation and
streamlining of the elements. They also anticipated some General Plan amend-
ments in the vicinity o~ Weir Canyon. They were continuing to monitor the
transportation situatic~ and would periodically be updating the census infor-
mation as it was received from the Census Bureau. ~e also confirmed for
Councilman Roth that they did not anticipate an increase in building fees
other than those that came out bi-monthly.
PARKS, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES: Mr. Talley referred to Control Cen-
ter C-162 through 180, Administration, Recreation and Parks, totaling $5.7
million. There was an extensive Capital Improvement Program covered on Pages
D-35 through D-44 totaling $1,871,OOO Position Control E-36, 37 and 38- The
only major issue was the proposed reorganization plan presented to the Council
on April 28, 1981 where they talked about the consolidation of Parks, Recrea-
tion, Community Services and Public Works.
Mr. James Ruth, Deputy City Manager then gave an overview of the proposed
1981-82 Budget projected to increase from $4,520,571 to a proposed $5,191,577
reflecting a net increase of $671,186. Their work hours for all three Control
Centers, 69, 70 and 71 were down by 3~,048. The significant increases
($671,186 overall) were reflected in the Facility RentAl program amounting to
$296,000, equipment rental was about $131,000, and labor charges were
$221,000, the total increase in those three categories amounting to $647,900.
They were requesting three additional personnel; however, one position had
81-742
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 12, 1981, 10.00 A.M.
been abolished making a net increase of two personnel, an ITC for the George
Washington Community Center and a laborer who would maintain the restroom
facilties throughout the parks system, the latter being a transfer from
Facility Maintenance. They also had one additional Park Maintenance worker
required to maintain the additional land at the new library site and also
expanded Stadium facilities.
Mr. Ruth then elaborated upon some of the significant accomplishments that had
occured which had an impact on their budget.
Councilman Bay noted in the subject Control Centers under "Other Operating
Costs" hefty increases. He asked Mr. Ruth's opinion as to how much control he
had over those costs.
Mr. Ruth answered, in those areas where they had control, they exercised that
control but, as pointed out earlier, of the $671,000 increase in their budget,
approximately $647,000 was in those three accounts--Salary and Wages, Facility
Rental and Equipment Rental. They had scrutinized those costs and one program
alone, Facilsty Rental, increased 50%- They were going to be looking to con-
tract maintenance in a couple of their buildings.
Councilman Bay stated what he did not buy in the whole budget were the opera-
ting costs for maintenance performed by labor within the Maintenance Depart-
ment and the added burden overhead tacked onto salaries. To him it was way
out of line. He did not care what Control Center they picked. He was going
to the single line items to find out where all those dollars were coming from
because he had not seem them in past budgets in that area.
Councilman 0verholt then asked Mr. Ruth if he felt the Parks and Recreation
Commission had outlived its usefulness.
Mr. Ruth answered he wo]~ld say there was an imbalance. He did not think the
Commission per se had outlived its usefulness but there was an overload of
School Board representation on it.
They were very involved in School Board activities, their prime responsi-
bility, and thus more in demand to attend their own meetings. They had found
the School Board members were interested in programming but their interest on
the Commission was limited to just programming and not all the other problems
the commission had to deal with. He felt it would be more beneficial to have
a better balance of other community representation on the Commission.
Councilman 0verholt noted that they had shared facilities with the Anaheim
Union High School District. He asked if there were any other School Districts
with which they shared facilities.
Mr. Ruth answered "yes", the City School District, Orange Unified School
District--they had joint use of facilities with all the School Districts and
usually they had staff representation at Commission meetir~s as well as a
School Board member. He felt there should be more at-large commissioners as
suggested by Councilman 0verholt.
81-743
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 12, 1981, lO. O0 A.M.
Councilman Overholt agreed with Mr. Ruth and felt that the time had come to
create a better balance because there was no financial contribution from any
School District that he knew of. The shared facilities were of mutual in-
terest to the City and to the School Districts. It might be a matter for the-
Council to consider, i.e., restructuring the representation on the Commission
so that there would be a better balance.
Mr. Ruth stated he would be glad to study the matter and come back with a re-.
commendation for the City Manager and Council to consider.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated the poorest attendance was in Planning Commission
representation and it was extremely important to have a continuing liaison be-
tween the Planning Commission and the Parks and Recreation Commission.
Before concluding with the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Depart-
ment, the Mayor asked how they could get a better handle on the facility ren-
tal and equipment rental increases. He concurred with Councilman Bay relative
to his feeling previously articulated.
After a brief discussion on the matter between the Mayor and City Manager,
Mr. Talley stated that he would have Mr. Roche and Mr. Merriam present again
on May 19, 1981 to discuss the matter perhaps to be scheduled after the Police
Department budget or the Stadium, Convention Center, Golf Courses.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Mr. Talley referred to Pages C-292 through C-310 en-
compassing Redevelopment, Housing Assistance, Neighborhood Preservation, the
HCD Administration and the Economic Development Control Centers. The combined
budget totaled $34,150,000 most of which was not included in the General Fund
because it included Redevelopment and Housing. The re were no Capital Improve-
ment projects; however, Redevelopment contained $15 million of capital related
expenditures, Position ~ontrol E-21 and 22 and E-54 and 55.
Mr. Norm Priest, Executive Director of Community Development, stated it was
not his intention to repeat his presentation made on April 28, 1981 at the
Budget work session (see minutes that date) relative to Capital Improvements
beyond saying that Capital Improvements from a Redevelopment perspective took
a somewhat different character than would normally be thought of in his judg-
ment. They were talking about something more broad than streets, storm
drains,.sanitary sewers, etc. They were talking about things such as land ac-
quisition, their single largest line item, and relocation and demolition.
Those items were all an important part of creating their product--the product
of ~evelopment sites.
Mr. Priest then made a brief presentation on the following aspects of the
Community Development Department budget:
REDEVELOPMENT: $22,873,215--the major portion consisting of the Capital Im-
provement portion--land acquisition, project improvements, relocation, and
demolition.
HOUSING: $7,405,623--all of that forthcoming from the Department of Housing
and Urban Development--all pursuant to annual contributions contracts which
they had for assisted housing.
81-744
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 12, 1981, 10.00 A.M.
NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION: $2,809,957--all pursuant to grants from other
agencies of government, non-General Funded, the largest single source of funds
coming from the Community Development Block Grant. A certain portion also
came from State funds.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: $93,000--coming from a variety of sources. This was
the only instance in which City C~neral Fund money was involved to the extent
of $17,OO0, the remaining sources of funding being CETA--$59,000 and Redevel-
opment--$17,000. This was a substantial reduction from prior years.
Mr. Priest then briefed the Council with regard to revenue sources.
From a staff standpoint, there was an indication in the proposed budget that
there would be two additional staff positions; however, that was not true due
to a typographical error. The two additional staff positions had been added
the past year and they did not anticipate in this particular budget any ad-
ditional staff positions. In Redevelopment there were 16 positions, Housing
17, Neighborhood Preservation 22, Economic Development i position for a total
departmental.staffing of 56 positions.
In concluding, he pointed out that of the entire departmental total, the major
portion, in the high 90%, was non-C~neral Funded.
At the request of the Mayor, Mr. Priest then spoke to the sizable increases in
labor dollars as well as operating dollars. Mrs. Stipkovich, Housing Manager,
also assisted in the presentation noting that the labor dollar increases for
Control Center 60 and 61 were as a result of positions approved by the City
Council in December and some reclassifications and promotions, in terms of
other operating costs, the increase was a result of the lease up activity,
although they had the same amount of units allocated to them this year and
were projecting the sam~ next year. During this year, they were in a lease-up
mode where they did not.expend as much money. Also in other operating
(Control Center 61), the increase was a combination of an in- crease in
various programs and also an increase in the additional amount re- ceived for
contingency funds. This included the administration of Block Grant as well as
all Neighborhood Preservation activities. They were also antici- pating an
increase in revenue from sale of land, specifically a large increase if they
sold the 0rangethorpe and Imperial site if the G & K project was ap- proved by
HUD during the next fiscal year. Those were the majority of reasons for the
increase in other operating in Control Center 61.
ANAHEIM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: Mr. Priest stated that Mr. Flocken
was present representing the Corporation if there were any questions. As
noted, there was a substantial reduction relative to funding and the Corpora-
tion as its long-term objective had been looking to move from a full publicly
funded operation over into an increasing amount of private funding.
~. John Flocken, 1320 South~Eacienda, noted that the Anaheim Economic Devel-
opment Corporation (AEDC) portion of the budget was $50,000 vs. $125,8OO for
the previous year. They had some thoughts and aspirations insofar as funding
AEDC and found that in the past the restrictions placed upon them by certain
federal programs had diverted them from their primary purpose. They felt with
a "cleaner" operation in the future, they would be more efficient.
81-745
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 12, 1981, i0.00 A.M.
Councilman Roth asked Mr. Flocken what he saw as the Corporation's primary
thrust in the coming year.
Mr. Flocken answered that those were outlined in the specific purposes of the
Corporation--a continued program of retention of existing businesses within
the City and the program of visitation they were undertaking in finding out
the future plans of each of the businesses within the City and making avail-
able to them all the resources they had available for their expansion. As far'
as target industries and those industries they expected to attract in Anaheim,
that would be of secondary importance to the retention of existing busines-
ses. The third involved recycling of industrial areas that were not of first
and best use.
Councilman Roth then referred to the problem of the availability of affordable
housing when trying to retain and expand existing businesses.
Mr. Flocken stated that affordable housing was probably the biggest single
problem existing, not only in Anaheim but also for Orange County, Santa
Clara, etc. 'It was an impossible situation and cried for a solution. Com-
panies could not transfer employess out to the area because people would not
move due to the high cost of housing and they did not have an answer to the
problem.
Mayor Seymour stated it was his understanding that the thrust of the AEDC was
now going to be to try to get the private sector to pick up what the City had
initially funded, thereby becoming totally independent.
Mr. Flocken explained that the primary objective this year was to devise a
plan that would provide for the continuing future funding of the AEDC sup-
ported by industry. They had several alternate plans and it was their objec-
tive to be completely fr~e of any type of federal programs in the future--to
be independently funded ~rom independent sources.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked relative to housing, was it more difficult to re-
tain existing businesses or to attract new businesses; Mr. Flocken stated it
was a problem for both. In the expansion of existing businesses, it created a
problem because if they had to bring in more executives from outside of Orange
County, they were really facing problems.
Mr. Talley then announced the conclusion of the budget work session.
RECESS-CLOSED SESSION: The City Attorney requested a Closed Session to dis-
cuss potential litigation.
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess into Closed Session.
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (12:20 P.M.)
Councilman Bay
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour 'called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present, with the exception of Councilman 0verholt. (1:45 P.M.)
81-746
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 12, 1981, I0.00 A.M.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Bay moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded
the motion. Councilman 0verholt was absent. MOTION CARRIED. (1:45 P.M.)
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK
BY
DEPUTY