1998/06/23ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JUNE 23, 1998
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
MAYOR: Tom Daly
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Shirley McCracken, Tom Tait, Bob Zemel, Lou Lopez
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
PRESENT:
CITY MANAGER: James Ruth
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER: Dave Morgan
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
GOVERNMENT RELATIONS: Kristine Thalman
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Joel Fick
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Annika Santalahti
ZONING DIVISION MANAGER: Greg Hastings
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES COORDINATOR: Phillip Tsunoda
A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was posted at 2:55 p.m. on
June 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 meeting to order at 3:00 p.m.
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
1.
Agency negotiator:
Dave Hill
Employee organization:
Anaheim Police Association.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
2.
54956.9(a) - Existing Litigation:
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:
3.
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9 of the
Government
Code:
One
potential cases.
Existing facts and circumstances: possible challenge to pending decision concerning
amendment
or revocation of Conditional Use Permit No. 3662.
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
4.
Price & Terms
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JUNE 23, 1998
Under negotiation
Pointe Anaheim Project
Property:
1.34 acres at Clementine and Freedman Way
By general consent, the Council recessed into Closed Session.
AFTER RECESS:
The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present, and welcomed those
in attendance to the Council meeting. (5:07.m.)
INVOCATION:
Pastor Kieth Kettenring, Clavary Baptist Church, gave the invocation.
FLAG SALUTE:
Council Member Shirley McCracken led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
PRESENTATION - RECOGNITION OF SERVICE ON THE PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD:
Recognizing
R. J. McMillan for his service on the City’s Public Utilities Board.
Mayor Daly welcomed Mr. McMillan to the meeting as well as his wife and noted that several long-time
members of the Public Utilities Board were also present on Mr. McMillan’s behalf -- Joe White, Dale
Stanton, and Tom Kirker. The Mayor then presented Mr. McMillan with a Flying “A” Certificate
recognizing his 14 years of dedicated (and volunteer) service on the Public Utilities Board helping the
City through many difficult evaluations and decisions relative to the City’s public utilities. He and the
Council Members thanked Mr. McMillan on behalf of the City and its citizens for his long and dedicated
service.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY
in the amount of $7,397,049.01 for the period ending June
22, 1998, in accordance with the 1997-98 Budget, were approved.
Mayor Daly recessed the City Council meeting until after the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency and the
Anaheim Housing Authority meetings.
Mayor Daly reconvened the City Council Meeting. (5:16 p.m.)
ANNOUNCEMENT - RE: WITHDRAWAL OF PROJECT UNDER ITEM D1. - CONTINUED PUBLIC
HEARING - MAAG PROPERTY:
General Plan Amendment No. 353 - Reclassification No. 97-98-11 -
Revision to Santa Ana Canyon Road Access Point Study, Exhibit No. 7 - Conditional Use Permit No.
4004 - Specimen Tree Removal No. 98-01.
City Clerk Sohl. She noted that a number of people are present for the subject item which would
normally be heard under the Public Hearing portion of the agenda. She received a Fax late yesterday
afternoon dated June 22, 1998 from Martin Hannigan of G.M.E. Development in which he has withdrawn
the Maag Ranch Development project from consideration. She believes, therefore, that no further action
is required on the part of the Council and the item will be removed from the agenda.
Mayor Daly. Relative to the proposal under Item D1. which was a project proposed on the Maag
property, the item has been withdrawn from consideration by the developer. There will be no Council
action taken since the project is now no longer a project but is gone and no further Council action is
required. (The Mayor made the announcement again later in the meeting as well).
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: There were no additions to agenda items.
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST:
Debbie O’Neill, Concerned Citizens of the Canyon. She would like to take this opportunity to thank all
the residents of Anaheim Hills relative to their involvement with regard to the Maag Ranch Development
2
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JUNE 23, 1998
proposal (see Item D1.). The Concerned Citizens of the Canyon is an alliance of all residents of the hills
who presented Council with 1,500 signatures on petitions in opposition to the proposed project. In
addition, this evening she was prepared to present an additional 674 signatures in opposition. The
residents knew this was not the right development for the Canyon. She thanked the City Council for
taking the time to return their calls and answer questions and especially thanked Council Members
Zemel and Tait for their support from the beginning, to Council Member Lopez for giving them the
opportunity to meet with the developer and to Council Member McCracken who seconded the motion.
She also thanked all staff members who were involved in assisting them.
Roy Brown, 140 Calle Diaz, Anaheim. Relative to the project that was proposed on the Maag property,
he feels there is a more serious problem regarding that project and something is broken. The developer
had traffic experts, architects, economic advisors and a public relations firm. The homeowners had
nothing but themselves and were put in a position where they had to become experts. He does not feel
that is right. They look to Anaheim and staff to prepare reports in a clear and concise manner. They
believe that staff needs a new directive to put the residents of Anaheim first when the developers show
up asking if Anaheim is for sale. He urged that the Council find some new directives they can give to
staff so they always take into consideration the interests of the residents first when new projects come to
the City. He applauded the leadership shown by Council Members Zemel, Tait and Lopez on this issue.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Dr. John Baird, 3239 W. Ravenswood, Anaheim. In light of the recent court ruling (clearing wrong-doing
relative to campaign contributions), he feels he needs to speak concerning the use of a Special
Prosecutor. The fact that the City Attorney’s recommendation was completely ignored makes the action
of the Council minority even more questionable in initially hiring Ravi Mehta. In his opinion, the
ineptitude of Council Members Zemel and Lopez has cost Anaheim taxpayers in excess of $300,000.
This is even more interesting inasmuch as Council Member Zemel continues to trumpet his role as a
fiscal “watchdog” of the City but is willing to spend City money to support his political vendetta against
other Council Members and candidates. Because of the action of Council Members Zemel and Lopez,
arrangements (should be made) to reimburse the City for the full cost of the Special Prosecutor fiasco.
Mr. Mehta should have known better having served as Chairman of the Fair Political Practices
Commission. Further, he believes it is only fair that the City reimburse Council Member McCracken and
Mr. Feldhaus for the fines levied by Mr. Mehta which should never have been levied in the first place.
Finally, the Council should terminate the agreement with the present Special Prosecutor. According to
Judge Prickett, the Council does not have the authority to hire a Special Prosecutor.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The following was another Item of Public Interest but addressed after the Public Hearing portion of the
agenda.
City Clerk Sohl. She announced that Mr. Joseph Kung earlier requested to speak to the Council but was
not present when the public was invited to speak under Items of Public Interest at the beginning of the
meeting. He arrived later and has waited in order to address the Council if they wish to hear from him at
this time (approx. 7:55 P.M.).
Mr. Joseph Kung, General Partner, Imperial Canyon Shopping Center, 5581 E. Santa Ana Canyon Road,
Anaheim. He submitted a three-page document dated June 23, 1998 to the Mayor and City Council --
Subject: Potential Traffic Problems Generated by the Proposed Santa Ana Canyon Retail Plaza at N/E
Via Cortez and Santa Ana Canyon Road, attached to which were seven sheets, some showing diagrams
of the Imperial/Santa Ana Canyon Road intersection and surrounding intersections with peak-hour traffic
counts and/or distribution volumes as well as four pages of statistics containing traffic-count data at the
Imperial and Santa Ana Canyon Road intersection and other traffic analyses from the 91 Freeway exits
on Imperial to Santa Ana Canyon Road. These were as a result of his video taping during evening hour
traffic (made a part of the record). He noted that the data submitted contained information relative to the
shopping center proposed at Santa Ana Canyon Road and Via Cortez but now the developer has
3
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JUNE 23, 1998
withdrawn the project. He continued with his presentation outlining the four issues he feels are important
to discuss (see items 1, 2, 3 and 4 on Pg. 1 and 2 of the June 23rd submittal). He noted that No. 4, the
most important, relative to the Smart Street Project that is in process, he believes it is seriously flawed.
He hopes the Council will direct the Traffic Engineer and Street Design Manager accordingly as he
understands the plan will not be finalized until mid July so there is still time to make corrections if
needed.
PUBLIC COMMENTS - AGENDA ITEMS:
There were no public comments on the City Council Agenda items.
MOTION:
Mayor Daly moved to waive reading in full of all ordinances a
nd resolutions to be acted upon for
the Council meeting of June 23, 1998. Council Member Lopez seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR A1 - A35:
On motion by Mayor Daly,
seconded by Council Member Zemel
, 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-134
through 98R-137
, both inclusive, for adoption.
Mayor Daly offered Ordinance No. 5637
for ADOPTION. 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:
a. Claim submitted by
David Onestinghel
for
property damage
sustained purportedly due to
actions of the City on or about
May 6,
1998.
b. Claim submitted by
Christopher Kelley
for
property damage
sustained purportedly due to
actions of the City on or about
December 12
, 1997.
c. Claim submitted by
Leo Gabrielian
for
bodily injury
sustained purportedly due to actions of the
City on or about
November 14
, 1997.
d. Claim submitted by
Barbara Greenfield
for
bodily injury
sustained purportedly due to actions
of the City on or about
February 5
, 1998.
e. Claim submitted by
Kenneth F. Hall
for
property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions
of the City on or about
February 17
, 1998.
f. Claim submitted by Christina Gill for prop
erty damages and bodily injury sustained purportedly
due to actions of the City on or about September 20, 1997.
A2.
105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Investment Advisory Commission special meeting held
February 10, 1998.
105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Anaheim Redevelopment and Housing Commission
meeting held April 29, 1998.
163: Receiving and filing Resolution No. 15-97-98, an amended Resolution of the Board of
Education Orange Unified School District setting forth policies for f
unding additional school
facilities to meet its present and future needs and establishing amount of mitigation payments for
future legislatively approved land use development within the Orange Unified School District.
4
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JUNE 23, 1998
117: Receiving and filing the Investment Portfolio Report for the month of May, 1998, as
submitted by the City Treasurer.
A3.
169: Awarding a contract to the lowest responsible bidder, ABC Lawn Sprinkler Company, Inc.,
in the amount of $34,800 for Midway Drive Parkway Improvements; a
nd 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.
A4.
150: Awarding a contract to the lowest responsible bidder, ABC Lawn Sprinkler Company, Inc.,
in the amount of $73,939 for Jeffrey Lynne Neighborhood Center Improvements; and in the
event said low bidder fails to comply with the terms of the award, awarding the contract to the
second
l
ow bidder, as well as waiving any irregularities in the bids of both the low and second
low bidders.
A5.
165: Awarding a contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Southland Construction Co., in the
amount of $100,002 for Sunkist/Miraloma Sidewalk and Landscape Improvements and Academy
Avenue Sidewalk Improvements; 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.
A6.
169: Awarding a contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Excel Paving Company, in the
amount of $361,260 for Orangethorpe Avenue Street Improvements Imperial Highway to Cymbal
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.
A7.
169: Awarding a contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Excel
Paving Company, in the
amount of $364,593 for Southeast Corner of Anaheim Boulevard and Cerritos Avenue Street
Widening Improvements; 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 I
rregularities in the bids of both the low and second low bidders.
A8.
164: Amending the FY 1997/98 and FY 1998/99 Public Works Department Capital Improvement
budget to incorporate $350,000 from storm drain maintenance res
erves, for the project to cover
construction, staff, and contingency costs; releasing the low bidder, Paulus Engineering, Inc.,
from its bid; and awarding a contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Savala Construction
Company, Inc., in the amount of $321,671 for Gilbert Street Storm Drain Improvement from
Crescent Avenue to Carbon Creek Channel; 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 irregu
larities in the bids of both the low and second low bidders.
A9.
169: Awarding a contract to the lowest responsible bidder, T.M. Engineering, in the amount of
$1,943,983.58 for Imperial Highway Bridge Widening Project from 148 meters south of La Palma
Avenue to 184 meters north of the SR-91 Freeway at the Santa Ana River; 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 bot
h the low and second low bidders.
City Attorney White. He noted there is a revised staff report on this item. (See report dated June 23,
1998 from the Director of Public Works and City Engineer, Gary Johnson.)
City Manager Ruth. There was a calculation error in the bidding and the No. 1 bidder is withdrawing his
bid and the award is being made to the second lowest bidder, Griffith Company.
City Attorney White then clarified for Council Member Zemel that the original low bidder has asked to
withdraw his bid because of a clerical error. When that withdrawal occurs, the prior second low bidder,
Griffith Company, is now the low bidder. He also clarified that Public Works worked with his office and
5
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JUNE 23, 1998
determined under the law, a clerical error was involved that would authorize withdrawal of the bid. There
is an issue of whether it was timely. Under the circumstances, it appeared to be appropriate to
recommend withdrawal of the bid in this case and that was staff’s recommendation.
A10.
169: Awarding a con
tract to the lowest responsible bidder, T.A. Rivard, Inc., in the amount of
$1,491,239.10 for Anaheim Technology Center Public Infrastructure Improvements; 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.
Council Member Tait abstained on this item.
A11.
170: Approving the Final Map of Tract No. 13533, and the Subdivision Agreement with
Standard
Pacific Corporation; and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said Agreement. Tract
No. 13533 is located within The Summit of Anaheim Hills Specific Plan Area on Night Star Way,
and is filed in conjunction with Specific Plan No. 88-2.
A12.
170: Approving the Final Map of Tract No. 15500, and the Subdivision Agreement with F. C.
Holdings, Inc.; and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said Agreement. Tract No.
15500 is locatedat 325 South Fairmont Boulevard, and is fil
ed in conjunction with Variance No.
4314.
A13.
123: Approving and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute Amendment No. 1 to
Cooperative Agreement No. C-97-476 with the Orange County Transportation Authority to
extend the effective date of this Agreement to November 1, 1998.
A14.
123: Approving and authorizing the Mayor to sign the Cooperative Agreement with the Orange
County Transportation Authority for the Orange County Rail Transit Project.
A15.
130: RESOLUTION NO.
98R-134
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM declaring its intention to grant a franchise to Mobil Oil Corporation for pipelines for
oil, gas and other substances in a portion of Jefferson Street, and setting a public hearing date to
consider the granting of a franchise.
Council Member Tait abstained on this item.
A16.
106: Approving the increase in the Public Works Department’s fiscal year 1997-98 Gas Tax
(Operations) budget in the amount of $74,000; and approving the adjustment to the Public
Works Department’s fiscal year 1997-98 Capital Improvement budget in the amount of $175,000.
City Manager Ruth. Staff is respectfully asking for a continuance on the following items: A17., A18.,
A19. and A20. More time is needed to work with the union to see if differences can be resolved relative
to the bid process.
A17.
160: The low bid of Integrated Power & Lighting, in an amount not-to-exceed $41,015 for the
lighting retrofit/replacement at the Fire Stations, in accordance with Bid #5763. (Con
tinued
from the meeting of June 9, 1998, Item A9.)
A18.
160: The low bid of Sun & Sun Industries, dba Sun Industries, in an amount not-to-exceed
$49,108 for the lighting retrofit/replacement at the Police Department, in accordance with Bid
#5758. (Continued from the meeting of June 9, 1998, Item A10.)
A19.
160: The low bid of Sun & Sun Industries, dba Sun Industries, in an amount not-to-exceed
$78,956 for the lighting retrofit/replacement at City Hall East, in accordance with Bid #5760.
(Continued
from the meeting of June 9, 1998, Item A11.)
6
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JUNE 23, 1998
A20.
160: The low bid of Integrated Power & Lighting, in an amount not-to-exceed $187,235 for the
lighting retrofit/replacement at four Anaheim Libraries and the Brookhurst Community Center,
in accordance with Bid #5762. (Continued from the meeting of June 9, 1998, Item A12.)
It was determined that Items A17., A18., A19. and A20. be continued until the next Council Meeting, July
14, 1998.
A21.
160: Accepting the low bid of M.L. Uhlich Company, in an amoun
t not-to-exceed $34,100 for
repairing and installing security cameras at the Convention Center all in accordance with Bid
#5816.
A22.
123: Authorizing the execution of an Agreement; and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue
a
Purchase Order to EC Systems, in an amount not-to-exceed $58,290 for remote terminal
software for RECLAIM compliance for the Public Utilities Department.
A23.
160: Accepting the low bid of Comp USA Corporate, in an amount not-to-exceed $150,000 for
software and software li
censes, as required for the period July 1, 1998 through June 30, 1999,
with three one year optional renewals, and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to exercise renewal
options, in accordance with Bid #5818.
A24.
127: RESOLUTION NO.
98R-135
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM calling and giving notice of the holding of a general municipal election to be held
on Tuesday, November 3, 1998, for the election of certain officers as required by provisions of
Article XIII, Sec. 130
0 of the City Charter.
127: RESOLUTION NO.
98R-136
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM requesting the Board of Supervisors of the County of Orange to consolidate a
General Municipal Election to be held on November 3, 1998, with the Statewide General
Election to be held on that date pursuant to Sec. 10403 of the Elections Code.
127: RESOLUTION NO.
98R-137
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM adopting regulations for candidates for elective office p
ertaining to candidates
statements submitted to the voters at an election to be held on Tuesday, November 3, 1998.
A25.
161: ORDINANCE NO.
5637
(ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM approving and adopting the amended Redevelopment Plan for the West Anaheim
Commercial Corridors Redevelopment Project. (Introduced at the meeting of June 16, 1998,
Items Agency 1 and A25.)
A26.
174: Authorizing the Mayor to execute letters of endorsement for an application for 50
certificates and 50
vouchers under the Section 8 Mainstream Housing Opportunities for Persons
With Disabilities Program and for an application for 100 certificates under the Section 8 Family
Unification Program.
A27.
123: (1) Approving the Assignment and Assumption Agreement between Anaheim Motors, Inc.,
and the City of Anaheim to Argonaut Holdings, Inc.; (Anaheim Auto Center - Saturn Dealership).
(2) Approving the Amendment of Covenant and Assignment and Assumption Agreement
between Anaheim Motors, Inc., Argonaut Hol
dings, Inc., ACD Holdings, L.L.C. and the City of
Anaheim;
(3) Approving the Assignment and Assumption Agreement of the Restrictive Covenant Affecting
Real Property between Anaheim Motors, Inc., and the City of Anaheim to Argonaut Holdings,
Inc.; and
7
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JUNE 23, 1998
(4) Approving the Amendment of Restrictive Covenant between Argonaut Holdings, Inc., and
the City of Anaheim - Anaheim Auto Center - Saturn Dealership.
A28.
123: Approving the Plumbing Utility Agreements between the City of Anaheim and Dow
Plumbing
Company, J & D Plumbing and Yard Plumbing which authorizes these Plumbing
Contractors to provide various plumbing services, on a non-exclusive basis to persons at the
Convention Center who require such services in connection with events. Plumbing
Contractors will pay the City of
Anaheim a commission fee based on gross revenues earned
from such services.
A29.
123: Approving the five separate Electrical Utility Agreements between the City of Anaheim and
Edlen Electrical; Expo West; National Electric
al Systems; San Diego Stage & Lighting and Trade
Show Electric which authorizes each of the Electrical Contractors to provide various electrical
services, on a non-exclusive basis to persons at the Convention Center who require such
services in connection with events. The Electrical contractors will pay the City of Anaheim a
commission fee based on either the wattage used or a percentage of gross revenues earned
from such services (whichever amount is greater).
A30.
123: Approving Agreement No. 3CA
98849, the Wildland Fire Protection Agreement for certain
wildland areas within the City of Anaheim, which updates the rate per acre to be charged for
fiscal year 1998/99, and which provides a new expiration date of June 30, 2001.
A31.
139: Approving the recommended positions on the following two items in the State budget bill
pursuant to the City’s 1998 Legislative Program and communicating these positions to
appropriate representatives in Sacramento:
1) OPPOSING BUDGET ITEM #3860-001-0001-2 OF ST
ATE BUDGET BILL regarding the
Metropolitan Water District from accessing its reserve funds without a declaration from the
Governor or until an audit is performed by the Auditor General.
Kristine Thalman, Government Relations Manager, answering Council Member Zemel explained this is
being considered by the legislature at this time. It is mainly a local control issue. Anaheim is a charter
member of the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) and this could have a negative impact on residents as
far as reserve funds which are used for rate stabilization. A representative from the Water Department is
present to answer questions.
Don Calkins, Water Engineering Manager. The amendment has significant restrictions to MWD’s
reserve funds. Those funds are critical for the use of rate stabilization that allows MWD to keep their
rates constant and, therefore, the City can do likewise. If they cannot access those reserve funds, they
will have to fluctuate their rates significantly and the City would have to do the same. MWD is opposing
this as well. He also clarified that this is a separate item from the issue under AB1812.
Council Member Zemel asked for a full report on that. Potentially, if AB1812 goes through, there could
be a considerable increase in water.
Don Calkins. At the Orange County Water District (OCWD) Board meeting last Wednesday night, the
Board chose to defer the bill until next year because there are still unresolved questions; Council
Member Zemel reiterated his request for a full report on the issue.
2) SUPPORTING BUDGET ITEM #4170-101-0001 OF STATE BUDGET BILL regarding funding
for Acacia Adult Day Center.
Mayor Daly. On the second part of the item, the adult day care, he asked if this was an item that has
been considered by the Legislative Committee.
8
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JUNE 23, 1998
Kristine Thalman. This is also another State budget item that is under consideration. It is a request from
their neighboring city which houses the Acacia Adult Day Care Center. Since Anaheim senior citizen
residents take advantage of the facility, it does have an impact to Anaheim so they are asking the
Council to support the funding.
A32.
128: Approving the FY 1997/98 write-off of uncollectible miscellaneous and paramedics
accounts receivable totaling $725,003.92.
A33.
128: Approving the Fiscal Year 1997/98 write-off of uncollectible accounts of $618,802 (net),
with the Sanitation Division’s portion of the gross bad debt write-off at $160,018, the balance
(gross)
being electric $509,551, water $64,747, and miscellaneous charges s
uch as diversion
investigation charges $2,866 totaling $737,182. The recommended write-off amount represents
0.205% of the current year’s revenue of $301,902,941.
A34.
123: Approving Orange County Transportation Authority Agreement C-8-0057, in the amount
not-to-exceed $130,000 to relocate, reconstruct and/or abandon facilities in conjunction with the
Beach Boulevard Widening Project between the 91 Freeway to 0.1mile s/o Lincoln Avenue.
A35.
114: Approving minutes of the Anaheim City Council meetin
g held June 2, 1998.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 98R-
134 through 98R-137
, both inclusive, for adoption:
AYES:
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: McCracken, Tait, Zemel, Lopez, Daly
NOES:
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT:
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 98R-134
through 98R-137
, both inclusive, duly passed and
adopted.
Roll Call Vote on Ordinance No.
5637
for adoption:
AYES:
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: McCracken, Tait, Zemel, Lopez, Daly
NOES:
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS:None
ABSENT:
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No.
5637
duly passed and adopted.
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR. MOTIONS CARRIED. Items A17, 18, 19 and 20 continued to July 14,
1998.
INTRODUCTION - NEW ANAHEIM BUSINESS:
Mayor Daly. He would like to take this opportunity
to introduce a gentleman who is bringing a new car dealership to the Anaheim Auto Center, Mr. John
Campbell. Richard Bruckner of Community Development has been working with Mr. Campbell on
bringing a Saturn dealership to the center. He (Daly) promised Redevelopment staff in recognition of all
their hard work in bringing more revenue, business and prosperity to the City, he would introduce Mr.
Campbell and welcome him to Anaheim.
Mr. John Campbell. They will be in the Planning Department next week with their plans and their
business is expected to be opened within 12 months. He appreciates everything staff and the City has
done to make this possible. They look forward to coming to the City. He welcomed everyone to the
Saturn dealership at that time.
Mayor Daly. He thanked professional City staff who have worked hard to complete the Anaheim Auto
Center. With the addition of this dealership, the Auto Center is just about filled up.
CITY OF ANAHEIM’S EMERGENCY AMBULANCE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM:
A36. 129:
Authorizing City staff to enter into negotiations with CARE Ambulance Service, Inc., to develop a
9
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JUNE 23, 1998
contract for emergency transportation services for the City of Anaheim. This matter was continued from
the Special Meeting of May 26 and regular meeting of June 9, 1998 (see minutes those dates) to this
date.
Mayor Daly. There have been two previous staff presentations (see minutes of May 26 and June 9,
1998) on this item and also ample opportunity given for Council Members to meet with the Fire Chief and
other City staff regarding their analysis and recommendation on this subject. He asked the City Manager
and Fire Chief if there are additional comments regarding the recommendation.
City Manager, James Ruth. He would like to preface the discussion tonight to try to respond to
comments made by Council Member Zemel at the June 9, 1998 Council meeting regarding staff’s
participation in possibly politicizing the process. He wants to assure the Council his comments are only
intended to make it perfectly clear that he believes staff operated in a fully professional manner
throughout the RFP process. Statements suggesting staff impropriety in the process could erode public
confidence in local government as well as destroy the fabric of professionalism and integrity which the
City has enjoyed since its incorporation thus undermining the essence of the administrative process in
the City. Allegations that staff politicized the process, intimidated representatives of the Chamber of
Commerce, YMCA and the Anaheim Boys and Girls Club in an effort to discourage them from attending
City Council meetings in supporting award of the emergency response contract to AMR were unfounded.
He explained other steps he had taken in an effort to give further scrutiny to the process resulting in the
conclusion that he was satisfied that the process was fair, competitive, met or exceeded other RFP’s
done in the County and designed to give the citizens of Anaheim the best possible medical response
service at the most competitive cost.
In addition to his discussions with the representatives of Orange County who were involved in the entire
oversight of the process, he solicited the services of Altmayer Consulting recommended to him by Ernst
& Young to further review the process. The Altmayer firm has had extensive experience in review of
local government internal controls and purchasing practices as well as drafting RFP’s and evaluating
consistency with City procurement procedures. They reviewed all documents relating to the RFP, spoke
to the County of Orange Emergency Medical staff and interviewed members of the panel who were
involved in evaluation of the process. Christina Altmayer is available in the audience this evening to
review their findings and conclusions. Also, Janice Wirth, Director of Emergency Services for the
County of Orange is present tonight to respond to any questions. Chief Bowman is available at this time
to discuss or respond back to the Council or the audience on any specific concerns they might have
relative to the technical aspects of the findings or recommendations.
Council Member Tait asked for a presentation by the consultant.
Christina Altmayer, Principal, Altmayer Consulting. They were engaged by Anaheim to conduct a
review of the RFP process for the selection of ambulance services.
Council Member Lopez interjected and first asked to hear her qualifications which Ms. Altmayer briefed.
Council Member Tait asked if she was working with the City on other projects; Ms. Altmayer answered,
no. She was referred by Sally Anderson who is the partner in charge of the audit firm of Ernst & Young.
She also clarified for Council Member Zemel that she had never done any work for the City before.
Ms. Altmayer continued and explained the specific areas they were asked to review -- (1) the City’s
adherence to the stated process as defined in the RFP. (2) To review the steps as they were comparable
to common practices generally found in other municipal organizations, i.e., did they follow the process
and was that process consistent with other practices found in other comparable organizations based on
their experience. That was the focus of the review. They have prepared as an attachment to the report
(see report dated June 23, 1998 from Altmayer Consulting), a matrix which outlines their findings. As the
City Manager mentioned, in general, they found the City to be in compliance in all instances with the
process identified in the RFP and found those practices consistent with practices in other government
organizations. In certain circumstances, those steps went beyond what they have seen in other
10
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JUNE 23, 1998
organizations. She can give two examples of that. The first was the pre-issuance conference. They
generally do not see City’s holding a bidder’s conference until the RFP is issued. The advantage is it
allows bidders to ask questions and to have direct input. Another example is the criteria the City
established. The City did a two-level criteria where they stipulated the number of points that would be
associated with each criteria such as experience of the proposed firm plus within that criteria of
experience they designed a specific point score that the evaluator should use. This again minimized the
opportunity for personal intrepretations by the evaluation panel.
Council Member Tait. The bottom line for him -- he wants to know if they picked the best ambulance
firm for the people of Anaheim. He asked if that was addressed in the evaluation.
Christina Altmayer. They did not evaluate the individual proposers. The review focused on the process
the City set up in order to evaluate the proposals but what she did say, while no process can guarantee
that they have selected the best firm, the City’s process was reasonable and thorough and by
establishing a thorough and reasonable process, they have hopefully protected against selecting the
wrong firm minimally and hopefully constructed a process that would lead them to the best firm to
perform the service. She does not believe they were unduly rushed in putting together this opinion. They
did not evaluate or review the proposals submitted. They interviewed the two representatives from the
County of Orange and members of the evaluation panel. The focus was on the process the City used to
select a firm.
Council Member Zemel. He asked if she was aware that there was a Fire Captain who declared a
conflict after he wrote the RFP and work was done subsequent to him doing so; Ms. Altmayer answered,
yes. They reviewed the memorandum that indicated there was a potential conflict.
Council Member Zemel. Even though the consultant was aware of the potential conflict, he asked for
clarification that they were still saying the process was OK.
Tom Altmayer, Principal, Altmayer Consulting. What they did to insure there was no effect on the
process was to evaluate the RFP and determine if there was anything unusual within the RFP which the
Captain worked on which would have given an unfair advantage to one firm or the other. He explained
what they did to accomplish that process.
Additional questions were posed by Council Member Zemel surrounding the issue of the potential conflict
of interest and its possible effect which were answered by Mr. Altmayer who, after extensive questioning,
stated looking at the process that was given to them, they determined it had no effect.
City Manager Ruth noted the memorandum from the City Attorney dated June 22, 1998 stating that there
was absolutely no conflict by Captain Chamberlain. It was a two-page document given to all the Council
Members and it should be made a part of the record.
Council Member Zemel. He has additional questions, one being if the consultant was aware that the
rating guideline was pulled back initially because it was determined to be biased.
Fire Chief, Jeff Bowman interjected and stated he needed to make sure it is on the record again that it
was not the rating tool that was pulled back -- it was a guide for potential raters or proposers. As they
write the RFP, it was a guide and not the rating tool.
Council Member Zemel then continued with his line of questions which were answered by either Christina
or Tom Altmayer relating to the rating guide, public policy issues, panel selection, bias issues, etc. At the
conclusion, questions were also posed by Council Member Tait relative to the experience criteria and the
time frame in which the consultant had to complete the work.
11
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JUNE 23, 1998
Mayor Daly noted that the report mentioned the consultants interviewed some members of the
independent review panel. He asked if the panelists detected any problems that they had experienced or
if there were any feelings they had that the process had been biased in any way.
Tom Altmayer. He spoke with two of the members and both expressed that they felt the process was
more than sufficient. They were asked, were they given enough information to make an independent
decision, was the process fair, did they see any need for additional information or would they have done
anything different. Both expressed that they had enough information and did not have any suggestions
for future changes to such a process.
Council Member Zemel then asked if they felt it was important or not for there to be a pass-fail segment
that would include a subject like experience; Mr. Altmayer explained the experience category looked at a
lot more things than just how many years of business experience and it was stronger than a pass-fail. He
then explained what it entailed.
Upon additional questioning by Council Member Zemel relative to the experience issue and whether or
not it was important, Christina Altmayer reiterated and emphasized that the scope of their analysis was
whether or not the process that the City designed was followed and whether or not it was consistent with
practices in other municipal organizations. They did not evaluate whether or not the evaluation criteria or
the weighting should have been structured differently or if how they ranked qualifications was
appropriate.
Mayor Daly. The City Manager and Fire Chief can respond to the policy type questions as to the relative
experience necessary.
Christina Altmayer. If the City did want them to do that, they would need more time and would probably
call on people who are the experts. The City did look at RFP’s developed by other cities and used those
as a baseline for developing their own RFP.
Council Member Tait. What he asked for a couple of weeks ago was a second opinion -- whether the
staff’s recommendation was a right recommendation; Christina Altmayer confirmed that is not the
question they answered but were evaluating whether or not the process developed should get the City to
that answer. They are saying that the process was so thorough and comprehensive that it should get
them to that answer.
Council Member Tait asked for confirmation that their position is the RFP process was consistent with
other municipalities and it was followed; Christina Altmayer answered that was correct. What she feels
comfortable saying -- it was a thorough and comprehensive process and steps taken that she does not
see other cities take like site visits, review of financial statements, etc. They also understand members
of
the Fire Department looked at the training plan. The City did all those things -- a well constructed
process should give a well-constructed result. She clarified for Council Member Tait that if they had
more time, they could do what he (Tait) asked.
Discussion followed between Mayor Daly and Council Member Tait wherein the Mayor asked for
specifics relative to his (Tait’s) request since the RFP process had five independent analysts including
fire professionals and Anaheim business people. He feels relative to Council Member Tait’s suggestion,
he needs something he is not sure exists.
Council Member Tait. Staff is recommending they change the ambulance service in the City that they
have had for 30 years. What he asked for is a second opinion that gives him a further level of comfort.
Staff chose a consultant, Altmayer, to review the process and he is convinced of their independence but
what he would like is more than a three-day review. He would like the consultants to continue through
the process and say -- Anaheim, you chose CARE and they concur in that recommendation.
12
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JUNE 23, 1998
Mayor Daly then asked to hear from the City Manager and Fire Chief on the issue of having an outside
body confirm that the recommendation is the best one. He has shared his thoughts which is that they
have already had a five-member panel who made a unanimous recommendation. They can appoint
another five-member panel, but at what point does the process end and they accept a recommendation.
City Manager Ruth addressed the issue outlining the extensive steps taken in the process to assure a fair
process. They do not have an ax to grind or a preference, but are looking for the best. The City and Fire
Department have to live with the result. They have no negative comments about any of the providers.
There was a reason for the selection of the No. 1 proposal -- they excelled in the process. Staff can go
out and hire other people or bring in other people to get another opinion; that is something they can do if
the majority of the Council wishes. He believes the recommendation is a good one and a sound one
based on hundreds of hours of involvement by staff and people in the community and it is before the
Council for their consideration tonight.
Fire Chief Bowman also addressed the issue in detail, specifically the experience issue. He again
showed the slide he presented at the meeting of June 9, 1998 -- Scoring/Value Summary (Sec. I -
Experience) -- the management experience in the business and their qualifications why they only gave
13% of the points but it is not just the 911 experience but the ability of the management team to direct
how those field resources will be utilized. Those two factors combined accounted for 50% of the point
value under experience.
In concluding his comments, Chief Bowman stated he has never nor would he ever do anything to try
and influence any process as a reporting individual to the City Council through the City Manager other
than what is his best professional recommendation. City Manager Ruth charged him to do that in this
process, he has done it, he (Ruth) believes it and he hopes the Council believes this is the best
professional recommendation for providing emergency services in Anaheim. They entertained a panel
of five people, people committed to serve Anaheim by selecting the best proposal submitted. They did
not bias the panel but gave them a very general description of what they were looking for. They saw the
RFP, saw the proposals, heard presentations by each of the proposers and got to ask them questions.
All five people were given a “ton” of information to look at and ample time to consider it. On top of their
independence, they brought in the County, not only to help draft the RFP, but also to help draft the rating
tool and to sit down with them while the panelists reviewed the proposal while they heard the
presentations and while the panelists gave them the grades. Someone would have cried foul had staff
tried to influence the outcome.
Further, they hired an independent consultant to evaluate the process because they kept hearing it was
biased. It was not. They heard from the consultant who spent a very thorough three days evaluating the
process and they found not only nothing wrong, but said it was a great process and it exceeded what
other communities have done. He firmly believes in this panel’s recommendation and staff’s
recommendation or he would not be before the Council today. The panel has come to the conclusion
that one company made the best proposal and it was CARE Ambulance. The Fire Department staff
evaluated it along with that panel separately to make sure they agreed -- and they do.
MOTION. At the conclusion of discussion, questioning and comments by Council Member Zemel with
input from the City Manager and the consultant, Council Member McCracken moved to authorize staff to
enter into negotiations with CARE Ambulance Services, Inc., to develop a contract for emergency
transportation services for the City of Anaheim. Mayor Daly seconded the motion.
Before further action was taken, Mayor Daly noted this is the third time the item has been on the agenda
and at the meeting of June 9, 1998 (see minutes that date) there were a number of public comments
including comments from the ambulance companies.
Council Member Zemel asked if they were going to see if anyone wanted to speak; Mayor Daly. They
gave ample opportunity for anyone to speak at that time (6/9/98). He thereupon asked if anyone wished
to speak at this time.
13
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JUNE 23, 1998
Dave Austin, Director of Operations, AMR Metro South. They have expressed their concerns over the
many questions that still remain unanswered regarding the RFP process. He urged the Council to “throw
out” the process and reissue an RFP. However, they are committed to provide excellent ambulance
service to the citizens and would assist in a smooth transition with no disruption to the citizens.
There were no further persons who wished to speak.
Mayor Daly. He is in support of the staff recommendation for a number of reasons. It comes down to
the fact that the Fire Chief who has been in the employ of the City for many years and is a well-known
fire professional in the industry and a panel of experts have given them their best professional
recommendation. He respects the advice and judgment of the Fire Chief and panel of experts. He
believes this action will lead to better ambulance service for Anaheim.
Council Member Tait. He would echo what the Mayor said about the Fire Chief and staff but he still
believes a second opinion for a decision of this magnitude is essential. After three days, Ms. Altmayer
did a fine job in evaluating the process, but he thinks she fell short in her scope of recommending to
them as to whether or not she concurs in the recommendation of CARE. That is what he was interested
in -- whether they have chosen the best ambulance company. Otherwise, he is not comfortable in
supporting the recommendation at this time. He would like to give the consultant two weeks to review the
proposals, ask more questions, and then come up with a recommendation.
Council Member Zemel. If the first motion does not pass, he is prepared to put forward a motion to
privatize the RFP process and send it out to have an independent company or companies do the entire
RFP process.
A vote was then taken on the motion to support the recommendation to enter into negotiations with
CARE. Ayes: McCracken, Daly. Noes: Tait, Zemel, Lopez. THE MOTION FAILED TO CARRY.
MOTION. Council Member Zemel moved to start all over again and privatize the RFP process. Council
Member Lopez seconded the motion for purposes of discussion.
Council Member Zemel. The process has been divisive and political. It is best to send it out and have
an independent third party do the entire RFP process; Mayor Daly asked for clarification of the motion.
Council Member Zemel. He would like to have staff recommend a procedure in which they would
privatize the RFP process and upon receiving the information, the Council would vote to adopt one of the
recommendations for privatization.
Mayor Daly. He expressed his concern over the cost. It is an idea that was broached and discussed by
the Council many months ago. He was opposed to the idea of bringing in an outside consulting firm to
conduct a private process for a variety of reasons, the first being the expense involved which he is
certain will be at least $100,000. Secondly, they have just finished at least a six-month process led by
the City Manager and Fire Chief conducting a process which would lead to the selection of the best
ambulance service for the City. What the Council is saying, if they choose to ignore that
recommendation is that they do not trust the professional recommendations of the Fire Department.
That is a concern to him as a citizen of the City. There are a number of other concerns which he will be
sharing when this comes back to the Council.
Council Member Zemel. On the issue of expense, they would be “selling a seat at the table” and the
people responding would have to pay a fee so there would be no cost to the City, at least under the
process he would vote for. The cost of the process would be eliminated -- it would be cost neutral.
Mayor Daly. They had a chance to review the RFP that the staff prepared, the RFP was out on the
street, Council Members who wanted to review it could do so, but his recollection is that there were no
changes recommended to the RFP. A majority of the Council was comfortable issuing the RFP. Now,
Council Member Zemel’s proposal is to throw out the RFP process and six months of time spent on
14
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JUNE 23, 1998
behalf of the taxpayers of Anaheim. He feels there is a major problem with the situation and he will be
commenting as this comes back to the Council in the future. This is a very unhealthy situation.
Council Member Lopez. Everyone has had a lot of questions -- Council Member Zemel is at one
extreme and Council Member Tait at the other. Perhaps 30 or 45 days are needed to answer the
questions Council Member Tait has. He is sensitive to the question both Council Members have raised.
Council Member Zemel. The last thing he is suggesting is a continuance. He does not think there are
questions that need to be answered. He cannot speak for Council Member Tait. They should get started
on picking the City’s new ambulance company. They should not delay.
Mayor Daly. There is a motion on the table to privatize the RFP process. He asked if there were any
further comments unless Council Member Zemel would like to withdraw his motion; Council Member
Zemel said he did not want to withdraw his motion.
Council Member Tait. He is not sure he is ready to vote to start the whole process over again. He would
like a continuance not just for the sake of continuing, but throughout the concept of the consulting firm
going forth in its review to determine whether they have chosen the best ambulance firm. During this
continuation, he would like to have more than three days and have the consulting firm go through the
proposals of the individual companies, interview the companies, and come up with a recommendation.
Mayor Daly asked if that was in the form of a motion.
MOTION. Council Member Tait stated he will move to continue with that provision (see above).
Mayor Daly stated that the motion to continue takes priority over any other motion. He asked if there
was a second to the motion to continue.
Council Member Lopez seconded the motion.
Council Member Tait then clarified for the Mayor that he would like a four-week continuance.
Council Member Lopez. He asked Council Member Tait if he would like the evaluators to interview the
Council Members as well. Council Member Zemel seems to have a lot of questions and he has a few
questions as well. He does not know if they will be able to do that as part of Council Member Tait’s
request; Council Member Tait was amenable noting it is better to have too much information than not
enough.
A vote was then taken on the motion for a four-week continuance as offered by Council Member Tait.
Ayes: McCracken, Tait, Lopez. Noes: Zemel, Daly. MOTION CARRIED.
ITEMS B1 - B7 FROM THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MEETING OF JUNE 4, 1998 - DECISION
DATE: JUNE 11, 1998 INFORMATION ONLY - APPEAL PERIOD ENDS JUNE 26, 1998:
ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 141 CEQA EXEMPT {SECTION 15061(b) (3)}:
B1.
179:
OWNER: Patrick and Jennifer Harlow, 177 S. Trish Court, Anaheim, CA 92808
LOCATION: 177 South Trish Court.
Property is 0.45 acre, has a frontage of 126 feet on the
west side of Trish Court, has a maximum dep
th of 170 feet, and is located 215 feet south of
the centerline of Silver Dollar Lane.
Waiver of minimum front yard setback, to construct a 73 square foot porch addition to an
existing house.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
:
Administrative Adjustment No. 141 APPROVED (ZA DECISION NO. 98-15).
15
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JUNE 23, 1998
ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 142
B2.
179:
CEQA EXEMPT {SECTION 15061(b) (3)}:
OWNER: CHOCO Realty Corp., P.O. Box 5700, Orange, CA 92863
AGENT: Craig Clausen, 2795-F West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim,
CA 92701
LOCATION: 7777 East Santa Ana Canyon Road
. Property is 3.06 acre located at the terminus
of Camino Tampico having a frontage of 80 feet at the terminus of Camino Tampico and 783
feet on the northwest side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, maximum depth of 348 feet, and located
390 feet northeast of the centerline of Eucalyptus Drive.
Waiver of maximum fence height to construct an 8-foot high block wall abutting the western
property line adjacent to 2 single-family residences to screen an approved
self-storage facility.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
Administrative Adjustment No. 142 APPROVED (ZA DECISION NO. 98-16).
Council Member Lopez posed questions for purposes of clarification especially relative to notification of
the neighbors which were answered by the Zoning Administrator and the Planning Director. They
reported that notification was given to residents within 300’ and nobody showed up at the hearing or
contacted staff.
VARIANCE NO. 4335, CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 3:
B3.
179:
OWNER: Woodbridge Custom Homes 1, LLC, 27285 Las Ramblas, #230, Mission Viejo, CA
92691
AGENT: Hunsaker & Associates, Attn: Dan Hosseinzadeh, Three Hughes, Irvine, CA 92618
LOCATION: 752 and 754 Peralta Hills Drive
. Property is an irregularly shaped parcel of land
consisting of 2.2 acres, having a frontage of 260 feet on the east side of Peralta Hills Drive,
having
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
:
WITHDRAWN - applicant will be able to make the appropriate modifications to comply
with
code.
VARIANCE NO. 4337, CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 3:
B4.
179:
OWNER: Woodbridge Custom Homes 1, LLC, 27285 Las Ramblas, #230, Mission Viejo, CA
92691
AGENT: Hunsaker & Associates, Attn: Dan Hosseinzadeh, Three Hughes, Irvine, CA 92618
LOCATION: 420 East Peralta Hills Drive.
Property is an irregularly shaped parcel of land
consisting of 1.0 acre, having a frontage of 118 feet on the north side of Peralta Hills Drive,
having a maximum depth of 228 feet and located 280 feet west of the
centerline of Belleza Lane.
Waiver of maximum structural height to construct a 6,300 square foot single-family residence.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
WITHDRAWN - applicant will be able to make the appropriate modifications to comply with
code.
VARIANCE NO. 4338, CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 2:
B5:
179:
OWNER: Meridian Refrigerated, Inc., 13033 Artic Circle, Sante Fe Springs, CA 90670
AGENT: Master Development, Attn: Bruce McDonald, 3991 MacArthur Blvd. #215, Newport
Beach, CA 9266
0
LOCATION: 1415 North Raymond Avenue
. Property is an irregularly shaped parcel of land
consisting of 9.12 acres, having a frontage of 14 feet on the west side of Raymond Avenue,
having a maximum depth of 1244 feet and located 230 feet south of the centerline of Orangefair
Lane.
Waiver of required parking lot landscaping and minimum number of parking spaces to construct
a new 114,000 square foot industrial building in addition to an existing 92,000 square foot
industrial building.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
:
Variance No. 4338 APPROVED with additions to conditions and modifications (ZA DECISION
NO.
98-17).
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
16
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JUNE 23, 1998
VARIANCE NO. 3879 - REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIMECATEGORICALLY
B6:
179:
EXEMPT, CLASS 5:
REQUESTED BY: Wayne Manska, 1921 North Kellogg Drive, Anaheim, CA 92807, requests a
one-year extension of time to comply with conditions of approval for a previously approved
waiver of minimum sideyard setback to add a bedroom, recreation room and garag
e to existing
single-family residence. Property is located at 1921 North Kellogg Drive.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
:
Approved request for extension of time for Variance No. 3879.
VARIANCE NO. 4067 - REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME
B7:
179:
CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 3:
REQUESTED BY: Hans De Ferrante, 118 Bickford Street, Placentia, CA 92870, requests a
one-year extension of time to comply with conditions of approval for a previously-approved
waiver of maximum structural height to
construct a 4,731 square-foot single-family
residence. Property is
located at 128 Derby Circle.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
Approved request for extension of time for Variance No. 4067.
END OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ITEMS.
ITEMS B8 - B13 FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF
JUNE 8, 1998: INFORMATION ONLY - APPEAL PERIOD ENDS JUNE 30, 1998:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4015, CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
B8.
179:
OWNER:
Hanford Hotels, LLC, 4 Corporate Plaza, #102, Newport Beach, CA 92660
AGENT:
Pagenet/Marmac, Attn: Peter Yune, 15621 Red Hill Ave., #200, Tustin, Ca 92680
LOCATION: 201 North Via Cortez - Hanford Hotel
. Property is 2.93 acres located on the west
side of Via Cortez, 930 feet north of the centerline of Santa Ana Canyon Road.
To construct a roof-mounted telecommunication (paging) station with a maximum of five (5) 6-
foot high omni type antennas and one (1) dish type antenna.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION
:
WITHDRAWN by the Applicant.
CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATIONVARIANCE NO. 4339
(to be withdrawn)
B9.
179:
WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4037
OWNER:
Weir Partners, Ltd., 14642 Newport Avenue #108, Tustin, CA 92780
AGENT:
Brett Marchi (Architect), 1119 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648
LOCATION: 791 South Weir Canyon Road - Sycamore Canyon Plaza
. Property
is 11.9
acres located at the southwest corner of Weir Canyon Road and Serrano
Avenue.
To permit an automated teller machine (ATM) kiosk in the parking lot
of an existing commercial
center with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION
:
WITHDRAWN by the applicant.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2471, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
B10.
179:
OWNER:
Tony Noggin Vu, 10571 Rodeo Drive, Anaheim, CA 92804
AGENT:
Boa Dinh, 6951 Fairman Street, Lakewood, CA 90713
LOCATION: 2604 West La Palma Avenue - Arco Gas Station
.
Property is 0.42 acre located at
the southwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Magnolia Avenue.
To
permit the expansion of an existing 1,275 square foot automobile service station with
automotive vehicle repair (two bays existing) by constructing one additional 500 square foot
service bay for a total floor area of 1,775 square feet.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION
:
DENIED request for expansion - CUP NO. 2471 (PC98-92)
(6 yes votes, 1 absent).
17
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JUNE 23, 1998
Denied Negative Declaration.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4014, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
B11.
179:
OWNER:
First Southern Baptist Church of Anaheim, 1275 East Broadway, Anaheim, CA 92805
AGENT:
Father Joseph Boules, 20575 Easthill Drive, Yorba Linda, CA 92887
LOCATION: 1275 East Broadway - St. Verena Coptic Church/Southern Baptist Church
.
Property is 2.45 acres located at the northeast corner of Broadway and Fahrion Place.
To permit a private elementary school (kindergarten through 2nd grade) with a maximum of fifty
(50) students and a day care facility within an existing church facility.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION
:
CUP NO. 40
14 GRANTED (PC98-93) (6 yes votes, 1 absent).
Approved Negative Declaration.
WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4029
B12.
179:
DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 98-03
AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER:
Ken G. Doi, Trustee of the Doi Trust, 6971-A Lincoln Avenue, Buena Park, CA 90620
AGENT:
Panaite Resmerita, 2960 West Lincoln #I, Anaheim, CA 92801
LOCATION: 2960 West Lincoln Avenue, Suite I and J
. Property is 1.12 acres located at the
nor
thwest corner of Laxore Street and Embassy Avenue.
Conditional Use Permit No. 4029
- to permit a 2,480 square foot convenience market with
sales of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption within an existing commercial retail
center with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 98-03
- for the sales of alcoholic
beverages for off-premises consumption in conjunction with a convenience market.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION
:
CUP N
O. 4029 GRANTED, IN PART (PC98-94) (6 yes votes, 1 absent).
Denied waiver of code requirement.
Denied Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 98-03
(PC98-95).
Approved Negative Declaration.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ITEM:
B13.
179:
CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 3
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 107
REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF SUBSTANTIAL
CONFORMANCE
:
Karen
Frerking Zion Lutheran Church and Schools, 222 N. East Street,
Anaheim, CA 92805,
requests determinat
ion of substantial conformance to construct two shade
covers for a
play area in conjunction with an existing church with school facilities. Property is located at 222
N. East Street - Zion Lutheran Church.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION
:
WITHDRAWN by the applicant.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 313 (PREV.-CERTIFIED) ANAHEIM
B14:
155:
RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 92-2 FINAL SITE PLAN REVIEW NO.98-11 FOR THE
PACIFIC HOTEL SETBACK AREA ADJACENT TO WEST STREET/DISNEYLAND
DRIVE
:
Disney World Company, 500 South Buena Vista Street, Burbank, CA 91521,
requests review and approval of the Final Site Plan setting forth the width and design of
landscaping for the Pacific Hotel setback area adjacent to West Street/Disneyland Drive.
Property is located within the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan
Zone (1717 South West Street).
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION
:
Approved EIR No. 313 (previously certified).
Anaheim Resort Specfici Plan No. 92-2 Final Site Plan Review No. 98-11for
the Pacific Hotel
Setback Area Adajaent to West Street/Disneyland Drive -
Approved (Exhibits 1-7) (7 yes votes).
18
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JUNE 23, 1998
D1.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 353 RECLASSIFICATION NO.
97-98-11 REVISION TO SANTA ANA CANYON ROAD ACCESS
POINT STUDY - EXHIBIT NO. 7
WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4005
SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL NO. 98-01
CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW
:
OWNER:
The Hazel Maag Trust, Attn: Lloyd Copenbarger, 4675 MacArthur Court #700, Newport Beach,
CA 92660
John R. Schantz, Melvin R. Schantz, Attn: Robert H. Pernell, etal., 21 Chelsea Pointe, Dana Pointe, CA
92629
AGENT:
Keisker and Wiggle Architects, Inc. 15751 Rockfield Boulevard, #210, Irvine, CA 92618
LOCATION: Property is 24.5 acres located at the northeast corner of Via Cortez and Santa Ana Canyon
Road
.
General Plan Amendment No. 353 -
to redesignate a portion of the subject property from the Hillside Low-
Medium Density
Residential land use designation to the General Commercial land use designation.
Reclassification No. 97-98-11 -
to reclassify this property from the RS-A-43,000(SC) Zone to the CL(SC)
Revision to Santa Ana Canyon Road Access Point Study - Exhibit No. 7 -
Zone.
to revise the Santa
Ana Canyon Road Access Points Study - Exhibit No. 7 to permit one additional access point on Santa Ana
Conditional Use Permit No. 4005 -
Canyon Road.
to construct a 243,180 square foot commercial center
with heights in ex
cess of 35 feet, roof-mounted equipment, a 4,685 square foot fast food restaurant with
drive-through lane, a 171,674 square foot self-storage facility and a 28,350 square foot electronics sales
store with vehicle retail parts installation facilities with waivers of:
(a) permitted commercial center identification sign, (b) permitted directional signs, (c) permitted types of
signs, (d) permitted wall signs, (e) minimum number of parking spaces, (f) minimum parking lot
landscaping
and (g) minimu
m drive-through lane requirements and (h) minimum structural and
Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 98-01 -
landscape setbacks
to approve the removal of 29 specimen
trees.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION
:
(6 yes votes, 1 vacancy)
Recommended approval of GPA NO. 353 to City Council (PC98-40).
Reclassification No. 97-98-11 GRANTED (PC98-41).
APPROVED Revision to Santa Ana Canyon Road Access Point Study - Exhibit No. 7 (PC98-42).
Approved waivers of code requirement.
CUP NO. 4005 GRA
NTED (PC98-43).
Approved Specimen Tree Removal No. 98-01.
Approved request for City Council review .
Informational item at the City Council meeting of April 7, 1998, Item B12. Scheduled for a City Council
public hearing due to the General Plan Amendment.
Public hearing continued from the meeting of May 5, 1998, Item D2.
Mayor Daly again announced as he did at the outset of the meeting that this item (D1.) has been
withdrawn by the developer. A vote is not necessary. The developer will not be proceeding. The project
is gone even though it is on the agenda, there will be no vote or any further action by the Council.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
D2.
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 o
verall
entitlement including the 3-story design of the building.
19
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JUNE 23, 1998
(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 me
eting.
Negative Declaration previously approved.
Public hearings continued from the meetings of May 12, 1998, Item D3,
May 19, 1998, Item D3, June 2, 1998, Item D2, and June 16, 1998, Item D2.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in North County News - April 30, 1998
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - April 30, 1998
Posting of property - May 1, 1998
Mayor Daly. The City Attorney has been working on this subject at the request of the Council. He has
been discussing various solutions to this complicated situation and has been meeting with
representatives of the property owner and the nearby neighborhood. He asked to hear from the City
Attorney.
City Attorney White. The Public Hearing on this matter has been closed and ultimately continued to this
date to provide an opportunity for his office to meet with representatives from the three parcel owners
involved as well as representatives of the neighborhood that appeared and spoke at the Public Hearing
(s). They have had several meetings, have attempted to mediate and suggest possible compromises.
His office has been partially successful but there are still some issues to be resolved by the Council
based upon the evidence in the record. Staff previously prepared recommended conditions to add to this
CUP based upon the evidence in the Public Hearing as well as their meetings with the various
representatives. Staff has prepared a modified list of conditions (see, Staff Recommendations for
Amendments to Conditions of Approval - Conditional Use Permit No. 3662 - made a part of the record)
which would involve, in part, affirming the conditions that the Planning Commission imposed and, in part,
either modifying or expanding on those conditions and including new conditions 17 through 30. Copies
of those have been provided to the Council as well as to representatives of both the property owners and
neighborhood.
There are additional issues he needs to point out with regard to those conditions as well as one
modification to Condition No. 11 involving the roof design of the three buildings. One relates to the
existing Montessori sign. He believes it has been resolved in the proposed language in the staff
conditions which would require as part of the sign program to be submitted by the developer by July 31,
1998 the removal and replacement of that sign with a different sign to be reviewed and approved by the
Planning Commission when they review the sign program package.
The second issue, the playground setback area and the requested 15’ setback, the current language in
the staff recommended conditions does not specifically address that issue. However, the Council can
add a new condition, No. 31, to address that which would provide that the children’s play yard shall be
set back a minimum 15’ from the west property line provided said 15’ area may be used for storage
purposes and further provided that an area equal in size to the reduction in the play yard caused by this
setback may be added to the play area subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission as a
Report and Recommendation agenda item.
The third issue is hours of operation. The staff-recommended condition, and there is no agreement by
the owner of the Montessori School, is that the hours be limited from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. and use of
the playground area be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
The fourth issue -- the planting of broadleafed trees. Staff included in proposed Condition No. 23 that
broadleafed trees be planted. His understanding is that neither the property owner desires such trees
20
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JUNE 23, 1998
and there is not strong sentiment among the neighbors to demand such trees. Council may wish to
consider eliminating that requirement.
The largest issue relates to the height and design of the roofs on the three buildings, Condition No. 11.
Language has been provided to amend Condition No. 11 to require that the roofs be modified in
accordance with a “to-be-approved Exhibit No. 7”. The drawings exhibited show two different renderings,
Option 1 and Option 4. Four options were prepared at the request of City staff by an architect selected
by Mr. Browne to be paid for by the City who came up with alternatives that could be designed into the
roofs. These are the two City staff believes most viable. The first is a mansard roof design and the
second
involves reducing the height of the three buildings to 32’ with a full gabled roof design. It will be up to the
Council to choose from several options based upon the evidence and the findings; they could also affirm
the Planning Commission action which was not to change the design at all. Staff options are Option 1
and Option 4. Those are the matters before the Council for discussion this evening.
Council Member Lopez. He asked how they were going to bring the playground in 15’.
Joel Fick, Planning Director. It is just the concept or requirement that there would be a setback. How
that would be delineated, that is an example of the detail yet to be worked out; City Attorney White. It
would be worked out by the Planning Department and would then go to the Planning Commission for
review and approval.
Council Member Zemel. Relative to Condition 11, after hearing the testimony and reviewing the minutes
of the Planning Commission meetings, he believes Mr. Brown indicated what he was going to build
(initially) was Option 4. He feels they have to get that built and the condition needs to be amended to
include Option No. 4. With regard to the other options, he feels the hours should stay the same starting
at 7:00 a.m., the sign to be removed and that the play area have a 15’ setback from the fence and that
staff work with the applicant.
City Attorney White. That would be a new Condition 31. A fourth issue was the trees; Council Member
Zemel. He stated that he would like the condition relative to the trees to be supported by the Council.
He wants to keep that condition intact.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
On motion by Council Member
Zemel
, seconded by Mayor
Daly
, 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. MOTION
CARRIED.
Council Member Zemel offered Resolution No. 98R-138 for adoption amending conditions of approval of
Conditional Use Permit No. 3662 as previously approved by Resolution No. PC97-41 and amended by
PC94-103 including the appropriate findings to support the amendments as proposed by staff and with
those certain amendments as articulated by the City Attorney including Option No. 4 becoming Exhibit 7
to Condition No. 11. Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE CONDITIONS
OF APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3662 AS SET FORTH IN RESOLUTION NO.
PC97-41, AND AMENDED BY PC94-103.
Before action was taken on the resolution, Council Member Tait stated he concurred with the exception
that rather than Option No. 4, even though he prefers that option, the more feasible option is Option No.
1. His concern is that Option 4 may result in more attorney’s fees.
Attorney White, answering Council Member Lopez, explained that Option 4 includes the actual removal
or reconstruction of the roofs of the three existing buildings to lower the roofs from 35’ to 32’ at the peak.
21
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JUNE 23, 1998
The roofs would be fully gabled/peaked roofs. The exact design would be required to come back to the
Planning Commission for review and approval. These are just renderings or schematics. It is a lowering
of the mass of the three buildings. If the Council selects Option 4, it would be based upon finding
included in the resolution that the representations made by the developer in 1994 provided for a building
that would be the lowest possible height that could be built and still include the equipment which has
been incorporated this would be consistent with the design of Option 4. The third level windows would be
removed and gone entirely under either option. Under Option 1, they would be plastered over and
painted consistent with the final color of the building. Under Option 4, the lowering of the roof would
require removal of the windows as well. Under either scenario, there would be no third level windows.
Council Member Lopez. For the benefit of the audience, the third floor will not be used for any kind of
room; Joel Fick, Planning Director. Under the present parking requirements and useability it would not
be permitted in any case.
Council Member Zemel. In the case of Option 1, there is still a third floor and he suspects the people
who purchased the property were probably told it was a third floor. The City does not have the ability and
should not have the liability of checking up on them every six months or a year to be sure the third floor
is not used. If Option 1 is allowed, it will cause problems.
City Attorney White. He assumes the resolution offered is adding Condition Nos. 17 through 31 in
accordance with staff recommendations as modified by the resolution and amending Condition No. 11 to
require reconstruction in accordance with Option No. 4 and making the necessary findings based upon
the evidence in the record in conjunction with that resolution; Mayor Daly. The resolution has been
offered including the conditions as articulated by the City Attorney, including Option No. 4.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 98R-
138
for adoption:
AYES:
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: McCracken, Zemel, Lopez, Daly
NOES:
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Tait
ABSENT:
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 98R-
138
duly passed and adopted.
Council Member Tait stated he will withdraw voting on Option 1.
PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 97-98-17
D3.
WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4022
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15660, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION
:
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.
22
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JUNE 23, 1998
CUP NO. 4022 GRANTED (PC98-73).
Tentative Tract Map No. 15660 Approved.
Approved Negative Declaration.
Informational item at the meeting of May 19, 1998, Item B12. Review of the Planning
Commission’s decision requested by Council Member McCracken and Mayor Daly.
HEARING SET ON: Review of the Planning Commission decision was requested by Council Member
McCracken and Mayor Daly and, Public Hearing scheduled this date.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in North County News - June 11, 1998
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - June 9, 1998
Posting of property - June 12, 1998
Mayor Daly. He asked staff to summarize the highlights of the proposal.
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager. He briefed the project as outlined in staff report to the
Planning Commission dated May 11, 1998. He noted that although there was no neighborhood objection,
WAND (West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council) expressed concern about the density of the
project. He clarified for the Mayor that under the City’s General Plan, up to 18 units per acre could be
allowed and the zoning density would be according to how the property is eventually zoned.
Mayor Daly. He surmised according to the staff report that the maximum allowable dwelling units would
be approximately eight units; Mr. Hastings answered yes.
Mayor Daly. The proposal is for seven assuming the RM3000 zoning designation. His concern is that
the zoning across the street is RS7200. There is a lot of variety in the neighborhood -- lower density
across the street and higher immediately to the north. It is important to strike the most effective balance.
Council Member McCracken. Her concern is relative to parking. The plan looks like there is absolutely
no parking except in the driveways; Greg Hasting. There is parking adjacent to the north property line,
seven open parking spaces.
Council Member McCracken. She feels there is not enough parking for the residents, never mind the
people who come to visit. They have had parking problems in apartments all across the City and
perhaps five to ten years down the line will have the same problem with this project. That is her major
concern.
Council Member Lopez. He has the same concerns. Comparing this to the project at Brookhurst and
Lincoln (Dow’s Acreage) which they approved last week (see minutes of June 16, 1998) this has less
parking and more density; Joel Fick. The lots in this project are smaller than the project last week.
Generally speaking, the parking ratio is smaller.
Joel Fick, Planning Director. This is just a one-lot subdivision but perhaps they can do a quick
evaluation of something similar. With the 3,828 sq. ft. per dwelling unit, an equivalent would be roughly
39 X 100 or some variation of that to arrive at that square footage.
Mayor Daly opened the Public Hearing.
Applicant’s Statement: Bahram Ghassemi, Denar, Inc., owner of the property, 1001 Sandcastle Drive,
Corona Del Mar. The property is in a unique situation. All along the west side from Orange Avenue to
the property are apartments zoned RM1200. The property to the north has an 18-unit apartment
building. They are not infringing on single-family homes. Based on the General Plan, if zoned RM1200,
they can put 11 units on the property and they are proposing seven. Relative to parking, if there is a
problem, it already exists where the apartments are. They are meeting the code relative to parking
spaces available for each unit. There is plenty of space along the street side for parking because on the
23
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JUNE 23, 1998
south side there is a church. During the evening there is no activity. He has approached the church and
they have no concerns. He has talked to the Pastor, not particularly about parking, but the project
generally and he has
not mentioned any problem. Answering Council Member Zemel as to why he wants to put seven units on
the lot, he stated they are seven condominiums and economically that is most feasible and they are able
to meet the code requirements except for the minimum distance between buildings which is 18’. They
are proposing 10’ and are asking for a waiver.
Council Member Zemel asked him what if he had only five units; Mr. Ghassemi stated they could
decrease it to two or one but when looking at the property developed on the north side of the property, all
the way to Orange it is RM1200. They are trying to go to RM3000. It is quite a change.
Mayor Daly asked to hear from anyone else who would like to speak in favor; there being none, he asked
to hear from those in opposition.
Mary Ahe, 803 Velare, Anaheim. For her neighbors, everybody is happy they have been able to sell the
property. They like the project but feel it is too many homes for the property. Although there are
apartments to the north, the neighborhood as a whole has 173 homes built in the 1950’s that make up the
majority of the neighborhood. The lots on Velare Street were generally 1,031 deep and 77 across which
multiplies out to 7,900 sq. ft. which is just about double of what is being proposed. The new building
needs to blend in and seven houses on this one lot will not. Relative to parking on Velare, there is a
problem. If the apartments that are there were requested today, they would not be built as they were at
that time. The parking has been so bad, people in the neighborhood have painted curbs red late at night
because parking is such a problem.
Esther Wallace, Chairman of WAND. They discussed this project at two of their meetings and are
definitely opposed to the number of homes being proposed. They talked about 3,828 sq. ft. per lot but
that is including the driveways and the alley. The actual lot size is 2,800. All houses will be parallel with
the street which is not too good a design. The houses have much more room to the east and south so it
is not compatible except to the property to the north. This is 11.4 homes an acre, practically what they
have at the Lincoln-Mueller development and no one likes that development because the houses are so
close.
Mayor Daly asked what she felt is a reasonable density or lot size; Mrs. Wallace stated that it depends.
When talking about RM5000, to her, that would be 50 X 100 exclusive of the street. In other cases when
they talk about RM5000, that includes the street. She feels the lot needs to be bigger.
Summation by Applicant: Bahram Ghassemi. It is a unique size lot and they cannot extract the
driveway and have a 5,000 sq. ft. lot. The depth is 268’ and the width is just 100’. They cannot extract
the driveway and have a 5,000 sq. ft. lot. They are not making any changes that are going to be a
precedent for the next development since this is the last available lot.
Shirley Edwards, property owner. They will be on the property 43 years October 1. When they moved
there, it was farmland. The apartments were built and the church property is on the side and back. They
are basically isolated and cannot use the land any more. They are too old to develop it themselves. The
plans proposed seem to be very good for the area. The houses across the street have cul-de-sacs so
they would not be that bothered by the traffic. Relative to the traffic, it is already there and they cannot
get rid of it and it will increase. If they could utilize the land, it would be different but they cannot take
care of it any more. It is too much work. With 18 apartments next door, seven buildings on their lot is
not asking too much.
Mayor Daly. If the Council were to decide too many units are proposed and for discussion purposes are
going to suggest 5000 sq. ft. lots necessitating a new site plan, would it then be the proper procedure to
have this go back to the Planning Commission. He asked the Council’s options.
24
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JUNE 23, 1998
Joel Fick. Based upon the site area per dwelling unit, going down to five units including whatever they
would need in terms of a private street assuming single-family detached, it would be 5,314 sq. ft. per unit
including whatever private street they would have to construct to do that. In terms of options, since the
requested zoning is actually for a more intensive zone, Council could rezone the property to RS5000.
That would require the applicant to go back to the Planning Commission with some type of modification
to the RS5000 zone. It would also require some type of tract map to go back to the Planning
Commission as well.
Mayor Daly. He suggested that they ask the Planning Commission to look at a new site plan for the
property with the RS5000 zoning as a more appropriate zone and an approximate number of five houses
on the site. He feels it is a more appropriate compromise between the 7,000 sq. ft. lots across the street
and the apartments next door. It would then return to the Council.
Council Member McCracken. She re-emphasized that there has to be a place to park cars to match the
reality of what is occurring today.
Mayor Daly. One of the nice features of the proposal is that there would be a homeowner’s association
and maintenance. He asked if there was a way to maintain that even under RS5000; Joel Fick. He
answered there is, and if private streets were worked into the project, they would be making that
recommendation.
Council Member Zemel. He believes they have all made it clear that seven units are too much. If it is
going to go down to five units, maybe the developer will want to do attached which might make it more
palatable. He would have a hard time just going to RS5000 without seeing what is going to be built
there.
Mayor Daly. He agrees they may not need to specifically rezone it this evening, but it needs to go back to
the Planning Commission for a new site plan.
City Attorney White. There are two ways to proceed, the simplest being to deny the project allowing the
applicant at his pace to redesign and resubmit the project as a new application to the Planning
Commission (starting over). The other way would be for the Council to continue tonight’s hearing and
refer the project back to the Planning Commission for a recommendation. Since the Planning
Commission’s decision was appealed to the Council, the Council will always end up with jurisdiction and
have to make the decision. They could continue to get a recommendation from the Commission which
could involve additional waivers which would have to be noticed back to the Council. It may be easier to
act upon what they have in front of them and have the applicant submit at his own pace.
Joel Fick. To help the applicant weigh the decision, staff could commit to expeditiously working with
them on a revised site plan, and get them as quickly as possible to the Planning Commission. There
would be less fees considering the work that has already been put into the site.
Bahram Ghassemi. They would like a continuance if it is not going to be approved; Joel Fick. The 180
days will expire sometime in September. He believes they could get it back before the Planning
Commission in 45 days.
Mayor Daly. He assumes then that 60 days would be reasonable and if there is a need for more time, it
could be continued beyond that; Council Member Zemel noted that the applicant is nodding that 60 days
is acceptable.
MOTION: Mayor Daly moved to continue the Public Hearing to August 18, 1998. Council Member
Zemel seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Daly asked if there was anything else to add; Mr. Fick stated staff understands the Council feels
the density is too high and they should work with the applicant for a reduction.
25
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JUNE 23, 1998
Council Member Tait. He stated the project seems to be a couple of units too high.
PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 4332
D4.
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 Aven
ue, 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).
Informational item at the meeting of May 19, 1998, Item B15. Review of the Zoning
Administrator’s decision requested by Council Member McCracken a
nd Council Member Lopez.
HEARING SET ON: Review of the Zoning Administrator’s decision requested by Council Member
McCracken and Council Member Lopez and Public Hearing scheduled this date.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in North County News - June 11, 1998
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - June 8, 1998
Posting of property - June 12, 1998
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator. Relative to the proposal, this is a 30 sq. ft. drive-through kiosk.
The property is a 10-acre industrial site with over a 100,000 sq. ft. building and a great deal of parking.
The variance was for the front setback which is 65’ in the Northeast Industrial Area. The other concern is
the landscaping on the property right now. She referred to the aerial photo of the property posted on the
Chamber wall. In approving this, there were conditions imposed to make sure the design is satisfactory
in terms of traffic circulation and not interfering with on-site circulation as well as landscaping along the
street.
Council Member Lopez. He realizes this may be fulfilling a need for the employees; however, he is
wondering if the applicant considered having the facility operable only during daylight hours, perhaps
6:00 a.m. to 4:00 or 5:00 p.m. He is concerned having it opened during the night; Annika Santalahti.
That issue was not discussed. She went out at 3:00 or 4:00 in the afternoon and the parking lot had
about as many cars as are represented in the aerial photo. It is a very quiet area and she imagines at
night it is even more quiet.
Council Member McCracken. This would be the very first in the City. They have no experience with
these kiosks relative to any kind of security or protection. She is concerned that it could be a public
safety issue and likened it to an attractive nuisance.
Annika Santalahti. This is a drive-through facility and the only reason she approved it. After the Council
agenda was prepared last week, staff completed a survey of other cities in Orange County regarding
ATM’s to see how they view the kiosks. She thereupon submitted a copy of the survey to the Council
which she also briefed (see memorandum dated June 18, 1998 from the Planning Department). “The
survey determined that ten (10) of the twelve (12) cities approved wall mounted teller machines with a
building permit.” A matrix was attached to the memorandum illustrating the cities and their procedural
process for approval.
Council Member Lopez. He has concerns but he would support such proposals on a case-by-case basis.
In this case, it may be the right location that would work but he would have concerns with the facility able
to be accessed after dark.
26
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JUNE 23, 1998
Mayor Daly opened the Public Hearing.
Ray Muller, Bank of America, 600 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles, CA. They have a branch now closed
approximately three blocks east of this location. It has a drive-up ATM opened ever since the branch
closed with no incidents reported. It is still operational 24 hours a day. They built a new branch at
Brookhurst and Ball in 1996 and installed a drive-up ATM along Ball Road open 24 hours a day since
June of 1996 with no incidents. Lighting concerns are their concerns as well. In their branch downtown
on Harbor they have two that are 24-hour drive-through ATM’s in the alley behind the nine-story building
with no incidents. As a bank, they would be willing to go to daylight hours only. They do not want their
customers robbed or mugged. Those are all concerns they take into consideration as well. The subject
building is in escrow to be sold and to be redeveloped as an industrial facility. They do not want to take
away the service to the area. The bank was no longer profitable but they would like to keep an ATM in
the area.
Council Member McCracken. These are somewhat of a new concept and they do not have any
experience with them. They have not been allowed in Anaheim; Ray Muller. They have them all over
Southern California. There are three in Pasadena he is aware of. They are building one in Azusa, they
have three different facilities in Glendora, and Fullerton just approved one. They have more free-
standing units in shopping centers than in industrial parks.
Brian McNutt, Project Manager, ATM Program, 611 W. 6th Street, Los Angeles. The ATM located at
Brookhurst and Ball is exactly the same style and type of machine they are proposing -- a free-standing
kiosk in operation for two years, 24-hours a day, with no apparent security or traffic circulation problems.
It is adjacent to the Bank of America but a free-standing kiosk. It is not associated with the branch but in
close proximity. Answering Council Member Lopez, there have been no attempted thefts or robberies at
the Brookhurst-Ball facility. The facilities are well lit and are of the style and type where it would be more
of a deterrent than a branch walkup.
Mayor Daly closed the Public Hearing.
Mayor Daly. They have had a few discussons on free-standing ATM proposals. He asked staff if they
have had a chance to do any comprehensive work on the issues or given any thought to proposing a City
policy.
Joel Fick, Planning Director. When the Council saw the first application, a handful were in the works and
this is the last one in the process. One or two were denied and the others were withdrawn. It is staff’s
feeling that these facilities should be incorporated into the architecture of buildings. What they found in
contacting other cities is a huge variation in how they are addressed. After giving additional comments
relative to the challenges and opportunities posed, he concluded by stating that almost each site needs
to be looked at individually. In this case, that is what led to Planning staff’s recommendation for non-
approval.
Mayor Daly. He agrees with the Planning staff and Planning Director that these are best incorporated
into buildings rather than free standing because of the design issues Mr. Fick mentioned.
Council Member Tait. He agrees. They have also denied the others they have come before the Council
and he sees no real difference with this one. He is uncomfortable with the free-standing, unmanned
concept to begin with.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION:
On motion By Council Member
Zemel seconded by Council Member Daly, the City Council determined that the proposed activity fall
within the definition of Section 3.01 Class 3, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for an
Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, Categorically Exempt from the requirement to file an
EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
27
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JUNE 23, 1998
Council Member McCracken offered the Resolution 98R-139 for adoption, denying Variance No. 4332.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
DENYING VARIANCE NO. 4332.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 98R-
139
for adoption:
AYES:
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: McCracken, Tait, Daly
NOES:
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Zemel, Lopez
ABSENT:
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 98R-
139
duly passed and adopted.
Council Member Lopez. There is a need for that type of business with that many employees in the area.
STATUS - NAMING OF CITY FACILITY OR PARK AFTER RONALD REAGAN:
C1. 150:
Request
by Council Member Zemel to discuss the status of his request to name a City facility or park after Ronald
Reagan. This matter was continued from the meeting of June 16, 1998, Item C1., to this date.
Council Member Zemel. He has met with the City Manager and set up a meeting with Chris Jarvi and
Bret Colson to meet with him on the subject and they discussed doing some research. They have
agreed to do
that and he has asked that the Council as a whole give direction to support that activity so they can go
forward and subsequently come back with some recommendations. He was apprehensive about going
further without a Council vote.
MOTION. Council Member Zemel moved to direct staff to continue to work with the mini committee to
do some research and bring forward some recommendations to the Council for consideration. Council
Member Tait seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
COMMUNITY FACILITIES - WEST ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA:
C2. 161:
Discussion requested by Mayor Daly at the meeting of June 16, 1998, Iterm C3, regarding the building of
a new Police, Fire, and Community Center Facility complex in the West Anaheim Redevelopment Area.
Mayor Daly. He asked that the City Manager prepare a report on recommended locations for a new
Police Station, Fire Station and Community Center in the West Anaheim Redevelopment Area grouped
in one complex or proposed to be built separately. Staff could lay out different options as well as
potential size and also cost implications of those facilities and any other thoughts staff has as they are
pertinent to the subject on the need for new public facilities in the West Anaheim area.
Council Member Tait. As a suggestion, they would not want staff to exclude existing buildings that might
be available.
Mayor Daly asked that a report be brought back to the Council at the earliest opportunity; Dave Morgan,
Assistant City Manager, asked if 30 days was acceptable.
Mayor Daly. That would be acceptable. The information will come back to the Council so that the
Council can act on it.
REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS:
C3.
City Attorney Jack White stated that there are no actions to report.
COUNCIL COMMENTS:
C4. 114:
VEHICLE LICENSE FEE:
Council Member Zemel. There is one item he feels has to be acted upon
tonight as an urgency matter, the Vehicle License Fee (VLF) reduction proposed by Governor Wilson
28
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JUNE 23, 1998
which was brought up a few weeks ago (see minutes of June 9, 1998) and continued to July 14, 1998.
The consensus was that the Council thought there would be some movement on the Governor’s part to
make it more palatable. He has done that and has indicated his support for constitutional protection of
replacement revenues to the cities and counties in amounts equal to the loss of VLF revenues. He has
been working with the Governor on this and if they support the Governor, statutorily, they will be
protected in their fees this year and it will go to the public for a vote this November. The 30-day
continuance would take Anaheim out of the opportunity of weighing in on this issue. It could be decided
within the next eight to ten days. He is proposing that they first put the issue on tonight’s agenda as an
urgency matter and then take a vote on the resolution.
MOTION. Council Member Zemel moved to waive the 72-hour posting provision of the Brown Act in
order to be able to act on the Vehicle License Fee reduction proposal by the Governor. Council Member
Tait seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Daly asked procedurally what is necessary in this case.
City Attorney White. It is necessary to make a finding that there is a need to act before the next
scheduled Council meeting. It takes a 4/5’s vote of the Council.
Mayor Daly. He is wondering if staff has had a chance to see the proposed resolution and to analyze the
impacts on the City.
Council Member Zemel. Staff has initially made the recommendation which is pretty much the
recommendation he has handed the Council. Staff not only researched but authored the resolution.
Theirs is with the constitutional protection and he (Zemel) had one without it and now is acquiescing to
staff’s original suggestion as the Governor has.
Dave Morgan, Assistant City Manager. He believes when the issue was previously agendized, staff’s
recommendation was, if the Council chose to support the Governor’s proposal, that they do so contingent
upon the constitutional protection and there was a backup resolution that was drafted that would do that.
The resolution would remain the same.
Mayor Daly. He asked if this was a staff recommendation or not; Dave Morgan. Staff’s recommendation
is if Council chooses to support the Governor’s VLF proposal, that they do so contingent upon the
constitutional protection provided in the resolution.
Mayor Daly asked if it was his opinion that the resolution provides sufficient constitutional protection for
the City; Dave Morgan answered yes.
City Attorney White. The resolution itself does not provide the protection but it supports the legislation
contingent upon the protection; Mayor Daly. It does not mention it being contingent upon anything. He
asked what position is Anaheim taking if they pass the resolution.
City Attorney White. Staff originally drafted two resolutions -- one similar to this one and one containing
language that said the Council’s support was contingent upon protection being built into a constitutional
amendment to protect City money. This is a hybrid of the former resolution rather than the latter.
Mayor Daly. He is concerned that the language does not sufficiently convey the condition that Anaheim
needs to be made whole in whatever is ultimately adopted by the State government. As a bottom-line
condition, they need to continue their support for that. He wants to understand the timing question
brought up about the need to act this evening.
Council Member Zemel suggested that they vote on whether or not it will be added to the agenda. In his
opinion, the 30-day continuance which they voted on at the meeting of June 9, 1998 will take the City out
of informing the legislature how they feel. They have an opportunity to give an opinion to the Governor
29
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JUNE 23, 1998
before he goes into negotiation in eight days. He deserves the benefit of the City’s opinion pro or con. If
they do not do so tonight, they probably will not be in on it.
Mayor Daly. He suggested that they continue the matter to July 14 as determined at the meeting of June
9, 1998. Staff has not had an opportunity to review this. There is no reason they could not have seen
this earlier to give staff a chance to review it and to report to the Council how it fits into the whole
negotiation in Sacramento.
Dave Morgan. He needs to clarify his earlier comments that staff did prepare alternative language
should the Council move forward that said they would support contingent upon and pursuant to
constitutional protection. The document before him is not the resolution staff prepared. It is different
language.
Council Member Lopez. He asked if there was a copy of the resolution that the Council could see.
Council Member Zemel. He was under the impression he was given exactly what he asked for.
Phil Tsunoda, Administrative Services Coordinator. He echoes the comments of Mr. Morgan. The
resolution here is not what staff is recommending. They would like to see the VLF protection proposal
pursuant to a constitutional amendment and this language does not include that. The resolution two
weeks ago had different language than the one currently in front of the Council.
Council Member Lopez suggested that they get a copy of the resolution staff prepared.
MOTION. On motion by Mayor Daly seconded by Council Member Lopez, the Council meeting was
recessed for 10 minutes. MOTION CARRIED. (8:45 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Daly called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present. (8:52
P.M.)
Council Member Zemel asked for a vote on the urgency issue first. If four members do not agree, the
issue becomes moot.
Mayor Daly. The motion implies this is an urgency matter that must be taken up this evening. He is
suggesting there will be ample opportunity for Anaheim to state its position to the Governor and
legislature in coming weeks and staff should have a chance to finalize the language and make sure it is
something they can live with. He is opposing the notion of putting this on the agenda on an urgency
basis. It takes a 4/5’s vote, otherwise it will be back on the agenda on July 14, 1998 as originally
scheduled.
A vote was then taken on the motion by Council Member Zemel seconded by Council Member Tait
waiving the 72-hour posting provision of the Brown Act finding there is a need for the Council to act this
evening. The motion failed to carry by the following vote: Ayes: Tait, Zemel, Lopez. Noes:
McCracken, Daly.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
REBUTTAL TO COMMENTS MADE:
Council Member McCracken. She stated today a resident
publicly indicated she was not concerned with citizen’s issues and that she supported the Maag Ranch
development proposal. During the past 18 months, she has repeatedly recommended to the developer
to communicate with members of the community starting in December, 1996. She spent hours in asking
hard questions of the developer, citizens and staff. She has not voted to support any action other than a
delay for additional time for the Council to work with the citizens. During her tenure on the Council, her
position for or against issues is not evident until a vote is taken. A resident sent her a letter signed by
Council Member Zemel that was sent to members of the Anaheim Hills community where he indicates
she supported the (Maag) project. She has no idea how her colleague knows her position since she
never spoke to him. Her reputation has been damaged by his printed material. She is not involved in
30
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JUNE 23, 1998
any election campaign against him. Attacking her credibility and reputation is uncalled for and almost
borders on slander. She has no choice but to ask Council Member Zemel to refrain from attacking her
with untruthful information -- she is asking that he refrain from inaccurate attacks. It is unprofessional
and a mistreatment of colleagues. She has consistently been concerned with the good and welfare of
the citizens and will continue to do so.
Council Member Zemel. If her comments after the Maag hearing prior to Council Member Lopez’s
request for a continuance were not supportive, then he does not understand. His statement was that she
spoke to support.
Council Member McCracken. She did not; she asked questions about the feasibility of other projects on
that property.
Council Member Zemel. He never publicly or privately stated what her vote will be; Council Member
McCracken refuted the comment and stated that he (Zemel) said she supported the proposed
development when he does not know that to be the case.
ADJOURNMENT: By general Council consent, the Council Meeting of June 23, 1998 was adjourned
(8:45).
The next scheduled Council meeting is July 14, 1998 with no meetings scheduled during the July 4, 1998
holiday period.
LEONORA N. SOHL
CITY CLERK
31
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, JUNE 23, 1998
32