1982/01/05City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 5, 1982, 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Taliey
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
DEPUTY CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
CITY ENGINEER: William Devitt
PUBLIC WORKS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Ronald L. ThomPson
ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR FOR PLANNING: Joel H. Fick
ASSOCIATE PLANNER: Jay Tashiro
Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Dan McCausland, Bethel Baptist Church, gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Don R. Roth led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
154: PRESENTATION - ANAHEIM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (AEDC) COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN: Mr. George Kilishek, President, AEDC, presented to the Council the
Anaheim Economic Development Corporation Comprehensive Plan, dated November 10,
1981 (on file in the City Clerk's office), which was prepared with the coopera-
tion and the support of City staff. The Plan was a recommendation for action
and strategies for the City throughout the 1980's, focusing on industrial
development. He then briefed the Council on the report, specifically enumerating
on the action items, as outlined (see Section V - Alternative Projects/ProgrmvLs).
Mr. Kilishek then emphasized an issue that was not a specific action item, that
being the concern over the depletion of the existing stock of industrial land
in the City. Once that land was gone, there would be no more. The only way
new industry was going to be able to build was to tear down or renovate, which
was a great deal more difficult to do. He believed that Anaheim had a sound
plan for development. They had identified areas for industrial activity but
much of that land was being "frittered" away into less productive industrial
activity through the process whereby commercial development intruded into the
industrial areas via a conditional use permit or simply that it happened. That
problem was a major one for the City and they were tryin§ to find a way of
dealing with it and nad appointed a member of the Board of Directors~ Walt Smith,
to handle the matter.
Mr. Walt Smith then briefed the action they planned to take in that regard.
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 5~ 1982~ 1:30 P.M.
Comments and Council questioning followed, at the conclusion of which, Mayor
Seymour stated that the report presented, as well as Mr. Kilishek's remarks,
would indicate that today the City of Anaheim was a most successful City,
economically, and it was a good place to live, work and play. He then added
his commendations to Mr. Kilishek and the other members of the Board of the
AFDC for giving them a road map for the future.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for ten minutes. (2:32 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (2:52 p.m.)
MINUTES: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to continue approval of the minutes of the
regular meeting held June 16, 1981, for one week, since she had not had an oppor-
tunity to review them. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilman Roth 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 ordinance or resolution
in regular order. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. ¥~TION CARRIED.
THE CITY in the amount of $12,072,126.42, in accordanC~i~
FINANCIAL
DEMANDS
AGAINST
with the 1981-82 Budget, were approved. ~
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL MOTION CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman ~
Bay, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the following items were approved as
recommended:
a. 128: Receive and file Monthly Financial Statement for the five months
ended November 30, 1981.
b. 160: Bid No. 3829: Eight 225KVA, Eight 150KVA and Two 300KVA Three-
Phase Padmount Transformers, Item Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Award to McGraw-Edison,
$74,867.80; Two 500KVA Three-Phase Padmount Transformers, Item No. 4. Award
to General Electric Company, $17,019.36.
c. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order, with-
out competitive bidding, to Advance Control Systems, in the amount of
$45,997.64, for three remote terminals and complementary equipment for
Yorba Substation, Parkview Pump Station and Hidden Canyon Pump Station.
d. 164: Lincoln Avenue Federal Aid Project Storm Drain Improvement. Account
Nos. 13 & 47-791-6325-El140 and 49-795-6325-E5240. Continue the award of
contract to January~12, 1982.
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 5, 1982~ 1:30 P.M.
e. 158: Waiving competitive bidding requirements of Charter Section 1222;
authorizing the sale of the east half of the S.A.V.I. Canal, retaining owner-
ship of the west half of said Canal for riding, hiking and equestrian
purposes, and sale of access rights to the south side of Santa Ana Canyon
Road, west of Fairmont Boulevard, to C. Robert Langslet & Son, Inc., at a
total selling price of $88,000; authorizing execution of a grant deed therefor;
and authorizing the Real Property Division to open an internal escrow.
MOTION CARRIED.
CITY b~kNAGER/DEPARTMENTAL RESOLUTION CONSENT CALENDAR:
offered Resolution Nos. 82R-1 and 82R-2 for adoption.
Book.
Councilman Overholt
Refer to Resolution
104: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-1: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING THE REPORT OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF STREETS FOR CERTAIN
IMPROVEMENTS TO BE MADE BY THE CITY UNDER THE STREET LIGHTING ACT OF 1931.
(Street Lighting Assessment District No. 1981-5, Tract No. 2090, Margate
Drive and Hill Avenue)
· 104: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-2: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO MAKE CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS UNDER THE
AUTHORITY OF THE STREET LIGHTING ACT OF 1931, DESCRIBING THE IMPROVEMENTS
TO BE MADE, NAMING THE STREETS UPON WHICH THE IMPROVEMENTS ARE TO BE MADE,
REFERRING TO THE REPORT OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF STREETS ON FILE IN THE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK, FIXING THE PERIOD OF TIME FOR WHICH THE IMPROVEMENTS
ARE TO BE MADE, AND SETTING A TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING PROTESTS. (Street
Improvements--Margate Drive and Hill Avenue in Tract No. 2090, to commence
on or about July 1, 1982; public hearing set for January 26, 1982, at 3:00 p.m.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL b~MBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 82R-1 and 82R-2 duly passed and adopted.
158: TRACT NO. 11053 - GRANT OF TEMPORARY EASEMENTS: After a question to
staff for purposes of clarification, Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution
No~. §2R-~ and g2R-I £or adoption, the ~irst accepting a certain temporary
easement deed from The William Lyon Company for the removal of temporary
catch basin plugs in Tract No. 11053 located at the southwest corner of
Euclid Street and Cerritos Avenue and ordering its recordation, and the
second, accepting a certain temporary easement deed (II) from The William
Lyon Company for the removal of temporary catch basin plugs in Tract No.
11053 located at the southwest corner of Euclid Street and Cerritos Avenue
and ordering its recordation, as recommended in memorandum dated December 18,
1981, from the Acting City Engineer, Arthur Daw. Refer to Resolution Book.
3
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 5, 1982~ 1:30 P.M.
158: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-3: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A CERTAIN TEMPORARY EASEMENT DEED AND ORDERING ITS RECORDATION.
158: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-4: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A CERTAIN TEMPORARY EASEMENT DEED (II) AND ORDERING ITS
RECORDATION.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MF~ERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 82R-3 and 82R-4 duly passed and adopted.
108: MIA TACO - APPEAL OF DECISION ON AMUSEMENT ARCADE APPLICATION: To consider
an appeal of the decision of the Planning Director denying an Amusement Arcade
Application for Mia Taco, 2801. East Lincoln Avenue, for eight amusement devices--
continued from the meeting of December 29, 1981, see minutes that date.
Mayor Seymour asked Mr. Michael Pinkus if he had seen the City Attorney's
recommendation in report dated December 30, 1981; Mr. Michael Pinkus (who was
with his brother, Paul) answered, "no."
The Mayor thereupon asked the City Attorney to report on his recommendation of
December 30, 1981 (report on file in the City Clerk's office).
Subsequently, Mr. Pinkus asked that the Council approve their application for
eight amusement devices on the information provided by the people who Were
present and spoke to the issue at the December 29, 1981, meeting, and who
indicated they did not understand the postcard notification sent to them.
Miss Annika Santalahti, Assistant Planning Director for Zoning, then explained
for Councilwoman Kaywood the revisions that were going to be made to the post-
card notification in similar situations.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to approve the Amusement Arcade application for
Mia Taco, 2801 East Lincoln Avenue, for eight amusement devices. Councilwoman
Kaywood seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay expressed concern that if they were to
approve the motion, they would, to a degree, be undermining the polling system
of the surrounding people. He would prefer that they take a new poll by sending
a corrected postcard with the new information clearly explaining that the arcade
had been there with the existing machines, in order to ascertain whether or not
a majority would not be opposed. They could still reverse that decision from
what he heard of the City Attorney's explanation. He cautioned the Council, if
they moved to approve the application over and above the poll figures recently
determined, realizing that it was not totally fair, they might be threatening or
undermining the use of that polling system on future applications.
4
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 5, 1982, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood agreed with Councilman Bay's contention and stated she would
feel more comfortable with a new poll with new postcard wording. She, therefore,
withdrew her second to the motion.
Councilman Overholt thereupon offered the second and stated he was comfortable
with approving the application based upon what had been presented.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion of approval as moved by Councilman
Roth and seconded by Councilman Overholt.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Roth, Overholt and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bay
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood
MOTION CARRIED.
152: ANAHEIM MEMORIAL MANOR - REQUEST TO BE THE AUTHORIZED AGENT FOR THE PURPOSE
OF INITIATING A ZONE CHANGE: Request by Paul M. O'Neill that Anaheim Memorial
Manor be the authorized agent of the City for the purpose of initiating a
citizen housing development under a HUD 202 Loan Reservation on land located
on the east side of Loara Street, north of North Street, to be acquired from
the City, was submitted.
Mr. Paul O'Neill, Chief Executive Officer, Anaheim Memorial Hospital, explained
this was an attempt to allow them (Anaheim Memorial Manor) to begin processing
an application before the City for the required zone change, so that there would
be no delay after the acquisition of the property.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to approve the subject request that Anaheim
Memorial blanor be the authorized agent of the City for the purpose of initiating
the subject zone change. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
179: THE ART & ANTIQUE EMPORIUM~ INC.: Request by David Traub for clarification
of fees to be paid under Conditional Use Permit No. 2198, to permit retail antique
sales on ML zoned property located at 131 West Katella Avenue, was submitted.
The Mayor asked to hear from Mr. Traub; there was no response.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved to continue consideration of the subject
request £or one week. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Seymour asked the City Clerk to notify Mr. Traub that next week they ex-
pected he would be present at the meeting.
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 5~ 1982~ 1:30 P.M.
149: SKYWOOD PLACE PETITION FOR ANGLE PARKING: Request of Mr. W. G. Van Der Made
for "head-in" parking on the cul-de-sac of Skywood Place, was submitted.
Mr. W. G. Van Der Made, 1616 West Skywood Place, was present; Mayor Seymour
asked if he had been provided a copy of the staff report relative to the
subject request.
Mr. Van Der Made answered "no"; the Mayor thereupon reported that in each
instance, the Traffic Engineer/City Engineer (report dated December 28, 1981),
the Fire Department (report dated December 10, 1981), the Police Department
(report dated December 16, 1981), and the Street Maintenance Department (report
dated December 28, 1981), all recommended denial of the request for head-in
parking for the reasons outlined in their report (on file in the City Clerk's
office).
Mr. Van Der Made stated they had problems and citations had been received. There
were eight houses in the tract and there were three to four cars to one family
and no place to park. He did not park in his garage because it was too dangerous
to do so with the water heater located in it and the garage attached to the
house, which presented a potential fire hazard. He used his garage for storage.
Mayor Seymour explained although they.were sympathetic with the request, if they
approved it, they would be setting an extremely hazardous and serious precedent
as borne out by the reports. As well, there would be no reason why they should
not, or could not, grant the same in every other cul-de-sac and if they did so,
would create a tremendous risk of safety, health and welfare in the community.
He was going to have to accept the recommendations of staff and deny the request.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to deny the request for head-in parking on the
cul-de-sac portion of Skywood Place. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
134: PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 171 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
Sunset of California Homes, Inc., for an amendment to the Land Use Element to
consider an alternate proposal of land use from the current General Commercial
designation to Low-Medium Residential for approximately 5.8 acres of lar~d on
the northeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Romneya Drive.
Mr. Jay Tashiro, Associate Planner, briefed the staff report to the Planning
Commission dated December 14, 1981, relative to the subject property, an
owner-initiated General Plan Amendment to change the current General-Commercial
designation to Low-Medium Density Residential. The property owner proposed to
develop a condominium complex consisting of sixty to seventy dwelling units.
The Planning Commission, in their Resolution No. PC81-263, recommended
approval of Exhibit "A" (which was posted on the Chamber wall) changing
the current General Commercial to Low-Medium Density Residential, for the
5.8 acres involved, and, further,-declared that the subject project be exempt
6
City Hall~ Anaheim,~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 5, 1982, 1:30 P.M.
from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report pursuant to the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act since there would be no
s~gnificant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact due to this
project.
The Mayor asked~ to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
Mr. Frank Hughes, representing The Wellington Group, the appointed agent for Sunset
of California Homes, 14771 Plaza Drive, Tustin, stated they were the applicants
for the subject General Plan Amendment. He thereupon read a prepared statement
relative to their request entitled "City of Anaheim, General Plan Amendment
No. 171--Statement of the Applicant--The Wellington Group," and subsequently
submitted the statement to the City Clerk (made a part of the record). He
also presented executed copies of Memorandum of Agreement which he referenced
in his presentation, signed by two members at large of the Anaheim Shores
Owner Association.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak, either in favor or opposition.
Mr. A1 Kobrick, 1962 West La Palma Avenue, noted that one and two bedroom units
were noted. Since the subject project was adjacent to a large park, a grade
school, and across the street from a high school, he felt consideration should
be given to three- ~nd four-bedroom units as wel~ since the surrounding
communities were compatible to families.
Mr. Clifford R. Harper, 1975 Bayshore Drive, suggested that the proposed
density was high. Seventy units would amount to approximately thirteen
dwelling units per net acre, compared to the surrounding area which was R-1
across La Palma, and Anaheim Shores itself was approximately 6.4 dwelling
units per net acre. Other objections were, the project would generate a
trespassing nuisance on their common areas (Anaheim Shores). There was a
tendency for small children to use their lake as a playgound. The planted
areas, as well as the area around the lake, were of great concern to the
residents. He then presented an opague of a slide which he wished entered
into the record. It was basically a map similar to Exhibit "A" showing
the scale and density of the housing involved. In summation, Mr. Harper
reiterated his concerns regarding the extreme density, over double the surround-
ing area, plus the certainty that the children wh0 would be living in the
development would want to use their area. He still wanted to see the
neighborhood shopping center as originally proposed, or at least a much lower
density development.
Mr. Harper then clarified for Councilman Bay that he was a member of the Board
of Directors of the Anaheim Shores Owners Association (ASOA). The Association
elected to neither oppose nor endorse the development, but he, as an individual
living very close to it and knowing of the continual problems, elected to come
before the Council as an individual to make his concerns known.
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 5~ 1982~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Harper further clarified that relative to his (Bay) concern that every
new development be a member of the overall master Homeowners Association,
since that was one of the selling points of the original Plan, that the pro-
posed development would not fit into the structure of their CC & R's since it was
a piece of property never intended to be residential. If, however, the develop-
ment were comparable housing to that existing, they would welcome it into
their Association. The issue was not the cost relative to the sharing of expenses,
but density. Further, if the new residents were to be members of tha Association,
he would want to make the amenities as accessible as possible, but, if not,
he would like to make them somewhat less accessible.
Mr. David Reed, 914 Fairview Street, stated if the proposed revision to the
land use was residential and similar to the adjacent area, the people on
Fairview Street would have no objection. If they were going to have a density
equivalent to a one-bedroom apartment, that was another matter. He reiterated,
his personal feelings and those with whom he had discussed the issue in the
neighborhood, felt that if the density was similar to the area to the east of
the proposed use as shown on Exhibit "A", that would be a fair exchange.
After discussion between the Mayor and Mr. Reed relative to the minutes of
May 14, 1974, when the Planned Community was established, Miss Santalahti stated
in that meeting, the discussion was sometimes net and sometimes gross and she
did not believe the terms were commonly ever defined. Sometimes the lake was
subtracted and sometimes it was not. In terms of practical interpretation by
the Planning Department, when a General Plan designation was discussed, it did
mean gross, and typically included public streets. She did not think the issue
was so clear that anyone could make a finite statement relative to what was
really intended by everybody concerned. When she talked to developers about the
property, she felt she was correct in stating that 11.3 was the official figure
that appeared in the resolution or in the documentation giving approval to the
project. She explained to them that 11.3 was a gross figure on the boundary of
the tract involved, whether or not it included a public street. When a net figure
was discussed, they were talking on a zoning level. Sometimes the two did not
come together very well. The existing Anaheim Shores projects were a slight bit
more than 11.3 because they were typically detached units with a fair amount
of land area and a lot of private streets. She did not know the exact density,
but would supply that at the evening hearing.
Councilman Bay then recounted what he recalled of not only the May 14, 1974,
hearing when he was present as a citizen, but also the March 19, 1974, hearing
when the original General Plan Amendment No. 130 was voted on, the major
point being: gross density was never discussed in those days. The new
interpretations came along with the recent changes to RM-3000 zoning to use
gross, so that the RM-3000 density could be increased and still not go beyond
the limits of the General Plan Amendment. He also quoted certain portions of
the 1974 minutes which he felt substantiated the fact that net density was
being discussed. He maintained that General Plan Amendment No. 130 became
Planned Community zoning, and it became the General Plan; therefore, the limitations
called out in General Plan Amendment No. 130 and the Planned Community zoning
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 5, 1982, 1:30 P.M.
and the specific Exhibits 1 through 6 did, in effect, substantially set the
General Plan with a limitation that by law could not be changed or exceeded
by developments in Anaheim Shores. He had not planned to discuss the matter
until this evening, since it was not necessarily germane to the subject General
Plan Amendment other than the argument that the General Plan Amendment for
the subject section, which was an integral part of the Planned community, be
the same as General Plan Amendment No. 130, and, therefore the PC zoning,
and set to the same limitations set for the rest of the community. As it
changed from Commercial to Residential, and he heard no objection to that,
it should still be an integral part of the Planned Community and subject to
the same legal limitations as General Plan Amendment No. 130. That would
limit it to approximately 11.3 dwelling units per net acre maximum. It would
not allow seventy units, but probably considerably less, and closer to what
had already been developed in the Anaheim Shores Development. If both
developments (the subject development and the Fieldstone development that
would be discussed this evening) were held to the original plan based on net
densities, they would become a welcome member to the Master Homeowners Association
so that the full plan of the overall Anaheim Shores Development would be as
agreed to in 1974.
Later in the hearing, after further discussion between Council and staff relative
to the issue of density, Councilman Bay stated it was time to have a legal opinion
from the City Attorney's office on the interpretation of the 1974 minutes and the
words and logic flow in those minutes as to the current General Plan Amendment.
The assumption was to jump to the gross acreage. He reiterated, in 1974,
that would have been something rarely ever discussed. They discussed net,
and always did. Working from the basis of gross, they may have been in a
position where they not only misled the Planning Commission to a degree, but
also the Council, and even the developer involved with the further development
of Anaheim Shores on what he considered a misinterpretation of the General
Plan as part of the Planned Community. He also wanted to look at the exhibits
involved. Those exhibits, as he recalled showed a net and a gross density
figure on each of the tracts. Splitting them up and combining them would
lead to possibly two or three density limitations. They may even have to
bend a little to see that they met the General Plan. The Council had to make
up its mind whether it would retain the General Plan commitments and an
extension of those densities approved on the whole community, or whether
they were going to make a major change and vote as recommended by the
Planning Commission for Exhibit "A", which was low to medium density.
Mr. Tashiro confirmed since the applicant was proposing condominiums, they
would have to develop under the RM-3000 requirement and the maximum permitted
density would be 14.5 dwelling units per net acre.
9
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - CO~CIL MINUTES - January 5, 1982~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Bay stated it should be clearly understood that with the proposed
Exhibit "A" Amendment to the General Plan, they were limiting the net density
to 14.5 which was above what the current legal General Plan allowed in the
whole Anaheim Shores community at present. That was the decision for the Council
to make. He thought the whole idea behind added residential was, in fact,
to make up to some degree the losses of the acreage that went to the Martin
Luther Hospital parking lot and to help solve some of the problems of the
Association. That was why he was astounded when he saw an agreement that the
Association did not want the group as a member of their Association, until he
found out why. The reason was that it was not similar to their development
and would, therefore, create legal changes to their CC & R's.
Miss Santalahti then clarified for Councilwoman Kaywood and the Mayor that
everything thus far that had been approved in the Planned Community, there were
277 units left over to approve for the present site and the site they were
going to be discussing this evening.
Councilman Bay stated, using onlv the number count, that he did not think by
adding density limitations on Exhibits 1 through 6 that those figures would
total 982 homes as indicated on Page 10c of the staff report. Those exhibits
were the General Plan as it now existed legally. That was why he was interested
in what the figures said on those Exhibits. If net, tonight's development would
be way beyond the General Plan and illegal to approve. The logical argument was
to try to hold to the density as an integral part of the whole plan and that
was his view.
Dr. Shook, resident of Anaheim Shores, then explained why he became a resident
of that community. He was especially pleased when he made the decision to find
that further development was going to be consistent. The Council should consider
that at tonight,s hearing. Hewanted consistency with the existing development
at Anaheim Shores and that the density not be changed. He was happy with what
was there at present and he would like to see it continued.
Helen Carter, 1945 Bayshore, agreed with Dr. Shook. She moved to Anaheim Shores
because it was the kind of place in which she wanted to live and she wanted it
continued the way it was begun.
The Mayor then gave Mr. Hughes an opportunity for summation.
Mr. Fred Hughes stated he would rather ask for a delay to see if it were possible
to reach a consensus as to an understanding with regard to density. Relative
to the issue of the Community Association, it was necessary to have equity amongst
the membership.' It was difficult for him at this time to justify a fee of fifty
dollars, or whatever it might be for a facility (the lake) that was not very
equitably spread across the membership, and thus, he had concerns with regard
to a mandatory association. Relative to the issue of density, he asked that
they give an indication to him what that might be before he proceeded. If
there were not a great deal of margin as to the number of units, and if it were
fifty, it might not be a viable project. They had been dealing in the range of
10
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 5, 19829 1:30 P.M.
sixty-four to sixty-six units following the calculations he used. He then
asked that the matter be delayed one week since his only concern was that
prior to any actiun taken changing the ~roperty from Commercial to Residential,
that they have a good understanding from the Council as to the number of units
that would be allowed.
Councilman Bay stated thst he would be agreeable to a delay if for no other
reason than the right of the applicant to have some idea of whet he was going
to be limited to.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to continue the public bearing on General Plan
Amendment Ne. I71 for one week. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for ten minutes. (5:00 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor cslled the meeting to order, all Council Members
bei~g present. (5:10 p.m.)
156: LOUIS DEXT~ER - REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON PUBLIC SAFETY:
Mr. Louis Dexter, 305 North Ranchito read, "An Address By Louis Dexter
Before the Anaheim City Council, January 5, 1982--Public Safety--.The Two-Edged
Sword," (on file in the City C'ierk's office). Starting on Page Three of his
presentation, Mr. Dexter outlined three recommendations, the essence of which
were as follows: (1) That the Council designate the ~irst week of January, each
year, as "Public Safety Week In Anaheim;" (2) That a Public Safety Commission
or Board be established by the Council to serve as a forum for public discussion
of public safety matters and to help develop citizen "expertise" in public
safety matters; (3) That one of the first duties or responsibilities of the
Public Safety Co~maissJon or Board will be to develop, in conjunction with
~he professional staff of City Administratio~ and with the guidance add support
of the City Council, a Public Safety Plan and that the Public Safety Plan be
open to public discussion prior to the City Council's approval and adoption
of the plan.
After Council questioning of, and debate with, Mr. Dexter relative to some
of the information contained in his presentation, the Mayor recommended that
Mr. Dexter's written comments be provided to the City Manager, Publi~ Works
Director, Fire Chief and Police Chief and ask them to develop information
relative to the questions Mr. Dexter raised, as well as some of the questions
the Council raised, and to take up the matter again in a couple of weeks.
Mr. Dexter should also be provided with a copy of the resultant report in
time to have an opportunity to evaluate it before meeting again.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved that a report be submitted as articulated by
the Mayor. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion.
11
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 5~ t982~ 1:30 P~M.
Before action was taken, City Manager William Talley stated they had not seen
Mr. Dexter's report and suggested that three weeks' time be given. They would
send a copy to Mr. Dexter and'when he was ready to return to the Council, he
could do so.
Mr. Dexter stated he was in a dilemma si,~ce in newsprint, he promised never to
come before the Council again on the matter as an individual. He had formed
a Political Action Committee, the details of which were available in the City
Clerk's office. If they sent him the report, he would then distribute it to
the media as their reaction and response to his request.
The Mayor asked for an explanation; Mr. Dexter stated he was no longer working
as an individual and after tonight, he would be known as a political acgivist.
He reiterated he had formed a Political Action Committee, it was on file, it
had an identifiable number and a purpose in mind, that purpose being to disseminate
information on public safety, report on elected officials and incumbent officials
record of public safety, etc. He would not be appearing again, and if they sent
him a copy of the report, he would send it to the media who presently had a copy
of the report he just read.
Councilman OVerhoit and Councilwoman Kaywood expressed their concern that the
media had already seen his presentation and the Council had not.
Mr. Dexter stated hE had asked the City Clerk to provide the Council with copies.
He also clarified for the City Manager that he (Dexter') asked that no copies be
made until after his presentation.
Speaking to Mr. Dexter, Mayor Seymour stated heretofore he had played the role
in the community of a good watchdog on the Council. Sometimes they had agreed
and sometimes not. -Now he had decided to take a 'political approach and he
(Seymour) for one felt that was unfortunate because wi>th what Mr. Dexter just
stated, it made it difficult for any elected body to work in a positive fashion
with him. Relative to today's presentation, he felt it in the best interests, that
they would take their time, ask for a report, give a copy to Mr. Dexter and work
something out. Now Mr. Oexter was sayiag he was a Political Action Committee
and would not even come back and talk with the Council when he thought he was
going to try to find a better way to make a better community.
Mr. Dexter felt thzt considering what had transpired in the interim w~th his
original request for a Public Safety Committee or Commission in 1978, that the
gauntlet was now laid down to him.
The Mayor asked Councilman Roth to amend his motion that the requested report not'
be mailed to Mr. Dexter, i.e., that the report be provided in three weeks and at
that time that it be placed on the agenda.
Councilman Overholt interjected and stated he was reticent to instruct staff to
respond to something the Council had not seen. He suggested that they receive the
report, give them an opportunity to look at it, and next week, give direction to
staff.
12
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 5, 1982~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Dexter confirmed for Councilman Roth that he had read his report verbatim.
Mayor Seymour believed then it would be appropriate to withdraw the motion;
Councilman Roth thereupon withdrew his motion and Councilman Seymour, his second.
Mayor Seymour concluded that they were going to tell the public how they stood
a week from today, after having read Mr. Dexter's report.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2104 - EXTENSION OF TIME:
Request submitted by George and William Nichols, requesting an extension of
time to Conditional Use Permit No. 2104, to permit a public dance hall on CL
zoned property located at 919 South Knott Street.
The extemsion of time was approved by the the Planning Commission, to expire
September 2, 1982.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilman Roth
at the meeting of October 27, 1981, and a public hearing scheduled and continued
from December 1, 1981, for submission of a sound study.
Councilman Roth explained the reason he wanted the review was due to the fact
they had received complaints from residents living in the apartment units to
the north and from a single family residence to the south, across Ball Road,
relative to noise. They now had a sound study indicating the noise impacts in
those residential areas, along with appropriate recommendations.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present.
Mr. George Nichols, 5732 Edwood Ware Circle, Garden Grove, one of the owners
of the public dance hall at 919 South Knott, gave the background revolving
around complaints regarding the noise level emanating from his place of
business and the area in which it was located. He then explained the noise
mitigation measures they had taken since they were informed of the problem.
He stated, however, that street noise was higher than any noise emanating
from the business. The recent sound check conducted by J. J. Van Houten
and Associates recommended that they cover a glass window near the band
stage with acoustical tile. They did so, and also purchased curtains for
behind the sta§e to stop any bouncin8 of the sound emanating from the rear
of the music amplifierm. Am well~ they were willin$ to cooperate with any
additional recommendations offered to them by the consulting engineer in an
attempt to stop any discomfort to the neighbors. They were willing and anxious
to eliminate the problem and did not wish to cause the City any additional
expenditures on their behalf.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak, either in favor or in opposition.
13
.City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 5~ 1982~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Bill Sammons explained that he owned the Union 76 gas station next door. The
establishment was approximately seventy feet from his back door and there was very
little noise coming from that place of business to his. Most of the problem was
with the other two clubs and he had turned a number of complaints over to the
police. The problem was with the "punkers" next door and he had never seen any-
one coming from the area of the subject business over to his area, the reason
being that Mr. Nichols' club catered to an older group.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
Mr. John Van Houten, Consulting Engineer, then explained that he felt the problem
was the fact that there were three rock-and-roll type of establishments in the
center and the noise coming from one of these establishments, two, or all three,
was associated with a back door being open, a front door being opened, and the
noise associated with parking lot activity. He did not think they could look
at any one establishment and apply sound controls ~and ignore the fact
that there were two other establishments conducting activities of the same type.
His noise control recommendations clearly stated that unless applied to all three,
they were not going to work.
Councilman Roth stated since the applicant stipulated that he would comply with all
noise control recommendations as contained in the sound study made by J. J. Van
Houten and Associates, dated December 15, 1981 (made a part of the record), he
would approve the requested extension of time.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to approve the extension of time of Conditional
Use Permit No. 2104 to September 2, 1982, subject to compliance with the noise
control recommendations outlined in the sound study made by J. J. Van Houten &
Associates, dated December 15, 1981, to be accomplished in ninety days. Council-
man Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved that a copy of the Van Houten report be forwarded
to the other two establishments in the center with a letter from the Council
advising that they also comply with the corrective action requests as well.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Before concluding, Mr. Kobrick, 1962 West La Palma, stated that they should
consider everybody's welfare and assure that proper decible levels were main-
rained.
169/108: CLOSURE OF FRA~NCES DRIVE AND AN APPEAT. OF AMUSEMENT ARCADE APPLICATION
FOR THE PIZZA STORE: To 'consider the possible closure of the westerly terminus
of Frances Drive which leads into the parking lot of the shopping center located
at the southeast corner of Euclid Street and La Palma Avenue; and to consider
an appeal of the decision of the Planning Director denying an Amusement Arcade
Permit Application for The Pizza Store, 1000 North Euclid Street, filed by
John Guarascio, continued from the meeting of November 10, 1981 (see minutes
that date).
14
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 5, 1982, 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor asked to hear from those who wished to speak in opposition.
Mrs° Marie McDonald, 1005 Dresden Street, stated that she was personally against
the Amusement Arcade Application, but if a ten-foot noise abatement wall was
constructed between the stores and the residences on Dresden, she would approve.
She then submitted pictures showing conditions presently existing in and around
the shopping center, upon which she elaborated. While there were many problems,
their main concerns revolved around the noise and traffic generated from the
Pizza Store, and also the situation involving the Alpha Beta store with the
unloading of their trucks twenty-four hours a day. Since the store had been
remodeled and expanded, only one truck at a time could be unloaded while other
trucks waited their turn with their engines running, resulting in fumes, noise
and an intrusion of privacy into the rear yards of the residents' homes on
Dresden. There was also a noise problem from the market's trash compactor
and they had contacted Alpha Beta many times over the years with regard to
such problems. There was also a problem of noise with the photo studio which
closed at 4:00 a.m., and the employees subsequently congregated outside and
then had to warm up their vehicles before leaving. She also reiterated additional
concerns which were expressed and summarized at the meeting of November 10, 1981
(see minutes that date).
Traffic Engineer Paul Singer then gave BDT counts on Dresden and surrounding
streets as requested by Mrs. McDonald (see report dated December 29, 1981, from
the Engineering Division).
Mr. A1 Roth, 1512 Frances Drive, favored the closure of Frances Drive to help
alleviate some of the problems they were experiencing; Cathy Brokup, 1009 North
Dresden, then submitted a petition signed by a number of residents surrounding
the subject shopping center (made a part of the record) and read a list of
their concerns, which were attached to the signature pages. She personally was
not against two or three additional machines being added to the Pizza Store, but
she and the people she had talked with wanted help in eliminating the congregat-
ing and drinking that went on behind the business. Further, all thirty-six
people who signed the petition were in favor of the closure of Frances Drive.
Elaine Patterson, 1622 Catherine Drive, expressed her concern relative to the
nursery located on the corner of Euclid Street and Catherine Drive, which
generated considerable traffic. She maintained if Frances Drive were closed,
more tra{{ic would be diverted onto Catherine Drive as a result. She felt
it was only fair that the people on Frances Drive share the responsibility of
the traffic burden for the whole neighborhood. She was, therefore, opposed to
the closure of Frances Drive but had signed the petition against the request
for an Amusement Arcade Application.
Mildred Miller, 1633 Catherine Drive, stated she was against the Pizza Store
Amusement Arcade Application to add additional machines and also against the
closure of Frances Drive.
15
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Januar~ 5, 1982~ 1:30 P.M.
The following people also spoke against the request for additional amusement
devices but also against the closure of Frances Drive: Mrs. Billie Strickland,
1623 Catherine Drive; Georgia Boyer, Catherine Drive; Edna Straight, 1606 Catherine
Drive; and Ginger Oswald, 1526 Frances Drive, spoke against the request for
additional amusement devices for the closure of Frances Drive.
Mr. John Guarascio, owner of the Pizza Store, stated he was sympathetic to
the problems expressed by the residents. He could not personally control
many of those problems but stated that he was in support of their views and
would like to see whatever could be done to alleviate the problems. He then
answered some of the concerns expressed as he had at the meeting of November 10,
1981 (see minutes that date). In concluding, he requested a "yes" vote from
the Council on his petition to add additional machines to his business. His
request was not something that was aggravating the problems at the shopping
center. He then confirmed for Councilman Overholt that relative to his feeling
on the closure of Frances Drive, from a businessman's standpoint, he felt
closure would be detrimental to the businesses in the center, but if he were
a homeowner in the area, he would be sympathetic to closing the street.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the
public hearing.
The Council then asked to hear from the representative from Alpha Beta, who
was present in the Chamber audience.
Ms. Elaine Guest, representative of Alpha Beta's Real Estate Department, La Habra,
stated her purpose in being present was primarily for observation, and they were
also concerned relative to the closure of Frances Drive. In talking to the
store manager, he felt a tremendous amount of his customers were using that
access, it was a convenience to them, and he personally did not want to see it
closed.
The Mayor then showed Ms. Guest the pictures that were submitted by Mrs. McDonald,
specifically those involving the Alpha Beta trucks intruding into the residents'
back yards on Dresden, and referred to the testimony given relative to the noise,
fumes, litter, etc., generating from the Alpha Beta property. He cautioned that
she should inform the management if they did not clean up their act there was
going to be more action than the closure of Frances Drive. He urged her to
speak to the Alpha Beta management and have them get together with the other
owners of the property to resolve the problems in the center.
Ms. Guest explained it was a fragmentized center. She had researched the
files and there was not even a reciprocal parking agreement with adjacent
property owners. She then addressed some of the problems as expressed by
the residents upon Council questioning and specifically explained that truck
loading and unloading could not commence before 7:00 a.m., nor continue after
10:00 p.m. If employees were abusing that time frame, they were going against
Alpha Beta's policy as well as store policy. It would be investigated and
stopped. She agreed that everything possible should be done from their stand
point to resolve the problems expressed.
16
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 5, 1982, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Overholt felt the problem lay in the fact that there were multiple
owners of the center and certain owners were unwilling tO spend a dime to
improve it.
Mayor Seymour stated it appeared the biggest problem was th~ fact that the
subject was a shopping center that was designed twenty-five years .ago, it was
now under separate ownership, and there was no control on the property for
maintenance and upkeep'. Relative to the request for an Amusement Devices
Permit, he did not see anything wrong with the request to add three machines
t~ those already existing at the Pizza Store. Approval was not going to
make any difference with regard to the problems that were occurring. They
had to attack the conditions existing in the center and he, therefore, suggested
that a notification be sent to ail property owners of the center, as well as
tenants,-setting up a meeting with appropriate City staff, and also two members
of the Council who would express the Council's concern for the neighborhood,
the cleanliness of the center, the drinking tha~was occurri~g on the premises,
etc. The ~olice Department' should also be involved. They should do all
possible with regard to Alpha Beta to minimJ, ze the disturbance that store
created in the environment.
Both Councilmen Roth and Overholt felt that the Mayor's recommendation was a
good one. Councilman Overholt commented further that he did not feel tha~
three more machines in the Pizza Store was going to make any difference, one
way or the other.
Councilwoman Kaywood expressed her opposition to allowing more machines at this
time. If everythin~ was cleaned up and they were able to get all of the owners
together to assure their responsiveness to the surrounding residential area,
the Council could then consider the ~equest for additional machines.
Councilman Bay volunteered to serve on the committee outlined by the Mayor.
He asked that a time limit be set so the residents would know when something
was going to be done; Councilman Overholt also volunteered to be on the
committee.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved that Councilmembers Overholt and Bay serve
as a liaison committee from the Council to meet with appropriate City staff
and property owners, as well as interested tenants of the subject shopping
center, an~ report bac~ to the Council with the intent of conducting a public
hearing within forty-five days with their specific recommendations as to improve-
ments to be made in that shoppin8 center. Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution Nc. 82R-5 for adoption, disapproving
the closure of Frances Drive, thereby accepting staff's recommendation in
report dated December 29, 1981, that it remain open.~ Refer to Resolution
Book.
17
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 5~ 1982, 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 82R-5: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
DISAPPROVING THE CLOSURE OF FRANCES DRIVE TO VEHICULAR TRAFFIC AT ITS WESTERLY
TERMINUS PURSUANT TO SECTION 21101 OF THE VEHICLE CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL ME~fBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt,' Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 82R-5 duly passed and adopted.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved that the Amusement Arcade Permit Application
submitted by Mr. John Guarascio for the Pizza Store, 1000 North Euclid Avenue,
for three additional machines, be approved. Councilman Overholt seconded the
motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated she was going to have to
oppose the motion until there was some positive change in the problems now
existing in the center.
Councilman Bay stated he would prefer to see a decision on the application to
wait sixty days since they had forty-five days to look at the existing
problems.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Council Members Kaywood and
Bay voted "no". MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: By general aonsent the Council recessed for fifteen minutes. (7:37 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (7:55 p.m.)
Before proceeding, Councilman Roth stated that since he owned property at
1000 East Lincoln Avenue, located within the boundaries of Project Alpha,
and upon advice of legal counsel, he would abstain from discussion and voting
on all matters to be considered relative to the Third Amendment to the Redevelopment
Plan for Redevelopment Flan Alpha. Councilman R0th left the Council Chambers.
(7:56 p.m.)
PUBLIC HEARING ~ GENERAL.PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 172: Amendment to the Land Use
Element, to consider an alternate proposal of land use from the current Medium
Density Residential designation to General Commercial designation for approximately
3.1 acres of land bounded on the north hy Cypress Street, south by Lincoln Avenue,
east by an alley and Helena Street and the west by Harbor Boulevard.
18
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 5, 1982, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Jay Tashiro, Associate Planner, briefed the staff report to the Planning
Commission, dated November 16, 1981, relative to the subject property, a City-
initiated General Plan Amendment to change the current Medium Density Residential
designation to General Commercial, consisting of 1.0 acres of undeveloped site
bounded on the north by Cypress Street, south by Chartres Street, east by an
alley and Helena Street, and west by Harbor Boulevard, and a 2.1 acre site
currently developed with commercial office buildings (El Camino Business Center)
bounded on the north by Chartres Street, south by Lincoln Avenue, east by
Helena Street and west by Harbor Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission, in their Resolution No. PC81-246, recommended
approval of Exhibit "B" (which was posted on the Chamber wall) designating
the entire area for Commercial, Office and Professions1 uses. The project
area was covered under Environmental Impact Report No. 189 which was previously
approved.
The Mayor then asked if anyone wished to speak to General Plan Amendment No. 172.
Mr. Larry King, 218 South Florette Avenue, stated he failed to see the
necessity for the proposed General Plan Amendment. The area under discussion
was promised to be continued as a residential area a~ the time meetings were
held in the main library. Also, the Project Area Committee resolved they were
opposed, with one abstention. They saw no reason for allowing commercial which
would be backed up to housing and across the street from the park.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
Mayor Seymour then announced that having completed receiving testimony on the
General Plan Amendment, they were now scheduled to take testimony on a proposed
Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Alpha. He
therefore, suggested that they defer discussion and a decision on the proposed
General Plan Amendment Until the conclusion of the hearing on the proposed
Redevelopment Plan Amendment.
Chairman Seymour thcreupon reconvened the meeting of the Anaheim Redevelopment
Agency, all agency members being present with the exception of Mr. Roth. (8:07 p.m.)
Mayor Seymour then asked the Commission/Agency Secretary to call the roll for the
Redevelopment Agency and the Redevelopment Commission:
PRESENT:
TEMPORARILY ABSENT:
PRESENT:
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay and Seymour
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEMBERS: Roth
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
ACTING SECRETARY: Leonora N. Sohl
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Norman J. Priest
19
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 5~ 1982~ 1:30 P.M.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MEMBERS: Dan Martinez, Robert Doty,
Jane Oseid, William Ranney, Stewart Moss, Doug Rennet, Herb Leo
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MEMBERS: None
Chairman Leo called the Community Redevelopment Commission to order at 8:08 p.m.
JOINT PUBLIC HEARING - THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT ALPHA: To consider the proposed Third Amendment to Redevelopment Project
Alpha and environmental impact relating to said amendment, for a one-acre site
identified as Parcel l(a) along Harbor Boulevard between Chartres and Cypress
Streets, initiated at the direction of the City Council on October 13, 1981.
Mayor Seymour asked the Redevelopment Agency'~s Executive Director, Norman Priest,
to begin the presentation for the Agency.
Mr. Norman Priest then introduced the following to Agency Members; Mr. Bruce
Ballmer, Special Counsel, Mr. Phil Gardner, Development Services Manager,
Mr. Michael Welch, Associate Planner, Ms. Roberta Costa, Real Estate Development
Specialist.
Mr. Priest then explained and briefed the Council/Agency/Community Redevelopment
Commission on the documents covering the proposed Third Amendment to the
Redevelopment Plan, all of which were contained in the information package
previously submitted to the Agency (on file in the City Clerk's office), as well
as supporting documentation. Recommendations (1 through 5) were outlined in
memorandum dated December 28, 1981, from the Executive Director.
In concluding his presentation, Mr. Priest noted that as required by law, the Plan
and Plan Report were submitted to the Project Area Committee (PAC) who met and
deliberated the matter at their meeting of November 24, 1981, and as a result,
submitted letter dated November 25, 1981 (on file in the City Clerk's office),
which he read. PAC had voted unanimously (one member not participating because of a
possible conflict of interest) to recommend that the land use not be changed from
residential to general commercial, listing four reasons for their vote. With the
Committee's failure to approve the Plan, it would require that the Council/Agency
adopt the Plan Amendment with four votes.
City Attorney William Hopkins then clarified for Councilman Overholt that only
three votes would be necessary to adopt the plan since Councilman R0th was not
participating.
The Mayor then opened the hearing to public testimony on the proposed Third
Amendment tO the Redevelopment Plan asking first to hear from those in opposition.
He noted that Mr. Larry King, under the Council portion, when discussing General
Plan Amendment No. 172, had registered opposition to the proposal. He invited
Mr. King to come forward if he wished to register his opposition again under this
portion of the meeting. Mr. King communicated to the Mayor from the audience
that he felt that he had covered what he had to say in opposition under the
previous portion of the meeting.
2O
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 5~ 1982~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Kobrick, 1962 La Palma, asked what type of commercial was proposed, and
Mr. Priest answered, professional-office type commercial; Mr. Tashiro confirmed
that the Planning Commission had approved Exhibit "B", commercial-professional
office type uses, excluding retail.
The Mayor then asked to hear from those persons in favor of the proposed Third
Amendment; there was no response.
The Deputy City Clerk confirmed that no written comments had been received up
until this time.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, either in favor or opposition,
the Mayor closed the joint public hearing on the Redevelopment Plan Amendment for
the Council/Redevelopment Agency.
Mr. Leo, Chairman of the Community Redevelopment Commission, declared the joint
public hearing on the Redevelopment Plan Amendment closed for the Commission.
Council Members Kaywood, Bay, Seymour and Overholt respectively commented on why
they favored the recommended action to approve the proposed Third Amendment to
the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Alpha.
The Mayor announced it would be appropriate at this time for the Council to offer
a resolution approving General Plan Amendment No. 172.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 82R-6 for adoption approving General
Plan Amendment No. 172, Exhibit "B" as recommended by the City Planning Commission.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 82R-6: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATED
AS AMENDMENT NO. 172, EXHIBIT "B" SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE THIRD AMENDMENT
TO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ALPHA.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
TEMPORARILY ABSENT:
COUNCIL ME~ERS:
COUNCIL ME~ERS:
COUI~CILM~MBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay and Seymour
None
Roth
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 82R-6 duly passed and adopted.
Agency Member Overholt offered Resolution No. ARA82-1 for adoption, certifying
the initial study of environmental impacts with respect to the proposed Third
Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Alpha. Refer to
Resolution Book.
21
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL.MINUTES - January 5~ 1982~ 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. ARA82-1: A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
CERTIFYING THE INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WITH RESPECT TO THE
PROPOSED THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
ALPHA.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: AGENCY _MEMBERS:
NOES: AGENCY MEMBERS;
TEMPORARILY ABSENT AGENCY!~EMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay and Seymour
None
Roth
The Chairman declared ~RA82-1 duly passed and adopted.
Commissioner Moss offered Resolution No, CRC82-1 for adoption,
certifying the initial study of environmental impacts with respect to the
proposed Third Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project
Alpha. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. CRC82-1: A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
CERTIFYING THE INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WITH RESPECT TO THE
PROPOSED THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
ALPHA.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COMMISSION MEMBERS:
COMMISSION MEMBERS:
COMMISSION MEMBERS:
Martinez, Doty, Ranney, Moss and Leo
Oseid and Renner
None
The Chairman declared Resolution No. CRC82-1 duly passed and adopted.
Commissioner Leo offered Resolution No. CRC82-2 for adoption, approving and
submitting to the Council the Report on the proposed Third Amendment to the
Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Alpha, and recommending adoption
of said Amendment. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. CRC82-2: A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
APPROVING AND SUBMITTING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM TI{E REPORT
ON THE PROPOSED THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT
PRO3ECT ALPHA AND RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF SAID AMENDMENT.
22
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 5, 1982, 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COMMISSION MEMBERS:
COMMISSION MEMBERS:
COMMISSION M~MBERS:
Martinez, Dory, Ranney, Moss and Leo
Oseid and Renner
None
The Chairman declared Resolution No. CRC82-2 duly passed and adopted.
Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 82R-7 for adoption certifying the initial
study of environmental impacts with respect to the proposed Third Amendment
to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project Alpha. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 82R-7: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
CERTIFYING THE INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED
THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ALPHA.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
TEMPORARILY ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEM~ERS:
COUNCIL M~MBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay and Seymour
None
Roth
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 82R-7 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 4300: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4300 for first
reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4300: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 3190,
AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE NOS. 3567 AND 3631 APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE THIRD
AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ALPHA.
ADJOURN-baNT - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Mrs. Kaywood moved to adjourn. Mr. Overhott
seconded the motion. Mr. Roth was temporarily absent. MOTION CARRIED (8:35 p.m.).
ADJOURNMENT - COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION: Mr. Moss moved to adjourn.
Mrs. Oseid seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (8:35 p.m.)
23
Cit.y Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 5, 1982~ 1:30 P.M.
RECESS: By general consent of all Council Members present, the Council recessed
for a dinner break. (8:36 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (9:00 p.m.)
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 81-82-3~ VARIANCE NO. 3238 AND
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11637: Application by the Fieldstone Company, for a change
in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-3000 to establish a 2-lot, 105 unit condominium
subdivision on property located at the northwest corner of Romneya Drive and
Coronet Avenue and at the southeast corner of Medical Center Drive and Coronet
Avenue, with a Code waiver of minimum lot area per dwelling unit.
Environmental Impact Report No. 113 was previously certified by the City Council
on March 16, 1974, along with the approval of the Anaheim Shores Planned
Community.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-226, granted
Reclassification No. 81-82-3, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim a
fee, in an amount as determined by the City Council, for tree planting
purposes along Romneya Drive and Coronet Avenue.
2. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved
plans on file with the Office of the Executive Director of Public Works.
3. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and
determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to
commencement of structural framing.
4. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
5. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner
satisfactory to the City Engineer.
6. That the owner of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim
the appropriate'~park and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to be
appropriate by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the
building permit is issued.
7. That all private streets shall be developed in accordance with the
City of Anaheim's Standard Detail No. 122 for private streets, including
installation of street name signs. Plans for the private street lighting,
24
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 5, 1982, 1:30 P.M.
as required by the standard detail, shall be submitted to the Building
Division for approval and inclusion with the building plans prior to the
issuance of building permits. (Private streets are those which provide
primary access and/or circulation within the project.)
8. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay the traffic signal
assessment fee .(Ordinance No. 3896) in an amount as determined by the City
Council, for each new dwelling unit prior to the issuance of a building
permit.
9. That appropriate water assessment fees as determined by the Office of
Utilities General Manager shall be paid to the City of Anaheim prior to
the issuance of a building permit.
10. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall present
evidence satisfactory to the Chief Building Inspector that the units will
be in conformance with Noise Insulation Standards specified in the California
Administrative Code, Title 25.
11. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall present
evidence satisfactory to the Chief Building Inspector that the proposed
project is in conformance with Council Policy Number 542, Sound Attenuation
in Residential Projects.
12. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1
through 7.
13. Prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject property,
Condition No. 1, above-mentioned, shall be completed. The provisions or
rights granted by this resolution shall become null and void by action of
the Planning Commission unless said conditions are complied with within one year
from the date hereof, or such further time as the Planning Commission may grant.
14. That Condition Nos. 2, 4, 5, 7 and 12, above-mentioned, shall be
complied with prior to final building and zoning inspections.
The City Plannin§ Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-227, granted
Variance No. 3238, subject to the following conditions:
1. That this Variance is granted subject to the completion of Reclassification
No. 81-82-3, now pending.
2. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit
Nos. i through 7.
25
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 5, 1982~ 1:30 P.M.
The City Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract No. 11637, subject to
the following conditions:
1. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 11637 is granted subject
to the approval of Variance No. 3238.
2. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision,
each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval.
3. That all lots within this tract shall be served by underground utilities.
4. That the original documents of the covenants, conditions, and restrictions,
and a letter addressed to developer's title company authorizing recordation
thereof, shall be submitted to the City Attorney's office and approved by
the City Attorney's Office, Public Utilities Department, Building Division,
and the Engineering Division prior to final tract map approval. Said documents,
as approved, shall be filed and recorded in the Office of the Orange County
Recorder.
5. That street names shall be approved by the City Planning Department prior
to approval of a final tract map.
6. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved
plans on file with the Office of the Executive Director of Public Works.
7. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and determined
to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to commencement of
structural framing.
8. That drainage ef subject property shall be disposed of in a manner
satisfactory to the City Engineer.
9. That the owner of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim
the appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to be
appropriate by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the
building permit is issued.
10. That ali private streets shall be developed in accordance with the City of
Anaheim's Standard Detail No. 122 for private streets, including installation
of street name signs. Plans for the private street lighting, as required by
the standard detail, shall be submitted to the Building Division for
approval and inclusion with the building plans prior to the issuance of
building permits. (Private streets are those which provide primary access
and/or circulation within the project.)
26
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 5, 1982, 1:30 P.M.
11. If permanent street name signs have not been installed, temporary street
name signs shall be installed prior to any occupancy.
12. That the owner(s) of subject pro?erty shall pay the traffic signal
assessment fee (Ordinance No. 3896) in an amount as determined by the City
Council, for each new dwelling unit prior to the issuance of a building
permit.
13. That appropriate water assessment fees as determined by the Office of
Utilities General Manager shall be paid to the City of Anaheim prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
14. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall present
evidence satisfactory to the Chief Building Inspector that the proposed
project is in conformance with Council Policy Number 542, Sound Attenuation
in Residential Projects.
15. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall present
evidence satisfactory to the Chief Building Inspector that the units will
be in conformance with Noise Insulation Standards specified in the
California AdministratiVe Code, Title 25.
16. That the proposed subdivision shall provide, to the extent feasible,
for passive or natural heating and cooling opportunities.
Miss Annika Santalahti, Assistant Planning Director for Zoning, described
the location and surrounding land uses. She outlined the findings given in
the staff report which was submitted to and considered by the Planning
Commission.
Miss Santalahti also added that the existing projects, which included five
partially constructed tracts, had an overall density per net acre, excluding
both public and private streets, of 8.6 dwelling units per acre. The gross
density, including public streets, was 6.8 units per acre, which accounted
for 217 dwelling units on approximately 31 gross acres, or 25 net acres. The
two tracts approved on the westerly boundary of the Anaheim Shores project were
for 125 units on 19.3 gross acres with a gross density of 6.4 units and a net
density of 8.5 on 14.6 acres, again excluding both public and private streets.
There was a subsequent zone change and now the zoning interpretation would
only exclude public streets. The current project had a gross acreage of
approximately 9.96, a net of approximately 7.08, with 105 units, or 14.8
units per net acre, excluding only public streets, or 10.5 per gross acre.
Adding up the units, including the current project', and subtracting the 24
units which were originally to be built in what was now going to be a parking
lot area for the Martin Luther Hospital, gave the entire project a total of
423 units on a total acreage of 61.14. That was a gross density of 6.91 and
a net density of 9.02 on a net acreage of 46.88. The entire project was
approved for 982 units and the interpretation that staff had on the project
and given to the developers was an overall density of 11.3. If a developer
had gone in on one part of it with five units to the acre, another developer
27
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 5, 1982, 1:30 P.M.
might potentially have been able to exceed the 11.3 because the average total
project density would still have been 11.3 or lower. Right now, even if the
subject project were approved, it would be under the 11.3 project-wide.
At the conclusion of Miss Santalahti's presentation, Councilman Bay referred to
the motion made by the Planning Commission, quoting the latter portion, "...that
subject to the petitioner's stipulation to continue negotiations with the
existing Anaheim Shores Owners Association to work out an acceptable agreement
pertaining to the maintenance and liability of the lake with the developer
stipulating to participate in a pro-rata share of those costs and subject
to the following conditions..." He felt that portion of the motion made by
the Planning Commission was germane and should have been in the staff report.
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
Mr. David Langlois, 12422 LaBella, Santa Ana, representing the Fieldstone Company,
first asked that the site plan exhibit be posted on the Chamber wall for
reference purposes. He felt they had met all the requirements of the existing
zoning and, quoting from the staff report to the Planning Commission, "...the
adopted zoning element of the Anaheim Shores General Planned Community designates
the property for Low-Medium Density Residential Land Uses, permitting 11.3
dwelling units per gross acre." He pointed out that they were significantly
below the number of units permitted under that zoning. They also met or
exceeded all the other requirements of the zoning with the exception of the
minor variance which staff mentioned. He also wanted to make it clear at
this point, since there had been a great deal of discussion on the matter, that
the Fieldstone Company always recognized their obligation to contribute to the
maintenance of the lake and the surrounding greenbelt areas in some fashion.
The problem arose relative to the fact that in reading the CC & R's of the
Homeowners Association, it was impossible to place a condominium project within
their existing Association without a complete overhaul of those CC & R's.
After elaborating upon that issue, and upon the direction of the Planning Com~ssion
to come to some solution, they hired a law firm who came up with an umbrella
organization made up of members of the existing Anaheim Shores Owners Association
(ASOA) who had the ability to set the budget, to set the rules for the use of
the Association properties, and to adopt any regulations they wished over the
use of the property. The only rights the Condominium Association would have
would be the right of approval of the budgets and regulations. Once the budget
was set, then the Fieldstone Association would be billed for their pro-rata
share and obligated to pay. The proposal wa~ reviewed by the Board o£ the
Homeowners Association in favor of the position of constructing some type of
wall between the two developments. They (Fieldstone) felt strongly that a
wall or any.type of physical barrier running through the center of Anaheim
Shores was not good planning and unfair to the future residents living in
their project. It would also not solve the problem the home owners had now
of trespassing and vandalism.
28
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 5, 1982~ 1:30 P.M.
Before proceeding, Councilman Bay challenged staff's opinion and asked for a
legal opinion from the City Attorney's office on the interpretation of the
Council minutes relative to the intent of the minutes of bey 14, 1974, as
well as March 19, 1974, if necessary, regarding the planned community zoning
on Anaheim Shores and the question of gross versus net on density. His
interpretation, as he voiced it at an earlier hearing today, was that only net
densities were discussed in 1974 during those hearings. He wanted to know
whether his interpretation of PC zoning in Anaheim Shores, which, in effect,
was the General Plan limitation, was as he saw it or as the staff reported
of 11.3 gross, which he maintained was 11.3 net.
Assistant City Attorney, Jack White, stated that the issue was with reference
to Condition No. 13 of Resolution No. 74R-235, the Resolution of Intent to
the PC zone, adopted on May 14, 1974, as amended, that provision being that
basically the property be developed in accordance with Exhibits 1, 2, and
Revisions No. 1 of Exhibits No. 3, 4, 5 and 6, which were posted on the
Chamber wall. The conditions further state, however, that the proposed multiple
family apartments on the exhibits be deleted and replaced with condominiums
or planned residential units with a density not to exceed 11.3 per acre. It
did not say net or gross in that Condition. To determine whether or not it
was gross or net, they reviewed the minutes of both meetings, March 19, 1974,
and May 19, 1974, and it was clear that predominantly the discussion of
density and when figures were mentioned in connection therewith, reference
was to net density in both meetings. There were also instances where it was
clear that gross was the term being discussed, even though not differentiated.
He continued that the pertinent point of the minutes came in the May 14, 1974,
hearing, page 74-506, which was a discussion by Mr. Jim Christiansen, where
he indicated his firm would be amenable to the removal of the apartment portion
and the replacement of that section with condominiums, which would lower the
density to approximately 11.3 units to the acre, overall. He (White) was
under the assumption that the Council's action was basically to implement the
proposal by Mr. Christiansen and that the density be 11.3 units to the acre,
overall. Planning staff previously indicated that in connection with this
project, they had interpreted that to mean the total project density for the
entire residential area would not exceed 11.3 units to the acre. He could not
disagree with that as being an unreasonable interpretation. If that was a
true and correct interpretation, then necessarily it also had to be true that
the reference to the 11.3 per acre was a reference to net and not gross
because the original Plan, as proposed, showed 10.8 units per gross acre.
The net density was shown originally as 12.8, and then reduced to 12.0.
Ultimately, the intent of the particular Amendment was to reduce it to 11.3.
One unresolved issue remained with which the Council had to deal which involved
an interpretation he felt was a factual decision the Council must make in
interpreting the General Plan and the PC Plan, whether or not the 11.3 units
per net acre was meant to be an absolute number applied to each particular
29
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 5, 1982, 1:30 P.M.
project in the development or an average that could not be exceeded for the
project as a whole. Taking the latter interpretation, it was clear that the
subject project, even though exceeding 11.3 units per net acre, would not
cause the project to exceed 11.3 units per acre when taken as an average. The
Council must make the decision as to which way the General Plan was to be
interpreted in that regard.
Finally, as to the approximate westerly one/half of the proposed development,
the original PC Plan and General Plan showed a maximum density of 10.9 units
per net acre and 9.9 per gross acre. They were going to have to make a finding
as to whether or not the project was in conformance with the General Plan. At
the same time, the prerequisite to approving any tentative tract was to make a
finding that the project conformed to the City's General Plan.
It was incumbent upon the Council to face both issues as to the 11.3 overall
density and the portion of the project sho%m on the plan as a maximum of 10.9
units net density.
He also confirmed for Councilman Bay that legally, it would be difficult to
defend an interpretation which excluded from the net density calculation any-
thing other than the public and private streets, as shown on the plan.
Miss Santalahti also clarified that the only instance in which public and
private streets were not subtracted was in the Fieldstone project.
Later in the meeting, Mr. White also clarified for the Mayor that if the
Council would find that the General Plan interpretation was 11.3 net overall,
then the subject proposal would comply.
Mr. Langlois then reported when they first purchased the property, they
questioned the Planning Division as to the zoning of the property and the
number of units that would be allowed. The representations made were clearly
based on 11.3 units per gross acre and those representations had been made
consistently over the past eight years. Reading the Planning Commission
report, it stated clearly that the zoning was based on 11.3 dwelling units
per gross acre, and it was also very clear in the Planning Commission staff
report that the City Council established the 982 units on an overall basis.
They had spent a considerable amount of money proceeding on those representa-
tions.
Extensive discussion then followed between the Council and staff upon the
conclusion of.which, the Mayor asked to hear first from those in favor of
the project and then those in opposition.
3O
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 5, 1982, 1:30 P.M.
There being no persons who wished to speak in favor, the following people spoke
in opposition and listed are the major points of their concern.
Mr. Clifford R. Harper, 1975 Bayshore, Member of the Board of Directors of
Anaheim Shores Owners Association (ASOA), speaking on behalf of and with the
authority of the Board of Directors and speaking as spokesmam this evening,
stated that they felt the proposed development would not conform to the PC
development. One of the major problems was continual trespassing around their
lake from people not members of the Association, as well as problems of litter,
vandalism, harassment of the ducks, and late night parties which were of
considerable inconvenience to the residents. That was the problem with a high
density alien development to Anaheim Shores over which they had no control.
He then supplemented his presentation with a slide which further illustrated
the points made. The 105 units proposed by Fieldstone to the north, and the
70 units proposed by the Wellington group to the south, represented 175 units,
the same amount of lots presently existing in their development. There were
no provisions in the CC & R's of the ASOA to include unlike units. They had
worked on the possibility of modifying their CC & R's to accommodate other
people and exchanged several thoughts on the subject with Fieldstone. He
thereupon submitted the two letters he had sent to Mr. Langl~is (Fieldstone),
the first dated November 17, 1981, and the second dated December 19, 1981, in
which their position was modified slightly (both letters made a part of the
record). They felt they had paid for the lake and lot premiums were also
charged. It belonged to the ASOA and should not be given away. The proper
way to gain access was to join the Homeowners Association. With no annexation,
they felt they would have no control or community identity they had presently,
and thus, they did not want the project. They were not happy with the prospect
of having a completely alien community geared toward family units with two and
three bedrooms at a much higher density than presently existing, twice what
they had, invade their area. They represented 175 homes and families who wanted
to live in a well-developed, planned community. He asked that the Council
reconfirm the decision made in 1974 to adhere to the planned development and
not allow high-density developments which did not conform.
Mr. Bob Dagenai$, 1148 Boatswain Circle, Member of the ASOA Board of Directors,
then entered into the record two documents, Department of Real Estate of the
State of California--Final Subdivision Public Report--File No. 38598 issued
March 14, 1977, and File No. 40322 issued December 29, 1977 (made a part of the
racord: h0waver, the~e two rep0rt~ wera already a part of tha racord). Working
from the slide presented by Mr. Harper, he pointed to the seven increments, or
phases, that made up Anaheim Shores, noting from both Subdivision Public Reports
that "The project is proposed to contain a total of seven increments and 394
residential lots." Pointing to the subject area, he contended that would allow
only 51 units for Phase Seven. That was the intent of the builders, developers
and City Council at the time. This was what the people who bought and were
living in Anaheim Shores were expecting--51 similar houses to what was presently
existing.
31
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 5~ 1982~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Henry R. Hutchinson, 1866 West Surf Drive, referred to the letter he sub-
mitted dated January 4, 1982 (previously made a part of the record), outlining
his points of opposition, reiterating one point, that being the question--how
were they going to protect their investment. The people along the greenbelts
and the lakes were policemen for their community. They had to have protection
so that if their assets were damaged, they would have some recourse.
Mr. Joe Carter, 1945 Bayshore, stated he believed the community was intended to
be 394 residential lots with a building on each lot. If followed through, the
proposed project would consist of 50 units and not 105.
Mr. Larry McNanny (Lot 8 of the Second Phase), explained the problems he en-
countered in trying to police the area since he was a "watchdog" at his end
of the lake.
Mrs. Linda Sullivan (Lot 34, First Phase), stated they bought with the idea that
the community was going to consist of single-family residences. She would also
prefer a wall to giving away the lake.
Mr. Leo Lake, 1894 West Surf, explained that the swimming pool area was used
year-round and there was also a jacuzzi. That expense had to be figured as
part of the communal attractive activities. It was a fenced area and keys were
issued to Association members.
P~. Harry Chow, Jr., 1116 North Voyager, stated he enjoyed the environment
surrounding the lake. Phase I, II and III had a wall and the Wellington group
(potential development at La Palma and Romneya) was proposing to construct a
solid wall. He was concerned about the people in the new developments using
the amenities of Anaheim Shores. The Wellington group had offered to do what-
ever they could but'Fieldstone had not. He was also concerned about the liability
involved if, for instance, someone drowned in 'their lake. They had to do something
to protect their own people. He urged the Council to keep to the original Plan
of 1974 and develop the area into single-family lots.
Donna Holt, 1995 Bayshore, wanted less density than what was being proposed,
and also, the development should contribute to the amenities existing in
Anaheim Shores.
Councilman Bay then asked for a show of hands of those opposed to the subject
project; there were approximately 25 people present in opposition.
Mr. Clifford Harper, in.concluding his s,~mmation, stated that downgrading the
density and changing the structure to something that could be annexed to their
Association would be acceptable.
The Mayor asked the applicant to make his summation, answering some of the
questions that had been raised.
32
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 5~ 19827 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Langlois stated the existing CC & R~s would not allow them to become a part
of the community but they were willing to pay their pro-rata share in perpetuity
through the mechanism he discussed developed by the law firm who formed the
Lake Mission Viejo Association, which would leave the control of the lake in the
hands of the existing ASOA. They Would set the budget, determine .the rules,
and once the budget was established, then the Condominium. Owo. ers Association
would have to pay their pro-rata share of that budget in perpetuity. They were
willing to share the cost and cooperate in the maintenance of the lake and were
willing to have that control in the hands of the ASOA. Relative to the problem
of trespassing and vandalism on the Association property, at present there
was open access. Although he was not sayimg that a build-out would solve
that problem, if the Condominium Association had a stake in that community,
they were also going to take on some of thE: burden to police the area. If
th~ p~oject was approved, they would stand by the stipulation they made before
the Planning Commission that they would work a solution out with the Board
of Directors of the ASOA.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked Mr. Langlois the m~ximum number of units he could
build and still have a financially feasible project.
Mr. Langlois answered that to go much below 105 units would work a hardship
and an honest answer would be 101 units. He also confirmed for C~unciiwoman
Overholt that should the density be reduced below 101 units, that would
endanger their project. A reduction would not address the issue of the
home owners. They did not want condominiums, brt single-family detached
houses and a project that could be annexed directly into their CC & R~s'.
There was no significant number they could decrease their project that would
be meaningful. He further confirmed for Councilman Bay that the documen~ he
was referring to previously had an insurance clause contained therein binding
both Associmtions to carry adequate insurance relative to liability.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the
public hearing.
b~. Peter Och$, Presidemg and major o~ner of Fieldstone, stated that being the
person who would either pay for the down-zone or the wall or whatever, answering
the question relative to the wall, if t~at was a condition tha~ the Council
needed to impose, while he totally agreed with Mr. Langlois that it was bad
planning, in order to preserve the density requested the answer was yes, they
would do that. Relative to the question on the density issue, the project
would not work at anything much more than a couple of units less thzn its
current density. They could not make it work at lower densities even if it
were single family rathcr than condominiums.
33
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 5~ 1982~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Bay stated his position had not changed. He did not intend to vote
for development in the subject area of over 11.3 net density, whatever the
development might be, since that meant the intent of the General Plan. Later
in the hearing, he also emphasized that he did not believe that the intent
was to end up with the last developments in Anaheim Shores coming in at 17.3
which would be the net figure recalculated based on the interpretation of net
that was on the map at the time the development was proposed.
Miss Santalahti also clarified that the developer was seeking a variance
involving three additional units over and above the new RM-3000 zoning.
Councilman Seymour stated his whole point was the fact that they had laid
out a Planned Community in 1974 and to the best of their ability they should
follow through on that. If not, they should adhere to the current standards.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she could not approve the project at 105 units.
Councilman Overholt stated he agreed with what Councilman Bay said, using
the overall concept, he (Bay) felt density shouid not all be unloaded on the
last parcel. He was concerned with the commitment to the people in Anaheim
Shores. His concept of the Planned Community was that the Plan was made in
1974. Whatever the philosophies and arguments, the subject project was sub-
stantially removed from what the people must have had in mind in 1974. He
intended to support the position that Councilman Bay had been proposing.
Councilwoman Kaywood thereupon offered a Resolution denying the Reclassifica-
tion and Variance.
Before action was taken, Mayor Seymour stated he was going to oppose the
Resolution for all .the reasons he articulated earlier in the evening. If
there should be room for some reasonable reduction in density, that would
be in order, such as to the current standards that applied or such as what
he knew was intended by the original PC development. He could support that
type of flexibility or the type of flexibility that would wall off the
community as he described in the event the ASOA did not want to accept the
development. What was taking place this evening was a total turnaround of
what had been committed to the Planned Community Development and what had
been promised to the owner of the subject property by staff.
Councilman Overholt stated he would be influenced by some flexibility but he
had not seen that on the part of the developer tonight and it might not be
economically possible. In supporting the Resolution, he felt to the best of
his ability he was voting to carry out the agreement on the Planned Community.
In response to Councilwoman Kaywood, Miss Santalahti explained and confirmed
that if the project were analyzed on the basis of subtracting public and private
streets, the total number of units would be 68.365. If analyzed on the basis
of subtracting only public streets, as stated in the current RM-3000 zone, it
would be approximately 80 units.
34
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 5, 1982, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated if it were 68 units, she could approve the Reclassifi-
cation on that basis, but still oppose the Variance; Miss Santalahti stated without
a Variance and going with the interpretation that 11.3 was an overall Anaheim
Shores figure, 102 units would comply with Code.
From the audience, Mr. Ochs suggested that one solution might be to continue the
matter for one week, not for them to change or revise their plans necessarily,
but for the staff to do more homework, and perhaps themselves also, and to
discuss what the original interpretations were, what they meant, and what they
would be if applied today.
Discussion then followed between Council and staff relative to a possible
continuance during which Mr. Fred Hughes, President of the Wellington group,
stated that his opinion was that there may be some precedent that would be
set relative to density, but the conditions of the parcel he was representing
were quite different from what was being discussed tonight.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to continue the subject public hearing on
Reclassification No. 81-82-3, Variance No. 3238 and Tentative Tract No. 11637
for two weeks to January 19, 1982, at 3:00 p.m. Councilman Overholt seconded
the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she was not looking
to reopen the entire hearing. The message was clear, the density was too high
and she could not accept that. The Council was ready to deny the project and
Mr. Ochs asked for a delay. She did not believe that it was necessary for all
of the Homeowners Association to be in attendance again; Councilman Overholt
asked Mr. Harper if he could be present. Mr. Harper indicated he could probably
take off from work.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman
Overholt, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and
recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent
Calendar Agenda:
1. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were filed against
the City and action recommended as noted:
Claims denied and referred to Risk Management:
a. Claim submitted by Southern California Gas Company for property damages
purportedly sustained during City installation of a new water main at 930
East Orangethorpe, on or about October 27, 1981.
35
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 5~ 1982~ 1:30 P.M.
b. Claim submitted by Mary Mercedes Velez for personal injuries and property
damages resulting from a traffic accident purportedly sustained due to
malfunctioning traffic signal located at East Street and Broadway, on
or about September 9, 1981.
Claims denied and referred to Bayly, Martin and Fay/San Antonio:
c. Claim submitted by David A. Schroll for.wrongful arrest by the Anaheim
Police Department on or about September 12, 1981.
d. Claim submitted by Ferne Jackson for damages purportedly sustained
due to harassment, embarrassment, invasion of privacy, false arrest, illegal
search, entry to property, taking pictures withoht consent, false accusations
8nd threats by a Zoning Enforcement Offi6er and damage to camper and loss
of rent on a warehouse, on or about September 14, 1981.
Claims allowed:
e. Claim submitted by William L. Hyduser for damages purportedly sustained
due to the roots from a parkway tree penetrating claimant's sewer line,
causing a blockage, at 2762 Diana Avenue, on or aboUt Dedember 5, 1981.
($105.35) ~
f. Claim submitted by Joan Cleary for personal property damages purportedly
sustained when the Utility Department disconnected claimant's electricity
three days before she had requested it to be disconnected, resulting in
a loss of frozen food, at 635 North Chippewa, Apartment #73, on or about
November 13, 1981. ($45.00)
2. 108: ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT APPLICATION: Application submitted by
David Edward McKay, the Flowin~ Well, 405 South Brookhurst Street, for
one female stage dancer, seven days a week, 11:30 a.m. to 2:00 a.m.,
was approved in accordance with the recommendations of the Chief of
Police.
MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 82R-8
and 82R-9 for adoption in accordance with the reports, recommendations and
certifications furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent
Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book.
158: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-8: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Grove
Construction Company; Lincoln Automotive Limited; Wesley Chsrles Collier,
et ux; Kezy Radio, Inc.; One Ninety-Eight Associates)
36
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 5, 1982, 1:30 P.M.
150: RESOLUTION NO. 82R-9: 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: RIVERDALE
PARK IMPROVEmeNTS, 4545 EAST RIVERDALE AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT
NOS. 16-822-7103-2202C AND 16-822-7103-22150, APPROVING THE DESIGNS, PLANS,
PROFILES, DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF; AUTHORIZING
THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID PLANS,
SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH
A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to
be opened on February 4, 1982, at 2:00 p.m.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 82R-8 and 82R-9 duly passed and adopted.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken'by the City Planning
Commission at their meeting held December 14, 1981, pertaining to the following
applications, as listed on the Consent Calendar, were submitted for City Council
information.
1. VARIANCE NO. 3244: Submitted by Peter F. Strand, et al, to construct a
three-story medical office building on CO zoned property located at 1300 South
Euclid Street, with Code waivers of minimum number of parking spaces and
maximum fence height.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-256, granted
Variance No. 3244, and granted a negative declaration status.
2. VARIANCE NO. 3247: Submitted by Doyle and Shield Realty Company, to
expand an existing shopping center on CL zoned property located on the
northeast corner of Ball Road and Euclid Street, with a Code waiver of
minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-261, granted
Variance No. 3247, and granted a negative declaration status.
3. VARIANCE NO. 3250: Submitted by Tsun-Tsai Liu, et al, to expand an
existing motel on CR zoned property located at 1126 West Katella Avenue,
with a Code waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-262, granted
Variance No. 3250, and granted a negative declaration status.
37
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 5~ 1982~ 1:30 P.M.
4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2260: Submitted by First National Bank of
Orange County, to permit on-sale beer and wine in an existing drive-through
restaurant on CL zoned property located at 511 South State College Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-255, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2260, and ratified the Planning Director's
categorical exemption determination.
5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2281: Submitted by Richard C. Browne, et al,
to permit on-sale beer and wine in an existing restaurant on CL zoned
property located at 210 South Euclid Street.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-260, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2281, and ratified the Planning Director's
categorical exemption determination.
6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1960 - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: Submitted
by Rodeffer Investments, requesting termination of Conditional Use Permit
No. 1960, to permit on-sale alcoholic beverages in a proposed sports and
entertainment complex with dancing on proposed CO zoned property located
north and east of the northeast corner of Orangewood Avenue and Santa Cruz
Street, as a condition of approval under Reclassification No. 81-82-2.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-266, terminated
Conditional Use Permit No. 1960.
7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1063 - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: Submitted by
Rodeffer Investments, requesting termination of Conditional Use Permit No.
1063, to permit a hall for variety shows, lectures, meetings, dances, etc.,
with an on-sale liquor establishment in the existing structure on proposed
CO zoned property located north and east of the northeast corner of Katella
Avenue and Santa Cruz Street, as a condition of approval under Reclassifi-
cation No. 81-82-2.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-267, terminated
Conditional Use Permit No. 1063.
8. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1972 - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: Submitted by
Alfred D. Paino, requesting termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 1972,
to permit a batting cage and recreational complex on R§-7200 zoned property
located at 727 South Beach Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-268, terminated
Conditional Use Permit No. 1972.
38
City Hail~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 5, 1982~ 1:30 P.M.
9. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2116 - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: Submitted by
Dennis G. Foster, requesting termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 2116,
to permit a church on ML zoned property located at 2201 East Winston Road.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-269, terminated
Conditional Use Permit No. 2116.
10. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1359 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Leo
Freedman, requesting an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 1359,
to permit a ten-story hotel tower on C-R zoned property located at 1700 South
Harbor Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Conditional Use
Permit No. 1359, to expire December 27, 1982.
11. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1670 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Warren W.
and Nancy J. Jaycox, requesting an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit
No. 1670, to permit a trucking terminal and truck repair on ML zoned property
located at 1016 East Katella Avenue.
The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Conditional Use
Permit No. 1670, to expire December 6, 1982.
12. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1783 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by M. W.
Mayfield/Budget Rent-A-Car, requesting an extension of time to Conditional
Use Permit No. 1783, to permit an automobile rental agency and incidental
automobile repair on CL zoned property located at 3200 West Lincoln Avenue.
The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Conditional
Use Permit No. 1783, to expire December 19, 1982.
13. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 81-82-8 - AMENDING PC81-233 NUNC PRO TUNC: Submitted
by the Anaheim Planning Commission, requesting an amendment to Planning
Commission Resolution No. PC81-233, to correct a typographical error in
Condition No. 1.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-270, amended,
nunc pro tunc, Resolution No. PC81-233 for Reclassification No. 81-82-8.
No action was taken by the City Council on the foregoing items; therefore, the
actions of the City Planning Commission became final.
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 81-82-11~ VARIANCE NO. 3249 AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11463:
Submitted by Terra Firma Properties, Inc., for a change in zone from CG to
RM-3000, to establish a one-lot, 14-unit condominium subdivision on property
located on the south side of Wilken Way, east of Harbor Boulevard, with Code
waivers of minimum lot area per dwelling unit and minimum recreational/leisure
area per dwelling unit.
39
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 5~ 1982~ 1:30 P.M.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution Nes. PC81-258 and PC81-259,
granted Reclassification No. 81-82-11, Variance No. 3249 and Tentative Tract
No. 11463, and grante~ a negatfve declaration status.
A review of the Planning Commission's action on the above Reclassification,
Variance and Tentative Tract was requested by Councilwoman Kaywood.
VARIANCE NO. 3246~ TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10674 AND REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF SPECIMEN
TREES: Submitted by Fred L. Stevens, et al, to 'establish a 13-lot, RS-HS-22,000(SC)
zoned subdivision and to remove two specimen trees on property located on the north
sice of Marteila Lane, east of Martin Road, with a Code waiver of minimum lot
area.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-257, granted
Variance No. 3246, Tentative Tract No. 10674 and Request for Removal of
Specimen Trees, and Eranted a negative declaration status.
A review of the Planning Commission's action on the subject Variance, Tentative
Tract and Request for Removal of Specimen Trees was requested by Councilman
Seymour.
134: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 173 AND'NEGATIVE DECLARATION: To consider an
amendment to the Circulation Element of the General Plan to change the current
designation of Patt Street between Commercisl Street and La Palma Avenue from
a secondary arterial highway to a local street.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to establish Tuesday, January 19, 1982, at
3:00 p.m., as the date and time for public hearing on the subject General Plan
Amendment and Negative Declaration therefor. Councilman Overh¢.lt seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
134: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 174: To consider an amendment to the Circulation
Element of the General Plan to delete a portion of Convention Way which is
currently designated as a major arterial highway in connection with the
implementation of the Convention Center Betterment II Program.
MOTION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to establish Tuesday, January 26, 1982, at
3:00 p.m., as 'the date and time for public hearing on the subject General Plan
Amendment. Council~n Overhoit seconded the motion. MOTION CA~IED.
171: ORDINANCE NO. 4297: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4297 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4297: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMJSNDING TITLE 2,
CHAPTER 2.12, SECTION 2.12.050 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO
DELINQUENT TAX PAYMENTS.
4O
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 5, 1982, 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4297 duly passed and adopted.
179/142: ORDINANCE NO. 4298: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4298
for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4298: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING NEW SUBSECTIONS
.050 AND .060 TO SECTION 18.42.030 OF CHAPTER 18.42 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures
in the CL-HS zone)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNC IL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and .Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4298 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 4299: Councilman Overholt offered Ordinance No. 4299 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4299: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18
OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (80-81-34, RS-7200,
1572 West Orangewood Avenue)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4299 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 4301: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance No. 4301 for first
reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4301: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18
OF THE ANAHEIM I~UNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (80-81-13, RM-3000,
southwest corner of Cerritos Avenue and Euclid Street, Tract No. 11053)
41
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - January 5, 1982, 1:30 P.M.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: The City Manager requested a Closed Session to
discuss personnel matters with no action anticipated, and the City Attorney
requested a Closed Session to discuss litigation with action anticipated.
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess into Closed Session. Councilman Overholt
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (12:54 a.m.) o
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (12:59 a.m.)
118: JAMES MC DONALD VS. CITY OF ANAHEIM: On motion by Councilman Seymour
seconded by Councilman Bay, the City Attorney was authorized to settle the
claim of James McDonald vs. City of Anaheim and Orange County Superior Court
Case No. 35-88-25 (City of Anaheim vs. Norman Walter Simmons) by accepting
$18,384 from Mr. Simmons insurance carrier in settlement thereof. MOTION
CARRIED.
ADJOUrnMENT: Councilman Bay moved to adjourn. Councilman Overholt
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (1:00 a.m.)
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK
LEONORA N. SOHL, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
42