1987/03/10City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 10; 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
VACANCY:
PKESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler, Hunter, Kaywood and Bay
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
COUNCIL MEMBERS: One
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTOF. NEY: Jack Whlte
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
PARK PLANNER: Richard Mayer
PURCHASING AGENT: Diane Hughart
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was
posted at 3:00 p.m. on March 6, 1987 at the Civic Center front lobby window,
containing all items as shown herein.
Mayor Bay called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
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 Anaheim,
Orange County Superior Court Case No. 40-92-46; Also Orange County
Superior Court Case No. 40-06-65; and Rudy Salazar vs. City of
Anaheim, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 50-77-04.
b. Labor 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).
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilman Hunter
seconded the motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CAR/tIED. (12:07 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. One Vacancy. (1:45 p.m.)
INVOCATION: Father John Lenihan, St. Boniface Church, gave the Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Girl Scouts - Troop 617 - Anaheim, led the assembly in the
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
119: INTRODUCTION AND PRESENTATION: Mrs. Earline Jones, Executive Director,
Miss Anaheim/Miss America Pageant, introduced and presented to the Council
Miss Para Findley, who was crowned 1987 Miss Anaheim/Miss America on Saturday,
March 7, 1987.
166
Cit[ Hall, Anaheim~ Cal~fornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 10~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Bay, on behalf of the Council and the City congratulated Miss Findley
and presented her with red roses. The Council wished her well in the upcoming
Miss California Pageant, the next step on the road to the National Miss
America Pageant.
119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Bay and
authorized by the City Council:
Red Cross Month in Anaheim, March 1987,
Selective Service Registration Awareness Month in Anaheim, March 1987,
Block Parent Week in Anaheim, March 9-13, 1987,
Girl Scout Week in Anaheim, March 7-14, 1987,
Bernice Douglas and several other members of the Anaheim Chapter of the Red
Cross accepted the Red Cross Month proclamation; Mark Clark accepted the
Selective Service proclamation; Carolyn Plettinck accepted the Block Parent
Week proclamation and Erika Tiedtke, accompanied by two Girl Scouts from two
Troops in Anaheim accepted the Girl Scout Week proclamation.
119: RATIFICATION OF PROCLAMATION: The City Council ratified the Arbor Day
in Anaheim proclamation designating March 4, 1987 Arbor Day in the City of
Anaheim.
119: RATIFICATION OF RESOLUTIONS OF APPRECIATION: The City Council
unanimously ratified Resolutions of Appreciation honoring Police Department
Personnel and wishing them well on their retirement from the City as follows:
Officer Richard H. Welty, 26 years with the Police Department; Detective
Albert F. Burbrtnk, 25 years with the Police Department; Detective Walter H.
Hess, 27 years with the Police Department; Captain Dale A. Wilcox, 30 years
with the Police Department.
The Resolutions were presented by Mayor Pro Tem Kaywood at a dinner held on
February 27, 1987.
MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular
meetings held February 10 and February 17, 1987. Councilman Pickler seconded
the motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
waive the reading in full of all ordinances an~ resolutions of the Agenda,
after reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to
waiver is hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the
title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such
ordinances or resolutions in regular order. Councilman Bay seconded the
motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of ~1,397,142.85 for the week
ending February 27, 1987 and $1,893,393.15 for the week ending March 6, 1987,
in accordance with the 1986-87 Budget, were approved.
167
Cit7 Hall, A-aheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 10~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
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. 87R-62 through 87R-70, 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 Ohio Casualty Group (Joseph Clark Insured, File
No. 2GF86-331532W) for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of
the City on or about October 4, 1986.
b. Claim submitted by Shawn Slayton for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 13, 1986.
c. Claim submitted by George A. Van Bebber for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 5, 1987.
d. Claim submitted by Gladys J. Henton for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about November 26, 1986.
e. Claim submitted by AMEA and Frank T. Pepito for personal injury
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 17, 1986.
f. Claim submitted by Jerome W. Anderson for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 5, 1987.
g. Claim submitted by Peter W. Galle for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 8, 1987.
h. Claim submitted by John & Teresa Marks for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 5, 1987.
i. Claim submitted by Mrs. John Cowan for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 16, 1987.
J. Claim submitted by Leigh Cossano & Bernie Tippit for property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 23, 1986
and December 24, 1986.
k. Claim submitted by Lester E. Idler for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 5, 1987.
1. Claim submitted by Wanda A. Train for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about September 12, 1986.
m. Claim submitted by Ryan T. Murphy by and thru Guardian ad Litem
Timothy M. Murphy and Timothy M. Murphy for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 3, 1986.
168
City Hall~ An~heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 10, 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
o. Claim submitted by David Carol Alton for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 12, 1986.
p. Claim submitted by Barry Russell Wermes & Arnold Wermes Dental
Laboratory for partial indemnity and/or contribution for lawsuit sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about November 26, 1986.
q. Claim submitted by Emory F. Lewis & Lewis A. Wentz for property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 2, 1986.
r. Claim submitted by Mrs. D. L. Vinson for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 5, 1987.
s. Claim submitted by Carol J. Ogan for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 4, 1987.
t. Claim submitted by Karol H. Snow for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 4, 1987.
u. Claim submitted by Beryl B. Guiles for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 9, 1986.
v. Claim submitted by Sherrie L. Cullings for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 7, 1987.
Claims filed against the City - Recommended to be Accepted:
w. Claim submitted by Michael Manson for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about February 23, 1987.
2. Receiving and filing the following correspondence: (on file)
a. 105: Public Utilities Board, Minutes of February 5, 1987.
b. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission, Minutes of January 18, 1987.
3. 123: Waiving Council Policy 401 and authorizing an agreement with Weldon
and Associates in the amount of $3,750 for collection agency services for
recovery of Library materials.
4. 108: Approving an application for a Public Dance Permit submitted by
Jesus M. Frias, for the Empresa Frias, to hold a dance at the Anaheim
Convention Center on March 14, 1987, from 6:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m., in
accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of Police.
5. 101/106: Approving the expenditure of $89,145 for maintenance of the
Anaheim Stadium Scoreboard by Stewart Warner Electronics, for the term March
1, 1987 through February 28, 1988.
6. 170/123: Approving a reimbursement agreement with Boulevard Development,
Inc., for special water facilities constructed to serve Tract No. 10970 in the
Anaheim Hills area.
169
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 10~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
7. 128: Receiving and filing the Monthly Financial Analysis - Six months
ended December 31, 1986.
8. 175/123: Authorizing the Sixth Amendment to Agreement with Rourke and
Woodruff for an increase in legal fees, effective on date of execution.
9. 179: Authorizing a one-year extension of time for Conditional Use Permit
No. 2634, to construct a 318-room hotel with accessory uses including a
restaurant, outdoor eating area and on-sale alcohol on property located at
2045 South Harbor Boulevard, to expire on January 29, 1988.
10. 123: Authorizing an agreement with PMW Associates in the amount of not to
exceed $3,900 to conduct an eight hour Assessment Center for the Fire
Battalion Chief position.
11. 153: Reappointing Fred Bercher to serve on the JTPA Private Industry
Council for the term August 1, 1986 through August 1, 1990.
12. 123: Authorizing the First Amendment to Agreement for Pro Shop Concession
at H. G. "Dad" Miller Municipal Golf Course with Robert Johns, Golf Pro, to
clarify said contract.
13. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a change order to Neff
Contracting (P.O. 39957-M) for an additional amount of $2,774 for residential
sidewalk replacement.
14. 160: Waiving Council Policy No. 306 and authorizing the Purchasing Agent
to issue a purchase order to the Anaheim Public Improvement Corporation in the
amount of $16,712 for one portable sanitary sewer flow meter system.
15. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to the
Anaheim Public Improvement Corporation in an amount not to exceed $15,325.01
for 5,000 feet of 15 KV, U.R.D. Primary Cable, in accordance with Bid No.
A-4405.
16. 160: Accepting the low bid of Woody Chevrolet in the amount of $27,634.45
for three compact 4-door sedans, in accordance with Bid No. A-4410.
17. 160: Accepting the low bid of Custom Floors, Inc., in the amount o£
$11,795 for carpet and floor tile at Fire Station #3, in accordance with Bid
No. 4416.
18. 160: Accepting the low bid of Custom Floors, Inc., in the amount of
$11,795 for carpet and floor tile at Fire Station #2, in accordance with Bid
No. 4417.
19. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-62: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION OF A CERTAIN PUBLIC WORK. (LA
PALMA AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENT). (Accepting the completion of construction
La Palma Avenue Street Improvement, east of Sunkist Street to Route 57,
Account Nos. 15-793-6325-E3170, 51-484-6993-00710 and 51-479-6993-00589, R. J.
Noble Company, contractor, and authorizing filing of the Notice of Completion
therefor)
170
1 70
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 10; 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
20. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-63: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM FINALI~ ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION OF A CERTAIN PUBLIC WORK.
(LINCOLN AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENT). (Accepting the completion of
· construction of Lincoln Avenue Street Improvement, State College Boulevard to
Cliffrose Street, Account Nos. 17-792-6325-E2360 and 51-484-6993-00710,
Nobest, Inc., contractor, and authorizing filing of the Notice of Completion
therefor)
21. 129: RESOLUTION NO. 871{-64: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM ESTABLISHING A FIRE PREVENTION WORK EXPERIENCE PROGRAM.
(Establishing a Fire Prevention Work Experience Program)
22. 160: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-65: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM DECLARING CERTAIN UNCLAIMED PROPERTY IS NEEDED FOR PUBLIC USE AND
TRANSFERRING THE SAME TO THE CITY PURCHASING DIVISION. (Declaring certain
unclaimed property is needed for public use and transferring the same to the
City Purchasing Division)
23. 123: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-66: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE ASSUMPTION OF MAINTENANCE AND LIABILITY FOR
LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION FACILITIES ON IMPF~IAL HIGHWAY FROM ORANGETHORPE
AVENUE TO THE SANTA ANA RIVER. (Authorizing the assumption of maintenance and
liability for landscaping and irrigation facilities on Imperial Highway from
Orangethorpe Avenue to the Santa Aha River and authorizing the City Engineer
to execute the letter of agreement)
24. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-67: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 75R-565 ~RLATING TO PERSONNEL RULE 6,
PREMIUM PAY. (Amending Resolution No. 75R-565, pertaining to Personnel Rule
6, Premium Pay, to include certain part-time recreation classifications as
exempt from overtime)
25. 113/175: Approving an Interim Record Retention Schedule for the Utilities
Department, authorizing the destruction of recorded telephone and radio
communications more than 100 days old.
113/175: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-68: A RES0LUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION, BY ERASURE OR OTHERWISE, OF RZCORDED
TELEPHONE AND RADIO COMMUNICATIONS MAINTAINED BY A CITY DEPARTMENT WHICH
RECORDINGS ARE MORE THAN 100 DAYS OLD. (Authorizing the destruction, by
erasure or otherwise, of recorded telephone and radio communications
maintained by the Public Utilities Department and are more than 100 days old)
26. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-69: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING AN EASEMENT DEED CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN
REAL PROPERTY FOR AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES. (R/W
#3500-87) (Accepting an easement deed conveying to the City certain real
property for an easement for road and public utility purposes)
27. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 87R-70: 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.
171
167
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 10~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 87R-62 through 87R-70:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Pickler, Hunter, Kaywood and Bay
None
None
One
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 87R-62 through 87R-70, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
End of Consent Calendar Items.
160: BID NO. 4413 - BOYSEN PARK BASEBALL AND SOFTBALL SPORTS LIGHTING:
Accepting the low bid of David-Richards Construction and authorizing execution
of an agreement for the Boysen Park Baseball and Softball sports lighting in
the amount of ~45,712, in accordance with Bid No. 4413. Submitted was report
dated February 24, 1987 from the Purchasing Agent Diane Hughart, recommending
that the Council accept the subject low bid.
City Manager William Talley announced that Mr. Ray Broady had requested to
speak to the issue.
Mr. Ray Broady, 1235 Red Gum Street, Anaheim, stated he operated Creative
Lighting in Anaheim and his company was a participant in the subject bid. His
primary concern was that the interest of the City should be paramount when
talking about public money projects. His company has done a lot of work on
City parks and are very experienced in the lighting field. They received the
bid package on December 23, 1986 with the notation that interested persons
must have alternate equal data into the City 10 days prior to the January 14,
1987 bid date. He then explained in detail the process that they followed,
the difficulty in reaching major manufacturers during the holiday season, the
contacts both with the City's Purchasing Department and the Parks and
Recreation Department, and the submittals made by his company to the City
which were ultimately rejected. They were not the low bid on the specified
product but were substantially lower on the alternate equal. It also turned
out that their alternate equal bid package disappeared. They met with
Purchasing who had tried to find the data. They have two witnesses who were
present at the bid opening who were other bidders and willing to testify that
the data was with the bid and they viewed it at the bid opening. He is
asking, because of what he considers a high number of irregularities on the
bid and because he feels there is a much better way to accomplish the project,
as represented by their alternate equal, while additionally saving the City
$9,600, that all bids be rejected and the project sent back out to bid with
modified specifications to allow alternate equals. This will give all
interested parties adequate time to respond. Delaying the project will not
deter the quality of play on the fields. During his presentation, Mr. Broady
also explained why he felt that the low bidders way of proposing to do the
project was not the best way and would destroy the integrity of the light pole.
Mayor Bay first asked the City Attorney if it was necessary to respond to Mr.
Broady's allegations at this time.
172
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 10~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
City Attorney, Jack White, answered it was not legally necessary. If the
Council wanted a response from staff that would be acceptable but it was not
necessary that there be any response. His office has looked at the procedure
followed and has examined the bids. It is his position, from a legal
standpoint, that the award of the bid to David Richard's Construction would be
legally supportable if the Council wishes to a~opt staff recommendation.
Dick Mayer, Park Planner for the City, stated the concern expressed that the
information was received just before Christmas was regrettable but
unavoidable. He worked very closely with Musko, the lighting company he
specified in the Job, primarily because he felt they could do a good Job for
the City. He does not believe their proposal will reduce the integrity of the
pole as contended by Mr. Broady but will result in a structurally superior set
of equipment when completed. He then reported on what had occurred relative
to the bid submittals. It was the day before the bid was due when Creative's
representatives submitted a whole package of material. It was too much to
review and it did not meet the specifications he had put together as far as
submittal of an alternate product. He also does not believe that Musko was
steering the project as alleged. They are a nationally recognized lighting
firm having lit the Superbowl and the 1984 Olympics. He does not believe
there have been improprieties. The City Attorney reviewed the procedures and
felt that everything was acceptable. No other manufacturer had a complaint
relative to the time element.
Diane Hughart, Purchasing Agent, explained for Councilwoman Kaywood that on
some occasions they asked for alternates to be submitted prior to bid opening
to be evaluated. If they are acceptable as an alternate, an addendum is
issued to allow all of the bidders to be aware that an alternate is acceptable.
Mr. Broady reiterated that he does not feel it is in the City's best interest
nor the people of Anaheim or the Parks Department to award the bid as
proposed. Ail bids should be rejected and the Job rebid.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to accept the low bid of David Richard's
Construction and authorize execution of an agreement for Boysen Park Baseball
and Softball sports lighting in the amount of ~45,712, in accordance with Bid
No. 4413 and in accordance with the recommendations of staff. Councilman Bay
seconded the motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for five minutes.
(2:35 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. One Vacancy. (2:46 p.m.)
108/142: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE BUSINESS LICENSE ORDINANCE: Amending
Title 3 of the Code, pertaining to Business Licenses; amending Chapters 4.14
of the Code, pertaining to amusement devices and 4.98 pertaining to the
Halloween Parade and Festival; authorizing the City Treasurer to execute a
letter agreement with Ralph Andersen & Associates, in an amount not to exceed
$30,000, as consultants for implementing and administering the revised
business license tax ordinance; appropriating an amount not to exceed $100,000
173
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 10~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
from Council Contingency funds to cover the costs of implementation of the new
ordinance and adopting a resolution establishing an annual business tax and
related fees. Submitted was report dated February 2, 1987 from the City
Treasurer, Mary Turner, recommending adoption of the proposed ordinance and
approval of the agreement and resolution.
City Clerk Leonora Sohl announced that a representative from Southern
California Gas Company requested to address the Council on the issue.
John Amador, District Manager, Southern California Gas Company, 1919 State
College Blvd., Anaheim, stated he has great concern relative to the exemption
of Section 3.04.135, exemption of Public Utilities from Title 3 of the
proposed new City ordinance pertaining to business licenses. Historically in
Anaheim receipts from sale of natural gas have been assessed and fees paid
under the Franchise Provisions granted by the City under Ordinance No. 624
since 1938. The method is the most fair and equitable way to assess fees for
natural gas sales. This is followed by the majority of surrounding cities and
counties. In 1978 because of a similar proposal, the City Council agreed to
amend the ordinance to include the Public Utilities exemption in the business
license ordinance because they felt the franchise fee is the most equitable
way to obtain municipal revenues from natural gas. Southern California Gas
Company does not object to paying its fair share to the City. The Gas Company
will pay ~49,000 for 1986 sales using a formula based on gross receipts from
the sales of natural gas in Anaheim. Paying an additional tax on those same
gross receipts they feel would be unfair and inequitable. It is not only the
dollar amount but also the principle involved in paying a duplicate fee based
on the amount they sell within the City. He is asking that the Council
unanimously vote to keep Section 3.04.135 in the proposed ordinance.
Mayor Bay explained there will be public input at the second reading of the
ordinance and Mr. Amador's views were now on record. He then referred to
letter dated February 24, 1987 received from the President of the Anaheim
Chamber of Commerce requesting that first reading of the ordinance be
continued to April 7, 1987 to enable the City/County Government Committee of
the Chamber an opportunity to review and study the proposal.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved that the first reading of the proposed Business
License Tax Ordinance be continued to Tuesday~ April 7, 1987 per the Chamber
of Commerce request and letter dated February 24, 1987. Councilman Hunter
seconded the motion.
Before action was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked that the portion relating
to establishing a fee for returned checks be instituted without delay since it
was a normal business practice for all businesses.
City Attorney White explained that the issue relative to returned checks would
have to be separated out of the ordinance; City Manager Talley stated if the
Council wished, that matter could be brought back to the Council as a separate
issue next week in the form of an ordinance which would just address that one
item.
Councilman Pickler wanted to know what impact a continuation of the proposed
business license ordinance might have.
174
Clt~ Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 10~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
City Manager Talley stated that he would like the Treasurer to address that
but he would like the Council to give staff some direction on how they would
like staff to proceed. As part of the process, they have received
recommendations from the Chamber on a committee that the Council had then
appointed. Sending it back to the Chamber for more work and study, he would
hope, would also include some process where staff could meet with the Chamber
so that when the issue came back on April 7, 1987, they would not be hearing
the Chamber's comments for the first time but seeking to effect closure
wherever they could so that they would bring back an ordinance that would have
majority support.
City Treasurer Mary Turner, first briefed her February 2, 1987 report.
Relative to the request for a continuance, it was almost mandatory that they
go forward with the ordinance as presented or change the implementation date
from June 30, 1987 to January 1, 1988. It was necessary to give ample time to
Data Processing to change software as well as for her Department to change all
of their appropriate forms to comply with less than a month to put the new
ordinance in place. She feels time is of the essence.
Floyd Farano, President of the Chamber of Commerce, reiterated that the
Chamber is requesting that the proposed Business License Tax Ordinance be
continued to April 7, 1987. He then relayed the activities of the Chamber
regarding the proposed ordinance since receiving a copy of the Ralph Anderson
report in October of 1986 to determine the effect and impact of the ordinance
on the business community. This included the selection of 27 businesses from
each of the three categories to participate in the evaluation. The findings
of these businesses were not yet complete with 12 having responded thus far.
It is the Chamber's intention to review the findings with City staff and
secondly with the City Manager. There is a question as to whether the actual
application of the ordinance would result in an actual non-revenue effect.
From the standpoint of the business community it is felt there should be a
further study given to the matter.
City Manager Talley asked the Mayor if he would call for anyone else who might
wish to speak to the proposed ordinance. If the Council gives instruction to
meet with the Chamber and Gas Company, he would also like to know if there was
anyone else. He would not like to have someone on April 7, 1987 indicate that
they have a concern that they could ¥01¢e at least today to give staff an
opportunity to meet with them. Staff will be meeting with the Ghamber and Gas
Company to provide them with whatever assistance they need or at least
dialogue so that all positions are clarified when the matter is brought back
to the Council.
Mayor Bay asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak on the matter;
there was no response. He (Bay) then commented that he had a problem with the
motions that were also on the agenda when it was to be only the first reading
of the ordinance. The two motions that were tied to the ordinance should have
been on the agenda at the second reading which is the time of approval of the
ordinance. It would be difficult for him to express support before he had a
chance to hear public input which occurs at the second reading.
175
City Hakl, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 10~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved that staff be directed to prepare a
separate ordinance and resolution to establish a requirement for payment of
returned check fees. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Bay stated he had no problem with the motion
but would like to see the pros and cons on the matter in a staff report as it
comes back to the Council next week.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CAR/~IED.
A vote was then taken on the motion for continuance to April 7, 1987. One
Vacancy. MOTION CAR/LIED.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 3622:
APPLICANT:
Vincent and Patrice Califano
331 South Yorkshire Circle
Anaheim, Ca. 92807
REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: To retain an existing horse barn and corral on
RS-HS-22,000 zoned property located at 331 South Yorkshire Circle, with Code
waiver of minimum distance for animal confinement.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC86-303 denied Variance No. 3622.
HEARING SET ON:
Appealed by the applicant.
February 3, 1987.
This matter was continued from the meeting of
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin January 22, 1987.
Posting of property January 22, 1987.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - January 22, 1987.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated December 8, 1986.
City Attormey Jack White.
He clarified for Mayor Bay this is a hearin$ relating to land
use and not in relation to ownership of property and other
matters that relate to property interest other than what is the
appropriate use of a given piece of property. If an applicant
is in front of the Council and request that certain
discretionary action take place and does not have the legal
ability to carry it out, that is a private matter. The City
Council is interested in whether or not the request is
appropriate under the zoning laws of the City.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Mr. John Chamberlain, attorney representing Victor and Patrice
Califano.
He first submitted a copy of a site plan (previously made a part
of the record), which showed the Califano's property as well as
surrounding properties, a number of photos (numbered on the back
176
164
City Ma!l~ A--heim~ C-l{fornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 10~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
for explanation purposes) and a letter dated March 7, 1987
signed by neighbors of the Califano's who also live on South
Yorkshire Circle who were in favor of the application (Variance
No. 3622) that would enable the Califanos to retain their barn.
Mr. Chamberlain pointed out that the site plan showed that the
Califano's horse corral had crossed three properties. The
photos depicted the corral and the barn but also included were
photographs showing that the corral no longer exists and the
fence enclosing the corral had been removed. Thus, there was no
longer encroachment on other properties since the corral was
removed over last weekend. There was no longer a problem of
having to decide property rights of other people regarding
encroachments. Relative to the barn that was constructed with
approved plans, this structure has been on the Califano's
property for six years but it is not within the permitted zoning
setback for animal confinement and that is the issue. Horses
are permitted on the premises under the Municipal Code. The
Code also provides for stables or other means of confinement.
There are no setback requirements for side and rear yard fences
as long as they are not more than six feet high. The
alternatives relative to the barn are first, in the extreme, to
remove the barn and the other is a variance. The reasons why
the barn should remain, it takes care of the horses which are
permitted on the property, a variance permits a use consistent
with the scheme of development in the area and the barn enhances
the property value of the Califanos. He then read the letter
which was submitted in favor. He emphasized that denial of the
variance would be very expensive because the Califanos would
then have to remove a valuable asset from their property which
will, in turn, adversely affect their property value and that of
nine other homeowners. The only opponents to the variance
cannot have horses on their property in any event. The facts of
the issue contradict the Planning Commission's action
statement. The Califano's property and that of the Shaws and
the Hicks are separate and distinct from the other properties
and should be treated differently. He is asking that Variance
No. 3622 be granted and that the barn be permitted to stay where
it is.
Mayor Bay.
He asked for clarification that Mr. Chamberlain was modifying
the request for a variance and that since the corral was now
removed, the variance request deals only with the setback of the
barn which was 4 feet 9 inches from the neighboring property vs.
a requirement that it be 20 feet away; Mr. Chamberlain answered
that was correct.
City Attorney White.
The only issue the Council is dealing with is the Section in the
Code providing that no equine (horse) or other type of animal
shall be kept within 20 feet of a property line. The edge of
the barn where the horse is kept is 4 feet 9 inches from the
property line. The evidence that the Council is required to
177
1' 61
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 10~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
receive in order to make findings of fact under the Code
Sections deal only with the issue of whether or not there are
special circumstances applicable to the property which do not
apply to other properties in the same zone and vicinity and
would deprive this property owner of reasonable use of his land
without approving the requested variance.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN FAVOR: None.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN OPPOSITION:
Georgia Peterson, 361 Yorkshire Circle, President of Country
Knoll Homeowners Association.
There are 20 homes in the Country Knoll development which are
approximately 9 years old. Ail owners signed documents to abide
by the CC&R's which clearly state that they cannot change the
canyons. Mr. Califano has violated that provision. He brought
in a bulldozer and bulldozed portions of lots 7, 8 and 9 (as
shown on the site plan). This took place on the Reisman's
McLaughlin's and her property, and there was no agreement to do
so. Relative to her lot (9) she repeatedly called the City
asking for help but received no assistance. When the hillside
was stripped, roots of trees were exposed and some trees died.
Mr. Califano has not paid Homeowners Association dues for 8
years; 14 other homeowners are paying for his water. She is not
against Mr. Califano. The neighbors have been very tolerant of
having the canyon filled in the back. The City should have been
behind them relative to the matter. Mr. Califano should abide
by the same rules and regulations as the rest of the property
owners. The Council should deny the variance request.
Keith Griffin.
His property is located on the south end abutting Mr. Califano's
property. Mr. Califano took dirt from his property and in doing
so killed some of his trees. Relative to the barn, there is no
ingress or egress to service the barn. Mr. Califano has been
trying to come over his property rolling his hay down the
hillside to service the Barn area. His is a vacant piece o~
land and is on Vista Del Sol, which area is supposed to be a
protected corridor where eucalyptus trees are a protected
species. Mr. Califano disregards other people's property and
thus three of his eucalyptus trees were killed. The Califano
property is not sufficient to service the corral. Mr. Califano
tried to cut a road through his property and another property in
order to transport material between the properties which is not
right and is trespassing.
Skip Becker, South Yorkshire Circle.
During the years 1979 through 1981 when he was a Board Member of
the Country Knoll's Homeowners Association, they never received
any plans for processing or approval from Mr. Califano which is
a requirement of the CC&R's.
178
City Hall~ A-aheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 10~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
City Attorney, Jack White.
He explained that CC&I{'s are matters of private contract between
the various property owners, both a series of rights and
obligations, when they obtained the deed to their property.
Those are not created by statute or ordinance, nor are they a
regulation of the public entity. The City does not enforce
CC&R's placed upon any given property. Entitlements issued by
the City are zoning entitlements and if the City determines to
issue a permit, building permit, conditional use permit or
variance, it does not authorize any property owner to violate
any other provisions of law or any other private property right
including any contractual right that is created by the CC&I{'s.
Those are private in nature and can be enforced privately by
property owners affected by them.
Gall Reisman, 341 Yorkshire Cirle.
She also had photographs which were taken last week before the
Califanos cleaned up the property, one week before the hearing.
Previously there were three rats in her pool in the last week,
flies are terrible and the smell is disgusting. The pictures
show garbage bags from manure thrown over what was the corral.
There are also dead trees and the fencing that was taken down
from the corral was piled up on her property and the
McLaughlin's property. The barn has been sitting on the
property for 7 years illegally. The barn was not making her
property more valuable. Instead it Jeopardized her property and
its value. The pictures she submitted show two horses. At one
time there were three horses and a goat. If the Council allows
Mr. Califano to keep the barn, the fence will be reconstructed,
the manure will be back and the goat and the other two horses.
Mr. Califano has shown no respect to the neighbors. She also
feels the permit should be checked since she was told by the
City that the permit originally pulled was for a hay barn and
not a barn to house animals.
Ken McLaughlin, 351 South Yorkshire Circle.
He is not satisfied with any temporary situation relative to the
corral, the barn, the dirt, dead trees, the drainage area, the
horse trail that was not a true dedicated horse trail but
landscaped in by Grant Warmington. The Council is being asked
to grant a waiver on a barn that is illegally there in the first
place. It has been a very terrible situation for the neighbors
and very time consuming; it is time that the matter was put to
rest.
Councilwoman Kaywood then posed questions to the City Attorney
regarding the legality of the barn; City Attorney White
elaborated on the issue but concluded that it was really
irrelevant whether or not a building permit was issued. If it
was issued for a horse barn, that would have been an illegally
issued permit and void from the day it was issued. From a legal
179
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 10~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
standpoint, he does not believe it matters whether or not there
was a building permit or whether it was for a hay barn or horse
barn. It does not affect the Council's decision in this case.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked about using a bulldozer, removing the
soil, loosening roots and killing trees, if those were also
civil matters; Mr. White confirmed those were civil matters
between the property owners.
SUMMATION BY APPLICANT:
John Chamberlain.
There is a parks and recreation easement through the canyon that
is 10 feet wide. The trail is not there but there is an
easement for the trail if there is concern about ingress and
egress. Multiple horses are also covered under the Anaheim
Municipal Code. There can be more than one horse for temporary
reasons. There are nine people who are in favor of the barn and
five opposed. If the issue is the barn, there is unanimous
consent that the barn is fine. He then answered and/or rebutted
some of the issues brought forth by those in opposition. No one
had offered any significance to show that their property value
or use has been diminished by leaving the barn in place but
there has been evidence offering that property values have been
increased and that no injury is going to occur by leaving the
barn where it is. If the Council can look at the barn as an
asset and as a means of protecting an animal which enhances the
general nature of the property, they will vote in favor of the
variance.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Bay closed the public hearing.
Councilman Pickler.
When the barn was built the applicant knew he had to be 20 feet
from either side of the property. Considering the property
dimensions, there is no way the barn could be built on the
property. The applicant did not request a variance at the
outset.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 87R-71 for adoption, denying
Variance No. 3622, upholding the findings of the City Planning Commission.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 87R-71: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DENYING VARIANCE NO. 3622.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Bay stated looking at the dimensions of the
property, the only way he can determine that the barn got a permit, it was not
called a barn or there was nothing notifying the City there was an intention
to put an animal in that structure. If horses have to be 20 feet from the
property line and the lot is 43.27 feet wide, there would only be 3.27 feet
where the horse could legally be. The question is not whether or not the
180
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 10~ 1987, 1:30 P.M.
Council wants Mr. Califano to tear down the structure but to clarify that he
cannot have horses on his property.
A Roll Call Vote was then taken on the foregoing Resolution.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Pickler, Hunter, Kaywood and Bay
None
None
One
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 87R-71 duly passed and adopted.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for ten minutes. (4:16 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. One Vacancy. (4:27 p.m.)
179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 108 and NEGATIVE
DEcLARATIoN:
APPLICANT:
Wattson Company
840 Newport Center Drive ~655
Newport Beach, Ca. 92660
REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: Request for amendment to delete a portion of La Mesa
Avenue, west of White Star Avenue and north of the Riverside Freeway in order
to develop approximately 80 acres bounded on the north by La Palma Avenue, on
the east by Kraemer Boulevard, and the south and west by the Riverside Freeway.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC87-242 denied the request for
amendment to the Area Development Plan; EIR - Negative Declaration previously
approved.
HEARING SET ON:
Appealed by Richard L. Riemer for Margo Dukleth. This matter was continued
from the meetings of November 4, December 9, 1986 and January 6, 1987 to this
date (see minutes those dates where extensive discussion took place and input
was received).
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin October 23, 1986.
Posting of property October 24, 1986.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - October 24, 1986.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated September 15, 1986.
STAFF INPUT:
Submitted was a supplemental staff report dated March 2, 1987
which was submitted to the Council. (Staff's original report
was dated September 15, 1986).
181
157i-
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 10~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning.
She briefed the supplemental staff report which gave the
background information on Area Development Plan No. 108 since
the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision not to delete a
portion of La Mesa Avenue pursuant to a request by a property
owner to do so. The report also contained a discussion of the
entire matter and staff's conclusion after reviewing the
situation in depth. An alternate solution was also provided by
staff encompassed by a new Exhibit labelled G. ~...The new
Exhibit G shows a range of possible alignments for La Mesa
Avenue including a frontage road along the Riverside Freeway.
If Exhibit G is adopted, the actual street alignment will be
determined when development of one or more of the underlying
properties occurs." Staff also recommended that the Council
approve Exhibit G of Area Development Plan No. 108 and also that
the Council direct staff to prepare an ordinance amending the ML
zone Industrial Development Standards to establish minimum
landscaped setback requirements along freeways.
Richard Riemer, Attorney, representing Margo Dukleth.
He Just now had an opportunity to review the staff report and
his comments are directed to it. The original request filed on
August 28, 1986 was to amend ADP No. 108 and to not extend La
Mesa Avenue along the Riverside Freeway. Based on a specific
plan of development under ML zoning which was submitted to the
City at the time of the request, that specific plan is posted on
the Chamber wall and it shows how the property was proposed to
be developed. The staff recommended to the Planning Commission
originally to delete La Mesa as it crosses the property. The
Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. PC86-242 denying the
request to delete the subject portion of La Mesa and the appeal
followed. The supplemental staff report now suggests the
adoption of Exhibit G showing alternate possible alignments for
La Mesa including the frontage road. It does not respond to the
request as originally submitted to the Council. If Exhibit G is
adopted, then the matter has gone full circle where his client
would have to come in with a specific plan. He does not feel
after six months they should have to go back and start over
again. The staff report indicates the particular alignment is
not necessary. Reviewing the posted drawings, it is clear that
the development of the Coykendall's property is going to result
in certain interior streets to serve that property and at that
time the problem is going to be solved. It should not be solved
by taking 83% of his client's property for the development of a
street that will not serve the remaining 39 feet of his property.
Floyd Farano, Attorney, 100 South Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, Ca.
representing Harold Coykendall.
The staff report reflects some of the confusion that exists
insofar as this property is concerned. It is his contention
that ADP No. 108 should remain as it has been and has been
relied on by many of the property owners. It is not just the
182
Cit~ Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 10~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
unfair treatment of the Dukleths that is the issue. Exhibit G
represents four alternatives all of which pre-suppose La Mesa
will follow the original arc (reflected on the lower portion of
the posted drawing) as proposed by the ADP shown on the posted
Exhibit. On its face, the problem seems insurmountable unless
the original ADP is followed. He believes that now there are
more questions than answers. During his presentation, Mr.
Farano referred to letter dated March 5, 1987 from the Atlantic
0il Company to the City Council opposing any realignment of La
Mesa Avenue since that will adversely affect their operations on
Mr. Coykendall's property (letter previously made a part of the
record). Ne also mentioned that relative to the easement Mr.
Dukleth has from Mr. Hald through his property, that there is
some question as to whether or not the easement is public. As
far as they can determine, there is no easement of record
according to the preliminary title report. It raises the
question of whether or not Mr. Dukleth's property is
developable. In concluding, Mr. Farano stated it is a matter of
fairness, representation and a matter of reliance on the part of
some property owners including Mr. Coykendall to their
detriment. He feels there are two alternatives, the first being
to follow the wisdom of the Council and the Plannin~ Commission
in 1971 that ADP No. 108 be allowed to stand as the only logical
way the road can develop without raising more questions than it
solves with the alternative being that the Council cause a more
extensive investigation to determine the answers to the
questions raised by him this afternoon.
Frank Granato, Attorney representing Mr. Hald.
He prepared a copy of the award of Arbitrator relative to the
subject easement (see minutes of previous hearings wherein the
easement was discussed). With respect to Mr. Hald's position,
they do not know as yet which is the best position to take. It
appeared the reason for continuing the matter was to work out
some settlement. Ne met with Mr. Coykendall and his attorney
but they did not accomplish anything and there was nothing they
could take to Mr. Riemer and his client to discuss. His client
does not want to become involved in a dispute and he does not
know the best position to take. He is 0nly proposin$ to assist
the Council in presenting a copy of the Arbitrator Award on the
easement.
City Attorney, Jack White.
He would like to see the award but he does not believe it is
relevant to the hearing before the Council today.
SUMMATION BY APPELLANT: Richard Riemer.
He did not hear any questions raised in Mr. Farano's
presentation. On behalf of his client, he (Farano) would prefer
to leave the road where it is. Mr. Coykendall has not been
called upon to give up 83% of his property. Mr. Farano suggests
183
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 10~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
there are problems because there is oil production on his
client's property. The development of that property is
something that his client is going to have to work out with the
oil producer. Even if the original alignment of La Mesa is
retained, it would be impossible to provide the desired traffic
pattern without the cooperation of all three property owners
involved. His client's property is not landlocked and it is a
legal parcel. The original request proposed that the
development was to be a development of Mr. Hald's property
together with Mr. Dukleth's which would have access on White
Star with no need for the easement or no need for La Mesa. The
matter has been delayed six months and his client wants to be
able to proceed with the development of his property. The
property cannot be served by La Mesa. The street is not going
to go there until somebody develops the adjacent property. The
only person who could do that would be Mr. Coykendall. Both law
and equity demand that La Mesa be deleted as it crosses his
client's property and the request as originally submitted be
approved.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Bay closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Bay, seconded by Councilman Pickler, the City Council approved the negative
declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative declaration
together with any comments received during the public review process, and
further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received
that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant
effect on the environment. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 87R-72, adopting Area Development Plan
No. 108, Exhibit G aa recommended by staff. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 87R-72: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING ARRA DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 108, EXHIBIT G.
Koll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MENBEKS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
VACANCY: COUNCIL MENBERS:
Pickler, Hunter~ Kaywood and Bay
None
None
One
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 87R-72 duly passed and adopted.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to direct staff to prepare an ordinance amending
the ML Industrial Development Standards. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the
motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
184
City Hall~ A.-heim~ C~ltfornia - ~OUNCIL MINUTES - March 10~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
179: PUBLIC HF. ARrNG - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2678--AMEND CONDITION OF
APPROVAL:
Ta Tsun Lin & Heh-Hiang Jan Lin
7777 Beach Blvd.
Buena Park, Ca. 90620
REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: Request to amend or delete conditions of approval of
Conditional Use Permit No. 2678, to permit a 75-unit, 3-story motel on
proposed CL zoned property location at 705 South Beach Boulevard.
HEARING SET ON:
A public hearing is necessitated by request to amend original conditions of
approval.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin February 26, 1987.
Posting of property February 27, 1987.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - February 27, 1987.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report from the Zonin~ Administrator A~ika Santalahti dated
February 9, 1987, recommending amendment to Condition Nos. 14 and 17 and
deletion of Condition No. 15.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Mr. John Swint, 707 West North Street.
He had previously submitted letter dated January 22, 1987 to the
Council which is self explanatory, basically that the Wind
Rivers residents who lived adjacent to the subject development
have changed their minds about having balcony screens installed
to shield the guestrooms and instead prefer landscape screening
as outlined in letter dated January 22, 1987 from Cindy
Stanaker, representative of the Wind River residents. Ms.
Stanaker was present in the Chamber audience.
Mayor Bay asked if anyone wished to speak either in favor or in
opposition to the proposed amendment to original conditions of
approval; there was no one who wished to speak.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Bay closed the public hearing.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 87R-73 for adoption, approving the
request to amend conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2678
specifically amending Condition No. 14, deleting Condition No. 15 and amending
Condition No. 17 as outlined in staff report dated February 9, 1987. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 87R-73: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING THE REQUEST TO AMEND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT NO. 2678 SPECIFICALLY AMENDING CONDITION NO. 14, DELETING CONDITION
NO. 15 AND AMENDING CONDITION NO. 17.
185
City Hall~ Anahetm~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 10~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Pickler, Hunter, Kaywood and Bay
None
None
One
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 87R-73 duly passed and adopted.
179: REHEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 86-87-12 (READV.)~ VARIANCE NO. 3602
(READV.) AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
APPLICANT: 2000 Developers, Inc.
1850 17th Street, No. 115
Santa Ana, Ca. 92701
REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: For a change in zone from C0 to RM-1200, to
construct a 3-story, 22-unit apartment complex on property located at 402 West
Elm Street and 415 and 419 South Helena Street, with the following Code
waivers: (a) Maximum structural height, (b) maximum site coverage.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC86-301 approved Reclassification
No. 86-87-12 (Ready.), Resolution No. PC86-302 granted Variance No. 3602
(Ready.); approved EIR Negative Declaration.
HEARING SET ON:
Review requested by Councilwoman Kaywood, at the meeting of December 30,
1986. At its meetin$ of January 27, 1987, the City Council did not approve
either the Reclassification or the Variance; but did approve an EIR Negative
Declaration. Request for rehearing and declaration of merit was submitted by
the applicant at the Council meeting of February 10, 1987 and the request
granted with the public hearing scheduled this date.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin February 26, 1987.
Posting of property February 27, 1987.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - February 27, 1987.
PLANNINC STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated December 8, 1986.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Mr. Frank Granato, attorney, representing 2000 Developers.
There were a number of questions not addressed at the last
hearing. The declaration submitted only spoke to the issues
brought up at the last hearing.
Loren Bell, 19400 Tustin Avenue, Santa Aha, Ca. 92701.
Working from the posted rendering of the project, he addressed
some of the questions and concerns previously raised relating to
overall height of the project, appearance, massive look of the
stucco etc. They have modifications to improve the overall
appearance by adding trim to the building in several areas which
186
1:5 4
Cit~ Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 10~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
cuts down on the look of large expansive stucco. Further,
without losing any parking, they are proposing to lower the
building approximately 2 feet into the ground which will reduce
the overall height. In addition, they will add landscape
berming or mounding in a variation along the exterior of the
building.
The project was originally approved by the Planning Commission.
At that time, they reduced their original plan from 24 units to
22 units to be in conformance with the RM-1200 zone which they
are requesting. They completely redesigned the structure,
generated more parking spaces for the full 2.5 spaces per unit
or 55 spaces. To further satisfy the Commission, they changed
the entrance from Helena Street to Elm Street so that there will
be no stacking of traffic in front of the security gate. The
roJect will not be low cost housing and rents will be at least
800 a month for the units which are 2-bedroom 2-bath. Two of
the principals of 2000 Developers are present who have indicated
previous to the hearing that they intend to retain the
building. It is their investment and they intend to see that it
is managed properly with the proper restrictions on the number
of people in a unit. They will not allow multiple families in a
unit. With the proposed rental rate, it is not expected that
low income persons will be able to afford this type of housing.
It is a deluxe type of complex. They have an existing project
in Baldwin Park and three additional projects presently under
construction. There are also two more in Santa Ama that are
Just beginning construction. The Baldwin Park project has been
opened for two years and the developers are going to retain it.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN FAVOR: Moss Kaidi, Real Estate Broker in Anaheim, 1242 West Lincoln.
He has been working in Anaheim since 1977 and is active on
Harbor Boulevard and the same area of Elm and Helena Street
which is under discussion today. He is in favor of the project
for this area. The office building has run into difficulties.
There is about a 55% vacancy factor in the Bank of America
building alone. The area used to be zoned for multiple
residential and he feels that is the zoning to bring more
investment into the City in comparison to office buildings or
possibly even retail. He has a lot on Harbor Boulevard and
Santa Aha Street where he wants to put in retail but the City
does not allow it. An office building does not pencil out.
Building more offices will make it more difficult for all the
investors. The subject project is one that will give the area a
better look.
Dave Matson, 19400 Tustin Avenue, Santa Avenue.
He works with the developers. The developer has considered many
other uses for the property. An office building which
represents the current zoning is not the best use for the
property. They have checked with three of the major office
187
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 10~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
leasing space companies in the same neighborhood and the same
general consensus is with the 50% vacancy factor in the present
offices in the area, that more office space would really hurt.
They also said that a good apartment complex would help them to
rent their properties. It would allow nice apartments within
walking distance from their offices thus reducing additional
traffic in the area. The developer has met with the Planning
staff as requested at the last hearing. He believes they have
satisfied the Planning Commission and Planning staff with the
improvements that have been made to the old design. They have
also met with the Council Members who have expressed concern and
with the local leasing agents and neighbors.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN OPPOSITION:
June Mclntyre, 917 West Sycamore, Anaheim Ca. 92085, owner Don
McIntyre Photography and the Melmac Center at 515 So. Harbor
Blvd. which encompasses four businesses.
She was asked to re-think the proposal and has done so with an
open mind. The Council should have before it the results of a
survey she made with the property owners in the vicinity of the
project in which they all expressed opposition and preferred
office buildings (surveys previously made a part of the
record). She also took another survey relative to the targeted
market the developer is aiming for, bankers, CPA's,
professionals who are expected to rent the units. She has not
received all of them back but two letters were submitted, one by
Stan Pawlowski of the E1 Camtno Bank who strongly opposes the
project as it stands now and another from Olson Photo Associates
who are also opposing the present project. She has met with the
developers, visited some of their other projects (upon which she
elaborated, one of which she indicated was in Cypress), met with
bankers, businessmen, heads of City departments and other
organizations as well as a number of property owners within 300
feet of the project and circulated a petition, four of which
have been submitted all in opposition and giving their reasons.
It is too much development on a small lot, over-crowding, and
too much traffic. It is changing the neighborhood from
single-family status to one of greater underlying density. It
is necessary to preserve the integrity of single-family
neighborhoods. No one has talked to the people living in the
surrounding area. She has found people on those surveys who
will sell to the developer. She feels the developer could
re-think his plan on a wider scope and possibly develop
condominiums where there would be private ownership or a medium
high-rise office building. She also feels this will be spot
zoning since it will be the first in the area.
SUMMATION BY APPLICANT: Loren Bell.
It is obvious that Mrs. Mclntyre does not want apartments. The
apartments are not affordable units and they are not 827 square
feet but average 945 square feet and are 2-bedrooms 2-baths.
188
5'2
City M~!ly Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 10, 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Also they do not have units in Cypress but in Buena Park renting
for ~1,025 per month and there are no vacancies in that
complex. It is not owned by 2000 Developers but it was built by
them. It is the same quality that they intend to build on the
subject property. The office building project that was
originally approved for the site could be 5-stories high which
would generate more traffic and congestion. They have examined
the situation in depth and have done their surveys not only with
the Bank of America but with others. They have a study showing
the vacancy factor in the office building and some are offering
18 months free rent to get people to move in. They want the
opportunity to build the apartments to show what they can do.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Bay closed the public hearing. Mayor Bay.
He is concerned with surrounding neighborhoods to the
Redevelopment area. Realistically, economics makes
developments. He would like to see luxury condominiums built in
downtown Anaheim but that is a step away. He feels the proposed
development for this time in that area is a step in the right
direction.
Councilman Hunter.
The Planning Commission voted 6-0 to approve the project. The
area is a blighted one. Based upon the Planning Commission's
original decision and that at one time a 5-story office building
was proposed on the site, he is in favor of the proposed
apartment complex as he was the first time it came before the
Council.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
The City needs housing and there is a need to upgrade the area.
She was concerned, however, if the development was sold how the
City could guarantee there would be on-site management.
Loren Bell.
In the State of California with more than 15 or 16 units in a
proJect~ it ia law that there be an on-site manager, i.e., a
permanent resident living in the project.
Frank Granato.
His clients feel there is a great potential in Anaheim for
investing money in housing and commercial buildings. They are
not going to make representations today that they are willing to
proceed with the subject project and maintain the premises only
to come back later and ask for something else. They do not want
to invest money in a losing proposition. For them not to be
speaking in earnest would be to their detriment. As their
attorney, agreements have been drafted with respect to retaining
a property management company to stay on the project to ensure
that the complex is maintained to the best of its ability. They
189
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 10; 1987; 1:30 P.M.
can give any assurances asked for. It is their investment and
it does not make sense for them to let the premises run down.
They had also discussed a condominium project but lenders are
not touching it.
Mayor Bay.
He asked the City Attorney if the Council could place a
condition on the approval asking for on-site management and
control over the number of people living in a unit.
City Attorney, Jack White.
State law and recent court interpretations of constitutional
requirements generally preclude a city from adopting ordinances
that set forth limitations on how many families can live in a
residence or how many people can constitute a family. This is a
different situation since a discretionary permit would be issued
by the City. He sees no reason why the City could not legally
impose a condition requiring the recordation of a covenant that
would be paramount to any other covenants or encumbrances upon
the property that would either or both require an on-site
manager and limit the number of occupants in each unit to
whatever number is reasonable.
After further discussion between Council, staff and the applicant regarding
the imposition of a condition limiting the number of people, Councilman Bay
offered Resolution No. 87R-74 for adoption, approving Reclassification No.
86-87-12, subject to City Planning Commission conditions. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 87R-74: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING RECLASSIFICATION NO. 86-87-12.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Pickler, Hunter, Kaywood and Bay
None
None
One
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 87R-74 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 87R-75 for adoption, granting Variance
No. 3602, subject to City Planning Commission conditions and two additional
conditions: (1) That the developer record an unsubordinated covenant and
comply with all terms and conditions of that covenant which would limit
occupancy of each unit of the project to not more than four (4) persons per
unit over two years old; and (2) that on-site management be employed at all
times on the project site. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 87R-75: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING VAILIANCE NO. 3602.
190
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 10; 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Pickler stated he viewed the
area as a gateway to the City. He had voted against the project
previously; however, the developer is not asking for a density
bonus and no affordable units are involved. Ne is also aware of
the situation relative to office space and has a concern with
generating more traffic. He is still concerned about the area
but since the project is going to be one of quality, that there
is a commitment by the applicant ensuring that there will be
on-site property management, that the project is aesthetically
pleasing and that the garage area will be deeper than first
planned, he can at this time vote favorably on the project.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
There are no affordable units on the project. The Code requires
a maximum of 23 units and the project is for 22 units; Code
requires a maximum of 36.3 units to the acre and the project is
at 33.4; the recreational leisure area requires a minimum of 200
square feet per unit and the project has 374. The building
coverage, however, is required to be 55% maximum and the project
has 74.8% coverage, something about which she is concerned. She
also has a concern relative to a play area for children.
Loren Bell.
On the first level of the dwelling units there is approximately
8,500 square feet of courtyard plaza type area. That is where
they lost their site coverage requirement. Last year, a story
was redefined in the Code. This was previously subterranean
parking and that courtyard area could have been counted as their
open leisure area. It is still open leisure area but it is now
1-story up. That will also be a sand toy area for the
children. There is also a Jacuzzi scheduled to go in on the
first deck which is the first level of the dwelling units.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing Resolution:
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Pickler, Hunter, Kaywood and Bay
None
None
ODe
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 87R-75 duly passed and adopted.
127: SERVICES R~LATING TO THE SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION - JUNE 2~ 1987:
Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 87R-76 for adoption, requesting the
Board of Supervisors of the County of Orange to render specified services
relating to the conduct of a Special Municipal Election to be held in Anaheim
on Tuesday, June 2, 1987, and Resolution No. 87R-77 for adoption, ordering the
canvass of the Special Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, June 2, 1987
to be made by the City Clerk. Refer to Resolution Book.
191
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 10~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
P~ESOLUTION NO. 87R-76: A P. ESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPEKVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF
ORANGE TO R~NDEK SPECIFIED SERVICES TO SAID CITY RELATING TO THE CONDUCT OF A
SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN SAID CITY ON TUESDAY, JUNE 2, 1987.
RESOLUTION NO. 87R-77: A KESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, CALIFOP. NIA, ORDERING THE CANVASS OF THE SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO
BE HELD ON TUESDAY, JUNE 2, 1987 TO BE MADE BY THE CITY CLERK.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Pickler, Hunter, Kaywood and Bay
None
None
One
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 87R-76 and 87R-77 duly passed and adopted.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City
Planning Commission at their meeting held February 18, 1987, pertaining to the
following applications were submitted for City Council information.
1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2853 (READV.): Submitted by Ada I. Higdon,
Wells Fargo Bank NA Trustees, (Angelo's), to permit a drive-in, drive-through
restaurant with car hops on CL zoned property located at 221 North Beach
Boulevard, with Code waiver of minimum distance of a drive-through lane.
The City Planning Commission removed Conditional Use Permit No. 2853 (Ready.)
from the agenda to be readvertised.
2. VARIANCE NO. 3626: Submitted F. J. Hanshaw Enterprises, Inc., et al, to
construct a 3,750 square foot addition to an existing commercial shopping
center on CL zoned property located at 1112 North Brookhurst Street, with Code
waiver of minimum number of required parking spaces.
The City Plannimg Commission removed Variance No. 3626 from the agenda to be
readvertised for any further consideration.
3. RECTmgSIFICATION NO. 86-87-22 AND VARIANCE NO. 3636: Submitted by Hartman
Corp., for a change in zone from ML to CL, to construct a commercial center on
property located south and east of the southeast corner of Katella Avenue and
State College Boulevard, with the following Code waivers: (a) Minimum number
of required parking spaces, (b) maximum number of freestanding signs, (c)
permitted location of freestanding signs, (d) minimum distance between
freestanding signs.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution Nos. PC87-42 and 43,
denied Reclassification No. 86-87-22 and Variance No. 3626, and granted a
negative declaration status.
4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2883: Submitted by Hartman Corporation, to
construct a drive-through restaurant on ML zoned property located south and
192
City Hall~ An-heim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 10~ 1987; 1:30 P.M.
east of the southeast corner of Katella Avenue and State College Boulevard,
with Code waiver of minimum number of required parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-44, denied
Conditional Use Permit No. 2883, and granted a negative declaration status.
5. VARIANCE NO. 3637: Submitted by Ricki L. and Sherry L. Varble, to
construct a room addition to an existing single-family residence on
RS-HS-22,000(SC) zoned property located at 375 Via Montanera, with Code waiver
of minimum sideyard.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-47, granted
Variance No. 3637, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption
determination, Class 5.
6. VARIANCE NO. 3639: Submitted by Kenneth Keesee, to retain two existing
roof mounted signs on property located at 1928 South Anaheim Boulevard, with
Code waiver of permitted type of signs.
The applicant withdrew his application.
7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2881: Submitted by First National Bank of
Orange County, (Angelo's), to permit on-sale beer and wine in a proposed
outdoor patio area in conjunction with an existing drive-through restaurant on
CL zoned property located at 511 South State College Boulevard, with Code
waiver of minimum landscaping requirement.
The City Planning Commission removed Conditional Use Permit No. 2881 from the
agenda to be readvertised at a later date.
8. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2886: Submitted by Geza Julius Szayer, et al,
to permit an automobile paint and body shop on ML zoned property located at
554 South Atchison Street, with Code waivers of minimum number of parking
spaces and minimum front landscaped setback.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-48, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2886, and granted a negative declaration status.
9. CONDITIONAL USE ?EFd~IT NO. 2887; Submitted by Chinese Baptist Church of
Orange County, to construct a church sanctuary, classrooms and offices on
RM-1200 on property located at 412 East Broadway, with the following Code
waivers: (a) Minimum structural setback, (b) minimum number of parking
spaces, (c) maximum number of compact spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-49, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2887, and granted a negative declaration status.
10. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2888 AND REQUEST FOR SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL
NO. 87-01: CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY SAINTS, to permit a church on
RS-HS-22,000 zoned property located at 441 Fairmont Boulevard, with Code
waiver of maximum structural height.
193
45:
City Hall~ Anahetm~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 10~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-50, denied
Conditional Use Permit No. 2888 and request for Specimen Tree Removal No.
87-01, and granted a negative declaration status.
11. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2889: Submitted by Anaheim Memorial Hospital
Association, to expand a hospital to include a Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Center on CO zoned property located at 1111 West La Palma Avenue, with Code
waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-51, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2889, and granted a negative declaration status.
12. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2890: Submitted by Mahmoud R. Elkanawy, to
permit a truck display and rentals in conjunction with a gas station and
mini-market on CL zoned property located at 1725 South Brookhurst Street, with
Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces (deleted).
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-52, granted in
part, Conditional Use Permit No. 2890, and granted a negative declaration
status.
13. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2892: Submitted by Shlomo Sfadia and Doron
Dabach, Mandarin Taste Restaurant, to permit on-sale alcoholic beverages in an
existing restaurant on CL(SC) zoned property located at 5555 East Santa Aha
Canyon Road.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-53, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2892, and granted a negative declaration status.
14. VARIANCE NO. 1529--TERMINATION: Submitted by Arenal Motel, requesting
termination of Variance No. 1529, to waive minimum lot size on property
located at 420 South Beach Boulevard, as a condition of approval of Variance
No. 2751.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-54, terminated
Variance No. 1529.
15. VARIANCE NOS. 876 AND 3407--TERMINATION: Submitted by Ralph Kazarian,
(Candy Cane Motel), requesting termination of Variance Nos. 876 and 3407, to
construct a 101-unit, 2-story motel and to expand an existing motel on
property located at 1747 South Harbor Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-55, terminated
Variance Nos. 876 and 3407.
16. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2862--RESOLUTION NO. PC86-291: Submitted by
Planning Staff, requesting an amendment to Resolution No. PC86-291, nunc pro
tunc, in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 2862, to correct the
wording in Condition No. 3.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-56, amended
Conditional Use Permit No. 2862 - Resolution No. PC86-291.
194
City Hall~ Anoheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 10~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
17. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 86-87-24 AND VARIANCE NO. 3638: Submitted by Hugo
Vazquez, for a change in zone from CL to RM-1200, to construct a 3-story,
14-unit, "affordable" apartment building on property located at 302 and 306
East Broadway, with the following Code waivers: (a) Minimum building site
area per dwelling unit, (b) maximum structural height, (c) maximum site
coverage.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC87-45 and 46,
granted Reclassification No. 86-87-24 and Variance No. 3638, and granted a
negative declaration status.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman
Kaywood and, therefore, a public hearing was scheduled for a later date.
End of Planning Commission Informational Items.
179: PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT: Submitted by Robert J. Sklar, Phil & Jim's,
requesting to amend Chapter 18.61.050 of the Code to permit retail sales
(liquidation outlet) in conjunction with a permitted primary use in the ML
zone, subject to approval of a conditional use permit. Denial of the request
was recommended by the Planning Commission (see report dated March 3, 1987
from the Planning Commission Secretary which outlined the Commission's
discussion and action on the request).
Mayor Bay stated as he recalled when Phil & Jim's were approved to come into
the Northeast Industrial Area in the ML zone at that time there was some
guarantee that there would be only certain percentages of retail and that was
supposed to be checked on a yearly basis, retail against industrial
wholesale. In his opinion, Phil & Jim's has been running a commercial
operation from the day they went into that area, and now they are talking
about a liquidation outlet which is retail sales.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to deny the request to amend Chapter 18.61.050
of the Code as requested by Robert J. Sklar of Phil & Jim's. Councilwoman
Kaywood seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Pickler asked if a representative was
present to speak to the matter; no one was present.
A vote was then taken on the motion of denial. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4812: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4812 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4812: 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, Reclass. 86-87-23, RM-2400, between La Palma Avenue and
North Street, west of Zeyn Street)
Roll Call Vote:
195
.1.43
City Hall~ Anahetm~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 10~ 1987~ 1:30 P.M.
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Pickler, Hunter, Kaywood and Bay
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
VACANCY: COUNCIL MEMBERS: One
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4812 duly passed and adopted.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4813: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4813 for first
reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4813: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE ~RL~TING TO ZONING.
(Amending Title 18, Reclass. 86-87-15, RM-1200, 2648 West Ball Road)
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: No items of public interest were presented.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: By general consent the Council recessed to Closed
Session and a dinner break. (6:35 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. One Vacancy. (9:04 p.m.)
ADJOUR~MENT: Councilman Hunter moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood
seconded the motion. One Vacancy. MOTION CARRIED. (9:05 p.m.)
LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK
196