1982/03/16City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 16, 1982~ 1:30 P.M.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
INVOCATION:
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William 0. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
DATA PROCESSING DIRECTOR: Philip M. Grammatica
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT: Cynthia A. King
PUBLIC INFORMATION COORDINATOR: Dean Grose
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ronald L. Thompson
ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR--ZONING: Annika Santalahti
SENIOR ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY: Frank A. Lowry
DEPUTY CITY MANAGER: James D. Ruth
ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR--PLANNING: Joel Fick
Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
The Reverend Kim Saville, Retired, gave the Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Ben Bay led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Seymour
and authorized by the City Council:
"Cancer Awareness Week" - March 21-27, 1982.
Mr. Allen Hughes was present to accept the proclamation.
153: PRESENTATIONS - EMPLOYEE SUGGESTION AWARDS: Mayor Seymour, on behalf of
the Council and the City, presented plaques to the following employees, along
with monetary rewards for the suggestions they submitted which, in total, would
save the City more than $150,000 annually: Mr. Tony Dobras, Water Engineering,
who developed a new method of replacing polyethelene service laterals at a cost
savings to the City of approximately $83,000 per year; Sharon Ferguson, Customer
Service, consolidated three new customer account forms into a single form, thereby
saving the City approximately $22,000 annually; and Bill Karches, Facility
Maintenance, offered a suggestion that a special dipole type receiving antenna
be installed in the field to eliminate radio interference experienced by Utility
field crews, with a cost savings to the City of approximately $10,000.
119: RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION: A Resolution of Commendation was unanimously
adopted by the City Council and presented to Mr. Jack Wade, owner of "The Cowboy"
for his donation of $2,000 toward the purchase of a wireless public address
system for the Parks and Recreation Department.
246
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 16, 1982, 1:30 P.M.
MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular
meetings held October 13, 1981, and February 23, 1982, with the addition
of the following paragraph (Paragraph 5) on Page 6 of the minutes of February 23,
1982, "Earlier in the discussion, Mr. Dexter confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood
that he was the only member of the Public Safety Coalition at this time."
Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Roth moved to
waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda, after
reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to waiver is
hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the title, specific
request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such ordinance or resolution
in regular order. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $1,729,544.07, in accordance
with the 1981-82 Budget, were approved.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL MOTION CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Roth,
seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the following items were approved as recommended:
a. 123/160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to award a purchase order to
Information Design in the amount of $21,518, to furnish 58 Dual Track ROM 4
Library Readers to expand the existing Library Computer-Output Microfilm
Catalog program.
b. 123: Authorizing First Amendments to the Lease Agreements with the
Los Angeles Rams Football Company and the Magnolia Elementary School District
terminating the need to construct a new swimming pool on the Juliette Low
School site and requiring the Rams to absorb operating costs for the operation
of the Savanna High School swimming pool in an amount not to exceed $15,000
per year.
c. 123: Authorizing a Second Amendment to the agreement with Fasnack
Automatic Food Service, adding Trident Junior High School, 1800 West Bali
Road, as an additional location to be serviced under the original agreement
dated May 20, 1980.
d. 123: Authorizing a Reimbursement Agreement with Sunburst Development, Inc.,
in the amount o~ $31,943.91, £or drainage ~acilities in the A~aheim Hills
Road Drainage Reimbursement Area No. 2, District 39, Area 5, of the Master
Plan for Drainage. (Tract No. 9524)
Mayor Seymour abstained from voting on this item, since he lived in the subject
area.
247
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 16, 1982, 1:30 P.M.
e. 131(FAU): Authorizing a Right of Way Certification for work to be done on
Cerritos Avenue, from State College Boulevard to Anaheim Boulevard. (FAU L059)
f. 123: Authorizing a sublease agreement with the North Orange County
Community College District for use of certain classroom space at the Trident
Junior High School for the purpose of conducting various education and training
programs for the period covering March 15, 1982, through March 14, 1987.
123: Authorizing an agreement with the Anaheim Union High School District providing
for the approval of a sublease as set forth in the master lease with the City
of Anaheim to sublease a portion of property to the North Orange County
Community College District.
106/123: Authorizing an amendment to the 1981-82 Resource Allocation Plan,
increasing revenue and expenditure appropriations by $3,658 for the purpose of
operating the Trident School Project.
g. 152/165: Approving the inclusion of 10-foot and 13-foot wide alleys in the
City's five-year Alley Reconstruction Program.
h. 123: Rescinding the agreement with the County providing for the construc-
tion of arterial highway street improvements at La Palma Avenue and Weir Canyon
Road through the Shorb Wells property located on the south side of Esperanza
Road, east of Imperial Highway.
i. 123: Authorizing an agreement with the County of Orange, the County of
Orange Development Agency and the Agency, to finance the Section "8" Family
New Construction Project to be located near the northwest corner of Orangethorpe
Avenue and Imperial Highway.
MOTION CARRIED.
125: COMPUTER HARDWARE RECOMPUTATION: City Manager William Talley briefed
the Council on memorandum dated March 16, 1982, from the Data Processing
Director, Phil Grammatica, recommending that the City enter into an agreement
with: a) International Business Machines, b) Storage Technology Corporation,
c) Daley Marketing Corporation, for the reconfiguration of the City of Anaheim
computer hardware as described therein; Mr. Grammatica then answered questions
posed by the Mayor relative to the proposals, specifically with regard to the
economic benefits or losses as to lease versus purchase.
MOTION: At the conclusion of discussion and questioning, Councilman Seymour
moved to authorize the Data Processing Director to enter into the following
agreements with a) IBM, base/purchase agreement for equipment, $130,000 per
year; b) Storage Technology Corporation, sale/rental agreement for tape drives
and printers, $59,200 purchase from City and $6,837 rental per month by City;
and c) Daley Marketing Corporation Agreement, $12,000 for a 3330 Disk Drive
248
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 16, 1982, 1:30 P.M.
configuration for CPU testing prior to de-installation at the current site;
and $40,280 for the purchase of two 3330 Disk Drives to be installed in the
new Data Processing Department facilities, 290 South Anaheim Boulevard. Council-
man Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL RESOLUTION CONSENT CALENDAR: Councilwoman Kaywood
offered Resolution Nos. 82R-138 through 82R-144, both inclusive, for adoption,
as recommended. Refer to Resolution Book.
113/159: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-138: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CITY RECORDS MORE THAN TWO
YEARS OLD. (Public Works)
156: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-139: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 81R-575 PERTAINING TO THE SALE OR DISPOSAL
OF ABANDONED OR UNCLAIMED PROPERTY.
156: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-140: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM DECLARING CERTAIN UNCLAIMED PROPERTY IS NEEDED FOR PUBLIC USE AND
TRANSFERRING SAME TO THE CITY PURCHASING DEPARTMENT.
152/156: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-141: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION NO. 77R-790 AND ESTABLISHING FEES FOR
DOCUMENTS, COURTESY FINGERPRINTS, AND PHOTOGRAPHS PROVIDED AS A SERVICE TO
THE PUBLIC BY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
169: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-142: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE STREET LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
NO. 1981-5, TRACT NO. 2090, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 24-676-6329-
12090-37300 AND 25-676-6329-12090-37300. (Niagara Electric Corporation,
$15,516.13)
169: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-143: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE OERTLEY DRIVE STREET IMPROVEMENT FROM
ORANGEWOOD AVENUE TO SOUTH CITY LIMITS AND TILLER AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENT
FROM HASTER STREET TO OERTLEY DRIVE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO.
25-792-6325-E2760. (J. C. Cosney, $22,343.60)
153: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-144: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 82R-43 NUNC PRO TUNC PERTAINING TO THE
DISABILITY RETIREMENT DATE OF GREGORY SCHLICK, POLICE OFFICER, MASTER INTER-
MEDIATE. (Retirement date restated to be effective December 4, 1981)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overbolt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 82R-138 through 82R-144, both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted.
249
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 16, 1982~ 1:30 P.M.
123: PREPARATION OF 1980-81 REPORT TO BONDHOLDERS - WATER REVENUE SERIES 1971
BONDS: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seco~ded by Councilman Overholt, an
agreement was authorized with PRC Toups Corporation in an amount not to exceed
$1,500, for the preparation of the 1980-81 Report to Bondholders of Water
Revenue Series 1971 Bonds, as recommended in memorandum dated March 10, 1982,
from the Public Utilities Board. MOTION CARRIED.
113: DEPARTMENTAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE AMENDMENTS: Councilman Bay
offered Resolution Nos. 82R-145 and 82R-146 for adoption, the first authorizing
an amendment tO the Conflict of Interest Code for the Public Works Department
pursuant to Government Code Section 87303, and the second, autherizing an
amendment to the Conflict of Interest Code for the Community Development
Department pursuant to Government Code Section 87303, as recommended in
memorandum dated March 4, 1982, from the City Attorney's office. Refer to
~esolution Book.
113/159: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-145: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE FOR THE
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
113/182: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-146: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE FOR THE
COM>IUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COL~CIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
Nome
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 82R-145 and 82R-146 duly passed and adopted.
105: RESIGNATION OF SHERI AREAS FROM THE PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE: Councilwoman
Kaywood moved to accept the resignation of Sheri Arias from the Project Area
Committee, with a term ending June 30, 1983, as submitted in her letter dated March 8,
1982. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
107: HOUSING TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS: Submittal of staff report dated
March 12, 1982, pertaining to the fifteen-point Housing Task Force recommendations
previously submitted to the Council and discussed at length on February 9, 1982
(see minutes that date).
Ms. Cindy King, Administrative Assistant, explained that after discussing the
staff responses with Sheri Pignone, former Housing Task Force Chairman, she
(King) suggested the following: Relative to Recommendation No. 6 and Attachment
"C", that they look at the nuisance ordinance in a simplified version; Attachment
250
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - b~rch 16, 1982, 1:30 P.M.
"C", Page One, (a nuisance list on that page), that they add to that, "ex-
cluding driveways"; Attachment "C", Page Two--Garbage Cans Stored in Front
or Side Yards... add "not screened from public view", if they were screened
by lattice work or some other type of screening, that would be suitable.
lls. King then asked the Public Information Officer to speak to the changes
that had taken place relative to the cost of printing the Nuisance Ordinance
in both the Anaheim Bulletin and The Register.
Dean Grose, Public Information Officer, referred to page two and three of the
staff report (Recommendation No. 6) and explained, in talking with Mrs. Pignone,
the Task Force was only looking for the ad to be published in English. That
would save the cost of typesetting for Spanish, since the papers did not have
that capability. In that case, he presumed they could reduce the size of the
ad from one-half to one-quarter page. But, the cost would be reduced by one-half
or $1,019, instead of the $2,038 indicated.
Councilman Overhoit felt that they should consider publishing the Ordinance
in the Pennysaver which would reach all the families in the City since the
newspapers had limited circulation; Councilwoman Kaywood did not consider that
a viable alternative. The Pennysaver was an advertising piece and not a publica-
tion in which a citizen expected to see a message from the City.
Ms. King then referred to Item 15, Page Seven of the staff report, and asked the
Planning Department to provide clarification on the difference of enforcement of
the Housing Code versus the Uniform Building Code; Planning Director Ron Thompson
provided that information.
City Attorney William Hopkins reported that relative to Recommendation No. 15,
before noon today, he received a call from Mr. Ray Maggi of the Apartment
Owners Association, who indicated he was working with the Legislative Counsel
in Sacramento on modifications to wording on the various Codes. He expected
that within two weeks the City would be receiving material from Sacramento
recommending wording that would be appropriate for the Municipal Code. He
suggested that if Council would be willing to hold off on Item 15 for two weeks,
they would be receiving input on that issue.
Ms. King then referred to Recommendation No. 12, "That 2 additional housing code
enforcement officers be hired, one bilingual, t0 enforce the uniform housing code
of the Anaheim Municipal Code and do selective code enforcement where there is
reason to believe that violations may exist," wherein Mrs. Pignone asked that
Council be aware of the fact that the City's current enforcement policy was based
on a reactive approach as opposed to proactive (i.e., responding to complaints,
rather than going out and surveying an area).
The ~yor asked Mrs. Pignone if the Task Force Recommendation was a formal one;
that is, the Task Force had a meeting and everyone was present with the exception
of one, they went over each and every staff response to the fifteen recommenda-
tions submitted, they took a vote on each and every item and agreed that they
wanted to see the Council implement the items as they were presented with no
exceptions to staff response.
251
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 16, 1982, 1:30 P.M.
Mrs. Sheri Pignone answered, that was correct. It was a voice vote, and also,
several members of the Task Force expressed their willingness, if directed by
the Council, to work on a simplified version of the Nuisance Ordinance for
publication purposes. They felt some things needed additional clarification,
and they wanted the more important aspects highlighted. Also, they were
aware that the City committed approximately $300,000 out of City revenues, or
whatever means, for the Orangewood Home, the Women's Transitional Living Center
and the Fair Housing Council. It was their understanding that there was a likeli-
hood more Block Grant funds would be available to cover and address those three
agencies. Therefore, there could be a possibility that City revenues could instead
cover the cost of staff for some of the recommendations. In addition, there was
Block Grant money budgeted and presently available for an additional bilingual
Housing Code Enforcement Officer. Further, they would be willing to wait two
weeks on Item 15. If the Council could be more stringent in that regard, it
would be a benefit to all.
Action was then taken on each recommendation with extensive discussion, debate
and questioning occurring before several of the items were voted on, in finality,
resulting in the following motion. (After the motion on Recommendation No. 3
was offered, the Mayor suggested that they first consider the next two agenda
items and then consider the public hearings, and subsequently, return to
consideration of the balance of the Recommendations 4-15.) Further, Councilman
Bay maintained that they first had to settle the question of whether they were
going to continue with reactive enforcement or institute proactive enforcement,
which decision would simplify their actions. He was strongly opposed to blanket
(proactive) enforcement; otherwise, he could support any of the recommendations
as long as it was firm and clear that they were going to have enforcement by
complaint and not any broad sweep enforcement throughout the City.
(Refer to the Housing Task Force Report "Recommendations as Possible Solutions
to Housing Problems Identified," previously submitted, and staff response to
each recommendation, with attachments--on file in the City Clerk's office.)
RECO~fiVIENDATION NO. 1: To adopt an Ordinance with provisions such as Palm
Springs Ordinance #38660 and amend provision #7 to read as follows: "permit
a dwelling unit let to him be occupied or used without the consent of the
landlord so that any occupancy or use resulting therefrom violates this
ordinance".
MOTION: Councilman doth moved that Recommendation No. 1 be approved as
submitted--see Proposed Ordinance Attachment "A". Councilman Overholt
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 2: To amend the existing Comprehensive Nuisance Ordinance
to include the graffiti issue making the owner responsible for the removal of
unsightly and unnecessary markings, drawings, decorations and graffiti on
exterior walls of owners' property.
MOTION: Councilman doth moved that Recommendation No. 2 be approved as
submitted--see Proposed Ordinance Attachment "B". Councilwoman Kaywood
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
252
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 16~ 1982~ 1:30 P.M.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 3: That all vehicles must be parked on the street, driveway
or in a garage. Vehicles may not be parked on lawns or yards; only on paved
surfaces with paved entrances and exits to the street.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved that Recommendation No. 3 be approved as
submitted--see Proposed Ordinance Attachment "B", Section .0116(i), to be
reworded to state, "front lawn area" instead of yards. Councilman Overholt
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Before a vote was taken, by general consent, further consideration of the balance
of the Recommendations 4 through Item 15, was trailed until later in the meeting.
(2:50 p.m.)
Later in the meeting (6:20 p.m.) the Council, before proceeding, discussed
Recommendation Nos. 4 and 12 which directly involved the reactive and pro-
active enforcement issue, since it involved hiring of Nuisance Ordinance Inspectors
and Housing Code Enforcement Officers. This issue was discussed at length between
Council Members, Council Members and staff, and Council Members and Mrs. Pignone,
who favored a proactive policy.
City Manager Talley stated he would want authorization to hire one of each, and
then hire only one of the two, in order to have some capability, when the
Nuisance Ordinance went into effect, since he expected there would be an initial
deluge of complaints that would demand immediate attention. They would then
hire one person immediately and, depending on the workload, the second one might
follow or not. In four to six months they would submit a report based upon the
plateauing they would expect to occur after the initial impetus.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 4: That the City hire additional staff; at least 2 Nuisance
Ordinance inspectors to patrol the City for violations and handle the complaints.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 12: That 2 additional housing code enforcement officers be
hired, one bilingual, to enforce the uniform housing code of the Anaheim
Municipal code and do selective code enforcement where there is reason to
believe that violations may exist.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved that Recommendation Nos. 4 and 12 be
approved as submitted, but that two positions be authorized at this time,
one Nuisance Ordinance Inspector and one Housing Code Enforcement Officer,
and that enforcement be approached on a reactive basis only, with no
intent in the foreseeable future to consider proactive enforcement. Councilman
Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 5: That the Nuisance Ordinance inspectors report monthly
to the City Council on the number of complaints, how many complaints disposed
of, number of complaints still requiring resolution and by category (generated
by citizens/generated by City staff).
253
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 16, 1982~ 1:30 P.M.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved that Recommendation No. 5 be approved as submitted.
Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 6: That the Nuisance Ordinance be published in simplified
form in the Register, the Bulletin, also as a "stuffer" (in English and Spanish)
in utility bills.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved that Recommendation No. 6 be approved, with the
information to be disseminated in the Parks and Recreation Summer brochure (both
English and Spanish) at a cost of $1,600--Sheri Pignone to prepare the informa-
tion to be submitted by or before the deadline of April 1, 1982. Councilman
Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
RECOb~NDATION NO. 7: To disseminate information in the form of a flyer
pertaining to Residential Zoning Codes (i.e. refer to attached Garden Grove
flyer).
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved that no action be taken on Recommendation No. 7
to disseminate information in the form of a flyer pertaining to Residential
Zoning Codes. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 8: To install vandal-proof street light protectors in
high density apartment areas.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved that Recommendation No. 8 be approved, as
recommended, and that the Utilities Department develop suitable specifications
and solicit bids on special protective shields to install over existing cobra-
type street lights, with a final recommendation expected within sixty days and,
further, that a more complete report be submitted relative to reducing
vandalism of street lights, to be presented in sixty days. Councilwoman
Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 9: That the sanitation ordinance pertaining to trash bins
be changed from requiring bulk bins in apartment buildings with 5 or more units
to 4 or more units where feasible.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved that Recommendation No. 9 be approved as
submitted. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 10: To direct City staff to work together in a coordinated
team effort in blighted areas throughout the City and report periodically to
a designated staff person (such as the Public Works Director).
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved that Recommendation No. 10 be approved as
submitted. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
254
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 16, 1982, 1:30 P.M.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 11: Sanctioning by City Council of the preparation of a
preliminary study on the feasibility of some coop/condo conversion in Patrick
Henry area (Pilot program) to be prepared by some interested Housing Task
Force members.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved that Recommendation No. il be approved as
submitted. Councilman O~_erholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Recommendation No. 12 was acted upon earlier in the discussion (see above).
RECOMMENDATION NO. 13: That City Council direct City staff to inform
Citizens that whenever they complain, that their names will be kept in
the strictest confidence unless required by a court order.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved that Recommendation No. 13 be approved as
submitted. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 14: That Chapter 6.80.050 of the Anaheim Municipal Code
entitled Abandoned, Wrecked, and Inoperative Vehicles be actively enforced by
the Chief of Police.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to confirm the present policy of enforcement
of Chapter 6.80.050 of the Anaheim Municipal Code on a reactive basis. Council-
man Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 15: That existing Health and Safety Ordinances and/or
Zoning Codes be modified to more severely limit the number of permissible occupants
to a maximum, such as three (3) or four (4) occupants in one bedroom rental unit
and four (4) or five (5) occupants in a two bedroom rental unit. Restrictions
on the number of occupants allowed in any given type of apartment such as
bachelor, one-bedroom, two-bedroom, three-bedroom, etc., should consider square
footage in each type of unit.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to continue consideration of Recommendation No. 15
for two weeks, since the Apartment Owners Association was working with
Sacramento Legislative Counsel relative to modifications of wording of
existing Health and Safety Codes which would affect zoning codes, with
those modifications expected within two weeks. Councilman Bay seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
114: ANAHEIM SISTER CITIES CO~ITTEE: Mr. Hal Parker, Chairman, requesting
(1) the establishment of a two-year Friendship and Cultural Exchange Program
with Pescia, Italy and (2) the establishment of a Sister City relationship with
the City of Bielefeld, West Germany (continued from the meeting of March 9, 1982),
and (3) requesting funding for the Sister City Program in Fiscal Years 1981-82
and 1982-83.
255
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 16, 1982, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Hal Parker, Chairman, Anaheim Sister Cities Committee, referred to letter
dated February 2, 1982, which explained the first request, proposing a two-
year Friendship and Cultura]. Exchange Program with Pescia, Italy; Councilman
Overholt, the Council delegate in the Sister City Program, having met and
discussed the matter with Mr. Parker, felt that the approach of the Committee
was commendable, since it would prOvide an opportunity to test the viability of
a full Sister City relationship in the future.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to approve the establishment of a two-year
Friendship and Cultural Exchange Program with Pescia, Italy, as recommended in
letter dated February 2, 1982, from Mr. Parker. Councilman Seymour seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to establish a Sister City relationship
with the City of Bielefeld, West Germany, since it was very much in order
considering the heritage of Anaheim.
Before a vote was taken, Mr. Parker stated that the language should be directed
to state--"to seek the establishment of a Sister City relationship" and not "to
establish" one at this time. They had not contacted the City Council of Bielefeld,
nor the Mayor, but only the Chamber of Commerce who indicated a strong interest.
The motion was amended to seek the establishment of a Sister City relationship.
Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to approve funding for the Sister City Program
in Fiscal Yaars 1981-82 and 1982-83 in the amount of $10,000 (see Anaheim Sister
Cities Committee--Budget Requirements for the Proposed Three-City Program.
Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, City Manager Talley stated he presumed if the motion
passed, they would be instructing staff that the amount be appropriated from
the Council Contingency Fund and that next year, funding for the Sister City
Program be budgeted as part of the Community Promotional Fund.
A vote was then taken on the foregoim8 motion with the added clarification as
articulated by the City Manager. MOTION CARRIED.
Before concludins~ ~iayor Se?nour asked for a clarificatiom relative to the
question of the gift of trees from Mito to be planted im the Anahei=~ Boulevard
median. His understanding was that the Mito Delegation would be bringing a
check to the City at the time of their visit on March 26, 1982, at the time
of their meeting on March 26, 1982, for $10,000 for the express purpose of
planting some trees in recognition of Anaheim's Sister City relationship with
Mito. Mr. Parker was recommending that it would be appropriate to return that
same $10,000 to the City of Mito to do the same thing; Mr. Parker confirmed that
was correct.
City Manager Talley asked for clarification since the tree budget was for
planting trees in other areas of Anaheim and not Mito.
256
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 16, 1982, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Overholt then explained his understanding of the situation. At
the time of his trip to Mito last November, the Council directed him to take a
letter to Mayor Wada indicating Anaheim would accept their gift of $10,000 and
would subsequently plant the trees that were specified in certain locations in
the City. Mayor Wada took that acceptance to his Council and they approved the
expenditure of $10,000. Mr. Parker was suggesting that there be a reciprocal
project and it was a "wash" in terms of dollars whereby a similar program of
a reciprocal nature be approved with respect to Mito.
Mr. James Ruth, Deputy City Manager, then explained for the Mayor that they
would be transplanting the displaced trees in new parks in order to accommodate
the trees that would be purchased as a gift of Mito and the estimated value of
the transplanted trees was in excess of $10,000.
The Mayor stated then, they would be receiving $10,000 from Mito, the City would
give $10,000 back to Mito out of their tree planting budget, the City would plant
palm trees along Anaheim Boulevard in the median and Lincoln Avenue, the existing
trees would then be transplanted in parks throughout Anaheim; Mr. Ruth confirmed
that was correct. The $10,000 they would be receiving from Mito would be used
to purchase the trees that were going to be planted in the median strip. The
$10,000 recommended to be reciprocal was not in the budget. The Mayor was
saying, they were already getting value out of the trees already in the median
strip to be transplanted in the parks. It was still necessary to come up with
the $10,000. The City would have to absorb the cost of moving the trees, which
would have to be contracted out.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved that the Council authorize the removal of the
existing trees in the median on South Anaheim Boulevard and that those trees be
transplanted elsewhere in the park system; that a check be issued to Mayor Wada
of Mito in a reciprocal amount of $10,000 for the planting of trees in Mito in
recognition of the Sister City Program, and that likewise, the $10,000 to be
received from Mito be used to purchase trees to be planted in the Anaheim Boule-
vard median. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, further discussion followed during which Councilwoman
Kaywood expressed her concern over the matter, specifically that nothing be
denied in the City budget because of acceptance of the gift from Mito, and the
exchange that was to take place. She questioned whether it was essential that
they reciprocate a $10,000 gift for a $10,000 gift when it was not a bud§eted
item.
Mr. Ruth clarified that the tree budget had nothing to do with the Sister City
Program. The Mayor was saying that they were getting some value, as eventually
they would be placing the existing trees in parks. They had not looked in
terms of the value of the trees being taken out as opposed to these being put
in, but staff could do so.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilwoman Kaywood abstained.
MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Overhold asked if Councilwoman Kaywood's abstention was on the budgetary
issue; Councilwoman Kaywood answered it was the amount of the gift and just how
far the gift giving was going to go. It was not to be interpreted as a disapproval
of the Sister City Exchange Program.
257
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 16~ 1982, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Talley asked for clarification that the instructions were to move the
existing trees, plant them somewhere in the City park system and issue a
check out of the Parks Division for $10,000. Mayor Seymour clarified as long
as the City Attorney would approve, that was the intent of the motion.
162: iNTERNATIONAL MUSIC OLYMPICS: Mrs. "Cappy" Brown, Co-Chairman of the
International Music Olympics (IMO), requesting assistance pertaining to the
International Music Olympics to be held May 6, 7 and 8, 1982, was present.
Submitted was a report from the City Manager's office.
Mrs. "Cappy" Brown elaborated upon the request of the IMO Committee which was
explained in her letter dated ~rch 3, 1982 (on file in the City Clerk's office).
She confirmed for the Mayor that the essence of her request before the Council
today was the fact that they had run into some difficulties financiall~ since
they were faced with additional costs of approximately $10,000 resulting from
the rental and the fees for the use of Anaheim Stadium and the Convention Center.
She further stated thst next year they would be completely self-sufficient and
within ten years, the IMO would be as large as the Pasadena Rose Parade and would
bring Anaheim just as much recognition as the Rose Parade brought to Pasadena.
She clarified for the b~yor that they were asking that expenses at the Stadium
and Convention Center and Glover Stadium, in the amount of $!0,000, be waived.
She was also asking for Council participation, especially in the awards ceremonies
to take place on May 8th.
Mayor Seymour was in complete support of the request; however, he questioned
Mr. Liegler as to the best of one or two ways of accomplishing the request.
After discussion and the concurrence of Mr. Liegler, Convention Center, Stadium
and Golf General Manager, it was determined that Mr. Liegler Would bill the
Council Contingency Fund for his expenses ($10,000), just as was done for the
Halloween Festival; Councilwoman Kaywood stated it would be a Community promotion
project from the Council Contingency Fund and would have nothing to do with
waiving fees.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to appropriate up to a maximum of $10,000
from the Council Contingency Fund in support of the International Music Olympics
event to cover expenses at the Stadium and Convention Center and/or Glover
Stadium. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked that the motion include that
the IMO be designated as a Community Promotion Project, as recommended on Page
Three of the March 11, 1982, staff report, so that there would be no problem in
setting a precedent of any kind; Mayor Seymour accepted that as part of the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Before concluding, City Manager Talley pointed out that a number of other items
were also requested as listed in the March 3, 1982, letter from the IMO; Mrs.
Brown then conferred with Harriett English and Joanne Stanton to determine if the
$]0,000 would also cover those items in the budget (1-7). Mrs. Stanton confirmed
that some of those items were at least partially addressed, if not totally.
258
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 16, 1982, 1:30 P.M.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for ten minutes. (3:25 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council members being
present. (3:35 p.m.)
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 81-82-5, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. 2259 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application by American National Properties,
Inc., for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to C-R, to permit a five-story
office building on property located at 2111 South Manchester Avenue (continued
from the meeting of January 12, 1982--see minutes that date).
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-242, disapproved
a negative declaration status, and further, denied Reclassification No. 81-82-5
and Conditional Use Permit No. 2259.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by American National
Properties, Inc., and public hearing scheduled January 12, 1982, and continued
to this date.
Discussion followed between Council and staff relative to the Mobiiehome Task
Force which was created at the meeting of March 9, 1982, to discuss Mobilehome
Park conversions, wherein it was determined that their deliberations and recommenda-
tions would require approximately one to two months.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved that the subject public hearing be continued
to March 30, 1982, when action could be taken by the whole present Council if it
were possible to do so at that time, since in the discussion at the March 9, 1982,
meeting, the matter would again be considered by the Council before Mayor Seymour
left office. The motion died for lack of a second.
Councilman Overholt moved to continue the subject public hearing to May 4, 1982,
at 3:00 p.m. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Councilwoman Kaywood voted "no."
MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood wanted the record to reflect that she felt it was too late
to hold a public hearing on that date, since the composition of the Council in all
probability would change by then.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2291 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
Application by Raymond T. Troll, to permit general offices and retail sales on
i~L zoned property located at 1400-1450 North Lakeview Avenue, with a Code waiver
of minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC82-9, declared that
the subject property be exempt from the requirement to prepare an Environmental
Impact Report, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act since there would be no significant individual or cumulative adverse environ-
mental impact due to this project, and further, denied Conditional Use Permit
No. 2291.
259
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 16, 1982, 1:30 P.M.
The decision of the City Planning Commission was appealed by the applicant, Ray
Troll Development, and public hearing scheduled this date.
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
Mr. Keith }~rdoch, representing the developer, explained that through a mis-
understanding, Mr. Troll's representative was under the impression that this
was the normal ML zoned area; however, it was in the Anaheim Canyon Industrial
Area. Therefore, he was asking to have the action considered only for those
items that were permissible in that area as listed in the Anaheim Municipal
Code 18.61.060, .600 through .611. There was also need for clarification under
.605 which stated, "Commercial Sales, Businesses ~ich Primarily Serve and are
Compatible with Industrial Customers." The word was "Sales" and the question
was whether the wording included services which primarily served and were
compatible with industrial customers. He had a list of the examples of the
types of things that were probably listed in the intent of the paragraph, but
not permissible with the exact wording. He then read the list and submitted it
(made a part of the record).
In summation, Mr. Murdoch stated there were two questions, (1) did the Council
agree that the intent of the Code in the Anaheim Canyon Industrial Area was to
allow those items in subsection .600 to .611 by Conditional Use Permit and, (2)
were those services compatible with the intent of the ordinance. If so, they
were requesting approval of that limited group of uses in the .600 series, in-
cluding those service items just submitted. See sheet entitled, "Item 13--
Conditional Use Permit No. 2291" (made a part of the record) services which
may or may not be covered in subsection .605: Accounting-bookkeeping, answering
service, business system companies, communication consultant, contractors, data
processing centers, importers-exporters, leasing companies, personnel agencies,
secretarial services, travel agency and possibly a barber shop or/and a beauty
shop. He also confirmed for Councilman Bay that the request before the Council
was not identical to that presented to the Planning Commission. At the Planning
Commission meeting, the uses included those permitted under the ML zone, whereas
there were much lesser uses in the Canyon Industrial area.
Miss Santalahti, Assistant Planning Director for Zoning, then clarified for
Councilman Bay that she believed the 7-0 vote by the Planning Commission denying
the CUP was primarily due to the additional eight items listed under Item 7 of
the staff report (see staff report to the Planning Commission dated January 25,
1982, Page 10-b).
Councilman Bay surmised then that the list of uses they were requesting be
approved were those contained in the list just submitted, including the
Barber and Beauty Shop.
Mr. Murdoch also explained the request included a waiver on the parking require-
ment. He had not refig.ured the parking requirement since the general offices
and retail activity had been removed. If so, the parking requirement might then
be met but, if not, the deficiency, even with the retail activity, was only five
percent, eighteen spaces out of 373. He then stipulated for Councilwoman Kaywood
that the uses would be confined to those in .600 to .611, including the service
uses on the list submitted.
The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to speak.
260
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 16, 1982, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Walt Smith, Anaheim Economic Development Corporation (AEDC), Advisory
Committee on Industrial Land Use, stated the reason they objected to the project
at the Planning Commission meeting was to emphasize the great deal of study in-
cluded in the comprehensive plan that was presented to the Council and Planning
Commission, particularly with reference to the receding, available, developable
land in the industrial sections of the City upon which he then elaborated.
If it continued to recede, they were going to have to go to recycling to raise
the available land capability. He suggested that they were going to have to
tighten down very carefully on the industrial use policy and try to come up with
something that looked at the bui]dout status of the land remaining. He would
trust, under .611, that they would exclude the restaurant possibility so there
would be no dispute since it would be an improper use in that area. They were
talking about a sit-down restaurant, but would not object to a sandwich shop.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor asked to hear from
Mr. Murdoch in s-mmation.
Mr. Murdoch confirmed that Mr. Troll had no desire to have a sit-down restaurant
but there was a possibility of a sandwich shop.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked, if so, would they be willing to have such a business
without beer and wine; a gentleman in the audience stipulated to that.
Mayor Seymour interjected and stated he felt it was inappropriate to limit the
property owner to agree whether they were going to serve beer and wine with a
sandwich, and he would not vote to impose that restriction.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor clesed the public
hearing.
ENVIROb,~MENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council finds that this project
would h~ve no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact
since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property for General
Industrial Land Uses commensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive environ-
mental impacts are involved in the proposal, and that the initial study submitted
by the petitioner indicates no significant individual or cumulative adverse
environmental impacts~ and £$~ therefore~ exempt from the requirement to prepare
an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 82R-147 for adoption, granting
Conditional Use Permit ~o. 2291, reversimg the findings of the City Planning
Commission, subject to the follewing conditions which included the stipulations
of the applicant limiting it to those uses as outline~ in Section 18.61.05~--.600
t~rough .611, as well as the services previously indicated on the list submitted that
may not be covered in Section .605, and also, not limiting a sandwich shop to the
possibility of applying for the approval of beer and wine sales, and excluding
a sit-down restaurant:
261
City Hail, Anaheim, California - COUb~CIL MINUTES - March 16, 1982, 1:30 P.M.
1. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay the difference between
the industrial and commercial traffic signal fees (Ordinance No. 3896) for
a 14,500 square-foot building, in an amount as determined by the City Council,
within a period of sixty days of approval of this resolution by the City
Council.
2. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance
with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked
Exhibit Nos. 1 through 3.
3. Ail necessary permits shall be sought and issued, as required by the City
of Anaheim, including but not limited to the Uniform Building, Mechanical,
Plumbing and Fire Codes.
4. That Condition No. 2, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to
final building and zoning inspections.
5. The required number of parking spaces for the subject 14,500 square-
foot building, as actually leased and used, shall not excuse the seventy-
two (72) spaces assigned to the building on Exhibit No. 1.
6. The uses to be allowed in this building shall be limited to the following:
a. Automobile repair and/or overhaul, including, but not limited to:
mechanical, body and fender work dr painting or automobiles, boats, trucks
or motorcycles.
b. Boiler and tank manufacturing.
c. Banks.
d. Buildings or structures in excess of one hundred (100) feet in height.
e. Commercial businesses which primarily serve and are compatible with
industrial customers: Accounting-bookkeeping; answering service; business
system companies; communication consultant; contractors; data processing
centers; importers-exporters; leasing companies; personnel agency; secre-
tarial services; travel agency; sandwich shop (no sit-down restaurants);
barber shop and/or beauty shop.
f. Explosives. Storage of any class "A" or class "B" or in excess of
twenty (20) pounds of class "C" explosives.
g. Manufacturing operations not otherwise listed as a permitted use in
this zone, i~cluding but not limited to: acid, alcohol, ammonia, bleaching
powder, chlorine, asphaltic concrete, cement, lime, gypsog~, plaster of
Paris, explosives, fertilizer, gas, glue, lampblack, synthetic rubber, and
tar distillation or processing, brick or concrete products, paint, oil,
shellac, turpentine or varnish, oil cloth or linoleum, paper pulp, plastics,
polish, soap, soda and other compounds, etc.
262
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 16, 1982, 1:30 P.M.
h. Metal smelting, refining or processing operations not otherwise
listed as a permitted use in this zone, including, but not limited to:
high temperature smelting by blast furnaces or coke ovens, metal foundries,
drop forge operations or the rolling and extrusioH o~ ferrous metals.
i. Motels or hotels.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 82R-147: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2291.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
aBSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The b~yor declared Resolution No. 82R-147 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1564, APPROVAL OF REVISED PLANS:
Submitted by Family Fun Centers, Inc., requesting approval of revised plans
for Conditional Use Permit No. 1564 to include a roller slide at an established
recreation center on ML zoned property located at the southwest corner of
Carpenter Avenue and Shepard Street.
A negative declaration status on the project was previously approved and the
City Planning Commission, at their meeting of January 25, 1982, approved the
revised plans for Conditional Use Permit No. 1564 to include a roller slide.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman
Kaywood at the February 16, 1982, meeting, and public hearing scheduled this
date.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she was concerned relative to the safety of the
proposed-slide, as well as its appearance.
Mr. James Huish, 33208 Paseo Cerveza, Suite C, San Juan Capistran0, explained
that he had been established in the subject location since 1976. He then
described the roller slide wbJ~ch was unlike a water slide, emphasizing that
when he decided to install one of these slides in his operation, his first
concern was relative to safety. It was the safest slide in the country today
and since November of last year, forty of the slides had been sold. Mr. Huish
also confirmed, upon Council questioning, that all of his facilities had $5 million
worth of insurance, and that the subject slide would have a minimum size or age
restriction.
263
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 16, 1982, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Roth stated he would support approval contingent upon adequate proof
that they did have $5 million worth of liability insurance; Mr. Huish stated he
would not object to that stipulation.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked to hear from the Fire Marshal; Garthe Menges, Fire
Marshal, stated that as long as some safety provision was made to have personnel
at the top of the slide, and also, a qualified lifeguard standing by at the
base of the slide, a reasonable amount of safety would prevail. He would not
recommend approval without someone available at the bottom to pull patrons out
of the water should that be necessary.
The Mayor asked if anyone else wisbed to speak, either in favor or in opposition;
there being no response, he asked Mr. Huish if he would be willing to stipulate
to the $5 million liability insurance provisio% as well as personnel at the top
of the slide and a qualified lifeguard at the bottom; Mr. Huish answered "yes."
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 82R-148 for adoption, approving the
revised plans submitted under Conditional Use Permit No. 1564, to include a
roller slide on the subject property, subject to the following conditions:
(1) Lhat an attendant shall be stationed at the top of the slide to regulate the
use and control the number of patrons using the facility (2) that a qualified
lifeguard shall be on hand at the pool deck in case of an accident or injury;
(3) that there be $5 million worth of liability insurance. 'Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 82R-148: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING REVISED PLANS IN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 1564.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUMCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Roth and Seymour
Bay
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 82R-148 duly passed and adopted.
134: PUBLIC HEARINGS - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 167, EIR NO. 248 AND GENERAL
PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 168, EIR NO. 249: Anaheim Union High School District--the
first (GPA No. 167) to consider alternate proposals of ultimate land uses in-
cluding, but not limited to low-medium density residential, medium density
residential, and general commercial designations and any combination thereof,
for approximately 6.17 acres of land located between Citron Street and Harbor
Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue and Broadway, with street frontages on the south
side of Lincoln Avenue and east side of Citron Street, and the second (GPA No.
168),to consider alternate proposals of ultimate land uses including, but not
limited to low-medium density residential and medium density residentS.al
264
__ City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 16~ 1982~ 1:30 P.M.
designations, for approximately 9.83 acres of land bounded on the north by
Broadway, on the south by Santa Ana Street, on the west by Citron Street, and
on the east by the Library and Police Station.
The City Planning Commission, in their Resolution No. PC82-21, recommended
approval of Exhibit "A" on General Plan Amendment No. 167, changing the
current designation of the former site of Fremont Junior High School to low-
medium density residential, and further, recommended certification of Environ-
mental Impact Report No. 248 as being in conformance with City and State Guide-
lines and the State of California Environmental Quality Act.
The City Planning Commission, in their Resolution No. PC82-22, recommended
approval of Exhibit "A" on General Plan Amendment No. 168, changing the
current designation of the Fremont school site's south playfield to low-
medium density residential, and further, recommended certification of Environ-
mental Impact Report No. 249 as being in conformance with City and State Guide-
lines and the State of California Environmental Quality Act.
Mr. Art McCaul, Director of Special Projects, Pacesetter Homes, 4540 Campus
Drive, Newport Beach, first introduced representatives from their consulting
team who were present in the Chambers audience. He then gave a presentation
on the background of the proposed project up to its present status, as well as
an overview and description of the residential development which would be
located on the Fremont school site, both the north site (6.13 acres--97 units)
fronting on Lincoln Avenue and Citron Street, and the south site (9.6 acres--
169 units) bound on the north by Broadway, on the south by Santa Ana Street,
on the west by Citron Street and on the east by the rear parking areas for the
City Library and Police Department. The project density netted out to 15.9
dwelling units per acre on the north site and 17.6 on the south site.. They
would be building under the RM-3000 zone which allowed 14.5 units per ~cre.
With their tentative tracts, they would be asking for a conditional use permit
relative to the overall height of the project. Density was another variance
and the third was an encroachment into the landscaped setback area with their
parking requirement. He then briefly highlighted the actual design of the
project which was a secured community and, in essence, they were talking about
three stories, two floors over parking. During his presentation, he also explained
that they did look at the possibility of strip commercial on the Lincoln Avenue
frontage (approximately 300 feet) but were unable to get a buyer interested, and
it proved not to be a feasible alternative at this time.
Mr. McCaul then gave an audio-visual slide presentation which described the
water oriented project in detail (also see booklet previously made a part of
the record entitled, Sycamore Creek, Anaheim, California--A Residential
Development by Pacesetter Homes, Inc., which contained extensive data, renderings,
specifications, plans and photos of the entire proposed development).
In answer to questions posed by Councilman Roth, Mr. McCaul relayed the following:
the price of the units would range from approximately $100,000 to $125,000; in
265
q.ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 16~ 1982, 1:30 P.M.
today's dollars, it would cost Pacesetter approximately $250,000 to change the
heliport site from its present location and construct a new site at the City-
owned Vermont Yard area, including a 5400-square foot combination hanger and
office area. He also explained the water circulation system which was re-
generative and which would be maintained throughout the project.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the relocation of the heliport would disturb the
residential area; Captain Jimmie Kennedy indicated there would be no problem
They did have a temporary heliport permit several years ago to operate out of
the Vermont Yard and to his knowledge, they had no complaints relative to their
operation at that time.
Assistant Planning Director for Zoning, Annika Santalahti, explained that it would
be necessary for the City to process a negative declaration in connection with
the heliport relocation permit. It would be an advertised item and residents
would be notified.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak.
Mr. Bill Visser, Visser's Florists, 701 West Lincoln, stated he did not want to
see houses back on Lincoln Avenue and asked that the Council seriously consider
the 300-foot strip on Lincoln as commercial; There were only nine residences
left on Lincoln between the school and the freeway, and he hoped they would all
disappear, because they did not belong there. Otherwise, he was not against the
rest of the'project as proposed.
Mr. Joe White, 809 West Broadway, stated that on the whole, the project looked
like a reasonable one and he was not opposed to it, although he had some concerns
upon which he elaborated, the maim questions and concern being how the project
would affect the sewage and also the water pressure in the area, which was not
vcry good at the present time, the helicopter (heliport) had to go whether or
not Pacesetter built their project; the location of the water pump for the
project should be such so as not to disturb surrounding residents; the time
frame involved was important, especially with regard to who would maintain
the vacant property between project approval and buildout.
Later in the meeting, both staff and Mr. McCaul answered the questions and
concerns expressed.
Mr. Fred Brown, 1531 Minerva, stated he was not opposed to the project which
he estimated as being a $33 million investment of private capital to the City.
Further, he did not feel that the Visser business would be impacted whether
business or residential fronted on Lincoln, and the project would be an enhance-
ment to the City. He felt, however, that before making a decision, they should
address which portion of the property was going to be developed first. He felt
that the northern site (Lincoln Avenue) should be developed first since it lent
itself to higher visability due to the traffic on Lincoln and further enhanced
the feasibility of the southern property.
266
City Hall,.Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 16~ 1982, 1:30 P.M.
Melvin Hilgenfeld, 804 West Broadway, expressed concern relative to the time
table in building the project, but expressed his hope that it would be approved
and that it would undoubtedly be something to be proud of. He commented that
Broadway was a thoroughfare for the Fire Department and Police vehicles and
some of tke residents in the new project would eventually criticise that as
much as the helicopter.
Mr. McCaul then answered the concerns expressed--no units would be fronting on
Lincoln but would be oriented inward toward the water, Lincoln being viewed as
only a means of gaining access to the project; another reason for not proposing
strip commercial was the fact that it would be in direct competition to the
redevelopment activities and commercial activities in the downtown area; they
would not be utilizing one "giant" water pump for the project, but a number of smaller
pumps distributed throughout the entire project and there would be great
efficiency of usage due to recycling; as the project was now planned, there was
no access on Chestnut Street whatsoever, and in their meetings with the
neighborhood, the residents were pleased that no access would be taken from
that street; relative to the timetable, they had not yet decided which site
would be developed first; relative to the traffic volume, it was found that the
actual trips generated trom the school use on the site was more than what the
project would yield; they were currently in escrow with the School District
for the purchase of the project at $4.85 million.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
The b~yor then posed questions to staff relative to traffic, specifically, what
the traffic count would be on Chestnut Street and Citron Street if the Council
were to consider keeping commercial frontage on Lincoln. Subsequently, Mr. Frank
Elfend of Ultra Systems explained that 35 percent of the traffic was projected
to use Lincoln Avenue, or approximately 300 cars. If that was not available,
for ease of driving purposes, it was assumed that the majority of the residents
would then utilize Citron Street for 70, percent and the remainder would use
Chestnut Street, or 30 percent. There would, therefore, be 210 extra vehicular
trips a day on Citron and 90 on Chestnut.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NOS. 248 AND 249 - CERTIFICATION: Environmental
Impact Rep0=t Nos. 248 and 249, having been reviewed by the City staff and
recommended by the City Planning Commission to be in compliance with City and
State Guidelines and the State of California Environmental Quality Act, the
City Council, acting upon such information and belief, does hereby certify on
motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, that Environ-
mental Impact Report Nos. 248 and 249 are in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act and City and State Guidelines, as recommended by the
City Planning Commission. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution Nos. 82R-149 and 82R-150 for adoption,
as recommended by the Planning Commission, approving General Plan Amendment
No. 167, Exhibit "A" and General Plan Amendment No. 168, Exhibit "A". Refer
to Resolution Book.
267
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 16~ ~1982~ 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 82R-149: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATED AS AMENDMENT NO. 167,
EXHIBIT "A".
RESOLUTION NO. 82R-150: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATED AS AMENDMENT NO. 168,
EXHIBIT "A".
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt stated he was going to vote against
the Resolutions. He favored Exhibit "C" which called for commercial on Lincoln.
Otherwise, he felt they were changing one of the two main streets in Anaheim that
connected the City with the main tramspor'tation artery, the Santa Aha Freeway.
If that frontage were to be maintained commercial, the project could still be
built economically and effectively.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing Resolutions.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL ~MBERS:
COUNCIL MEi.~ERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
Overhelt
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 82R-149 and 82R-150 duly Passed and adopted.
RECESS: By general consent: the Council recessed for ten minutes. (6:12 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (6:20 p.m.)
It was at this point that the Council continued their discussions and took final
actions on the Housing Task Force Recommendations as documented earlier in the
meeting.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman
Overholt, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and
recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent
Calendar Agenda:
1. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were filed against the
City and action taken as recommended:
Claims denied and referred to Risk Management:
a. Claim submitted by Manuel Pinedo, Jr., for personal property damages purportedly
sustained due from his truck hitting a drainage hole that was plugged up and un-
covered, in Broadway Street, on or about January 21, 1982.
268
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 16, 1982, 1:30 P.M.
b. Claim submitted by Angelina D. Minx for personal property damages purportedly
sustained due to an accident involving an Anaheim police car on La Palma west
of Harbor Boulevard, on or about December 30, 1981.
c. Cla%m submitted by Roger Suva for personal property damages purportedly
sustained due to a power breakdown and surge at 1713 West Sallie Lane, on
or about January 10, 1982.
d. Claim submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Au~'elio G. Leon for property
damages purportedly sustained due to a fire caused by a fallen electric wire
at 1741 Sallie Lane, on or about January 10, 1982.
e. Claim submitted by Mrs. Fern Hanson for personal property damages purportedly
sustained due to a power surge at 1748 West Crestwood Lane, on or about January 10,
1982.
f. Claim submitted by H. G. Johnston for personal property damages purportedly
sustained due to a power outage at 1660 Pounders Lane, on or abeut January 10,
1982.
Claims denied and referred to Bayly, Martin & Fay/San Antonio:
g. Claim submitted by Miriam Vogelfanger ~or personal damages purportedly
sustained due to actions of members of the Anaheim Police Department, at
the Disneyland Hotel, on or about November 29, 1981.
h. Claim submitted by Malcolm A. Crump ~or personal damages purportedly
sustained due to actions of Anaheim Police Officers at Don Jose's Restaurant,
5665 East Santa Ana Canyon Road, on or about November 25, 1981.
Claim allowed:
i. Claim submitted by Associated Soils Engineering for personal property damages
purportedly sustained when claimant's truck was struck by a City-owned car
in the parkJ.ng lot of the :~rriott Hotel on or about February 2, 1982. ($116.96)
2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 107: Planning Department, Building Division--Monthly Report for February 1982.
b. 105: Park and Recreation Commission--Minutes of December 9, 1981.
c. 105: Community Center Authority--Minutes of February 8, 1982.
d. 105: Youth Commission--Minutes of February 24, 1982.
e. 171: Office of the Controller of the State of California, statements
showing the amount estimated to be paid to each city and county as its share
of revenues to be apportioned during the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 1983,
from Highway Users Taxes, Motor Vehicle License Fees ("In-Lieu" Tax) and
Off-Highway Motor Vehicle License Fees.
269
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 16, 1982, 1:30 P.M.
3. 108: PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT APPLICATION: Application submitted by Crus Munoz
Frias, Empresa Frias, for a dance to ~be held April 10, 1982, 7:00 p.m. to
1:00 a.m., at the Anaheim Convention Center, was approved in accordance with
the recommendation of the Chief of Police.
4. 170: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11727 (REVISION NO. 1): Submitted by Erwin H. W.
and Wera P. Kersten, to establish a l-lot, 36-unit, 45-foot high condominium
subdivision on proposed RM-3000 zoned property located on the south side of
Crescent Avenue, west of Brookhurst Street. (Submitted in conjunction with
Reclassification No. 81-82-13 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2292 which will
appear on the March 30, 1982, agenda under Planning Commission Consent Calendar.)
The City Planning Commission, at their meeting of March 8, 1982, approved
Tentative Tract No. 11727 (Revision No. 1), and granted a negative declaration
status.
MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilman Seymour offered Resolution Nos. 82R-151
through 82R-157, both inclusive, for adoption in accordance with the reports,
recommendations and certifications furnished each Council Member and as listed
on the Consent Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book.
158: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-151: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A CERTAIN DEED AND ORDERING ITS RECORDATION. (Anaheim Foot-
hills Homeowners Association)
158: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-152: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING AN EASEMENT DEED CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN
REAL PROPERTY FOR AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES. (R/W #2800-55,
Anaheim Boulevard Widening)
158: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-153: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING AN EASEMENT DEED CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN
REAL PROPERTY FOR AN EASEMENT FOR RO~H) AND PUBLIC UTILITY P~URPOSES. (R/W #2800-19,
Anaheim Boulevard Widening)
164: RESOLUTION NO. §2R-154: 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: LINCOLN
AVENUE SEWER Ii,~ROVEMENT, W/O LA PLAZA, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO.
11-790-6325-E0390, APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS AND SPECI-
FICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND
AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED
PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened on April 8, 1982,
at 2:00 p.m.)
270
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 16, 1982, 1:30 P.M.
169: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-155: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING TP~T PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY RE-
QUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: OLIVE
STREET STREET IMPROVEMENT, S/O SOUTH STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT
NO. 12-792-6325-E2780, APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS AND
SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF
SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.;
AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING
SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened on April 15,
1982, at 2:00 p.m.)
167: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-156: 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:
INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND SAFETY LIGHTING AT THE INTERSECTION OF
BROOKHURST STREET AND CATALINA AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO.
01-794-6325-E4210, APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS AND SPECI-
FICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND
AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED
PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened on April 15, 1982,
at 2:00 p.m.)
164: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-157: 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 FOLLOWINC PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: LAKEVIEW
AVENUE SEWER IMPROVEMENT, N/O LA PALMA AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT
NO. 11-790-6325-E0340. (Changing Times Enterprises, Inc.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COIINCIL ME~IBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 82R-151 through 82R-157, both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted.
170: FINAL MAP - TRACT NO. 11568: Developer, Coats and Wallace Development
Company, Inc.; tract is located on the west side of Magnolia Avenue, south of
Bali Road, and contains 25 proposed RM-3000 zoned lots.
On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilman Roth, the proposed sub-
division, together with its design and improvement, was found to be consistent
with the City's General Plan, and the City Council approved Fi~al Map, Tract
No. 11568, as recommended by the City Engineer iQ his memorandum dated
March 12, 1982. MOTION CARRIED.
271
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 16, 1982~ 1:30 P.M.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning
Commission at their meeting held February 22, 1982, pertaining to the following
applications, as listed on the Consent Calendar, were submitted for City Council
information.
1. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 81-82-14: Submitted by Paul T. Salata, for a change
in zone, Portion A, from RS-A-43,000 to RM-3000, and Portion B, from RS-A-43,000
to CO, on property located on the west side of Knott Street, south of Ball Road.
The City Plannning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC82-23, granted
Reclassification No. 81-82-14. EIR No. 247 was previously certified at the
meeting of December 8, 198]_.
2. VARIANCE NO. 3255: Submitted by John H. and Kathleen R. Pennell, to
construct a room addition on RS-7200 zoned property located at 2313 Virginia
Avenue, with Code waivers of minimum side yard setback and minimum rear yard
setback.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC82-25, granted
Variance No. 3255, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption
determination.
3. VARIANCE NO. 3256: Submitted by William C. and Cynthia L. Taormina, to
construct an addition to a single-family residence on RS-10,000 zoned property
located at 716 North Harbor Boulevard, with the following Code waivers: (a)
maximum number of parking spaces in a garage; (b) minimum side yard setback;
(c) minimum rear yard setback.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC82-26, granted
Variance No. 3256, and granted a negative declaration status.
4. VARIANCE NO. 3261: Submitted by Florence Mulder, et al, to construct a
detached single-family dwelling on P~-2400 zoned property located at 743 North
Philadelphia Street, with Code waivers of minimum building site area and
maximum lot coverage.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC82-27, granted
Variance No. 3261, and granted a negative declaration status.
5. CONDITIONAL U§£ PERMIT NO. 229§: ~ubmitte~ by Chris Daglas, et al, to
permit on-sale beer and wine in an existing restaurant on CL zoned property
located at 100 "D" South Brookhurst Street, with a Code waiver of minimum
number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC82-24, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2298, and ratified the Planning Director's cate-
gorical exemption determination.
272
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 16, 1982, 1:30 P.M.
6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1272 - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: Submitted by
Ivy K. Ong, requesting termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 1272, to
permit business and professional offices serving commerce and industry on
CL zoned property located on the east side of State College Beulevard~ south
of Ball Road, as a condition of approval under Conditional Use Fermit No. 2145.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC82-28, terminated
Conditional Use Permit No. 1272.
7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1745 - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: Submitted by
Lynn Thompson, requesting termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 1745, to
permit a motel on ML zoned property located on the east side of State College
Boulevard, south of Katella Avenue, as a condition of approval under Conditional
Use Permit No. 2226.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC82-29, terminated
Conditional Use Permit No. 1745.
8. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 9815 (REVISION NO. 1) - EXTENSION OF TI~iE: Submitted by
Salkin Engineering Corporation, requesting an extension of time to Tentative
Tract No. 9815 (Revision Nc. 1), to permit a one-lot, 35-unit condomini~n
subdivision on RS-5000 zoned property located on the north side of Simmons
Avenue, east of Haster Street.
The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Tentative Tract
No. 9815 (Revision No. 1), to expire March 10, i983.
9. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 80-81-18 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2144 - EX-
TENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Leo Freedman, requesting an extension of time
to Reclassification No. 80-81-18 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2144, to permit
a performing arts theater with on-sale beer and wine on CL zoned property
located at the northwest corner of Broadway and Philadelphia Streets.
The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Reclassification
No. 80-81-18 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2144, to expire November 17, 1982.
10. VARIANCE NO. 2634 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Katherine Palmowski,
requesting an extension of time to Variance No. 2634, to permit a sandwich
shop in an existin§ industrial complex on ML zoned property located at 3150 East
La Palma Avenue.
The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Variance No. 2634,
to expire September 4, 1982.
11. VARIANCE NO. 3134 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Duane Hlavnicka, re-
questimg an extension of time to Variance No. 3134, to permit construction of
a room addition on property located at 2648 Russell Avenue.
The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Variance No. 2634,
to expire February 25, 1983.
273
~ity Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 16, 1982, 1:30 P.M.
12. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1063 - AMENDING PC81-267 NUNC PRO TUNC: Sub-
mitted by the Anaheim Planning Commission, to amend Resolution No. PC82-30, termina~
all proceedings in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 1063, and thereby re-
storing said permit to its full force and e~fect.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC82-30, amended
Resolution No. PC81-267 N~nc Pro Tunc to Conditional Use Permit No. 1063.
No action was taken by the City Council on the foregoing items; therefore, the
actions of the City Planning Commission became final.
ORDINANCE NO. 4315: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 4315 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4315: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (66-67-61(100), CR, 1820 South
West Street)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4315 duly passed and adopted.
108/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4316: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4316 for
first reading.
ORDINAi~CE NO. 4316: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 4,
CHAPTER 4.72, SECTION 4.72.040 PERTAINING TO TAXICABS AND CHAUFFEURED LIMOUSINES.
107: PUBLIC MEMBER OF LAFCO: Councilman Overholt reported that the position of
Public Member of LAFCO was going to be up again on May 3, 1982. He asked if
they had anybody in mind that they might nominate if they were in a position to
do so. If so, he suggested they give the matter some consideration.
128/114: ERROR IN ASSIGNMENT OF ENUMERATION DISTRICT BY THE BURFAU OF THE CENSUS:
Mayor Seymour referred to letter dated January 29, 1982 from the City of Stanton,
attached to which was correspondence relaying the particulars involved relative
to the subject $]0,700 error which resulted in a portion of the City of Stanton's
share of subventions. Stanton maintains that the amount was mistakenly given to
Anaheim. Further, at the last League of Cities meeting, Councilman Roth was
approached by the full Stanton Council relative to the matter.
City Manager Talley explained the matter in detail, which, in the final analysis,
was an issue that the City of Stanton had with the State; however, the State was
not acknowledging that a mistake had been made. He would be glad to cooperate with
Stanton after the City Attorney researched the matter and if the City Attorney
stated that Anaheim should write the check, he would do so.
274
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 16, 1982, 1:30 P.M.
107: EX-OFFICIO MEMBER - MOBILE HOME TASK FORCE: Mayor Seymour stated he received
a communication from Mr. Floyd Farano who was in attendance at the March 9, 1982,
meeting at the Brookhurst Community Center on the Mob±lehome Park i~sue. He asked
that he or someone from his office be appointed as an ex-officio member to that
task force.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved that Floyd Farano be designated as an ex-officio
member of the Mobilehome Task Force which was established on March 9, 1982 (no
voting power). Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Councilman Bay abstained,
since he was not present at the March 9, 1982, meeting. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Overholt asked that it, in fact, be Floyd Farano, and if he could not
attend, that it be Chuck Farano.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: The City Manager requested a Closed Session to discuss
several personnel matters with no action anticipated. The City Attorney requested
a Closed Session to discuss litigation and potential litigation with action anti-
cipated relative to litigation.
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilman Seymour
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (8:20 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (9:07 p.m.)
AUGUSTINA MADRIGAL VS. THE CITY OF ANAHEIM: On motion by Councilman Seymour,
seconded by Councilman Bay, the City Attorney and Ruston and Nance were authorized
to settle Orange County Superior Court Case No. 31-16-20, Augustina Madrigal vs.
the City of Anaheim, for a sum not to exceed $7,500. MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to adjourn. Councilman Overholt
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (9:08 p.m.)
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK
275