1979/09/1879-1025
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 18~ 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
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
DEPUTY CITY MANAGER: James Ruth
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ronald Thompson
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
POLICE VNOC BUREAU COMMANDER: Lt. Dale Wilcox
CONVENTION CENTER OPERATIONS MANAGER: Ed Stotereau
ASSISTANT TO CITY MANAGER: James Armstrong
WATER ENGINEERING MANAGER: Ray Auerbach
Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Reverend Ron Meredith, Chaplains to Industry International, gave
the Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Ben Bay led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
119: PRESENTATION - CERTIFIED MUNICIPAL CLERK: Mayor Seymour presented a
plaque from the International Institute of Municipal Clerks to Mrs. Linda D.
Roberts, indicating that she had completed the requirements required to become
a Certified Municipal Clerk. He also presented a plant with congratulations
on behalf of the Council on her achievement.
119: PRESENTATION - HALLOWEEN FESTIVAL COMMITTEE: Mr. Herb Leo gave a brief
update on behalf of the Anaheim Halloween Festival Committee on the scheduled
dates for activities to be conducted in conjunction with this year's Halloween
Festival. In addition he briefed the Council on details of the routes of the
Youth Parade and Festival Parade.
119: RESOLUTION OF INVITATION: A resolution of invitation unanimously approved
by the Anaheim City Council to encourage participation in the Anaheim Halloween
Festival "Save our Sports" 10 kilometer run was accepted by Anaheim Union High
School District representative.
119: RESOLUTION OF INVITATION: Endorsing attendance at the annual Pioneer
Picnic to be held September 30, 1979, at La Palma Park was unanimously authorized.
119: PROCLAMATION: The following proclamation, unanimously approved by the
Anaheim City Council, was issued by Mayor Seymour and accepted by Captain Hogan
of the Salvation Army:
United Way Month in Anaheim - October 1979
79-1026
Ci..ty H.all~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 18, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
119: PROCLAR~ATION: The following proclamation, unanimously authorized by the
City Council, was issued by Mayor Seymour and accepted by Diane Sands on behalf
of the YMCA:
"YMCA Day in Anaheim" - Sunday, September 30, 1979
MINUTES: On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilman Roth, the
minutes of the regular meeting held June 19, 1979 were approved and the minutes
of the December 19, 1978 regular meeting were approved, subject to typographical
corrections. Councilman Bay abstained from voting on the December 19 minutes,
and Councilman Overholt abstained from voting on the June 19 minutes. MOTION
CARRIED.
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 $142,479.77, in accordance
with the 1979-80 Budget, were approved.
Because of the large number of people in the Council Chambers, with the consent
of his fellow Council Members, Mayor Seymour announced they would take the
matter of the consideration of a proposed amendment to the Bingo ordinance re-
lating to days and hours of operation out of order.
108: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ORDINANCE REGULATING BINGO RELATING TO DAYS AND
HOURS OF OPERATION: The City Clerk advised that correspondence in opposition to
the proposed revision to the Bingo ordinance had been received from the Anaheim
Senior Citizens Club, Mrs. Frank Pavy, and in addition a petition containing
approximately 74 signatures had been received and copied for Council.
Mayor Seymour outlined the hearing procedure to be followed.
Mr. Hopkins reported that pursuant to Council direction (meeting of September 11,
1979), his office had drafted for Council consideration a proposed ordinance to
allow that a licensee may conduct bingo games on no more than one day during any
seven-day period; this provision to be effective with respect to any licensee
in the City on the effective date of the ordinance.
In response to a query from Councilwoman Kaywood as to whether or not the rec-
reational type of bingo played at the Anaheim Senior Citizens Club, where they
charge 50¢ to play and give a prize of $3.00, plus free refreshments, might be
separated from the other type of bingo, Mr. Hopkins explained that the Bingo
ordinance covers all activities involving bingo and whether the prizes are large
or small, if all three elements are involved (some consideration, a prize and
a chance to win), the ordinance must be uniformly applied.
The following are brief summaries of the statements made by those who addressed
the Council in opposition to the proposed change in the ordinance to restrict
licensees to playing bingo one day per week:
79-1027
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 18, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Jean Stewart, 1600 West Broadway, Apt. 3C, Anaheim, called attention to the
fact that the events at the Stadium and Convention Center draw large numbers of
people from out of town and require police services and yet the Council is not
considering stopping or restricting them; that there are two gambling establish-
ments in the City; in addition, local supermarkets and newspapers run contests
which are games of chance; and that there are larger issues with which the
Council should concern itself such as the prostitution problem and the upcoming
contracts for the Convention Center hotels.
Richard Hoffman, 25032 Shadyhollow Circle, E1 Toro, President of the National
Association of Senior Citizens, 741 South Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, stressed
that the City had issued licenses to charitable organizations for the playing
of bingo under certain terms set forth in the ordinances and these organizations,
in turn, made commitments to people, many of them elderly, and capitalized ex-
penditures based on provisions of that ordinance, since they had every good
faith to believe it would be in effect for a period of time; he compared the bingo
business with other industries, such as hospitals, and noted that there are laws
governing these as well, and they had been broken, but the industry is still valid;
that the charges against those in the bingo business in Anaheim are primarily
trumped up and have to do with name badges, etc.
Mary Crowe, TLC Coordinator, advised of her involvement in the establishment of
the Anaheim TLC Site No. 4, sponsored by the National Association of Senior
Citizens, which project has been okeyed by the California Department of Aging,
and feeds 65 seniors per day. This site is supported by money coming from
bingo. In addition the National Association for Senior Citizens had donated
several thousand dollars to other TLC sites in Anaheim and prior to that they
donated approximately $50,000 to the Anaheim Senior Citizens Club on Chartres
Street. She urged the Council not to restrict bingo to one day per week as
this would force them to close the TLC Site No. 4 which provides transportation,
meals, social services, arts and crafts and entertainment to 65 seniors daily.
Mrs. Crowe concluded with the statement that in these days of financial austerity
in governemnt funding, money to help needy low-income seniors has to come from
some place.
Mr. Frank Rose (no address given), representing Colonial Manor Fun Club, indicated
that he had obtained copies of the Orange County Five-Year Plan on alcoholism
which shows that the City of Anaheim is leading the County in alcohol addiction
and abuse, and Colonial Manor once operated the largest alcohol rehabilitation
center in Orange County, had a ll4-bed hospital and is totally supported from
bingo funds; that although he heard the Anaheim Police Department had spent over
$50,000 in policing bingo operations, he has yet to see any case go to trial;
that his organization was cited for a very minor infraction; that he admits
there is some wrongdoing with some of the bingo games, but that is no reason
to penalize all of the operators. If someone breaks the law, then he should be
punished and not the innocent along with him; that this country is a nation
where the majority of the electorate rules and that the City Council is not
facing the citizens on this issue because if they were, they would have held
this meeting at night and would have needed more space than the Anaheim Convention
Center to contain them all; that the books at Colonial Manor have withstood audits
of the State, the City and the IRS with no wrongdoing found; and now they have
been informed they would once again be audited by the City; that there is no
79-1028
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 18~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
one who can say there is not at least one-quarter to one-half million dollars
going in to help the people of the community from bingo, so that $50,000 spent
on law enforcement is not out of line; that a bingo license is not necessary to
run a bingo game, so that if the Council proceeds to restrict bingo, they will be
throwing out what little control they have.
Dr. Vulkowitz (from the audience, no address given) stated that although he
came prepared to speak, he would not, since the statements made by Jean Stewart
and Frank Rose had covered it all; he emphasized that the bingo operators were
not going to stand for one day per week.
Mayor Seymour asked if anyone wished to address the Council in favor of the
proposed ordinance to restrict bingo to one day per week.
Mr. Laurence Spielman, 2125 Hiawatha, Anaheim, who has operated a bingo game
at St. Justin Martyr one night per week for over three years, stated that he
feels the one day is adequate; that people would still have the opportunity to
play every night of the week because the organizations would be playing on
different days.
Mr. Charlie Wolf, 8457 Carnation Drive, Buena Park, stated that he works at a
bingo establishment, operating a push cart and that the bingo operators allowed
the handicapped to come, and they are given free refreshments. The name of the
bingo he works at is the Senior Citizens located at Brookhurst.
Mr. Jack Campbell, 1508 East Cliffpark Way, Anaheim, advised that he was helped
through one of the alcohol rehabilitation programs four years ago and attested
to the need for these programs.
Harriet Cra~n of Cris Avenue, Anaheim, stated that she is 80 years old and works
at the TLC site at BrooRhurst and Broadway, serving coffee from a cart as a volunteer
and that she loves the work.
The Mayor announced that an adequate cross-section of public opinion had been
received and therefore he would close the public discussion.
Mr. Rose requested an opportunity to speak to the law and recalled that at first
it was only those organizations with a "D" number which could operate bingo games;
then the law was amended to allow joint tenancy in buildings so that smaller
organizations could use bingo as a vehicle to raise money. It was the intent
of the legislature that more than one operator could be at any one location on
one day, but the City of Anaheim changed that. He voiced the opinion that if
the proposed ordinance is adopted, the Catholic Church, which has more than one
church in the City, would not all play bingo the same night, but will be able
to play bingo five nights per week because of their different locations. He
further mentioned that his organization has a membership of 28,000, and he is
not able to fit the entire membership into his location because the City would
not allow an occupancy of more than 500 per night.
Mayor Seymour closed the public discussion.
79-1029
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 18, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Discussion then ensued between Councilwoman Kaywood and Mr. Rose in which she
challenged a remark which he attributed to her, and she questioned whether he
had invited his bingo players to another location.
Mr. Rose explained that he had only announced that his church does run another
bingo game in the City of Pomona.
Councilwoman Kaywood questioned the statement made by Mary Crowe that the National
Association for Senior Citizens had given the Anaheim Senior Citizens Club a
check for $50,000, noting that she recalled the donation of an amount similar
to $12,500 only.
Mr. Henry Gadsdon, 2301 West Broadway, Anaheim, stated he was a volunteer with
the National Association for Senior Citizens, which supports the TLC Site at 371
South Brookhurst, and attempted to clear up the confusion by explaining that the
$12,500 check Councilwoman Kaywood recalled was the first one and that subsequent
checks were not given to the City but directly to the Anaheim Senior Citizens
Club for operation of the Day Care Center. To his best recollection, a number of
checks were presented and they totalled approximately $46,000.
Later in the discussion Mr. Talley reported he had received from the Deputy City
Manager, Jim Ruth, notice that receipts in the amount of $10,282 were accepted
for the Day Care Center; subsequently $25,000 was given directly to the Senior
Citizens Club and another $12,500 for both the Senior Citizens Council and Day
Care Center program. In addition he stated an amount of approximately $10,000
may have been donated to another agency.
In response to Councilman Overholt, Mr. Gadsdon explained that he has been a
volunteer at the National Association for Smnior Citizens since its inception
three years ago; that he appears on the articles of incorporation as an
organizer; that he is aware this Association does conduct board meetings, but
he personally does not attend them; that he has been self-employed in a real
estate and tax service ~n Anaheim for 15 years.
In response to Councilwoman Kaywood, Mr. Gadsten explained that he was formerly
associated with Frank Rose of Colonial Manor when it was located on Broadway
in Santa Ana about three years ago and this relationship lasted about 15 months.
During this time period, he was only a volunteer and assisted in running of the
bingo games and in whatever way he could with the running of a ranch in Lake
Elsinore. When Colonial Manor closed in Santa Ana, he left.
Lieutenant Wilcox reported, in response to Councilman Overholt, that he is in
charge of policing the bingo activities in the City. He explained that it is
very difficult for him to address the question of whether or not he has received
adequate back-up by way of financing to do an adequate job of policing the bingo
industry in that this is a proliferative problem. Bingo has become consistently
larger and larger since it started. Law enforcement problems have been iden-
tified, including improperly reported money, payment of volunteers, and the
paying of more than the allowed amount for prizes. They have not even begun
to address the problems attendant with the playing of "donation" bingo. The
question as to whether adequate manpower and funds are available relates to a
matter of priority. There are presently some five cases pending in the courts
79-1030
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 18, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
on three different bingo violations. He concurred that the total figure reached
by Councilman Overholt of $114,687 as the cost to monitor the bingo industry at
the time the ordinance was last amended.
Mayor Seymour questioned the three guilty pleas in the past five to six months
and noted that in each of these cases the judge fined the organization $250 and
placed them on probation, which does not seem to him to be too severe.
Lieutenant Wilcox reported that in one instance the stipulation included that
organization may not conduct any more bingo games because they were not, in fact,
running a hotline they had previously indicated. He further explained that
bingo is difficult to monitor because the police attempting to enforce the
law are looked upon as coming down on people, senior 'citizens or whatever, where
they are playing bingo. He emphasized that it is not the intention of the Police
Department to eradicate bingo, but when the problem was first approached, the
Police Department had recommended allowing only one day, as they had anticipated
it would be difficult to monitor. Further, when the operations become so large
as to have a dollar volume of $10.5 million coming through 21 or 22 bingo parlors,
when complaints are received, they are difficult to check out. The average senior
citizen playing bingo sees nothing wrong with bingo; however, if the money is
not being handled properly, these citizens are being victimized. Lieutenant
Wilcox voiced the opinion .that it is the responsibility of the Police Department
to enforce bingo laws. He reiterated some of the difficulties in getting arrests
and convictions in that it would be necessary to place an undercover officer in
the operation to establish what illegal activities were taking place.
Lieutenant Wilcox responded to questions by Council Members Overholt and Seymour
that to adequately police and audit the bingo business in the City functioning
on a permitted three-day per week schedule, would cost an estimated total of
$114,687 of taxpayer dollars.
Mayor Seymour additionally inquired as to the bingo violation cases over the
past five to six months and mentioned the fact that in those cases where the
defendent pled guilty, the penalty was a $250 fine which was not, in his opinion,
too severe a punishment if someone was really violating the law.
Discussion ensued between Councilman Overholt and Mr. Rose relative to the
reported 25.9 percentage of funds available for charity from their annual
gross revenue reported at $3,154,992 during which Mr. Rose advised that he is
not a salaried employee. He explained some of the expenses of the Halfway House
and the hospital which are paid for through bingo funds.
In addition Councilman Overholt received assurance from Mr. Ruth that in his
opinion if the amendments to the bingo ordinance under consideration were approved,
that recreational bingo would still be available for senior citizens as a social
activity.
City Attorney Hopkins cautioned that once the ordinance is adopted, if there is
any consideration at all involved in the playing of the bingo game, it would be
prohibited except in accordance with the provision set forth by the new ordinance.
Mr. Hopkins also spoke to Mayor Seymour's suggestion that the City attempt to
recover the cost associated with policing and auditing of bingo, explaining
the restrictions of the law prevent the City from charging more than a $50 annual
licensing fee in connection with bingo.
79-1031
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 18, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Frank Rose was again permitted to speak and brought out the point that the
City could require the audits to be presented by the bingo operators at their
own cost and thereby avoid the $15,840 audit cost.
Mr. Hopkins explained that the auditing function could be provided by the oper-
ators, but there is no way that the City could recover costs for police monitoring.
At the conclusion of the public discussion Mayor Seymour stated that he had not
yet been provided adequate information that caused him to believe the threat of
illegal bingo in the City was sufficient to cause the Council either to do away
with bingo or limit it to one day per week. On the other hand, according to the
City's own statistics, it is projected that bingo activities raise for these
organizations in excess of $9 million and in his best estimation over $1 million
of these dollars goes to further good social causes. He referred specifically
to the TLC and alcoholic rehabilitation programs and indicated he did not wish
to see that kind of acitivity cease as there is no possible way that the taxpayer
could foot the bill for those services. Therefore, based on these two premises
(lack of evidence and the good social work which has been performed in the past),
he would not support the proposed ordinance.
Councilman Roth stated that he is sensitive to government creating more rules and
regulations in peoples' lives and creating legislation which is not of benefit
to the community. Therefore he suggested that the question be placed on the
April 1980 ballot so as to get input from the community as to whether they want
bingo three, one or no days.
Councilman Overholt noted that the ordinance would have first reading only today,
which does not require the Council Members to vote, that voting would take place
in two weeks on October 2, 1979. He thereupon offered Ordinance No. 4049 for
first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4049: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION 7.34.240
OF CHAPTER 7.34, TITLE 7, OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO BINGO GAMES.
RECESS: By general consent the City Council recessed for 15 minutes. (3:30 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (3:45 P.M.)
179: ENCROACHMENT OF COMMERCIAL USES INTO THE NORTHEAST INDUSTRIAL AREA: Council-
man Bay moved that a second change in the order of the agenda for today's meeting
to next discuss the proposed revisions of the ML ordinance. Councilwoman Kaywood
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
A proposed amendment to Section 18.61.050 pertaining to the ML zone as outlined
in the staff report to the Planning Commission dated August 13, 1979, and
establishment of a Northeast Industrial Code Enforcement Program (continued
from September 11, 1979), was submitted.
The City Planning Commission, by motion, recommended the Council approve amendments
to Sections 18.61.050 and 18.61.050.600 to show buildings, structures and uses to
be permitted in the ML zone subject to a conditional use permit (.601 through and
79-1032
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 18, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
including .611) as set forth in staff report to the Planning Commission dated
August 13, 1979. The City Planning Commission further recommended that the
Council establish a Code Enforcement Program for the Northeast Industrial Area.
Miss Santalahti briefed the staff report and Planning Commission recommendation.
The Mayor opened the discussion for public input, recognizing Mr. Walter Smith
of Rockwell International, who spoke in favor of the proposed revisions to the
ML ordinance. He urged the Council, because of the decreasing availability of
land for industrial purposes, to restrict the use of conditional use permits
for commercial types of businesses in industrial areas. He cited that businesses
such as RV storage, public storage, and tennis clubs are not in the City's best
interest to devote industrial space to, since they do not provide the same level
of job opportunities to the citizens of the Anaheim area.
Mr. Larry Sierk spoke for the Chamber of Commerce position, advising that the
Chamber Industrial Committee worked with the Planning Commission in drawing up
these recommended modifications. He referred to the minutes of the August 21,
1979 Council meeting which expressed the views of the Chamber. He urged the
Council to support the Planning Commission recommendation in this matter. Further
he reminded Council that the newly organized Economic Development Corporation
has not yet had an opportunity to bring about the kind of industry desirable
for that area, and that industrial land is becoming more scarce all the time.
During Council discussion of the issue, Councilman Bay stated that while every-
one knows he has been a staunch supporter of these proposed provisions, he feels
these should be considered at this time for the Northeast Industrial area only.
In his opinion there are implications that the Southeast Industrial area may go
to a mixed batch of zoning and should be thoroughly reviewed as a separate item.
Councilman Bay thereupon moved that the City Council accept the recommendation
of the Planning Commission as set forth in the August 13, 1979 staff report to
Planning Commission, outlining the proposed changes to the ML ordinance.
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion. (Later in the discussion this motion
was withdrawn by Councilman Bay and Councilwoman Kaywood.)
It was again clarified that the proposed revised ML ordinance would pertain only
to the Northeast Industrial area.
Councilman Bay further pointed out that one of the staff recommendations on the
Code Enforcement Program was to use the Standard Industrial' Code to validate
business licenses. He questioned whether this was what Council intended to
do. He further referred to Item "E" in the August 13 Planning staff report
suggesting prohibition through site development standards of use of "display"
windows and subdivision of buildings for non-industrial uses. He suggested
if the action taken on the ordinance itself did not accomplish the purpose,
then these adjoining measures might be considered. He wished to make it clear
that he felt there should be a continuing effort in this area.
Following further Council discussion, Council Members Seymour and Bay pointed
out two further changes to the amendments proposed to .605 and .611, that these
should be changed to read as follows: ".605. Commercial sales businesses which
primarily serve and are compatible with industrial uses". ".611. Restaurants:
enclosed or semi-enclosed, drive-in, drive-through or walk-up.
79-1033
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 18, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Whereas this, as originally worded, would have restricted commercial sales bus-
inesses to those which exclusively served industrial customers and would have
prohibited restaurants from having cocktail lounges.
Councilman Roth questioned what the Code Enforcement Program would cost the City
and further how it is proposed to be carried out. Councilman Bay responded that
the cost would involve the hiring of a second Zoning Enforcement Officer at a cost
of $26,000 per year and a part-time interim planner position at $4.06 per hour,
not to exceed 30 hours per week.
Councilman Bay stated that he felt the City has experienced these problems pri-
marily because of lack of enforcement of the existing Code and, therefore, needs
desperately to have the capabilities to begin enforcement. He further commented
that if the City does not intend to enforce its zoning regulations, then why
have a Planning or Zoning program at all ?
It was pointed out that City Personnel regulations currently do not permit a part-
time employee to work more than 20 hours per week.
Councilman Roth stated his opinion that the proposed part-time position would
eventually become another $26,000 full-time position. Further that the City
has enough rules and regulations to control these problems through the Business
License procedure. He stated that if business licenses had not been issued to
the retail firms in the Northeast Industrial area, then the problem would not have
been created. Further he felt it should be clearly marked right on the license
"No retail sales activity."
Councilman Bay pointed out that there are six businesses currently operating
all or part of their activities as commercial in the Northeast Industrial
area who clearly stated at the time they applied for a business license "No
retail sales."
Councilwoman Kaywood voiced the opinion that if the Council is concerned about
maintaining the integrity of the Industrial zone, which does create and provide
jobs to the community, then they have to protect that area. Provisions for this
protection have not been made and obviously will not be made unless the Council
provides the capabilities to do so. She further was of the opinion that the
City has operated for much too long with only one Zoning Enforcement Officer.
Councilman Bay added that the right to apply for a conditional use permit is
not being taken away by the proposed ordinance, and each case would be treated on
an individual basis.
MOTION: On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City
Council approved the enforcement program as proposed with an estimated cost of
$32,000.
Prior to voting on the motion, Mayor Seymour stated for the record that unless
a fair and equitable program for amortization of investments made by those
illegal uses in the Northeast Industrial area were developed and allowed, he
would have to oppose the enforcement program. He referred to commercial businesses
79-1034
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 18, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
which might be present in that area, ignorant of the law, and he would defend their
right to recover their investment before being forced out of the area.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Roth voted "no".
MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION: On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the Cit~
Council approved the recommendations of the City Planning Commission, as set
forth in the August 13, 1979 staff report to the Planning Commission with
amendments to Section .605 and .611 as set forth in discussion above. MOTION
CARRIED.
Councilman Bay offered Ordinance No. 4050 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4050: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION 18.61.050
AND ADDING SECTION 18.61.050.600 TO CHAPTER 18.61, TITLE 18, OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
Councilwoman Kaywood suggested that staff also review the situation in the
Southeast Industrial area near Ball Road and State College Boulevard, and Miss
Santalahti pointed out that approved conditional use permits and variances were
shown on the exhibits prepared for this study.
PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 79-80-2, VARIANCE NO. 3097 AND EIR NEGATIVE
DECLARATION: Submitted by Frank Pagliari, et al, for a change in zone from
RS-A-43,000 to RM-2400, to construct an 8-unit apartment complex on property
located on the southeast corner of Savanna Street and Marian Way, with waiver of
maximum structural height.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-150 recommended
that the project be granted a negative declaration from the requirement to
prepare an EIR and further granted Reclassification No. 79-80-2 subject to the
following conditions:
1. That all engineering requirements of the City of Anaheim along Savanna
Street and Marian Way including preparation of improvement plans and instal-
lation of all improvements such as curbs and gutters, sidewalks, street grading
and paving, drainage facilities or other appurtenant work, shall be complied
with as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with standard plans
and specifications on £~le in the Office of the City Ensineer; that street
lighting facilities along Savanna Street and Marian Way shall be installed as
required by the Director of Public Utilities, and in accordance with specifi-
cations on file in the Office of the Director of Public Utilities; and/or that
a bond, certificate of deposit, letter of credit, or cash, in an amount and form
satisfactory to the City of Anaheim shall be posted with the City to guarantee
the installation of above-mentioned requirements prior to occupancy.
2. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim a fee,
in an amount as determined by the City Council, for tree planting purposes along
Savanna Street and Marian Way.
3. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans
on file with the Office of the Director of Public Works.
4. That fire hydrants shall be installed and charged as required and determined
to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department prior to commencement of
structural framing.
79-1035
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 18, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
5. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
6. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfac-
tory to the City Engineer.
7. That the owner of subject property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the
appropriate park and recreation in-lieu fees as determined to be appropriate
by the City Council, said fees to be paid at the time the building permit is
issued.
8. That appropriate water assessment fees as determined by the Director of
Public Utflities shall be paid to the City of Anaheim prior to the issuance
of a building permit.
9. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay the traffic signal assessment
fee (Ordinance No. 3986) in an amount as determined by the City Council, for each
new dwelling unit prior to the issuance of a building permit.
10. Prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoning subject property, Con-
dition No. 2, above-mentioned, shall be completed. The provisions or rights
granted by this resolution shall become null and void by action of the Planning.
Commission unless said conditions are complied with within one year from the date
hereof, or such further time as the Planning Commission may grant.
11. That Condition No. 3, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to final
building and zoning inspections.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-151, recommended
that the project be granted a negative declaration from the requirement to pre-
pare an EIR and further granted Variance No. 3097, subject to the following
conditions:
1. That this Variance is granted subject to the completion of Reclassification
No. 79-80-2, now pending.
2. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit No. 1
(Revision No. 1) and Exhibit Nos. 2 and 3.
3. That Condition No. 2, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to final
building and zoning inspections.
Review of the City Planning Commission action was requested by Councilwoman
Kaywood, and public hearing scheduled this date.
Miss Santalahti briefed the staff report submitted to and considered by the
City Planning Commission.
The Mayor asked if the appligant or applicant's agent was present and desirous
of being heard.
Mr. Greg Dudek, agent, 1741 West Lincoln, stated that a lot of time and effort
went into the plans that they have presented and believe it represents the
best use of the property.
The Mayor asked for those in opposition.
Mrs. Joan Todd, 3620 Savanna Street, advised that the residents on Savanna Street
have been facing the same problem for 2½ years and even initiated a General Plan
Amendment process-hoping to reduce the density designation for their street. She
79-1036
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 18, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
referred to a project proposed earlier on the street which the Council saw fit
to reduce density and structural height (a 9-unit condominium project), and
because of the location of this particular property further east on Savanna
Street, the residents feel it should also be kept single story. She added that
they would prefer it be developed as condominiums so that they might continue
to have an owner-occupied environment, as opposed to apartments. She voiced the
opinion that apartments at this location would create a non-conforming use. Mrs.
Todd contended that with the 27% lot coverage shown on the submitted plans, it
would certainly appear possible to bring the two units designed for the upper
story down to ground level for a total one-story project. Mrs. Todd recalled
that when development on Savanna Street began, the residents agreed not to oppose
two-story units across from the existing development, but feel that from that
point on down the street, the structures should be kept to one story. She sub-
mitted a petition indicating the opposition of the area residents to the project
as proposed. She stated that they realized development is inevitable and that
the least objectionable project would be eight condominium units limited to one-
story heights.
In response to Councilwoman Kaywood Mrs. Todd advised they would object to eight
apartment units.
There being no further persons who wished to speak in opposition, the Mayor
offered the applicant an opportunity for rebuttal.
Mr. Bob Johnson, owner of the lot, stated that the traffic caused by condominiums
would be the same as that created by apartment dwellers. He explained that the
reason they desired to build this project two story was because of a traffic flow
problem and the desire to enlarge the size of the apartments. The additional
space is needed on the ground floor level to provide adequate access into the
garages. He explained that these apartment units were designed with young
couples and the elderly in mind who also need housing and could not come up
with a down payment for a condominium. The rentals would range from $350 to
$400 for a two-bedroom apartment.
There being no further persons who wished to speak in favor or opposition, Mayor
Seymour closed the public hearing.
In further Council discussion, Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that a very large
part of the Planning Commission decision was based on the fact that the developer
was negotiating to purchase the land located immediately to the east of the
subject parcel and, therefore, the 150-foot setback for two-story housing would
not have been an issue. It was turned down, however, since the property owner
to the east had determined not to sell and, therefore, the two-story height
would be located within 50 and 37 feet of the residential zone boundary to the
east.
The property owner in question was in the Council Chamber and verified that
there is no longer any question of developing her property or the "Duke" property.
Councilman Bay was of the opinion that by allowing these apartments, a precedent
would be established to allow more apartments to the east and thus, apartments
would be immediately adjacent to the residential area. The Council had designated
this area low-medium density by a General Plan Amendment. He was further of the
79-1037
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 18, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
opinion that the waiver to allow two story at this point on the street would be
an encroachment on the remainder of the people who live there.
Councilwoman Kaywood inquired whether the developer would be willing to construct
eight one-story condominium units on subject property.
Mr. Dudek advised that part of the reason for the two-story plan was that the
side area facing the east property line would contain no windows and this
should eliminate any problems.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council finds that this project
would have no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact
and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered resolutions denying both the Reclassification and
Variance.
Mayor Seymour stated that he would vote against these on the basis that the
General Plan designates the area to be low-medium density and the proponents
have done everything within their power to bring in a project consistent with
that General Plan designation. If intent on denying this project, then the
Council should go one step further and bring the General Plan designation down
to low density. He reiterated that the lot coverage was low and the density
proposed would be 15.6 whereas low-medium allows 18 units per net acre.
Councilwoman Kaywood withdrew her offer of resolution to deny Reclassification
No. 79-80-2 and offered Resolution No. 79R-528 to approve Reclassification No.
79-80-2, subject to the conditions set forth by the Planning Commission. Refer
to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-528: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
FINDING AND DETERMINING ~{AT TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
ZONING SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES SHOULD BE
CHANGED.
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-528 duly passed and adopted.
Councilwoman Kaywood reoffered the resolution denying Variance No. 3097, which
failed to carry by the following vote:
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kaywood and Bay
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Roth and Seymour
79-1038
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 18, 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 79R-529, approving Variance No. 3097,
subject to the conditions recommended by the City Planning Commission.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-529: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 3097.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Roth and Seymour
Kaywood and Bay
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-529 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 3103 AND EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Submitted by
Bhikhu and Pushpa B. Patel, Khushal N. and Lalivati K. Patel, to construct a
3-story, 40-unit motel on C-R zoned property located on the south side of Ball
Road, east of West Street, with a waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-152, granted
Variance No. 3103, subject to the following conditions, and approved a negative
declaration from the requirement to prepare an EIR.
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 subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
3. That drainage of subject property shall be disposed of in a manner satisfac-
tory to the City Engineer.
4. That the owner(s) of subject property shall pay the traffic signal assessment
fee (Ordinance No. 3896), in an amount as determined by the City Council, for
each new motel unit prior to the issuance of a building permit.
5. That the owner(s) of subject property shall construct a textured concrete
median in the center of Ball Road beginning at a point even with the west curb
face of West Street (where said street intersects the north side of Ball Road)
and extending westerly 220 feet.
6. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit No. 1
(Revision No. 1) and Exhibit Nos. 2 through 5; and/or provided; however, that
kitchen efficiency units with a maximum of 6-cubic foot refrigerators; two-
burner stoves, excluding oven and baking facilities; and single compartment
sinks may be installed; except that the manager's unit will be allowed to have
full kitchen facilities.
7. That Condition Nos. 1, 5 and 6, above-mentioned, shall be complied with
prior to final building and zoning inspections.
Review of action taken by the City Planning Commission was requested by Councilman
Bay at the August 21, 1979 meeting and public hearing scheduled this date.
Miss Santalahti briefed the staff report submitted by and considered by the Plan-
ning Commission.
Mayor Seymour asked if the applicant or his agent were present and received no
response.
79-1039
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 18~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
It was determined that notice of the scheduled public hearing was mailed to the
applicant on September 6, 1979, as well as legal notice having been published in
the paper.
The Mayor asked for those who wished to speak in opposition.
Mr. Albert A. Dorn, 5710 West Manchester, Los Angeles, attorney representing the
Admiral's Cove Motel located adjacent to the subject property, stated that his
client has developed a 61-unit motel and had complied with the parking require-
ments for that number of units. If the applicant was permitted a waiver of
required parking, then individuals using that motel who cannot park there will
be using his client's parking spaces, thereby creating a problem on his pro-
perty. Mr. Dorn stated that the essence of this variance request is that it
is a desire to overbuild on the property by building more units than would or-
dinarily be put on this size parcel. He noted that his client could also request
a variance to build 30 additional units without parking and if the subject request
was granted, how then could Council deny future similar requests? He urged
Council to preserve the integrity of the parking requirement by not allowing
such departures from the established requirement.
Councilman Roth noted that the City Council had already allowed departures from
the parking requirements in this area, based on the rationale that because of
energy costs, more patrons of the motels were arriving by public transportation
and, therefore, a fewer number of parking spaces was needed. He questioned whether
there had been complaints generated by the parking variances allowed at other
motels because of patrons using parking provided at nearby motels.
Patrick McShane, Personnel Director, Sheraton Hotel, stated that the only reason
Council had not heard complaints regarding parking problems caused by relaxation
of the requirements was because he personally did not know where to voice the
complaints. He reported that after the Saga West Motel was granted a parking
variance, his hotel experienced that over 30% of their west side parking lot
had been taken up by other than their own patrons. This has also created a
hazardous traffic situation, as the parked vehicles block a clear line of vision.
He advised that his company has complied with the parking requirements of one
space per room and intends to comply when an additional 200 units are added.
The Sheraton Hotel strongly objects to the granting of this variance for the
reasons given.
Councilman Bay stated he did not believe the subject variance request was one of
those areas intended as part of the exception from parking requirements in that
it will create problems. In his opinion the areas intended for exception were
those where the parking allowance would have no direct impact. He voiced the
opinion that this is a cause of overbuilding on the property and the granting
of the variance would further set'a City-wide precedent for relief from the
Code parking requirements.
Mayor Seymour stated that although he shared Councilman Bay's concerns regarding
the potential impact of approval of the Variance, he is also sensitive to the
fact that the owner was not represented. Although the notice was mailed September 6,
1979, he explained that there was no way of knowing if the owner or agent received
same and, therefore, he would be hesitant to act. He suggested the Council consider
continuing the public hearing for two weeks.
79-1040
C.ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 18, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
MOTION: On motion duly made and seconded by Council Members Roth and Seymour,
public hearing on Variance No. 3103 was to be continued two weeks.
Councilman Bay took exception to this action, being of the opinion that this
would create another precedent of continuing items because the applicant failed
to show up.
The City Clerk reported that she had contacted the applicant by telephone, and
he advised that he had been informed by his architect that it was not necessary
for him to attend the meeting. An ALTERNATE MOTION was made by Councilman
Overholt and seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood to continue the public hearing
to 6:30 p.m. this date, so that the applicant would still have an opportunity
to appear. MOTION CARRIED.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
Submitted by La Palma Business Park, to permit a gymnastics academy on ML zoned
property located at 1015 North Armando Street.
Communication from Mr. R. A. Broadway of IPS Companies was submitted, requesting
that public hearing be continued to October 9, 1979, at 3:00 p.m.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, public hearing
on Conditional Use Permit No. 2006 and negative declaration therefor was con-
tinued to the meeting of October 9, 1979 at 3:00 p.m., as requested by the
applicant. MOTION CARRIED.
164: PUBLIC HEARING - ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE: To hear and consider tes-
timony relating to a private water well on property located at 123 North Rio
Vista Street, determined to be a public nuisance by the Public Utilities
General Manager, pursuant to Chapter 10.20 of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
Mr. Clark W. Wingert, Jr., owner of the property on which the well is located
was notified of this hearing date and time by mail.
Mr. Ray Auerbach briefed the staff report submitted to Council and noted that
the Utilities General Manager had determined this a public nuisance. He reported
that the well was backfilled several years ago, but the concrete used had sunk
into the well casing, creating a hazard to the public. Staff's recommendation
was that the City Council declare the well a public nuisance and authorize that
the work to correct the situation be performed by the City, if not done by the
owner within 30 days, assessing the cost of the abatement to the property owner.
The Mayor asked if the owner or his agent were present to which he received
no reply. He asked if anyone else wished to address the Council regarding this
matter.
Mr. John Swain stated that he was on the property in question at 123 North Rio
Vista and the well was located on an easement affecting his property. The well
was supposedly kept in the proper manner in February of 1975 and was inspected
by the City. However in Mr. Swain's opinion, the procedure used to cap the well
evidently was not properly carried out, since the recent rains, it appears the
well has caved in. Mr. Swain further explained that he has lived on the property
since 1944, purchased it in 1961 with the easement on it. The terms were that
once the well was no longer to be used, the property affected by the easement
would revert to him. The owner, Mr. Wingert, is already in default on his
79-1041
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 18, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
property taxes and apparently did remove the easement, and therefore, Mr. Swain
will be stuck with the cost for recapping the well. Mr. Swain contended that
the job had never been performed according to Code or it would not be possible
for the well to cave in as it has.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, Mayor Seymour closed the
public hearing.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 79R-530 for adoption, approving the
recommendation of the Utilities General Manager and making the following findings:
(1) that the City Council determined said water well constitutes a public nuisance
pursuant to Section 1.02.100 of the Anaheim Municipal Code; (2) That said public
nuisance shall be abated by the backfilling and capping of said well in accordance
with Water Engineering Division Standard Drawing No. 168 or attached Exhibit B;
(3) That the General Manager of the Utility Department is hereby directed to
take any necessary action to protect the ground water and the health and safety
of the public unless said nuisance is abated and corrected in the manner herein
before specified on or before October 18, 1979; and (4) That the cost of any
correction undertaken by the General Manager pursuant to this resolution shall
become a special assessment upon the land pursuant to Section 1.02.110 of the
Anaheim Municipal Code and Section 38773.5 of the Government Code of the State
of California.
Councilman Bay questioned why the property owner in this case will be assessed
for the cost of this abatement when apparently the City Inspectors made the
mistake.
In response to Councilman Bay, Mr. Auerbach stated that the only way the concrete
could have recessed as it has, is if it did not set up when initially poured. The
well site was inspected at the time it was recapped. The only evidence they have
however to indicate that the job was done according to Code were the delivery
tickets for the concrete and the concrete ring around the outside of the well.
Mr. Swain clarified for the Council that Mr. Wingert was the last rancher to use
this well and as such had the responsibility of capping it so that the easement
could revert to his ownership. Further Mr. Wingert now resided in Canada, was
no longer interested in the property, and was in default on his property taxes.
Mayor Seymour restated the resolution to exclude the fourth finding assessing
the cost of the well abatement against the property owner. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-530: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
DECLARING THE EXISTENCE OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE ABATEMENT THEREOF.
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-530 duly passed and adopted.
79-1042
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 18, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
130: CATV FRANCHISE: Recommendation from the City Manager's office that the
Council authorize staff to enter into negotiations with Storer Cable TV, Inc.,
to finalize the details for award of CATV franchise and to prepare the ordinance
granting the franchise was presented for Council consideration.
It was reported that four of the proposals received were selected and forwarded
to ACSI, the City's consultant, for their review and recommendation. One of the
remaining four was then judged to be non-responsive to the City's request for
proposals at this point. The Council was provided with this data with the
three final proposals and the consultant's report. The recommendation that
the Council award the franchise to Storer Cable TV was concurred in by Dr. Dyas,
ACSI and the CATV evaluation committee.
The Mayor recognized the representative from the City's consultant, Mr. Cy
Humphries of Alta Services.
Mr. Humphries reviewed that the call for proposals with this franchise had been
issued; that proposals had been received; evaluations made and recommendations
submitted. He voiced the opinion that the applicants have had a full opportunity
to submit all of the information they wished, and that only three of the proposals
were considered to be responsive. From their evaluation, Storer Cable TV appears
to be the best applicant for the City inasmuch as their proposal appears to be
the most responsive to the needs of the community. He added that he felt the
proposals should be judged solely on what had been presented in writing and not
on any further information submitted after the fact or certainly not after the
proposals had been made public.
Mr. Humphries explained that 10 to 12 key evaluation criteria were set forth in
the request for proposals, and his firm's approach was to look at each one of
the three responsive proposals and judge them for their responsiveness to the
criteria, item by item, and then to do the summarization. One of the reasons
that Storer Cable TV emerged as the best in their opinion for the City was the
accelerated'construction schedule, since one of the City's high concerns was
immediate service to the hill and canyon area. Also their rate structure was
among the lowest. They offer a complete spectrum of supplementary and pay TV
services, and it was felt that the local access origination information package
proposed by them was the best. In response to Councilman Roth, Mr. Humphries
stated that his firm does feel Storer has sufficient assets to be able to meet
the commitment to provide service to the first subscriber within eight months
and completion in 11 months.
Councilman Roth inquired whether $torer Cable TV had any installation which
would be of comparable size to what is proposed for Anaheim.
Mr. Armstrong replied that Storer Cable TV has systems serving 20,000 or more
subscribers in Montgomery, Alabama, Sarasota, Florida, and one serving 15,000
in Almady, Georgia.
Councilman Roth referred to legislation (AB 699) currently under consideration
in Sacramento which would deregulate pay TV and questioned how the City might
be assured, once they accept the Storer proposal, that they would continue to
offer services at the lowest rate.
79-1043
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 18~ 1979, 1:30 P.M.
It was explained that there are a number of criteria which must first be met
prior to Storer coming under the California law which would deregulate the
rates. With respect to the lawsuit between Storer Cable TV and the City of
Thousand Oaks, Mr. Armstrong advised that he had been in contact with that
City and that the two lawsuits regarding rates had been thrown out of court
two weeks ago; and that another rate proposal would be before the Thousand
Oaks City COuncil shortly, which was expected to be approved.
Dr. Ron Dyas stated that in terms of the size of the system, although this
project was initiated to correct TV reception in the canyon area, what is now
proposed is a total communication system for the City of Anaheim containing 400
miles of wire. This will be the largest system in Orange County. Estimates
on construction costs range between $8 to $10 million or higher. He explained
that in his analysis of the three applicants he did feel handicapped in' certain
respects, and as he indicated, he would have liked to have been able to visit
the various systems to view the performance of these companies.
Dr. Dyas concluded that the cable companies have an opportunity to build a
model system for the country and the City, and in order to get people to use it,
will have to provide something other than just good reception. He explained
that his concern at this stage in the discussions is that whatever is decided by
the Council will be in the best interest of the City. He explained that ACSI
was paid to evaluate the technical considerations of the three proposals and
his input was narrowed to their performance relative to programming. The re-
suits of his evaluation were as indicated in his letter to the Council.
Mr. John Dawson, attorney for American Cable TV Communication Corporation, intro-
duced Nitia Lowell, assistant in charge of franchises, who addressed the Council
regarding some of the items taken into consideration in evaluating the three
proposals. She stressed the advantages offered by her firm and requested that
they be given an opportunity to present written comments to the City Council and
consultants based on their review of the evaluation.
Mr. Mueller of Six Star Cable Company concurred with Miss Lowell's comment, adding
that it might be a wise and prudent move for the Council to ask for further infor-
mation from the other applicants, since it is an important decision for the City.
He stated that he felt staff and the consultants had done an excellent job,
but could not see where it would do any harm to the City to obtain additional
information from the three applicants.
Mr. Gary Massolian of Storer Cable TV, Northridge, California, complimented staff
and Council on the fact that these evaluations were made and kept in a non-political
framework. He responded to the questions posed earlier by Council regarding their
experience with systems of this size; their abilities to meet the proposed con-
struction schedule; and the lawsuit with the City of Thousand Oaks. In conjunc-
tion with the rate schedules proposed, Mr. Masolian advised Council Members that
his company had never raised rates during the construction period, which is set
forth as being three years, and that although this is not included in the proposal
as a guaranteed rate, they would be willing to enter into that discussion during
the negotiation process and would be willing to agree to a three-year period of
no increase in rates, since this has been their company policy.
79-1044
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 18, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Dr. Dyas stated that there might be a valid point to allowing additional information
from the applicants. He added this was not to suggest that he would change his
opinion on the evaluation or that it would change the outcome, but since he felt
handicapped due to lack of information, and since the goal was to identify for
the City the best possible system, he felt it might be advisable to accept a
one-hour presentation from each applicant before the staff and consultants to
receive additional information.
Mayor Seymour questioned whether Dr. Dyas was intent on opening negotiations.
Dr. Dyas indicated that he was not intending to reopen the period for acceptance
of proposals, but rather because he had found it necessary to contact each of
the applicants for additional information, which might be called refinements
on the various proposals, he felt he was handicapped in making evaluations and,
therefore, suggested allowing the additional presentations. During further dis-
cussion, Mr. Armstrong pointed out that if the Council were to continue its
decision to allow the applicants to submit questions or comments, he would not
recommend that they get into a situation of allowing the applicants to modify
their original proposals.
Attorney John Dawson further clarified that his firm would not wish to change
its bid, but would appreciate the opportunity to clarify some of the issues as to
what has actually been proposed.
Mr. Humphries stated that his firm would have no problem if Council decided to
allow additional qualifying information, but felt these facts should continue to
be evaluated by staff, the committee and consultants and that this was not to
open up the situation to allow the applicants to enlarge or to change their
proposals.
Following discussion, on motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilman
Roth, it was determined that each of the three applicants would be allowed one
week, to September 25, 1979, to file with the City Clerk their additional infor-
mation; said submissions to be evaluated by staff and recommendations presented
to Council on October 9, 1979. MOTION CARRIED.
RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for 15 minutes. (6:40 P.M.)'
AFTER RECESS: Mayor §eymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (6:55 P.M.)
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 3103 AND EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
Submitted by Bhikhu and Pushpa B. Patel, Khushal N. and Lalivati K. ?atel, to
construct a 3-story 40-unit motel on C-R zoned property located on the south
side of Ball Road, east of West Street, with waiver of minimum number of parking
spaces.
Said public hearing was continued to this time from this afternoon's meeting to
allow the applicant the opportunity to be represented.
Mr. Ragintar, representing Mr. Patel, was recognized by the Mayor and advised
that the same firm which would develop the subject motel was currently operating
two other motels in this same area and that the subject motel was located on
Ball Road, not too far from the Disneyland Hotel, where the Airport Service
79-1045
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 18, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
and other buses pick up and leave passengers. The intent was to provide a
backup bus service also from the Greyhound Bus Station. They felt, due to the
gas crisis, most travelers were coming to the City by train, bus or airplane.
Within the last six months, they have experienced with the other two motels
that almost half of their parking lot is vacant. He further cited that in the
past the City Council has approved waivers from the parking requirements for
other motels which are located further away from the Disneyland Hotel than this
one. He further stated that he did not understand why an objection was raised
but the Sheraton Hotel, since his company had checked on 15 consecutive days and
found that more than 60% of their parking lot was vacant almost all the time.
The public hearing was closed.
Councilwoman Kaywood commented that when it was initially proposed to allow waiver
of parking requirements in the City, the Council never intended these be allowed
in the area in which the subject motel is located, which is already very congested
and has many traffic problems. She noted that the motels surrounding this one
had not requested parking waivers and, therefore, if this one were granted, its
patrons would, in fact, be using the parking provided by the others.
Councilman Roth noted that these waivers have been allowed in the past and he
had ascertained through staff there were no complaints received. He voiced the
opinion that more people will be using public transportation in the future, and,
therefore, he would support the Planning Commission decision to approve the
variance.
Councilwoman Kaywood pointed out that this waiver had never been allowed where
a restaurant was involved and in this particular situation, the Sheraton felt
that with the restaurant facilities they had developed, they require all of
their parking for their own patrons.
Councilman Bay concurred with Councilwoman Kaywood on the basis that reduced
parking certainly would have an impact and would create problems in this area.
Councilman Overholt was of the opinion that this is one of the most critical
traffic areas of the City.
Mayor Seymour voiced the opinion that there were criteria for denial of the
variance based on size, shape and location of the property, surrounded by
motels and a restaurant, and stated he would base his denial on these issues.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilwoman
Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council finds that this project
would have no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact
and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Bay offered Resolution No. 79R-531, reversing the findings made by
the City Planning Commission and denying Variance No. 3103. Refer to Resolution
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-531: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
DENYING VARIANCE NO. 3103.
79-1046
City Hall.~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 18~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay and Seymour
Roth
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 79R-531 duly passed and adopted.
114: RESCINDING COUNCIL POLICY NO. 401: On motion by Councilman Bay, seconded
by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council rescinded Council Policy No. 401, re-
lating to the employment of professional personnel, as this has been superseded
by a new Council Policy. MOTION CARRIED.
123: FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH DAN ROW-LAND AND ASSOCIATES: In accordance
with the recommendation submitted by the City Manager's office, Councilman Roth
offered Resolution No. 79R-532 for adoption, approving a first amendment to the
agreemRnt with Dan Rowland and Associates, for modifications to design of the
Anaheim Civic Center, in an amount not to exceed $6,455. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-532: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH DAN L.
ROWLAND AND ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED, AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR
AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT.
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. 80R-532 duly passed and adopted.
153: SALARY ADJUSTMENT FOR OUTSTATIONED PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM CLASS-
IFICATIONS: In accordance with the recommendation submitted by Garry McRae, Human
Resources Director, Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 79R-533 for adop-
tion. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 79R-533: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAJ4EIM
AMENDING RESOLUTION~NO. 76R-677 AND AMENDMENTS THERETO WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF
COMPENSATION FOR OUTSTATIONED PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYMENT CLASSIFICATIONS AND AD-
JUSTING RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR THE CSD CLERK AND CLERK TYPIST.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
0verholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-533 duly passed and adopted.
79-10~7
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 18, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
142/171: ORDINANCE NO. 4051 - AMENDMENT TO PROPERTY TAX ORDINANCE: As recon~nended
by Ron M. Rothschild, Assistant Finance Director, in his memorandum of September 18,
1979, Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance Nos. 4051 and 4052 for first reading,
amending Ordinance Nos. 4042 and 4043, nunc pro tunc, relating to fixing and levying
property tax for fiscal year 1979-80.
ORDINANCE NO. 4051: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING ORDINANCE NO.
4042, NUNC PRO TUNC, RELATING TO FIXING AND LEVYING A PROPERTY TAX ON ALL PRO-
PER~Y WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
1979-80. ($.095 per $100 assessed valuation)
ORDINANCE NO. 4052: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING ORDINANCE NO.
4043, NUNC PRO TUNC, RELATING TO FIXING AND LEVYING A PROPERTY TAX ON ALL PROPERTY
WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1979-80.
108: ANAHEIM ART ASSOCIATION - WAIVER OF BUSINESS LICENSE: On motion by Council-
man Seymour, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the request for waiver of require-
ment for a business license and permission for the sale of handmade items at the
Anaheim Art Association's Fall Festival to be held November 3 and 4, 1979, at
the Brookhurst Community Center, was granted. MOTION CARRIED.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1996 - REQUEST FOR REHEARING: The request of Noel F.
and Nola T. Hatch, for an evening rehearing on Conditional Use Permit No. 1996,
to expand an existing preschool located at 2510 West Orange Avenue and waiver
of Council Policy No. 105, was granted, on motion by Councilman Roth, seconded
by Councilman Seymour, subject to payment of the $50 advertising fee by the
applicants; said hearing to be scheduled October 23, 1979, at 7:00 p.m. To
this motion Councilman Bay voted "no". MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Seymour left the Council Chamber (7:09 P.M.) and Mayor Pro Tem 0verholt
assumed Chairmanship of the meeting.
124: REQUEST OF ORANGE COUNTY FOLKS FOR THE FUTURE: Mayor Pro Tem Overholt
recognized the representative of Orange County Folks For The Future who had
requested time to address the Council and submit petitions relating to the
1979 Military Expo to be held at the Anaheim Convention Center during the
month of October 1979.
Mrs. Jacquline Dudek, Level Street, Anaheim, presented petitions to the City
Council which she stated contained 6,900 of Anaheim residents opposed to the
Military Arms Exposition being held at the Anaheim Convention Center. She
cited the reason the Convention Center was there was to provide an educational
center and recreational opportunities to City of Anaheim residents and those
in surrounding communities. Their group feels that the goals and objectives of
the Arms Expo are contradictory to the purposes for which the convention Center
was established. She concluded that the Orange County Folks For The Future feel
the Anaheim City Council has a moral obligation to stop the Military Arms Expo
and requested this be done.
During her presentation Mrs. Dudek requested all those present in the Council
Chamber and opposed to the housing of the Military Arms show at the Convention
Center raise their hands and this indicated approximately 16 people present in
opposition.
79-1048
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 18, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
Also speaking on behalf of the Orange County Folks For The Future position were:
Tom Lattimer, resident of Anaheim since 1959, Kent Huffman, 821 East Sixth Street,
Los Angeles, and Paul McConnor, 821 East Sixth Street, Los Angeles.
Mr. Ed Stotereau, Operations Manager at the Convention Center, advised that the
booking for this event to be held at the Convention Center was made through
the Visitor and Convention Bureau about two years ago. He explained that the
administration of the Center and the V&C Bureau take the position that they will
not act as judges regarding the types of events to be held at the Center, but
rather as landlords providing a service. He noted that the Convention Center
hosts all kinds of trade shows and is a public forum for events of all types.
He noted that these types of trade shows are generally closed to the public.
In response to Council questions, City Attorney Hopkins explained that if the
Council were to attempt to cancel the contractual arrangement made considerably
in advance for this event to be held at the Convention Center from October 23,
through 27, 1979, this would be considered a breach of contract on the part of
the City.
At the conclusion of discussion, Councilman Bay restated for the group that
theirs was a different philosophical opinion from that of the Military Expo,
and he would respect their right to that opinion. He emphasized that under
current City policy,' they too could rent the use of the Convention Center to
further their cause.
At the conclusion of discussion, Mayor Pro Tem Overholt summarized that the
Council's position was that the City does recognize a moral responsibility, but
is really limited within the law as to what degree of control they may exercise
on the use of the Convention Center. He reiterated that many religious func-
tions for various persuasions are held at the Convention Center, and if Council
were to insist on holding these true to a particular philosophy, they would
even be monitoring what religious organizations may use the facility. He added
that each of the Council Members respects the right of Orange County Folks For
The Future to be concerned and to demonstrate that concern, but could not see
that the Council was in any position to cancel an event scheduled one month
from now, as this would expose the City to substantial liability. He assured
the group that this would not interfere with their opportunities to address
the subject of the rental of space to the Military Arms Expo prior to the contrac-
tual agreement being finalized. However, under the present set of circumstances,
this is the position which the City Council feels they must take.
108: REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL: The City Clerk reported that Mr. Dick
Liepert, who wished to address the City Council relating to massage parlors
and similar business establishments, had left the Chamber at 4:45 p.m. and
would be rescheduled on October 2, 1979.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman
Bay, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and
recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent
Calendar Agenda:
1. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and referred
to the City's Claims Administrator:
79-1049
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 18, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
a. Claim submitted by Donna Mae O'Hara for personal injury damages purportedly
sustained as a result of broken sidewalk on Chartres Street, approximately 200
feet east of Harbor Boulevard, on or about July 16, 1979.
b. Claim submitted by Donna Mae O'Hare for Marie Bernadette O'Hare for personal
injury damages purportedly sustained as a result of broken sidewalk on Chartres
Street, approximately 200 feet east of Harbor Boulevard, on or about July 16,
1979.
c. Claim submitted by Ruth Garrison for personal injury damages purportedly
sustained as a result of slip-and-fall accident at the Anaheim Convention
Center, third level between Sections 11 and 12 on concrete floor, on or about
June 29, 1979.
d. Claim submitted by Paula F. Zazzarino for personal injury damages purportedly
sustained as a result of slip-and-fall accident at ladies room at the Anaheim
Convention Center, on or about August 8, 1979.
e. Claim submitted by Robert A. Mues for property damages purportedly sustained
as a result of problem with sewer, originating in the vicinity of the street,
on or about July 24, 1979.
f. Claim submitted by Fred Cannizzaro for damage to vehicle purportedly sus-
tained as a result of golf ball striking windshield while auto was parked near
the fourth green at "Dad" Miller Municipal Golf Course, on or about August 25,
1979.
g. Claim submitted by David Gordon Saunders for damages to refrigerator compressor
purportedly sustained as a result of power loss in the area on or about August 9,
1979.
b. Claim submitted by Mrs. Maida Rose Jones for vehicular damages purportedly
sustained as a result of hole in street at entrance to Wicke's Furniture at
1256 North Magnolia Avenue, on or about August 27, 1979.
i. Claim submitted by Chris Alario for vehicular damages purportedly sustained
as a result of golf ball striking windshield while travelling on Nohl Ranch
Road, on or about September 1, 1979.
j. Claim submitted by Ron W. Cramer for property damages purportedly sustained
as a result of actions by a prisoner in the City Jail, on or about August 10,
1979.
k. Claim submitted by Kathleen Evans for personal injury damages purportedly
sustained as a result of actions by Anaheim Police on or about August 10, 1979.
1. Claim submitted by Robert George Godoy for personal injury damages Purportedly
sustained as a result of actions by Police at 1613 Hampstead Street, on or about
May 26, 1979.
m. Claim submitted by Daniel A. Murphy for damages purportedly sustained as a
result of delay in notification to claimant of stolen car recovery on or about
August 15, 1979.
79-1050
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 18~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
n. Claim submitted by Kevin M. Waters for personal injury damages purportedly
sustained as a result of fall in the general seating area of Anaheim Stadium
on or about June 19, 1979.
o. Claim submitted by Michael F. Pierce for vehicular damages purportedly
sustained as a result of obstruction in street with no warning devices (State
College Boulevard approaching Ball Road), on or about August 13, 1979.
p. Claim submitted by Bea Smith for damages purportedly sustained as a result
of work done by City employees at 1951 Catalpa Avenue several months prior.
q. Claim submitted by Loretta Alice Ferraro for personal injuries sustained as
a result of slip-and-fall accident at Anaheim Stadium on or about April 22, 1979.
r. Claim submitted by Arthur L. Brousseau for vehicular damages purportedly sus-
tained as a result of City truck backing into claimant's truck on or about July 6,
1979.
2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 107: Planning Department, Building Division - Monthly Report for August 1979.
b. 175: Public Utilities Department, Utilities Field Division - Monthly Report
for July 1979.
c. 105: Anaheim Housing Commission - Minutes of August 1, 1979.
d. 178: The City's Orange County Water District Representative - Six-month
progress report on local and statewide water conditions and activities of the
Orange County Water District.
3. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10784: Submitted by Texaco-Anaheim Hills, Inc., to estab-
lish a 19-lot, 16-unit condominium subdivision on proposed RM-3000 zoned property
located on the north side of Canyon Rim Road, west of Serrano Avenue.
The City Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract No. 10784 and certified
EIR No. 227.
4. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 9815 (Rev. #1): Submitted by William M. Clow, to estab-
lish a one-lot, 35-unit condominium subdivision on RS-A-43,000 zoned property
located on the north side of Simmons Avenue, east side of Haster Street.
The City Planning Commission approved Tentative Tract No. 9815 (Rev. #1) and
EIR No. 212 had previously been approved.
Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
20>:SENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilman Roth offered Resolution Nos. 79R-534
Through 79R-537, 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.
79-1051
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 18, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
158: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-534: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (Richardson
Development Corporation)
167: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-535: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINALLY ACCEPTING THE COMPLETION AND THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR,
SERVICES, MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING
POWER, FUEL AND WATER, AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND
COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND SAFETY
LIGHTING AT THE INTERSECTION OF BALL ROAD AND DALE AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
ACCOUNT NO. 13-795-6325-5030. (Smith Electric Company)
150: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-536: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE
THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: PEARSON PARK
HANDBALL COURTS, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 25-807-7107; APPROVING THE
DESIGNS, PIi~INS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THERE-
~OF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH
SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO
PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION THEREOF. (Bids
to be opened October 11, 1979, at 2:00 p.m.)
175: RESOLUTION NO. 79R-537: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE
THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: UTILITIES
SERVICE CENTER OFFICE ADDITIONS, 901 EAST VERMONT AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
ACCOUNT NOS. 51-699-6340-0951M-3710A AND 55-699-6340-0951M-3900A; APPROVING
THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE
WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY
CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
THEREOF. (Bids to be opened October 25, 1979, at 2:00 p.m.)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Overholt
None
Seymour
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 79R-534 through 79R-537, both inclusive,
duly passed and adopted.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning
Commission at their meeting held August 27, 1979, pertaining to the following
applications, as listed on the Consent Calendar, were submitted for City Council
information.
1. VARIANCE NO. 3099 AND TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 10694: Submitted by Javid Develop-
ment Corporation, to convert an existing apartment complex on RM-1200, zoned pro-
perty located at 1250 South Brookhurst Street, with various code waivers.
Variance No. 3099 and Tentative Tract No. 10694 were withdrawn by the petitioner
and a negative declaration was granted.
79-1052
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 18, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
2. VARIANCE NO. 3107: Submitted by Stuart Stanley and Rebecca Goddard Kalish,
to retain an illegal garage conversion on RS-7200 zoned property located at 2190
West Huntington Avenue, with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-169, denied Variance
No. 3107, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination.
3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1898 - REQUEST FOR REVOCATION: Submitted by City
of Anaheim, proposing to revoke Conditional Use Permit No. 1898 issued to Harold
S. and Betty H. Prottas and Howard D. and Jean Garber, for failure to comply with
the conditions of approval on CL zoned property located at 2325 Sequoia Avenue.
The City Planning Commission terminated the proceedings on the basis that the
conditions had been met and granted a negative declaration status.
4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1965: Submitted by Virginia J. Benner, to permit
an automobile wholesale facility on CG zoned property located at 214 West Chestnut
Street, with waiver of minimum number of required parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-170, granted Con-
ditional Use Permit No. 1965, and granted a negative declaration status.
5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010: Submitted by Beverly V. Lesley Locke, to
permit an automobile repair facility on CL zoned property located at 3180 West
Lincoln Avenue, with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-172, granted Con-
ditional Use Permit No. 2010, and granted a negative declaration status.
6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2013: Submitted by Alexsandra and Gunther G.
Jung, to permit an automobile repair facility on ML zoned property located at
1506 West Center Street, with waiver of minimum landscape setback.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-173, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2013, and granted a negative declaration status.
7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2016: Submitted by Marilyn and Jerry I. Goodwin,
to permit roof-mounted solar collector panels on a proposed single-family resi-
dence on RS-HS-43,000 zoned property located at 260 South Peralta Hills Drive.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-176, granted
Conditonal Use Permit No. 2016, and ratified the Planning Director's categor-
ical exemption determination.
8. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2018: Submitted by Doris Hobbs, to construct a
commercial office complex on ML zoned property located at the southwest corner
of Orangethorpe Avenue and Raymond Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-177, granted Con-
ditional Use Permit No. 2018, and granted a negative declaration status.
79-1053
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 18~ 1979~ 1:30 P.M.
9. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 78-79-5 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Anaheim
Hills, Inc., requesting an extension of time to Reclassification No. 78-79-5,
to establish a 152-1ot, 144-unit subdivision on RS-HS-IO,O00 zoned property
located on the south side of Willowick Drive, south of Nohl Ranch Road.
The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Reclassification
No. 78-79-5, to expire August 28, 1980.
10. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1556 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Edmund C.
Taffolla, requesting an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 1556, to
permit an office in an existing residence on CO zoned property located at 862
South Harbor Boulevard, with waivers of minimum sideyard setback and required
blcok wall.
The City Planning Commission granted an extension of time to Conditional Use
Permit No. 1556, to expire August 18, 1981.
11. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2014: Submitted by Pacific Terrace Apartments,
to permit a mobilehome park subdivision on RS-A-43,000 zoned property located
at 5815 East La Palma Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-174, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2014, and granted a negative declaration status.
No action was taken on the foregoing items therefore the actions of the City
Planning Commission became final.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2015: Submitted by Triple H. Land Company, to permit
a commercial office complex on CR zoned property located at 1211 South Harbor
Boulevard, with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-175, granted
Conditional Use Permit No. 2015 and granted a negative declaration.
Earlier in the meeting, Councilman Seymour requested review of the action taken
by the City Planning Commission.
114: WAIVER OF COUNCIL POLICY - PACIFIC TERRACE APARTMENTS: On motion by Council-
man R0th, seconded by Councilman Bay, the request submitted by Pacific Terrace
Apartments for waiver of Council Policy No. 542, in conjunction with Conditional
Use Permit No. 2014, pertaining to sound attenuation in residential projects was
approved as recommended by the City Planning Commission. Councilman Seymour
was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
134: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 152: On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded
by Councilman Roth, the City Council set October 2, 1979, at 3:00 p.m., as the
date and time for public hearing on General Plan Amendment No. 152, to consider
a change in the current hillside low-medium density residential and general
commercial designation to hillside low-medium density, to subdivide an existing
mobile home park (Friendly Village) located on the north side of La Palma Avenue,
east of Imperial Highway, and sell individual lots. Councilman Seymour was
absent. MOTION CARRIED.
79-1054
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - September 18, 1979, 1:30 P.M.
ORDINANCE NOS. 4047 AND 4048: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance Nos. 4047 and
4048 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 4047: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-37, RM-1200)
ORDINANCE NO. 4048: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (75-76-19, RM-1200)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Overholt
None
Seymour
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Ordinance No. 4047 and 4048 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NOS. 4053 AND 4054: Councilman Roth offered Ordinance Nos. 4053 and
4054 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 4053: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-63(1), CL)
ORDINANCE NO. 4054: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (77-78-47, RM-3000)
114: NOTICES OF INTENT TO CIRCULATE RECALL PETITIONS: Both Council Members
Overholt and Kaywood reported that they had been personally served with a "Notice
of Intent to Circulate Recall Petitions" by Donna Youngerman, on behalf
of the Save Anaheim Coalition, at approximately 1:05 p.m. this date.
164: MIRALOMA STORM DRAIN CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE: Councilman Bay commented that
he was pleased to receive the construction schedule for Miraloma Storm Drain which
indicates a completion date of October 30, 1979 which is well before the rainy
season. '
RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: By general consent the City Council recessed into
Executive Session. (8:10 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Pro Tem Overholt called the meeting to order, all Council
Members being present, with the exception of Mayor Seymour. (8:29 P.M.)
112: SETTLEMENT OF ORANGE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CASE NO. 31-03-60: On motion
by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilman Roth, the City Council author-
ized the City Attorney and Carl Warren and Co., to settle Orange County Superior
Court Case No. 31-03-60 for a sum not to exceed $2,500. Councilman Seymour was
absent. MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT:
the motion.
Councilman Roth moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded
Councilman Seymour was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 8:30 P.M.
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK