1980/12/098O- 154 i
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 9, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Tal!ey
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Mary L. Hibbard, Anaheim United Methodist Church, gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilwoman Miriam Kaywood led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
119: RESOLUTIONS OF APPRECIATION: Resolutions of Appreciation were unanimously
adopted by the City Council commending the members of the Citizens' Committee
for the passage of the $10 million Storm Drain Bond Issue for their successful
efforts. On behalf of the Council, the Mayor expressed his deep and sincere
thanks for the efforts each and all extended in the successful passage of the
bond issue. Councilwoman Kaywood and Mayor Pro Tem Overholt then assisted the
Mayor in presenting the resolutions to those members of the Committee present;
Jacquelyn Terretl, Evan Walden, William Devitt, Art Daw, Bruce Bowman. Other
members of the Committee unable to be present--Vincent Tock, Virginia and Alvin
Tinzel, Mary Ruth Pinson, Helen B. Carter, Barbara Joseph, and Lynda Sprague.
Councilwoman Kaywood commented that it was her pleasure to work with the members
of the Committee. Not only did they do an excellent job, but also it was done
for a total of $1,300. Her hope was that they would find a way to implement
the passage of the issue in light of the failure of State-wide Proposition 4.
MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting
held November 18, November 25 and December 2, 1980, subject to typographical
corrections. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Councilman Roth abstained
on the minutes of the meeting held November 25, 1980 ~in the evening. MOTION
CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda, after
reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to waiver is
hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the title, specific
request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such ordinance or resolution
in regular order. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $10,948,675.46 in accordance
with the 1980-81 Budget, were approved. '
161: ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOP?lENT AGENCY: Councilman
Roth moved to receive and file the Annual Progress Report of the Redevelopment
Agency for 1979-80, as recommended in memorandum dated December 2, 1980 from
Executive Director of Community Development Norm Priest. Councilman Overholt
seconded the motion.
~.ity Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 9, 1980, 1:3.0 P.M.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay stated in looking over the nine major
accomplishments of the Agency for 1979-80 attached to the subject report, it
was obvious that the Redevelopment program had moved out in a tangible way.
He complimented Mr. Priest and his staff on the excellent job they had done.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
128: ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1980: Mayor Seymour
explained that he and Councilman Overholt, as liaison to the Financil Audit
Committee, had a number of meetings, culminating with the delivery of the
report to the Council. Prior to the Council meeting today, they had asked
members of the press to join them so that they might point out some of the
highlights of achievement in the City in the past year. It gave the oppor-
tunity for them to share with the media some very significant accomplishments.
Councilman Bay moved to receive and file the Annual Financial Report for year
ended June 30, 1980 as recommended in memorandum dated December 2, 1980 from
Director of Finance George Ferrone. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
106/123: STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS AT PELANCONI PARK: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, a second addendum to the agreement
dated September 30, 1975 with the Grant Corporation was approved in the amount
of $142,000 for storm drain improvements at Pelanconi Park, as recommended in
memorandum dated December 3, 1980 from James Ruth, Deputy City Manager, and
said funds were appropriated into Program No. 16-809-7103. MOTION CARRIED.
160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - WESTERN RED CEDAR POLES - BID NO. 3714: On motion
by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilman Bay, the low bid of McFarland
Cascade was accepted and purchase authorized in the amount of $112,702.43 for
83 75-foot Cedar Poles, Item No. 1; and 35 85-foot Cedar Poles, Item No. 2,
as recommended by the Purchasing Agent in memorandum dated December 3, 1980.
MOTION CARRIED.
103: PROPERTY TAX ALLOCATION FOR REORGANIZATION NO. 51: Councilwoman Kaywood
offered Resolution No. 80R-530 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum received
December 3, 1980 from Robert Kelly, Associate Planner, agreeing to an exchange of
property tax revenues pursuant to Section 99(b) of the Revenue and Taxation
Code of the State relating to the detachment of certain uninhabited territory
from the City and the annexation of said territory to the City of Orange, des-
ignated as Reorganization No. 51; developer of said property to pay City $1575
for sewer service. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-530: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AGREEING TO AN EXCHANGE OF PROPERTY TAX REVENUES PURSUAMT TO SECTION 99(b) OF THE
REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RELATING TO THE DETACHMENT
OF CERTAIN UNINHABITED TERRITORY FROM THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE ANNEXATION OF
SAID TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF ORANGE, DESIGNATED AS REORGANIZATION NO. 51.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The ~iayor declared Resolution No. 80R-530 duly passed and adopted.
City .Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 9~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
i23: LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF BREA PERMITTING THEM TO ATTACH AND
MAINTAIN AN ANTENNA ON AN ANAHEIM BUILDING: On motion by Councilman Roth,
seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, a license agreement with the City of Brea
was authorized at an annual fee of $150, permitting Brea to attach and main-
tain an antenna and receiver for improved radio communications on a City
building located on the Metropolitan Water District Yorba Linda site, as
recou~ended in memorandum dated December 2, 1980 from Chief of Police George
~ielsch. MOTION CARRIED.
153/152: TEMPORARY HELP SERVICE AGREEMENTS: Councilman Overholt offered Reso-
lution No. 80R-531 for adoption, authorizing the City Manager to execute tem-
porary help service agreements with certain designated firms, for the acquisi-
tion of labor and services for temporary personnel relief, as recommended in
memorandum dated December 3, 1980 from the Human Resources Director Garry
McRae. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-531: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE CERTAIN AGREEMENTS FOR TEMPORARY HELP
SERVICES FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour stated he was going to continue his
opposition to the subject. In reviewing the December 3, 1980 report, he was
still opposed to the utilization of part-time outside employment relative to
what he considered to be short vacation periods, as well as brief illness per-
iods. Utilization of part time people from outside employment agencies for
peak loads however, made sense, but otherwise he felt they could do without
such service.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay and Roth
S eymou r
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-531 duly passed and adopted.
153/152: SETTLEMENT OF WAGE CLAIMS RESULTING FROM EMPLOYEE GRIEVANCES: Council-
man Bay offered Resolution No. 80R-532 for adoption, granting joint authority to
the City Manager and City Attorney to allow, compromise or settle wage claims of
employees up to ~he dollar amount of $1,000 resulting from employee grievances,
as recommended in memorandum dated December 4, 1980 from the Human Resources
Director. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-532: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GRANTING JOINT AUTHORITY TO THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY ATTORNEY TO ALLOW, COMPRO-
MISE OR SETTLE WAGE CLAIMS OF EMPLOYEES UP TO THE DOLLAR AMOUNT OF ONE THOUSAND
DOLLARS AS RECOMMENDED BY THE HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR.
80-154~
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 9, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour asked if it would be possible for the
Council to receive copies of settlements that occured from time to time.
City Manager William Talley suggested a quarterly report; the Mayor favored
that suggestion.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-532 duly passed and adopted.
123: PREPLACEMENT MEDICAL EXAMS - JANUARY 1~ 1981 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1981:
City Manager Talley briefed the Council on memorandum dated November 24, 1980
from the Risk Manager, recommending approval of an amendment to the agreement
with Daniel H. Ninburg, M.D., and the Anaheim Medical Clinic, Inc., to perform
pre-employment medical examinations, at an overall 5% increase in fees, for
the period ending December 31, 1981.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that there should be some comment in the file when
the matter was again broached, noting that if the examinations were split between
two clinics in a two-year period, it was costly to the City.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, an amendment to
the subject agreement was authorized as recommended by the Risk Manager in his
memorandum dated November 24, 1980. MOTION CARRIED.
140: SUBSTITUTION OF A SUBCONTRACTOR BY THE PRIME CONTRACTOR FOR THE CANYON
HILLS LIBRARY: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood,
the substitution of Schmid Insulation for the listed subcontractor, Adam
Insulation, was approved as requested by J. A. Stewart Construction, prime
contractor for the Canyon Hills Library, and as recommended in memorandum dated
December 3, 1980 from the City Engineer. MOTION CARRIED.
174/169: REGION 15, COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT AND WORK ORDER NO. DTFH71-81-54-CA-Ol:
Councilwoman Kaywood off.ered Resolution No. 80R-533 for adoption, authorzing a
United States Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, Region
15, Cooperative Agreement and Work Order in an amount not to exceed $40,000, for
the construction and evaluation of the sulphur extended asphalt portions of two
sections of Lincoln Avenue between State College and East Street, and between
Citron Street and the Santa Ana Freeway, as recommended in memorandum dated
December 2, 1980 from the City Engineer. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-533: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FEDERAL
HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, REGION 15, COOPERATIVE AGREEEMENT AND WORK ORDER FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION AND EVALUATION OF THE SULPHUR EXTENDED ASPHALT PORTIONS OF
TWO SECTIONS OF LINCOLN AVENUE BETWEEN STATE COLLEGE AND EAST STREET, AND BE-
tWEEN CITRON AND SANTA ANA FREEWAY.
80-154,~
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 9, i980~ 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-533 duly passed and adopted.
101: REDESIGN OF THE HEATING~ VENTILATING AND AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEM AT THE
SIADIUM CLUB AT ANAHEIM STADIUM: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to authorize an
agreement with Donn C. Gilmore & Associates, in an amount not to exceed $7,860,
as recommended in memorandum dated November 13, 1980 from Facility Maintenance
Superintendent John Roche. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
130/106: CABLE TELEVISION CONSULTING SERVICES: Councilman Overholt moved to
appropriate $7,000 in Project 908-Cable Television and $7,000 in offsetting
revenues from Storer Cable T.V., Inc., into Revenue Account No. 01-3026, to
cover the cost of Cable Television Consulting Services in fiscal year 1980-81,
as recommended in memorandum dated December 2, 1980 from the Assistant to the
City Manager, James Armstrong. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
174: RAPE CRISIS CLINIC - LIAISON APPOINTEE RESPONSIBILITIES: Mayor Seymour
noted that Council had been asked to make an appointment which the Council
thought was to be advisory to the Rape Crisis Clinic, that appointee being
Barbara Riegel. He asked on behalf of the Council if the City Manager would
address a letter to the Rape Crisis Clinic asking for a more specific defini-
tion of what the responsibility of the Council's appointee would be so that she
might be able to report back to the Council the activities and progress of the
Rape Crisis Clinic.
170: AMENDMENT OF GRAMERCY PARK ONE CC & R'S: Councilman Bay moved to authorize
a proposed amendment to the CC & R's of Gramercy Park One, changing the percen-
tage of homeowners who must consent in order to allow the Association to use
the Contingency Fund, from 100 percent to 66 2/3 percent, as recommended in
memorandum dated November 21, 1980 from the City Attorney's office. Council-
woman Kaywood seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay questioned the representative from the
Gramercy Park Homeowners Association, Faith VanTubbergen, asking if a majority
of the members of the Homeowners Association had voted requesting the change.
M~ss VanTubbergen, 1800 West Gramercy Avenue, #60, answered that she did not
know if she could say that at this time. There were 59 units and over one-half
were renters and thus, there were absentee o%~ers. They would have to geta
100% vote of the homeowners to implement the change in the CC & R's.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
105: GOLF COURSE ADVISORY COMiMISSION - RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS: Mayor Seymour
explained that the City Attorney received a hand-delivered letter from Mr. Louis
Dexter, who questioned the residency of one of the members of the Golf Course
Advisory Commission, specifically Mrs. Alma Lorene Zibell. Mr. Dexter asked
80-t545
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - becember 9~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
the City Attorney to investigate the matter and depending upon the outcome of
his investigation, asking the City Council to take whatever action appropriate.
The City Attorney was looking for a direction from the Council.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to authorize the City Attorney to investigate
whether or not Alma Lorene Zibell, a member of the Golf Course Advisory Commis-
sion, was a resident of the City and subsequently to advise the Council of
the outcome so that appropriate action may be taken. Councilman Overholt
seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated that the name of Mrs. Zibell
and Mrs. Davis had both been recommended by the Golf Course Advisory Commission.
She suggested that they caution their Commissions so that when they recommended
an invididual, that they be sure they were residents of the City.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
127: DECLARING THE RESULT OF CANVASS OF ELECTION RETURNS FOR THE SPECIAL MUNI-
CIPAL ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 4, 1980: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution
No. 80R-534 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-534
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING THE RESULT
OF THE CANVASS OF ELECTION RETURNS OF SPECIAL
MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD IN SAID CITY ON
NOVEMBER 4, 1980.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim, California,
does hereby resolve, determine and order as follows:
Section !. That a special municipal election was duly
called and regularly held in said City on the 4th day of
November, 1980, at which election there were submitted to the
qualified voters of said City the following propositions, to wit:
PROPOSITION A
Shall Sections 500 and 1300 of the Charter of
the City of Anaheim be amended to change the
date of general municipal elections in the City
of Anaheim to the first Tuesday after the first
Monday in June of each even-numbered year or to
coincide with such other date as may be estab-
lished by the state legislature for the holding
of state-wide primary elections?
PROPOSITION B
Shall Sections 501 and 504 of the Charter of
the City of Anaheim be ~nended to: (1) provide
that any person is eligible to hold the office
Cit~ Hall~. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 9, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
of Mayor or City Council member who has been a
resident and qualified elector of the City for
a period of at least thirty days immediately
before the filing of nomination papers or the
date of appointment; (2) change the ter.~ of
office for the Mayor from two years to four
years; and (3) provide that no person shall
file for both the offices of Mayor and City
Council member at the same electioa?
PROPOSITION C
Storm drains are urgently needed in the City of
Anaheim to facilitate water runoff and to
alleviate potential flood hazards. The cost of
the construction of needed storm drains can be
minimized by prompt action which will start
construction before labor and material costs
escalate. Financing for storm drain construc-
tion can be arranged by the issuance of general
obligation bonds of the City approved by a two-
thirds vote of the electorate, provided that the
voters of the State also approve an amendment to
Article XIII A of the California Constitution
to authorize such bonds.
If permitted by the California Constitution,
shall the City Council of the City of Anaheim be
authorized to issue general obligation bonds in
a principal ~ount not to exceed $10,000,000 for
the purpose of financing the construction of
storm drains?
Section 2. That the returns of said election have
been duly and regularly convassed by the Registrar of Voters
as provided by !aw, and all absentee ballots, if any, returned
have been canvassed as provided by law.
Section 3. The total votes cast at said election
for and against said propositions and upon said propositions are
all as shown on the Certificate of Registrar of Voters to Result
of the Canvass of the General Election Returns, attached hereto
as "Exhibit A."
Section 4. That the votes of more than fifty percent
of all the voters voting at said election upon Proposition A and
Proposition C were cast in favor of the adoption of said Propo-
sition A and Proposition C, and said Proposition A and said
Proposition C are hereby declared to have carried at said election.
Section 5. That the votes of less than fifty percent
of all the voters voting at said election upon Proposition B were
cast in favor of the adoption of said proposition, and said
proposition is hereby declared to have failed to carry at said
election.
80-i. r~4,~
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 9, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Section 6. That the City Cl.erk of this City is hereby
directed to enter this resolution in full in the minutes of this
City Council, which entry shall constitute the City Clerk's
statement of the result of the election.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is approved and adopted by
the City Council of the City of Anaheim this 9uh day of
December, 1980.
CERT[F::FATE OF REGISTRAR OF VOTERS TO -"ULT
OF THE:%-~NVASS OF THE GENERAL ELECTION .~EFURNS
STATE OF CALIFOR~,I!A
COUNTY OF ~R=
ss.
[, A. E. Olson, Registrar o-~ Voters of Orange County, do hereby
~: ~fy ~ ~ tO kc, fU ,
._.r.~, the following ~_ a ]l true and correct Statement of the
Vote of the electicn listed below, consolidated wiCh :he General Election
helm sn >;ovember 4, 1980.
CITY 'OF ANAHm=~,~ ~
.... · ,~ ~.a~ iON
MEASURe_ "~ ....
¢ . ~ME~O CHARTER TO CHANGE OATE OF ELECT
YES · ~5
~0' 2~, 190
"!EASURE "B ...... ~:
.~,Mc;i O CHA re
R,~R QUALIFICATIONS OF MAYOR .~ND CiTY ~OUNc[L
YES: 2~,89~
,~0' 45, !33
M~.~aUR~ c - S10,000,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION 80NOS FOR STORM ORAl,IS
YES' 49,064
NO' 22,807
VOTES ,..'S~' 81,095
i hereby cer:ify that the number of votes cast for and against each
measure ~s is s~,~ forth above appears in the ~o~'=' '
.... b ~,~ed Abstract or
State,,r,?nt of the Vote entered in the Records of the Board of Sumervisors
the County of Orange.
80-1547
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 9, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
WITNESS my hand and Official Seal this 26th day of November, 1330.
REGISTRAR OF VOTERS
Orange Count,/
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-534 duly passed and adopted.
108: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF ABATEMENT PERIOD - EXECUTIVE SAUNA AND MASSAGE:
Request by Gregory L. Parkin, Attorney, on behalf of the Executive Sauna and
Massage, 651 South Manchester Avenue, for an extension of time to the period
of abatement pursuant to Code Section 18.89.040 relating to Adult Entertain-
ment, was submitted.
Mr. Gregory L. Parkin, attorney, first asked if there were any reports avail-
able from the Police Department that he might see; City Manager Talley pro-
vided Mr. Parkin with a copy of report received December 3, 1980 from the Chief
of Police.
Mr. Parkin stated thag he had submitted a letter to the Council (see letter
dated November 7, 1980 on file in the City Clerk's office) indicating the
expenditures the Executive Sauna and Massage had incurred in order to obtain
the business initially and for the improvements made on the property. It was
his impression in talking to his client that those represented a substantial
amount of money to them. It would be a hardship to that family-operated busi-
ness, man and wife, if they were required to close. He had reviewed the Police
Department's report and believed it was correct that in the past two years
there had been one arrest at the establishment. He did not think that was
indicative of any particular problem. No one had ever suggested that the
owners condoned that action or any act of prostitution.
Mayor Seymour asked if he had submitted to the City Attorney or anybody else
a copy of the lease under which the Executive Sauna and Mmssage was operating.
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES -December 9, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Parkin answered "no", but explained that the applicant was present if the
Council would like to inquire.
Mayor Seymour stated his purpose in asking, he (Parkin) indicated in his letter
that there would be another 15 months of lease payments unless the extension
were granted and he wanted to see some verification of that or have the City
Attorney review it.
Mr. Parkin stated that was a reasonable request but he did not think to have
the applicant's bring the lease with them. He was certain they would be willing
to declare under oath that there was a balance of time due on the lease.
Mayor Seymour asked if he or any member of the Council would oppose a continuance
so that the City Attorney would have an opportunity to review the lease; Mr.
Parkin answered that he did not but as the Council was aware, time was short,
the final effective date of the ordinance being December 20, 1980.
Mayor Seymour stated that they could again consider the matter next week; Mr.
Parkin stated he would have no objection.
Mayor Seymour then asked if the Council approved the continuance, was there any
other information they would like to see.
Councilman Overholt stated that the Council in the past had asked for sworn
testimony as to the details of the alleged irrevocable expenditures. He
(Parkin) had indicated a $25,000 consideration for the purchase of the business,
but he did not indicate how it was purchased, whether installments or in cash
or whatever. He also indicated there were $4,000 in repairs to the business
premises. Next week, he (Overholt) would ask for a sworn statement or sworn
testimony as to the details of those two figures which was totally consistent
with what they had done in all the other cases.
Mr. Parkin stated he was sure his clients would be happy to testify and he
would have them bring with them any documentation they had to further evidence
those expenditures.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Overholt, consideration
of the subject request for an extension of time to the period of abatement,
pursuant to Code Section 18.89.040 relating to Adult Entertainment, with regard
to the Executive Sauna and Massage was continued one week. MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman
Overholt, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and
recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent
Calendar Agenda:
1. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 105: Community Center Authority--Minutes of November 17, 1980.
b. 109: Notice of proposed changes in the regulations of the Business, Trans-
portation and Housing Agency.
80-
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 9, 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
c. 105: Public Utilities Board--Minutes of November 6, 1980.
d. 105: Golf Course Advisory Commission--Minutes of November 20, 1980.
e. 114: City of Seal Beach, Resolution No. 3023, reiterating the urgency of
the Santa Ana River Flood Protection Project and community support for the
Project.
f. 129: Board of Supervisors, County of Los Angeles, letter urging all Cities
and Counties within California to pass local ordinances requiring fire retardent
roofing.
2. 108: APPLICATIONS: In accordance with the recommendations of the Chief
of Police, the following applications were approved:
a. Amusement Devices Permit: Big A Liquor, 1501 East La Palina Avenue, for one
video game. (Howard D. Keeling and Daniel P. O'Rourke)
b. Amusement Devices Permit: Anaheim Depot, 1055 West Ball Road, for one Space
Invader game. (~ohn R. Rowe, applicant)
c. Amusement Devices Permit: Jezebel's, 125 North State College Boulevard,
for one Space Invader game. (John R. Rowe, applicant)
d. Amusement Devices Permit: Russell's Steak House, 831 South State College
Boulevard, for one pinball machine. (John William Ritzer, applicant)
e. Amusement Devices Permit: 7 Eleven ~17032, 775 North East Street, for
various amusement devices. (Stephen Thomas West, applicant)
f. Amusement Devices Permit: 7 Eleven #17171, 2403 West Ball Road, for
various amusement devices. (Stephen Thomas West, applicant)
g. Amusement Devices Permit: 7 Eleven #13797, 2145 East Ball Road, for
various amusement devices. (Stephen Thomas West, applicant)
h. Public Dance Permit: Empresa Fries, for a dance to be held December 20,
1980, 6:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m., at Anaheim Convention Center. (Cruz Munoz Frias,
applicant)
3. 149: EDISON PARK PARKING LOT, CHANGE ORDER NO. 1: In accordance with the
recommendation of the City Engineer, Change Order No. i was approved in the
amount of $2,150.98, increasing the original contract price to $16,386.68;
A & C Engineering, Inc., contractor.
MOTION CARRIED.
118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: City Attorney William Hopkins recommended that
claims filed against the City be denied as listed, with the claim submitted by
David M. Fernandez, 10472 Faywood Street, Bellflower, California, for loss of
a shoe in an escalator at Anaheim Stadium, be allowed in the amount of $21.19.
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 9, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Roth moved to deny the following claims filed against the City and
that they be referred to the City's Claims Administrator with the exception
of the claim submitted by David M. Fernandez, which claim was approved in the
amount of $21.19. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
a. Claim submitted by Norbert Waters for damages purportedly sustained as a
result of City employee driving City vehicle and hitting roof overhang at 2501
East Ball Road, on or about September 18, 1980.
b. Claim submitted by Felicia Robinson, a minor, by and through her natural
parent and guardian, Helen Thomspon for personal injury damages purportedly
sustained as a result of activities supervised by employees of the City, on or
about October i, 1980.
c. Claim submitted by Southern California Gas Company for damages to facilities
purportedly sustained as a result of City electric service maintenance activities.
at 422 Beth Street on or about September 23, 1980.
d. Claim submitted by Robert MacKinnon for damages purportedly sustained as a
result of power loss at 309 Black Oak Road, on or about November 11, 1980.
e. Claim submitted by Carol L. West for personal injury damages purportedly
sustained as a result of slip-and-fall accident at Anaheim Stadium, on or
about August 26, 1980.
f. Claim submitted by Dorothy O'Connor for personal injury damages purportedly
sustained as a result of slip-and-fall accident at Anaheim Stadium, on or about
August 23, 1980.
g. Claim submitted by Richard H. Spencer for damages purportedly sustained as
a result of power surge caused by vehicle striking power pole with transformer,
on or about November 11, 1980.
h. Claim submitted by Foodland Market, Pete Kousoulas, for damages purportedly
sustained as a result of power failure on or about October 27 and 28, 1980.
i. Claim submitted by Edward A. Jewell for damages purportedly sustained as a
result of actions by Anaheim Police in the vicinity of the Anaheim Bowl, 1925
West Lincoln Avenue, on or about August 21, 1980.
j. Claim submitted by David M. Fernandez for damages purportedly sustained as
a result of accident on escalator in Anaheim Stadium causing the destruction of
wearing apparel belonging to claimant's son, on or about November 9, i980.
MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 80R-535
through 80R-542, both inclusive, for adoption in accordance with the reports,
recommendations and certifications furnished each Council Member and as listed
on the Consent Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book.
158: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-535: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Edward A.
Pad±lla, et ux. two deeds; Robert O. Guyot, et al.; Gloria Rowe; Doug Browne)
City Hall~ Anaheim? California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 9~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
164: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-536: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE
THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: STATE COLLEGE
BOULEVARD STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT, FROM PLACENTIA AVENUE TO SYCAMORE STREET, IN
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 47-791-6325-El170 AND 01-791-6325-El170; APPROVING
THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE
WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY
CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
THEREOF. (Bids to be opened January 8, 1981, at 2:00 P.M.)
164: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-537: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE
THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: DISTRICT I7
STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT - WEST STREET - CARBON CREEK CHANNEL TO NORTH STREET;
NORTH STREET - WEST STREET TO CITRON STREET; CITRON STREET - NORTH TO CHARTRES
STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 46-791-6325-E1070; APPROVING THE
DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE
WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY
CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
THEREOF. (.Bids to be opened January 15, i981, 2:00 P.M.)
174: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-538: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CI%~ OF
ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR,
SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING
POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMJ~NCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND
COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: CONVERSION OF 4 KV LINE TO
12 KY DISTRIBUTION LINE, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AREA IV, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
ACCOUNT NO. 25-671-6328-77080-36500. (Grissom and Johnson, Inc.)
169: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-539: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR,
SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING
POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND
COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: DALE AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENT,
380' S/O TO 9_00' S/O CRESCENT AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 13-792-
6325-E2630. [_%oxco Associates)
150: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-540: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR,
SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING
POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND
COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: EDISON PARK PARKING LOT, IN
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 16-816-7107. (A & C General Engineering Con-
tractors, Inc.)
169: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-541: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY CO~qCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR,
SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING
POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND
COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: EAST STREET STREET IMPROVEMENT
NORTH STREET TO WILHELMINA STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 13-792-
6325-E2570~ ~Wayne Stevens)
80-
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 9, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
176: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-542: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ORDERING THE VACATION AND ABANDONMENT OF A PORTION OF CONVENTION WAY
EAST OF WEST STREET. (79-17A)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEM]~ERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-535 through 80R-542, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning
Commission at their meeting held November 17, 1980, pertaining to the following
applications, as listed on the Consent Calendar, were submitted for City Council
information.
1. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 80-81-15 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2126: Submitted
by Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation and James H. Frisbie, Trustee for
James H. Frisbie and Marlene J. Frisbie, for a change in zone from RM-1200 to
CL, to permit a drive-through restaurant on property located at I100 North State
College Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-195 and 196, granted
Reclassification No. 80-81-15 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2126, and granted
a negative declaration status.
2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2131: Submitted by The Lincoln Group, to permit
an automotive sales, service and repair facility on CL zoned property located
at 1743 West Lincoln Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-197, granted Con-
ditional Use Permit No. 2131, and granted a negative declaration status.
3, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2132: Submitted by Glendon R. and Shirley G.
Miller, to permit a truck repair facility on ML zoned property located at
2830 East Miraloma Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-198, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2132, and granted a negative declaration status.
4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2133: Submitted by Malcolm A. and Naomi D.
Townsend, to permit an office use in a residential structure on CO zoned
property located at 856 South Harbor Boulevard, with a Code waiver of
minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-199, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2133, and granted a negative declaration status.
5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2134: Submitted by Equitec 77 Real Estate Investors,
to permit the expansion of a semi-enclosed sandwich shop and permit on-sale beer
and wine on ML zoned property located at 1266 and 1266A East Katella Avenue.
80- 1SSS
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 9~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-200, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2134, and granted a negative declaration status.
6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2135: Submitted by Terra Firma Properties, Inc.,
to permit a drive-through restaurant on CG and CH zoned property located on the
east side of Harbor Boulevard, south of Wilken Way.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-201, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2135, and granted a negative declaration status.
7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2139: Submitted by Anaheim Business Center
Company, (Eric Marten), to permit an athletic and body-building gym on ML
zoned property located at 1340 North Blue Gum Street.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-204, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2139, and ratified the Planning Director's cate-
gorical exemption determination.
8. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2140: Submitted by L. Steven and Esther Rose
Long, to permit a professional office building on ML zoned property located
at the northwest corner of Cerritos Avenue and State College Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-205, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2140, and granted a negative declaration status.
9.. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 80-81-18 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2144: Submitted
by Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, for a change in zone from RM-1200 to CL, to
permit a performing arts theater with on-sale beer and wine on property located
at the northwest corner of Broadway and Philadelphia Streets, with Code waivers
of minimum number of parking spaces, and minimum landscaped setback.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-206 and 207,
granted Reclassification No. 80-81-18 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2144,
and granted a negative declaration status.
No action was taken on the foregoing items; therefore the actions of the City
Planning Commission became final.
