Loading...
1995/01/24City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL NINUTES - JANUARY 24~ 1995 - 5:00 The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session. PRESENT: MAYOR: Daly PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Lopez, Zemel, Feldhaus, Daly ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS: One PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: James Ruth CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl ASSISTANT CITY CLERK: Ann M. Sauvageau EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Lisa Stipkovich INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS OFFICER: Kristine Thalman ZONING DIVISION MANAGER: Greg Hastings PLANNING DIRECTOR: Joel Fick A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was posted at 11:50 a.m. on January 20, 1995 at the Civic Center kiosk, containing all items as shown herein. Mayor Daly called the workshop portion of the meeting of January 24, 1995 to order at 3:12 p.m. City Manager Ruth. The subject of today's workshop is the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Draft Citizen Participation Plan. The presentation will be given by Lisa Stipkovich and her staff. Letters on the subject have been received and previously submitted to the Council expressing some concerns regarding the work plan. Mrs. Stipkovich will cover those in her presentation. 174: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT - DRAFT CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN: Lisa Stipkovich, Executive Director of Community Development. Before the Council today are the new requirements from HUD (Housing and Urban Development) on the three different programs the City participates in - HOME program - Emergency Shelter Program and the Block Grant Program. In the past, this type of citizen participation has been done mostly for the Block Grant Program but these have now been consolidated into one process necessitating revision to the Citizen Participation Program. Mrs. Stipkovich then briefed the material prepared for the workshop presented in slides with a number also provided in hard copy (made a part of the record) portions of which covered an explanation of HUD consolidation of programs, HUD requirements to the Citizen Participation Plan, method of dissemination of information on the Draft Citizen Participation Plan, organizational structure of the CDBG Communitywide Citizen Participation Committee, organizational structure of the HUD Advisory Board and Anaheim's proposed Citizen Participation Plan. (This material was a part of the packet of materials submitted to the Council which contained the current Citizen Participation Plan, Draft Revised Citizen Participation Plan, new program requirements and changes, current Neighborhood Council Map, Redevelopment Project Area Map and public comments received in response to the Revised Citizen Participation Plan.) Mrs. Stipkovich also reported on the dollar amounts involved. They are going to receive the following: $1,319,000.00 - Home program $ 136,000.00 - Emergency Shelter Grant $4,992,000.00 - Community Development Block Grant 42 City Ha11~ ~naheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - J~qUARY 24, 1995 - 5~00 P.M. Block Grant is significantly higher than last year which was $3.7 million. Staff has been given a very short time frame in which to submit the application to HUD, due May 17, 1995. It will be necessary to bring something to the Council at the end of April or the beginning of May in order to meet the deadline. To give some idea of what is required in a strategy, staff will have to address almost every issue the City is faced with - housing, housing needs, homeless needs, marketing analysis for housing issues, general community needs, economic development, job creation and many more. The minimum requirements is that they have to involve very low and low-income persons and residents of slum and blighted areas. The posted map shows those areas that qualify under the programs. They have to involve all citizens of Anaheim including minorities and non-English speaking persons and must deal with people who have mobility problems, visual or hearing impairments and also persons who reside in assisted housing, basically those in the Section 8 program. The most controversial part of the plan evidently from the letters she has received is that they are suggesting every one of those entities have equal representation which will be one member from each of the commissions and one from each of the neighborhood councils. In the past they had two members from each of the neighborhood councils. This seems to be one of the strongest objections of the neighborhood councils. There was no intent of doing that in terms of lessening their importance. They did not see any specific need to have additional representation where equal representation for all of the interests involved seem to be appropriate. It is completely up to the Council. They do not have to have an advisory board, or neighborhood councils. Staff is suggesting they thought it was a legitimate process and a way to include all the areas HUD has asked them to consider. In concluding her presentation, Mrs. Stipkovich stated an advisory committee, even though it is not required, is a way to handle this because a committee has more time to reach out in the community, listen to the input and try to come up with a prioritized list to submit to the Council. The Council could act as that hearing board but they have always felt it to be more productive to have the citizens participate in that process, gather that information and then jointly submit a recommendation. The only changes are to add the two commissions - the Private Industry Council and the Gang & Drug Task Force and the other big issue is reducing the Neighborhood Council representation from two to one. Questions were then posed to Mrs. Stipkovich during which she explained for the Mayor that relative to a possible name change to HUD Advisory Board, in the past it was labelled the CDBG Board because that was the program they were working on. Now there are three HUD programs involved and at this point staff did not know what else to call it. It does not have to be called the HUD Advisory Board. They can call it whatever they like. The intent was to make the distinction that it is a broader responsibility. It could be called the Community Development Advisory Board which will take encompass everything. Council Member Lopez. He expressed his concern over the letters he has received from the Patrick Henry and other neighborhood councils and from Benny Hernandez of the South Anaheim Neighborhood Council who is present in the Chamber today. He asked if she had spoken with Mr. Hernandez. Lisa Stipkovich. She has not. She feels because of the response and the confusion, they want to hold a workshop next Thursday at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall West Conference Center regarding the proposed plan. She does believe, in some of the letters received, there is a different issue being raised about 43 City Hallt Anahe£m, Cal£forn~a - COUNCIL NIh'UTES - JP..NU~Y 24, 1995 - 5~00 P.M. having more of an opportunity to get involved even in the current process. They have been addressing and will follow up on those issues. It is a big concern to her which she believes was regarding the Citron Neighborhood Council and whether certain officers are getting the full ability to give input. It is a very important issue which they will have to discuss with the Citron Neighborhood Council. Council Member Lopez. He asked that she do that and also to contact Los Amigos and Mr. Hernandez to determine how their concerns can be answered and ask their input and participation. Lisa Stipkovich. They intended the mailing out of the draft 30 days prior even getting it to this forum. The letters are exactly what they should have done and that is why they gave them the draft. They marked it "Draft" and staff made sure everyone knew if they had comments that they should be put in writing and submitted. She is in the process of trying to address the comments and will be writing letters and making calls, but they mostly want to be sure they are invited to the Thursday workshop. Some of the other issues will have to be handled separately. She also clarified for Council Member Lopez that they will have an opportunity to speak at the meeting of February 7, 1995, when this matter is scheduled on the Council agenda. Mayor Daly. He believes it would be more productive for the staff to finish its revisions and continue communicating with the various neighborhood groups. There will be no decisions made by the Council today. This is just for exchange of information. He asked if changes must be made at a public hearing. Mrs. Stipkovich answered at a regular City Council meeting by motion. The balance of the workshop was a further discussion between Council Members and Mrs. Stipkovich revolving around the proposed make-up of the Citizen Participation Committee and the concerns expressed by the various groups/organizations. Before concluding, Mrs. Stipkovich confirmed for Council Member Zemel that on February 7, they will just be asking the Council to vote on the Citizen Participation Plan then the hard work starts for staff. There will be many other meetings with the community to talk about the five-year strategy and they have only two months to come up with that plan - a document they will have to live with for five years. The areas they have to cover are very broad. By May 17, 1995, she has to have an application to HUD or will be late in getting money for July 1, 1995. Mayor Daly. He announced in concluding the workshop that there will be a meeting at City Hall West on February 2, 1995 on the Citizen Participation Plan at 7=00 p.m. and subsequently the matter will come back to the Council on February 7, 1995 for a decision. At that time, there will be ample opportunity for citizen comments on the final proposed plan. REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION~ City Attorney Jack White requested a Closed Session noting first that there are no additions to Closed Session items. PUBLIC COMMENTS - CLOSED SESSION ITEMS: There were no public comments relative to Closed Session items. 44 City Hallr Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - JANUARY 24, 1995 - 5:00 P.M. The following items are to be considered at the Closed Session: CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9~a~ - EXISTING LITIGATION: Name of case: In re: County of Orange, Debtor, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Central District Case No. SA 94-22272; and In re: Orange County Investment Pools, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Central District No. SA 94-22273. 2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(a} - EXISTING LITIGATION: Name of case: Delmonico, et al. v. City of Anaheim, et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 71-80-71 (and sixteen other consolidated cases related to the Santiago Landslide). 3. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(a) - EXISTING LITIGATION: Name of case: McCracken v. Sohl, et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 74-10-82. 4. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(a) - EXISTING LITIGATION: Name of case: California Credit Union League v. City of Anaheim, U.S. District Court Case No. 94-5991ER. LIABILITY CLAIMS: Claimant: Justin Sarver Agency claimed against: City of Anaheim By general Council consent, the Council recessed into Closed Session. (3:49 p.m.) AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present (one vacancy), and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. (5:13 p.m.). INVOCATION: A moment of silence was observed in lieu of the invocation. FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Bob Zemel led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 119: DECLARATIONS OF COMMENDATION: A Declaration of Commendation was unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to the Anaheim Stadium Employee of the Year and the Anaheim Convention Center Employees of the Year. Mr. Greg Smith, Stadium General Manager introduced Mr. Chuck Plumberg, Head Usher and a Part-time Employee at Anaheim Stadium for the past 29 years since the facility opened in 1966. He gave some insight on Mr. Plumberg and explained that he was selected because he represented the spirit the City tries to portray to its guest and public most amplifying the Anaheim Way. Mr. Plumberg also commented on his tenure with the City. Mr. Lynn Thompson, Convention Center General Manager introduced Stella Hill, an employee of the Facility Maintenance work section where she is a painter and, in her private life, is an artist. Mr. Thompson elaborated on the reasons why Ms. Hill was chosen Employee of the Year. 45 City Ha11~ Anahelm~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - JANUARY 24r 1995 - 5:00 P.M. 119: THE FOLLOWING WERE RECOGNITIONS AUTHORIZED BY THE CITY COUNCIL THIS DATE TO BE MAILED OR PRESENTED AT ANOTHER TIME: Recognizing April 29-30, 1995, as City ~olf Championship Days in Anaheim FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $4,321,739.32 for the period ending January 20, 1995, in accordance with the 1994-95 Budget, were approved. Mayor Daly recessed the City Council meeting until after the Redevelopment Agency and Housing Authority meetings. (5:25 p.m.) Mayor Daly reconvened the City Council meeting. (5:28 p.m.) ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: There were no additions to agenda items. ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: No items of public interest were addressed. Mayor Daly. It is recommended that those who may have comments on the Cl items to hold those comments until the Council reaches that part of the agenda. PUBLIC COMMENTS - AGENDA ITEMS: Mrs. Shirley McCracken spoke on item C1 at this time since she had to leave the meeting. Her comments are included under item Cl. MOTION: Council Member Daly moved to waive reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions to be acted upon for the Council meeting of January 24, 1995. Council Member Feldhaus seconded the motion. One vacancy. MOTION CARRIED. CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Council Member Daly, seconded by Council Member Feldhaus, the following items were approved in accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Council Member Daly offered Resolution Nos. 95R-16 and 95R-17 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. Al. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as recommended: Claims rejected and referred to Risk Management: a. Claim submitted by Cornell Pintille for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about November 17, 1994. b. Claim submitted by Justin Sarver for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about July 3, 1994. c. Claim submitted by Ray & Frances Rivera for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 29, 1994. d. Claim submitted by The Walt Disney Company, c/o Edwin J. Richards, esq., for indemnity sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 16, 1993. 46 City Hallo Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - JANUARY 24t 1995 - 5~00 P.M. e. Claim submitted by Evelyn Pelico, c/o Paul W. Ralph, esq., for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about June 23, 1994. f. Claim submitted by Eula M. Perdue for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about July 17, 1994. g. Claim submitted by Virginia Buford, c/o Law Offices of Larry H. Parker, Inc., for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about June 14, 1994. h. Claim submitted by Fran-Kina Buford, a minor by and through Virginia Buford, Guardian ad Litem, c/o Law Offices of Larry H. Parker, Inc., for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about June 14, 1994. A2. 105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Community Services Board meeting held November 10, 1994. 105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Senior Citizens Commission meeting held December 8, 1994. 105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Anaheim Private Industry Council meeting held October 24, 1994. A3. 123: Approving Caltrans Program Supplement No. 066 to Local Agency-State Agreement No. 12-5055 for the Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Program (as part of the improvement project for upgrading and relocation of railroad signals and gates on Broadway, between Anaheim Boulevard and East Street); and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said Agreement. A4. 123: Approving a Second Amendment to Agreement with Artistic Maintenance, Inc., in an amount not-to-exceed $15,526 for landscape maintenance at the Police Department Headquarters, in accordance with Bid #5006. A5. 158: Authorizing the City Manager to execute a quitclaim deed to an easement (termination of easement adjacent to Mother Colony House). A6. 184: Reviewing the need for continuing the Sixth Proclamation of the Existence of a Local Emergency issued by the Director of Emergency Services on January 3, 1995, concerning the Santiago Landslide and Pegasus Landslide in the City of Anaheim; and taking no action to terminate the local emergency at this time. A7. 113: RESOLUTION NO. 95R-16: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN CITY RECORDS MORE THAN TWO YEARS OLD. (Public Utilities Department.) A8. 155: To consider approval of a Negative Declaration for Anaheim's Recycling Market Development Zone in the Anaheim Canyon Business Center (Canyon Industrial Area and including the Northeast Area of Redevelopment Project Alpha). The area is generally bounded by the SR91 Freeway on the south, the SR57 Freeway on the west, Orangethorpe Avenue on the north and the Imperial Highway on the east. City Manager Ruth. Staff is recommending this item be withdrawn at this time to be readvertised and rescheduled at a later date. 47 C£t¥ Hall~ Anahe£m~ Cal£forn~ - COUNCIL MINUTES - ~ANUARY 24~ 1995 - 5:00 P.M. A9. 128: RESOLUTION NO. 95R-17: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DEMANDING THAT THE COUNTY OF ORANGE RETURN 100 PERCENT OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM MONIES IN THE ORANGE COUNTY INVESTMENT POOL (OCIP) FORTHWITH. Mayor Daly asked if the City Attorney was recommending language changes. City Attorney White. He has drafted an amended resolution for Council's consideration and distributed it to the Council earlier today. Copies are or will be available immediately after Council's action. There are some minor changes to update the information based on information acquired over the weekend. Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 95R-16 and 95R-17 for adoption: AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Lopez, Zemel, Feldhaus, Daly NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS: One The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 95R-16 and 95R-17 duly passed and adopted. END OF CONSENT CALENDAR. ONE VACANCY. MOTIONS CARRIED. Al0. 130: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CABLE TELEVISION - REGULATION OF RATES AND SERVICES: At their meeting of March 22, 1994, the City Council considered approval of an Agreement with Multivision Cable TV for an extension of time for consideration of the proposed rates and charge for the basic cable service tier until June 15, 1994. The City Council opened the public hearing; continued the hearing to June 14, 1994, and extended the Agreement to June 15, 1994. At their meeting of June 14, 1994, the City Council again continued the public hearing on rates to August 23, 1994. On August 23, 1994, the hearing was continued to October 18, 1994. On October 18, 1994, Resolution No. 94R-250 was adopted directing the Cable Television Operator to keep an accurate account of al amounts received by reason of the rates in issued, and on whose behalf such amounts were paid. Again the hearing was continued to January 24, 1995. (See minutes of March 22, June 14, August 23 and October 18, 1994.) Submitted for today's meeting was report dated January 24, 1995 from the Intergovernmental Relations Officer, Kristine Thalman recommending that the Council adopt a resolution approving existing rates and charges for the basic service tier and associated equipment. Kristine Thalman, Intergovernmental Relations Officer briefed the situation from March, 1994 to the present for the benefit of the new council members. She then briefed portions of her January 24, 1995 report. After concluding her presentation, Council Member Lopez asked if in the final analysis would the recommendation today raise cable tv rates; Mrs. Thalman answered absolutely not. Council Member Feldhaus. He noted that the material did not include equipment rates and he asked if there is such a schedule for equipment, he would like to see it included in the basic package. 48 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - JANUARY 24, 1995 - 5~00 P.M. Kristine Thalman. Those figures will be included in the Council staff report in March of this year. Mayor Daly opened the public hearing; no one wished to speak, therefore, the public hearing was closed. Council Member Zemel. He asked if there was any downside to the proposed action or anything they needed to be concerned about noting that there was no public input. Kristine Thalman. She does not believe so. The City did not receive any complaints with the new reduction in rates submitted in July. She feels they ameliorated the problem as far as the public was concerned. Complaints were received initially but very few since then. She confirmed for the Mayor that the next public hearing will be held on March 14, 1995 and at that time new rates will come before the Council. Council Member Feldhaus offered Resolution No. 95R-18 for adoption, approving existing and/or proposed rates and charges for the basic service tier and associated equipment (Cable TV). Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 95R-18: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, PURSUANT TO SECTION 76.936 OF THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION APPROVING EXISTING AND/OR PROPOSED RATES AND CHARGES FOR THE BASIC SERVICE TIER AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT (Cable TV). Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 95R-18 for adoption: AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Lopez, Zemel, Feldhaus, Daly NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBER: One The Mayor declared Resolution No. 95R-18 duly passed and adopted. ITEM B1 FROM THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MEETING OF JANUARY 5, 1995~ DECISION DATE: JANUARY 12r 1995 INFORMATION ONLY - APPEAL PERIOD ENDS JANUARY 27~ 1995 B1. 179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3727 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNER: Euclid Shopping Center, 2293 West Ball Road, Anaheim, CA 92804 AGENT: Melvina Li, 2923 East 19th Street, Signal Hill, CA 90804 LOCATION: 1682 West Katella Avenue (Numero Uno Pizza): Property is approximately 18.6 acres located at the southeast corner of Katella Avenue and Euclid Street. To permit on-premise sale and consumption of beer and wine in conjunction with an existing restaurant with (deleted waiver of minimum number of parking spaces which was approved under Variance No. 4268 by the Zoning Administrator on December 8, 1994). ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: CUP NO. 3727 DENIED (Zoning Administrator Decision No. 95-01). Approved Negative Declaration. END OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ITEMS. 49 City Hall, ~beim, Cal£forn[a - COUNCIL NIEES - JANUARY 24, 1995 - 5:00 P.N. ITEMS B2 - B13 FROM THE PL~N'NING COI~4ISSION MEETING OF J,MqU~Y 9, 1995 INPORIO, TION ONLY - APPEAL PERIOD ENDS JANUARY 31r 1995 B2. 179: WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3730 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNER: Dong Hee Kang & Bu Sun Kang, 559 S. Olive St., Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: Perry Barit, 16712 Corrington Ave., Cerritos, CA 90703; Michael J. Wagner, 2111 Yucca Ave., Fullerton, CA 92635 LOCATION: 213 East Water Street. Property consists of two parcels of land Parcel 1 is approximately 0.23 acre located at the northwest corner of Water Street and Olive Street and further described as 559 South Olive Street; and Parcel 2 is approximately 0.12 acre on the north side of Water Street approximately 175 feet west of the centerline of Olive Street. TO permit a convenience/liquor store with a coin-operated laundry facility with waivers of (A) minimum setback abutting a collector street, and (B) required site screening adjacent to a residential zone boundary. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: CUP NO. 3730 GRANTED (PC95-1) (6 yes votes, i no vote). Approved waiver of code requirement. Approved Negative Declaration. B3. 179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3732 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNER: Linda Koshkerian, Vaskin Koshkerian, 1198 S. State College Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 1198 South State College Blvd. Property is approximately 0.52 acre located at the northeast corner of Ball Road and State College Boulevard. To permit the conversion of a service bay area within an existing service station into a mini-market with the off-premise sale and consumption of beer and wine. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: CUP NO. 3732 GRANTED (PC95-2) (4 yes votes, 3 no votes). Approved Negative Declaration. Mr. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager. Answered questions posed by Council Member Feldhaus for purposes of clarification. B4. 179: WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3733 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNER: City of Anaheim, Attn: Jack Kudron, 200 S. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: Airtouch Cellular, P.O. Box 19707, Irvine, CA 92713 LOCATION: 4545-55 East Riverdale Avenue (Riverdale Park Site). Property is approximately 5.39 acres located on the north side of Riverdale Avenue and approximately 230 feet west of the centerline of Starling Way. To permit a cellular facility including an unmanned equipment building and a 76-foot high transmission tower with waiver of maximum fence height. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: CUP NO. 3733 GRANTED (PC95-3) (6 yes votes, I absent). Waiver of code requirement APPROVED. Approved Negative Declaration. 50 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - JANUARY 24, 1995 - 5:00 P.M. Mayor Daly asked for additional information relative to the proposal. Jack Kudron, Park Superintendent. Revenue will be $1,000 a month rent for the site. Airtouch Cellular is also going to provide $16,000 worth of new play equipment for the park. They will replace any trees damaged as a result of construction on a two-one basis. Representatives from Airtouch are present to give additional information if necessary. The length of the contract is twenty-five years with five-year options. A lease agreement will be coming to the City Council after this step. City Attorney White clarified that allowing the Planning Commission decision to stand in this case does not necessarily mean that the Council will approve the lease agreement. The Council took no action on this item at this time. 85. 179: VARIANCE NO. 4266, CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 11: OWNER: Sundor Brands, Inc., Attn: Kenn Brandt, 1230 N. Tustin Ave., Anaheim, CA 92807 LOCATION: 1230 N. Tustin Avenue. Property is approximately 7.2 acres located on the east side of Tustin Avenue and approximately 1050 feet south of the centerline of Miraloma Avenue. Waiver of permitted location of a freestanding sign to construct a 60- square foot monument sign. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Variance No. 4266 GRANTED (PC95-4) (6 yes votes, I absent) Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager. Answered questions posed by the Mayor for purposes of clarification. 86. 179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3734 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: OWNER: Y.J. Hahn and B.J. Hahn, 8672 Cortez Ave., Garden Grove, CA 92644 AGENT: Yang Chun Bong, 1212 S. Dale Ave., Anaheim, CA 92804 LOCATION: 1212 South Dale Avenue. Property is approximately 0.43 acre located on the east side of Dale Avenue and approximately 210 feet south of the centerline of Ball Road. To retain a convenience market with the off-premise sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: CUP NO. 3734 GRANTED (PC95-5) (7 yes votes). Approved Negative Declaration. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - FOR INFORMATION ONLY: 87. 179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2651 - REQUEST FOR A ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: REQUESTED BY: Dwight R. Belden, Vice President of Southern California Anaheim Land Associates Limited Partnership, 450 Newport Center Drive, Ste. 304, Newport Beach, CA 92660-7640 LOCATION: 2400 E. Katella Avenue. Petitioner requests a one year extension of time to comply with conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 2651 (to permit an 11-story, 128 foot high hotel and two commercial office buildings) to expire on February 26, 1996. 51 ~t¥ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - ~ANUARY 24, 1995 - 5:00 P.M. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Request for a one year extension of time APPROVED with added conditions for CUP NO. 2651, to expire February 26, 1996. B8~ ~79: VARIANCE NO. 4215 - REQUEST FOR ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: REQUESTED BY: Arthur McCaul, C/O Habitat I, Ltd., 1875 Century Park East, Ste. 1880, Los Angeles, CA 90067 LOCATION: 1925 W. Lincoln Avenue. Petitioner requests a one year extension of time to comply with conditions of approval for Variance No. 4215 (to construct a 2-story, 74-unit detached condominium complex with waiver of (a) permitted residential structures, (b) maximum structural height within 50 feet of single-family residential zone boundary, (d) minimum distance between parallel walls, and (e) improvement of private streets) to expire January 11, 1996. ACTION TAKEN By THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Request for a one year extension of time APPROVED for Variance No. 4215, to expire January 11, 1996. E9. 179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3460 - REQUEST FOR A RETROACTIVE EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: REQUESTED BY: Song-Shyong Hsu, C/O KOK Investment Co., 17752 Cowan St., Irvine, CA 92714 LOCATION: 2658 West La Palma Avenue. Petitioner requests a one-year extension of time to comply with conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 3460 (to permit a 4-unit, 3,200-square foot expansion to an existing 19,800-square foot commercial retail center) to expire on November 4, 1995. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Request for a retroactive extension of time APPROVED for CUP NO. 3460 to expire November 4, 1995. El0. 179: TO INITIATE A CODE AMENDMENT PERTAINING TO OUTDOOR USES IN THE CG (COMMERCIAL GENERAL) ZONE - CITY WIDE: REQUESTED BY: Philip R. Schwartze, The PRS Group, 31682 E1 Camino Real, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 Petitioner requests Planning Commission initiation of a Code amendment pertaining to outdoor uses within the CG Zone. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Directed City Attorney to draft an ordinance. Bll. 179: CODE AMENDMENT NO. 94-2 - REQUEST TO CONSIDER AMENDING TITLE 18 PERTAINING TO TOWING SERVICES: Requested by the City of Anaheim, Planning Department, 200 S. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Recommended adoption to City Council. B12. 179: SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE TO RETAIN SEVEN SENIOR CITIZEN'S RETIREMENT UNITS BEYOND THE 205 CURRENTLY ENTITLED UNITS FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2622: William Cunningham Jr., of Obayashi Corporation requests substantial conformance determination for Conditional Use Permit No. 2622, (to permit 205 unit senior citizen's retirement facility). Current request is to retain seven senior citizens retirement units beyond the 205 currently entitled units. Property is located 505 S. Anaheim Hills Road. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: 52 City Hall, Anaheim, Californla - COUNCIL MINUTES - JANUARY 24, 1995 - 5500 P.M. Determined that the plans are in substantial conformance with original approved plans. B13. 179: LANDSCAPE PLAN AND SIGN PLAN REVIEW PERTAINING TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3717: Dave Bartlett Associates, 6082 Jade Circle, Huntington Beach, CA 92647, requests landscape plan and sign plan review for Conditional Use Permit No. 3717 (to permit a drive-through/walk-up restaurant with outdoor dining). Property is located at 121 N. Beach Boulevard. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION= Approved landscape plan and sign plan for CUP NO. 3717. ITEM B14 FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 23t 1995 INFORMATION ONLY - APPEAL PERIOD ENDS FEBRUARY 2t 1995 B14 · 15074: 155: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 281. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. OWNER: The Baldwin Co., Attn: Ron Freeman, 16811 Hale Avenue, Irvine, CA 92714 AGENT: Hunsaker & Associates, Three Hughes Road, irvine, Ca 92718 LOCATION: The Summit of Anaheim Hills Specific Plan (SP88-2). Property is approximately 7.9 acres located at the northwest corner of Oak Canyon Drive and Running Springs Road and further described as Tentative Tract Map No. 15074 within Development Area 203 and 204 of the Summit of Anaheim Hills Specific Plan (SP88-2). Petitioner requests approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 15074 to establish a 7.9 acre, 41-lot single-family subdivision including 40 residential lots and one open space lot. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Tentative Tract Map No. 15074 APPROVED (7 yes votes). EIR NO. 281 previously approved. Mayor Daly noted that item B14 was added to the agenda. City Clerk $ohl. The item is before the Council for review. The proponents and opponents are made aware at the Planning Commission hearing what the appeal periods are. The Council will have until February 2, if they wish to set the item for a public hearing. Mayor Daly. He asked for clarification if someone were to inquire about the item at the City Clerk's Office tomorrow, they would be told the matter was brought up and there would be a February 2nd deadline for any appeal. City Attorney White. The time limit is established by Government Code on filing of an appeal. Many of the B items that are under the informational calendar are only on the agenda as a convenience to the Council and not because it is required by law. It allows the Council to facilitate decisions whether to set hearings on appeals. Technically, they could eliminate all the items and it would then be up to the Council to track those items on their own. It is presumed anyone who is interested in these subjects would have followed them back through from the earlier stages and will know what actions have been taken and to inquire about the appeal process if they desire either through the Planning Department, Public Works Department or the City Clerk. There was no action taken by the Council at this time. END OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS. 53 City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - JANUARY 24r 1995 - 5=00 P.M. Cl. 114: COUNCIL VACANCY: Discussion and/or action pertaining to the vacancy to the two year term ending November, 1996, on the Anaheim City Council. At the Council meeting of December 6, 1994, Mayor Daly asked that this matter be placed on the Council Agenda of December 13, 1994. There was extensive discussion and input received at the December 13, 1994 meeting and the discussion was continued to December 20, 1994 where further input was received and again continued to January 10, 1995 and January 17, 1995 (see minutes those dates). Although nominations were made to fill the vacant seat at the meetings of December 20, 1994, January 10, 1995 and January 17, no nominee received three affirmative votes and, therefore, no one was selected to fill the vacant seat. The matter was subsequently continued to this date. Mrs. Shirley McCracken spoke under Public Comments on Agenda Items earlier in the meeting relative to this issue, but had to leave the meeting. Her comments are included as follows~ Shirley McCracken, 6553 Calle del Norte, Anaheim. She is speaking on item C1 at this time because she has to leave the meeting. She challenged the Council's operating procedures in court and even though the judge considered it an "intriguing" issue, he chose not to interfere in City Government. She never challenged the Council's right to change the operating procedures of the Council, but she was and still is concerned that rules of order established by resolution were changed by a staff memorandum or discussion in Closed Session rather than by a motion in a vote in open Council meeting. Abstentions in Anaheim have been an issue way back to Mayor Seymour's time and how they are considered has been varied. They are either considered as affirmative votes, negative votes or not considered as a vote at all. She encouraged the Council at some future date to clarify its position and put it in writing so that citizens and business persons coming before the Council may know how to interpret their votes. She had hoped the court issue would solve the appointment problem but it did not. She is asking that the Council do so. Follow the Charter which clearly states the Council shall appoint a replacement. It does not say can appoint or give the Council the power to call a special election. An election will be called by default if they are unable to decide on a replacement. She asked that they not govern by default. Stop being candidates but responsible Council Members and make an appointment. The issues facing Anaheim are considered nationwide. With computers and Internet, Anaheim issues are no longer local but nationwide as evidenced by an inquiry she received about Anaheim's elections on Internet. There are major issues facing the City and they cannot afford to have a vacant council seat any longer. People are opposed to spending money on a special election. She urged that they move on and agree on an appointee. She is involved in many issues and organizations and will continue to be active in Anaheim and continue to encourage the Council to make Anaheim a great place to live, work and play. Jeff Kirsch, 2661 W. Palais, Anaheim. In Huntington Beach where they are facing a similar predicament, they had a Saturday public interview of prospective candidates. One area he has reservations about regarding the appointment process is that although several qualified candidates have been mentioned, the time frame for making a decision seems to be done at a single meeting and the 54 Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - JANUARY 24~ 199S - 5:00 P.M. public at large who will be served by the appointee may not have any knowledge of the person or their positions on particular issues. The procedure in Huntington Beach, that of a public interview, seems to resolve that concern. If there is a desire to appoint, and he hopes there is, that there be some future change in the Charter or whatever to improve the process. Looking at the process in Huntington Beach might be beneficial. Sharon Ericson, 6401E. Nohl Ranch Road, Anaheim. She has listened for the past couple of months to the rhetoric regarding appointment vs. a special election. Council Member Zemel has stated at all Council Meetings, per the City Charter over 100,000 people are actually qualified to fill the seat. She believes that is not in the best interest of the citizens. If they want to appoint someone who did not run in the November election, the citizens do not know what this person stands for on any position plus there are very capable candidates who ran regardless of whether the Council Members like them or not. One of the biggest differences between the names the Council seems to be pulling from a hat and those who are candidates, including herself, is that the candidates made the effort and commitment to run and did all the work entailed in doing so. They informed the citizens what they were all about. She also does not believe that some of the people whose names have been brought forward only want to stay in office for 17 months. The citizens elected the Council to represent them and did not vote for any of the proposed appointees. In light of the qualified people who ran, it would be a "slap in the face". Considering the financial mess in the County, they should not give the public the perception that they are appointing one of their friends. They have already lost the public trust and this is no way to get it back. Paul Bostwick, 8105 Woodsboro, Anaheim. He again encouraged the Council to find an appointee this evening to fill the vacant Council seat. It is not only important to save the cost of an election, but also to move on with the City's business. A special election will cause disruption and dissension. He has been nominated twice and in neither case has received a majority vote of the Council. He encouraged the Council not to place his name in nomination again, but feels there were many people nominated who are very appropriate and talented people who can serve the City and help bring it together. He urged that they look at those names this evening and appoint someone. Mayor Daly. In Anaheim's history, vacancies have occurred and most of the time the Council has found a way to appoint to that vacant position. On rare occasions, the Council has not been able to agree and special elections required. He is prepared to move off of the position he has taken very strenuously the last two months and has decided to support an individual previously nominated by Council Member Zemel three weeks ago. At that time, the person was also supported by Council Member Feldhaus. He is hoping his support of this individual will end the seven week standoff. The individual's name is Tom Tait. He has deep roots in Anaheim, is the second generation owner of a successful engineering business, served on the City's Budget Advisory Commission and is currently a member of the City Planning Con~ission. He is on the board of the Anaheim YMCA and Tom and his family are residents of the newest area of Anaheim in the 92808 zip code neighborhood encompassing thousands of new homes in the eastern most section of the City where there are 55 City Hallt Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - JANUARY 24~ 1995 - 5:00 P.M. issues of growth, need for new parks, police services, etc. Me and Mr. Tait have discussed the challenges Anaheim is facing and he is fully prepared to tackle those issues. He cares a lot about the success of the City's ongoing redevelopment efforts. He has a Masters in Finance, is an attorney and runs an engineering firm. He has a variety of expertise in several areas and will bring a type of balance he (Daly) has been seeking on the Council. He believes Mr. Tait will serve with honor and distinction and will have Anaheim's best interest at heart. He asked Council Member Zemel if he was still prepared to nominate Mr. Tait. Council Member Zemel answered that he was and would be glad to do it. He believes Mr. Tait will be a great addition to the Council and help them to go forward. Council Member Zemel nominated Tom Tait to fill the vacant Council seat. There were no further nominations. MOTIONs Mayor Daly moved to close nominations, Council Member Feldhaus seconded the motion. One vacancy. MOTION CARRIED. City Attorney White. It will require three affirmative votes to appoint Mr. Tait unless the Council adopts a rule to elect by plurality or some other rule. Mayor Daly asked for a Roll Call Vote on Mr. Tom Tait. AYES: Lopez, Zemel, Feldhaus, Daly NOES: None ABSTENTION= -0- Mr. Tait was thereupon unanimously appointed to fill the vacant Council seat for the term ending November, 1996. Mayor Daly. He will look forward to welcoming Mr. Tait at the Council's next meeting on February 7, 1995. The City Attorney and City Clerk will evaluate the steps required to swear him in perhaps at an earlier time. Council Member Zemel. He congratulated the Council on working together toward a solution as well as all the people who had called, written or requested to be appointed. Mayor Daly. He wants to personally thank Mrs. McCracken and Mr. Bostwick for their positive attitudes and knows they will be active in Anaheim for many years to come. D1. 179: PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 94-95-04~ WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENTt CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3710 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION= OWNER~ Texaco Refining & Marketing, Inc., Attn: Doug Elston, P.O. Box 7812, Universal City, CA 91608-7812 AGENT: Fred Fiedler & Associates, Attn: Patrick Fiedler, 2322 W. 3rd. St., Los Angeles, CA 90057 LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 3080 E. La Palma Avenue (Texaco Service Station) and is approximately 0.76 acre located at the southwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Kraemer Boulevard. The request is for a change in zone from the RS-A-43,000 Zone to the ML Zone. To permit an automotive service station with an accessory automated car wash, with a convenience market, drive-through restaurant (no seating 56 City Ha11~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - JANUARY 24~ 1995 - 5:00 P.M. proposed) and beer and wine sales for off-premise consumption with waivers of (A) minimum landscape requirements, (B) permitted location of freestanding signs, (C) minimum distance between freestanding signs, (D) minimum number of parking spaces, and (E) minimum drive through lane requirements. ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Reclassification No. 94-95-04 GRANTED, UNCONDITIONALLY (PC94-155) (6 yes votes, i abstained). CUP NO. 3710 GRANTED, IN PART, with added conditions (PC94-156). Waiver of code requirement DENIED (automated carwash), on the basis that all the waivers were deleted following public notification. Approved Negative Declaration. HEARING SET ON: A letter of appeal was submitted by Solomon, Saltsman & Jamieson on behalf of the applicant dated December 13, 1994. The appeal was relative to a condition imposed on the project prohibiting sales of refrigerated beer and wine. A public hearing on the appeal was scheduled this date. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY= Publication in Anaheim Bulletin - January 12, 1995 Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - January 12, 1995 Posting of property - January 13, 1995 PLANNING STAFF INPUT: See staff report to the Planning Commission dated November 30, 1994. Mayor Daly. This was approved by the Planning Commission and appealed by the Law Firm of Solomon, Saltsman & Jamieson on behalf of the owner of the property. After explaining the procedure for public hearings, he asked first to hear from staff. Joel Fick, Planning Director. The applicant when working with the Planning Commission did make a number of revisions to the project. The car wash portion of the application was deleted and there originally were five variances requested. Those were all deleted as revised plans were processed and went through the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission did approve the application and the applicant asked for one of the conditions to be deleted. While not referenced specifically, he believes it is Condition No. 24 which pertains to refrigeration of beer and wine. While originally recommended as a condition by the Police Department, it is not a condition recommended with this application. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission conditions be upheld with the exception of Condition No. 24. Mayor Daly. The item in question is no longer pertinent but the public hearing still needs to be conducted to give the applicant the opportunity to pursue his appeal as originally filed. Gil Fickey, Vice President, Mel Roberts Enterprises which owns and operates Robert's Texaco. He brought letters of support with him from local businessmen as well as 330 signatures of people that support the project and the uses as requested (made a part of the record). He also brought some colorized literature on the new concept and he believes the Council has already received some literature. They are excited about being part of the leading edge of that new concept. This will be a great project for the City. He stands ready to answer any questions. He confirmed for the Mayor that as long as they are able to refrigerate their beer and wine, they are in agreement with all the other conditions. 57 City Hall, Anaheim, Californi& - COUNCIL MINUTES - JANUARY 24, 1995 - Ss00 P.M. Mayor Daly opened the public hearing. PUBLIC DISCUSSION - IN FAVORs Walter Riles. He has been a customer of Mel Roberts for about 15 years. He runs nothing but a first class operation and is number one in technology. Without refrigeration it would handicap his business. Bruce Logan, he manages a business in Anaheim and purchases products from Robert's Texaco. It is a first class operation and he is in support of their plans. Harry Naylor, he owns two companies within a mile. He knows the owners very well. They give great service to him and his people. It is a first class operation. Mel Roberts. He is the dealer and operator of the business. He also owns and operates a service station that does have a liquor license in Long Beach for a number of years and have experienced zero problems. That would be their goal in Anaheim as well. PUBLIC DISCUSSION - IN OPPOSITIONs None Mayor Daly closed the public hearing. Mayor Daly. There had been a request for waivers for minimum landscape requirements. He asked the status of that request. Joel Fick, Planning Director. In working with both the Planning Commission and staff, everything on the site is being brought up to code in the original proposal that included variances along with a landscape variance everything will be in total compliance with code. The attorney for the applicant approached the podium to speak first apologizing for being late; City Attorney White explained to him what had taken place. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Council Member Feldhaus, seconded by Council Member Zemel, the City Council approved the negative declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative declaration together with any comments received during the public review process, and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. One vacancy. MOTION CARRIED. Council Member Feldhaus offered Resolution No. 95R-19 for adoption, approving Reclassification No. 94-95-04; and Resolution No. 95R-20 for adoption, granting Conditional Use Permit No. 3710, subject to all City Planning Commission conditions with the exception of Condition No. 24 relating to prohibition of refrigeration of beer and wine. Refer to Resolution Book. RESOLUTION NO. 95R-19: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF 58 City Hallf Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - JANUARY 24r 1995 - 5:00 P.M. THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGED. (RECLASSIFICATION NO. 94-95-04) RESOLUTION NO. 95R-20: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3710, IN PART. Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 95R-19 and 95R-20 for adoptions AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Lopez, Zemel, Feldhaus, Daly NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS: One The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 95R-19 and 95R-20 duly passed and adopted. C2. 114~ COUNCIL COMMENTS - PROPOSAL FOR BUDGET ASSISTANCE WORKSHOP: Council Member Zemel first stated he was impressed with the Council workshop held on Saturday relating to the City Budget which was very informational for him. In that vein, he would like to propose that a series of Budget Assistance Workshops be conducted on a monthly basis that focus on the budget and operations of each City Department. He then briefed the draft copy of his proposal dated January 24, 1995 (made a part of the record) which outlined what elements the workshops should include and amongst other things, that a letter of direction be drafted to the Budget Advisory Commission outlining its participation in review procedures with each City department in the month prior to their scheduled workshop session. "This proposal will provide full disclosure of the operations of our local government to its citizens and will provide a basis of knowledge and understanding for the City Council to make prudent public policy decisions". Mayor Daly. He asked if Council Member Zemel had a chance to talk to the City Manager about his proposal; Council Member Zemel had not. Mayor Daly. He believes some of the overall objectives of the proposal make a lot of sense and suggested that the proposal be given to the City Manager and staff to look over and perhaps suggest a schedule. He also feels it is a good idea to include the Budget Advisory Commission. The proposal should be reviewed by the staff to suggest some specifics and the matter be placed on a future agenda. City Manager Ruth. He will take a look at the proposal and get back to the Council within a couple of weeks. C3. 112: REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS: City Attorney White reported that the Council unanimously voted to appeal the Court decision in the case of California Credit Union League vs. City of Anaheim, U.S. District Court Case No. 94-5991ER Federal Trial Court Decision holding that the TOT Ordinance was not applicable to Federal Credit Union employees while on business staying at hotels in Anaheim. This matter will be appealed to the Ninth District Court of Appeal. 59 City Hallt Anaheim, Californ£a - COUNCIL MINUTES - JANUARY 24r 1995 - 5~00 P.M. ADJOURNMENT= By general Council consent the Council Meeting of January 24, 1995 was adjourned. (6=35 p.m.) The next echeduled Council Meeting is Tuesday, February 7, 1995. LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK 60