1985/02/26City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Pickler, Overholt and Roth
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Reverend Louis Rohrs, Anaheim Trinity United Methodist Church,
gave the Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member E. Llewellyn Overholt, Jr. led the assembly in
the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Roth and
authorized by the City Council:
"Save Your Vision Week" in Anaheim, March 3 to 9, 1985.
119: RESOLUTION OF WELCOME: A Resolution of Welcome was unanimously adopted
by the City Council and presented to Business Properties at the groundbreakfng
ceremonies of the $85 million Metroplex II Project scheduled for February 28,
1985.
MINUTES: Approval of the minutes of the regular meeting held February 12,
1985 were deferred one week at the request of Councilwoman Kaywood.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda,
after reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to
waiver is hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the
title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such
ordinances or resolutions in regular order. Councilman Bay seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS ACAIN§T THE CITY in the amount of ~1,635,924.85, in
accordance with the 1984-85 Budget, were approved.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Roth,
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 Roth offered
Resolution Nos. 85R-93 through 85R-99, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer to
Resolution Book.
157
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
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 Chiarina E. Bruno for personal injuries sustained
purportedly due to a fall on City property on or about October 23, 1984.
b. Claim submitted to John D. Beck for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 10, 1984.
c. Claim submitted by Southern California Gas Company for property
damages sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about
December 28, 1984.
d. Claim submitted by Helen J. McGinley for property damages sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 4, 1985.
e. Claim submitted by Martlyn K. Smith for personal injuries sustained
purportedly due to a fall on City property on or about November 30, 1984.
f. Claim submitted by Mr. & Mrs. Rene Pomainville for property damages
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 29, 1984.
g. Claim submitted by David L. Pancer for personal injuries and property
damages sustained purportedly due to a fall on City property on or about
December 28, 1984.
h. Claim submitted by Farzin Nikyad for property damages sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 11, 1984.
f. Claim submitted by James A. and Lynne I. Banks for property damages
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 15, 1984.
j. Claim submitted by Eric Burgers for property damages sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 13, 1985.
k. Claim submitted by Western Un~on for property damages sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 24, 1984.
1. Claim submitted by Joseph Morris for personal injuries purportedly due
to actions of the City on or about October 23, 1984.
m. Claim submitted by Patricia Ruiz as Admin~stratr~x of Estate of Henry
Ruiz, Patricia Ruiz individually and as guardian ad litem of Damian Ruiz, a
minor, for wrongful death of Henry Ru~z-Colon purportedly due to fall on City
property on or about October 31, 1984.
n. Claim submitted by Brenda Ruiz and Brenda Ruiz as Guardian ad litem
for Rick Chebonie Ruiz, a minor, for wrongful death of Henry Ruiz-Colon
purportedly due to fall on City property on or about October 31, 1984.
158
Cit7 Hall, Anaheim, Cal.ifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
o. Claim submitted by Juanita Ruiz and Raphael Ruiz for wrongful death of
Henry Ruiz-Colon purportedly due to fall on City property on or about
October 31, 1984.
Claim filed against the City - recommended~ be accepted:
p. Claim submitted by Robert L. Kraft for property damage sustained due
to broken water main, on or about December 21, 1984.
2. Receiving and filing the following correspondence: (on file)
a. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission--Minutes of February 6, 1985.
3. 123: Authorizing a second amendment to Representation Agreement with
Spencer Marketing Services to clarify certain terminology contained therein.
4. 128: Receiving and filing the Monthly Financial Analysis for the six
month period ended December 31, 1984.
5. 175: Receiving and filing the Status of Power Cost Adjustment Balancing
Account as of December 31, 1984.
6. 123: Authorizing an agreement with Liebert, Cassidy & Frierson at a cost
of $1,041 to provide training services in connection with employee/employer
relations matters.
7. 175: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-93: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT:
CONSTRUCTION OF SOUTHWEST SUBSTATION SITE, WELL SITE NO. 36, STREET SWEEPING
TRANSFER STATION AND DISNEYLAND METER VAULT SITE REHABILITATION, ACCOUNT NOS.
55-656-6329-08659, 52-619-6329-02392, 52-606-6329-02256, AND 60-710-3899.
(opening of bids on March 28, 1985, 2:00 p.m.)
8. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-94: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT,
LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION
INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO
¢0NSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: BARRIER FREE
ANAHEIM 9A - LA REINA STREET AT SHADOW LANE; GREENLEAF AVENUE AT NANCITA
STREET; MAGNOLIA AVENUE 229 FEET SOUTH OF GREENLEAF AVENUE, STONYBROOK
DRIVE-DALE AVENUE TO BADEN POWELL SCHOOL; BRONWYN DRIVE-ORANGE AVENUE TO
STONYBROOK DRIVE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 24-793-6325-E3830 AND
24-793-6325-E3870. (Harper Construction Company, contractor, and authorizing
filing of the Notice of Completion therefor)
9. 164: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-95: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT,
LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION
INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO
CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: EAST STREET
SEWER IMPROVEMENT, 109 FEET SOUTH OF NORTH STREET TO 137 FEET NORTH OF
159
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
WILHELMINA STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 11-790-6325-E0490.
(Glamuzina Construction Company, contractor, and authorizing filing of the
Notice of Completion therefor)
10. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-96: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 84R-243 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF
COMPENSATION FOR CLASSES DESIGNATED AS PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL MANAGEMENT.
(creating the classification of Property Services Coordinator, XSR06,
effective March 8, 1985)
153: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-97: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 84R-240 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF
COMPENSATION FOR CLASSES DESIGNATED AS ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT. (deleting
the classification of Property Services Manager, and creating the
classification of Restoration and Property Services Manager, XSR08, effective
March 8, 1985)
153: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-98: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 84R-242 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF
COMPENSATION FOR CLASSES DESIGNATED AS MIDDLE MANAGEMENT/SUPERVISORY.
(deleting the classification of Neighborhood Restoration Coordinator,
effective March 8, 1985)
11. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-99: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A CERTAIN DEED AND ORDERING ITS RECORDATION.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 85R-93 through 85R-99:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Pickler, Overholt and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 85R-93 through 85R-99, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
End of Consent Calendar. MOTION CARRIED.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City
Planning Commission at their meeting held February 4, 1985, pertaining to the
following applications were submitted for City Council information.
1. VARIANCE NO. 3417 (READV.): Application submitted by Armand A. and
Virginia A. Stephanian, to construct a 40-unit affordable apartment complex on
RM-1200 zoned property located at 2546 West Lincoln Avenue, with Code waivers
of minimum building site are per dwelling unit and maximum building height.
The City Planning Commission previously approved negative declaration status
for Variance No. 3417. Applicant withdrew his application.
2. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 84-85-24: Application submitted by Hugo Vazquez, for
a change in zone from CL to RM-1200, to construct a 32-unit apartment complex
on property located at 114 No. East Street.
160
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC85-35, granted
Reclassification No. 84-85-24, and granted a negative declaration status.
3. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 84-85-23 AND VARIANCE NO. 3459: Application
submitted by Henry B. and Thelma M. Wesseln, for a change in zone from
RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200, to construct a 24-unit apartment complex on property
located at 141 South Dale Avenue, with the following Code waivers: (a)
maximum structural height, (b) required block wall. (denied)
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC85-36 and 37,
granted in part, Reclassification No. 84-85-23 and Variance No. 3459, and
granted a negative declaration status.
4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2656: Application submitted by Stewart, Green
Associates, to permit on-sale beer and wine in a proposed restaurant on CL
zoned property located at 2010 East Lincoln Avenue, with Code waiver of
minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC85-38, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2656, and granted a negative declaration status.
5. VARIANCE NO. 3458: Application submitted by Western Medical Center, to
permit a 3-foot high masonry wall on CL zoned property located at 1025 South
Anaheim Boulevard, with Code waiver of minimum structural setback and height
of masonry wall.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC85-39, granted
Variance No. 3458, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption
determination, (Class 3).
6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2657: Application submitted by Ajax
Properties, to permit an auto body and paint shop on ML zoned property located
at 540-544 South Rose Street, with Code waiver of minimum landscaped setback.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC85-40, granted for
one year, Conditional Use Permit No. 2657, and granted a negative declaration
status.
7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2186--EXTEN§ION OF TIME: Application ~ubmitted
by Charles L. and Carol Panchert, requesting an extension of time to
Conditional Use Permit No. 2186, and/or deletion of Condition No. 3 of
Resolution No. PC81-61 pertaining to required time extensions, to retain an
auto and truck wholesaling and reconditioning facility on ML zoned property
located at 3601 East Miraloma Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC85-41, approved an
extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 2186, to expire March 23, 1985.
8. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99--TERMINATION: Application submitted by
James C. Gypton, (Anaheim Honda Kawasaki), requesting termination of
Conditional Use Permit No. 99, to permit a gasoline service station on
161
City H?.ll., Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26~ .1.985, 10:00 A.M.
property located at 1175 No. East Street, as a condition of approval of
Conditional Use Permit No. 2548.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC85-42, terminated
Conditional Use Permit No. 99.
9. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1561--TERMINATION: Application submitted by
William C. and Margaret N. Sangster, requesting termination of Conditional Use
Permit No. 1561, to permit on-sale beer and wine in an existing coffee shop on
property located at 2112 South State College Boulevard, as a condition of
approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2611.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC85-43, terminated
Conditional Use Permit No. 1561.
10. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 798--TERMINATION: Application submitted by
William C. and Margaret N. Sangster, requesting termination of Conditional Use
Permit No. 798, to permit a coffee shop on property located at 2112 South
State College Boulevard, as a condition of approval of Conditional Use Permit
No. 2611.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC85-44, terminated
Conditional Use Permit No. 798.
11. REQUEST FOR DIRECTION CONCERNING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT STUDY AREA
BOUNDARIES--NORTHEAST CORNER OF SOUTH STREET AND SUNKIST STREET: Application
submitted by Staff, requesting direction regarding other parcels along
portions of Sunkist Street and South Street.
The City Planning Commission directed that a GPA study be done.
12. AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. PC85-O9-NUNC PRO TUNC: Application submitted by
Planning Commission Secretary, requesting to amend Resolution No. PC85-09,
nunc pro tunc, to correct conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit
No. 2653.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC85-45, amended
Resolution No. PC85-09 Nunc Pro Tunc.
13. AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. PC85-O4--NUNC PRO TUNC: Application submitted by
Planning Commission Secretary, requesting to amend Resolution No. PC85-04,
nunc pro tunc, to correct conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit No.
2641.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC85-46, amended
Resolution No. PC85-04 Nunc Pro Tunc.
14. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2652: Application submitted by Shiran A.
Damani, et al., (Prince Supermarket), to permit a convenience market with
off-sale beer and wine on RM-1200 zoned property located at 1200 West Cerritos
Avenue.
162
Cit~ Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Februar.7 26, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC85-34, denied
Conditional Use Permit No. 2652 and granted a negative declaration status.
Councilman Pickler requested a review of Conditional Use Permit No. 2652 and,
therefore, a public hearing would be set at a later date. He had received a
telephone call requesting that the item be set for a public hearing and when
he received such calls he honored the request.
Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that normally a public hearing was set by a
Council Member when someone was in opposition in the area and not the
applicant. In this case, six people were opposed at the Planning Commission
hearing and a petition containing 468 signatures in opposition was submitted;
Councilman Overholt stated if Councilman Pickler was going to set a public
hearing every time someone called him, no fee would be paid for the process.
His (Overholt) policy was that if there was an interest in a matter where
there was no economic benefit to the people interested, that was the time for
a Council Member to waive the fee and set the hearing. If the applicant was
not pleased with the Planning Commission's decision, they could then file an
appeal and pay the fee. He did not question Councilman Pickler's right to set
a hearing, but what he was doing in essence was voiding the appeal process.
Mayor Roth asked staff to submit a report to the Council including all City
costs involved when a matter was set for a public hearing. The precedent
throughout the years had been that when items were denied by the Planning
Commission and the applicant appealed, that the required fees be paid to off
set the costs of the public hearing before the Council.
15. PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18: To consider adding Subsection .613
to Section 18.61.050 of Title 18 of the Code, pertaining to vehicle impound
yards in the Anaheim Canyon Industrial Area.
Staff was directed to study a Code amendment for Planning Commission review
that would reduce the boundaries for the Canyon Industrial Area to exclude the
area generally west of Tustin Boulevard thereby making the modified Canyon
Industrial area the same as the Scenic Corridor Overlay.
Council Members Pickler, Kaywood and Bay were interested in discussing the
subject informational item since they were concerned over the study proposal.
Councilman Bay expressed his concern with the intent to review the possibility
of reducing the boundaries of the Canyon Industrial Area to exclude the area
generally west of Tustin Boulevard wherein the Planning Commission directed
staff to commence a study. He was very concerned with the (chipping away) at
the industrial zone in the City and he did not know where the moves were
coming from but suspected they were coming from potential commercial
development. He thought the Council should perhaps have a joint meeting with
the Planning Commission. He had seen actions started that cost money to
commence a study that he was opposed to to begin with. Adding vehicle impound
yards was another question in his mind because if they kept adding things back
to the list for conditional use permit in the northeast industrial area, the
City would be back where it started. When the Planning Commission wanted to
start a study, they should recommend that the Council direct staff to do so to
163
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26, 1985, iO:QO A.M.
see if there were three Council votes for even studying that possibility.
Before such a study, there should be input not only from the Planning'
Commission, but also the Redevelopment Commission and the Industrial
Development Board.
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, stated that the Code
Amendment was for the one specific use and because of a business person who
established the business without licensing approval. The Planning Commission
felt that perhaps the westerly portion of that area might appropriately have
conditional uses or something similar to that of all other industrial areas.
There were approximately 10 conditional uses in that area in comparison to 65
within other industrial areas of the City. One Member of the Commission felt
that the Canyon Industrial Area could be separated into two portions, one of
which would be the most restricted portion and then the westerly portion
generally at the boundary of the Scenic Corridor.
Councilman Overholt asked what could be done to terminate the study; Miss
Santalahti stated if the Council said "no," nothing would be done.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to terminate the study requested of staff
by the Planning Commission. Councilman Bay seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay emphasized that the intent of
protecting the northeast industrial area was to try to prevent development
that would bring the general public into the area with resultant traffic
problems and conflicts with the industrial segment who provided jobs in the
City.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
16. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 78-79-27 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.
1936--EXTENSIONS OF TIME: Application submitted by Jonathon T. Y. Yeh,
requesting extensions of time to Reclassification No. 78-79-27 and Conditional
Use Permit No. 1936, a proposed change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to CL, to
expand an existing motel on property located at 420 South Beach Boulevard,
with certain Code waivers. The City Planning Commission approved the
requested extensions of time to expire February 6, 1986.
Councilwoman Kaywood requested a review of the requested extensions of time
and, therefore, a public hearing would be scheduled at a later date.
End of City Planning Commission Informational Items.
PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18: Amending Subsection .010 of Section
18.32.061 of Title 18 of the Code, relating to exclusion of driveway areas
when determining building site area in the RM-2400 and RM-1200 zones.
Adoption of the subject amendment was recommended by the Planning Commission.
Councilman Bay asked if the proposed ordinance could increase density.
Miss Santalahti answered, "yes" but technically the proposed change should not
.make a difference in the livability of a site but it would in the fact that
164
City Hall~ Anaheim~ Ca.!!fornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26~ 1785,. 1.0:00 A.M.
there were to be more units. She clarified that it was counting the driveways
as open space in terms of coverage. The matter was discussed at the time the
RM-3000 was amended but never finalized. People who had driveways wider than
the minimum tended to be penalized. It was felt at staff level that it was
causing a lot of confusion for developers and it would be easier to have
consistency throughout the three zones by adopting this amendment, but it
would have an effect on density.
Councilwoman Kaywood maintained that it also made it impossible to see exactly
what the density would be. It was supposed to be 12.5 to the acre initially
for RM-3000 and now it was a minimum of 14.5 but that varied depending on how
large the driveway or something else was. She felt what needed to be done was
to go back and change the RM-3000 again so they would know what they were
talking about.
Councilman Bay noted this was only the first reading of the ordinance and the
Council would have another week to consider it if someone offered the
ordinance today.
Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4582 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4582: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING SUBSECTION .010 OF SECTION 18.32.061 OF CHAPTER 18.32, AND SUBSECTION
.010 OF SECTION 18.34.061 OF CHAPTER 18.34, OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
Before concluding, Miss Santalahti pointed out that this was a general plan
density and not zoning density. The general plan density was based on gross
area including public streets. The zoning density excluded public streets but
in this amendment did not exclude private streets. The general plan impact
tended to be a lower density over the same area as interpreted in the Zoning
Code.
Councilwoman Kaywood emphasized that the general plan was what the
infrastructure was based on and would result in a lack of the necessary
infrastructure to support higher densities. She objected and wanted it clear
and known what the proposed change was doing and perhaps set the matter for a
public hearing. She wanted a lot more information for the next meeting and to
have it noted so that the public could show up; Councilman Bay pointed out
that a proposed ordinance was open to public comment in any case and a public
hearing would not have to be set. He could see some benefits to the proposal
since it would set guidelines for designers of new projects that could affect
the cost eventually in purchase price.
Mayor Roth stated he anticipated an additional staff report to be submitted to
the Council by next week.
170: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 8520 (REV. 2): Application submitted by Prado
Corporation, to re-establish an 18-lot, RS-HS-22,000(SC) zoned subdivision on
property located at the southwest and southeast corners of Serrano Avenue and
Hidden Canyon Road.
165
Cit~ Hall, Aqaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
Tentative Tract No. 8520 (Rev. 2) was approved by the Planning Commission.
The item was submitted for informational purposes only. No action was taken
by the Council.
144: DISCUSSION - MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) - MAJOR THOROUGHFARE AND
BRIDGE FEE PROGRAM: Councilman Bay reported on the Liaison meeting held that
morning. He reminded the Council that approval of the MOU meant only approval
to negotiate between the cities involved and the County. The letter received
this morning from Orange indicated they approved the MOU but it also listed
some of the other concerns which would be a part of the discussions. He (Bay)
was personally concerned with some of the new things that had happened. Yorba
Linda had not yet voted to approve the MOU but it was on the Council agenda
next Tuesday; Tustfn had not approved the MOU and to his knowledge they did
not have it scheduled for discussion. They had received much staff
information over the concerns he expressed last week relative to LAFCO's
actions on annexations which were tied to participatory fees for the
Transportation Corridors and Tustin's statements trying to tie other political
issues to whether or not they would become a partner in the MOU. The key to
final agreement would be the eventual Joint Powers Authority. The Liaison
Committee and its discussion and conclusions was in general approval of the
staff report before the Council dated February 19, 1985 (on file in the City
Clerk's Office) from the standpoint of strongly urging that the Eastern
Corridor be separated from other Corridors in the estimation and control of
funds and control of accelerating construction of that Corridor and for
numerous other reasons. He did not feel the Council should vote on the MOU
today due to the added developments which occurred during the last week but
should delay another week and take public input today as well as next week.
He wanted to hear from the private sector involved, i.e. Oak Hills, the Irvine
Company, Kaufman and Broad or whoever else might be affected and any other
public input on the subject.
Councilman Bay then referred to a recent newspaper article which dealt with
the Transportation Corridors wherein toll roads were discussed as the funding
method. It was his understanding that such a method would eliminate any
Federal funding. He also heard in the media recently that one year's Federal
funding on the added tax on gasoline in the country resulted in approximately
$700 million coming to California from the Federal Government. He wanted to
know where that 3700 million was going and how much was coming back into
Orange County. He was concerned as to how toll roads would cut the County out
of that money. Those were the kinds of things they should know before next
week's meeting.
The Mayor asked if anyone was present to speak to the issu~ today.
Mr. Dave Dmohowski, Government Relations Manager, Irvine Company, urged the
Council's support today of adoption of the MOU. They could relate to the
concerns raised by Councilman Bay but felt that action was necessary in the
near future on the MOU so that the Joint Powers process could get under way
since that was the vehicle whereby the outstanding issues could be resolved.
Mr. Stan Oftelie, Executive Director of the Orange County Transportation
Commission (OCTC), reported that the Orange County Board of Supervisors had
166
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Feb.ruar~ 26, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
approved the MOU as well as the cities of Orange, San Juan Capistrano and the
OCTC. The next meeting of the elected officials who had been discussing the
Joint Powers Agreement which Councilman Bay had been attending would probably
be set on March 15, 1985. The only invitees to that meeting would be the
cities and agencies who had adopted the MOU. Agencies that indicated they did
not want to participate or delay beyond that time would not be invited to
those meetings.
Councilman Bay stated he did not like that kind of pressure from the Board of
Supervisors. In the last public meeting he attended and the one prior to that
they talked about the end of March and it was now suddenly down to a March 15,
1985 deadline. He assumed if the Council had not acted to approve the MOU by
March 15, 1985, the Board would not allow Anaheim to participate; Mr. Oftelie
stated that the dated schedule was circulated at those meetings.
After additional discussion on the scheduling issue, Councilman Bay moved to
continue action by the Council on a Memorandum Of Understanding relative to
the Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Program as proposed by the County of
Orange for one week. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
142/114: ORDINANCE NO. 4579: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4575 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4579: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING SUBSECTION .040 OF SECTION 1.12.100 OF CHAPTER 1.12 OF TITLE 1 OF THE
ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PROCEDURAL MATTERS. (pertain~ng to
rehearing procedures)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Pickler, Overholt and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4579 duly passed and adopted.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4580: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4580 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4580: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO ZONING. (65-66-24(31), ML(SC), northwest corner of La Palma
Avenue and Richfield Road)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Pickler, Overholt and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4580 duly passed and adopted.
167
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES ~ February 26, 1985~ 10:00 A.M.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4581: Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance No. 4581 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4581: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO ZONING. (79-80-31, ML, southeast corner of Frontera Street and
Glassell Street)
Roll Call Vote:
AYE S:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Pickler, Overholt and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4581 duly passed and adopted.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4575 - GOUND MOUNTED ANTENNAS: (Amended First Reading)
Adding new subsections .065 to Sections 18.21.030, 18.26.030, 18.27.030,
18.31.030, 18.32.030 and 18.34.030 of the Code, pertaining to ground mounted
antennas (including satellite dish-type antennas). This matter was continued
from the meetings of February 5 and 12, 1985, (see minutes those dates).
Mr. Vaughn, 1125 West Vermont, stated in reviewing the proposed ordinance it
did not necessarily contain all the information he received from the Planning
Department because it did not refer to ham radios. He felt the Council should
be aware of the fact the amateur radio community was very involved with
emergency operations in the City under the direction of the City's Emergency
Services Director Bob Berg and the impact the proposed ordinance would have on
the crucial volunteer services provided by that community. He represented
many such operators and speaking on their behalf emphasized that limitation on
the height of their antennas would be very restrictive and the community was
going to suffer. He then explained why it was vital not to restrict the
height and how it would cause the dismantling of hundreds of thousands of
dollars worth of amateur radio equipment. He found nothing wrong with the
satellite dish portion of the proposed ordinance but relative to antennas, the
best solution would be to adopt the Federal Regulations now governing amateur
radio operations.
Mayor Roth noted that it appeared what triggered the proposed ordinance were
the impacts of satellite dishes in backyards and what happened was an
expansion now extending to antennas involving those who provided a tremendous
public service. He was concerned over that aspect.
Miss Santalahti stated she would have no problem deleting any reference to
antennas other than satellite dishes, but she felt in her conversation with
Mr. Magaro, who appeared before the Council previously, that ham radio
operators were not unlikely to use those as well. She suggested that in
deleting the antennas that the first two and a half lines of the draft
ordinance now read, "Dish type antennas shall not exceed 12 feet in height
measured at the highest point above ground level and shall be site screened
from view...etc."
168
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
Mr. Stan Viall favored the proposal Just stated that the proposed ordinance
pertained to satellite dishes only. A number of other amateurs were going to
be present today but they were providing emergency communications at Canyon
General Hospital.
Councilman Bay recommended that the Council continue the first reading of the
amended ordinance for one week during which time a modified ordinance could be
prepared; by general consent, the matter was continued for one week.
179: ORDINANCE NOS. 4583 AND 4584: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance Nos.
4583 and 4584 for first reading. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4583: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO ZONING. (7-71-47(36), ML, 3020 East Coronado Street)
ORDINANCE NO. 4584: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO ZONING. (69-70-39(6), ML(SC), northeast corner of La Palma Avenue
and Fee Ana Street)
179: POSSIBLE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARINGS: Councilman Pickler referred to
two properties one on La Palma Avenue near Magnolia Street and another at La
Jolla and Red Gum Street where the necessary curbs and gutters had not yet
been installed. He wanted direction relative to setting Order to Show Cause
hearings why any permits involved should not be revoked.
After a brief Council discussion, Planning Staff was directed to research both
matters and provide a report to Council including an opinion from the City
Attorney.
120: EXPOSURE TO MOVIES SHOWN AT ANAHEIM DRIVE-IN: Councilman Overholt
referred to letter dated February 20, 1985 from Mrs. Leigh Anne Evans
complaining of the fact that from the exit onto Lemon Street from the 91
freeway west, she and her family were unavoidably exposed to one of the movie
screens at the Anaheim Drive-In and forced to view a scene that she considered
was nothing less than pornographic. She emphasized that they had no choice
whatsoever not to see the screen which was in the direct line of view from the
e×~t ramp. She concluded by a~k~n~ that the Council take decisive action on
the matter. Subsequently, the City Clerk answered Mrs. Evans tn her letter of
February 26, 1985 informing her that the Council, although they had no direct
control over the films shown, they appreciated her position on the matter and
that a copy of her letter was forwarded to the City Attorney to determine
what, if any, control the City Council had over the situation.
Councilman Overholt emphasized that the matter was something the Council
should further pursue; City Attorney Hopkins stated that although he had not
yet seen the letter, he would research the matter and submit a report to the
Council.
169
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26, 19.85, 1.0:00 A.M.
144: APPOINTMENT OF MEMBER TO THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF ORANGE COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (OCTC): Mayor Roth referred to a letter distributed
to the Council addressed to him from OCTC asking for an elected official to
serve on their Advisory Committee comprised of local officials and staff
representatives from each of the jurisdictions along Route 55. He asked the
Council to consider the matter in depth so that at next week's meeting an
appointment of a Council Member could be made to serve on that important
committee.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: The City Attorney requested a Closed Session to
discuss personnel matters, public security, pending litigation and significant
exposure to litigation (pursuant to Government Code Section 54597, 54956.9A
and 54956.9B1).
The Mayor announced that a Closed Session would be held with the City's
Attorney to discuss the foregoing matters.
Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session and a lunch break.
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (11:44 a.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (1:40 p.m.)
179: PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 3438:
APPLICANT: Robert A. and Rosemarie Smith (U-Store)
13729 East Rosecrans, Santa Fe Springs, CA.
90670
ZONING/LOCATION/REQUEST: To construct a concrete block fence on ML zoned
property located at 1431 South Sunkist Street, with Code waiver of maximum
fence height.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC85-01 granted Variance No.
3438. EIR Finding - the Planning Director determined that the project is
categorically exempt, Class 3.
HEARING SET ON:
Council meeting of January 29, 1985. Review requested by Councilwoman Kaywood.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin February 14, 1985.
Po~ttng of pr0p~rty F~bruary 15, 1985.
Mailing to property owners w~thin 300 feet - February 14, 1985.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated January 7, 1985.
COUNCIL CONCERNS:
Councilwoman Kaywood.
The staff report indicated this would be an undesirable
precedent in the Stadium area and that the highest fence in the
setback area could be 24 inches but the petitioner was
requesting that the fence be higher which would be a visual
traffic hazard.
170
City Hall.~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
STAFF INPUT:
Anntka Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning.
There were two standards - a 50-foot building setback along
Sunkist. The first 10 feet can only have a 24 inch high fence
and the remaining 40 feet could have a 36 inch high fence.
Those heights are not problematic relative to traffic. The way
the applicant proposed the fence on the exhibit should not be a
problem. Staff recommended denial because the entire industrial
area has a 50-foot structural setback along all arterial
highways. In normal industrial development where a substantial
number of parking spaces are required, the front setback is
usually 10 feet of landscaping and the remaining 40 feet used in
parking. The warehouse does have a parking waiver on it so they
obviously did not need the front setback. They were trying to
utilize the entire site to the greatest degree possible. The
majority of developers complied. The property does not have a
great deal of frontage as some properties and the applicant
should comply with the setback requirement. In order to have a
6-foot high fence, the setback would have to be 50 feet. A 36
and 24 inch fence, could be located in that front 50 feet.
APPLICANT'S STATEMENT AND ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS POSED BY COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mr. Mike Alderson, Agent, 5121 Villa Marcos, Atwood.
The reason for his request is for security and noise abatement
for the resident manager living on the property. At present,
the back yard is exposed to everything. Previously there were
shrubs that had to be removed due to construction of a project
on the corner. This was the only location they could have for a
back yard. There was no front yard. They were trying to
enhance the area as well.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION
IN FAVOR: Mr. Edward Richmond, 1431 South Sunkist, Resident Manager for
the subject business.
He has been living on the property for five years. They Just
did not build and request a fence. Before the new construction
took place on the adjacent property, he had a huge yard and a
large chain link fence with bushes all over it and he was well
hidden. When the new construction took place, the fencing and
bushes were torn down. He was approximately a mile from the
Stadium. Next to him is a chemical plant and up the street a
chemical hauling facility. He did not think there was going to
be a request for walls by anybody else. He did not see where
the proposal would do anything but make the area look prettier.
IN OPPOSITION:
No one was present to speak in opposition.
COUNCIL ACTION:
The Mayor Closed the public hearing.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 85R-100 for adoption, denying
Variance No. 3438, reversing the findings of the City Planning Commission on
171
City Hall, Anahetm~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
the basis that there is no reason for any precedent to be set, it is a
self-created hardship and would be detrimental to the Stadium industrial
area. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 85R-100: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DENYING VARIANCE NO. 3438.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Pickler and Overholt
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Roth
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 85R-100 duly passed and adopted.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 3447 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
APPLICANT: Florence E. Heffern/M-f't'c~ell
626 North West Street, Anaheim, CA. 92801.
ZONING/LOCATION/REQUEST: To establish a 4-lot, RS-lO,000 single-family
subdivision on property located at 626 No. West Street, with Code waiver of
minimum lot width and frontage.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC85-10 granted Variance No. 3447,
approved EIR - negative declaration.
HEARING SET ON:
Council meeting of January 29, 1985. Review requested by Councilman Pickler.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin February 14, 1985.
Posting of property February 15, 1985.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - February 14, 1985.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated January 7, 1985.
Before proceeding, Councilman Overholt stated, as an attorney, he represents
the applicant and her husband in litigation pending in the Courts of the
County. The last time he was compensated in that matter was September 19,
1983. The matter has nothing to do with the land use question under
discussion. Even though he does represent the applicant in the pending
litigation, it will not affect or bias his judgment in any way. He asked the
City Attorney if there was any reason why he should disqualify himself from
participating in the public hearing.
City Attorney William Hopkins answered under the circumstances outlined by
Councilman Overholt, there does not appear to be any conflict with respect to
the Fair Political Practices Commission Act because of the length of time of
any financial interest. He saw no reason for Councilman Overholt not to
participate.
172
9
City Ha!l~, Anah.eim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
APPLICANT'S
STATEHENT:
Mrs. Florence Heffern Mitchell, 626 North West Street was
present to answer questions.
COUNCIL CONCERNS:
Councilman Pickler.
He talked to Mrs. Mitchell relative to concerns of a resident in
the area who felt he did not get a fair hearing at the Planning
Commission Hearing and the reason he set the meeting for a
public hearing.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION
IN OPPOSITION:
Gene Nicklas, 1006 West Pioneer Drive, directly across the
street.
He was the spokesperson for the area. He managed to get
petitions signed in opposition in one week's time due to the
lateness of receiving a notice of the public hearing before the
Planning Commission. Other homeowners had contacted Planning to
file petitions and were advised no petitions would be
acknowledged. At the Planning Commission hearing, he submitted
his petitions to Commissioner La Claire who ignored them. The
Tract (1942) contained custom built homes started in 1953 which
had deed restrictions relative to subdividing, adding two
stories, etc. He had applied for a variance to add a two-story
addition and was not allowed to do so as was the case with other
homeowners. There were 19 homes in the tract and 13 other
families were opposed to the subject variance. The petitioner
is asking for a minimum width on one of the proposed homes of
20 feet and 90 feet is required. He could see three houses on
the property but not four. There are 7,100 cars using West
Street now and a projection in five years of widening West
Street to four lanes. The petitioner stipulated to putting
trees and sidewalks on Pioneer Drive and West Street. Sidewalks
were already in place on West Street. Pioneer Drive does not
have sidewalks and the residents did not want them. If trees
are planted on West Street, it would be a safety hazard. At the
Planning Commission hearing, two of the Commissioners were
trying to come up with a model plan but Commissioner La Claire
proposed a resolution and those two Commissioners voted against
it. The biggest issue is the area in which they bought their
homes and established their neighborhood. There were not to be
any subdivisions or additions. Now the petitioner was talking
about a zoning change and a width variance from 90 feet to
20 feet with driveways facing Pioneer Street which is a drag
strip now and with a stipulation that sidewalks and trees would
be provided on Pioneer Drive and the residents do not want them.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION
IN FAVOR: None.
173
Cit~ Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26, 1985~ 10.:0.0 A.M.
EXHIBITS, MATERIALS SUBMITTED:
Copy of petitions signed by residents of the area dated January
7, 1985 in opposition to the variance.
COUNCIL INPUT:
Councilman Pickler.
Pioneer Drive will be least affected by the proposal. The
concern over two-story homes is not valid since they will not be
allowed. The request that there be no sidewalks on Pioneer
should be honored.
SUMMATION BY APPLICANT:
Florence Mitchell.
They set up the subdivision in the first place. There are
lovely homes on Pioneer Drive and it is her intention to have
something equally as nice built on the property which will be
adjacent to her home. There will be an architectural committee
who will review the plans of those who buy the lots. She is
also in favor of not having sidewalks installed on Pioneer Drive
because the residents did not want them.
CHANGES TO PROPOSAL AS A RESULT OF DISCUSSION/COUNCIL CONCERN:
Eliminated Condition No. 4 of the Planning Commission resolution
of approval. Sidewalks will not be required.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Roth closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Pickler, seconded by Councilman Overholt, 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.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 85R-101 for adoption, granting
Variance No. 3447, upholding the findings of the City Planning Commission but
eliminating Condition No. 4 requiring sidewalks. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 85R-101: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 3447.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Pickler, Overholt and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 85R-101 duly passed and adopted.
174
City Ha.ll} Anaheim~. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 26~ 1985, 10:00 A.M.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2651:
APPLICANT:
L. C. Smull
17631 Fitch Avenue, Irvine, CA. 92714
ZONING/LOCATION/REQUEST: To permit an Il-story, 128 1/2 foot high hotel with
on-sale of alcoholic beverages and accessory uses, and a 12 and 15 story, 182
foot and 222 1/2 foot high commercial office complex on ML zoned property
located at 2400 East Katella Avenue, with the following Code waivers: (a)
minimum structural setback, (b) required site screening.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC85-17 granted Conditional Use
Permit No. 2651.
HEARING SET ON:
Council meeting of January 29, 1985. Review requested by Councilman Pickler.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin February 14, 1985.
Posting of property February 15, 1985.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - February 15, 1985.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated January 7, 1985.
COUNCIL CONCERN:
Councilman Pickler.
His main concern is the fence area, the fact that a chain link
fence is being proposed, and the aesthetics of such a fence
especially since it is going to be facing the stadium and
freeway. He had no concern with the project itself. Another
concern is that he understood barbed wire was going to be used
on the top of the fence.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Joseph Walthour, representing Business properties, Agent,
1761 Fitch Avenue, Irvine.
When the concern was addressed at the Planning Commission
hearing, he did not have all the information. What they did on
Phase I, the property to the west of Metroplex III, was to
install a chain link fence with strands of security wire on
top. What they did was to utilize a vine or a massing
substitute to encompass the fence and visually screen it
completely from both sides. The name of the plant was Baccharts
Pioularis, a "Coyote Bush" with prickly thorns to deter climbers
but which massed completely after six to eight months. The
other concern was over the "frustrated artist" who might be
lured by a blank wall which would be a negative impact from the
stadium site and their site as well. The covering would
accomplish a massive green look which would stay green and it
would not be subject to vandalism. The plants are going to be
on 18" centers. They did not want the chain link fence visible
from their side either.
175
City Hall,.. Anaheim, Califorqia - COUNCIL MINUTES - ~ebruar~ 26, 1985, !0:.00 A.M.
STAFF INPUT IN ANSWER TO COUNCIL CONCERNS:
City Attorney Hopkins recommended that the City not approve the
barbed wire. The applicant should consult legal counsel. There
is a hazard in using barbed wire which could lead to litigation.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Roth closed the public hearing.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 85R-102 for adoption, granting
Conditional Use Permit No. 2651, subject to City Planning Commission
conditions but modifying Condition No. 13 as follows: Fence to be a minimum
of 6-foot high; landscaping to be planted on minimum 5-foot centers to provide
solid visual screening as quickly as possible - plant material may be Coyote
Bush planted on 18" centers. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 85R-102: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2651.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Pickler, Overholt and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 85R-102 duly passed and adopted.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: The Mayor announced that a Closed Session would be
held to consult with the City's Attorney relative to matters previously stated
with no action anticipated.
Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilman Pickler
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (2:36 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (3:37 p.m)
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilman Bay seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED. (3:38 p.m.)
LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK
176