1994/05/17City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINt~I~S - MAY 17, 1994 - 5.'00 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Feldhaus, Simpson, Pickler, Daly
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Hunter
CITY MANAGER: James Ruth
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
ASSISTANT CITY CLERK: Ann M. Sauvageau
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Lisa Stipkovich
UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER: Edward Aghjayan
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Joel Fick
CODE ENFORCEMENT MANAGER: John Pools
A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was
posted at 9:55 a.m. on May 13, 1994 at the Civic Center kiosk, containing all
items as shown herein.
Mayor Daly called the workshop portion of the meeting of May 17, 1994 to order
at 3:06 p.m., all Council Members being present with the exception of Council
Member Hunter.
City Manager James Ruth introduced the first workshop presentation to be given
jointly by Lisa Stipkovich, Executive Director of Community Development and
Ed AghJayan, Utilities General Manager.
175/161: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/PUBLIC UTILITIES "POWERFUL PARTNERSHIP"
(ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT):
Lisa Stipkovich, Executive Director of Community Development. She gave an
overview of the current status of economic conditions in the City noting that
Anaheim's unemployment rate is at 7.8% compared to the State of 8.9% and the
Nation, 6.8%. (Her presentation was supplemented by slides.) Orange County
and Anaheim are losing manufacturing jobs and high tech jobs while the
services and tourism jobs are remaining constant or are a positive. The
'City's economic development programs are concentrating on these manufacturing
and high tech jobs. The severe drop off in Anaheim's sales tax revenues since
1988-89 has also had a negative impact on the economy of the City.
Ed Aghjayan, Public Utilities General Manager then briefed the "Powerful
Partnership" program which started after the Economic Development Strategic
Plan was developed in 1990. Public Utilities and Community Development worked
together to help companies stay in Anaheim. He briefed the objectives and
accomplishments of the program and the economic benefits to the Utilities
having kept the companies in the City. He also briefed the Community
Development programs and the Public Utilities programs involved, new
partnership opportunities, the concept of energy parks, small business
assistance, etc.
Mrs. Stipkovich then explained the program marketing they have done noting
that some of the innovative programs have won awards. She briefed the various
elements of the marketing program which included advertising, business round
tables, trade shows, real estate brokerage outreach and targeted marketing.
She explained for Council Member Pickler that the best results have been
through advertising in the Orange County Business Journal relocation insert
and the outreach they do with brokers. She concluded her portion of the
presentation by relaying "success stories" - those companies who have stayed
in Anaheim or have relocated to Anaheim because of the aggressive "Powerful
Partnership" program. She showed through a series of slides the facilities of
250
City Hall, Anaheim, California - CO~¢IL MINUTES - MAY 17, 1994 - 5:00 P.M.
those companies who are now or will be located in Anaheim such as SPW, MTI,
Allen-Bredley, Glacial Gardens Ice Arena, See Color Tech Styles, etc. They
are currently working with 48 businesses which represent about 8,000 jobs.
The joint presentation was followed by questions from Council Members. Mayor
Daly asked that the Council be provided with hard copies of the summary's
statistics presented in the slides; Council Member Simpson recommended that
the same presentation be given to the Chamber of Commerce and perhaps the
Visitor & Convention Bureau.
Mayor Daly thanked staff for the informative presentation and commended
Mrs. Stipkovich and Mr. Aghjayan on the Powerful Partnership program. The
business community in particular needs to know that the investment that has
been made is paying dividends. It is a job very well done.
City Manager Ruth. The next presentation on the Brown Act was requested by
Council Member Feldhaus to be given by City Attorney Jack White.
112= "WHAT IS A MEETING UNDER THE BROWN ACT?"=
City Attorney White. He has distributed to the Council a copy of the Brown
Act as amended through April 1, 1994 and also a subsequent amendment from
April 1. Also submitted was a question and answer document prepared by
several City Attorneys for the League of California Cities. (See Memorandum
dated May 10, 1994 from the City Attorney to the City Council attached to
which was a copy of the current text of the Ralph M. Brown Act and a copy of
"Questions and Answers on the New Brown Act" prepared and distributed by the
League of California Cities - made a part of the record.)
It becomes clear from the material that there are still a lot of unanswered
questions and areas yet to be resolved. He then explained what constitutes a
meeting of the legislative body and the only two situations in which a meeting
can now occur. He also briefed what a legislative body is - that it is not
only the City Council, but other advisory boards and commissions and may also
include liaison committees of the City Council.
Relative to liaison committees, he believes the safest course of action is to
regard liaison committees as legislative bodies under the Brown Act even
though his own personal opinion is, the way the City conducts liaison
committee meetings, they are not really so called legislative bodies that the
Brown Act is seeking to regulate. He also explained that relative to
attending functions, a majority of the Council or the entire membership is
allowed to go to a public meeting where the public is invited by some other
board, commission or citizens group provided it is open to the public. The
Council could legally attend, discuss openly City issues and business. The
only thing that could not be done is to meet amongst themselves to take action
as a City Council.
Council Member Feldhaus then posed the questions he had which prompted his
request for a workshop on the Brown Act and certain provisions having to do
with Council liaison meetings with the Chamber of Commerce, exchanging
information with someone or receiving information from staff, concern over
what information has to be made public relative to real property negotiations,
if documents submitted in closed session need to be released to anyone who
asks, etc.
251
City Ball, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 17, 1994 - 5.'00 P.M.
The City Attorney answered the questions and also referred to the appropriate
sections in the material submitted covering provisions of the Brown Act
questioned by Council Member Feldhaus along with other related matters.
RECESS - 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:
me
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR
Property: 2000 S. State College Boulevard
Negotiating parties: Anaheim Stadium Associates and City of
Anaheim
Under Negotiation: Price and Terms
me
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR
Agency Negotiator: David Hill
Employee Organization: Anaheim Firefighters' Association
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR
Agency Negotiator: David Hill
Employee Organization: IBEW Local No. 47
4. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
54956.9(a} - EXISTING LITIGATION
Name of Case: Plaza Landscape, Inc. vs. Anaheim Redevelopment
Agency, et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 71-25-02.
RECESS: Council Member Simpson moved to recess into Closed Session.
Member Daly seconded the motion. Council Member Hunter was absent.
CARRIED. (4:10 p.m.)
Council
MOTION
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present with the exception of Council Member Hunter, and welcomed those
in attendance to the Council meeting. (5:23 p.m.).
INVOCATION: Pastor Tom Mosley, Sunkist Baptist Church, gave the invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Frank Feldhaus led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
119: PRESENTATION - TREE CITY USA AND PRESTIGIOUS GROWTH AWARD:
Recognizing the Urban Forestry section of the Parks, Recreation and Community
Services Department, recipients of the tenth consecutive Tree City USA award
and the prestigious growth award.
Chris Jarvi, Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services briefed the
Council and the Chamber audience on the awards and subsequently introduced the
people responsible for the City having received the awards, Jack Kudron, Park
Superintendent and Sally White, President of Releaf Anaheim.
119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Daly
and authorized by the City Council:
252
City Hallt Anaheimt California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 17~ 1994 - 5=00 P.M.
Recognizing .May, 1994, as Clean Air Month in Anaheim, and presenting an award
to the five grand prize winners.
Recognizing 1994 as the Year of the Family in Anaheim
Diana Kotler, Management Assistant of the City's Commuter Services Office
introduced Yolanda Navarez of the American Lung Association of Orange County
who accepted the proclamation. Also introduced and presented with
certificates were the winners of "The Air We Breathe" poster contest in honor
of Clean Air Month=
Sunim Kim and Marcel Przymusinski, Crescent Elementary; Brandon
Gray, Schweitzer Elementary School; Melissa Ortiz, Marshall
Elementary School and Brittany Williams, City of Anaheim
The youngsters were all third graders.
Reverend Jimmy Gaston, Pastor, Church of Christ accepted the Year of the
Family proclamation along with Suzanne Darwish of the United Nations
Association.
119: DECLARATION OF RECOGNITION: A Declaration of Recognition was
unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to Irv Pickler
recognizing his being chosen this year's honoree of the American Heart
Association, Anaheim Division and his commitment to combating heart disease
through legislation to reduce the effects of second-hand smoke as well as for
his fund-raising efforts which have greatly assisted the American Heart
Association in the areas of education and research.
119: THE FOLLOWING WERE RECOGNITIONS AUTHORIZED BY THE CITY COUNCIL THIS DATE
TO BE MAILED OR PRESENTED AT ANOTHER TIME:
Recognizing June 6 - 11, 1994, as Management Week in Anaheim
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $6,110,255.15 for the
period ending May 13, 1994, in accordance with the 1993-94 Budget, were
approved.
Mayor Daly recessed the City Council meeting until after the Redevelopment
Agency and Housing Authority meetings. (5:49 p.m.)
Mayor Daly reconvened the Cit~ Council meeting. (5:51 p.m.)
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: There were no additions to agenda items.
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST:
Thomas Jones, Owner and general partner of the Hasterwood Apartments, 2045 S.
Haster, Anaheim. He has been on that site for 21 years. He is requesting red
no-stopping on Orangewood from Haster to Clementine due to problems that have
occurred. He has been working with the City and has found 20 to 30 new spaces
on his property. The City has increased the Clementine configuration to gain
28 new spaces. They will pay for the red paint on Orangewood, the white
striping on Clementine and the information signs necessary for Code
Enforcement. He has been working with Alfred Yalda.
Mayor Daly. He asked the City Manager to check into the matter and report
back to the Council.
253
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 17, 1994 - 5:00 P.M.
City Manager Ruth. Staff is already working on this and will report the
status to the Council.
Phil Knypstra, 2520 Gelid, Anaheim. He has done considerable research into
government salaries and has found there is a huge disparity existing in Orange
County between the various government entities. After reading the City's
1994-95 Budget, the Council may consider and possibly impose a 1.5% franchise
fee on the Utilities. The Council has already given raises to two employee
unions and are considering raises for some others. Before doing so, he feels
the Council is obligated to compare the standard of living of City employees
with that of private sector and other government employees such as school
districts. He thereupon submitted a resolution he had prepared which would
obligate the City once each year to list the total compensation for all
government employees. He intends to propose this resolution to other cities
as well. He urged the Council to adopt the resolution. (The material
submitted by Mr. Knypstra was made a part of the record - title - Full
Disclosure on Government Salaries.)
PUBLIC COMMENTS - AGENDA ITEMS: A number of people spoke on Item Bi, Request
for Rehearing on Tentative Tract No. 13266 and Environmental Impact Report
No. 281. Testimony was presented at this time relating to Item Bi but is
shown under Item B1 on today's agenda. (See discussion under Item Bi.)
MOTION: Council Member Pickler moved to waive reading in full of all
ordinances and resolutions to be acted upon for the Council meeting of May 17,
1994. Council Member Simpson seconded the motion. Council Member Hunter was
absent. MOTION CARRIED.
CITY MANAGER/D~PARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Council Member
Pickler, seconded by Council Member Simpson, the following items were approved
in accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished
each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Council Member
Pickler offered Resolution No. 94R-80 for adoption. Council Member Hunter was
absent. Refer to Resolution Book.
Al. 151: Approving an Encroachment License Agreement with Anaperalta
Partnership, requested by Morgan Development for a private sewer line to be
located within Santa Ana Canyon Road right-of-way from Avenida Margarita to
485 feet west of Avenida Margarita (Encroachment No. 93-8E).
A2. 151: Approving an Encroachment License Agreement requested by Orange
County Water District for a ground water monitoring well located within
Liberty Avenue, east of Lemon Street (Encroachment No. 94-3E).
A3. 123: Approving a Reimbursement Agreement with Presley of Southern
California for storm drainage in the Monte Vista Drainage Reimbursement Area
for a period of 20 years to allow reimbursement of cost in excess of their
proportionate share.
A4. 155: Approving a Negative Declaration, pursuant to CEQA findings, for
the construction and widening of Weir Canyon Road/Yorba Linda Boulevard and
SR-91 On/Off Ramp Widening Improvement Project.
A5. 160: To consider accepting the low bid of Electrical Equipment, Inc.,
c/o Ingall's Power Products, in the amount of $19,683 for one PMH-iO motor-
operated sectionalizing switch, in accordance with Bid 95252.
254
City Hall, Anaheimr California - COUNCIL MIN~JTES - MAY 17, 1994 - 5=00 P.M.
City Manager Ruth stated that staff respectfully request the withdrawal of
this item from the agenda.
A6. 160: Accepting the low bid of The Okonite Company, in an amount not to
exceed $84,630 for 20,000 feet of 15KV URD power cable, in accordance with Bid
#5248.
A7. 160= Waiving Council Policy 306, and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to
issue a purchase order to Orange County House Sales, in an amount not to
exceed $55,000 for equipment rental for move-on houses in the Neighborhood
Preservation area for the period of April 1, 1994 through June 30, 1995.
A8. 160: Waiving Council Policy 306, and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to
issue a purchase order, without competitive bidding, to Metricom, Inc., in the
amount of $90,500 for 75 packet radios for the Utility Department.
Ag. 106= Setting a public hearing for June 7, 1994 and June 14, 1994, for
the proposed FY 1994/95 budget; and approving the time schedule for its review
and adoption.
Council Men%bet Feldhaus. He will not be present at the June 14th Council
Meeting.
City Manager Ruth clarified for the Mayor that staff was proposing adoption of
the budget on June 14, if the Council was in agreement. However, it could be
adopted at the meeting of June 21 but just as long as it is adopted by
June 30, 1994.
It was determined that the budget hearing schedule will be left as is but with
adoption of the budget scheduled for the meeting of June 21, 1994.
AIO. 163: RESOLUTION NO. 94R-80: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH ANAHEIM CITY
SCHOOL DISTRICT TO ESTABLISH THE HEALTHY START SERVICE CENTER AT PALM LANE
SCHOOL.
All. 123: Approving an Acknbwledgement and Release Agreement w~%h Southeast
Resource Recovery Facility, for the disposal of controlled substances seized
by the Police Department.
Al2. 155: Considering and approving the Initial Study (prepared by the City
of Anaheim) together with the previously certified FEIR/EIS, and subsequent
Addendum/Reevaluation prepared by the California Department of Transportation
(CALTRANS) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for the I-5 Widening
between State Route 22 and State Route 91 as the adequate environmental
documentation for the Functional Replacement and relocation of the Katella
Electrical Substation.
123: Approving three Agreements between the City and CALTRANS; A Real Estate
Agreement, An On-Site Utility Agreement No. 12250, and An Off-Site Utility
Agreement No. 12210.
175: Awarding a Turnkey Services Contract to construct the new Katella
Electrical Substation, contingent upon final execution of the three Agreements
with CALTRANS, to the lowest responsible bidder, Power Systems Development, in
the amount of $7,624,671.94; and in the event said low bidder fails to comply
with the terms of the award, awarding the contract to the second low bidder,
255
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 17, 1994 - 5:00 P.M.
as well as waiving any irregularities in the bids of both the low and second
low bidders. (Continued from the meeting of May 10, 1994).
A13. 114: Approving minutes of the Anaheim City Council meetings held April
26 and May 3, 1994.
Al4. 128: Receiving and filing the Annual Progress Report for Fiscal Year
1993/94.
Al5. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a change order to
Halprin Supply, for an additional amount of $19,416 bringing the total
purchase to $118,416 for structural firefighting clothing, in accordance with
Bid #5147.
Al6. 123: Approving an Attorney Services Agreement with the law firm of
Jeffrey Epstein & Associates, and authorizing the City Attorney to sign the
Agreement on behalf of the City of Anaheim.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 94R-80 for adoption:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Feldhaus, Simpson, Pickler, Daly
None
Hunter
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 94R-80 duly passed and adopted.
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR. MOTXONS CARRXED.
Al7. 0001 HEARING - REVISION OF PARKING FEES FOR ARENA OVERFLOW GUEST
PARKING AT ANAHEIM STADIUM:
To consider a resolution authorizing Anaheim Stadium to set competitive
parking rates for Arena guest overflow parking at Anaheim Stadium on such
occasions when the Stadium parking lots are open and operated solely to
provide parking for Arena events.
Submitted was report dated May 17, 1994 from the Stadium General Manager,
Greg Smith recommending the approval of the subject resolution.
Greg Smith, Stadium General Manger then summarized the reasons for the request
and recommendation as outlined in his report.
Mayor Daly asked if anyone was present who wished to speak to the proposed
revision of the parking fees for Arena overflow guest parking at Anaheim
Stadium; there was no response.
Council Member Daly offered Resolution No. 94R-81 for adoption, revising the
parking fees at Anaheim Stadium for Arena event parking. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 94R-81: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM REVISING THE PARKING FEES AT ANAHEIM STADIUM FOR ARENA EVENT PARKING.
Roll Cal~ Vote on Resolution No. 94R-81 for adoption:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Feldhaus, Simpson, Pickler, Daly
None
Hunter
256
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MIN~JTES - MAY 17, 1994 - 5:00 P.M.
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 94R-81 duly passed and adopted.
Bi. 155: REQUEST FOR REHEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 13266 AND ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT NO. 281:
The owner of the property is The Baldwin Company, 16811 Hale Avenue,
Irvine, CA 92714. The property is approximately 6.4 acres located on
the south side of Serrano Avenue and approximately 1100 feet west of the
centerline of Marblehead Drive (Tract No. 13266, The Summit of Anaheim
Hills Specific Plan SP88-2). The petitioner requested a revision to the
previously approved site plan for Tract Map No. 13266 within The Summit
of Anaheim Hills Specific Plan (SP88-2) in order to construct 10 single-
family residential structures ranging from 3,395 to 3,911 square feet
(previously ranging from 4,141 to 5,657 square feet).
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved revision to previously approved site plan for Tract Map No.
13266.
EIR NO. 281 previously approved.
The City Planning Commission at its meeting of March 21, 1994 approved the
revision to the previously approved site plan for Tract Map No. 13266 and EIR
No. 281 was also previously approved.
A letter of appeal of the Planning Commission's decision was submitted by
Mari Penny and Mary Ellen Dwyer dated March 25, 1994 and public hearing held
before the City Council on May 3, 1994. At that meeting, the City Council
approved the revised site plan for Tract Map No. 13266 and certified EIR
No. 281 as being in compliance with CEQA. A letter requesting a rehearing
before the Council was submitted by Mari Penny and Mary Ellen Dwyer in letter
dated May 10, 1994 accompanied by Request for Rehearing and Declaration of
Merit.
The following testimony was given under public comments on Agenda items but
included under 81 since the comments related specifically to this request for
rehearing.
Marl Penny, 8125 Oxley Court, Anaheim. The homeowners of Summit Pointe are
asking for a continuance of this request for rehearing. They feel they have
been wronged since the first level of review and many are considering hiring
legal counsel. They need to consult with more of the homeowners. If they
hire counsel, they want their legal counsel involved in the appellate process.
She reiterated, they are asking for a continuance of this matter for two to
three weeks.
Mayor Daly asked to hear from the City Attorney relative to the standard
practice on this type of request.
City Attorney White. This is an application for a rehearing. Such
applications are historically considered on the basis of the declaration or
affidavit that accompanies the application and which the Council has in their
staff material. If the Council acts upon the request for rehearing and it is
denied, that would not preclude the homeowners from continuing to explore the
possibility with their own legal counsel relating to what remedies they may
have with regard to the decision. He does not believe based upon past
experience in these matters that a prolonged delay in considering the
application is necessary for the purpose of retaining legal counsel. The only
thing that is germane tonight is what the contents of the declaration are that
was submitted along with the filing fee. He would say from past practice that
257
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 17, 1994 - 5:00 P.M.
it has not been a practice of the City Council to delay decisions on
rehearings for extended periods of time.
Mari Penny. At the time the affidavit was filed, they did not know that would
have to be filled out and it was impromptu. They would like to make it more
clear.
Mayor Daly. There was an extensive public hearing on this matter (see minutes
of May 3, 1994 and also minutes of the previous six hearings before the City
Planning Commission). This is simply a request for a rehearing and it is not
appropriate to cover all the ground that has been covered.
Mari Penny. The residents feel the decision that was made was based on
economics rather than architectural compatibility and that nowhere in the
Specific Plan for the Summit or in the Anaheim Municipal Code does it address
revenue for the City as a determining factor in making a decision. Because
building permits are at a lull is not a valid reason, nor should it be a
consideration in a decision that should be based on product compatibility or
architectural integrity of Summit Pointe. The developer has a right to land
use and in this case should conform to the use set forth in the specific plan
presented to the City. The Council voted, approved and endorsed the specific
plan for the Summit which is a planned community concept with seven distinct
neighborhoods. There was also material misrepresentation made regarding sales
of the homes at Summit Pointe leading the Council to believe it took four to
five years to sell the homes. In fact, all the homes built sold within the
first 1~ years. They have copies of the escrow paper showing when the houses
all closed from March, 1991 to August, 1992. They feel that the facts were
disregarded. They had a professional architect at the previous meeting and
material which supported that the homes were incompatible. No evidence has
been shown to show they are in compliance with specific plan guidelines and
the purpose of an appeal of the Planning Commission decision was for the
Council to take an independent and new look at the material - an objective
look. They do not feel there was time for the Council to review all that
material. The appeal process is meaningless if they cannot take a fresh look
at the material from their own personal point of view.
Dennis O'Neal, Law firm of Pettis-Tester, representing Baldwin Company. He
represents the Baldwin Company and has reviewed the application for
reconsideration as well as the Anaheim Municipal Code, Ordinance No. 1.12.100
which sets forth the procedure for the City Council to reconsider their prior
actions. Based on his review of the ordinance and the application and
affidavit, it is their position that all relevant evidence and testimony was
introduced and given both at the numerous hearings before the Planning
Commission and at the over 2 hour hearing before the City Council on May 3,
1994. Ail sides had a fair and open hearing, all sides had an opportunity to
be heard, there was no evidence that was excluded and no abuse of discretion
and, therefore, the application for rehearing does not have merit. He
strongly urged the Council to deny the request for such a reconsideration
and/or any request to continue this matter in order for the applicants for the
reconsideration to retain legal counsel. As the City Attorney advised, that
would not be relevant to the decision before the Council.
Jonathan Goldstein, 1096 S. Taylor Court. The homeowners want a rehearing
because they feel they never got a hearing to start with. The issue was
strictly compatibility or architectural integrity and they feel the City
Council just paid lip service. What they heard were matters relating to the
best economic interests of the City, it seems like a good project, or simply
deference to the staff report of the Planning Commission. The purpose of
258
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 17, 1994 - 5:00 P.M.
going to the Council after a four-to-three vote of the Planning Commission was
to have the Council, the people elected by the citizens, to determine whether
or not, on an architectural basis, the proposal was architecturally consistent
or compatible and consistent with the building plan the City approved. They
did not get such a determination even after the testimony given by the
licensed architect. The decision was not made on an architectural basis or on
the sole issues before the Council. It was made on a political basis.
MOTION= Council Member Pickler moved to deny the request for a rehearing on
the revised site plan for Tract Map No. 13266 and EIR No. 281. Council Member
Feldhaus seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Council Member Feldhaus asked for confirmation that
this action would not preclude the homeowners going back and taking the same
action at a later date.
City Attorney White stated that this would be the final administrative action
on the matter. It is known as exhausting their administrative remedies. If
the motion is adopted, it would be final at this point.
Council Member Feldhaus. It would now entitle them to proceed with whatever
further action they may wish to take.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion denying the request for a
rehearing. Council Member Hunter was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
B2. 179= ORDINANCE NO. 5426 FOR INTRODUCTION: Amending Title 18 to rezone
property under Reclassification No. 93-94-07 located at 125 North Brookhurst
Street and 2217 West Lincoln Avenue from the CH zone to the CL zone.
Council Member Simpson offered Ordinance No. 5426 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 5426: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 TO
REZONE PROPERTY UNDER RECLASSIFICATION NO. 93-94-07 LOCATED AT 125 NORTH
BROOKHURST STREET AND 2217 WEST LINCOLN AVENUE FROM THE CH ZONE TO THE CL
ZONE.
Cl. 107: POOL ROOM PERMIT APPLICATION - PACIFIC BILLIARD CLUB:
Request for Pool Room Permit submitted by Thomas W. Hwei, 1100 Seneca
Place, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 and Leo Chinzon Tseng, 6460 Shady Lawn
Drive, Yorba Linda, CA 92686. The business is located at 1676 West
Lincoln Avenue. The petitioners are requesting approval to jointly
operate 20 pool tables at 1676 West Lincoln Avenue - Pacific Billiard
Club.
Submitted was report dated May 17, 1994 from the Code Enforcement Manager
recommending approval of the application subject to four conditions as listed
on page one of the report. The report also stated that the Police Department
has reviewed the Pool Room Permit Application and has also recommended
approval.
John Poole, Code Enforcement Manager briefed his report and noted that staff
is recommending approval in conjunction with the Police Department subject to
the four conditions enumerated in the report. He noted that they surveyed the
businesses and residential properties in the area and there were no objections
as long as alcoholic beverages were not served.
259
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 17, 1994 - 5=00 P.M.
Mayor Daly.. He underscored the fact that no alcoholic beverages are permitted
as stated in Condition No. 2 - "no alcoholic beverages shall be sold,
possessed or consumed upon the premises at any time".
City Clerk Sohl stated she believes the applicant is in the audience and would
like to speak to the Council.
Leo Chinzon Tseng. He would like the City to remove Condition No. 1 that,
"on-site uniform security shall be provided in the parking lot during hours of
operation". They do not intend to serve alcohol and that will reduce the
chance of any disturbances. According to the industrial statistics, 40% of
the income from this type of business is from serving beer and they will not
be doing so. Secondly, usually in the daytime it is not busy at all.
According to their study and observation, pool room business starts getting
busy around 7:00 p.m. with peak hours 8:00 to 10:00 p.m. during the week and
8:00 to 11~00 p.m. on weekends. Their business projection is approximately
$4,000 a month net profit without a security guard. If they have to hire a
security guard, it will cost $15 an hour according to a quote they received.
They will be paying $6,300 for a guard and will lose at least $2,000 a month
right from the start. He and his partner, Thomas Hwei, both have families and
children and they are probably more concerned about security in their business
than the City. He reiterated they are requesting removal of Condition No. 1.
If they detect any problems, they can hire a security guard at that time.
Council Member Feldhaus. According to the report from the Police Department,
they recommended anytime that special events are held where more than the
normal amount of persons attend, there shall be uniformed security guards.
Joel Fick, Planning Director. It was staff's intention that the condition
relative to the security guard merely apply to special events such as
tournaments with attendance expected above average. Staff would be willing to
clarify that the intention is that that pertains to special events or when
there are crowds above the norm. He also clarified for the Mayor that they
.would not have to acquire a special temporary permit under the circumstances -
if it is just an advertised pool tournament. He also confirmed that there is
no bar or liquor store in the same retail complex.
Council Member Feldhaus asked the capacity of the business; Mr. Tseng
answered, 80 people if there are four at a table.
Council Member Feldhaus suggested that perhaps they should indicate a certain
number signifying a special event.
City Attorney White. It would be easier for staff to administer if there is
an absolute number and also for the applicant to know if attendance exceeds a
certain number there would be no question. To have a certain number would
make it easier for everybody to determine when it is necessary to have outside
security.
Council Member Feldhaus. He suggested the number be 85 which would be the
capacity of the pool table plus attendants. Another thing he would suggest,
in the event the applicant(s) subsequently applies for alcoholic beverages,
that would automatically trigger the requirement for a security guard.
City Attorney White. Condition No. 2 would preclude any sale of alcoholic
beverages or consumption on the premises. Under this permit, the applicant
would not even be able to exercise both the sale of alcohol and pool
application. This would cease upon his attempt to sell alcohol.
260
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 17, 1994 - 5=00 P.M.
Investigator Jim Gandy at the request of Council Member Pickler, gave the
experience the Police Department has had with the billiard establishment at
Lincoln and Brookhurst (Linbrook Family Billiards) which he reported had
relatively low calls for service and is a very well run business.
Council Member Pickler. His concern is not during the day but in the evening.
He asked if they could impose a condition that security be required at night
in case it is needed.
City Attorney White. The code provides that the permit can always be revoked
if the activity is conducted in a way detrimental to the public welfare.
However, the Council has the ability to impose other conditions as well.
After further discussion, City Attorney White stated that if approved, the
condition would be amended to provide that on-site uniformed security would be
provided in the parking lot during hours of operation when on-site occupancy
exceeded 85 persons.
The amendment was agreeable to Mr. Tseng.
MOTION~ Council Member Feldhaus moved to approve the Pool Room Permit
Application for the Pacific Billiard Club at 1676 W. Lincoln Avenue to Jointly
operate 20 pool tables amending Condition No. i as articulated by the City
Attorney. Council Member Pickler seconded the motion. Council Member Hunter
was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
C2. COUNCIL COMMENTS:
114: AMENDMENT TO THE CITY'S NO-SMOKING ORDINANCE:
Council Member Pickler. He would like the Council to reconsider the
no-smoking ban in public places. It is something that has been done by the
County and other cities. He would like the matter placed on the agenda
perhaps sometime in July after budget hearings are over.
City Attorney White. Under the revised Brown Act, individual members of the
Council are authorized to schedule items on future Council agendas. What he
would propose relative to the request is giving the Council a copy of the
County ordinance to compare with the City's current ordinance unless a
majority of the Council wants to direct him to draft an ordinance for
consideration. Otherwise, he will be providing the Council with the necessary
documentation for consideration and the Council could give further direction
at that meeting.
Council Member Pickler clarified the latter is what he had in mind.
114: SOUND WALL ADJACENT TO RAILROAD TRACKS ON ORANGETHORPE:
Mayor Daly. Ail Council Members either visited the site of the proposed
soundwall along the right of way on Orangethorpe (vicinity of Imperial Highway
and to the east along the backside of the residences) or have talked to
residents affected by the sound problem relating to the railroad tracks. He
continues to receive calls telling him that there is increased volume of
trains and idling of trains in the middle of the night right next to people's
homes. He is asking that staff look at another strategy for the City to
pursue, in particular working with the City of Yorba Linda. There has been a
great deal of time spent seeking solutions and he feels it is a problem that
is very significant with no easy and fast solutions. They should work
together with the County and the State. The congressman that serves that area
261
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 17, 1994 - 5=00 P.M.
is interested in helping particularly relating to the potential addition of a
third rail line and also any public works improvement required at the
intersection of Imperial and Orangethorpe.
Council Member Simpson referred to the letter they received today regarding
the meeting that is scheduled for June 10, 1994; Council Member Pickler noted
that the meeting is to be attended by Congressman Kim, State elected
representatives and OCTA. OCTA and the Southern California Regional Rail
Authority feels there is some responsibility. It is a follow-up to the first
meeting and he will be attending.
Council Member Feldhaus stated he will probably be attending as well. A big
hang up is that the residents do not feel they should have to pay anything to
correct the situation because of the abuse of the railroad; Council Member
Simpson. One of the funding mechanisms is to form a benefit assessment
district which brought on the rash of recent phone calls as well as some
misinformation that the Council had already taken a position on the issue. He
told the callers that was not the case.
Mayor Daly. The City will continue to work with State and County officials
who work with the railroads far more frequently and attempt to package a
solution. It will be important to have a couple of Council Members present at
that meeting.
C3. 112: REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS:
City Attorney Jack White announced there was one action to report as follows:
Settlement of litigation - Plaza Landscape vs. Anaheim Redevelopment Agency -
Orange County Superior Court Case 71-25-02 in the amount of $3,575.
The vote on the motion in Closed Session was all ayes with Council Member
Hunter absent.
ADJOURNMENT: By general consent the City Council meeting of May 17, 1994 was
adjourned to Tuesday, May 24, 1994 at 2:00 p.m. for a joint meeting with the
Budget Advisory Commission. (6:50 p.m.)
LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK
262