134: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 163 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION - REQUEST FOR
WITHDRAWAL: To consider alternate proposals of ultimate land use from Low
Density Residential, to Low-medium Density Residential for approximately 4.2
acres of land located generally northeast of the intersection of Simmons Avenue
and Haster Street (continued from meeting of November 25, 1980).
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the applicant's
request for withdrawal of General Plan Amendment No. 163 was approved. MOTION
CARRIED.
ORDINANCE NO. 4197: Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the subject proposed ordinance
was that involving the condominium apartment.
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, answered "no". It was a regular
apartment project being built in compliance with Code and no density bonus was
invo lv ed.
C. ity Hail~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 9, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4197 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance
Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4197: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (63-64-62(25), RM-1200)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL ME/~BERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4197 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 4198: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 4198 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4198: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (79-80-5, RM-3000, Tract No.
81171
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4198 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 4199 AND 4200: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4199 and
4200 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4199: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (79-80-10, CL)
ORDINANCE NO. 4200: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (79-80-30, CL)
114: VISIT OF MITO~ JAPAN DELEGATION: Councilman Overholt expressed his per-
sonal compliments to the Sister City Exchange Committee for arranging a very
meaningful and exciting program on the occasion of the visit of the delegation
from Mito, Japan. He and his wife attended the dinner held Tuesday evening,
December 2, 1980, which was the second time they attended that event. He felt
it succeeded the prior event in the expression of goodwill and mutual interest
in the leadership of Mito. It was an exciting program and hopefully some day
they could share in the visit to Mito.
lQ5: ILLNESS OF COMMISSIONERS: Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she found out
only a few days ago that Planning Commissioner Lew Herbst had been in the hospital
with a potential heart attack which occurred on November 4, 1980. He was pre-
sently home recuperating. She asked if in the future any commissioner was ill,
she would like to know about it sooner. The Council should be informed of any
illness of their appointees. She suggested that it would be nice to send him a
note from the full Council.
80-1SS6 ·
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 9, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour stated they would do that and so directed the City Clerk.
148: ANNUAL MEETING OF THE SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT BOARD (SCAQMB):
Councilman Roth explained he had been asked by the Board and staff of the SCAQMB
to thank the City Council for a most successful meeting which was held last
Friday, December 5, 1980 in the Anaheim Civic Center Council Chambers. He
especially complimented James Armstrong of the City Manager's office, the sound
engineer, the Public Information Officer and the City Clerk's office for assist-
ing in making the meeting a success. It was a credit to the City who hosted the
affair.
114: ORANGE COUNTY ECONOMIC OUTLOOK CONFERENCE: Councilman Bay reported on his
attendance at the subject conference held Wednesday, December 3, 1980, at the
Anaheim Convention Center. He noted that speakers from back East who were
almost astounded at the optimism of the business community in Orange County, as
compared to those in the East or even in the Middle West. He also commented
on the delicious hot luncheon served by Szabo Foods and although they had heard
a few complaints now and then about Szabo, he stated they would not be coming
from him.
RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess into Executive
Session. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (2:33 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present, with the exception of Councilwoman Kaywood. (4:33 P.M.)
153: MEMORANDUMS OF UNDERSTANDING AND ESTABLISHMENT OF RATES OF COMPENSATION
FOR VARIOUS JOB CLASSES: Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 80R-543
through 80R-550, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-543: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ADOPTING THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE
ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, GENERAL CITY EMPLOYEES UNIT.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-544: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ADOPTING THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE
ANAHEIM AND THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, CLERICAL UNIT.
RESOLUTION NO. 8OR-545: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ADOPTING THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE
ANAHEIM FIRE ASSOCIATION.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-546: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ESTABLISHING RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR CONFIDENTIAL JOB CLASSES AND SUPERSEDING
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-592 AND AMENDMENTS THERETO.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-547: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ESTABLISHING RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR UNREPRESENTED JOB CLASSES AND SUPERSEDING
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-593 AND AMENDMENT THERETO.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-548: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ESTABLISHING RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR JOB CLASSES REPRESENTED BY THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, GENERAL CITY EMPLOYEES UNIT, ~ND SUPERSEDING
RESOLUTION NO. 77R-70~ ~D AMENDMENTS THERETO.
City Hall~ Anaheim, .California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 9~ 1980~ i:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-549: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ESTABLISHING RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR JOB CLASSES REPRESENTED BY THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, CLERICAL UNIT, AND SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION NO.
77R-704 AND AMENDMENTS THERETO.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-550: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ESTABLISHING RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR CLASSES DESIGNATED AS STAFF AND SUPER-
VISORY MANAGEMENT AND SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION NO. 79R-591 AND AMENDMENTS THERETO.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt stated that he knew Councilwoman
Kaywood wanted to vote "yes" on the foregoing resolutions and since she had not
yet returned to the Council Chambers, he suggested that they hold the vote until
her return.
Mayor Seymour asked if it was possible that the record could indicate that she
voted "yes".
City Clerk Linda Roberts stated that she believed that was what Councilwoman
Kaywood said when she left, that hers was an "aye" vote. The record would show
that she did, in fact, vote "aye" on all eight actions.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolutions.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 80R-543 through 80R-550, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
Councilwoman Kaywood entered the Council Chamber. (4:35 P.M.)
PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 80-81-12~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2115
(TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11256): Application by Edward A. and Cheryl L. Padilla,
for a change in zone from PD-C to RM-3000, to permit a one lot, 22-unit afford-
able condominium complex on property located at 115-129 West South Street, with
the following Code waivers:
a. minimum lot area per dwelling unit
b, maximum structural height within 150 feet of single-family zone
c, minimum recreational-leisure area
d. minimum number and type of parking spaces
e. minimum distance between buildings
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-178, declared that
the subject project be exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental
impact report pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act since there was no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental
i. mpact due to this project and further, granted Reclassification No. 80-81-12
subject to the following conditions.
80-t559
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 9~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
i. That the owner(s) of subject property shall deed to the City of Anaheim a strip
of land 10 feet in width from the centerline of the centerline of the north, east
and west alleys for alley widening purposes.
2. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans
on file with the Office of the Director of Public Works.
3. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and determined
to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to commencement of
structural framing.
4. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfactory
to the City Engineer.
5. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the
appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees, as determined to be appropriate by
the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building permit is issued.
6. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay the traffic signal assess-
ment fee in (Ordinance No. 3896) in an amount as determined by the City Council,
for each new dwelling unit prior to the issuance of a building permit.
7. That an ordinance rezoning the subject property shall in no event become
effective except upon or following the recordation of Final Tract Map No. 11256
within the time specified in Government Code Section 66463.5 or such further
time as the advisory agency or City Council may grant.
8. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
9. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
Plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos.
1 through 4.
10. That prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject property,
Conditions Nos. 1 and 9, above-mentioned, shall be completed. The provisions
or rights granted by this resolution shall become null and void by action of the
Planning Commission unless said conditions are complied with within one year
from the date hereof, or such further time as the Planning Commission may grant.
11. That Condition Nos. 2,. 4, 7 and ~, above-mentioned, shall be complied with
prior to final building and zoning inspections.
The City Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-179, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2115, subject to the following conditions:
1. That this Conditional Use Permit is granted subject to the completion of
Reclassification No. 80-81-12, now pending.
2. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos.
1 through 4.
3. That Condition No. 2, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to
final building and zoning inspections.
The City Planning Commission found that the proposed subdivision, together with
its design and improvements, was consistent with the City of Anaheim General
Plan and approved Tentative Map of Tract No. 11256, subject to the following
condit ions:
1, That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 11256 is granted subject to
the approval of Reclassification No. 80-8i-12.
2. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each
subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval.
3. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
4. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satis-
factory to the City Engineer.
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 9~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
5. That the owner of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the
appropriate park and recreational in-lieu fees as determined to be appropriate
by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building permit is
issued.
6. That the original documents of the covenants, conditions, and restrictions,
and a letter addressed to developer's title company authorizing recordation
thereof, shall be submitted to the City Attorney's office and approved by the
City Attorney's office and Engineering Division prior to final tract map approval.
Said documents, as approved, shall be filed and recorded in the Office of the
Orange County Recorder.
7. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay the traffic signal assessment
fee (Ordinance No. 3896) in an amount as determined by the City Council, for each
new dwelling unit prior to the issuance of a building permit.
8. That the proposed driveways to the subterranean garage shall maintain a 2%
grade per City of Anaheim Standard Case 1, #121 on file in the office of the
Traffic Engineer.
~. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 11256 is granted subject to
the approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2115.
10. That prior to approval of the final tract map the developer shall enter into
an agreement with the City of Anaheim pursuant to Government Code Section 65915
agreeing to maximum sales prices of three (3) units at $57,252, three (3) units
at $63,500, and five (5) units at $69,000, together with such additional coven-
ments and conditions, including resale controls as required by the City of
Anaheim; and that in the event the Marks-Foran bond is issued and financing
is available, that the remaining eleven (11) units shall be sold at prices not
to exceed $75,257 each.
A review of the Planning Commission's action was requested by Councilwoman
Kaywood at the meeting of November 12, 1980, and public hearing scheduled this
date.
Miss Santalahti described the location and surrounding land uses. She outlined
the findings given in the staff report which was submitted to and considered by
the City Planning Commission. She also commented that Resolution No. PC80-179
where the 25% figure appeared (No. 1, Page 1 of the resolution) that was a typo-
graphical error, and it was agreed that it would be a 50% affordable project.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous
of being heard.
Mr. Edward Padilla, 4702 Cedar Avenue, Yorba Linda, owner and developer, stated
he would be happy to answer any questions and those that he could not answer,
hfs architect, Mr. Cexton, was present to do so.
Councilman Roth questioned the subterranean parking, the system used for the
pumping of any water, and where that water would go.
Mr. Padilla answered it was not subterranean parking, but at ground level with
a drainage system that would go directly to the alley and the front. Originally
the parking was four feet underground, but they requested that it be raised to
street level.
Councilman Roth asked staff if they agreed; Miss Santalahti answered that in the
elevations posted on the Chambers wall, the bottom building showed the three-story
effect, with the parking garage at grade being the first story.
80-15~!
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 9,. 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that initially in the staff report it referred to
subterranean parking and thus she presumed that was a change.
Miss Santalahti stated it was one she was not clear on.
Mr. Padilla stated it was initally an apartment complex with subterranean parking.
When they made a change, they requested the parking be lifted to a grade above
ground.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that Mr. Padilla had mentioned if the Marks-Foran
funding were available, the units would be a different price. She asked how
high the price would be if that were available.
Mr. Padilla answered if they were to get the bonds, he would agree to go 100%
affordable with a minimum price of $57,000, up to a maximum of $75,000. He
further explained upon questions posed by Councilwoman Kaywood that after
discussing the situation with Lisa Stipkovich, Housing Manager, they figured
that there would be three to four people in a family per unit. He was not
planning to live in the project himself; he did not know who owned the pro-
perty behind the subject property.
The Mayor then opened the public hearing and asked to hear from those in opposition
to the project.
Mrs. Patricia Clancy, 303 North Bush, stated that to say she was in opposition
was not quite correct. She wondered if people were giving some thought to what
they were doing to the City and that was her question. They were considering
allowing the units and it had been stated that there would be three to four
people in each unit. Of those three or four, there would be approximately two
children, with the units built as close together as possible. She asked where
the children would play and questioned the impact throughout the City relative
to services, etc. Many of the Council Members did not live in areas that were
heavily impacted and she felt, thus, were not fully aware of what went on in
such neighborhoods.
Further disucssion and questioning followed between the Mayor and Mrs. Clancy
at the conclusion of which, M_rs. Clancy noted that the project was against all
the BuDlding Codes previously established and thus questioned why they should
bother to have codes if they could not be used as guidelines.
Mayor Seymour clarified that it was not the Building Code, but building standards,
and they needed to be reviewed because he felt they had gone too far the other
way. In the days when her (Mrs. Clancy) apartment project was built, building
standards were entirely different. They had moved off those standards into much
more restrictive standards--to the point where they had driven the cost of home
ownership "sky high".
Councilman Roth commented that he found it interesting to note that in the South
Anaheim Boulevard area there were many residential properties, but nobody appeared
before the Planning Commission and now the City Council in opposition and yet
those within 300 feet were notified by mail of the hearing. Those were people
living in the immediate area and Mrs. Clancy was not a resident of that area.
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December .9., 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
Mrs. Clancy explained why she felt other people did not show up. There was
another public hearing scheduled this evening relative to a proposed apartment
building. She went to that neighborhood and talked to some of those people
and the general reaction she received was, what good would it do? That might
be exactly what the neighbors surrounding the subject project felt also.
The Mayor then asked if anyone else wished to speak in opposition; there was no
response.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that Mr. Padilla had originally intended to build
25 apartments. She wanted to know what made him change his mind.
Mr. Padilla answered, the cost of the construction. The high interest rates
and the cost of the site to build did not make it feasible to do so. To build
it as an apartment complex would be impossible. He would be receiving a reason-
able profit return on the condominiums, but not on apartments so that he could
proceed and build other projects. Apartment projects were very difficult at
this time although he would be more than willing to build one. He had built
other apartment projects in Anaheim, and this was to be another one, but at this
time it was not feasible to do so.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. Padilla if he were making any lesser return on
his money in order to get the double density; Mr. Padilla answered definitely.
As he mentioned, he discussed the matter with Mrs. Stipkovich and they tried to
figure out something that would be feasible for the both of them. Mrs. Stipkovich
suggested the selling prices, and he was able to go along with them.
There being no further persons who wished to speak either in favor or in opposi-
tion, the Mayor closed the public hearing.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she had viewed the property and also went
around the block and what she saw frightened her. There was another parcel of
equal size behind the subject property and she could guess what was going to
be suggested on that property. She questioned how they could grant a 100%
density bonus and deny it on an identical parcel. She agreed with Mrs.
Clancy that they needed to look long range as to what was happening in Anaheim
and what was going to happen. If they were going to have double the density,
they were going to have problems in the City. They could not just say it was
okey this time. These were irrevocable decisions and the City would have to
live with them longer than 50 years. She did not think when other previously
constructed projects had deteriorated that anybody intended they were going to
do so, but today the City was saddled with those problems. When there were too
many people living too closely together on a permanent basis, which was not
the same as an apartment, there were real problems. With a two-story setback
at five feet, that was 300% or more from what the Code required at 150 feet.
She realized they were looking at each project individually but 45 feet instead
of 150 feet was quite a waiver. Also, it was a three-story project which was
becoming the norm. To her recollection there were about three three-story
buildings and two of those were senior citizens projects. If that was going
to become the norm, they had better look into the whole infra structure.
Mayor Seymour then asked staff the following questions: If apartments were
built on the property, would the maximum density within those standards be
25; if apartments were built on the property would the infra structure sup-
port such a project; and if the project were approved, how many units through-
out the City had they approved for affordable.
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December. 9~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Miss Santalahti answered as follows respectively: She was inclined to say
that 22 or 25 was a reasonable number for apartments and it could be done;
the infra structure would support that since the area was designated for
multiple-family on the General Plan; relative to affordable projects, she had
a list and map showing the projects that had come up in the last two months
which she submitted to the Council. A minimum of 25% were not affordable.
There was only one, the Webster Street project, that was 100% affordable.
Councilman Roth noted on the list the complex at 250 South Brookhurst which
he believed was a conversion; Miss Santalahti confirmed that it was. The list
included conversions, as conversions were included in the number as well.
Councilman Roth felt that an asterisk should be used in those cases for clarifi-
cation.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that they were talking about a total of 741 units
within a couple of months; after some calculations, the Mayor determined of
those 741 units, there were 212 affordable units for the entire City which
had occurred since January 14, 1980.
The Mayor then asked how many dwelling units there were in the City; Miss
Santalahti answered approximately 85,000 and in the last 12-month period, over
800 dwelling units were constructed, about 600 being single family and the re-
mainder being multiples. She also confirmed for the Mayor that the City resi-
dentially was approximately 50% single family and 50% multiple.
The Mayor stated that over the last 12 months, the City added 800 units to its
housing stock, of which 200 were multiple and 600 single family. That did not
sound like a trend to him that would indicate they were paving over Anaheim with
affordable housing.
Councilwoman Kaywood emphasized that was not the point--the point was in giving
a 100% density bonus or double the density.
Mayor Seymour stated that 100% density was one way of describing what was being
requested. Another way would be a number of living units less than the number
of living units that could be built in total accordance with the City's General
Plan. Their request was for a lesser number of units that could be built if
the developer walked in and picked up building permits for an apartment complex.
The reason he did not do so was due to the fact that it was not a profitable
venture to construct a new apartment house.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that the project was first proposed as apartments
and what made for an apartment was not the same as for a permanent living en-
vironment. Something purchased was not the same as an apartment that was
rented and in which the individual had no ownership interest.
Councilman Bay stated his concern was not so much whether there would be more
and more dwelling units but in taking two story within five feet of single-family
dwellings. He was never of a mind not to give a little on the 150 feet, but
he could not and would not support the subject reclassification based on two
story within 45 feet of single family.
City Hall., Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 9.~. 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour asked if they knew what visual intrusion would occur as a result
of the requested setback; Miss Santalahti answered that the developer could
address that, but when the 150-foot setback was first developed by the City,
the intent was that a person standing on a balcony on the second floor of
that two-story apartment unit could just barely or not quite see over a 6-foot
fence that was around the backyard of the single family residential 150 feet
away. Any closer than that there was a potential for intrusion. On the site
plan, the two-story units looked over an alley and an open parking space. The
developer could address whether or not there were windows on that side of the
building.
Mr. Dale Cexton, architect, 325 West Western Avenue, stated that the units that
backed up to the parking lot and alley had a window in a dining room on two
floors. However, deep single-family lots were involved and also located at
the intersection of the alleyways, were triplex units. There was no major
viewing out through that back area. The window could be eliminated if necessary.
They were just trying to give a more pleasing lighting atmosphere in the unit
themselves.
Mayor Seymour surmised then that they would accept removal of the windows on
that side.
Mr. Cexton answered that there would be no problem at all.
Councilwoman Kaywood then asked what kind of lighting would be provided; Mr.
Cexton answered it would be legal and supplied by a sliding glass door, as well
as partially from a window in the kitchen area facing the opposite direction.
The sliding glass door would be on the opposite side of the building.
Mayor Seymour stated that it would seem that they were capable and willing to
overcome a visual intrusion that might arise as a result of a 45-foot setback;
Mr. Cexton answered "yes".
Councilman Bay asked for clarification if there would be no windows on the side
adjacent to the single-family on any part of that second-story building within
45 feet; Mr. Cexton stated that was correct2
Councilman Bay asked if that was a stipulation; Mr. Cexton answered if the
Council desired, they would so make it a stipulation.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked the zoning on the parcel behind the subject parcel.
Miss Santalahti answered that the parcel to the north was zoned PDC, a commercial
parking zone, which would permit the construction of apartments or multiple
family uses and theoretically also condominiums under the condominium standard.
She would expect that a developer would prefer not to leave it in that zone, but
would request a rezoning action to get it into a zone that people would be will-
ing to buy. The subject property was also in the PDC zone.
Councilwoman Kaywood again questioned if this were co be granted for 22 units
and the developer came in on the property to the north and also wanted 22 units,
how could they approve a 100% density bonus on one and not the other.
Miss Santalahti explained in this particular case, one thing that was reassuring
to staff was that the parking standard was at a 2.5 ratio and one they were com-
fortable with at present. However, there were getting ready to do a survey to
80-
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 9~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
see whether that was still true in the field. The three-story units were not
of particular concern to them because they would impact basically commercially
zoned property which could, in any case, go to three stories. Their basic
concern would have to be with the impact of the project of single family to the
west of the property. The property to the north was also multiple family or
commercial and since it was quite similar, if a developer were willing to go
along on affordable prices, she would expect that they might come in with a
similar proposal.
Mayor Seymour asked how the project measured up to the amount of structure covering
the amount of land; Miss Santalahti answered it was quite good, around 35% cover-
age, and the standard was about 45%.
Mayor Seymour stated that Mrs. Clancy raised a point relative to where children
would play. If apartment houses, the project could go up to 55% land coverage
and what was proposed was slightly less coverage than the City's current
condominium standards; Miss Santalahti confirmed that was correct.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that it was two-tenths of one percent and in going
to a three story, they were taking the structure off the ground.
Mayor Seymour stated it seemed to him what they had done architecturally by
placing the parking underneath the building, rather than having asphalt in the
open area, was to provide a real open area; Mr. Cexton confirmed that was
correct.
Miss Santalahti explained a good example of what an underground parking garage
could do was the project at Pearl Street and Wilshire built about seven or eight
years ago which included a three-story building and site coverage was under that
allowable. The density was about 42 units per acre. It was also one of the
earliest conversions to condominiums for adults only.
Mayor Seymour noted the subject property was 22 units to the acre. He asked
if staff or the City Manager had any knowledge of complaints regarding living
environment on the aforementioned project or of any police complaints.
Miss Santalahti stated she had not heard any; Mr. Talley stated he had not heard
about any density complaints.
Miss Santatahti commented further that the project (Pearl and Wilshire) did make
an effort to maintain the adults only spirit. They were occupied wholly by
adults at the time it was sold and she believed it was being maintained in that
way.
Councilman Bay asked the distance of the subject three-story building to the
single family; Miss Santalahti answered about 150 feet.
Councilman Bay then asked the normal Code on three story within single family.
Mis.s Santalahti answered that they went through a slightly different procedure
on this particular development in trying to decide how they were going to
handle affordable projects. They advertised only that it was going to be
an affordable project. Waivers on the agenda and in the resolutions were ones
they decided should be indicated in actual numbers so that it was clear as to
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MIeN-UTES - December 9~ 1.980, 1:30 P.M.
what was being granted. She was not clear until she looked at the drawings
not long ago that the third story was above a first floor garage at grade
level. She was under the impression it was depressed one-half story or more.
The Code did not specifically allow three stories and the wavier covered that
kind of situation. When staff came to Council a few months ago with a pro-
posed change to allow a reduction in the two-story distance from single family,
it was about 100 feet to two stories and about 150 feet to the third story and
thus it was in line with what they talked about at that time. Councilman Bay
stated that he just added up the dimensions from the edge of the alley and came
up with 138 feet so he was not sure if it was 138 or 150 feet; Miss Santalahti
stated 138 feet rounded of to 150.
Councilman Bay stated he was concerned now with the third-story level intrusion
on the backs of the single family, and he was not certain what that would be.
Mr. Cexton stated as far as visual intrusion, he felt it would be blocked by the
two-story unit sitting 45 feet away because of the height of that building.
Councilman Bay agreed. He then asked staff when talking about affordable, the
212 units rapidly calculated out of the 741, how many or had any of the afford-
ables thus far approved in the City applied to the SCAG number given to the City
under regional as to what they had to meet.
Miss Santalahti answered the units did not count towards that number at all;
Mayor Seymour asked for an explanation why.
Miss Santalahti explained that the SCAG numbers were set up for a different
purpose. When they approved affordable units in the City, it was almost as if
they would recalculate the SCAG numbers and then that City was given a new
formula and total. If Anaheim made a distinct effort to get affordable units
and other cities in the area did not, in a sense Anaheim could be penalized
for the area they were in. The units did not actually count. They could not
go to SCAG and indicate that they now had 212 affordable units constructed and
to reduce the units lacking, because it did not count towards that number.
Councilman Bay asked how they did not count units toward SCAG requests; Miss
Santalahti answered that she did not know.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the 100 senior citizens units counted; Miss
Santalahti stated that she did not think any units built in the City now would
be counted or those under approval.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated one other thing that concerned her, even taking the
212 affordable out of 741, the point was that they had double the density of
the 741 even though a percentage of that was so called affordable. That was
her concern, they changed all the rules, it had been done quickly, and projects
were not rising out of the ground so that people knew what was happening in
order to come forward and express their views.
Miss Santalahti stated in a general sense, the smaller projects were going about
100% over the density, but the larger projects typically were not going that high.
For example, number four on the list, the Beach Boulevard project of 60 units,
was not 100% over density. It was approximately 60% affordable.
City Hall, Amaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 9.~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that was 100% as she recalled. The one on Webster
was 144% and this was her concern. They were discarding all the rules.
~yor Seymour asked that she suggest an alternative; Councilwoman Kaywood stated
an alternative was the State requirement. If there was a percentage of afford-
able offered, a 25% density bonus must be given. She questioned why they were
giving 300% more than that.
Mayor Seymour asked if she knew of facts that led her to believe that the sub-
ject property, for example, could be developed with that formula.
Councilwoman Kaywood answered that she did not know whether it could, but was
the Mayor saying, in order to develop, it would have to take a 200% density
bonus, and did he favor that. At what point, would he draw the line.
The Mayor stated that was his question to her; Councilwoman Kaywood answered,
at the 25% requirement. In many years past they had said, bring us your inno-
vative projects that would be good for the City and they would look at waivers
and variances. Just to jam pack people in and create problems for the City
that would be forevermore, in all good conscious, she could not support that.
The Mayor asked the Planning Director to explain how to calculate on the SCAG
formula.
Mr. Ron Thpmpson, Planning Director, explained that the 432 figure was the fair
share for Anaheim, or those units that would fall below the 80% median income,
i.e., real affordable. However, most of the affordable projects that had been
approved fell between 80% and 120%, so they did not count toward the City's
fair share.
The Mayor asked if he was saying that 432 units, Anaheim's fair share, must be
offered at a price that would be less than 80% of the median income.
Mr. Thompson confirmed the Mayor's understanding and reported that the last
units approved in Anaheim that met that criteria were the units on Orange-
thorpe and Imperial.
Mayor Seymour stated they kept talking about affordable and to some people,
they would like to believe or lead others to believe that it was trash housing.
He then asked with the prices being recommended on this housing, what would a
fami~ly i~come have to be to qualify.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated if he was talking about trashy for her, she never
said tras.hy? When she talked about too high a density, that had nothing to do
with trash. It had to do with living and breathing space.
Pam Kaiser, Housing Development Coordinator, explained that the selling prices
were at 100 and 120% of the median and the median in Orange County for a family
of four was. $23,000. Thus, they were talking about $23,000 a year and higher.
Mayor Semymour then presumed Councilwoman Kaywood felt that those people who
would buy those units, hav~ng a family income of $23,000 or more, did not know
What they were doi. ng or he questioned just what.
City Hal.l, .Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 9, 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked that the Mayor not put words in her mouth. She
would not accept it. She was not saying those people did not know anything.
She was talking about doubling the density of the Codes that had existed in
Anaheim that were reached through planning over many years that had served
the City well and that was all she was talking about, not the people who were
buying anything. People would buy what they could afford and if they wre
being placed in a position where the cost kept rising, obviously they would
have to settle for less. She did not want to be a party to creating that less.
Councilman Roth then noted an article from the Anaheim Bulletin by Joan Deyer
wherein she quoted the United California Bank Vice President William Hitchcock
of Los Angeles, "an annual income of $41,411 is necessary to buy a $75,000
condominium."
Councilman Bay asked on the 741 dwelling units approved since January, he
would like to see some figures, not now but within the next couple of weeks,
on the average density bonus figure played against the percentage of afford-
able. He also wanted to know what dollar range those affordables were falling
in, and if the figures could be obtained from the County, exactly what the
County had been approving in the way of affordable--precentage of density bonus
in the County vs. percentage of affordable and the dollar figures on what they
were doing. Also if they had any information from any of the surrounding cities,
he would like to have that as well if they had the information or if it was easy
to get. He did not want staff spending a lot of time on a big study. He had
the feeling that Anaheim in general this year, just with the eight projects,
was giving away the store on density compared to what they were getting in
"affordable". It was apparent that the SCAG affordables fell in 80% of the
median and below whereas on everything they were looking at in affordables
fell at 100 to 120% and above. He wanted to get some picture so that he could
judge the relativity of what was happening in the Planning Commission and on
the Council with the approvals. He felt they were all looking at trying to
help solve the housing problem but to the degree they were going about it,
he felt Anaheim was way above the average of what was taking place in Orange
County on density bonus vs. affordability.
Mayor Seymour asked if someone from the Housing staff could explain the process
more clearly because he would be concerned if what Councilman Bay suspected
might be so. Simply, what were they getting in the way of affordable, 80% of
median income, in relationship to what they were giving away in density and
how that might relate to other public agencies and their process.
Mr. Norm Priest, Executive Director of Community Development, answered in terms
of how it related to other agencies, he was not sure they were prepared to
respond to what other cities or other housing authorities were doing. He asked
his staff if they were prepared to respond as to how Anaheim would compare with
other Orange County cities.
Mayor Seymour stated he could ask the question in a different vein. One way
they could tell was if they were giving away too much in exchange for what
they were getting in density. If so, then the developers were probably making
huge profits.
Mrs. Lisa Stipkovich, Housing Manager, stated in terms of the profit margin, in
looking at the information they supplied in terms of land costs, financing and
construction costs, she did not believe they had any selling prices that were
80-!56~
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 9~ 1980, .1:30 P.M.
providing an inordinate amount of profits for developers. In terms of other
jurisdictions, she had never done a formal analysis, but had done an informal
one, although it would be hard for her to speak on that at present without the
data being in front of her.
Mayor Seymour asked in her informal analysis, had she observed anything that would
red flag a situation indicating that what Anaheim was doing was totally incom-
parable to others.
Mrs. Stipkovich answered, "no", not in her opinion. It was very hard to compare
a City like Anaheim with the County, because the County had vast amounts of vacant
land and they were developing anywhere from 360 to 400 affordable units on one
site. Those units were about the same size as the units they had been seeing
and in terms of selling prices, they were very close to the prices they had
approved. In the case of the County, they tried to work the tax-exempt mortgage
backed bonds with the density bonus program and developers received credit for
providing 25% affordable which allowed them to build other non-affordable units
in the County. Their program was different and set up for a different purpose.
In terms of the selling prices, the size of the units, the program itself, the
people it addressed, 80 to 120% of median, it was very similar.
Mayor Seymour stated relative to the prices and incomes of the people buying
the projects approved in Anaheim, they were not for the lower income groups
but rather, what they called affordable, was housing for the middle income groups.
Mrs. Stipkovich confirmed that was correct, mostly at 100 to 120%, or the
middle-class person making anywhere from $25,000 to $30,000 a year. That was
basically the group they were addressing. For the developer to address some-
one at 80% of the median or $16,000 a year for a family of four, he could not
do it considering the current land, construction and financing costs he would
have to bear. She had worked out those numbers and it was virtually impossible.
She felt that Anaheim was unique in that the City had decided with Council
approval that certain people would be given preference and priority, i.e.,
Anaheim residents, people employed in Anaheim and first-time home buyers. She
had seen some abuses in the County program where they did not restrict it and
some people were able to purchase homes who actually owned other homes. They
would rent them out and used some of the equity to put down on another unit.
In the type of set-up Anaheim h~d, she felt they tried to address all those
possible misuses of the program.
After further discussion and clarification between the Mayor and Mrs. Stipkovich
relative to the average income in the area where the subject project was pro-
posed, the Mayor stated that by the discussion he wanted to demonstrate what
he felt was a total misunderstanding on behalf of the public and many of the
media as to the meaning of affordable housing and who was getting it. It used
to be called low-income housing when in reality it was middle class America
housing.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if all of the condominium projects would have to be
owner-occupied and, if so, for how long.
Mrs. Stipkovich answered "yes" to the first question. It was one of the require-
ments in order to be elgible for such housing. Relative to the length of time,
that would relate to the resale control issue, i.e., how they would want to
control occupancy and for how long which had not yet been determined.
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 9.~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if there was a possibility that there would be no
resale controls; Mrs. Stipkovich answered that was up to the Council.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that was where her fear came from. She felt it was
a very imperfect situation with no easy answer, but she still kept looking at
what was best for Anaheim. She could not see that doubling or tripling the
density was going to be good for Anaheim in the long run. If people lived too
close together, there were going to be problems.
The Mayor pointed out that the people who were going to live in the project were
not citizens from some other City, County or State, but people currently living
in apartments in Anaheim. Further, they were talking about promoting housing for
families with incomes in the average range of $23,000. He did not think those
citizens were (1) second class or (2) so uninformed that they could not make an
intelligent decision as to whether this was a desirable living environment in
which they might want to purchase a home.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that was the point they hinged on, the controls and
length of occupancy. Someone could live there for six months with someone else
putting the money up for a son, daughter, and then selling the unit for a huge
profit. She questioned who was to stop them.
Mayor Seymour stated he had addressed the resale price controls issue and he
would not favor such controls. On the other hand, he strongly believed in and
would support a program that would prevent any possible "rip off" in what they
were trying to achieve. He gave an example in which he would vote for a control
lien wherein in the final analysis if the owner chose to sell or not occupy the
premises for a certain period, they would have to return to the taxpayers the
monetary break they had originally received. However, if Councilwoman Kaywood
was talking about a resale price control in which an individual would pay $75,000
and there would be a restriction that would limit the ability to sell any equity
in their home to some artificial index such as the County used, he would vehe-
mently opposed.
Councilwoman Kaywood emphasized that was precisely it. In the final analysis,
where would the affordable housing be. tn three or four years there would be
none and there would be double the density with prices the same as everywhere
else in the neighborhood and then those homes would escalate even higher.
After further discussion between the Mayor and Councilwoman Kaywood, Councilman
Roth stated since they had to go through the same process everything they con-
sidered an affordable housing project, he suggested that they schedule an agenda
item posing the question as to whether or not they wanted affordable housing.
Mrs. Stipkovich understood the needs and hardships of young people wanting "to
buy a piece of the rock." Perhaps they were directing staff in the wrong direction
and instead a majority of the Council were saying "no", we do not want to get
involved in building affordable housing. He felt they should first define
their terms.
Councilman Bay stated he wished it were that simple. There was not a majority
of the Council saying they were not going to do something about affordable
housing. The issue was where they were going to draw the line on the percentage
of bonus they were going to give to get what. He felt they needed the compara-
tive data he asked for in order to have an idea of the pattern evolving. He
was not even against leading that pattern but he was against tripling it or
doubling it. '
80-~$7~
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 9~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Further discussion and questioning followed between Council Members and staff
at the conclusion of which, the Mayor focused again on the subject project
under consideration. He reiterated that there was enough open space, close to
40%, enough parking and they eliminated the possibility of visual intrusion into
the residential property to the west. He did not find the great detriment that
was going to accrue to the City or the neighborhood if the project was approved.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that, talking about any one project, it obviously
was not going to impact the whole City, but directly behind the proposed pro-
ject was an identical piece of property that, without asking, was going to be
the same.
Mayor Seymour agreed that they had to work toward accomplishing the types of
density bonus or standards the Council would be approving so as to preclude
the same type of hearing every Tuesday. He would work toward that end, but
until that time he, for one, would operate on the policy that they as a City
Council, as well as the Planning Commission, decided to take an individual look
at each and every project and make an individual decision.
Councilman Bay stated it was time they started looking at a workshop in January;
Mayor Seymour asked if staff could bring the data they were talking about toget-
her for another work session in January.
Miss Santalahti answered that they were hoping to have mailed out questionnaires
to the tenants during December although those had not gone out yet, anticipating
that Christmas was not a good time to question people. They were then hoping
to get it out the first week in January and subsequently set something up at
the end of the month.
Mayor Seymour stated then, at the end of January or the beginning of February.
He would also appreciate it if Planning and Community Development and Housing
would begin developing data as to how others were trying to achieve what he
felt all five Council Members were trying to achieve.
Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that in no way should they make any comparison
between Anaheim and Newport Beach or any other beach city, because Anaheim did not
have the beach, the bay or the ocean right at its back door. Those cities were
not comparable.
ENVIRON-MENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council finds that this project
would have no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact
since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property for medium density
residential land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive environ-
mental impacts are involved in the proposal and that the Initial Study submitted
by the petitioner indicates no significant individual or cumulative environmental
impacts and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION
CARRIED.
Councilman Overholt observed that they had been discussing the subject for about
one hour and forty minutes and the conversation had become circuitous. For that
particular reason, he joined in the urgent plea that they have a workshop with
the Planning Commission so that they could try to develop some standards. In
/
?
8 O-
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 9~ 1980~ 1:30 'P.M.
the meantime, however, he felt the subject project was a very good one for the
place in which it was located. The stipulation that the windows be removed on
the westerly wall was excellent to protect the single-family lots. They had
done the only thing they could do to this point--to consider each and every
project individually as it came along. He felt the Planning Commission did
a good job, they had a good hearing on the subject today, and he was in favor
of the project.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 80R-551 for adoption, approving
Reclassification No. 80-81-12 and Resolution No. 80R-552, granting Conditional
Use Pemit No. 2115, both subject to the conditions and recommendations of the
City Planning Commission with the additional stipulation regarding the visual
intrusion, that there be no windows on the westerly side of the second story
structure. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-551: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
ZONING SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE
CHANGED, (~0-81-12)
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-552: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2115.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MF~MBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Bay, Roth and Seymour
Kaywood
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-551 and 80R-552 duly passed and adopted.
TENTATIVE MAP~ TRACT NO. 11256: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by
Councilman Overholt, the proposed subdivision, Tentative Map, Tract No. 11256,
together with its design and improvements was found to be consistent with the
City's General Plan and the City Council approved said Tentative Map subject to
the conditions recommended by the City Planning Commission. MOTION CARRIED.
107: PUBLIC HEARING - HOUSE MOVING PERMIT: Request by Mr. Doug Browne, to
move a single-family structure from its present location at 4531 East La
Palma Avenue to 715 North Harbor Boulevard, was submitted.
City Clerk Linda Roberts announced that a petition in opposition from area
residents to the proposed plot plan had been submitted attached to which was
a revised plot plan which they proposed.
Miss Santalahti stated, relative to the petition that was received expressing
concern about the alignment of the garage, the petitioners felt if the garage
was aligned the way the development scheme indicated, namely fronting onto the
actual alley without adequate driveway space for additional cars to park, that
there might be a problem in the area. They recommended a hammerhead type
driveway be put in providing a 25-foot backup and the garage to be detached from
the house and realigned as shown on their scheme. The applicant had seen the
propQsed revised plot plan. It would involve detaching the garage, however,
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 9, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
because the setback proposed was a three-foot setback which was acceptable for
a non-residential structure. Therefore, the garage would have to be separated
from the house if the Council agreed with the request in the petition.
Mr. Doug Browne, 609 Peralta Hills Drive, stated he purchased the property at
4531 East La Palma and applied for and received a building permit to build an
ML building. Prior to that, there was a house on the property which he wanted
to move to 715 North Harbor, a lot he owned. He had no objection at all to
detaching the garage and moving it where the people were requesting. He was
not aware of that until about five minutes before the Council memeting. However,
he felt it might be easier if the garage were left in its existing position.
He had previously presented elevations, photographs and a plot plan to the
Building Division when he requested the move on. He could leave the garage
in its existing form and put a parking pad to the south of the location of his
proposed driveway which would widen the driveway and allow for plenty of extra
parking space. In that way, more cars could be accommodated on the property
because of the additional parking pad and still allow access in and out of the
garage. He felt that was a better proposal and he would be willing to pour the
extra two yards of concrete to accomplish it. The house was going to be used
as a residence.
Councilman Bay wanted to be sure that his (Browne's) proposal had the garage
flush with the north side of the house; Mr. Browne stated it was actually not
flush with the north side of the house, but it would be flush with the south
side of the house the way the garage was actually sitting. It would be more
than a five-foot setback from each side of the property and a 25-foot setback
from the front.
Councilman Bay stated then he would stipulate to putting in concrete next to
that in order to park cars; Mr. Browne answered absolutely.
Councilman Roth stated when the man who originated the petition, Mr. Blacky,
called him, his greatest concern was that there be some parking off the alley
to preclude cars being parking in the alley. If there was a pad provided
large enough to do so, he assumed that would be acceptable.
Councilman Bay stated the neighbors concerns revolved around the 9~ feet out in
front of the garage to the alley. They were concerned over parking in that
alley with overhang.
Mayor Seymour asked for clarification if Mr. Browne was going to pour additional
slab; Mr, Browne stated he would be very willing to so stipulate.
The Mayor then asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition
to the subject house moving permit; there being no response he closed the public
hearing,
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman
Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council ratified the determination
of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the definition of
Section 3.01, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for
an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the
requirement to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 9, 1980, 1:30 P..M.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 80R-553 for adoption, approving a house
moving permit to move a single-family structure from its present location at
4531 East La Palma Avenue to 715 North Harbor Boulevard. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-553: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING A HOUSE MOVING PERMIT TO MOVE A SINGLE-FAMILY STRUCTURE TO 715 NORTH
HARBOR BOULEVARD IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour stated he would like to include in the
findings, upon the recommendation of the City Attorney, the following:
1. That the house, building or structure proposed to be moved into the City
shall be comparable in value, size, quality, design and appearance of houses,
buildings or structures in the area into which it is to be moved; and
2. That it will not be detrimental to, nor diminish the value of the property
in the area, and
3. That less than a majority of the property owners in the area object to the
moving of the house, building or structure onto the property where it is pro-
posed to be moved.
Councilman Roth accepted the findings as part of his resolution.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted in staff report received November 19, 1980 from the
Planning Department, Zoning Diision, Item No. 6, Page 2, "The Assistant Chief
Building Inspector recommends that the house be re-roofed with a new wood shake
or shingle roof and the east elevation, facing Harbor Boulevard, be re-vamped
to offer a more aesthetically pleasing appearance."
Mr. Browne stated that he had already talked to Mr. Walt Kirkhart and on the
east side of the house there was going to be electrical conduit which did not
look good and he agreed to reface the house. They were going to put bricks
across the front of it and make it look more like the front of the house with
an arched walkway so that it would be possible to walk in off the sidewalk from
Harbor Boulevard. There would be a new roof of shake shingle.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-553 duly passed and adopted.
RECESS: Councilman Bay moved to recess to 7:00 P.M. Councilman Overholt seconded
the motion. (6:22 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (7:00 P.M.)
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December. 9~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
CITY ENGINEER: William G. Devitt
CIVIL ENGINEER: Art Daw
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
165: PUBLIC HEARING - LA PALMA AVENUE SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION: To determine
whether sidewalks would be constructed along the north side of La Palma Avenue
between Liberty Lane and East Street.
The Mayor opened the public hearing and asked to hear from those who wished to
speak on the subject.
Mr. James Luciey, 1217 East La Palma (third property to the east of East Street),
stated that he had watched the situation develop over the past Spring and Summer
and it originally started out as an argument between two families over a tree.
The last family to the west on the existing sidewalk objected to a tree in the
next yard. They argued whether the tree was going to drop a limb on their new
camper, were leaves going in their yard, etc. The people who circulated the
petition had discussed removing the tree with their neighbor and he understood
that they had offered to pay for it but were quite demanding. In early Summer
or Spring, the petition circulator told him (Ludiey) that if he could not talk
his neighbor into getting rid of the tree, he was going to get the City to
construct a sidewalk to get rid of it.
Mayor Seymour asked M_r. Luciey if he was aware of what staff was recommending.
If the Council approved the sidewalk, that the sidwalk be constructed around the
tree or the corner and that they not be removed.
Mr. Luciey stated he had not seen that. Those were not the same trees he was
talking about. He was talking about the tree at the fourth piece of property
to the east of the corner in Mr. Lee's yard. Mr. Lee was out of town and could
not be present tonight.
