1981/07/2181-1027
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COONCIL MiNU%mS - July 21, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
l~ne City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL ~MBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CI'IY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
CITY ENGINEER: William Devitt
ASSISTANT PLA/qNING DIRECTOR--ZONING: Annika Santalahti
Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Reverend Ray Niederer, Bethel Baptist Church, gave the Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilwoman Miriam Kaywood led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
119: PROCLAMATION: //ne following proclamation was issued by Mayor Seymour
and authorized by the City Council:
"Stamp Expo Days in Anaheim" - July 24 to 26, 1981
MINUTES: Councilman Bay moved to approve the minutes of the regular meetings
held April 7 and April 14, 1981 and the minutes of the adjourned regular
meetings held April 28 and May 5, 1981. Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she had corrections
to offer for the meetings of April 7 and April 14. She then proceeded to give
corrections to the minutes of April 7 page by page.
Mayor Seymour interjected and stated that thus far he noted 20 references to
corrections in the minutes which, in his opinion, had no substance but merely
were the dotting of i's and crossing of t's.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated if the corrections were done in public, she had to
agree that it was nonsense, but when going back and looking at the rec6rd...;.
the Mayor interrupted and stated that she was forgetting the spirit of the
motion passed two weeks ago (see minutes of July 7, 1981) which set forth if
there were substantive changes, they would make those corrections as the
minutes were presented to the Council. If they were not substantive, and he
reiterated in his opinion all of those given by Councilwoman Kaywood'were not,
they would not be made and they would rely on the actual tape recordings oX
the meetings for extreme accuracy.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if he was saying that they would keep all of the
tapes in perpetuity because minutes were referred to even ten years later.
Ihe Mayor answered "no". The City Attorney had advised that they had to keep
the tapes for two years. If she wanted to resurrect the whole issue at this
time, that was fine, but they should first get a majority of the Council to
give that direction. If not, he would appreciate it if she would comply with
the spirit of the other four people on the Council.
81-1028
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUIES - July 21~ 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she agreed taking the time of the public and
Council to make minor and other corrections was a ridiculous waste of time,
but to have accurate minutes was not.
Mayor Seymour stated the spirit of the Council two weeks ago was that they did
not want the City Clerk spending taxpayer dollars dotting i's and crossing
t's. It was with that spirit that they said they would rely on the tapes and
stop nitpicking the written minutes.
Councilwoman Kaywood questioned what would be done after two years; the Mayor
stated if she wanted to argue the whole issue and reverse the previous action,
she shoul~ o~fer a motion, have it seconded, and voted upon.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she was not going to be able to approve minutes
when there were errors in them; the Mayor surmised then that she would have to
vote against the approval of the minutes. He would appreciate it if she would
comply with the intent and the spirit of the Council.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she would then abstain from approval.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilwoman Kaywood abstained
on the minutes of April 7 and April 14, 1981 only. MO%ION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUIIONS: 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, speci[ic request is made by a Council Member tor the reading of such
ordinances or resolutions in regular order. Councilman Bay seconded the
motion. MOTiO~ CARRIEE.
FINANCIAL D~iANDS AGAINST THE CIIY in the amount of $1,692,257.74, in accord-
ance with the 1981-82 Budget, were approved.
CIIY MANAGER/DEPARYplENIAL MO2ION CONSEN2 CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman
Roth, seconded by Councilman Bay the following items were approved as
re c orm-nend ed:
a. 123/174: Authorizing an agreement with Price Waterhouse and Company in an
amount not to exceed $5,000, for the auditing of the City's financial state-
ments for the Fifth and Sixth Year Community Development Block Grant Program
covering the period ended June 30, 1981, with completion by November 27, 1981.
b. 160: Bi~ No. 3774: Butterfly and Plug Valves for a 36-inch Iransmission
Main in Santa Ana Canyon Road. Award to Henry Pratt Company, $26,877.36,
butterfly valves; and award to Dezurik, $65,164.54, plug valves.
c. 153: Establishing a City mileage reimbursement rate based on the Private
Transportation Index (All Urban Consumers) for the Los Angeles/Long Beach/
Anaheim area, as computed by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics, effective July 1, 1981.
81-1029
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 21, 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
d. 123: Authorizzng an amendment to the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement
between the Cities of Anaheim, Santa Ana, Garden Grove and the County, adding
language clarifying the liability held by the signatories, and extending the
term of the agreement through September 30, 1982.
MOT ION CARRIED.
153: CREATION OF JOB CLASSIFICATION - COMblUNITY RELAIIONS SPECIALIST:
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 81R-334 for adoption, amending
Resolution No. 80R-550 which established rates of compensation for classes
designated as Staff and Supervisory Management and creating a new job classif-
ication of Community Relations Specialist, effective July 17, 1981, as
recommended in memorandum dated July 15, 1981 from Human Resources Director
Garry McRae. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-334: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OE THE CITY O~
ANAHE~ AMENDING RESOLUTION HO. 80R-550 WHICH ESYABLISHED RAT~S OF COb~PENSA-
TION FOR CLASSES DESIGNATED AS STAFF AND SUPERVISORY MANAGEMENT, AND CREATING
A NEW CLASSIFICATION.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
CODNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COONC I~. ME~BERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
No ne
No ne
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-334 duly passed and adopte~.
144/150: NEGOTIATIONS WITH ORANGE COUN2Y FOR USE OE DEER CANYON: Council-
woman Kaywood moved to request the Orange County Board o~ Supervisors to
authorize negotiations with staff to develop an agreement for the use of Deer
Canyon in t~e East Anaheim Hills area, as recommended in memorandum dated
July 7, 1981 from Deputy City Manager James Ruth. Councilman Overholt
seconced the motion. MO%ION CARRIED.
174: MINORITY BUSINESS PROGRAM: Councilman Bay offered Resolution No.
81R-335 for adoption, adopting a Minority Business Program for all projects in
the City receiving United States Department of Transportation funding and
establishing a Minority Business Goal of 6.5 percent for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 1981, as recommended in memorandum dated July 8, 1981
from City Engineer William Devitt. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-335: A RESOLUTION OF %HE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
A~AHEIM ADOP2ING A MINORITY BUSINESS PROGRAM FOR ALL PROJECTS I~ %HE CITY O~
ANAHEIM RECEIVING UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FUNDING AND
ESTABLISHING A MINORITY BUSINESS GOAL OF 6.5% ~'OR THE FISCAL YEAR £NDI~G
SEPTEMBER 30, 1981.
81-1030
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - 0uly 21, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
No ne
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-335 duly passed and adopted.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Bay, the City Clerk was
directed to publish a notice inviting public comment on the Minority
Enterprise goals. MOTION CARRIED.
104: FOR~'~'IION OF S%REEI LIGHTING MAINTEN~JqCE DISTRICT NO. 1980-6 ~TRACT NO.
2302): Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 81R-336 and 81R-337 for
adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated July 10, 1981 from the Deputy
City Manager. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION ~O. 81R-336: A RESOLUTION OF %HE CITY COUNCIL O~ %HE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING THE REPORT OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF STREETS FOR CERTAIN
~PROVEblENTS 10 BE ~DE BY 2'HE CITY UNDER THE STREET LIGHTING ACT OF 1931.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-337: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO MAKE CERTAIN ~PROVEMENTS UNDER
AUTHORITY OF THE STREET LIGHTING ACT OF 1931, DESCRIBING %HE IMPROVEMENTS TO
BE MADE, ~AMI~G %HE STREETS UPON WHICH THE ~MPROVEMENTS ~ ~O BE P~DE,
REFERRING TO THE REPORT OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF STREETS ON EILE IN %HE OFFICE
OF THE CITY CLERK, FIXING 2HE PERIOD OF TIME FOR WHICH THE ~PROVEMENTS ~ TO
BE MADE, AND SETTING A TIME A~ND PLACE FOR HEARING PROTESTS. (Romneya Drive,
Raleigh, Ravenna, Riviera, Ralston Streets and Citron Lane; public hearing
date set for August 11, 1981, 3:00 p.m.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBER~:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
No ne
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 81R-336 and 81R-337 duly passed and adopte~.
158: REQUEST TO PURCHASE CItY-OWNED LA~D - S.A.V.i. CtiANNEL - SObTH OF RIO
GRANDE WES% OF FAIRMONT: Approving the sale of certain City-owned land known
as the east half of the S.A.V.I. Channel generally located south of Rio Grande
Street, west of Fairmont Boulevard, to Stuart and Sarah E. Ledingham in the
amount of $14,553.60, and authorizing execution of a deed therefor; recommend-
ing retention of the west half of said Channel for riding, hiking and eques-
trian purposes and authorizing the Parks and Recreation Department to install
buffer-type landscaping along the west line of the subject Channel to screen
the trail from the adjoining property to the west.
City Manager William Talley briefed the Council on memorandum dated July 9,
1981 from the Acting City Engineer Art Daw, recommending the foregoing actions.
81-1031
City Ha ll~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - 3uly 21, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that three neighbors objected and one noted that
the Channel filled with water every time it rained. She asked whether it would
be filled in and what would then happen when it rained.
City Engineer William Devitt answered that the extent to which the Channel
would be filled in was dependent upon the development of the lanG. There
would be some grading at some point in time permitted within the Caannel.
Whatever grading would be done would be accomplished in such a manner as to
mitigate any flooding problems.
Councilman Seymour offered a resolution approving the subject sale.
Before action was taken, a gentleman from the audience asked to speak to the
matter.
Mr. Stewart Ledingham, 170 Summertree Road, stated that the action was insti-
gated by him relative to the purchase of the property. He went to great
extents to do some preliminary investigation to find out how the other three
parties felt. He contacted Mr. Boscia, Senior Real Property Agent, who
recommended a course of action. He also had an independent appraisal
performed on the property. In his original contact with the other parties,
they mentioned that the process had come before them previously and although
they were interested in the property at the time, nothing occurred as far as
the sale was concerned, he (Ledingham) then bought the property and brought
the whole process up again before the City. At that time, there was tentative
interest and he received one definite not interested party. He then proceeded
as if he would be able to buy the entire canal 50 feet in width. Subse-
quently, Mr. Boscia contacted the other property owners at which time they
submitted a letter requesting information. They felt the canal was a buffer
to their property and protected it ~rom any water drainage off the property
which was a hillside terrain. Answers to their questions were provided by Mr.
Boscia. he then referred to letters written to him by Mr. Boscia, as well as
memorandum dated July 6, 1981 from the Parks and Recreation Department in~ica-
ting that they wished to retain approximately 25 feet an~ to develop a suit-
able trail and buffer area without compromising the sale of the property. He
(Le~ingham) stated he was not in favor or that. His efforts were directed in
the hopes of buying the property that would be available. He reiterat&d he
felt the questions the other people had regarding the drainage were answered
by Mr. Boscia and subsequently the memorandum of July 6 was initiated by the
Parks Department offered as an option. Me did not consider it a worthy option
at this point. He wanted to buy all of the property. If it was not for sale
to anyone, that was fine, but if it was for sale at some later date to the
other people, then he felt a date should be established where they would have
the option to buy and, if not, he would like to buy it. if he was allowed to
buy only one-half the canal, he asked who was going to be responsible for
filling it up. I~ he tried to fill up one-half, it would be an inequitable
situation and something that needed to be discussed further. He was very
willing to purchase his half, but would also like the contingencies on the
other half. Before concluding, he pointed out that in his dealings with the
City, the people with whom he worked were very understanding and proceeded in
a direct manner.
81-1032
City Hall, Anaheim, California - CObNCIL MINbTES - July 21, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor asked if anyone else wished to speak.
Mr. Dan Harn, 6298 Pa lo Alto Drive, stated that he lived on the west side of
the property adjacent to the S.A.V.I. Canal. He was also speaking for Mr.
Harold Broughton at 6297 Palo Alto Drive who was very ill and could not be
present today. There had been interest in the land on his part, and also on
the part o~ Mr. Gene He tzl, at 6266 Rio Grande, over the last four years.
When they went to the City to try to obtain approval of the land, they
received letters back stating that after efforts on their part, the land was
not for sale according to a letter they received from the City (see letter
dated June 15, 1981 from Mr. Harold Broughton containing the details of Mr.
Harn's explanation--on file in the City Clerk's office). He was interested in
obtaining the said "half" of the property, as well as Mr. Metzl and Mr.
Broughton as stated in a letter sent to Mr. Boscia. They also had several
questions, not necessarily objections, into the reasoning as to why the Gity
placed an irrigation drain at the south end of the irrigation canal, etc.
Mayor Seymour stated some valid questions had been raised and, in his opinion,
staff had more work to do relative to answering those questions and to again
determine whet~er or not he or any of the abutting property owners were going
to have an interest, as well as the question of, how do you fill one-half a
hole. He felt, therefore, it would be in the best interest of all to continue
the matter for one month to provide Mr. Harn, as well as the other property
owners, an opportunity to be informed and to get answers to their questions.
Subsequently they would be given advance notice as to when the matter would be
coming back to the Council so that if t~ey still had questions or did not
agree, they would have an opportunity to speak.
Mr. Harn emphasized that their major concern revolved around the slippage and
drainage problems experienced in Anaheim Hills over the last number of years.
MO%ION: On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood,
consideration of the subject matter was continued to August 18, 1981. MOTION
C~RRIED.
107: ADOPTION OF 1979 EDITIONS OF BUILDING CODES - ORDINANCE [~OS. 4245
THROUGH 4249: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance Nos. 4245 through 4249, both
inclusive, for first reading.
ORDINAiqCE NO. 4245: AN ORDINANCE OF 1HE CITY OF ANAHEI~I REPEALING CHAPTER
15.04 OF TITLE 15 OF THE J~NAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADOPTING %HE 1979 EDITION
OF ThE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF BUILDIiqG OFFICIALS' 0NI~ORM BUILDING CODE,
WITH AMENDMENTS THERETO, A~ND AMENDING TITLE 15 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE
BY ADDING IHERETO A NEW CHAP%ER 15.04.
ORDINANCE NO. 4246: AN ORDINANCE OF %HE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING CHAP%ER
15.20 OF TITLE 15 OF %HE ANAHE~ MUNICIPAL CODE, A~D ADOP2ING ~HE INTERNA-
TIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PLU~IBING AND MECHANCIAL APPENDICES A, B, C, D, E, F, G
AND I~INCLDDED, WITH AMENDmeNTS THERETO, AND AMENDING TITLE 15 OE THE ANAHE~i
MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING THERETO A NEW CHAi~TER 15.20.
81-1033
City Hall, Anaheim, Cali:ornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - 0uly 21, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
ORDINANCE NO. 4247: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING CHAPTER
15.36 OF TITLE 15 OF 'IHE ANAHE~ MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADOP2ING THE 1979 gDITION
OF THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF BUILDING OFFICIALS' UNIFORM HOUSING CODE,
WISH ~MENDMENTS T~ERETO, AND AMENDING 2I%LE 15 OF %HE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CObE
BY ADDING THERETO A NEW CHAPTER 15.36.
ORDINANCE NO. 4248: AN ORDINANCE OF %HE CITY OF AgAHE~.~ REPEALING CHAPTER
15.06 OF TITLE 15 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE
UNIFORM CODE FOR %HE ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS, 1979 EDITION, AS PROM-
ULGATED BY THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF BUILDING OFFICIALS, WITH CERTAIN
AMENDMENTS %hERETO, AND AMENDING TITLE 15 OF THE ANAHE~I MUNICIPAL CODE BY
ADDING NEW CHAPTER 15.06 THERETO.
ORDINANCE NO. 4249: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHE~i ADDING NEW CHAPTER
15.55 TO TITLE 15 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE
UNIFO~ SOLAR ENERGY CODE, 1979 EDITION, AS PROMULGATED BY THE INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF PLUMBING AND MECHANCIAL OFFICIALS, WITH CERTAIN AMENDMENTS
THERETO.
MOTION: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth,
Tuesday, August 18, 1981, at 3:00 p.m., was the date and time set for the
public hearings to consider adoption of the foregoing Codes. MOTION CARRIED.
114: RETENTION AND DUPLICATION OF TAPE RECORDINGS OF PUBLIC MEETIi~GS: (con-
tinued from the meeting of July 7, 1981--see minutes tha~ date). City
Attorney William Hopkins briefed his memorandum dated July 13, 1981 recommend-
ing adoption of the proposed resolution which he briefed, revising Council
Policy No. 107 relating to tape recordings of public meetings. Further, how-
ever, due to the diversity of policies among the various boards and commis-
sions, he recommended that each board or commission continue to determine its
own policy on the subject within the limits of State law. Consequently, the
proposed revision of Council Policy No. 107 contained no reference to the
retention policy.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 81R-338 for adoption, as
recommended by the City Attorney. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-338: A RESOLUIION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ThE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING COUNCIL POLICY NO. 107 AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 80R-379
RELAIING TO PROCEDURES FOR THE USE, DUPLICATION AND TRANSCRIPTION OF ~APE
RECORDINGS OF PUBLIC MEETINGS.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Seymour stated the only concern he had, it
seemed to him that all boards and commissions should be playing the game with
the same rules. I~ the Council rules were that the meetings were taped and
those tapes were retained for two years, he felt there should be no reason why
they should not ask the Public Utilities Board, Parks and Recreation
Commission, Youth Commission and Library Board to do the same.
81-1034
City Ha ll~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINDTES - July 21, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
The City Attorney recommended in that case, rather than put it in the Council
Policy, that they merely direct a letter or request to those boards asking
them to conform to that two-year requirement.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated with regard to the budget, it would obviously take
more money and space for storing. If they had not been following that proce-
dure and no problem had arisen, she did not know why they would want to change
that.
The Mayor stated his purpose was to have some consistency in the policy and
that that policy be applied to all boards and commissions; Councilman Overholt
askad if that would be a direction that they tape their meetings.
The Mayor answered "yes" if they were not already doing so; Councilman
Overholt noted that the Library Board did not tape their meetings, but they
had a stenographer who made a transcript of the meetings.
Mayor Seymour stated that would be tine i~ they wanted to continue that
practice, he would not object to that. ~e Council was after a very accurate
record of what took place at a meeting.
Councilman Bay stated he agreed with the idea that not only for legal
purposes, but also for continuity, if the Council policy as set now could be
established across all boards and commissions, there would be no question
about the policy in the future.
Councilman Overholt stated the concern he had was that the policy as stated
dealt with tape recordings and he felt if it was acceptable for the Library
Board to take a transcript by stenotype or whatever machine was being used,
that the resolution should reflect that that would be the original record and
would be retained for two years.
Councilman Bay stated that would break the continuity of the motion. He would
think taking verbatim stenotype was much more expensive than recording.
City Attorney Hopkins clarified that the resolution dealt primarily with the
tape recordings and if there was no tape recording, then the transcrib&d
minutes would become the record and kept for a two-year period.
Councilman Roth suggested that any motion should incorporate, if they taped,
those tapes must be kept for two years.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated there were three boards that did tape, but only
for the purpose of the minutes and they were suggesting now that they buy more
tapes, necessitating more storage space; Councilman Roth ~elt accuracy was
most important.
MO%iON: Councilman Seymour moved that a letter be directed to existing boards
and commissions stating that those now taping their meetings hold those tapes
as the verbatim transcript on ~ile for a period of two years. Councilman
Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CAkRIED.
81~1035
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINO%ES - July 21, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL b~MBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
No ne
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-338 duly passed and adopted.
108: PENDING AMUSEMENT DEVICES PERMIT APPLICA%IONS: City Attorney Hopkins
reported that a considerable number of applications for video machines and
arcade facilities had been filed with the City Clerk. The ordinance that was
adopted concerning machines and arcades would not be in effect until
August 14, 1981, the end of the 30-day period. He requested Council guidance
as to whether the Council would prefer to have the applications now on file
agendized for individual action by the Council and request of the applicant to
voluntarily comply with the provisions of the ordinance. The alternate would
be to hold them until the ordinance went into effect and then to apply the
ordinance. There were approximately 13 such applications involving 5 or more
machines on file at present.
Mayor Seymour asked if it would be possible that the process they set up to
clear those applications could take place within the three-week period so that
on August 14, 1981 either the permits would be issued or not issued.
The City Attorney stated if the applicants were to come in and agree to
voluntarily comply with the provisions of the ordinance, then the Council
could approve them without making them wait until August 14. The other way
they could proceed and get things done, but would have to wait until the 14th
of August before getting approval.
Councilman Overholt stated last week they approved one applzcation on the same
basis where they agreed to comply with the terms of the ordinance and Miss
Santalahti indicated that her office could accommodate that.
Miss Annika Santalahti, Assistant Planning Director--Zoning, stated on'the one
permit they were going to handle last time, the applicant wanted it processed
more quickly than could be done with a mail-out. The applicant, therefore,
went out and surveyed all the tenants and occupants within 300 feet herself,
thus accomplishing the same purpose, lhey could start immediately on the
permits, but it was going to take at least three weeks in any case. They
would go out and obtain the addresses, do a mail-out and give the people at
least seven days from the date of the mailing to respond. The timing would be
about the same time the ordinance would be in effect.
The Mayor asked if they could ask the applicant on the permits that were
pending if they would like to voluntarily comply with the ordinance which
would*be in effect.
81-1036
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 21, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
The City Attorney stated they could then agendize those applications if the
applicant so desired.
The Mayor asked if there was any problem with that from any Council Member;
there was no response. The City Attorney stated they would then proceed
accordingly.
108: AMUSEMENT DEVICES PERMIT - MIKE'S AMUSEMENT CENTER: Application by
Michael Lawrence Cutler, Mike's Amusement Center, 2133-2135 West Lincoln
Avenue, for 25 various amusement devices was submitted. Mr. Cutler was
present and had obtained a petition showing approval within a 300 foot radius.
Councilwoman Kaywood, in noting the rules and regulations which would be in
force at the proposed business, stated she was impressed with those as well as
the letters received. However, the one thing that concerned her was the
statement in the arcade rules--Membersmip-Arcade Rules--as follows: "No one
under age 17 admitted during school hours, except at lunch period, ..." She
would not want to see children in the establishment during lunch. One of the
complaints she had received from many parents was the fact that their children
were spending their lunch money at arcades, instead of eating, and then for-
getting to go back to school.
Mr. Mike Cutler stated he agreed, ihe rules and regulations were made for
various centers throughout Southern California and other areas. In this case,
there were no schools within walking ~istance.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated then that there would be no reason to have that
statement included; Mr. Cutler stated no there was not.
Councilwoman Kaywood continued that if there were youngsters who wanted to
patronize the arcade at lunch they would not be able to do so; Mr. Cutler
stated that was true.
Mayor Seymour interjected and stated he did not think Mr. Cutler understood
what he just heard. Councilwoman Kaywood just indicated that he (Cutler)
would not permit any school age children to enter the premises during school
hours and he said "yes". He asked Mr. Cutler for confirmation that that was
what he really meant.
Mr. Cutler answered that was not really what he meant. Apparently he did not
quite understand.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked that he address tmat one specific aspect as to
whether or not they would allow children in during school hours or lunch
hours. %he rules indicated, not during school hours except at lunch. She
questioned, "except at lunch period".
81-1037
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINOTES - July 21, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mrs. Cutler (mother) interjected and stated she was a teacher of disturbed
children and underachievers for eleven years. She brought with her recommen-
dations from the school she taught in back in Pittsburgh. She felt that one
of the reasons in having the request for permits agendized was to be informed
about the people who were going to be running the businesses. She thereupon
elaborated on her background which she felt indicated there would be no way
that she would be involved in anything that would, in her opinion, be detri-
mental to students, young children and older children. The business would be
a place where kids could go to entertain themselves under supervision. %here
were too many places where tmey could go and just hang around. As tar as not
allowing children under the age of 17 prior to 12 noon or 1:00 p.m., during
the school year, most such businesses di~ not open until 12:00 o'clock and
then as an accommodation for adults on their lunch hour. There were also
students who were through with school by 12 or £:00 p.m. such as many seniors.
She did not think they could make a uniform policy excluding students on that
basis. It had to be a personalized type of thing by having someone in the
business at all times to monitor the situation. Submitting to a rule that
could, in essence, destroy the operation was not a good policy.
Councilman Bay asked the hours of operation; Mr. Cutler answered that they
would open at Noon and close at 9:00 p.m.
Miss .Santalahti reported she understood that the applicant had gone to the
Planning Department to get some information on the addresses. It looke~ to
her that what they may have done was to pick up the Assessor's Book listing
property owners only. l-hey just checked the land use maps to see how many
residents were actually within a 300-foot radius. Unless the information was
somehow not correct, she noted 160 dwelling units, and they had 39 signatures
on their petition, but there were five duplications. Fifty-one percent of 160
meant they would have to have 81 addresses that would have to sign non-
opposition to the application if they wanted to be consistent with what had
been discussed earlier.
Councilman ~ay stated, in other words, the petition did not cover a majority
of the residents within 300 feet.
Miss Santalahti explained that there were two apartment projects, one On Rob
Way and one on Lindsay and the deficiency appeared to be because of those
units.
Councilman Bay also noted a letter where one of the businesses in the center
was opposed to the arcade. Within their ordinance as it would be on
August 14, would that require a hearing.
Miss Santalahti answered if there was opposition by more than 50 percent of
the residents and business occupants within the 300 feet, they would probably
deny the application and the applicant would then have right to appeal the
Planning Director's decision. On that basis, she would like to see approval
from 51% of the people living in or owning a business in that area.
81-1038
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MIEUIES - July 21, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Cutler stated the names of the property owners were obtained through the
Planning Department. There were 51 names on the list and only 25 property
owners.
The Mayor surmised then that they knocked on everybody's door within 300 feet;
Mr. Cutler stated that was correct.
MOTION: After further discussion between Council and staff, Councilman Roth
moved to approve the Amusement Devices Permit submitted by Michael Lawrence
Cutler for Mike's Amusement Center, 2133-2135 West Lincoln Avenue, ~or 25
various amusement devices. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood noted that there were three
stores located in the center--one was closed and not checked, one was not
contacted, and one dim not want the arcade.
The Mayor felt that the applicant in good faith tried to carry out the spirit
of the ordinance. The spirit he thought the Council voted on when they
created the ordinance was, they aid not want to issue a license without at
least testing the neighborhood to see if there was going to be some concern.
The applicants had gone beyond that. he did not see any reason why they
should 0e standing in their way any further.
Mr. Cutler stated Mr. Williams owned the center and approved the arcade.
There was a certain amount of resistance from the Blue Chip Stamp Store, not
against it, but non-committal.
A vote was then taken on the ~oregoing motion of approval. MO%ION CARRIED.
108: AMUSEblENI DEVICES PERMIT - JOURNEY INN: Application by ~aryn ~.
Silfies, Journey Inn, 878 South Brookhurst Street, for 20 to 25 various amuse-
ment devices, was submitted.
The City Clerk announced that the applicant had been in contact with the
Planning Division.
Councilman Roth moved to approve the application for Amusement Devices'Permit
for the Journey Inn, 878 South Brookhurst Street for 20 to 25 various amuse-
ment devices. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked staff if there were any
residences near the business; Miss Santalahti answered "yes" and Miss Silfies
was contacting them today. She did, however, contact all the businesses.
Karyn Silfies, 9872 Dewey Drive, Garden Grove, reported that last week she
canvassed all of the businesses that would have direct foot traflic in that
area, not knowing what fell into the jurisdiction of the 300 feet. As of
today, she had been given a list of the residences which were behind the
business within 300 feet. There was first an alley, then garages and then the
residences. She was planning to canvass the residences as well. Of the
businesses she canvassed in the center, across the street from the center, and
anything with public access, she had only one who declined to sign, the others
all approved, totalling 93.4% of the businesses.
81-1039
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 21~ 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Overholt recalled that last week they approved an application
subject to compliance with the requirements of the ordinance; the City
Attorney confirmed that was correct and that the Planning Division was going
to then carry through the provisions of the ordinance prior to its effective
date.
Councilman Overholt asked if the applicant was amenable to the same provisions
on this occasion, could they not approve the permit today, subject to their
complying with the terms of the ordinance; City Attorney Hopkins answered if
they would voluntarily comply, there was no reason why it could not be done.
Councilwoman Kay~ood noted that Miss Silfies indicated one business did not
want to sign the petition, but it was not liste~. She asked who did not want
to sign.
Miss Silfies answered it was a restaurant and his statement was--he aid not
care to have kids patronizing his restaurant just for cokes. In the future,
she would keep a tally of those opposed as well.
Mayor Seymour stated Councilman Overholt was trying to ascertain, if the
Council approved her request today, subject to her conformance with the
ordinance, would she agree to that.
Miss Silfies stated that would be fine and she would proceed to canvass the
rest of the area. She did not feel there was any problem.
Mayor Seymour stated that would be incorporated into the motion and the second.
Councilwoman Kaywood reiterated that would be that anybody who said "no" had
to be listed as well.
The Mayor stated he did not object to what Councilwoman Kaywood suggested be
done, but he did not want an interpretation by staff that they were to carry
out a report indicating all the "yeses" and "noes". They were going to do a
mail out and what they were going to respond to was only the "noes"; Miss
Santalahti confirmed that was correct. As far as she could see, either one
was okey. With 51% support, the project would be okeyed.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
148: APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNA%E - ORANGE COUNTY HEALTH PLANNING CObNCIL
(OCHPC): Appointment of Alternate of the Delegate to the Assembly of
Delegates of the Orange County Health Planning Council ~continued from the
meetings of June 23 and July 7, 1981).
The City Clerk announced that a letter had been sent to the delegate, Mr.
Postma, but no answered had been received.
Councilman Roth suggested that Mr. Postma be contacted by telephone.
81-1Q40
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 21, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
MOTION: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Seymour, consi-
deration of an Alternate to the OCHPC was continued for two weeks. MOHION
CARRIED.
108: ANAHEIM RECREA%ION CENTER: Request of Dorothy I. Hoskins for an exten-
sion to her Gaming Premises Permit to allow the continued operation of the
Anaheim Recreation Center located at 621 North Euclid Street (continued from
the meetings of June 30 and July 14, 1981, see minutes those dates), was sub-
mitted.
Mr. Jack Rizzato, attorney for Mrs. Hoskins, stated since they requested that
either a grandfather clause or an extension of Mrs. Hoskins' license which was
due by ordinance to terminate as of midnight tonight, the City Attorney was
going to make a recommendation. As he indicated at the meeting of June 30, he
was going to contact the City Attorney and attempt to assist. He did supply
the City Attorney with two ordinances which he felt were relevant from the
standpoint of grandfather clauses, copies of which were also submitted to the
Council. One was from Ventura County where since its inception in 1958, there
was no litigation as to other groups attempting to come into the County after
the time of passage, nor any litigation from groups who applied but had not
received approval by the appropriate date. 2he other ordinance was from the
City of Fillmore who also had a grandfather clause and their City Attorney
reported no litigation at the time of the ordinance or thereafter. Several
others were contacted as well, Bakersfield, Santa Clara and Lake Elsinore who
used different methods of control.
Mr. Rizzato continued that it appeared Ordinance No. 4121 adopted in April,
1980, which would prohibit Mrs. Hoskins' operation after midnight, allowed in
Section 2 the exception as stated in Ordinance No. 3552, the moratorium passec
in 1976. It would also appear that with the City Charter allowing Sections or
Subsections to be amended, that the Council could, if it ~eemed appropriate,
amend Section 2 of Ordinance No. 3552 to grandfather in Mrs. Hoskin's club and
no additional restrictions would have to be made in accordance with the prohi-
bition under 4121. The City Attorney indicated to him eariler today that he
would have to state his opposition based upon t~e issue of litigation. He
understood that there was one case pending and possibly another one to be
filed. ~ose, however, were based upon Ordinance No. 4121, a criminal'
statute, and not filed under the ordinance they were interested in, 0rdinance~
No. 3552. %here was no way that he or anyone else could certainly tell the
Council that under no circumstances would there be any possibility of litiga-
tion, but it would appear from the other jurisdictions canvassed in the
ordinances the Council had in front of them that the likelihood was minimal.
The two instances Mr. Hopkins told him about were criminal in nature and did
not challenge anything but the constitutionality of the criminal section of
Ordinance No. 4121. He would then request that the Council take such action
as to allow an amendment to Ordinance No. 3552, Section 2, to allow Mrs.
Hoskins to have a grandfather clause or lifetime license, subject to whatever
terms and conditions the Council might deem appropriate.
Mayor Seymour asked the kinds of terms and conditions he was suggesting.
81-1041
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 21~ 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Rizzato stated they seemed to be rather consistent. No tranfers by death
or sale, that the particular licensee must control the premises and not merely
be a figurehead. Others allowed for transfer o~ location upon City Council
approval, but others did not. He would like to believe that in case the
building in which the business was presently housed was going to be destroyed
or condemned for one reason or another, with the proper record with the City,
Police Department and City Council, that they would be allowed to move. %ney
would request and definitely concur with no transfer and no sale. As they
might not be aware, the present location of Mrs. Ho skins' business was aue for
demolition within 12 months unless something occurred in the interim to stop
that. %hey would like the option of being able to move the premises, subject
to City Council approval.
The Mayor asked if they would be willing to agree that if, in fact, the
ordinance were found to be invalid in whole or in part, that they would for-
feit their rights; Mr. Rizzato assumed that would Oe under the grandfather
clause. He would have to confer with Mrs. Hoskins relative to the Mayor's
question. At this point, he could not recommend it to her, but if it were the
only method available for her to secure such a license, he would have to
concur in her opinion. (Mr. Rizzato then conferred with Mrs. Hoskins). Sub-
sequently he announced that he had conferred with Mrs. Hoskins and again, at
this time if the suggestion by the Mayor were the only metho~ available for
securing a license to continue operating, then under those conditions only,
she would, in fact, concur.
Councilman Overholt asked if he (Rizzato) would like to explain that, so that
he could understand what Mrs. Hoskins was willing to do.
Mr. Rizzato answered, the Mayor was asking Mrs. Hoskins if the Council allowed
her to have a license but the ordinance were attacked and determined that the
grandfather clause was unconstitutional, would she then be willing to
relinquish her license, rather than continually fight for the right the
Council had given her under the grandfather clause, his answer was, if that
were the only method of securing a grandfather clause, they would accept that
proposal.
Mayor Seymour, wishing to be more specific, asked if he were agreeing Ghat, if
any portion of the ordinance was held or declared invalid, in whole or part by
the final ajudication of any court, they would agree that the license be ter-
minated.
Mr. Rizzato again conferred with Mrs. Hoskins. he then asked for clarifica-
tion that they were discussing Ordinance No. 3552 and not Ordinance No. 4121,
the latter prohibiting certain types of activities. %hey were requesting a
grandfather clause in Section 2 of Ordinance No. 3552 which was already exempt.
The Mayor stated he was talking about Ordinance No. 412±.
Mr. Rizzato stated if at that particular time it was held to be unconstitu-
tional, the City of Anaheim would be without any regulations whatsoever. He
was erroneously under the assumption they were talking about Ordinance No.
3552, and he asked to again confer with Mrs. Hoskins.
81-1042
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINU%ES - July 21~ 1981, 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor suggested while he was doing so, that they hear from others in the
Council Chambers who wished to be heard relative to the matter.
Mr. Joe Simkus, 1415 West North Street, stated he was not connected with the
group in any way but wanted to be heard today on the subject of justice and
fair play. /here were 98 cities in the State where card rooms were licensed.
He was aware of the trouble Anaheim had with card rooms. He believed the
Council was contemplating unilateral action regarding Mrs. Hoskins license
because of something that happened in other clubs. In the other 98 cities,
there was hardly any litigation or trouble requiring the attention of the
Police. They were perfectly legal and legitimate businesses. He believed
that most of the trouble in Anaheim occurred simply because the City had not
had the proper ordinance regulating that type of business. Mrs. Hoskins was
entitled to operate her business and keep her 70 people employed, as long as
she did not break a law and was not guilty of moral turpitude.
Trudi Dackman, Widow's Anonymous, 613 North Euclid, stated she was located
three doors south of Mrs. Hoskins business, and she was grateful that Anaheim
Recreation Center was there. Mrs. Hoskins had never had a problem with the
Police and the type of people who frequented the club were nice people. She
should be allowed to operate her business and provide the type of recreation
she offered to Anaheim. The only problem she had was a minor parking problem,
and she suggested that Mrs hoskins have valet parking as a courtesy to her
patrons, as well as to patrons of other businesses.
Mr. Edward Hagen, 22050 Alameda, Del ~onte, Lodimar, stated he used to be the
manager of the Camelot Club which was probably the best operated club in the
State of California. He also wished that Mrs. Ho skins would get her license.
He would only ask one thing of the Council, to grant another license and at
least give the Anaheim Recreation Centerlcompetition. It would be a good
thing for the City. All they would have to do with the ordinance was remove
the restriction of a single owner and just indicate that the owner had to be
registered with the City. He requested that they grant another license.
Joseph Jazger, 627 North Harbor, Los~ Angeles, stated he was the Business
Manager for Mrs. London. He questioned, if a license was granted to Mrs.
Hoskins, which he felt she was entitled to, why the same consideration'was not
given to Mrs. London when she went through the same identical thing, dissolu-
tion and divorce, with the same set of circumstances throughout.
Mayor Seymour stated that although he could not answer the question, birs.
Hoskins stated at the podium approximately two weeks ago (see minutes June 30,
1981) that she (Mrs. London) did not care to have a license. He suggested
that he talk to Mrs. Hoskins in that regard. He noted that Mrs. hoskins was
shaking her head "no", but, ne reiterated, what she said, in the event she
(Hoskins) would be deprived of continuing operation, Lynn London told her that
she would not have a license.
Mrs. Ho skins confirmed that was correct.
81-1043
City tiall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINDIES - July 21~ 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
The following people also spoke in favor of Mrs. Hoskins being able to remain
in business, the latter two speakers were also employees of the Anaheim
Recreation Center: Ruth Leeds, 5772 Garden Grove Boulevard, also speaking for
senior citizens, since they too needed to provided with recreation; Barbara
Goldblatt, 12455 Cedarcreek Lane, Cerritos; Virgina Weaver, 1343 South West
Street, also speaking for some senior citizens from Seal Beach and Laguna
Hills who could not be present and Deborah Lemons.
Mrs. Lynn London then spoke and stated that at no time did she say that she
would be willing to give up her license now or at any time, and she felt she
was being railroaded.
Mrs. Joan London then spoke and stated that she was still married to Joseph
London. As far as Dorothy Hoskins keeping her license, s~e felt that she
should. She had always run a fair club and an monest club. As far as Camelot
was concerned, Lynn London in her divorce, her original agreement, she gave up
all rights to Camelot. When she (Joan London) started divorce proceedings
against Joseph London that was the time when he and Lynn London, in no other
terms, conspired, so t~at at that point ne transferred not only all of his
property, but his interests in Camelot. Not his ownership, his interest, and
he did so so that me would not have to give her any alimony, etc., yet she had
in her hand one of many checks for over $2,000 of monies that she invested in
Camelot. ~hen he (Joseph London) gave up his interest in Camelot, he did not
give up her interest, and she had never applied for that license. As far as
Edward Hagan was concerned, he was a very good manager and an honest manager.
As far as Lynn London getting a license was concerned, she woud fight it
herself because she hag no right to say that Joe gave her ownership or his
license.
Mrs. Dorothy Hoskins first apologized to the Council because some of the
people from Camelot felt like using her time allowed, as well as the City
Council's time, for something she felt the courts had handled. As ~or the
offer they had given her on the April 1980 ordinance, she had talked to Mr.
Hopkins and several Council Members. She felt that parts of that were hurried
together and perhaps too broad in order to close the Camelot which at that
time was running without a license. She felt it would be risky to accept the
offer suggested. She felt if there was one small opportunity from wha~ she
had seen today for those people to go in and do something illegal, it appeared
she would be running a risk. With the children, she did not feel she could do
that. She thought that their cases were pretty much settled. Lynn London did
tell her that she had court cases pending but that she would drop those. She
did not know that she was being herded into a corner and manipulated. She was
not manipulated by them entirely. Part of her staff did the same thing. It
had hurt, but she had straightened the situation out to where she was satis-
fied with it. There were terminations coming if she was allowed to stay open.
She would not be manipulated, and was asking that she could stay open under
the grandfather clause as requested. Again, she felt that the April 1980
ordinance was put together too hurriedly, and it would be at great risk that
she would say "yes"
81-1044
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - 0uly 21, 19812 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour stated that what she was saying was that she preferred not to;
Mrs. Ho skins answered, after what she had seen this afternoon, she preferred
not to.
Mayor Seymour then explained that they started off a couple of weeks ago in a
spirit of trying to find a way to continue an operation that had almost become
a tradition, a history, in the City. %hey asked the City Attorney to look at
the situation to see if he could not come up with some way that they could
accomplish that. Ihe City Attorney reported and it was his (Seymour's)
opinion in reading the report that the City Attorney's opinion was being sub-
stantiated by what he was hearing today. Should they continue the activity of
the Anaheim Recreation Club which he would very much like to do, that there
was little doubt that the City would be back in court, lhere were a couple of
lawsuits still "hanging fire" and what had been said at the podium today lead
him to believe that all they would be doing was, they might be extending the
life of the Anaheim Recreation Center for perhaps another 30, 60 or 90 days,
but as a lawsuit was reactivated or pursued, they would have to call a halt to
it. He felt it was unfortunate and a sad day in Anaheim. He had inquiries
from no less than four or five people in the past two weeks stating that if
Mrs. Hoskins obtained a license, they should also obtain a license. They had
a problem with everyone wanting a piece of the action and, therefore, they had
no choice in the matter.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour stated it was with deep regret, but that there was
no alternative but to offer a motion to deny the request for an extension, not
because the Council did not want to see the operation continue, but because of
outside activities and an extension of those activities and a movement o~
those types of activities into the City. Councilman Overholt seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS - CLOSED SESSION: %he City Manager requested a Closed Session to
discuss a personnel matter with possible action anticipated. The City
Attorney also requested a Closed Session to discuss potential litigation with
no action anticipated.
By general consent, the Council recessed into Closed Session. (3:20 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members'
being present. (4:07 P.M.)
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2212: Application by
Larry R. and Judith I. Smith, to permit a cocktail lounge on CL zoned property
located at 945 South Knott Street, with a Code waiver of minimum number of
parking spaces (continued from the meeting of July 14, 1981--see minutes that
date).
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-108, declared
that the subject project be exempt from the requirement to prepare an
environmental impact report pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act since there would be no significant individual or
cumulative adverse environmental impact due to this project and further
granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2212, subject to three conditions:
81-1045
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL ~INUTES - Ouly 21, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
1. %~hat subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos.
1 and 2; provided, however, that a minimum of twenty-five (25% of the floor
area shall be used for food preparation.
2. That Condition No. 1, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to
final building and zoning inspections, or prior to commencement of the
activity herein approved, whichever occurs first.
3. That the use, as approved, is hereby granted for a period of one year, at
which time, upon written request by the petitioner, additional period of time
may be granted by the Planning Commission if it is determined that the use has
not had a detrimental effect on nearby uses.
A review of the Planning Commission's ~ecision was requested by Councilwoman
Kaywood at the meeting of June 9, 1981; public hearing was scheduled July 14,
1981, at this time extensive testimony was given, and subsequently was con-
tinued to this date.
Councilman Roth noted the conclusion in staff report dated July 16, 1981--"if
Conditional Use Permit No. 2212 is the denied by the City Council, the subject
business premises may continue to operate under CUP ~o. 617." ae asked for
clarification as to the operation that would be allowed under CUP No. 617.
Miss Annika Santalahti, Assistant Planning Director--Zoning, explained that
CUP No. 617 was approved in 1964 and permitted on-sale beer and wine in
connection with a restaurant.
~ere being no further Council questions and since extensive public testimony
had been taken at the previous meeting of July 14,, 1981, the Mayor closed the
public hearing.
Councilman Bay explained that last week the public hearing was continued
because there was some question about whether everyone had the Police Report
in their agenda packet or whether they had carried that material over from the
Planning Commission hearing or not. That question, plus the influence of not
having a full Council, he felt influenced the Council to continue the matter
for one week so that they would not only have the Police report, but also that
there would be a full Council. He would speak against granting the co6di-
tional use permit on the basis that the subject area was a problem area. The~
had indications from the Police reports throughout that the whole area was
considered a problem area. There were residents and other business owners who
testified last week stating the same. He did not consider that the only
alternative by not granting the CUP was that the business could proceed to
operate with beer and wine if they wished. ~here was always the case that if
some of the problems were not resolved in the area, that they could also hold
an Order to Snow Cause hearing and revoke any CUP in that area, including the
one under discussion. They could also pull in the Woodstock or the French
Quarter and have a hearing to show cause why those CUP's should not be
revoked. He was very concerned over those problem areas within the City, and
the subject area with a combination of three businesses seemed to be one of
the key problem areas. Before a vote was taken today on the subject CbP, he
would like to hear ~rom t~e Police Chief on the subject--how much time it was
taking from the Police Department, etc.
81-1046
city Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - 3uly 21, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Police Chief George Tielsch felt that Councilman Bay was correct, it was a
problem because of the area. Ihere were three businesses located there with a
common parking lot and that situation was causing problems. It was difficult
sometimes for them to identify which one of the particular locations was
causing the problem if it moved out into the parking lot area. He would also
concur that if areas became a problem, the Council nas the right to call the
business in and have them show cause why they should continue to have thezr
CUP. They hag deployed an inordinate amount of their resources to locations
such as the subject area and several others with which the Council was
familiar. It detracted from their ability to handle the calls for service of
citizens in other areas. They frequently found that a relatively small number
of people they were dealing with were actually citizens of Anaheim. Instead
they came from other cities, became intoxicated and engaged in fights or other
types of criminal activities. He reiterated they were detracting from local
citizens who had problems in their areas and they did have to send relatively
large numbers of officers to such locations because of officer safety. It was
a considerable problem for them.
Councilman Roth stated when he sat on the Council in 1970 or 1971, he heard
the same situation with regard to the Electric Circus that was in the subject
location at the time. The situation still prevailed in the area and was
nothing new throughout the years. He would be interested in seeing the
Chief's recommendations relative to the matter. With so many bars and
restaurants serving alcoholic beverages concentrated in one area, perhaps the
way to go would be to have the businesses show cause why their CUP's should
not be revoked.
Chief Tielsch stated if that was the Council's pleasure, he would be happy to
prepare a profile on the various areas causing problems.
ENVIRO~EN/AL D1PACT REPOR% - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council finds that subject
project will have no significant individual or cumulative adverse environ-
mental impact due to approval of this negative declaration since the Anaheim
General Plan designates the subject property %or General Commercial and medium
density residential land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no sensi-
tive environmental impacts are involved in the proposal; that the Initial
Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no signiticant individual or
cumulative adverse environmental impacts; and is, therefore, exempt from the
requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. ~1R-339 for adoption, aenying
Conditional Use Permit No. 2212. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-339: A RESOLUTION OF IRE CITY COUNCIL OF IHE CIIY OF
ANAHEIM DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2212.
Before a vote was taken, Mr. Pete Williams asked to speak; the Mayor noted
that the public hearing was closed and he understood that Mr. Williams had an
opportunity to speak at previous meetings; however, he allowed him to come
forward to give additional input.
81-1047
City Hall, Anaheim, Caliiornia - COUNCIL piINUTES - 3uly 21, 1981, i:30 P.M.
Mr. Pete Williams, 2618 C Tustin Avenue, Santa Ana, stated that he agreed with
Councilman Bay that the subject area had been a problem, but he nad not had an
opportunity to discuss with the full Council what they proposed to do to solve
the problem, he felt it was rather shortsighted if they denied the CUP to
someone who was making a bonafide effort to upgrade the area. Rather than
having an Order to Show Cause hearing why a CbP that was pre-existing should
be revoked, the Council should recognize their corporation had spent approxi-
mately $150,000 thus far since the fire in trying to upgrade the property. He
felt that the Council had lost sight of the fact that the Alcoholic Beverage
Commission (ABC) monitored all places selling alcoholic beverages. Under the
existing CUP with beer and wine only, which was the way the business had
operated since the early 1960's, there had probably been more problems than
the Chief or anyone else would like to have there. WRen The Sting went out of
business and new management took over, the number of Police calls decreased
drastically, and he felt that would be borne out by perusal of the number of
Police contacts in the area. The Woodstock took' over as the "bad guy" in the
area. Most of the calls listed under Casa Blanca either took place after they
had already closed down or when they had initiated the call to the Police,
such as they had done when the business burned down. He did not think that
should be held against them. Since the fire, they formed a corporation and
had taken in new capital and investors.
If the Council denied the CUP, the location would then be limited to a beer
and wine situation. The beer and wine license appealed to a younger crowd.
Ihe idea ot the full cocktail license and food license was to bring older,
more refined, controllable type of clientele to the area. %he difference
between the two licenses as far as the ABC was concerned was as follows: %he
cocktail license cost them $60,000 and they did not want a bunch of rowdies in
the business jeopardizing their license with the ABC. As a condition of using
that cocktail license, one-half of their income had to be derived from sale of
food. That qualified it as a bonafide eating establishment and that was why
they had a kitchen. With the beer and wine license, they ABC had no such
requirement. Ihey had to have a kitchen, but did not require that they sell
any food. They were "stuck" with a lease for the property for 10 years at
$2,800 per month. They were going to open the business and were going to make
money there doing something. He would think that the Council would prefer
that they open it as a bonafide eating establishment serving full meals,
operating and appealing to an older, more controllable crowd, than the alter-
native of serving beer and wine only to a younger crowd. Another very impor-
tant aspect of the ABC requirement was that if they had a cocktail license
with food, if they served cocktails and the food was shut down, they would be
in violation of the ABC if somebody under 18 years of age went into the estab-
lishment, because they would be contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
That was not the case with beer and win~. In that case, there could be 15
yea~ olds or 12 year olds, etc., in the establishment which was the situation
with Woodstock where they just sold beer.
The Mayor interjected and stated he was sure hr. Williams had an opportunity
to mare his full argument a week ago; Mr. Williams stated "yes" he aid, except
he did not think the Council was aware of the requirements of the AISC.
81-1048
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 21~ 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour asked the Council if they were now aware and did they have any
questions; Councilman Overholt stated he felt Mr. Williams made his point last
week.
Mr. Williams thanked the Council for their time.
Councilwoman Kaywood suggested to Mr. Williams if he was operating under the
old CUP and had a full restaurant with beer and wine and if everything went
fine for a year or two, that would be the time to come in and request what he
was now requesting, but with a good record behind him.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution of denial.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-339 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 80-81-37 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
Application by James R. and Shirley A. Needham, for a change in zone from
RS-7200 to RM-2400, to construct a 6-unit apartment complex on property
located at 1028 East North Street, was submitted.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-116 declared
that the subject project be exempt from the requirement to prepare an
environmental impact report pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act since there would be no significant individual or
cumulative adverse environmental impact due to this project and further
granted Reclassification No. 80-81-37, subject to the following conditions:
1. That sidewalks shall be installed along North Street as required by the
City Engineer and in accordance with standards plans and specifications on
file in the Office of the City Engineer.
2. 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 street lighting along
North Street.
3. 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 North Street.
4. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved
plans on file with the Office of the Executive Director of Public Works.
5. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
6. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satis-
factory to the City Engineer.
7. That the owner of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim
appropriate parkland 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.
81-1049
City Hall, Anaheim, California -COUNCIL MINUTES -July 21, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
8. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay the traffic signal assess-
ment 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 subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos.
1 and 2; provided, however, that the 42-inch high masonry wall on the north
property line along North Street shall be constructed of a decorative masonry
material.
10. Prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject property,
Condition Nos. 2 and 3, 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.
11. That Condition Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6 and 9, above-mentioned, shall be complied
with prior to final building and zoning inspections.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilman Bay
at the meeting of June 23, 1981 and public hearing scheduled this date.
The Mayor asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
Mr. Elmer Maher, realtor, 12141 Harbor Boulevard, Garden Grove, stated he was
representing Mr. Needham who was called out of town unexpectedly, he would be
happy to answer any questions.
Since there were no questions of the Council at this time, the Mayor asked to
hear from those present in opposition to the proposed reclassification.
Mr. P. Stanley Backlund, 1015 East North Street, across the street and a few
houses west of the subject property on which the six-unit apartment was being
proposed, explained that he obtained 46 signatures on a petition to the City
Council to revoke the decision of the Planning Commission although he was not
speaking for those people. He and a number of his neighbors had lived in the
area for a long time, before 1950. They lived on large estate size lots with
an approximate 35-foot setback from the street just as the houses across the
street. He felt the developer was trying to come in and change the ap~earanc~
and number of residents that were going to be in his neighborhood and on a
piecemeal basis. The developer had developed the four-unit apartment project
on the corner of East and North Street with all four garages facing North
Street making it look as though North Street was going to become an alley.
The same developer was moving on and had acquired the property at 1028 North
Street where the existing housing was setback 35 feet, and he had built the
other apartment without substantially adhering to the setback. Even more
important was the fact that on the apartments already built, garages were
setback only 13 feet from the property line and the residents could not park
their cars without driving them into the garage or the cars would overlap the
sidewalks which is illegal. Further, relative to the subject project, it was
81-1050
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 21~ 198.1, 1:30 P.M.
stated in Item 16 of staff report to the Planning Commission dated June 1,
1981, Page 4-b, "The petitioner has been informed of the Planning Commission's
policy requiring a 20-foot wide landscaped area where multiple-family abuts
single-family residential zoned property." By the same token, it looked odd
to him that in the plans there was only 8 feet on the west side abutting a
single-family unit and only 14 feet on the south side abutting the property
facing the cul-de-sacs on Rose Street. When the developer built the apart-
ments on the corner, 1028 was a single-family residential property and where
that apartment abutted that residential property, the Planning Commission saw
fit to allow only five feet from the property line between the apartment and
the single-family unit. This said to him that the developer was trying to go
right down the street avoiding the policy of the Planning Commission each
time, because he said. he was going to buy the next property and develop that
into apartments also. It looked like a dominoe effect to him and that was
partly what he objected to. His main objection was the fact that it was
changing the complexion of the neighborhood, changing it from a estate size
front property to apartments which would change their mode and method of
living considerably. As they added more and more people and cars to that
area, they were right next to East and North Streets which was an awkward
corner and it was very difficult to exit. The more people lining up to get
out onto East Street from North Street, the more difficult it was going to be.
It would add to a bad traffic situation.
Councilman Roth asked Miss Santalahti to respond to the 20-foot wide land-
scaped area requirement.
Miss Santalahti explained that was a Planning Commission policy only and a
design criteria they looked at in many projects.
Councilman Roth confirmed for Mr. Backlund that the 20-foot requirement was an
unofficial policy of the Planning Commission and not a requirement under the
ordinance.
Mr. Backlund then explained for Councilman Overholt that the other apartment
units were just completed a few weeks ago. He did not object to those because
it was rather an awkward corner. He imagined that the homeowner had trouble
selling his property for a single-family house. However, last year in'April
the Planning Commission had a hearing relative to whether or not to convert
the whole area to multiple-family zoning. A number of the residents were at
that hearing and when the Commission found that most of the residents were
against that proposal, the Planning Commission decided not to change the whole
area along East Street, as well as along North Street for apartments.
Miss Santalahti explained for Councilman Roth that there was a zoning action
in 1979-80 which would have approved rezoning of the property plus a substan-
tial amount of property on East Street and some further west on North Street.
That specific zoning action was denied.
Councilman Roth stated that the General Plan showed the subject property as
RM-2400; Miss Santalahti stated that was correct.
81-1051
Ci,ty Hall~ Anaheim California
Mr. Frank Avada, 753 North Bush Street, stated that they had a number of
apartments in the area now and, surrounded as they were with apartments, they
had enough traffic and noise. Further, their property values would decline.
If he was going to buy a home, he would not buy it with apartments located
next to it.
Mr. D. E. Cuadros, 733 North East Street, stated he had the same problem when
the other apartments were proposed and the property reclassified. They went
over and above what they were actually permitted to do. They specified they
were going to leave the existing home on the property and build around it, but
they came in an~ moved the place, and he ~id not know how they got away with
that with the Planning Commission. He was opposed to the apartments because
there were so many around the neighborhood, causing all the properties to
decline. He questioned why the developer or the person who was going to make
the money was always permitted to go over and above the majority of the people
who were against it. They were only little people and did not have the money
to fight back. He was previously displaced by the Bank of America under the
same procedure because the developers and the people who had money were
permitte~ to do anything they wanted to do, and the little people were the
losers at all times.
The Mayor then asked to hear from the proponent.
Mr. Maher first stated that the developer was really not a bad guy and had
developed properties in Anaheim on Claudina and was presently planning to
develop some property on Citron Street. When he developed the corner
property, they did not hear too much, basically because it was a bad eye-sore,
and the people were interested in seeing someone do something with that
corner. There were several absentee landlords on the surrounding streets and
there were a lot of bootleg units in the area. They proposed to construct six
units, two-bedrooms each, one-story with proper landscaping, meeting all City
Planning Commission requirements.
Councilman Bay then questioned the statement that there were garage doors
within 13 feet of the property line. He was very interested in short
distances between garage doors and sidewalks especially in looking at the
Bluejay area where there was not enough distance. He hoped that the Planning.
Commission was not putting in more apartments in the City with distance
problems between the garage door and the sidewalk.
Councilman Roth noted that in Anaheim Hills there were many garages almost
abutting the curb, but in such cases automatic garage door openers were
required. He asked if they had given any consideration to that relative to
the corner apartment project where it was stated there was a 13-foot setback.
\
Miss Santalahti answered that in the apartment zones the requirement was a
15-foot setback. The front-on garage was not considered in that particular
zone because typically they had not had that occur. It was a good point and
she would keep it in mind for their staff report; Councilman Roth stated he
would recommend that.
81-1052
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINOTES - July 21, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Miss Santlahti also explained for Councilwoman Kaywood that there could be a
five-foot setback between an apartment building and a sin~le-lamily property
line as long as it was a blank wall and a one-story building.
In response to Councilwoman Kaywood's question as to how ~ar sown on North
Street Mr. Needham planned to go, Mr. Maher stated he was not going to go any
farther.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked how long Mr. Needham had owned the subject
property; Mr. Maher answered six months.
The Mayor asked if he bought the property with the intent of building apart-
ments on it; Mr. Maher answered hopefully.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the
public hearing.
Councilwoman Kaywood thereupon quoted from the Planning Commission minutes of
June 1, 1981, Page 81-318 (4th and 4th paragraphs) where Chairman Tolar spoke
with regard to the General Plan study on East Stret, etc~, ending with, ...,
"...It (the development) should be stopped because people have bought homes in
a single-family area and expected to maintain them as resiaential homes and
once apartments are allowed to abut single-family homes, there will be more
noise, more people and more traffic and the people aeserve the Commission's
protection for their single-family homes." She agreed with Chairman Tolar
100% and was very concerned about what was happening.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Bay, the City Council finds that subject
project will have no significant individual or cumulative adverse environ-
mental impact since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property
for medium density residential land uses commensurate with the proposal; that
no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the proposal; that the
Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant individual
or cumulative adverse environmental impacts; and is, therefore, exempt ~rom
the requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 81R-340 for adoption, denying
Reclassification No. 80-81-37, reversing the findings of the City Planning
Commission. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION' NO. 81R-340: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY -COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT A CHANGE OF ZONE SHOULD NO% BE GRANTED IN
A CERTAIN AREA OF THE CITY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED. (80-81-37)
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Roth stated that the Anaheim General Plan
designated the subject property for medium density. In the past, they had
developers coming in and requesting a number of waivers, but in this project
they were requesting none. They had adopted a General Plan, set up Code pro-
visions for parking, etc., and the developer met all those requirements.
Considering the size of the apartments proposed, they were not going to
attract so-called "low class" people to the area. He felt the proposed
project would do nothing but upgrade the area. He was opposed to the
resolution.
81-1053
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 21, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Bay spoke in favor of the resolution. It was obvious from the
people who were present and signed the petition against the project and also
considering the past action of the citizens in the neighborhood, when there
was an attempt to rezone to RM-2400 down North Street to the west, that they
were also opposed. He felt that people living in the area in R-1 next to the
subject type development deserved the protection of the zoning. Although the
General Plan covered an area indicating medium density, the issue on the
subject was total reclassification from RS-7200 to RM-2400, going from
single-family to multiple-family, and it was obvious that the neighbors were
against it.
Mayor Seymour stated on one hand, he was sympathetic with what Councilman Bay
just said, but he asked him to reiterate his justification relative to the
fact that the property on the General Plan called for exactly what the
applicant was proposing.
Councilman Bay stated he did not know when all the changes to the General Plan
took place, but he did not believe that the amendment in the subject area
happened since he was on the Council. I~ they were going to start changing
zoning all over the City only taking into account the General Plan and not the
specifics, such as with the case under discussion, then he did not know why
they bothered to have a difference between P~I-1200, 2400, 3000 or anything
else, if they were going to zone everything according to the General Plan.
Mayor Seymour stated the General Plan, which had been given a lot of thought,
designated areas for certain types of development. It was also to be a guide-
line not only for people who lived in the City, but also for those such as Mr.
Needham coming to the City to buy property and to ascertain how it could be
used. Conversely, if Councilman Bay was saying that they ought to disregard
the General Plan, dependent upon how they felt at the time, he did not agree.
Councilman Bay stated he always heard that the General Plan was general in
nature and had nothing to do with specific zoning. %he subject hearing was on
a change of zone and he did not see where the General Plan was germane at all
to a zoning change going from single family to multiple. The General Plan was
a guide in general.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated there used to be a sign posted that stated the
General Plan was a flexible document and, in fact, it had been changed many
times to conform to what was existing, rather than for long-range planning.
It had worked in both directions. In looking at the map, there was no
question that t~e subject area was an RS-7200 neighborhood all the way
through. The development at the corner that was allowed was because of East
Street.
81-1054
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 21, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour, in concluding, stated that he was going to join in the resolu-
tion to deny the reclassification. On the other hand, he totally disagreed
with Councilman Bay and Councilwoman Kaywood relative to the meaning of the
General Plan. They were setting the rules of the game and then dependent upon
how they felt, they were going to change those rules on any given day. He did
not feel there was anything orderly with that at all. He suggested if the
project was denied that they amend the General Plan so that the area was des-
ignated ~or single-family residential development. %hat was straightforward.
He was sensitive to the problems of the neighborhood and felt that the General
Plan Amendment in 1967 was out of date and needed to be updated.
Councilman Overholt stated it was his understanding that the General Plan was
conceptual and general in nature. However, he did not intend to get into that
debate. It seemed to him that the proposed development interfered.with an~
would have a tremendous impact in changing a purely single-family residential
neighborhood. Thus, he would support the resolution of denial.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNC IL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNC IL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay and Seymour
Roth
No ne
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-340 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 3222 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Application by
Marvin C. Moore, to construct a 4-unit addition to an existing apartment
building on RM-1200 zoned property located at 1811 Crestwood Lane, with the
following Code waivers:
a. maximum structural height
b. minimum landscaped setback
c. minimum sideyard setback
d. minimum number and type of parking spaces
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-120, declared
the that the subject project be exempt from the requirement to prepare an
environmental impact report pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act since there would be no significant individual or
cumulative adverse environmental impact due to this project and further
granted Variance No. 3222 subject to the followirg conditions:
1. That the owner(s) of subject pr6perty shall pay to the City of Anaheim a
fee, in an amount as determined by the City Council, for street lighting along
Crestwood Lane.
2. 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 Crestwood Lane.
81-1055
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ouly 21, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
3. That petitioner shall obtain a waiver of Council Policy No. 542 pertaining
to sound attenuation in residential projects prior to issuance of building
permits.
4. 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 5.
5. That Condition Nos. 1, 2, and 3, above-mentioned, shall be complied with
prior to the commencement of the activity authorized under this resolution, or
prior to the time that the building permit is issued, or within a period of
one year from date hereof, whichever occurs first, or such further time as the
Planning Commission may grant.
6. That Condition No. 4, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to
final building and zoning inspections.
A review of the Planning Commission's action was requested by Councilwoman
Kaywood at the meeting of June 23, 1981, and public hearing scheduled this
date.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous
of being heard.
Mr. Marvin Moore, 1811 Crestwoo~ Lane, applicant, stated he was present to
answer any questions.
The Mayor then asked if anyone was present in opposition; there being no
response, he closed the public hearing.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she was concerned that the request was to ignore
the Council Policy with regard to noise and that the project was only 70 feet
from the railroad. The Policy required 100 feet and if there was not going to
be any sound attenuation, she was concerned with the kind of living environ-
ment that would be created.
Mr. Moore stated he found out he would have to abide by the State of
California Sound Attenuation Code which meant he'was going to have to do
attenuation between party walls and exterior windows would have to be upgraded
to meet the requirements.
Councilwoman Kaywood then asked why there was a waiver of the sound attenua-
tion policy; Mr. Moore answered, as he understood, the plan check stated that
he would have to meet the California Code.
Miss Santalahti stated that Mr. Moore was talking about what was happening
inside the building. When the Sound Attenuation Policy was adopted, it
covered vibration from trains and things of that nature. That was the reason
for the structural setback. The inside of the building was covered by the
Code identified by Mr. Moore. Her impression from the Planning Commission was
that along this particular section of Crestwood Lane there were a number of
apartments with eight units and that their feeling was that four more were not
significant. She was not aware of any complaints in that particular tract and
for that reason, they had no problem with that Sound Attenuation Policy.
81-1056
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 21, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council finds that subject
project will have no significant individual or cumulative adverse environ-
mental impact since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property
for medium density land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive
enviror~ental impacts are involved in the proposal; that the Initial Study
submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant individual or cumulative
adverse environmental impacts; and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement
to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered a resolution to deny Variance No. 3222. She ~elt
that the 70 feet away from the railroad tracks was a very poor living environ-
ment.
Mayor Seymour stated he was going to oppose the resolution. He felt Variance
No. 3222 should be approved. There were a half dozen apartment houses
immediately west, further to the west, a condominium development, and west
across Nutwood, residential properties as well going east--all built on the
same condition. He had never heard any complaints or ever know of large
vacancy factors in those apartments. The people in the area obviously did not
feel as Councilwoman Kaywood did.
A vote was then taken on the resolution to deny and failed to carry by the
following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Bay, Roth and Seymour
Councilman Seymour offered ,Resolution No. 81R-341 for adoption, approving
Variance No. 3222. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-341: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 3222.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL ~MBERS: Overholt, Bay, Roth and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-341 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2223 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
Application by Shyh Huang Lee, et al, to expand an existing motel on CL zoned
property located at 1600 East Lincoln Avenue, with a Code waiver of minimum of
parking spaces, was submitted.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-124, declared
that the subject project be exempt from the requirement to prepare an
environmental impact report pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act since there would be no significant individual or
cumulative adverse environmental impact due to this project and further,
granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2223, subject to the following conditions:
81-1057
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Ouly 21, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
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 street lighting along
Lincoln Avenue.
2. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay the traffic signal assess-
ment fee (Ordinance No. 3896) in an amount as determined by the City Council,
for commercial buildings prior to the issuance of a building permit.
3. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
4. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satis-
factory to the City Engineer.
5. 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 5; provided, however, that kitchen efficiency units may be installed
in no more than 25% of the units, with a maximum of 6-cubic foot refrigera-
tors, two-burner stoves, excluding oven and baking facilities, and single com-
partment sinks, except that the manager's unit will be allowed to have full
kitchen facilities.
6. IHat Condition No. 1, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to the
commencement of the activity authorized under this resolution, or prior to the
time that the building permit is issued, or within a period of one year from
date hereof, whichever occurs first, or such further time as the Planning
Cormnission may grant.
7. That Condition Nos. 3, 4 and 5, above-mentioned, shall be complied with
prior to final building and zoning inspections.
A review of the Planning Commission's aecision was requested by Councilwoman
Kaywood at the meeting of June 23, 1981, and public hearing scheduled this
date.
The Mayor asked if the applicant ~r applicant's agent was present.
Mrs. Jean Smith, Executive Manager of the Lincoln Palms Motel, 1600 East
Lincoln, was present to answer any questions. The owner, Mr. Shyh Huang Lee,
was also present with her at the podium.
Councilman Roth asked in their expansion to an additional amount of units if
they were the same size units as those existing.
Mrs. Smith answered that nothing had been changed. They were just putting a
door in and separating the units.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated they were cutting them in half. She then asked
Mrs. Smith if they had any vacancies at the motel.
Mrs. Smith answered that their average occupancy was 95 ~o 98%.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked which of the units were rented first; Mrs. Smith
stated it was about even. The kitchen suites were in great demand for
families and also for their commercial patrons. There were a few transient
overnighters who liked the sleeping rooms. She also explained that it was
pretty much a regular clientele. They had several corporations who came and
spent six to eight weeks at a time at the motel on training programs and in
the winter time senior citizens came to get out of the snow. Holiday on Ice
people stayed with them in December and several other celebrity groups.
81-1058
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 21, 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if they were to cut the units in half and make them
smaller rooms, what would happen to the people who were looking for that kind
of place to stay.
Mrs. Smith answered, with the plans that they had, they could rent the section
with a kitchen. It would only be a matter of unlocking the door in between
and renting it as a suite or if they did not have that many requirements for
suites, lock the door and rent one as a motel unit and one as a kitchen.
Mr. Lee explained that the rooms were approximately 600 square teet at
present. They had two separate air conditioners in each unit and two separate
heaters on the roof. People could not pay high rent to have a room. They
only wanted to pay $25 to $40. To run the business as they were doing now was
too much of an expense and especially a waste of too much energy.
Mrs. Smith further explained that the suites had. an air conditioner in the
bedroom and one in the living room and they were separately controlled with
radiant heat in the ceiling, also separately controlled in each room. They
could rent one as a motel room if it was not desirable to have the whole
suite, and then rent the other to a smaller family. If for a large family,
they opened the door in between and rented it as a suite.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked the advantage in changing it; Councilman Overholt
felt that it would be so they could rent two rooms if they did not have large
families.
Mrs. Smith stated it would also bring more revenue and more taxes to the City
with lesser rents which the public would enjoy. They were trying to keep
their rates at a lower level than most of the motels in town.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she was having trouble understanding the situa-
tion. If Mrs. Smith was saying they were 98% filled, which was unheard of
anywhere, and they were going to change the situation, it did not make sense.
Mrs. Smith stated in that way, they could handle more of the public.
After further discussion between Councilwoman Kaywood and Mrs. Smith, Council-
man Roth asked if he understood basically that the Code was being met
completely with the exception of three parking spaces.
Miss Santalahti answered that was correct. Any motel expansion required a COP
and the parking spaces took the waiver.
Councilman Bay stated as he understood, the rooms were 512 square feet now
according to the staff report, and in splitting them, they would end up
approximately 241 square feet each. He assumed they were going to put a wall
in to separate the existing units.
Mrs. Smith answered "no".
that they could lock off.
wal 1.
They would be split with a door through the hall
They had to add a door and lock it, not build a
81-1059
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 21, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor asked if anyone was present in opposition; there being no response,
he closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORI - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Bay, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council finds that subject
project will have no significant individual or cumulative adverse environ-
mental impact since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property
for general commercial land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no
sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the proposal; that the Initial
Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant individual or
cumulative adverse environmental impacts; and is, therefore, exempt from the
requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 81R-342 for adoption, granting
Conditional Use Permit No. 2223. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 81R-342: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2223.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNC IL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Bay, Roth and Seymour
Kaywood
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 81R-342 duly passed and adopted.
170: PUBLIC HEARING - TRACT NO. 6735: To consider an amendment to conditions
of approval of Tract No. 6735, property located south of Broadway, north of
Orange Avenue and east of Dale Avenue, relating to pedestrian easements at the
north and south ends of Vicki Lane.
The Mayor noted that the staff report dated July 21, 1981 recommended waiver
of Council Policy No. 520 and that public hearing on the abandonment of the
pedestrian easements be scheduled.
Councilman Bay noted in the statement dated May 1981 from the resident§
requesting the abandonment to close the south end, there would be no cost to
the City. However, the north end was not mentioned.
City Engineer William Devitt explained that the recommendation of the City was
that whatever costs were necessary for the closure of the pedestrian access-
ways, they be borne by the property owners.
The Mayor then opened the public hearing to those who wished to speak.
81-1060
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 21~ 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Donald Lowe, 441Vicki Lane, stated that crime was their problem and the
reason they wished to close the ends of Vicki Lane. The reason the south end
was paid for was due to the fact that they had a brick mason who said he would
install the closure. He was not able to talk to all the people at the north
end, but the people from that end were present to speak. He sent a letter to
the Council signed by practically everybody on the south end. Officer Moser
of the Anaheim Police Department suggested that they close the ends, not to
stop crime, but to deter it.
The Mayor asked if, to the best of his knowledge, the neighborhood was willing
to chip in to pay the cost on the north end.
Mr. Lowe stated some had indicated their willingness to do so. He was willing
to pay for the permit and help defer the expense on the south end. In talking
to the brick mason, he stated they would take whatever money they could get
and give it to the north end. He came up with an actual cost of $630 for
closing the north end and building the wall to six feet. They were going to
donate the south end.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted the letter received from Mr. and Mrs. George L.
Smith, 304 Vicki Lane, who lived at the north end indicated that they wanted
to keep it open.
Mr. Lowe stated that he knew that there were several people who were hit with
crime, and one of the people living at the north end saw a truck exiting
through the pedestrian opening with stolen articles in it. He also knew that
vehicles had driven through both ends.
Mr. Red Schultz, 316 Vicki Lane (north end), stated he would like to see the
north end closed, but he would like it closed with an eight-foot, rather than
a six-foot, fence. A great portion of it was only three feet high not
counting the opening of at least 10 feet where vehicles had driven through.
They had a number of break-ins in their neighborhood although he was one of
the fortunate ones. He reiterated if it was legal, that consideration be
given to an eight-foot fence which would be a considerably greater deterrent
than a six-foot fence and that was his request. He would be very_happy to
take whatever portion would be his share and would even negotiate to s~e that
it would get done.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked, in raising the wall to eight ~eet, did he want to
see that along Dale Avenue as well, or just on Vicki Lane.
Mr, Schultz stated he was talking about along Broadway at the start of the
development.
Councilman Bay noted that the Smith letter was mostly concerned about the low
wall and leaving it low where the kids could jump over it and go through their
flower beds. He imagined that.a high wall would even solve their problem.
81-1061
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 21, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Ralph Doyle, 324 Vicki Lane, stated he was in favor of the closure. He
and his wife walked their dogs and used both the north and south exits but
they would be willing to give that up for the security of the neighborhood.
They felt it would be a deterrent to crime, particularly an eight-foot wall.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the
public hearing.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to accept the recommendation of staff that
Council Policy No. 520 be waived as it pertained to Tract No. 6735 and further
that a public hearing be scheduled to consider the abandonment of th~ pedes-
trian easements. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, the Mayor stated while in the process of scheduling a
public hearing, that communication be received from the neighborhood relative
to their preference of an 8-foot or 6-foot wall and a commitment that they
would be willing to pay for closure on the north end just as the commitment
given today that the wall on the south end would be donated. The intent is to
receive input so that the Council can accomplish what the neighborhood wants.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
166: SIX-MONTH USE OF FLAGS AND BANNERS--VISTA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION:
Request by C. K. Knickerbocker, Vista Development Corp., tora 6-month use of
flags and banners for property located at 1100 East Orangethorpe Avenue
(continued from the meeting of July 14, 1981), was submitted together with a
staff report from the Zoning Division.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present to speak on
the matter; no one was present.
The City Clerk confirmed for the Mayor that the applicant asked that the
matter be continued to this week, as reported by Miss Santalahti.
MOTION: Councilman Bay moved to deny the request of vista Development
Corporation for a six-month use of flags and banners for the property located
at 1100 East Orangethorpe Avenue, as recommended by the Zoning Divisio6.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
Mayor Seymour stated that ha would like to give the applicant an opportunity
to appear. If they did not have a good reason for not being present, he would
be supportive of the proposed motion.
Miss Santalahti stated that the applicant was aware of the staff's recommenda-
tion of denial. They had worked with him somewhat to allow the banners for
awhile.
Mayor Seymour stated if, for instance, the applicant was in an accident and
could~not make the hearing, for his part, he would still have the opportunity
to appear.
81-1062
City Hall, Anahezm, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 21, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
153: ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL E~LOYEES ASSOCIATION: Request of John O'Malley to
address the Council relating to time off for Jake Petrosino, an elected
representative to the PERS Board of Administration to attend Board meetings.
The City Clerk announced that Mr. O'Malley was present earlier, but had to
leave and, therefore, he requested a one-week continuance.
MOTION: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Bay, the subject
request was continued for one week. MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Council-
woman Kaywood, 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 denied and
referred to the City's Claims Administrator:
a. Claim submitted by E. Dane Counts for personal property aamages purport-
edly sustained when claimant's car windshield was broken by a foul ball hit at
Brookhurst Park Baseball Field #1, on or about May 3, 1981.
b. Claim submitted by Frank A. Gallis, Jr., for personal property damages
purportedly sustained when claimant's motorcycle hit a berm in the 1700 block
of Glenoaks, on or about June 20, 1981.
c. Claim submitted by Daniel g. Murphy for personal injuries purportedly
sustained when claimant's motorcyle struck the berm between existing asphalt
and that which had been removed at 1700 block of Glenoaks, on or about
June 20, 1981.
d. Claim submitted by David J. Nelson for personal property damages purport-
edly sustained when a parkway tree fell on claimant's truck parked at 635
South Grove, on or about June 15, 1981.
e. Claim submitted by Pax Productions for loss purportedly sustained when a
walkie-talkie was stolen from the Football Official's Locker Room at the
Stadium, on or about May 15, 1981.
f. Claim submitted by Linda Wheeler for personal property damages purport-
edly sustained as a result of low power at 3136 West Westhaven, causing
damages to refrigerator compressor, on or about June 15, 1981.
g. Claim submitted by Gene L. Enarson for personal property damages purport-
edly sustained when police refused to let claimant drive his own RV, which had
been ~tolen, from 1676 Cindy, on or about June 19, 1981
81-1063
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - 3uly 21, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
h. Claim submitted by John R. Williams for personal property damages purport-
edly sustained as a result of high voltage problem at 215 Calle Da Gama,
causing damage to TV, on or about January 30, 1981 (original claim showed a
date of September 1980).
2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and
filed:
a. 105: Community Services Board--Minutes of May 28 and June 11, 1981.
b. 107: Planning Department, Building Division--Monthly Report for June 1981.
c. 105: Project Area Committee--Minutes of June 23, 1981.
d. 105: Senior Citizens Commission--Minutes of June 11, 1981.
e. 173: Before the Public Utilities Commission, an amendment to Application
No. 60466, Orange Coast Sightseeing Company, for authority to establish a Los
Angeles City tour and to establish tours from a new service area in the
vicinity of Los Angeles International Airport.
3. 108: DINNER DANCING PLACE PERMIT APPLICATION: In accordance with the
recommendations of the Chief of Police, a Dinner-Dancing Place Permit was
approved for Big Harry's Bar & Grill, 309 North Manchester Avenue, for dancing
seven nights a week, 8:30 p.m. to 1:30 a.m. (Harry Burton Colwell, applicant)
4. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NO. 80-9E: In accordance with the recommendations of
the City Engineer, a request by K. W. Lawler and Associates to allow the
encroachment of an underground reservoir in Manchester Avenue at 2302
~nchester Avenue, was approved, and the Planning Director's categorical
exemption determination was ratified.
MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 81R-343
and 81R-344 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.
169: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-343: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF %HE CITY OF
ANAttEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE
THE CONSTRUCTION AND CObiPLETION OF A PUBLIC ~PROVEMENT, TO WIT: STREET
LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 1981-1, TRACT NOS. 1516 AND 1653, IN THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 24-676-6329-11520 AND 25-676-6329-11520-37300;
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 SHE
CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids to be opened August 13, 1981, at 2:00 p.m.)
81-1064
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 2i, 1981, 1:30 P.M.
176: RESOLUTION NO. 81R-344: A RESOLUIION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF 'IRE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DECLARING IIS INTENTION TO VACAIE CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS, HIGHWAYS AND
SERVICE EASEMENTS AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 81R-322. (Redevelopment
Agency, a portion of Clementine Street, a portion of Chartres Street and a
portion of a public alley, all lying between Clementine Street and 250 feet
east of Lemon Street and between Chartres Street and Lzncoln Avenue; public
hearing scheduled August 11, 1981, 3:00 p.m.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL M~MBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL M-FR4BERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 81R-343 and 81R-344 duly passed and adopted.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City
Planning Commission at their meeting held June 29, 1981, pertaining to the
following applications were submitted for City Council information.
1. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 11400: Submitted by Vermont 4-Plex, requesting dele-
tion of Condition No. 5 of Tentative Tract No. 11400 pertaining to noise
insulation standards, as specified in the California Administrative Code,
Title 25.
The City Planning Commission granted deletion of Condition No. 5 of Tentative
Tract No. 11400, and a negative declaration was previously granted on
March 23, 1981.
2. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 80-81-40: Submitted by the City Planning Commission,
for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to PR for property located on the east
side of West Street, north of Orangewood Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-146, granted
Reclassification No. 80-81-40, and EIR No. 226 was previously certified on
April 2, 1979.
3. VARIA/~CE NO. 3217: Submitted by Waldon Goss, to construct a single-family
residence on RS-7200(SC) zoned property located at the southeast corner of
Riverdale Avenue and Starling Way, with various Code waivers.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-143, granted
Variance No. 3217, and granted negative declaration status.
4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2196: Submitted by Melodyland School of
Theology, to permit a gymnasium in conjunction with an existing private
educational institution on ML zoned property located at 1732 South Clementine
Street, with a Code waiver of minimum landscaped setback.
81-1065
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 21~ 1981, 1:30 P.M.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2196 was withdrawn by the petitioner and the
Planning Commission granted negative declaration status..
5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2200: Submitted by Texaco, Inc., to permit an
automobile and truck rental facility on CL zoned property located at 1001
North ~{arbor Boulevard, with a Code waiver o~ minimum landscaped setback.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Rasolution No. PC81-148, denied
Conditional Use Permit No. 2200, an~ granted a negative declaration status.
6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2209: Submitted by Atlantic Richfield Co., to
permit a convenience market with gasoline sales on CL zoned property located
at 1201 South Brookhurst Street, with a Code waiver of minimum landscaped set-
back. ~
Conditional Use Permit No. 2209 was withdrawn by-the petitioner and the
Planning Commission granted negative declaration status.
7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2224: Submitted by Herbert E. and Elizabeth C.
Christensen, to permit a drive-through restaurant on RM-1200 zoned property
located at 1200 West Cerritos Avenue, with a Code waiver of minimum number of
parking spaces.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2224 was withdrawn by the petitioner and the
Planning Commission granted negative declaration status.
8. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2229: Submitted by Lugaro Enterprises, Inc.,
to permit on-sale alcoholic beverages in an existing restaurant on CL zoned
property located at 524 North Magnolia Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-147, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2229, and granted a negative declaration status.
9. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2098 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Jay
Swerdlow, requesting an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 2098,
to permit swap meets in an existing drive-in theatre on ML zoned propeyty
located at 1520 North Lemon Street.
The City Planning Commission, approved an extension of time to Conditional bse
Permit No. 2098, to expire July 28, 1982.
10. RECI~SIFICATION NO. 79-80-40 AND V~RIANCE NO. 3152 - EXTENSIONS OF
TIME: Submitted by Douglas W. Jensen, requesting extensions of time to
Reclassification No. 79-80-40 and Variance No. 3152, ~or a change in zone from
RS-7200 to CO, to construct a 2-story office building on property located at
the northeast corner of Center and Coffman Streets.
The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Reclassification
No. 79-80-40 and Variance No. 3152, to expire June 16, 1982.
81-1066
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 21~ 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
11. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10967 THROUGH 10978 - EXTENSIONS OF TIME: Submitted
by Anaheim Hills, Inc., requesting extensions of time to Tentative Tract Nos.
10967 through 10978 for property located southwesterly of Nohl Ranch Road
between the intersection of Nohl Ranch R~ad with Canyon Rim Road and Serrano
Avenue.
The City Planning Commission approved an extensions of time to Tentative Tract
Nos. 10967 through 10978, to expire August 11, 1982.
No action was taken on the foregoing items, therefore the actions of the City
Council became final.
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 80-81-39: Submitted by City Planning Commission, for a
change in zone from RS-7200 and PD-C to RM-2400 for property located north of
Center Street, extending northerly and southerly on both sides of Coffman and
Cypress Streets.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC81-145, granted
Reclassification No. 80-81-39, and granted a negative declaration status.
A review of the Planning Commission's action was requested by Councilman Bay.
ORDINANCE NO. 4241: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 4241 for adop-
tion. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4241: A~N ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM A~NDING II%LE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (66-67-64 (13), ML)
Roll Call VotE:
AYES:
NOES:
A~BSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
No ne
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4241 duly passed and adopted.
142/149: ORDINANCE NO. 4242: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4242
for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4242: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANA/{EIM AMENDING TITLE 14,
CHAPTER 14.32, SECTION 14.32.190 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
P~RKING. (No Parking Any Time, Peregrine Street, on both sides, from Lincoln
Avenue to Westport Drive)
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. 4242 duly passed and adopted.
81-1067
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 21, 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
ORDINANCE NO. 4243: Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4243 for adoption.
Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4243: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ~MENDING TITLE 18 O5
THE ANA/{EIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (70-71-47(27), ML)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL M_EMBERS:
COUNCIL M~R~BERS:
COUNCIL M_EMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No.~ 4243 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 4244: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4244 for
adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4244: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAitEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (68-69-37(16), ML)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MFJ4BERS:
COUNCIL M_EMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4244 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 4250: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 4250 for first
reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4250: A/~ ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (79-80-1, RM-1200)
119: LETTER OF CONDOLENCE - FAMILY OF ED JDST: Councilman Roth asked that a
letter of condolence be drawn and signed by the Council to be sent to the
family of Mr. Ed Just of the Santa Ana River Flood Protection Agency, Sn his
untimely and sudden death last night, July 20, 1981.
114/155/175: REPORT ON TRIP TO WASHINGTON, D.C.: ~myor Seymour reported on
his trip to Washington, D.C., Tuesday, July 14, 1981, a summary of which
follows:
Status of Amtrak Station: The only real stumbling block to overcome was to
convince Santa Fe to sign a lease either with Amtrak or with the City of
Anaheim that would give a longer term and notice than they had heretofore
agreed to give. Santa Fe wanted the City to build the million dollar plus
Amtrak Station at the Stadium, but subsequently they wanted the City or Amtrak
to sign a letter that would provide a 30-day notice of eviction to move, and
also that after a period of three years, they wanted the amount of the lease
81-1Q68
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 21~ 1981~ 1:30 P.M.
payments to be totally open and subject to negotiation. It was promised by
Amtrak that they hoped to have those two points resolved by the end of the
month (July) and, if not, they would suggest that the City attempt to negoti-
ate with Santa Fe. He indicated that he would report back to the Council, ana
if either the City or Amtrak had not heard from Santa Fe relative to a posi-
tive resolution of those lease terms, he (Seymour) would be recommending to
the Council that he go back to Washington one more time, this time to in£orm
California's U.S. Senators and Congressmen, and anybody else who would listen,
of what he considered to be a very unreasonable posture of Santa ~e and do
whatever could be done politically to sign a reasonable lease.
Weaterization Act - SBl166: After the Amtrak meeting, his primary purpose was
to testify on behalf of the Consortium Cities on the Weaterization Act of
1981--SBl166. For once, he saw the National League of Cities, U.S. Conference
of Mayors, and National County Supervisors Association all with their "act"
together as far as the appropriation of some $400 million on the bill was
concerned. What he and all the other agencies were saying to Senator Weicker,
Chairman of the Senate Energy Committee, was why not work the matter out as
they would a block grant--appropriate the $400 million in a block grant pro-
gram and let the local communities decide where the funds should be invested
in order to reach the objective of conserving energy.
Subsequent to that, he met with Congressmen Patterson and Dannemeyer at a
separate meeting to report on Amtrak.
Following that, he and Bill Morgan, had a meeting with HUD wherein they
indicated that the Consortium and Anaheim wanted to be a part of the more
locally oriented HUD program under the new administration.
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (5:35 P.M.)
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK