1986/04/2215 7
City Hall; Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22; 1986; 10:00 A.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRES ENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Overholt, Bay, Pickler and Roth
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/PLANNING: Norman J. Priest
CITY ENGINEER: Gary E. Johnson
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
MAINTENANCE DIRECTOR: John Roche
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Paul Singer
ASSISTANT PLANNER: Greg Hastings
ASSISTANT PLANNER: Leonard McGhee
Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Reverend Don Dexter, 1st Presbyterian Church, gave the Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Mayor Don Roth led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to
the Flag.
119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Roth
and authorized by the City Council:
Professional Secretaries Week in Anaheim, April 20-26, 1986,
Victims' Rights Week in Anaheim, April 20-26, 1986.
Becky Pittman accepted the Professional Secretaries Week proclamation.
119: RESOLUTION OF RECOGNITION: A Resolution of Recognition was unanimously
adopted by the City Council to be presented to John Mallot, Power Dispatcher -
Utilities Department, upon his retirement from the City after giving 25 years
of dedicated and valuable service as a City employee.
MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the meeting
held April 8, 1986. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Councilman 0verholt
was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda,
after reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to
waiver is hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the
title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such
ordinances or resolutions in regular order. Councilman Roth seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
273
1'58
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $3,072,577.43, in
accordance with the 1985-86 Budget, were approved.
Councilman Overholt entered the Council Chambers. (10:16 a.m)
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CAr.RNDAR: 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 Pickier
offered Resolution Nos. 86R-149 through 86R-154, both inclusive, for
adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance No.
4708 for first reading.
1. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as
recommended:
Claims rejected and referred to Risk Management:
a. Claim submitted by Montgomery Ward Insurance Company (James Ward,
Insured) for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City
on or about January 29, 1986.
b. Claim submitted by James Pace Ward for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 29, 1986.
c. Claim submitted Marvin Wolfe for bodily injury sustained purportedly
due to actions of the City on or about February 7, 1986.
d. Claim submitted by Yvonne Lohstroh for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about February 15, 1985.
e. Claim submitted by Joseph D. Sohn for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about February 17, 1986.
f. Claim submitted by David L. Vanduisen for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 21, 1985.
g. Claim submitted by Miguel Cruz for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about March 5, 1986.
h. Claim submitted by Reo and Antonia T. Spicer for property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about September 20,
1985 and February 15, 1986.
i. Claim submitted by Elizabeth Yffert for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about March 8, 1986.
J. Claim submitted by All-Bann Enterprises, Inc. for property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 5, 1985.
k. Claim submitted by Tower Systems International for personal injury
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 16, 1985.
274
155
City Hallt Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22t 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
1. Claim submitted by Kathy A. Goudie for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about February 6, 1986.
m. Claim submitted by Ronson Equity Management, Inc. for equitable and
comparative indemnity, partial indemnity for personal injury and property
damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on April 21, 1982.
o. Claim submitted by Phillip D. Royster amended claim for property
damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about
December 26, 1985.
Application for Leave to Present Late Claim - recommended to be denied:
p. Claim submitted by Lydia Rodriguez for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about September 30, 1985.
q. Claim submitted by L. & S. Construction for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about July 2, 1985.
2. Receiving and filing the following correspondence: (on file)
a. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission, Minutes of March 12, 1986.
b. 107: Planning Department, Building Division Report for the month of
March 1986.
c. 105: Public Utilities Board, Minutes of March 6, 1986.
3. 155/164: Approving the Negative Declaration for the construction of a
storm drain in Valley Street between Broadway to Orange Avenue.
4. 155/164: Approving the Negative Declaration for the construction of a
storm drain in Haster Street between Wakefield Avenue and Orangewood Avenue.
5. 155/164: Approving the Negative Declaration for the construction of a
storm drain in Citron Street between Chartres Street and Lincoln Avenue.
6. 155/152/175: Authorizing the Human Resources Director to solicit
proposals and interview executive search firms specializing in the utilities
e~ineerl~ field and to negotiate an agreement with the selected firm for
recruitment of a Power Resource Planning Engineer.
7. 123/101: Authorizing an agreement with Michael McKay in an amount not to
exceed $29,375 annually to operate the video/matrix scoreboard at Anaheim
Stadium, effective April 1, 1986.
8. 175/123: Authorizing an agreement with the Municipal Water District of
Orange County (MWDOC) approving the detachment, settling the litigation
related to the detachment, and the transfer of the City's portion of the
accumulated reserves in the amount of $979,142 to the City Fund 51, with
payments starting March 2, 1989.
275
156
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
9. 155: Authorizing the Mayor to sign and send letters to members of the
community to be identified by Council inviting them to participate in the
Strategic Planning Process as members of the Citizens Steering Committee.
Councilman Overholt requested that the Council approve the final list of those
members of the community to whom a letter of invitation was going to be sent
inviting their participation on the Citizens Steering Committee; Councilwoman
Kaywood suggested that the letter be signed by all Council members.
10. 123: Accepting the bid of Blash Shows, Inc., and authorizing an agreement
with J. A. Blash (dba Blash Shows) to provide rides, games and shows during
the Cinco de Mayo Fiesta in La Palma Park on May 1, 2, 3 and 4, 1986 and on
dates to be determined for 1987 and 1988, with payment to the City of a
minimum of 511,600.
11. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to the
Anaheim Public Improvement Corporation, in the amount of 5137,108.41 for six
each 75 EVA transformers, two each 112.5 EVA transformers, six each 150 KVA
transformers, eight each 225 EVA transformers and two each 300 KVA
transformers, in accordance with Bid No. A-4313.
12. 160: Accepting the low bid of Solid State Controls, in the amount of
~31,122.66 for one each 15 KV uninterruptible power supply system for Lewis
Substation, in accordance with Bid No. 4317.
13. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to the
Anaheim Public Improvement Corporation in the amount of 51,020,128.70 for five
1500 GPM Triple Combination Pumpers.
14. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-149: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCEAND NECESSITY
REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC WORK. (Ellsworth Street -
Street and Water Improvements, Olive Street to Anaheim Boulevard, Account Nos.
25-793-6325-E3010 and 52-606-6329-04951; and opening of bids on May 22, 1986,
1:30 p.m.)
15. 164: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-150: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
REQUIRE T~E CONflTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC WORK. (Anaheim Auto
Center, Ball Road at Route 57 Street, Sewer and Electrical Improvements,
Account No. 01-933-6325; and opening of bids on May 22, 1986, 1:30 p.m.)
16. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-151: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
REQUIRE THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC WORK. (Santa Ama Street
Street, Sewer and Water Improvement, Harbor Boulevard to Hessel Street,
Account Nos. 12-793-6325-E3950, 11-790-6325-E0590 and 52-606-6329-04945; and
opening of bids on May 22, 1986, 1:30 p.m.)
276
1'53
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
17. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-152: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETIONAND THE FURNISHING OF ALL
PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND
TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL
WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO
WIT: VINTAGE LANE - CYPRESS STREET TO 500 FEET SOUTH OF CYPRESS, IN THE CITY
OF ~uNAHEIM. (Accepting the completion of construction of the Vintage Lane
Street, Storm Drain, Water, Masonry Sound Wall, and Landscape Improvements,
Account No. 46-792-6325-E2840, Kershaw Construction, contractor, and
authorizing filing of the Notice of Completion therefor)
18. 164: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-153: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL
PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT ANDALL UTILITIES AND
TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL
WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO
WIT: ORANGEWOOD AVENUE STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
ACCOUNT NO. 25-791-6325-E1440. (Buntich Construction Company, contractor, and
authorizing filing of the Notice of Completion therefor)
19. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 86R-154: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDEP~ING THEIR RECORDATION.
20. 153/156: ORDINANCE NO. 4707:
CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION1
MUNICIPAL CODE R~TATING TO POLICE
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
1.13.040 OF CHAPTER TITLE 1 OF THE ANAHEIM
RESERVE CORPS.
21. 153/156: ORDINANCE NO. 4708: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING SECTION 1.13.090 OF CHAPTER 1.13 OF TITLE 1 OF THE
ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO POLICE RESERVE CORPS.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 86R-149 through 86R-154:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Overholt, Bay,
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
Pickler and Roth
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 86R-149 through 86R-154, both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted.
End of Consent Calendar. MOTION CARRIED.
155/169: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION - WIDENING AND
IMPROVEMENT OF LA PALMAAVENUEAND IMPERIAL HIGHWAY: Approving the Negative
Declaration for the widening of Imperial Highway 700 feet north of to 1300
feet south of La Palma Avenue; and La Palma Avenue, from 110 feet east of
Chrisden Street to Imperial Highway. Submitted was report dated April 3, 1986
from the City Engineer, recommending that the Council approve a Negative
Declaration status on the subject project.
277
154
City Hall~ Anaheim~ C-l~fornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22, 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
Mr. Bob Clark, Anaheim Hills Motor Inn, 5710 East La Palma
requested to speak. It was his understanding construction was
going to take place during the month of June which conflicted
with his peak business time. He felt that the project was not
needed to begin with. It was going to create more traffic and
more hazard. Since it was already approved, he was asking that
the project be postponed until later in the year to prevent any
loss of business.
Mayor Roth explained that he lived in the canyon area and had a
deep concern relative to the subject area because of the traffic
and the ingress and egress to the shopping center. Widening was
one of the things public opinion held was most necessary. He
respected Mr. Clark's concern as a businessman relative to the
possibility of delaying the project. He asked the City Engineer
to respond.
Gary Johnson, City Engineer, stated as far as scheduling, they
could be as flexible as possible to accommodate the business
people in the area. However, he was not sure that traffic
volumes fluctuated seasonally in that area so that it would make
a difference. He did not want the project to go into the rainy
season since that could cause severe delays. They were willing
to take the input of the people in the industrial area since it
was one of the purposes of the negative declaration being before
the Council today. The construction period would be at least
two months. It primarily involved widening and, therefore, it
would be possible to keep traffic moving through the area fairly
well during construction. He did not see any great negative
impacts although there would be some.
Councilman Bay assumed the reason the subject project was going to start in
June was to tie in with completion of the Orangethorpe work and in order to
complete the work in that very busy intersection.
Mayor Roth asked if the widening of Imperial was a Cal Trans project; Paul
Singer, Traffic Engineer, explained it was part of the Redevelopment project.
They were going to add one additional lane from La Palma to the freeway to
facilitate storage o~ vehicles entering the ~reeway. Dual le~t lanes were
also going to be constructed for north and southbound Imperial Highway along
with modification of traffic signals which would require Cal Trans cooperation
because it was a State highway.
Mayor Roth asked the City Engineer to ensure that the barricading and
everything else involved with the project be made as painless as possible so
that Mr. Clark's business would not be adversely affected.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Pickler, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, 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. MOTION CARRIED.
278
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22, 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
Dolores Blumenfield, Capri Properties, Manager of the Anaheim Shopping Center,
13523 Ventura Blvd., Sherman Oaks. She represented the new owners of the
Center. Their concern is the ingress and egress from the Center.
Mayor Roth explained that was one of the major concerns relative to the
improvement. He had met with the owners of the stores in the Center who were
pleased that something positive was going to be done to improve the
situation. Since this had been an issue for some time, he thought ail the
business people would be present thanking the City for proceeding to make the
improvements. He asked that both Mr. Clark and Ms. Blumenfield speak with Mr.
Singer before leaving to clarify any questions or concerns they may have.
155/149/106: ELEVATED GUIDEWAYMARKETING FEASIBILITY STUDY/FINALREPORT:
Accepting, in concept, the findings of the Elevated Guideway Marketing
Feasibility Study; directing the City Attorney's Office to prepare appropriate
documents creating a Parking Authority; appropriating an amount not to exceed
315,000 from Council Contingency Fund for legal expenses; and requesting
Transpark, Inc. to initiate a study to determine the private sector financing
interest.
Submitted was an extensive report dated April 9, 1986 from the Community
Development and Planning Department.
Councilman Overholt stated he was not prepared to vote on the proposed
action. He received the staff report on April 18, 1986 giving an analysis of
the study made with the cooperation of the City. The first time he saw that
study was today. To presume that as a member of the Council he was in a
position to start progress to move forward with Transpark was naive and he
would vote no if the Council was expected to act today.
Mr. Norm Priest, Director of Community Development and Planning, explained
staff was not seeking today to go into depth on the report but rather to take
an initial step, recognizing the report before the Council was presenting a
concept. Mr. Priest then briefed the report.
Councilman Pickler stated that the issue was to set up a parking authority and
it had been before the Council previously. The impression he got from the
report was that there was much more for Transpark and the City to do before
comim~ back to the Council. He thought they were just considering the
feasibility of establishing an authority.
Councilman Overholt stated the idea of using a parking authority as a tool to
improve traffic and parking facilities had been around for some time.
However, the item should be continued to give the Council an opportunity to
read the report. It may be that a parking authority was needed. He
reiterated his vote was going to be no if the Council was forced to vote on
the matter today. The report had been analyzed by everybody except the
Council and he had been inquiring about it for some time.
279
Cit7 Hall, Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22~ 1986t 10:00 A.M.
Herb Leo, Chairman of the Board, Transpark, Inc.
The Transpark Advisory Board consisted of 22 different entities
such as major hotels, the Angels, the Rams, Dtsneyland etc. The
primary reason for a parking authority is to control all of the
parking now being constructed with either redevelopment or City
funds. It would establish a parking district which can
encompass specific areas within the authority and is primarily a
managing authority. This action is a preliminary step to
eventually put Transpark into place. Relative to the Advisory
Board, it has not responded in detail to anything the Planning
Department has presented to them. They were prepared to enter
into a partnership with the City. If the fee is 515,000
Transpark would be willing to contribute 57,500. The Advisory
Board had reviewed the study and taken action on it. He would
be happy to submit a copy of the minutes of that meeting.
MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to continue the subject issue regarding the
Elevated Guideway Marketing Feasibility Study for one week. Councilman
Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
108: HEARING - MASSAGE PARLOR AND MASSAGE TECHNICIAN PERMITS - TENDER TOUCH
MASSAGE PARLOR: Revocation of permits issued pursuant to Section 4.29.160 of
the Code for the Tender Touch Massage Parlor, 219 South State College
Boulevard, and individual Massage Technician Permit of Marie Tu Thi Nguyen.
This matter was continued from the meeting of April 15, 1986, to this date.
City Attorney, Jack White.
Today is the time and place established for the hearing on the
proposed revocation of the massage establishment permit for the
Tender Touch Massage Parlor and the individual Technician Permit
of Marie Tu Thi Nguyen relating to that operation. Council has
before it findings of fact and a recommendation submitted by
Judge Max V. Eliason, Judge Retired of the Superior Court. The
City Council with stipulation by the permittee, through her
Legal Counsel, agreed that the evidenciary hearing would be held
by an independent hearing officer. Judge Eliason has now made
his recommendations. (See letter dated March 28, 1986 from the
Max V. Eliason Judge~ Retired - attached to which are proposed
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law~ made a part of the
record). It his his (White's) recommendation that the Council
approve the recommendation of the Hearing Officer and approve
and adopt the Findings of Fact as executed by Judge Eliason and
revoke the Massage Establishment permit of the Tender Touch
Massage Parlor as well as the individual Massage Technician
previously referred to.
Mr. Hugh R. Coffin, Attorney for the permittee, was in the
audience as well as Mrs. Nyugen. They wish to briefly address
the Council. Council, in the record, has not only the Findings
of Fact as signed by Judge Eliason but also correspondence from
Mr. Coffin together with proposed Findings of Fact submitted by
him as well as the letter from the Judicial Arbitration &
Mediation Service, Inc., Judge Eliason with his recommendation
on the revocation of both permits.
280
1_49
City Hall.~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22~ 1.986~ 10:00 A.M.
Hugh Coffin, Pizer & Michaelson Inc., 2122 North Broadway,
Santa Aha.
He first referred to his letter of April 18, 1986 (previously
made a part of the record). He briefed that portion of his
letter wherein it was his position that the Council should not
act upon the recommendations of the Hearing Officer because the
arbitrator had not had the opportunity to review their
objections to his conclusions. The initial letter was never
received by his office and the second letter with the proposed
findings was received after the Hearing Officer had made his
determination. It would be appropriate for the Hearing Officer
to also review the Counter Findings and Conclusions and make his
own determination before the matter is finally ripe for City
Council consideration. As an alternative, he suggested in his
letter to the Council their willingness to abandon the business
at the end of June, 1986 and if the Council were amenable, there
would be no need to proceed further with the hearing. Not only
would his client abandon the business, but also terminate her
permit. At the hearing, the appellant voluntarily surrendered
the technician's permit for the other person (Ngoc Lai Nguyen
Sabatier) as a good faith showing in her attempt to comply with
the requirements of the City at that time.
In answer to the Mayor, Mr. Coffin stated he was asking if it
was appropriate to have the hearing at all and secondly, rather
than going through a formal hearing, if it would be appropriate
to accept the proposal as previously stated with a guarantee of
performance.
City Attorney, Jack White.
He recommended that the Council receive all comments at this
time. Upon conclusion, the Council could then determine whether
they wished to delay consideration or take action today. He
recommended that they act today. He reiterated this was not the
evidenciary hearing since that had already been held. The
comments being received today were being received subsequent to
the holding of the hearing. He had reviewed the Counter
Findings of Fact being proposed by Mr. Coffin and did not see a
substantive di~£erence to justify a delay in the hearing to go
back and have those reconsidered. He would not even be
concerned if the Council wanted to adopt the Counter Findings as
being the Findings of the Council. The Council could also
consider the proposal relating to voluntarily agreeing to
terminate the business as of the end of June but prior to making
that consideration, it would be appropriate to receive the
permittee and Legal Counsel's comments and subsequently make a
decision.
Marie Tu Thi Nguyen.
She asked that she be allowed to have her business remain open
until June, 1986. Her son will be out of school in July when he
would then be able to get a job and help her. She put all her
money in the business. She has done nothing wrong.
281
150
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
Mr. Hugh Coffin.
He summarized Mrs. Nguyen's testimony at the request of
Councilman Pickler. In essence what they were asking is that
the Council give permission for the business to remain open
through the end of June, 1986 when Mrs. Nguyenwill voluntarily
terminate her permits at that time. She had retained one
employee in her business who did not want to play the game by
the rules and she would not have done so except for the close
relationship she had with Ngco Lai Nguyen Sabatier as explained
in his opening remarks.
Councilman Bay.
He asked what Mrs. Nguyen did in Vietnam before she emigrated to
America in 1975. Also under the Conclusions of Law, the
conclusion was that Marie, as owner and manager, knew of the
criminal activity of her employee on her premises as reached by
the Judge. Although it was interesting to hear the story of the
girl (Sabatier) who Mrs. Nguyen was supposed to be taking care
of due to a promise, he was concerned with the facts in whether
or not the law was broken. The Conclusions of Law were stated
clearly in Item Nos. 2 and 5 of the proposed Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law submitted by Judge Eliason.
Marie ?u Thi Nguyen.
Her father had a restaurant in Saigon and she worked for him.
Her husband worked for an electric company of the Government of
Vietnam.
Mayor Roth.
The Massage Parlor had been cited for prostitution and the owner
and her attorney were asking that the Council allow the business
to continue. The Council had been working diligently to control
and eliminate such problems in the City. The appropriate
hearings had been held and he saw no recourse but to support the
recommendations of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as
presented by the Arbitrator.
Councilman Overholt.
He questioned the City Attorney relative to when the revocation
would become effective if the Council upheld the Findings and
Conclusions of Law.
City Attorney, Jack White.
Revocation would be effective today but the decision would not
be final for 7 days. The last day to request a rehearing would
be 7 days from today. If a rehearing were granted by the
Council, it would be scheduled on an agenda at the Council's
convenience. Assuming that would take another couple of weeks,
it would be into May, 1986. The Council had a motion to adopt
the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as recommended by
the Arbitrator. The part of that he saw as open was the
282
id7
City Hal!~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22~ 1986~. 10:00 A.M.
effective date of the revocations, now or making them
prospective to a date in the future. If made prospective, it
would be appropriate to attempt to obtain a stipulation from the
permittee as to the voluntary surrender of the permits at that
time.
Councilman Overholt.
If the Council were willing to set a date for the effect of the
revocation as June 1, 1986, it would give Mr. Coffin's client an
additional one and one-half months. He asked Mr. Coffin if his
client would stipulate that she would terminate her activity as
of June 1, 1986 and not contest any action by the City with
respect to that revocation.
Hugh Coffin.
They had spoken of that date with Mr. White and at that time it
was not agreeable to his client. He then spoke with her and
reported that he could not get Mrs. Nguyen to commit absolutely
to no law suit with a June 1, 1986 closing date. It was hard
for Mrs. Nguyen to understand the consequence of what the
Council was doing. She wants to stay open until the end of
June, 1986.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt thereupon moved to revoke the permits as of
today, April 22, 1986.
Before action was taken, Mr. Coffin asked for a short recess to discuss the
matter with his client.
By general consent, the Council recessed for five minutes. (11:32 a.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (11:37 a.m.)
Mr. Coffin.
He had an opportunity to speak with his client and she will sign
a stipulation on the June, 1 1986 closing date.
Councilman Overholt then amended his motion to include that the ~evocation of
both permits will be effective June 1, 1986 meaning that the last day of
business is May 31, 1986. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, City Attorney Jack White stated a written stipulation
is not necessary but he would like Mrs. Nguyen to indicate the effective date
of revocation of both permits being June 1, 1986 is acceptable and she agrees
with the last day of operation of the business being May 31, 1986.
Marie Tu Thi Nguyen.
Stated yes, she agrees.
283
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22~ 1986~ 10:.00 A.M.
City Attorney, White.
Asked for confirmation that she would not institute any legal
action with the City provided the City extends the effective
date through the end of May to allow the business to operate
through May 31, 1986.
Marie Tu Thi Mguyen.
She answered yes and she agrees.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion amended as follows: To adopt
the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as entered and recommended by the
Arbitrator Judge Max Eliason, and revoking the Massage Parlor permit for
Tender Touch Massage Parlor and the individual Massage Technician permit of
Marie Tu Thi Nguyen for good cause shown and that the effective date of
revocation of these permits be June 1, 1986 with the last day of operation of
the business being May 31, 1986. MOTION CARRIED.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City
Planning Commission at their meeting held March 31, 1986, pertaining to the
following applications were submitted for City Council information.
1. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 85-86-24 (READV.): Submitted by Robert E. Finley,
for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200, to construct a 28-unit
apartment complex on property located at 3512 and 3520 West Savanna Street.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-69, granted
Reclassification No. 85-86-24, and granted a negative declaration status
(Readv.).
2. VARIANCE NO. 3542: Submitted by Gary L. Kahler, to construct an
industrial storage building on ML zoned property located at 2715-2725 Gretta
Lane, with Code waiver of minimumnumber of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-70, granted
Variance No. 3542, and granted a negative declaration status.
3. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 85-86-26: Submitted by IraJ Eftekhari, for a change
in zone from RM-2400 to RM-1200, to construct a 13-unit apartment complex on
property located at 40~ §o. East §treet.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-71, granted
Reclassification No. 85-86-26, and granted a negative declaration status.
4. VARIANCE NO. 3525: Submitted by Euclid-Ball A.S.C. Ltd., (Anaheim
Surgical Center), to erect a freestanding sign on CO zoned property located at
1324 South Euclid Street, with Code waiver of permitted business signs.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-72, granted
Variance No. 3525, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption
determination. (Class 11)
284
City Hall~ Anaheim; California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
5. VARIANCE NO. 3540: Submitted by Jack O. and Marilyn Ann Brown, to
establish a two lot, RS-HS-22,000(SC) zoned residential subdivision on
property located at 7630 Corto Road, with Code waivers of minimum lot area and
density and minimum lot width.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-73, granted
Variance No. 3540, and granted a negative declaration status.
6. VARIANCE NO. 3546: Submitted by Gary Allen and Carol Mary Collins, to
construct a 2-story, 17-unit apartment complex on RM-1200 zoned property
located on the south side of Romneya Drive, west of Harbor Boulevard, with the
following Code waivers: (a) maximum structural height, (b) minimum structural
setback (denied), (c) minimum sideyard setbacks, (d) minimum distance between
buildings.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-75, granted in
part, Variance No. 3546, and granted a negative declaration status.
8. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2772: Sub~itted by Earl H. Hardage, (Kentucky
Fried Chicken), to permit the construction of a drive-through restaurant on CL
zoned property located at 129 West Ball Road.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-76, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2772, and granted a negative declaration status.
9. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2775: Submitted by World Oil Company, to
permit a walk-up, drive-through restaurant on CL zoned property located at the
southwest corner of Ball Road and Beach Boulevard, with Code waiver of minimum
number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-77, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2775, and granted a negative declaration status.
8. VARIANCE NO. 3545: Submitted by Charles E. and Lourdes B. Rogers, to
construct a 2-room addition to an existing dwelling on RS-7200 zoned property
located at 3118 West Monroe Avenue, with the following Code waivers: (a)
minimum side and rear yard structural setback, (b) permitted encroachments
into required yards, (c) minimum number, type, dimension and location of
parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-74, granted
Variance No. 3545, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption
determination. (Class 5)
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman
Kaywood and therefore, a public hearing would be scheduled at a later date.
End of Planning Commission Informational Items.
Councilman Overholt left the Council Chambers. (11:40 a.m.)
285
City Hall.~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22~ 1986~ 10:00 ~..~.
134: DATE AND TIME FOR PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 212: City
of Anaheim, to consider amendment to the circulation element text and map for
redesignation of Hidden Canyon Road from a hillside commuter arterial highway
designation to a local street.
The City PLanning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC86-78 adopted and
recommended to the City Council adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 212
Circulation Element and General Plan Text, Exhibit "A", and approved negative
declaration status.
MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to set the date and time for a public
hearing on General Plan Amendment No. 212 and negative declaration as Tuesday,
May 13, 1986 at 1:30 p.m. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Councilman
Overholt was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
179: PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT: Adding Chapter 18.93 to the Code, relating to
preparation, adoption and implementation of specific plans.
The City Planning Comm~ssion recommended that the City Council adopt the
proposed ordinance and certify a negative declaration thereto allowing the
processing of specific plans.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Bay, the City Council approved the negative
declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative declaration
together with any comments received during the public review process, and
further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received
that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant
effect on the environment. Councilman Overholt was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4709: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4709 for
first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4709: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING CHAPTER 18.93
TO TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIMMUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SPECIFIC PLANS.
Councilman Overholt entered the Council Chambers. (11:55 a.m.)
108/142: P. EgUEST FOR EVENING PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT TO STREET VENDING
ORDINANCE: A public hearing on the subject was set by the City Council to be
held on Tuesday, May 13, 1986, at 1:30 p.m.
City Clerk Leonora Sohl announced that a letter dated April 17, 1986 had been
received from Kris Tenpas, Chairman of the Patrick Henry Neighborhood Council
requesting a night meeting on the subject to enable those residents who work
to attend the meeting.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to amend the time of the public hearing on
the street vending ordinance to a 7:00 p.m. evening hearing on Tuesday,
May 13, 1986. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
286
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22~ 19,86~, 10:00 A.M.
114/179: REQUEST FOR JOINT MEETING BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION - LAND USE
CHANGES IN THE CANYON INDUSTRIAL AREA: Request for a Joint meeting with the
Planning Commission to discuss land use changes in the Canyon Industrial Area
between Kraemer Boulevard and Imperial Highway. This matter was discussed at
the meeting of April 15, 1986 (see minutes that date). Submitted was report
dated April 18, 1986 from the Community Development and Planning Department,
Zoning Division, recommending that a Joint work session with the Planning
Commission be held at the Council's convenience.
Councilman Pickler suggested that a staff report be submitted prior to any
meeting with the Planning Commission; Councilman Bay recommended that the
Liaison Committee meet with the Planning Commission to define the problem and
subsequently report back to the Council to ascertain the need for a workshop.
Nobody has shown him an example of where the City has authorized zoning and a
business has actually moved in that is causing a problem.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated as a Liaison member she agrees with the Planning
CommJ.ssion and there was a need for a discussion. To wait for something to
happen is too late. There was a need for a joint meeting before any more
approvals were granted in that area.
Discussion followed between Council Members and staff relative to uses
presently in the area. Mayor Roth noted in some cases the uses were difficult
to determine unless a visit was made to the plant itself.
At the conclusion of discussion, Councilman Bay stated he had no problem
meeting with the Planning Commission but before the present procedure was
instituted, there was a workshop and the Council restated their policy
position over and over again. He felt at that time that the Planning
Commission understood what the Council was talking about.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that they did go into a very long description on
no retail sales but she was talking about pure office uses, not retail sales.
It was possible to have accounting firms, secretarial services, bookkeeping
services, etc. that would go with high tech uses but that could also be
established without the high tech. The reason those businesses were locating
in that area was because of the lower rental rate. Councilman Bay surmised
then that the subject of the work session should be, what is the policy on
commercial office use in the canyon industrial area.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved that a Joint work session with the Planning
Commission be held on Tuesday, April 29, 1986 at 4:00 p.m. in the Council
Chamber. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Roth left the Council Chamber. (12:15 p.m.)
169/114: REPORT ON STREET MAINTENANCE AND ACCELERATION OF PROGRAM: City
Manager Talley briefed Joint report dated April 16, 1986 from Gary Johnson,
City Engineer, and John Roche, Director of Maintenance, recommending that the
City Council address funding of Street Maintenance during budget hearings for
the 1986/87 Fiscal Year with specific consideration being given to an
287
144
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
additional 3-person crew for the Department of Maintenance Services and
additional funding for contract work on the arterial street system. (Also
submitted was report entitled "The State of Streets in the City of Anaheim" -
a Report on the Condition of Arterial Highways FY-1985/86 - on file in the
City Clerk's Office).
Councilman Bay posed a line of questions to staff regarding the report
answered by John Roche, Director of Maintenance, City Engineer Gary Johnson
and City Manager Talley.
Councilman Overholt left the Council Chamber. (12:17 p.m.)
City Manager Talley pointed out that relative to the Street Maintenance
program, employees were not assigned to work on the slurry seal project all
year long; Councilman Bay felt then that there was the ability to shuffle
people to increase the work on immediate repairs to potholes when that
occurred to some extent. The Council should not have to tell administration
that there were potholes in the City that needed filling. It seemed that
there were more complaints this year. Since potholes were hazardous, he did
not know why there was not an immediate priority way to repair them.
Mr. Roche explained for the Mayor that the Council Policy relative to utility
cuts was to have them repaired within 45 days, it was mot Just the City's
utilities making the cuts, but they were also made by the Gas Company,
Telephone Company, etc. The City repaired all cuts made by the City's Utility
Department within 45 days. The 45-day figure was arrived at by negotiations
with all those making such cuts. Most of the potholes were found in arterial
highways and not local streets. He also agreed that one crew was not
sufficient to maintain 40-square miles of City and 600 miles of streets.
Another crew would help meet the Council's objectives.
Councilman Bay stated he was ready to approve another crew if that was what
was needed. Another question he had was relative to the fact that now that
the cost of oil was decreasing were the estimated costs of asphalt in the
report based on 330 a barrel or the lower present costs. If estimated at the
high price, he assumed the cost would have to drop somewhere down the line.
They were perhaps looking at a window to facilitate maintenance and repair but
also major repair and reconstruction before using more streets down to the
roadbed.
City Engineer, Gary Johnson explained the figures did reflect the prior cost
of asphalt but they were gradually seeing a trend where prices were coming
down. Relative to the arterial system, the replacement cost of that system
was far more than local streets. Underfunding that system and allowing them
to deteriorate to where they needed to be reconstructed was extremely
expensive. At budget time when the City Council would be looking at overall
City programs in addition to additional maintenance crews, he would also
request that consideration be given to additional funding for the arterial
system contract work.
288
City Hall; A~aheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to receive and file the subject report.
Before action was taken, Councilman Bay asked if contingency money was needed
to establish a second crew.
City Manager Talley answered if the Council Policy was to establish a second
crew, he would rather do so at budget time. If established now, he did not
want to take anything from existing supplies or material accounts to do that.
Councilman Bay stated if it was the general consensus of the Council to favor
a second team of three people, he would support allocating money from the
Council Contingency Fund at this time to accelerate starting a second crew
thereby enabling the work to get started two months sooner.
Councilwoman Kaywood felt there was benefit in doing that especially with the
price of oil being so low at this time; Councilman Pickler felt that the
matter should be continued one week.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to continue consideration of the report on
Street Maintenance including a recommendation with regard to acceleration of
the said program for one week and directed staff to submit a recommendation to
start a second team in order to accelerate street repairs in the last two
months of this year with funds to be allocated from the Council Contingency
Fund. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Council Members Overholt and
Roth were absent. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Mayor Pro Tem Pickler announced that a Closed
Session would be held for the Council to confer with its attorney regarding:
a. Pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.9(a), to wit: Golden West Baseball Co. vs. City of Anaheim,
O.C. Superior Court Case No. 40 92 46
b. To consider Personnel matters - Government Code Section 54957.
c. To confer with the City's designated representative regarding
labor relations matters. (Gov't. Code Section 54957.6)
MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to recess into Closed Session and a lunch
break. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Council Members Overholt
and Roth were absent. MOTION CARRIED. (12:35 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor Pro Tem called the meeting to order, all Council
Members being present with the exception of Councilman Roth. (1:40 p.m)
176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 85-9A: In accordance with application
filed by Anaheim Memorial Hospital, public hearing was held on proposed
abandonment of public utility easements a'cross property located north of La
Palma Avenue, west of West Street (1111 West La Palma Avenue) pursuant to
Resolution No. 86R-114, duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices
thereof posted in accordance with law.
289
142
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
Report of the City Engineer dated March 17, 1986 was submitted recommending
approval of said abandonment.
Mayor Pro Tem Pickler asked if anyone wished to address the Council; there
being no response he closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: The City Engineer
determined that the proposed activity falls within the definition of Section
3.01, Class 5, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for an
Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the
requirement to file an EIR.
Councilwoman Kayw6od offered Resolution No. 86R-155 for adoption, approving
Abandonment No. 85-9A. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 86R-155: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM VACATING PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS ACROSS PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF LA
PALMAAVENUE, WEST OF WEST STREET. (llllWESTLA PALMAAVENUE)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood,
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBEKS: None
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: 0verholt
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Roth
Bay and Pickler
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 86R-155 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman 0verholt stated he abstained from voting because he sits on the
Anaheim Memorial Hospital Board.
134/179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 208t
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 85-86-21; VARIANCE NO. 3534 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
APPLICANT: Kathleen F. and Sammy John Nobles, Terry F. Wylie and Edward L.
and Yolanda E. Roldan,
111 So. Illinois Street
Anaheim, Ca. 92805
ZONING/LOCATION/REQUEST: For a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-1200, to
construct a 40-unit apartment complex on property located at 1918-1932 East
Cypress Street, with Code waiver of maximum structural height; to consider an
amendment to the land use element of the General Plan from general commercial
and iow-density residential designation to medium density or iow-medium
density residential designation.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC86-44 recommended adoption of
GPA No. 208 Exhibit "B". Resolution No. PC86-45 and 46 denied the
Reclassification and the Variance.
HEARING SET ON:
Appealed by Hugo Vasquez, agent.
of March 18, 1986, to this date.
This matter was continued from the meeting
290
City Hall; Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22; 1986; 10:00 A.M.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin March 6, 1986.
Posting of property March ?, 1986.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - March 7, 1986.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated February 3, 1986.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Hugo Vasquez, 619 So. Live Oak.
He submitted a petition signed by all property owners in favor
of the project along Cypress and Coffman Streets. The reason
for the five week continuance was due to concerns expressed by
the adjacent church. He has been working on the unusual project
for over 10 months. The project requires six City lots as well
as being able to solicit cooperation from all the principals and
property owners involved in order to bring forth a project which
will be an asset to the community. He also commissioned a
traffic study done by Circulation Systems which indicated that
the maximum increase in traffic from the project would be an
additional 15 percent for a total of 25 percent of what the
total trips per day would allow. In discussing the matter with
the City's Traffic Engineer Paul Singer, he did not feel it was
an item requiring further discussion. He submitted the traffic
study (see report dated March 5, 1986 - Circulation Systems
Associates - made a part of the record) along with photographs
of the area showing the conditions presently existing on Coffman
and Cypress Streets.
Pat Fitkin, Century 21, 408 South Beach BLvd., Ste. 112, Anaheim.
She represents Young Lion Development and is agent for 2 of the
3 parcels, Terry F. Wylie and Edward L. and Yolanda E. Roldan.
She submitted packages to the Council consisting of a map and
signed letters in favor of the project from property owners. To
answer Councilwoman Kaywood's previous concern, they re-sent the
letters clearly restating the number of units proposed. Most
parcels have been owned for a long period of time. In talkin~
with the property owners, they would like to see something done
with the property. She then briefed the information reflected
by the document submitted.
Phyllis Boydstun, 728 North Janss.
She represents Kathleen and Sammy Nobles, owners of the first
lot going into the property where there was some access.
Skipping the next lot the two lots after that were also their
parcels (Parcel No. 56, 9 and 31). She did not know how the
property became landlocked. The project would completely
eliminate the problem by making it one large project. The area
is in a state of deterioration. The project would eliminate the
access problem, clean up the area and make it into one nice
project.
291
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22, 1986, 10:00 A.M.
Jerry Drukin.
He is the designer of the project. The site has a number of
unique characteristics that normally do not have to be addressed
in development projects. They have met all the site development
standards relative to parking, coverage and recreational area.
They will provide twice the amount of recreational area normally
required. There are some access problems. They wanted to
logically extend Cypress Street to the East to make a logical
conclusion of that street. They were proposing to construct a
modified cul-de-sac at the east end of Cypress as well as
terminate at Cypress Street where it goes into Evelyn Drive. He
has minimized the impact on the church and on the property to
the west. He has designed the project on the six lots in a way
that it will be an asset to the City without imposing hardships
on the surrounding property owners. The design proposed is the
best possible solution for the site for all the parcels. If
developed individually, the solution would be much less pleasing
and appealing to the City.
Mr. Drukin then reported the following in answer to Council questions.
He designed a project with 40 units; therefore, anything less
than 40 units could be built on the site. The existing zoning
is RSA-43,000 and the Planning Commission recommended that an
RM-2400 General Plan Amendment be established. They did not
recommend the zoning per se. Their request is for RM-1200. The
project pencils out for RM-1200 but not RM-2400.
Councilman Bay.
He asked the plan to gain ingress and egress to the property.
Mr. Drukin.
They are not proposing a full size cul-de-sac but a modified one
which would fit within the existing right-of-way. Currently
part of the access to the property was taken over the church
property which they freely and willingly have allowed across a
small triangular portion at the rear of the property. He has
worked under the assumption that that area was part of a legal
access to get into the property. If not, then basically the
lots are landlocked and that is the problem he has addressed by
minimizing the impact of utilizing the existing right-of-way
that has been permitted by the church for the past 20 or 50 or
however many years.
Hugo Vasquez.
Relative to the easement, that was the major reason they
requested a continuance five weeks ago. He was being held
"ransom" because of the situation. He wanted the Council to
approve or deny the project on its merits. Before he could pull
building or occupancy permits he would have to meet all
conditions imposed (see Condition Nos. 13 and 14 of
292
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22~ 1986~ 10:O0 A.~.
Interdepartmental Committee recommendations outlined in staff
report to the Planning Commission dated February 3, 1986). He
fully understands the risks. He was confident that he would be
able to obtain the necessary easement.
City Attorney, Jack White.
If Council approved the project subject to Condition Nos. 13 and
14, he did not believe a covenant was necessary but the owner of
the subject property shall acquire and record an access easement
from the property owner and delete the reference to covenant.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN FAVOR: William H. Armet, Development Coordination, 4411 Nyaneck,
Yorba Linda. They represent the engineering on the project.
They have surveyed the property and have discussed the
conditions of approval with Mr. Vasquez. Mr. Vasquez is in
agreement with them.
Dan Torres, 1909 East Cypress.
He represents his grandfather who owns 1903, 1909 and 1913 East
Cypress. In their family, they do not ever plan to sell their
property. They want to see the neighborhood improve. The
neighbors on Coffman and Cypress Street did not want any
developers coming in but are now in favor of the project because
of the plan proposed by Mr. Vasquez and his associates. The
project is needed, and once completed will cause the rest of the
neighborhood to upgrade. There are people present against the
project who live on Evelyn Drive. Those residents wanted the
street closed at Cypress and Evelyn Drive. Now that it is going
to be closed, the project should be built. He urged that the
Council bring the "California Dream" to Cypress and Coffman just
as in Mission Viejo. He confirmed for Councilowman Kaywood that
if the project was approved his family did not plan to build
apartments on their property. They are going to build a large
house with a pool, tennis courts and possibly a batting cage for
~I_~S 8OD.
Jim 0veda, 227 North Coffman.
He is very much in favor of the project. It will upgrade the
area. His long range plan is to keep his property and upgrade
it.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN OPPOSITION:
James Mallard, 239 North Evelyn Drive, since 1948.
If the project is approved for high density construction, it is
a logical sequence of events that Coffman Street would follow
suit. It is an area that could stand upgrading. The crux of
the issue is that whatever is built on the west side of Coffman
Street will be backyard neighbors to those living on Evelyn
Drive. If all of Coffman goes the same way on a piece-meal
basis, it will result in a high density neighborhood.
293
;.1.38
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
Raymond Ware, 2047 Mauerhan Place, Anaheim.
He represents the church at 311 North State College Blvd. and
the leadership of that congregation. He referred to his letter
dated April 17, 1986 previously submitted (made a part of the
record). Their objections are traffic, spot zoning, the
property does not have access to a City street and the lots are
landlocked. He then gave a brief overview of the history of the
easement which has been used for ingress and egress. It was
never a recorded easement. The developer is also asking for an
additional 4 feet of easement in order to meet City requirements.
Mayor Roth entered the Council Chamber, (2:35 p.m.). He announced that
because he had missed the presentation, he would not vote on the issue.
Mr. Ware continued that the design of the units are also
conducive to two-family living and will necessitate more than
2.5 parking spaces per unit. His interpretation of the plan is
that there are only 94 parking spaces and not 104 or 106. There
is no off-street parking except on the north side of Cypress and
there is no uncovered parking design for the project to
accommodate RV's, trucks, etc. The church parking lot will be
used for that type of parking. The traffic generated will
conflict with the church ingress and egress to Cypress Street
and the angle of the traffic meeting at 45 degrees rather than
90 degrees will be a problem. There is a problem relative to
the building height. There will be two exposed stories
overlooking a proposed wall and there are balconies within 5
feet of the property line. Two sun decks will be open onto the
church property. He reiterated there is no recorded easement
for the church property. Mr. Vasquez should be seeking ingress
and egress across the corner property which is already in for
development approval at this time. When the church gate is
open, people will take the short cut through to State College
Blvd. If this project is approved, other developers are
planning to ask for greater density on their property. He has
not seen anything on the proposed cul-de-sac which would also be
modified or smaller. It is an unreasonable density for the area
and the church will be adversely impacted. The language of
Condition No. 13 imposed by the Planning Commission is such
~hat~ If the project is approved~ the church will be made the
"bad guy" in that if the church does not grant an easement, it
will be holding up the neighborhood from developing. The church
is not against the development but it is too much for the church
and the area in general. The church would not be opposed to
another development at a lower density but would still have some
concerns about the easement and traffic.
294
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22,~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
Ken Vitato, 1010 MarJan, Member of the Church of Christ,
President of the Board of Trustees.
He was speaking mainly on his own behalf. He has not called a
general meeting of the congregation to either approve or
disapprove the request. The members he has talked to are not in
favor. He has not found anyone who would be opposed to RM-2400
zoning. They are concerned over the area being rezoned to
RM-1200. They did not want to leave access to their property
open because everyone would drive across the church property.
Naomi Way, 189 Evelyn Drive.
She wants to be reassured that the commitment made by the
Council that when the first development was presented, Cypress
Street would be closed at Evelyn Drive. Also it was determined
that the widening of Coffman Street had to take place at the
same time Cypress was closed off.
STAFF INPUT:
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning.
Mrs. Way was referring to the ultimate widening of Coffman to
32-foot half width which was discussed at the time the closure
of Cypress Street was heard. The actual widening would be
taking place in connection with individual properties as they
redeveloped. She would have to check the applications approved
in the past and there were two or three of them.
Mrs. Way.
She was certain the Council was going to consider the number of
cars that were going to be using that narrow street (Coffman
Street) as well as the parking if they were going to allow that
much density in the area. She reiterated that she wanted
assurance that Cypress Street was going be closed. Also, unless
Coffman Street was widened, there was going to be a problem.
SUMMATION BY APPLICANT: Hugo Vasquez.
He first submitted another set of pictures showing the condition
of area. The Masciels, one of the property owners, have agreed
to close off Cypress Street, thus eliminating any traffic going
through Evelyn Drive. He is willing to live with all the
conditions imposed. He asked that the Council consider the
project on its merits. He was 100 percent confident he would
obtain access rights for ingress/egress. If he did not, he
could not proceed.
STAFF INPUT:
Annika Santalahti.
If approved, she recommended that Condition No. 13 of the
Variance regarding bonding for the closure of Cypress be placed
in the reclassification and that this be satisfied prior to
introduction of the ordinance to rezone the property. If the
property were rezoned, it is not impossible to imagine that the
project might come in under Code requirements at some time in
295
136
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
the future and not need a variance at all. The Masciel property
could also be rezoned and then the Variance would no longer be
necessary because it would be multiple family.
City Attorney, Jack White.
He suggested that the condition be included in both the Variance
and Reclassification.
Councilman Bay.
In previous hearings relative to development on Cypress Street,
he recalled the Council made it clear that Cypress would
absolutely be closed between Evelyn Drive and current Cypress
Street. He assumed that had already been done, apparently it
has not. He felt whatever develops on the six lots was going to
go from there straight south to Center Street all the way behind
the commercial property which was going to affect everything and
everybody on Coffman Street. This was a critical decision on
the general plan change which will affect the whole
neighborhood. Apartments were not necessarily bad if designed
properly with good circulation or open space. There were still
problems in the area from the standpoint of the land becoming
developable for the right kind of developments. He did not feel
that Mr. Vasquez had the answer as yet and he did not know how
he could have without some solution to the circulation and some
preplanning for the whole area.
Councilwoman Kaywood.
The residents had the right to trust their Council. The
decision was made in 1980 that the area would be RM-2400
with-not-to-exceed 15 units to the acre because of traffic and
circulation problems in the area. She has not changed her
mind. Mr. Vasquez presented two beautiful drawings but they are
overpowering for the neighborhood. Everyone coming in afterward
would have the right to expect that they could have RM-1200. If
he could build the project to P.M-2400 standards, she did not
think any of the neighbors would be present today.
Raymond Ware.
He did not say that the church would be opposed to an RM-2400
project but would like to see how the project would be proposed
and designed. The ingress and egress was the main concern. If
the project were lower or 1-story they would look upon it more
favorably. It is now 3-story with parking underneath.
Councilman Overholt.
Speaking to Mr. Ware he stated that he would hope if Mr. Vasquez
attempts to work out development on those lots, that the church
would have a cooperative attitude in trying to work something
out with the developer and not at the last minute become
obstructive.
296
i.33
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22, 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
Raymond Ware.
The church would consider something of a lesser density on its
own merits and would also want to know how the project might
affect the easement.
Councilman Overholt.
If the project comes back within the concept of RM-2400 and the
church expresses an attitude of non-cooperation, his opinion is
the Council will not look with great favor upon what the church
perceives to be their right.
Mayor Pro Tem Pickler.
He asked Mr. Vasquez if he wanted the Council to make their
decision today or if he preferred a continuance.
Councilman Overholt.
He asked Mr. Vasquez if he would go back to the drawing board to
try to bring in a project under the RM-2400 zone instead of
RM-1200.
Hugo Vasquez.
He will go after the RM-2400 in the spirit of the RM-2400 zone.
If the Council will be open to suggestions with the new design,
then he will ask for a 30-day extension and have Mr. Drukin come
up with a compromise from the RM-1200 to the RM-2400. He would
have to look to an affordable project to try to find a happy
medium.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to continue the public hearing on General
Plan Amendment No. 208, Reclassification No. 85-86-21, Variance No. 3534 and
Negative Declaration therefor, to Tuesday, May 20, 1986 at 1:30 p.m.
Councilman Roth was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for five minutes.
(3:29 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (3:32 p.m.)
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed
Session. Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (3:33 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present with the exception of Councilman 0verholt. (4:35 p.m.)
297
1.34
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
134/169/179: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 209~ REVISION TO SANTA ANA CANYON
ROAD ACCESS POINT STUD¥~ RECLASSIFICATION NO. 85-86-19, VARIANCE NO. 354~.~
REQUEST FOR SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL NO. 86-02 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
APPLICANT: Christian Communication Commission, Inc., (Evangel Church of
So. California),
925 Signalridge Place,
Rockwall, Texas 75087 (and)
Judy Woodyard
1915 Orangewood Avenue,
Orange, Ca. 92668
REQUEST/ZONING/LOCATION: To amend the Land Use Element, to consider alternate
proposals of ultimate land uses including, but not limited to hillside
low-density residential and commercial professional; to consider revision to
Exhibit No. 7 of the Santa Aha Canyon Road Access Point Study in order to
provide access from the northwest side of Santa Aha Canyon Road easterly of
Eucalyptus Drive, to construct a 2 and 3-story office building, with the
following Code waivers: (a) minimum structural and landscaped setback, (b)
maximum building height, (c) required Site screening, and a request for
removal of specimen trees, a change in zone from RS-A-43,000(SC) and
RS-7200(SC) to CO(SC), on approximately 3 acres of land located on the north
side of Santa Ama Canyon Road, approximately 390 feet east of the centerline
of Eucalyptus Drive (7777 Santa Aha Canyon Road).
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC86-56 recommended adoption of
GPA No. 209, Exhibit "A"; Resolution No. PC86-57 recommended adoption of
proposed revision to Exhibit No. 7 of the Santa Ama Canyon Road access point
study; Resolution No. PC86-58 granted Reclassification No. 85-86-19;
Resolution No. PC86-59 granted Variance No. 3541, approved EIR - Negative
Declaration.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin April 10, 1986.
Posting of property April 11, 1986.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - April 11, 1986.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated March 3, 1986.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Vic Peloquin, 280 Cresalta.
There was no opposition to the project. He had prepared packets
of information for Council's information. They are going to be
solving the drainage problem on the property. There have been
"hobos" living within the orange grove presently existing on the
property. There were also some robberies and burglaries in the
residential properties to the west. There was a positive
response to the project from the homeowners because the parking
lot will be lit at night and there will be activity on a daily
basis to discourage burglaries. Relative to the screening and
298
City Hml]{, Anmheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
fencing on the westerly border, Code calls for a 20-foot landscaped buffer
immediately adjacent to a commercial project. In order to orient their
building on the property in the manner proposed, that buffer was reduced to 10
feet, but they have provided 2 intermediate buffers, a landscaped buffer in
between the building and westerly property line and one immediately adjacent
to the building. Their building is 150 feet away from the westerly property
line and Code would require only 50 feet because of the height. Since they
are 150 feet away and providing 3 landscape buffers, they felt the 10-foot
buffer to the west was not out of line.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN FAVOR: Robert Morse, 7020 Blackbird Lane.
He represents the church property immediately across Santa Aha
Canyon Road south of Mr. Peloquin's property. They have had a
good relationship with Mr. Peloquin. The church is in the
process of considering various development plans and one
involves a road coming through the property leading to the
property to the south. Mr. Peloquin has been working with them
to align his driveway where their road would be. Their only
concern is relative to the alignment of that road. Mr. Peloquin
indicated he is favorable to aligning his driveway so it would
line up to wherever the road would prove to be most beneficial
to the church. The proposed project is a good use of the
property and compatible with the uses the church plans
immediately across the street. The church is planning to have a
large church campus with a sanctuary, classroom space and
eventually a dwelling for senior citizens.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION-
IN OPPOSITION:
Rudy Alvarado, 1515 South Shelton, Santa Ana, representing
resident of that area, Ray Corm, 108 South Eucalyptus Drive,
directly across the street from the proposed project. Mr. Corm
is totally against the commercial project and the increased
traffic it will bring to the area. There is also no means of
controlling the traffic such as a Stop Sign or traffic signal.
In 1983 there was an amendment to change the land use to general
commercial and that was denied by the Planning Commission.
There is a drainage problem on the property that has to be
solved. He is also against the removal of the specimen trees.
The project will also displace the natural habitat of wild life
presently existing on the property. The approval of the
Environmental Impact Report - Negative Declaration was also
ill-advised. Mr. Corm is also concerned about the
already-approved church project.
STAFF INPUT:
Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer.
Santa Aha Canyon Road has been designated on the General Plan
for many years as a City expressway to carry six lanes of
through traffic. It is going to be a very major artery in that
area. There were going to be many other developments which will
be a contributing factor to the traffic volume. The subject
development will not have a detrimental effect on Santa Ana
Canyon Road.
299
City Hall~ An-heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Roth closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Pickler, seconded by Councilman Bay, the City Council approved the negative
declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative declaration
together with any comments received during the public review process, and
further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received
that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant
effect on the environment. Councilman 0verholt was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Pickler offered Resolution Nos. 85R-155 through 85R-159, both
inclusive, all in accordance within subject to City Planning Commission
conditions. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 86R-156: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 209, EXHIBIT A.
RESOLUTION NO. 86R-157: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVED REVISION TO EXHIBIT NO. 7 OF THE SANTA ANA CANYON ROAD ACCESS
POINT STUDY.
RESOLUTION NO. 86R-158: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING RECLASSIFICATION NO. 85-86-19.
RESOLUTION NO. 86R-159: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 3541.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Pickler and Roth
None
Overholt
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 86R-156 through 86R-159, both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted.
MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to approve the request for Specimen Tree
Removal No. 86-02. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. Councilman Overholt
was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2765 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
APPLICANT:
Clausen-Enterprises,
2795 West Lincoln Avenue, #F
Anaheim, Ca. 92801
ZONING/LOCATION/REQUEST: To construct a 2 story, 37-unit motel and manager's
apartment on CL zoned property located at 2784 West Lincoln Avenue, with the
following Code waivers: (a) minimum structural setback, (b) permitted
location of freestanding sign, (c) maximum structural height.
300
City ~!1~ A~,heim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC86-54 granted Conditional Use
Permit No. 2765, approved EIR - Negative Declaration.
HEARING SET ON:
Review requested by Councilwoman Kaywood.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim BulletinApril 10, 1986.
Postin~ of property April 11, 1986.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - April 11, 1986.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated March 3, 1986.
COUNCIL CONCERNS:
Councilwoman Kaywood.
She is concerned with all the waivers requested especially the
minimum structural setback on Lincoln which required 35 feet.
The plan reflects a trash enclosure at 11 and 1/2 feet with a
sign on it. She is concerned with that as well as having the
enclosure fronting on Lincoln Avenue.
APPLICANT'S STATEMENT ANDANSWER TO QUESTIONS POSED:
Craig Clausen, 2795 West Lincoln. His office is directly across
the street. He also owns Shakey's Pizza adjacent to the strip
shopping center. Working from a plan posted on the Chamber
wall, he showed changes that had been made. The trash enclosure
was moved from the Lincoln Avenue site to a more desirable
position on the property as shown on Exhibit 1. Originally the
freestanding sign was to be in the wall of the trash enclosure.
Now the sign will be placed on a pole in the front landscaped
area. He did not know how many feet were involved relative to
setback from the street.
STAFF INPUT:
Leonard McGee, Associate Planner.
Revised plans do not show where the sign will be located. Under
Code, the sign has to be 40 feet away from the east or west
property lines.
Mr. Clausen.
It would be impossible to place the sign either 40 feet from the
east or west since there was only 100 feet total and they needed
a 25-foot drive. The sign would have to be placed closer to the
street to prevent interference with the front parking spaces
which he pointed to on the posted plan. The pole is the width
of the existing sidewalk. It would probably be located within
10 feet of the street.
301
130
City Hall; Anaheim~ California - COb~CLL MINUTES - April 22~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
Leonard McGhee.
Staff has not reviewed the revised sign plan with the trash
enclosure now moved to another location. However, the revision
would not be in conformance with Code and there is a waiver
already pertaining to a sign not in agreement with Code. The
sign would probably intrude over the right-of-way.
MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to continue the public hearing on
Conditional Use Permit No. 2765 for one week to give staff an opportunity to
analyze the revised plan and make their recommendation to Council. Councilman
Bay seconded the motion.
Councilman Bay.
Mr. Clausen should have determined what Councilwoman Kaywood was
opposed to in setting the matter for a public hearing. Revised
plans had to be presented to staff in a timely manner before the
hearing. He favored the one week continuance but suggested that
the public hearing be closed.
COUNCIL ACTION:
There being no further persons who wished to speak, Mayor Roth
closed the public hearing.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Overholt was
absent. MOTION CARRIED.
108: ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT APPLICATION - EL NOPAL # 3: Submitted by Salvador
Rubalcaba, E1 Nopal #3 Mexican Restaurant, 530 N. East Street, for an 8-person
Marl&chi band, Thursday, Friday and Saturdays from 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.
Chief of Police recommends approval.
City Clerk Sohl explained the item was being brought forward off agenda
because the restaurant wanted to hold its grand opening this weekend.
Councilwoman Kaywood wanted to know if the music was amplified, was it going
to take place indoors or outdoors etc. She was concerned due to an experience
at another location on Anaheim Boulevard where the mariachi played outdoors
into the night generating a large number of complaints from the neighborhood.
Councilman Bay noted that the application indicated 10:00 a.m. to ll:00p.m.
Thursday, Friday and Saturday every week; City Clerk Sohl also confirmed that
the entertainment permit would be in effect ~or one year.
After further Council discussion, it was determined that more information and
an answer to the questions posed would be necessary before acting on the
application. A decision on the entertainment permit application was continued
to the meeting of April 29, 1986.
302
City Hall~ An~beim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 22~ 1986~ 10:00 A.M.
114/144: JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY - EASTERN AND FOOTHILL CORRIDOR: Councilman
Bay reported at the April 10, 1986 meeting where the Authority voted to start
staff working on an inventory and review of all the issues from each city
stated at the time the City signed the Memorandum of Understanding. There
were many unresolved issues. The staff will be inventorying and reviewing the
caveats Anaheim stated when joining the authority. Some of the most critical
issues were the alignment of the Eastern Corrider in the City's sphere of
influence and making certain that a couple of alternatives were dropped which
suggested alignments coming through Anaheim's current City limits. The
Authority will start putting those issues on their agenda and working through
committees. The issues that still exist would have to be fully discussed,
debated and voted on.
114/144: REQUEST FOR VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT: Councilman Bay requested a
verbatim transcript of a portion of the Council meeting of April 15, 1986,
Item No. 1A-24 - the Police 2000 Project. He wanted the verbatim on that
subject because he considers it a key and important issue.
There was no opposition by the Council in directing staff to submit a verbatim
transcript of this discussion the the Police 2000 Project.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session
to discuss the balance of the items previously articulated by the City
Attorney. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Councilman Overholt was
absent. MOTION CARRIED. (5:18 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present with the exception of Councilman Overholt. (5:32 p.m)
153: ESTABLISHING TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT:
offered Resolution No. 86R-160 and 86R-161 for adoption,
Human Resources Director. Refer to Resolution Book.
Councilman Roth
as recommended by the
RESOLUTION NO. 86R-160: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION.
RESOLUTION NO. 86R-161: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ESTABLISHING TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT FOR PART-TIME JOB
CLASSIFICATIONS REPRESENTED BY THE HOSPITAL AND SERVICE EMPLOYEES' UNION,
LOCAL NO. 399 AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 83R-129.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Pickler and Roth
None
Overholt
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 86R-160 and 86R-161 duly passed and adopted.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Pickler moved to adjourn. Councilman Bay seconded
the motion. Councilman Overholt was absent. MOTION CARRIED. (5:33 p.m.)
LEO~P~"N. SOHL, CITY CLERK
303