1979/07/2479-823
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 24~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: William T. Hopkins
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
CITY ENGINEER: William G. Devitt
TRAFFIC ENGINEER: Paul Singer
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Reverend John Barry, East Anaheim Christian Church, gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman E. Llewellyn Overholt, Jr. led the assembly in the
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
MINUTES: Approval of the minutes was deferred for one week.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
waive the reading, in full, of all ordinances and resolutions and that consent
to the waiver of reading is hereby given by all Council Members unless, after
reading of the title, specific request is made by a Council Member for the read-
ing of such ordinance or resolution. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $464,854.98, in accordance
with the 1979-80 Budget, were approved.
160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - TWO PADMOUNTED THREE-PHASE SECTIONALIZING SWITCHES -
BID NO. 3549: On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood,
the bid of S & C Electric Company was accepted and purchase authorized in the
amount of $11,037.78, including tax, as recommended by the Purchasing Agent
in his memorandum dated July 18, 1979. MOTION CARRIED.
153: ADJUSTMENT IN MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT RATE AND AUTOMOBILE ALLOWANCE: Assistant
City Manager William T. Hopkins briefed the Council on memorandum dated July 18,
1979 from the Human Resources Department, recommending that mileage reimbursement
rates be adjusted by two cents per mile (from 16 cents to 18 cents per mile) and
automobile allowances by $25 per month, effective August 1, 1979.
On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the mileage
reimbursement rate to 18 cents per mile up to 100 miles and 15 cents per mile
over 100 miles effective August 1, 1979 was approved as recommended. MOTION
CARRIED.
On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, adjustment
of automobile allowances by $25 per month due to increased costs of petroleum
products effective August 1, 1979 was approved as recommended. MOTION CARRIED.
79-824
City Hall; Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 24~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
150: AWARD OF CONTRACT - JUAREZ PARK DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT: (120 feet north
of Annika Street to Annika Street - Account Nos. 16-817-6325 and 01-792-6325-
2470) Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 79R-424 for adoption, awarding a
contract as recommended by the City Engineer in his memorandum dated July 16,
1979. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-424: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST
RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS
AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND
WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: JUAREZ PARK DRAINAGE IMPROVEMBNT, N/O ANNIKA STREET, IN THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 16-817-6325 AND 01-792-6325-2470. (Fleming
Engineering, Inc., $8,426)
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. 79R-424 duly passed and adopted.
124: AWARD OF CONTRACT - REROOFING OF ARENA GUTTER AND ARCHES: (Account No.
64-308-7107-C9005 and C9009) Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 79R-425
for adoption, awarding a contract as recommended by the City Engineer in his
memorandum dated July 18, 1979. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-425: .\ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST
RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS
AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND
WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: ANAHEIM CONVENTION CENTER RE-ROOFING OF ARENA GUTTER AND
ARCHES, 800 W. KATELLA AVE., IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NOS. 64-308-7107-
C9005 AND 64-308-7107-.C9009. (Eberhard Roofing, $109,950)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS~
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS~
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resol~tion No. 79R-425 duly passed and adopted.
123: ANAHEIM COMMERCIAL/RECREATION AREA TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION MANAGEMENT
STUDY: Assistant City Manager Hopkins briefed the Council on memorandum dated
July 18, 1979 from the Planning Department, Planning Division, relative to the
subject and confirmed for the Mayor that if Council adopted the proposed
resolution, staff would put forth their best efforts to obtain reasonable finan-
cial participation in the study from both the Angels and the Rams.
79-825
City Hall, Anaheim~....Cal. i. fornia...- COUNCI~ MINUTES - July 24~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 79R-426 for adoption, as recommended,
approving an agreement with the Orange County Transportation Commission, OCTD,
the City of Garden Gr~ve and the City of Orange in connection with the Anaheim
Commercial/Recreation Area Transportation and Circulation Management Study, and
rescinding Resolution No. 79R-337. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-426: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE ORANGE COURNTY TRANS-
PORTATION COMMISSION, ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT, THE CITY OF GARDEN GROVE,
AN~ THE CITY OF ORANGE, IN CONNECTION WITH THE ANAHEIM COMMERCIAL/RECREATION AREA
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCU!~TION MANAGEMENT STUDY; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING
THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS~
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
5one
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-426 duly passed and adopted.
123: STATE OF CALIFORNIA - UTILITIES AGREEMENT 7Ut-5224: Councilman Roth
offered Resolution No. 79R-427 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated
July 17, 1979 from the City Engineer, approving an agreement with the State of
California to provide for reimbursement to the State for adjustment to grade
sewer manhole covers within the resurfacing area of State College Boulevard
between Orangewood Avenue and the Riverside Freeway. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-427: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AU~ROIZING AND DIRECTIN.5 THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE UTILITIES AGREEMENT
NO. 7Ut-5224 WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
Roil Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBER~
COUNCIL MEMBERS~
COUNCIL M~2~BERS~
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
Yone
Yone
The Mayor declared Resoi~ic, m No. 79R-427 duly passed and adopted.
1i2: LUCKY STORES~ INC.~ V. COUNTY OF ORANGE, CITY OF ANAHEIM, ET AL: On motion
by Councilwoman Kaywood~ seconded by Councilman Overholt, the Orange County
Counsel was authorized ~ defend the City in the subject matter relating to
property taxes. MOTION CARRIED.
123/111: SALE OF SURPLUS PARKING METERS TO THE HALLOWEEN FESTIVAL COMMITTEE:
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 79R-428 for adoption, as recommended
in memorandum dated July 23, 1979 from the City Attorney's office, approving an
agreement with the Halloween Festival Committee for the sale of surplus parking
meters (50 meters for a total of $600). Refer to Resolution Book.
79-826
City Hall~, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - Jul~ 24~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-428: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE SALE OF CERTAIN SURPLUS CITY PROPERTY TO THE HALLOWEEN COMMITTEE.
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. 79R-428 duly passed and adopted.
149: RECONSIDERATION OF REQUEST TO REMOVE "NO PARKING" SIGNS AT 1855 W. WEST
STREET: Councilman Roth stated that since he voted against Mrs. Moore's request
at the meeting of July 17, 1979 (see minutes that date), she came to his office
to discuss the matter, and he also spoke with the Police Department. He stated
he was going to change his vote and support a 90-day trial period with no restric-
tions in front of Mrs. Moore's house, subject to the signing of the property as
discussed previously. After 90 days, he requested that staff submit a report
to see if there were any ~roblems as a result of the action, or problems on
the part of Mrs. Moore's neighbors.
MOTION: Councilman Roth thereupon moved to grant a 90-day trial period in
removing the "No Parking" signs in front of the residence at 1855 W. West Street
as articulated. Councilman Seymour seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay asked the cost of putting up and taking
down the signs necessary to accomplish Mrs. Moore's request.
City Engineer William Devitt stated that although he did not have any figures
on the cost, it would be very minimal, perhaps $50 or in that range.
A vote was taken on the foregoing motion. Councilwoman Kaywood and Councilman
Bay voted "no". MOTION CARRIED.
161: DECLARATION OF ASSETS IN PROJECT ALPHA: City Clerk Linda Roberts announced
for information purposes that Mr. Robert Doty, appointee to the Community
Redevelopment Commission, had submitted a Declaration of Assets in Project
Alpha and a Statement of Economic Interests in accordance with the California
Health and Safety Code and the Community Redevelopment Commission Conflict of
Interest Code.
105: APPOINTMENTS TO THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION: Councilman
Seymour nominated William Ranney and Bob Savedra as appointees to the Community
Redevelopment Commission. Councilman Roth nominated Ian Skidmore and Council-
woman Kaywood nominated Doug Renner.
Councilman Bay moved to close nominations. Councilman Overholt seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Before further action was taken, City Attorney William P. Hopkins clarified
for Councilman Overholt tLat Mr. Renner's litigation with the City in connection
with the goodwill of SQR had not yet been concluded. He also confirmed for
Councilwoman Kaywood that there would only be a conflict of interest on Mr.
79-827
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 24~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Renner's part if he were serving the City or the Commission when voting on
matters dealing with that litigation, and he could abstain in that case. Thus,
it was no different than people abstaining because they own property in the
Redevelopment Project Area.
A roll call vote was then taken on the nomination of William Ranney.
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Bay, Roth and Seymour
Kaywood
None
MOTION CARRIED.
William Ranney was appointed to the Community Redevelopment Commission for the
term expiring June 30, 1980, filling the seat left vacant by the resignation
of Rudy Valenzuela.
A roll call vote was taken on the nomination of Bob Savedra and failed to carry
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Seymour
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay and Roth
None
A roll call vote was taken on the nomination of Ian Skidmore:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Skidmore was appointed to the Community Redevelopment Commission for
the term expiring June 30, 1981, filling the seat left vacant by the passing
of Mr. James Morris.
105: APPOINTMENTS TO HACMAC: Councilman Roth recommended that appointments to
the Hill and Canyon Municipal Advisory Committee (HACMAC) be continued for one
week during which time the Council could review the necessity of continuing
with the Committee. Two Council Members lived in the Canyon area, as well as
the majority of the Planning Commissioners. Also, it appeared that the growth
in the Canyon might be slowing somewhat due to the high interest rates and
tight money market. Everyone in Anaheim Hills had a homeowners' association
which could respond to problems, as well as City staff and the City Council.
He felt this might be the proper time to make the review particularly when so
many members of the Comm~ttee did not wish to be reappointed. The matter should
be discussed with the Pl,~z~ning staff to ascertain how much time and effort was
presently being used in relation to HACMAC. Perhaps it was one of the boards
or commissions that would fall under the "sunset" rules and regulations and could
be phased out.
Councilman Roth moved to continue consideration of appointments to HACMAC for
one week lin order to review the matter in the manner he articulated.
79-828
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 24~ 1979~ .1:30 P.M.
Councilman Bay stated he would second the motion if it were amended to a con-
tinuation for two weeks when there could be full Council present.
Councilman Roth was agreeable to a two-week continuance.
A vote was taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked that the continuation also include the seat of
Dr. Ronald Dyas proposed to be declared vacant on HACMAC. She noted the letter
dated July 19, 1979 from the Secretary of HACMAC which did not stipulate whether
it was the secretary's decision that the seat be considered vacant or the
decision of the Committee. Since Dr. Dyas was so invaluable in rendering his
assistance regarding Cable TV for the Canyon, she wanted to hear from him personally.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, consideration
of declaring the seat of Dr. Ronald Dyas vacant on the Hill and Canyon Municipal
Advisory Committee was continued for two weeks. MOTION CARRIED.
153: AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PLAN: Councilman Bay moved that the public hearing
on the Affirmative Action Plan scheduled for July 31, 1979 be continued to
August 7, 1979 at 3:00 P.M., to allow for a full Council. Councilman Roth
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Roth requested the City Clerk to so notify Mr. Amin David of the
change of date of that meeting.
105: REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL - MRS. SALLY WHITE: Mrs. Sally White,
809 West Broadway, stated that her remarks would apply to Councilwoman Kaywood's
comments at the meeting of July 17, 1979 (see minutes that date) specifically
referring to the reappointment of Mr. Joe White to the Public Utilities Board
(PUB). Mrs. White then read from a prepared statement, the essentials of which
were as follows:
A simple "no" vote on the matter would have sufficed. If there had been questions
asked or Councilwoman K~>~Jood had honestly explained her vote, it would have been
proper, but that was not the case. Councilwoman Kaywood was not acting in the
best interest of the people of Anaheim in the manner in which she used her
seat on the Council.. Mrs. White suggested that she could do one worthwhile
thing during her term in office - she could resign and should resign and save
the taxpayers the cost of a recall. She was present because Councilwoman
Kaywood publicly maligned her husband, causing her family and their business
to suffer. She thereupon asked for a public apology acceptable to Joe White
from Councilwoman Kaywood at the next Council meeting. If she refused the
request, Mrs. White asked the Council to take action to censure Councilwoman
Kaywood.
124: OPPOSITION TO THE ANNUAL MILITARY ELECTRONICS EXPOSITION AT THE CONVENTION
CENTER: The following people expressed their disapproval of, and opposition to,
the Military Electronics Exposition scheduled to be held at the Convention Center
October 23 to 25, 1979 for the below listed reasons:
79-829
City Hallp Anaheim,. California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 24~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Terrence W. Halloran, 428 West Toularosa, Orange, stated that he was a
member of Orange County Folks For the Future, an interfaith group concerned
about the subject Arms Exposition. They wanted Anaheim to cancel its contract
with Industrial and Scientific Conference Management Inc. and notify the promoters
of the 1979 Military Electronics Expo that they were no longer welcome to rent
City property. He did not mean that everything about the Arms Exposition was
ugly or without value. Last year's protest was a fine example of religious and
moral conviction in action. They hoped that this year's, if one was needed,
would be larger and much more effective, obliging both the City and the exhibitors
to say "never again."
Mr. Jim Duffy, 1304 Fann, Anaheim, member of Orange County Folks For the
Future, asked the Council to reconsider the necessity and morality of the
Exposition.
Ruth Clotz, 2891Lakeview, Fullerton, referred to her letter of July 4, 1979
which she sent to the Council. If they elected to say "no" to putting their
faith in weapons thai killed, and activities such as Arms Bizarres, cancelling
the Military Exposition would be a great leap for mankind.
Mr. Brian Scanlon, 5812 Warwick, La Palma, representing Orange County Folks For
the Future and the Southern California Catholic Peace Coalition, stated he was
present because the Arms Exposition was not in their views simply business but
represented Anaheim's complicity in the arms race and the business of death.
He suggested that the Council (1) cancel this year's rental license for the
Expo and (2) resolve not to rent the Convention Center for such purposes for
any year in the future. He urged that they do both of those things.
Mr. Dennis Short, 1026 East Rosewood, Orange, Chaplain at Chapman College and
member of the clergy and laity concerned in Southern California, stated as a
member of the religious community, he called upon the Council to stop the Arms
Bizarre. They had a moral responsibility and he asked that they have the
courage to choose life and say "no" to the Arms Bizarre.
Mayor Seymour, speaking on behalf of the Council, stated they appreciated
the viewpoint expressed. In response, he did not think there was a member of
the Council who disagreed with their position relative to not wanting to see
war or the types of confrontations that took human life. They were elected
by the people of Anaheim and must represent those taxpayers. To the best of
his knowledge and his review of all the correspondence received, there were
very few letters from Anaheim citizens. That did no~ mean, however, that they
did not have respect for the positions and feelings expressed by those outside
the City. Since they voted the vote of their constituency or what they
believed was the majority vote of that constituency, they would continue to
have that activity take place at the Convention Center.
At the same time, he was certain the Council would defend their right to speak
out as they had done so today and to peaceably demonstrate publicly since that
was their Constitutional right. He had not seen in any way, shape or form any
mandate at all from the people of Anaheim that would agree with their position.
If the day should come, he might have to vote their position, but that was not
apparent today. He thanked the group for appearing before the Council and
79-830
City Hall~ Anaheim~ C~lifornia - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 24~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
reiterated that they would defend their right to speak and to peaceably demon-
strate, but he did not believe that the Council was prepared to accept their
philosophy.
170: LANDSCAPING OF SLOPES IN TRACT NO. 8455 - WOODCREST HOMES DEVELOPMENT:
Request by Zane Averbach, Attorney, to address the Council relating to the land-
scaping of slopes in Tract No. 8455 located on the south side of Canyon Rim
Road, east of Nohl Ranch Road, was submitted.
Mayor Seymour first explained that there may have been activities that occurred
in the subject matter at a time when he was sales agent for Westfield Develop-
ment. Thus, he would abstain from participating in any discussion and voting.
Mayor Seymour left the Council Chamber (2:35 P.M.). Mayor Pro Tem Overholt
assumed chairmanship of the meeting.
Mr. Zane S. Averbach, Attorney for Woodcrest Homes Association, 15720 Ventura
Boulevard, Encino, stated that he addressed the Council last September on a
petition filed last August regarding the 100,000 square feet of landscaped slopes
in the Woodcrest Homeowners Association (WHA) area which had been in that state
for four and one-half years. As a matter of expediency, he did not ask the 128
homeowners to be present today. As well, Mr. Hans Gowa, President of the Asso-
ciation, was in the hospital, otherwise he would have been present today.
Mr. Averbach continued that the situation was horrendous. On a motion by Council-
man Roth last September (see minutes September 19, 1978), the City Attorney was
requested to send a letter to Westfield and American Bonding Company relative
to the $57,000 bond to b~ used to landscape the slopes, giving them 30 days in
which to take action. Three meetings were held in the last year and not one
plant had been planted by Westfield. ~e homeowners were up in arms and he
had been forced to advise them that they might have personal liability if
anything should happen r~!ative to the slopes. They were now requesting the
Council to pull the bond~ pointing out that the bond for the landscaping
posted by Westfield and '~ritten by American Bonding was initiated in May 1975.
He had discussed the matter of statute of limitations, after which a suit could
not be brought by the City. It was the opinion of Deputy City Attorney Jack
White that the statute of limitations would run out in May of 1980. It was his
(Averbach's) opinion that it had already run out. The homeowners of Woodcrest
Development did not want to be in a position to be required to sue Anaheim for
the slope problem, but wanted the Council to take action and instruct the City
Attorney to take any and all actions, including filing suit on the bond to
get the $57,000 in order to landscape the slopes (see letter from Mr. Averbach
dated June 20, 1979 on f~le in the City Clerk's office).
Councilman Roth asked the City Attorney who would be responsible for the
balance of the monies if he $57,000 bond was not sufficient to cover the
cost of planting.
City Attorney Hopkins answered they would attempt to hold the Westfield Devel-
opment Company responsible and any and all excess costs, whether $57,000 or
$67,000 or $100,000, would be attempted to be collected from Westfield.
79-831
City Hall; Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 24~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Averbach stated he believed the cost was well in excess of $57,000 and
closer to $100,000 or $257,000. The residents of Woodcrest would be more than
happy to work with Anaheim to use part of their dues and to do anything possible
to keep the cost down for the City. At this point, they had no opinion as to
whether or not the City would be responsible, but they did have an opinion
that the City would be responsible for the $57,000 bond if it was uncollectable.
The Homeowners' Association would be interested in taking $57,000, putting it
into a blocked account and possibly releasing the City from any and all liability.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated in addition to the aesthetics, she was concerned
about the safety of the slope, since apparently there was a problem of the
salinity of the soil, making it difficult for anything to grow. The last time
she asked what would occur if approximately three or four feet of the existing
surface were replaced with good soil. As she recalled, the answer was that
with any rain or irrigation, there could be a slippage of all the soil that
was added.
Mr. Averbach reported that the only outcome of his last petition to the Council
and the letter which the City Attorney sent to Westfield was a report commissioned
by Westfield from S. E. Madole and Associates (SEM), consultants in earth
sciences. The top soil was no longer on the slope and only a shale layer
several feet deep was left and nothing could be planted in it. SEM devised a
plan where they could drill holes into the shale layer and go beneath that to
the good soil, and there were plants that could be planted that would spread
out from the holes which would not affect the stability of the slopes. He
previously submitted a copy of that report dated November 27, 1978. He did
not know why that had not been done and he tried to follow up, without success,
and Westfield now retained counsel so that he could no longer talk to the
principals.
Councilman Bay requested to hear from anyone representing Westfield, if present
in the Council Chamber.
Mr. Charles Unsworth, attorney for Westfield Development, 1802 Skypark Circle,
Irvine, stated he was before the Council four years ago and the problem under
discussion was a very difficult one. He could understand the disenchantment
of the homeowners and the Homeowners' Association and the City. Westfield had
fought long and hard to attempt to resolve the slope problem. He then gave
a chronology of actions taken by Westfield, consisting of approximately 18
specific dates of which action was taken relative to the slope problem from
May 2, 1975 through May 24, 1978.
Mayor Seymour entered the Council Chamber. (2:42 P.M.)
In concluding, Mr. Unsworth summarized it had always been Westfield's intention
to perform in accordance with the bond and in accordance with the requirements
of Chapter 17.060 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. When they first approached
the City, Westfield's plans were to build 37 houses on the three existing
terraces. When dealing with the landscaping maintenance of the slopes of
Tract No. 8455, the City and Westfield had always talked in terms of the
existing slopes at the fork of the existing three terraces. Westfield consulted
79-832
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 24~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
with soils experts, soils engineers, plant experts, landscaping architects and
landscape contractors from the outset of the project and complied fully with
their recommendations and directives. Westfield had the required and necessary
soils test, soils engineering reports and test at all other preliminary grading
construction tests performed during the term of the project. They did not
grade the slopes or make any other major changes in the existing lay of the land
prior to the construction of the houses. Westfield believed it acted in a
manner consistent with the purposes and spirit of Anaheim's Municipal Code and
its bond.
Mr. Unsworth continued that the slope was in its natural state and it was a
pre-historic condition which would be there long after everyone was gone.
The most stable condition was not to touch it and that was what the soils
engineer said. They had put a great deal of money into the situation already,
and he did not disagree that a couple of hundred thousand dollars might be
necessary to solve the problem. Westfield did not know what else they could
do. They wanted to do a good Job and be able to build in Anaheim and Orange
County, and they did not want any governmental body upset with them. If they
did run an experiment, they questioned who would give them waivers. They
would try, but would want the City to hold them harmless if there was slope
failure, as well as the man at the top of the slope and at the bottom of the
slope, and the Associati~n. He pointed out if the Association sued them to
make them perform, the first thing they would get would be cross-complaints
from those at the top and bottom of the hill. It was an impossible situation,
and he reiterated they were at a loss to know what to do.
Councilman Bay asked if anybody considered stabilizing the slope by other than
planting it, by mechanical means, for example, by drilling shafts and putting
steel down with concrete beds and concrete walls.
Mr. Unsworth stated they never talked about that specific thing. Peckhoff,
plant experts, reported they had grown plants in the San Francisco Bay area
that received their water from the Bay, as well as plants that had been grown
in high acidity, but they had no plants that would take both high salt and
high acidity, and they would only give a 50-50 chance of survival. However,
that would require punching holes in the slopes and the soils engineer indicated
if that were done, they would want a waiver.
Councilman Bay stated he sympathized with Mr. Unsworth's position. They bought
the property and were now stuck with it, with a chance that if they did nothing
and the slopes failed, they would be faced with lawsuits.
Mr. Unsworth questioned Councilman Bay's statement since the soil engineer stated
the best situation possible was for Westfield to do nothing with the slope.
Therefore, if he had to take his chances, he would go to the Superior Court of
Orange County with a basic defense based upon commercial unreasonableness which
was a potential defense in California. Before the lawsuit was over, there
were going to be just as many homeowners suing them not to do anything, as there
would be to make them do something.
79-833
C~ty Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 24~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Roth asked if it would be of any value to get an opinion from an-
other soils engineer.
City Engineer William Devitt stated their recommendation was basically to have
another soils engineer review the situation on the basis of stability without
any planting. There was visual evidence at this point to indicate that there
was no structural problem and that it was a stable slope. The question was in
the distant future - would there be a problem of stability without any planting
on the slope. Their recommendation was that another soils engineer be hired to
determine if there would be continued stability without planting. Mr. Devitt
also indicated in answer to Council questioning that another report would take
approximately 60 to 90 days at a cost of $5,000 to $10,000. Relative to who
would pay for the cost of the report, it was their intent and recommendation
to persuade the developer that there was a need for the report.
Mr. Unsworth stated he could not speak on behalf of his client as to whether or
not his client would do so, but they would be interested in discussing the cost
of the report since it did not seem to be an outlandish request. Anaheim Hills,
Inc. apparently had a soils report prepared when they did the master grading
and that might be helpful as well.
In answer to Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Unsworth reported that during the past
four years since the issuance of the bond, Westfield had spent in excess of
$86,000 in attempting to get the slopes landscaped.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that in reading the initial letter from Mr. Averbach
(see letter dated August 16, 1978), he indicated that they attempted to reach
Westfield but they did not respond and nothing had been done. She was of the
opinion that a serious public relations problem existed in that if the homeowners
knew how much effort had been expended and how hard Westfield was trying to get
the problem resolved, they would not be as angry.
Mr. Unsworth explained that Mr. Averbach was correct and he had been promising
him a report for at least 45 days. The chronology he presented t~day was the
framework for the report to try and explain to everyone involved what had occurred.
He stated however that no matter how much money was spent, two polarized experts
were involved. He anticipated the completed report would be available by next
Friday.
Councilman Roth was concerned over and wanted assurance that the bond would not
expire before any action was taken and that it would be in force until May of
1980. The problem appeared to be a legal one, and he was further concerned over
any commitment on monies over and above the $57,000.
Mr. Unsworth noted that the $57,000 was not a substantial bond to Westfield and
it was only in the event that Westfield could not respond to damages. The
whole area at law relating to extending time for which a statute might run was
not familiar to him. He would be willing to meet with the attorneys involved
to work something out to extend the statute or something of that nature. They
could keep paying the premium on the bond until the City released it. Apparently
the question revolved around the date the negligent act occurred, starting a
four-year statute.
79-834
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 24~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Overholt questioned the City Attorney on the advisability or lack
of it differing litigation in the matter.
City Attorney Hopkins stated as of July 6, 1979 they reinstated their demand
letter to both Westfield Development and American Bonding. He was of the
opinion that they had until May 5, 1980 to file a lawsuit in the matter, but
that any extensive delay would bring them closer to that date. He could wait
60 to 90 days, but much beyond that, he would prefer to proceed and file a law-
suit. He did not want to delay it until 1980.
Mayor Pro Tem Overholt stated the situation as articulated was a rehash of a
continuing problem and the only positive recommendation from the engineer was
to find a way to have another soils expert make another recommendation. It was
apparent that the developer was totally frustrated, but it was also apparent that
he did not want to make a move without being held harmless for the results of
that move. He personally felt that the thing to do was to direct staff to deal
with the developer in an effort to obtain the additional evaluation of the soil
condition in order to obtain another opinion as to a possible solution which
could be done in approximately 90 days.
Mr. Devitt indicated the time frame would depend upon how the situation was
handled. If the developer made the selection, there would be lesser time
involved than if the City chose the consultant, because the City would have to
contact three or four and solicit proposals, which in itself would take approx-
imately 30 days. If they received some cooperative aid from the developer and
agreement upon a soils engineer, that would be the most expeditious way to
handle the matter.
MOTION: Councilman Overholt moved that the City Engineer be directed to meet
with the developer in an effort to select a suitable soils engineer to conduct
another analysis of the soil conditions of the slopes and to work out a means
of financing that study and submit the matter to the Council for approval with
the thought that a report would be available within 90 to 120 days. Council-
woman Kaywood seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood asked the City Attorney if he had
a copy of the original Anaheim Hills grading report on the soil and secondly,
if there were any other similar areas in Anaheim Hills or the Canyon area.
Mr. Devitt stated they had the report in their files but he had not reviewed
it for many years. Also, there were other such areas and that was the reason
why developers were now required to submit a fertility analysis of the soil
which was a recent action on their part in the last six months. There were
many areas where there were problems with fertility in hills.
After further Council discussion, the Mayor Pro Tem included in his motion that
staff report back to the Council in three weeks relative to progress in discussions
with the developer, as recommended by Councilman Roth.
Councilman Bay emphasized he was concerned about the safety of the slopes more
than anything else. He suggested that they might be limiting the solution by
only looking at stabilizing the slopes by planting, and he did not want the report
to be limited to that aspect only.
79-835
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCI~ MINUTES - July 24~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Devitt reported in their own field investigations, there was no evidence
of any structural instability and they had no awareness of slope instability.
Ail evidence suggested that in its present state, the slope was stable. They
had a concern, however, that without landscaping, it might present future
problems.
Councilman Bay also suggested that it may be if holes were drilled as suggested,
the slope hazard would be increased, but if the whole top were concreted and no
water allowed in to it, it might remain stable for as long as the concrete
would last. He again asked that they not limit solutions by the way they asked
for the report.
Mr. Devitt stated as he understoood the motion, they would return to the Council
within three weeks with a report and hopefully would indicate that the developer
was prepared to proceed with a study performed by soils consultant.
A vote was taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Seymour abstained. MOTION
CARRIED.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1946: Application by Bryan Industrial
Properties, Inc., to retain a bingo parlor on ML zoned property located at 145
East Orangethorpe Street, with a waiver of the minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-105, reported that
the Planning Director determined the proposed activity falls within the defini-
tion of Section 3.01, Class 1, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the require-
ments for an Environmental Impact Report and is therefore categorically exempt
from the requirement to file an EIR and further denied Conditional Use Permit
No. 1946.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Charles M. Farano,
attorney for the applicant, and public hearing scheduled this date.
Miss Santalahti described the location and surrounding land uses. She outlined
the findings given in the staff report which was submitted to and considered by
the City Planning Commission.
Mr. Floyd Farano, attorney, 2555 East Chapman, Fullerton, representing the
applicant first stated that the staff report indicated the CUP was requested
as a result of action by the Zoning Enforcement Officer. Although that was
correct, that action was taken after the time a permit to conduct a bingo
center was actually obtained by the applicant.
Mr. Farano then passed data to the Council (made a part of the record) upon
which he conducted his presentation. The information presented consisted of
background on Jean Stewart, founder of the Unity Church in Anaheim, and her
organization, information pertaining to the premises being used for bingo
including times of operation, etc., the parking situation, information on the
people who attended the bingo games, traffic and concluding with the request
that the application for a CUP be granted. Mr. Farano also submitted to the
Council photographs of the operation, a declaration from Mr. Hoyt, President
79-836
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 24~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
of Bryan Industrial Properties, allowing the Intravision Bingo Center to use
the parking lot located at 146 East Orangethorpe, across from Intravision, for'
overflow parking 6:00 P.M. to 12:00 A.M. when the bingo center was in operation
and application for license to conduct bingo games. He noted that they had
prepared a study and questionnaire written by his office and given to Ms.
Stewart to pass to her patrons. They received 104 responses and a petition
was also passed around to the people so that they could express their feelings
not only about the concept of bingo, but also about Intravision itself. He also
passed this material to the Council for perusal.
In summation, Mr. Farano requested that the Council weigh heavily the fact that
this was not a case where anybody did anything wrong since they went through
every approval necessary, received a bingo license and started the operation
and subsequently found out a CUP was needed. The foregoing conditions as well
as the fact that the tenure of the activity was short (only an additional 1% years)
and considering the fact and figures provided concerning parking and traffic,
should lead the Council to a favorable conclusion.
In answer to Council questioning, Mr. Farano gave the following information:
Church services were not held in the subject building, but at the Unity Church
in West Anaheim; they did not have the parking agreement permitting parking
across the street from the subject facility at the time of the Planning
Commission hearing because at the time, they were looking for other solutions
although they had a verbal commitment; thus far, two or three pilot cassette
tapes had been produced; the bingo operation started in January or February
of 1979; to his knowledge, the building in which the bingo parlor was operated
was owned by Bryan Industrial Properties, as well as the property across the
street, and the bingo operation was an incidental use. Primarily, it would be
used to produce cassettes. The declaration did indicate that Bryan owned the
building leased by Ms. Stewart.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to address the Council in favor or in opposition.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
Councilman Roth questioned staff as to how a bingo license could have been
issued without checking whether or not a CUP was necessary at the outset.
Miss Santalahti explained that the bingo license was issued when the staff
member was told that Intravision activity was already taking place on the
premises. A site plan was also submitted and a staff member was assured by
viewing the plan that the square footage indicated that there was enough
parking. Subsequently, they found out that parking was not adequate. She
assured Councilman Roth that they had taken steps to insure that such
problems would not arise again in the future.
Councilman Roth noted that no one objected to the use and, no correspondence
was received objecting to the use. As well, Bryan Industrial, owner of most
of the property in the area, sent a letter of support. Therefore, he wanted
to know why the Planning Commission in their denial came to the conclusion
that the use would have an adverse impact on the industrial area.
79-83~
C. ity Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 24~ 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Miss Santalahti explained that the concern was the commercial use in a non-
commercial industrial area, a matter which had been discussed at length and
which was about to come to a conclusion at the time the subject petition was
before the Planning Commission. She felt that situation impacted the Commission's
thinking on the item.
Councilman Roth stated that he did not believe the hearing today was based on
the continuance of bingo nor the number of days it could be played. They
were talking about land use, rather than the merits or demerits of bingo.
Councilman Overholt then questioned Mr. Farano as to where in the declaration
it indicated that Bryan Industrial owned the property leased. He was trying
to ascertain what force that declaration had.
Mr. Farano answered that Ms. Stewart was subletting from Richlen but as a matter
of record, they could establish that Bryan Industrial owned the property. What
they were trying to show was the intention and willingness of Bryan to allow
them the use of the property immediately to the south of the subject property
for excess parking that might be required. They were not trying to deal with
the ownership of the property.
Councilwoman Kaywood then questioned Mr. Farano relative to valet parking; Mr.
Farano explained that they were not now going to have valet parking but a
parking attendant and, relative to paying that attendant, it would be a proper
expenditure if provided by a private contractor. They would abide by whatever
the law required relative to who they could or could not pay.
Councilman Overholt asked the City Attorney if the declaration of Bryan Indus-
trial Properties and R.S. Hoyt dated July 22, 1979 was a legally enforceable
agreement. After a review of the document, City Attorney Hopkins reported that
there was a declaration by R.S. Hoyt, Jr., and he noted a reference to an
agreement with Jean Stewart but he did not see the agreement itself and thus
did not know if there was any consideration or any other elements of a contract.
However, it did refer to a verbal agreement, but it was questionable if the
declaration could be enforced. Perhaps Ms. Stewart on the basis of a verbal
agreement might be able to enforce it.
Councilman Bay asked if any traffic information was available for Orangethorpe
Avenue between the hours of 5:00 P.M. and 6:00 P.M., because it was apparent
the arrival times for bingo were concentrated during that hour. Nortronics
was located right next door to the subject building, and he noted a great deal
of traffic coming out of that facility during that time.
Mr. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, reported that the ADT on Orangethorpe at
that location was 23,000 cars, making the calculated peak hour (5:00 P.M. to
6:00 P.M.) 1,890 the second highest peak hour, (4:00 P.M. to 5:00 P.M. or 6:00
P.M. to 7:00 P.M.) 1,778. Traffic was at a "C" low at the peak hour, meaning
that traffic at the major intersections would not have to wait longer than
two cycles. Thus, at the peak hour it was at a comfortable level and at the
second peak hour, it would probably drop to level "B" or "A" which was very
comfortable.
79-838
City Hal~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 24~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour questioning Mr. Farano referred to the question asked of staff
as to how a license was issued, and Miss Santalahti responsded as far as Planning
was concerned at that time, either Reverend Stewart or her agent walked in
with a plan that was not exactly in conformance with the subject location.
This implied that Planning's approval was given, but obviously in error based on
erroneous information.
Mr. Farano stated that he could not reconcile the matter because the plans they
had were easily comparable and identical to the ones submitted to the Planning
Department. He was as certain as he could be that they were identical plans.
Miss Santalahti stated that the bingo permits specifically stated that approval
was granted subject to the attached letter and plans which were apparently
stamped. They did not know what happened to that drawing.
Reverend Jean Stewart, 1600 West Broadway, Apt. 3C, stated that the identical
plan, the plot plan of the building and the parking spaces, was given to her
by Mr. Hoyt, the owner of the building. She carried it to the City License
Division at which time she was asked to take it to the Planning Department for
approval, which she did, and discussed the matter with Robert Henninger, who
indicated that she was in a good zone with adequate parking. Mr. Henninger
approved it and she personally carried it to the Fire Department and discussed
it with Inspector McCloud who also met with her on the property and told her
what adjustments would have to be made for the Fire Department. It was approved
by the Fire Department and from there it went to the Police Department and then
to the City Attorney's office where she met with Jack White and gave him all the
necessary information. Retracting, when she went to the Planning Department,
she never went into any possible detail about what Intravision was or anything
else. She stated they were a public foundation and were going to use bingo
to fund that foundation. The City Attorney's office called for a copy of the
lease and information on the complete structure. It was subsequently approved
and then went to the City Manager's office for approval.
In concluding, Ms. Stewart emphasized there had been no statement of misrep-
resentation on her part at any time, nor had she submitted one map to one
Department and another to another. She stated it was on file in the License
Division with all approvals stamped on it.
Councilman Bay stated, as he understood, the intent of the bingo games was to
raise capital to get into production of cassettes and they had been in operation
since January. He wanted to know a "ballpark" figure as to how long they had
to run the bingo operation to raise enough capital to start producing those
cassettes.
Mr. Farano stated it was originally anticipated that within a two-year period
there would be a sufficient amount of capital, together with grants, but he did
not know exactly how much money was involved. The lease gave them permission
primarily to manufacture the cassettes and conduct bingo.
79-839
City Hall~ Anahei~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 24~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood expressed her concern that with parking across the street,
people would have to cross Orangethorpe and, in order to execute a safe crossing,
walk to the corner of Lemon. As well, since there were a great many older people
who played bingo, crossing might present a difficulty and there would be a risk
if they crossed in the middle of the street.
Mr. Farano stated they were hoping there would be some serious consideration
given to a crosswalk because there was no crosswalk in three blocks on Orange-
thorpe, but yet there was a considerable amount of traffic. Although they
would have a parking attendant, patrons would have to cross Orangethorpe if
they parked across the street. However, people who played bingo were not
incapacitated.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL E%~MPTION: On motion by Councilman
Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council ratified the determination
of the Planning Director that the proposed activity falls within the definition of
Section 3.01, Class 1, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for
an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the
requirement to file and EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 79R-429 for adoption granting Conditional
Use Permit No. 1946, reversing the findings of the City Planning Commission relative
to the parking waiver. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-429: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1946.
Before a vote was taken, the Mayor stated he did not believe the use would
have an impact on the surrounding industrial area or the users. The testimony
offered in the declaration of the property by the owner indicated that he did
not feel there would be an impact and the tenants, after two public hearings,
did not have a problem as well. The hours as stipulated, have no conflict
with the industrial area. He suspected that the heart of the matter was the
question of bingo or no bingo and as Councilman Roth pointed out, that should
not be the issue or the question upon which to consider the CUP. He had seen
enough evidence that the use was approved by the required City Departments, and
based upon that approval in good faith, a 15-year citizen of the City. proceeded
to establish legally what she thought she might be able to do. Subsequently,
she found herself in a position of attempting to defend the investment she made,
only after City approval. Thus, (1) parking was not the issue, and (2) Ms.
Stewart had been put through conditions that should not have transpired. If
one had to look at the issue of bingo, he had to look at the particular operator
and in so doing noted that Ms. Stewart founded a church in the community 15
years ago. It was well established with its own building, and there was no
doubt that a church was established. Finally, as he understood the City's
ordinance relative to bingo, she was totally in compliance with that Ordinance.
He had received no information from anybody in the City that would lead him to
believe she was violating that Ordinance and he could find no reason to reject
the permit, but rather approve it, based upon the good faith she made with the
City.
79-840
C~ty Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 24, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Roth agreed and stated he would support the resolution. However,
he did not want that to be taken as an indication that he supported bingo in
the City, because he did not. On the contrary, he was supportive of a reduction
in the playing of bingo. This was a different issue because it revolved around
land use and the problem started at the City level.
Mayor Seymour asked the City Attorney if they could tie approval of the CUP
to the expiration date of the lease which was February 28, 1981. If at that
time, they were to find no problems were being created, then Ms. Stewart would
have a right to come in and ask for an extension subject to lease renewal;
Mr. Hopkins stated that it could be done by the time limit, rather than tying
it to the lease.
Councilman Overholt also asked if he would tie the resolution to the condition
that the applicant furnish a properly executed lease of parking space so that
that there would be an enforceable right; Mr. Hopkins indicated that would be
in a form of a lease agreement for a parking facility.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted in going through the survey that many people who
played Bingo at Intravision were outside of Orange County, and she was concerned
that with the gasoline shortage, they considered it a high priority to travel
to Anaheim to play. She also reiterated her concern relative to the parking
situation and she did not believe that people would walk to the corner of Lemon
to cross Orangethorpe safely. Further, she did not know what would happen if
Northrup received large contracts during the remaining 18 months of the lease
and started working another shift which would then require the use of their
parking lot. She could not vote to approve the Conditional Use Permit.
Miss Santalahti advised that the parking agreement covered the Bryan Industrial
property and if anybody was parking on Northrup's property, they could pursue
it civilly as trespassing.
Councilman Bay noted Item No. 7 of the Planning Commission's reasons for denial,
indicating that the traffic generated by the use would create undue burden on
the streets and highways designed and approved to carry traffic into the area.
In his own experience driving along Orangethorpe any time between 4:00 P.M. and
6:00 P.M., he was always reluctant to do so because of the Northrup traffic.
Another 150 cars added to the peak of 1,890 might cause him to wait through
three instead of two lights, and he did not consider that comfortable. He
agreed with the Planning Commission on that specific issue--that the traffic
generated would impose a burden. He felt the others had been resolved by
the parking agreement.
Councilman Overholt stated he would support the resolution because he had seen
displayed that parking could be provided and that a legally enforceable parking
agreement would be provided; Ms. Stewart acknowledged that one would be provided.
Councilman Overholt continued however that he wished to take exception to the
Mayor's comment. He considered it to be one thing when Reverend Stewart approache~
the Council on matters relating to Christ Church Unity at 1648 West Broadway,
but another thing when approaching the Council with reference to running a bingo
79-841
City Hall~. Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 24~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
parlor. He, too, was very concerned about the bingo situation in Anaheim and
with due respect, he felt in running the subject operation, Ms. Stewart was
right along with the rest of the bingo operators in town. It was of real concern
to him as to whether bingo on a five-day operation, which was what Reverend
Stewart was running, was really good for the City, no matter where it was located
or if a distinguised clergyman of the City was operating it. He was supportive
of approval from a technical standpoint, but emphasized that he was not through
with bingo, because he believed it to be a serious problem in the City. He
commented that perhaps that was a dictate to Reverend Stewart's attorney to
tell her not to invest too much in the facility.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution, subject to providing a legally
enforceable parking agreement with the CUP to expire on the expiration date of
the lease of the building, February 28, 1981.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Bay, Roth and Seymour
Kaywood
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-429 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 1984 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Appli-
cation by La Palma Business Park Ltd., to permit a donut shop and a sandwich
shop with the on-sale of beer and wine on ML zoned property located at 2970
East La Palma Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-109, declared that
the subject property be exempt from the requirement to prepare an Environmental
Impact Report pursuant to the conditions of the California Environmental Quality
Act since there would be no significant individual accumulative adverse environ-
mental impact, and further granted Conditional Use Permit No. 1984 subject to
the following conditions:
1. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans
on file with the Office of the Director of Public Works.
2. That the owners of subject property shall pay the difference between the
industrial and commercial traffic signal assessment fees (Ordinance No. 3896),
in the amount as determined by the City Council, prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
3. That the proposed donut shop and sandwich shop shall comply with all signing
requirements of the ML zone.
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 4.
5. That Condition Nos. 1 through 4, above-mentioned, shall be complied with
prior to final building and zoning inspections.
6. That the hours of operation for the donut shop shall be 6:00 A.M. to 2:00 P.M.
Monday through Friday, and 6:00 A.M. to Noon on Saturdays; and the hours of
operation for the sandwich shop shall be 10:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Monday through
Friday.
79-842
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July .24~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Councilwoman
Kaywood at the Council meeting of June 26, 1979, and public hearing scheduled
this date.
Miss Santalahti described the location and surrounding land uses. She outlined
the findings given in the staff report which was submitted to and considered by
the City Planning Commission.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous
of being heard.
Mr. Dick Broadway, IPS, 630 City Drive South, Orange, stated they had reviewed
the staff report and conditions of approval and were in agreement with them.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted in the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting,
a question was posed to Mr. Broadway on the fact that most food would be taken
out unless there was a great deal of seating. He responded that they had limited
seating inside and were contemplating seating in a landscaped area outside, or
patrons could take beer and wine back to their offices.
Mr. Broadway explained tLat the fact was pointed out at the Planning Commission
meeting, in order to have outdoor seating in conjunction with a sandwich shop,
it would require another application for a CUP. He indicated that they were not
planning to have outdoor seating at this time.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she had no problem with a donut or sandwich shop as
that would be a good service in the industrial area, especially considering the
gas situation. Introducing beer and wine along with it, was an entirely different
matter in her opinion.
Mr. Broadway stated they had found that a large percentage of existing shops of
the nature they proposed had on-sale beer and wine along with their menu. This
was generally true in Orange County.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked Miss Santalahti if there had been any approval of
beer and wine in a sandwhich shop inside an industrial area in the City.
Miss Santalahti answered this was the first to her knowledge, but she did not
know for sure.
Mr. Broadway reported that as recently as two days ago, they determined there
was another sandwich shop operating identically to what they proposed within
a half-mile on La Palma Avenue which was serving beer and wine.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
Councilwoman Kaywood was concerned that it stated that patrons could take out
beer and wine and that was not even permitted in a restaurant, but had to be
served in conjunction with food.
79-843.
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 24~. 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Miss Santalahti answered typically with a restaurant with on-sale beer and wine,
the Commission specifically asked that it be served in conjunction with meals.
She was not familiar with any regulation stating that somebody could not walk
out with a bottle of beer, and they had never prohibited someone from walking
out of the building with a drink. She did not know if the ABC had any require-
ments on that.
After a brief discussion on the matter, Mr. Broadway and Mr. Allen Schnider, the
operator of the sandwich shop, confirmed for the Mayor that a patron could walk
into the business and purchase a 6-pack of beer and walk out with it, as they
could in a liquor store; they would not be opening the container for the customer.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Seymour, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council finds that this project
would have no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact
since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property for general in-
dustrial land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive environ-
mental 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. 79R-430 for adoption, granting Conditional
Use Permit No. 1984, subject to the conditions of the City Planning Commission.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-430: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1984.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood stated that a sandwich shop located
in an industrial area was a fine service for people who worked therein, but when
talking about industry where machinery and other equipment was in close proximity,
selling beer and wine would be creating an unnecessary hazard and that was some-
thing Council should consider. It was not by accident that alcoholism was the
number one problem in the United States, and by making alcohol so accessible and
acceptable, they were not helping the situation. She favored the sandwich
shop, but was opposed to the beer and wine.
Mayor Seymour contended it was not the prerogative of the City Council to take
away the right of the public to drink beer or wine and it was a legal right.
If employers do not want their employees to drink, it was up to them to enforce
that and not the City of Anaheim; Councilman Roth did not feel that elected
officials should legislate morality.
A vote was taken on the foregoing resolution.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Bay, Roth and Seymour
Kaywood
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-430 duly passed and adopted.
79-844
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTE~ - July 24~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1987 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
Application by Dominic C. Etchandy, et al, to permit a restaurant with on-sale
beer and wine on ML zoned property located at 1028 North Tustin Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-110, 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 environ-
mental impact due to the project, and further granted Conditional Use Permit
No. 1987, subject to the following conditions:
1. That the trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved
plans on file with the Office of the Director of Public Works.
2. That the owners of subject property shall pay the difference between the
industrial and commercial traffic signal assessment fees (Ordinance No. 3896),
in the amount as determined by the City Council, prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
3. That the proposed restaurant shall comply with all signing requirements of
the ML Zone.
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 3.
5. That Condition Nos. ! and 4, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior
to final building and zoning inspections.
A review of the Planning Commission decision was requested by Councilwoman Kaywood
at the Council meeting of June 26, 1979, and public hearing scheduled this date.
Miss Santalahti described the location and surrounding land uses. She outlined
the findings given in the staff report which was submitted to and considered by
the City Planning Commission.
In answer to the Mayor, Councilwoman Kaywood stated that her concerns were the
same as those articulated in the preceding public hearing but, in addition,
she noted from the Planni~g Commission minutes when the complex was presented,
the petitioner swore that it would be strictly industrial and now a commercial
venture was being requested. As well, the buildings were designed for commercial
uses.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous
of being heard.
Mr. Elden Bainbridge, 2800 South Main Street, Santa Ana, stated he would first
like to clear the record on the situation. When they came in for a parcel map,
they were told they had to have a conditional use permit because all of their
lots did not have access on Tustin Avenue. At the time, he was asked what the
uses would be and he stated there would be a sandwich shop and that it was
already rented. When the sandwich shop came in for their CUP hearing, he was
at the hearing but had to leave. Commissioner Barnes brought up the fact that
he (Bainbridge) had lied to them because he had said there would be no commer-
cial uses. Mr. Bainbridge emphasized that he did not say that, but had informed
them there would be a sandwich shop and it was already leased.
79-845
,City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 24~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Miss Santalahti then confirmed for Councilman Roth that no one objected to the
subject CUP at the Planning Commission meeting. She also explained for Council-
woman Kaywood that they did make a inquiry how many people were present in the
audience who were in opposition, but who did not speak.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City Council finds that this project
would have no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact
since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property for general in-
dustrial land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive environ-
mental 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 Roth offered Resolution No. 79R-431 for adoption, granting Conditional
Use Permit No. 1987, subject to the recommendations of the City Planning Commission.
Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-431: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1987.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Bay explained when Gold Key Furniture came
in, he followed it closely because he was concerned over commercial encroachment
in the industrial area. The implication at the hearing was that they would not
be delivering furniture out of Gold Key, but they would display it, sell it and
deliver it from other stores to avoid the impression of commercial. The impli-
cation he got from the whole hearing was that it was going to be an industrial
development. Like all industrial developments, they came in with the intent,
whether stated or not, it would go as commercial if it could in order to get a
commercial square footage rate. That was the economic pressure on industrial
development all over the canyon site area which was causing problems, as well
as a rewrite of the ML zone and numerous workshops and discussions. This was
a perfect example of an area with an implied intent of industrial that would
end up more commercial than industrial.
The Mayor stated he did not exactly agree because sandwich and donut shops,
as in the preceding case, were an appropriate use in the industrial area for
the reasons given. If it was some other type of commercial use not supportive
of industrial activities, he might feel differently, but that was not the
situation in this case at all.
Councilman Bay stated he would have to consider that CUPs should still be treated
as an exception and there should be a real need to have a CUP, not a real need
not to have one. His argument had nothing to do with beer and wine but with
the principle of the CUP which to him was an exception. Bessie Walls Restaurant
was located next door to the subject proposed use and he did not see any real
need or hardship need for a CUP to put a restaurant at that location. He did
not base his whole argument of commercial in industrial on a little sandwich
shop, but it was Just one more drop turning industrial to strip commercial.
79-846
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 24~ 1979, 1:30 P.M.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Roth and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood and Bay
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-431 duly passed and adopted.
148: APPOINTEE TO THE ASSEMBLY OF DELEGATES - ORANGE COUNTY HEALTH PLANNING
COUNCIL: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Bay,
Margery Fisk was reconfirmed appointee to the Assembly of Delegates to the
Orange County Health Planning Council and Billie Bird was reconfirmed as
alternate delegate, as requested in a letter dated June 22, 1979 from the
Health Planning Council. MOTION CARRIED.
105: PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE - EXTENSION OF TERM: On motion by Councilman Roth,
seconded by Councilman Seymour, the extension of the term of the Project Area
Committee to July 19, 1980 was approved, as requested in a letter dated July 16,
1979 from the Committee Chairman. MOTION CARRIED.
156: REQUEST RELATIVE TO THE FEASIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A PUBLIC SAFETY
COMMISSION: Mr. Louis Dexter, 305 North Ranchito, read a prepared statement --
dated July 24, 1979 (on file in the City Clerk's office) requesting the Council
to consider the feasibility of establishing a Public Safety Commission and noting
that he had approached the Council on two previous occasions (September 5, 1978
and January 16, 1979 - see minutes those dates) on the matter. He was now asking
for a specific answer from the Council relative to his proposal.
Councilman Roth suggested that since he had not done so, that the proposal be
presented to the City/County Government Committee of the Chamber of Commerce to
obtain input from the business community.
Mr. Dexter felt it was possible the Chamber might not be interested because it
was getting into the area of what some might call a police commission. He viewed
it as encompassing other things, such as handling catastrophic earthquakes or fires
in the hills area; Coun~£1woman Kaywood was of the opinion that Disaster Services
would take care of such things.
Mr. Dexter wanted to know if it would handle such incidents as Little People's
Park or Code 3 enforcement; Councilwoman Kaywood reminded him that the Police
Community Relations Committee was being formed at the present time.
Mr. Dexter maintained that the Public Safety Committee should be a commissional
board with the same legitimacy as other boards and commissions in the City to
build up civilian citizen expertise in the three departments in receiving direct
citizen input, Fire, Police and Public Works. ___
Councilman Overholt suggested that the matter be placed on the agenda again when
both the Fire Chief and Police Chief could be present and Directors of other
departments; the Mayor pointed out that both Chiefs were present earlier, but
could not wait and had to leave the meeting.
79-847
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 24~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Assistant City Manager Hopkins stated that they filed a report which both Chiefs
reviewed regarding public safety as a concept, but he believed it had a slightly
different connotation than what they were discussing today. Staff did recommend
against going into that type of organizational concept at the time. At the
request of Councilman Roth, the matter was delayed pending the new Police Chief's
arrival. Both Chiefs indicated they would recommend against a stereotype police
commission operation. The present Police Chief's contention was that they had
solved many of the types of issues that were up before the department at this time
and that the Police/Community Relations Committee itself should step in the
direction of resolving some of those issues between the department and the
community at that level. Staff felt they had met many of Mr. Dexter's concerns
and he elaborated upon the various committees that had been formed. He reiterated
that staff would recommend against the formation of the type of Public Safety
Commission that he believed Mr. Dexter was recommending today.
Councilman Bay stated that he could see no reason from what had thus far been
defined to form another commission or committee because he did not see any
crying need for a communication chain, nor long range planning that he believed
would be any better than what existed at present in the Fire, Police and Public
Works departments. He would say "no" at this point to another commission.
MOTION: After a further brief discussion between the Council and Mr. Dexter,
the Mayor stated he felt Mr. Dexter should be given an answer right now.
Councilman Seymour thereupon moved that the Council not further consider, inves-
tigate or study the concept proposed at this time. Councilman Bay seconded the
motion.
Before a vote was taken, the Mayor stated they had the responsibility, as Mr.
Dexter requested, to be straightforward with him. He would be surprised if
there were three votes favoring a Public Safety Commission. Although it might
be a good idea, he emphasized the timing could not be worse. They were in a
situation within the City where the community-at-large would not support any
type of review commission or safety commission at this time that would report
to the Council. If anything, the mood he sensed among the public was completely
the opposite. They wanted to see a Fire Chief that was in control with no type
of commission between the Chief and the City Council and the same with the Police
Chief. To send Mr. Dexter to the Chamber of Commerce or to request another
report would not be acting in a straightforward manner.
A vote was taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: By general consent, the Council recessed for 10 minutes.' (5:35 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present. (5:45 P.M.)
173/145: APPOINTMENT TO AN ADVISORY GROUP~ MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT FOR THE
JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT: Councilman Overholt nominated Larry Slagle for appointment
by the Board of Supervisors to serve on an Advisory Group for the development
of a Master Plan for the John Wayne Airport, Orange County, such nomination
having been requested in letter dated June 22, 1979 from Supervisor Phillip
Anthony. Councilman Roth seconded the nomination subject to Mr. Slagle's accep-
tance.
79-848
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 24, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Seymour moved to close nominations for appointees to the Advisory
Group. Councilman Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
On motion by Councilman Seymour, seconded by Councilman Overholt, it was
determined if Mr. Slagle accepted the nomination, that he would be able to
appoint his own alternate, subject to Council approval. MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman
Seymour, 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 Insurance Administrator:
a. Claim submitted by Angeline and Stephen Robert Swiderski, and minor children,
for damages purportedly sustained as a result of actions by the Anaheim Police
at their home, 1155 West South Street, Anaheim, California, on or about April 4,
1979.
b. Claim submitted by Sharron Barber for personal injuries purportedly sustained
at the Anaheim Convention Center near the parking attendant booth on the front
south side of the building, on or about May 13, 1979.
c. Claim submitted by Aivars Saukants for property damages purportedly sustained
as a result of traffic signal malfunction at the instersection of Haster Street
and Katella Avenue, on or about April 3, 1979.
d. Claim submitted by Miguel Ortega Espinoza for personal injury damages pur-
portedly sustained as a result of actions by the Anaheim Police at 614 East
Cypress Street, on or about April 13, 1979.
e. Claim submitted by Margaret Mary Miklas for vehicle damages purportedly
sustained as a result of sandblasting at City Hall construction site, during
March 1979.
f. Claim submitted by Precision Metal Craft for time loss purportedly sustained
as a result of power tur~-off on or about April 19, 1979.
2. CORRESPONDENCE: Th~ following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 131: City of Norco, asking support in an effort to convince Caltrans to
complete Interstate 15 along the adopted alternate route. (Norco Reach)
b. 105: Community Services Board - Minutes of March 22, 1979.
c. 105: Public Utilities Department, Field Division - Monthly Report for May 1979.
Councilman Bay questioned the flow time of Community Services Board minutes
since those submitted were dated March 22, 1979; Councilwoman Kaywood noted
as well that those minutes indicated Fernando Galaviz was absent, whereas later
they indicated he made a motion.
79-849
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 24~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M..
3. 108: APPLICATION: An application for a Public Dance Permit submitted by
Promociones Valadez, for a public dance to be held August 11, 1979, from 7:00 P.M.
to 12:00 midnight, at Brookhurst Community Center, 601 North Brookhurst Street,
(Jose L. Valadez, applicant), was approved in accordance with the recommendations
of the Chief of Police.
4. 123: WATER FACILITIES REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT - ANAHEIM SAVINGS AND LOAN
ASSOCIATION: (Tract No. 9933) The assignment of all right, title and interest
in a water facilities reimbursement agreement relating to Tract No. 9933 of
Anaheim Savings and Loan Association to L and F Partnership, was acknowledged
and consented to by the Anaheim City Council.
MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution Nos. 79R-432
through 79R-434, both inclusive, for adoption in accordance with the reports,
recommendations and certifications furnished each Council Member and as listed
on the Consent Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book.
158: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-432: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Pet Incorporated;
Carlos H. Alvarez, et al.)
151: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-433: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT AND AUTHOR-
IZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID ENCROACHMENT PERMIT WITH K. T.
BHAKTAAND TARA BHAKTA (78-4E). (roadway located on the northeasterly side of
Anaheim Boulevard, southeasterly of Katella Avenue)
123: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-434: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO A RESPONSIBLE
PARTY WHERE SAID PROPOSAL CONFORMS TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM'S REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL
LEGAL ADVERTISING REQUIRED BY LAW TO BE PUBLISHED IN A NEWSPAPER OF GENERAL
CIRCULATION, PRINTED AND PUBLISHED WITHIN THE CITY.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 79R-432 through 79R-434, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning
Commission at their meeting held July 2, 1979, pertaining to the following
applications, as listed on the Consent Calendar, were submitted for City Council
information.
1. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 78-79-43, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1972 AND VARIANCE
NO. 3092: Submitted by Alfred D. and Josephine Paino, for a change in zone from
CL to RS-7200, Portion A, to establish two residential lots on proposed RS-7200
79-850
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 24~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
zoned property located east side of Hayward Street, south of Orange Avenue, with
Code waivers of maximum wall height and minimum lot area; and Portion B, to
permit a batting cage and recreational complex on CL zoned property located
727 South Beach Boulevard, with waiver of maximum structural height.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution Nos. PC79-128, PC79-129
and PC79-130, granted Reclassification No. 78-79-43, Conditional Use Permit
No. 1972 and Variance No. 3092, and granted a negative declaration status.
2. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 79-80-1 AND VARIANCE NO. 3096: Submitted by Mary
Alice and Cornelius W. DeRuyter, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to
RM-1200, to construct an 8-unit apartment complex on property located south of
Lincoln Avenue, west of Brookhurst Street, with a waiver of requirement that
all lots abut a public street.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution Nos. PC79-133 and PC79-134,
granted Reclassification No. 79-80-1 and Variance No. 3096, and granted a
negative declaration status.
3. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 79-80-3 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000: Submitted
by the City of Anaheim, Parks and Recreation, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000
to PR, to permit a private recreational facility on property located on the
north side of Riverdale Avenue, west of Lakeview Avenue, with on-sale of
alcoholic beverages.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution Nos. PC79-131 and PC79-132,
granted Reclassification No. 79-80-3 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2000, and
granted a negative declaration status.
4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1958: Submitted by Earl J. Little, to permit
office uses in a residential structure on CO zoned property located at 2050
South Euclid Street, with Code waivers of minimum site area and maximum sign
area.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-138, granted in
part Conditional Use Permit No. 1958, and granted a negative declaration status.
5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1992: Submitted by Barbara A. and Roger A.
Severson, to permit an exterminating service on ML zoned property located at
2831 White Star Avenue, Unit E.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-139, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 1992, and granted a negative declaration status.
6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1997: Submitted by C. Darle Hale, and Robert
R. Allen, Howard H. and Florence I. Hungerford, to permit a private racquetball
facility on ML zoned property located at 3910 East Coronado Street.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-140, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 1997, and granted a negative declaration status.
7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1999: Submitted by Diversified Investment Company,
to permit on-sale of beer and wine in a proposed restaurant on CL zoned property
located at 2354 West Lincoln Avenue, with waiver of minimum number of parking
spaces.
79-851
City Ha. ll~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 24~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-141, granted
in part Conditional Use Permit No. 1999, and granted a negative declaration
status.
8. VARIANCE NO. 3094: Submitted by Silvia and Jesus Resendiz, to retain an
existing block wall on RM-2400 zoned property located at 414 North Emily Street,
with waiver of maximum wall height in a front yard.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-136, granted
Variance No. 3094, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption
determination.
9. VARIANCE NO. 3095: Submitted by Gulf Oil Corporation, to construct a commercial
shopping center on CL zoned property located at 2100 South Euclid Avenue with a
waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-137, denied
Variance No. 3095, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemtion
determination.
10. VARIANCE NO. 3100: Submitted by Kenneth O. and Shannon A. Albers, to construct
a single-family residence on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located south side of
Mohler Drive, east of Country Hill Road, with waiver of minimum required rear
yard.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-135, granted
Variance No. 3100, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption
determination.
11. REMOVAL OF SPECIMEN TREES: Submitted by Dr. Howard D. Garber, requesting
the removal of 5 specimen eucalyptus trees, in order to construct a tennis
court on RS-HS-43,000 zoned property located at 523 Peralta Hills Drive.
The City Planning Commission granted the removal of specimen trees and granted
a negative declaration stauts.
12. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 596 - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: Submitted by
Phillip H. McNamee, requesting termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 596,
to permit the conversion of existing apartments into a hotel-motel complex
on RM-1200 zoned property located on the south side of Orangewood Avenue, east
side of Acama Street, north side of Cliffwood Avenue, east of Broden Street
and east of Harbor Boulevard.
The City Council terminated Conditional Use Permit No. 596 by Resolution No. 65R-564.
13. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1756 - REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF REVISED PLANS:
Submitted by Hardin Oldsmobile, requesting approval of revised plans to
Conditional Use Permit No. 1756, to construct an automobile showroom at an
existing automobile sales facility on ML zoned property located at 1300 South
Anaheim Boulevard.
The City Planning Commission approved the revised plans to Conditional Use
Permit No. 1756.
79-852
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 24, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
14. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1812 - REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted
by Donald L. Shafer, requesting a retroactive extension of time to Conditional Use
Permit No. 1812, to permit the expansion of a cocktail lounge and dance hall on
RM-1200 zoned property located at 1203 West Lincoln Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, approved an extension of time to Conditional Use
Permit No. 1812, to expire April 10, 1980.
No action was taken by the City Council on the foregoing items, therefore the
actions of the City Planning Commission became final.
156: ORDINANCE NO. 4027 - FALSE BURGLARY/ROBBERY ALARMS: Mayor Seymour again
appealed to Councilman Overholt to change his mind relative to the $15 permit
fee which was debated and discussed at the meeting of July 17, 1979 (see minutes
that date). In the spirit of trying to encourage people to install such alarms,
he urged elimination of the fee.
Councilman Overholt stated he believed there should be nominal application fee
represented by the $15 and that it would not deter anyone from installing an
alarm system. Eventually there should be some charge and if it was not required
now, it would never be implemented.
Councilman Bay stated that in order to save discussion, he would back-off on
the $15 fee.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to amend the proposed Ordinance offered for
first reading the prior week which included a $15 fee, eliminating the application
fee entirely. Councilman Roth seconded the motion.
Further Council discussion followed wherein views were expressed revolving around
the same issues discussed at the previous Council meeting, at the conclusion of
which, a vote was taken on the motion eliminating the application fee. Councilman
Overholt and Councilwoman Kaywood voted "no". MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4027 for amended first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4027: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING CHAPTER 4.90
TO TITLE 4 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO FALSE ALARMS.
ORDINACE NO. 4028: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4028 for first
reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4028: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (78-79-20, RS-7200)
114: GRAND OPENING - PROJECT TLC FEEDBACK, 471 SOUTH BROOKHURST: Councilman
Overholt reported on his attendance at the Grand Opening of the subject since
the City made a contribution to that program operating at the site of the
National Association for Senior Citizens. There were many happy seniors having
lunch and the place was set up as a full-fledged bingo parlor.
79-853
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 24~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
119: URGING THE CALIFORNIA ANGELS ON TO A PENNANT AND WORLD SERIES: Councilman
Roth encouraged the Council to consider a resolution and commendation to Mr. Gene
Autry and his staff relative to the current success of the California Angels and
urging them on to a Pennant and World Series win, and the Council agreed.
173: INVESTIGATION OF ALTERNATE FUELS: Councilman Roth referred to his activity
on the Air Quality Management Board (AQMB) and on the new laws and regulations
generated by government particularly in controlling industry. He referred to the
record number of smog alerts experienced this year, and the new laws and regula-
tions penalizing industry were not the answer. He reported that Supervisor
Anthony was deeply concerned about the situation and recommended to the Board
that staff look at alternate fuels since the automobile seemed to be one of the
main culprits relative to air quality. Councilman Roth thereupon encouraged
City staff to work along with the County with the possibility of adapting City
vehicles in the future so as to accommodate alternate types of fuels. He asked
that staff monitor Supervisor Anthony's program with the Board of Supervisors
in order to ascertain what could be accomplished.
149: MITIGATION OF OVERFLOW PARKING CONDITIONS IN THE RLRANOR DRIVE AREA: Mayor
Seymour referred to the memo the Council received from the City Engineer William
Devitt which was sent to the Eleanor Drive property owners who had been complaining
about overflow parking from the Convention Center for a long time. The essence
of the memo was that the City was undertaking a study which the Council approved
early today with answers to be forthcoming around January of 1980. That concerned
him because the people in the area had complained for at least two years about
the parking problem and the last time they met with the Convention Center Authority
people were continuing to complain. Council had promised that the Convention
Center would not be expanded without first addressing their traffic problem and
the memo seemed to indicate that the Council was being less than straightforward
because they had promised action. Therefore, his request to the Council was
that they no longer delay. It was his understanding the neighborhood had a
meeting and the majority of the owners requested that a cul-de-sac be placed
in Eleanor Drive. He wanted the matter brought to a head.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved that the Traffic Engineer be directed to report to
the Council in two weeks as to his recommendations on mitigating the overflow
parking conditions in the Eleanor Drive area. Councilman Overholt seconded the
motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilwoman Kaywood reported that people informed her
they were very much opposed to having the cul-de-sac placed on Eleanor Drive.
Mayor Seymour stated he would amend his motion to also have the neighborhood
present in the Council Chamber in two weeks to discuss the matter with them.
Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that January 1980 was not that far off, and
she felt they would be pouring money down the drain needlessly if they were
going to be talking about a four-month period and not wait for the professional
consultant's report.
79-854
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - July 24~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour stated the consultant had not been contracted to deal wi~h t~at.
immediate problem but the much broader problem of the Stadium, Conventlon ~e~ter
and the main arterials in and out. He was not going to d~al with Eleanor orlve.
Councilman Roth suggested a public hearing in order to ob[
even if they had to hold a special meeting at the Convent~
affected residents could merely walk across the street to
Councilman Seymour was agreeable and stated they could sc~
evening Council meeting after the regular afternoon sessi¢
today, allowing public notice and a public mailing. He ~
motion that a public hearing be conducted in four weeks a!
Convention Center with all property owners in that area t¢
writing, but that the Traffic Engineer's report still was
two weeks.
A vote was taken on the foregoing motion, including the p~
ticulated. MOTION CARRIED.
ain the necessary input
on Center where the
attend.
~edule an additional
n four weeks from
.ereupon added to his
7:30 P.M. at the
be notified in
to be submitted in
~lic hearing as ar-
145: RESOLUTION ASKING FOR SUPERVISOR EDISON MILLER'S RE:;IGNATION AND CALLING
FOR A SPECIAL ELECTION IN NOVEMBER: Mayor Seymour stated
to him this afternoon in a call from the Mayor of Garden ~
evening they (Garden Grove) would be taking up a resoluti~
in his opinion he felt would pass, asking the League of C
special meeting, the intent of which would be to offer a
Supervisor Miller to resign and calling on Governor Brown
election in November. He asked that he (Seymour) bring t
attention asking for support.
moved to support the request of the M~or of Garden Grove as
Councilman
Seymour
articulated. Councilman Bay seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, the Mayor explained that the stated
grounds
for
Much
action were the extreme dissatisfaction with the appointment of Supervisor
Miller and inability to service their constituency.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that although she was not pleased with the selection,
she was concerned that a five member board having one me~ber missing for the
intervening period would present a difficulty because a 8rea[ deal of important
work was not going to get done.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION
an item was brought
~rove indicating that
)n and a motion, which
[ties to convene a
~esolution asking
to call for a special
~e matter to the Council's
Adjourned: 6:03 P.M.
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Seymour moved to adjourn. Coun¢
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
~RIED.
~ilman Bay seconded the