1988/12/06City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 6, 1988, 6:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Daly, Ehrle, Kaywood, Pickler and Hunter
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: Bob Simpson
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
CITY ENGINEER: Gary E. Johnson
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Joel Fick
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Annika Santalahti
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR: Lisa Stipkovich
A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was
posted at 3:35 p.m. on December 2, 1988 at the Civic Center kiosk, containing
all items as shown herein.
Mayor Hunter called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: City Attorney Jack White requested a Closed
Session to consider the following items:
a. To confer with its attorney regarding pending litigation pursuant
to Government Code Section 54956.9(a), to wit: Golden West Baseball
Co. vs. City of Anaheim, 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; Nies vs. City of Anaheim, National Railroad Passenger
Association, dba AMTRAK, O.C.S.C.C. No. 55-63-88.
b. To discuss labor relations matters - Government Code Section
54957.6.
c. To discuss personnel matters - Government Code Section 54957.
d. To confer with its Attorney regarding potential litigation
pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(1).
e. To consider such other matters as are orally announced by the
City Attorney, City Manager or City Council prior to such recess
unless the motion to recess indicates any of the matters will not be
considered in Closed Session.
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present, and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting.
(6:44 p.m.)
INVOCATION: Captain Joe Huttenlocker, Salvation Army, gave the invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Mayor Pro Tem Irv Pickler led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
1102
100
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES December 6, 1988, 6:30 P.M.
114: COUNCIL REORGANIZATION - In accordance with Council Policy 111, in even
numbered years, the Tuesday following the declaration of the result of the
canvass of election returns of the General Municipal Election is the date
established for reorganizing the Council, by electing a Mayor Pro Tem.
Councilman Daly nominated Councilwoman Kaywood to be Mayor Pro Tem.
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion.
There being no further nominations, Councilman Hunter moved to close
nominations. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood was thereupon unanimously appointed Mayor Pro Tem for the
term ending the third Tuesday in November, 1989.
119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation was issued by Mayor Hunter and
authorized by the City Council:
Senior Center Day in Anaheim, December 11, 1988.
Grace D. Cadmus accepted the Senior Center Day proclamation.
MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular
meeting held November 15, 1988. Councilman Ehrle seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $2,554,016.66, in
accordance with the 1988-89 Budget, were approved.
WAIVER OF READING RESOLUTIONS: The titles of the following resolutions on
the Consent Calendar were read by the City Manager. (Resolution Nos. 88R-416
through 88R-418, both inclusive, for adoption)
Councilman Pickler moved to waive the reading in full of the resolutions.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Pickler,
seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the following items were approved in
accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each
Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Councilman Pickler
offered Resolution Nos. 88R-416 through 88R-418, both inclusive, for
adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
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 Naren Mehta & wife for property damage and bodily
injuries sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about May 1,
1988.
1103
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES
December 6, 1988, 6:30 P.M.
b. Claim submitted by Ronald & Carol Coleman for property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about September, 7,
1988.
c. Claim submitted by County of Orange for indemnity for damages
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about April 19, 1988.
d. Claim submitted by Norma Little for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about April 26, 1988.
e. Claim submitted by Ted Sideris for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 12, 1988.
f. Claim submitted by Mr. & Mrs. Duane R. Traver for property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about September 4, 1988.
g. Claim submitted by Kathleen Cate for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 7, 1988.
h. Claim submitted by Paul Murray for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about June 19, 1988.
i. Claim submitted by Patrick Crogan for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about May 7, 1988.
j. Claim submitted by John Bradley for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 14, 1988.
k. Claim submitted by Charles Wayne Brooks for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about July 26, 1988.
1. Claim submitted by Don Cielasek for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 10, 1988.
m. Claim submitted by Eva Josselyn for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about July 27, 1988.
n. Claim submitted by Dave M. McGeath, Jr. for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 4, 1988.
A2. 140: Receivin§ and filing the Anaheim Public Library Monthly Statistical
Report for the month of September 1988.
140: Receiving and filing the Anaheim Public Library Monthly Statistical
Report for the month of October 1988.
105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Anaheim Public Library Board
meeting held October 26, 1988.
105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Public Utilities Board meeting
held November 3, 1988.
1104
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 6, 1988, 6;30 P.M.
A3. 124: Approving a Notice of Completion of the construction of Anaheim
Convention Center Lobby and Office Remodel by Shawnee Pacific, and authorizing
the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion.
A4. 175: Approving a Notice of Completion of the Rehabilitation of Wells
Nos. 6, 7, 10, 16, 23, 29, 34, 36 & 129 by Beylik Drilling, Inc., and
authorizing the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to file the Notice of
Completion.
A5. 123: Approving an agreement with Hancock Business Center Associates and
Raymond Troll for the reimbursement of drainage fees for the construction of
storm drain facilities between Bryson Street and the Atwood Channel, (Special
Project No. 1512) located in Area 1, District 33 of the City's Master Plan of
Drainage.
A6. 170: Approving an amendment to Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and
Restrictions of Haven Hill Anaheim Hills Homeowners Association for Tract No.
9749 to permit owners to enclose portions of their lots by fencing.
A7. 176: RESOLUTION NO. 88R-416: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM DELCARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS,
HIGHWAYS AND SERVICE EASEMENTS. (PORTION OF CLAUDINA STREET) (Declaring the
intention to abandon a portion of Claudina Street the westerly nine feet of
Claudina Street between Lincoln Avenue and Cypress Street, and setting a
public hearing date of January 10, 1989, at 3:00 P.M. Abandonment No. 88-3A)
A8. 150: Accepting a donation of $50,000 worth of play equipment and its
installation from the Pepsi-Cola West Company for Modjeska Park.
A9. 123: Approving an agreement with Hot Line Help Centers, Inc., in the
amount of $12,000 to provide crisis intervention services to eligible Anaheim
residents, and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said agreement.
AIO. 153: RESOLUTION NO 88R-417: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF A/~AHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 88R-264 WI~IGH ESTABLISHED RATES OF
COMPENSATION DESIGNATED AS ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT. (Amending Resolution
No. 88R-264 which established rates of compensation for classifications
designated as Administrative Management by adding the classification of
Maintenance Manager, and designating the position of Public Utilities
Assistant General Manager/Finance and Administration as eligible to receive
either a City-owned vehicle or an automobile allowance, effective November 25,
1988)
Ail. 123: Approving an amendment to the agreement with Martin Luther Hospital
Medical Center to extend the term of the agreement for the REACH program for
one additional year, through December 31, 1989, and increasing the fee for
services from $1.85 per full time employee per month to $1.90, and authorizing
the Human Resources Director to sign the agreement on behalf of the City.
Al2. 153: Approving the amended City of Anaheim Employee Medical Plan to
establish an optional second level of benefits in the self-funded Employee
Medical Plan as approved in concept at the City Council meeting of October 25,
1988.
1105
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES December 6, 1988, 6;30 P,M.
Al3. 123: Approving an agreement with Peat Marwick Main & Co. in amounts not
to exceed $71,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1989, $73,000 for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1990, and $75,000 for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1991, to provide annual auditing services.
Al4. 123: Approving a Usage License Agreement with Microfinancial Corporation
validating the use of the Flexware development system for the life of the
system. The Flexware package is currently being used in the Fleet Maintenance
parts room for inventory control.
Al5. 128: Receiving and filing the Monthly Financial Analysis presented by
the Director of Finance for two months ended August 31, 1988.
Al6, 158~ RESOLUTION NO. 88R-418: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
CERTAIN REAL PROPERTIES OR INTERESTS THEREIN.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 88R-416 through 88R-418:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS'
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Daly, Ehrle, Pickler, Kaywood and Hunter
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 88R-416 through 88R-418, both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted.
End of Consent Calendar. MOTIONS CARRIED.
155/170: HEARING ON APPEAL OF GRADING PLAN FOR TRACT NO, 13092; Hearing on
the appeal of the proposed grading plan incorporating the "Supplement to EIR
No. 186" for Tract No. 13092 (Country Hill Estates) approved by the City
Engineer on October 24, 1988. The subject property is located in the Mohler
Drive Area between Old Bridge Road and Country Hill Road. This matter was
discussed at the meeting of November 15, 1988, and continued to this date.
Submitted was report dated November 8, 1988 from the City Engineer
recommending that the appeal be denied.
Gary Johnson, City Engineer. He was the Hearing Officer on the Environmental
Hearing for the Grading Plan. The staff report indicates the long period of
time staff has evaluated the project from its inception to final determination
to produce a supplemental EIR to the original EIR No. 186 which was for the
Del Georgio Ranch done in 1976. It is his recommendation that the applicant
has fully complied with CEQA, that the geotechnical and hydrological
conditions relative to the site have been adequately studied by professionals
and that no further hearing need be considered by the Council. The two
options the Council has is to reject the appeal or set the matter for a public
hearing. His recommendation is that the Council reject the appeal.
Mr. Wilbern Smith, Attorney, 1300 Dove Street, Suite 300, Newport Beach. He
represents Mr. & Mrs. Gene Summerfield who have been part of the initiation of
the appeal. His clients are concerned with the geotechnical and hydrology
review of the grading. They own a piece of improved property where their
1106
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES December 6, 1988, 6:30 P,M.
residence is located above the proposed tract. They have commissioned an
independent Engineer to review the geotechnical and hydrology work done by the
developer so far and, if time permits, to conduct their own independent
testing. The concern is with cutting into the natural slope that supports his
client's home and the presence of what they consider to be a significant
amount of ground water, the source of which cannot be identified by the
hydrology work. It has been supposed that this is because of residential
irrigation by homeowners in the area. They reject that supposition and it is
their position as well as that of others that additional investigation needs
to be done. He has with him copies of a preliminary review by their Engineer
on what has been done thus far. He asked that the Council review the data and
determine whether or not the matter should be set for a public hearing to
enable them to have more time to do the total analysis. If grading begins,
there could be slope failure that will affect the Summerfield's home and homes
of neighbors. The source of water needs to be identified to ensure it will
not lead to additional weakness. Their Engineer could be finished with his
review within 60 days. He was supposed to be present today but two hours ago
he (Smith) found it was not possible for the Engineer to be present due to his
work on an emergency project.
Sonja Grewal, speaking for the Anaheim Hills Citizens Coalition. She referred
to Page 3 of the report submitted by Mr. Smith relative to the geotechnical
consultant's comments on the surcharging and the possibility of ground water
building up and affecting homes down the hill from the Summerfields. This
matter was continued in order to submit the report. Had this report shown no
cause for worry, they would have dropped the appeal but there appears to be a
reasonable doubt of what was proposed in the Grading Plan.
After further discussion and Council questioning, the City Engineer reported
that he had his staff review the matter. The results of the studies
provided 34 separate recommendations for handling the ground water and grading
on the site. There were some problems associated with the property and that
is why they require such an extensive environmental evaluation. After such
exhaustive study, he and his staff are satisfied that the firms retained to do
the work were well qualified and have submitted a thorough analysis. He is
satisfied with the analysis done. There may exist a professional disagreement
as to what needs to be done.
Don Williams, 5895 Trapper Trail, Anaheim, owner of the Hill-Williams
Development Company. They have gone to great time and expense to assure
themselves that the project is viable, feasible and safe. They have no
interest in trying to build something if it is not feasible to do so. They
have paid consultants to determine if the project can be built and built
safely. In the final analysis, the era of discovery has been long ago. At
this time, there is no reason not to build ten lots. City staff regularly
deals with large projects and they have evaluated this project to a great
extent. It has been studied to death and to the point where they have to move
forward. The consultants are present if the Council feels the need to discuss
this further.
Answering the Mayor, Mr. Williams stated if the matter were continued even
30 days it would be a financial disaster for him. He urged the Council not to
delay him further.
1107
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 6, 1988, 6;30 P,M,
City Attorney White explained under the provisions of the Municipal Code, the
appeal from the City Engineer's decision is in and of itself a hearing. The
agenda does specify the testimony the Council is taking is in the nature of a
hearing. The Council would have the option to schedule the matter for a
public hearing. Tonight is, in fact, a hearing of the type specified in the
Code.
Wilbern Smith. They did not hire their Engineer, Mr. Evans, to achieve a
desired result. He is an extremely well respected forensic Engineer hired to
independently investigate the matter so that they can be assured there is a
reasonable degree of security in what the developer wants to do. He agrees
that the matter has been studied to death but even in the supplemental EIR,
the experts hired by the developer have not been able to determine the source
of the water. They blame residential irrigation but that has been tested by
the neighbors with hired people and it is determined it is not City water.
Their concern is they may find the source of water at a later date and
subsequently have to face the consequences of the error in judgment by well
meaning professionals either hired by the developer or his client. The
purpose of the process is to avoid a problem that could end up in the courts.
His clients are not satisfied with what has been done thus far. Their
Engineer may give findings to Mr. Johnson that additional conditions need to
be included.
Mayor Hunter closed the hearing.
Councilman Daly. The City Engineer, as well as three consultants, have looked
at this project and are comfortable with recommending that the development be
approved. The recommended action is that the appeal be denied.
Councilman Daly thereupon moved that the appeal of the proposed Grading Plan
incorporating the supplement to EIR No. 186 for Tract No. 13092 be denied as
recommended by the City Engineer. Councilman Ehrle seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Hunter stated he was hoping on this date the
homeowners who hired the consultant would have come back with a report. He
would favor a delay of 30 days to give the opportunity to go forward with that.
City Attorney White. He asked the Council if they would c0nsid~r changing th~
language of the motion to certify the supplement to EIR No. 186, confirming
the findings of the City Engineer and approving the Grading Plan for the Tract.
Councilman Daly then moved that the Council certify the supplement to EIR
No. 186, confirming the findings of the City Engineer and approving the
Grading Permit for Tract No. 13092. Councilman Ehrle seconded the motion.
Councilman Hunter voted no. MOTION CARRIED.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4857 TO PERMIT BILLBOARDS BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IN
CERTAIN ZONES: Amending Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code to permit
billboards by conditional use permit in certain zones of the City subject to
certain specified regulations. This issue was discussed at the meeting of
July 26, 1988. Subsequently Ordinance No. 4857 was introduced at the meeting
of August 23, 1988 and continued from the meeting of November 15, 1988, to
this date.
1108
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES December 6, 1988, 6;30 P,M,
Mayor Hunter opened the floor to public input.
Mr. Francis Nutto, 621 Jambolaya Street, Anaheim, Ca. 92806. He read from a
prepared statement (made a part of the record) asking that the proposed
ordinance not be adopted since he feels the ordinance is totally lacking in
needed technical changes and it will provide that all billboard permits should
be subject to a CUP.
Mr. Richard Wanamacher, Patrick Media Group, 1550 West Washington Boulevard,
Los Angeles. Patrick Media supports the Council's initial intent requiring
that all applications be subject to a CUP which would allow each application
to be judged on its own merit. Patrick Media cannot support the ordinance
before the Council today because it goes beyond that. By adding a CUP to the
current development standards, the final say would be with the Council in each
and every case and that should be sufficient.
Lydia Sullivan, Gannett Outdoor Company, 1731 Workman Street, Los Angeles.
Gannett also opposes the current proposed ordinance but is prepared to support
the Council's original intent - using a CUP ordinance and using the current
development standards in the current ordinance. The proposed ordinance is, as
their Legal Counsel believes it to be, contrary to state law and unenforceable
and there would be no problem challenging it on legal grounds. A CUP
ordinance would provide the Council with total discretion on every application
before the Council. Gannett has not built any signs in the City in the past
five years and due to natural attrition, have removed 17 signs. If the City
uses the current development standards in the current ordinance since it is
more restrictive than the current ordinance, it will be sufficient for the
City. Gannett respectfully requests that the Council support such an
ordinance.
Councilman Pickler. He believes the CUP process will be sufficient and that
the current development standards are something that can be kept in place. He
asked if it was necessary to initiate a motion or just not vote on the
ordinance.
City Attorney White. He suggested that the matter be referred back to his
office to further revise it to permit billboards in the zones that are
enumerated but keep development standards as they exist today which would
entail referring it back to staff and not adopting the existing proposed
ordinance.
Councilwoman Kaywood. She noted if that were the case, it would still allow
eight billboards at every intersection, two at each corner, and that is
unacceptable to her.
Councilman Pickler. If they go with the CUP, he guarantees there will not be
eight on each corner. They are covering all bases by requiring a CUP.
Councilwoman Kaywood. This is more than just requiring a CUP. She is going
to offer the ordinance for adoption.
1109
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES - December 6, 1988, 6:30 P,M.
Mayor Hunter noted that Councilman Pickler made a motion to repeal the
adoption of the ordinance and allow the current CUP to stand; Councilman
Pickler confirmed that was correct.
City Attorney White. The nature of the motion is to amend the existing
ordinance and would take precedence over the main motion which would be to
adopt the motion on the floor. If Councilman Pickler's motion fails, a vote
on Councilwoman Kaywood's offering of the ordinance for adoption would be in
order.
A vote was then taken on the motion by Councilman Pickler to amend the
existing ordinance and therefore not adopt Ordinance No. 4857. Councilman
Ehrle seconded the motion. Councilwoman Kaywood voted no. MOTION CARRIED.
182: DISCUSSION - CONSIDERATION OF 30-YEAR REQUIREMENT FOR AFFORDABLE UNITS:
A discussion to consider a 30-year requirement for affordable units was
requested by Councilwoman Kaywood at the meeting of November 29, 1988.
Councilwoman Kaywood. In the state, county and city there will be a greater
need for more affordable housing. In many cases, density bonuses are
requested and given with the allowance of affordable housing. If that
affordable housing is then lost, the situation will be worse than at the
outset.
Lisa Stipkovich, Director of Community Development. Current Council Policy on
affordable housing for rental units is a 10-year restriction on rents for
affordable for multi-family units. Senior housing requires 30-years on rents
on the portion that is affordable. On the for-sale units, there is a 5-year
resale control. State law does not define the term of affordable resale
control except in cases where City public funds are put into the project and
then it is 30 years. The term of affordability is a local policy.
City Attorney White. The only provision he is aware of that contains a time
limitation is a Municipal Code provision on senior citizen apartment
projects. Those units mandated to be affordable are required to be affordable
for at least 30 years.
Councilwoman Kaywood. When the time limitation on affordable units is over,
all that is left is high density and no affordable housing and the reason why
people have to move to other areas to live. The matter should be reviewed and
it should be at least a 30-year minimum requirement on affordable housing.
Lisa Stipkovich. At the current time, the City's housing strategy is being
updated. The Housing Consultant is in the process of conducting interviews
with the community and assessing current programs. She will be asking the
Council their opinions as well as what other cities are doing. She
(Stipkovich) would like to reserve her opinion until they receive the
consultant's analysis and study. That analysis should be ready in
approximately one month. The final update of the housing strategy and new
programs will probably take longer. There may be some projects in process
that will be coming through between now and the middle of January, 1989.
1110
99.
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 6, 1988, 6:30 P,M.
After additional discussion and further questions posed to staff by Council
Members, Councilman Pickler moved to continue the discussion to consider a
30-year requirement for affordable units to January 17, 1989. Councilman
Ehrle seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
114: DISCUSSION - NIGHT CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS; Discussion to consider night
City Council meetings'requested by Mayor Hunter at the meeting of November 29,
1988.
Mayor Hunter. It is his recommendation that there be two night Council
meetings on the first and third Tuesday of every month with public hearings
commencing at 7:00 p.m. and that the meetings on the second and fourth
Tuesdays of the month be basically City business meetings with no public
hearings and held in the morning and that if there has to be a work session on
major issues that there be work sessions. On those months that have five
Tuesdays, and in 1989 excluding January there are three such Tuesdays, that
there be town hall meetings, one in Anaheim Hills, one in west Anaheim and one
downtown. Whether or not those would be fully sanctioned Council meetings he
would have to defer to the City Attorney. He does not feel it is necessary to
have the entire staff present but the Council would be present, not to make
decisions or to vote, but to listen to the citizens with some type of agenda
for the specific areas. He feels the Council should get out of City Hall and
meet with the people. Those are his suggestions.
Councilwoman Kaywood. She is concerned with having public hearings only on
two Tuesdays due to the workload. There is also nothing wrong with having
town hall meetings, but City Hall is a convenient location with sufficient
parking. It is the seat of government; Councilman Pickler felt that the plan
for town hall meetings on fifth Tuesdays was a good idea but not to have them
held in other parts of the City. He also feels that there should be night
meetings every Tuesday. He took a poll which indicated that people want night
City Council meetings.
Councilman Ehrle. He agrees with the Mayor on night meetings the first and
third Tuesdays starting at 7:00 p.m. He feels the Council should also take
note that the County conducts their meetings in the morning in work sessions.
There are many other items to consider over and above public hearings.
Starting Council meetings in the morning the second and fourth Tuesdays to him
is a good idea. Staff arrives at 8:00 a.m. and the Council meeting could
start at 9:00 a.m. He also likes the suggestion of town hall meetings and
going to the people. Perhaps two Council Members could attend one and two
another, etc.
Councilman Daly. He supports the addition of a second night meeting. He
feels a good compromise is to schedule all important public hearings on those
first and third Tuesdays. He would leave it to the discretion of the City
Clerk to schedule routine public hearings where history shows there is not a
substantial public input. That is the only change he is willing to go with at
the present time. Town hall meetings sound nice but, in fact, every Tuesday
the Council conducts a town hall meeting. He is going to stick with that idea
since it works in every city in California.
1111
89
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES
December 6, 1988, 6:30 P,M.
HEARING SET ON:
A review of the Zoning Administrator's decision was requested by Councilman
Hunter and Councilwoman Kaywood at the meeting of August 30, 1988 and public
hearing scheduled October 4, 1988.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin September 22, 1988.
Posting of property September 23, 1988.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - September 21, 1988.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Zoning Administrator dated August 11, 1988.
At the public hearing after discussion and input was received, the Council
continued the public hearing to Tuesday, November 29, 1988. A subsequent
request was received from Mitzi Ozaki discussed at the meeting of October 25,
1988 asking that the item be continued to December 6, 1988, a Council night
meeting, rather than November 29, 1988. The City Council at that time
declared its intent that at the public hearing of November 29, 1988, the
hearing would be continued to the night meeting of December 6, 1988.
As had been previously determined by the City Council, the public hearing was
continued from the meeting of November 29, 1988 to this date (see minutes of
November 29, 1988).
Councilman Ehrle stated he was refraining from discussion or voting on the
issue due to a potential conflict of interest. (Councilman Ehrle left the
Council dais).
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Mr. Tony Baxter, owner of the subject property. He resides at
640 Nohl Ranch Road. He was not prepared to make an additional
presentation since he did so at the public hearing of October 4,
1988 and the hearing portion was closed.
Mayor Hunter stated it was his understanding Mr. Baxter is
asking for 31.5 feet which is at the highest point in only one
particular area.
Mr. Baxter.
Ail of the areas above the height limitation are in uninhabited
spaces. The primary element is the gable. The structure is
based on a Canyon View Estates Model 1 (7320 Hummingbird
Circle). He also used Dale Cexton who was the architect on
those homes. He merely elaborated on those plans.
Mayor Hunter.
Public testimony has been previously received from those opposed
and at this time the public hearing will be closed. He noted,
however, that Councilman Daly was not on the Council when the
matter was first heard.
1113
90¸
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES December 6, 1988, 6:30 P.M.
Councilman Pickler. Since all Council Members have expressed their views, he
feels the matter should now be continued to the next meeting or the one
following that. It will give an opportunity to consider what has been
discussed today.
MOTION' Mayor Hunter did not agree with the continuance since the issue has
been a matter of discussion for quite some time. He thereupon moved that
there be night City Council meetings on the first and third Tuesdays of each
month and that the public hearing portion start at 7:00 p.m. Councilman Ehrle
seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, additional Council discussion and questioning
followed regarding starting time of the City business portion of the agenda,
if the meeting after a night Council meeting is cancelled will the following
meeting be a night meeting, questions posed to the City Attorney as to the
wording of the current ordinance governing Council meeting dates and times,
etc.
Councilman Hunter withdrew his first motion and moved that there be two night
City Council meetings on the first and third Tuesdays of each month.
Councilman Ehrle seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, it was also determined that the City Attorney in
conjunction with the City Clerk supply the Council with specifics concerning
starting times for the Council meetings to be held on the first and third
Tuesdays and that this information be presented in the form of a draft
ordinance to be submitted and discussed by the Council at the meeting of
December 13, 1988.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for ten minutes. (7:55 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (8:10 p.m.)
179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 3828, CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT,
CLASS 3-A:
APPLICANT: OWNER:
Tony W. Baxter
6401 E. Nohl Ranch Road, No. 9,
Anaheim, CA 92807
LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 7635 E. Silver Dollar Lane.
request is to construct a 2-story, 31.5 foot high, single-family residence
with waiver of maximum structural height.
The
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ACTION: The Zoning Administrator, under Decision
No. ZA88-50, approved Variance No. 3828 in part, for 28 feet.
1112
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES
December 6, 1988, 6;30
Councilman Daly confirmed that he had received the minutes of
the hearing and has reviewed them in preparation for this
meeting.
Mitzy Ozaki.
There are a few new people present tonight to give additional
testimony if the Council will consider reopening the hearing.
City Attorney Jack White.
He recommends that those who have new and different testimony be
given the opportunity to present that tonight. There is no need
to present any testimony that was presented at the previous
hearing since it is all incorporated as part of the record. The
applicant should also be given an opportunity to rebut any new
testimony.
The hearing was reopened and the following people spoke in
opposition to the requested variance:
Phillis Duncan, 7625 Pleasent Place, Anaheim.
She read a letter submitted from Mr. & Mrs. David Kaulb, 7695
Silver Dollar Lane, in opposition to Variance No. 3828 (made a
part of the record).
Roland Krueger, 561 Peralta Hills Drive.
He was Chairman of the Citizen's Committee who gave input with
regard to the recent study by the Planning Commission relative
to the 25-foot height limitation in the Scenic Corridor and
whether there should be any change to that standard. With
regard to the overall consistency in their deliberations, they
have essentially agreed that the 25-foot height for the ridge
line is a reasonable height in the Scenic Corridor. The only
real point of dispute on which there was a split vote of the
Planning Commission was whether there should be exceptions for
certain architectural features which might go up to the 30-foot
level. The main question with the subject structure relates to
the ridge line itself. If they are going to remain consistent,
they should be looking at whether the exe~ption do~ r~lat~ to a
special architectural feature. They did allow for exceptions in
two different areas - Peralta Hills East and Hidden Canyon.
Within the rest of the Canyon, the proposal is that there be a
25-foot limit or 25 feet with exceptions for the architectural
features.
Anthony Galantes, 123 South Derby Circle.
He lives approximately 100 yards west of the property. He noted
in the minutes of the previous meeting that it indicated there
seems to be no opposition by neighbors close to the property.
He passed a circular himself and got 25 signatures from
residents on Canyon Crest and Derby Circle opposing the variance
request. There is no reason in the structure of the home where
it would make it impossible to build the home without the
1114
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES December 6, 1988, 6;30 P.M.
variance request. It is a matter of aesthetics that the
variance is being requested and has nothing to do with
maintaining the 25-foot height limit.
Phil Joujon Roche. He represents the Mohler Drive and
Eucalyptus area. A petition was gathered and previously
submitted containing signatures of 250 residents who are opposed
to the subject height variance and another such variance
request. Mohler Drive is approximately 90% to 95% built out and
the existing 25-foot height limit has worked well. He then
submitted pictures of examples which were exceptions that had
not worked out well and which were above the 25-foot height
limitation. Further, regarding the subject plans, one of the
chimneys extends 2 feet above the 31.5-foot requested. He
feels, therefore, that the request should rightfully be 33.5
feet instead of 31.5. His organization is opposed to any
building, chimneys or whatever extending over 25 feet.
Mitzy Ozaki.
She urged the Council to uphold the 25-foot height limit.
SUMMATION BY APPLICANT: Tony Baxter.
He answered or countered the concerns expressed by the
residents. He also stated he could lower the chimney if the
Council wished. He maintained that where there are strict
standards with no deviation, it creates more of an urban feeling
than a rural atmosphere. Working with the topography is most
important and that is what he has done.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Hunter closed the public hearing.
After additional questions were posed to Mr. Baxter by
Councilwoman Kaywood, Mayor Hunter noted that there is no one
within the area of Mr. Baxter's house complaining about the
requested height variance. There are several letters in the
record stating they are in favor of Mr. Baxter's project. The
whole height limitation issue will be coming back to the Council
shortly. At this point, the Planning Commission is split on a
decision concerning what the limitation should be. The Council
must make that decision.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman
Hunter, seconded by Councilman Pickler, it was determined that the proposed
project falls within the definition of categorical exemptions Class 3-A, as
defined in the State Environmental Impact Report guidelines and is, therefore,
categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 88R-419)
1115
City Hall, Anaheim, California
COUNCIL MINUTES - December 6, 1988, 6;30 P.M.
Councilman Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Hunter offered Resolution No. 88R-419 for adoption, approving
Variance No. 3828 as requested. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 88R-419: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 3828.
Before a vote was taken, and after a brief discussion and questions to staff
for purposes of clarification, Mayor Hunter confirmed that the resolution
offered is to approve the variance requested at the 31.5-foot height and not
as the Zoning Administrator granted the variance in part at 28 feet;
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that Mr. Baxter indicated that he would lower the
chimney if he was requested to do so. (There was no action taken in that
regard).
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution as originally offered that
the variance request be granted at 31.5 feet.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAINED:
TEMPORARILY ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Daly, Pickler and Hunter
None
Kaywood
Ehrle
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 88R-419 duly passed and adopted.
179/185: PUBLIC HEARING - REQUEST TO AMEND CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF RESOLUTION
87R-253 (ORDINANCE NO. 4861), HIGHLANDS AT ANAHEIM HILLS - SPECIFIC PLAN
(SP87-1) - EIR NO. 273 (PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED): Subject property is
approximately 816 acres and is bounded on the north by The East Hills Planned
Community, on the east by Sycamore Canyon and The Summit of Anaheim Hills, on
the west by the existing Anaheim Hills Planned Community, and on the south by
the City of Orange and unincorporated land within the County of Orange. The
request (Presley of Southern California for the Anaheim Highlands Project)
concerned ~everal proposed amendments to existing development conditions.
Submitted was report dated November 29, 1988 from the Planning
Department/Planning Division recommending the following:
That City Council, by motion, determine that Environmental Impact
Report No. 273, previously certified by City Council on June 23, 1987
for the project, is adequate to serve as the required environmental
documentation for this request; and, that Condition Nos. 11, 30, 31,
35, 36, 38, 47 (partial), 50, 51, 52, 69, and 87 of City Council
Resolution No. 87R-253/Ordinance No. 4861 be amended and Condition
Nos. 16, 42, 47 (partial), 61 and 88 not be changed.
Also submitted was report dated December 5, 1988 from the Director of Parks
Recreation and Community Services, Chris Jarvi, recommending that the Council
1116
City Hall, Anaheim, California
COUNCIL MINUTES - December 6, 1988, 6:30 P~M.
accept only a partial amendment to Condition No. 42 as follows and that no
other wording in that Condition be changed:
"That, prior to the issuance of the 201st building permit or six
months from the approval of the first final tract or parcel map
within the Highlands projects, whichever comes first, the
owner/developer shall provide an irrevocable offer of dedication to
dedicate five acres of park and at a site location acceptable to the
City. ."
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin November 17, 1988.
Posting of property November 18, 1988.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet November 17, 1988.
Joel Fick, Planning Director.
The November 29, 1988 report indicates that agreement has been
reached in almost all areas of the proposed condition changes.
There were several areas~at the time of the writing of the staff
report on which staff was still working with the developer to
reach language that was acceptable to the various departments
involved. He believes Mr. Elfend will outline those areas in
his presentation. His (Fick~s) understanding is that agreement
has been reached in all areas with one exception pertaining to
the condition regarding the County of Orange. In the latest
discussions with Mr. Elfend, the Highlands is requesting that
the item be removed from the agenda and readvertised when
Highlands has had the opportunity to review the matter with the
County. Mr. Elfend has reviewed the December 5, 1988 report
from the Parks and Recreation Department and he was in agreement
with the recommended condition change as outlined above.
Frank Elfend, Elfend & Associates, 4675 MacArthur Court,
Suite 616, Newport Beach.
He submitted to the Council all the conditions of approval (see
document entitled, "Highlands at Anaheim Hills Specific Plan -
SP87-1" made a'part of the record). The ~taff report contains
an attachment covering all the conditions which he has requested
be amended. He will discuss those five conditions at this
time. First, relative to Condition No. 87, they have agreed to
withdraw that and subsequently bring that back to the Council.
He then addressed the following conditions that had not yet been
resolved:
CONDITION NO. 16:
It has been discussed with the Water Department and they have
agreed with the revised wording.
CONDITION NO. 42:
They have indicated they will assist the City in resolving that
issue with the Orange Unified School District. It is resolved
and acceptable to them.
1117
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES
December 6, 1988, 6;30 P,M.
CONDITION NO. 47:
It is a partial modification - they support staff on that item
and concur.
CONDITION NO, 61:
This deals with the Deer Canyon storm drain. That has been
moved off to the fourth final map. They also concur with that.
It is a resolved condition.
CONDITION NO, 88:
This condition, along with Condition No. 61, deals with Deer
Canyon. That has also been permitted at the fourth final tract
map.
Those are the items that have now been resolved with staff. He
will be happy to answer questions.
Joel Fick.
He clarified that all of the items that were presented and
addressed by Mr. Elfend were developed by individual departments
in conjunction with the applicant. There is agreement with all
departments on the recommended change. The only exception is
Condition No. 87 which is requested to be removed at this time
which involves the County of Orange. The Highlands is meeting
with the County on that issue and staff will be bringing the
matter back to Council for consideration.
Mayor Hunter asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in opposition;
there being no response, he closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Pickler, seconded by Councilman Ehrle, the City Council approved the negative
declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative declaration
together with any co~nents 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. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 88R-420)
Councilman Pickler moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Councilman Ehr~e seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution No. 88R-420 for adoption. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 88R-420: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC
PLAN NO. 87-1 AND AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 87R-253.
Roll Call Vote:
1118
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES December 6, 1988, 6;30 P,M.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Daly, Ehrle, Pickler, Kaywood and Hunter
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 88R-420 duly passed and adopted.
City Attorney White. In conjunction with this item, staff will prepare an
amendment to Ordinance No. 4861 which will reflect the amendments just
approved to the Specific Plan and return those for Council consideration and
adoption at a later date.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - WAIVER OF COUNCIL POLICY NO. 543, WAIVER OF CODE
REQUIREMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3049 AND NEGATIVE DECL~TION:
APPLICANT: OWNER:
Wilken Way Limited Partnership
Attn: Richard T. Brown
6775 Airport Drive,
Riverside, CA 92504
LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 400 West Wilken Way. The
request is to construct a 1 to 8-story, 416-unit "affordable" senior citizens
apartment complex (formerly 1 to 8-story, and 440-units) with waivers of (a)
maximum fence height adjacent to local streets, (b) minimum building site area
per dwelling unit, (c) maximum structural height, and (d) maximum number of
2-bedroom units. Petitioner also requests waiver of Council Policy No. 543
pertaining to density bonuses.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The Planning Commission under Resolution No.
PC88-306 denied Conditional Use Permit No. 3049, Waiver of Council Policy 543,
Waiver of Code Requirement and a Negative Declaration on the EIR Finding.
HEARING SET ON:
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by the owner, Richard T.
Brown, President of Brown Development Corporation and public hearing scheduled
this date.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin November 23, 1988.
Posting of property November 23, 1988.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - November 23, 1988.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated October 24, 1988.
City Clerk Sohl announced that letter dated December 5, 1988 had been received
from Mr. Brown this morning requesting a continuance of the public hearing at
a time convenient to the Council but not later than January 10, 1989.
Mayor Hunter asked how many were present on this public hearing who are
opposed to the granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 3049; there were
approximately 75 people present in opposition.
1119
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES
December 6. 1988. 6:30 P.M.
The Mayor then asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present; no one
was present. The Mayor continued that it is his understanding the Council can
proceed with the public hearing even though the applicant has requested a
continuance to a later date.
City Attorney White confirmed that was correct.
Mayor Hunter opened the public hearing and first asked to hear from the
applicant, his agent or anyone who wished to speak in favor of the proposed
project; there was no response.
Mayor Hunter than asked to hear from those in opposition, preferably a
spokesperson for the group.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN OPPOSITION:
William Rehm, 233 West Simmons.
He is speaking for the Wilken Way residents to voice their
opposition both to the project and to the approval of
Conditional Use Permit No. 3049. The residents do not oppose
development if it is a reasonable proposal such as townhomes or
condominiums. They are strongly opposed to a supposedly
affordable highrise building complex with an unacceptable
density level that will impact their neighborhood in a
detrimental way. He then gave a presentation addressing the
many and specific reasons why the neighborhood is opposed to the
project which included the following: Even though the developer
reduced the number of units, it will exceed the original plan in
density because of the increase in 2-bedroom units, surrounding
land uses are low to medium density residential and additional
density proposed for the project will adversely impact the
adjoining neighborhood and have a negative effect on property
values, the proposed height and mass of the complexes is totally
out of proportion with the surrounding 1 and 2-story homes;
traffic will be adversely and severely impacted, the exhorbitant
monthly rental rate and the lack of need will make the project
extremely hard to rent; units may remain vacant or become
occupied by more than the allowable number of people which is
difficult or impossible to restrict, there have been 14 prior
citations and complaints against Mr. Brown, his absentee
landlord record speaks for itself, 444 letters of opposition to
the project were submitted to the Planning Commission, the
neighborhood is united in its determination to prevent
overcrowding in their neighborhood. In concluding, Mr. Rehm
stated they are requesting an affirmation of the Planning
Commission's denial of the project and the appeal. If
necessary, they are prepared to address the issue in greater
detail with slides and extensive testimony. The residents
believe, however, that the report from the Planning Commission
should be more than sufficient evidence that the proposal is not
suited to their community.
1120
8Z
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES December 6, 1988, 6:30 P.M.
Mayor Hunter.
With regard to slides or further testimony, that will not be
necessary since there has been no evidence presented in favor of
the project. To have anyone else speak in opposition would not
be necessary. The applicant appealed the decision of the
Planning Commission but is not present to speak. He asked again
if anyone was present who was a proponent of the project and
wished to speak in favor. There was no response.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Hunter closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Councilman Hunter moved
to uphold the Planning Commission's 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 and, therefore, denied an EIR
Negative Declaration. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 88R-421)
Councilman Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Hunter offered Resolution No. 88R-421 for adoption, denying
Conditional Use Permit No. 3049, upholding the findings of the City Planning
Commission. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 88R-421: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3049.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Daly, Ehrle, Pickler, Kaywood and Hunter
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 88R-421 duly passed and adopted.
RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for ten minutes. (8:58 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The M~yor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (9:10 p.m.)
142/114: DISCUSSION - CONSIDERATION OF ESTABLISHMENT OF A BLUE RIBBON CHARTER
REVIEW COMMITTEE: Discussion to consider establishing a Blue Ribbon Committee
to review the City Charter. This discussion was requested by Mayor Hunter at
the Council meeting of November 29, 1988.
1121
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES - December 6, 1988, 6;30 P.M.
Mayor Hunter. A Blue Ribbbon Charter Review Committee should be established
and his ideas relative to the number and make up of the Committee is as
follows: That each Council person appoint one individual for a total of five;
that the majority of the Council appoint an additional five members, and that
one person be appointed from the following groups - Anaheim Neighborhood
Association, H.O.M.E., Anaheim Hills Citizens Coalition, and Anaheim Political
Action Committee which would bring the total to 14 Blue Ribbon Charter Review
Members. The Committee would be directed to review the City Charter adopted
in 1965 and make recommendations on possible amendments to be submitted to the
Council and ultimately to the voters. Such a review can be likened to a "tune
up" to bring it into 1989.
Councilman Pickler. He does not disagree with the forming of a Charter Review
Committee but by doing so should not imply that what the Charter stands for
and because it was adopted many years ago does not mean it is bad.
Councilman Ehrle. The United States Constitution is a living document and the
amendment process is how the Constitution lives.
The City Charter has not been reviewed for some time. The Council is only
going to listen to what a citizens Blue Ribbon Committee recommends, which
recommendations can be accepted or rejected. He does have one suggestion to
be added to the Mayor's recommendation on formation of a Committee, that a
representative from the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce also be included.
Councilman Daly. He first asked the City Attorney how many times the City
Charter has been reviewed by a Citizens Review Committee after the initial
Committee was formed when the Charter was developed and adopted.
City Attorney White. The initial Committee was formed in 1963/64 and the
Charter was subsequently adopted and took effect in 1965. To his knowledge,
the only Review Committee that did a comprehensive review was in 1978 when the
entire Charter was reviewed and amendments proposed. Most, if not all of the
amendments that were finally determined to be on the ballot were adopted by
the voters. Since then, there have been Charter amendments but no
comprehensive committee formed to review the Charter. He was legal Counsel
for the Committee in 1978. As he recalls the size of the Committee was 15
members. Two staff members were involved, himself and one representative from
the City Manager's Office.
Councilwoman Kaywood. She believes the Council each appointed three members
at that time.
Councilman Daly. He would favor a smaller committee and that it be a
combination of people who have been involved in Anaheim City government in the
past and a blend of the best minds they can find in the City regardless of
their affiliation with various groups. He favors a process where each Council
Member nominates two or three citizens. He favors a nine-member committee and
that the Council, as a body, appoint those nine citizens and to set down a
clear timetable for the deliberations of the Committee so that they can report
to the Council in time for the next appropriate scheduled election.
1122
City Hall, Anaheim, California
COUNCIL MINUTES - December 6, 1988, 6:30
Mayor Hunter. He disagrees with the appointive process proposed by Councilman'
Daly. He sees the same people doing the same things all the time. There is a
lot of "new blood" in the City. He would favor Councilwoman Kaywood's
suggestion that each Council Member appoint three making a total of 15. There
might be new faces on the Committee in the make up of a more broad based cross
section of the entire community of the City.
Councilman Daly. His thinking is that they attempt to make the Charter as
helpful a document as they can create. He feels they should also look at
charters throughout the state and look at the operation of the most successful
city government in America. One way to make sure that the Charter is a
flexible and as useful a document as it must be to guide the City over the
next ten years would be to hire the best legal scholar in the area of
municipal government they can find or a combination of expertise which is no
reflection on City staff. It would bring about an independent look at the
legal language to see what works and does not work in other municipalities.
A brief discussion followed wherein Mayor Hunter and Councilman Ehrle
commented on Councilman Daly's recommendations, at the conclusion of which
Councilman Hunter moved that the Council Members each appoint three persons to
serve on a Blue Ribbon Charter Review Committee and those names be submitted
to the City Clerk by the first or second week in January. Councilman Ehrle
seconded the motion.
Before action was taken, Councilman Pickler noted that three or four
recommendations had been presented on the formation and make up of a Charter
Review Committee. He does not feel it is necessary to make a decision today
but instead that there be an opportunity for the Council to consider what has
been proposed and a decision made at a later date.
Council discussion followed regarding the issue wherein Councilman Hunter
stated that all he wanted to accomplish this evening was to establish the
formation of a Committee and how many would serve. The other issues such as
staffing, legalities, etc. could have been worked on at a later date.
Apparently it is the Council's consensus to continue the matter.
Councilwoman Kaywood emphasized that she is concerned that the Mayor feels
that representatives have to be appointed from the groups he mentioned. She
feels having a parochial view with members out of each of these groups is not
going to be beneficial for the whole City. The only way she will agree is
that representatives on the Committee be City-wide with the good of the whole
City being foremost.
Councilman Pickler moved that the discussion to consider establishing a Blue
Ribbon Committee to review the City Charter be continued for one week.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
Councilman Daly suggested that staff be directed to give some input on the
matter and raise issues for Council consideration.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
1123
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES
December 6, 1988, 6;30 P,M.
114: DISCUSSION - SETTING ITEMS FOR A PUBLIC HEARING; Discussion to consider
allowing any Council Member to set an item for Public Hearing without a
second. This was requested by Councilman Pickler at the meeting of
November 29, 1988.
Councilman Pickler. He feels any Council person should have the prerogative
to set an item for a public hearing without the necessity of having a second
Council person agree. He will continue to agree to setting a matter for a
public hearing if a second is required even if he does not agree that an
additional public hearing is necessary.
Councilwoman Kaywood. She is concerned over the present procedure since all
Council Members have been elected by the people. By stifling one Council
person, the other members are trying to bypass the electorate.
Councilman Daly. He favors the current system requiring two Council Members
to appeal a decision of the Planning Commission or Zoning Administrator. The
public always has the right of appeal.
Councilman Ehrle moved to retain the current procedure requiring the consensus
of two Council Members to set a public hearing on Planning Commission and
Zoning Administrator items. Councilman Daly seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood again expressed her concern that
when the items appear on the agenda it is the last day for an appeal or
setting the matter for a hearing. If a citizen calls and asks that she set an
item and subsequently she cannot get a second, then the deadline passes and
the citizen who called will be under the impression that there will be a
public hearing.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion affirming the present Council
procedure on setting matters for a public hearing. Council Members Kaywood
and Pickler voted no. MOTION CARRIED.
114: COUNCIL LIAISON COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS: After a brief Council discussion
on the subject, motions were made and seconded by various Council Members
appointing Council Members as Liaison Committee Members for both City business
a~ well a~ extended a~ignment~. All appointment~ were made unanimously and
resulted in the following assignments:
New Council Liaison Committee Assignments as Follows:
ANAHEIM STADIUM, ARENA & TENANTS:
Mayor Hunter/Councilman Pickler
AUDIT:
Mayor Hunter/Councilman Pickler
GOLF COURSES & CONTIGUOUS
CANYON AREAS:
Councilman Pickler/Councilman Ehrle
LIBRARY:
Councilman Ehrle/Counctlman Daly
1124
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES December 6, 1988, 6;30 P,M.
COMMUNITY SERVICES & HOUSING:
Mayor Pro Tem Kaywood,
Councilman Ehrle
CONVENTION CENTER AND VISITOR
~ CONVENTION BUREAU:
Mayor Pro Tem Kaywood,
Councilman Daly
PLANNING:
Councilman Ehrle/Councilman Daly
REDEVELOPMENT:
Mayor Hunter,
Mayor Pro Tem Kaywood
The following are City Council Extended Assignments:
EASTERN/FOOTHILL CORRIDOR JPA:
JOINT FIRE TRAINING FACILITY'
Councilman Daly - Delegate
Councilman Pickler - Alternate
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD:
Councilman Ehrle/Councilman Pickler
Mayor Pro Tem Kaywood
SANITATION DISTRICTS 2, 3 ~ 13:
Councilman Pickler - Active Alternate
Mayor Hunter - Alternate
INTERCOUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY:
Councilman Pickler
SANTA ANA RIVER
FLOOD PROTECTION AGENCY'
Councilman Daly
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST:
No items of public interest were addressed.
179: ITEMS C1 - C8 FROM THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 17, 1988
- DECISION DATE: NOVEMBER 23, 1988 - INFORMATION ONLY - APPEAL PERIOD ENDS
DECEMBER 8, 1988:
Cl.
VARIANCE NO. 3866, CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 5:
OWNER: JOHN G. MC GRAIL AND SUZETTE M. MC GRAIL, 822 Cottonwood
Circle, Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION: 822 Cottonwood Circle
To retain a patio cover with waiver of minimum structural setback.
Variance No. 3866 APPROVED by the Zoning Administrator, Decision No.
ZA88-63.
C2.
VARIANCE NO. 3868, CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 5:
OWNER: GARY STEVEN FINDLEY AND REBECCA FINDLEY, 111 Eldorado Lane,
Anaheim, CA 92807
LOCATION: 111 Eldorado Lane
To construct a pool house with waiver of minimum structural setback.
Variance No. 3868 APPROVED by the Zoning Administrator, Decision No.
ZA88-64.
1125
City Hall, Anaheim, California COUNCIL MINUTES - December 6, 1988, 6:30 P.M.
C3.
VARIANCE NO. 3870 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: STERIK COMPANY, ATTN: JANE P. LIEBERMAN, 828 Moraga Drive,
Bel Air, CA 90049
LOCATION: 88 East Orangethorpe Avenue
To establish a total of 26,990 square feet of fast food restaurant
area in an existing retail center with waiver of minimum number of
required parking spaces.
Variance No. 3870 APPROVED by the Zoning Administrator, Decision No.
ZA88-65.
C4.
VARIANCE NO. 3871, CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 5:
OWNER: BETTE E. KEPPEL, 1142 North Lotus Street, Anaheim, CA 92801
LOCATION: 1142 North Lotus Street
To retain a room addition on an existing single-family residence with
waiver of minimum rear yard setback.
Variance No. 3871 APPROVED by the Zoning Administrator, Decision No.
ZA88-66.
C5.
VARIANCE NO. 3872, CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 5:
OWNER: JERRY RUTHERFORD AND CAROLYN RUTHERFORD, 5012 Budlong Street,
Anaheim, CA 92807
AGENT: CALIFORNIA REMODELING, 2029 S. State College, Anaheim, CA
92806
LOCATION: 5012 E. Budlong Street
To construct a 384 square foot room addition to an existing
single-family structure with waiver of maximum lot coverage.
Variance No. 3872 APPROVED by the Zoning Administrator, Decision
No. ZA88-67.
Councilwoman Kaywood. Relative to the RS-5000 zone when it was created there
was a limit on 3-bedrooms for the 1,800 square feet and that it not go over
that. This is requesting 14% over. Such deviations will result in a shortage
of parking and create large problems in the neighborhood. She would like for
the new staff and new Council to be aware of why that was done and how they
have to continue to protect the areas.
C6.
ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 0015, CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 5:
To construct a 38,862 square-foot warehouse with waiver of minimum
number of parking spaces. Property is located at 1371 Miller Street.
Administrative Adjustment No. 0015 GRANTED by the Zoning
Administrator, Decision No. ZA88-68.
C7.
ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 0016, CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 5:
To construct a second story addition with waiver of minimum
structural setback front yard. Property is located at 131 Wade
Circle.
Administrative Adjustment No. 0016 GRANTED by the Zoning
Administrator, Decision No. ZA88-69.
1126
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES December 6, 1988, 6;30 P.M,
C8.
ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 0017, CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 5:
To construct a 451 square-foot 2nd story room addition with waiver of
required front yard setback. Property is located at 229 N. Bluerock.
Administrative Adjustment No. 0017 GRANTED by the Zoning
Administrator, Decision No. ZA88-70.
End of the Zoning Administrator Items. MOTIONS CARRIED.
179; ORDINANCE NO. 4975 (ADOPTION):
WAIVER OF READING ORDINANCE: The title of the following ordinance was read
by the City Clerk. (Ordinance No. 4975)
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to waive the reading in full of the ordinance.
Councilman Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4975 for adoption. Refer to
Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4975: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
(Amending Title 18 to rezone property under Reclassification No. 88-89-11 from
PD-C/RM-1200 to PD-C/RM-2400)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Daly, Ehrle, Pickler, Kaywood and Hunter
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4975 duly passed and adopted.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4976 (ADOPTION):
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCE: The title of the following ordinance was read
by the City Clerk. (Ordinance No. 4976)
Councilman Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the ordinance.
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance No. 4976 for adoption. Refer to
Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4976: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING TO SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 88-2 (SP 88-2) ZONE.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Daly, Ehrle, Pickler, Kaywood and Hunter
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
1127
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 6, 1988, 6:30 P,M,
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4976 duly passed and adopted.
179/185: ORDINANCE NO. 4977 (ADOPTION);
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCE: The title of the following ordinance was read
by the City Clerk. (Ordinance No. 4977)
Councilman Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the ordinance.
Councilman Ehrle seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Ehrle offered Ordinance No. 4977 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance
Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4977: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Daly, Ehrle, Pickler, Kaywood and Hunter
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4977 duly passed and adopted.
179: ORDINANCE NO 4978 - DEDICATION AND IMPROVEMENTS OF RIGHTS-OF-WAY -
CRITICAL INTERSECTIONS AND DISCUSSION OF CRITICAL INTERSECTIONS APPROVED UNDER
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO 210: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No.
4978 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCE: The title of the following ordinance was read
by the City Clerk. (Ordinance No. 4978)
Councilman Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the ordinance.
Councilman Daly seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Ehrle offered Ordinance No. 4977 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance
Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4978: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION
18.04.080 OF CHAPTER 18.04 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING
TO DEDICATION AND IMPROVEMENT OF RIGHTS-OF-WAY.
Before further action was taken, Mayor Hunter asked to hear from staff noting
the report submitted by both the City Attorney, Jack White, dated November 16,
1988 and City Engineer Gary Johnson dated December 6, 1988.
Gary Johnson, Director of Public Works/City Engineer. He first briefed his
report of December 6, 1988 which listed the priority of intersection
improvements emphasizing the focus on the Stadium/Disneyland/Convention Center
area as well as the northeast industrial area primarily because financing is
available in those areas in order to begin work. He has also provided the
Council with a summary indicating the estimated $87 million program, $52
1128
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 6, 1988, 6:30 P,M.
million of which staff anticipates having resources to fund. The balance of
approximately $35 million will be funded over the next 20 years through
dedicated revenue such as state gas tax, federal aid urban programs,
City-County programs and sales tax. It will allow staff to move ahead with
those intersections, work in the most congested areas and do the balance of
the program through the normal capital program. The ordinance before the
Council this evening prepared jointly by the City Attorney and his office
proposes to do what the Planning Commission recommended to the Council - that
the City bear the obligation for right-of-way acquisition and public
improvements at the critical intersections, the only exception being where
there is development entitlement being requested by property owners through
the conditional use permit process, i.e., where the City would be entitled to
request dedication on a project. The ordinance would also allow setback from
the ultimate right-of-way so that if normal development did occur, no
buildings will be encroaching in the future setback area.
City Attorney White. He then explained the inter-relationship between the
General Plan and the existing City ordinance and how the proposed ordinance
would change what the existing requirements are (also see minutes of
November 29, 1988 where the City Attorney explained the provisions of the
proposed ordinance). In Summary, he stated what is before the Council tonight
is to alleviate the burdens that were discussed and were of concern to the
people who spoke at the public hearings in August so that no additional
obligation is imposed on property owners as a result of the General Plan
Amendment. It would allow the General Plan Amendment to be used as a planning
tool for future acquisition by payment of fair market value where the City
establishes a program to improve certain intersections to alleviate the
traffic problem. One other area where the City would retain discretion, it
would require that setbacks be maintained at the line where the critical
intersection right-of-way exists so that no one would be developing unless
they obtained a variance from the City in the area that could ultimately be
acquired as a critical intersection improvement. He also clarified for
Councilman Ehrle that neither the proposed ordinance nor the General Plan
Amendment that has been adopted would create a "cloud" on title to property.
Councilman Daly. It seems the proposed ordinance is more flexible and
provides more remedies to the property owner than the ordinance of March 19,
1987; City Attorney White answered that was correct.
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer. The entire program is based on at least 10 to
15 years and perhaps 20 years in some instances. Lacking the bond issue,
there are still funding sources available especially at priority locations
where such improvements can be made within existing resources that can be
tapped.
Councilman Daly. He noted that of the 33 critical intersections, there are a
number where funding sources have not been identified and it is a matter of
hoping for an increase in the County sales tax or that Sacramento will raise
the state gas tax. The Capital Improvement Program is a very ambitious one
and although it is visionary, it is something the City is doing by itself and
not in concert with surrounding cities to his knowledge. Considering the
length of the list, the almost $90 million price tag with a $35 million
1129
?!
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 6, 1988, 6;30 P,M.
shortfall, and the many other transportation needs of the community, he
questioned why the list needed to be as long as it is.
Gary Johnson. He answered the issues addressed during which he noted that
most cities in the county are improving intersections on a piecemeal basis.
In Anaheim, staff felt the best planning process would be through the adoption
of a General Plan. It is cost effective, the problems are at the
intersections and it is a better solution than widening miles of streets.
Mayor Hunter. To raise taxes is not necessarily the way to make everything
work. He does not see the taxpayers of Orange County taxing themselves to
generate revenues to either widen intersections or do transportation
projects. Speaking to the ordinance, it is a good one which deletes the
requirement for dedication and improvement or payment of costs by the property
owner at the critical intersections. He feels, however, that it is necessary
to look at the 33 designated intersections under the General Plan Amendment to
decide whether that many are needed vs. six or ten. He understands the
objective of planning for the future, but is having second thoughts about such
an ambitious program.
Councilman Ehrle posed the question of whether or not the critical
intersection program is the only way to solve the traffic problem in Anaheim;
Gary Johnson explained that the weak link in the arterial highway network
system is the intersection. In discussing the matter with his counter parts
in neighboring cities, they are moving ahead but in a different manner. There
is no comprehensive plan. In Anaheim the plan will protect the right-of-way
at intersections which is a planning tool that will enable widening in the
future.
Mayor Hunter felt it would be proper at this point to vote on the ordinance
which was offered for adoption by Councilwoman Kaywood:
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Daly, Ehrle, Pickler, Kaywood and Hunter
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4978 duly passed and adopted.
City Attorney White then explained for the Mayor that the General Plan
Amendment that was adopted by resolution on the critical intersections
(General Plan Amendment No. 210) provided that it become effective January 1,
1989. In order to repeal that or extend the effective date would require a
public hearing similar to the hearing held when it was put in place.
Mayor Hunter stated he would like to bring those 24 intersections which were
adopted in August back to a public hearing. Even though 56% of the voters
voted for the bond issue on the critical intersections, it did not pass by the
required 2/3 vote. That alone should bring those 24 intersections back for
public input.
1130
79.
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES December 6, 1988, 6;30 P,M,
City Engineer Johnson pointed out for Councilman Daly regarding those
intersections that are unfunded, the General Plan is to be used simply as a
planning tool to protect the right-of-way and that is the reason it is
necessary that they continue to be on the General Plan. He would suggest that
there can be a financing priority to indicate those on an implementation basis
that they do in the earlier years which would allow property owners at certain
intersections to have some general assurance that those intersections would
not be worked on for a period of time in order to make business decisions. He
suggests that the General Plan be left intact but come back on an annual
basis, perhaps with the budget, and tell the Council what the implementation
plan is.
Mayor Hunter. His concern is in trying to balance the rights of property
owners at critical intersections with what the City wants to do with those
intersections.
After further discussion and input by the Traffic Engineer on questions posed
by the Council, Councilman Daly suggested that the General Plan be left
intact, but relative to the 15 unfunded intersections that a report be
submitted discussing Anaheim's citywide transportation needs including freeway
interchanges, street widenings, potential costs of the transit project, etc.
He would like to see the whole package together so that the Council can decide
in light of the fact that there is no identified funding for 15 of the 33
intersections whether to keep any or all of those 15.
City Manager Bob Simpson. Such a workshop would be ambitious as part of a
Council meeting but staff would be glad to hold a session which would be two
to three hours of discussion minimum since three major different
transportation components have been identified all with varying methods of
funding. He does not view the $35 million required for the 15 remaining
intersections over a 20-year period to be a major funding problem. He is
hearing concerns about freeway interchanges but they are separate. They are
trying to move to different traffic loads with intersections and an entirely
different traffic load with a people mover system moving people within
Anaheim. With the critical intersection system, it is trying to move people
through Anaheim. Anaheim typically writes the chapters on what other people
do. If the program is done and it is as successful as the professionals are
telling them it will be, that will again occur. If the issue is land use,
that ought to be a part of the same workshop discussion. He urged the
Council, for the hundreds of hours that have gone into the plan, and the eight
public hearings held up to this point, that they not take any action until
staff can give additional input. Tell staff specifically what the concerns
are and let staff work with the Council to allay some of those concerns. The
workshop can be scheduled as soon as Council time permits.
Mayor Hunter reiterated his concerns about the rights of property owners and
also questioned whether or not the critical program is the way to move traffic
in the future. He feels it is an attitude problem and if they keep building
freeways and widening streets he questions if it will ever change the
prevailing attitude about moving traffic. He feels what they should be
working on full bore is a monorail system in the Disneyland area vs. widening
more intersections or building more roads and streets.
1131
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - December 6, 1988, 6;30 P,M.
Councilman Pickler favored the idea of a workshop; Mayor Hunter stated instead
of choosing a date at this time he would rather that staff be prepared and
suggested that the matter be tabled for now and have staff come up with an
appropriate date in January.
MOTION: Councilman Hunter moved to table the subject discussion.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
179/170: ORDINANCES NOS. 4979 THROUGH 4982 (INTRODUCTION): Councilman Hunter
offered Ordinance Nos. 4979 through 4982, both inclusive, for introduction.
ORDINANCE NO. 4979: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
(Amending Title 18 to rezone property under Reclassification No. 87-88-08
located at 5635 E. La Palma Avenue, from ML(SC) to CL(SC))
Councilwoman Kaywood requested additional information in the subject item
stating her concern about using industrial space for the use.
Joel Fick, Planning Director. Staff will provide a brief explanation.
ORDINANCE NO. 4980: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE. lB OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
(Amending Title 18 to rezone property under Reclassification No. 87-88-40
located at 719 and 723 West La Palma Avenue, from CG to RM-1200)
ORDINANCE NO, 4981: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
(Amending Title 18 to rezone property under Reclassification No. 87-88-49
located at 1226, 1234, 1228 South Western Avenue, and 3159 West Lanerose
Avenue from RS-A-43,000 to RM-3000)
ORDINANCE NO. 4982: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION
17.04.160 OF CHAPTER 17.04 AND SECTION 17.06.281 OF CHAPTER 17.06 , OF TITLE
17 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO GRADING.
114: ADDITIONAL AIRING OF WEEKLY COUNCIL MEETINGS; Councilwoman Kaywood
explained that she had suggested to Multi-Vision Cable that they air City
Council meetings more than the one time presently schedule (Wednesday evenings
at 5:00 p.m.). She is recommending that Multi-Vision Cable TV show the
Council meetings at least three or four times during the week. The cable
company is amenable to doing this.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Hunter moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (11:10 p.m.)
LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK
1132