1991/04/23City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 23, 1991, 5:00 P.M.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Simpson, Daly, Pickler, Ehrle and Hunter
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: James Ruth
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
TREASURY MANAGER: William Sell
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Joel Fick
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Annika Santalahti
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT MANAGER: Eric Nicoll
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Lisa Stipkovich
A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was
posted at 3:05 p.m. on April 19, 1991 at the Civic Center kiosk, containing all
items as shown herein.
Mayor Hunter called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: City Attorney Jack White requested a Closed
Session to consider the following items:
a. To confer with its attorney regarding pending litigation pursuant
to Government Code Section 54956.9(a),to wit:
Golden West Baseball Co. vs. City of Anaheim, Orange County Superior
Court Case No. 40-92-46; Anaheim Stadium Associates vs. City of
Anaheim, et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 44-81-74.
b. To meet with and give directions to its authorized representative
regarding labor relations matters - Government Code Section 54957.6.
c. To consider and take possible action upon personnel matters
pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.
d. To confer with its attorney regarding potential litigation
pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(1).
e. To consider and take possible action upon such other matters as
are orally announced by the City Attorney, City Manager or City
Council prior to such recess unless the motion to recess indicates any
of the matters will not be considered in closed session.
By general Consent, the Council recessed into Closed Session. (3:02 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present, and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. (5:16 p.m.)
INVOCATION: Reverend Donald W. Dexter, First Presbyterian Church, gave the
invocation.
240
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 23, 1991, 5:00 P.M.
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Irv Pickler led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Hunter
and authorized by the City Council:
Off-Road Safety Week in Anaheim, week of May 1, 1991
Commemorating the Fiftieth Anniversary of U.S. Savings Bonds
Law Day U.S.A. in Anaheim, May 1, 1991
Parliamentary Law Month in Anaheim, May, 1991
Operation Desert Return Day in Anaheim, May 12, 1991
Mr. Bill Marcel accepted the Off-Road Safety Week proclamation; Faye Mauceri
accepted the Parliamentary Law Month proclamation; and Mr. Michael Munoz
accepted the Operation Desert Return Day proclamation and invited everyone to
attend the gala event he is sponsoring to be held at Anaheim Stadium on Sunday,
May 12, 1991 at 6:00 p.m., free of charge.
119: DECLARATION OF RECOGNITION: A Declaration of Recognition and
Congratulations was unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to
James E. Cook, Jr. retiring following over 34 years of service to the City of
Anaheim. Mayor Hunter and Council Members commended Mr. Cook and thanked him
for his service to the City and citizens of Anaheim.
119: DECLARATION OF RECOGNITION: A Declaration of Recognition and
Congratulations was unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to
Mr. Mike Doty retiring Fire Marshall following 30 years of service to the
City. Mayor Hunter and Council Members commended and thanked Mr. Dory for his
outstanding service to the City and citizens of Anaheim. Council Member Bob
Simpson, former Fire Chief, gave brief comments further recognizing Mr. Doty's
contributions to the Anaheim City Fire Department.
119: DECLARATION OF COMMENDATION: A Declaration of Commendation was
unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to Richard Elgas,
Conductor of the Sycamore Junior High School Band who was accompanied by Slim
Terrell, Principal, and all of the junior high school band members. Mayor
Hunter and Council Members congratulated them for being chosen to represent the
City of Anaheim as musical goodwill ambassadors at the Galleria of Art & Design
in San Francisco and also commended Mr. Elgas for his commitment to the band
over the many years he has been conductor.
119: DECLARATION OF RECOGNITION: A Declaration of Recognition was unanimously
adopted by the City Council recognizing, congratulating and commending Carl
Karcher and Carl Karcher Enterprises on their 50th anniversary. Carl Karcher
started in business in the City of Anaheim in 1941, July 17, 1991 is to be
recognized as "Carl's Jr. 50th Anniversary Day".
241
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 23, 1991, 5:00 P.M.
MINUTES: Approval of the minutes was deferred to the next regular meeting.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $1,850,514.31 for the week
ending April 19, 1991, in accordance with the 1990-91 Budget, were approved.
Mayor Hunter recessed the City Council meeting until after the Redevelopment
Agency and Housing Authority meetings. (5:45 p.m.)
Mayor Hunter reconvened the City Council meeting. (6:06 p.m.)
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTIONS/ORDINANCES: The titles of the following
resolutions and ordinances were read by the City Manager. (Resolution Nos.
91R-119 through 91R-121, both inclusive, for adoption; Ordinance Nos. 5215 and
5216 for adoption)
Council Member Pickler moved to waive the reading in full of the resolutions
and ordinances. Council Member Ehrle seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Council Member
Pickler, seconded by Council Member Ehrle, the following items were approved in
accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each
Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Council Member Pickler
offered Resolution Nos. 91R-119 through 91R-121, both inclusive, for adoption.
Council Member Pickler offered Ordinance Nos. 5215 and 5216 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution/Ordinance Book.
Al. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as
recommended:
Claims rejected and referred to Risk Management:
a. Claim submitted by Tim Smith for property damage sustained purportedly
due to actions of the City on or about February 27, 1991.
b. Claim submitted by Magnolia School District for indemnity sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 10, 1991.
c. Claim submitted by Scott Clinedinst for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 26, 1991.
d. Claim submitted by Marjorie Benjamin for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about February 8, 1991.
e. Claim submitted by Robert E. Bowen for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about March 18, 1991.
f. Claim submitted by Joshua Jeffrey Strickland, Andrew Edward Strickland
and Wendy Oliver for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the
City on or about December 27, 1990.
g. Claim submitted by Inland Marine Adjustors/Surveyors, Inc. for
property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about
January 18, 1991.
242
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 23, 1991, 5:00 P.M.
h. Claim submitted by Elizabeth B. Winek for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about March 18, 1991.
i. Claim submitted by Ralph Collrep for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 10, 1990.
j. Claim submitted by Boris Pirih, Angela Pirih and Jacob Logar for
indemnity sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about
December 24, 1990.
k. Claim submitted by Imperial Properties, Canyon Plaza Shopping Center
and Essex Realty Management for indemnity sustained purportedly due to actions
of the City on or about October 25, 1990.
1. Claim submitted by Pavement Coatings Co. for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about September 19, 1990.
m. Claim submitted by Lori Dill for bodily injury sustained purportedly
due to actions of the City on or about November 29, 1990.
n. Claim submitted by Mae Sakamoto for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 29, 1990.
o. Claim submitted by James D. Foxe Concrete for indemnity sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about February 15, 1991.
p. Application for leave to present late claim submitted by Richard Allen
for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about
June 25, 1990.
A2. 167: Awarding the contract to the lowest and best responsible bidder,
Intersection Maintenance Service, in the amount of $56,828 for Illuminated
Street Name Upgrade Project.
A3. 167: Awarding the contract to the lowest and best responsible bidder,
The Synchronistic Group, Inc. in the amount of $621,977.90 for Northeast
Interconnect.
A4. 167~ Awarding the contract to the lowest and best responsible bidder,
Intersection Maintenance Service, in the amount of $77,672 for
Protected/Permissive Signals (Various).
A5. 167: Awarding the contract to the lowest and best responsible bidder,
Signal Maintenance, Inc., in the amount of $120,417 for Northeast Signal
Modification Project.
A6. 167: Awarding the contract to the lowest and best responsible bidder,
Intersection Maintenance Service, in the amount of $123,515 for Traffic Signal
Improvements.
A7. 160: Accepting the bid of Nobest, Incorporated, in an amount
not-to-exceed $260,529 for residential sidewalk replacement, in accordance
with Bid ~4931.
243
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 23, 1991, 5:00 P.M.
A8. 123: Approving an agreement with the financing team of
Seidler-Fitzgerald, in the amount of $7,500 plus out-of-pocket expenses
not-to-exceed $1,000 in connection with the sale of 1991/92 Tax and Revenue
Anticipation Notes.
Approving an agreement with the financing team of Jones Hall Hill & White, in
the amount of 1/20 of one percent of the aggregate principal amount of the
notes, less 15 percent of the fee (approximately $10,625), plus out-of-pocket
expenses not-to-exceed $2,500 in connection with the sale of 1991/92 Tax and
Revenue Anticipation Notes.
A9. 123: Approving the First Amendment to the License Agreement with Pacific
Theatres, Inc., and authorizing the Mayor to sign on behalf of the City.
Al0. 123: RESOLUTION NO. 91R-119: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO CERTAIN AGREEMENTS
FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE CITY WHEN THE AMOUNTS DO NOT EXCEED $25,000.
Approving a revision to Council Policy 401 to reflect the increase in the City
Manager's authorization to execute agreements from $10,000 to $25,000.
All. 123: Approving a Termination Agreement with B.U. Patel and P.B. Patel in
connection with the condemnation of Schlund Parcel (widening of West Street).
A12. 123: Approving an Agreement with the Anaheim Union High School District,
in an amount not-to-exceed $6,984 to provide Park Ranger patrols on school and
park facilities from May 24, 1991 through September 1, 1991.
Al3. 177: Approving publication of the 1991-1992 Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) program and budget to be incorporated into the Proposed Statement
of Community Development Objectives and Projected Use of Funds.
RESOLUTION NO. 91R-120: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FOR
FISCAL YEAR 1991-1992 PURSUANT TO THE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACT OF
1980, AS AMENDED, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AND FILE THE
APPLICATION THEREFOR.
A14. 150: Approving a retroactive partial fee waiver for the Santana Swingers
Fundraising Square Dance held at Martin Recreation Center on Sunday, March 17,
1991.
Al5. 153: ORDINANCE NO. 5215 - ADOPTION: AN UNCODIFIED ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM.
Al6. 149: ORDINANCE NO. 5216 - ADOPTION: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 5198 CONCERNING Section 14.32.189 OF CHAPTER 14.32 OF
TITLE 14 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE, NUNC PRO TUNC. (Pertaining to
prohibited parking on Walnut Street.)
244
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 23, 1991, 5:00 P.M.
A17. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 91R-121: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ANAHEIM POLICE ASSOCIATION
AND THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. (Provides for a one-time accrued vacation buy-out.)
A18. 123: Approving the Operations and Maintenance Services Agreement with
Ebasco Plant Services, Inc., at a lump sum amount of $624,000 and authorizing
the Mayor to execute said agreement.
A19. 123: Approving an Agreement with Woodward-Clyde Consultants (WCC), at a
total cost not-to-exceed $349,126 to the Project Participants ($106,378 to
Anaheim) to provide environmental consulting services for the Adelanto-Lugo
Transmission Project, and authorizing the Mayor to execute said agreement.
A20. 123: Approving an Amended Professional Services Agreement with P & D
Technologies and a Professional Services Agreement with Michael Brandman
Associates, in the amount of $228,367 for preparation of an EIR for the C-R
Area Specific Plan, and increasing both expenditure account (07-930-6335) and
revenue account (07-930-3716) by $371,933.36.
Roll Call Vote on Resolutions:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Simpson, Daly, Pickler, Ehrle and Hunter
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 91R-119 through 91R-121, both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted.
Roll Call Vote on Ordinances:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Simpson, Daly, Pickler, Ehrle and Hunter
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance Nos. 5215 and 5216 duly passed and adopted.
End of Consent Calendar. MOTION CARRIED.
ITEMS B1 - B2 FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 8, 1991,
INFORMATION ONLY - APPEAL PERIOD ENDS APRIL 30~ 1991:
B1. 179: SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 91-05 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: SAN RAPHAEL/ANAHEIM HILLS PARTNERS L.P.,
6767 FOREST LAWN DRIVE, $120, Los Angeles, CA 90068
LOCATION: Property is approximately 11.84 acres located on the east
side of Anaheim Hills Road and approximately 1560 feet south of the
centerline of Santa Ana Canyon Road.
Petitioner requests approval to remove ten (10) additional specimen
trees.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 91-05 APPROVED (6 yes votes, 1
absent).
Approved Negative Declaration
245
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 23, 1991, 5:00 P.M.
B2. 179: WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3380 AND
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 14401:
OWNER: JOHN PRENTICE, 280 North Ott Street, Corona, CA 91720
AGENT: NEWPORT PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT, Attn: Mo Mohammad, 4400
MacArthur Blvd., ~900, Newport Beach, CA 92660
LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 2941 East Jackson Street
and is approximately 1.07 acres located on the north side of Jackson
Ave. and approximately 750 feet east of the centerline of Park Vista
Street.
To permit an 'affordable' 24-unit, RM-2400 condominium complex with
waivers of maximum fence height and minimum distance between oil
drilling structures and dwelling units. Petitioner also requests
amendment to conditions of approval pertaining to construction of
sewer facilities.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3380 GRANTED (PC91-46) (6 yes votes and 1 absent).
Waiver of code requirement approved.
Tentative Tract Map No. 14401 APPROVED. No action was taken by the
City Council at the meeting of April 16, 1991 (Item B9).
Approved Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Council Member Daly asked for clarification if the conditional use permit and
tentative tract map will stand approved if no action is taken by the Council
tonight.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator. The tentative tract map appeared on
the Council agenda under consent calendar items at the meeting of April 16,
1990. No action was taken by the Council at that time. Tonight the CUP is
before the Council on the consent calendar and if there is no action by the
Council will be granted as approved by the City Planning Commission.
Council Member Pickler. Relative to waiving the minimum distance between oil
wells and residential structures, he assumed staff or the Fire Department had
no problem doing so.
Joel Fick, Planning Director. He confirmed that was correct. They reviewed
similar ordinances in other cities. The oil wells also appear on an adjacent
property and they did consult with the Fire Department. There will be
appropriate screening, a block wall, separating the structures.
Both Council Members Pickler and Daly questioned the request for amendment to
conditions of approval pertaining to construction of sewer facilities since
there was no mention of same in the staff report.
Joel Fick. That was adjusted at the Planning Commission meeting and was worked
out with Public Works/Engineering Department. The item was subsequently
deleted.
MOTION: Council Member Hunter moved to waive the minimum distance between oil
wells and residential structures, as recommended. Council Member Ehrle
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
End of the Planning Commission Items.
246
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 23, 1991, 5:00 P.M.
B3. 179: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 83-84-8 AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2496:
REQUESTED BY: JOHN SWINT, 707 W. North Street, Anaheim, CA
92805-1735
LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 736 South Beach
Boulevard and 2966 Stonybrook Drive. The petitioner is requesting a
retroactive extension of time to comply with the conditions of
approval for Reclassification No. 83-84-8 and Conditional Use Permit
No. 2496. The reclassification is for a change in zone from
RS-A-43,000 to CL on parcel 1, and from RM-1200 to CL on parcel 2.
The conditional use permit is to construct a 4-story, 60-unit motel.
At the meeting of January 8, 1991, City Council denied the
petitioner's request for an extension of time. Since no one was
present when the request was considered because of late notice, the
petitioner asked to be heard to explain the reasons for the request.
Submitted was staff report dated April 11, 1991 explaining the request and
giving the background of the project since it was originally presented in
December of 1983 and also recommending denial.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator. When the item came to the Council
several months ago, staff made the same recommendation as now to deny the time
extension because the proposal is seven years old. Even though they can comply
with the current zoning conditions, staff does not know if there are people now
who might be interested in the project but unable to give their input because
there is no public hearing. The developer did submit a letter in which he
enumerates some of the things that have happened since the project was
originally approved in 1983.
Mayor Hunter asked to hear from the petitioner.
Mr. John Swint, 707 W. North Street, Anaheim. In 1983, he designed the 60-unit
motel and went through the entire process. The project was subsequently
approved and ready for issuing a permit but for reasons that Mr. Huang (general
partner of Beach Investments) can explain, he did not pull a permit. In 1985,
when the new code became effective, he (Swint) made all the necessary
corrections to the plans to bring the project up to code, went through the
process again and again Mr. Huang did not pull permits. When the 1988 code
became effective, he did the same thing. In the meantime, each time his client
paid the plan check fees and all other fees. He did get extensions of time
from the Building Department, the last of which becomes final in June, 1991.
He was not notified of the January 8, 1991 meeting until January loth and was,
therefore, unable to explain why the plans had been delayed this length of
time. The plans remain active and he would like very much for the Council to
grant the extension of time.
Mayor Hunter. The proposal is seven years old and many things have changed
during that time; to which Mr. Swint emphasized, that he had updated the plans
every time to comply with the new codes.
Council Member Pickler. It has been a long time since the project was first
approved. In the meantime, Beach Boulevard has also been designated to become
247
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 23, 1991, 5:00 P.M.
a super street and he does not know how that will affect the project or vice
versa. It is important to look at the project again.
MOTION: Council Member Hunter moved to deny the requested extension of time on
Reclassification No. 83-84-8 and Conditional Use Permit 2966 as recommended in
memorandum dated April 11, 1991 from the Planning Department. Council Member
Ehrle seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
B4. 179: REQUEST FOR EXTENSIONS OF TIME - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 86-87-14 AND
VARIANCE NO. 3611:
Request submitted by Thomas Kieviet, Farano & Kieviet on behalf of the
Desai Family, 100 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 340, Anaheim, CA
92805.
LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 2240 West Lincoln
Avenue. Property consists of approximately 0.8 acres located 160 feet
southerly of the south side of Lincoln Avenue and 530 feet west of the
centerline of Brookhurst Street. The petitioner is requesting an
extension of time for Reclassification No. 86-87-14 and Variance
No. 3611, retroactive to February 3, 1990, and to expire February 3,
1992.
Reclassification No. 86-87-14 is for a change in zone from CL to
RM-1200 and Variance No. 3611 is to construct a 34-unit affordable
apartment complex with code waivers of required lot frontage, minimum
site area per dwelling unit, maximum building height and maximum site
coverage.
This matter was continued from the meetings of December 4 and
December 18, 1990, February 5 and February 26, 1991 to the meeting of
March 19, 1991, when the extension was granted.
On April 2, 1991, Council Member Pickler moved to rescind the previous Council
action concerning extensions of time for Variance No. 3611 and Reclassification
No. 86-87-14, asking that the matter be reagendized on this date for
reconsideration by the Council as well as to obtain input from the area
residents.
Mayor Hunter asked to hear from the applicant or the applicant's
representative.
Mr. Jeff Farano, Farano and Kievet, attorneys for the applicant. The property
is currently owned by the Bucaros. There are unusual circumstances involved in
this case. The requested extension of time was granted by the Council on
March 19, 1991 and it was not until April 2, 1991 that the Council brought the
matter forward again. On a motion by Council Member Pickler, a majority of the
Council voted to review the decision or set the matter for a hearing. He does
not believe that was proper and instead should be before the Council today as a
motion for reconsideration to consider rejecting what the Council had done. In
reviewing the rules adopted by the Council in 1988, those rules give the
Council an opportunity to rescind an earlier order but it does not say how they
can do so. He then elaborated on why he feels proper procedures were not
followed contrary to the opinion of the City's Attorneys Office. The process
has been a long one and the request for extension of time has been agendized
2 .8
City Hallr Anaheimr California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 23r 1991~ 5=00 P.M.
and continued on four separate occasions since 1990. There has been ample
opportunity for anyone to be heard on the matter.
Relative to the requested extension, the project is one that was considered and
approved in 1987. He realizes the Council has been abiding by a policy of
looking more closely at proposed apartment projects. He feels, however, that
it is difficult for the Council legally and procedurally to go back to old
matters to review those unless circumstances show now that it is no longer
appropriate. He does not believe those extenuating circumstances have been
shown. The Council also has a policy of trying hard not to grant variances but
this project is one which includes affordable housing and approved with density
bonuses and variances based on the fact that it is affordable housing. State
law grants the ability to do so. The questions before the Council ares Did
the City do the right thing unilaterally in rescinding an action without giving
the property owner an opportunity to be heard; and, is the property owner who
has already obtained zoning entitlement entitled to retain the project as
opposed to the City Council granting a new project. He is requesting that the
property owner be allowed to have back its entitlements and then if there is a
problem with it, a proper motion should be set.
Mayor Hunter first asked for a show of hands of those present on this item;
approximately thirty (30) people were present on the matter.
Mayor Hunter then asked to hear from a spokesperson(s).
Bob Carter, 513 South Aaron Street, Anaheim. The last time the Orange Avenue
Homeowners were before the Council, they thought they had achieved an
understanding that whenever and wherever possible, the Council would continue
to down zone projects and assure that developers build quality projects to
enhance the community. The residents believe that this project will be an
'upzoning' from its current commercial zoning. The project, as with other
projects proposed and built by the original owner/developer, epitomizes
everything that has been done wrong in the past and created the 'nightmares#
existing in West Anaheim today. This is not a quality project but just another
warehouse for people. This RM1200 project taking in consideration the number
of units on the lot suddenly becomes RM1000. There are only three affordable
units proposed. The project was approved four years ago and it was at that
time they were starting to feel the effects of high density projects. The
tendency then was to 'rubber stamp' these projects. Four years ago, he does
not believe anyone realized what kind of 'monster' was being created. They are
opposed to deck housing. They have also found in their area even with on-site
management, it is not stopping the practice of many families living in a single
room. Because so much time has expired, they are asking the Council to deny
the request for the extension of time and have the developer return to the
Planning Commission with plans for a new project that would be in accord with
today's goals of improving quality of life in the City and built to code. The
reason they were not present before was because they were not aware of the
request for extension of time on the project.
Keith Bird, 321 Gain Street, Anaheim. The residents would like to see the
property remain commercially zoned. As Mr. Carter indicated, they want denied
any extensions for RM1200 as previously discussed with the Council. In
249
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 23, 1991, 5:00 P.M.
October, there was a project similar to the subject located at 2144 W. Lincoln,
the Builder's Emporium property. The developer in that case wanted to build a
large complex of RM1200. The Council indicated they would consider an owner
occupied condominium complex of RM3000 and indicated that the developer should
go back to the Planning Commission. There is enough quantity in the area and
now they are looking for more quality. West Anaheim is now organized to where
they take pride in the entire community and they want quality developments.
Joel Panderwoude, 517 South Hampton Street. He is asking that the Council
return to him some of the feeling of pride, hope and dignity that he
experienced when he bought his home in West Anaheim twenty-three years ago.
The continuous encroachments upon the dignity of the area has saddened many of
the residents so much so that many have left. They want to keep what is left
intact and they want to be able to enjoy their community without the terrible
traffic situations, overcrowded schools and invitation to crime that has been
the result of inadequate and inappropriate planning on the part of the City.
Ralph Howard, 2419 West Ram Drive, Anaheim. He questioned what constitutes
affordable housing. He has two houses he rents and he has not raised those
rents in twelve years at $375.00 a month - that is affordable. If the
developer can compete, let him build; otherwise the project should not go
forward.
Jeff Farano. He recognizes the City's attempt to avoid high density apartment
buildings being built. He reiterated the project was approved and approved as
affordable housing. What affordable housing is, is established by law and this
project satisfies that definition. The project was approved several times
throughout the years and never was there any indication that the owner would
not be able to continue to build his project. He relied on it over the years.
The last time the Council said yes. He then went forward trying to obtain and
complete his building permits and financing and to get started. Granting the
extension does not violate the Council's policy of affordable housing. It was
to honor the property rights of what the owner has obtained in the past.
Council Member Daly. He voted against the project the first time he saw it.
He was not on the Council four years ago when it was approved. The City's
standards have been raised since that time. They are asking for quality
projects. Most of the current development applications in Central and West
Anaheim seem to be for apartments. If properties are to be improved, some of
those will be apartments. This project does not meet the City's standards for
development. Given the track record of this developer and what has already
been built in other parts of West Anaheim, there is no way he can vote yes in
this case. There are too many waivers.
MOTION: Council Member Daly moved to deny the requested extensions of time on
Reclassification No. 86-87-14 and Variance No. 3611. Council Member Ehrle
seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, City Attorney White explained that he had spoken to
Mr. Farano and he and Mr. Farano disagree on every point which he raised. City
Council's rules of order provide (Article 3, Section G, Paragraph 9) that a
motion to rescind may be made at any time at any meeting after the original
250
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 23, 1991, 5=00 P.M.
action was taken with the only limitation being any rules as to the number of
votes or other procedural matters have to be complied with, the same as on the
original vote. Here the only rule required for the original vote was that it
took a majority of a quorum to adopt the motion granting the extension.
Likewise a majority of a quorum would be required for a motion to rescind that
action, which there was. There is a difference between a motion to rescind and
to reconsider. Mr. White then explained the differences as well as other
issues related thereto and also explaining certain provisions of the Brown Act,
the provisions of which are not in effect at the present time because of a
failure during the last legislative session to finance a challenge to certain
provisions of the act.
He then addressed the issue of vested rights noting that the argument is being
made that a vested right has been conferred upon the property owner as a result
of granting the original extension of time. Even if the extension of time is
again approved tonight, no vested right will be conferred at this time. The
only way for a property owner to have a vested right is for the ordinance
rezoning the property be adopted by the Council, for the 30-day referendum on
that ordinance to expire, and for the property owner to obtain building permits
and start construction in reliance on those permits before there will be a
vested right to the project.
In summary, he respects Mr. Farano's opinion~ however, the City Attorney's
Office disagrees. It is the position that the Council has properly acted on
the matter up to this moment in time. The motion to rescind merely undid the
original approval of the extension of time. The parties were given the
opportunity to appeal. They have expressed their opinions and the Council now
is in a position to act upon the extension. In the event the extension is
denied as pointed out, it does not mean that the project cannot necessarily be
brought back again but it means the property owner has to go back to the
Planning Commission and submit new plans and start the process all over again.
Council Member Ehrle. He supported the project four years ago and has done so
when it has come up again. His vote was responsible for bringing the matter
before the Council again. He has had an opportunity to visit with Mr. Farano
wherein Mr. Farano expressed his concerns. Some of the decisions made in the
past were not the best. At that time, certain guidelines were in effect and
since then have changed. It is important to look at every piece of property so
that it would be developed to its best possible use. He does not feel the
property owner is being denied the right to build. He still owns the property
and has had four years to develop it as originally apgroved. He (Ehrle) feels
he has every right to evaluate his decision based upon today's rules,
regulations and codes. In good conscience, he does not think the proposed
project is the best use for the property and will be voting against the
requested time extension.
Council Member Pickler. He lives in the area. The key, as Council Member Daly
mentioned, is the quality of the project. If an applicant proposes a quality
project, he will look at it even if it is an apartment project. The reason
applicants come back for time extensions is because things do change. This
project is not the quality he is looking for. It is a replica of what is on
the adjacent property and it is not a good project for the City. Council
251
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 23, 1991, 5:00 P.M.
Member Pickler then confirmed for the City Attorney that although he (Pickler)
said he lives around the corner from the proposed project, it is not within a
300 foot radius.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion to deny the requested extensions
of time. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
B5. 179: ORDINANCE FOR INTRODUCTION - RECLASSIFICATION 89-90-60: Amending
Title 18 to rezone property under Reclassification No. 89-90-60, located at 820
North Euclid Street, from the CL zone to the RM-1200 zone.
Council Member Pickler asked the City Attorney if the Ordinance were not
introduced what the results would be.
City Attorney White. Section 18.03.085 of the Anaheim Municipal Code provides
in the event the Council either fails to introduce, or after introduction fails
to adopt a rezoning ordinance, that failure will have the same effect as if the
Council had in a timely manner set the zoning action for a public hearing in
front of the City Council automatically. In this case the resolution of the
Planning Commission would be deemed null and void and the City Clerk would
schedule a public hearing before the Council on the issue of the rezoning. The
Council will then hold a de novo public hearing to make a determination. If
not approved, then any conditions of zoning that have already been complied
with, such as payment of fees or dedication of property or anything else, those
would need to be returned by the City to the property owner. It could be
undone by that process.
The proposed ordinance was not introduced by any member of the City Council.
City Attorney White announced that since the ordinance was not introduced, the
matter will automatically be set for a public hearing under provisions of the
Anaheim Municipal Code (18.03.085).
B6. 179: ORDINANCE NO. 5217 - fINTRODUCTION): Amending Sections 17.28.010,
17.28.030, 17.28.050, 17.28.100, 17.28.130, 17.28.170 and 17.28.190 of Chapter
17.28 of Title 17 of the Anaheim Municipal Code (Flood Hazard Reduction) and
Amending Sections 18.90.020, 18.90.030 and 18.90.050 of Chapter 18.90 of Title
18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code (Floodplain Overlay Zone).
council Member Hunter offered Ordinance No. 5217 for first reading. Refer to
Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 5217: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTIONS
17.28.010, 17.28.030, 17.28.050, 17.28.100, 17.28.130, 17.28.170 AND 17.28.190
OF CHAPTER 17.28 OF TITLE 17 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE (FLOOD HAZARD
REDUCTION) AND AMENDING SECTIONS 18.90.020, 18.90.030 AND 18.90.050 OF CHAPTER
18.90 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE (FLOODPLAIN OVERLAY ZONE).
ITEM B7 FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 22, 1991, INFORMATION
ONLY - APPEAL PERIOD ENDS MAY 2, 1991:
B7. 170: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 14502 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: SCHROEDER-GRIMM ORANGE ASSOCIATES, 2411 Pacific Coast Highway,
Corona Del Mar, CA 92625
252
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 23, 1991, 5:00 P.M.
AGENT: R.M. FICUS/GREER ENGINEERING COMPANY, 2323 West Lincoln
Avenue, Suite 127, Anaheim, CA 92801
LOCATION: 2518, 2520, 2532 and 2540 West Orange Avenue. Property is
approximately 2.03 acres located at the southeast corner of Orange
Avenue and Velare Street.
To establish a 15-1ot, RS-5000 (residential, single-family)
subdivision
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Tentative Tract Map No. 14502 APPROVED (7 yes votes).
Approved Negative Declaration.
C1. 151:
PERMIT:
VISTA KNOLL CLEANERS - REQUEST FOR TIME EXTENSION TO SPECIAL EVENTS
REQUESTED BY: Paul C. Kim, 505 Villa Real Drive, Anaheim, CA 92807
LOCATION/REQUESTS: The property is located at 505 Villa Real Drive.
The petitioner is requesting an extension of time to a special events
permit for Vista Knoll Cleaners.
MOTION: Council Member Hunter moved to approve the request for time extension
to the Special Events Permit for one additional 14-day Special Events Permit as
recommended in report dated April 11, 1991 from the Zoning Administrator.
Council Member Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
C2. 108: ANAHEIM HILTON AND TOWERS - REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF PENALTY ON
TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX PAYMENT:
On February 26, 1991 the City Council considered the appeal submitted by the
Anaheim Hilton and Towers regarding transient occupancy tax (TOT) waiver of
penalties on late payment assessed for the month of November, 1990 in the
amount of $34,121.98, the City Council denied the appeal.
At its meeting of April 9, 1991, the City Council rescinded the previous action
taken at their meeting of February 26, 1991 which denied the appeal of the
penalty and the matter was reagendized for Council reconsideration this date.
Nacine Nakakihara, Assistant Controller, Anaheim Hilton. At the Council
meeting of February 26, 1991 she was present at the meeting but due to a
personal family illness and the death of their controller, John Armstrong, that
same day she was emotionally overwhelmed and compelled to leave. Since they
began operations in the City, Anaheim Hilton has always submitted TOT pa~nents
in a timely fashion. They are currently assessed approximately $34,000.00 for
late submittal of the November, 1990 tax which was due and payable on
December 31, 1990. They had processed a check on December 21, 1990 and their
records show it returning to their office on December 26, 1990. What became of
the check from the 26th to the postmark date of January 2, 1991 is a mystery.
The holiday season, the recent retirement of their controller due to his
illness and a problem mail room employee who has since been terminated could
all be possible factors. Since notification of the delinquency, they have made
procedural changes to assure timely tax payment. After a recent meeting held
with the City Treasurer, Mary Turner, Anaheim Hilton will be personally hand
delivering their checks to the City Treasurer's Office. She is requesting
reconsideration by the Council of the decision in this one and only delinquency
and assures compliance with the City's requirements hereafter.
~53
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 23, 1991, 5:00 P.M.
Mayor Hunter asked to hear from anyone who wished to speak.
Jeff LeTournau, 2180 West Forest Lane, Anaheim. As a resident of the City and
on behalf of over 500 Anaheim residents who worked for the Hilton and as an
employee of the Hotel and Restaurant Worker's Union representing the Hilton
employees, they strongly urge the Council to deny Hilton's request for waiver
of the penalty for a number of reasons. The City is plagued with problems of
drugs, crime and un-met needs in the areas of education and health care. The
City cannot afford to toss away $34,000.00 in City revenues at this time. In
his opinion, the Hilton has perpetuated the poverty of hundreds of its
employees who are Anaheim residents through inadequate compensation and thus
has continually placed a heavy burden on City revenues. The company
legitimately owes this money and they believe the City should receive this
revenue.
Mayor Hunter. The payment was apparently postmarked January 2, 1991. He asked
to hear from staff.
William Sell, Treasury Manager. The check was dated December 21, 1990 and the
envelope which had the Hilton postage meter stamped on it was January 2, 1991.
The post office did not actually cancel the item so all they could go by was
the Hilton postage meter which was January 2, 1991. The payment was due
December 31, 1990.
MOTION: Council Member Hunter moved to waive the penalty in the amount of
$34,121.98 for a late payment of the November, 1990 transient occupancy tax.
Council Member Simpson seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Council Member Pickler stated the $34,000 could be put
to good use by the City. The fact that the check was dated December 21,
indicates that the check could have been at the City by December 23, 24 or 25
if it had been mailed on time. Waiving the penalty assessment will be setting
a precedent. It is not fair to other establishments such as the Conestoga, the
Anaheim Plaza Hotel, Sheraton, etc. If the City received its money on time it
could benefit by the interest as well. It will be difficult to turn down such
requests in the future.
Mayor Hunter. The Anaheim Hilton and Towers has been in the City since 1984
and they have been a community leader, actively and monetarily involved in
community programs. Their payment was late two days. There were unfortunate
circumstances involved. He does not think that the penalty should be
$34,121.98. They have also indicated that payments will be hand delivered in
the future. He feels this case is an exception.
Council Member Ehrle. He recalls similar requests where payments were 2 1/2
weeks late to 30 days late. In his thinking, there are extenuating
circumstances in this particular case just as with the Jolly Roger when the
owner passed away when the business was in escrow and about to be sold. He
believes it would be fair in this case to waive the penalty assessment. Each
case should be judged on its merits and this business was only one or two days
late after a perfect record of on-time payments and extenuating circumstances
were involved.
254
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 23, 1991, 5:00 P.M.
City Attorney White. Before a vote is taken he wanted to remind the Council
that in this instance, the proposed motion requires a 4/5's vote to pass under
the Anaheim Municipal Code.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion:
Ayes: Simpson, Ehrle and Hunter
Noes: Daly and Pickler.
City Attorney White announced that the motion fails to carry for lack of a
4/5's vote. Thus, the penalty assessment in the amount of $34,121.98 stands.
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST:
Joanne Nau, 2473 Valdina, Anaheim. She expressed her deep concern with the
cancellation of the City's Extended Day Care program and Summer Camp. She is a
single parent and sole provider for her two children. There are many people in
the audience today to show their support on the issue. She is concerned that
the decision to cancel was a final one and now that the media and public have
come forth, the decision has been reopened. She expressed to the Council why
the program is so important and why it must be maintained. It is not an
option. Their children are the future. Ninety percent (90%) of all
participants in this program are single parents. The program is vitally
needed. She suggested options - having the major companies of Anaheim reinvest
in the City and help fund the program and keep all day-care facilities on sites
which require minimal costs for upgrade if any, and to contact the employers of
those utilizing the program for their sponsorship.
Catherine Campbell, 803 North Cambria, Anaheim. She brought the issue to the
Council last week. She has done some investigation since then. They need to
keep the Summer program as well as Extended Day Care at the school sites. She
briefed results of her contact with the school board and City staff. Issues
that need to be addressed are hours of school and how they are going to get
their children to and from the sites. She emphasized that day care must be
kept at the school sites. The program needs to continue and she would like to
know when a final decision is going to be made.
Steve Campbell. Relative to the day care issue, everyone talks about the
parent's point of view but the kid's point of view is very important. They
need the program. He has seen and heard for himself how much the program means
to the kids. He urged the Council to visit the sites and talk to the kids in
the program.
Council Member Daly. Relative to day care, the information that has been given
by the City is based on expected budget cuts. The Council does not consider
the budget until June. The question he has, in addition to giving the parents
the courtesy of a warning that there may not be money in the budget, is City
staff also working with other non-profit day care providers such as the YMCA.
There are many day care programs in the City. They may not be as ideal as the
City-run program but there are other day-care providers and the YMCA is a
notable example.
City Manager James Ruth. That was the direction given to the Parks and
Recreation Department to work with day-care providers in the community. In
255
City Hall, Anaheimr California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 23r 1991~ 5=00 P.M.
connection with notification, the problem was that the summer program had to
get into print and that is why notification had to be given at this time.
Staff will diligently pursue other opportunities for the children to be placed
in other facilities.
Council Member Daly. He hopes that City staff will talk to the YMCA and other
day-care providers that are already operating about keeping the program at
those school sites if the school district is willing to continue to allow those
sites to be used. He hopes that is one of the things that is mentioned.
City Manager Ruth. As Council Member Daly will recall, through the City School
Coordinating Committee, there was some interest on the part of schools
expressed to staff that they would be willing to accommodate day care on some
of their facilities.
Max Engel, 118 North Catalpa, Anaheim. He referred to a recent newspaper
article which reported, 'Santa Ana adopts ordinance limiting overcrowding.' It
is a 'last ditch' effort to save what was a once proud city of lovely
residences. He feels it is too late for Santa Ana and is present today to ask
if it is also too late for Anaheim. He feels a large part of the older
sections of the City of Anaheim has degraded. This is time of City budget
crises. He hopes the City and program managers will agree that perhaps the
only present protection that single-family homeowners have against such
neighborhood degradation is the Code Enforcement Department. He asked that
those vital operations not only not be hampered by staff cuts, but also that
they be the one exception where staff is increased to more properly protect the
City's citizens and single-family neighborhoods.
craig Clausen, 2795 West Lincoln (at Dale). He would like to submit some
information he feels is pertinent to the continuing degradation of the business
and social climate in West Anaheim. His family has tried to conduct business
there for about 27 years. He continues to try but it is getting difficult to
do so. Crime is the problem. It is gett£ng dangerous in the area. He
there-u~on submitted recent newspaper articles relating to hie concern as well
as his letter dated October 25, 1989 where he outlined several of the problems
that have been occurring in the area. His family owns and operates several
Shakeys Pizza Restaurants in the City. They started in the City in 1962. He
urged the Council's support in doing something to mitigate the
conditions/problems in the area.
175: CITY'S WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAM - DROUGHT SURCHARGE: Council Member
Daly. He has concerns and has heard from a number of residents also concerned
that the recently instituted Drought Surcharge program may be unfair. In fact,
he feels it probably is unfair. Presently, the program is based solely on the
256
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 23, 1991, 5:00 P.M.
size of a customer's water meter. He is asking that the City Manager, City's
Utilities Department and the Public Utilities Board (PUB) look at the Drought
Surcharge program and consider additionally, besides the size of the water
meter, such factors as the history of water usage at the property, size of the
property and number of persons who reside at the property. Those are the
factors that should be analyzed and factored into the water bill under the
Drought Surcharge program. There may be other factors the PUB deems
appropriate. He is asking that staff bring the matter to the PUB and
subsequently that the Board submit a recommendation to the Council for
consideration.
Council Member Simpson. That is what he has been saying. Another thing he
would like to add to that direction, it should be based on consumption of
water. People who have been diligent in conserving water before the new
program was instituted are going to be penalized as opposed to those who have
not been conserving. He was assured it was not mandatory. It is mandatory to
him if a customer does not meet the criteria and gets penalized financially.
He has felt all along that the program was not going to be fair to those
already conserving before the program started.
Council Member Daly. It is important that the Public Utilities Board has a
complete and full discussion on the matter with the outcome being a fair
program. There are properties on 5/8 inch water meters that are 1/8 of an acre
as well as properties on a full acre with the same size meter. They are being
billed the same way and there is no taking into account the historical water
usage and the number of people who live on the property. The program needs to
have a second look.
city Manager Ruth. Ed Aghjayan, the Public Utilities General Manager spoke at
the Rotary Club meeting on Monday and indicated they are re-evaluating the
criteria presently used. He will be coming back with recommendations shortly.
He (Ruth) will convey the information and get a report back to the Council at
the next meeting.
D1. 179: PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 4115 AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 90-107:
OWNER: BROOKHOLLOW APARTMENTS (ANAHEIM) ASSOCIATES, A CALIFORNIA
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, 4490 Von Karman,-Newport Beach, CA 92660; ORANGE
COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, 400 Civic Center West, Santa Aha, CA
92701; City of Anaheim, 200 S. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92803
LOCATION: Property is approximately 5.59 acres located northeast of
the northeast corner of Crescent Avenue and Brookhurst Street.
Waiver of minimum number of parking spaces, maximum structural height
and required elevators to construct a 124-unit, "affordable", 2 and 3
story, apartment complex and to establish a 2-lot subdivision.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Variance No. 4115 GRANTED (PC91-34) to include stipulation by
applicant to lease a certain number of 3-bedroom apartments with 2
cars; providing bus passes at a maximum cost of $340 per subject to
the changes; promotion of ride sharing; helping second and third floor
residents to move and to remove themselves as required (5 yes votes,
257
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 23, 1991, 5:00 P.M.
i no vote, and 1 absent).
Approved Mitigated Negative Declaration.
NOTE: AT THE MEETING OF 3/19/91, THE CITY COUNCIL TOOK NO ACTION ON
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 90-107.
HEARING SET ON: Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision was filed by the
Anaheim City School District and public hearing scheduled this date.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin April 11, 1991
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - April 9, 1991
Posting of property April 12, 1991
PLA/~NING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated March 11, 1991.
Also submitted were letters dated April 2, 1991 from Special Counsel to the
Anaheim City School District and response dated April 16, 1991 from the William
Lyon Company (made a part of the record).
Mr. Eric Nicoll, Housing Development Manager. Staff is recommending a
continuance of the public hearing to Tuesday, May 21, 1991 in order to give
them an opportunity to address the School District's concerns regarding the
project.
Mayor Hunter asked if anyone was present who wished to speak at this time;
there was no response.
MOTION: Council Member Ehrle moved to continue the public hearing on Variance
No. 4115 and mitigated negative declaration to Tuesday, May 21, 1991 at
6:00 p.m. Council Member Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT: Council Member Hunter moved to adjourn. Council Member Pickler
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (7:25 p.m.) No Council meeting is
scheduled for Tuesday, April 30, 1991.
LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK
258