The Mayor asked if staff was familiar with that location, and if so, what they
were recommending relative to the trees.
Mr. Art Daw, Civil Engineer--Design, reported that the piece of property in
question had been investigated and on a preliminary review it appeared the
tree would not have to be removed to build the sidewalk.
Councilman Roth asked Mr. Luciey if he was in oppositon to the sidewalks
being constructed.
Mr. Luciey answered "yes". He explained that people do not walk in that area.
I.t would also eliminate a hedge that had taken him nine years to grow, as well
as he and his neighbors giving up property that was theirs, all because of an
argument over a tree.
80-
City Hall~ Anaheim.~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 9, 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour asked with the tree question being set aside, if he was just
opposed to putting in sidewalks; Mr. Luciey stated he was opposed to sidewalks,
but he was basically opposed to the reason why the question of the sidewalks
was even brought up. He also would challenge some of the signatures of the
petition. There was a Fullerton addressee included and he would also say some
addresses that he believed were tenants of the people circulated the petition
on Anna Drive.
Mayor Seymour stated that whether they were tenants or property owners, if they
lived there, the Council was interested in how they felt.
Mrs. Robert Smith, 1233 East La Palma Avenue, stated she appreciated that Mr.
Luciey was trying to save his property. When children traveled down to the
end of the sidewalk and from there ran across the road where they witnessed
them almost getting killed, she felt there should be an extension of the side-
walk, so that they could walk down to a light and thus be able to walk in
either direction. It was not because of the tree; she wanted a sidewalk so
the children would not have to run across the road and there was no sidewalk
on the opposite side of the street either. She then confirmed for the Mayor
that she was the individual who circulated the petition requesting the sidewalk.
The Mayor asked if she could determine of those residents living on the north
side of La Palma Avenue, how many signed the petition.
Mrs. Smith stated she could not give the number, but there were many who wanted
sidewalks put through at that location. The people Mr. Luciey spoke about on
Anna Drive were tenants of hers in apartments they owned. Those tenants walked
down to East Street and always claimed that there were no sidewalks from her
property down to East Street causing them to walk in the gutter.
Mr. Robert Smith, 1233 East La Palma Avenue, stated the situation first started
a couple of years ago. They had been living there for over 20 years and the
one tree Mr. Luciey spoke about had been a headache to them. He (Luciey) was
convinced that the tree was what started the situation, but it was not. People
walking as far as ~xir. Lee's property stopped and then they did not know where
to go, whether to walk on the lawns, into the gutter or cross the street, and
jaywalking was against the law. Thus, all the people were jaywalking from their
property across the street to try and get to where there was cement to walk on.
Mr. Lee, because of arguments over the tree, had forbidden his wife and family
to walk on his lawn and that was another reason why he wanted sidewalks con-
structed as well as others. Nobody wanted to walk on somebody's lawn.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if a portion of Mr. Lee's lawn was a portion of the
public right of way even though no sidewalk was there; Mrs. Smith answered "yes".
Councilman Overholt asked what age children were forced to walk across the
street at that location; Mrs. Smith answered anywhere from five years and up.
She also clarified that the Thomas Edison School was approximately three blocks
away and when it rained, the children walked in the gutter or walked across the
road. Mr, Smith explained on the street behind them, Belmont, there were a lot
of children and all those children came across Lark, up La Palma and then had
to cross the street to get to the 7-11 Store.
80- ! ~ t.t':
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 9~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Howard Neidager, 1327 East La Palma Avenue. The sidewalk ended at his house
and the other side of his property had no sidewalk. He lived there for 25
years. If children were going to Thomas Edison School, they should not be going
down that street because the school was on Romneya approximately one-half mile
from East Street, and there was sidewalk there. He had observed the children
and many more were using the south side of the street instead of the north. At
one time, there were many children in that neighborhood but now there were no
children except for grandchildren. He saw no petition and he doubted if any
of his neighbors close to him saw the petition. He was opposed to the sidewalk
because when they widened the street, he lost property on his side and now they
were faced with an additonal hardship of losing more property. He, too, had
spent much time and money planting shrubbery and ivy for about 15 years. If
they were going to widen the street, he suggested doing so on the south side,
since more children utilized that side.
Lillian Rudenberger, 1331 East La Palma Avenue, next to Mr. Neidager. She did
not understand how anyone having children could say that they were going to
jaywalk because they wanted to jaywalk. The children were going to go from
one point to another the closest way possible. She was definitely for side-
walks and they were expecially needed for safety purposes. Many people walked
on both sides of the street and she definitely wanted to see the sidewalk
continued.
Mr. John Bultena, corner of East Street and La Palma Avene. He worked in his
yard quite often and observed very little foot traffc on the north side of La
Palma, but quite a lot on the south side. He was opposed to the sidewalk for
the simple reason that it would take quite a lot from their yard and he also
did not want to lose his two pepper trees.
Mr. Ray Webb, 1211 East La Palma Avenue. He had a daughter who used to go to
Edison School. There was never any problem with her going to school or for
him to go to the 7-11 Store or Mr. Luciey or Smith as far as he knew. He felt
the reason Mr. Smith wanted the sidewalk installed was to have the tree removed
in front of Mr. Lee's house. The trees in front of Mr. Bultena's house were
beautiful and he did not see any reason why they should be taken down. Mayor
Seymour reiterated on that matter that staff was recommending if Council
approved the sidewalk, that the sidewalk be built around those trees so'that
they would not have to be removed.
Mr. Webb further stated that it was not public property. It belonged to him,
Mr. Luciey and Mr. Lee who all purchased their property. If any property
was. removed for sidewalks, it would be for them to donate it to the City.
Mayor Seymour stated either they donated it or in the alternative, if the City
were to proceed, it would have to pay fair market value for it.
Mr. Webb stated he did not think they should be forced to have sidewalks because
it was not necessary.
Mrs. Rose Bultena, 1205 East La Palma, asked if anybody had ever checked the
number of children who did live in that neighborhood and who needed to use
that sidewalk. They had observed people across the street on the south side
walking in the street, but on their side, nobody had ever been refused walking
on their lawn. There were very few people who walked there. There did not
seem to be any need for any sidewalk there at all.
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 9~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour explained as Councilman Roth previously pointed out, the School
Traffic Safety Committee had recommended a sidewalk in that location sometime
past because of their knowledge of the number of young people who resided
around that neighborhood.
Mrs. Bultena stated she would like to know what the reports said on the number
of children that actually lived on that side. On the south side of the street
where Anna Drive was located, they definitely needed a sidewalk.
Mayor Seymour stated having walked the area himself, it was easier to walk on
the south side that on the north. It was just easier to walk rather than walking
over the ivy and everything else on the north side. To him walking on the
other side was hazardous.
Mrs. Bultena stated what she was interested in was whether the taxpayer should
be burdened with the cost of installing a sidewalk on that side of the street.
They did not want anything that was hazardous and if necessary they would co-
operate but, she repeated, they could see no reason why a sidewalk was necessary
at that location.
Councilman Overholt reported that the figures Mr. Bultena was requesting were
readily available as to the number of children that did live north of La Palma
who would be in the Edison School attendance area.
Mayor Seymour explained relative to the question of whether there were elementary
school children or small children in the area, they were not talking just about
La Palma, but the whole area north of La Palma and north of their residence, the
entire single-family residential area including the area north of Belmont.
Mr. George Walsh, 1337 East La Palma Avenue (fourth house west of La Palma Lane),
stated he favored the sidewalks but he was concerned over the fact that 30 years
ago when La Palma was widened, he gave the City 15 feet of land of which there
was still an eight foot easement for building a sidewalk. He questioned why
the City had to get permission to build the sidewalks when they already had the
easement to construct them.
The Mayor explained that on the four different properties in question they did
not have the right of way because at the time the homes were built, the City
did not require dedication.
Mr. Roger Dittman, 1272 East La Palma Avenue, stated that he lived on the south
side of the street and felt for some time that a sidewalk would be very useful.
He noticed a large amount of traffic on La Palma, but most ~of the people were
low income living on Anna Drive who could not afford an automobile and there
were a lot of children. On the north side of the street, there was nothing of
any significance to which people would want to go. The 7-11 Store was also on
the south side. He felt it would be useful to have sidewalks on both sides
of the street, but there was more traffic on the south side. He understood
that apartments were going to be built on the south side of La Palma and pre-
sumably sidewalks would be dedicated at those locations and thus that might be
taken into account in deciding where the sidewalks should go.
The Mayor then gave Mr. and Mrs. Smith an opportunity to conclude their presen-
tation.
80- 1' '9
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 9~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Smith stated that the concern was for the children but that was not the
only concern. There was a Catholic Church located on La Palma and there was
a steady stream of older people walking up and down the gutter on the south
side of the street to get to that church. He suggested Chat in front of the
church if it were possible to put a crosswalk, so that pedestrians could cross
to the north side since there was no sidewalk on the south side, they would be
able to go all the way down to the buses on the north side of the street. The
situation did not just involve trees and children but older people and children
going to the church.
Mrs. Smith wanted to thank the last gentlemen who spoke (Mr. Dittman). However,
she felt sorry for all the people who were for their trees and property and did
not care about children's lives.
Councilwoman Kaywood then asked both Mr. and Mrs. Smith that in the event the
Council were to rule that there was to be a sidewalk installed and it would be
around the existing trees, would they still favor the sidewalk.
Both Mr. and Mrs. Smith indicated that would be fine with them.
Councilman Bay stated that he had been keeping track of the pro and con of the
people living on La Palma and particularly those where their property was di-
rectly involved. He did not have a copy of the full petition which indicated
that 60 signatures were gathered. He asked Mrs. Smith how far afield did she
go from the nieghborhood to obtain those signatures.
Mrs. Smith answered all the way up and down Belmont and Lark and East La Palma.
She also took the petition to the 7-11 Store and left it with the owners, and
they obtained signatures from many people who lived in the area and wanted
sidewalks.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
Councilman Roth stated that they did not have a copy of the full petition. He
wanted to know relative to the area from La Palma to East Street on the north
side, how many signed who actually lived in that area.
City Engineer Devitt stated that he did not have that specific information
other than a list indicating 85 people signed the petition.
Councilman Roth stated with all due respect to the people on Belmont, East
Street and La Palma and Liberty Lane, his concern was for the property owners.
As he understood the staff report, they had right of way for all but four pro-
perties which would indicate that there were only four in opposition; Mr. Devitt
stated that indicated that there were four properties where they did not have
dedication.
Mr. Art Daw noted in going through the petition, in the 1200 and 1300 block of
La Palma Avenue, there was 16 signatures, some of which were husband and wife.
City Hall, A~..aheim.,. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December. 9~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour stated that Mr. Luciey had just handed him a copy of the petition
turned into the City Clerk's office from which he reported the streets involved
in the gathering of signatures. He continued that the situation was an unusual
one. On one hand, the School Traffic Safety Committee had been recommending a
sidewalk for over a decade at the subject location if the City was ever willing
to commit the funds. Generally speaking those who already had sidewalks favored
an extension of the sidewalks and those who would lose some of their property
were opposed. The City had changed considerably in the past 25 years and traffic
on La Palma had greatly increased. He considered it sad that the City had not
seen fit to find a way to create sidewalks between East Street and Hawthorne
and Liberty Lane at least on one side of the street. As he previously mentioned,
he had walked both sides of the street and it was extremely dangerous on either
side. It was a matter of economics whether the sidewalks would go on the north
side or the south side of La Palma. It would appear that the economics favored
the north side where sidewalks were already established on 50% of that stretch
of the street. It would be more economical to extend the sidewalk on the
northerly side to completion, rather than starting them new on the south side.
He would have some concern as well, particularly if he had beautiful trees in
his front yard. He wanted to see those trees preserved, and according to
staff recommendations, it was possible to do so. Although he was sensitive
to those who would prefer not to have a sidewalk and foot traffic in front of
their property, the Council was charged with serving the greatest number of
people possible. It seemed clear in moving off of La Palma back into Belmont,
Lark, Banyan and the area east of East Street and north of La Palma, there
was a need for sidewalks. Thus, he was going to support the staff recommenda-
tion relative to the commitment of funds, including the $9,000 from the Council
Contingency Fund to match other funds that had been set aside for the comple-
tion of the sidewalks in that neighborhood with the understanding that every-
thing possible would be done to save not only the Bultena's trees, but also
all the trees along La Palma.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to authorize the City Attorney to initiate
eminent domain proceedgins in the event the City is unsuccessful in negotiating
the purchase or dedication of properties needed to be acquired in order to
complete the sidewalk along the north side of La Palma Avenue between Liberty
Lane and East Street and that an additional $9,000 be allocated from the Council
Contingency Fund to provide the funds necessary to complete the project; with
all possible to be done to save trees involved along La Palma Avenue. Council-
man Overholt seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Counncilwoman Kaywood questioned Mr. Neidegar relative
to his shrubbery. She asked if the City were able to move it back and save it,
would he then be willing to dedicate the portion necessary.
Mr. Neidegar answered that there was no way that they would do so without
further damaging his property. He had about 15 fruit trees behind the
shrubbery that could not be relocated anywhere else on the property.
Councilman Overholt explained that he was a member of the Anaheim City School
District Board of Trustees when the School Traffic Safety Committee was formed.
They made studies throughout the City of what would be safe routes to school
80-:
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 9~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
for children. When the weather was clear, there was not too much of a problem
but when rainy, there were very dangerous areas in the City. The policy of
the District for some time had been that a child living within two miles of
his or her school was not provided transportation. Many parents were not in
a position to take their children to school. When the committee made the
study, they established the route along the north side of La Palma as a safe
route to Edison School. He guessed that when the sidewalks were installed in
that location, they would find the north side would be the side people would
use because they would not be obstructed by the ivy and plantings in the front
yards. He had a responsibility to look out for the safety of children and
individuals walking on La Palma. It was a main arterty of the City and traffic
was going to increase. To have no sidewalks on at least one side of the
street to him seemed unconscioncable.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
PUBLIC HEARING - VARAINCE NO. 3170: Application by Clifford O. and Doris Jean
Beckler, to construct a 48-unit apartment complex on RM-1200 zoned property
located at 1242, 1250 and 1254 East La Palma Avenue, with Code waivers of:
a) maximum structural height
b) minimum distance between buildings
The City Planning Commission, pursaunt to Resolution No. PC80-170, declared
the subject project be exempt from the requirement to prepare an Environmental
Impact Report, pursunt to the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act since there would be no significant individual or cumulative
adverse environmental impact due to this project and further granted Variance
No. 3170 in part, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner(s) of subject property shall deed to the City of Anaheim a
strip of land 53 feet in width from the centerline of the street along La Palma
Avenue for street widening purposes.
2. That all engineering requirements of the City of Anaheim along La Palma
Avenue including preparation of improvement plans and installation of all
improvements such as curbs and gutters, sidewalks, street grading and paving,
drainage facilities or other appurtenant work, shall be complied with as re-
quired by the City Engineer and in accordance with specifications on file in
the Office of the City Engineer; that street lighting facilities along La Palma
Avenue shall be installed as required by the Office of Utilities General Manager,
and in accordance with specifications on file in the Office of Utilities General
Manager; and/or that a bond, certificate of deposit, letter of credit, or cash,
in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim shall be posted with
the City to guarantee the installation of the above-mentioned requirements prior
to occupancy.
3. That the owner(.s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim a
fee, in an amount as determined by the City Council, for tree planting purposes
along La Palma Avenue.
4. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans
on file with the Office of the Director of Public Works.
5. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and determined
to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to commencement of
structural framing.
6. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 9, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
8. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the
appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees, as determined to be appropriate by
the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building permit is issued.
9. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay the traffic signal assess-
ment fee in (Ordinance No. 3896) in an amount as determined by the City Council,
for each new dwelling unit prior to the issuance of a building permit.
10. That the interior walls of the proposed carports shall be stuccoed, that
enclosed storage cabinets shall be provided along the rear wall of each carport;
and that adequate bumper guards shall be provided to protect the interior walls
of the proposed carports from damage.
11. That a 6-foot high masonry wall shall be constructed along the south and
west property lines.
12. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Revision No.
1 of Exhibit Nos. 1 through 4; provided, however, that no 3-story buildings
shall exceed twenty-four (24) feet in height.
13. That Condition Nos. 1 and 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
Commission may grant.
14. That Condition Nos. 4, 6, 7, 10, 11 and 12, above-mentioned, shall be com-
plied with prior to final building and zoning inspections.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman
Kaywood at the meeting of October 28, 1980, and public hearing scheduled this
date.
Miss Santalahti described the location and surrounding land uses. She outlined
the findings given in the staff report which was submitted to and considered by
the City Planning Commission, supplemented by the posted plans on the Chambers
wall. She noted that the second waiver pertaining to the minimum distance
between buildings was deleted by the submission of revised plans.
Mayor Seymour stated then that the only matter before the Council was the
question of setback relative to the height of the structure since that was
now the only variance being requested; Miss Santalahti confirmed that was
correct.
Councilman Roth noted that the staff report indicated a figure of 315 relative
to builing coverage. He presumed it should be 31.5; Miss Santalahti stated
that was correct.
Councilman Roth also noted 55% coverage was permitted, but the petitoner was
requesting only 31.5% coverage.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if there were adherence to the 150-foot setback, how
many units would be permitted.
Miss Santalahti answered using the plan that they prepared eliminating the two-
and three-story units within the 150 feet, there would have to be 25 less units
based on the site coverage of only 31% and there could be a realignment of the
site plans which would probably be a few units higher or better than 48 minus 23.
City Hall., .Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 9~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated then that to say there was no variance requested was
somewhat misleading; Miss Santalahti stated, other than just the height waiver.
Mayor Seymour stated that the height waiver was the only variance being requested;
Councilwoman Kaywood stated if that meant 25 less units out of 48, that was a
considerable waiver.
Mayor Seymour pointed out that density was not the question. W-hat was being pro-
posed was totally within the Code relative to density.
Councilwoman Kaywood again pointed out if they adhered to the height setback,
there would be 23 units allowed.
Mayor Seymour stated he understood, but he was saying it was not a question of
a project being more dense than what the Code allowed.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous
of being heard.
Mr. Walt Bowman, real estate broker, office address, 7936 Cerritos Avenue, Stanton,
stated he represented the present owners of the property, Mr. and Mrs. Beckler,
Mr. Keup and Mr. Slater and also the purchaser of the property, Urbanite, Inc.,
represented by Mr. Labib. They first submitted their plans to the Planning
Commission on September 8, 1980 and at that time there was some objection ex-
pressed from those in attendance. The Commission continued the hearing and
suggested that they hold a meeting with the neighbors to discuss the project.
The first meeting was held on September 18, 1980 wherein the architect, Mr.
Labib showed the plans that had been submitted and the neighbors were able to
provide input. At a subsequent meeting on September 22, 1980, revised plans
were presented which were brought to the Planning Commission meeting of
October 6, 1980. At that time adjoining property owners were also present
who supported and spoke in favor of the project. The Planning Commission
approved the revised plans without any dissenting vote. Mr. Bowman then noted
on the posted plans that the three-story height proposed along La Palma Avenue
was 24 feet which was lower than the height already approved on the units at
1260 East La Palma. He then submitted to the Council the copies of notices
announcing the neighborhood meeting and a list of the residents who attended
each (made a part of the record).
The Mayor then asked to hear from those in favor of the proposed development.
The following people spoke in favor of granting Variance No. 3170 and highlights
of their presentation are listed below:
Mr. Norman Keup, 2327 Puritan Lane, owner of the property at 1250 East La Palma
Avenue. He and the Slater's and the Beckler's had owned their property for many
years. Since La Palma had evolved into a six-lane highway over the years, it no
longer had the appeal for single-family residences it once had. The neighbors
around the perimeter of the property were happy with the plans and the Planning
Commission voted 6-0 in favor of the project which would bring much needed housing
to the City, as well as more tax revenues to the City and County. It would be
an asset to the neighborhood.
80- ·
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 9~ 1980~ ..1:30 P.M~.
Mrs. Joan Clamp, 706 Poplar Place. At first she was against the density that
was proposed, but she attended both neighborhood meetings and she felt since
they previously approved seven units in the same area with a much higher
height and this project was only going to be 24 feet high, she did not see any
thing wrong with it. They were going to be apartments there and the plans were
good looking and well laid out. She was not now against the project.
Kathy Thompson, 714 North Hemlock. Her property backed up to the proposed com-
plex. At the neighborhood meetings with the architect and Mr. Bowman, the
residents were able to tell them what they wanted. Speaking from her own
experience with the bees, gophers and people cutting across her yard, she was
in favor of having something to stop all of those things. As far as privacy
and the structural height involved, the project would afford them much more
privacy than they ever had. They were in favor of the project and felt it
would be very helpful. It would help their property value rather than what
existed on the property at present.
Mrs. Doris Jean Beckler, 1242 East La Palma. She had several letters in support
of the project from people who are unable to be present which she read aloud.
The letters, ail dated December 8, 1980, were from Dennis L. Norman, 720 North
Juniper Place; Richard Emard, 726 Juniper Place; and Mrs. Harry S. Arnold,
639 North Hawthorne (made a part of the record). She also noted that Carl
Ramsey, 1241 East La Palma Avenue, directly across the street, was present
tonight and asked if she would offer his support as well.
Mr. John Krajacic, stated he was going to be the neighbor next door to the west
at 1236 La Palma Avenue. He had no objection to the project and it was a nice
plan~. He felt they needed apartments badly.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if he intended to change his home to apartments.
Mr. Krajacic answered that right now he did not know what he was going to do,
but in the future he might put apartments in there.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated if he were to go to apartments, he undoubtedly would
want to be treated like everyone else; Mr. Karjacic answered that was correct.
The Mayor then asked to hear from those in opposition to the proposed project.
The following people spoke in opposition to the granting of Variance No. 3170
and the highlights of their presentation are listed below: Mr. Lloyd Beeson,
1219 Emst Wilhelmina. The two-story apartment south of La Palma Avenue between
the railroad tracks and East Street, looked nice. He believed that in the
subject project they were going to construct carports and he was opposed to
that concept because they tended to cheapen an area. He was strongly opposed
to the three-story building.
Mr. Richard Daniel, 1248 East Wilhelmina. With the increased traffic on La
Palma Avenue and East Street had come increased traffic on their street. Even
though he did not have any children of school age, he was concerned over the
fact that La Palma Avenue was a potential death trap if apartments were added
to the south side. There was no provision in the plan to add traffic lanes
or to provide for people making left-turns to the apartment complex. He also
did not believe any consideration was being given relative to the children or
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 9~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
adults who would be walking on the street on the south side of La Palma. By
adding a third story to the property, the people density was going to be in-
creased. He did not appreciate a plan with three-story apartments or having
his quality of life disturbed for somebody's monetary gain.
Mr. Ted Jessopy, 1229 Chevy Chase. If the people who were all in support of
three stories wanted to see a "dump", they should visit the Chevy Chase area
and they would change their minds immediately.
Mayor Seymour then explained for Mr. Jessopy that the standards being applied
to the present development were hardly those that were applied in the Chevy
Chase area. The subject project met every standard for parking today, larger
square footage units were involved, and they would be renting for substantial
sums.
Mr. Roger Dittmann, 1232 East La Palma. He could not say he was in opposition,
but in an intermediate category. He knew the project would result in a decline
in his quality of life because of the traffic that would be. generated. Relative
to the EIR statements and the effect of the subject project on the community,
the present variance, the one previously granted and those that might be re-
quested in the future should not be considered as isolated situations one at
a time. They should consider the overall effect as to what would happen if
the same kinds of variances were granted for all of the property in that area
zoned RM-1200. IC would be very hard to argue against future variances once
a precedent had been established. He questioned if the EIR took into account
the projection they would expect to occur for traffic, density, etc., if
similar developments were to occur in all of the areas zoned for RM-1200.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked in the event the apartments were approved, would he
consider selling his property for apartments since it was one lot away from the
proposed project.
Mr. Dittmann answered it was something he had to consider. Realtors and developers
kept coming by wanting to buy the property. If the population, noise and traffic
increased, it would become a less desirable place to live, thereby reaching a point
where the inevitable would occur, and he may not wish to resist it anymore.
Mr. Will Bartsch, 703 Hemlock. He was the first to buy in the surrounding Bonded
Home tract 28 years ago. He retired two months ago and was hoping to have a nice
retirement in a quiet neighborhood and now an apartment was coming in. He was
glad the Council knew of the congestion on La Palma Avenue. Ail those people
that would have to go north or south would not be able to make a left turn onto
La Palma Avenue or there would be an accident there everyday. He was opposed
to the three-story, but was more opposed to the density and the type of apart-
ments proposed. If condominiums were built, they would be occupied by people
who cared for their property. These would be apartments right in the middle
of the single-family dwellings. There were approximately 80 homes in that
area and they were talking about putting half that many people in three blocks--
48 families and 80 cars coming out of that one area. There was definitely
going to be congestion becuase the people were going to drive around and if
they could not make a left turn, =hey were going to go to the next block to
Wilhelmina and that traffic would all travel from Wilhelmina to East for
those who had to travel north, south or west. As well, there were no sidewalks
80- ~
City Hall, Anaheim, .California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 9, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
provided for the people. Ail of those in favor of the project were either the
sellers, owners, purchasers or future purchasers.
Mayor Seymour pointed out that Mrs. Clamp, Thompson and Mr. Ramsey were resi-
dents who lived in the immediate area, his point being that it was not only
those who would have a financial interest that were in support of the project.
Mrs. Karen Beeson, 1219 East Wilhelmina. Theirs was a purely residential area
and she wished they could keep it that way. Forty-eight apartment units were
too much density. Ail of the properties west of the subject property would be
built up to apartment houses and then they would move down along East Street
where the lots were 270 feet deep. Ail those lots would be turned into apart-
ment houses and thus instead of the district being a residential one, it was
going to become an apartment row, and she objected to it.
Mr. Tom Lopker, owner of Lopkar Constructions, 702 North Hawthorne. Density
was the prime question and one of the main things he was objecting to--the
density, traffic and general conditions in the area, i.e., the quality of life.
He did not want to see that decrease. He felt if the density were reduced to
25 units, for example, in condominiums, rather than apartments, where there was
ownership, they could be built on the property for $60 a square foot.
Discussion then followed between Mr. Lopkar, the Mayor and Councilman Roth rela-
tive to the latter suggestion.
Mrs. Patricia Clancy, 303 North Bush. She made a survey of the subject neigh-
borhood around Wilhelmina and all the cul-de-sacs. It was a lovely and attrac-
tive neighborhood. She felt the Council knew her feelings on the proposed pro-
ject and she was not going to go to all of them but wanted instead to bring up
another project--the apartment house complex on the corner of East and Cypress.
They were talking about housing for renters. She did not know whether the
Council was aware, but that complex was going into a public hearing on Monday
before the Planning Commission to convert to condominiums and thus it would
no longer be affordable for the people living there, because they could not
afford to buy.
Mrs. Art Batch, 703 Hemlock. Many of her objections were expressed by previous
speakers. At the Planning Commission meeting, they had a petition signed by
28 people in their area who were opposed to the complex mostly because of the
density. She had no quarrel with the Becklers or any of the other people
personally. She would hope, however, that she would not be so concerned about
making her own nest comfortable that she would overlook the welfare of every-
body else around her. They did attend the meetings M_r. Bowman called and
listened to what was proposed, but they did not make any changes in the plans
that were really a compromise. It still resulted in 48 units. She did not
feel that they had to have 48 units placed in three lots. It was an unreason-
able amount and as had been pointed out a lot of the traffic was going to go
right by her house at the northwest corner of Wilhelmina and Hemlock. The
traffic would go past her home because if a resident of one of those apart-
ments on La Palma Avenue wanted to go west, continually passing traffic would
not allow a driver to pull out of the south side of the street to go west.
That dr}ver would then go around the block where there was a stop and go
right on La Palma Avenue and East Street in order to be able to turn.
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December) ~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Sherri Pinconi, 1181 Crown (Patrick Henry area). This was not her neighborhood,
she was concerned generally over what was happening in Anaheim. There was a
shortage of housing and there was a need for apartments and more housing but
she was opposed to the density. She did not feel that the people who favored
the project realized what could happen in the future. That aspect should be
considered more in depth. She had spoken with Mr. Carl Ramsey herself today
who was supporting the project, but he was going to be moving within the next
three years and he indicated he really did not care because he would not be
living there. High density was a breeder of crime and she had seen it happen
with the Chevy Chase apartments. She questioned what they would see in the
future in allowing variances and waivers and taking smaller portions of prop-
erty and packing in apartments.
Discussion followed between the Mayor and Mrs. Pinconi during which the Mayor
clarified that the only variance being requested was relative to the height
of the structure.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor gave Mr. Bowman
an opportunity to rebut.
Mr. Bowman stated the primary concerns voiced tonight were also voiced at the
last Planning Commission hearing. Relative to density, they were well within
that allowed. Relative to traffic, all ingress and egress would be to La
Palma Avenue. The street on the south side of La Palma would be widened at
53 feet on center where it was 30 feet right now. There would also be side-
walks on the south side in front of the subject property. The location of
the people ~n favor involved three property owners who abutted the project.
Relative to the maintenance of apartments, that was a difficult question and
anyone would have the same concern with a new neighbor moving in next door.
The Mayor asked the square footage of the proposed units and what they would
rent for.
Miss Santalahti answered that they ranged in size from 700 square feet for one
bedroom, the minimum standard, to 840 square feet which was 15 square feet
larger than the two-bedroom unit size.
Mr. Bowman reported that presently the one-bedroom units would be rented at $390
a month and the two-bedroom units at $450 a month.
Mayor Seymour asked Mr. Bowman why he did not propose a condominium project;
Mr. Bowman, since he was only the broker involved, deferred to the architect-
developer on the project.
Mr. Ali Labib, architect and Vice President of Urbanite, Inc., who were acquiring
the land explained that before they put in for any development, they had to make
a feasibility study on the project in terms of whether or not it would be profit-
able. They had done some studies on the possibility of developing condominiums
on the property. The City standards required that each unit be 3,000 square
feet which would bring the total number of units to between 28 and 29. Then,
figuring the cost of according to the proposed price on the property, the land
price for each unit would be between $25,000 to $28,000. Thus, for each square
foot in the unit~ land cost would be a minimum of $25. They, therefore, dis-
covered it was not feasible to build a condominium. They would build such a
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 9, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
project if the City would allow them to go over the maximum number of units on
that development.
Councilwoman Kmywood noted that Mr. Labib stated at 3,000 square feet, it would
yield 28 to 29 units maximum. She asked what the selling price would be in that
case.
Mr. Labib answered that the cost would be $650,000 for the land and a condominium
in that area would not sell for more than $85,000 depending on the number of
bedrooms and the amenities involved.
Councilwoman Kaywood also noted that he stated they would build condominiums if
the City allowed them to build more than 28 or ~ ~ She asked what number he
would consider to be a feasible amount with a reasonable profit to build
condominiums on the property.
Mr. Labib answered from their preliminary studies at the time, they would have
to have 38 to 40 units selling in the range of the low 80's to the high 80's,
again depending on the number of bedrooms, etc.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked who would be in charge of the management of the apart-
ments; Mr. Labib answered that they would be the managers until they sold the
project. They might keep it for one year or ten years. If they kept the units
for a certain amount of time, they would take care of them because there was
a great deal of money involved in the project. The buyer who might buy the
units would have the same concern. He did not know how long they would keep
the units. If he built the units and was offered the right price, he would
sell them the day after they were finished.
Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out, as far as getting more money out of a project,
if they rented to more than one family in each unit, they could do so.
Mr. Labib stated that may be so for the short term, but consdering the value of
the units in terms of rent or sale of the project, it would not be in their favor
to do so.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated unfortunately many of the complaints she had were
that the most profitable projects to the apartment owner were the ones that
were the most run down because they had multiple families in each unit and
were charging rent to each of the people living there. She was looking for
some kind of protection for Anaheim and from what she understood, Mr. Labib
and his company would be the owner for as short a period as possible and as
soon as they could sell, they would do so.
Mr. Labib stated that was what he would do just as with the other apartment
project he built in Anaheim which was one of the nicest projects in the City.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. Labib if he were taking less of a profit on the
project or his standard fee.
Councilman Roth interjected and stated that he objected to the line of questioning
being posed. They were present to talk about land use and thus to pry into the
personal profit motives was completely out of line. The hearing was to determine
land use and whether or not a variance was going to be granted.
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 9~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood disagreed and stated they were talking about housing and
that was the question; Councilman Roth stated, but profit seemed to be a bad
word.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated it was not a bad word and she never said that, but
to say that no variances were requested when in fact if the 150-foot setback
had been adhered to they would have been able to build only 23 units and not
48; Councilman Roth emphasized that the issue to be decided was land use.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked how long the rents of $390 and $450 would remain
in effect; Mr. Labib answered that he would have no way to know at present.
It would take a year to complete the project, and he could not predict what was
going to happen in the marketplace.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if he would still consider building condominiums
instead of apartments; Mr. Labib reiterated that he would do so if it was
feasible to go that route.
Councilman Overholt then complimented Mr. Bowman on the manner in which he went
about the project in meeting with the people in the neighborhood. He asked
what responses they gave to the residents in terms of their concerns and did
they compromise some of their wishes.
Mr. Bowman explained that the revised plans were considerably different than
those presented initially where the garages abutted the single family and the
layout of the buildings was considerably different. The changes made were
in response to the residents and the concerns expressed by the Planning
Commissioners.
Mayor Seymour asked their response relative to the question of visual intrusion.
Mr. Bowman referred to one of the posted drawings indicating the second story
windows and the garages in the line of where vision would be into the single-
family residences and also in the other direction. If somebody wanted to look
into a backyard, they could do so at 150 feet if they used binoculars, or at
70 feet or wherever they were at. It was not possible to control what someone
living in an apartment, nor the people living in a house, would do. He confirmed
for the Mayor that the plan showed the line of sight.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked, without a telescope or binoculars how many feet
would be involved before someone could not reasonable see into the back yards;
Mr. Bowman stated he could not answer that.
Councilwoman Kaywood then asked Mr. Bowman if he was in negotiations with any
of the other residents along La Palma Avenue relative to their property or if
he intended to be.
Mr. Bowman answered "no", but he would love to be because he was in business
to make money.
Mr. Labib then explained what he had done in preparing the line of site plan
which was posted on the Chambers wall. They could also implement the theory on
an actual situation.
City Hall~ Anaheim, California.- COUNCIL MINUTES - December 9.~ .1980~ 1:30 P.M.
After Mr. Labib's explanation, the Mayor stated as he understood, the primary
reason for the 150-foot setback for two stories had been to prevent visual
intrusion from multi-family uses into the rear yards of single-family residences.
It he understood the presentation, they had accomplished that on the subject
project; Mr. Labib answered "yes".
Councilman Overholt stated that he did not know if that was exactly accurate.
Mr. Labib stated that as a matter of academics, he showed that it could be
accomplished and that he would also be willing to implement that plan with
a specific single-family dwelling in that area.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked for a show of hands from those in the audience in
favor of the project; there were 24. Councilwoman Kaywood asked that the record
reflect that 13 members present from the Board of Realtors supported the pro-
j ect.
The Mayor then called for a show of hands of those in opposition to the project.
There were 29.
Miss Santalahti commented that they had noticed in several projects that appar-
ently a number of architects and building designers were not familiar with the
fire regulations regarding exiting from third-story residential units. Namely,
there had to be two means of exiting from every unit, practically speaking, two
staircases whenever there were three stories. The design of the project was
not specific on that, but when they filed for building permits, if the project
was approved, and if at three stories, they would have to have a second means
of exiting under the Fire Code.
Mrs. Patricia Clancy, from the audience, asked if it would be possible to have
a show of hands from only those living in the area who would be impacted.
Mayor Seymour asked for a show of hands first from those living within 300
feet of the project who were in favor and the same from those who were in
opposition; there were i0 in favor and 11 opposed.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the Council would consider going back for condo-
miniums, on the project.
Mayor Seymour asked if she would approve a density that the applicant had
recommended.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that he had mentioned 38 condominiums and it was a
great possibility that she would approve that over 48 apartments. She asked
M~ss. Santalaht± what that would be relative to density.
Miss Santalahti reported that the permitted condominium density was approximately
15 units to the acre and the project was at maximum apartment density. Thus it
would be something less than one-half of the proposal allowed by Code, around
23 units with the same height restrictions.
80-1 :;,?
C.ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 9, 1980: 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked what that would come to with a 25% density bonus;
Miss Santalahti answered, 28 to 30 units.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. Labib if he could live with 30 condominiums on
the project; Mr. Labib answered "no". They had reached the conclusion that
anything below 30 would not be feasible to develop.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the project were 38 units, would that be one or
two bedrooms.
Mr. Labib answered, two bedrooms, two baths and three bedrooms, two and one-
half baths with two enclosed garages.
Councilwoman Kaywood then inquired if he would ask for a large parking waiver
or parking within the Code and would that be two-story condominiums.
Mr. Labib answered relative to the parking, that they had not done any specific
site plans on a condominium project. Condominiums would be a one- and two-
story development.
Councilwoman Kaywood then stated her big concern in this case was the fact that
the people in favor were obviously the sellers, a brand new buyer who also
intended to go into apartments, and the developer. The permanent residents of
other than two were very much concerned with the proposal. She had seen it
happen in other areas where something that was built over the objections of
most of the existing residents that the situation forced out the long time
homeowner and the people who made the area a stable neighborhood. Under the
circumstances and against her better judgment, she could favor a maximum of
38 condominium units if there were no parking waivers in order to preserve the
neighborhood. She was very concerned that if they moved in and upset neighbor-
hood after neighborhood, they were going to see more Redevelopment projects
throughout the City which would not help the real estate professional either.
She wanted to see Anaheim remain a good place in which to live and work and
not have problems 50 years hence that such developments were going to bring
the City.
From the audience, it was indicated from an area resident that a compromise such
as a condominium project would make everyone happy.
Mayor Seymour asked to hear from the applicant with regard to Councilwoman
Kaywood's suggestion.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if he could redesign for the 38 condominiums with
appropriate parking which might mean that there would be fewer three bedrooms
and more two bedrooms possibly one bedrooms.
Mr. Labib answered that he could redesign the site plan according to what he
had previously stated. However, there were some technicalities which did not
concern the present hearing which he would have to solve first between himself
and the builders. At the present time, they owned the land and they should
have the prerogative to discuss the matter before he could make a decision.
80-
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 9, 1980~ 1:30 .P.M.
Councilman Bay asked the City Attorney if it was the normal function of a public
hearing to suggest a redesign of a development when the issue was whether or
not they were going to grant the variance relative to maximum structural height.
City Attorney Hopkins answered that he knew of no rule precluding such questions;
however, he felt it more appropriate that they direct their attention toward
a specific issue and then to discuss the other alternatives with staff at a
later date. ~
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that if it involved down zoning that was always
appropriate and it had been done in the past. She then asked Mr. Labib if he
would have to meet with the sellers at a later time or could he take five
minuts now to do so.
The Mayor suggested that they recess so that Mr. Labib could confer with the
sellers.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 15 minutes. (10:15 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (10:30 P.M.)
Mr. Bowman asked if the Council would consider their proposal for 48 units as
submitted for apartments. They were not favorable to condominiums at the
present time although that suggestion raised some interesting points. Mr.
Labib wanted to know what kind of time frame they would be talking about and
did that mean going through the Planning process again on a 38-unit condo-
minium project.
Mayor Seymour stated it would be required by law.
Mr. Bowman repeated that they were asking the Council to make a decision on
the 48-unit apartment project as submitted.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if there was a difference in the price of the land
regarding the condominiums or apartments on the particular project in question;
Mr. Bowman stated he could not answer that at this point.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council finds that this project
would have no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact
since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property for medium den-
sity residential land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive
environmental impacts were involved in the proposal and that the Initial Study
submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant individual or cumulative
adverse environmental impacts and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement
to prepare an EIR. Councilwoman Kaywood voted "no". MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood felt there would be a very large impact on the neighborhood.
Mayor Seymour then stated he would like to speak to the request of the applicant
in relationship to the rightful concern expressed by the neighborhood. It was
not unlike what had been heard by the Council, Planning Commission and other
public agencies throughout Orange County. It was only natural for people who
bought their homes five, 20 or 30 years ago to want to keep their environment
C. ity Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 9~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
the same as it was when they bought it or as it was today, the bottom line
being, the few people occupying each square foot of real estate in their neigh-
borhood, the better. He could understand that and also the concern, depending
on what was developed on vacant properties around one's neighborhood, it could
impact the value of their homes. The Council's responsibility was first to
apply a General Plan to any given neighborhood and they had done so to the
subject neighborhood and the particular piece of property, approving unanimously
that it was suitable for apartment house development. They now had an appli-
cation before them wanting to develop apartment houses within that General Plan.
They were initially asking for two variances: (1) structural height variance
and (2) distance between buildings. During the Planning Commission hearings
they withdrew their request for a minimum distance between buildings and thus
the Council had now only to consider the waiver of structural height and that
was the only question remaining. He emphasized that the project was totally
in conformance to site development standards of apartment house developments
for which the property had been approved in the General Plan. It was a plan
that would prevent any visual intrusion into the rear or side yards of the
single-family residences abutting the property. If so, there were no waivers
in his mind because every standard had been met. He did not believe that the
City Council legitimately could say no if the project measured up to the stan-
dards which they imposed and created. It would be his intention in offering
the resolution to approve the project that he would impose upon the developer
that he prepare and submit to City staff a line-of-site plan drawn from the
properties as they actually existed to insure that no visual intrusion occurred.
If successful in doing so, he did not know what more they could impose other
than to down zone the property and amend the General Plan. He did not believe
that approval would down grade the property values and the surrounding homes
would continue to appreciate in value as in the past.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 80R-554 for adoption, granting Variance
No. 3170, subject to City Planning Commission recommendations, and with the
additional stipulation that the applicant be required to submit to City staff
for their approval a line-of-site plan as actually exists that would demonstrate
clearly there would be no visual intrusion into single-family residential rear
and side yards on the south and west. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-554: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 3170.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Roth asked the Mayor if he was going to
add the additional fire exit requirement; Mayor Seymour answered that was part
of the Building Code, and it would automatically be imposed on the applicant.
Councilwoman Kaywood questioned what would have happened if one year ago or less
someone had come in and indicated that they wanted to deviate from the 150-foot
setback at 72 or 82 feet and not go over the maximum consideration of 36 apart-
ments to the acre. She felt they would have adhered to the setback and in this
particular case they would be entitled to 23 units and not 48.
After further discussion and debate between the Mayor and Councilwoman Kaywood
on the Dssue, Councilwoman Kaywood concluded stating it was interesting to note
that it was Mr. Bowman who brought about the original "destruction" of the Code
on a previous variance and as~ it stated, the two-story apartment building 62
feet from the adjoining single-family residence to the south which was denied by
80- f~ J{
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 9, 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
the Planning Commission was then approved by the Council. Using that particular
case, the present case stated that "denial would deprive the property of a
privilege enjoyed by other property in the same zone and vicinity." It did not
state it was the same person who came in and obtained that waiver and now he
was claiming a precedent. It was extremely misleading.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Roth and Seymour
Kaywood and Bay
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-554 duly passed and adopted.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilman Overholt seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (10:50 P.M.)
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK