1981/05/2681-797
City Hall,. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 26, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL M_EMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay and Roth
COUNCIL M~MBERS: Seymour
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William ?. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Norm Priest
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
CETA SERVICES MANAGER: Bill Hepburn
CIVIL ENGINEER - DESIGN: Art Daw
HOUSINGMANAGER: Lisa Stipkovich
Mayor Pro Tem Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed
those in attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Reverend Paul G. Keller, First Presbyterian Church, Retired, gave
the Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman E. Llewellyn Overholt, Jr., led the assembly in the
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Pro Tem
Roth and authorized by the City Council:
"PARKS AND RECREATION MONTH IN ANAHEI~I" - JUNE 1981
The proclamation was accepted by Mr. James Ruth, Deputy City Manager.
148/173: PROPOSED REGIONAL AIRPORT SITE IN THE SANTIAGO CANYON: Councilwoman
Kaywood asked that her co~'leagues join her in a letter opposing Santiago
Canyon as a proposed airport site for a regional airport and that a letter be
sent to the SCAG Executive Committee to inform them of their opposition.
Mayor Pro Tem Roth stated he had no objection, except that he did not know
exactly where the airport was proposed to be located. He wanted to continue
the matter long enough so that a map could be provided showing the proposed
flight paths. He was probably going to be impacted by such a proposal more
than any other Council Member. They should have some official documentation
specifically as to where the airport was proposed to be located and then he
would have no objection at all in expressing opposition.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she was hoping that the SCAG Executive Committee
would have the letter of opposition before their next meeting which was to be
held on Thursday, June 4, 1981; Councilman Overholt noted that they could then
act upon the matter at their meeting on next Tuesday.
81-798
City Hall,, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 26, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Bay stated that he joined Mayor Pro Tem Roth. He had very little
technical data or information concerning the proposed location to even look at
it. If information was available, he would be glad to review it this week,
and he agreed if they were going to take any position, it would be better to
do so next week.
Councilman Overholt also agreed and he would also be interested in knowing the
alternate sites and perhaps they could develop a position with respect to one
of those alternate sites. The Council was extremely eager to try to resolve
the air transportation problem in Orange County. He would like to see the
Council give some attention to a positive recommendation.
Councilwoman Kaywood reported that the other alternative being looked at was
E1 Toro for a joint use.
Mayor Pro Tem Roth stated relative to E1 Toro, he did not believe that would
happen in their lifetime and the Supervisors were well aware of that fact.
General Riley was well aware that joint utilization of the Marine Corps Air
Station at E1%oro was not feasible. It was the only Marine activity on the
West Coast of the U.S., and he hoped that they would not be driving them out.
They should be prepared, armed and ready to go and he felt it would be
disastrous to chase the Marines out of E1 Toro in order to establish a com-
mercial airport site. He would oppose E1 Toro as an alternate site, but that
was not the issue today.
By general consent, the matter was continued one week in order that specifics
might be obtained for Council review before taking action.
MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular
meeting held April 28, 1981. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Councilman
Seymour was absent. 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 Overholt seconded the
motion. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $1,230,232.91, in accord-
ance with the 1980-81 Budget, were approved.
104: CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL RESOLUTION CONSENT CALENDAR: Councilwoman
Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 81R-238 through 81R-243, both inclusive, for
approval as recommended:
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-238: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHE~ LEVYING ~N ASSESSMENT ON EACH LOT ~ND PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINED IN
STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 1972-1-B FOR THE CONTRACT YEAR JULY 1,
1981 TO JUNE 30, 1982, FOR THE AMOUNT ESTIMATED TO BE NECESSARY TO IMPROVE THE
STREET LIGHTING SYSTEM FOR SUCH ENSUING CONTRACT YEAR. (TRACT 1959)
81-799
City Hall,~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 26~ 1981, 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-239: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT ON EACH LOT AND PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINED IN
STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 1977-1 FOR THE CONTRACT YEAR JULY 1, 1981
TO JUNE 30, 1982, FOR THE AMOUNT ESTIMATED TO BE NECESSARY TO IMPROVE THE
STREET LIGHTING SYSTEM FOR SUCH ENSUING CONTRACT YEAR. (TRACT 1404)
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-240: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM LEVYING UN ASSESSMENT ON EACH LOT AND PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINED IN
STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 1980-2 FOR THE CONTRACT YEAR JULY 1, 1981
TO JUNE 30, 1982, FOR THE AMOUNT ESTIMATED TO BE NECESSARY TO IMPROVE THE
STREET LIGHTING SYSTEM FOR SUCH ENSUING CONTRACT YEAR. (TRACT 1859)
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-241: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT ON EACH LOT AND PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINED IN
STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 1980-3 FOR THE CONTRACT YEAR JULY 1, 1981
TO JUNE 30, 1982, FOR THE AMOUNT ESTIMATED TO BE NECESSARY TO LMPROVE THE
STREET LIGHTING SYSTEM FOR SUCH ENSUING CONTRACT YEAR. (TRACT 1097)
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-242: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM LEVYIN~ AN ASSESSMENT ON EACH LOT AND PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINED IN
STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 1980-4 FOR THE CONTRACT YEAR JULY 1, 1981
TO JUNE 30, 1982, FOR THE AMOUNT ESTIMATED TO BE NECESSARY TO IMPROVE THE
STREET LIGHTING SYSTEM FOR SUCH ENSUING CONTRACT YEAR. (TRACT 1392)
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-243: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT ON EACH LOT AND PARCEL OF LAND CONTAINED IN
STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 1980-7 FOR THE CONTRACT YEAR JULY 1, 1981
TO JUNE 30, 1982, FOR THE AMOUNT ESTIMATED TO BE NECESSARY TO LMPROVE THE
STREET LIGHTING SYSTEM FOR SUCH ENSUING CONTRACT YEAR. (TRACT 2875)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay and Roth
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution Nos. 81R-238 through 81R-243, both
inclusive, duly passed and adopted.
123/177: AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT AND BUYERS AGREEMENT - 649 SOUTH BEACH
BOULEV,kRD - SUNDAY AND COMPANY/LYNN L. (TOM) MATLOCK: City Manager William
Talley briefed the Council on memorandum dated May 5, 1981 from Executive
Director o£ Community Development Norm Priest recommending the approval of the
subject affordable housing agreement between the, City and the developer,
Sunday and Company/Lynn L. (Tom) Matlock, and also approval of the buyers form
agreement between the City and buyers of the affordable units located at 649
South Beach Boulevard.
81-800
City Hall,~. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 26, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood referred to Page 4, Item 5b of the proposed agreement
between the City and the developer, last sentence, "If the units are rented or
subleased without Council approval, the second trust deed would be due and
payable." She asked if they could add the word "immediately" or if it would
leave it open-ended.
City Attorney William Hopkins confirmed that it would be immediately, within
reasonable time; Councilwoman Kaywood then asked' if it could be added.
City Attorney Hopkins stated that the agreement had been signed by the other
party and it would require an amendment. He believed that the word immedi-
ately or as soon as possible would be implied, but if the Council wished, they
could send it back.
Councilwoman Kaywood also referred to Page 6, the end of the first paragraph
which was also the same case.
Mr. Priest stated that the developer was present and indicated he had no prob-
lem with the word "immediately" being added.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated the project was a 100% density bonus which she
voted against initially and she would vote against it again on the same
proviso. She then asked Miss Santalahti if she knew now with the newly passed
RM-3000 condominium ordinance how much of an extra bonus was involved.
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, answered that she did not
know, but the Housing Element was going to be discussed by the Planning
Commission at a work session on Thursday and she was certain the subject would
be discussed at that time.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she would like to see a truer picture as to
what density they were tal~ing about and the numbers involved.
Miss Santalahti answered that on the subject project she would guess it was
probably a little higher than 25% over the new Code.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated if they gave a 100% density bonus and it was also
25% over, she really could not understand the new ordinance.
Miss Santalahti stated the only difference in the new ordinance was that the
private streets and driveways were now included in the density and the cover-
age calculation. The best they had ever been able to figure, a very regular
piece of land which had an excessive amount of driveway for the number of
units might, in fact, benefit up to about 25% by the new ordinance. There
were a number of pieces of land which were large and rectangular which did not
benefit anywhere near that, but would be much more like 10% or 15% and a few
of the projects that the Planning Commission had before them analyzed under
the Code did not benefit by 25%, but were 15% or under. Before, they were
subtracting land area using a net figure and now they were using a gross
figure. It was still 14.52 units per gross acre.
81-801
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 26~ 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Overholt moved to (1) authorize an agreement with Sunday and
Company/Lynn L. (Tom) Matlock to provide 28 affordable housing units to be
located at 649 South Beach Boulevard and (2) approving the form agreement
between the City and buyers of said affordable units. Councilman Roth
seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Pro Tem Roth announced that a request had been
made by Mr. Jim Townsend to speak on the matter.
Mr. Jim Townsend stated that the taxpayers of Anaheim had a need and right to
know how their tax dollars were being used and spent. He understood and rec-
ognized the need to assist families with affordable housing, but the taxpayers
could not tolerate a corporation furnishing housing superior to those of the
many hardworking families who had to pay the taxes for that housing or exces-
sive profits of the corporation. He would guess without knowing any of the
background of the subject project that they were dealing with a non-profit
corporation because of Federal funds; Mayor Pro Tem Roth interjected and
stated that was not true. Free enterprise was involved.
Mr. Townsend t~en asked how much money had free enterprise used from the
Federal government to finance land purchases for loans for the construction,
for the payment of rent for the people who would occupy the project, and what
kind of profits did that free enterprise corporation show. If it was afford-
able housing and no government money was being used, what was the problem.
Mayor Pro Tem Roth stated that the developer was present and he would respond
to those questions, as well as staff.
Mr. Townsend continued that it was important that the Council fully understand
how such corporations worked to the detriment of the taxpayer. There was no
money in affordable housing for a contractor at today's rates unless he had
his finger in the taxpaye~~s pocket. He would defy the developer and Mr.
Priest who proved that there were no government funds involved in the project
and who proved the taxpayers were not going to pick up the tab. It was up to
the Council and the Planning Commission to bring out the facts.
Mr. Norm Priest explained that the amount of tax funds invested in the project
to the best of their knowledge were none; the amount of fiscal subsidy to the
units to the best of their knowledge was none; there was no application to HUD
and no rental to be adjusted since the units were for sale. The final point
relative to their checking the background of developers as far as their
interties, corporations, limited partnerships, etc., they did, in fact, ask
for that kind of background although they did not make an exhaustive check.
The developer, Mr. Tom Matlock, then explained that Sunday and Company was not
even a corporation, but solely owned by his family, his wife, himself and
three children. They were not subsidized in any manner for any kind of funds,
either State, Federal or City. They closed the escrow with their own money,
were paying the interest on their loans with their own money and paying
81-802
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 26~ 1981, 1:30 P.M.
interests on the construction loan they were going to get with their own
money. There were no tax dollars involved and to his knowledge, since Mr.
Reagan had been in office, he had severely cut back the availability of any of
the Federally-funded assisted plans. This project was not one of them. The
way he could make a dollar from the project was to convince the Council to
give him a density bonus where he could create units necessary to the
community and to sell them at a price that was affordable to some people. Re
picked up his profits on the rest of the units built on land costs.
Mayor Pro Tem Roth suggested that after the item was concluded that perhaps he
(Matlock) and Mr. Townsend might discuss how the procedure worked. The
Council was concerned about the housing situation, particularly relative to
the young people and others. With regard to affordable housing, Council found
by giving a density bonus, i.e., allowing an additional number of units, that
free enterprise provided the housing rather than implementing government sub-
sidies or constructing a government housing project. He felt it was an admir-
able way of meeting the needs of the people because the developer could build
more units and sell them at a more equitable price.
Councilwoman K~ywood then asked if she understood that he (Matlock) would have
no objection to adding the word "immediately" in the two places in the agree-
ment as previously articulated on Page 4 and 6; Mr. Matlock confirmed that was
correct, and he could initial that change today.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that the trust deed had no interest on it whatso-
ever and the Council had discussed putting an interest on the second trust
deed. She asked if it would be too late to do so in this case or why was it
still without interest.
Mrs. Lisa Stipkovich, Housing Manager, stated she believed this was the same
agreement that had been approved previously, but they could add whatever the
Council wished at this point.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she would prefer that an interest of 8%, as was
added to the others they had considered, would be reasonable.
Mrs. Stipkovich stated she did not believe they added an interest rate in the
past.
Councilman Overholt stated that the second was a reasonable control device
rather than an indebtedness and thus the reason why no interest rate was
attached.
Councilman Bay then stated in defense of the speaker who came forward, he may
have picked the wrong item on the agenda to give a speech in generalities on
the tax subsidies of affordable housing. However, what Mr. Townsend said did
apply, although not to this particular agreement nor development in any way,
but to some that did come through the Council. To say that there was no
subsidy was not quite true in his mind because in giving density bonuses they
were in effect s.ubsidizing a program by relaxation of ordinances. The people
81-803
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 26~ 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
who lived in the neighborhood and had to deal with those higher densities and
changes beyond the ordinances were certainly paying some subsidy to that
development. The people who bought the higher priced condominiums or town-
houses were also paying some subsidy to the lower priced units, since they
heard the developer say he was losing money on a couple of the lower priced
units. That seemed to be a point of negotiation that government was involved
in to try to do something about the critical housing shortage in the area.
While he did not disagree with Mr. Townsend's argument in principle, he felt
he was arguing to the wrong forum and he should be back in Washington on the
floor of the Congress and perhaps in Sacramento on the floor of the State
Assembly.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilwoman Kaywood voted
"no". Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
174/177: LETTER OF ENDORSEMENT FOR APPLICATION FOR SECTION 8 EXISTING HOUSING
UNITS: Councilman Overholt moved to authorize the Mayor Pro Tem to execute a
letter of endorsement for an application for 17 units of Section 8 "Existing"
State Aftercare units submitted by the State Department of Housing and
Community Development on behalf of the Housing Authority, as recommended in
memorandum dated May 13,.1981 from the Executive Director of Community
Development. Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay asked if Mr. Priest could assure him
that the 33 subject units they now had in the City and the 17 they were making
application for, that none of them were the group type aftercare homes that
had gone into the residential areas under State law.
Mr. Priest answered, to the best of his knowledge, none of those would be
group care facilities. They would certificate those the same as they did with
existing Section 8.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Seymour was absent.
MOTION CARRIED.
160: PURCH~E OF EQUIPMENT - 4 69KV POTENTIA~ TRANSFOR~RS - BID NO. 3676:
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Bay, the low bid of
Ferranti-Packard was accepted and purchase authorized in the amount of
315,942.40, as recommended by Purchasing Agent John Thomason in his memorandum
dated May 19, 1981. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
150: AWARD OF CONTRACT - PONDEROSA PARK FACILITY LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS:
Account No. 25-818-7107. On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by
Councilman Bay, award of contract on the subject improvement was continued one
week, as recommended in memorandum dated May 19, 1981 from City Engineer
William Devitt. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
131: REAFFIRMING THE NEED FOR THE EXTENSION OF SERRANO AVENUE THROUGH THE
CITY OF ORANGE: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to reaffirm the need for the
extension of Serrano Avenue through the City of Orange, as determined by the
studies conducted by Northeast Orange County Circulation Study (NEOCCS) as
recommended in memorandum dated May 19, 1981 from the City Engineer. Council-
man Roth seconded the motion.
81~804
City Ha ll,~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 26, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Pro Tem Roth suggested that they also contact
the City of Orange to obtain their support in the letter of reaffirmation. He
and Mayor Seymour were on a special committee wherein they met with Mayor Beam
and Mayor Pro Tem Don Smith of Orange, and they were in accord.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Seymour was absent.
MOTION CARRIED.
169: DETERMINING A PUBLIC HEARING DATE TO CONSIDER THE CLOSURE OF OLD BRIDGE
ROAD: City Manager Talley briefed the Council on memorandum dated May 18,
1981 from the City Engineer recommending that a time be set for a public
hearing to deliberate the petition by residents for the closure of Old Bridge
Road.
City Clerk Linda Roberts announced that a request was received for an evening
hearing.
Mayor Pro Tem Roth stated he would prefer to hold the hearing in the daytime
although he did not like to deny any citizen's request. He did not know how
his colleagues'felt about the matter. He then recognized a lady from the
audience who wished to speak.
Mrs. Cynthia Hartstein, representing the Old del Giorgio Homeowners
Association, Inc., explained the reason they were requesting an evening
hearing was due to the fact that their group was split at this time and there
was opposition of a few families in the community to the street closure. They
felt it important that both sides be present and also so that their husbands
who worked during the day could be present.
Mayor Pro Tem Roth noted that the Police and Fire Departments were both recom-
mending denial and he assumed that prior to the hearing, the Traffic Engineer
would also obtain a state~fent from the trash pick-up people regarding the
closure of that street or'any street, which was a big factor to consider.
Mrs. Hartstein stated they were asking for a recommendation to help curtail
the traffic. They had excess speeding daily and there were no sidewalks for
their children to get to and from the school bus. They lived mid-way on the
street and it was difficult for their children to travel to get to the bus and
the Orange Unified School District had been excessively bussing in their
community.' The major problem was safety. They were not asking for a perman-
ent street closure, but something that could be opened to permit vehicles of
an emergency nature to get in and out. She reiterated they were trying to
preserve the safety of their neighborhood.
Discussion and questioning then followed between the Mayor Pro Tem, Councilman
Overholt and Mrs. Hartstein relative to the closure and also a tentative
hearing date. During the discussion, Mrs. Hartstein also suggested that a
work study be prepared and they were also prepared to invite the Council to
their homes to see what they were talking about. They would be receptive to
any recommendations.
81-805
City Ha ll,~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 26, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if she had discussed the school buses being forbid-
den to use that road with the Orange Unified School District.
Traffic Engineer Paul Singer answered that the matter was brought up at the
School Traffic Safety Committee. At that time, they discussed the matter with
the Director of the Buses responsible to the Orange District. Subsequently,
they outlined alternate methods to get to E1 Rancho Junior High School and
other pick-ups; however, the School District was less than overwhelmed by
their recommendations.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood stated that direction would have to come from
the School District. She thereupon moved to request the Orange Unified School
District to request their bus drivers to continue down Fairmont to E1 Rancho
and to stay off of Old Bridge Road.
Before further action was taken, Mayor Pro Tem Roth stated he did not feel
that such a motion was appropriate at this time, but only after a public
hearing.
Mr. Orville Du~n stated he lived in the cul-de-sac at the bottom of the
street. With regard to the School District, their Association Board had
worked very hard, as well as people in the area, to get the School Board to
help them out with the bus situation. They had done so and the Association
was expecting a letter momentarily, at least in time for the public hearing,
showing that there were not 22 buses running up and down Old Bridge Road, but
seven. The School Board had been very cooperative in helping them out in that
regard. He confirmed for Councilwoman Kmywood that he belonged to the Old del
Giorgio Homeowners Association. It was their request that the buses, as many
as possible, be taken off of Old Bridge Road and the School Board had
cooperated.
MOTION: After further di~cussion regarding a proposed date for the hearing,
Councilwoman Kaywood move~ to set public hearing to consider the closure of
Old Bridge Road to through traffic as petitioned for by affected residents to
be held Tuesday, July 7, 1981, at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers.
Before action was taken, Councilman Overholt stated he was supportive, but he
was concerned that when they had that hearing, that everything be done prior
to it to determine what the School Board would or would not do, etc. He was
trying to avoid having a forum with a lot of people talking without facts.
Mrs. Hartstein asked if the Police Department would do a study. The reason
she was asking was, they could not get the Police Department to come out and
enforce speeding because they did not have the staff. She asked if it would
be possible between today and the public hearing to work with them and perhaps
they could give them more assistance than they had in the past.
81-806
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 26, 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Pro Tem Roth commented that he lived at the very top of Anaheim Hills
and they had a continuing problem relative to traffic speed limits particular-
ly because of the grade level. There had been a considerable number of acci-
dents on Canyon Rim Road of late. They also had problems of speeding on Nohl
Ranch Road. He found it interesting in this case that apparently the problems
were the neighbors who drove up and down Old Bridge Road, since it was unlike-
ly that outsiders were driving through the community on weekdays. He sug-
gested that their homeowners group take some action in trying to educate
people particularly the young people, in their own tract to see if they could
get them to slow down. It was very difficult to have a policeman on every
street. They could ask the City Manager to check with the Chief of Police to
see if he had additional units to work in that area.
Councilman Overholt thereupon seconded the motion to hold a public hearing on
July 7, 1981, 7:00 p.m. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
123/179: SELECTION OF CONSULTING FIRM TO CONDUCT PARKING STUDY REQUIREMENTS -
LINSCOTT, LAW AND GREENSPAN, INC.: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to authorize an
agreement with Linscott, Law and Greenspan, Inc., to conduct a parking
requirements s~udy relating to updating of the Zoning Ordinance; and appropri-
ating $13,410 from the Council Contingency fund for 50 percent of the cost of
the study, as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated May 19,
1981. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour was absent.
MOTION CARRIED.
166/114: TE~PORARY FLAGS AND BANNERS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES: Councilwoman
Kaywood moved to rescind Council Policy No. 541 relating to temporary flags
and banners permitted in residential zones, as recommended in memorandum dated
May 13, 1981 from the Assistant Director for Zoning Annika $antalahti.
Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION
CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 423i for first reading.
142/166: ORDINANCE NO. 4231: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANA/{EIM ADDING NE~~
SECTION 18.05.085 TO CHAPTER 18.05 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHE~! MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING %0 ZONING.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 81R-244 for adoption, establishing
a fee of 3'100 for Flag or Banner Permit Applications, pursuant to Section
18.05.085 of the Code. Refer to Resolution Book.
155/166: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-244: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ESTABLISHING A FEE FOR FLAG OR BANNER PERMIT APPLICATIONS
PURSUANT TO SECTION 18.85.085 OF THE ANAHELM MUNICIPAL CODE.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNC IL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNC IL MEMBERS:
Ove~holt, Kaywood, Bay and Roth
None
Seymour
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 81R-244 duly passed and adopted.
81-807
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 26~ 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
174: AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH NORTH ORANGE COUNTY REGIONAL OCCUPATIONAL
PROGRAM REDUCING THE PRESCHOOL PROGRAM BUDGET: On motion by Councilman
Overholt, seconded by Councilman Roth, an amendment was authorized to the
agreement with North Orange County Regional Occupational Program to reduce the
budget for the Preschool Program from $77,654 to $55,522, as recommended in
memorandum dated May 19, 1981 from the Human Resources Director Garry McRae.
Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
108: AMUSEMENT DEVICES PERMIT - FAMILY ARCADE: Application submitted by
Martha Miranda for the Family Arcade, 401 South Brookhurst Street, for various
amusement devices (continued from the meeting May 19, 1981).
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the subject business was brand new or looking to
become an actual arcade.
City Manager Talley noted that the matter was continued from the last meeting
and the request he understood was that in the future on new permits, that
there be a place on the form to show whether the businesses were new installa-
tions, existing arcades or incidental to another use and an indication of that
other use. They had taken that step. He referred to staff report dated
May 21, 1981 from Detective Schroeder indicating that the subject location was
a vacant store, and it would have new machines but it did not indicate how
many.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt thereupon moved to deny the application for
Amusement Devices Permit for Family Arcade because there was no indication as
to how many machines they were going to have in their business. Councilman
Bay seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt stated his motion was offered
without prejudice.
Mayor Pro Tem Roth statedthe thought his reasoning might be due to the fact
that they were probably going to require a CUP for arcades in the future. If
so, he suggested that they hold the matter over until the Ordinance was pre-
pared and considered and so they would know what the ordinance would encom-
pass, whether it would apply to all businesses with amusement devices or just
arcades whose total business involved amusement devices.
Councilwoman Kaywood commented that an ancillary use to some other business
was a different situation and it was necessary that they know that.
Councilman Overholt stated the real problem with the subject application was
the fact that it did not indicate the type of business it was going to be. It
might be that they would take each case individually until the new ordinance
was prepared.
Mayor Pro Tem Roth asked if the applicant was present; no one was present.
81-808
City Hall,~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 26, 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Bay then questioned the new ordinance referred to; City Attorney
Hopkins referred to Councilwoman Kaywood's request the previous week that an
ordinance be drawn requiring a conditional use permit instead of merely a
permit for amusement device businesses, and they were now in the process of
preparing that ordinance.
Councilman Bay asked if that would also include suggestions on just how many
amusement devices defined an arcade vs an ancillary use; City Attorney Hopkins
stated that they would also submit a staff report with the proposed ordinance
covering all the points and that would take at least another week.
Councilman Bay thereupon suggested even though he seconded Councilman
Overholt's motion for denial, that they continue all device permits until they
had the time to look at the proposed new ordinance on some type of control on
what he called "pinball proliferation." If he (Overholt) would consider
changing his motion to continue the matter, he would be glad to second that.
Councilman Overholt stated the problem he had with that, he did not think the
application was complete. If they could somehow get word to the applicant to
make a full disclosure on the application as to what they were going to have,
numbers~of machines, etc., that would be fine. Merely continuing the matter
would not do that.
Councilman Bay then asked if they could inform the applicant via the City
Clerk that the Council would like to know how many machines were involved; the
City Clerk acknowledged that she could do so.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt then moved to continue the subject matter for two
weeks with the understanding that unless the application was amended indica-
ting the numbers and types of machines, he was going to vote to deny it.
Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION
CARRIED. ~
108: AMUSEMENT DEVICES PERMIT - VIGADA'S PIZZA: Application by William A.
Collar, Vigada's Pizza, 331 East Orangethorpe Avenue, for various amusement
devices was submitted. (continued from meeting of May 19, 1981)
Councilman Overholt moved to approve the subject request for an amusement
devices permit. Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay stated if they were heading toward a
decision on a controlling ordinance by CUP and they did not know what number
of machines were going to define an arcade, if they were talking about
approving eight machines in a location at this time as indicated in the staff
report, they might be predetermining what they would judge to be an arcade in
the future.
Mayor Pro Tem Roth stated he did not necessarily agree and that the prime
business was pizza parlor and the machines were secondary to the sale of
pizza. The ordinance would be relative to arcades, their number one activity
being an arcade with another activity secondary.
81-809
Cit~z Hall,,~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 26, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Bay voted'"no".
Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
108: AMUSEMENT DEVICES PERMIT - GREAT WESTERN PIZZA COMPANY: Application by
Gary L. Krumwiede, dba Great Western Pizza Company, 5555 Santa Ana Canyon
Road, for 8 video games, was submitted. (continued from the meeting of
May 19, 1981)
Councilman Overholt moved to approve the subject request for an amusement
devices permit. Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted there was a gentleman in the audience to speak to
the matter. She noted that eight video games were already in the establish-
ment without having been approved.
Mr. Gary Krumwiede, 550 Paseo De Luna, President of Golden West Pizza Company,
stated that was correct and the machines had been in his place of business since
they opened in July of 1980. He was not aware that he needed a permit. When
they submitted their plans to the Building Division, they had indicated on the
plans that a s~ecific area would be set aside for a game room. At that time,
it was not brough~ to his attention. An enforcement officer went to his busi-
ness and requested that he come in and obtain a permit. The games were in an
enclosed area operated on tokens only so that they could control kids coming
in and playing their machines on their own. They had to make at least a one
dollar purchase in order to play the equipment. They had no complaints on
any of the machines or from anyone close to them. He operated seven restaurants in
Orange County and they all had amusement devices in them. He owned the equip-
ment himself and they were not an extension of a vending company.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion of approval. Councilman Bay
voted "no". Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOr 1889 - EXTENSION OF TLME: Request by Joseph F.
Crevier, Crevier Imports, Inc., for an extension of time to Conditional Use
Permit No. 1889, to establish an automobile sales, service and restoration
facility on ML zoned property located at 3182 East La Palma Avenue, was sub-
mitted.
On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilman Bay, the requested
extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 1889 was approved, to expire
May 22, 1982, as recommended by the Zoning Division. Councilman Seymour was
absent. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (3:00 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Pro Tem Roth called the meeting to order, all Council
Members being present, with the exception of Mayor Seymour. (3:10 P.M.)
81-810
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 26~ 1981, 1:30 P.M.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2130: Application by
the City of Anaheim, to permit a 157-foot high hotel and accessory uses on CR
and PR zoned property located at the northwest corner of Convention Way and
Harbor Boulevard, with a Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces, was
submitted. (continued from the meeting of February 24 and March 31, 1981--see
minutes those dates)
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-2, reported that
Environmental Impact Report No. 238 was certified by the City Council on
November 18, 1980 in connection with the hotel lease, and the Anaheim City
Planning Commission did review and consider the contents of said report and
finds that the proposed project is within the scope of said Environmental
Impact Report No. 238 and further, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2130, in
part, subject to the following conditions:
1. That appropriate water assessment fees as determined by the Office of
Utilities General Manager shall be paid to the City of Amaheim prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
2. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay the traffic signal assess-
ment fee (Ordinance No. 3896) in an amount as determined by the City Council,
for commercial buildings prior to the issuance of a building permit.
3. That raised medians shall be installed in Harbor Boulevard to control
vehicular access to subject property as required by the City Traffic Engineer.
4. ?nat trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved
plans on file with the Office of the Executive Director of Public Works. Said
trash areas shall be adequately screened from adjoining public right-of-ways,
all vehicular accessways to the aid trash enclosures shall not exceed a 10%
grade, and the overhead clearance at the trash enclosures shall not be less
than 28 feet.
5. 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 17, provided, h~wever, (a) that the design and location of all
driveways and parkways shill be in accordance with requirements of the City
Traffic Engineer, (b) that the maximum over-all building height shall not
exceed the height specified by the Anaheim Commercial Recreation Area Height
Standard Guideline, and (c) that parking shall be provided for a minimum of
thirty-two percent (32%) of the 3854 parking spaces required for the specific
development proposal.
6. That because the City of Anaheim wishes to retain the Arena as the trade-
mark of the Convention Center, the greatest possible visibility shall be main-
tained along Katella Avenue and, therefore, any above-ground level parking in
the northerly parking lot of the Convention Center shall be constructed in
accordance with the specifications of the Community Center Authority.
7. That Condition Nos. 3, 4, and 5, above-mentioned, shall be complied with
prior to final building and zoning inspections.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilman Bay
at the meeting of February 3, 1981, and public hearing scheduled and continued
from the meetings of February 24 and March 31, 1981.
City Manager William Talley recommended withdrawal of the item from the
Council agenda.
81-811
City Hall,~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 26, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
MOTION: On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood,
withdrawal of Conditional Use Permit No. 2130, was approved, as requested by
the City Manager. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
107: PUBLIC HEARING - HOUSE MOVING PERMIT: An application by T. Ohara Farm,
to move a single-family structure from its present location at 11222 Santiago
Boulevard, Orange, to 2885 La Jolla Stree~ in Anaheim, was submitted.
The Mayor Pro Tem asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and
if so, did they agree with the conditions and recommendations of staff.
Mr. Ted Ohara, 2921 East La Jolla, stated he was satisfied with the recommen-
dations of staff.
The Mayor Pro Tem asked if anyone was present in opposition to the proposed
house moving permit; there being no response, he closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Council-
woman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council ratified the
determination ~f the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within
the definition of Section 3.01, Class 3, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to
the requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore,
categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. Councilman Seymour
was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 81R-245 for adoption, for the
following reasons: That the house, building or structure proposed to be moved
is comparable in value, size, quality, design and appearance of house,
buildings or structures in the area into which it is to be moved; and that it
will not be detrimental to, nor diminish the value of property in the area;
and that less than a majority of the property owners in the area object to the
moving of the house, build'%ng or structure onto the property where it is
proposed to be moved. Re~er to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-245: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF Thq~ CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING A HOUSE MOVING PERMIT TO MOVE A SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE TO
2885 LA JOLLA STREET, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay and Roth
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 81R-245 duly passed and adopted.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Bay, 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:
81-812
City Hall,~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 26, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
1. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: /he following claims were denied and
referred to the City's Claims Administrator, or payment allowed:
a. Claim submitted by /heodore A. Martin for personal property damages
purportedly sustained as a result of theft while claimant's car was parked in
the Anaheim Stadium Parking Lot, on or about May 5, 1981.
b. Claim submitted by Glenn Guadagnini, Manager, Golf N' Stuff, for personal
property damages purportedly sustained as a result of transformers blowing out
equipment at 1656 South Harbor Boulevard, on or about March 26, 1981.
c. Claim submitted by David Blettel for personal injury damages purportedly
sustained as a result of incident at the Collections payment window in the
Civic Center, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, on or about February 13, 1981.
d. Claim submitted by Pacific Telephone (Case No. H145-0008) for personal
property damages to aerial cable purportedly sustained as a result of
activities conducted by City employees on the south side of Manchester Avenue,
east of HasterjStreet, on or about February 17, 1981.
e. Claim submitted by Michael Alan Arvo for personal property damages pur-
portedly sustained as a result Police personnel actions, on or about May 10,
1981.
The following claims were recommended to be allowed:
f. Claim submitted by J. C. Kozlowski, President, Grand Metals, Inc., for
personal property damages purportedly sustained as a result of error by City
crew members during electrical service hook-up to building at 2871 East Blue
Star Street, on or about December 5, 1980. (partial allowance)
g. Claim submitted by Pa~t'%y Lackiusa for personal property damages purport-
edly sustained as a result of a City-owned vehicle backing into her vehicle on
La Palma Avenue near State College Boulevard, on or about March 13, 1981.
h. Claim submitted by Gene R. Nevins for personal property damages purport-
edly sustained as a result of repairs to main water line during which
residential valve was damaged, on or about April 20 and 21, 1981.
2. CORRESPONDENCE: %"he following correspondence was ordered received and
filed:
a. 175: Consulting Engineer's Report to Bondholders of Water Revenue Series
1971 Bonds - Fiscal Year 1979-80.
b. 156: Police Department--Monthly Reports for March and April 1981.
c. 175: Notice of Pacific Telephone Offset Rate Increase Application and
Hearings.
81-813
City Hall,~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 26, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
d. 173: Before the Civil Aeronautics Board, Docket 39622, application of
Imperial Airlines, Inc., for a certificate pursuant to Section 401(d) (5) (a)
of the Federal Aviation A~t of 1958, as amended (Orange County-Los Angeles).
e. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission--Minutes of April 29, 1981.
f. 173: Before the civil Aeronautics Board, Docket 35576, application of
Pacific Southwest Airlines for Orange County-San Francisco Authority and
Docket 33237, Environmental Impact Statement, relating to effects of multiple
permissive authorization of additional air service at John Wayne Airport,
Orange County, California.
3. 108: APPLICATIONS: In accordance with the recommendations of the Chief
of Police, the following applications were approved:
a. Public Dance Permit: Anaheim Soccer Club, for a public dance to be held
btay 30, 1981, 6:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m., at the Anaheim Convention Center.
(Felipe Jesus Guerena, applicant)
b. Public Dan6e Permit: Vietnamese Dance Club, for a public dance to be held
June 6, 1981, 8:00 p.m. to 1:30 a.m., at the Anaheim Convention Center. (Chu
Ba Le, applicant)
c. Public Dance Permit: Empresa Frias, for a public dance to be held
June 13, 1981, 6:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m., at the Anaheim Convention Center.
(Cruz Munoz Frias, applicant)
Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
108: AMUSEMENT DEVICES PERMIT - MR. T'S OF ANAHEIM NO. 13: Application by
Jack Tisthammen, Mr. T's of Anaheim No. 13, 2013 East Ball Road, for various
amusement devices, was su~nitted.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that the agenda did not indicate how many amusement
devices were involved in the many permits requested as was the case with the
subject business and it also did not indicate how many devices were existing
in the businesses. She requested that information. Councilman Overholt noted
that the subject application indicated one pinball and two video games and the
information she wanted was provided on the application itself.
Councilwoman Kaywood could not ascertain what business Mr. T's was in, whether
they sold anything or if it was strictly pinball.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to continue consideration of the subject
amusement devices permit to clarify the type of business and how many existing
devices the business had. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Council-
man Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
108: AMUSEMENT DEVICES PERMIT - TASTEE FREEZ: Application by Greg H. Florer,
Tastee Freez, 3240 West Lincoln Avenue, for various amusement devices, was
submitted.
81-814
City Ha ll~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 26, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she had a poor copy of the application and
could not read what it said. She noted there was a gentleman in the audience
to speak to the matter. She asked what he was requesting to be placed in the
existing Tastee Freez.
Mr. Greg Florer, 5612 Amberdale Drive, Yorba Linda, explained that the request
for a permit was for two video games, and they were in the establishment at
present. There were no problems associated with the devices.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the subject application for
Tastee Freez, 3240 West Lincoln Avenue, for the two existing amusement
devices. Councilman Bay seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt stated, but for the gentlemen
being present, his application was also deficient because it did not show how
many devices were involved. When the applications were received, the appli-
cants should be informed that where indicated on the form, they should give
the number of the devices and describe those devices. Otherwise, he intended
to deny them.
Mayor Pro Tem Roth suggested if they were going to ask the number of machines
for which the permit was being requested, they should also ask the total
number of machines presently at the business in order to gain an understanding
of whether the business involved was an arcade or supplemental to another type
of business.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion of approval.
was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Seymour
Before concluding, Mr. Florer asked to make a suggestion. Some cities had
stickers on each individual game showing that they had a permit on file with
the City. In that way, i~would be much easier for City officials to police
the devices. The City of'Lakewood had serial numbers with expiration dates on
them and thus, it was possible to distinguish a device that had a permit and
one that did not.
The Council thanked Mr. Florer for his suggestion.
Councilwoman Kaywood also suggested that they include on the form a place to
indicate whether the devices were already existing and were coming in for the
permit after the fact, or whether they were requesting new devices.
Councilman Overholt stated he did not believe that was material. If they had
an illegal game that was a matter of enforcement. They were being asked to
grant or not grant the permit and license. The question of whether there were
sanctions to be imposed for not complying with the ordinances was another
matter.
108: ~MUSEMENT DEVICES PERMIT - BETSY ROSS RESTAURANT: Application by
Arnold P. Darin, Betsy Ross Restaurant, 444 North Lakeview Street, for one
video game, was submitted.
81-815
City Hall,~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 26, 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood explained the reason she was asking about the subject
application was because there was a very convincing letter sent by that
business opposing an arcade request (J's Supercade) in the same plaza
(Lakeview Shopping Center). They were now requesting a video game for their
restaurant.
Mayor Pro Tem Roth had noted the same situation; however, there was a big
differential between a video game and a pinball machine. It was common to
place video machines in the waiting rooms of restaurants for customer use
while they were waiting to be seated to eat. He felt that was what they were
trying to do.
Councilwoman K~ywood stated that they did not know whether they already had
other devices; Mayor Pro Tem Roth assured Councilwoman Kaywood that the Betsy
Ross Restaurant needed all the seating they could get in their facility and
were certainly not going to turn the restaurant into an arcade.
Councilwoman Kaywood was concerned that they were not getting the information
needed to make a decision and she presumed that would be corrected with the
proposed ordinance.
The Mayor Pro Tem noted that due to the situation that occured with J's
Supercade in the Lakeview Center (see minutes May 12 and 19, 1981), they were
now trying to legislate something where they had never given previous
direction to the City Clerk or whoever was involved with the applications.
Therefore, they had to wait for a period of time during which (1) they had to
modify the application form and, (2) review the ordinance now being prepared
by the City Attorney. He had a problem in delaying permits asking for one
video game until they had the ordinance.
Councilwoman Kaywood explained that she was not criticizing anyone and that
was why she was saying they had not been receiving the information they
needed. If the subject involved only one video game to be used while people
were waiting, that was fine.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve an Amusement Devices Permit for
Betsy Ross Restaurant, 444 North Lakeview Street, for one video game. (Arnold
P. Darin, applicant) Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Councilman
Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
108: AMUSEMENT DEVICES PERMIT - NINA'S RECORD SHOP: Application by Michael
Eugene Thompson, Nina's Record Shop, 721 North Anaheim Boulevard, for three
video games, was submitted.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted again, this was a record shop asking for three
video games, but she did not know how many they had at present and she would
like to be able to continue consideration of that permit to find out how many
there were.
The Mayor Pro Tem stated he would be opposed to a continuance because it was
obvious that selling records was the primary activity of the business, and
that the Police had no problems and were recommending approval.
81-816
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 26~ 1981~ 1:30 p.M.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to approve the subject Amusement Devices
Permit for Nina's Record Shop, 721 North Anaheim Boulevard, for three video
games. (Michael Eugene Thompson, applicant) Councilman Roth seconded the
motion. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
108: AMUSEMENT DEVICES PEP. MIT - HAi~SHAW'S: Applications by Angelo George
Typaldos, for Banshaw's No. 5, 24, 27, 37, 39, 42 and 45 at various locations
in the City, was submitted.
Both Councilwoman Kaywood and Councilman Bay questioned what type of business
Hanshaw's was; City Attorney H~pkins explained that they were a liquor store
chain operation.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that in the seven applications involved for
Hanshaw's, they were all requesting two video games and she did not know how
many devices were existing at the businesses. Her concern if they were a
liquor store, they would be attracting children and those under 21 to come in
to use the games. She wanted to continue consideration of the applications to
ascertain how ~any devices they already had.
Councilman Overholt stated that he would support such a motion, but not
n~cessarily for the reasons Councilwoman Kaywood stated. It seemed they were
now getting into wholesale placement of machines and perhaps that type of
request was where they should delay any action to see how the proposed
ordinance, if adopted, would apply to that type of placement.
Mayor Pro Tem Roth suggested a two-week continuance so that they would have an
opportunity to review the ordinance. He was also concerned that they should
give additional direction to the City Manager and City Clerk not to put such
items on the agenda for two weeks and perhaps they could get an emergency
reading on the ordinance next Tuesday if possible.
City Attorney Hopkins sta~ed he would question an emergency in the game area.
It was perhaps inconvenient, but not a disaster or catastrophe. However, he
would review the urgency ordinance provision.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to continue consideration of the subject
applications for two weeks. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
108: AMUSEM~ENT DEVICES PERMIT - TILE WOODS: Application by Norman Morris
Williams, The Woods, 1287 East Lincoln Avenue~ for various amusement devices,
was submitted.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that a gentleman was present earlier who wanted to
speak to the matter. She asked to hear from him at this time; there was no
response.
81-817
City Hall,~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 26, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Pro Tem Roth then asked to speak to the matter since the business was
only a few blocks away from his office. Prior to Mr. Williams taking over the
business, The Woods, it was somewhat of a Police problem area. Mr. Williams,
however, was a former Deputy Sheriff and also a member of the Alcoholic
Beverages Commission prior to retiring and taking over the business which was
now run in a "high-class" fashion with no problems and a credit to the
community. In speaking to Mr. Williams, he was asking for a video game and
shuffle board. They had never had the games in the establishment before.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to approve an Amusement Devices Permit for
The Woods, 1287 East Lincoln Avenue, for the two amusement devices. Council-
woman Kaywood seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION
CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilman Overholt offered Resolution Nos. 81R-246
through 81R-248, 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. 81R-246: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAJtEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Frank M.
Rubalcava, et ux.; Robert N. Jackson; Shaw and Talbot and Budge; Michael A.
Hakanson, et al.; Anaheim Hills Medical Development Co.; Coronado Associates;
Donald Slater, et ux.; Glenda K. Wilson, et al.; The Fidelty Mutual Life
Insurance Co.)
158: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-247: 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
#2800-43, Anaheim Blvd. Widening project)
158: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-~48: 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
#2800-51, Anaheim Blvd. Widening project)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay and Roth
None
Seymour
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution Nos. 81R-246 through 81R-248, both
inclusive, duly passed and adopted.
140: NOTICE OF COMPLETION - CANYON HILLS LIBRARY: Account No. 24-904-6325
and 47-904-6325--Contractor: J. A. Stewart Construction Company.
81~818
City Hall,~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 26, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Bay stated at the time of construction, they had drainage problems
immediately to the north of the construction site, i.e. a Mrs. Houston at 5800
Camino Papinzan, on a City drainage stoppage. He was certain staff was aware
of that from the Ho tline calls they received. At the time that was going on,
one of the causes mentioned when he talked to Mrs. Houston related to various
things getting in the drains coming from the Library site and also concrete
over some of the drains. He wanted to be certain before voting for a resolu-
tion clearing the construction portion that the drainage problems were solved.
He did not mean the total drainage problem of the City drain near Mrs.
Houston, but what he heard alleged that the construction site caused some of
the problems which affected Mrs. Houston's property.
Mr. Art Daw, Civil Engineer--Design, stated he was aware of the problem and to
his knowledge all of the problems had been corrected. If there were any
problems with the drains, it was just during the period of construction before
the final paving of the parking lot.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 81R-249 for adoption. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-249: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT,
LABOR, SERVICES, MATERI~LS 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: CANYON HILLS
LIBRARY, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 47-904-6325 AND 24-904-6325.
(J. A. Stewart Construction Company)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay and Roth
COUNCIL MEMBERS:'TNone
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 81R-249 duly passed and adopted.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City
Planning Commission at their meeting held May 4, 1981, pertaining to the
following applications were submitted for City Council information.
1. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 80-81-35 AND VARIANCE NO. 3213: Submitted by Bill J.
Nickel, et al, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200, to construct
a 14-unit apartment complex located at 1225 South Nutwood S~reet~ with various
Code waivers.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution Nos. PC81-98 and 99,
granted Reclassification No. 80-81-35 and Variance No. 3213, and granted a
negative declaration status.
81-819
City Ha ll,~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 26, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
2. VARIANCE NO. 3214: Submitted by The William Lyon Company, to establish a
5-lot, 178-unit condominium subdivision on proposed RM-3000 zoned property
located at the southwest corner of Euclid Street and Cerritos Avenue, with a
Code waiver of maximum fence height.
The subject variance was withdrawn by the petitioner. A Class 3, categorical
exemption was ratified.
3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2203: Submitted by Family Health Program,
Incorporated, to expand an existing medical office building on ML zoned
property located at 1236 North Magnolia Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. ?C81-96, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2203, and granted a negative declaration status.
4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2204: Submitted by Lakeview Plaza Investment
Company, Ltd., to permit on-sale beer and wine in a proposed restaurant on
CL(SC) zoned property located at 414 North Lakeview Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. 81R-93, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 220 4, and ratified the categorical exemption deter-
mination of the Planning Director.
5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2205: Submitted by Phileas S. K. and Julia Tam
Kan, to permit on-sale beer and wine in an existing restaurant on CL zoned
property located at 3070 West Lincoln Avenue, with a Code waiver of minimum
number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-94, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2205, and ratified the categorical exemption deter-
mination of the Planning Director.
6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMI~ NO. 2208: Submitted by Robert Louis and Helen
Allgeyer Clark, to permit a cocktail lounge on CL zoned property located at
1112 North Brookhurst Street, with a Code waiver of minimum number of parking
spaces.
The subject Conditional Use Permit was withdrawn by the petitioner. A
negative declaration status was granted.
7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1054 - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: Submitted by
John Butler, requesting termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 1054, to
permit a public dance hall on CL zoned property located south and east of the
southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Westchester Drive.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-100, terminated
Conditional Use Permit No. 1054.
8. VARIANCE NO. 1918 - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: Submitted by Brookmore Arms,
requesting termination of Variance No. 1918, to permit the establishment of an
automobile parking lot and restaurant on CL zoned property located at the
·
northeast corner of Brookmore Avenue and Brookhurst Street.
81-820
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 26~ 1981, 1:30 P.M.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-101, terminated
Variance No. 1918.
9. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1517 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Robert
W. Hostetter, to permit a board and care facility for the treatment of
alcoholics on ~M-1200 zoned property located at 703 North Lemon Street.
The City Planning Commission granted an extension of time to Conditional Use
Permit No. 1517, to expire May 28, 1983.
10. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 79-80-31 AND VARIANCE NO. 3141 - EXTENSIONS OF TIME:
William E. Uhl, requesting extensions of time to Reclassification No. 79-80-31
and Variance No. 3141, to permit an industrial complex on proposed ML zoned
property located at the southeast corner of Frontera and Glassell Streets,
with various Code waivers.
The City Planning Commission granted extensions of time to Reclassification
No. 79-80-31 and Variance No. 3141, to expire April 7, 1982.
11. CONDITION~[L USE PERMIT NO. 2202 - AMENDING PC81-85: Submitted by the
Anaheim Planning Commission, requesting amendment to Planning Commission
Resolution No. PC81-85, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 2202, in part,
denying Code waiver (b), required site screening, as not being a requirement
of the RM-1200 Zone.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-102, amended
Resolution No. PC81-85, nunc pro tunc.
No action was taken on the foregoing items, therefore the actions of the City
Planning Commission became final.
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 80-81~33 AND VARIANCE NO. 3211: Submitted by Ronald
Timothy and Kathi Ann Sho~t, for a change in zone from RS-7200 to RM-2400, to
construct a 4-unit apartment complex on property located at 124 North Coffman
Street, with various Code waivers.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-95, granted
Reclassification No. 80-81-33, and continued Variance No. 3211 to May 18, 1981
meeting, and granted a negative declaration status.
Councilwoman Kaywood requested review of the subject reclassification and
variance.
VARIANCE NO. 3212: Submitted by Jee D. and Lillian Chang, to construct a
16-unit apartment complex on RM-1200 zoned property located at 655 South
Webster Avenue, with various Code waivers.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-97, granted
Variance No. 3212, and granted a negative declaration status.
Councilwoman Kaywood requested review of the subject variance.
81-821
City Hall,~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 26, 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2195: Submitted by M. J. Brock & Sons, Inc., to
permit a hospital parking lot on RM-2400 zoned property located on the south
side of Romneya drive, west of Euclid Street, with a Code waiver of maximum
fence height.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-92, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2195, in part, and granted a negative declaration
status.
Councilman Bay requested a review of Conditional Use Permit No. 2195 and asked
that the public hearing be set Tuesday, July 7, 1981, at 8:00 P.M.
Councilman Overholt noted that Mr. Belmont was present. He asked if he had
any problem with the July 7th date.
Mr. Belmont answered "no", but would appreciate being able to have the public
hearing with a full Council; City Clerk Roberts confirmed that a full Council
was anticipated to be present on July 7, 1981.
CONDITIONAL US~ PERMIT NO. 2146 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Request by Jerome B.
Adelman, for an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 2146, to
retain a travel and ticket sales agency on ML zoned property located at 2100
South State College Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission denied the request for the extension at their
meeting of May 4, 1981.
City Clerk Roberts reported that the City Attorney advised it would be appro-
priate for the Council to consider the extension of time at this time since no
public hearing, was required. The applicant had appealed the decision of the
Planning Commission.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kay~ood stated she would affirm the action of the
Planning Commission and move to deny the requested extension.
Before any action was taken, Mayor Pro Tem Roth asked if anyone wished to be
heard on the matter.
Mr. Les Cooley, Tait and Associates, 12553 East Questa Drive, Cerritos, stated
he was present representing the applicant, Jerome Adelman. They were
requesting an extension since they had been in negotiations to acquire the
property from Exxon and there was a problem in that acquisition. A letter had
been submitted to Planning from Exxon subsequent to the Planning Commission
hearing on May 4. They intended to use the existing service station as the
office facility on the subject site, but the construction process had not
started as of this date. In the letter, Exxon noted they would be working
with the applicant in the remodeling of the station within the next six-month
period. He then clarified for the Mayor Pro Tem that Mr. AJelman was trying
to purchase the property, but Exxon was still withholding their decision on
the actual sale.
81-822
City Hall,~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 26, 1981,' 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Bay asked at the time the original six months' period was granted,
if the applicant was told he had six months to make the use permanent at that
time.
Miss Santalahti answered "yes". The Planning Commission was concerned that
some kind of progress be made. The use was established originally without a
license or benefit of a CUP. The reason the Planning Commission denied the
request for an extension was due to the fact that they felt nothing had
happened in the interim six months.
Mayor Pro Tem Roth considered the problem to be the applicant asking for some-
thing without being able to substantiate that a legitimate sale was in pro-
gress with Exxon or that they had an interest in such a sale. He was suppor-
tive of the business they were trying to establish, but it had to be of a
permanent nature and he needed some assurance at this time that it was not
another stall. If so, and another six months were granted, the applicant
would have had a year's use in a temporary trailer. Mr. Cooley should have
come prepared today to convince the Council of Exxon's interest in selling the
property. ·
Mr. Cooley explained that he did have a letter from Mr. Adelman dated
April 13, 1981 indicating if the use permit remained valid until June 1, at
that time he would start construction and remodeling, remove the storage tanks
on the property, and would discontinue operating his business out of the
trailer.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated her problem lay in the fact that the business had
been set up illegally and when cited by Zoning Enforcement, the applicant then
applied for a use permit. He was given six months and had done nothing during
that time. He was supposed to be out of the trailer and as Mayor Pro Tem Roth
had stated, if given another six months, he could have a very easy one-year
operation and walk away w~th a profit from that. On that basis, she was still
going to have to uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and deny the
request for an extension of time.
Miss Santalahti then explained for Councilman Bay that if the applicant were
to do something between now and the time of expiration of the CUP that would
convince the Planning Commission he was serious in terms of improving the
property, he could always go back to the Planning Commission and re-request
the time extension based on new evidence.
Councilman Bay thereupon seconded the motion to deny the request for extension
of time.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt asked Mr. Cooley if he had a
letter from Exxon which he wished to submit today as evidence; Mr. Cooley
answered that the letter dated May 1981 was sent to the Planning Department
and he had a copy from which he read excerpts. Exxon was saying that they
would participate in the removal of the gasoline island canopies.
81-823
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 26~ 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Overholt noted that it would take more than that. The letter indicated
that they were awaiting a management decision with respect to the use. He
then asked Mr. Cooley if an offer had been made to Exxon; Mr. Cooley answered
"yes".
Councilman Overholt stated he was going to move to continue further considera-
tion of the request for an extension of time one week to give the applicant an
opportunity to submit documentation indicating that an offer had been made and
that an offer was being considered by Exxon. He did not think it would serve
any useful purpose to deny the extension. %he problem today was the fact that
Mr. Cooley was not prepared to show that they were in good faith negotiations.
Mr. Cooley stated that Mr. Adelman would be able to supply such documentation.
He was present earlier, but had to leave.
Councilman Overholt moved to continue for one week consideration of the
requested extension of time on Conditional Use Permit No. 2146 for the purpose
of receiving documentation from the applicant indicating that an offer had
been made for t~he purchase of the property and was being considered by Exxon.
Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, a brief discussion ensued relative to the motion
already on the floor to deny; however, the motion to continue took preference
over the original motion.
A vote was then taken on the motion to continue.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt and Roth
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood and Bay
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour
City Attorney Hopkins clarified that since the vote was a tie, the matter
would be held over one week. If the vote were split, after the documentation
was received next week, the issue would then be raised again the following
week when a full Council would be present.
Councilman Overholt stated, therefore, that in effect the motion to continue
for one week succeeded. He further commented that they would be glad to see
documentation showing that negotiations were pending.
Councilwoman Kaywood also wanted to be provided next week with the date Mr.
Adelman opened business on the site.
170: TENTATIVE TRACT NOS. 10996, 10997 AND 10998 - REQUEST FOR PERM~kNENT
WAIVERS OF STREET LIGHTING AND SIDEWALK STANDARDS: Requested by Anaheim
Hills, Inc., for permanent waivers of conventional street lighting and conven-
tional subdivision sidewalk standards for Tentative Tract Nos. 10996, 10997
and 10998, consisting of 22 RS-HS-22,000(SC) and 14 RS-HS-43,000(SC) zoned
lots on property located at the southwest corner of Avenida de Santiago and
Hidden Canyon Road, was submitted.
81-824
City Hall,, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 26, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the subject request for
permanent waivers with the provision that if at some future date the neighbor-
hood decided that they wanted lights, the City was not going to be responsible
for installing them.
Before any action was taken, Mayor Pro Tem Roth stated that he did not know
how the condition could be a part of the approval, and he asked the City
Attorney if that were possible.
Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
City Attorney Hopkins was of the opinion that it would not be appropriate at
this time to add a provision that would come up in future years.
Councilwoman Kaywood, speaking to Miss Santalahti, stated it seemed that what
they were requiring when they were granting such waivers was either a bond or
that the developer install something to facilitate easy hook-up in the future.
Miss Santalahti stated she vaguely recalled that there was a tract where a
bond was requi~ed to be covered for approximately five years to give the
people the opportunity to move in and if at the end of five years, nobody
wanted the improvement, the bond was released. She did not recall what
project was involved.
The Mayor Pro Tem recognized Mr. Horst Schor.
Mr. Horst Schor, Anaheim Hills, Inc., explained the reason they requested a
permanent waiver without any provisions for street lights was that they
initially experimented with the tract across the street on Avenida Santiago.
He believed it was that development that had some kind of letter of commitment
or a bond. As a result of the experience with the homeowners and the
builders, they found that~here was no interest in sidewalks or street lights.
Actually the Homeowners A~sociation was considering installation of a uniform
street light for each front yard which would be a low mushroom-type lighting
at the entrance to the driveway. That was why they felt confident in asking
for the waiver without any provision for future improvements. He would also
feel confident in not requiring any bonding because of the established record.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she just did not want to see the City have to pick
up the cost in the future.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Seymour was absent.
MOTION CARRIED.
142/179: ORDINANCE NO. 4229: Councilwoman Ka~vwood offered Ordinance No. 4229
for adoption.
ORDINANCE NO. 4229: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEhM REPEALING SUBSECTION
.060 OF SECTION 18.84.041 OF CHAPTER 18.84 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHELM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (pertaining to prohibited uses in the SC
Zone)
81-825
City Hall,. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 26, .198!~ 1:.3~ P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay and Roth
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Ordinance No. 4229 duly passed and adopted.
142/108: ORDINANCE NO. 4230: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4230 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4230: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING SECTION
4.24.010, CHAPTER 4.24, OF TITLE 4 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE I~ND ADDING A
NEW SECTION 4.24.010 IN ITS PLACE AND STEAD RELATING TO POOLROOMS.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
CO UNC fL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay and Roth
None
Seymour
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Ordinance No. 4230 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 4232: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4232 for first
reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4232: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHELM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (70-71-47(25, ML)
ORDINANCE NO. 4233: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4233 for first
reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4233: ~N ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ~MENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (80-81-12, RM-3000, Tract No.
11256)
106: AFFECTS OF POSSIBLE BASEBALL STRIKE ON CITY REVENUES: Councilman Bay
noted that the talk of the baseball strike had been filling the papers and he
was reading an article relating to a $1.2 million potential loss to City
revenues. He was not certain whether that was gross or net. He a§ked the
City Manager if they had a contingency plan based on those types of potential
losses for a long-term strike and if so, when they could have a look at it.
City Manager Talley first confirmed that the figure referred to was net and
secondly that they did have a contingency plan. About two-thirds of the
season remained, and they estimated approximately $1.6 million generated in
net figures with approximately $1.2 million coming in. They could handle
that, but next year would recommend to the Council that they make major
changes in the capital programs, depending on when the strike would end. He
added, however, that they feared even more a possible players strike in the
NFL which would affect City revenues greater than that.
81-826
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 26, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Bay stated if the strike occurred on Friday, he would assume they
would be looking at the contingency plan next Tuesday; City Manager Talley
stated they would probably bring that plan before the City Council on June 9th.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Councilman Bay requested a Closed Session to discuss
potential litigation with no action anticipated.
Councilman Bay moved to recess into Closed Session.
seconded the motion. Councilman Seymour was absent.
P.M.)
Councilwoman Kaywood
MOTION CARRIED. (4:20
AFTER CLOSED SESSION: The Mayor Pro Tern called the meeting to order, all
Council Members being present, with the exception of Councilman Seymour.
(5:00 P.M.)
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Bay moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded
the motion. Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED. (5:00 P.M.)
L!NDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK