1988/01/19City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 19, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT: COUNCIL M~EMBERS: Ehrle, Hunter, Kaywood and Bay
ABSF~NT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler
PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: Bob Simpson
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CLFJlK: Leonora N. Sohl
SENIOR PIER: Greg Hastings
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
ASSOCIATE PLIER: Leonard McGhee
A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was
posted at 4:00 p.m. on January i5, 1988 at the Civic Center kiosk, containing
ail items as shown herein.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: City Attorney Jack White requested a Closed
Session to consider the following items:
a. Pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9(a), to wit: Golden West Baseball Co. vs. City of A~aheim,
Orange County Superior Court Case No. 40-92-46; City of Anaheim vs.
Anaheim Hotel Partnership O.C.S.C.C. No. 46-96-59; City of Anaheim
vs. 0.C.S.C.C. Nos. 50-96-78.
b. i~bor relations matters - Government Code Section 54957.6.
c. Personnel matters - Government Code Section 54957.
d. Potential litigation pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9(c).
Councilman Bay moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilwoman Kaywood
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (12:09 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present with the exception of Councilman Pickler, and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting. (1:52 p.m.)
IN-VOCATION: Dr. Ernest Furness, Anaheim Adventist Church, gave the Invocation.
FIAG SALUTE: Council Member Fred Hunter led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
119: PROCI2kMATION~ The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Bay and
authorized by the City Council:
Cancer Awareness Week - April 18-24, 1988.
39
0g
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 19, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the adjourned regular meeting
of December 22, i987 and the regular meeting held December 29, i987.
Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. Councilman Pickier was absent. MOTION
CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of ~3,216,847.97, in
accordance with the 1987-88 Budget, were approved.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS- The titles of the following
resolutions on the Consent Calendar were read by the City Manager.
(Resolution Nos. 88R-i6 through 88R-18, both inclusive and Ordinance No. 4895)
Councilman Bay moved to waive the reading in full of the resolutions on the
Consent Calendar. Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. Councilman Pickler
was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Bay, the following items were approved in
accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each
Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Councilwoman Kaywood
offered Resolution Nos. 88R-16 through 88R-18, both inclusive, for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4895 for
first reading.
1. 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 Robert Peterson for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about September 9, 1987.
b Claim submitted by Barbara & Bob Schiefelbein for bodily injury
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about November 12, 1987.
c. Claim submitted by State Farm Insurance/Kathleen McGavin, Insured, for
property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about
September 26, 1987.
d. Claim submitted by Edward Lane for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about November 19, 1987.
e. Claim submitted by Gloria Arias for property damage sustained
purportedly due to~ctions of the City on'or about November 7, 1987.
f. Claim submitted by William Jones for property'damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about September 18, 1987.
g. Claim submitted by S. M. Maintenance Association for property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about the week
preceding August 24, 1987.
4O
$I
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 19, 1988~ 1:30 P.M.
h. Claim submitted by Candace Shearer for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 29, 1987.
i. Claim submitted by Christine S. Hurden for bodily injury and property
damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 7,
i~87.
j. Claim submitted by Michael Cullen for bodily injury and property
damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about
September 17, 1987.
k. Claim submitted by Francisca Gonzales for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about November 4, 1987.
1. Claim submitted by JoAnn Peters for property damage sustained
purportedly due'to actions of the City on or about October 1, i987.
m. Claim submitted by William Geoffrey Starr Scott for property damage
and bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about
August 28, 1987.
n. Claim submitted by Jean Ottens for bodily injury sustained purportedly
due to actions of the City on or about Ouly 20, i987.
o. Claim submitted by Theodore M. Crow for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about November ii, 1987.
p. Claim submitted by Siecor Corporation for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 26, 1987.
Application for Leave to Present Late Claim - Recommended to be Denied:
q. Claim submitted by Mark Steven Haffar, a minor, through his Guardian
ad Litem, Adolaide H. Haffar, for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to
actions of the City on or about January 27, 1987.
Claim filed against the City - Recommended to be Accepted:
r. Claim submitted by Jill Boultinghouse for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 197 i987.
2. 179: Granting a one-year extension of time expiring on February 17, 198~,
to Conditional Use Permit No. 2871, so that the iapplicant may comply with
conditions.
3. 123: Approving an agreement with Don Poff for golf pro services at the
Anaheim Hills Public Country Club for a term of five years, effective
February 12, 1988.
4. i39: Supporting Assembly Bill 2079, concerning Fire Service Training and
authorizing the Mayor to sign letters conveying this position to the State
Assemblymen and State Senators.
4i
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 19~ 1988~ 1:30 P.M.
5. 123: Approving the Third Agreement with the Neighborhood Improvement
Program of Anaheim (NIPA) for services to assist the City with upgrades of
rental stock and revitalization of apartment neighborhoods terminating
November 30, 1988 or sooner, with maximum compensation of $35,000.
6. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a change order to Shepherd
Machinery in conjunction with Purchase Order No. 43570M, for an additional
amount of $1,189.93, bringing the revised total order for the repair to
$10,6~0.24.
7. 123: Approving a Third Amendment to the contract with Charles G. Robinson
for safety administration consulting services, effective January 22, 1988,
establishing compensation at an annual cost not to exceed $58,318.26.
8. 123/101: Approving and accepting a Letter of Consent from Southern
California Edison dated November 19, 1987, which extends the time to allow
parking of vehicles on Southern California Edison's easement at Anaheim
Stadium parking lot.
9. 123: Approving the Fourth Amendment to the Permit Agreement with Okeh
Caterers for lease of Stadium parking spaces during business hours of 4:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, increasing the number of spaces
leased to 187 and the lease fee to $1,870, and extending the term to
November 15, 1989.
10. 123: Approving the agreement with ARA Leisure Services Inc. for
concession service at Anaheim Convention Center, term ending on December 31,
1992.
11. 153: Accepting the recommendation of the Management Compensation Steering
Committee and directing staff to prepare a formal agreement to retain the
services of Ralph Anderson and Associates for the purpose of assisting the
Council in matters of management compensation.
12. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order through
the Anaheim Public Improvement Corporation in the amount of $262,621.36 for
twenty-seven three-phase unfused padmount transformers in accordance with bid
proposal #A-452~.
13. 160: Waiving Council Policy No. 30b and authorizing the Purchasing Agent
to issue a purchase order to the Anaheim Public Improvement Corporation in the
amount of ~55,650 for one used Caterpillar Model 943 track-type loader.
14. 176: RESOLUTION NO. 88R-16: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM DECI~NG ITS iNTENTION TO VACATE CERTAiN~PUBLIC STREETS, HIGHWAYS
AND SERVICE EASEMENTS. (87-16A) (a portion of Ave~ida de Santiago;
Abandonment No. 87-16A - Suggested date for public hearing is February 16,
1988, 3:00 p.m.)
15. 175: RESOLUTION NO. 88R-17: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR CERTAIN PUBLIC WORK. (WILLIAM SUPPLY
COMPANY, INC.) (in the amount of $335,100, for Construction of Large Valve
42
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Januar~ 19, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
Replacements-Phase II; Account No. 52-606-6329-06329)
16. 107/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4895: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING SECTION 1.01.389 OF CHAPTER 1.01 OF TITLE i OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO CODE ENFORCEMENT. (Amending Section 1.01.389 establishing a
Code Enforcement Reinspection Fee and adding enforcement authority for Titles
5, 10, 11, 16 and i7 as well as Sections 374b, and 402b to Code Enforcement
Division)
17. 600/129: RESOLUTION NO. 88R-18: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ESTABLISHING A ONE-TIME FEE FOR THE PURCHASE OF A COMPUTER
SYSTEM TO BE CHARGED BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
(Establishing a one-time fee of $65 affecting those businesses in the
hazardous materials disclosure program required to install an emergency lock
box - Knox Box).
106/129: Authorizing an increase in the 1987/88 Resource Allocation Plan for
Hazardous Materials Disclosure Program of $48,000 for purchase of a C.A.M.E.O.
computer system to manage the business emergency plans required under State
Laws AB2185 and AB2187.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MF2iBERS:
Ehrle, Hunter, Kaywood and Bay
None
Pickler
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 88R-16 through 88R-18, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
End of Consent Calendar. Councilman Pickier was absent. MOTIONS CARRIED.
161/153/177: ESTABLISHING COMPENSATION FOR MEMBERS OF THE ANAHEIM
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND ANAHEIM HOUSING AUTHOtLITY: Establishing compensation
for members of the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency in the amount of $150.00 for
each meeting attended; establishing compensation for members of the Anaheim
Housing Authority in the amount of $50 for each meeting attended, not to
exceed a week.
Adrian Benedict, 863 So. Helena Street, requested to speak on tae issue and
asked why salary matters were on a Consent Calendar and if all the members of
the City Council are also members of the Redevelopment Agency and Housing
Authority. ~ ~
Mayor Bay. The item is on the Consent portion of the agenda because that is
the proper place for it. Public discussion is open and that discussion can
take place now. He also confirmed that City Council Members are also the
Members of the Redevelopment Agency and Housing Authority.
Councilwoman Kaywood. She expressed her surprise and shock over what she
considered the roundabout way of bypassing the City Charter and the voters on
this matter. She feels this issue should be on the ballot in order to have a
Charter change or there should at least be a public hearing.
43
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL M~INUTES - January 19, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Hunter. The Redevelopment Agency and Housing Authority have
nothing to do with and are not bound by the City Charter. There is no
violation of the Charter. He would be happy if the Council did not have to
sit as the Redevelopment Agency and Housing Authority considering the time
involved. In the next year, especially relative to Redevelopment, many hours
will be spent on this issue. A great deal of time has already been spent in
the last two to three months. He emphasized the Agency and the Authority are
two separate Agencies to which Council Members must devote their time,
especially on Redevelopment. He has no qualms regarding this matter.
Councilman Ehrle. With regard to the City Charter, it was established 24
years ago with the intent that the Council be reimbursed $400 a month. At the
time, the City did not have a Redevelopment Agency or Housing Authority. Many
hours have been devoted to Redevelopment by ali Council Members. He has no
· reservations in supporting the proposed resolutions. It is just compensation.
Kathrine Davison, 1184 West Vermont. She was astonished that the Council
received only $400 a month. However, when a person runs for Council they are
aware of that from the outset. She is concerned that the item is on a Consent
Calendar and does not like to see salaries being tripled in this way.
Walter Bormann, 2704 West Ball Road. He is opposed to the means used in
getting the money. If they want more money, he recommended that the issue be
presented to the voters.
Bill Erickson, 301 East North Street. He does not like the situation as it
stands. He asked if there was a possibility of continuing the matter until
there is full Council.
Mayor Bay. The Charter adopted in i904 is clear about Council salaries. It
is not the intent to ask the people to be involved in a change in the
Charter. This has nothing to do with the City Charter. It is meeting
compensation for the Redevelopment Agency and the Housing Authority. There
was also no intent of taking action covertly since the item is on a public
agenda and open for discussion. The money has nothing to do with the City's
general fund, the deficit, or the City's budget. The compensation will come
out of Redevelopment funds where there is no budgeting problem and Housing
Aut~0rity funds that come from state and federal sources. Administrative
costs are totally allowable and the changes should have taken place ten years
ago. In his opinion, the proposed amounts do not come close To adequate
compensation. He has no problem with continuing the matter for one week for a
full Council to make it clear there are four people who agree with the
resolutions. ~ ~
WAIVER OF READING - P~ESOLUTIONS: The titles of the following resolutions were
read by the. City Clerk. (Resolution Nos. 88R-19 and' 88R-20)
Councilman Bay moved to waive the reading in full of the resolutions.
Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. Councilman Pickler was absent.
CARRIED.
MOTION
Councilman Ehrle offered Resolution Nos. 88R-19 and 88R-20 for adoption.
Refer to Resolution Book.
44
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 19, 1988~ 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 88R-19: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAH~'iM ESTABLISHING COMPENSATION FOR MEMBERS OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY. (in the amount of $150.00 for each regular meeting attended)
RESOLUTION NO. 88R-20: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ESTABLISHING COMPENSATION FOR COMMISSIONERS OF THE ANAHEIM HOUSING
AUTHORITY. (in the amount of $50 for each regular meeting attended)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Ehrle, Hunter and Bay
Kaywood
Pickler
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 88R-19 and 88R-20 duly passed and adopted.
Before concluding, Councilman Ehrle stated If anyone decided they did not want
to be compensated they could declare same; City Attorney White stated that was
correct.
105: APPOINTMENT TO THE COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD: To consider appointment to
the Community Services Board from the list of candidates submitted to fill the
unscheduled vacancy on that Board, expiring June 30, 1991 (Olsen).
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to continue the appointment to the Community
Services Board for one week for full Council action. Councilman Ehrle
seconded the motion. Councilman Pickler was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4894:
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCE: The title of the following ordinance was read
by the City Clerk. (Ordinance No. 4894)
Councilman Bay moved to waive the reading in full of the ordinance.
Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. Councilman Pickler was absent. MOTION
CARRIED.
Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4894 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance
Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4894: AN ORDIN~qCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE i8 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
(Amending Title 18,~ to rezone property located at 1780 and 1786 W. Lincoln
Avenue under Reclassification No. 87-88-22 to the CL zone from the RS-A-43,000
z one )
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABS~T: COUNCIL ME~ERS:
Ehrle, Hunter and Bay
Kaywood
Pickler
45
§Z
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 19, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4894 duly passed and adopted.
Councilwoman Kaywood voted no since she was originally opposed to the
automotive uses requested by the developer.
Greg Hastings, Senior Planner, explained for Councilwoman Kaywood that the
accompanying CUP allows for automotive uses.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4896: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4896 for first
reading.
ORDIKANCE NO. 4896: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ~4AHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MA~ REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
(Amending Title 18, to rezone property located at 2141 South Harbor Boulevard,
under Reclassification NO. 87-88-28 to the CL zone from the CG zone)
144: JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY MEETING - EASTERN AND FOOTHIIJ. CORRIDORS: Mayor
Bay reported on his attendance at the subject meeting on Thursday, January 14,
1988. The Board made its findings that other than the development fees
presently being collected for the two corridors (Eastern and Foothill) that
tolls are going to be necessary to pay for the other portion of the cost of
the corridors. Later, the San Joaquin Corridor Board met and voted the same
way which puts all three corridors in a position of being proposed as toll
roads. The consultant could find no other way to make up the difference in
cost.
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEtLEST:
No items of public interest were addressed.
RECESS:
3:00 p.m.
absent.
Councilman Bay moved [o recess until public hearing time at
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Counkilman Pickler was
(2:43 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present, with the exception of Councilman Pickler. (3:12 p.m.)
17~: PUBLIC H~LARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 87-14A: In accordance with application
filed by Mr. & Mrs. Alexander K. Brankov, public hearing was held on proposed
abandonment of a portion of an alley adjacent to the applicant's property at
703 South Dale Street which is excess to the needs of the City, pursuant to
Resolution No. 87R-519, duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices
thereof posted in accordance with law.
Report of the City Engineer dated December 7, 1987 was submitted recommending
approval of said abandonment.
Mayor Bay asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there being no
response, he closed the public hearing.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if there was another neighbor or anybody else
bordering the property who might be interested in the property; Richard Santo,
Senior Real Property Agent, answered that no one else is interested in the
parcel.
4O
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 19, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICA~L EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman
Bay, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council ratified the
determination of the City Engineer 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 file an EIR. Councilman Pickler
was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 88R-2i)
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Councilman Ehrie seconded the motion. Councilman Pickler was absent. MOTION
CARRIED.
Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 88R-21 for adoption, approving
Abandonment No. 87-14A, as recommended by the City Engineer. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 88R-21: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM VACATING A PORTION OF A PUBLIC A2~LEY. (87-14A - alley adjacent to 703
South Dale .Street)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Ehrle, Hunter, Kaywood and Bay
None
Pickler
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 88R-2i duly passed and adopted.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE Pt!RMIT NO. 2925 (READV):
APPLICANT: Larry R. and Judith I. Smith
1704 Marina Bay Drive
Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649
REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: To permit two drive-through, walk up restaurants
with outdoor seating in conjunction with a commercial center expansion. The
property is zoned CL and is located at 9i9-959 Knott Street. The Code waivers
requested are a~ follow: (a) Minimum number of parking ~paces, (b) minimum
drive-through lane dimensions, (c) minimum distance between buildings, (d)
required site screening.
PLANNING COb~ISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC88-241 granted Conditional Use
Permit No. 2925 (Readv.); approved EIR - Negative Declaration.
HEARING SET ON:
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilman
Pickier.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin January 7, 1988.
47
City Hall, Anaheim, California - CO?NCIL MINUTES - January 19, 1988~ 1:30 P.M.
Posting of property January 7, 1988.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - January 8, 1988.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to tae Planning Commission dated November 23, 1987.
Mayor Bay.
Councilman Pickler set the matter for a public hearing. Before
Councilman Pickler left on his trip he, (Bay) asked if he wished
the Council to proceed with the public hearing or to continue it
for full Council action. Councilman Pickler did not feel it was
necessary to continue the public hearing since all his questions
and concerns had been answered.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN OPPOSITION:~
Joyce Keeter, 716 So. Kenmore, Anaheim.
She owns t~e parcel of land at 3501 West Ball Road. She is not
opposed to the redevelopment of the center but the manner in
which it is proposed. She is opposed to the overcrowding and
over-build~.ng. Two drive-through restaurants are one too many.
She noticed in a staff report they were allowed a 40%'reduction
on an already minimum parking schedule which she feels is
irresponsible. There is also a covenant which runs with the
land until the end of April, 1989. She has tried to work
something out with Mr. Smith since the covenant provides there
must be ingress and egress between Parcel ! and 2, which in 1960
included the entirety of the other parcel..
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Larry Smith, 17046 Marina Bay Drive, Huntington Beach.
The ingress and egress issue is not an issue before the Council,
but has been addressed by his architect and himself. He is not
changing any of the existing driveways. Mrs. Keeter is talking
about access between ~he parcels which they are ~lso not
changing. The property is a depressed corner and the proposal
will be a plus to the whole area. He spoke to Councilman
Pickler to make certain there were no problems and he (Pickler)
indicated that his questions were answered. He then answered a
line of questions posed by Councilwoman Kaywood. The existing
building is being completely redone to accommodate retail stores
and a new building will be added. Both buildings will look like
a brmnd new shopping center. °There were four prior tenants in
the center that had to do with entertainment and dancing and
three are now gone (French Quarter, Woodstock, Radio City). The
one remaining is Kartoons and Kapers and when that lease expires
the business will be replaced with retail. Although the lease
expires in 7 years, the business has not been doing very well
and he is considering approaching the tenant about buying out
t~e lease. Sound-proofing is also going to be added to the
building to further mitigate any sound problems.
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 19, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
Greg Hastings, Senior Planner.
Answering Councilwoman Kaywood he explained that at the Planning
Commission meeting, it was pointed out by Code Enforcement there
were a few complaints regarding Kartoons and Kapers in the
past. His understanding from the business is that there were 12
complaints since January of 1986 but none recently.
Larry Smith.
Most of t,e complaints came from the apartment building directly
behind the business. He has contacted the neighbors and gave
them his home phone number to notify him if there are any
problems. He would then contact the tenant himself. He also
clarified that in the new center there will no cocktail lounges
but the proposed convenience store could possibly have liquor.
There will be no gasoline sales with the convenience market. He
then asked his architect to address parking.
Alvin Leeand, Architect.
Parking requirements were discussed with the Traffic Engineer.
The waiver request was from 5.5 to 4.0 which has been previously
accepted by the City for other centers of this nature.
Everything will conform to 4.0. There is an existing
racquetball facility of 20 courts and the parking requirements
would be approximately 126 spaces and that accounts for the
majority of the parking waiver. A parking study has been
submitted taking into consideration all existing loads. The
peak times for the racquetball facility are different than the
peak times for the retail center.
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer.
A traffic study was conducted for the entire site. The reason
for the waiver is the racquetball facility. The study indicated
it does not require as much parking as a health club. They have
explained, to his satisfaction, how they can provide the number
of spaces they are providing and be able to operate at a
satifactory level. There will be adequate ~parking. Relative to
~ the drive-thru lanes and the waiver of distance, one is 8 feet
short and the other is 3 feet short which in both cases is.
negligible. He is satisfied that the drive-through lanes and
the parking will work.
Charles Hob_l, 23165 Vista Way, E1 Toro, Owner and President of
Pay-N-Play Racquetball.~ ~
They are 100% behind the shopping center being redeveloped. The
only issue that is left and one he wants on the record is that 3
years ago they started with Mr. Smith to convert the bottom half
of their building for retail. They have been waiting for Mr.
Smith to do his project. Now that Mr. Smith has his project
going, he is basically usurping their ability to do their
project which is a legal matter in civil court and both parties
are aware of that. When they convert the bottom 10 courts they
intend to have retail and keep the top l0 courts. When he is
49
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 19, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
ready to do that, he wants the City to allow him to do so.
Pay-N-Play is not getting a say in this project.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Bay closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECi2%RATION: On motion by Councilman
Bay, seconded by Councilman Hunter, 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
e~fect on the environment. Councilman Pickler was absent. MOTION CAPdlIED.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 88R-22)
Councilman Bay moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Councilman Ehrle seconded the motion. Councilman Bay was absent. MOTION
Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 88R-22 for adoption, granting
Conditional Use Permit No. 2925, subject to City Planning Commission
conditions. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 88R-22: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
Alq~iEIM GRAJqTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2925.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Hunter, Kaywood and Bay
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
AoBSENT: COUNCIL bIEMBF~RS: Pickler
The blayor declared Resolution No. 88R-22 duly passed and adopted.
17~: PUBLIC HE~aR_ING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 87-88-27, VARIANCE NO. 3728:
A.~ PLICANT:
Katherine Wesolosky
705 West Victor Avenue
Anaheim, Ca. 92801
REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: For a change in zone from RM-2400 to RM-1200, to
construct a two-s_t~ry, 8 unit apartment building on property located at 705
West Victor Avenue. The code waivers requested are as follow: (a) Maximum
structural height, (b) maximum site coverage, (c) maximum number of bachelor
units, (d) minimum structural setback, (e) permitted encroachments.
PI~ANNING COM~IISSION ACTION: Resolution NO. PC88-246 and 247 denied
Reclassification No. 87-88-27 and Variance No. 3728; approved EIR - Negative
Declaration.
5O
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 19, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
HE~ING SET ON:
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by the Applicant, and
public hearing scheduled this date.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin January 7, 1W88.
Posting of property January 8, 1988.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - January 7, i988.
PI~'ING ST~FF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated November 23, 1987.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Mark Kiafar, 300 North Tustin Avenue, Suite 201, Santa Anm.
Ca. 92705, Agent.
He-first submitted a series of nine colored photos to the
Council showing the site of the project location, Victor Street
and the north, south, east and west side of the project. The
project is located on a cul de sac. On the east and west side
there are 2-story apartment buildings. The north side consists
of RM-1200. The applicant feels a new project will benefit the
area. They have talked to the neighbors on the east and west
and they are supportive of the project. There was no one in
opposition at the Planning Commission hearing. There are people
who were in support but had to leave before the item was
discussed. The Planning Commission denied the project. They
have since revised the project and now instead of five variances
being requested there are only two, (a) maximum structural
height and (c) maximum number of bachelor units. He has
submitted a copy of ali the plans. If the Council permits the
project to go forward, the development will improve the area.
If they have to go with the existing RM-2400, there is a house
in front and they need 5,000 square feet of space to build
around it to build on the back of it. it would not leave any
room and they could not do any improvement on the project.
blayor Bay. He referred to a letter submitted by Mr. Kiafar
dated January 18, 1988 listing the three waivers b, d and e
which tie changed in the revised plans. He asked if the changes
were submitted to staff.
· Greg Hastings, Senior Planner.
The plans were submitted approximately one week ago. Staff has
not had an opportunity to discuss them with the developer.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN FAVOR: Kathrine Wesolosky.
Sl~e is the owner of the property. This would be a very good
project. Ail around the property are apartments 2-stories
high. There would be no problem with parking because the
parking is going to be underneath the living corridors.
5i
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January i9, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN OPPOSITION:
None.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Bay closed the public hearing.
Councilman Hunter.
The Council should uphold t:he Planning Commission's unanimous
denial of the request. If the applicant wants to fine-tune the
project and resubmit it at a later date they could do so. It is
a very difficult area in the City which would have the potential
of becoming another Chevy Chase project in the future.
ENVIRONM~TAL I~ACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECI~TION: On motion by Councilman
Hunter, seconded by'Councilman Bay, 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. Councilman Pickler was absent. MOTION CAllRIED.
WAIVER OF RiiAJOING - RESOLUTIONS: The titles of the following resolutions were
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 88R-23 and 88R-24)
Councilman Bay moved to waive the reading in full of the resolutions.
Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. Councilman Pickler was absent.
CARRIED.
MOTION
Councilman Hunter offered Resolution Nos. 88R-23 and 88R-24 for adoption,
denying Reclassification No. 87-88-27 and denying Variance No. 3728, upholding
the findings of the City Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 88R-2~: A P~ESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
AJ~AJ{EIM FINDING ~2ND DETERMINING THAT A C~LANGE OF ZONE SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED IN
A CERTAIN AJlEA OF THE CITY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED.
RESOLUTION NO. 88R-24: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DENYING VARIANCE NO. 3728.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL M~EMBERS: Ehrle, Hunter~ KRyw~bd and Bay
NOES: COUNCILM~ERS: None
ABSEN%: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 88R-23 and 88R-24 duly passed and adopted.
i79: PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 87-88-20:
;~PPLiCAJqT: City of Anaheim (Planning Commission)
200 So. Anaheim Blvd.
Anaheim, Ca. 92805
52
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 19, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: For a change in zone from ML to CL to bring subject
properties into conformance with the General Plan. The area consists of 14.8
acres and is located at the northeast corner of Cerritos Avenue and Anaheim
Blvd., with street addresses of 1490 South Anaheim Boulevard and 333 East
Cerritos Avenue.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC88-225 denied Reclassification
No. 87-88-20; approved EIR - Negative Declaration.
HEARING SET ON:
A rewiew of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilman
Pickler and public hearing scheduled this date.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin January 7, 1988.
Posting of property January 7, 1988.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - January 8, 1988.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated November 9, 1987.
Mayor Bay.
He spoke with Councilman Pickler before he left. Councilman
Pickler did request that this public hearing be continued so
that he could be present. The Mayor then asked if anyone was
present on the public hearing; no one was present.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to continue the public hearing on
Reclassification No. 87-88-20 for one week for full Council action.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Councilman Pickler was absent.
MOTION CARRIED.
134/17~: PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 232, RECLASSIFICATION
NO. 67-88-21 AND VARIANCE NO. 3719:
APPLICANT:
Fairmont Ltd.
13632 Hazel Street
Garden Grove, Ca.
92642
REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: To consider an amendment to the Land Use Element of
the General Plan, redesignating the current Hillside Estate Density to
Hillside Low~ledium or Hillside Low-Density Residential. To also consider the
change in zone from RS-HS-22,000 (SC) to RS-5000(SC), which would permit the
establishment of a ~7-unit single-family subdivision on property located at
220-22~ South Fairmont Boulevard. The code waivers requested are as follow:
(a) Required lot frontage, (b) minimum building pad area, (c) maximum number
of bedrooms, (d) minimum garage setback, (e) minimum 'rear yard setback.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC87-251 approved General Plan
Amendment No. 232, Exhibit B; Resolution No. PC87-252 granted Reclassification
No. 87-88-21 but to the RS-HS-10,000(SC) zone; Resolution No. PC87-253 denied
Variance No. 3719; approved EIR - Negative Declaration.
53
City Hail, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 19, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
HEARING SET ON:
The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council review the
Reclassification and Variance.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin January 7, 1988.
Posting of property January 7, 1988.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - January 8, 1988.
PLANNING STAJ~F INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated November 9, 1987.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Lorren Bell, 1226 West 5th Street, Santa Aaa, Ca. 92703, Agent.
Originally when they purchased the property, had planned to sell
large one-~mlf acre lot custom type homes. Their marketing
people told them that such homes would be difficult to sell
because of surrounding land uses - busy Fairmont Boulevard, the
Utility Substation, Junior High School, shopping centers and
other developments in the area t~at have changed it considerably
from where RS-HS-22,000 homes are quite popular. He then
elaborated on efforts made to sell the lots for RS-22,000 but
they were not successful. They then submitted a plan for
condominiums which was disapproved by 'the Planning Commission.
They were advised by members of the Commission to try something
of a low density, 5 or 6 to the acre. They devised several
plans and filed a plan that had 17 homes on the 3-acre parcel.
They also met with the neighbors. What finally evolved was a
plan consisting of 12 homes of 1,800 tO 2,800 square feet. The
Planning Commission asked if they would accept RS-10,000 which
they said they would. However, the variance was denied and it
was recommended that they revise the plan again which they have
done. It may mean they will lose another lot.
In answer to Councilman Hunter, Mr. Bell confirmed that under
the R$-HS-22,000 zone they could build 5, one-half acre
estates. Under RS-HS-10,O00 they could build 11 homes if they
had a variance for the Reclassification to the RS-10,000. The
General Plan with the RS-10,000 would indicate 4.3 per acre but
the zoning says 3.4. Without any variances~ the number would be
10. He also clarified for the Mayor that the new plan has ii
homes which would require one variance for the additional one
lot _coverage and the three !ors that have 20-foot driveways
instead of 25 feet. The Traffic Department will accept 20 feet
if they have roil up garage doors instead of overhead doors.
Mayor Bay asked for clarification that Mr. Bell went before the
Planning Commission asking for RS-5,000. The Planning
Commission approved RS-10,000 with no variance which would allow
them to build 10 homes. Their request now is that they would
like the RS-10,000, with a couple of variances which they
consider minor, in order to build 11 homes. Mr. Bell answered
that was correct.
54
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 19, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN FAVOR: Harold Abraham, 13632 Hazel Street, Garden Grove.
As an investor with Fairmont Ltd., it was his intention at one
time to own one of the homes but it did not become a reality.
He then asked ior clarification. The Planning Commission
approved the RS-10,O00 zone when they had requested RS-5,000
with 17 lots. They are not requesting any variances at this
time because they have not applied for any variances on the
RS-J0,000. The variances they were requesting at the time on
the 17 homes were brushed aside and they gave up the request.
They are not requesting variances at this time. If under
RS-10,000 at a later date they decided they wanted an additional
lot, they would have to make a decision at the time whether or
not they wanted to file for a variance on the lith home.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN OPPOSITION:
Sonja Grewal, 400 So. Canyon Ridge Drive.
She referred first to copies of letters which she was asked to
share. (The Council stated that they had received letters from
the Broadmoor Northridge Community Association, Santa Aha Canyon
Property Owners Association, Canyon Hills Estates Homeowners
Association and the Old Del Georgio Homeowners Association,
expressing opposition to the General Plan Amendment,
Reclassification and Variance). She then read portions of a
letter from the President of 01d Bridge Homeowners Association
also opposing the request. "The one-half acre requirement must
not be downgraded. The proposed development would seriously
change the feel and attractiveness of the area. The developer
was aware of the zone restriction when he purchased the
property. He should be required to adhere to these restrictions
or sell the property to someone who will." She also read a
letter submitted by Mitzy 0zaki, who was a member of the
original task force formed by the City Council in 1975 who
worked for over 18 months to study and map out the Hill & Canyon
Area General Plan. (Made a part of the record). She emphasized
that the original Mohler area annexation, similar to the Peralta
Hills Annexation contained language that the area would remain
intact as one-half acre zoning just as Peralta Hills one acre.
Ms. Grewal then added comments of her own. The property is not
right across the street from 10,000 square-foot zoning; an
adeqtrate buffer has already been get in the 10,000 square-foot
zoning of ghe Rio Grande property. The church and the power
station also act as a buffer to the other commercial area; the
estate size density can be retained; it is dangerous to start
spot zoning right in the middle of the only other large estate
size piece of property left.
Carol Garrinson, 3210 Bridge Road.
Relative to the economic hardship issue posed by the developer,
55
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 19, 1988~ 1:30 P.M.
she submitted property information relating to the sale of a
piece of property in the area, the point being she feels there
is a market for estate size lots on the subject property. The
applicant was aware of ali circumstances when the property was
purchased. She urged that the Council maintain the zoning on
the property.
City Attorney, Jack White.
He clarified that economic hardship is not a basis for granting
any variances. It is not an adequate basis to find there is an
economic hardship which would serve as a basis for the
variance. The Council needs to find that the hardship relates
to the actual land itself - the configuration or topography as
opposed to economic.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
She asked staff to check to see if there was a showing that this
property was a part of the original Mohler Drive Annexation.
Pam Fink, 3110 Bridge Road, Anaheim.
Her property backs up to a private street, Del Georgio. She has
spoken with the residents and their property is closest to the
subject property. A petition was previously submitted asking
that the original zoning be upheld and not changed in any way.
They bought their homes a number of years ago. They are asking
that the Council consider the General Plan and not change the
zoning.
Robert Zemei, 7330 Stonecreek Road, Anaheim Hills Citizens
Coalition, and Board Member of Old Del Georgio Homeowners
Association. He will be adversely affected by approval of the
reclassification. The impacts would include sound, traffic,
safety and aesthetics. A reclassification is not necessary nor
desirable for the orderly and proper development of the
community. Such spot zoning can only lead to further
reclassification requests from neighboring landowners. The
current General Plan was based on an intensive Environmental
Impact Report. Any change should require a supplemental EIR
which would address such things as additional daily trips which
will increase 176 to 203 additional trips on Fairmont Boulevard
as opposed to the present zoning of 68 additional trips. There
are also many other questions that need to be answered. The
owne-rs have failed to show-evideffce or justification to
substantiate the need for a General Plan Amendment. They relied
upon the plan when they purchased their homes. There is no
hardship. If it is a bad piece of pro'perty, he questioned how
adding more lots to it would make it better. He urged denial of
the request.
SUMMATION BY APPLICANT: Lorren Bell.
Some of the peopie who spoke are not within a 300-foot radius.
The same amount of grading will occur if only 5 homes are built
56
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 19, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
as well as the other required improvements. He then rebutted
and/or countered many of the statements made by those in
opposition. He then pointed to those areas that had deviated
from the General Plan. There have been several deviations to
the General Plan and one-half acre lots. They are looking to
put something in the area much nicer than what is there.
Mayor Bay.
An issue that is broached repeatedly is that the General Plan
should be held to without change. The General Plan set up in
the hill and canyon area was a General Plan and there have been
many changes from the original plan. His concern, there was an
overall density limitation set up within that plan and
regardless of the changes that have occurred in the individual
developments and zoning that the original limitation of density
under the General Plan has always been held. The last time he
asked, the answer was that they have held to and below the
overall density of the full General Plan. He would like to know
what is different about changing the zone from RS-HS-22,000 to
RS-10,000 vs. what has been happening in the hill and canyon
area if it will "break the straw" relative to density limits
under the General Plan.
Leonard McGhee, Associate Planner.
Answered no. Further, since adoption of the City-wide General
Plan in 1969, the City Council has always viewed the General
Plan to be a flexible document - it is not a precise plan.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
Relative to the overall density, that referred to Anaheim Hills
which is a planned community. The Mohler Drive annexation was a
separate annexation and it was one-half acre minimum zoning.
The City had a similar agreement With Peralta Hills with a
minimum of one acre. That is for the entire City of Anaheim for
45 square miles the only one-half acre and one acre minimum
zones. There was an agreement when those areas were annexed to
the City. She has always lived up to that and intends to do sc
in this case as well. It is important that the Council abide by
the agreement that was instituted at the time of annexation. It
is important to be able to rely on promises made by a Council at
the time of annexation that the area would remain in the
one-half acre zone.
Councilman Hunter.
He agrees. The General Plan and Reclassification should be
denied. They cannot keep putting more~density in that area.
Councilman Ehrie.
He agrees with the developer that the area has changed in the
last year or two but feels it is necessary to uphold the
RS-HS-22,000 zoning. It is the developer's responsibility to
market the property in a realistic manner.
57
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 19, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Bay.
This is the first he has heard of the Mohler Drive annexation
agreement. It is perhaps time that the Planning staff review
such historical agreements on the whole hill and canyon area and
inform the Council of those agreements. He would like to see a
map with the Mohier Drive annexation with lines around it and
know if there is some particular agreement that was made because
he is not ready to break any agreements. He wants to know if
there were commitments that were binding on the Council. If
there are agreements, he is ready to abide by them. He is not
ready to say, however, t~mt once a General Plan is set, there
will be no flexibility from that plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Hunter, the City Council z. pproved 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 t~e environment. Councilman Pickler was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF RF~ING - RESOLUTIONS: The titles of the following resolutions were
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution Nos. 88R-25, 88R-26 and 88R-27)
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to waive the reading in full of the resolutions.
Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Councilman Pickler was absent. MOTION
CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 88R-25 for adoption denying
General Plan Amendment No. 232; Resolution No. 88R-26 for adoption denying
Reclassification No. 87-88-21; and Resolution No. 88R-27 for adoption, denying
Variance No. 3719. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 88R-2b: A RESOLUTION OF /'HE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DISAPPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATED AS AMY~NDMENT
NO. 232.
RESOLUTION NO. 8~R-2~: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT A C}LANGE OF ZONE SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED IN
A CERTAIN AREA OF THE CITY HE1LEINA!~TER DESCRIBED.
P~ESOLUTION NO. 88R-27: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DENYING V.A~LIANCE NO. 3719. ~
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle, Hunter, Kaywood and Bay
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 88R-25, 88R-26 and 88R-27 duly passed and
adopted.
58
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 19, 1988, 1:30 P.M.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Bay moved to adjourn to Tuesday, January 26, 1988 at
11:30 a.m. for the purpose of a Closed Session to discuss labor relations.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Councilman Pickier was absent.
(5:03 p.m.)
LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK
59