1998/05/19ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA- CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
May 19, 1998
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
MAYOR: Tom Daly
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Shirley McCracken, Tom Tait, Bob Zemel, Lou Lopez
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: David Morgan
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
ASSISTANT CITY CLERK: Ann Sauvageau
DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR: Mary McCIoskey
ZONING MANAGER: Greg Hastings
CODE ENFORCEMENT MANAGER: John Poole
A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was posted at 2:50 p.m. on
May 19, 1998 at the City Hall Bulletin Board, (both inside and outside the entrance to City Hall)
containing all items as shown herein.
Mayor Daly called the workshop portion of the Council Meeting of May 19, 1998 to order and welcomed
those in attendance (3:22 p.m.).
Assistant City Manager, Dave Morgan introduced Ed Aghjayan, Public Utilities General Manager who will
make the presentation today.
175: FIVE-YEAR UNDERGROUND CONVERSION PROJECT - PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT:
Mr. Ed Aghjayan, Public Utilities General Manager. He is pleased to present the updated recommended
Five-Year Underground Conversion program. Supplemented by slides (hard copies of most of which
were submitted in booklet form - see, City of Anaheim - Underground Conversion Program - Five-Year
Plan Presentation - Fiscal Years 1998/99 through 2002/03 - City Council, May 19, 1998 - made a part of
the record), Mr. Aghjayan covered the following and briefed each topic: Objective, History (program
established by the City Council in June, 1990 and funded from electric rates currently at 4%), Approval
Process, Projects Under Construction (six), Completed Projects up to March 1998 (14), Progress
Summary, Financial Data ($46.8 million approved in current Five-Year Plan 97/98 thru 01/02 - $48.9
million proposed, 98/99 thru 02/03), Proposed Projects, Geographical Diversity (East, 7; West, 7;
ARA/Central, 7; Citywide, 1), Three New Projects, Three with Construction Schedule Revised, Two
Project with Increased Scope (Three Projects behind schedule), Projects/Schedule/Costs, Modified
Projects, New Projects and Alternative Projects.
During the presentation, before and after slides were shown depicting the dramatic difference due to
undergrounding improvements. Simulated slides were also shown of those projects yet to be
commenced/completed showing the ultimate effects/impact of the improvement(s). Questions were
also posed by Council Members during (and after) the presentation which were answered by Mr.
Aghjayan and members of his staff relative to the criteria for prioritization of projects, etc.
Mayor Daly noted that approval of the proposed Five-Year Electric Underground Conversion Plan for FY
1998/99 through 2002/03 is on the Council Agenda this evening (Item A28); Council Member Tait asked
if they are also adopting the alternative projects tonight.
Mr. Aghjayan answered, no. Those projects are listed in case the Council wants to start moving some of
the projects around. Some of those will be included in next year's plan because they are next in line. To
the extent a project gets cancelled, which happens, they will then go back to the Public Utilities Board
and Undergrounding Subcommittee and let them know when that occurs.
Mayor Daly thanked staff for the informative presentation.
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MAY 19, 1998
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION:
City Attorney Jack White requested a Closed Session noting first that there were 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 LABOR NEGOTIATOR
Agency negotiator: Dave Hill
Employee organization: Anaheim Police Association.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
54956.9(a) - Existincl Liftclarion:
Name of case: Delmonico, et al. v. City of Anaheim, et al. (and 18 related cases) Orange
County Superior Court Case No. 70-80-71.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION:
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9:
potential case.
one
RECESS:
Mayor Daly moved to recess into Closed Session. Council Member Lopez seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED (3:45 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS:
Mayor Daly called the regular Council Meeting of May 19, 1998 to order at 5:20 p.m. and
welcomed those in attendance.
INVOCATION:
Reverend Ford Miller of the West Anaheim United Methodist Church gave the invocation.
FLAG SALUTE:
Council Member Shirley McCracken led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.
119: PROCLAMATION: The following Proclamation was issued by Mayor Daly and authorized by the
City Council:
National Emergency Medical Services Week, May 17-23, 1998
Roger Smith, Operations Division Chief, Fire Department accompanied by Denise Mitchell, EMS
Coordinator, explained that Emergency Medical Services (EMS) is a large part of the Fire Department
operations. It takes many entities to coordinate and perform this care. The agencies who assist the City
are present tonight to be recognized. He then introduced the representatives of the agencies present
representing Hospitals and Ambulance Companies as follows - (each were presented with certificates
from the Anaheim Fire Department recognizing them for their" . . . dedicated effort to provide the
highest quality of emergency medical services to the City of Anaheim." Mr. Richard Chavez, Anaheim
Fire Association was also present representing Fire Department personnel):
Hospitals: Anaheim General, Anaheim Memorial Medical Center, Kaiser Permanente, Martin Luther
Hospital, West Anaheim Medical Center, Western Medical Center/Anaheim.
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MAY 19, 1998
Ambulance Companies: American Medical Response (AMR), CARE Ambulance Company, Medix
Ambulance Company.
Mayor Daly presented the Proclamation, on behalf of the City Council and the City's citizens, to Mr.
Smith and Ms. Mitchell. He also thanked the hospitals and ambulance companies for their work in being
a part of the emergency medical response team.
RECOGNITIONS AUTHORIZED BY COUNCIL THIS DATE TO BE MAILED OR PRESENTED AT
ANOTHER TIME:
DECLARATION recognizing Westview Vocational Services on their 12th Anniversary.
DECLARATION recognizing St. Justin Martyr Church on their 40th Anniversary.
PROCLAMATION designating June 7, 1998, as Heritage Day at Oak Canyon Nature Center in Anaheim.
PROCLAMATION recognizing June 1 - 7, 1998, as Management Week in Anaheim.
DECLARATION recognizing The Linck, Inc., Orange County Chapter, on their 25 anniversary.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $3,139,209.77 in accordance with the
1997/98 budget, were approved.
By general Council Consent the City Council recessed to conduct the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency
Meeting. (5:30 p.m.)
Mayor Daly reconvened the City Council meeting. (5:33 p.m.)
ADDITION TO THE AGENDA:
There were no additions to agenda items.
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST:
There were no speakers under Items of Public Interest.
MOTION:
Mayor Daly moved to waive reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions to be acted upon for
the Council Meeting of May 19, 1998. Council Member Lopez seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
PUBLIC COMMENTS - AGENDA ITEMS:
There were no public comments on agenda items.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR A1 - A30: On motion by Mayor Daly,
seconded by Council Member Lopez, the following items were approved in accordance with the
reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the
Consent Calendar; Mayor Daly offered Resolutions Nos. 98R-87through 98R-94, both inclusive,
for adoption. Mayor Daly offered Ordinance No. 5632 for introduction. Refer to
Resolution/Ordinance Book.
A1. 118: Rejecting and denying certain claims filed against the City. Referred to Risk Management.
The following claims were filed against the City and actions taken as recommended:
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MAY 19, 1998
A2.
A3.
A4.
A5.
a. Claim submitted by Emiko Kobayashi for property damage sustained purportedly due to
actions of the City on or about February 16, 1998.
b. Claim submitted by Joseph O'Brien & Zoraida Emener for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 4, 1997.
c. Claim submitted by Larry Ostrosky for property damages sustained purportedly due to actions
of the City on or about October 23, 1997.
d. Claim submitted by Irene Sai Mon Yee for indemnity purportedly arising out of actions of the
City on or about February 9, 1997.
e. Claim submitted by Travelers Indemnity Co. for property damage sustained purportedly due
to actions of the City on or about October 18, 1997.
f. Claim submitted by Patricia A. Hassett for property damage sustained purportedly due to
actions of the City on or about February 3, 1998.
g. Claim submitted by Carmin Hertwig for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of
the City on or about August 3, 1997.
h. Claim submitted by Kelly & Mike Floback for property damage sustained purportedly due to
actions of the City on or about March 12, 1998.
105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Mother Colony House Advisory Board meeting held
March 6, 1998.
105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Anaheim Private Industry Council meeting held March
26, 1998.
128: Receiving and filing the Monthly Financial Analysis for nine months ended March 31, 1998,
as presented by the Finance Director.
117: Receiving and filing the Investment Portfolio Report for the month of April, 1998.
169: Awarding a contract to the lowest responsible bidder, R. J. Noble Company, in the amount
of $165,131.16 for Riverdale Avenue Street Improvement - Lakeview Avenue to Deerfield
Street; and in the event said low bidder fails to comply with the terms of the award, awarding the
contract to the second low bidder, as well as waiving any irregularities in the bids of both the low
and second low bidders.
175: Awarding a contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Pouk & Steinle, Inc., in the amount of
$500,424.17 for 12KV Underground Backbone Rehabilitation and Overhead Reconductoring; and
in the event said low bidder fails to comply with the terms of the award, awarding the contract to
the second low bidder, as well as waiving any irregularities in the bids of both the low and second
low bidders.
175: Awarding a contract to five responsible contractors under a Master Agreement for
construction, maintenance, repair and immediate response services: Pouk & Steinle, Inc. -
$300,364.05; Henkels & McCoy, Inc. - $493,377.18, Hampton Tedder Electric Co., Inc. -
$470,683.75, Mastec Comtec - $543,098, and M.B. Herzog Electric, Inc. - $$573,861; and
waiving any irregularities in the bids of these bidders; and authorizing the General Manager of
the Public Utilities Department to execute said Master Agreement documents.
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MAY 19, 1998
A6.
123: Approving a Second Amendment to Agreement with Joseph A. Hennessey for appraisal
services, in an amount not to exceed $250,000 annually per fiscal year.
A7.
158: Approving an Acquisition Agreement for 1831 South Harbor Boulevard; authorizing the
Mayor and City Clerk to execute said Agreements; and authorizing the acquisition payment of
$10,913.20 to UKA, LLC., A California Limited Liability Company.
A8.
176: RESOLUTION NO. 98R-87 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM declaring its intention to vacate certain public streets, highways and service
easements, and setting a date and time for a public hearing to consider abandoning that certain
easement for electrical purposes running parallel to and lying westerly of Velare Street - 711
South Velare Street (ABANDONMENT NO. 98-6A). (Suggested public hearing date: June 16,
1998, at 6:00 P.M.).
A9.
106: Amending the Department of Public Works Capital Improvement Projects budget for FY
97/98 for the modification of a traffic signal on Orangethorpe Avenue, at the driveway of Rancho
La Paz Mobile Home Park, by a fund draw from account #470-412-N755-5797-N755D000
(Developer Fees Account) and by increasing appropriations in expenditure account #470-412-
N755-7851-N755D000 (Design and Construction) by the amount of $89,500.
A10.
160: Accepting the low bid of Barney's Transmission, in an amount not-to-exceed $35,000 for
transmission repairs as required for the period of July 1, 1998, through June 30, 1999, in
accordance with Bid #5798.
All.
160: Accepting the low bid of Waxie Sanitary Supply, in an amount not-to-exceed $60,000 per
year for Kimberly Clark towels and toilet tissue, as required, for a one year period beginning July
1, 1999, through June 30, 1999; and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to exercise the option to
renew for one additional year, in accordance with Bid #5796.
A12.
160: Accepting the low bid of Adler Video Systems, in the amount of $44,563 for camera and
recording equipment, in accordance with Bid #5781. (Convention Center.)
A13.
123: Waiving Council Policy 306, and authorizing the execution of an Agreement with PRC
Public Sector, Inc., to provide maintenance for the Computer Aided Dispatch and Records
Management System at the Police Department, in an amount not-to-exceed $39,328 for the first
year beginning May 1998, with four annual renewal options, and authorizing the Purchasing
Agent to exercise the annual renewal options in amounts as identified in the Agreement through
April 30, 2003.
A14.
107: ORDINANCE NO. 5632 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM repealing Section 14.32.310 of, and enacting a new Section 14.32.310 to Chapter
14.32 of Title 14 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to sale of goods or merchandise by
vehicle. (Continued from the meeting of May 12, 1998, Item A22.)
City Attorney White clarified for the Mayor that the ordinance would conform the current ordinance to the
latest court decisions deleting the portions that are unenforceable.
A15.
123: Approving an Agreement for continued legal services with Alan R. Watts relating to Public
Utilities matters.
City Attorney White answered questions posed by Council Member Zemel for purposes of clarification
A16.
123: Approving an Agreement with the Magnolia and Anaheim Union High School Districts to
provide Park Ranger patrols of school facilities.
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MAY 19, 1998
A17.
123: Approving and executing an Agreement with the Anaheim Union High School District for
the period of June 1, 1998, through September 30, 1998, to facilitate Summer Sports Camps.
A18.
153: RESOLUTION NO. 98R-88 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM approving a Letter of Understanding between the City of Anaheim and the General
Truck Drivers Union, Local 952, effective July 7, 2000. (To provide local miscellaneous PERS
members with the 2% @ 55 retirement benefit.)
Dave Morgan, Assistant City Manager answered questions posed by the Mayor for purposes of
clarification
A19.
153: RESOLUTION NO. 98R-89 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM approving a Letter of Understanding between the City of Anaheim and the Service
Employees International Union, Local 1877. (For the new classification of Alteration Worker,
effective June 1, 1998.)
A20.
153: RESOLUTION NO. 98R-90 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM Approving a Letter of Understanding between the City of Anaheim and the
Service Employees' International Union, Local 1877. (Amending the contract with PERS to
provide members with the 2% @ 55 retirement benefit, effective July 7, 2000.)
A21.
153: RESOLUTION NO. 98R-91 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM amending Resolution No. 98R-11 nunc pro tunc to correct clerical errors. (To
amend the Memorandum of Understanding between the Anaheim Municipal Employees,
Clerical Unit and the City of Anaheim which was adopted by Resolution No. 98R-11 on January
27, 1998.
A22.
153: RESOLUTION NO. 98R-92 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM amending Resolution No. 98R-12 nunc pro tunc. (Amending Appendix "A" of the
Memorandum of Understanding between the Anaheim Municipal Employees Association,
General Unit and the City of Anaheim which was adopted by Resolution No. 98R-12 on January
27, 1998.)
Dave Morgan, Assistant City Manager answered questions posed by the Mayor for purposes of
clarification
A23.
123: Approving an Amendment between Freedom Communications, Inc. (The Orange County
Register) and the City of Anaheim (Anaheim Convention Center) which clarifies the terms
relating to event parking as stated within the current Agreement.
Greg Smith, Stadium and Convention Center Manager, confirmed that this agreement clarified the intent
of the language in the original agreement. They are attempting to promote new local community types of
events in the Convention Center. This involves reimbursement for parking for the events that the Orange
County Register would host, new events brought into the Center and not existing events.
A24.
123: Approving the Lessor Estoppel Certificate requested by Fidelity Federal Bank in connection
with the assignment of the lease to Anaheim Hotel, LLC (Inn At The Park Hotel).
A25.
156: RESOLUTION NO. 98R-93 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM authorizing the Chief of Police to submit a grant proposal on behalf of the City of
Anaheim in connection with the third year funding for the Office of Criminal Justice Planning
(OCJP) Suppression of Drug Abuse in Schools Program.
A26.
123: Approving the Natural Gas Purchase and Sales Agreement between IGI Resources and the
City of Anaheim, and authorizing the Public Utilities General Manager, on behalf of the City, to
execute said Agreement, with any revisions that are in substantial conformance with the attached
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MAY 19, 1998
agreements, and any other related documents required to implement and administer the
Agreement.
A27.
123; Approving Agreements between the City and: California Independent System Operator
(ISO); Scheduling Coordinator Application and Agreement; Utility Distribution Company
Operating Agreement; Meter Service Agreements; Participating Generator Agreement; and
Letter of Understanding as well as the following Agreements between the California Power
Exchange Corporation (PX) and the City: PX Participant Application; PX Participation
Agreement; and Meter Service Agreement for PX Participants, and authorizing the Public
Utilities General Manager, on behalf of the City, to execute each of the above Agreements, with
any revisions or additions to the Agreements that are in substantial conformance with the
Agreements, and to execute any other related documents required to implement and administer
the Agreements; and designating the City's entitlement in San Onofre Nuclear Generating
Station Units 2 and 3 as Regulatory Must Take Generation (as that term is defined in the ISO
Tariff).
A28.
175: Approving the proposed Five-Year Electric Underground Conversion Plan for Fiscal Years
1998/99 through 2002/03.
Council Member Zemel. Recently on a 3-2 vote, the Council approved a $7 million (State mandated)
increase in utility fees to cover the Public Benefits Fund. Subsequent to that, he asked staff to look into
whether there were any opportunities to cut costs and adjust the budget to try to absorb that. He realizes
the Undergrounding Program is a "sacred cow" but he wondered if that could have been considered in
order not to have to pass on the increase.
Dave Morgan, Assistant City Manager. The 2.85% increase which is a mandate of State law has, in fact,
been passed on by all utilities and not just the City's. He then deferred to the Public Utilities General
Manager.
Mr. Ed Aghjayan, Public Utilities General Manager. It is an option the Council would have if they wish to
reduce the Undergrounding Program surcharge currently at 4% by the 2.85% or by some other number in
order to meet the mandated State law. The 4% raises about $10 million a year for the Undergrounding
Program. The program is slightly under $50 million for the five-year period. The Council could at any
time cancel the program and the effect would be to eliminate the 4% surcharge.
Council Member Zemel. He feels they have not taken a second look at the entire issue (Public Benefits
Fee) and perhaps there is an opportunity to look at the undergrounding fee as well, even if it was
postponed for a while, while they work legislatively to possibly get out of the Public Benefits Fee. He is
going to propose a continuance of this item in order to give a chance to explore the issue further.
Ed Aghjayan. It is a fiscal year program. The real thrust of the impact of the program the Council is
approving tonight is the first year of that program (1998/99 through 2002/03) which is included in the
budget. If they wanted to go into that discussion, it could be taken up during the budget process. The
funding would go into effect on July 1. They are continuing to collect the 4% and continuing to go
forward with the programs. Delay beyond July 1 would cause some operational problems. If the Council
does not act tonight, he does not think it would cause irreparable harm.
MOTION. Council Member Zemel moved that the item be continued to be part of forthcoming budget
discussions. Council Member Tait seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Daly asked for clarification if he (Zemel) was suggesting a two-week
continuance which he believes is the scheduled time for their first budget session (June 2, 1998); Council
Member Zemel answered, yes.
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MAY 19, 1998
Mayor Daly. The Undergrounding Program has been under way for a number of years and it is a popular
program in the community. They have seen before and after results of how the streets look where the
improvements have been made. There is also a safety factor to the community. He remains a strong
supporter of the plan. If there is a request for more information or a little more time to complete the
entire list of projects and how the plan relates to the Public Benefit program which was more recently
adopted, he does not believe two weeks will slow the progress.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion to continue this item to June 2, 1998 to be a part of
budget discussions. MOTION CARRIED.
A29.
159: RESOLUTION NO. 98R-94 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM adopting the wage determinations of the Director of the California Department of
Industrial Relations and directing the filing and posting of prevailing rates of per diem wages and
repealing Resolution No. 95R-135.
A30. 114: Approving minutes of the City Council meeting held April 28, 1998.
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR. MOTIONS CARRIED.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 98R-87 throuclh 98R-94, both inclusive, for adoption:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: McCracken, Tait, Zemel, Lopez, Daly
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 98R-87 through 98R-94, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted.
A31.
105: Ratif¥in.q the action taken by the Ma.qnolia School District Board of Trustees electin.q Mrs.
Esther H. Wallace to represent the District on the Park & Recreation Commission for a four year
term be.qinnin.q July 1, 1998.
MOTION: Mayor Daly moved to ratify the action taken by the Magnolida School District Board. Council
Member Lopez seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED..
ITEMS B1 - Bll FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 27, 1998:
INFORMATION ONLY -APPEAL PERIOD ENDS MAY 19, 1998:
B1. VARIANCE NO. 4356, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, One North Broadway, Suite 500, White Plains, New
York 10601
AGENT: The Muller Company, 100 Pacifica, Suite 350, Irvine, CA 92618
LOCATION: 1500 South Anaheim Boulevard and 300 East Cerritos Avenue. Property is 18.6 acres
located at the southeast corner of Cerritos Avenue and Anaheim Boulevard.
Waivers of (a) minimum structural and landscape setback, (b) permitted encroachment in setback area,
(c) minimum parking lot landscaping and (d) required improvement of right-of-way to construct a 271,775
square foot industrial building in conjunction with the demolition of one existing industrial building and the
renovation of one existing industrial building.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Variance No. 4356 GRANTED (PC98-61) (5 yes votes, 1 abstained,
and 1 vacancy).
Approved Negative Declaration.
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MAY 19, 1998
B2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4012, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: John E. Biard and Carol D. Biard, trustees of The Biard Family Trust, 18021 Weston Place,
Tustin, CA 92780
AGENT: John E. Biard, 18021 Weston Place, Tustin, CA 92780
LOCATION: 1423 North State College Boulevard - Payless Carpet. Property is 0.61 acre located on the
west side of State College Boulevard, 350 feet south of the centerline of Via Burton Street.
To permit and retain a retail carpet store in the ML (Limited Industrial) Zone.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 4012 GRANTED, for one year, to expire 4/27/99 (PC98-62)
(6 yes votes, 1 vacancy).
Approved Negative Declaration.
B3. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3823, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: Calvin Williams and Claudia A. Williams, 4310 Bergamo Drive, Encino, CA 91436
AGENT: Dawson Davenport, 7700 Irvine Center Drive, Irvine, CA 92718
LOCATION: 5693 East Orangethorpe Avenue - All American Sports Pub. Property is 1.9 acres located
at the northwest corner of Orangethorpe Avenue and Imperial Highway.
To consider reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval
pertaining to a time limitation to retain an existing sports bar with sales of beer and wine for on-premises
consumption.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3823 GRANTED, for one year, to expire 3/4/99 (PC98-63)
(6 yes votes, 1 vacancy).
Negative Declaration previously approved.
B4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4019, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: Henry W. Ortlieb, 716 South Beach Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92804
AGENT: Anthony P. Cara, Attorney, 1851 East First Street, #900, Santa Ana, CA 92705
LOCATION: 716 South Beach Boulevard, Unit B - Coastal Checker Cab Company. Property is 1.0 acre
located at the northeast corner of Beach Boulevard and Stonybrook Drive.
To permit and retain an existing taxi dispatch facility including taxi cab auto repair and maintenance.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 4019 DENIED (PC98-64) (6 yes votes, 1 vacancy).
Denied Negative Declaration.
B5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4016, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: Tweedt Family Trust: Trustee, James E. Tweedt, P.O. Box 10077, Santa Ana, CA 92711
AGENT: Air Touch Cellular, Attn: John Bitterly, 1111 Town E. Country Road, #37, Orange, CA 92868
LOCATION: 1422 South Allec Street. Property is 0.99 acre located on the east side of Allec Street, 539
feet north of the centerline of Cerritos Avenue.
To construct a 60-foot high steel telecommunications monopole with three arrays having seven (7)
antennas each, and three microwave dishes to replace an existing 60-foot high wood monopole.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 4016 GRANTED, for five years, to expire 4/27/03 (PC98-65)
(6 yes votes, 1 vacancy).
Approved Negative Declaration.
B6. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4021, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: Imperial Properties and Canyon Plaza Shopping Center, Attn: Harold B. Hembree, P.O. Box
7250, Newport Beach, CA 92663
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MAY 19, 1998
AGENT: Todd Von Sprecken, 100 Bayview, #4000, Newport Beach, CA 92660
LOCATION: 5755 East Santa Ana Canyon Road - L.A. Fitness. Property is 15.0 acres located at the
northeast corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Imperial Highway.
To permit a 40,000 square foot physical fitness facility with roof-mounted equipment within an existing
tenant space in a 157,794 square foot (total) commercial center with waivers of (a) minimum number of
parking spaces, (b) permitted commercial center identification sign, and (c) permitted wall signs.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 4021 GRANTED (PC98-66) (6 yes votes, 1 vacancy).
Approved waivers of code requirement.
Approved Negative Declaration.
Mayor Daly asked for confirmation on the hours of operation. He notes there is a letter from the
applicant that at some time in the future, they would like the flexibility to go to a 24-hour operation.
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager. The applicant indicated hours of 5:00 a.m. to midnight,
Monday through Friday and 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m Saturday and Sunday. The applicant indicated he
would like to come back at a later date with a 24-hour operation. The Planning Commission did not
impose conditions on the hours. He also clarified for the Mayor that there was no deviation by the
Planning Commission from the Planning staff recommendations. Relative to the parking, there is no
code requirement but a requirement that the use submit a parking study for review and approval by
Traffic Engineering. It was reviewed and approved with the understanding that the parking the use would
generate is similar to the previous use, i.e., the supermarket (Albertsons).
B7. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3506
REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE FOR PARKING
LOT/PLAYGROUND USE:
OWNER: Vineyard Christian Fellowship, 5340 East La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92807
AGENT: Richard Banister, Pastor, Vineyard, Christian School, 5340 East La Palma Avenue, Anaheim,
CA 92807
LOCATION: 5300-5340 East La Palma Avenue - Vineyard Christian Fellowship. Property is 23.08 acres
located on the south side of La Palma Avenue, 2,370 feet west of the centerline of Imperial Highway.
Conditional Use Permit No. 3506: To consider reinstatement of this permit by the modification or
deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation to retain a pre-school through 8th grade
school in conjunction with a previously approved church.
Determination of Substantial Conformance: To consider a request for a determination of substantial
conformance pertaining to the use of a portion of an existing parking lot for playground use on weekdays
only.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3506 GRANTED, for five years, to expire 5/18/03 (PC98-67)
(6 yes votes, 1 vacancy).
Mitigated Negative Declaration previously approved.
Determination of Substantial Conformance for parking lot/playground use
continued to the Planning Commission meeting of 5/11/98.
BS. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4020
CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT-CLASS 3:
OWNER: Orange County Water District, 10500 Ellis Avenue, Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8300
AGENT: Corona Recreation, Inc., Attn: Phillip L. Anthony, 4060 East La Palma Avenue., Anaheim, CA
92806
LOCATION: 4060 East La Palma Avenue - Santa Ana River Lakes. Property is 125 acres located on
the south side of La Palma Avenue, 347 feet east of the centerline of Tustin Avenue.
10
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MAY 19, 1998
To permit a 450 square foot mobile office trailer in conjunction with an existing fishing concession
operation.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 4020 GRANTED (PC98-68) (6 yes votes, 1 vacancy).
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
B9. REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF CONFORMITY: Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, Attn:
Andy Agle, 201 South Anaheim Blvd. Anaheim, CA 92805, requests determination of conformity of the
proposed Redevelopment Plan for the West Anaheim Commercial Corridors Redevelopment Project
with the City of Anaheim General Plan.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Determined to be in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan
(PC98-60) (6 yes votes, 1 vacancy)
B10. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3957 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION
REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE: CH Anaheim, LTD, c/o
Crown Realty & Development, Inc., Attn: Fritz Howset, 20101 SW Birch Street, Suite 260, Newport
Beach, CA 92660, requests determination of substantial conformance for a previously-approved planned
"mixed-use" commercial center. Property is located at 2001-2221 East Katella Avenue and 1750 South
State College Boulevard.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Determined to be in substantial conformance with previously approved plans for CUP NO. 3957.
Negative Declaration previously approved.
Questions were posed by the Mayor on this item for purposes of clarification which were answered by the
Zoning Administrator, Annika Santalahti regarding signage, traffic and parking. In concluding, Ms.
Santalahti stated that nobody was concerned at a staff level that there would be an impact by a square
footage change.
Bll. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3363, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION
REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE: Vineyard Christian
Fellowship, 5340 East La Palma Ave., Anaheim, CA 92807, requests determination of substantial
conformance to expand an existing warehouse and a recording studio and to construct a new 353 square
foot entrance and a 312 square foot office mezzanine for an existing 81,938 square foot building in
conjunction with a previously-approved church. Property is located at 5300 East La Palma Avenue -
Vineyard Christian Fellowship.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Determined to be in substantial conformance with previously approved plans for CUP NO. 3363.
Negative Declaration previously approved.
END OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS FROM APRIL 27, 1998.
ITEM B12 FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 11, 1998:
INFORMATION ONLY- APPEAL PERIOD ENDS MAY 21, 1998:
B12. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 97-98-17
WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4022
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15660, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
11
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MAY 19, 1998
OWNER: Edward's Family Trust, Robert W. Edwards, Shirley E. Edwards (Trustees), 711 South Velare
Street, Anaheim, CA 92804
AGENT: Denar, Inc., Attn: Bahram Ghassemi, 1001 Sandcastle Drive, Corona Del Mar, CA 92625
LOCATION: 711 South Velare Street. Property is 0.61 acre located on the west side of Velare Street,
950 feet south of the centerline of Orange Avenue.
Reclassification No. 97-98-17: To reclassify this property from the RS-A-43,000 Zone to the RM-3000
Zone or a less intense zone.
Conditional Use Permit No. 4022: To construct a 1-lot 7-unit detached residential condominium
development with waiver of minimum distance between buildings and minimum private street standards.
Tentative Tract Map No. 15660: To establish a 1-lot subdivision for the development of a 7-unit
airspace detached residential condominium complex.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Reclassification No. 97-98-17 GRANTED (PC98-72) (5 yes votes, 1 absent, and 1 vacancy).
APPROVED waiver of code requirement.
CUP NO. 4022 GRANTED (PC98-73).
Tentative Tract Map No. 15660 Approved.
Approved Negative Declaration.
Council Member McCracken. She noted this is a seven-unit condominium being placed on one lot
requesting a waiver of space between the buildings. She has concerns with this proposal and believes
that the West Anaheim Neighborhood Development group had expressed concern at the Planning
Commission hearing about the density. She has some of the same questions regarding this project as
the project recently proposed on Brookhurst (still pending) and would like to set the matter for a Public
Hearing.
A review of the Planning Commission's decision was thereupon requested by Council Member
McCracken concurred in by Mayor Daly and, therefore, a Public Hearing will be scheduled at a later date.
ITEMS B13 - B16 FROM THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MEETING OF
DECISION DATE: MAY 14, 1998
INFORMATION ONLY- APPEAL PERIOD ENDS MAY 29, 1998:
MAY 7, 1998
B13. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 137
CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (SECTION 15061 (b) (3):
OWNER: DAVID POWERS and LOIS POWERS, 27732 Paseo Barona, San Juan Capistrano, CA
92675
AGENT: BRADLEY LINCOLN, 5753 Santa Ana Canyon Road, #G, Anaheim, CA 92807
LOCATION: 1754 West Ball Road. Property is approximately 6,800 square feet, having a frontage of
approximately 40 feet on the south side of Ball Road, a maximum depth of 170 feet and being located
approximately 830 feet west of the centerline of Euclid Street.
Waiver of minimum side yard setback to relocate an existing house and to construct a new one-story
detached garage.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
Administrative Adjustment No. 137 - opposition received, public hearing is required.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator clarified that this item will come back before her as a Public
Hearing.
B14. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 139
CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (SECTION 15061 (b) (3):
OWNER: SA RANG KOREAN CHURCH, Attn: James Choe, 19208 Pioneer Boulevard, Cerritos, CA
90701
12
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MAY 19, 1998
LOCATION: 1111 North Brookhurst Street-formerly Circle Seal. Property is approximately 13.8 acres
(10.2 acres excluding the CalTrans acquisition of the southerly portion) has a frontage of 420 feet on the
west side of Brookhurst Street, has a maximum depth of 1,262 feet, and is located 190 feet north of the
centerline of LaPalma Avenue.
Waiver of maximum fence height (six feet permitted) to construct an 8-foot high concrete block wall
adjacent to residential zone boundaries.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
Administrative Adjustment No. 139 APPROVED (ZA DECISION NO. 98-13).
B15. VARIANCE NO. 4332, CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 1:
OWNER: BANK OF AMERICA, 600 Wilshire Boulevard, Ste. 200, Los Angeles, CA 90017
AGENT: BRIAN MCNUTT, 611 W. 6th Street, Ste. 1850, Los Angeles, CA 90017
LOCATION: 3130 E. Miraloma Avenue. Property is approximately 10.08 acres having a frontage of 535
feet on the south side of Miraloma Avenue, having a maximum depth of 71- feet and located 285 feet
east of the centerline of Kraemer Boulevard.
Waiver of minimum structural setback to construct a drive-through automatic teller kiosk in an industrial
office parking lot.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
Variance No. 4332 APPROVED with modification to conditions
(ZA DECISION NO. 98-14).
Council Member McCracken. She has a concern about this being a way in which some of the banks are
going to provide services -- in parking lots across the City. She referred to the recent application for an
ATM at Katella and Euclid (which was denied). She is going to request a Public Hearing on this item to
decide what the Council's policy is going to be on ATM kiosks.
Mayor Daly. His thinking on this one is that it is an industrial area where a drive-thru ATM might be
appropriate.
A review of the Zoning Administrator's decision was thereupon requested by Council Member McCracken
concurred in by Council Member Lopez and, therefore, a Public Hearing will be scheduled at a later date.
B16. VARIANCE NO. 4336, CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 1:
OWNER: ROLF and HEIDE-MARIE KRUMES, 236 South Owens Drive, Anaheim, CA 92808
LOCATION: 230 S. Owens Drive. Property is 0.59 acres, having a frontage of 22 feet on the east side
of Owens Drive, having a maximum depth of 189 feet and located 900 feet north of the centerline of
Mohler Drive.
Waiver of maximum structural height and required rear setback to construct a 7,000 square foot single-
family residence.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
Variance No. 4336 APPROVED (ZA DECISION NO. 98-15).
END OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ITEMS.
ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION:
Mayor Daly offered Ordinance Nos. 5633 through 5635 for introduction.
B17. ORDINANCE NO. 5633 (INTRODUCTION) Amending Title 18 to rezone property under
Reclassification No. 97-98-04 located at 2235 W. Lincoln Avenue from the RS-A-43,000 zone to the CL
zone.
13
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MAY 19, 1998
B18. ORDINANCE NO. 5634 (INTRODUCTION) Amending Title 18 to fezone property under
Reclassification No. 97-98-07 located at 1250 South Nutwood Street from the RS-A-43,000 zone to the
RS-7200 zone.
B19. ORDINANCE NO. 5635 (INTRODUCTION) Amending Title 18 to fezone property under
Reclassification No. 97-98-08 located at 1244 North Harbor Boulevard from the CG zone to the CL zone.
D3. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3662, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION
REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED
LOCATION OF PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT:
OWNER: JGD Company, Inc., P.O. Box 18021, Anaheim, CA 92817-8021
INITIATED BY: City-initiated (Planning Commission), 200 South Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION: 6270 East Santa Ana Canyon Road. Property is 1.19 acres located on the south side of
Santa Ana Canyon Road, 515 feet west of the centerline of Fairmont Boulevard.
(A) City-initiated (Planning Commission) request to review a previously-approved private educational
facility (pre-school to 3rd grade) and a church with waivers of (a) maximum fence height, (b) minimum
setback of institutional uses adjacent to a residential zone and (c) minimum structural setback abutting a
Scenic Expressway to consider modification to the overall entitlement including the 3-story design of the
building.
(B) Property owner requests review and approval of the location of playground equipment for a
previously-approved educational facility (this portion of the request was continued from the March 30
Commission meeting to allow portion (a) of this request to be advertised).
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Modified CUP NO. 3662 (PC98-56) (5 yes votes, 1 absent, and 1 vacancy).
Approved playground plan submitted as revised at the meeting.
Negative Declaration previously approved.
Public hearing continued from the meeting of May 12, 1998, Item D3.
Mayor Daly asked if anyone was present on this Public Hearing; approximately four or five people were
present in the Chamber audience.
City Attorney White announced that staff is requesting a two-week continuance on this issue.
MOTION. Council Member Zemel moved to continue the Public Hearing on CUP 3662 for two weeks to
June 2, 1998. Council Member Tait seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, the Mayor asked if that was acceptable to the parties present; it was
determined that the continuance was acceptable.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion of continuance. MOTION CARRIED.
Relative to Item D1. and D2. it was determined that the Public Hearing on both issues would be
combined since they relate to the same property.
D1. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3680
AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: The Eli Home, Attn: Lorri Galloway, Executive Director, 4530 East Chapman Avenue,
Orange, CA 92869
LOCATION: 100 South Canyon Crest Drive - The Eli Home. Property is 0.22 acre located at the
southeast corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Canyon Crest Drive.
14
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MAY 19, 1998
To consider the modification or deletion of conditions of approval relating to the number of vehicle trips,
on-site and off-site parking and guest visitations, and modification of the approved site plan to retain an
existing wood fence along Santa Ana Canyon Road in conjunction with a previously-approved group
home for abused children and their mothers.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3680 APPROVED with modified conditions of approval (PC98-22)
(6 yes votes, 1 vacancy).
Negative Declaration previously approved.
Review of the Planning Commission's decision requested by Council Members McCracken and Lopez at
the meeting of March 3, 1998, Item B4.
Public hearing continued from the meeting of April 28, 1998, Item D2.
D2. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3680
AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: The Eli Home, Attn: Sonja Grewal, Executive Director, 4530 East Chapman Avenue, Orange,
CA 92869
LOCATION: 100 South Canyon Crest Drive - The Eli Home. Property is 0.22 acre located at the
southeast corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Canyon Crest Drive.
To consider reinstatement of the conditional use permit to retain a group home for abused children and
their mothers.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved reinstatement for two years for CUP NO. 3680, to expire 4/2/00
(PC98-37) (6 yes votes, 1 vacancy).
Negative Declaration previously approved.
Review of the Planning Commission's decision requested by Council Members McCracken and Lopez at
the meeting of April 7, 1998, Item B9.
Public hearing continued from the meeting of April 28, 1998, Item D3.
Staff Input: See staff reports to the Planning Commission dated February 18, 1988 (re: D1) and March
30, 1998 (re: D2).
Mayor Daly first explained the usual procedure to be followed and then asked that Planning staff give an
update on the request.
Mary McCIoskey, Deputy Planning Director. There are two separate items -- request to amend
conditions of approval and a request to reinstate the Conditional Use Permit which she briefed. She also
reported that staff receive a revised Letter of Operation (LO) from the petitioner (see Revised Letter of
Operation dated May 18, 1998 - made a part of the record) which eliminates the provision for three open-
house type events per year. The language now indicates that no open-to-the-public events or fund-
raising events of any kind will be held at the facility at any time in order to protect the anonymity of the
facility's location and safety of the residents. It also contains language further defining the anticipated
types of trips and how they would be managed. A copy of the Revised Letter of Operation dated May 18,
1998 has been provided to the Council tonight and copies are also available at the podium.
On February 18, 1998, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution deleting conditions 5, 13, 16 and
19 (see PC98-22) which basically removed the limitations and also modified conditions 6, 20, 21 and 26
which she explained. The modified language strengthens the enforceability of the conditions. The
Commission also denied the petitioner's request relative to condition 27 pertaining to the fence and
further modified that condition.
The second item is a request by Eli Home to reinstate CUP 3680 which expired on April 2, 1998 and to
delete condition No. 1 relating to the one-year time limit. On March 30, 1998, the Planning Commission
adopted a resolution (see PC98-37) to reinstate the CUP for a period of two years expiring April 2, 2000
and incorporated the conditions of approval that they had approved on February 18, 1998. (Also see
15
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MAY 19, 1998
minutes of the Planning Commission hearings of February 18 and March 30, 1998 where extensive
discussion took place and input received.)
Staff concurs with the Planning Commission actions with the exception of the two-year time limit
associated with the reinstatement of the CUP. Staff feels until the effectiveness of the amended
conditions can be demonstrated, that the CUP should be limited to a period of one year if it is to be
reinstated. Staff would also recommend that the Revised Letter of Operation dated May 18, 1998 be
approved and incorporated. Council may wish to note that in an effort to clear up the conditions of
approval, the conditions which have already been complied with were deleted by previous Council action
and are no longer applicable having been excluded from the list of conditions in connection with the
reinstatement and the remaining conditions renumbered. She then noted other conditions which would
have to be amended to accommodate the changes.
In concluding, Mrs. McCIoskey stated that the City has received a notice from HUD (Department of
Housing and Urban Development) that a complaint was filed by the Eli Home on April 7, 1998 (made a
part of the record) alleging that the City is discriminating against families with children by imposing
discriminatory conditions on the CUP (specifically 5, 6, 16 and 19). She has provided a copy of the
complaint to the Council tonight.
Questions were then posed to Mrs. McCIoskey by both Council Member Lopez and Council Member
Zemel relative to the reason why staff is recommending only a one-year extension and also the source of
the complaints that have been received.
Mayor Daly then asked to hear from the applicant or a representative.
Applicant/Petitioner's Statement: Mr. Phil Anthony, volunteer supporter of the Eli Home. They would
like to make the Eli Home work better in order to continue the vital service it provides and minimize
many of the complaints and the confusion. There have been a long list of complaints but Code
Enforcement has checked them out and was not able to verify hardly any of them. There was so much
confusion over the old conditions, there were legitimate misunderstandings on both sides. The reason
they went to the Planning Commission in February was to clarify those conditions and come down to the
truly important controls that could be monitored and enforced by City Code Enforcement. They do agree
with the Commission's recommendations and the changes made to the original conditions in the staff
report. The conditions, if approved, will also get rid of the concern HUD has had. As best as he can
determine, the notice they sent to the City on April 7 is not something that the Eli Home people did at
that time, but a follow up by HUD on their past concerns. The key thing in the conditions is to really
control the parking so there is absolutely no off-site parking on the streets or neighboring properties and
to control the number of cars that can be at the home at any one time.
The other important thing that is reflected in the revised operating conditions is to absolutely not have
any open-to-the-public events or any fund raisers of any kind at the site. That has always been the
intent. The reason that is so important is that the home is meant to protect and take care of people who
have had a very bad time. As the conditions say, they are concerned with the location of the facility and
the people who are and should be as anonymous as possible. They do not want that home to even look
like it is there. They are committed to the spirit of the original approval and to learn to do that better and
better. He believes the new conditions provide the guidance to everyone on how to make that happen in
an effective way.
The one change the Planning Commission made about the wall, they agree with that. It was never the
intention not to put in the permanent wall. The temporary fence was put in by volunteers from the City's
Fire Department. They do agree with the recommendation to require a permanent wall be put in in a
definite time frame.
In concluding, Mr. Anthony stated they will be happy to answer any questions. They want to make this
work in a way that is fair and reasonable to all concerned and do not want to be a problem to the
neighbors and the City.
16
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MAY 19, 1998
The following people then spoke in support of the Eli Home and their comments/concerns summarized:
Kim White, Program Director, Eli Home, 744 S. Fairway Lane, Anaheim. She addressed concerns
relating to fund raisers and special events. Eli Home has not held fund-raising events, only events
having to do with either their building project or activities for the families. She submitted a Police Report
made in response to a call noting that no fund raising activity was taking place but a Christmas party for
the children. Eli Home does not now or has in the past received City, State or Federal funds. Their
entire revenue comes from private or corporate donations. It is important to maintain the right without
government interference to invite these people to participate in what they support. They are careful in
selecting who is allowed to come into the home. The main concern is the safety and protection of
families that come to them and that is why they are present tonight to ask for changes in the CUP which
will take away the need from certain neighbors who feel it is their right to police their driveway and find
out who is parking on their property. She explained what the neighbors were doing concluding that the
activities are very intrusive and frightening to the women and children at the Eli Home and it needs to
stop.
Mary Trujillo, 3128 E. Chapman. She is in support of the Eli Home. As a former client, she submitted a
copy of a letter she wrote in September of 1997 to HUD regarding her strong feeling that stalking and
harassment charges should be filed against Mr. and Mrs. Secrest. (See letter dated September 9, 1997 -
made a part of the record). She then relayed her experience at Eli Home, the positive things that were
done for her and her children in the home and the positive things that have happened to her because of
the help and guidance received.
Richard Chavez, Anaheim Firefighter's Association (AFA). The Association began their involvement with
the Eli Home in 1991. Two years ago, in spite of a lot of objection from the neighbors, they were
involved in building the home itself. They received a lot of letters from those in opposition asking them
not to participate. He briefed the issue of child abuse and expressed the need for facilities to protect
children. He then explained the many things the AFA had done in support of the Eli Home and some of
the things they could not do because it would upset the neighbors. The Eli Home is saving lives. They
do what they say they do and do a wonderful job.
Sherry Myers, 752 Amigos Way. She read and then submitted a letter from Denise Brown (sister of
Nicole Brown Simpson whose 39th birthday would have been today) dated May 19, 1998 (made a part of
the record). The letter expressed support for shelters like the Eli Home,"... I have found that shelters
are necessary and needed to help those victims who are caught in the cycle of abuse."
Debra Feinstein, 1919 W. Coronet Avenue. She is in support of keeping the (Eli Home) shelter in
Anaheim and to let people who need the chance to have that chance through the Eli Home.
Debra Walker, 25352 Berens Street, Laguna Hills. She was a resident of the shelter and it totally
changed her life. She asked that the Council reconsider and continue the Eli Home permit to Operate
and to give them all the support that they need.
Roxy McGee, 1119 W. Broadway, Anaheim. She moved to the City to be close to the Anaheim Police
Department when she was a victim of domestic violence as well as her children who were victims of
abuse including sexual abuse by her husband. The Eli Home was her only recourse. They not only help
with abusive situations, but those involved in the home become their families. It is a beautiful home.
They are a good organization and no matter what, they are going to keep the home together.
Veronica Chavez, 7837 Adams Way, Buena Park. In her capacity with the County of Orange, Children's
Mental Health, she works with families in crisis. They are looking for security and peace and need
somewhere to go to feel safe again. They deserve a safe and secure place to get themselves together
and make plans for a positive future. Beautiful surroundings give them hope and make them feel they
are worthy.
17
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MAY 19, 1998
Terina Delamar, 23932 Broadhorn Drive, Laguna Niguel. She is present to lend her support publicly on
behalf of Lori and Mike Galloway and the Eli Home. The community, the City of Anaheim, is only
benefitted by having such a place as Eli Home. They provide a wonderful service.
Margaret Deterding. She has lived in Anaheim Hills since 1953 and owns 4.5 acres adjoining Eli Home.
The greatest addition to the Santa Ana Canyon was Eli Home. It is for the most important thing in life,
abused children. The Eli Home is a hope for the future of poor children who are abused.
The following people spoke in opposition giving their reasons as well as comments/concerns which are
summarized:
Karen Bloom, 180 Possum Hollow, Anaheim. They are present to prove that Eli Home has violated
about every condition of the CUP they were given last year. She relayed her personal experiences --
cars parked on private property not their own (Eli Home), women standing on the corner waiting to be
picked up outside the facility, women waliking along Santa Ana Canyon Road (SACR) pushing children in
strollers, toys in the street, etc. They have promised to be good neighbors but they cannot even do it for
a year when they know they are going to be watched. She begged the Council to reconsider the CUP,
allow them to find another place where there is no traffic or public view where they can build a home.
Sherry Ayers, 181 Canyon Crest Drive, Anaheim. She is speaking on behalf of her neighbors. She has
to drive by the homr coming and going from work and has seen some of the violations that have taken
place. She gave some background information when the home was first proposed when the neighbors
submitted concrete evidence that it would be detrimental to place the home at its current location. The
original reasons for opposition were -- the house is on a main highway and a poor location to place a
"hidden" shelter, risk of car accidents, the size of the lot is not adequate for the children to play,
overcrowding in a neighborhood zoned for low density, etc. Their Letter of Operation proposed rules by
which they were going to abide and they were the ones who made up the rules but since the first day of
occupancy, nearly every flexible rule of the CUP and Letter of Operation has been violated. She
submitted copies of pictures taken four days after occupancy when five conditions were violated (made a
part of the record). She also relayed additional concerns (including traffic generation, illegally held
special events causing traffic congestion, endangering the safety of their children, continued violation of
the terms in their Letter of Operation, safety of the Eli Home as well as that of surrounding neighbors)
and cited a number of incidents. She respectfully requested that the Council deny the CUP.
Jeannie Averill, Canyon Crest Drive, Anaheim. The objective of her presentation pertains to one of the
CUP required land use criteria areas of peace and safety. The peace, safety and quality of life for their
neighborhood has drastically deteriorated over the past two years. Her presentation then covered the
many things they feel have been detrimental to the community since the establishment of the Eli Home.
Of major concern is safety to those who oppose the Eli Home wherein she cited the threats, even death
threats, that have been received. The Eli Home is an infringement on a homeowner's right to peace. It
is a business nuisance they are forced to live with. The Eli Home is a business and it does not deserve a
permit. They have refused any oversight or compliance with CUP rules. They are not worth the trouble
they have been to the City of Anaheim, taxpayers, and City employees. She asked that they deny
renewal of the CUP. No neighborhood deserves the abuse they have taken.
Gene Secrest, 121 S. Canyon Crest Drive, Anaheim. He first rebutted a number of statements made by
Mr. Anthony who spoke for the Eli Home relative to the HUD complaint which was an additional
complaint filed by Lori Galloway and the rash of Code Enforcement violations that he (Anthony) indicated
could not be verified. He noted that Code Enforcement does as good a job as they possibly can but it is
hard to dispatch someone in time to catch people parked out in the street. He then submitted
documentation covering a period of time where they were able to verify those complaints (photographs
submitted) which can be lined up with code violations called in by a variety of different people (made a
part of the record). There has been parking off site and a variety of visitors to the home as well as fund
raisers.
18
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MAY 19, 1998
Council Member Zemel interjected and, speaking to staff, noted that part of the issue is the fact that off-
site parking has been acknowledged as being a problem and they are trying to change that condition
tonight.
Mary McCIoskey. She confirmed that was correct and several of the other conditions being
recommended for amendment should lend themselves more to being enforceable. One condition says
that there is to be no parking on adjacent parcels. They believe the conditions as recommended for
amendment will strenghten their ability to eliminate off-site parking and their ability to control that better.
Mr. Secrest continued that the rules from the beginning were -- do not park there -- and if they do, to only
park in the lot. Unfortunately, the net result has been they have defiantly parked all over the place. He
does not believe there has ever been any confusion that they are not to park on adjacent streets. There
is confusion, "bait and switch" all the way through. What he heard tonight was an impassioned plea that
he wholeheartedly supports. He is not an advocate of domestic abuse but what they are bringing to light
-- all the people who have spoken and said they are victims of domestic violence -- by the Eli Horne's
own charter or rules of operation, could not allow any of them in. It is a home for abused children and
their mothers. If the mother is abused an any way, they cannot enter the Eli Home. It is a technical rule
that the Eli Home established to leave in a "gray" area. It took him three years to figure that out. The Eli
Home would have to be licensed by the County if the woman was abused because she would have
compromised ability to care for the children. They are not licensed by the State, County or anyone and
the reason is because they only take abused children.
Council Member Zemel interjected and, addressing the City Attorney, stated he believes it has been
established that the Eli Home does not need to be licensed to do what they do. He asked if that was still
the case; City Attorney White. That is the case as he understands California State law.
Gene Secrest. If there has been a compromise in the caregiver's ability to take care of the children, then
they must be licensed by the County or the State.
Mayor Daly. He asked the City Attorney on the subject of abused children, who makes the determination
that the child in question has been abused in this particular operation.
City Attorney White. As he understands, the way the home is operating, there is no necessity that there
be either a State or County license for the operation as it currently exists. He cannot answer the
question posed by the Mayor. It is a question the Mayor might want to address to the Eli Home operator
on direct rebuttal.
Gene Secrest then continued his presentation by rebutting comments made by several of the speakers
who spoke in favor of the Eli Home and elaborated on the issues broached. In concluding, he stated
what they should do is support organizations like Orangewood and Canyon Crest who do what they say
they are going to do and organizations that fulfill the need in the community. He urged that they redirect
their efforts, money and time to an organization worthy of a CUP in Anaheim and do not send them (the
neighbors and surrounding residents) through another four years of torture.
Ray Curtie, 7550 Martella Lane, Anaheim. He is speaking on behalf of his family, his brothers and
father, who live at 7560, 7570 and 7580 Martella Lane. This is not about the children but about a
conditional use of a specific property in the scenic corridor in the RS22,000 zone in a school district in
Anaheim. The Eli Home brought to a Council meeting a couple of years ago a multi-page document of
self-imposed rules that convinced the Council (at that time) to create a list of uses unprecedented in the
area which were heavily opposed in the community. Health, safety, traffic and environmental impacts
were conditionally overlooked. He reiterated, this is not about the children but about a CUPgiven on a
commitment to fit into a neighborhood. The original CUP had a time limit because there was a question
about their ability to fit in. That question has been answered and the answer is, no.
Maria Ritter, representing her husband, Larry Ritter, 191 Possum Hollow, Anaheim. He could not be
present tonight and asked that she read his comments which she did. The statement first gave the
19
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MAY 19, 1998
historic background of the Eli Home starting with their application to the City, the operating rules
proposed, the City's approval and some of the things that have occurred from that time to the present
and concerns regarding same. In concluding, the statement expressed his opposition to any more
reductions in the requirements for the Eli Home operation and building plan completion. These were
imposed to insure the operation would not interfere with their environment. Vehicle parking, travel to and
from and number of visitors allowed does affect the environment. Do not reduce the restrictions or limit
the CUP.
Donna Curde, 7570 Martella Lane, Anaheim. She recounted the meeting the neighbors were invited to
by the Eli Home in October of 1993 to learn about their work. The neighbors expressed their concerns
relative to neighborhood traffic and noise, the safety of the families and safety of the children to be
housed in the location. Eli Home specifically stated they wanted to be good neighbors and work with the
residents. A few months passed and they heard nothing. She then contacted Lori Galoway to discuss
the status of the project and was told that she must contact her (Galloway's) attorney. She (Galloway)
alluded to the fact that she had not made the statement about being good neighbors. Mrs. Curde stated
as she then recalled, it was not Mrs. Galloway who personally made the statement, but Bob Zemel, her
spokesperson. The Eli Home has never been a good neighbor.
Craig Bloom, 180 Possum Hollow, Anaheim. He read and then resubmitted letter dated August 1, 1994
from Bill Queenen, 563 S. Wrightwood Drive, Orange, the opening paragraph of which read, "1 am
writing this letter to the Anaheim City Council to provide information about what life was like on the
Wrightwood Drive cul-de-sac in the City of Orange during the years that the Eli Home resided here." The
two-page letter documented problems that were experienced due to the Eli Home's presence in their
neighborhood (letter again made a part of the record).
Council Member Zemel. The Council and the Planning Commission have taken quite a bit of testimony
about there being no other Eli Homes. There were no other properties and there were never any other
homes. That was stated by the leadership of the opposition tonight. He surmises that Mr. Bloom does
not subscribe to the idea that there are no other homes.
Craig Bloom. He answered obviously there are more homes; Jeannie Averill. She approached the
podium and stated she would like to correct that. The letter was written and dated in 1994 about the
years previous to that time. They have always acknowledged to have a shelter until October of 1993.
They did not have a shelter between October, 1993 and when they moved on to Canyon Crest Drive one
year ago. There is absolutely no conflict in what has been stated.
Summation by Applicant/Petitioner: Mr. Phil Anthony. It is obvious that there are very severe
differences of opinion and they do not intend to rebut point by point. It there are grudges from the past
and if there are law suits -- the lawyers are gone, the lawsuits are gone and the Eli program is trying to,
as it always has, live up to the intent of the CUP. There were a huge list of complaints filed, mostly in
1977, which were researched extensively by Code Enforcement. A subsequent letter from Code
Enforcement in January to Planning staff indicated they had researched the supposed complaints or
violations, and most could not be substantiated or proven. The pictures received tonight, which they
have not seen, show things which he is not sure would prove any definite violations of the use permit or
the conditions. The Eli program has been trying, and he believes successfully, to live up to the
conditions approved by the Planning Commission in February. There were a couple of situations in the
past which could be called mistakes or violations. There is no doubt that the neighbors, the Deterdings,
invited the Eli people to park on their private property and later learned from staff it was a violation of
City code no matter what and it has been clarified in the new conditions. It has been stopped. There is a
system now that they understand and that Code Enforcement can enforce. They do resent the grudges
from the past and the differences of opinions and feelings. Their position is that many so-called
violations were few or unintentional and they are working hard to make sure they don't happen again.
They would appreciate the Council's support. The program is good and they are going to make it better
as far as invisibility with the neighborhood. They fully support the conditions before the Council tonight
as recommended by the Planning Commission.
2O
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MAY 19, 1998
Council Member McCracken. She met with Mr. Anthony, Mrs. Grejwal and Lori Galloway and told them
of her concerns -- safety of the youngsters and of the neighborhood. She is especially concerned about
programmatic visits that are to be permitted (see Eli Home Letter of Operation of May 18, 1998). She
asked if they are going to be visits that allow others to come in. If the residents are at the home for
counseling, treatment, parenting and self-esteem, why would they need vehicles for personal
transportation. She had expressed her concern if this was a real treatment center or a "boarding house."
If a boarding house, there is not enough parking. Karen White made comments relative to Olive Crest
and the address she gave as an open house is an office building since that part of Irvine is office
buildings and not residential. The Women's Transitional Living Center has a thick book of operating
procedures. They have not seen anything like that from the Eli Home even after four years. She
reiterated her concerns about safety, anonymity of the home, licensing, personal transportation, and
especially the programmatic visits.
Mr. Anthony, speaking to the programmatic visits, stated the basic intent of such visits is someone who
goes to the home to help for a specific reason. He believes it could also include a relative. It is not
meant to be an open door for just anyone to come in. It would be by approval, planning and scheduling
by the staff.
Lori Galloway. They take every precaution to care about the safety of their residents. As far as driving
their vehicles, most of the time they do not. There have been particular instances where it is in the best
interest of the family to have their car there. Whose car is parked on and off the property at the Eli
Home should not be a City governmental problem but something the Eli Home should decide on a
discretionary basis. She clarified for Council Member Zemel that the Eli policy is not to have a car at the
home that can be recognized by the abusive spouse/person. The situation arose where neighbors
thought they had to verify which cars were on the property and they would follow residents, take pictures,
etc. Relative to programmatic visits, it is for the general benefit of the residents of the Eli Home.
Mayor Daly closed the Public Hearing.
Council Member Lopez. He has the same concerns as Council Member McCracken, especially relative
to the safety of children. As a Police Officer for over 29 years, he has been called out on many
occasions of abuse to mothers and children. He knows the importance of having locations that are safe.
Having met with staff members and individuals representing Eli Home, he told them he wanted to keep
the home as secretive as possible. This Public Hearing has been going on now for at least two hours, it
will be televised, in the papers, and everybody will know the location of the home. He does not see how
this can be considered a safe location for mothers and children.
The other thing that concerned him is the photographs that were submitted (by Mr. Secrest). Staff is
going to have to verify the information. One photograph dated July 19, 1997 says, fund raiser -
numerous cars, and there are two Police vehicles parked right in front of the Eli Home on the roadway.
He then read the caption, "Police arrived to clear street of illegal parking - Council Member Zemel
attempts to persuade Police that CUP allows parties/fundraisers." That disturbs him. As a Police
Officer, if he responded to a call where a Council Member told him there was no problem, he would not
take any action.
Council Member Zemel interjected and stated these are Mr. Secrest's statements and not Police Officer
statements; Council Member Lopez. This is what Mr. Secrest alleges and if that occurred, it disturbs him
and staff needs to research the matter.
There was further debate on the issue between Council Members Lopez and Zemel. Subsequently,
Council Member Zemel pointed out the reason this matter is the subject of a Public Hearing was because
Council Member Lopez was supportive of the hearing. He also asked that he not try to "hang" him on
something Mr. Secrest said. This is a land use issue and whether or not the City should continue the
CUP for another two years with the parking changed pursuant to the Planning Commission's
recommendation to the Council. That is the recommendation from staff, save the one year.
21
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MAY 19, 1998
Council Member Lopez continued that the photographs were taken by Mr. Secrest. If he is not being
truthful, they should know that as well. He reiterated, he wants staff to look into the matter. It is obvious
to him as much as he wants to approve the CUP, he cannot do so if the photographs are true. There is
so much going on at the property, he does not see how he can make a decision at this point. He asked to
hear from the Code Enforcement Manager.
John Poole, Code Enforcement Manager. The Council has before them in their packets a list of all the
complaints and responses that Code Enforcement has been involved with (see - Summary of Complaints
- 100 S. Canyon Crest Drive (the Eli Home) - previously made a part of the record). He proceeded to
read the complaints as requested by Council Member Lopez.
Extensive discussion, debate and questioning followed between Council Members Lopez and Zemel
relative to the complaints, their validity, whether verified or not, etc. During the discussion, Mr. Poole
stated that his staff was not able to verify most of the complaints, they have not prosecuted any, and no
citations were issued. Usually by the time they were able to get to the property, the nature of the
complaint no longer existed, for instance, cars were either moved or the complaint occurred on weekend
when Code Enforcement staff is not working.
Mayor Daly asked Mr. Poole to clarify the complaints received vs. complaints that have been verified
and also complaints verified and acted upon. He (Poole) has stated that no citations were issued. It is
his understanding of Code Enforcement that they do not always issue a citation even when they find
violations; Mr. Poole clarified that most of the time they do not issue citations. Relative to how many
complaints had been verified, he reiterated because most were off-site parking, they did go out and see
vehicles parked off the Eli property but most of the time when the officers responded, whatever the
complaint was about, it no longer existed by the time they got there. Sometimes it was a day or two
before they responded. He also confirmed for Council Member Zemel relative to complaints, on all
CUP's, it is their normal practice to work with the person or entity that has the CUP and it may be six
months or a year before they take enforcement action. Another way is to track the complaints and when
the permit comes up for renewal or they have to schedule the CUP for modification or termination, those
are then brought forward. In this case, they know the permit had a short life and that some of the
conditions were not easily enforceable. They are hoping to talk to the people, get compliance and
suggest modifications which they have done in this case. The modifications they have suggested, if
followed, would resolve the problems that have occurred. He also clarified that staff is suggesting a one-
year time limit for the CUP which is the norm in cases such as this, the feeling being that two years is too
long a time if problems keep occurring.
Additional discussion with staff followed on the issue of any possible further tightening of the conditions
imposed during which Mr. Poole was asked to speak to the programmatic visits. He stated from the
enforcement side, such visits would be very hard to enforce since there would be no way of knowing who
the person is. The wording he would suggest be removed is,"... or otherwise benefit the residents."
Council Member Zemel then asked Mr. Poole if he saw any reason to investigate or prosecute him on the
charges by a citizen which Council Member Lopez is bringing up, which is disappointing to him; Mr.
Poole answered that, if any charges were to be filed, it does not come under the jurisdiction of the Code
Enforcement office.
Closing Comments by Council Members:
Council Member Zemel. This is strictly a land use issue. It has been given a great deal of scrutiny on
both sides. Staff has created an excellent file and they gave good advice to the Planning Commission.
They agreed with everything staff said with the exception that staff wanted one year to see if the Eli
Home could live up to the conditions. The Planning Commission chose to disagree with staff by 12
months. In essence, Planning staff, Code Enforcement and six Planning Commissioners have said, give
the Eli Home another year. They have endorsed not only the program, but the land use issue. He
agrees with Council Member McCracken on some of the verbiage and thoughts she had. He is hoping
they will go forward and take staff's suggestion. He would like to support what the Planning Commission
22
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MAY 19, 1998
recommended but would also support staff. They ought to leave this to the land use issues knowing that
the Code Enforcement Department is not afraid to cite or close down or take away CUP's. There is now
a time frame and new conditions. He sees no reason why not to support staff and the Planning
Commission.
Council Member Tait: He looks at this as a land use issue. The Planning Commission "tweeked" a
couple of conditions relating to traffic allowing Eli Home a little more flexibility on on-site parking and
taking away any flexibility for off-site parking which, if he were a neighbor, would be more of a concern.
The Commission also granted a two-year extension saying this is not an unreasonable use in the
neighborhood. Tonight, if they do not vote along with the Planning Commission and vote this down,
tomorrow, the Eli Home is closed. He does not know if that is a good solution. It is not something he
would want to do and it would be a sad day because of some traffic or parking issues. He is prepared to
move on the CEQA finding.
Before doing so, Mayor Daly gave his comments. He was a Council Member when the permit to occupy
the property with a long list of conditions was approved four years ago. Eli Home representatives agreed
to that long list and some conditions have not yet been met. At the time, it was a very difficult decision
for him to make. He voted to allow the Eli Home to open under a series of strict conditions a number of
which were suggested by the Eli Home. In subsequent years, City government, the taxpayers of
Anaheim, have spent a lot of money monitoring the operation. It has been a costly effort for Anaheim.
To comment briefly on what cities do in this County to help abused children and abused women,
Anaheim helped to pay for the funding to build the Orangewood Home and every year makes a donation
to the Women's Transitional Living Shelter. There are at least two homeless shelters in the community --
the Salvation Army operates a rehabilitation home for recovering alcoholics which is in an industrial area.
He does not thin any City in Orange County has done more to allow for the housing of disadvantaged
persons and persons in need than Anaheim. There are cities in Orange County that have done nothing.
Most of these facilities operate quietly without controversy and with a good neighbor policy. If there are
initial concerns, respected operators generally can win over the neighborhood. In this case, there has
been concern from day one in the neighborhood. If the ongoing opposition and concern were limited to
one or two or three neighbors, he would be inclined to give benefit of the doubt to Eli. However, there is
consistent, ongoing rancor that exists. There are eight or nine neighboring property owners who have
heartfelt concerns. As Council Member McCracken mentioned, these types of facilities should not be
highly visible, advertised facilities. They should attempt to operate in a low-key manner. This is a land-
use issue and as a land-use question, what they have to look at, is it working for the neighborhood or not.
This is not working for this particular neighborhood at this particular time. There have been four years of
opportunity to try to resolve that. He cannot see a sincere effort on behalf of the operators of the home
to adopt a good-neighbor policy. He feels a land-use mistake was made four years ago and it should be
corrected and he will be opposing extending the permit for all those reasons.
Council Member McCracken. She asked the City Attorney procedurally if the two proposed actions are
to be handled separately; City Attorney White answered, yes. The first relates to the application to
amend the conditions of the existing permit that has now by its own terms expired. The second is the
application to extend that permit for an additional period of time (D1. and D2. respectively). It would not
be legally inconsistent for the Council to approve D1. and not approve D2. They could approve both, but
it would not be legallay inconsistent if they approved one and not the other.
Council Member Lopez. He wants to make it clear, he supports children and cares about children. He
has dealt with thousands of abused parents and children. The vote is not whether or not they care about
children. In 1985 he was appointed by Governor Dukmejian to the Child Abuse Prevention Committee
and took testimony up and down the state on child-abuse issues trying to find funding for housing and
safe homes for abused mothers and children. The location of the Eli Home is not a secret and everyone
knows where it is. There is no way the children or mothers can be safe there plus with the activities that
are going on, if the photographs are correct, it is obvious everyone knows where that location is and that
it is a disruption to that neighborhood. The bottom line is, children and mothers are not safe there. He is
23
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MAY 19, 1998
not going to approve the CUP. Also, in talking about property rights, the people living in that
neighborhood have rights as well.
Council Member Zemel then asked staff if there was anything the Planning Commission did not have in
making their recommendation alluding to Council Member Lopez's comment that they did not have the
information relating to the number of complaints; Mary McCIoskey answered that the Planning
Commission did not have the Revised Letter of Operation dated May 18, 1998.
Council Member Tait asked if there was any evidence that Code Enforcement has received that the
children staying at the home are in any kind of danger or put in jeopardy; John Poole. What he heard
tonight was there was not adequate supervision at times for the children. It was reported that there was
not a supervisor on duty.
Council Member Tait interjected and asked if they ever cited the home for no supervisor on duty; Mr.
Poole answered, no.
Answering Council Member Tait, Lori Galloway stated there has never been a time when children were
not supervised at the home.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Council Member
Tait, seconded by Council Member Zemel, 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, and 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.
(Mayor Daly voted No.) MOTION CARRIED.
Council Member Tait offered Resolution 98R-95 approving the modification/amendment of conditions.
Refer to Resolution Book:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF
APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3680 AND AMENDING
RESOLUTIONS NO. 94R-243 AND 97R-1 ACCORDINGLY.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Daly stated, for the reasons he mentioned earlier, because this was a
land-use mistake that needs to be corrected and the continuing lack of a good-neighbor policy, he will be
opposing the resolution.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 98R-95 for adoption:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: McCracken, Tait, Zemel
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Lopez, Daly
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 98R-95 duly passed and adopted.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Council Member
Zemel, seconded by Council Member Tait, 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, and 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.
(Mayor Daly voted No.) MOTION CARRIED.
24
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MAY 19, 1998
Council Member Zemel offered a resolution granting Conditional Use Permit 3680 subject to the findings
and conditions of the City Planning Commission, with the exception that it be for a period of one year
instead of two along with the changes read into the record by staff modifying/amending certain
conditions.
A vote was then taken on the proposed resolution granting Conditional Use Permit 3680 for one year with
amended conditions and failed to carry by the following vote:
Ayes: Council Members Tait and Zemel
Noes: Council Members McCracken and Lopez and Mayor Daly
Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 98R-96 for adoption denying an extension and reinstatement of CUP
3680
Refer to Resolution Book
Resolution No. 98R-96
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
DENYING AN EXTENSION AND REINSTATEMENT OF CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT NO. 3680 WHICH EXPIRED BY ITS TERMS ON APRIL 2,
1998 AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONJUNCTION
THEREWITH.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 98R-96 for adoption:
AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: McCracken, Lopez, Daly
NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Tait, Zemel
ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 98R-96 duly passed and adopted.
Council Member Tait. He thinks it would be a sad day in the City if they close the shelter.
Council Member Zemel. He is ashamed, embarassed and sorry. The Home has been performing a
service and he hopes they will stay and operate under State law but which will reduce dramatically the
number of children to be helped. He thanked the Anaheim Firefighters for their continued support
working on such a wonderful program. So it is clear, they have asked for 12 months with new conditions
so that Eli Home can continue to try to work out their problems with the neighborhood. They cannot say
they support children and then deny 12 months opportunity to help them.
Mayor Daly reiterated that no City in Orange County has done as much as Anaheim to house
disadvantaged persons. Anaheim has a justifiably proud record of accommodating facilities which are
shelters and homes for recovering alcoholics and other people in need over a long period of time.
RECESS: By general Council consent, the Council Meeting was recessed for 10 minutes (8:40 P.M.
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present (8:50
P.M.)
It was determined to discuss C1 and C2 together:
C1. SOUTH COAST CAB COMPANY REQUEST TO OPERATE A TAXI SERVICE:
To consider the request of South Coast Cab Company to operate a Taxi Service within the City of
Anaheim.
25
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MAY 19, 1998
C2. COAST YELLOW CAB COOPERATIVE, INC. REQUEST TO OPERATE A TAXI SERVICE:
To consider the request of Coast Yellow Cab Cooperative, Inc., to operate a Taxi Service within the City
of Anaheim.
Mayor Daly noted that South Coast Cab Company in their letter of May 15, 1998 has requested a four to
five week continuance. He is going to suggest a 60-day continuance on both requests (South Coast Cab
and Coast Yellow Cab Cooperative, Inc.), the rationale being there is a new license sticker decal
program which needs some time to operate. He asked if staff had any problems with a continuance.
John Poole, Code Enforcement Manager. He believes it might be a good idea. They are decaling all the
permitted cabs in the City. There has been much discussion whether there are enough cabs in Anaheim
or not and whether cabs are being used that don't have a permit. With the decals in place, they will be
able to get a better handle on how many are operating in the City.
City Attorney White noted the letter was received from South Coast Cab asking for a continuance on
both applications, but they have not yet heard from Coast Yellow Cab Cooperative which is the second
applicant as to whether they have a problem with the extension or not. As the Council knows, the City
has previously given a place holder to South Coast Cab to act on their application first. It would either be
in order to hear both or continue both.
Mayor Daly asked if a representative of Coast Yellow Cab Cooperative was present and would like to
comment relative to any continuance of their request.
From the audience, a representative of Coast Yellow Cab Cooperative stated a continuance is
acceptable but it is strange that after they already voiced their opinion, that they hear about it at the last
minute.
City Attorney White. The company that requested the continuance believes they will be in a better
position to present evidence of the need which would seem to benefit both companies. The sticker
process has just recently gone into effect.
Council Member Zemel. If the representative (from Coast Yellow Cab Cooperative) is not going along
with the continuance and wants to be heard tonight, they can do that; from the audience, the
representative stated they can go along with it (a continuance).
Council Member Tait asked staff's recommendation; John Poole. He does not see any problem with a
60-day continuance because it will give staff the opportunity to know better the number of cabs that are
not permitted. Staff is recommending denial and this will give both applicants an opportunity to provide
more information if they wish to do so.
After a brief discussion relative to the continuance, it was determined that the subject requests be
continued to July 21, 1998.
MOTION. Mayor Daly moved that the subject applications for permits to operate taxi cabs in Anaheim
(South Coast Cab Company and Coast Yellow Cab Cooperative, Inc.) be continued to July 21, 1998.
Council Member Tait seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
C3. 112: REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS: City Attorney White reported there were no
actions to report.
C4. 114: COUNCIL COMMENTS:
Council Member Zemel. He would like to agendize for the June 2nd Council Meeting support of
Governor Wilson's vehicle license fee tax break. He will be putting forward the discussion but would also
26
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA'- CITY COUNCIL MINUTES. MAY 19, 1998
like to have a resolution prepared by staff in case the votes are there so that it would be voted on for or
against - that's in full support of the Governor's position.
Mayor Daly asked the City Attorney to suggest a procedure for convening their next Council Meeting;
City Attorney VVhite stated it is.staff's recommendation to adjourn tonight's meeting since they have not
fully formatted next Tuesday's session. They will send out a notice of Special Meeting.
ADJOURNMENT: By general Council consent the Council Meeting of May 19, 1998 was adjourned.
The Mayor noted that they anticipated meeting Tuesday, May 26, 1998 at 5:00 P.M. (Previously, no
meeting was scheduled for that date but it was determined at the Council meeting of May 5, 1998 that a
meeting would be held for the purpose of a public discussion regarding the issues of sexually oriented
businesses since it was unable to be discussed at that meeting - see minutes that date). (8:50 P.M.)
LEONORA N SOHL
CITY CLERK
27