1983/02/01City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 1, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRE SENT:
COUNCIL M~4BERS: Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
COUNCIL MM4BERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
PARKS/RECREATION/COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR: Chris Jarvi
INTERGOVER/~4ENTAL RELATIONS OFFICER: Cynthia Cave
CONSERVATION SERVICES MANAGER: Bea Butryn
ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR--PLANNING: Joel Fick
ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR--ZONING: Annika Santalahti
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER: Anthony Montoya
Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: The Reverend Gordon St. George, Anaheim Friends Church, gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman E. Llewellyn Overholt, Jr., led the assembly in the
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Roth
and authorized by the City Council:
World Marriage Day in Anaheim, February 13, 1983.
Marathon Extravaganza Week for Crippled Children in Anaheim, April 11-17, 1983.
Children's Dental Health Month in Anaheim, February 1983.
Mrs. Debbie Janton accepted the World Marriage Day proclamation; David Brown
and David Garrison the Marathon Extravaganza proclamation; and Dr. Robert
Sloan, the Children's Dental Health Month proclamation.
lli: GROUNDBREAKING CEREMONY, CHAMBER OF CCMMERCE BUILDING: Mayor Roth
referred to the subject groundbreaking scheduled to take place Thursday,
~ebruary 2, 19§~, at 11~00 a.m. Th~ ~arly weather report anticipated h~avy
rains and the Chamber had a recommendation for an alternate plan, that Being
to hold the ceremony in front of the Civic Center under the protection of the
entryway. As well, part of the celebration would be to serve champagne for
those who wished it.
MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to grant permission to the Chamber of
Commerce to hold their groundbreaking ceremony for their new building on
Thursday, February 3, 1983, at 11:00 a.m., in front of the Civic Center should
the weather be inclement, and that champagne be permitted at that ceremony.
Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
The Mayor asked the City Clerk to notify the Chamber accordingly.
61
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 1, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular
meetings held December 14, 21 and 28, 1982, and January 11, 1983. Councilman
Bay seconded the motion. Councilman Pickler abstained on the minutes of
December 21, 1982, since he was not present. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda,
after reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to
waiver is hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the
title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such
ordinances or resolutions in regular order. Councilman Bay seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DMMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of ~2,820,961.17, in
accordance with the 1982-83 Budget, were approved.
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. 83R-31 through 83R-37, both inclusive, for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
1. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as
recommended:
A. Claim denied and referred to Risk Management:
1. Claim submitted by David M. Wade for personal property damages to car
purportedly sustained due to an accident caused by a City driver on Nohl
Ranch Road, 100 yards east of Imperial Highway, on or about December 7,
1982.
B. Claim allowed payment:
2. Claim submitted by Joseph L. Spencer (Safeway Stores) for personal
property damages to car purportedly sustained due to an accident caused by
a City driver at 149 Avenida Cienega, on or about November 23, 1982.
2. The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission-~Minutes of November 17 and
24, December 8 and 29, 1982, and January 5 and 12, 1983.
b. 105: Community Center Authority-~linutes of January 17, 1983.
c. 105: Public Library Board--Minutes of December 15, 1982.
d. 140: Public Library--Monthly Statistical Summary for December 1982.
62
City Hail, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - FebruarH 1~ 1983~ 10:00 A.M.
3. 108: Approving an application for a Dinner Dancing Place Permit submitted
by Hugh B. Hanratty, for Cattleman's Wharf Restaurant, 1160 West Ball Road,
for dancing Tuesday through Sunday, 8:30 p.m. to 1:30 aomo
4~ 123: Authorizing an agreement with Kobata Associates, Inco, in the amount
of $7,100 for design and engineering services for the proposed lagoon
recircuiation and filtration system in Pearson Park.
5. 123: Authorizing an agreement with Glendale Federal Savings and Loan
Association Community Housing Foundation, to implement the 510,000 Home
Improvement Equipment Rental Assistance Program.
6. 175: Authorizing Change Order No. 1 to the contract with R. J. Noble
Company, in the amount of ~74,500, to restore electrical service for Pearson
Park, Neighborhood Preservation Area No. 1, Account No. 46-793-6325-E3510,
bringing the original contract price to ~259,537.01.
7. 169: Authorizing Change Order No. 1 to the contract with Hi Sodium
Conversion Company, for an increase of $8,155, bringing the original contract
price to ~1,138,868.03, and Change Order No. 1 to the contract with Sierra
Pacific Electrical, for a decrease of 58,155, bringing the original contract
price to zero dollars, Conversion of Street Light Luminaires for Multiple
Operation, Account No. 01-677-6329-1217C-37300.
175: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-31: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE WATER WELL NO. 39, SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
ORANGE AVENUE AND WESTERN AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO.
53-619-6329-90060-31500. (Stang Hydronics, Inc., ~168,900)
167: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-32: 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: STREET
LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 1981-6, TRACT NOS. 2228 AND 2705, IN THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM, ACCOLrNT NO. 24-676-6329-12110-37300. (Mendoza Electric,
contractor)
164~ REg0LUTION NO. 83R-33: 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: ALLEY,
SEWER, STORM DRAIN AND WATER IMPROVEMENT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO.
46-792-6325-E2300. (Industrial Fence & Supply, Inc., contractor)
164/174: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-34: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THg 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: LINCOLN
63
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 1, 1983~ 10:00 A.M.
AVENUE FEDERAL AID PROJECT STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT, HES-L031(007), LINCOLN -
FR~! RIO VISTA STREET TO 438' W/O AND RIO VISTA STREET - FRCM HEMPSTEAD TO
LINCOLN AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 13-791-6325-El140,
47-791-6325-El140 AND 49-795-6325-E5240. (G. R. Frost, Inc., contractor)
158: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-35: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Henry B.
Wesseln, et al., Ayako Yamasaki, et al.)
153: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-36: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 82R-499 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF
COMPENSATION FOR CLASSES REPRESENTED BY THE ANAHEIM POLICE ASSOCIATION. (to
create the class of Police Front Counter Operations - B, effective January 28,
1983)
153: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-37: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 82R-557, NUNC PRO TUNC. (to correct the job
title of Police Counter Operations to Police Front Counter Operations - A)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
None
MOTION CARRIED. The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 83R-31 through 83R-37,
both inclusive, duly passed and adopted.
175/i09: FOURTH AMENEMENT TO THE RESIDENTIAL CONSERVATION SERVICE (RCS)
PROGRAM: City Manager William Talley and Beatrice Butryn, Conservation
Services Manager, first answered questions posed by the Mayor and Councilman
Bay relative to the subject program.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to authorize the fourth amendment to the
Residential Conservation Service (RCS) Plan as required by the Energy Security
Act and directing the Public Utilities General Manager to submit same to the
Department of Energy, as recommended in memorandum dated January 25, 1983,
from the Public Utilities Board. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
123: SUPPORT SERVICES FOR CONTINUATION OF THE RESIDENTIAL CONSERVATION
SERVICES PROGP~M: Councilman Bay moved to authorize the First Amendment to an
agreement with Enercom, Inc., for a software package, and the Second Amendment
to an agreement with Volt Energy Systems, for personnel services for the
implementation of the Residential Conservation Service (RCS) Program, and
extending the terms to February 9, 1984, as recommended in memorandum dated
January 25, 1983, from the Public Utilities Board. Councilman Pickler
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
64
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 1~ 1983, 10:00 A.M.
120: PUBLIC NUISANCE - 949 NORTH MOHICAN AVENUE: A proposed resolution
rescinding Resolution No. 83R-29 declaring a public nuisance at 949 North
Mohican Avenue and ordering abatement thereof, which was adopted at the
Council Meeting of January 25, 1983, was submitted--see minutes that date.
City Attorney William Hopkins again referred to the real property covenant
signed by the Neiswangers, which was received late in the meeting last
Tuesday, January 25, 1983, after adoption of Resolution No. 83R-29 determining
the existence of a public nuisance at the subject address. It was now a
matter of whether the Council wished to let the former resolution stand or
take the alternate action of rescinding it and subsequently approving the real
property covenant.
MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved that Resolution No. 83R-29 adopted on
January 25, 1983, not be rescinded. Councilman Roth seconded the motion for
the purpose of discussion.
Councilman Overholt stated the concern he expressed last week was that the
execution of the covenant apparently was alleged to be executed under some
kind of financial pressure or harassment on the part of the City, as evidenced
by the document attached to the covenant. It was his understanding that the
spirit of their attempts to reach an agreement with the Neiswangers was out of
respect for their age and the transportation needs of Mrs. Neiswanger, due to
the fact that she could not walk very far. The interim arrangement was to be
worked out by an agreement allowing them to install a gravel landing or
driveway. The documentation provided did not look like an agreement at all.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the property was still in violation; Anthony
Montoya, Code Enforcement Specialist, reported that an inspection of the
property this date confirmed that it was still in violation.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
105: APPOINTMENTS TO THE YOUTH CCMMISSION: Mayor Roth declared nominations
open for appointments to the Youth Commission to fill the terms expiring
December 31, 1984.
Councilwoman Kaywood nominated Paul Lepak; Councilman Pickler nominated Debbie
Caston; Councilman Overholt nominated Michael Arias; Councilman Bay nominated
Alfred Fix.
Councilman Bay stated that the Youth Commission was composed of seven members
and there were also seven high schools within the City. He would be
interested in the Council setting up a system whereby the Commission would be
made up of one member of each of the high schools to achieve a good cross
section of the youth in the City.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved that nominations be closed. Councilman
Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
65
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 1, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Pickler moved to approve the appointment of the four nominees to
the Youth Commission for the term ending December 31, 1984. Councilwoman
Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
105: APPOINTMENTS TO THE MOTHER COLONY HOUSE ADVISORY BOARD: Councilman Roth
nominated Dixie Edwards and Harold Bastrup to fill the vacancies on the Mother
Colony House Advisory Board, as recommended in letter dated January 25, 1983,
from the Chairman Pro Tem of the Board, Doug Renner. Councilwoman Kaywood
seconded the nominations.
Councilman Overholt moved that nominations be closed. Councilman Bay seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Mrs. Edwards and Mr. Bastrup were thereupon unanimously appointed to the
Mother Colony House Advisory Board.
123: CIVIC CENTER SCULPTURE COMPLETION: City Clerk Linda Roberts referred to
memorandum dated February 1, 1983, received from the Director of Parks,
Recreation and Community Services, Chris Jarvi, recommending that the Council
accept the Civic Center Sculpture as being complete, subject to the
installation of an approved identification plaque, and selecting a design for
the identification plaque to be displayed with the Civic Center Sculpture.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to approve the foregoing recommendations
outlined in memorandum dated February 1, 1983, from the Director of Parks,
Recreation and Community Services. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay stated that normally, until an
official notice of completion was received, all bills would not be paid.
Apparently, there was no problem and he assumed there had been inspections and
that there was no question as to the structural integrity of the sculpture
before they paid off the contract.
Mr. Chris Jarvi, Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services,
explained that the City Engineer was involved in the inspection of the project
and he had also reviewed the memorandum he had submitted today. They would
file a formal notice of completion once the plaque was complete.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Jarvi then referred to the two alternate designs and wording for the
plaque, attached to his February 1, 1983 memorandum. He asked for
clarification as to which the Council preferred.
Council Members Overholt and Kaywood expressed their preference for the first
alternative, the one with, "Sculpture by Lloyd Hamrol, 1983," at the bottom.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to accept alternate one as the wording and
design for the identification plaque to be installed on the Civic Center
Sculpture. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion.
66
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 1, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated, since the wording as
presented could be confusing and appear that the sculpture was supported by a
grant from the City, she recommended that line 6,.o.and the City of Anaheim,
be made line 3. The plaque would then read, "This sculpture was supported by
the Anaheim Arts Council, and the City of Anaheim, a grant from the National
Endowment for the Arts, a Federal Agency."
Neither Councilman Overholt nor Pickler had any objection to the recommended
change.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion, amended as articulated by
Councilwoman Kaywood. MOTION CARRIED.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City
Planning Commission at their meeting held January 10, 1983, pertaining to the
following applications were submitted for City Council information.
1. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 82-83-10 AND VARIANCE NO. 3307: Submitted by Raymond
M. Masciel, et al, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to ~M-1200, to
construct a 3-unit apartment complex on property located at 304 West Vermont
Avenue, with the following Code waivers: (a) maximum structural height, (b)
minimum landscaped setback, (c) permitted type of parking spaces, and (d)
required screening of parking facilities.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution Nos. PC83-2 and PC83-3,
granted in part, Reclassification No. 82-83-10 and Variance No. 3307, for 2
units, and granted a negative declaration status.
2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2393: Submitted by Robert L. and Ethel L.
Wetzler, to permit a drive-through restaurant on CH and CL zoned property
located at the southeast corner of Ball Road and Beach Boulevard, with the
following Code waivers: (a) minimum number of parking spaces, and (b) minimum
length of drive-through lanes.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-4, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2393, and granted a negative declaration status.
3. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 82-83-17: Submitted by the Redevelopment Agency, for
a change in zone from 1~4-1200 to CO, to permit construction of a 2-story
office building on property located at the southeast corner of Cypress Street
and Harbor Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-5, granted
Reclassification No. 82-83-17. EIR No. 189 was certified by the City Council
on November 23, 1976.
4. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 82-83-14: Submitted by Donald and Harriett
Strickland, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to ~-1200, to permit
construction of a 6-unit apartment building on property located at 522 West
Vermont Avenue.
67
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 1, 1983~ 10:00 A.M.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-6, granted
Reclassification No. 82-83-14, and granted a negative declaration status.
5. VARIANCE NO. 3314: Submitted by Ronald K. and Mary J. Moen, to permit
construction of an addition to a single-family residence on RS-5000 zoned
property located at 1723 Rutherford Street, with the following Code waivers:
(a) maximum site coverage, and (b) minimum side yard setback.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-7, granted
Variance No. 3314, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption
determination.
6. VARIANCE NO. 3315: Submitted by William P. and Margaret Jean Le Vecke, to
permit construction of an addition to a single-family residence on RS-10,000
zoned property located at 700 North Helena Street, with the following Code
waivers: (a) permitted type of accessory living quarters, (b) minimum side
yard setback, and (c) minimum rear yard setback.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-8, granted
Variance No. 3315, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption
determination.
7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2402: Submitted by Hampstead Company,
(California Federal Savings), to permit 13-foot high roof-mounted antennas on
CL zoned property located at 1695 West Crescent Avenue.
The City Planning Director, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-9, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2402, and granted a negative declaration status.
8. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2404: Submitted by East Anaheim Shopping
Center Associates, to permit a physio-therapy massage facility on CL zoned
property located at 2130 East. Lincoln Avenue, #34.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-11, denied
Conditional Use Permit No. 2404, and granted a negative declaration status.
9. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2406: Submitted by Insilco Financial and
Realty Corporation, to permit an automobile rental agency on CG zoned property
located at 1440 West Lincoln Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-12, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2406, and granted a negative declaration status.
10. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2408: Submitted by Anthanasios Nick and Effie
A. Foskaris, to permit an industrial/commercial office building and a
drive-through restaurant on ML(SC) zoned property located at the northwest
corner of La Palma Avenue and Lakeview Avenue, with a Code waiver of minimum
length of drive-through lane.
68
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 1~ 1983~ 10:00 A.M.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-13, granted in
part, Conditional Use Permit No. 2408, and granted a negative declaration
status.
11. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11079 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Edwin J.
Carattini, requesting an extension of time to Tentative Tract No. 11079, a
proposed RM-3000 zoned one-lot, 12-unit, condominium subdivision on property
located at 3633 West Bail Road.
The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Tentative Tract
No. 11079, to expire December 30, 1983.
12. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1359 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Dan L.
Rowland, (Hyatt House Hotel), requesting an extension of time to Conditional
Use Permit No. 1359, to permit a 10-story hotel tower, with a Code waiver of
minimum number of parking spaces, on propert~ located at 1700 South Harbor
Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission denied an extension of time to Conditional Use
Permit No. 1359.
Mayor Roth noted that Mr. Freedman was present in the Council Chambers.
Mr. Leo Freedman, 1700 South Harbor Boulevard, stated that the requested
extension of time was denied by the Planning Commission. He was requesting
that it be approved, so that he could add an additional 251 rooms to the
facility, bringing the total to 551.
Councilman Bay interjected and emphasized that relative to Planning Commission
Consent Calendar Items, there were only two actions that could be taken, one
being no action and thus the action of the Planning Commission would stand, or
that the matter be set for a public hearing before the Council. If he
(Freedman) was requesting that it be set, he would be glad to do so.
Discussiom then followed with questions being posed to Miss Santalahti,
Assistant Planning Director--Zoning, as to the best procedure for Mr. Freedman
to follow, one alternative that a written appeal be filed in the City Clerk's
office before 5:00 p.m. this date, appealing the decision of the Planning
~omm~ss~on. During the conversation, ~ounc~lwoman ~aywoo~ po~nte~ out that
the denial of the extension of time was not a denial of the project, but that
the plans were so old since the CUP was approved in 1972, that the Code had
changed in the interim.
13. AMENDING RESOLUTION NOS. PC82-143, 150, 152, AND 160 - NUNC PRO TUNC:
Request of the Planning Commission Secretary, to amend Resolution Nos.
PC82-143, 150, 152 and 160, nunc pro tunc, relating to Conditional Use Permit
Nos. 2357, 2355, 2361 and 2363, to correct the Environmental Impact Finding
paragraphs in each of the foregoing resolutions.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-14, amended the
subject resolutions, nunc pro tunc.
69
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 1, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
14. 170: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11830: Submitted by Albert Borchard, Kenneth
L. Larsen and Roy W. Mabee, to establish an 8-lot, 639-unit, ~-1000 zoned
subdivision on property located at 2925 West Lincoln Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, at their meeting of January 24, 1983, approved
Tentative Tract No. 11830. EIR No. 253 was certified by the City Council on
November 29, 1982.
No action was taken by the City Council on the foregoing items; therefore, the
actions of the City Planning Commission became final.
VARIANCE NO. 3300 (READVERTISED): Submitted by William J. Clark, to construct
a 168-unit apartment complex on ~-1200 zoned property located at 1231 South
Palm Way, with the following Code waivers: (a) maximum structural height, and
(b) permitted type of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-1, granted
Variance No. 3300 (Readvertised), and granted a negative declaration status.
Councilman Pickler expressed his concern over the fact that there were going
to be two 25-foot wide driveways providing ingress and egress from Euclid
Street. The Ball/Euclid intersection was a very busy one and would be
additionally impacted by the proposed access on Euclid.
Miss Santalahti stated that the Traffic Engineer had been very involved
relative to the project, and approval by the Commission was based on the fact
that the Traffic Engineer was satisfied.
After additional discussion, it was determined that the matter be trailed
until later in the meeting when Mr. Singer could be present to answer the
concerns expressed.
Later in the meeting, Traffic Engineer Paul Singer explained that the
northerly driveway on Euclid Street was rather limited because there were not
many units to be served by it. The main driveway was in the middle of the
property and, since the developer redesigned the tandem parking, there would
be none at the exit. Further, Euclid Street had a continuous left-turn lane
to facilitate any left turns. He felt there was not going to be a problem.
Councilman P~c~ler re~terate~ h~s concern, e~pecially th~ fact that wh~cl.~
would be making left turns from the property into southbound traffic on
Euclid. By allowing such left turns, they would be making the matter worse at
one of the busiest intersections in the City, and they had to try to eliminate
that problem.
After further discussion with the Traffic Engineer, Councilman Pickler
requested a review of the Planning Commission's decision in granting Variance
No. 3300.
7O
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 1~ 1983, 10:00 A.M.
CONDITIONAL USE PgRMIT NO. 2403: Submitted by La Mancha Development
Properties, Ltd., to permit a billboard on CH zoned property located at
965-995 South Beach Boulevard, with the following Code waivers: (a) maximum
display area, and (b) maximum height.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-10, denied
Conditional Use Permit No. 2403, and granted a negative declaration status.
The Planning Commission's action was appealed by the applicant and, therefore,
a public hearing would be scheduled at a later date.
107: PATRICK HENRY NEIGHBORHOOD ENFORC~I~ENT PROGRAM - STATUS REPORT:
Councilman Bay moved to receive and file the Patrick Henry Neighborhood
Enforcement Program Status Report dated January 26, 1983, from the Planning
Department. Councilman Roth seconded the motion°
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated that initially she had
requested a door-to-door survey be made on all of the apartments where there
appeared to be reasonable cause to expect violations. She did recall that the
Planning Director, Ronald Thompson, stated they could not enter units without
being invited and she asked that they try very hard to be invited in. With
the number of violations involved, it was obvious from the exterior that there
was probable cause to expect many serious violations internally.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood offered a substitute motion that they go
door-to-door inside apartments in that apartment area where invited and where
there were external violations. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion for
the purpose of discussion.
Councilman Bay withdrew his motion, but intended to make the motion to receive
and file the report after action was complete on the matter. He then asked
the City Attorney's opinion of designating inspections for voluntary entry on
the apartments only.
City Attorney Hopkins answered that he saw no problem if it was voluntary
entry. If involuntary, they would probably have to obtain inspection warrants.
Councilman Overholt asked if it was the intent of the maker of the motion that
the staff again devote 100 percent of their time in the subject area until the
inspection was complete.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated they had not spent 100 percent of their time in
one area even though the Patrick Henry area had been the cause of most of the
complaints received. They would be saving time bYprogressing in an orderly
manner, rather than by skipping all over the City. It would save money and
conserve gasoline. The whole point involved was that they were making a
livable neighborhood. It was legal and proper and other cities were doing the
same with great success.
71
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 1, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
After further discussion on the issue of the inspection time necessary to be
devoted to door-to-door inspections, Councilman Overholt stated that he did
not want to rush into a 100 percent staff effort until they knew it was going
to accomplish what they wanted to accomplish. He would recommend that they
study the cost of such an effort, as well as knowing the details of a plan,
how it was going to be implemented and what would happen to the rest of the
City while the plan was being.implemented. He would join in a request for
such a report from staff, but he could not support the substitute motion today.
MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved that the matter be continued for two weeks
and that a report be submitted by staff. Councilman Overholt seconded the
motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she had a map
showing two of the worst areas--the Hall, Victor, Julianna area with 140
units, and the Chevy Chase, Robin, Blue Jay, Wren areas, and the Manzanita
area with 360 units. She submitted it to Miss Santalahti. She also noted
that Sheri Pignone, Chairman of the Housing Task Force, was in the Chambers
audience.
Mayor Roth asked Mrs. Pignone if she had any objection to their pending action.
Mrs. Sheri Pignone, 1181 North Crown Street, stated she had no objection.
They could devote a Monday and Tuesday to the area and the rest of the week to
other areas. She felt they could contact most of the people during the day,
and going back at night or on weekends, as had been discussed, was not
necessary.
Mayor Roth suggested that they could leave a flyer indicating the inspectors
had called, and if the tenants wanted them to return, they could contact them
accordingly.
Councilman Overholt stated he would be concerned if from the beginning they
limited themselves only to those residences where they found external
violations. Somehow they ought to give an opportunity for inspection of
internal violations.
Councilman Bay asked for clarification on the motion for continuance. He
understood they wanted to see a plan from the responsible department on the
enforcement of the area, perhaps with a couple of alternatives, using one or
both of the Housing Inspectors for given period of time to attempt voluntary
entry to all the apartments in the area, regardless of whether there were
visual violations or not; Mayor Roth stated that was the intent.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion of continuance, clarified to
include that the report to be submitted by staff be a written plan with
alternatives as to how implementation of a door-to-door inspection, where
invited, would be accomplished in all of the apartments in the Patrick Henry
area. MOTION CARRIED.
72
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 1~ 1983, 10:00 A.M.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to receive and file the Patrick Henry
Neighborhood Enforcement Program Status Report of January 26, 1983.
Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated that since they were
going to receive another report in two weeks, and they were going to continue
further with voluntary internal inspections, she wanted to keep the subject
report alive.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilwoman Kaywood voted
"no." MOTION CARRIED.
179: ORDINANCE NOS. 4390 THROUGH 4392: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance
Nos. 4390 through 4392, both inclusive, for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4390: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (65-66-24(29), ML)
ORDINANCE NO. 4391: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (66-67-64(14), ML)
ORDINANCE NO. 4392: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (79-80-3, PR(SC), 4545
Riverdale Avenue)
164: STORM DRAINS: Councilwoman Kaywood commented on the heavy rainstorms
recently experienced and her attempt to get through Ball Road between
Brookhurst and Gilbert Streets, which were inundated with water. It was
evident to her that the City must make herculian efforts to provide needed
storm drains, which could not be funded on a General Fund basis. It was too
much for the General Fund, and had to be done to implement the ~10 million
bond issue approved by 68 percent of the voters in November 1980.
106: DISCUSSION OF GENERAL POLICY QUESTIONS ON THE BUDGET: Councilman Bay
recounted that the City Council, at his request, attended a budget meeting
with City management last fall. The conclusion reached at that meeting was
that budget policy inputs primarily occurred in June, after the proposed
budget was completed and presented. The City Manager issued his budget policy
message in November prior to preparation of the next yaar'~ budget. It wa~
decided at that meeting that Council policy direction should occur prior to
the preparation of the budget. Last Wednesday, January 26, 1983, the Council
met again with City management, so that the Council could express its ideas on
the budget process to City administration for the 1983-84 fiscal year. He
then offered some constructive criticism of that meeting, at the conclusion of
which he stated, since there had been criticism of the time spent on those
meetings relative to the number of department heads required to attend, ~tc.,
that the Council instead discuss policy questions regarding the budget during
regular City Council meetings, so that they could at least settle the
differences they might have on those policies. He suggested that they set
some time aside, perhaps one-half hour to one hour, until those differences of
opinion on budget policy were resolved and direction given to City
administration.
73
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 1, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Overholt suggested if Councilman Bay had in mind a regular
deliberation every Tuesday, that he set up some kind of agenda or plan. If he
had an agenda for a weekly discussion for 30 minutes, or whatever time, he
would be happy to look at and consider it. Until then, he would not approve,
since there was a budgetary process already established.
Mayor Roth suggested that he (Bay) prepare some agenda items that he would
like to have included in Council meetings of the future. They could probably
discuss those before Council Comments if there were three votes to do so, and
then it would be a set program for the next few weeks to air those problems.
Councilman Bay stated that would be satisfactory with him.
that they had to go on for a long period of time at all.
about general policy.
He did not know
He was talking only
Councilman Overholt, speaking to the Mayor, then asked if he (Roth) would be
offended if he prepared a critique of an all-day Council Meeting to show that
it was an ineffective use of time. He would be glad to prepare and submit for
Council's consideration a proposal that would accomplish the same amount of
work and yet get them out at a reasonable hour.
The Mayor stated he would be interested, but he was not going to relinquish
any responsibility he had as a Council Member to staff in order to expedite
matters; Councilman Bay stated he would be interested in seeing such a
proposal as well.
175/157(IPP): MONTHLY PROGRESS REPORT ON THE INTERMOUNTAIN POWER PROJECT
(IPP): Councilman Bay referred to the Monthly Progress Report on IPP, Page
2-2, the graph in Section 2.3 (Page 9 of 13). Unless he did not know how to
read graphs, it showed extreme overruns in project costs, estimate versus
actual, land and land rights. In reading the report, he did not find any
explanation of those overruns that were occurring on land acquisition. He
requested staff to provide information on the land rights overruns, as well as
the differential in the current estimate of ~6.5 million, as opposed to what
was previously 55.6 million.
173: PROPOSED IMPROV~IMENTS TO JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT: Mayor Roth referred to a
letter dated January 27, 1983, from Joseph Irvine, Executive Director of the
Community Airport Council, who a~k~d him to bring forth the proposed
resolution attached to the letter to the Council, soliciting their support for
general improvements at the facility. He had distributed a copy of the letter
to the Council Members. If there was no objection, he wanted the matter to be
brought forth at the next Council Meeting for consideration. He felt it made
good sense to upgrade the airport and to support some noise abatement
programs. He noted that Anaheim was the destination of 17 percent of all
people who landed at the John Wayne Airport.
Councilman Pickler left the Council Chambers. (12:25 p.m.)
74
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Februar~ it 1983, 10:00 A.M.
ENVIRObI~ENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA) SANCTIONS: Mayor Roth again emphasized
his concern over the subject sanctions where yesterday it was decided that
sanctions would be imposed on California, resulting in the loss of Federal
funds until the air quality question was resolved. He then reported on all
the letters he had written and that were in progress to the President and
legislators to protest such actions.
Cindy Cave, Intergovernmental Relations Officer, explained that the sanctions
did not include Gas Tax and Federal Highway funding.
RECESS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess. Councilman Bay seconded the
motion. Councilman Pickier was absent. MOTION CARRIED. (12:36 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present with the exception of Councilman Overholt. (1:46 p.m.)
103: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CERRITOS--FREEWAY ANNEXATION: Planning
Department, to consider the annexation of two unincorporated County islands
having a combined area of approximately 47.46 acres located in the vicinity of
Cerritos Avenue and the Route 57 Freeway. This matter was continued from the
meeting of January 18, 1983--see minutes that date. (Also see minutes of
October 26, 1982, when the City requested the commencement of proceedings for
the annexation of the subject property, Resolution No. 82R-520.)
Mr. Joel Fick, Assistant Planning Director--Planning, briefed the Council on
report from the Planning Department, which contained information relative to
events that had occurred since the January 18, 1983 hearing (on file in the
City Clerk's office), attached to which was a listing of assessed values of
the properties involved in the proposed annexation supplied by the Orange
County Tax Assessor's office, dated January 27, 1983. He suggested that the
hearing be opened to determine if there was any other written protest to be
filed.
Councilman Overholt entered the Council Chambers. (1:52 p.m.)
Mayor Roth asked to hear from those present who wished to be heard in protest
to the proposed annexation.
Mr. Jay Sills, 11260 Pla~t, Riverside, stated he was appearing on behalf of
Foundry Investments, the owner of Parcel No. 2 involved in the proposed
annexation. They were requesting that the City Council delete that parcel
from the annexation~ since they believed that their inclusion was merely an
arbitrary decision. As evidenced from the map (posted on the Chambers wall),
their property was non-contiguous to the other parcels to be annexed. Foundry
Investments did not want to be part of the City of Anaheim and they felt it
was not disadvantageous to the City to delete their property, which was
approximately 8.8 acres used as a horse ranch, where 100 horses were stabled.
He then elaborated further on the reasons why Foundry Investments did not wish
to be annexed and in concluding, stated that Mr. Donald Day, owner of a piece
75
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 1, 1983, i0:00 A.M.
of property located in Parcel 1, was going to present testimony concerning an
overview as to why his property was included. Mr. Sills requested that Mr.
Day be allowed to read his testimony, which would provide some relevant
information as to why the Foundry Investment property was included as well.
He emphasized that they believed neither the City, the County nor Foundry
Investments would benefit by the annexation, and that ulterior motives may
have been the cause for their inclusion. Mr. Day could present evidence of
that.
Mr. Fick clarified for the Mayor that there was a provision in the Zoning Code
permitting properties upon annexation to continue the use presently employed
in the County, provided the same use was continued in the City.
The Mayor stated then there would be no adverse effect relative to the present
operation of the horse ranch upon completion of the annexation; Mr. Fick
answered that was correct.
Mr. Donald Day, 30118 Lakeview Avenue, Nuevo, then gave extensive and detailed
testimony, which was a chronological overview relative to his attempts to
initiate a change on his parcel in the proposed annexation at the County
level. He prefaced his remarks by stating that he felt responsible for the
inclusion of Foundry Investments into the annexation, because he initiated his
own change and started the whole issue. Therefore, he hoped the Council would
consider relieving or deleting them from the annexation, if possible.
The following were Mr. Day's major points of contention and his reasons for
requesting the Council not to act on the annexation today: It was his opinion
that the real purpose of the annexation was to save the billboard that Regency
Outdoor Advertising built at the east side of the Cerritos and 57 Freeway,
because they built it in the County A-1 area, instead of the area that was
annexed in the Ball No. 3 Annexation. In order to save that board, and for
the sake of someone else who was not a property owner in the area, he was
being denied his property rights. Also, Regency had a billboard lease across
the street from his property on the railroad tracks on the west side of the
billboard that they had on the east side of the freeway. He believed his
County zone change was stalled to help Regency; otherwise, there was no
logical reason for his zone change to have been stalled. He applied for a
zone change with the County in May 1982 and his hearing was July 26, 1982. He
elaborated upon subsequent delays which he encountered.
State law required that property had to be M-1 County in order to get a
Billboard Permit. Once changed to M-1 and the permit granted, and as long as
the property remained M-i, regardless of whether or not a use permit was
obtained, the Billboard Permit could be forever as long as there was
compliance to State zoning laws. He reiterated, he felt he was continued and
stalled, because Regency had an application in three weeks behind him for a
zone change and use permit on the property directly across from him. If he
had received his zone change and was able to apply for the State permit,
Regency would not have been able to get a billboard across from him regardless
of whether he was allowed to build one.
76
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 1~ 1983~ 10:00 A.M.
His property and home were to be sold at auction on November 19, 1982, because
he was unable to get a zone change and thus the needed loan. The County
granted his M-1 zone change on November 17, 1982.
He maintained that regardless of the reason for the annexation, if he was
annexed to the City at this time, the only people who would gain from the
annexation would be the Regency people, since if their billboard was not
annexed, it would have to come down. He was not trying to get Regency's board
down, but he was using what had been granted them as a reason to question his
denial of the same rights Regency was granted.
He needed a delay of the annexation so that he could pursue his billboard and
a building on his property. If he could not develop his property, he would
lose everything he owned. If annexed before he could develop under the County
Code, as opposed to the more restrictive City Codes, he could not develop the
property. He then relayed the problems he would have developing under the
Anaheim Code should the property be annexed. Annexation at this time would
not only render the parcel valueless, it would also cause him the loss of any
projected future income from the property. He emphasized that for the Council
to grant him at least whatever time could be granted in delaying the
annexation would only be fair.
After Mr. Day's testimony, Mayor Roth stated it was his understanding, in
summation, that Mr. Day's complaint revolved around so-called intentional
delays by the County, thus permitting the City to annex the property. If
annexed, the City's building requirements were such to render the property
valueless and, further, that he (Day) did not have any objection to the
annexation, but not at this time. He was requesting a delay in the annexation
so that he would have an opportunity to develop under County standards.
Mr. Fick then explained at the request of Councilwoman Kaywood that if there
was a reason because of size, shape or topography of that particular parcel
that would deny Mr-. Day the right enjoyed by other property owners in the
immediate area, the remedy would be in the application for a variance to the
City Council.
Mr. Tim Paone, Attorney representing Regency Outdoor Advertising, 1470
Jamboree Road~ Newport Beach, first stated that he was not going to take the
time to address Mr. Day's charges in his testimony. He had spoken with him
before the hearing and perceived him to be sincere and very frustrated. On
behalf of his clients, however, statements made by Mr. Day to the Council
today were riddled with supposition, speculation and a lot of facts that had
been misplaced, both in time and according to speaker and everything else. He
hoped the Council would address the matter on its merits and not view Mr.
Day's charges as fact and not be judge and jury today, since it was not the
proper forum. Regency had some benefit that would be derived from the
annexation, but they were not a property owner and perhaps did not belong at
the protest hearing.
77
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 1~ 1983, 10:00 A.M.
In answer to Councilwoman Kaywood, he then explained there was a "quirk" in
State law. The property involved was an island and LAFCO had attempted to
bring it into the City previously. Regency's placing the boards on the east
side of the freeway created, a difference of opinion of interpretation of State
law, which would be resolved by the annexation. He also clarified that
Regency did have an interest in the property on the west side of the freeway
that was within the annexation district. For that reason, they could
participate in the hearing, but they were not protesting.
Councilman Overholt asked Mr. Paone Regency's reaction if a delay of one month
were granted, as requested by Mr. Day; Mr. Paone stated they had to work their
situation out with the State and to do that, a delay was going to create
additional problems. It involved the boards on the east side of the freeway
and had nothing to do with the west side or Mr. Day's property. Mr. Day had a
State permit at present and unless matters changed, that precluded Regency
from getting the State permit. He would have to come to the City Council to
get a City permit and if the City Council gave them both permits, only the
party with the State permit could erect a billboard.
Mayor Roth then gave Mr. Day an opportunity to make a summation, during which
he (Day) also countered some of the comments made by Mr. Paone.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Councilman Pickler then stated when he asked for annexation of the "island"
one of the remnants that the County, State and LAFCO wanted the City to absorb
as previously explained by the Mayor, he felt that the City should have
jurisdiction over that property. The fact that it might become a "billboard
jungle" as termed by Mr. Day did bother him and that was one of the reasons
for his wanting annexation. He was looking at other such islands as well. He
felt that Mr. Day was able to come to the City and ask for a permit.
Miss Santalahti explained that at present, the applicable Code section
prohibited freeway oriented billboards. If the Council wished to allow
billboards along the freeway, the Code would have to be amended.
Councilman Pickler continued that he felt the property was in the Sphere of
Influence of the City of Anaheim and they should have control over what was
built on the property. It belonged in the City and that was his main reason
for asking for annexation and they should follow through with that procedure.
Councilman Overholt then posed questions to Mr. Day for purposes of
clarification, as well as to staff. At the conclusion of discussion and
questioning, Councilman Bay stated what they needed to know from staff and a
key to the whole matter--was Mr. Day's property required to be automatically
changed from M-1 to something other than ML at the point of annexation.
During the discussion, Mr. Day had stated that if he did not come into the
City as ML automatically and if there was any change from M-1 to agricultural,
he would lose his State permit.
78
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 1, 1983~ 10:00 A.M.
After further discussion with staff, Councilman Bay stated that the basic
question had not been answered, that being, at the point of annexation what
would be the official zoning on the property.
Miss Santalahti answered currently, if Mr. Day did nothing, he would get
RS-A-43,000 zoning. However, if he came in with his fee and offer of
dedication of the required right-of-way, they could have all the paper work
ready to go and at the time of annexation, he could have ML zoning that was
simply waiting for annexation.
Councilman Bay felt that was the answer.
Councilman Overholt, addressing the City Attorney, stated he wanted to be sure
that based upon the examination of the legal records, that at the time of
annexation, Mr. Day would not be prejudiced by the annexation in his "race"
with Regency to get a billboard°
City Attorney Hopkins stated he had not examined the legal documents referred
to, but he believed what Mr. Fick and Miss Santalahti had stated was correct.
He could not represent what the State would do since, if they wished to have
anything binding, it required a letter from the State.
Councilman Bay stated that the Council still had to approve the signboard
eventually and there was no guarantee of that any more than the County Board
of Supervisors would do so. He did not want Mr. Day to assume that the
Council was guaranteeing him or anybody else a signboard because that would
have to be taken up at the time of the request. However, it did sound as
though there was an answer to Mr. Day's not losing his State permit, which
would require some action of him.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 83R-38 for adoption, approving the
Cerritos-Freeway Annexation. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 83R-38: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM MAKING A FINDING REGARDING THE VALUE OF WRITTEN PROTESTS FILED AND NOT
WITHDRAWN IN ANNEXATION PROCEEDINGS FOR CERRITOS-FREEWAY ANNEXATION AND
ORDERING THE TERRITORY ANNEXED PURSUANT TO SECTION 35229 OF THE GOVERi~ENT
CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt stated he had some serious
concern about fairness to Mre Day, and he felt as a result of the deliberation
today, he was convinced that the annexation would not treat him unfairly and
that he was not at a competitive disadvantagee Based on that, he would
support the resolution.
City Attorney Hopkins noted that on Page 2, there was a blank in the
resolution, and the percentage to be inserted was 2.8 percent.
A roll call vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution and carried by the
following vote:
79
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - February 1, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL M~{BERS:
COUNCIL M~BERS:
COUNCIL M~BERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution-No. 83R-38 duly passed and adopted.
105: RESIGNATION FROM THE YOUTH COb~ISSION: City Clerk Linda Roberts
announced that a letter of resignation dated January 31, 1983, had been
received from Jerry Cohen Woodring resigning from the Anaheim Youth Commission
for the term expiring December 31, 1983.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to accept the resignation of Jerry Cohen
Woodring from the Anaheim Youth Commission with regret, and that a letter of
thanks be sent to him for his services. Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
The Mayor requested that the vacancy be advertised accordingly.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: The City Manager requested a Closed Session to
discuss potential litigation and personnel matters with no action anticipated;
the City Attorney requested a Closed Session to discuss potential litigation
with no action anticipated.
Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session in the Seventh Floor
Conference Room. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
(3:35 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order in the Council Chambers,
all Council Members being present with the exception of Councilman Pickler.
(7:57 p.m.)
ADJOURAI~ENT: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to adjourn.
seconded the motion. Councilman Pickler was absent.
p.m.)
Councilman Overholt
MOTION CARRIED. (7:57
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK
8O