1985/03/05City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 5, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Bay, Pickler, Overholt and Roth
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING ASSOCIATE: Shirley Land
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF PLANNING: Joel Fick
Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Father John Lenihan, St. Boniface Catholic Church, gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Ben Bay led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
119: PRESENTATION: Mrs. Earline Jones, Executive Director of the Miss
Anaheim Pageant, presented to the Council the new Miss Anaheim/Miss America,
Barbara Ann Erbst, who won the title on Sunday, March 3, 1985.
Mayor Roth, on behalf of the Council and the citizens, expressed
congratulations to Miss Erbst on winning the coveted title thereby enabling
her to represent Anaheim in the Miss California Pageant in Santa Cruz later in
the year. He also presented her with roses and a briefcase with the City
seal. He thanked Mrs. Jones for her tireless efforts in staging what he
considered to be one of the best pageants ever.
119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Roth
and authorized by the City Council:
"American Association of University Women Week" in Anaheim, March 3-9, 1985,
"Arbor Day" in Anaheim, March 7, 1985,
"Women's Achievement Week" in Anaheim, March 3-9, 1985,
"Girl Scout Week" in Anaheim, March 10-16, 1985.
Loraine Wltten and June Lowry accepted the University Women Week proclamation;
Sheri Risser accepted the Women's Achievement Week proclamation, and Betty
Lillis Peterson accompanied by Jackie Jacobson and Bob Parry accepted the Girl
Scout Week proclamation.
119: RESOLUTION OF CONDOLENCE: A Resolution of Condolence was unanimously
adopted by the City Council to be presented to Phillip and Connie Quarre, upon
the loss of Nelda, beloved wife and mother.
177
City Ha11~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 5, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
119: RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A Resolution of Congratulations was
unanimously adopted by the City Council to be presented to City Attorney
William P. Hopkins on his appointment as Judge of the Municipal Court Central
Orange County District by Governor Deukmajian. Mr. Hopkins started his career
with the City of Anaheim in 1968 serving as City Attorney since 1976.
MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to approve the minutes of the regular
meetings held February 12 and 19, 1985. Councilman Overholt seconded the
motion. 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 Overholt seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $1,038,527.15, in
accordance with the 1984-85 Budget, were approved.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Roth,
seconded by Councilman Pickler, 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 Roth offered
Resolution Nos. 85R-103 through 85R-106, 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 Margaret Reimer for property damages sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 13, 1984.
b. Claim submitted by James William Barnett and Debra Collene Barnett for
indemnity purportedly due to actions of the City on or about July 9, 1984.
c. Claim submitted by Marie L. Osowski for property damages sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 22, 1984.
2. Receiving and filing the following correspondence: (on file)
a. 105: Public Utilities Board--Minutes of January 17, 1985.
b. 173: Public Utilities Commission letter dated February 8, 1985, re
Pacific Coast Sightseeing Tours and Charter Application for Passenger
Stage Authority.
3. 109/150: Accepting a Robertt-Z'berg Urban Open Space Recreation Program
Grant (SB174) in the amount of $25,000 to be used for the construction of a
restroom and stadium improvements at La Palma Park.
178
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 5, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
4. 170/123: Approving a reimbursement agreement with Chaparral Development
Corporation for special facilities relating to Tract No. 10617 in the Anaheim
Hills area.
5. 151: Authorizing an Encroachment License with Wood Bridge Village, Ltd.,
to allow encroachment of a 4" P.V.C. conduit schedule 40 at a 10-foot depth
under Claudina Street at the intersection with Old Lincoln Avenue. (84-1E)
6. 169/106: Approving a transfer of funds in the amount of ~59,014 from the
CDBG Contingency Account No. 25-215-6798 to Account No. 25-793-6325-E3780, to
provide for additional work in connection with the Central City Street
Improvement, area bounded by Sycamore Street, Sabina Street, Cypress Street
and Anaheim Boulevard.
7. 153/123: Authorizing Mercer-Meidinger, Inc., to solicit proposals from
organizations interested in providing employee assistance program services for
City employees.
8. 177/123: Authorizing an agreement with Lido Lane Properties, Inc. and
Randy J. Morris and Catherine R. Morris, to provide 3 affordable housing units
in a proposed 12 unit condominium project (Cedarwood), to be located at 3040
West Ball Road; approving the Affordable Buyers Agreements for purchasers; and
authorizing the execution of a Memorandum of Agreement with the Developer.
9. 150: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-103: 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 IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT:
PONDEROSA AND LA PALMA PARK RESTROOM/RECKEATION IMPROVEMENTS IN THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 25-818-7105-18060 AND 16-827-7103-2712d AND -27160.
(opening of bids on March 28, 1985, 2:00 p.m.)
10. 150: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-104: 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 IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT:
PONDEROSA PARK PLAY APPARATUS IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO.
25-818-7105-18060. (opening of bids on March 28, 1985, 2:00 p.m.)
11. 160: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-105: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING CERTAIN UNCLAIMED PROPERTY IS NEEDED FOR PUBLIC USE
AND TRAN~ERRINC T~ ~AME TO T~E CITY PURC~A~INC DEPARTMENT.
12. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 85R-106: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 85R-103 through 85R-106:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Pickler, Overholt and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 85R-103 through 85R-106, both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted.
179
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 5, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
End of Consent Calendar. MOTION CARRIED.
169/123 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING - SUPER STREETS DEMONSTRATION PROJECT:
Councilman Bay moved to authorize a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the
Orange County Transportation Commission for the Super Streets Demonstration
Project on Beach Boulevard between Pacific Coast Highway and in particular the
segment between Stanton Avenue and .10 miles south of Ball Road as recommended
in memorandum dated February 26, 1985 from the City Engineer. Councilman
Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to appoint Councilwoman Kaywood to the Policy
Advisory Committee relative to the Super Street Demonstration project.
Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
144: ORANGE COUNTY ARTERIAL HIGHWAY FINANCING PROGRAM (AHFP) AND BRIDGE
PROGRAM - PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS: City Manager William O. Talley briefed
memorandum dated March 4, 1985 from the City Engineer recommending that the
Mayor be authorized to sign a letter to the Board of Supervisors regarding
their proposed changes to the subject programs pointing out that any
substantial changes would be detrimental to the County.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to authorize the Mayor to sign a letter to the
Board of Supervisors recommending the following for the Board's consideration:
(1)
The AHFP Program should not be significantly altered and should be
basically left as is with the proviso that the County of Orange would
be added to the eligibility list for AHFP funding. The funding
should remain at approximately ~3.9 million.
(2) The County of Orange continue a separate Bridge Program to be funded
at whatever level the county can manage.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
112/153: APPOINTING ACTING CITY ATTORNEY: Councilman Bay stated he assumed
that under t'he City Attorney's portion of the meeting that the Council must
take action to appoint an Acting City Attorney effective March 7, 1985, due to
the departure of City Attorney Hopkins on March 6, 1985 to take over his
appointed position of Municipal Court Judge; Assistant City Attorney Jack
White stated the Council did not have to take that action under City Attorney
matters but it would be advisable to have an Acting City Attorney until a
permanent City Attorney was appointed.
Mayor Roth stated that was a matter he wanted to discuss in Closed Session
before taking action; Councilman Overholt agreed.
Later in the meeting, (9:15 p.m.) after a Closed Session requested by
Councilman Overholt wherein personnel matters were discussed, Councilman Roth
moved to appoint Jack White, Acting City Attorney, for the period starting
March 7, 1985 up to and including March 12, 1985. Councilman Overholt
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
180
19
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 5, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
114: APPOINTEE TO THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE - ROUTE 55 COMMUTER LANE
DEMONSTRATION PROJECT: Councilman Pickler moved to appoint Councilman
Overholt to serve on the Advisory Committee for the Route 55 Commuter Lane
Demonstration Project to be conducted by the Orange County Transportation
Commission and Caltrans as to the feasibility of adding carpool and vanpool
lanes to the Costa Mesa Freeway (Rt. 55). Councilman Roth seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
City Manager Talley announced that Traffic Engineer Paul Singer would be the
staff representative assigned to that Committee if the Council had no
objection.
179: AFFIDAVIT OF MERIT IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR REHEARING - VARIANCE
NO. 3453: Submitted on February 28, 1985 was request for rehearing and
Declaration of Merit from Arthur E. Stahovich in which the petitioner was
appealing Council action taken February 19, 1985 (see minutes of public
hearing held that date on Variance No. 3453) requiring that he provide a left
turn lane at his expense on Knott Avenue at Savanna Street which was 1,380
feet from the subject property to the east as a condition of Council approval.
Jack White, Assistant City Attorney, explained that when the resolution was
written containing the conditions of approval, it was written with the
understanding that the cost of the left turn lane would be paid by the
individual developer. The basis for the request was to determine if that was
still a reasonable condition.
Councilman Bay moved to grant the request for a rehearing on Variance
No. 3453. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Council Members Kaywood and
Pickler voted "no." MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Pickler stated he voted "no" because it was his intent that the
petitioner pay the $1,000 or ~2,000 it was going to cost to install the left
turn lane which was requested by the residents and the petitioner was aware of
that intent; Councilwoman Kaywood agreed.
150: YOUTH NEEDS AND BEHAVIOR STUDY - DEVELOPMENT OF COMMUNITY YOUTH TASK
FORCE: This matter was continued from the meeting of February 19, 1985.
City Manager Talley stated that staff looked at the entire issue again and
while no staff report was submitted, the recommendation was that there should
be a group representing the Council appointed to examine the youth needs in
the community using existing bodies rather than creating a new organization.
His recommendation was that, in lieu of a community youth Task Force, that the
Council consider the utilization of the City's current Parks and Recreation
Commission and the current Community Services Board as a Joint Committee which
could review the needs and inasmuch as both were advisory to the Council,
report back to the Council with a Joint recommendation at their convenience
unless there was a time set to do so.
Councilman Overholt moved to approve the recommendation of the City Manager.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
181
2O
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 5, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt suggested that the Youth
Commission should also be involved. He did not intend for his motion to cut
off discussion.
Mayor Roth asked if anyone was present to speak to the issue; there was no
response.
Councilman Pickler moved to continue consideration of the recommendation
relative to the Youth Task Force for one week in order to look into the matter
further. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay asked for clarification of the motion
made by Councilman Overholt. It was as follows:
That the Council direct the Parks and Recreation Commission, Community
Services Board and Youth Commission to look into the needs, if any, of
Youth Services in the City and subsequently submit a joint recommendation
to the Council.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion to continue the item for one
week. MOTION CARRIED.
179: PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT RELATING TO COMMERCIAL OFFICES AND SALES
BUSINESSES IN INDUSTRIAL ZONES: Amending Title 18, adding new Subsection .095
to Section 18.61.020, Subsection .145, amending Subsection .605 and repealing
Subsection .400, all of Section 18.61.050 of Chapter 18.61 of the Code,
relating to commercial offices and sales businesses in industrial zones. This
matter was continued from the meeting of February 12, 1985, (see minutes that
date).
The Mayor announced that representatives were present in the audience who
wanted to speak to the issue.
Mr. Bill Dunlap, Cabot, Cabot and Forbes, 2390 East Orangewood, prefaced the
presentation to be made in support of the proposed change noting that he was
the Chairperson for a group of landowners tn the ML zone in the east La Palma
Industrial area who felt strongly that the proposed amendment should be
approved. As landowners and developers, they were seeing a growing need for
research and development (R&D) potential in the subject Corridor and felt,
along with staff, that the proposed Code Amendment was needed in order to
clarify the uses that would be allowed under a conditional use permit in that
area since at present they did not have that flexibility and it was a very
arduous task for both staff and the private sector to apply for uses in that
area. Mr. Dunlap then introduced the following representatives who each gave
a presentation on a specific aspect of the issue in support of the position of
the need for the proposed Code change.
Gene Hoggatt, Project Manager, Santa Fe Land Company, 5200 East Shiela, Los
Angeles, (owners of two large parcels in Anaheim) spoke on the changing nature
of the industrial tenant to highly skilled, high tech use and the resultant
advantages to the City of such a change.
182
17
Cit~ Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 5, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
David Hibbard, Vice President and Development Manager of Grubb & Ellis
Commercial Development, 2390 East Orangewood gave his overview of the general
office market reiterating that the market was moving to the R&D market concept
and if those companies demanding that kind of facility could not be
accommodated in Anaheim, they would be lost to other surrounding cities.
Peter Leider, Senior Broker, Grubb & Ellis, 2390 East Orangewood gave a slide
presentation representative of some of the things happening in the
market-place in Anaheim relative to the types of buildings being developed
from the eastern portion of the City working towards the west and finally the
southern portion of the City.
Clyde Stauff, Vice President and Sales Manager, Sealy Company, 2121 Townsend
Drive, spoke on the need for technical and corporate facilities noting that
the developers who had spoken were providing a superior business environment
for the types of companies most cities were trying to attract.
Jim Buckingham, Coldwell Banker, 2100 West Orangewood, spoke to the tenancy
that would be attracted to the northeast industrial area and assured the
Council that there should be no concerns that those who would otherwise locate
in the downtown redevelopment area would instead locate in the northeast
industrial area since there were certain businesses that needed to be located
downtown.
Questions were posed to speakers by Council Members after their presentations
as well as giving their input and comments. Questions were also posed to
staff for purposes of clarification. During the discussion, Councilman Bay
emphasized and reiterated that the prime reason for placing tighter controls
on the northeast industrial area was to keep development out of that area that
would encourage any incursion by the general public or draw the general public
to the area. He was willing to look at ways to clear up technicalities in the
Code but not willing to move away from controls that would draw the general
public into the ever-decreasing small amount of industrially zoned land left
in the City.
Mr. Allan Hughes, Executive Director, Anaheim Chamber of Commerce, restated
the Chamber's position as being strongly opposed to any intrusion, be it
commercial or any other, into the industrial area. He was also asked by the
Industrial Committee of the Chamber to restate the position of Chamber to
protect the industrial area against intrusion by commercial development. The
industrial area was an ever-diminishing inventory in Anaheim. The Chamber was
in agreement with Councilman Bay's interpretation of industrial uses which
would include R&D and related projects. The slide presentation by Mr. Leider
was a graphic illustration of the amount of uses permitted in the industrial
area. The Chamber could see no reason to change the ordinance. He then
confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood that he was saying that the Chamber had no
concern with the already admitted uses in the subject industrial area of R&D
and office type uses. He reiterated that the slides illustrated the fact that
those uses were already permitted. He wanted some assurance, however, that
the City would not be opening the door for office, or commercial office
buildings, or commercial sales offices in the area.
183
18
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 5, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
Mayor Roth stated that the biggest landowner in the areR, Santa Fe Land
Company, was also opposed to the type of retail activities about which Mr.
Hughes was concerned. The request by the developers and landowners was
basically that the proposed Code Amendment be approved for clarification of
uses in the area which to him was not an unreasonable request.
Mr. Dunlap confirmed they were looking for a clarification so that they could
proceed with some of the developments that were on staff's desk right now.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if he felt comfortable that the clarification would
not allow straight commercial office use interfering in that area; Mr. Dunlap
stated that the commercial sales portion of the language was always in the
Code and the only thing they were in favor of having added was the office
use. They wanted office use included as proposed and that was the sum of
their input into the Code Amendment. Councilwoman Kaywood suggested deleting
"commercial sales."
Councilman Bay questioned if the proposed amendment was the best revision in
solving the problem. He did not have a problem with clarifying an ordinance
and making it more reasonable but suggested that they should look at it again
before going forward with any amendment. He wanted it to go back to staff and
have it resubmitted to the Council.
Annika Santalahtt, Assistant Director for Zoning, explained that staff spent a
great deal of time on the terminology, knowing that it was not going to be
perfect nor encompassing every situation. Commercial sales might be a good
deletion and adding something in terms of businesses which do not provide a
Service to the general public. Staff never expected that the amendment would
provide for businesses that would attract the general population to the area.
Councilman Overholt stated he had no problem with the present language and was
prepared to offer it for first reading. If Councilman Bay wanted to encourage
a further amendment, the Council could discuss that next week when there would
be final reading of the ordinance. He did not know what could be stronger
than language already included stating, "...to restrict commercial sales
business and office uses to primarily serve and be compatible with industrial
customers..." The only way that language could be stronger was to say,
exclusively serving, but he did not believe that was the intent. Whatever
went into that area had to primarily serve and be compatible with industrial
customers.
Councilman Bay felt it could be stronger adding what Miss Santalahti
suggested, i.e., a statement that the primary concern is that there not be a
function going on in any of the developments that would draw the general
public into the area. Leaving commercial sales in the Code compatible with
industry would not eliminate the debate over compatible to what degree.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4585: Councilman Overholt offered Ordinance No. 4585 for
first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4585: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING SUBSECTION
.095 TO SECTION 18.61.020, ADDING SUBSECTION .145, AMENDING SUBSECTION .605
184
15
Cit~ Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 5, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
AND REPEALING SUBSECTION .400, ALL OF SECTION 18.61.050 OF CHAPTER 18.61 OF
TITLE 18 OF THE ANAREIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: Assistant City Attorney Jack White requested a
Closed Session to discuss pending and potential litigation.
The Mayor announced that a Closed Session would be held with the City's
Attorney to discuss pending, potential and significant exposure to litigation
(Government Code Section 54956.9A and 54956.9B1) and personnel matters (54957).
Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed Session and a lunch break.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (12:33 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (2:12 p.m)
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4586: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4586 for
first reading. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4586: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
(Reclassification No. 82-83-31 RM-3000, 3040 West Ball Road)
179: PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 84-85-19 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
APPLICANT:
Robert E. Gonzales,
100 Van Ness, San Francisco, CA. 94102.
ZONING/LOCATION/REQUEST: Proposed change in zone from RM-2400 to RM-1200, to
construct a 6-unit apartment complex on property located at 328 South Vine
Street.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC85-24 granted Reclassification
No. 84-85-19 and negative declaration.
HEARING SET ON:
Council meeting of February 12, 1985.
Kaywood.
Review requested by Councilwoman
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin February 21, 1985.
Posting of property February 22, 1985.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - February 22, 1985.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated January 21, 1985.
COUNCIL CONCERNS:
Councilwoman Kaywood.
The major concern is that the project as proposed will consist
of 6-units, two with four bedrooms and four with three bedrooms
or a total of 20 bedrooms which would negatively impact the
area. There would be no objection by the neighbors if the
185
16
City Hall,. Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 5, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
proposal involved two bedroom apartments. She was also
concerned that with the large number of bedrooms, there might be
more than one family in a unit.
APPLICANT'S STATEMENT AND ANSWERS POSED BY COUNCIL MEMBERS: Jerry Druckin, 1280 East Flower.
The applicant looked at the alternative of having two bedroom
units and the best compromise between the number of units and
bedrooms was the subject proposal. They were providing 15
parking spaces, two for each apartment and three visitor spaces
on site. Off site parking was also available in the Vine Street
area. They were attempting to provide superior housing in a
quality unit. Management of the units would not be on site but
the property manager/co-owner of the property lived in Fullerton
and managed several pieces of property in Anaheim and
surrounding area cities. He would attempt to confine by the use
of rental agreements the occupancy of the units to a specific
number of people. There were very few rental units available in
the City that accommodated families. Relative to rental rates,
HUD rates established last year for two bedroom units -
approximately 5525 per month, ~707 for three bedrooms, and 5780
or 5790 for four bedrooms. If the number of bedrooms was a
concern, the applicant would consider changing the four bedroom
units to three bedrooms which would lower the number of bedrooms
to 18.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION
IN FAVOR: None.
IN OPPOSITION:
Victoria Gonzalez, 422 South Vine Street (no relationship to the
applicant).
She is the spokesperson for the area. The residents do not want
three and four bedroom units because in their low-income area,
it would take two and three families to pay the high rent. If a
family had enough money to pay that kind of rent, they would
live somewhere else. The applicant was trying to build a
"tenament" house. They are concerned that there will not be
enough parking and al~o sufficient infrastructure to handle the
number of people that would be living in the units. There will
also be a need for more police and fire protection due to the
increase in population. There will be more noise, visual
intrusion and danger in the alleys because of more vehicles.
Two-story apartments will reduce property values of the
surrounding homes. They are not opposed to a two bedroom
four-plex. They also did not want the garages to have doors
because they will not be used for parking but for workshops and
storage. She also confirmed for Councilwoman Kaywood that the
residents would not object to six apartments with two bedrooms
each.
IN OPPOSITION:
Patricia Meza, 3251/2 South Bush Street.
The alley in the area is "I" shaped and it is used by the
186
13'
Cit~ Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 5, 1.985, 10:00 A.M.
youngsters walking to school and generally by the residents to
go to stores, etc. Cars also used the alley. There is no
entrance from Vine Street to the apartments and everything is
channeled through the alley. Ali traffic is going directly by
their homes. She will get all the traffic because of her
location. The residents were objecting to the requested change
from RM-2400 to ILM-1200.
By a show of hands requested by the Mayor, 12 people were
present in opposition.
EXHIBITS, MATERIALS SUBMITTED:
Mr. Druckin submitted a petition containing approximately 20
signatures of those in favor of the project and photographs of
the surrounding area to illustrate that the area was in a state
of transition.
Mrs. Gonzalez submitted a petition containing approximately 34
signatures of those in opposition to the project, photos showing
the present parking situation in and around the subject area,
and also a copy of her verbal presentation.
FINAL SUMMATION BY APPLICANT: Jerry Druckin.
Their project will not pose a major problem within the area.
The applicant is willing to discuss bringing down the bedroom
count on the units - four, two-bedroom units and two,
three-bedroom units. In that case, they will be asking for a
waiver of density for the RM-2400 which would be roughly a 50
percent increase in density over what is allowed.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Roth closed the public hearing.
Discussion between Council Members, staff and Mr. Druckin then took place at
the conclusion of which Mr. Druckin stated they will reduce the request to six
apartment units with two bedrooms each.
Councilwoman Kaywood ~tat~d thtm id a r~qum~t for reela~ifieati0n for RM-2400
to RM-1200 and she is opposed to that change; Mayor Roth noted that the
applicant was now stipulating to six two bedroom units and the neighbors were
not opposed to that.
Councilman Bay favored denial of the RM-1200 because it is the first and will
lead the way for change in that area. However, he wanted it clear that if the
Council denied the reclassification there was nothing to prevent the developer
from developing under the RM-2400 Zone and putting four, four-bedroom
apartments on the property under the right of the existing zoning.
STAFF INPUT AS A RESULT OF COUNCIL QUESTIONS/CONCERNS:
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning.
A Reclassification is necessary for six dwelling units
regardless of the size;
187
14
City Hall., Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 5, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
Jack White, Assistant City Attorney.
The Council could approve the reclassification to RM-1200 and
also, based upon the stipulation by the applicant, impose a
condition on the reclassification that would require that the
owner of the property execute a covenant against the property
limiting its use, not to exceed six dwelling units each of which
would not have more than two bedrooms. It would still entail
the reclassification to RM-1200. The alternative is to deny the
application which would then require the applicant to resubmit
the project and process it as a variance. He confirmed if the
reclassification is granted, it could be expected that
additional applications for reclassification by other property
owners will be submitted. It would probably not be legally
defensible to reclassify one property in the middle of a block
to a new zone with the expectation that the Council would never
entertain an additional application to do the same thing on
additional property in the same block. Relative to the number
of occupants in a unit, the law is now clear that the City
cannot limit the number of occupants or people who occupy a
given unit based upon their classification as family.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, 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. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 85R-107 for adoption, denying
Reclassification No. 84-85-19. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 85R-107: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DENYING RECLASSIFICATION NO. 84-85-19.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay and Overholt
Pickler and Roth
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 85R-107 duly passed and adopted.
Before concluding, Councilwoman Kaywood reiterated her request for the parking
study which she had requested almost a year ago especially s~nce in the course
of discussing the subject project it was indicated that if there were 16
bedrooms for 4 units, parking requirements were 2.5 spaces for each unit
providing only 10 spaces. If that were permitted by right, it would be a
terrible disservice to the City, in her opinion.
179: RECLASSIFICATION NO. 84-85-20 and VARIANCE NO. 3454:
APPLICANT:
William J. Murphy,
9099 W. Washington Blvd., Culver City
188
90230
11
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 5~ 1985, 10:00 A.M.
ZONING/LOCATION/REQUEST: For a change tn zone from CH to ML, to construct a
self-storage facility on property located at 1628 South Anaheim Boulevard,
with Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Resolution No. PC85-30 and PC85-31 granted
Reclassification No. 84-85-19 and Variance No. 3454.
HEARING SET ON:
Council meeting of February 12, 1985.
Kaywood.
Review requested by Councilwoman
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin February 21, 1985.
Posting of property February 22, 1985.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - February 22, 1985.
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated January 21, 1985.
COUNCIL CONCERNS:
Councilwoman Kaywood.
Her concern is the parking waiver request of 97 percent. She
realized self-storage facilities required less parking and large
waivers had been approved in the past but this request was
excessive. Only 11 spaces were proposed with 2.5 of those for
the caretakers' unit.
APPLICANT'S
STATEMENT:
Miriam Miranda, 2323 West Bern Lane, Santa Aha.
There were 1,500 storage units proposed. Most parking studies
done on such facilities show four spaces being required at one
time maximum. When someone rented a space they normally used
the loading area or parked in front of their unit,( unloaded or
loaded) and then would leave. They were providing 9 spaces for
the business itself and they would never require more than one
person in their office at one time. The activity did not change
much whether a facility had 500 storage spaces or 1,5OO. It was
found that the same number of people came to the facility
daily. She had a listing of the facilities that were approved
and their activity ranged anywhere from 9 people and up. Those
with more than 10 probably had other uses as well. If the
proposed facility needed more spaces they could be supplied
because of the fact that their driveways were 25 feet wide and
lines could be put in front of the garage doors because there
was space on both sides to drive up and down. There is also a
major strip in the back where cars can be parked. The traffic
study submitted done by Weston Prtngle substantiates that no
more than four spaces are required.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION:
IN FAVOR: None.
189
Cit~ Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 5, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
IN OPPOSITION:
None.
EXMIBITS, MATERIALS SUBMITTED:
None.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Roth closed the public hearing.
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. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 85R-108 for adoption, granting
Reclassification No. 84-85-20, subject to City Planning Commission
conditions. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 85R-108: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING RECLASSIFICATION NO. 84-85-20.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Pickler, Overholt and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 85R-108 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Roth offered Resolution No. 85R-109 for adoption, granting Variance
No. 3454, subject to City Planning Commission conditions. Refer to Resolution
Book.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Bay, Pickler, Overholt and Roth
Kaywood
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 85R-109 duly passed and adopted.
101: ANAHEIM STADIUM AREA ASSESSMENT DISTRICT: Staff clarification of
application of the Stadium Area Assessment District condition to properties
which are not located in the immediate vicinity of the Stadium.
No action was taken by the City Planning Commission. The matter is submitted
to the Council for informational purposes.
Mr. Joel Fick, Assistant Director for Planning, briefed the February 26, 1985
staff report to the City Manager/City Council - subject: Application of
190
Cit~ Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 5, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
Anaheim Stadium Area Assessment District standard condition (on file in the
City Clerk's Office) which recommended the following:
That City Council direct staff to apply the Anaheim Stadium Area
Assessment District standard condition to all petitions which involve a
new development or change of use and fall within the Stadium Area Study
boundaries until "Stadium Service Areas" are established as provided in
Development Agreement No. 83-01. After "Service Areas" are established,
all petitions within said areas should be conditioned accordingly.
Questions were then posed to Mr. Fick for purposes of clarification following
which no further action was taken by the Council.
179: CONTINUED REHEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 2460, 2461 and 2462:
APPLICANT: Riviera Mobileh'ome Park, (a Joint venture),
300 West Katella Avenue, Anaheim, CA.
ZONING/LOCATION/REQUEST: To add, amend or delete conditions of approval of
Conditional Use Permit Nos. 2460, 2461 and 2462 on proposed RM-1000 zoned
property located at 300 West Katella Avenue. CUP 2460, to permit a 17-story,
852 room hotel; CUP 2461, to permit two 14-story office complexes; CUP 2462,
to permit two 180-unit condominium towers.
Environmental Impact Report No. 262 relating to the subject conditional use
permits was certified by the City Council at their meeting of January 24, 1984
as being in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act along
with the Statement of Overriding Consideration.
HEARING SET ON:
Council meeting of February 28, 1984. Review requested by Councilman Pickler
and rehearing granted by the Council relative to certain requested amendments
at the meeting of April 3, 1984 and continued from the meetings of May 15,
June 5, July 24, October 9, November 27, December 18, 1984 and February 12,
1985 to this date (see minutes those dates).
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin February 2, 1985.
Posting of property February 1, 1985.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - January 31, 1985.
STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report from the Planning Department/Planning Division dated
December 11, 1984 and February 26, 1985; Staff Report from City Attorney's
Office dated February 6, 1985.
APPLICANT'S STATEMENT:
Floyd Farano, Farano and Kieviet, 100 So. Anaheim Blvd.
Concurred with the staff recommendation in report dated
February 26, 1985, that the condition in all three Conditional
Use Permits relating to inclusion in assessment district be
eliminated. (Condition No. 23 in CUP No. 2460, Condition No. 22
in CUP 2461, and Condition No. 18 in CUP 2462).
191
10
City Rail, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 5, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
Regarding the condemnation issue Mr. Farano concurred with the
staff recommendation insofar as pre-condemnation activity but
they feel it is necessary that the City grant its power of
eminent domain to acquire the property to complete the extension
of Clementine from Katella to the southerly extension of
Clementine to Harbor and that this condemnation be authorized
immediately, not conditioned upon the issuance of building
permits for the two 14-story office complexes (CUP 2461) as
presently written.
In support of his request that the condemnation proceed
immediately, Mr. Farano offered the following arguments:
(1) Convention Way and Clementine street connections have been
on the General Plan for fifteen years and were included as a
condition when the Riviera Mobile Home Park requested permission
to include travel trailers in the park in 1970-71.
(2) His firm has expended a great deal of effort over the last
year to obtain agreement from Mr. Fujishige concerning
dedication of the necessary property without success. (It was
noted that Mr. FuJishige's Attorney, John Bartlett, was
contacted about today's hearing but was not present.)
(3) It is not only the street extension which is affected by the
condemnation, but also the requirement to construct a storm
drain with a northern terminus at Troy Street, north of
Katella. This is required before construction of the hotel can
commence under Conditional Use Permit 2460.
(4) Because of the necessity for condemning property for both
street and storm drain Mr. Farano stated these should be
accomplished early on in the project, and together, as his
client would be able to achieve a better price as opposed to
waiting three to four years to condemn.
In concluding it was Mr. Farano's opinion that without the use
of the City's powers of eminent domain, this dedication cannot
be obtained and thus his client's development proposals are
stalled and he is unable to meet the conditions required of him
to develop.
STAFF INPUT:
See Planning Staff Report dated February 26, 1985.
City Attorney Staff Report dated February 6, 1985.
Additionally, Mr. Jack White concurred with statement made by Floyd Farano
indicating that the condemnation taking land for public purposes would not
destroy any rights Mr. Fujishfge has under the Williamson Act. His research
indicated that some severance damages would be due for the moving of water
lines and other aspects to allow continued use of the property as agricultural.
Mr. White confirmed for Council Members that the timing of the condemnation of
property could be moved to any phase of development that Council deemed
appropriate.
192
Cit~. Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 5, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
Mr. Talley advised that the staff recommendations are formulated based on the
fact that the storm drain improvements would be underground and would not
interfere with Mr. Fujishtge's continued use of his property as agricultural,
in the event that all phases of development did not go forward, but the street
improvements would alter the use of the adjacent owner's property to some
extent and it is for that reason that the condemnation for street improvements
is conditioned upon the issuance of building permits for the two 14-story
office complexes (CUP 2461).
EXHIBITS, MATERIALS SUBMITTED:
None
PUBLIC DISCUSSION:
Larry Greer, Greer and Company, La Palma Avenue, Anaheim
(Traffic Expert hired by Mr. Farano) stated that the decision
that the street extension would not be necessary until the
construction of the office buildings was made partially because
the City's Traffic Engineer did not think the other development
projects would impact existing traffic patterns. He explained
that the hotel and office buildings would have a western traffic
relationship -- towards the Disneyland and Convention Center
area and if the street extension to the south were put in place
it would draw only 50 or so cars from the load on the
Katella/Harbor intersection, which is a negligible impact. The
benefit to the east/west traffic would be installation of dual
left-turn lanes on the north/south intersections, and the
Clementine/Convention Way connection could divert five to six
hundred cars either of existing or new traffic destined to the
hotel facilities, but the benefit of the improvements would be
area-wide traffic improvement rather than specifically serving
the projects proposed.
SPECIAL CONCERNS OF CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS: Councilman Pickler
Expressed concern as to who would pay for the eminent domain
proceedings.
Councilman Bay
Asked for assurance that any imposition on Mr. FuJishige's
agricultural operation be kept to a minimum. He also requested
clarification as to if Mr. Fujishige were to develop his
property would he not be required to dedicate the land and to
install the improvements at his expense.
Councilman Overholt
Expressed concern over where the legal language or condition was
located which in fact indicated that the cost of the
condemnation would be borne by the applicant.
ADDITIONAL STAFF INPUT AS A RESULT OF COUNCIL CONCERNS:
Assistant City Attorney Jack White described several methods by
which the City Council could place language in the conditions
193
City Hall, Anahe.tm~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 5, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
and/or the condemnation agreement to satisfy who would be
responsible for costs.
Mr. White also advised that when any developer comes into the
City for a discretionary permit, the City has the legal ability
to require the dedication and improvement of streets to the
extent that the streets are reasonably required as a result of
the project. In this case where an adjacent landowner would
install off-site improvements, it is anticipated he would expect
to be reimbursed to some extent when future development occurs.
by means of a reimbursement agreement.
FINAL SUMMATION BY APPLICANT:
Floyd Farano suggested two alternatives to his current request
one being that the City permit his client to proceed and since
they can establish that their project does not need the full
street, they could develop that portion of Clementine which is
on their property only, and allow Mr. FuJishige to complete the
remainder when his property develops. Or, alternatively, he
suggested that it might he acceptable to the City to allow his
client to use the City's right of eminent domain to acquire the
property required'of Mr. Fujishige immediately, and not install
improvements until ultimate development requires them. In this
manner the City might lease the property back to Mr. Fujishige
to continue his agricultural operation.
COUNCIL ACTION:
Mayor Roth closed the public hearing.
Following discussion of the policy issues involved in using powers of eminent
domain to acquire property of an unwilling landowner in order to allow an
adjacent landowner to proceed with development, Council members were of the
general consensus that they would like additional time to consider these
issues.
MOTION: On motion by Councilman Pickler, seconded by Councilman Overholt the
public hearing on Conditional Use Permit Nos. 2460, 2461 and 2462 was
continued to 1:30 p.m. of the April 16, 1985 meeting. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS - DINNER BREAK: Councilman Roth moved to recess for a dinner break.
Councilman Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (5:35 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (8:30 p.m)
144: MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING - MAJOR THOROUGHFARE AND BRIDGE FEE
PROGRAM: Memorandum of Understanding relative to the Major Thoroughfare
Bridge Fee Program as proposed by the County of Orange. This matter was
continued from the meeting of February 26, 1985.
Mr. Joel Fick, Assistant Director for Planning, briefed the Council on the
status of Yorba Linda and Tustin relative to'the Memorandum of Understanding.
Yorba Linda had not yet acted but their staff indicated they would like to
194
City Hall~ Anaheim~.. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 5, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
have the MOU considered by the end of the month. As of this morning, however,
it had not been scheduled for City Council consideration. The City of Tustin
approved the MOU last night and written confirmation of that action had been
requested.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to continue consideration of the Memorandum of
Understanding on the Major Thoroughfare Bridge Fee Program for one week.
Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
108: HEARING - GRANADA INN APPEAL OF TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX: Steven C.
Nock, Attorney For Ankir, appealing the decision of the Hearing Officer
denying abatement of the tax assessment due on the Granada Inn, per Audit No.
84252, on the Transient Occupancy Tax due.
City Clerk Sohl announced that a letter request dated February 26, 1985 had
been received from Mr. Nock asking for a continuance of the hearing to
April 2, 1985.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to continue the hearing appealing the decision
of the Hearing Officer on the subject Transient Occupancy Tax to Tuesday,
April 2, 1985. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
123: AUDIT COMMITTEE--APPOINTMENT OF AN INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC
ACCOUNTANT: Councilman Pickler moved to employ the firm of Price Waterhouse,
to conduct an independent financial audit for the City for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1985, approving a five percent increase in the contract amount
as recommended in memorandum dated February 21, 1985 from the Audit
Committee. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
170: TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11727 (REV. 1) - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Jim
Bianco, State-Wide Developers, requesting an extension of time to Tentative
Tract No. 11727 (Rev. No. 1), to establish a 1-lot, 36-unit, proposed RM-3000
zoned subdivision, on property located on the south side of Crescent Avenue,
west of Brookhurst Street.
The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Tentative Tract
No. 11727 (Rev. 1), to expire March 8, 1986. This item was submitted to the
Council for informational purposes only. No action was taken by the Council.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4582: Amending Subsection .010 of Section 18.32.061 of
Title 18 of'the Code, r'~lating to exclusion of driveway areas when determ~ning
building site area in the RM-2400 and RM-1200 zones. This matter was
continued from February 26, 1985.
City Clerk Sohl, announced that Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for
Zoning requested that the matter be continued one week. She was presently
working on the report requested by the Council at the meeting of February 26,
1985 but it was not yet complete.
MOTION: Councilman Pickler moved to continue adoption of Ordinance No. 4582
for one week. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
195
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 5, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4583: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4583 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE: 4583: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CI/~/ COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO ZONING. (Reclassification No. 70-71-47(36), ML, 3020 East
Coronado Street (from RS-A-43,000) (First Reading February 26, 1985, #23b)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Pickler, Overholt and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4583 duly passed and adopted.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4584: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4584 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4584: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO ZONING. (69-70-39(6), ML(SC), northeast corner of La Palma Avenue
and Fee Ana Street).
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Pickler, Overholt and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4584 duly passed and adopted.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4575 - GROUND MOUNTED ANTENNAS: (Amended First Reading)
Adding new subsections .065 to Sections 18.21.030,' 18.26.030, 18.27.030,
18.31.030, 18.32.030 and 18.34.030 of the Code, pertaining to ground mounted
antennas (including satellite dish-type antennas). This matter was continued
at the meetings of February 19 and 26, 1985 where input from the public was
received.
Earlier in the meeting (2:12 p.m.) Mayor Roth asked if anyone was present to
speak to the issue. Mr. Vaughn, who gave his input at the previous meeting
was present, and at that time stated that he now found no fault with the
proposed ordinance as written.
Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4575 for an amended first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4575: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING NEW
SUBSECTIONS .065 TO SECTION 18.21.030 OF CHAPTER 18.25, SECTION 18.26.030 OF
CHAPTER 18.26, SECTION 18.27.030 OF CHAPTER 18.27, SECTION 18.31.030 OF
CHAPTER 18.31, SECTION 18.32.030 OF CHAPTER 18.32, AND SECTION 18.34.030 OF
CHAPTER 18.34, ALL OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE, RELATING TO
ZONING. (including satellite dish-type antennas)
196
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - March 5, 1985, 10:00 A.M.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 4587: Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance No. 4587 for
first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4587: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
(Reclassification No. 84-85-6, CL, 1300 South Euclid Street)
120: EXPOSURE TO MOVIES SHOWN AT ANAHEIM DRIVE-IN: Councilman Overholt
thanked the City Attorney for the memorandum he provided on the accessibility
of viewing of sexually explicit motion pictures by other than patrons at the
Anaheim Drive-In. Since the Council perhaps did not have an opportunity to
read the memorandum, he would bring it up at next week's Council meeting. It
would be his inclination to try to write an ordinance that perhaps would avoid
the kind of incident that took place (see minutes of February 26, 1985).
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilman Pickler seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (9:33 p.m.)
LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK
197