1983/05/10City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 10, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRE SE NT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood, Pickier, Overholt, Bay and Roth
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
PUBLIC UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER: Gordon W. Hoyt
UTILITIES RATE REQUIREMENT MANAGER: Robert Erickson
INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS OFFICER: Cynthia Cave
CITY ENGINEER: William Devitt
FIRE CHIEF: Bob Simpson
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
POLICE LIEUTENANT: Stanley Kantor
Mayor Roth called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Pastor David Beadles, Anaheim United Methodist, gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Ben Bay 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:
1. Meals on Wheels Week in Anaheim, week of May 16, 1983.
2. Poppy Days, May 13 and 14, 1983.
3. Fire Service Day in Anaheim, May 14, 1983.
Police Reserve Week in Anaheim, May 16-20, 1983.
5. Success Day in Anaheim, May 13, 1983.
6. Greek Festival Week in Anaheim, week of May' 16, 1983.
7. Computer Information Systems Week, May 15-21, 1983.
The first proclamation was accepted by Elizabeth Dickerson; the second by
Richard Pignone and Kay Davis, who accepted for American Legion Auxiliary
Anaheim Unit #72; the third by Sheri Benge and Sylvia Mendez of the Anaheim
Fire Department; the fourth by Acting Chief of Police Jimmie Kennedy, Sgt.
Mark Hedgespeth and a number of Police Reserve Officers; the fifth by Wilma
Wittman; and the sixth by John Haretakis, Alex Dourbetas, Eleni and Nico
Dourbetas and Jim Borakis.
351
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May. 10, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
119: RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION: The City Council unanimously adopted a
Resolution of Commendation to be presented to Sarah Fay Pearson to acknowledge
with gratitude the innumerable contributions Mrs. Pearson has made to
increasing our historical consciousness and to the betterment of cultural life
of Anaheim.
119: RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT: A Resolution of Support was unanimously adopted
by the Council and presented to Richard Pignone, Joe Gow, Dick Davis and Kay
Davis of Anaheim VFW and Chuck Armstrong of the American Legion, urging
support of Anaheim's residents to participate in the Memorial Day march to
take place on May 30, 1983, to honor the Country's veterans, concluding at
Anaheim Cemetery.
119: RESOLUTIONS OF COMMENDATION: Resolutions of Commendation were
unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to Wally Trigg for his
outstanding efforts in establishing Neighborhood Watch, and Kris Tenpas for
her outstanding community services.
119: RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A Resolution of Congratulations was
unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to Monsignor Hugh
O'Connor, pastor of St. Justin Martyr Church, on the occasion of its 25th
anniversary in the City of Anaheim.
119: PRESENTATION OF COMMAND POST AND RAPPELING DEMONSTRATION: Acting Chief
of Police Jimmie Kennedy gave an overview of the demonstration that was to
take place on two new pieces of equipment the Police Department had acquired
and the new procedure implemented that would add a new dimension to the
Department's capabilities--a portable radio base station contained in a
suitcase which could be moved to any location as a mobile command post, and a
new rappeling procedure from a helicopter. In the subsequent demonstration of
the latter procedure, two Police Officers would rappel out of the helicopter
onto the parking structure of the Civic Center to demonstrate the capabilities
of removing people from ravines or areas that were inaccessible to foot
traffic or in high-rise buildings.
RECESS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess to the southeast side of the
Civic Center for the aforementioned demonstration. Councilman Roth seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (10:47 a.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (11:10 a.m.)
MINUTES: Councilman Bay moved to approve the minutes of the adjourned regular
meeting held January 26, 1983, and the regular meetings held March 22, March
29 and April 19, 1983. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. Council
Members Pickler and Roth abstained on the minutes of April 19, 1983, since
they were not present. MOTION CARRIED.
352
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 10, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
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 Bay seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of ~1,105,580.77, in
accordance with the 1982-83 Budget, were approved.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, 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; Councilwoman Kaywood
offered Resolution Nos. 83R-187 through 83R-189, both inclusive, for
adoption. Refer to Resolution Book. Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance
No. 4427 for first reading.
1. 118: The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as
recommended:
A. Claims denied and referred to Risk Management:
1. Claim submitted by' Angela M. Nagy for personal injuries purportedly
sustained due to a trip-and-fall accident on the sidewalk in the 800 block
of Western Avenue, 25 yards north of Rome Avenue, on or about March 9,
1983.
2. Claim submitted by Boisseranc & Manassero for personal property
damages to wiring purportedly sustained due to a transformer malfunction
at a home located in the middle of a strawberry field just off Kellogg
between Orangethorpe and La Palma Avenues, on or about March 1, 1983.
3. Claim submitted by Ricardo Barragan for personal property damages to
wiring purportedly sustained due to a transformer malfunction at a home
located in the middle of a strawberry field just off Kellogg between
0rangethorpe and La Palma'Avenues, on or about March 1, 1983.
4. Claim submitted by Paul E. Black for personal property damages to
truck purportedly sustained due to unsecured manhole cover at the
intersection of Ball Road and Nutwood, on or about February 27, 1983.
5. Claim submitted by Mercury Casualty Insurance Company, Kathy Trotter,
Insured, for personal injury damages purportedly sustained due to a
malfunctioning traffic signal at the intersection of Magnolia and Ball
Road, on or abut December 22, 1982.
6. Claim submitted by URO Investments for property damages to building
purportedly sustained due to condition of construction for retaining wail
at 76 South Claudina, on or about February 26, 1983.
353
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 10, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
7. Claim submitted by Thomas Richard Lucas for personal property damages
to padlocks purportedly sustained due to actions of the Anaheim Fire
Department at 3568 West Cornelia Circle, #4, on or about March 16, 1983.
B. Claim allowed payment:
8. Claim submitted by Joan Lorenz for personal property damages to
clothing purportedly sustained due to nails protruding from chairs at the
Sunkist Library, on or about February 19, 1983.
2. The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 140~ Public Library--Monthly Statistical Summary for March 1983.
b. 105: Public Library Board--Minutes of February 16 and March 16, 1983.
c. 105: Housing Commission--Minutes of December 8, 1982.
d. 105: Golf Course Advisory Commission--Minutes of April 21, 1983.
e. 105: Public Utilities Board--Minutes of April 7, 1983.
f. 175: Before the Public Utilities Commission, Application No. OII 83
04 03, Investigation on the Commission's own motion into the rules,
procedures and practices which should be applicable to the Commission's
review of transmission lines not exceeding 200 Kilovolts.
3. 123: Authorizing an agreement with the California Conservation Corps for
exterior clean-up and repair in the Apartment Improvement Program (AIP) area
(Bluejay/Chevy Chase apartment area) at no cost to the City or property owner.
4. 123: Authorizing a Supplement to Agreement No. GOKO154 with IBM for a
computer memory upgrade in an amount totaling $42,400, and authorizing the
Data Processing Director to execute same.
5. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order without
competitive bidding to Computer Services Corporation in the amount of ~25,016
for two Type 100 Controllers and two Interface Units (IFU) for the
intersections of Glenview Avenue at Kellogg Drive and La Palma Avenue at
Chantilly Street.
6. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-187: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE OLD LINCOLN AVENUE, CLAUDINA
STREET, PHILADELPHIA STREET, BROADWAY AND ALLEY IMPROVEMENT~, IN THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 46-792-6325-E2880, FISCAL YEAR 1982-83. (Parrott &
Wright Construction Company, $526,970.15)
7. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-188: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING AN EASEMENT DEED CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FOR AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES.
(R/W #2800-2, Anaheim Boulevard Widening)
354
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 10~ 1983~ 10:00 A.M.
8. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 83R-189: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Bob
Dee Bird; Public Storage Euro Partnership VI Ltd.)
9. 172/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4427: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING TITLE 14, CHAPTER 14.56, SECTION 14.56.040 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO CONTROL OF TRAFFIC TURNING MOVEMENTS. (Katella Avenue at
Katella Way)
10: 158: Authorizing the execution of the Right of Way Certification for
A.H.F.P. No. 1073, for the widening and reconstruction of Anaheim Boulevard
from Broadway to Ball Road.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickier, Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
None
MOTION CARRIED. The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 83R-187 through 83R-189,
both inclusive, duly passed and adopted.
139: SB 693 - COUNTYWIDE SALES TAX FOR TRANSPORTATION PURPOSES: A staff
report from the Planning Department and Intergovernmental Relations Office
requesting support of SB 693 (Campbell), authorizing the Orange County
Transportation Commission (OCTC) to impose up to a one percent sales and use
tax for transportation purposes, subject to a majority vote of the Orange
County electorate, was submitted.
Mayor Roth stated his deep concern in supporting the bill at this time was the
fact that it appeared the State was in deeper debt than anticipated and a
short fall in the State budget might bring about the institution of an
additional one percent sales tax. Therefore, he would prefer to take a
"wait-and-see" position.
Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out this would be enabling legislation for the
people to vote on the issue, and any time that was the case, she would like to
give them an opportunity to do so.
Mayor Roth stated he had no objection, but the possibility of another increase
in sales tax compounded with an additional increase was his concern. He
endorsed the concept of letting the people vote "yes" or "no."
Councilman Bay stated his understanding of the bill was that it merely
authorized a vote in Orange County, but there was no intention of having a
vote even within the next year. He did not feel that a vote in support of the
bill was anything more than giving support to enabling legislation that would
give Orange County the prerogative to put the question on the ballot.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to support SB 693 as recommended in joint
memorandum dated May 3, 1983, from the Planning Director and the
Intergovernmental Relations Officer. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
355
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 10, 1983~ 10:00 A.M.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay stated he was offering the motion
without giving any indication that he would vote for or against the issue.
His vote would depend on the dialogue and hearings on how that money would be
spent.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
i39: AB 465 (ROBINSON), OCTC MEMBERSHIP: A request by staff for a
determination of a position on AB 465 (Robinson), increasing the membership of
the Orange County Transportation Commission (OCTC) from 6 to 12 members, was
submitted. Councilman Pickler first asked to hear from staff relative to 6
members versus 12 members on the OCTC.
Both City Manager William Talley and Cindy Cave, Intergovernmental Relations
Officer, addressed the issue (see joint memorandum dated May 3, 1983, from the
Planning Director and Intergovernmental Relations Officer, Page 3).
Mayor Roth stated that he did not believe that the total Board of Supervisors
endorsed AB 465, but Supervisor Nestande did, because he was also on the State
Transportation Commission. Assemblyman Robinson had repeatedly said the one
percent sales tax would not get approved until the makeup on the Commission
was changed. If Anaheim was ever interested in having dialogue or input, they
should take a long look at the bill.
Cindy Cave explained at theiOrange County League meeting Thursday night,
May 12, 1983, alternatives would be presented, but she was not certain how
well worked out those alternatives were.
Councilman Overholt expressed some concerns he saw with the bill; Councilman
Bay stated if they were ever going to have a Commission that worked and
represented the taxpayers, they were going to have to have representation from
areas or cities with weighted votes based on population to get a cross-section
to come to a settlement on how money would be expended. That was the only way
to get full County support to pass a one percent sales tax. He would not
support AB 465, but something that would change the makeup of the Commission.
Mayor Roth suggested that they delay any action at this time. He asked Cindy
Cave to provide the Council with information on the Commission established in
Los Angeles, which he understood had worked well~ so that they would have an
opportunity to review it before the Thursday League meeting.
No action was taken by the Council on AB 465.
175: ELECTRIC RATE REVISIONS: A proposed resolution amending the rates,
rules and regulations for the sale and distribution of electric energy as
adopted by Resolution No. 71R-478 and as amended by Resolution No. 82R-534,
was submitted.
Public Utilities General Manager Gordon Hoyt briefed the Council on the
recommendation contained in memorandum dated May 6, 1983, from the Public
Utilities Board as a result of their public hearing held on May 5, 1983, that
356
City Hall, Anaheim, California - ~OUb!CIL MINUTES - May 10, 1983~ 10:00 A.M.
the Council in connection with the proposed Electric P~te Revisions, adopt by
resolution, the findings of the Public Utilities Board with respect to the
matters contained therein, and adopt ,lectric rates as shown in Exhibit RWE-4
to become effective for service rendered on and after May 11, 1983. He also
referred to memorandum dated May 9, 1083, which included some corrections to
the original prepared testimony and exhibits. (See memorandum dated May 3,
1983, from the Public Utilities Boarc, which contained extensive advance
information to allow time for Coupcil review before today's meeting, with
attached exhibits. Also see prepalad testimony of the public hearing to
consider Electrical Rate Revisions held Thursday, May 5, 1983, at 3:30
p.m.--on file in the City Clerk's office.) Mr. Hoyt explained they were
proposing a revision in the base ele~tric rates allocating the lifeline
shortfall more equitably amongst all ~f the various customer classes.
Secondly, they were changing the powe~ cost adjustment billing factor to
reflect current costs of power from their supplier, Southern California
Edison. At the conclusion of the recommended action, electric rates would
increase an average of 11.4 percent from the power cost adjustment, not from
the rate base adjustment.
Mayor Roth then posed questions to staff which were answered by both Mr. Hoyt
and Bob Erickson, Utilities Rates Requirements Manager, specifically relating
to Exhibit RWE-5, Page 1 of 3, Small Commercial Rates in the 500 kwh usage
range. He expressed his concern ~_~at the group paying the highest amount of
utility costs were the small commercial businesses in the 500 kwh range.
Councilman Bay then gave his inpu relative to rate setting and also posed
questions to staff as to why rate~ were increasing without having anything to
do with capital costs. He then eJ=borated on what he felt was the basic
question of public interest. He noted that the Council chose to go with
nuclear power generation with San Onofre and with coal power on the
Intermountain Power Project (IPP). When San Onofre was brought on line, they
were looking at major increases in wholesale costs due to the capital costs of
the plants. He wanted to know if they had looked at the cost per kw on
nuclear in the case of San Onofre and some projection on the cost of coal
produced from IPP, plus all their related capital costs. He was krying to
determine where the final savings were going to be by getting into generation
'on nuclear and coal versus oil-produced electricity, now and in the future.
He wanted to know if they were still in a position where they were going to
save money.
Mr. Hoyt answered "yes" to the latter. They were looking at those costs and
it was still a good decision. Th~ short-run savings were not going to be as
high as in later years.
Councilman Overholt offered Resolutioz~ No. 83R-190 for adoption, amending the
rates, rules and regulations for the sale and distribution of electric energy
as adopted by Resolution No. 71R-478 ~nd as amended by Resolution No. 82R-534,
as recommended in memorandum dated May 6, 1983. Refer to Resolution Book.
357
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MaN 10, 1983~ 10:00 A.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 83R-190: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING THE RATES, RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE SALE AND
DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRIC ENERGY AS ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.
81R-478 AND MOST RECENTLY AMENDED BY CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 82R-534.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Roth stated he was going to support the
resolution, but with concern. He wanted to make his position clear that he
felt the rates were very unjust to small commercial properties and he wanted
somehow to justify the rate structure of the small commercial class. He asked
for a memorandum as to why the small commercial class was charged what he
considered unbelievable rates; Councilman Overholt stated he would join in
that request.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-190 duly passed and adopted.
123: AGREEMENT NO. 64-552 - CONSTRUCTION OF MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION
TERMINAL: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to authorize an amendment to Agreement
No. 64-552 with the State of California in connection with the construction of
the Multimodal Transportation Terminal at the Stadium, to include a clause
requiring invoicing by April 30, 1984, as recommended in memorandum dated
May 2, 1983, from the City Attorney. Councilman Bay seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
123: RESIGNATION OF OUTDOOR ADVERTISING AGREEMENT - EVANS MCKENZIE
ASSOCIATES: Councilman Pickler moved to accept the resignation of Evans
McKenzie Associates as City's agent for the sale of outdoor advertising at the
Multimodal Transportation Center at the Stadium, as recommended in memorandum
dated May 4, 1983, from the City Attorney's office. Councilman Overholt
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City
Planning Commission at their meeting held April 18, 1983, pertaining to the
following applications were submitted for City Council information.
1. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 82-83-29 AND VARIANCE NO. 3325: Submitted by Jack H.
and Charlotte A. Dick, for a change in zone from RS-10,000 to RM-3000, to
construct a 10-unit condominium complex on property located at 949 North
Citron Street, with the following Code waivers: (a) minimum lot area per
dwelling unit, (b) maximum structural height, and (c) minimum landscaped
setback.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution Nos. PC83-76 and PC83-77,
denied Reclassification No. 82-83-29 and Variance No. 3325, and granted a
negative declaration status.
358
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 10~ 1983~ lO:00 A.M.
2. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 82-83-30 AND VARIANCE NO. 3327: Submitted by J.
Harold and Marion A. Smith, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to CL, to
construct a commercia~ building on property located at 3311 West Ball Road,
with a Code waiver of maximum structural height.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution Nos. PC83-78 and PC83-79,
granted Reclassification No. 82-83-30 and Variance No. 3327, and granted a
negative declaration status.
3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2417: Submitted by Santa Ana Canyon
Associates, to permit on-sale beer and wine in a proposed sandwich shop on
CL(SC) zoned property located at 5642 East La Palma Avenue, #105, with a Code
waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-80, granted, in
part, Conditional Use Permit No. 2417, and granted a negative declaration
status.
4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2431: Submitted by Kyu Ho and Young Sook Yun,
(Sok -Nau Coffee House), to permit a public dance hall on CL zoned property
located at 507 South Brookhurst Street.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-81, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2431, and ratified the Planning Director's
categorical exemption determination.
5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2432: Submitted by Edward I. and Marls E.
Vanags, .(Berrenda~Mesa Farms Country Store), to permit retail food sales on ML
zoned property located at 1506 North State College Boulevard, with Code waiver
of minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-82, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2432, and granted a negative declaration status.
6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2433: Submitted by Emkay Development Company,
Inc., to permit a 4-story commercial office building on ML zoned property
located at 2300 East Katella Avenue, with a Code waiver of minimum structural
setback.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution~No. PC83-83, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2433, and granted a negative declaration status.
7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2434: Submitted by Paramount Associates, to
permit a church facility with offices and a rectory on CL zoned property
located at 808-820 West Vermont Avenue, with a Code waiver of minimum number
of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-84, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2434, and granted a negative declaration status.
359
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES -May 10, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
8. TENTATIVE TRACT NOS. 10996, 10997 AND 10998 - REVIEW OF GRADING AND
LINE-OF-SIGHT PLANS: Submitted by Boyle Engineering, for review of grading
and line-of-sight plans for Tentative Tract Nos. 10996, 10997 and 10998,
proposed 22 RS-HS-22,000(SC) and 14 RS-HS-43,000(SC) zoned lots located at the
southwest corner of Avenida de Santiago and Hidden Canyon Road.
The City Planning Commission approved grading and line-of-sight plans for
Tentative Tract Nos. 10996, 10997 and 10998.
9. VARIANCE NO. 2545 - TERMINATION: Submitted by Norman and Irma M.
Switzer, requesting termination of Variance No. 2545, to permit the
establishment of an office supply company on ML zoned property located on the
west side of Kraemer Boulevard, south of Miraloma Avenue, as a condition of
approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2420.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-86, terminated
Variance No. 2545.
10. VARIANCE NO. 2768 - EXTENSION OF T~: Submitted by James A. Lasby,
requesting an extension of time to Variance No. 2768, to permit an office on
RS-7200 zoned property located at 838 South State College Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Variance No.
2768, to expire January 19, 1984.
11. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1812 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Elenor
Reddi~, requesting an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 1812, to
permit the expansion of a cocktail lounge and dance hall on CG zoned property
located at 1203 West Lincoln Avenue.
The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Conditional Use
Permit No. 1812, to expire April 10, 1984.
No action was taken by the City Council on the foregoing items; therefore, the
actions of the City Planning Commission became final.
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 82-83-26: Submitted by Riviera Mobilehome Parks, to
remove the MHP (Mobilehome Park Overlay) zone, (with Resolution of Intent to
CR), from property located at 300 West Katella Avenue to permit conversion of
an existing mobilehome park.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-75, granted
Reclassification No. 82-83-26, and granted a negative declaration status.
The Planning Commission's action was appealed by Vincent D. Jantz, attorney
for residents of the Riviera Mobilehome Park, and public hearing tentatively
scheduled for May 24, 1983, at 1:30 p.m., by the City Clerk.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that in his letter of May 4, 1983, Mr. Jantz
requested a night hearing, but in recalling all the night hearings on the
mobilehome park conversion issue, by 9:00 p.m. most residents in attendance
360
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 10, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
had to leave the meeting. Even though they were requesting a night hearing,
they probably would prefer the afternoon so that more residents could attend
and stay longer.
Councilman Overholt asked if Mr. Jantz had been notified there would be a
request to deny the request for a night hearing as submitted in letter dated
May 10, 1983, just received from Mr. Richard Kossler of the Law Offices of
Floyd L. Farano, attorney for the Riviera Mobilehome Park owners; City Clerk
Linda Roberts answered that she did not believe he (Jantz) had been notified,
since the letter had been submitted only this morning.
Councilman Overholt stated they would then be taking action based upon Mr.
Kossler's representation and not giving Mr. Jantz an opportunity to rebut.
Although he agreed with Mr. Kossler's position, that information should be
relayed to Mr. Jantz; City Clerk Roberts stated that in order to set the
May 24 meeting, the deadline for legal advertising was today.
Mr. Kossler was present in the Chambers audience and explained that Mr. Farano
was present earlier at the meeting but had to leave. He (Farano) was aware
that Mr. Jantz had requested an evening hearing; Councilman Overholt was of
the opinion that Mr. Kossler should call Mr. Jantz before the Council made a
decision.
MOTION: Councilman Bay stated he did not think they needed to have the two
attorneys present. Both positions had been stated clearly and there was
enough material for them to make a decision. He thereupon moved that the
hearing be set for 1:30 p.m. on May 24, 1983. Councilman Pickler seconded the
motion.
Before action was taken, Councilman Overholt moved to trail a decision until
Mr. Kossler had an opportunity to call Mr. Jantz; Councilwoman Kaywood stated
with due respect, she would rather have staff make that call. Councilman
Overholt agreed.
The motion died for lack of a second.
The Mayor called for a vote on Councilman Bay's motion; Councilman Overholt
stated he would vote for it because he preferred an afternoon hearing also,
but hi~ eoncarn was to ba fair to both
Councilwoman Kaywood reiterated her concern and reason for setting an
afternoon hearing was based on past experience they had with mobilehome park
hearings. She felt by keeping the residents to a late hour, they were doing
an injustice.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion setting the date and time for
public hearing on Reclassification No. 82-83-26 for Tuesday, May 24, 1983, at
1:30 p.m.
361
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 10, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Overholt asked that Mr. Jantz be called in any case; City Clerk
Roberts stated she would do so.
VARIANCE NO. 3326: Submitted by William J. Hinson, Jr., (Hawaiian Village
Recreation Club), to convert an existing recreation building to a
single-family residence on RS-7200 zoned property located at 1253 North
Brookhurst Street, with the following Code waivers: (a) maximum lot coverage,
(b) minimum front yard setback, (c) minimum rear yard setback, and (d) minimum
number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-85, granted, in
part, Variance No. 3326, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical
exemption determination.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision on Variance No. 3326 was
requested by Councilman Pickier. He also wanted to have a new set of plans
provided by the applicant and submitted to staff, since he noted that the
plans previously submitted had changed.
170: TENTATIVE TRACT NOS. 10980~ 10981, and 10982: Submitted by Kaufman &
Broad, Inc., to establish Tract No. 10980 a 163-1ot (plus two open space lots)
RS-5000 (SC) zoned subdivision, Tract No. 10981 a 163-1ot (plus two open space
lots, fire station and park site lots) RS-5000(SC) zoned subdivision, and
Tract No. 10982 a i-lot, 73-unit (plus library site lot) RM-3000(SC) zoned
subdivision on property located southwest of the intersection of Santa Ana
Canyon Road and the proposed southerly extension of Weir Canyon Road.
The City Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract Nos. 10980, 10981 and
10982; EIR No. 256 was previously certified.
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, requested that the Council
set the tracts for a public hearing, since standard conditions were
inadvertently left out of the Planning Commission staff report regarding
dedication and bonding for the construction and improvement of public streets
outside the actual boundaries of the three tracts. The three streets involved
were Monte Vista, Weir Canyon and Santa Aha Canyon Road. That type of
condition was standard in instances where construction of the tract would be
dependent on certain other public improvements being installed before a
r~id~nt could r~ach th~ tract. Sh~ wa~ hopin~ that Kaufman and ~road would
be present today in order to discuss the matter with them and obtain a
stipulation from them, which the City Attorney's office advised would be
acceptable. However, they were not present. There was a 10-day appeal period
expiring May 12, 1983, and she would try to reach Kaufman and Broad this
afternoon.
The matter was trailed until later in the meeting.
362
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 10, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Later in the meeting, Mr. James Crosby, Civil Engineer for Kaufman and Broad,
1720 East Dere, Santa Ana, stated he was authorized today to ask for a
continuance to the next Council meeting, at which time additional conditions
stipulated by the Engineering Department could be reviewed by Kaufman and
Broad.
Miss Santalahti explained that the item had a 10-day appeal period and it
could be set for a hearing between today and May 12, 1983; City Attorney
Hopkins recommended if there was a need for more time, that Mr. Crosby be
allowed to stipulate to a continuance.
Miss Santalahti explained that there were conjunctive zoning actions on the
project. The specific conditions staff were talking about were tract
conditions solely. She did not know if Kaufman and Broad had concerns with
the zoning action which was under a 22-day appeal period, coming up two weeks
from now. She reiterated the conditions they were talking about were very
specific to the tracts only, and not conditions of the zoning action.
Mr. Crosby again stipulated that they were in favor of a one-week continuance.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to continue consideration of Tentative Tract
Nos. 10980, 10981 and 10982 to May 17, 1983. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
108: APPLICATION FOR ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT - HOLLYWOOD A-GO-GO: Entertainment
Permit submitted by Robert Wayne Copeland, Hollywood A-Go-Go, 508 South Knott
Street, to permit dancing girls 7 days a week, from 3:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m.
(continued from the meeting of May 3, 1983)
Mr. Robert Copeland, 508 South Knott, first explained for Councilman Pickler
that the business was called Cabaret at present, but it was in the process of
being changed to Hollywood A-Go-Go. Relative to his background, he had been
with the Humdinger for 14 years and finally got the opportunity to go into
business for himself. He needed the permit to compete with other businesses
in the area. He understood that the bar had been a problem in the past, but
he spent ~15,OOO to refurbish it inside and outside and had done a lot in
policing the business. They had eliminated most of the 'problems and had good
supervision.
Councilman Pickier felt personally that those types of operations caused
problems no matter what was done to clean them up.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to approve Entertainment Permit Application
submitted by Robert Wayne Copeland for the Hollywood A-Go-Go, 508 South Knott
Street, to permit dancing girls 7 days a week, from 3:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m., in
accordance with the recommendation of the Police Department. Councilman
Overholt seconded the motion. Council Members Pickier and Kaywood voted
"no." MOTION CARRIED.
363
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 10p 1983~ 10:00 A.M.
108: ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT AND POOL ROOM APPLICATION - THE EXPO: Applications
submitted by Steven Douglas Sigerseth for an Entertainment Permit for The
Expo, 62i North Euclid Street, to permit six female dancers 7 days a week,
from 9:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m., and for a Pool Room Permit to permit 3 pool
tables were presented (continued from the meeting of May 3, 1983).
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present.
Mr. Steven Sigerseth, 812 Lido Lane, was present to answer any questions.
Councilman Pickler stated he had a concern when they started bringing in
female dancers seven days a week. He felt the City was getting saturated with
such businesses and they had to draw a line some place, so he was going to
vote "no."
Councilman Overholt asked Mr. Sigerseth if he was aware that there were
petitions filed in opposition to his operation; Mr. Sigerseth answered that he
heard of them, but had not seen them.
Councilman Overholt then asked if anyone was present in opposition; no one was
present.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to approve Entertainment Permit Application
for the Expo, 621 North Euclid Street, to permit six female dancers 7 days a
week, from 9:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m., and Pool Room Permit Application for the
Expo, 621 North Euclid Street, to permit 3 pool tables, as recommended by the
Chief of Police. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. Council Members
Kaywood and Pickler voted "No." MOTION CARRIED.
108: POOL ROOM APPLICATION - BIG JOHN'S BILLIARDS: Pool Room Permit
Application submitted by Gary Jay Chopic, Big John's Billiards, 807 East
Orangethorpe Avenue, to permit 40 pool tables was presented (continued from
the meeting of May 3, 1983)
City Clerk Roberts stated that Mr. Chopic had reported that he had not
received the letter requesting the additional information on his application
in time to submit it for today's meeting.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved that the Pool Room Permit Application for
Big John's Billiards be continued to May 17, 1983. Councilman Pickler
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
175: EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE FUND - PROJECT AMPS: Report dated May 10, 1983,
from City Attorney relating to the Utilities Department's direct financial
contribution, subject to reimbursement, in Project AMPS, was submitted (see
minutes March 29 and May 3, 1983).
City Attorney William Hopkins briefed the Council on the subject memorandum
(on file in the City Clerk's office). It was still the opinion that funds
taken from Utility revenues would present a legal problem, particularly in
364
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 10, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
connection with the bond covenants. A letter dated May 10, 1983, from Alan
Watts, Rourke and Woodruff, stated on Page 3, "Based upon the covenants of the
City to provide no free electric service, it is my view that it would be
preferable from a legal standpoint if the City desires to make a loan as
described above, that such be done from the funds transferred to the General
Fund of the City." The analysis submitted to the City Council dated
February 15, 1983, from his (Hopkins') office was reviewed again in great
detail with Mr. Watts last Wednesday. Their position remained the same.
Taking money from the General Fund would be acceptable if a public purpose
were involved as stated in the February 15, 1983, memorandum. As a suggestion
only, Mr. Franks did some research during the week and it was possible that it
could be arranged so that an agreement could be made with persons in need of
assistance which would be the collateral or security for the money that would
be advanced and turnoff postponed. The Utilities Department wanted to do more
research on that aspect. The basic opinion, however, was they could not use
City funds either for a loan or for a gift from Utilities funds.
Councilman Bay moved to receive and file report dated May 10, 1983, from the
City Attorney's office. Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
Before action was taken, Councilman Overholt stated that rather than receive
and file the report without giving some recommendation to further develop the
plan, he would like to have it received and filed with a recommendation to the
City Attorney's office to get together with the Utilities Department to work
out a plan along the lines of the recommendation contained in the report.
Councilman Bay clarified that was not a part of the motion. They had asked,
could they use Utilities funds in a charitable way, and the answer was "no."
As far as the investigation into a deferred payment system, he suggested it be
brought up on a separate motion. If the Council wanted to direct the City
Attorney and Utilities Department staff to work out a deferred payment plan
within the law, that was another subject.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt did not agree. He felt it was part and parcel of
the City Attorney's report. He thereupon moved to amend the motion offered
recommending that the City Attorney's office work with the Utilities
Department in attempting to work out the details of a deferred payment program
on a one-time basis only, consisteht with the AMPS project.
Councilman Bay thereupon withdrew his motion to receive and file the report.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded Councilman Overholt's motion.
A vote was then taken on the motion. Councilman Bay voted "No." MOTION
CARRIED.
City Manager Talley asked since the Utilities Director expressed a concern
relative to the proposed concept because he did not have an opportunity to
explore it, he wanted to know if in the motion Councilman Overholt anticipated
staff would be evaluating the feasibility, as opposed to proceeding;
Councilman Overholt answered that was correct.
365
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 10, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Overholt then recognized a representative from the Chamber of
Commerce.
Juiie Emerson, Chamber of Commerce, 130 South Lemon, reported that the AMPS
Committee met May 4, 1983, and decided on a new direction in trying to put
together the private fund and how they were going to solicit donations. A
flyer was developed and prepared by Friday and mailed by the Chamber yesterday
(Monday) to 1,527 members, with a return envelope, in the hopes of generating
more donations. Another 300 would be going to the most active members of the
Chamber and they were planning another mailing to Anaheim Clubs and planned
also personal presentations to service clubs such as the Kiwanis, Lions,
Rotary, etc. She was aware that some Council Members were also members of
those organizations, and if they could have their help in making a short
presentation to those groups, they would be happy to assist to put such a
presentation together. They were also planning informal personal contact with
selected businesses in the City. She then complimented members of City staff
and members of the Assistance League and Episcopal and Lutheran agencies with
which the Chamber had been working. She further clarified that the Chamber
never guaranteed that they would bring in funds, but that they would promote
the program.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: The City Manager requested a Closed Session to
discuss labor relations, personnel matters, potential litigation with no
action anticipated; the City Attorney requested a Closed Session to discuss
litigation and potential litigation with no action anticipated; Councilwoman
Kaywood requested a Closed Session to discuss personnel matters with no action
anticipated.
Councilman Bay moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilman Roth seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (12:55 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (1:55 p.m.)
176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 81-30A: In accordance with application
filed by Michael G. Mack, Orange County Transit District (OCTD), public
hearing was held on proposed abandonment of a portion of Baxter Street between
the Carbon Creek Channel and Via Burton, pursuant to Resolution No. 83R-i46,
duly published in the Anaheim Bulletin and notices thereo£ posted ~n
accordance with law.
Report of the City Engineer, dated April 6, 1983, was submitted recommending
approval of the abandonment, subject to the following two reservations: (1)
That a public utility easement be reserved over the proposed abandonment area
for electrical purposes, and (2) That a public utility easement be reserved
unto the Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company over the proposed abandonment
area to a~commodate their existing facilities together with all reasonable
rights of ingress and egress. Said reservation to said Telephone and
Telegraph Company to be subject to and subordinate to the rights of the City
of Anaheim reservation as stated above.
366
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 10, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Mayor Roth asked if anyone wished to address the Council.
Mr. Michael Mack, Manager of Engineering, OCTD, stated they were requesting
the section of Baxter Street from Via Burton to the Carbon Creek Channel be
abandoned. It was not in use or planned for any future public use. The
Carnation Company and the Transit District, the adjacent owners, would not
have to spend private and public funds respectively to build that section of
Baxter, which led to nowhere, and by approving the abandonment, Carnation and
the Transit District could secure the area, thereby reducing the opportunity
to vandalize adjacent properties. By so doing, the City of Anaheim and
Fullerton would be relieved of policing and maintaining Baxter Street, which
would become a site for illegal dumping. Abandoning Baxter Street was in the
best interests of all parties concerned.
Mayor Roth asked if anybody wished to speak.
Susan Gordon, Attorney with the ALS Corporation, 1400 North Baxter, stated
they were located at the south end of the portion of Baxter Street under
consideration. They employed approximately 300 people and were opposed to the
subject abandonment at the present time. It was a proceeding directly in
opposition to the conditions which the City imposed under their Resolution No.
80R-465 of October 14, 1980, approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2082.
Condition No. 2 required that Baxter Street be improved, and now the OCTD was
requesting that Baxter Street be abandoned before any traffic had begun.
Until the facility was in full operation, no one could say what the traffic
impact would be. They had been told that the facility would open in September
with 500 OCTD employees traveling in and out of Via Burton and approximately
225 buses. If it should be that there were no traffic problems, they would
not oppose abandonment of Baxter Street at that time. If there were problems,
Baxter Street would be a potential solution to those problems, because it
could then possibly be extended to Orangethorpe. Relative to vandalism, their
company was also at the end of the cul-de-sac and thus they were in the same
position as Carnation and the OCTD in that regard. In summary, they were
asking that the City wait until the OCTD started operation before making a
decision on the issue of abandonment of Baxter Street.
In answer to questions posed by Mayor Roth, City Engineer William Devitt
confirmed that the conditions cited by Ms. Gordon in Resolution No. 80R-465
did not refer to the northern portion of Baxter Street and it did not mandate
the Council to do anything with Baxter Street north of the project. They had
thoroughly examined the possibility of extending Baxter Street with the City
of Fullerton, and Fullerton was adamant that it not be extended.
Councilman Bay recalled that there were certain conditions placed upon the
OCTD (see City Council minutes September 23, 1980, and October 14, 1980), the
intent being, since all the traffic problems could not be predetermined, OCTD
agreed that they would help with problems if they did occur after the facility
was in full operation. He agreed with the point made by Ms. Gordon
questioning the need that the abandonment take place at this time without
knowing what problems might occur.
367
City Hall, Ant %~eim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 10, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Mr. Warren Brakensiek, Secretary of the Carnation Company, subsidiary of
Favorite Foods, 5045 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, pointed out that
Fuilerton, in the many hearings that had taken place, made it clear that they
would not agree to extend Baxter Street to Orangethorpe and that was the issue
they were ~ealing with. Other adjacent property owners indicated to them
their supp~,rt for the abandonment, and the property owners closest to the
property wece among those in support. The section in question was a dirt road
which, if the ,'bandonment were granted, would be closed off and Favored Foods
would probably pave that portion. If there was no prospect for extending the
street, they would like to improve it for the betterment of the entire
neighborhood.
There were no further persons who wished to speak.
Questions were then posed to Mr. Mack by Mayor Roth and Council Member Bay.
Mayor Roth stated he was inclined to support the resolution, knowing that Mr.
Adolf Shoepe of Fluid Master, who was the leader in opposing the CUP
initially, was now endorsing the abandonment. However, he was sympathetic to
Councilman Bay's question as to why the abandonment was necessary at this
time. He would support the abandonment, but at the time of completion of the
project or approximately December 1, which would give them some indication if
there was goi~i~ to be a problem.
Councilman Bay stated he had never been convinced as to why they should close
off one possible source of solving a traffic problem should it occur, although
admittedly it cas not a probable source. However, if the extension of Baxter
Street turned out to be the only solution, they might rue the day they did not
wait three to four months on the abandonment. He wanted to know if it was
legally possible to delay the abandonment until next October; City Attorney
Hopkins did not see any problem in doing so.
Councilman Overholt stated there was very strong opposition from ALS and they
probably had good reason for opposing the abandonment. He suggested that they
defer such action until after the OCTD facility was in operation, because if
they did so only until opening day, they would still not know any more than
they did t~day.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt thereupon moved to continue the public hearing on
Abandonment Mo. 81-30A to December 6, 1983, at 1:30 p.m. Councilman Bay
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
PUBLIC HEAi{ING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2423: Application by Adolfo and
Maria Serr~to, to convert an existing garage and construct an addition thereto
for a second family (Granny) unit on RS-7200 zoned property located at 1317
South Claremont Street, with a Code waiver of minimum number and type of
parking sF~ces.
368
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 10, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-59, reported
that the Planning Director had determined that the proposed activity falls
within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 3, 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 and
further, denied Conditional Use Permit No. 2423.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by the applicant and
public hearing scheduled this date.
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
Mr. Adolfo Serrato, 1317 South Claremont, was present, accompanied by Mrs.
Anita Gudino (interpreter), 1327 South Claremont.
Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, first clarified that the
application was filed requesting a "granny" unit, a second dwelling unit which
would be permissible under State Code. The State Legislature had imposed
several conditions, but Cities could require adherence to regular development
standards of the zone, except density. In this case, the applicant had to
request a waiver of minimum number and type of parking spaces (4 off-street
spaces and 2 enclosed in a garage required--3 off-street spaces and 1 covered
proposed). The Planning Commission was also concerned with parking
requirements and felt it should not be approved with a parking waiver. The
proposal was converting an existing garage to a dwelling unit.
Council Members posed questions to Mrs. Gudino wherein she stated that the
garage was on one side of the house, but the building they were talking about
was already there in the back of the house, the garage was being used as a
garage, Mr. Serrato was worried about his parents and he wanted to help them
as much as he could and he wanted them with him.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak.
Mrs. Donna Sullens, 1316 South Hickory Street, directly west (rear) of the
subject property, stated she had lived in the area since 1954 and most homes
had one-car garages. Relative to the subject property, there was a one-car
garage attached to the house and a two-car garage built in the back. They now
wanted to change that two-car garage to living quarters. Many of the homes in
the area used the one-car garages as family rooms and, therefore, had no
garages. There was already a problem with street parking because of the
garage conversions. If the request were allowed, there would be many others
who would want the same and the fact that she was the only one present in
opposition was perhaps an indication of that. She would rather not say
anything because she sympathized with the owner, but they had to decide what
they wanted that area to become. She reiterated, if they allowed one
conversion, there would be others to follow, indicated by the homes that had
converted their one-car garages to family rooms. It was a matter of whether
they were going to retain the area for single-family dwellings or
multiple-family.
369
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ma~ 10, 1983~ 10:00 A.M.
Upon questioning by Councilman Pickler, Mrs. Sullens stated that someone was
living in the two-car garage last summer. They were young people with a baby
and they liked loud music. If the unit were allowed, she questioned what
recourse they would have in case anyone under 60 years of age was not living
in it. She again expressed her concern relative to the street parking problem.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the structure were to be converted for his
parents and after they were gone, what would Mr. Serrato plan to do with it;
Mrs. Gudino answered that he (Serrato) would leave it there for his children
in case they wanted to stay.
Councilman Pickler asked if they could stipulate that only his parents would
be able to live in the unit; City Attorney Hopkins answered "no." He had seen
some opinions on that where they could not restrict the owner from renting the
unit to someone else. If they imposed that stipulation, it might be difficult
to enforce. He also clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood that the unit would be
restricted to one or two persons over age 60, but he did not believe they
could prevent him from renting the property if his parents were to move on.
It could still be rented, but only to one or two persons over age 60.
After further Council questions to the City Attorney, the Mayor closed the
public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman
Bay, seconded by Councilman Pickler, the City Council ratified the
determination of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within
the definition of Section 3.01, Class 3, 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. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 83R-191 for adoption, denying
Conditional Use Permit No. 2423, upholding the findings of the City Planning
Commission. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 83R-191: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2423.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay stated that in addition to the
Planning Commission findings, he saw a great danger when they were faced with
new laws coming out of Sacramento, particularly out of the Housing and
Development staff and that included social engineering ideas to take away
local control of the Cities in zoning and planning and protecting
neighborhoods. This would be a dangerous precedent to establish by way of
allowing a second housing unit on a lot. If they did not set the development
standards from the beginning and hold to them, this would be the first of many
problems they would see in the future.
Mayor Roth wanted to be certain that Mr. Serrato understood clearly, that
should the resolution of denial be adopted, that he could not have anyone
living in the rear house, his parents or anyone else.
370
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 10, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Councilman Pickler stated he was opposed to the resolution of denial. The
property involved already had the second unit on it, and they would not be
setting a precedent. If they could help a family, he felt that was what they
should do.
Councilman Overholt stated he was concerned about the people living next door
and the people next to them, etc. If they permitted this "bootstrap"
operation by trying to fit it in, he maintained it would be the first case
that they would live to regret. He felt that the "granny" unit legislation
was probably good and they would have to learn how to live with it, but they
could not drop their standards, especially in an emotional situation where the
applicant had gone ahead with the unit without proper approval.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Overholt, Bay and Roth
Pickler
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-191 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2424: Application submitted by
Ben and Mary Lou Hathaway, (Tiffy's Way), to permit a walk-up window in an
existing restaurant on CR zoned property located at 1060 West Katella Avenue,
with a Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-60, reported
that the Planning Director had determined that the proposed activity falls
within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 1, 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 and
further, granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2424, subject to the following
conditions:
1. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit No. 1.
2. That the owner of subject property shall submit a letter requesting
termination of Variance Nos. 3225 and 748 to the Planning Department prior to
commencement of the activity herein approved or issuance of a building permit,
whichever occurs first.
3. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition No. 1
above-mentioned, shall be complied with.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilman
Pickler at the meeting of April 5, 1983, and public hearing scheduled this
date.
371
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 10, 1983~ 10:00 A.M.
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
Mr. Jim Love, Agent, 1060 West Katella, explained that they proposed to add a
walk-up window to their existing restaurant. They felt that the parking
problem in their case was unique, since their business was 90 percent walk-up
type service because they were surrounded by hotels, motels and tourist-type
trade. There were times when their restaurant was full and their parking lot
empty~ Other times the lot would be full and the restaurant empty due to
Convention Center parking where people tried to save a couple of dollars.
They had to put some programs into effect to eliminate the illegal parking.
They felt that the walk-up window would be a benefit to the restaurant and the
City.
Mayor Roth stated that the staff had prepared two additional conditions
contained in report dated May 3, i983--"(1) That there shall be no outdoor
seating other than five wrought iron benches, as shown on Exhibit No. 2
(photographs); and; (2) That there shall be no signing to advertise the
walk-up window to passing vehicular traffic." He asked Mr. Love if he had an
opportunity to review those conditions.
Mr. Love had not reviewed those conditions and was thereupon handed a copy of
the report which he was given an opportunity to read. After having done so,
Mr. Love stated he had no problems with the two additional stipulations. He
also clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood that the wrought iron benches were
installed when the building was constructed and they did not impede pedestrian
traffic. They were proposing to install a new sign in place of the existing
sign which was directly north of the walk-up window, but it would not
specifically advertise the walk-up window.
Councilman Pickler felt that the seating had now been taken care of and he had
no problem with the size of the existing sign. He did not 'want cars driving
by and then all of a sudden turning left off of West Street or Katella.
Mr. Love stated the purpose of the sign was to draw from the area, since they
had a problem with people realizing they were a restaurant.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if he was planning to have a sign that would say
walk-up window that could be read from any place.
Mr. Love answered, if not permissible, he would not install such a sign.
Otherwise, he would install a sign to show walk-up service.
Councilman Pickler felt that the concerns he had been answered and he would
leave it up to the Planning Department to work out the sign; Councilwoman
Kaywood suggested a stipulation that there be no sign advertising a walk-up
window.
Councilman Overholt pointed out that staff recommended that there be no
signing to advertise the walk-up window to passing vehicular traffic.
372
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 10, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Councilman
Pickler, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council ratified the
determination of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within
the definition of Section 3.01, Class 1, 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. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Pickler Offered Resolution No. 83R-192 for adoption, approving
Conditional Use Permit No. 2424, subject to the City Planning Commission
conditions and the two additional conditions by staff as outlined in the
report dated May 3, 1983. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 83R-192: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2424.
Before a vote was taken, discussion took place relative to the sign indicating
walk-up service. Miss Santalahti stated they would judge the sign by two
criteria, those being the size of the letters on the sign and that it be no
higher than what a typical pedestrian would see.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 83R-192 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2428: Application by Larry R.
Smith, to permit a billboard on CL zoned property located on the north side of
Ball Road, west of Knott Street, with the following Code waivers: (a) maximum
display area, and (b) maximum height.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC83-63, declared
that the subject project be exempt from the requirement to file an
Environmental Impact Report pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act, since there will be no significant individual or
cumulative adverse environmental impact due to the approval of this negative
declaration, since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property
for general commercial land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no
sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the proposal; and that the
Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant individual
or cumulative adverse environmental impacts; and further, denied Conditional
Use Permit No. 2428.
373
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 10, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Foster and Kleiser,
Agent for the applicant, and public hearing scheduled this date.
City Clerk Roberts announced that a letter dated May 9, 1983, had been
received from the agent, requesting a 30-day continuance to enable them to
work out a compromise with the property owner and tenant.
The Mayor asked if anyone was present on the issue; three people were present
in the Chambers audience. The Mayor then clarified that the applicant had
requested a 30-day continuance and wanted to know if there was any opposition
to the request.
In response, those present in the Chambers audience indicated no objection to
a continuance.
MOTION: On motion by Councilman Roth, public hearing on Conditional Use
Permit No. 2428 was continued to June 7, 1983, at 1:30 p.m., to be the first
scheduled public hearing that date. Councilman Bay seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
158: PUBLIC HEARING - WIDENING OF ANAHEIM BOULEVARD: To consider the
selection of an alignment for widening and improvement of Anaheim Boulevard
from Cypress Street to Lemon Street.
The Mayor asked to hear from the City Engineer.
William Devitt, City Engineer, explained this was a multi-year project
involving the widening and alignment of Anaheim Boulevard from Cypress Street
to Lemon Street. It was anticipated if the project received approval and
considering the need to arrange for financing, plan preparation and the
problems associated with such a project, that construction would not begin for
8 to 10 years. They would first proceed with right-of-way acquisition if
approved. Inasmuch as it was a major multi-million dollar project, various
alternatives from ~6+ million to in excess of $9 million were proposed. After
consideration of the three alternatives, widening of the east side of Anaheim
Boulevard only, widening the west side only, or widening both sides equally,
the recommendation by his office was that the Council determine the best
alignment for the widening of Anaheim Boulevard was to acquire right-of-way
equally from both sides of the street, estimated at ~9,381,000 and authorizing
him to proceed with the preparation of an environmental impact report. (See
report dated April 20, 1983, by the City Engineer, which gave an overview of
their efforts and meetings that occurred since May of 1982, leading to the
subject recommendation.)
Mayor Roth stated he understood there were considerable discussions with a
committee of citizens who had been working with the City on the project.
Mr. Devitt stated that the recommendation to widen both sides equally was the
recommendation of the committee. He had no knowledge of any opposition to
that alternative and it was fully supported by.the people on Anaheim Boulevard.
374
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ma~ 10, 1983~ 10:00 A.M.
The Mayor asked to hear from anyone who wished to speak.
Mrs. Arlene Taormina, 2710 East Whitestar, stated she was present representing
her son, William C. Taormina, a major property owner on both the east and west
side of Anaheim Boulevard (301, 318, 320 and 327 North Anaheim Boulevard), who
was co-chairman of the North Anaheim Boulevard Property Owners Association for
over nine months, working with City staff in order to reach an optimum
solution. After numerous meetings, Plan 7A-M (7-A modified--widening both
sides equally) was adopted by all properties concerned and designated as most
fair. On behalf of her son and the Association, they urged the Council to
adopt that plan and to proceed with the right-of-way acquisition process as
soon as possible. She complimented City staff, William Devitt, Paul Singer,
Traffic Engineer, Art Daw, Civil Engineer, and Bob Jones, Civil Engineering
Associate, who had worked many long hours to bring the matter to a successful
conclusion.
Mr. Harry Ricketts, 1632 West Valencia Drive, Fullerton, stated that he owned
property on Zeyn and also on Lemon Street. He fully supported the effort and
felt it was long overdue. His only concern was that the buildings, after they
were acquired, not be torn down and the area left vacant and destitute for
some period of time. He hoped that they would continue to be used because it
was a very productive area.
Mr. Scott Wang, 3201 South Griset Place, Santa Ana, stated he owned the
building at 721 to 727 North Anaheim Boulevard. He understood that the
alternative would require a dedication of 47 feet from the centerline and,
therefore, would eliminate the entire face of his building, since 20 to 30
percent of it protruded five feet. He fully supported the project, but if
they could only cut 20 to 30 percent of his building that protruded, his
damage would be significantly less. Otherwise, it would hurt his tenant if
they cut the entire face, because of the interior design. He asked that they
consider that accommodation.
Jim Liberio, 1720 West La Palma, corner of Anaheim Boulevard and Lemon Street,
explained that as he understood under the plan, there would be no left turn
going east on Anaheim Boulevard and Lemon Street and, therefore, he would not
be able to get to his property off Lemon from Anaheim Boulevard going south.
Mr. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, explained that they had not gone to that
fine detail as yet in designing the roadway, but he could be assured that they
would not cut any access to any properties. They intended to provide for all
turns but they would be confined to a specific area. He would be provided
with both right and left turn access onto Anaheim Boulevard. They would work
with him, as with other property owners, and settle every one of the issues.
Mr. Ed Samuelian, property owner, 912-916 Anaheim Boulevard, stated he favored
widening equally on both sides. He was concerned relative to the cost between
~6 million and ~9 million. He wanted to know if that was in today's dollars
or in eight or nine years; City Engineer Devitt stated those costs included 25
percent inflation. He then answered other questions posed by Mr. Samuelian
relative to technical details of the proposed acquisition.
375
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 10, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
Mr. Rich Frazier, 1001 North Concord, owner of property at 400 South Anaheim
Boulevard, stated he did voice some objection at previous meetings between
property owners and staff, but he was asking Council to approve the plan that
would widen both sides equally, because it would hurt each of them a little
less. He was in favor of Plan 7A-M.
Dawn Johnson, 616 North Olive, Apartment C, stated she realized that there was
a signal at North Street and Anaheim Boulevard as well as at Sycamore and
Anaheim Boulevard. However, trying to cross at Wilhemina for people to catch
a bus, or for the businesses would be very difficult if Anaheim Boulevard were
widened without a crosswalk of some type.
Mr. James Perkins, a member of the Property Owners Association, stated he was
in total agreement with Plan 7A-M, but felt there were real considerations the
City should look at from a safety standpoint in making the turn going north on
Anaheim Boulevard and also from a historical standpoint, preserving and giving
more frontage to the two homes just south of Sycamore Street, one having been
built in 1904 and the other in 1905. He thereupon elaborated upon some of the
meetings that took place and the discussions revolving around the two points
just made.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the
public hearing.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to approve modified Alternative Plan 7A-M
widening both sides of Anaheim Boulevard equally from Cypress Street to Lemon
Street, as recommended in memorandum dated April 20, 1983, from the City
Engineer. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
173: RESOLUTION ON JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT GENERAL IMPROVEMENTS: Consideration of
proposed Orange County Division League of Cities resolution on John Wayne
Airport general improvements, as submitted under memorandum dated April 14,
1983, from Don Holt, Chairman of the Resolutions Committee.
Mayor Roth stated he had no objection to the proposed resolution and he did
not think it would be worth continuing a "fight" on the issue; Councilman
0verholt stated he did have a problem with the resolution and elaborated on
those portions of it that were of concern to him; Councilman Bay felt that
what they ought to be complaln~ng about was that the Resolutions Committee of
the League took two cities' resolutions (a resolution proposed by Anaheim and
one proposed by Newport Beach) which were 180 degrees apart and boiled them
down to one resolution. He wanted to see two separate resolutions presented
and then have the League decide what the resolution was going to be.
Mayor Roth thereupon asked that Councilman Overholt be the spokesman for the
Council on the issue at the May 12, 1983, League meeting.
Councilman Overholt stated he would try to work something out that the Council
could support, to be presented at the May 12, 1983, meeting.
376
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 10, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
108: HEARING - AMUSEMENT ARCADE APPLICATION NO. 83-5~ VIDEO PALACE: Request
by Rev. Wayne D. De Vogler, to consider an appeal of the decision of the
Planning Director denying an Amusement Arcade Application for Video Palace,
916 South Harbor Boulevard, for 65 amusement devices. Submitted was a report
by the Zoning Division dated April 26, 1983, recommending denial of the
request.
City Clerk Roberts announced that a letter of opposition from Mr. Bill
Gabaldon had been received and a Mr. Pollard, who was present in the Chambers
audience, wished to speak.
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant.
Reverend Wayne De Vogler, 1413 Hickory Street, Santa Aha, referred to the copy
of his appeal and attached prospectus which he submitted earlier in the
meeting and asked to read them for the record. Reverend DeVogler thereupon
read the extensive documentation which explained in detail the reasons for his
appeal, gave an historic overview of the business, addressed points of
opposition by surrounding residents and businesses, questioned the validity of
the poll taken which led to the 58.3 percent negative response, endeavors they
planned to undertake to create a family oriented amusement center and personal
background data (letter of appeal and attached prospectus made a part of the
record).
Councilman Overholt left the Council Chambers. (4:00 p.m.)
After his presentation, Councilman Bay asked Reverend De Vogler if he
understood correctly that he (De Vogler) was claiming that the poll taken by
the Planning Department was not per the ordinance and, therefore, the results
were questionable; Reverend De Vogler answered he was not stating that
specifically, but the results were based on telephone calls and there was
nothing in the ordinance stating telephone calls were acceptable.
The Mayor asked to hear from anyone who wished to speak.
Mr. Louis Pollard, owner and operator of the Texaco Service Station at 900
South Harbor Boulevard, stated that the previous arcade which operated at the
subject location was nothing but bad news in the neighborhood. He then
elaborated on the problems previously experienced as a result of the operation
of the former arcade. They could see no difference relative to the present
proposed operation.
Councilman Overholt entered the Council Chambers. (4:15 p.m.)
Mrs. Doris Smeltzer, 413 West Vermont Avenue, who lived across the street from
the proposed arcade, recalled that when the Video Palace was operating a few
years ago and they had problems at that time, she appeared before the
Council. There were questionable characters walking by her home at all hours,
the facility was open until 2:00 a.m. on weekends, they had witnessed the use
of alcoholic drugs, their lawn was a depository for empty beverage bottles,
377
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 10~ 1983~ 10:00 A.M.
etc. They had also called the police when a car was parked behind the gas
station with the radio blasting and the occupants throwing beer bottles. At
that time, they started a petition to try to have the Arcade's permit revoked
and they were subsequently sued by the owner. The charges were eventually
dropped, but she believed the suit served its purpose. It cost them a great
deal of money in legal fees and intimidated some neighbors so much, that was
the reason they were not present. Reverend De Vogler had also gone to her
house and stated if the appeal were revoked, if the appeal were rejected, he
would go to court and it would cost a lot of people a lot of money. Since the
Video Palace had closed, there had been no problem with trash and noise. She
asked that they deny the appeal.
Mr. Leslie Gardener, 400 West Vermont, stated he was against the proposed
business because of what Mrs. Smeltzer said. Parking was up against his
property and a cinder block fence had been broken down. He also found broken
beer bottles on his property, ~200 was stolen, and the business caused a lot
of headaches. In the last six months since it had been closed, there was no
trouble at all.
Mrs. Lucy Garcia, 1657 Brea Boulevard, Fullerton, stated she was the owner of
the restaurant adjacent to the Video Palace and before that, she used to work
for Mr. Pinto managing the Arcade which was open from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00
p.m. In the two years it was open, June of 1981 to January 15, 1983, she
could not recall any of the things happening that the people were talking
about, and the vandalism they mentioned did not exist. She never felt the
neighborhood was being harrassed and there was no problem with alcohol in
conjunction with the restaurant. She was not speaking today because she felt
the Arcade was going to bring in business, because she had her restaurant up
for sale.
Questions were then posed to Mrs. Garcia by Council Members Kaywood and
Pickler.
MOTION: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the
application for an Amusement Arcade for Video Palace, 916 South Harbor
Boulevard, was denied, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Section 3.24.045,
based on the finding that approval of said permit would be contrary to the
public interest, health, safety, morals or general welfare of the City of
Anaheim. MOTION CARRIED.
170: FINAL MAP, TRACT NO. 11740: Developer, La Palma Associates of Tustin;
tract is located at the northeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Romneya Drive,
and contains three proposed RM-3000 zoned lots.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Pickler, the proposed
subdivision, together with its design and improvement, was found to be
consistent with the City's General Plan, and the City Council approved Final
Map Tract No. 11740, as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum
dated April 29, 1983, MOTION CARRIED.
378
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL'MINUTES - May 10, 1983, 10:00 A.M.
129/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4425 - PERTAINING TO FIREWORKS: Repealing and
enacting new Sections 6.40.010, .030 and .060, pertaining to Fireworks. See
minutes of May 3, 1983 and April 26, 1983 where extensive discussion and input
took place.
The Mayor first asked to hear from anyone who wished to speak on the issue.
Dawn Johnson, 616 North Olive, reading from a prepared statement, recommended
that the proposed ordinance change be placed on the ballot to let the voters
decide. She then elaborated upon the dangers she felt were related to the use
of both safe and sane and illegal fireworks, as well as noise pollution. She
also pointed out that officials in some cities had produced valid statistics
proving "firework fires" dropped dramatically with a total ban.
Mrs. Sandra Ramish, 5134 Greensboro, stated she still voiced some of the same
concerns voiced previously on the Pyrotronics (special interest) ordinance and
she felt that was what the proposed amendment was. She was concerned about
fireworks and would like to see them outlawed. She would be in favor of a
community display of fireworks by people trained in pyrotechnics.
Councilman Pickler offered Ordinance No. 4425 for adoption. Refer to
Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4425: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
REPEALING TITLE 6, CHAPTER 6.40, SECTIONS 6.40.010,6.40.030, AND 6.40.060 AND
ENACTING A NEW TITLE 6, CHAPTER 6.40, SECTIONS 6.40.010, 6.40.030 AND 6.40.060
PERTAINING TO FIREWORKS.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood posed questions to the City
Attorney relative to the ramifications of the new provision in the proposed
ordinance. Fire Chief Bob Simpson also gave his input at the request of
Council Members Kaywood and Overholt which was followed by discussion and
debate between Council Members on the issue.
Councilwoman Kaywood reiterated her concerns that it was the first time she
had ever seen legislation endorsed by the Council to make an illegal activity
legal. Further, if other wholesale fireworks manufacturers started to drift
into Anaheim because of allowing three additional days bf sale for the one
such business in the City, she did not see any benefit to the City as a whole,
but in~taad overwhelming dan~er in cau~in~ more fire~ and injury. §he had a
real problem changing a 9-year-old law enacted for the health and safety and
benefit of the City in order to accommodate one person.
Councilman Bay stated if he implied he was for or against fireworks that was
not true. His whole concern with the subject was that three members of the
Council refused to put on the ballot an issue that had been going on for a
year or two to find out what the. citizens of Anaheim wanted. He could not
vote favorably on the proposed ordinance.
379
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 10, 1983~ 10:00 A.M.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing ordinance.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Pickler, Overholt and Roth
Kaywood and Bay
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4425 duly passed and adopted.
149/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4428 - EMERGENCY ORDINANCE RELATING TO PARKING
RESTRICTIONS: Adding a new Section 14.32.350 relating to parking restrictions
and declaring the urgency thereof.
Lt. Stan Kantor then explained for Mayor Roth that the Ordinance would enable
them to make a decision for a "No Parking - Tow Away Zone" throughout the City
when necessary. Instead of adding particular places, they felt it more
appropriate to cover the entire City for the benefit of the citizens. He also
clarified that the main reason for the emergency Ordinance at this time was
because of the Computer Show which was to take place shortly at the Convention
Center.
City Clerk Linda Roberts read the Ordinance in its entirety.
Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4428 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance
Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4428: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING TITLE 14,
CHAPTER 14.32, SECTION 14.32.350 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADDING A
NEW TITLE 14, CHAPTER 14.32, SECTION 14.32.350 RELATING TO NO PARKING - TOW
AWAY ZONE AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF AND THAT THIS ORDINANCE SHALL TAKE
IMMEDIATE EFFECT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Pickler, Overholt, Bay and Roth
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4428 duly passed and adopted.
149/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4429: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4429 for
first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4429: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING TITLE 14,
CHAPTER 14.32, SECTION 14.32.350 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADDING A
NEW TITLE 14, CHAPTER 14.32, SECTION 14.32.350 RELATING TO NO PARKING - TOW
AWAY ZONE.
38O
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - May 10, 1983~ 10:00 A.M.
105: VACANCY ON THE GOLF COURSE COMMISSION: Councilwoman Kaywood asked if
the vacancy on the Golf Course Commission had been advertised; City Clerk
Roberts answered that no advertising was necessary since there nas no term
involved.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked that the matter be placed on the next week's
agenda; Mayor Roth recommended that it be set for consideration in two weeks
and during that time, the press could publicize the fact that there was a
vacancy on the Commission due to the untimely death of Mr. Tom Hoag,
encouraging applicants to submit their qualifications and desire to serve.
144: VACANCY ON THE ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (OCTC):
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that Thursday night at the League of Cities
meeting, a vote would be taken to cover the vacancy on the OCTC. She had
received letters from Jim Beam and Jack Kelly and did not know if the Council
wanted to take some action at this time.
Mayor Roth stated that Mr. Beam had fifteen sure votes, and it appeared to be
in the best interests of Anaheim to have someone on the Commission from North
Orange County.
Councilman Overholt stated that he felt they should support Mr. Beam at this
juncture.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: Councilman Roth moved to recess into Closed
Session. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
p.m.)
(5:28
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (10:17 p.m.)
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (10:17 p.m.)
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK
381