1996/03/05CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA COUNCIL MINUTES
MARCH 5, 1996
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Tom Tait, Bob Zemel, Frank Feldhaus, Lou Lopez, Tom Daly
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: James Ruth
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER: Gary Johnson
DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR: Mary McCIoskey
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Lisa Sfipkovich
ZONING DIVISION MANAGER: Greg Hastings
A complete copy of the agenda for the me.ag of the Anaheim City Council was posted at 11:55 p.m. on Mamh
1, 1996 at the Civic Center kiosk, containing all items as shown herein.
Mayor Daly called the meeting to order at 3:12 p.m.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION:
City Attorney Jack White requested a Closed Session noting first that there are no additions to Closed
Session items.
PUBLIC COMMENTS - CLOSED SESSION ITEMS:
There were no public comments relative to Closed Session items.
The following items are to be considered at the Closed Session:
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
54956.9(a) - EXISTING LITIGATION:
Name of casa: In re: County of Orange, Debtor, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Central District Case No. SA
94-22272.
CONFERENCE ~ LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9
- PENDING LITIGATION
Number of Cases: Two
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR
Property: Juliette Low School
Negotiating parties: City of Anaheim, Magnolia School District
Under negotiation: Price and terms
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR
Property: Anaheim Stadium
Negotia~ag parlies: City ofAnaheim, Goldenwest Baseball Co., and Disney Baseball Enterprises, Inc.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
54956.9(a) - EXISTING LITIGATION:
Name of case: In re: Roger Morris Inn dba Ramada Main Gate, United States Bankruptcy Court,
Central District Case No. SA.
By general consent, the Council recessed into Closed Session. (3:12 p.m.)
CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 6, 1996
AFTER RECESS:
The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Membem being present, and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting. (5:13 p.m.)
INVOCATION:
Moment of Silence.
FLAG SALUTE:
Boy Scout Troop 1814 led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
Timothy Toussaint, Matlhew Harrison and Chris Hawes, Anaheim Explorer Post 2138 and LaHabra Boy Scout
Trop 1814 presented the colors and led the assembly in the flag salute.
Special Presentation: Mayor Daly. Tonight they have a special surprise for Timothy Toussaint, one of the
Scouts who presented the colors. He thereupon read a Proclamation which was unanimously adopted by the
City Council. In August of 1995, Timothy came to the rescue of a visiting Chinese Scout, Zu Shu, who was in
serious trouble at the deep end of a swimming pool. Timothy pulled her to safety and helped her to remain
calm. Today the Council and citizens of Anaheim recognize Timothy for his heroic action in coming to the aid
of a fellow Scout. The Mayor also noted that Timothy is a Lineman on the Katella High School Football Team.
Mayor Daly and Council Members personally congratulated Timothy for his heroic actions in the face of an
emergency.
Later in the meeting, Mayor Daly also welcomed other visiting Boy Scout Troops and their leaders to the
Council Meeting - Troop 1161 and Troop 163 from the Latter Day Saints Church on Nohl Ranch and Royal
Oaks Road.
PROCLAMATION recognizing March 1996 as Tree Planting Month in Anaheim, was
authorized by the City Council.
The Proclamation was accepted by Sally White on behalf of Releaf Anaheim and also Reon Boydstun Young,
the Arbor Day Chairman.
INTRODUCTION AND PRESENTATION OF MISS ANAHEIM - 1996 - RACHEL CARSON: Nikki Lehman,
Executive Director, Mb~ Anaheim Scholarship Pageant (Miss Anaheim/Miss America) stated she was pleased
to introduce Miss Anaheim, 1996, Rachel Carson. She also thanked the Council for their support and
attendance by representatives at the Pageant on February 25, 1996. It is her first year as director and she
believes deeply in what she feels is truly a scholarship program. They are fortunate this year to have a young
lady who exemplifies all of the qualifies of a Miss Anaheim/Miss America. She is also a recent Cum Laude
college graduate.
Rachel Carson, Miss Anaheim, 1996. She is pleased to be present tonight. She recently graduated from Biola
UnivemJty with a Social Science degree with an emphasis in Education and plans to return to get her teaching
credential and, later on, Masters Degree in Creative Writing. Her platform will be to speak out on illiteracy in
America. She will be happyto be of service to the City in anyway.
2
CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 5~ 1996
BOY SCOUT FUNDING CAMPAIGN: Council Member Zemel. This year he has the honor and pleasure of
sewing as Chairman of fund raising for the Boy Scouts - the Fdends of Scouting Campaign. He invited the
Council to be a pert of that effort which is a two-month funding program. For those who wish, contributions can
be sent to City Hall, cio himself made out to Boy Scouts of Amedca. The funds will then be diverted to
appropriate chapters
119: RECOGNITIONS AUTHORIZED BY COUNCIL THIS DATE TO BE MAILED OR PRESENTED AT
ANOTHER TIME:
PROCLAMATION recognizing March 1996 as Purchasing Month in Anaheim.
PROCLAMATION recognizing March 10 - 17, 1996, as Jewish War Vetarans of the United States of
Amedca Week in Anaheim.
DECLARATION congratulating Rabbi Mordecai Kieffer on his installation as Rabbi of Temple Beth
Emet.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $2,905,329.87 for the period ending March 1,
1996, in accordance with the 1995-96 Budget, were approved.
Mayor Daly recessed the City Council meeting until after the Redevelopment Agency and Housing Authority
meeting. (5:34 p.m.)
Mayor Daly reconvened the City Council meeting. (5:36 p.m.)
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
There were no additions to agenda items.
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST:
Ralph Montview (Anaheim resident, 19 years). His issue is smoking. Anaheim's ordinance addresses smoking
in the workplace. He is concerned about smoking that goes on in public places such as in apartment houses
where he lives where there are enclosed areas - corridors, passageways, stair cases, elevators, laundry
rooms, etc. Smoking in these areas causes him as a non-smoker with respiratory and other problems, a great
deal of trauma. He recently had a problem with the apartment manager who is a smoker. He went to the
appropriate agencies in the City but it does not appear they are going to help him. He also wrote to the Fair
Housing Council of Orange County and is awaiting some results as well as other agencies. He does not intend
to prevent anyone fi.om smoking where they want to smoke but at least to honor non-smokers especially people
with health problems. He is appealing to the Council to come up with an appropriate ordinance.
Mayor Daly asked Mr. Montview to submit any paper work he may have that might be helpful to Cit7 staff.
Mr, William Simmons, 51 Summitcres~ Dove Canyon, California. He is questioning whether the City will be well
served by making a deal with Disney that involves, in his opinion, destroying a very nice facility that the City
thought was necessary (Anaheim Stadium). He feels it is fundamentally wrong to take a perfectly viable facility,
chopping it in half and asking the City to pay 30 million dollars and in so doing making it a baseball only facility
instead of a mul'6-purpose facility that now brings in 50,000-70,000 people for various events. He is suggesting
that the City consider helping Disney take the 100 million and build a baseball friendly stadium next to the
existing facility and utilizing it for Disney and the Angels. He urged that the Council consider saving a viable
entity and getting a multi-purpose facility. He believes they will do the right thing.
Mayor Daly. Mr. Simmons raises a lot of good points and those are questions they are asking.
CITY OF ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 5~ 1996
PUBLIC COMMENTS - AGENDA ITEMS:
Public input was received on agenda Item C1. See discussion under that item,
MOTION:
Mayor Daly moved to waive reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions to be acted upon
for the Council meeting of March 5, 1996. Council Member Zemel seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR:
On motion by Mayor Daly, seconded by Council Member Zemel, the following items were approved in
accordance with the reports, cer~fications and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed
on the Consent Calendar; Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 96R-27, for adoption. Mayor Daly offered
Ordinance Nos. 5552 through 5555, for adoption. Refer to Resolution/Ordinance Book.
Al. 118:
f.
g.
h.
I.
The following claims were filed against the City and action taken as recommended:
Claims rejected and referred to Risk Management:
Claim submitted by Joseph E. Rhodes for property damage sustained purportedly due to
actions of the City on or about January 1, 1996.
Claim submitted by Rodolfo R. Gutierrez for property damage sustained purportedly due to
actions of the City on or about January 21, 1996.
Claim submitted by Rajesh Kumar Talwar for pmport7 damage sustained purportedly due to
actions of the City on or about December 13, 1995.
Claim submitted by Abigail Chavez for propen'y damage sustained purportedly due to actions
of the City on or about January 1, 1996.
Claim submitted by Leslie C. Webb for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions
of the City on or about December 24, 1995.
Claim submitted by Tony Casillas for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions
of the City on or about January 22, 1996.
Claim submitted by Laura J. Quiroz for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions
of the City on or about December 30, 1995.
Claim submitted by Alan Goldman c/o Lee P. O'Connor Esq. for indemnity arising purportedly
due to actions of the Cib/on or about January 27, 1995. (Main action Anthony Montez, et al.
Vs Alan Golman, et al. OCSC No. 754342).
Claim submitted by Gilbert D. Porter for proper damage sustained purportedly due to actions
of the City on or about December 23, 1995.
Claim submitted by Peters & Associates/Max Peters for properly damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 23, 1995.
Claim submilted by Alice Archuletta for properb/damage sustained purportedly due to actions
of the City on or about January 1,1996.
Claim submitted by Salvatore T. Scotto for property damage sustained purportedly due to
actions of the City on or about January 2, 1996.
4
CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 6~ 1996
Claim submitted by Ramon Zavala for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions
of the City on or about January 1, 1996.
Claim submitted by Neila C. Wells for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions
of the City on or about January 1, 1996.
Claim submitted by Mamdouh S. Ghazi for property damage sustained purportedly due to
actions of the City on or about January 1, 1996.
105: Receiving and filing minutes ofthe Telecommunications Policy Advisory Committee meeting held
December 21, 1995.
105: Receiving and tiling minutes of the Budget Advisory Commission meeting held January 17, 1996.
105: Receiving and tiling minutes of the Anaheim Private Industry Council meeting held Januaiy 25,
1996.
A3.
149: ORDINANCE NO. 5552 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING CHAPTER
14.36 OF TITLE 14 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO DRIVEWAY PERMITS
IN BUSINESS DISTRICTS. (Introduced atthe meeting of February 27, 1996, Item A4.)
153: ORDINANCE NO. 5553 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION
1.04.110 OF CHAPTER 1.04 OF TITLE 1 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
DEPARTMENTS OF THE CITY. (CITY DEPARTMENT REORGANIZATION.) (Introduced at the
meeting of February 27, 1996, Item A13.)
A5.
000: ORDINANCE NO. 5554 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING SECTIONS
17.30.075 AND 17.31.075 TO CHAPTERS 17.30 AND 17.31, RESPECTIVELY, OF TITLE 17 OF THE
ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO STADIUM AREA FEE ADJUSTMENTS. (Introduced
at the meeting of February 27, 1996, Item A15.)
A6.
168: Directing staff to notify 230 property owners potentially affected by new street names required
as part of the I-5 widening project; and agendizing a Resolution to adopt the street name changes
effective with comple'don of the I-5 construction stages. Segment 1 - Anaheim Boulevard to Anaheim
Way, effective November 1997; Segment 2 - Freedman Way to Disney Way, effective February 1998;
Segment 3- West Street to Disneyland Drive, effective December 1999; Segment 4 - Bellevue/Illinois
will be the same (realigned), effective November 1998, and Segment 5 - Rhodes/Devonshire will be
the same (realigned), effective March 1999.
Mayor Daly. There has been quite a bit of communication in recent days on the wisdom of the proposed street
name changes. This is the first step and after this evening, all affected property owners will be notified. He
asked the City Manager if the item is approved tonight, when will the final resolution be coming forward.
City Manager Ruth deferred to the Public Works Director.
Gary Johnson, Public Works Director and City Engineer. One of the reasons they need to move ahead is
because Caltrans has flowed the City they are in the final process of the construction drawings for the I-5 for
all the signing. If the City is contemptatJng changes to one of the major corridors, they need to take some action
or there will be a local cost associated with the delay. He asked Mr. Lower to speak to the time frame.
John Lower, Traftic and Transportation Manager. It is necessary to move forward on an aggressive schedule
because of Caltmns' need to have resolutions relative to street name changes by the end of the month. They
intend to move forward with letters to affected property owners this week and to schedule reconsideration within
two weeks, the last opportunity being the last Council meeting in Mamh.
CITY OF ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 5~ 1996
Coundl Member Zemel. He has con(ems about the timing. They am trying to save money but he is wondering
if the timing is ill advised. They are in the middle of negotiating with Disney on the Stadium project. They still
don't know what the Westcot project is. He is concerned with renaming streets ahead of knowing what the
plans am and this is in conjunction with that whole plan. He does not feel it is prudent to spend any more staff
time or effort and to notify any more property ownem without knowing what the project is going to be.
Personally, no matter what Caitrans needs at this time, he is going to oppose the item.
Council Member Tait. He appredates what staff is doing trying to save money and for that mason, he will vote
to move forward. It is not a final decision, but he does have some concern about changing Freedman Way.
It was named after a philanthropist in the City and he is concerned about changing street names that have been
named for individuals. He would like to put it in staff's hands and have another street named Freedman Way
or something along that line.
Council Member Zemel. Apparently, he is alone in his opposition. If so, West Street is one of the gateway
streets in Anaheim. There were citizens at the Volunteer Banquet last night who expressed that it is a very
important geographical street and an historic part of the City. He would like to discuss that issue if they are
going forward with this recommendation.
Mayor Daly. His pempeclive on the West Street issue - the original West Street is part of the heart of the City.
North, South, East and West Streets are the original boundaries of Anaheim. The section proposed for
renaming is the sa'etch south of the I-5 Freeway outside of the original core area. He can support the proposal
because the integrity of the historic portions will be maintained.
Council Member Zemel voted no on Item A6.
A7.
A8.
A9.
113: RESOLUTION NO. 96R-27 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN RECORDS MORE THAN TWO YEARS
OLD. (CITY CLERK RECORDS.)
150: Approving the appropriation of $5,000 into the urban forestry program revenue account number
101-213-4242-5999, and $5,000 to expenditure account number 101-213-4242-7825 for tree planting
in the Riverdale Park area.
130: ORDINANCE NO. 5555 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE
TRANSFER OF THE CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE GRANTED TO M.L. MEDIA PARTNERS,
LTD TO CENTURY VALLEY COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION. (Introduced at the meefing of
February 27, 1996, Item D1.)
A10. 114: Approving minutes of the Anaheim City Council meeting held February 13, 1996.
Roll Call Vote on Ordinance Nos. 5552 throuqh 5555, beth inclusivet for adoption:
AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Tait, Zemel, Feldhouse, Lopez, Daly
NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Ordinance Nos. 5552 through 5555, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted.
6
CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 5, 1996
Roll Call vote on Resolution No. 96R- 27 for adoption:
AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Tait, Zemel, Feldhaus, Lopez, Daly
NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 96R-27 duly passed and adopted.
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR. MOTIONS CARRIED. Council Member Zemel voted No on Item A6.
D1. 179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 94-954)9
CONDmONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3776 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: DONALD A. MILLER, CIO Glenn Hellyer, 1225 W. Uncoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805
AGENT: GLENN HELLYER, 1225 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION: 301 S. Anaheim Boulevard. Property is approximately 0.87 acre located at the southwest
corner of Anaheim Boulevard and Broadway.
For a change in zone from the CG (Commercial, General) Zone to the CL (Commemial, Umited) or
e less intense zone.
To permit a 3,075-square foot drive-through restaurant with an outdoor patio area.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 94-95-09 GRANTED, UNCONDITIONALLY (PC95-130) (7 yes votes).
CUP NO. 3776 GRANTED (PC95-131).
Approved Negative Declaration.
HEARING SET ON: A review of the Planning Commission's decision requested by Council Membem Lopez
and Tait at the meeting of November 7, 1995.
Public hearing continued from the meetings of December 5, 1995, Item D4, January 9, 1996, Item D1, and
February 6, 1996, Item D1 to this date (see minutes those dates).
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin - November 23, 1996.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - November 17, 1996.
Posting of property - November 22, 1996.
STAFF INPUT:
See staff report to the Planning Commission dated July 10, 1995.
Mayor Daly asked first to hear from staff relative to anything that has transpired since the last time this matter
was continued at the meeting of February 6, 1996.
Mary McCIoskey, Deputy Planning Director. The matter was continued in order for the Community
Development Department to continue to meet with the applicant regarding his proposal for a drive-thru
restaurant and other altemate land uses. Lisa Sfipkovich has fon~varded a supplemental report dated February
29, 1996 and is present to answer any questions.
Lisa Stipkovich, Executive Director of Community Development. The report of February 29, 1996 is a joint
report with the Planning Director wherein they are recommending rezoning of the property from CG to CL.
Concerning the CUP and alternate uses, they met with the representative of the owner, Glen Hellyer, and
discussed other possible uses, specifically a sit-down restaurant and whether he had any interest from potential
restaurant users. Mr. Hellyer indicated that he had not and he did not think it was a site that was attractive in
terms of a sit-down restaurant. Staff indicated overall it was not something that the Redevelopment plan
iden'~ed. It was just a general commercial use both on the general plan and the Redevelopment plan. Staff
7
CiTY OF ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 5~ 1996
is concemed that another restaurant might be competing with other restaurants in the downtown Alpha Project
area who are presently experiencing difficult7 with their operations. The discussion regarding a sit-down
restaurant and the feasibility of whether the agency would have some way to assist him if he did have potential
users would not seem to be a viable alternative. In the discussions, they recommended CG to CL and also
indicated that this CUP, if Council wanted to approve it although staff is not recommending they do so, it should
be done with all the conditions imposed pdor to this date. Mrs. McCloskey may have additional information.
Mary McCleskey. The conditions are included in PC95-131 and also recommended are the conditions by staff
in report dated January 2, 1996.
Mayor Daly asked to hear from the representative for the applicant.
Glen Hellyer, Paul Kott & Associates, 1225 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim. The interaction with staff has resulted
in the add~ional conditions now before the Council. They are in agreement those accomplish what they all want
for the City. He would like some clarification with regard to the condition concerning type of service, if that is
requiring waitress service only as opposed to the prospect of counter only service. If so, that is one cond~on
where he will request relief because he does not believe waitress only would be viable. He also agrees with
staffthat the prospacts of the City offering an incentive to have an upscale sit-down restaurant would only assist
inthe 'cannibalization" of the existing restaurants. He is otherwise in agreement with the conditions and would
like to move ahead. It will be a win-win for all concerned. In the absence of the Council's discretionary
approval, the options would not fit the downtown area.
To bring the Council up to date, they have an offer for a car lot. The operator believes that is consistent with
neighboring land use continguous to the south. There is also interest again by Ted's Place. He ('red) is
watching the events this evening to see if he might want to come back into the area and build his original
restaurant plus they have another national name franchise waiting to see if a drive-through component would
be acceptable to the Council.
Mayor Daly. In the January 2, 1996 report, the condition Mr. Hellyer referred to is condition #4 of the 8
condillons on page 2. Those are conditions recommended by Planning staff over and above those approved
by the Planning Commission. He then invited comments from the Council.
Council Member Lopez. The Council throughout the years has had a master plan for downtown which he has
supported. The proposal outlined by Mr. Hellyer is totally unacceptable to him. The community center is going
to be built behind City Hall, the Celebrity Theafre is again open, and if they have to wait another two, five, or ten
years, they should do so in order to get what they want, something which will be an asset to the downtown area
such as a nice restaurant that will complement the entire area. Eventually, he feels the time will be right for a
restaurant such as Norm's where the area's Seniors will be able to go for a cup of coffee.
Lisa Stipkovich. She clarified upon questioning by Council Member Feldhaus that relative to the rezoning
proposed from CG to CL, it would not impact a car sales use. Either zone would require a CUP for any car
sales.
Mayor Daly asked to hear from those who wished to speak.
In/Pickler, 2377 Mall Ave., Anaheim. He referred to his prior comments (see minutes of 12/5/95). Downtown
is going to develop and this location is a gateway to the area. He has no problem with the zone change or a
problem with a restaurant, but does with a drive-through or outdoor patio component. There have been
problems with the relocation of the INS office to the area which is just across the intersection and a drive-
through, outdoor patio would not help. He feels that Norm's will take another look at possibly relocating to the
property the closer the freeway widening comas. They are waiting to get their money from Caltrans. He would
not like to see the City rush into anything since they have already waited 20 years for Redevelopment plans to
materialize which has been happening.
Wally Courtney, 1225 W. Lincoln, associate of Glen Hellyer. He feels that Council Member Lopez and Mr.
Pickler are confused. Their proposal is a restaurant. The idea of the drive-through is totally economics. They
cannot get a restaurant without the drive-through component. There are other interests in the property such
CITY OF ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 6~ 1996
as a car lot and uses that do not need Council approval. They are tr~ng to bring about the restaurant but the
only economical way is with a d~ve-through. It is a very nice looking building. Final approval will have to come
from the Council but they cannot even get to that point if they do not approve the restaurant proposal.
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager explained for the Mayor that the Planning Commission will have to
review the final plans as well as hours of operation which were not presented because there is no tenant as
provided in the conditions imposed by the Commission. It would be the site plan, floor plan, landscaping,
signage, elevations, roofing material and hours of operation.
City Attorney White confirmed that the only approval that will be retained by the Council is to determine whether
or not there has been compliance with those specific conditions. The Council has to act in a reasonable
manner in determining compliance and that is the only discretion. It will be very limited. Also, if they are to
grant a CUP and, for example, it was the XYZ restaurant and they then sold it to ABC, as long as that
restaurant met all the conditions in the permit, they could change the name of the restaurant and a different
chain or different franchise could operate it..
Lisa Stipkovich. She clarified that relative to the Council's discretion with regard to future approval, the plans
go back tO the Commission and not the City Council. The Council would not see them again but the Planning
Commission would; City Atlomey White. The way the condi'~on is worded, the Council would not have the ability
to review the Planning Commission's decision unless language was added saying that It would be subject to
Council appeal or review as with any other zoning decision. Council decision would be limited to hours of
operation and landscaping.
Gary Field, 120 E. Broadway, Anaheim - Hilgenfeld Mortuary (direly across the street to the east). They object
to the drive-through component, it would tend to create a lot of trash and litter of the streets. There is already
a problem on the Claudina side of their building now from people that go to get fast food and sit in their cars,
picnic on the lawn, and throw trash in the street. This would just be an aggravation of the existing problem.
A nice sit-down restaurant would be fine but he realizes there are economics to be considered.
Dasiree Roach, 455 E. Cent. er Street, Anaheim. She objects because she lives in the area and there is already
a big loitering problem. A drive-through would create more loitering, more people and an accumulation of
teenagers causing problems. She would vote for a nice restaurant which she does not feel is now available.
Answering Council Member Tait, Mr. Hastings stated to his knowledge in recent times, although it is not a
requirement, a CUP has not been granted for a drive-through without knowing who the tenant was going to be.
City Attomey White. The normal procedure is to have a tenant along with the application process. However,
they cannot and have not in the past limited an operation to a particular restaurant. It is a matter of information
up front when action is taken.
Extensive discussion and questioning followed with additional input given by Mr. Hellyer, questions posed to staff
and the City Attorney by Council Members, etc. (Also see minutes of 12/5/95, 1/9 and 2/6/96 where a number
of the same issues were discussed).
City Attorney White clarified several points - the City does not grant a CUP spocuiating on who the operator
of a use is going to be. Under existing law, the City would not have the right to deny approval or retain the
discretion to deny approval based upon who the operator was provided they have met all other conditions. The
alternative would be to deny the permit and put the onus on the property owner to determine who the operator
is. Trediitonally, an applicant enters into an escrow contingent upon receiving the zoning approvals and once
the operator is locked in, for the operator to then appear before the Planning Commission and the Council
where he can answer quas~ons specitically about what the operation is going to be. It is an option the Council
has. He also added that in this case, under the State Streamlining Permit Act, tonight is the last night the
Council is legally in a position to act since even if the applicant stipulated to a continuance, the matter cannot
be continued beyond tonight. He also confirmed for Council Member Feldhaus that it is possible to approve
the CL zoning and a restaurant without the d~ve-thmugh component and at some later date, the applicant could
come back and ask for a modification on the CUP if the restaurant becomes known. They could apply for a
9
CITY OF ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 6~ 1996
different CUP or a modification to the existing CUP.
Council Member Zemel asked if they were to approve the zone change and the CUP today, would that preclude
the potential user from coming in and asking for Redevelopment funds.
Lisa Stipkovich. She answered, not technically. A Redevelopment subsidy, if there was one, would be based
upon the economics of the project not whether they did or did not have certain zoning.
Council Member Zemel. Restaurants have received economic help and subsidies from Redevelopment and
most have failed. If they do approve the project and that issue comes up, he would like to know the user and
whether it will be economically viable before going forward with a CUP. Since this is in a Redevelopment area,
the economics of it are important. If an owner came in and wanted to build and do what Mr. Hellyer is saying,
he believes it would be a success and he feels the demographics would support it. He is suggesting that it is
important to look at the whole picture. He clarified he is prepared to support a zone change but not the CUP.
In the last few years, eight out often restaurants have received economic help and those eight have gone
under. Mr. Hellyer has been involved in several of them. He personally does not want to do that again. If they
do end up approving a subsidy on a project that Mr. Hellyer brings to the Council later on the site, he would like
to have the opportunity to go over the CUP at the same time unless Mr. Hellyer will agree to a condition in the
CUP that he will not be seeking a subsidy for a future tenant.
Glen Hellyer. He agrees that in the absence of a need for a sit-down restaurant and since this is the pdce point
they need - a 3,000 s.f. restaurant with a drive-through component and moderately pdced - there should not
be a subsidy and he will stipulate to that. The intent is not to bait and switch.
Council Member Zemel. He confirmed he will support the CUP if Mr. Hellyer makes that stipulation; City
Attorney White. That can be done if the Council wished to do so.
Council Member Zemel. In that way, he would be able to support the zoning change and the CUP.
Council Member Lopez. Downtown, although it may have other restaurants, does not have the kind of sit-down
restaurant he would like to see on the property. He is very concerned if they end up with a drive-through
restaurant they will also end up with day laborers hanging out at the location. He pointed to the day laborer
problem at Orangethorpe and Krsemer by a donut shop where there has been difficulty in getting them off the
property, v~r~h a d~ve-4hrough component on the subject corner, he feels it will bring about the same problem
and cause a deterioration of the area where the goal is to beautify this key area and make it appealing. He is
going to oppose the proposal.
Council Member Feldhaus. He would like to see a resolution to this situation. He thought they were going to
have one by rezoning the property CL with a restaurant entitlement and then the opportunity for the applicant
to come back and ask for a drive-through component but apparently, from what he perceives, it has to be all
or nothing.
Council Member Tait. He is not comfortable with the drive-through component and without knowing who the
operator is, he is not willing to give his approval for that component.
Mayor Daly. He is willing to consider a drive-through but would need to know who the operator is.
Coundl Member Feldhaus. His intent is to offer the resolution approving the zone change to CL and approving
a restaurant but without the drive-through component and subject to the applicant being able to return at a later
date when they have an interested operator for the property and reapplying for a modification.
Glen Hellyer. The Council's charge is to discuss a use and not an operator and their discretionary approval
is only relative to the drive-through component.
lO
CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 5, 1996
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Council Member Zemel
seconded by Council Member Feldhaus the City Council approved the negative declaration upon finding that
it has considered the negative declaration together with any comments received during the public review
process, end further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received that there is no
substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED.
Council Member Zemel offered Resolution No. 96R-28 for adoption.
RESOLUTION NO. 96R-28 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE
ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE SHOULD BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN
ZONES SHOULD BE CHANGES. (RECLASSIFICATION NO. 94-95-09)
Roll Call vote on Resolution No. 96R- 28 for adoption:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Tait, Zemel, Feldhaus, Daly
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Lopez
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 96R-28 duly passed and adopted.
Council Member Feldhaus offered Resolution No. 96R-29 for adoption granting CUP No. 3776 subject to the
Planning Commission conditions in resolution PC95-131 and staff conditions contained in report dated January
2, 1996 but without the drive-through component
RESOLUTION NO. 96R-29: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3776.
Before a vote was taken, City Attorney White stated so that the record is clear, it is still appropriate to have a
CUP at this time because there is still an outdoor seating area request for which the code requires a CUP
unless it is eliminated. Mr. Hellyer indicated the only reason the CUP was needed was for the drive-through
component when, in fact, ti is also needed for the outdoor seating which is still part of what Council Member
Feldhaus has offered. It is possible if there were an entirely enclosed restaurant wffh no drive-through and
outdoor seating area, it could go in without a CUP. Those are the options if the resolution is adopted.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolu'don with the understanding that the CUP is subject to all Planning
Commission and Planning staff conditions approving the proposed restaurant which includes outdoor seating
but no drive-through component.
Roll Call vote on Resolution No. 96R- 29 for adoption:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Tait, Feldhaus, Daly
MAYOR/COUNCiL MEMBERS: Zemel, Lopez
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 96R-29 duly passed and adopted.
Council Member Zemel. He would like the record to reflect that his no vote is not that he is opposed to the
restaurant but because he supports the concept that Mr. Hellyer is puffing forth.
CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 5, 1996
D2.
185: PUBLIC HEARING - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 904)2, CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT,
CLASS 21:
OWNER: ANAHEIM LEISURE INC, c/o 75 Wall Street, 12th Floor, New York, New York 10265
AGENT: LEE & ASSOCIATES, A'I-rN: ERNIE JOHANSON, INC., SR. VICE PRESIDENT, 13181
Crossroads Parkway North, Suite 300, City of Industry, CA 91746-3497
LOCATION: 1750 South State Colleqe Boulevard. Properly is appro)~mately 11.8 acres located at
the northeast corner of State College Boulevard and Katella Avenue.
Pe~oner requests cancellation for the Central Park Towers Development Agreement No. 90-02.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Cancellation for the Central Park Towers Development Agreement No. 90-02.
The Planning Commission by motion unanimously recommended termination of the Development
Agreement at their March 4, 1996 meeting.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
PublicalJon in Anaheim Bulletin - February 22, 1996.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - February 22, 1996.
Posting of property - February 23, 1996.
STAFF INPUT:
See Staff report to the Planning Commission dated Mamh 4, 1996.
Mary McCIoskey, Deputy Planning Director. This is a request for cancellation of the Development Agreement
in conjunction with a project that was approved in 1991. There will also be a CUP coming to the Council in
approximately a month for termination in connection with the project. A representative of the applicant is
present and would like to speak.
Mayor Daly opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak.
Ernie Johanson, 4822 Rogue Road, Irvine. He is present on behalf of Anaheim Leisure, Inc., the exclusive
agent. They are located in New York City and he is present representing them in case there are any
questions.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the Public Hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Council Member Zemel,
seconded by Council Member Daly, the C~ Council determined that the proposed activity falls within the
defin~ion of Section 3.01 Class 21, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for an Environmental
Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR. MOTION CARRIER.
Council Member Zemel offered Resolution No. 96R-30 for adoption.
RESOLUTION NO. 96R-30: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
TERMINATING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 90-02.
Roll Call vote on Resolution No. 96R- 30 for adoption:
AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Tait, Zemel, Feldhaus, Lopez, Daly
NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 96R-30 duly passed and adopted.
CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 6, 1996
Mayor Daly offered Ordinance No. 5556 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 5556 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 5201 AND APPROVING THE CANCELLATION OF
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 90-02.
Cl.
139: Discussion and potential resolution to take a position on Measure "-r'" requested by Council
Member Zemel at the meeting of February 13, 1996. (Continued from the meeting of March 5, 1996,
Item Cl .)
Mr. Steve White, 856 N. Clemen§ne, Anaheim. He is speaking as the Secretary of Anaheim HOME and as the
President of the Steering Committee of the Committees of Correspondence and a Member of the Orange
County Charter Commission. He then gave reasons why they are opposed to Measure T and asked that the
Council pass a resolution in opposition to what they consider a singularly undemocratic and ill-advised
measure.
City Clerk, Lee Sohl. At last week's meeting, the Council discussed whether or not they wished to take a
pesi~on on this issue (see minutes of Felxuary 27, 1996). She was requested to line up speakers pro and con
for this evening but was unable to get anyone to speak in favor to be present at tonight's meeting. What she
proposes if the Council wishes to conitnue the item, they could have speakers pro and con as well as a member
of the League of Women Voters (neutral position) to make a presentation at the meeting of March 12, 1996.
Council Member Zemel. He feels it is necessary to go forward this evening regardless. He would like to
discuss the matter tonight and offer a resolution. They need to give the Mayor their opinions on the items to
be considered by the League under Item C2. as well which includes Measure T.
Mayor Daly. As Council Member Zemel pointed out, there is a resolution on Measure T to be considered under
C2. which is part of the League of Cities summary. He is going to suggest that they discuss the issue as part
of C2. He asked the Coundl if they wish to act on Cl. tonight or continue it to a future meeting and ask the City
Clerk to continue to try to schedule speakers.
MOTION. Mayor Daly moved to continue item C1. for one week and to direct the City Clerk to continue
communicating with various groups to have a representative(s) speak on the issue pro and con.
Before further action was taken and alter additional discussion, Council Member Zemel stated he was going
to oppose any continuance. He does not feel they need to continue the matter and as he stated before, he
does not know what anybody could say that would change his mind in favor of the measure.
Council Member Tait. He will second the motion and support the continuance of both Item Cl. and C2. since,
as the City Clerk stated, there are those who did wish to speak but were unable to be present tonight.
A vote was then taken on the motion to continue the matter, Item C1. only at this time as clarified by the Mayor.
Council Member Zemel voted No. MOTION CARRIED.
The City Clerk asked if the Council had in mind any time limits since the speakers have asked; Mayor Daly.
He feels it would be best to leave it to the discretion of the Council this evening. If anyone has a suggestion,
they should communicate that through the C~ Clerk's Office.
3.3
CITY OF ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH $~ 1996
C2. 139: Review of Resolutions to be voted on at the Orange County League of Cities Division General
meeting on March 14, 1996.
Mayor Daly. There will be a variety of resolutions that will be on the League's agenda on March 14, nine days
from today.
Council Member Zemel. Perhaps he misspoke since there are, in fact, two days after next week's Council
meeting before the League of Cities Meeting on Mamh 14. In that case, he can support a continuance on this
item.
MOTION. Mayor Daly move to continue Item C2. for one week. Council Member Tait seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
Before concluding, the City Clerk noted that this was an item the Council discussed previously and established
an 'informal procedure" to handle League of Cities issues. She asked if this was the procedure anticipated or
Council want something different.
Council Member Zemel. He feels it is a good compromise. He believes it serves them well. It is not formal
and the Council will not have to take positions, but if they want to, they will be able to do so; Mayor Daly. It is
a good layout and he believes it is helpful.
C3. 114: COUNCIL COMMENTS:
There were no comments.
C4. REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS:
City Attorney Jack White stated that there no actions to report.
ADJOURNMENT: By general Council consent, the Council Meeting of March 5, 1996 was adjourned
(7:13 P.M.).
LEONORA N. SOHL
CITY CLERK
3_4