1989/10/10City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 10, 1989, 5:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Daly, Ehrle, Pickler, Kaywood and Hunter
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
PRESENT: ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: Jim Ruth
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Joel Ftck
SENIOR PLANNER: Leonard McGhee
A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was
posted at 1:55 p.m. on October 6, 1989 at the Civic Center kiosk, containing
all items as shown herein.
Mayor Hunter called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m.
REOUEST 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: Gonzales vs. City of Anaheim, O.C.S.C.C. No. 57-16-28.
b. To discuss labor relations matters - Government Code Section
54957.6.
c. To discuss personnel matters - Government Code Section 54957.
d. To confer with its Attorney regarding potential litigation
pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(1).
e. To meet with its negotiator regarding Possible acquisition of
land from the Phoenix Club located at 1566 Douglass Road, Anaheim,
California.
f. To consider 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.
AFTER RECESS; Mayor Hunter called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present, and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting.
(5:44 p.m.)
INVOCATION; Bishop Charles Kaywish, Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints,
gave the invocation.
FLAG SALUTE; Councilman Irv Pickler led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
952
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 10, 1989, 5:30 P.M.
119: PRESENTATION - EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS; Recognizing employees who have
given 25, 30 and 35 years of service to the City.
Before honoring the subject employees, Mayor Hunter presented service awards
to Councilwoman Kaywood recognizing her 15 years of service to the City of
Anaheim and also Mary Turner, City Treasurer, who has completed five years of
service with the City.
Mayor Hunter and Council Members then presented the following employees with
their service awards and congratulated and commended each for their long and
dedicated service to the City of Anaheim.
25-Year Service Awards
Police Department: Canine Detail, Sgt. Bernard Bradley; Juvenile Detail,
Detective Wade Faircloth; Special Operations Division, Captain John Flanagan;
Operations, Officer Joseph Karns; Detective Division, Sgt. John Kolbo;
Training Bureau, Sgt. Lawrence Kurtz; Patrol Division, Sgt. Gordon McConnell;
Patrol Division, Sgt. George Robichaud; Field Support Bureau, Lieut. George
Schrader; Detective Division, Sgt. Robert Whitehead; Patrol Division, Officer
Robert Zingelmann; Sgt. Chester Barry; Detective Robert Hammaker and Detective
Carl Martin.
Fire Department: Fire Engineer, Michael Collin; Fire Captain, Gerald Hart;
Deputy Fire Marshal, Gall McCloud; Firefighter Richard Schmitz; Fire Captain,
Lewis Stier; Fire Captain, John Ibbetson and Fire Captain, Ray Verbeck.
Street Maintenance; Maintenance Coordinator, Joe McCray; Lead Facility
Maintenance Worker, Vincent Scuteri.
Facility Maintenance; Lead Facility Maintenance Worker, Erich Baulig;
Maintenance Carpenter, Andrew Gallo.
Utilities Department; Public Utilities General Manager, Gordon Hoyt;
Principal Water Engineer, Bruce Bowman, Water Engineering; Water Meter Working
Supervisor, David Hoskins; Maintenance Pipefitter Working Supervisor, George
Chapin, Water Field.
Data Processing; Senior Data Entry Operator, Phenie Doblin.
City Treasurer's Office; Cashiering Supervisor, June Flink.
30-Year Service Awards
Library Department; Library Technical Services Specialist, Catherine Langer.
Parks, Recreation & Community Services; Park Maintenance Worker, Raymond Jara.
Facility Maintenance; Air Conditioning Lead Worker, Eugene Fundum.
Utilities Department; Electrical Field Manager, Gayle Herbal.
953
City Hall, Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 10, 1989, 5:30 P.M.
35-Year Service Award
Engineering Department: Construction Inspector Supervisor, Earl "Tom" Bouslog.
Even though some employees were unable to attend they were commended and their
service awards will subsequently be presented to them by their Departments.
119: PROCLAMATIONS; The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Hunter
and authorized by the City Council:
Civic Center Office Recycle Week in Anaheim, week of October 8, 1989,
Public Power Week in Anaheim, October 8-14, 1989,
Scleroderma Day in Anaheim, October 15, 1989,
Orange County Hunger Week in Anaheim, October 15-21, 1989,
A Day of Christian Rededication in Anaheim, October 25, 1989,
Escrow Month in Anaheim, October, 1989.
John Roche, Director of Maintenance, and Sharon Hepburn, Maintenance
Manager/Facilities, accepted the Recycle Week proclamation; Gordon Hoyt,
Public Utilities General Manager, accepted the Public Power Week proclamation.
119; DECLARATION OF RECOGNITION: A Declaration of Recognition was
unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to Marge Hunt, on behalf
of Anaheim Beautiful, recognizing the Organization for their generous donation
of $1,500 for Pearson Park benches.
119; DECLARATION OF SUPPORT; A Declaration of Support was unanimously
adopted by the City Council to be mailed to the Southern California
Association of Government supporting the concept for the 1990 Census to count
everyone, regardless of citizenship status.
119: DECLARATION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A Declaration'of Congratulations was
unanimously adopted and ratified by the City Council commending "Frankie"
Morse, a former long time City employee, on the good work she has done in her
community, especially recognizing her 25 years of dedicated service as a Girl
Scout Leader for Horizons Girl Scout Troop #1325.
MINUTES; Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular
meetings held September 19 and September 26, 1989. Councilman Hunter
seconded the motion. Councilwoman Kaywood abstained on the minutes of
September 19, 1989 since she was not present at that meeting. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $6,038,404.98, in
accordance with the 1989-90 Budget, were approved.
954
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES October 10, 1989, 5:30 P.M.
WAIVER OF READING RESOLUTIONS/ORDINANCE; The titles of the following
resolutions and ordinance were read by the Assistant City Manager.
(Resolution Nos. 89R-403 through 89R-406, both inclusive, for adoption; and
Ordinance No. 5072 for adoption)
Councilman Pickler moved to waive the reading in full of the resolutions and
ordinance. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR; On motion by Councilman Pickler,
seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the following items were approved in
accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each
Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar. Councilman Pickler
offered Resolution Nos. 89R-403 through 89R-406, both inclusive, for adoption;
and Ordinance No. 5072 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
1. 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 Maria Inez Gonzales for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about June 29, 1989.
b. Claim submitted by Margarita Villatoro for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about June 29, 1989.
c. Claim submitted by Mary Waugh for bodily injury sustained purportedly
due to actions of the City on or about April 6, 1989.
d. Claim submitted by Fred Herrera for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 24, 1989.
e. Claim submitted by Emile J. Bayle, III for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about July 23, 1989.
f. Claim submitted by CIGNA for La Cocinita Donut Shop for property
damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about July 19,
1989.
g. Claim submitted by Richard L. Chu for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about July 19, 1989.
h. Claim submitted by EDM Precision, Inc. for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about July 19, 1989.
A2. 105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Senior Citizens Commission
meeting held August 10, 1989.
105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Community Services Board meeting
held August 10, 1989.
955
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 10, 1989, 5:30 P.M.
105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Anaheim Public Library Board meeting
held August 23, 1989.
105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Community Redevelopment Commission
meeting held September 13, 1989.
173: Receiving and filing Notice of Application that City Express has filed
an application with the Public Utilities Commission, to seek authority to
provide on call door-to-door service between certain points in Los Angeles,
Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura Counties on the one hand, and
Los Angeles International airport, Burbank airport, Ontario airport, Long
Beach airport, John Wayne airport, Amtrak Station and Los Angeles and Long
Beach Harbors on the other hand. Fares range from $5 to $100 depending on the
city or community of origin or destination.
114: Receiving and filing Resolution No. 3887 adopted by the Seal Beach City
Council at their regular meeting of September 25, 1989, relating to federal
cable television legislation, local authority and cable subscriber protection.
A3. 167: Awarding the contract to the lowest and best responsible bidder,
I.M.S., a Division of Paxin Electric, in the amount of $269,152 for Traffic
Signal Improvements at various intersections (installation of left turn
phasing at East Street and La Palma Avenue, East Street and Sycamore Street,
La Palma Avenue and Lemon Street and at Harbor Boulevard and Orangewood
Avenue).
A4. 123: Approving a cooperative sewer agreement with the City of Placentia,
to permit use of Anaheim's sewer for a development in the City of Placentia,
in exchange for the developer to construc~ a new sewer in Fee Ana Street and
Miraloma Avenue in Anaheim, at no cost to the City of Anaheim.
AS. 123; RESOLUTION NO, 89R-403; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF HE
CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING SUPPLEMENT NO. 41 TO LOCAL AGENCY-STATE AGREEMENT
NO. 12-5055 AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID
SUPPLEMENT. (To provide funds in the amount of $168,000 towards the cost of
reconstructing, rehabilitating and resurfacing asphalt concrete pavement and
replacing pavement markers on Brookhurst Street between Crescent Avenue and
Lincoln Avenue.)
A6. 123; RESOLUTION NO, 89R-404; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF HE
CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING SUPPLEMENT NO. 42 TO LOCAL AGENCY-STATE AGREEMENT
NO. 12-5055 AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID
SUPPLEMENT. (To provide funds in the amount of $219,000 towards the cost of
reconstructing, rehabilitating and resurfacing asphalt concrete pavement and
replacing pavement markers on Brookhurst Street between North City Limits and
La Palma Avenue. Authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said
Supplement.)
AT, 123; RESOLUTION NO, 89R-405; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF HE
CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING SUPPLEMENT NO. 43 TO LOCAL AGENCY-STATE AGREEMENT
NO. 12-5055 AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID
956
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 10, 1989, 5:30 P.M.
SUPPLEMENT. (To provide funds in the amount of $201,000 towards the cost of
reconstructing, rehabilitating and resurfacing asphalt concrete pavement and
replacing pavement markers on Brookhurst Street between Lincoln Avenue and
Orange Avenue. Authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said
Supplement.)
A8, 123; RESOLUTION NO, 892-406; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF HE
CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING SUPPLEMENT NO. 44 TO LOCAL AGENCY-STATE AGREEMENT
NO. 12-5055 AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID
SUPPLEMENT. (To provide funds in the amount of $40,500 towards the cost of
reconstructing, rehabilitating and resurfactng asphalt concrete pavement and
replacing pavement markers on Raymond Avenue between Chapman Avenue and
Route 91. Authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said Supplement.)
A9. 152/153: Authorizing the Human Resources Department to solicit proposals
from firms interested in providing temporary help services for the years 1990
and 1991.
Al0. 175.123: Approving an Easement Agreement with Lake Summit Homeowners
Association, Inc., (LSHA) which permits the City to fill and grade the
depression area owned by the LSHA as a part of the Water Engineering
Division's improvement project.
Ail. 153/152: Approving the selected service providers for pre-layoff
activities as recommended by the Anaheim Private Industry Council, and
authorizing the JTP Manager to execute the necessary contracts as needed.
Al2. 106: Approving $54,156,968 of reserve appropriations from the prior
fiscal year as listed on Schedules I, II, and $16,592,417 of reserve revenue
appropriations from the prior fiscal year as listed on Schedule III.
Al3. 123: Approving agreements with Anaheim Family YMCA and Episcopal Service
Alliance, Inc., in the amount of $15,000 each ($30,000 in allocated funds) to
provide designated services to Anaheim residents; and authorizing the Mayor
and City Clerk to execute said agreement.
Al4, 108/142; ORDINANCE NO, 5072 - ADOPTION: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDINC ~ECTION 2.12.010 OF CHAPTER 2.12 OF TITLE 2 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX. (Setting the rate of
transient occupancy taxation at 11 percent of the gross rent charged by
hotel/motel operators.)
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 892-403 through 892-406:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Daly, Ehrle, Pickler, Kaywood and Hunter
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 892-403 through 892-406, both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted.
957
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 10, 1989, 5:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote on Ordinance No. 5072:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Daly, Ehrle, Pickler, Kaywood and Hunter
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 5072 duly passed and adopted.
End of Consent Calendar. MOTIONS CARRIED.
144: ORANGE COUNTY HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION - REAPPOINTMENT; Request by
Daniel H. Ninburg, M.D., for reappotntment to the Orange County Human
Relations Commission by the League of Cities.
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to nominate Daniel H. Ninburg, M.D., for
reappotntment by the League of Cities, to serve as a member of the Orange
County Human Relations Commission. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
City Clerk Sohl stated that a letter will be prepared and sent to the League
of Cities notifying them of same.
123; CABLE CONSULTING SERVICES CABLE TV COMPLIANCE AUDITS; Approving an
agreement with Communications Support Corporation (CSC) to perform the
necessary cable television compliance audits for both M.L. Media Partners,
Ltd. (Multivision) and Empire Cable.
City Attorney White explained since the need to act on the subject arose after
posting of the printed agenda, it is necessary to waive the posting provisions
of the Brown Act should the Council wish to take action on the matter today.
On motion by Councilman Pickler, seconded by Councilman Ehrle, the Anaheim
City Council determined that the need to act on the following item arose after
the posting of the agenda for this meeting, on Friday, October 6, 1989, at
1:55 p.m.; and consequently waived the Brown Act requirement relative to
posting the item on the printed agenda. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION; Councilman Pickler moved to approve an agreement with Communications
Support Gorporation (GSG) to perform the necessary cable television compliance
audits for both M.L. Media Partners, Ltd. (Multivision) and Empire Cable, as
recommended in memorandum dated October 9, 1989 from the Intergovernmental
Relations Manager. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
153; INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS; Approving a Memorandum
of Understanding establishing terms and conditions of employment for employees
in classificati.ons assigned to the Utilities Unit represented by the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 47.
City Attorney White explained since the need to act on the subject arose after
posting of the printed agenda, it is necessary to waive the posting provisions
of the Brown Act should the Council wish to take action on the matter today.
958
City Hall. Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES - October 10, 1989, 5:30 P.M.
On motion by Councilman Pickler, seconded by Councilman Ehrle, the Anaheim
City Council determined that the need to act on the following item arose after
the posting of the agenda for this meeting, on Friday, October 6, 1989, at
1:55 p.m.; and consequently waived the Brown Act requirement relative to
posting the item on the printed agenda. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION; The title of the following resolution was
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 89R-407)
Councilman Pickler moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Councilman Ehrle seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Hunter offered Resolution No. 89R-407 for adoption, approving a
Memorandum of Understanding establishing terms and conditions of employment
for employees in classifications assigned to the Utilities Unit represented by
the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 47. Refer
to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO, 89R-407; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ESTABLISHING TERMS AND
CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT FOR EMPLOYEES IN CLASSIFICATIONS ASSIGNED TO THE
UTILITIES UNIT REPRESENTED BY THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 47.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Daly, Ehrle, Pickler, Kaywood and Hunter
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 89R-407 duly passed and adopted.
179; REHEARING - VARIANCE NO, 3747 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION -
MODIFICATION OF CONDITION;
LOCATION OF PROPERTY: Tract 12576 (north of Nohl Ranch Road, northeast of Old
Bucket Lane).
REHEARING REQUEST: To consider revocation of the decision made on August 15,
1989, (see minutes that date) which granted a modification of a condition of
Resolution No. 88R-108 (Variance No. 3747), which the Council granted on
March 8, 1988 under Resolution No. 88R-108 (see minutes that date.) The
variance is for a waiver of maximum structural height to construct up to 38
single-family residences at a height not to exceed 35 feet on property on
Tract No. 12576. Council granted Variance No. 3747 subject to maximum
structural height on lots 33, 34, 35, 36, and 37 being restricted to 18 feet.
The balance of the lots allowed at 35 feet.
At the Council meeting of August 15, 1989, the Council deleted Condition No. 8
of Resolution No. 88R-108 to allow development under existing code
requirements (25 feet).
959
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 10, 1989, 5:30 P.M.
HEARING SET ON:
A request for rehearing and Affidavit of Merit was submitted by Donald Piliero
which was granted by the City Council at its meeting of September 12, 1989,
(see minutes that date) and public hearing scheduled this date.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin September 28, 1989.
Posting of property September 28, 1989.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - September 29, 1989.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the City Manager/City Council from the Planning Department
dated August 8, 1989.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Thomas Mungari, ISCO Industries, 15342 Hawthorne Boulevard,
Londale Ca. 90260.
He feels the simplest answer as to why they are before the
Council, one only need stand on Lots 33 through 37, those having
the 18-foot limitation, to realize that all of the reasons for
imposing a height restriction are absent. There is absolutely
no rational reason to restrict building height on those lots.
Lot 33 is adjacent to a lot where the finished pad elevation is
at least 35 feet above the finished pad elevation of Lot 33. It
impedes no one's view. The houses to the east along the bluff
are at least 25 feet above this particular lot. The lot
adjacent to it has no height restriction. The primary point is
the houses to the east are a minimum of 18 to 20 feet above the
finished elevations of the houses upon which the Council placed
restrictions. In addition, along the bluff line to the rear
yards of the houses with the higher elevation, there is a
substantial amount of vegetation, trees and intense growth. If
anything restricts those views, it is the vegetation.
Peralta Hills East is fast becoming a prestigious area. The
five houses with the 18-foot or single-story limitation are all
in the northeast corner and are contiguous. It would set them
apart from the remainder of the development. Further, on Lot
37, there is an additional restriction that will impede
development of a house that will fit into the tract. A storm
drain bisects the lot. It has a buildable pad area of
approximately 19,000 square feet which is almost cut in half by
the existing storm drain further limiting construction.
He understands that this was an emotional issue when it came
before the Council originally. It was somewhat of a
compromise. He firmly believes that any compromise has to be
based on a rational set of facts. In this case, the people who
have purchased the lots are before the Council again simply
because when standing out on the lots, it does not make any
sense to impose an 18-foot height restriction. There is no
impedance of any views to the east.
960
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES October 10, 1989, 5:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
At the time ISCO purchased the property she asked if they were
informed that the five lots had an 18-foot height limit and that
also the remaining lots in the development were granted a
35-foot height limitation instead of 25 feet in exchange for the
18-foot limitation on the subject five lots.
Tom Mungart.
They were fully aware of the situation and it was disclosed to
them as well as to those who were subsequent buyers from ISCO.
However, when standing out on the site, there is no way to
understand why the lots were restricted. There should be a
rational basis for imposing such a restriction.
D.J. Hellier.
She has been at the Peralta Hills East project from the time of
its inception. She has listened to all of the pros and cons.
She has listened to the Citizens Coalition who were against the
wall, the entrance, the pilasters, the height - against
everything. The Coalition wanted all the lots along Nohl Ranch
Road at 25 feet. The developer wanted 35 feet. Then Mayor Bay
stated 35 feet for all the lots with the exception of Lots 33
through 37 and that was the end of it. Changes take place and
people are allowed to ask for things to be changed and that is
what they are doing. The homeowners knew when she sold the lots
that the height limitation was 18 feet. She had discussed the
issue with Councilman Ehrle who felt the height limitation was
wrong and should be raised.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN OPPOSITION:
Sonja Grewal, Anaheim Hills Citizens Coalition.
She is speaking on behalf of the Board of Directors of the
Coalition who have been asked to speak on behalf of the
petitioners for the rehearing. It is not their intent to review
all the exhibits and data presented in March of 1988. That is
not the issue. The Council has been provided with all
documentation, minutes, exhibits, etc. and thus have all the
necessary information before them. The issue is one of public
trust and the City Council's willingness to uphold its decisions.
In March, 1988, an agreement was made - a compromise between the
developer, City Council and homeowners. In making the
compromise, the residents placed their faith and trust in the
Council to maintain the integrity of the agreement. What
greater promise could the Council give than to require a
covenant to be recorded with the County to run with the land so
that every prospective buyer would know in advance there was a
restricting condition on the lots and the tract. Every buyer
had the option to make his purchase contingent upon changing
that condition prior to making the purchase, not after. A year
961
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 10, 1989, 5:30 P.M.
and a half later, or even 100 years later, the faith and trust
the public has placed in the Council cannot be broken. Nothing
has changed since the original agreement was made. Everything
is the same yet the Council decision now has been appealed by a
new owner. The original Council decision was never appealed by
the original owner who was sophisticated in the development
industry and very well respected.
In concluding, Mrs. Grewal reiterated, nothing has changed in
the 1 1/2 years since the condition was placed on Lots 33
through 37. She is asking that the Council demonstrate that the
City of Anaheim stands behind its agreements, agreements that
are based on logical data and facts which were available and
still are. They are asking no more and no less. Address the
issue at hand and keep Variance No. 3747 as it was granted in
1988.
SUMMATION BY APPLICANT: Tom Mungari.
Council should have a perspective on what the real issues are.
Whether or not there was a deal made, they take the position
that it is really irrelevant if it does not have any rational
basis. If the Council believes there was a pact made that is
inviolable, they will uphold the appeal. If they believe some
kind of sense can be made out of decisions that have a rational
basis in fact, they will grant the Variance.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Hunter closed the public hearing.
Following public testimony, Council Members discussed the issue and gave their
input and reasons justifying their vote for and against leaving the variance
as originally approved or for granting the deletion'of Condition No. 8 which
would eliminate the 18-foot height limitation.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
If 25-foot homes are built on the five lots, exhibits previously
submitted show that there would be complete obstruction of the
views from the homes to the east. With 18-foot homes, the views
would be impacted but not obstructed. Those homeowners paid for
the views they expected to enjoy. Nothing has changed. A
35-foot height variance was granted to the balance of the lots
in the development. Buyers of the five subject lots were aware
of the 18-foot height limitation. She is not going to change
her vote now because someone feels it was not a rational
decision and, therefore, does not want to abide by that
decision. It was an important and right decision when it was
made and that is still true today.
Mayor Hunter.
The issue is public trust whether with this project or any other
project any place else in the City. There were several public
962
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES October 10, 1989, 5:30 P.M.
hearings, balloon tests, studies, a tremendous amount of staff
time and a great deal of work devoted to the issue. It was an
issue where elected officials worked out what he considers to be
a contract. There was an offer, acceptance and consideration.
As public officials, they have a contractual relationship, what
he considers a fiduciary duty of trust. By voting otherwise is
in essence a breach of that contract.
Councilman Pickler.
He voted against the height limitation at the outset. He does
not believe it was a compromise. The people in the Coalition
and others did not want a 35-foot height limit. Everywhere else
in the hills the height limit is 25 feet. Having been out to
the site, he still feels a 25-foot height limit on Lots 33
through 37 will not impair the view of the residences to the
east. Relative to public trust, there have been other issues
and hearings where the Council has changed its mind. In this
case, the pads are so large, he does not feel anybody will be
hurt by a 25-foot height limitation. The 18-foot height
limitation was picked out of the air and he does not know the
reason why.
Extensive discussion followed between Council Members wherein it was again
recounted how the 18-foot limitation was established (see minutes of
August 15, 1989 and March 3, 1988) and why. Councilman Daly posed questions
relative to how the decision was finally made that 18 feet be established and
if all parties supported that decision at the time. Mayor Hunter also read
portions of the March 3, 1988 minutes.
Councilman Daly. :
A contract implies everyone had an opportunity to discuss the
matter and buy into it. The Council does not enter into
contracts in land use unless there is a development agreement.
It sounds to him there was a decision imposed by a 4 to 1 vote.
He was not on the Council at the time. From the outset, his
approach to the never-ending Anaheim Hills height issue has been
a 25-foot height limit which is reasonable for all lots in the
hills as a general guideline. He feels this was a decision of
the Council after hearing all the facts.
Councilman Ehrle.
This is a political issue and it has been since it came to the
Council relative to the "great wall" built along the development
as well as the initial grading of the site. In 1988 he voted
for the 18-foot height limitation on the five lots. He has
reviewed the minutes many times and understands why he voted for
that limitation. If it was not a contract, in his mind, it was
implied that there was an agreement and the developer had an
opportunity to agree to the conditions. He (Ehrle) has been
outspoken relative to the height limit in Anaheim Hills and
would like to see it at 35 feet throughout the City and
963
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 10, 1989, 5:30 P.M.
especially in the hill and canyon area but he has not been
successful in that endeavor. The City's new ordinance limits
heights to 25 feet. He did go out to the project and feels that
the lots selected for 18 feet in his mind is wrong in several
cases especially Lot 33. However, certain compromises were
made. The balance of the lots were granted a 35-foot height
limit, even on several lots along Nohl Ranch Road (Lots 17
through 22) which had been requested to be limited to 18 to 20
feet. Not everybody was happy but the people did accept what
they did as a Council.
After further consideration, he has a difficult time going back
on his word and his decision made in March of 1988. He has
spoken with Ms. Hellier and the homeowners. He has a great deal
of empathy and would like to see the homes built at 25 feet but
a compromise and a deal was made. He is going to reverse his
decision made in August of 1989. He does have integrity and he
also believes that, as Mayor Hunter stated, a beautiful home can
be built at 18 feet and Mayor Hunter's home is an example. The
people still have the right to build. He feels the current
ordinance is wrong but he must support it. In this matter, an
agreement was made and as then Mayor Bay stated, if it was all
give on the part of the residents and they got nothing in
return, it was not a good deal or compromise.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Hunter, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council approved the
negative declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative
declaration together with any comments received during the public review
process, and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any
comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will
have a significant effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION; The title of the following resolution was
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 89R-408)
Councilman Hunter moved to waive the reading in full'of the resolution.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Hunter asked the City Attorney in offering the resolution upholding the
Council decision of March 8, 1988 what the proper wording would be.
City Attorney White.
The actual action is to deny proposed amendments to conditions
of approval of Variance No. 3747 the effect of which will be to
reinstate the original Resolution No. 88R-108 of March 8, 1988
and the conditions contained therein.
Councilman Hunter offered Resolution No. 89R-408 for adoption, denying
proposed amendment to conditions of approval of Variance No. 3747, thereby
reinstating the original Resolution No. 88R-108 which in Condition No. 8
964
City Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES October 10, 1989, 5:30 P,M.
limits the height on Lots 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37 to 18 feet (rescinds
Resolution No. 89R-357 of August 15, 1989). Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 89R-408; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DENYING AN AMENDMENT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IN VARIANCE
NO. 3747 AS APPROVED BY RESOLUTION NO. 88R-108 (REHEARING).
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Ehrle asked the Planning
Director relative to turrets or other decorative architecture,
could those exceed 18 feet on the five lots or is the 18-foot
limitation an absolute.
Joel Fick, Planning Director.
In discussing the matter with the City Attorney, since that
would be a specified resolution of the original approval and
this action would reinstate the original approval, the height
limit for those five lots would have to be contained in the
18-foot limit.
City Attorney White.
Condition No. 8 of 88R-108 would reinstate the heights on
Lots 33 through 37 to 18 feet above finished grade. If that
were a code provision, then the owner of the lot could come
before the Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission and ask
for a variance on an individual basis. However, because it is a
condition and, not only a condition but a recorded covenant
against the property, unless the condition is amended and the
covenant released, the 18 feet is not waivable by the Zoning
Administrator. It is an absolute.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution establishing an absolute
height of 18 feet on Lots 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Ehrle, Kaywood and Hunter
Daly and Pickler
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 89R-408 duly passed and adopted.
179; PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO, 89-90-04, VARIANCE NO, 3984 AND
NEGATIVE DECLARATION;
APPLICANT: OWNER:
Anaheim Auto Parts, Inc.
Attn: Larry Haupert
1256 E. Lincoln Avenue,
Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 1266 East Lincoln Avenue. The
request is for a change in zone from CL and RM-2400 to RM-1200. To construct
965
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 10, 1989, 5:30 P.M.
an 8-unit apartment complex with waivers of (a) minimum structural setback,
(b) minimum yard requirements and (c) minimum floor area.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Reclassification No. 89-90-04 was
denied (PC89-215), (4 yes votes, 2 absent, and 1 conflict of interest);
Variance No. 3984 was denied (PC89-216); approved Negative Declaration.
HEARING SET ON:
A letter of appeal was submitted by the owner, Larry Haupert, and public
hearing scheduled this date.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin September 28, 1989.
Posting of property September 29, 1989.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - September 29, 1989.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated August 28, 1989.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Ken Boydstun, representing Larry Haupert.
He first clarified that waiver (c) minimum floor area is and
always has been deleted and is no longer a request. The request
is for a reclassification on a lot that has two zonings. The
north part of the lot is zoned CL and the back part of the lot
is zoned RM-2400. They are asking for a rezoning to RM-1200
with two requested waivers, minimum structural setback and
minimum yard requirements. He explained that the requested
5-foot structural setback (~hey are proposing 7 inches) would
create a dead space that wohld be difficult for anything to grow
in or maintain. The other waiver on the minimum yard
requirement (35 feet required, 21 feet proposed) it is difficult
with a 75-foot wide lot to get the width necessary between two
independent buildings.
Ownership of the parcel has been in the Haupert family since the
mid 1950's. A rental yard had been operating on the property
for a number of years and they were a good neighbor and tenant.
There have been several tenants in recent years with no
success. The width of the lot makes it difficult for commercial
application. They came up with a design for the property they
felt was ideal for 8 units. The project meets parking
requirements. The plan was brought to the Planning Commission.
There was a concern by a neighbor to the east they were taking
away her commercial zone on the property. That is not what is
happening. Her parcel has more frontage on Lincoln Avenue and
would be more suitable to a commercial development. The subject
property is 75 feet wide and is limited to what can be done
commercially. This is an appropriate use for the parcel and
location. It will be a very attractive building that will
enhance Lincoln Avenue.
966
City Hall. Anaheim. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 10, 1989, 5:30 P.M.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN FAVOR: None.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
OPPOSITION: Christina Faacks.
She owns the property at 1272 Lincoln Avenue next to the project
at 1266. The strip in that area should remain commercial.
Business people in the area do well since there is plenty of
traffic flow to encourage business. The City plan is for
commercial in that area and it is working very well. She does
not want to give up her commercial zone.
SUMMATION BY APPLICANT:
Ken Boydstun.
The General Plan calls for RM-1200 along the street. They also
feel Mrs. Faacks' lot is a little wider and commercial is
probably more appropriate on it. He requested approval of their
applications.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Hunter closed the public hearing.
Mayor Hunter.
He asked the Planning Director with the present study in
progress relative to dow-fi-zoning of certain areas in the City if
this area was considered in that study.
Joel Ftck, Planning Director.
The frontage along Lincoln is designated commercial. The
applicant is requesting a change to the RM-1200 zone. This
particular property was not addressed in the study that is
presently in process. He confirmed that the study is not
recommending that the CL zone be changed in this area.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
his is not only spot zoning but the existing auto parts
business is heavy commercial. To put apartments next to heavy
commercial auto parts with the attendant noise and probably
odorous solvents is unthinkable as a living environment.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Hunter, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council approved the
negative declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative
declaration together with any comments received during the public review
process, and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any
comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will
have a significant effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTIONS: The titles of the following resolutions were
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution Nos. 89R-409 and 89R-410)
967
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 10, 1989, 5:30 P.M.
Councilman Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the resolutions.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
!
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 89R-409 for adoption, denying
Reclassification No. 89-90-04, and Resolution No. 89R-410 for adoption,
denying Variance No. 3984, upholding the findings of the City Planning
Commission. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO, 89R-409; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DENYING RECLASSIFICATION NO. 89-90-04.
RESOLUTION NO. 89R-410; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DENYING VARIANCE NO. 3984.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Daly, Ehrle, Pickler, Kaywood and Hunter
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 89R-409 and 89R-410 duly passed and adopted.
119; WELCOMING ENGLISH CLASS FROM HYATT HOTEL: Mayor Hunter, at this point,
acknowledged a group who was observing the proceedings of the Council and
asked to hear from a spokesperson for the group, The English Today Institute.
Marissa Prestonert, Practical Civics Coordinator, explained that this was an
"English as a Second Language" class which was a part of the Amnesty
provisions for the class on English Instruction and Practical Civics civics
not just taught in a classroom but practiced. It is an Anaheim class.
Classes are held throughout Orange County. Present tonight is a class that
works at the Hyatt Hotel and the class takes place at the Hyatt.
Mayor Hunter and Council Members welcomed the class and expressed pleasure at
their being present at the Council meeting tonight.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3189 AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION;
APPLICANT:
OWNER:
Everett H. Miller
270 Roycroft Avenue,
Long Beach, CA 90803
AGENT:
Hani E1 Haj
20331 Bluffside, #305,
Huntington Beach, CA
92646
LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 944 South Brookhurst Street.
The request is to permit a 5,040 square-foot commercial center.
968
City Hall. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 10, 1989, 5:30 P.M.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Conditional Use Permit No. 3189 was
granted, no food outlets, deleting Condition Nos. 4 and 16 (PC89-217); (5 yes
votes, 2 absent); approved Negative Declaration.
HEARING SET ON:
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilman
Pickler and Councilman Hunter at the meeting of September 19, 1989, and public
hearings scheduled this date.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin September 28, 1989.
Posting of property September 29, 1989.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - September 29, 1989.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated August 28, 1989.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Steve Dahlberg, Project Architect, was present to answer
questions.
Councilman Pickler.
He has spoken with Mr. Dahlberg explaining that he feels the
project is putting too much on the corner of Brookhurst and Ball
Road. Legally 4 units can be built on the property and Mr.
Dahlberg said he would be willing to construct only 4 units
instead of 8.
Mr. Dahlberg explained it is an interior lot. They can get up
to 8 units on the property but it seems to be overcrowding. He
confirmed and stipulated for Councilman Pickler that they are
willing to construct only 4 units on the property.
There being no further persons who wished to speak either in favor or in
opposition, Mayor Hunter closed the public hearing.
City Attorney White.
He asked for confirmation if it is correct to say that instead
of 8 units of 5,040 square feet it will be a 4 unit project of
5,040 square feet. If so, the offering would be a resolution
granting a conditional use permit for a 4-unit, 5,040 square
foot commercial retail center subject to Planning Commission
conditions as imposed.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
She noted that one of the conditions was that no prepared food
service facility shall be permitted and if that would still be
applicable.
Councilman Pickler clarified that he has not changed any other
conditions only that the center will be 4 units instead of 8.
969
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES October 10, 1989, 5:30 P.M.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Pickler, seconded by Councilman Hunter, the City Council approved the negative
declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative declaration
together with any comments received during the public review process, and
further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received
that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant
effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION; The title of the following resolution was
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 89R-411)
Councilman Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 89R-411 for adoption, granting
Conditional Use Permit No. 3189, subject to City Planning Commission
conditions but with the stipulation that only 4 units will be built in the
5,040 square foot commercial retail center. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 89R-411; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3189.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Daly, Ehrle, Pickler, Kaywood and Hunter
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 89R-411 duly passed and adopted.
RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for ten minutes. (7:21 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS; The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (7:32 p.m.)
179: ITEMS BI - B4 FROM THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 21,
1989 - DECISION DATE; SEPTEMBER 28, 1989 - INFORMATION ONLY - APPEAL PERIOD
ENDS OCTOBER 13, 1989;
VARIANCE NO, 3987, CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 3;
OWNER: WILLIAM J. IVANCSO, 997 S. Siet Place, Anaheim, CA 92806.
LOCATION; 997 South Stet Place,
Waiver of maximum fence height to retain an existing 6 foot high
fence and to construct a 6 foot high block wall fence.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
Variance No. 3987 APPROVED, IN PART, (ZA 89-63) with an added
condition.
VARIANCE NO. 3988, CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 3:
OWNER: J.M. PETERS COMPANY, INC., 3501 Jamboree Rd., Suite 200,
Newport Beach, CA 92660.
970
City Hall. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 10, 1989, 5:30 P.M.
LOCATION; 3802, 3900, and 3920 West Orange Avenue,
Waiver of maximum fence height to construct a 6 foot 3 inch high to 7
foot 8 inch high solid block wall with pedestrian and vehicular
access gates.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
Variance No. 3988 APPROVED (ZA 89-64).
Joel Ftck Planning Director. Answering Councilman Pickler's concern relative
to landscaping in front of or on the wall to prevent graffiti, that when the
project is submitted, there will be an opportunity at staff level to review
the landscaping plans and to have those plans coincide with the comments made
today.
B3.
LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE NO, 89-05:
OWNER: JILLANDA VITRIOL, 1505 W. Rene Drive, Anaheim, CA 92802
LOCATION; 1505 West Rene Drive,
To permit a large family day care facility for a maximum of 12
children.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
Large Family Day Care No. 89-05 APPROVED (ZA 89-65).
B4.
ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO, 0040, CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 5:
OWNER: BRET M. DAVIS, 3310 E. Radcltff Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806.
LOCATION; 3310 East Radcliff Avenue,
Waiver of maximum lot coverage to construct a room a~dition.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
Administrative Adjustment No. 0040 APPROVED (ZA 89-66).
Leonard McGhee, Senior Planner, clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood that there
are 3-bedrooms and a 2-car garage and the addition is a proposed family room
and not another bedroom.
End of the Zoning Administrator Items. MOTIONS CARRIED.
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTERgST:
The following people from the Orange Tree Mobile Home Park spoke to the issue
of rent increases/leases in their park:
Mike Johnson, 1400 Douglass Road, Space #227. He first submitted a copy of
Orange Tree Mobile Home Estates Rental Agreement (copy submitted to each
Council Member by the City Clerk) which the majority of the residents of the
park consider to be an injustice specifically the long-term rental agreement
being offered to them (rental agreement made a part of the record). Leases
are for the protection of the park owner and not the residents. They are an
attempt to have self-imposed rent control and the residents feel they are
right the owners have all the control. Mr. Johnson then briefed provisions
of the rental agreement which the residents feel only benefit the park owner
and are detrimental to the park residents. Particularly onerous to him is the
971
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - October 10, 1989, 5:30 P.M.
issue since 1984 and everybody knows where he stands. These long-term 10-year
leases are wrong. He feels the Council should look into the matter and do
something.
Councilman Hunter left the Council Chamber. (8:07 p.m.)
Councilman Ehrle. People know where he stands on the issue. He is totally
opposed to rent control. Park residents need help. Two Council Members
(Ehrle and Hunter) pledged their support and it is necessary to convince the
remainder of the Council.
Councilman Daly. He asked Councilman Ehrle what he felt should be done. He
does not like to be put in the position of someone uncaring. Where private
property rights reign supreme and he (Ehrle) is against rent control, he wants
to know his position.
Councilman Ehrle. He feels they should let the people decide and put the
issue on the ballot. That was his intent all along. Other suggestions have
been made, one of them to help the elderly and those on social security and
fixed incomes to come up with a remedy that will assist them in having their
rents frozen at some point or not to exceed a certain percentage just as with
people on subsidized housing. If they can get park owners to the bargaining
table he feels there are methods that can be devised.
182/114; DISCUSSION - GROWTH MANAGEMENT STUDY: Request for discussion of
growth management study by Councilman Daly. This matter was initially
discussed at the meeting of September 19, 1989 (see minutes that date) and
continued to this date for Council discussion. Staff has requested a one-week
continuance of the matter.
Councilman Hunter moved to continue discussion of the growth management study
to Tuesday, October 17, 1989. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT; Councilwoman Kaywood moved to adjourn to Tuesday, October 17,
1989 at 3:00 p.m. for a Closed Session. Councilman Daly seconded the motion.
Councilman Hunter was absent. MOTION CARRIED. (8:11 p.m.)
LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK
973