Loading...
1981/12/2981-1469 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 29~ 1981~ 1:30 P.M. The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESET: ~S~T: P~S~T: COUNCIL Md~MBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour COUNCIL MEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR: Garry McRae PURCHASING AGENT: John F. Thomason PUBLIC UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER: Gordon Hoyt TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti WATER ENGINEERING MANAGER: Ray A. Auerbach Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. INVOCATION: The Reverend Tom Favreau, Melodyland Hotline Center, 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: "High School Band Director Recognition Week" - January 5-11, 1982 MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held November 10, 1981, with six typographical corrections as articulated. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Councilman Overholt abstained since he was not present at that meeting. 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 ordinance or resolution in regular order. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $4,751,869.17, in accordance with the 1981-82 Budget, were approved. CITY ~t~NAGER/DEPARTMENTAL b~TION CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilman Bay, the following item was approved as recommended: 81-1470 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 29~ 1981~ 1:30 P.M. a. 123: Authorizing a Second Amendment to the agreement with Steiny and Company, Inc., in the amount of $108,849.34 for Traffic Signal Maintenance within the City. MOTION CARRIED. 153: PRE-EMPLOYMENT PHYSICALS: A proposed agreement with the Ball-Taft Medical Clinic for pre-employment physicals for the period covering January 1, 1982, through December 31, 1983, was submitted. Councilman Roth asked if the Ball-Taft Medical Clinic had contracted with the City in the past and if there was any problem with that clinic; ~yor Seymour stated he would like information relative to the last time the pre-employment physicals had been bid and if the Ball-Taft Clinic had bid at that time. Later in the meeting, Mr. John Thomason, Acting Risk Manager, reported that they had researched the record and there was no indication that Ball-Taft Medical Clinic was ever removed from a City list because of a problem. They were a bidder in 1976, but not selected; however, the record was unclear as to why they did not bid in 1978. The b~yor questioned Mr. Thomason relative to a comparison of what the Bail-Taft Clinic bid in 1976 to their present bid which, in the final analysis, appeared to be a lower figure. He expressed his concern that it was inconceivable to him, at least, from the information that had been provided, that the Ball-Taft Clinic could offer the pre-employment physicals at the price they were quoting (see page one of memorandum dated December 18, 1981, from the Acting Risk Manager--on file in the City Clerk's Office). It was not the Council's interest or concern whether or not they made money, but that the quality of service delivered did not falter as a result of a contractor losing money on a contract. Anaheim could be making a contract to save a few dollars that could end up with some adverse service. The matter deserved a closer look by staff. City Manager William Talley suggested that a representative from the Clinic be asked to appear in order to answer the questions posed. He thereupon withdrew the item from the agenda until such time as a representative would be available to appear and the recommendation would then be brought back. Councilman Overholt moved to continue the existing contract with the Anaheim Medical Clinic to provide pre-employment physical examinations. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Human Resources Director Garry McRae stated that he had just checked with a representative from Anaheim Medical who indicated she thought they would continue their contract at the current year's prices, but if there was a problem in performing the physicals at the old rate, he would so inform the Council in one week. 81-1471 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 29~ 1981, 1:30 P.M. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL RESOLUTION CONSENT CALENDAR: Councilman Overholt offered Resolution Nos. 81R-586 and 81R-587 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. 123: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-586: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CONSENTING TO ASSIGNMENT OF PARKING LEASE. (URO Investments, 52 City parking spaces on Parcel ll(a), northeast corner of "Old" Lincoln Avenue and Claudina Street - Agency Historical Rehabilitation Revenue Notes Series 1981-A) 165: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-587: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE CITRON NEIGHBORHOOD TARGET AREA ALLEY P, ECONSTRUCTION, PHASE II, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 01-793-6325-E3560. (Sandstone Construction Company, $67,053.30) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 81R-586 and 81R-587 duly passed and adopted. 123/175: ACQUISITION OF SURPLUS HYDROELECTRIC ENERGY FROM THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST: Councilman Bay moved to authorize an agreement with SAI Engineers, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $11,500 to assist Anaheim in acquiring surplus hydro- electric energy from Milton-Freewater, Oregon, and authorizing the Public Utilities General Manager to execute same, as recommended in memorandum dated December 18, 1981, from the Public Utilities Board. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 123: USE OF CITY SEAL BY WORLD MUSIC COMPETITION OF ANAHEIM~ INC: City Attorney Hopkins reported that he had researched the subject matter as requested by Councilman Roth at the meeting of December 22, 1981, as a result of a letter sent to him (Roth) by Jack E. Brown, Music Olympics Committee Member, dated December 15, 1981 (on file in the City Clerk's Office). He had investigated the matter and discussed it with Mr. Brown, and he recommended that the Council authorize World Music Competition of Anaheim, Inc., to use the City Seal on the reverse side of the award medals to be used in the 1982 Music Olympics. World Music Competition of Anaheim was the name that was going to be used by a non-profit corporation set up by the International ~usic Olympics Committee. MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to authorize the World Music Competition of Anaheim to use the City Seal of the City of Anaheim on the reverse side of award medals to be used in the 1982 International Music Olympics and to authorize the City Attorney to prepare an agreement therefor. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 81-1472 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 29~ 1981, 1:30 P.M. 108: PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Council- woman Kaywood, application for a Public Dance Permit submitted by Luis Olivos, Jr., was approved for a dance to be held December 31, 1981, from 8:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. at Anaheim Stadium in the California Room and adjacent areas, subject to Police and Fire Department regulations. MOTION CARRIED. 139/129: OPPOSITION TO SB999 (CAMPBELL): Councilwoman Kaywood moved that a letter or telegram be sent to the State Senate with regard to SB999 (Campbell) reaffirming the Council's unanimous strong stand and opposition to the erosion of local control. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 108: REQUEST FOR 30-DAY EXTENSION FOR CLOSING OUT SALE: Councilman Overholt moved to approve the request of Mr. Fred Brown, dated December 11, 1981, granting a 30-day extension of time from the January 3, 1982, expiration date for a Closing Out Sale Business License for G & R Furniture Factory Showrooms at 2775 West Lincoln Avenue, subject to payment of the additional $10.00 per day business license fee, as recommended in memorandum dated December 24, 1981, from the Business License Division. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood wanted to be assured that no new inventory was going to be moved into the business. From the audience, Mr. Fred Brown answered that no new inventory was going to be added. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. 105/135: PHYSICAL AND FINANCIAL MASTER PLANS FOR THE CITY'S TWO GOLF COURSES: Robert Messe, Chairman of the Golf Course Advisory Commission, was present to discuss the Physical and Financial Master Plans for the H. G. "Dad" Miller and Anaheim Hills Golf Courses. Mr. Bob Messe explained that the Anaheim Golf Commission had designed a plan to yield the money necessary to modify the Golf Courses as previously submitted, and both the Physical and Financial Master Plans had been approved unanimously by the Golf Course Commission. He was present not only to present the business plan, but also to ask the Council to sanction that plan in pursuit of those steps necessary to bring the plan to fruition. Mr. Messe presented the plan outlined in data sheet entitled "City of Anaheim Golf Courses Financial Projection - 10 Years - FY 1982-83 Thru FY 1991-92 "2nd Revision" 12-4-81" (on file in the City Clerk's Office). In closing, Mr. Messe asked that the Council accept the plan concept and take the steps necessary to accomplish their goal. Mr. Ed. Klein, Vice Chairman of the Golf Course Commission, added that the plan was a good one and solved a very serious financial problem that the City had with the Golf Course (Anaheim Hills). It would not only improve the course, but also improve the area, and they were requesting the Council's support. 81-1473 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 29, 1981, 1:30 P.M. After Council questioning of Mr. Messe, the Mayor asked if staff had reviewed the project, and was there any comment; City Manager Talley stated they had reviewed it and looked forward to the implementation of the plan. Staff was perhaps more conservative in the estimate of operating costs. Their recommenda- tion would be to move ahead as rapidly as possible because nothing was going to happen until they made a determination on the feasibility of the major ethic, which was the redesign of the course, and the sale of the land for the other improvements. Until they knew that, the rest was conjecture. MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to (1) approve the plan as recommended by the Golf Course Commission and (2) direct staff to start the immediate implementation of the plan. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Before concluding, Mayor Seymour added his commendation to the Commission on the plan presented and he commended the staff as well. 108: HEARING - MIA TACO~ APPEAL OF DECISION ON AMUSEMENT ARCADE APPLICATION: consider an appeal of the decision of the Planning Director denying an Amusement Arcade Application for Mia Taco, 2801 East Lincoln Avenue, for twelve amusement devices. To P~. Robert Pinkus, first introduced his brother, Michael, owners of the subject business. He then read a prepared statement giving the background relative to the establishment of the business and the fact that they originally had twelve video games at their restaurant which, after the adoption of the new ordinance relative to amusement devices, necessitated an additional permit procedure since those businesses having more than four machines were now classified as arcades. They had since reduced the number of machines from twelve to eight. The Planning Department, following the new Ordinance, sent the required postcards to occupants within the 300-foot radius, indicating that a new arcade was about to be established. They felt there was confusion with regard to the postcard since it implied that the restaurant was closing and an arcade was opening instead, when that was not the case. They were in an entirely commercial area at the corner of a shopping center surrounded by stores and gas stations. They felt they had complied and respectfully requested that the Council approve their Amusement Devices Permit Application. Councilman Bay explained the procedure followed under the new Ordinance for clarification and stated that after reading the staff report, it stated there were forty-two neighbors within 300 feet opposed to the granting of the permit, or a total of sixty-nine percent. He felt that Mr. Pinkus was asking the Council to override its own plan to poll the neighbors. If the majority opposed, he did not intend to vote against those neighbors. 81-1474 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 29~ 1981~ 1:30 P.M. Mr. Michael Pinkus stated that after having asked, some of the forty-two people were under the impression that an arcade was being established. They felt something was going to change and that was not true; Mr. Robert Pinkus also confirmed that the impression was that they were establishing a new arcade. l~ayor Seymour then questioned the City Attorney relative to the retroactivity of the Ordinance, concluding that it was retroactive in that it affected those businesses having more than four machines on the effective date of the Ordinance. b~. Michael Pinkus stated that the City had them fill out an application for an Amusement Device Permit which was approved by both the Council and the Police Department in December of 1980 which was the same permit they filled out for an arcade. City Attorney Hopkins stated that he would have to look at the documents. The City Clerk just informed him that a permit had been granted by the Council. He had not seen that, and, therefore, recommended that the matter be continued for one week to allow him time to investigate. Councilman Bay also requested that he be provided with a copy of the post- cards that were sent out to those within three hundred feet. Mr. Ralph Brandmayer, 225 South Rio Vista, No. 23, stated he was opposed to the subject application from a safety and noise standpoint which he explained. He stated, however, that he was of the opinion that the business was being converted from a restaurant to an arcade. They had been customers at the restaurant occasionally and were never aware that twelve machines were on the premises. He would temper his complaint now that he knew it was a combina- tion of two businesses and they were engaged in it to the extent of twelve machines previously. He also noted that ninety percent of the time there was water standing in the northeast corner of the subject intersection (Lincoln Avenue and Rio Vista). He clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood that he would not object, knowing now that they did have twelve machines, it was the same business, and they were also reducing the number of machines from twelve to eight. He would object to additional machines, but would now withdraw his objection on the foregoing basis. Joyce Castillo, 2829 East Lincoln Avenue, stated that she circulated the petition in opposition at the request of some of the residents of the apartment complex at 225 South Rio Vista. She did not know their intentions (Mia Taco), but ~h~ received an overwhelming reaction ~rom the residents that they did not want an arcade. She felt that it was important the residents had some assurance they would not be expanding. There were only three people of those she had talked to who were in favor of the arcade. She also felt that the percentage of those opposed was much higher than the sixty-nine percent stated. She, too, confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood that she personally would have no objection if Mia Taco was only going to retain the eight machines that they had at present and remain as a taco stand, but she could not speak for the rest of the people on the petition. 81-1475 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 29~ 1981~ 1:30 P.M. She did not know if they all understood that the business would remain as a restaurant. There were three or four prior requests for a large arcade in the area and she believed the verbiage on the postcard was the same as that sent out with regard to the subject request. She also explained for Councilman Bay that she did not think the postcard system gave the real reaction of the people and did not know how effective any mailing or repolling would be. City Attorney Hopkins again suggested that the matter be investigated further. There was a permit and license issued but he did not believe it was for the presently defined type of arcade. He would research the matter thoroughly and come back with a full report. MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to continue consideration of the Amusement Devices Arcade Application of Mia Taco, 2801 East Lincoln Avenue, for one week. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. Before a vote was taken, Miss Annika Santalahti, Assistant Planning Director for Zoning, produced a copy of the wording on the postcard that was sent out to the affected residents and businesses when a request was made for more than four amusement devices; Councilman Roth concluded the postcard must be defective since the two people present today in opposition advised that they thought it was a change of use, but after the explanation, had no objection to eight machines. He suggested that they change the postcard in similar cases to indicate an existing use. Councilman Overholt also suggested to the applicants that they amend their application, since they originally had twelve devices and they were now reduced to eight. A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED. RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for fifteen minutes. (3:05 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (3:20 p.m.) 151: ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT - URO INVESTMENTS: Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 81R-588 for adoption, approving the terms and conditions of an encroachment agreement with UR0 Investments. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 81R-588: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT WITH URO INVESTMENTS. 81-1476 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 29, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-588 duly passed and adopted. 176: VACATION OF CERTAIN PORTIONS OF DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ALPHA: Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 81R-589 for adoption, declaring the Council's intention to vacate portions of the northerly half of "Old" Lincoln Avenue, the easterly half of Claudina Street and that certain public alley located generally in the area of the intersection of "Old" Lincoln Avenue and Claudina Street, and setting the date and time for a public hearing as Tuesday, January 19, 1982, at 3:00 p.m. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 81R-589: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE PORTIONS OF THE NORTHERLY HALF OF OLD LINCOLN AVENUE, THE EASTERLY HALF OF CLAUDINA STREET AND THAT CERTAIN PUBLIC ALLEY LOCATED GENERALLY IN THE AREA OF THE INTERSECTION OF OLD LINCOLN AVENUE AND CLAUDINA STREET. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-589 duly passed and adopted. PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 81-82-3, VARIANCE NO. 3238, AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11637: Application submitted by the Fieldstone Company for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-3000 to establish a 2-lot, 105-unit condominium subdivision on property located at the northwest corner of Romneya Drive and Coronet Avenue and at the southeast corner of Medical Center Drive and Coronet Avenue, with a Code waiver of minimum lot area per dwelling unit. Environmental Impact Report No. 113 was certified on March 16, 1974, and the subject Reclassification, Variance and Tentative Tract were approved by the Planning Commission under PC81-226 and PC81-227. A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman Kaywood at the meeting of November 24, 1981, and public hearing scheduled this date. Mayor Seymour announced that letter dated December 23, 1981, had been received from David R. Langlois, Vice President of Fieldstone, requesting a one-week continuance of the public hearing, since he would be out of town for the holidays and would not be able to attend today's meeting. 81-1477 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 29, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Mr. Clifford Harper, Anaheim Shores Homeowners Association Board of Directors, stated they had no objection to a continuance but requested, if possible, that it be an evening hearing to make it more convenient for their members to attend. MOTION: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the subject public hearing on Reclassification No. 81-82-3, Variance No. 3238, and Tentative Tract No. 11637 was continued one week to January 5, 1982, at 7:00 p.m. MOTION CARRIED. PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 3242: Application by Douglas E. Jones, et al, to permit a freestanding sign on CL zoned property located at 2045 South Harbor Boulevard, with a Code waiver of permitted location of freestanding sign. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-231, reported that the Planning Director had determined that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 11, 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, and further, denied Variance No. 3242. The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Mr. Vaughan Herrick, Agent, and public hearing scheduled this date. The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent. Mr. Vaughan Herrick, General Manager, Modern Development Company, 7803 Compton Boulevard, Paramount, explained that they had established a winery museum and tasting room at 2045 South Harbor Boulevard, and were having difficulty in attracting customers. Their entrance was on the south side of the building and they were lessees of a portion of that building. He had a copy of a letter from a Mr. Draganza (representing the property owner) advising that they must not have a sign in front of the premises but on the corner. He submitted the letter to the Council (made a part of the record). Theirs was a modest sign, twenty feet high, seven by nine, and in good taste. Apparently, the sign was no problem, but the location is. They were asking, instead of the required forty percent location within the property boundary, that they be allowed to move approximately twen~y-~wo feet from the property boundary. He also submitted photos to the Council to further augment his presentation upon which he elaborated. Mr. Bill Draganza, 895 Santa Isabel Avenue, Costa Mesa, then answered questions posed by the Council relative to the sign and Mr. Herrick's request. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak, either in favor or in opposition. 81-1478 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 29, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Mr. David Thomas, 6903 Bridgewater, Huntington Beach, stated that he was the Director of Real Estate for Thriftimart. They had an ongoing problem for many years of unauthorized parking on their lot. There was no reciprocal easement agreement allowing any other commercial entity to use it. They felt that by the location of the sign as requested, it would indicate to their customers that they had access to and rights to park on the Thriftimart lot which was not trne. That was their main concern. If customers of the subject business parked on the Thriftimart lot, they would be towed away. He had previously discussed the matter with Mr. Herrick who did not offer any solutions to the problem. He (Thomas) felt the way to resolve the problem was to completely relocate the landscaped area to the southern property line, increasing the driveway width. A sign in that area would then pull his customers into that area; however, it was an expensive solution. He then confirmed, upon Council questioning, that the subject business had not affected the Thriftimart operation in any way and that they would not consider a reciprocal agreement, allowing the museum and tasting room to use their lot. He then outlined the problems they had on their lot with overflow parking from conventions held at the Convention Center. Mayor Seymour, after hearing the difficulties caused as a result of overflow parking from the Convention Center, asked Mr. Thomas if he would be interested in dealing with the City by leasing the Thriftimart property, or a portion of it, in order to provide additional parking in that area; Mr. Thomas stated he would speak with his people relative to the Mayor's suggestion because their main problem revolved around that overflow parking situation. Mayor Seymour stated that he should subsequently contact the City Manager to discuss the matter. There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor gave Mr. Herrick an opportunity to rebut. Mr. Herrick stated, to his knowledge, the winery/museum itself had not caused Thriftimart any problem and they had the same problems as Mr. Thomas described. The Mayor closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council ratified the determination of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 11, 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. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Seymour stated, having been to the facility, there were some unique circumstances involved. There was no signing or visual identification of the building from the easterly side facing Harbor Boulevard, and on the south side there was an awning. Further, the uniqueness was established by the 81-1479 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 29, 1981, 1:30 P.M. adjoining property to the south, as borne out by the testimony. The particular type of business merited whatever the City could do to ensure its success, given the background as presented by Mr. Herrick. It was more a museum than a wine- tasting room since it contained many artifacts of wine making. He (Seymour) did not feel what was being asked was unreasonable, and further, felt that Mr. Thomas' problem was more with the City and the Convention Center than with the subject business. For the foregoing reasons, Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 81R-590 for adoption, granting Variance No. 3242, reversing the findinRs of the Planning Commission, and subject to the following Interdepartmental Committee recommenda- tions: 1. That the owner(s) of subject property shall submit a letter requesting the termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 1860 to the Planning Department.. 2. That appropriate water assessment fees as determined by the Office of Utilities General Mmnager shall be paid to the City of Anaheim prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheimmarked Exhibit Nos. 1, 2 and 3. 4. That Condition No. 1, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to the commencement of the activity authorized under this resolution, or prior to the time that the building permit is issued, or within a period of one year from the date hereof, whichever occurs first, or such further time as the Planning Commission may grant. 5. That Condition No. 3, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 81R-590: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 3242. Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood wanted the Traffic Engineer's opinion relative to the proposed location of the sign to be sure it would not be blocking the view of oncoming traffic; after checking with ~taff, Council- man Overholt explained for Mr. Draganza that if the variance were granted, any other sign on that property would have to come in for a variance. Councilwoman Kaywood asked the Mayor if he would accept her recommendation relative to the Traffic Engineer investigating the matter. 81-148Q City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 29, 1981~ 1:30 P.M. Miss Santalahti suggested that they add a condition requiring that specific placement of the sign shall be at the approval of the Traffic Engineer; they Mayor stated he would accept that as a condition. Later in the discussion, Traffic Engineer Paul Singer, stated his only concern was that the sign be placed in such a way as not to obstruct the view of on- coming traffic at the driveway. He determined that the sign would not impact the line-of-sight the way it was mounted. Mayor Seymour, upon a question posed by Councilman Overholt, asked that in the event the wine tasting and museum left the premises, would the Council have the right to review the situation. Miss Santalahti answered, it could be stated that the Council specifically intended it to be this sign and any other sign shall comply with Code, or at least require that it come back to the Council. The Mayor added to the Resolution that the matter be brought back to the Council for review in the event there was a change of use. The Mayor then noted item two in the Interdepartmental Committee recommendations asking for the appropriate water assessment fees. He wanted to know if that was a standard requirement and the amount of the fees. Miss Santalahti answered that it was standard but she did not have any data as to the amount of those fees. Later in the meeting, Ray Auerbach, Water Engineering Manager, reported that the fees were $1,328 per acre, but it would take approximately one-half hour to determine the specific fee due. Mr. Herrick explained that in the meantime, he discussed the situation with Mr. Draganza, who stated that upon submission of a building request, he would be glad to pay whatever fees were due at that point and would be willing to pay a proportionate payment immediately if needed; Mr. Draganza confirmed what Mr. Herrick just related. Later in the meeting, Mr. Auerbach reported that they investigated the two parcels in question and the water assessment fee for portions of each were paid in 1962 and 1964, but there was a balance still due for just over an acre, amounting to approximately $1,600. They Mayor then included in his Resolution that Condition No. 2 of the Interdepartmental recommendations include the payment of water fees of approximately $1,600, along with the foregoing condition that the matter be brought back to the Council for review in the event there was a change of use. 81-1481 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Decmmher 29, 1981~ 1:30 P.M. A vote was then taken on the foregoing Resolution. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEb~ERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-590 duly passed and adopted. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2274 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application by Orange County Water District, to permit a truck and heavy equipment storage yard on RS-A-43,000(SC) zoned property located at 1124 North Richfield Road. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-235, declared that the subject project 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 environmental impact due to this project, and further, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2274, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay the traffic signal assessment fee (Ordinance No. 3896) in the amount of $500.00 per acre for 1.76 acres. 2. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans on file with the Office of the Executive Director of Public Works. 3. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to commencement of structural framing. 4. That plans shall be submitted to the Building Division for any proposed structures including modular units, showing compliance to the Uniform Building, Plumbing, Electrical, Mechanical and Fire Codes as adopted by the City of Anaheim. The appropriate permits shall be obtained from the City prior to construction. 5. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit No. 1; provided, however, that no vehicular access shall be taken to or from Tustin and Lakeview Avenues. 6'. That Condition No. 1, above-mentioned, shall be complied with within a period of sixty (60) days from the date herein. 81-1482 City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 29~ 1981~ 1:30 P.M. 7. That the use is granted for a period of five (5) years subject to possible time extensions by the Planning Commission if it is determined that the use has not had an adverse impact on nearby streets and properties. The petitioner shall make written requests for the time extensions. A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman Kmywood at the meeting of November 24, 1981, and public hearing scheduled this date. The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent. Mr. Ron Christian, Lorton Truck and Equipment, 8311 Westminster Boulevard, Westminster, explained that they proposed to lease the subject property from the Orange County Water District, subject to a Conditional Use Permit. They planned to move their offices and heavy equipment to the site. Councilwoman Kaywood stated there was an objection from industrial users in the area, and fifteen who signed a petition of opposition. She also referred to letter of opposition dated November 20, 1981, received from Shaw and Talbot and Budge (made a part of the record) objecting to the heavy use and degrading the area with the heavy equipment that would be traveling back and forth to site, as well as the unimproved portion of Richfield Road that would result in the generation of a great deal of dust. Those were the reasons for her concern as well. Mayor Seymour left the Council Chambers. (4:12 p.m.) Mr. Christian then explained for Councilwoman Kaywood that Richfield Road was already being maintained by the Kopp Recycling Operation who had a water truck and they did grade the road. There was little or no dust. Currently, the Water District was doing some maintenance on the settling pond, causing disarray, and there was dust now, but they were in the process of cleaning that up. As far as truck traffic, however, the road was wet and there was no dust. Further, he preferred to come off Lakeview Avenue because of the intersection of La Palma Avenue. The original Engineering recommendation was Lakeview or Tustin Avenue; but at the Planning Commission hearing it was changed to Richfield Road. The access road made no difference to them since they could take access from both Tustin and Lakeview Avenues. Only eleven trucks (trailers) were involved in their operation, which hauled their heavy equipment. They were about eight- hundred feet away from the Shaw/Talbot/Budge development. He also clarified that they had no planm to complete Richfield Road. Councilman Bay stated that the Planning Commission approved the use for five years. He asked Mr. Christian how he would feel if they approved it with a review after the first year; Mr. Christian stated that would not bother them at all. 81-1483 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 29, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Councilman Bay then asked staff if it was possible to set up a one-year review on the Conditional Use Permit and at the end of that first year they could take a look to see if the problems did exist and, if so, could then take the necessary action to correct the situation. Miss Santalahti stated they could go to the extent of notifying adjacent property owners that Lorton Truck and Equipment was up for a one-year renewal, indicating the concerns that the Council had, and ask if they were experiencing any such problems. Mr. Michael Bivin, Comptroller, Shaw and Talbot and Budge, explained that they had a problem with the general usage of the property insofar as it was heavy industrial use and they were trying to improve the area. If the City granted approval, their concern was for the maintenance of Richfield Road, not only the wear-down, but also the dust generated by the unimproved portion along the frontage of the Orange County Water District. He then clarified for Council- man Bay that although he was not exactly in favor of approval with a one-year review, he felt it was an adequate compromise. Mayor Seymour entered the Council Chambers. (4:20 p.m.) There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public hearing. ~4VIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council finds that this project would have 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 environmental impacts are involved in the proposal, and the initial study submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 81R-591 for adoption, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 2274, in accordance with the Planning Commission recommendations, but amending Condition No. 7 to read as follows: That the use is granted for a period of one (1) year subject to possible time extensions by the City Council if it is determined that the use has not had an adverse impact on nearby streets and properties. The petitioner shall make written requests for the time exten- sions. When the time extensions are considered by the City Council, adjacent property owners will be notified by the City in order to allow those property owners to notify the City of any possible disturbances such as dust or deterioration to Richfield Road caused by such use. Refer to Resolution Book. 81-1484 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 29~ 198t~ 1:30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. 81R-591: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2274. Roil Call Vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay and Roth NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Seymour ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-591 duly passed and adopted. Mayor Seymour explained his abstention was due to the fact that he was out of the Council Chambers during a portion of the discussion. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2278 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application by Shiow-Ing Lin and Fang-Ling Liao, to permit commercial use of a residential structure on CL zoned property located at 3347 West Ball Road, with a Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-244, declared that the subject project 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 environmental impact due to this project, and further, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2278, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the existing structure shall be brought up to the minimum standards of the City of Anaheim, including the Uniform Building, Plumbing, Electrical, Mechanical and Fire Codes as adopted by the City of Anaheim. 2. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay the traffic signal assessment 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 trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans on file with the Office of the Executive Director of Public Works. 4. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications on file with the City of A~aheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2. 5. That Condition Nos. 1, 3 and 4, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections. A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman Kaywood at the meeting of December 8, 1981, and a public hearing scheduled this date. 81-1485 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 29~ 1981~ 1:30 P.M. The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present. Mrs. Shiow-Ing Lin Liao, 426 West Ball Road, owner of the property, explained that they were in the process of selling it to two doctors for use as a doctors' office. Councilwoman Kaywood noted that the City required eleven spaces for that use and the applicant was asking to have only eight spaces. She could only see a horrendous problem relative to parking. Mrs. Liao stated that one of the doctor's worked in the morning, and the other in the afternoon, and the times did not overlap. They were going to stack their appointments so that there would not be more than two patients present at one time. She did not know if there was going to be a problem, but there was a street on the west side, Embassy Drive, and there were some spaces available there. Councilwoman Kaywood stated they could not impact residential neighborhoods by allowing something that would require more parking than existed. There were fifteen people who signed a petition opposing the Conditional Use Permit and there were also two people in opposition at the Planning Commission hearing because there was an overflow of parking in the area at present. City Clerk Linda Roberts then read a short letter from Mr. Joseph N. Makabi, 3333 West Ball Road, indicating his support of the subject request. He was present earlier, but had to leave the hearing. Councilman Bay noted that in this case there were two doctors and four employees which would leave only two parking spaces for patients. That did not sound like a practical parking situation to him. He commented further that he did not know if the applicant could work out an agreement with the owner of the vacant space next door. He maintained this particular Conditional Use Permit would have a built-in parking problem, and he could not support it. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilman Bay, the City Council finds that this project would have no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property for low-density land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the proposal, and that the initial study submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 81R-592 for adoption, denying Conditional Use Permit No. 2278, reversing the findings of the City Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution Book. 81-1486 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 29, 1981, 1:30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. 81R-592: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2278. Before a vote was taken, Councilman Roth stated he could not support the Resolution because he felt the applicant was not asking for anything more than had been given to other property owners in the area. Councilman Overholt stated he was going to support the Resolution of denial, since he felt parking would prove to be inadequate, but possibly, combining the subject property with that adjacent to it might be the answer. A vote was then taken on the foregoing Resolution. Roll. Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay and Seymour Roth None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-592 duly passed and adopted. I76: PUBL%C HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 81-1lA: In accordancewikh application filed by the Centennial Group, Inc., public hearing was held on proposed abandonment of a former Southern California Edison Company easement located north of Miraloma Avenue and west of Jefferson Street, pursuant to Resolution No. 81R-548, duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereof posted in accordance with law. Report of the City Engineer dated November 15, 1981, and a recommendation by the Planning Commission were submitted, recommending approval of said abandon- ment. Mayor Seymour asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no response, he closed the public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council ratified the determination of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 5, of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the requirements for an environmental impact report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 81R-593 for adoption, approving Abandonment No. 81-1lA. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 81R-593: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM VACATING A FORMER SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY EASEMENT LOCATED NORTH OF MIRALOMA AVENUE AND WEST OF JEFFERSON STREET. 81-1487 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 29, 1981, 1:30 P.M. Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-593 duly passed and adopted. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, 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 denied and referred to the City's Risk Manager: a. Claim submitted by Donald R. Peterson for personal damages sustained purportedly due to threats of arrest within the Anaheim City limits during the period of time between October 26, 1981 and December 3, 1981. b. Claim submitted by Jane A. Tipton for personal injuries purportedly sustained due to a slip and fall accident at the Anaheim Stadium on or about August 24, 1981. c. Claim submitted by Dynamite Productions for financial damages purportedly sustained due to misrepresentation by a Stadium employee regarding the availability of the Anaheim Stadium for a Country Music Concert on or about August 30, 1981. 2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed: a. 140: Anaheim Public Library--Monthly Statistical Report for November 1981. b. 105: Anaheim Public Library--Minutes of November 18, 1981. 3. 108: PUBLIC DANCE PERMIT APPLICATION: Application submitted by Felipe Jesus Guerena, Anaheim-Cruz Azul Soccer Club, for a Public Dance Permit for a public dance to be held December 31, 1981, 6:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m., in a building located at 1414 South Anaheim Boulevard, was approved in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Police and the Fire Marshal. 4. 170: TENTATIVE TRACTS: The following tentative tracts from the Planning Commission meeting of December 14, 1981, were submitted as follows and no action was taken: 81-1488 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 29, 1981, 1:30 P.M. a. Tentative Tract No. 10674 submitted by Fred L. Stevens, et al, to establish a 13-lot, RS-HS-22,000(SC) zoned subdivision on property located on the north side of Martella Lane, east of Martin Road. (Submitted in conjunction with Variance No. 3246 and a Request for Approval of Removal of Specimen Trees which will appear on the January 5, 1982, agenda under Planning Commission Consent Calendar.) The City Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract No. 10674 and granted a negative declaration status. b. Tentative Tract No. 11463 submitted by Terra Firma Properties, Inc., to establish a one-lot, 15-unit condominium subdivision on proposed RM-3000 zoned property located on the south side of Wilken Way, east of Harbor Boulevard. (Submitted in conjunction with Reclassification No. 81-82-11 and Variance No. 3249 which will appear on the January 5, 1982, agenda under Planning Commission Consent Calendar.) The City Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract No. 11463 for a one- lot, 14-unit condominium subdivision and granted a negative declaration status. c. Tentative Tract No. 10407 (Revision No. 3) submitted by American National Group, et al, deleting Condition of Approval No. 3, pertaining to construction of a 6-foot high masonry wall, to Tentative Tract Map No. 10407, a 27-1ot, RS-HS-10,000(SC) zoned subdivision on property located on the north side of Imperial Highway, south of Nohl Ranch Road. The City Planning Commission modified the request, requiring construction upon improvement of Imperial Highway and upon City request. EIR No. 218 had been previously approved. MJDTION CARRIED. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution N~s. 81R-594 through 81R-596, 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. 150: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-594: 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: PONDEROSA PARK COMMUNITY BUILDING, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 25-818-7105, 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 January 28, 1982, at 2:00 p.m.) 81~1489 City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 29~ 1981~ 1:30 P.M. 164: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-595: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: LINCOLN AVENUE STREET AND STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS, FHWA DEMONSTRATION PROJECT PROGRAM NO. 54 SULPHUR EXTENDED ASPHALT, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 13-793-6325-E3320, 51-606-6325-26720-34340 AND 24-793-6325-E3440, A.H.F.P. 1000. (Five States Plumbing, Inc./James I. Langford Plumbing) 164: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-596: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE C05~LETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: KELLOGG- ORANGETHORPE STORM DRAIN, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 13-791-6325-El190. (Five States Plumbing, Inc./James Langford Plumbing) Roll Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour None None The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 81R-594 through 81R-596, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE NO. 4296: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4296 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book. ORDINANCE NO. 4296: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (61-62-69(95), ML, north side of Miraloma Avenue between Kraemer Boulevard and Red Gum 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. 4296 duly passed and adopted. 142/171: ORDINANCE NO. 4297: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4297 for first reading. 81-1490 City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 29~ 1981, 1:30 P.M. ORDINANCE NO. 4297: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 2, CHAPTER 2.12, SECTION 2.12.050 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO DELINQUENT TAX PAYMENTS. 142/179: ORDINANCE NOS. 4298 AND 4299: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance Nos. 4298 and 4299 for first reading. ORDINANCE NO. 4298: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING NEW SUB- SECTIONS .050 AND .060 TO SECTION 18.42.030 OF CHAPTER 18.42 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures in the CL-HS zone) ORDINANCE NO. 4299: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (80-81-34, RS-7200, 1572 W. Orangewood Avenue) RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: The City Attorney requested a Closed Session to discuss litigation and potential litigation with action anticipated. Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (4:55 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present.' (5:27 p.m.) 112: CODY VS. THE CITY OF ANAHEIM: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Attorney and Moore, Graves and Madory were authorized to settle Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-52-65, Cody vs. City of Anaheim, in accordance with the settlement proposal submitted by the Plaintiff's attorney. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Bay moved to adjourn. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (5:28 p.m.) LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK