1999/01/26ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 26, 1999
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT: MAYOR : Tom Daly
PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS : Frank Feldhaus, Lucille Kring, Tom Tait, Shirley McCracken
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS : None
PRESENT: CITY MANAGER : Jim Ruth
DEPUTY CITY MANAGER : Tom Wood
CITY ATTORNEY : Jack White
CITY CLERK : Leonora N. Sohl
ASST. CITY CLERK : Ann Sauvageau
PLANNING DIRECTOR : Joel Fick
ZONING DIVIS ION MANAGER : Greg Hastings
CIVIL ENGINEER : Natalie Meeks
REDEVELOPMENT AND PROPERTY MANAGER : Brent Shultz
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COMM. DEVELOPMENT : Richard Bruckner
SENIOR PROJECT MANAGER : Kristine Thalman
PUBLIC UTIL. ASST. GENERAL MANAGER ELEC . : Dale Tarkington
A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was posted at 2:00 p.m. on
January 22, 1999 at the City Hall Bulletin Board, (both inside and outside the entrance to City Hall)
containing all items as shown herein.
Mayor Pro Tem, Shirley McCracken called the workshop portion of the meeting of January 26, 1999 to
order and welcomed those in attendance (3:34 P.M.).
City Manager, James Ruth stated this is the time and place for the Anaheim Resort Status Update. He
introduced Deputy City Manager, Tom Wood who will initiate the presentation and subsequently
introduce other speakers who are present on this matter.
ANAHEIM RESORT STATUS UPDATE :
Tom Wood, Deputy City Manager. In the Anaheim Resort
Area, the City has embarked on a process of revitalization and renewal creating a new place, an urban
destination, a place that will be an economic engine to the benefit of the City’s residents. The challenge
in doing so is building a new place at the same time they are operating a very successful business.
Today’s presentation is to give an update on the efforts and progress they are making. The vision
started some years ago, was to create a master plan for the entire Resort Area of roughly 1,100 acres to
expand the Convention Center, implement area-wide public improvements, create a multi-day
destination resort and induce third-party involvement to come to the area. His presentation was then
supplemented by (Power Point) slides which covered Anaheim Resort Area Projects, Chronology of
Events to 2001, Completions thus far, etc., at the conclusion of which he introduced Mr. Ross Cathy,
CRSS Constructors to give the next portion of the presentation to be followed by Larry Tenney.
Ross Cathy, CRSS Constructors, Inc. He first referred to the booklet submitted to the Council (see, City
of Anaheim – Anaheim Resort Area Project – City Council Workshop – January 26, 1999 made a part of
the record) which the Council can follow along with the data he will be briefing from the charts (on the
easel in front of the dais). Mr. Cathy then briefed the contents of most of the data contained in the
booklet – (1) Project Budget Schedule, noting that they are on schedule and on budget, (2) Project
Highlights, (3) Freeway Access. (The booklet contained graphs, charts and maps – Anaheim Resort
Cash Flow for City Managed Projects/November, 1998, a number of charts which gave Activity
Description, Forecast Start, Forecast Finish for the various improvements, maps showing the Anaheim
Resort Combined Improvement Program – Schedule of Construction Activities, January, 1999 through
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 26, 1999
December, 1999, Freeway Access, Secondary Access Signage Locations, Construction Wayfinding
Signage and a graph on the Traffic Monitoring Plan).
Larry Tenney , Managing Partner, Nelson Communications Group. (Public Awareness Campaign) In the
past year their (communications) program has been acknowledged nationally by the National Public
Relations Society of America as the No. 1 community relations effort by a non-profit or trade association
in the country. Their primary targets are multifaceted. It is a comprehensive campaign reaching out to
business and employers in the Resort Area, residents and businesses city wide, opinion leaders in
Anaheim, schools, the media, etc. Their approach is to try to remind people about the tremendous
benefit Anaheim will realize once the project is completed. He referred to the brochure they are using to
explain the overall vision and plan. (See colored brochure submitted – Anaheim – Imagination at Work
listing the various venues, the improvements being made, and the results/benefits upon completion as
well as Economic Benefits – made a part of the record). He also referred to and briefed the data sheets
submitted – re : Anaheim Resort – Public Awareness Campaign Update – January 26, 1999 which listed
the extensive communications program that has been and will continue to be in place especially relative
to community outreach. (Photos and other visuals were also passed to the Council for their perusal
during the presentation).
Brief Council comments and questions followed the presentation(s) during which Mr. Wood reported that
relative to the completion schedule for the improvements, in some cases, they are ahead of schedule
and in others slightly behind. Overall, however, the project is on schedule and they are monitoring the
budget closely.
City Manager Ruth. This concludes the workshop portion of the meeting. The second workshop
scheduled for today on the Ambulance Service will be rescheduled for another date.
Mayor Pro Tem McCracken thanked staff and the principals involved for the informative presentation.
They look forward to the future presentation on Ambulance Service and apologize for the lack of time to
make that presentation today.
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:
The following items are to be considered at the Closed Session.
MOTION. On motion by Council Member McCracken seconded by Council Member Tait, the Council
recessed into Closed Session. Mayor Daly temporarily absent. MOTION CARRIED. (3:55 p.m.)
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(a) -
1.
Existing Litigation:
Name of case :
Delmonico, et al. v. City of Anaheim, et al. (and related cases and cross actions) Orange
County Superior Court Case No. 70-80-71.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(a) -
2.
Existing Litigation:
Name of case :
J.D.G. Company, Inc., et al. V. City of Anaheim, Orange County Superior Court Case No.
797804.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION:
3.
Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code :
One
case.
2
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 26, 1999
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION:
4.
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Government Code Section 54956.9
Existing facts and circumstances :
Land movement within the City of Orange southerly of the Olive Hills
Reservoir.
5. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATIORS:
Property:
Arrowhead Pond of Anaheim
Agency negotiator :
James Ruth, William Sweeney
Negotiating parties :
City of Anaheim and State Street Bank and Trust Company of California and the
Ogden Corporation.
Under negotiation :
price and terms of head lease and sublease.
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATIORS
6. :
Property:
1015 West Ball Road
Agency negotiator :
James Ruth, Natalie Meeks
Negotiating parties :
City of Anaheim and Pacific Islandia California, Inc.
Under negotiation :
price and terms.
AFTER RECESS:
Mayor Daly called the regular Council meeting of January 26, 1999 to order at 5:58 p.m. and
welcomed those in at tendance.
INVOCATION: Rev. Bryan Crow, Garden Church gave the invocation.
FLAG SALUTE:
Council Member Tom Tait led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
RECOGNITION AUTHORIZED BY COUNCIL THIS DATE TO BE MAILED OR PRESENTED AT
ANOTHER TIME:
th
1. DECLARATION recognizing the 10,000 shade tree planted in the City of Anaheim by
TreePower since the program’s inception in 1992.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY
in the amount of $3,810,185.20 for the period ending
January 19,1999 and $5,363.950.42 for the period ending January 25, 1999 in accordance with the 1998-
99 Budget, were approved.
Mayor Daly recessed the City Council meeting until after the Redevelopment Agency and the Public
Improvement Corporation meeting. ( 6:02p.m.)
Mayor Daly reconvened the City Council meeting . (6:12 p.m.)
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
There were no additions to agenda items.
PUBLIC COMMENTS – AGENDA ITEMS:
Public input was received on item C2 (see discussion under that item).
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST:
Debbie O’Neill, representing Concerned Citizens of the Canyon. She would like to bring to the Council’s
attention the need for them as a City to help needy and abused children and being able to provide the
opportunity to have reading material at their disposal. The Concerned Citizens are sponsoring a book
drive February 1 – February 22, 1999 for the Canyon Acres Children’s Home. There are six drop-off
points where people can drop off books. (She gave the locations). They hope that the City will
3
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 26, 1999
participate in the book drive and have a box in the building (City Hall) for donations. The children are the
future.
Mayor Daly thanked Mrs. O’Neill for reminding the Council of the upcoming fund raising event sponsored
by the Concerned Citizens of the Canyon.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Park Kellam, 9832 Lullaby Lane, Anaheim. He is representing himself and friends of his. He would like
to bring to the Council’s attention the fact that they have been having some problems trying to have fun
building bike jumps at vacant lots that they find. It seems everywhere they go, someone puts up a fence
or destroys the jumps. He is bringing it to their attention to see if there is anything they can do.
Mayor Daly asked where they have been doing their bike “exercises” ; Park Kellam. There are numerous
places some being, Palais off of Brookhurst and Cerritos, Euclid and Lincoln, Magnolia and Ball,
Brookhurst at Lincoln and at Broadway, Broadway and Agate, Gilbert and Ball, etc. The jumps keep
getting knocked over and fences put up around them so they can’t use them.
The Mayor asked if they were putting the jumps on private property; Mr. Kellam answered he was not
aware but just wanted to bring this to the Council’s attention.
MOTION:
Mayor Daly moved to waive reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions to be acted upon for
the Council meeting of January 26, 1999. Council Member McCracken seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR A1 – A22:
On motion by Mayor Daly,
seconded by Council Member McCracken , 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. 99R-13 through 99R-19 , both inclusive, for
adoption and Ordinance Nos. 5665 and 5666 for first reading. Refer to Resolution 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 John D. White for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions
of the City on or about September 2, 1998.
b. Claim submitted by Robert L. & Ivy Johnson for property damage sustained purportedly due
to actions of the City on or about November 1, 1998.
c. Claim sub mitted by Greg Keel for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City
on or about June 18, 1998 .
d. Claim submitted by Rakesh (Rick) Patel for property damage and property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about September 16, 1997.
e. Claim submitted by Jeffrey F. Main for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions
of the City on or about December 4, 1998 .
A2. 105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Anaheim Redevelopment and Housing Commission
meetings held December 2, 1998, and December 16, 1998.
4
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 26, 1999
105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Anaheim Public Library Board meeting held December
2, 1998.
105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Mother Colony Advisory Board meeting held November
6, 1998.
105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Golf Advisory Commission meeting held October 22,
1999.
156: Receiving and filing the Anaheim Police Department Crime and Clearance Analysis for the
month of December, 1998.
128: Receiving and filing the Monthly Financial Analysis as presented by the Finance Director
for five months ended November 30, 1998.
117: Receiving and filing the Investment Portfolio Report as submitted by the City Treasurer for
the month of December, 1998.
105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Investment Advisory Commission special meeting held
October 20, 1998.
A3. 169: Awarding a contract to the lowest responsible bidder, All American Asphalt, in the amount
of $463,869.85 for State College Boulevard Street Improvements – Ball Road to South 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.
A4. 176: RESOLUTION NO. 99R- 13 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM declaring its intention to vacate certain public streets, highways and service
easements, and setting a date and time to consider abandoning certain easements for electrical
purposes located on and across that property located at the northwest corner of the intersection
of Lemon Street and Carl Karcher Way (formerly Romneya Drive) – 225 W. Carl Karcher Way
(ABANDONMENT NO. 98-17A). (Suggested public hearing date : February 23, 1999, at 6:00
p.m.)
A5. 113: RESOLUTION NO. 99R- 14 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM authorizing the destruction of certain city records more than two years old.
(Traffic Engineering records.)
A6. 000: ORDINANCE NO. 5665 (INTRODUCTION) AMENDING SUBSECTION .030 OF
SECTION 10.12.050 OF CHAPTER 10.12.OF TITLE 10 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNCIPAL CODE
RELATING TO SANITATION CHARGES.
A7. 175: Approving Contract Change Order No. 1 for Lincoln Avenue 18” Watermain, in the amount
of $163,610 in favor of Steve Casada Construction Company, and authorizing the Director of
Public Works to execute Contract Change Order No. 1, and any related documents.
A8. 160: Accepting the low bid of the Okonite Company, in an amount not to exceed $90,593.65 for
35,000 feet of 15 KV underground distribution cable, in accordance with Bid #5880.
A9. 113: RESOLUTION NO. 99R- 15 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM authorizing the destruction of certain city records more than two years old. (City
Clerk’s Office.)
5
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 26, 1999
A10. 142: ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANHEIM repealing
Chapter 4.29 of, and adding new Chapter 4.29 to Title 4 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating
to massage establishments. (Discussed and continued from the meeting of January 5, 1999,
Item A13.)
Staff requested a continance of this item to February 9, 1999.
A11. 166: Approvin g the detailed plans for the Anaheim Colony Historic District Monuments.
Council Member Tait . He feels that the monument signs proposed are first class and wants to commend
the artist, Richard Turner as well as to thank the Ad Hoc Committee for all their work. This is a big step
to improving the property values in the area. He very much supports this and urges his fellow Council
Members to do the same.
Mayor Daly. He heartily agrees. The proposed design is attractive. He then posed a line of questions
relative to the lighting element in the signs, size of the signs, long term maintenance, and labelling on the
signs which were answered by Brent Shultz , Redevelopment and Property Services Manager – all of the
monument signs are proposed to have a lighting element in them but the details as to exactly how have
not yet been worked out, the smaller signs are six or seven feet high and the larger ones (North, South,
East and West Streets) are approximately 30’ high. The Ad Hoc Committee and Redevelopment and
Housing Commission chose the “Anaheim Colony” labelling for the signs.
Council Member Tait was of the opinion that the larger signs at 30’ seemed to be large ; Brent Schultz.
Those signs are going to be on arterial streets and at those locations, there are a lot of vertical elements.
They wanted the signs to be of a size so that they can be seen.
Mayor Daly. This is another important step in identifying and highlighting the historic district of downtown
Anaheim. They look forward to the installation of the monuments. He asked the completion time table.
Mr. Shultz stated it would be a six to eight-month time frame to go to bid and close to 10 months for
completion.
Mayor Daly. They will look forward to the final design. He knows they will see the ultimate bid package
but asked if the final design will be brought forward to the Council which he would like to happen; Brent
Shultz. They will bring the final design back to the Council.
A12. 139: To consider adopting the City of Anaheim 1999 Legis lative Program.
Council Member Feldhaus requested a continuance of this item until the next meeting since there are
things he would first like to research.
Mayor Daly asked if a continuance would delay any important bills; Kristine Thalman, Government
Relations Manager stated that February 26, 1999 is the deadline for introduction of bills so a continuance
would not be a problem.
MOTION. Council Member Feldhaus moved to continue Item A12 for one week. Council Member Tait
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
A13. 153: Approving the 1999 Health Improvement Program (HIP) incentive of a Healthy Day Off (8
hours/40 hours week or 11.2 hours/56 hour week) to each full-time employee who successfully
completes all required elements.
A14. 153: Approving the 1999 renewal rates for the Kaiser “Q” Health Plan (for part-time employees)
of $136.07 for single coverage and $362.49 for family coverage, effective March 1, 1999, and
authorizing the Human Resources Manager to sign the renewal agreement on behalf of the City.
6
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 26, 1999
A15. 123: Approving the Second Amendment to Agreement with Freedom Communications, Inc., and
the City of Anaheim, Convention Center for (1) sponsor exclusivity; (2) newspaper distribution at
Convention Center events; and (3) terms for advertising fees and compensation.
A16. 156: RESOLUTION NO. 99R- 16 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM authorizing the Chief of Police to submit a grant proposal, in the amount of
$105,085, on behalf of the City of Anaheim, to the Office of Criminal Justice Planning for the
Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grants ( JAIBG) Program.
A17. 155: Approving a Categorical Exemption, Section 15300.1 of the CEQA Guidelines, for this
ministerial action relative to an amendment to conditions of approval for a previously approved
helistop relocation; and approving the proposed amendment to Condition No. 2 for the
previously-approved helistop relocation to read “That the operation shall be limited to a
maximum of four hundred flights per year”. (3370 E. Miraloma – helistop location.)
A18. 123: Approving a Letter Agreement between Southern California Edison Company and the City
of Anaheim regarding Anaheim meters and related documents; and authorizing the Public
Utilities General Manager on behalf of the City to execute said Letter Agreement and the related
documents, with any revisions that are in substantial conformance, and any other related
documents necessary to implement the Letter Agreement.
A19. 123: Approving an Agreement with Xenergy , Inc., in an amount not to exceed $279,667 to
provide the Anaheim Public Utilities Department with the staffing and implementation of
Anaheim Advantage Services for residential customers; and authorizing the Public Utilities
General Manager, on behalf of the City, to execute said Agreement, and related documents
necessary to implement the Agreement.
A20. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 99R- 17 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM amending Resolution No. 92R-19 which established rates of compensation for
classifications designated as Executive Management. (Assistant City Manager - Development,
effective January 22, 1999.)
142: ORDINANCE NO. 5666 (INTRODUCTION ) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION 1.04.210 OF CHAPTER 1.04 OF TITLE 1 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO OFFICERS AND DEPARTMENTS.
A21. 153: Approving the appointment of Thomas J. Wood to the position of Assistant City Manager –
Development, effective January 22, 1999.
Mayor Daly. He wants to understand the personnel move which changes the title of the Deputy City
Manager. If one position is Assistant City Manager-Development, what is the other one .
City Manager Ruth. They have not changed the title of the other. It is just Operations. Duties are
specified and changed from time to time. They are abolishing the Deputy City Manager position as a
result of this promotion.
Mayor Daly asked it if would create any problem if this item was continued one week. He sees there is
some pay adjustment involved ; City Manager Ruth. It is a one-step pay increase but certainly not to the
top of the scale.
Mayor Daly. He apologized for not questioning this item earlier. He asked Council Members if they were
comfortable with the title; the consensus of the Council was yes.
7
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 26, 1999
Mayor Daly. He continued, this seems to imply that the position deals solely with development and that
is not the case ; City Manager Ruth. He and the City Attorney discussed the matter with Human
Resources. They are not new responsibilities but responsibilities he (Wood) is already carrying out.
They tried to give some definition and not violate the City Charter. The attempt was to come up with a
title consistent with the Charter, delineate more effectively what his responsibilities are and what he has
been doing right along.
Council Member Kring asked if it could just be, Assistant City Manager, with a description --
development, planning, whatever the duties are.
City Attorney White. That is the issue they had to deal with. Under the City Charter, there is a position
having the title, Assistant City Manager. That position specifies in the Charter duties, acting in the
absence of the City Manager, as the City Manager. The Charter does not prohibit having more than one
assistant but to differentiate the person who has the Charter responsibility to serve in the absence of the
City Manager as the Acting City Manager. There needs to be some differentiation in the titles. They
can’t just call both positions, Assistant City Manager. He confirmed for the Mayor that the Charter is that
literal and read the applicable Charter language.
Council Member Kring stated with the new Charter Review Commission being formed, this may be an
issue they should look at.
Mayor Daly. He wanted to express his concerns with this issue. Perhaps there needs to be some
cleanup of the language so there can be more differentiation and it can be revisited.
A22a . 137: RESOLUTION NO. 99R- 18 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM authorizing the execution of an Interest Rate Swap Agreement relating to the
1993 Arena Financing Project.
A22b . 137: RESOLUTION NO. 99R- 19 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM approving, authorizing and directing execution of a Participation Agreement, Head
Lease, Sublease and related documents, and authorizing and directing certain actions with
respect thereto.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 99R-13 through 99R-19, both inclusive, for adoption:
AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : Feldhaus, Kring, Tait, McCracken, Daly
NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : None
ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 99R-13 through 98R-19, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted.
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR. MOTIONS CARRIED.
CONDEMNATION HEARING - BALL ROAD AND WEST STREET IMPROVEMENT
A23. 121:
PROJECT AND ANAHEIM RESORT AREA IMPROVEMENT AND BEAUTIFICATION PROGRAM:
To consider the adoption of a resolution finding and determining the public interest and necessity for
acquiring and authorizing the condemnation of a portion of certain real property in connection with the
Ball Road and West Street Improvement Project and the Anaheim Resort Area. The property is located
at 1015 West Ball Road (Sheraton Hotel – R/W 5090B).
Submitted was report dated January 26, 1999 from the Public Works Department recommending
adoption of the subject resolution for certain real property as listed in the report.
8
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 26, 1999
Mayor Daly. This is the time and place for the hearing on the proposed acquisition of property by
eminent domain in connection with the subject project and program. The property involved is identified
under Agenda Item A23, page 8 of the Agenda. The property interests proposed to be acquired are
legally described in the resolution attached to the staff report dated January 26, 1999. He then asked for
a staff presentation.
Natalie Meeks , Civil Engineer/Project Manager – Public Works. The resolution is for acquisition of the
property necessary for right of way for the above-named project/program. Staff is recommending
adoption of the resolution to move the acquisition forward but will continue to work with the property
owner in order to reach a settlement. (See Discussion portion of the January 26, 1999 staff report).
Council Member Kring . Sheraton Hotel submitted a communication listing three concerns. She asked if
those concerns will be addressed at a future time; Ms. Meeks answered, yes.
Mayor Daly. In conducting the hearing, testimony will be taken from the owner of record or a designated
representative on the proposed acquisition. Testimony should be limited to the following issues only: (1)
whether the public interest and necessity require the project; (2) whether the project is planned and
located in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury;
(3) whether the property sought to be acquired is necessary for the project; (4) whether the offer required
by Government Code Section 7267.2 has been made to the owner or owners of record and (5) whether
the City has met all other prerequisites to the exercise of eminent domain in connection with the property
The Mayor opened the hearing and invited the owner or representative for the property described to
address the City Council; there being no one present to speak , the Public Hearing was closed.
Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 99R-20 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 99R- 20 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM determining the public interest and necessity for acquisition of portions of property located at
1015 West Ball Road for the purposes of conducting roadway improvement (Sheraton Hotel – R/W
5090B).
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 99R-20 for adoption:
AYES: MAYOR/COUNC IL MEMBERS : Feldhaus, Kring, Tait, McCracken, Daly
NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : None
ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 98R-20 duly passed and adopted.
PRIVATE INDUSTRY COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS:
A24. 105:
Appointing one new member to the Anaheim Private Industry Council – Private Sector Category – to a
four year term; reappointing Mr. Tom K. Harris Jr., and appointing Mr. Greg Kishel from the Public
Sector Category to four year terms respectively.
Mayor Daly opened nominations.
Council Member McCracken nominated Doug Shively for the Private Sector Category; Council Member
Tait nominated Tom Vogt.
MOTION. On motion by Mayor Daly seconded by Council Member Feldhaus, nominations were closed.
MOTION CARRIED.
9
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 26, 1999
A vote was then taken on the nominees in the order in which they were nominated.
Doug Shively - Ayes: Tait, McCracken, Daly. Noes: Feldhaus , Kring .
Tom Vogt - Ayes: Feldhaus, Kring. Noes: Tait , McCracken . Abstained: Daly.
Mr. Doug Shively was thereupon appointed to the Anaheim Private Industry Council, Private Sector
Category for a four-year term.
Mayor Daly. He would be happy to support Tom Vogt at another time when another seat becomes
available.
Council Member McCracken nominated Tom Harris for reappointment to the Public Sector Category;
Council Member Tait nominated Greg Kishel for reappointment to the Public Sector Category.
MOTION. On motion by Council Member Feldhaus seconded by Council Member McCracken,
nominations were closed. MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Tom Harris and Mr. Greg Kishel were thereupon reappointed to the Anaheim Private Industry
Council, Private Sector Category.
APPOINTMENT - MOTHER COLONY HOUSE ADVISORY BOARD:
A25. 105: Appointment to fill
the current vacancy on the Mother Colony House Advisory Board for the term expiring December 31,
2002.
Mayor Daly opened nominations.
Council Member Kring nominated Wade Perry; Council Member McCracken nominated Virginia
Spencer; Council Member Feldhaus nominated Judithanne Gollette.
MOTION. On motion by Mayor Daly seconded by Council Member Feldhaus, nominations were closed.
MOTION CARRIED.
Before a vote was taken on the nominees, Mayor Daly stated he will be supporting Virginia Spence, a
long-time resident who has been active in historical matters of the City and has earned, by long-term
community involvement, the opportunity to serve on a board dealing with historic matters.
A vote was then taken on the nominees in the order in which they were nominated.
Wade Perry - Ayes: Kring. Noes: Feldhaus, Tait, McCracken . Abstained: Daly.
Virginia Spence - Ayes: Tait, McCracken, Daly. Noes: Feldhaus , Kring .
Judithanne Gollette - Ayes: Feldhaus. Noes: Kring, Tait, McCracken . Abstained: Daly.
Virginia Spence was thereupon appointed to the Mother Colony House Advisory Board for the term
expiring December 31, 2002.
Mayor Daly. He encouraged Mr. Perry and Mrs. Gollette to apply at the earliest opportunity when slots
become available on one of the City’s advisory commissions.
ITEMS B1 – B8 FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 4, 1999 –
INFORMATION ONLY
APPEAL PERIOD ENDS JANUARY 26, 1999:
10
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 26, 1999
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4086, CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
B1. 179:
OWNER:
Armando C. & Mirta L. Hernandez, 18751 Patrician, Villa Park , CA 92861
AGENT:
Hope House, Inc., Attn: Marc Corradini, 707 N. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim , CA 92805
LOCATION: 710-714 North Anaheim Boulevard – Hope House.
Property is 0.34 acre located
on the east side of Anaheim Boulevard, 134 feet north of the centerline of Wilhelmina.
To permit the expansion of an existing alcohol and drug rehabilitation center to an adjacent
property.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 4086 GRANTED, for two years, to expire 1/4/2001 ( PC99-3)
(5 yes votes, 1 abstained, and 1 absent).
Approved Negative Declaration.
B2. 134: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 360 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 98-99-08
WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4084, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF 8a, 8c, 8d and 8e
OWNER:
Gene A. Condra & Lillian A. Condra, c/o Darrell Condra of the Lillian Condra Trust,
1179 Sunning Dale Road, Lake Oswego, OR 97034
AGENT:
Ariel L. Valli, 19700 Fairchild, Suite 230, Irvine, CA 92612
.
LOCATION: 1631 South Euclid Street - Southern California Edison Easement Property is 6.1
acres located on the west side of Euclid Street, 220 feet south of the centerline of Cris Avenue.
General Plan Amendment No. 360
- to redesignate this property from the Low Density
Residential land use designation to the General Commercial land use designation.
Reclassification No. 98-99-08
- to reclassify this property from the RS -A -43 ,000
(Residential/Agricultural) Zone to the CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone.
Conditional Use Permit No. 4084
- to permit an outdoor recreational vehicle and boat self-
storage facility with an on-site manager’s office/living unit with waiver of (a) maximum fence
height – APPROVED, (b) minimum landscaping for fences/ blockwalls – DENIED and (c)
minimum setback adjacent to residential zones - APPROVED.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
GPA NO. 360 DENIED ( PC99-4) (5 yes votes, 1 abstained, and 1 absent).
Reclassification No. 98-99-08 DENIED ( PC99-5).
CUP NO. 4084 GRANTED, IN PART, ( PC99-6).
Waiver of code requirement APPROVED, IN PART - approved waiver (a), denied waiver (b),
and approved waiver (c).
Approved Negative Declaration.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3873, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
B3. 179:
OWNER:
CCS FERS Stadium Business (3), Inc., Attn: Bruce McDonald, 1939 S. State College
Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92806
AGENT:
Trammel Crow Company, Attn: Bruce McDonald, 1939 S. State College Blvd.,
Anaheim, CA 92806
LOCATION: 1939 South State College Boulevard - Hop City Blues and Brew Restaurant.
Property is 16.97 acres located at the southwest corner of Gene Autry Way and State College
Boulevard.
To consider reinstatement of this permit which currently has a time limitation (approved on
January 5, 1998 until January 5, 1999) to retain public entertainment in conjunction with a
previously-approved restaurant with sales of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3873 APPROVED reinstatement, to expire 1/5/02 ( PC99-7)
(5 yes votes, 2 absent).
Negative Declaration previously approved.
11
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 26, 1999
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ITEMS: CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-
B4. 179:
CLASS 3
VARIANCE NO. 193 REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF SUBSTANTIAL
CONFORMANCE :
Alive Again/ Zully Duenas, 211 South State College Blvd. #207, Anaheim,
CA 92806, requests determination of substantial conformance to establish a non-profit
counseling/educational, spiritual seminar center and bookstore. Property is located at 301-305
North Harbor Boulevard.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Variance No. 193 determined to be in substantial conformance
CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION 15061 (b) (3)
B5. 179:
CODE AMENDMENT NO. 99-01:
Ariel Valli, 19700 Fairchild, Suite 230, Irvine, CA 92612, request for consideration of a Code
Amendment to the site development standards of the RS-A-43 ,000 (Residential/Agricultural)
Zone to permit outdoor self-storage of recreational vehicles and boats as a conditionally
permitted use.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved Code Amendment No. 99-01, and recommended that the City Council adopt the draft
ordinance presented to the Planning Commission at the meeting with modifications.
Council Member McCracken . The Council received a number of letters on this item. She asked for
clarification from staff. She understands it still requires a CUP and that it clarified sites which were more
viable than other sites. The community seems to have a different understanding.
Joel Fick , Planning Director. This is an enabling ordinance and allows someone to apply for a CUP for a
site within the residential-agricultural zone. It does not make it a permitted use.
Council Member Tait stated he would like the item placed on the agenda; Mayor Daly explained
procedurally it is not necessarily a Public Hearing item but a first reading of an ordinance. If someone
introduces it, it automatically comes back but “dies” if no one introduces it.
Council Member Tait stated he would like a Public Hearing on the item in order to get public input ; City
Attorney White. He first clarified for the Mayor that if the ordinance is introduced tonight it will be back
on the agenda next week under the B. items, but the Council can place it wherever they like. No hearing
is legally required.
Council Member Feldhaus . He notes that this is tied to Item B2 .; Joel Fick. On Item B2 ., the Planning
Commission denied the General Plan Amendment, reclassification and zoning. They did approve the
CUP for that item but made the approval contingent upon the future amendment the Council has been
discussing under this item (B5.). Therefore, B5. needs to be determined before they can proceed on B2.
If B5. is not approved at some point in time in the future, B2. would not be able to be implemented.
Council Member Tait stated he will introduce the ordinance and set the second reading (adoption) for a
Public Hearing.
Mayor Daly. This item is an exception to their normal procedure. He asked how many votes it takes to
set a Public Hearing on this item; City Attorney White answered, three. A Public Hearing implies notices
will be published and sent to property owners. The public can comment on any agenda item; the
difference is how they are told.
After brief additional discussion between Council Members and staff, Council Member Tait stated he will
introduce the ordinance and invite the public to comment at next week’s meeting and subsequently the
Council will make a decision.
12
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 26, 1999
Council Member Tait offered Ordinance 5667 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO : . 5667 (INTRODUCTION ) ADDING NEW SUBSECTION .215 TO
SECTION 18.21.050 OF CHAPTER 18.21.OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO ZONING.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4055, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION - REQUEST
B6. 179:
FOR RETROACTIVE EXTENSION OF TIME :
Pastor Stan Managbanag and Jeff Smith (Youth
Director), 1171 North West Street, Anaheim, CA 92801, request a retroactive time extension to
comply with conditions of approval pertaining to block wall fencing, security lighting, and a trash
enclosure. This petition was originally approved on August 31, 1998. Property is located at 1171
North West Street - Free Methodist Church of Anaheim.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved retroactive extension of time for CUP NO. 4055, to expire 2/28/99.
Negative Declaration previously approve d.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3996, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION - REQUEST
B7. 179:
FOR DETERMINATION OF SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE :
Shin- Tze Pan, 1501 West
Katella Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92802, requests determination of substantial conformance to
construct a six-foot high wrought-iron fence along south and east property lines. Property is
located at 1501 West Katella Avenue - Orange County Association for Buddhist Practices.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3996 determined to be in substantial conformance as modified.
Negative Declaration previously approved.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 322 ( PREV.-CERTIFIED)
B8. 155:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4034 - REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF
FINAL PLANS :
Burnett Development Corporation, Attn: Joseph Swain, 200 East Baker Street,
Suite 100, Costa Mesa, CA 92780, request for review and approval of final building elevation
(including materials and colors), sign program, fencing, and landscaping plans. Property is
located at 1500 South Douglass Road - Arena Corporate Centre.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved landscape plans for CUP NO. 4034; revised architectural plans and a revised sign
program shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission.
EIR NO. 322 previously certified.
END OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS.
REQUEST FOR REHEARING ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4064, AND NEGATIVE
B9.
DECLARATION:
OWNER:
Walter Friedman Trustee, WRBL Trust, 9 Goodyear, Irvine, CA 92618
AGENT:
Eller Media, Attn : S. I. Castillo, 1550 W. Washington Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA
90007
LOCATION: 1107 North Brookhurst Street – Guerrero Auto Repair. Property is a 0 .25 acre
located at the northwest corner of Brookhurst Street and La Palma Avenue.
To permit the constructi on of two (2) 36-foot high, 300 square-foot billboards.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 4064 DENIED ( PC98-178) (6 yes votes, 1 absent).
Denied Negative Declaration.
Informational item at the meeting of December 1, 1998, Item B3. Letter of appeal submitted by
the owner, Walter Friedman
At a public hearing held December 15, 1998, Item D4, the Anaheim City Council Denied CUP
NO. 4064 (Resolution No. 98R-268).
13
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 26, 1999
City Attorney White first confirmed for the Mayor that there has been no discussion between his office
and the owner under this item.
Mayor Daly. He believes the Council had a full hearing previously (see minutes of December 15, 1998).
He does not support another hearing on this subject.
Council Member Kring . She noted the petitioner in their Request for Rehearing and Declaration of Merit
stated he was unable to present “substantive items brought up during questions from the City Council to
the City staff after the Public Hearing was closed.” She would like to hear what those issues would be.
The petitioner also states that “ Caltrans may rescind the letter that was sent to the City of Anaheim
stating that Petitioner had been compensated for the billboards.” She would like to hear about that as
well.
Council Member Feldhaus . He abstained the last time because he was totally confused by the
information presented. In the agreement with Caltrans, it indicated they had bought the underlying
property. The petitioner was told he could keep the signs. There was another communication saying he
was paid for the signs. He is still confused about the signs because if they allow the petitioner to keep
the signs, he questions where he expects to put them. For that reason, he would like to hear some
definitive testimony.
MOTION. Mayor Daly moved to deny the request for rehearing. Council Member McCracken seconded
the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Council Member Tait asked if Council Member Feldhaus was in favor of a
rehearing ; Council Member Feldhaus. If he (petitioner) paid for one, he should have one. At this point,
he would still abstain because he needs better information.
Council Member Tait . He is not sure the information submitted by the petitioner is even relevant but
perhaps just to clear the record. To err on the side of getting more information, he agrees to a rehearing.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion denying the request for a rehearing and failed to carry by
the following vote : Ayes: McCracken, Daly. Noes: Feldhaus, Kring, Tait .
MOTION. Council Member Tait moved to grant the request for a rehearing on Conditional Use Permit
No. 4064. Council Member Kring seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Daly stated he wanted to make it clear what is before them in his opinion
is simply a request to build two new billboards in west Anaheim. It has nothing to do with a business
transaction between this property owner and Caltrans and that is what the City Attorney has told them
repeatedly; City Attorney White confirmed that was correct.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion granting the request for a rehearing and carried by the
following vote : Ayes: Feldhaus, Kring, Tait. Noes: McCracken , Daly.
Before concluding, Council Member Tait stated he is not in favor of putting billboards up in west
Anaheim but he feels there may be false information on the record and in order to get that cleared up, he
is willing to grant the rehearing; Council Member Feldhaus stated he feels exactly the same way.
ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION:
B10. 1 79: ORDINANCE NO. 5668 (INTRODUCTION) Amending Title 18 to rezone property
under Reclassification No. 97-98-20 located at 1203-1245 South Knott Street from the general
commercial land use designation to the low-medium density residential land use designation
zone, from the CL zone to the RM-3000 zone.
14
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 26, 1999
B11. 179: ORDINANCE NO. 5669 (INTRODUCTION) Amending Title 18 to rezone property under
Reclassification No. 98-99-07 located at 100 South Harbor Boulevard from the CG zone to the
CL zone.
Mayor Daly offered Ordinance Nos. 5668 and 5669 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 5668: (INTRODUCTION) AMENDING TITLE 18 TO REZONE PROPERTY
UNDER RECLASSIFICATION NO. 97-98-20 LOCATED AT 1203-1245 SOUTH KNOTT
STREET FROM THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION TO THE LOW-
MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION ZONE, FROM THE CL ZONE
TO THE RM-3000 ZONE.
ORDINANCE NO. 5669: (INTRODUCTION) AMENDING TITLE 18 TO REZONE PROPERTY
UNDER RECLASSIFICATION NO. 98-99-07 LOCATED AT 100 SOUTH HARBOR
BOULEVARD FROM THE CG ZONE TO THE CL ZONE.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 313
D1. 134:
ANAHEIM RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 92-2, AMENDMENT NO. 2:
OWNER:
Chevron Products Company, Attn : Mario Bautista, 1300 S. Beach Blvd., La Habra,
CA 90631
AGENT:
RFI Inc., 2058 S. Santa Cruz, #2100, Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION:
The approximate 555-acre Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area is generally located
adjacent to and southwest of Interstate 5 between Ball Road and Orangewood Avenue and is
accessible from Harbor Boulevard, Ball Road, Freedman Way/Disney Way, Katella Avenue,
West Street/ Disneyland Drive, Orangewood Avenue, Haster Street/Anaheim Blvd. and Walnut
St . Proposal to amend the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Zoning and Development Standards
(Section 18.48.070.050 of Chapter 18.48 of the Anaheim Municipal Code) to add “Coffee
House” as a conditionally permitted accessory use in conjunction with an automobile service
station.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Denied request to amend Specific Plan No. 92-2, Amendment No. 2
( PC98-160) (4 yes votes, 2 no votes, and 1 absent).
EIR NO. 313 previously certified.
Informational item at the meeting of November 3, 1998, Item B1. Letter of appeal submitted by
the owner, Chevron Products.
Public hearing continued from the meeting of December 15, 1998, Item D5.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in North County News – December 3, 1998
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet – December 1, 1998
Posting of property – December 4, 1998
MOTION. Council Member Tait moved to continue the Public Hearing to April 27, 1999 as requested by
the applicant. Council Member Kring seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Daly noted that the letter from Chevron dated January 20, 1999
indicates that Chevron has received additional information. He would like to know if staff knows what
that is.
Joel Fick , Planning Director. Staff does not have any additional information at this point beyond what is
in the agenda packet.
Mayor Daly questioned why they would continue this matter out 90 days as requested; City Attorney
White answered, it is discretionary with the Council and they can either approve or deny the request (to
15
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 26, 1999
amend the Specific Plan) or the continuance. If the Council denies the request for continuance, the
matter is still before them this evening. If they deny the amendment to the Specific Plan, the applicant
would have to re-apply whenever he was ready to move forward.
Mayor Daly asked to hear from the applicant or a representative.
Ted Grove, RFA , Architectural Engineering Consultant for Chevron, 2050 S. Santa Cruz, Anaheim. He
spoke before the Planning Commission when the amendment was denied. The reason Chevron
requested the second continuance, the original project plans that were prepared were very conceptual in
nature. They did not prepare site-specific plans. The message they got from staff and the Planning
Commission at the two meetings where the request was ultimately denied was that, in order to support
the text amendment, staff and the Planning Commission would need to see site-specific designs of
Chevron’s proposal. They have very “grand” ideas about this facility and something that will appeal to
the Anaheim Resort Area. This is a new concept and there are a lot of people that need to be involved
to try to develop the concept. The continuance request would allow ample time in order to present a
complete project, site specific, and one they hope Chevron and the City can be proud of.
Mayor Daly. If there is going to be information that the Planning Commission has not seen, he asked if
that would not necessitate going back to the Planning Commission ; Joel Fick. It has been Council’s
practice on many occasions, when revised plans are submitted, to refer the matter back to the Planning
Commission for review. He then cited the findings of the denial by the Planning Commission which went
beyond the fact that site-specific plans were not submitted.
Ted Grove. As a part of the redesign, they are trying to incorporate all the issues staff and the Planning
Commission voiced at previous Planning Commission meetings into this design.
Discussion then followed between Council Members and staff relative to the issue of the difficulty of the
Council making a decision on a project that the Planning Commission has not seen. A substitute motion
was also proposed by Council Member Feldhaus (seconded by the Mayor for purposes of discussion) to
send the matter back to the Planning Commission; however, the City Attorney explained that once the
Planning Commission acts and a project is appealed to the Council, the Planning Commission no longer
has jurisdiction and cannot take an action. The Council could refer it to the Commission for a
recommendation and have them look at the new material before the Council votes at the time of the
Public Hearing.
Council Member Feldhaus amended his motion to refer the matter to the Commission for a
recommendation ; City Attorney White. He explained if the Council does continue the matter, prior to that
date, the applicant would be required to first present the information and plans to the Planning
Commission for a Report and Recommendation to the Council at its Public Hearing.
Donna Chessen , Chessen and Associates. If that is the action of the Council, they request that they go
th
before the Planning Commission on the 27 of April.
Mayor Daly. One way to handle this matter is to have the hearing tonight and then for the Council to
vote on it. He asked the difference between keeping this project alive for an April Planning Commission
meeting or simply refiling it. The Council hardly ever grants two continuances. He asked what they are
going to bring to the Council.
Donna Chessen . Chevron would like to work on a new project. They thought it would take only 30 days.
They are requesting the additional continuance so they can bring forward something they felt was a
finished project. Having never discussed this project with the Council, they have no problems going back
to the Planning Commission. She confirmed for the Mayor that they would appreciate the continuance.
It does not affect the Council in any way. They would be more than happy to do this before the Planning
Commission. If it is denied, they would have to refile.
16
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 26, 1999
After further discussion, the City Attorney explained for the Mayor, that he does not recall a case where
they have ever continued a Public Hearing this long. The Council has an option if they wish to deny the
request for continuance. The matter is before the Council tonight. The applicant has an opportunity to
withdraw the appeal and refile at such time as the project is ready to move forward. They would not lose
any time doing so.
Joel Fick . He concurs with the City Attorney’s comment. This was an amendment staff recommended
not be approved. The Planning Commission denied the request and it was appealed to the Council.
There was opposition at the Planning Commission as well. Frankly, in staff’s viewpoint, it is a new
submittal.
Mayor Daly asked if the applicant was willing to simply refile at a later date.
Donna Chessen . It would not be a preference but if it is the will of the Council, they will refile; however,
the Planning Commission never did see the project; Mayor Daly asked, if they have never seen it, how
can the Council hold a Public Hearing on it.
Donna Chessen . It is an amendment to the code and that is what staff requested they do. One of the
reasons the Commission said they denied the amendment is because they did not see the project. They
(Chevron) thought they were not supposed to submit a project but at the hearing, they were denied partly
because thay did not submit a project. It was a “Catch 22”.
th
Council Member Tait . If they come back on the 27 , the Council will almost be forced to deny it because
they have no input from the Planning Commission. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to refile and
bring a project to the Planning Commission in one package ; Donna Chessen. It would not be their
preference, but they will abide by that.
Mayor Daly. He believes that would be the preferable way to proceed. If the project is to be retooled
and substantial new information comes forward, the Planning Commission should have the opportunity to
have a full hearing on it. He is going to speak against the continuance and suggest they have all the
facts in front of them before making any decisions. He asked Council Member Tait if he wants to
withdraw his motion.
Council Member Tait . He will withdraw his motion because it seems they would get there (to the hearing)
and not have anything to vote on. It will probably get to the Council quicker than April by starting all
over.
Mayor Daly asked if it is the desire to have a Public Hearing this evening or withdraw for resubmittal ; Ted
Grove, RFA. They are not prepared for a Public Hearing this evening so their only option would be to
withdraw.
Mayor Daly. He assured Mr. Grove that the Council looks forward to the new information they will be
bringing forward.
No further action was taken by the Council since the item under this continued Public Hearing was
withdrawn by the applicant.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - PUBLIC HEARING - RECLASSIFICATION NO. 98-99-
D2. 179:
05
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4047, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER:
Hunter’s Pointe Homeowners Association, 14600 Goldenwest Street, 102-A,
Westminster, CA 92683
AGENT:
TDI, Inc., Attn : Adan Madrid, 3150 Bristol Street, #250, Costa Mesa, CA 92626
LO CATION: 6900 East Canyon Rim Road. Property is 3.05 acres located on the south side of
Canyon Rim Road, 180 feet west of the centerline of Fairmont Boulevard.
17
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 26, 1999
Reclassification No. 98-99-05
- to reclassify subject property from the RS-HS-10 ,000 (SC)
(Residential, Single-Family Hillside) (Scenic Corridor Overlay)) Zone to the RS-A-43,000 (SC)
(Residential/Agricultural) (Scenic Corridor Overlay)) Zone or a less intense zone.
Conditional Use Permit No. 4047
- to construct telecommunications antennas on an existing
lattice tower (Edison) structure and ground-mounted accessory equipment.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 98-99-05 GRANTED, UNCONDITIONALLY,
( PC98-176) (6 yes votes, 1 absent).
CUP NO. 4047 GRANTED, for five years, to expire November 9, 2003
( PC98 -177).
Negative Declaration previously approved.
Informational item at the meeting of December 1, 1998, Item B2. Review of the Planning
Commission’s decision requested by Council Members Feldhaus and McCracken.
Public hearing continued from the meeting of January 5, 1999, Item D3.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in North County News – December 24, 1998
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet – December 18, 1998
Posting of property – December 3, 1998
Council Member Feldhaus . He went to look at the property and cannot see any impact that would be
caused by this proposal. There are Edison towers already in place and everything is well screened. He
is satisfied there is no opposition to the project. He asked staff why it was necessary to reclassify the
property to RS-A-43 ,000.
Joel Fick , Planning Director. The existing underlying zoning, RS-HS-10 ,000, does not allow the
application to go forward. He then briefly summarized the request (also see minutes of January 5, 1999).
He also noted this does appear to be the least objectionable of all such requests that have come before
the Council. The Planning Commission attached a five-year time limitation to the proposal.
Mayor Daly opened the Public Hearing and asked to hear from the applicant or applicant’s agent.
Applicant’s Statement : Adan Madrid, TDI. They have been working on this project for several years and
hope to get final approval tonight. The project at one point in time involved a set of 12 antennas located
on existing Edison towers with six equipment cabinets located at the base. Due to comments from staff
and surrounding residents , they have reduced the antennas to six and moved the equipment cabinets to
the landscaped areas of the tower. They will not be in view of the golf course or Canyon Rim Road.
They are present tonight, if the Council wishes, to give a full presentation, the same given to the
Planning Commission several months ago after which the Commission gave the proposal unanimous
approval.
Mayor Daly first asked if anyone was present in opposition and wished to speak.
Mr. Michael Velez, 6540 E. Via Corral, Anaheim 92807. His home is approximately 1,400’ from the site.
He attended the Planning Commission hearing and heard a great deal about concerns over the
aesthetics but what concerns him is human safety. He raised the issue at the Commission meeting as to
what the Commission was going to do with regard to the safety aspects of the project. He left the
meeting with the impression that the City was not concerned about safety. Mr. Velez then cited and read
portions of comments that appeared in the summary of the Planning Commission action dated
November 9, 1998 relative to the health effects/safety issue concerning electro magnetic radiation and
posed questions regarding some of the statements and conclusions contained therein. He also referred
to a letter addressed to a homeowner’s association in Dana Point on the same issue. In concluding his
presentation, Mr. Velez stated the matters of safety at the proposed site appear to have been
inadequately examined and considered. If his observations and conclusions are incorrect, it is because
18
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 26, 1999
he has seen no evidence to conclude otherwise. Perhaps the Council has and he trusts that any votes
for approval stem from knowledge of fact and not assumptions that the site is safe.
Summation by Applicant : Adan Madrid. The two issues appear to be concern that these sites cause
health risks and also that there might be other carriers at some future point in time wanting to do the
same thing Sprint is wanting to do at this site. The reason there is no power density study for this site is
because there has been no construction. Once it is constructed, they will be happy to prepare such a
study. These sites are heavily regulated by the FCC and the California Public Utilities Commission not
just by themselves but in relation to any other facility that might be within close proximity. He can
guarantee it is safe as far as the scientific community knows, not only within the U. S., but globally. They
are nothing new and everybody has a cell phone. The answers to the questions – is there a health
concern, no – is there something they can do to appease those concerns, yes. They can do that and will
be happy to accept it as a condition of approval if it is not included already. As far as other carriers
wanting to do the same thing, it is highly unlikely and he explained why. This is a land use decision and
it cannot be based on heresay. They are asking for approval. The Planning Commission felt confident
after their presentation and all the work they have done that this deserved approval.
Mayor Daly closed the Public Hearing.
Council Member Kring . She received a FAX today expressing some concern as to who was going to
take care of watering of the landscaping that is going to be planted around the pole; Joel Fick. Staff
received that letter as well. Conditions of approval require final landscaping plans to go back to the
Planning Commission. Since the landscaping is shown on the plans, it will have to be irrigated and
permanently maintained. He believes the question to the applicant is whether it will be maintained by the
applicant, the company, or the homeowner’s association.
Mr. Madrid stated he is not sure what arrangements are being made with the lease agreement; however ,
it is a condition of approval and they, as the applicant, will abide by that condition.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – NEGATIVE DECLARATION :
On motion by Council Member
Feldhaus, seconded by Council Member Kring, 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 substantial evidence that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment.
MOTION CARRIED.
Council Member Kring offered Resolution Nos. 99R-21 and 99R-22 for adoption. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 99R-21 : A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT TITLE 18
OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING SHOULD
BE AMENDED AND THAT THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ZONES
SHOULD BE CHANGED.
RESOLUTION NO. 99R-22 : A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.
4047.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 99R-21 and 99R-22 for adoption:
AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : Feldhaus, Kring, Tait, McCracken, Daly
NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : None
ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : None
19
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 26, 1999
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 9R-21 and 99R-22 duly passed and adopted.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
D3. 179:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3921, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER:
F. J. Hanshaw Ent ., Inc., 10921 Westminster Ave., Garden Grove, CA 92843
AGENT:
Desapriya Jinadasa, 1112 N. Brookhurst St., Suite 1, Anaheim, CA 92801
LOCATION: 1112 North Brookhurst Street, Suite 1 - Cheers Market. Property is 0.91 acre
located north and east of the northeast corner of Brookhurst Street and La Palma Avenue.
To consider reinstatement of this permit which currently contains a time limitation (until April 28,
1999) to retain the retail sales of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption within an
existing 2,200 square foot convenience market, to consider amendment or deletion of conditions
of approval pertaining to hours of operation, sales of hot food or self-serve soft drinks, window
signs and exterior public telephones, and to waive minimum number of parking spaces to permit
and retain self-service soft drink dispensers inside the convenience market. The petitioner also
requests review and approval of final landscaping and sign plans in conjunction with the
previously-approved convenience market.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3921 APPROVED, IN PART, to expire November 28, 1998
( PC98-181) (6 yes votes), and APPROVED waiver of code requirement.
Negative Declaration previously approved.
Informational item at the meeting of December 1, 1998, Item B6. Review of the Planning
Commission’s decision requested by Mayor Daly and Council Member McCracken.
Public hearing continued from the meeting of January 5, 1999, Item D4.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in North County News – December 24, 1998
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet – December 18, 1998
Posting of property – December 23, 1998
Mayor Daly asked staff if there was any recent communication with the applicant since, last time, (see
minutes of January 5, 1999) there was some confusion on who was speaking for the project and the
property was in Federal Receivership.
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager. To his knowledge, there has been no change in the request.
The applicant would have to address any changes relative to the ownership.
Mayor Daly. He wanted to know the differences in the Planning staff recommendation vs. what was
approved by the Planning Commission. He knows one of the differences was on the length of time for
beer and wine sales. The Commission approved a one-year extension. He noticed there are some other
variations as well and asked staff to highlight those.
Greg Hastings. This CUP was originally approved in April, 1997 with the alcohol sales portion to expire
April, 1999. The applicant is now asking this be removed altogether and several other conditions to be
modified which he briefed. He also explained that the Police Department has indicated that the subject
reporting district has a crime rate 23% below average and they did support the change of hours of 6:00
a.m. to midnight. However, they pointed out that there were two adjacent districts with crime rates 78%
to 199% above average.
20
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 26, 1999
Mayor Daly. He noted the Planning Commission went beyond the recommendations of the Planning
staff. The only areas of disagreement were on the extension of beer and wine where the Commission
decided to approve a one-year extension. His question is what is the difference between the staff
recommendation and Planning Commission action.
Greg Hastings. The hours of operation extend those out beyond what was originally permitted. Staff
was recommending that they be kept 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. as approved in 1997. The Planning
Commission approved hours of 6:00 a.m. to midnight. Staff was in agreement with the actual limitation
on the length of the permit, the one-year extension.
Mayor Daly. He agrees with the Planning Commission actions on this item. He wanted to see for
himself some of the signage details. He has been satisfied that the Planning Commission action in this
case was a solid action. He thereupon opened the Public Hearing and asked to hear from the applicant
or agent.
Cheryl Thomas, Attorney for Cheers, 200 W. Santa Ana Blvd., Ste. 660, Santa Ana 92701. The reason
she requested a continuance the last time (see minutes of January 5, 1999) the Federal Receiver, in this
particular case, Mr. Marshack has retained a property management entity and tonight, the property
manager is also present; Mr. Brad Van Orwick announced his presence and stated that he is Mr.
Marshack’s managing agent for the property.
Cheryl Thomas then continued stating that last week the Federal Judge in this action issued an order for
the distribution of the properties between the partners. This property was owned by a corporation and
two individuals. There has been an order for the Receiver to distribute those properties to assign a
particular property. There has been a Federal Court Order and she would be happy to provide a copy.
The property manager is concerned about the pay phones. There was a requirement that the pay
phones be removed by the applicant but the problem is, the applicant has no legal power to remove
them since he did not enter into the contract with the pay phone provider but the land owner did. There
is a deadline of February 9 to have the phones removed but the contract is with the Hanshaw’s and the
phone company. Cheers Market is not a signee of the contract.
Relative to the exterior signs, Item 15 of the CUP denied both item 1 and 5, Item 5 being the window
signs. There were some questions concerning the signage at the Planning Commission. There was a
question whether her client’s liquor license had any conditions; there were no conditions. She then cited
the Business and Professional Code section which had to do with removing nuisances which indicates
that no more than 33% of window space would be used for window signs – both windows and doors. Her
client asked for signage above that. He has some pictures of what he proposes. The code section had
to do with safety so that law enforcement would have a clear view of the interior from either the
entrances or public sidewalks. Her client agrees but he would also like a waiver so no more than 33% of
the window and door space that he be allowed to have interior signage that would not interfere. The last
issue is the change of the sign above the entrance, Condition No. 1. When her client first received his
CUP in April, 1997, there was no mention of any sign. That was not a condition. It is her understanding
that the previous tenant installed a larger sign and it continued to remain. When her client bought the
property, the sign remained. Staff has now indicated they want the sign cut in half but her client prefers
to keep it but it is not a major issue.
Mayor Daly. He asked the City Attorney who speaks for the application, the property owner or the
attorney for the business ; City Attorney White. The action being a zoning action relates to the property.
It is not particularly material who the owner or operator is. Normally they have applicants come before
the Council on zoning actions who are sometimes the appellant, lessee or owner. They are looking at
what zoning conditions should be imposed as opposed to being caught in a morass of who the owners
are or who is controlling the property.
Brad Van Orwick. The Receiver has complete control over this property. He is his agent. Condition No.
1 he is in a difficult spot. There are two family members quarrelling over ownership. The condition is
21
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 26, 1999
requiring removal of two pay telephones. They did not execute the agreement. It was executed by the
property partnership. The City wants those out. He has contacted RJ communication, the owner of that
equipment requesting they remove the phones. They have threatened a law suit. If the City will not
delete that condition from his tenant’s CUP, he needs direction on what to do.
Mayor Daly explained it is not the City’s problem that there is some sort of complicated land ownership
dispute ; City Attorney White. This is not unique. Often applications come before the Council where the
lessee of property says that something is the responsibility of the owner and he cannot force him to do
that. If this permit is only reasonable by imposing those conditions, then either those conditions must be
complied with one way or the other, or the permit is not exercised – it is revoked or rescinded. It is not
up to the Council or staff to work through the legal morass of who is in charge of what piece of
equipment. The only jurisdiction and responsibility of the City Council tonight is to determine if a permit
should be issued and under what conditions. If they cannot comply with those conditions, the Council is
saying they cannot exercise the permit and the use may have to go away. If the owner or whoever is
responsible and has the legal right to control those phones is willing to let that happen, that is the only
way the City has to control that piece of property.
Mr. Van Orwick stated that basically that is the answer he has been looking for.
Mayor Daly closed the Public Hearing. He stated he feels the Planning Commission action on this item
was the proper action. He is going to offer the resolution approving CUP No. 3921 with all conditions
included in the Planning Commission action. He asked staff if they would be comfortable with that; Joel
Fick answered yes.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – NEGATIVE DECLARATION :
On motion by Mayor Daly,
seconded by Council Member McCracken, the City Council granted 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 substantial evidence that the project will, not have a significant effect on the environment.
MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 99R-23 for adoption granting Conditional Use Permit No. 3921 as
approved by and including all conditions imposed by the City Planning Commission. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 99R-23 : A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.
3921.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 99R-23 for adoption:
AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : Feldhaus, Kring, Tait, McCracken, Daly
NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : None
ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 98R-23 duly passed and adopted.
D4. 175: PUBLIC HEARING – CREATION OF UNDERGROUND DISTRICT NO. 36:
22
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 26, 1999
To consider approval of the creation of Underground District No. 36 (Lincoln Avenue from East
Street to 57 Freeway) in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 17.24 of Title 17 of the
Anaheim Municipal Code relating to Underground Utilities.
LOCATION:
The proposed Underground District No. 36 is created to provide for the
undergrounding of overhead utilities on Lincoln Avenue from East Street to the 57 Freeway.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in North County News – January 14, 1999
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet – January 14, 1999
Posting of property – January 15, 1999
Submitted was report dated January 26, 1999 from the Public Utilities General Manager, Ed Aghjayan
recommending approval of the proposed resolution creating Underground District No. 36 covering the
area shown on Exhibit “A” attached to the report.
Mr. Dale Tarkington, Assistant General Manager/Electric Services briefed the subject report
recommending approval of the creation of Underground District No. 36 (see Page 1 – Discussion).
Mayor Daly opened the Public Hearing and asked to hear from anyone who wished to speak on this
matter; there being no response, he closed the Public Hearing.
Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 99R-24 for adoption creating Underground District No. 36. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 99R-24: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CREATING UNDERGROUND DISTRICT NO.
36 (LINCOLN AVENUE FROM EAST STREET TO THE 57 FREEWAY).
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 99R-24 for adoption:
AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : Feldhaus, Kring, Tait, McCracken, Daly
NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : None
ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 98R-24 duly passed and adopted.
D5. 175: PUBLIC HEARING – CREATION O F UNDERGROUND DISTRICT NO. 37: To consider
approval of the creation of Underground District No. 37 (State College/ Katella) in accordance
with the requirements of Chapter 17.24 of Title 17 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to
Underground Utilities.
LOCATION:
The proposed Underground District No. 37 is created to provide for the
undergrounding of overhead utilities on State College Boulevard from Gene Autry Way to
Cerritos Avenue and on Katella Avenue from west of State College Boulevard to the 57
Freeway.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in North County News – January 14, 1999
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet – January 14, 1999
Posting of property – January 15, 1999
23
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 26, 1999
Submitted was report dated January 26, 1999 from the Public Utilities General Manager, Ed Aghjayan
recommending approval of the proposed resolution creating Underground District No. 37 covering the
area shown on Exhibit “A” attached to the report.
Mr. Dale Tarkington, Assistant General Manager/Electric Services briefed the subject report
recommending approval of the creation of Underground District No. 36 (see Page 1 – Discussion).
Mayor Daly opened the Public Hearing and asked to hear from anyone who wished to speak on this
matter; there being no response, he closed the Public Hearing.
Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 99R-25 for adoption creating Underground District No. 37. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 99R-25 : A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CREATING UNDERGROUND DISTRICT NO. 37
(STATE COLLEGE/ KATELLA).
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 99R-25 for adoption:
AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : Feldhaus, Kring, Tait, McCracken, Daly
NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : None
ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 98R-25 duly passed and adopted.
DISCUSSION – FORMATION OF CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE :
C1. 142: Request by Mayor
Daly at the meeting of December 15, 1998, Item C4, to discuss the subject of forming a Charter Review
Committee for purposes of reviewing the City Charter. This matter was continued from the meeting of
January 5, 1999 where the initial discussion took place, the meeting of January 12, 1999 where an
application procedure was approved and subsequently continued to this date (see minutes of January 5
and January 12, 1999).
Mayor Daly. He suggested that this matter be continued for a few weeks. He asked the City Clerk the
progress of the recruitment/application process for those who may wish to serve on the Committee.
City Clerk Sohl . Press releases have been initiated and there is an announcement that the Council is
seeking applications on Anaheim’s web site. A number of requests for applications have been received
but only one returned thus far.
MOTION. Mayor Daly moved to continue formation/further discussion on the Charter Review Committee
to February 23, 1999. Council Member Tait seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
PROPOSED MORATORIUM ON NEW GAS STATIONS :
C2. 179: Discussion requested by Council
Member Feldhaus at the meeting of January 5, 1999 (see minutes that date) regarding a proposed
moratorium on new gas stations. Proposed ordinances were prepared by the City Attorney’s Office (two
urgency ordinances and two regular ordinances) and presented at the Council Meeting of January 12,
1999. At the conclusion of extensive discussion and input, the two regular ordinances were offered for
first reading (Version C and Version D) and the matter continued to this date (also see minutes of
January 12, 1999).
Council Member Tait . As he has stated previously, his engineering firm provides both engineering and
environmental services to a few of the oil companies. The City Attorney advises he must declare a
conflict on this issue since some of those companies could be materially affected. He will, therefore, be
24
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 26, 1999
abstaining from any discussion or decision on this matter. He thereupon left the Council Chamber
temporarily (8:17 P.M.).
Submitted was a 22-page report by the Planning Department, including exhibits, tables, and
attachments , dated January 26, 1999 – Subject: Service Station Moratorium Report and Discussion.
The report gave the background leading to the request for a moratorium, a discussion portion divided
into three sections – City of Anaheim Service Station Overview, Comparison with other Orange County
Cities, Existing and Potential Service Stations Standards (with photo examples). Also included in the
extensive and detailed report was a color-coded graph/map (also posted on the Chamber wall) – Service
Station Study – showing existing service stations, existing stations pending remodel, pending service
stations (new construction) closed service stations, and vacant lots at arterial highway intersections
(made a part of the record).
Joel Fick, Planning Director, at the request of Council Member Feldhaus briefed the report giving an
overview of the material contained therein and the findings as documented in the report.
Council Member Feldhaus . He asked staff to come back with some barometer as reflected in the subject
report in order to be able to make some decisions tonight. A great deal of information has been
presented that was not available the last time the matter was discussed (see minutes of January 12,
1999). He has been in touch with several major service station companies as well as owners who tell
him there is no money in gasoline, but it is merely a “hook” to get into the convenience market business
where the profit is made. He then elaborated on his findings, a great deal of which had to do with the
profitability of convenience markets that are being built in conjunction with service stations and
especially the profitability of beer and wine sales. He received some information that shows on the
average of $500,000 gross sales which includes gasoline, convenience market sales and beer and wine,
beer and wine sales come in at less than 2% for some while for others it is as high as 50%. He feels
these kinds of questions need to be addressed for the future good, aesthetical planning, public safety,
etc., for the City.
The bottom line in asking for the moratorium was to take a look and see how many abandoned gas
stations there are in the City and give an opportunity for the Council to do some forward thinking and
planning relative to this issue. The time is now rather than later when it may be too late. His motivation
is to clean up the City and make it more aesthetically pleasing. After giving additional comments relative
to his concerns and reasons for the proposed moratorium, Council Member Feldhaus stated he is going
to offer ordinance, Version D (Ordinance No. 5664) for adoption noting that the City Attorney indicated
modified language was included in this version.
City Attorney White. At the Council Meeting of January 12, 1999, the Council introduced two versions of
a proposed interim ordinance, a Version C (Ordinance No. 5663) which imposed a 45-day prohibition on
new service stations after the effective date of the ordinance 30 days hence. It would exempt service
stations that either existed or were in the process of construction on that effective date. Version D added
one additional exemption relative to CUP’s issued but not yet exercised. With regard to Version D, it
was pointed out to him later that there was an error in that it picked up a section from the former
emergency ordinance (not offered or adopted) and would have to be modified. A corrected revised
version has been submitted to the Council and is in their agenda material. If the Council intends to adopt
Version D as opposed to C, it could be reintroduced tonight and adopted at a subsequent meeting but
Version C could be adopted tonight.
Council Member Feldhaus offered Ordinance No. 5664 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 5664 : AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADOPTING AN
INTERIM MEASURE PROHIBITING GASOLINE SERVICE STATION USES OF PROPERTY
WHICH USES MAY BE IN CONFLICT WITH A ZONING PROPOSAL THE CITY IS STUDYING
OR INTENDING TO STUDY.
25
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 26, 1999
(Later in the meeting after extensive discussion and input, Council Member Feldhaus withdrew his
offering of the Ordinance and it was not re-offered by any other Council Member. The Ordinance was,
therefore, not adopted).
Mayor Daly. That version (Version D) will allow those projects in process now to continue to move
through the process. He then invited those members of the public who wished to speak on the issue to
do so at this time.
The following people then spoke in opposition to the moratorium each giving their reasons and concerns
relative to the proposed moratorium:
·
Shawn O’Connor, Law Firm, Shephard, Mullen, Richter & Hampton, representing Chevron
·
Anita Mangels, Western States Petroleum Association, 505 N. Brand Blvd., Ste. 1400, Glendale
91203 (also see submittal received today – WSPA – Points of Opposition to Proposed Moratorium
on Service Station Development – City of Anaheim, January 26, 1999 – made a part of the record)
·
Matris Fani ( sp), Director of Government Community Relations, ARCO (He also explained in answer
to the Mayor some of the details of ARCO’s proposed beautification/improvement program for their
stations in Anaheim)
·
Ard Keulian, Station Sales, 16122 Beach Boulevard, Huntington Beach (also see his five-page letter
dated January 23, 1999 previously submitted and made a part of the record)
·
John Lincott, ARCO Products
At the conclusion of the extensive input, Council comments, in summary, were as follows:
Mayor Daly. City staff compiled a great deal of information that it is very detailed and helpful, one of the
key charts being how many service stations there are in Anaheim and comparing the number of stations
per square mile as well as per person to all of the other cities in Orange County. Anaheim is actually in
the upper third as having the most gas stations of all communities in the County. While tourism is a
factor and a reason to have additional service stations in the City, many cities in Orange County that are
also tourist destinations such as Newport Beach and Huntington Beach have a lot less stations than
Anaheim. Buena Park, even with Knott’s Berry Farm, has fewer service stations per square mile or per
person. It is never easy to vote for a moratorium but the fact that this is a temporary moratorium, he
believes the benefits will give an opportunity to determine and evaluate the volume of service station
applications that are coming forward. It is true the Council has the discretion to turn down any of the
existing applications. However, the sheer volume comes at a time when the City is evaluating
Redevelopment areas and what the vision is for the City in terms of improving and upgrading the
community. Anaheim has approved many gas stations in recent years. It is not unreasonable to take six
or eight weeks to review the plans and get a grip on this wave of applications. Secondly, he still has a
concern with the number of permits granted by the City but not yet exercised at key locations. It makes it
difficult to do any forward planning. He, therefore, supports the proposal of Council Member Feldhaus
for a temporary moratorium. He ( Feldhaus) has done a service by bringing the issue to the surface
regardless of the outcome. It is a subject that needs more focused attention by the City.
Council Member Kring . She supports many of the things the speakers mentioned this evening as well as
those of Planning staff. She is not convinced that a moratorium is the way to go to regulate the situation.
The City has a very competent Planning staff and CUP system. It costs oil companies a tremendous
amount of money for establishing and upkeep of their facilities and to perform due diligence to see if a
particular piece of property will support another gas station. Further, if it does not meet the City’s
requirements, it cannot be built. She does not want to see a service station on every corner, but she
does not feel that will happen with the regulations that are in place. All the phone calls she received with
the exception of one said there were not enough gas stations in Anaheim. Traditionally, competition is
good for everybody.
26
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 26, 1999
Council Member McCracken . She supports quality of life in the community. However, statistics from
1972 to present show a 75% increase in the population in the City, an increase in square miles from 36.3
to 49.7 and the addition of the 57 and 91 Freeways. While the City has been impacted by major growth
and the addition of freeways, during that period, the number of gas stations has gone from 210 to 67 and
now 99 with those in line – a 75% increase in population - a 180% decrease in service stations. The
statistics do not indicate that Anaheim has an abundance of gas stations. She does believe what
Anaheim needs is to look seriously at its General Plan especially in certain areas of the City. To
consider imposing a moratorium, even short-term, is a serious tool to use in order to effect long-term
planning. They have been very restrictive in the last two years relative to service stations and have
asked the owners/operators for improvements or the like never asked before. They are making a
difference in the community. She reiterated , a moratorium is a serious tool and she does not believe this
is the tool they need to ultimately address the City’s General Plan.
Council Member Feldhaus . He surmises that there is going to be a 2-2 vote. He thereupon withdrew the
request for the moratorium as well as his offering of the ordinance for adoption. He will take a look at the
situation again at a later date.
City Attorney White, answering the Mayor, stated unless someone offers the ordinance for a vote, the
Council does not need to take any formal action.
No further action was taken by the Council and, therefore, no moratorium was placed on the
establishment/construction of new gas stations in the City.
Council Member Tait entered the Council Chamber (8:10 P.M.).
DISCUSSION – CONSIDERATION OF RESCINDING CITY’S CAMPAIGN REFORM
C3. 127:
ORDINANCE :
Discussion requested by Council Member McCracken at the meeting of January 12,
1998 (see minutes that date), Item C4., to consider the adoption of an ordinance rescinding the current
Campaign Reform Ordinance.
Council Member McCracken . At the meeting of January 12, she asked to rescind the subject ordinance.
Staff asked if she would also entertain an amendment or to present a substitute ordinance along with the
possibility of rescinding the current ordinance. She is willing to allow staff to present those options in
four weeks as requested.
MOTION. Council Member McCracken moved to continue consideration of the subject to February 23,
1999. Council Member Kring seconded the motion.
Before further action was taken, Mayor Daly asked for clarification if Council Member McCracken was
looking to fine tune the ordinance or a major overhaul; Council Member McCracken. She asked that it
be rescinded but staff reported there was input from the community favoring amending the ordinance or
proposing an entirely different ordinance. She is willing to look at all options. She does not know if
anything staff (City Attorney) proposes will answer her concerns about the current ordinance. The City
Attorney has spoken to her because he is the one dealing with the ordinance. He expressed several
concerns about the nature of the ordinance and problems trying to abide by it. His proposal was to give
some options as well as the option of rescinding it outright.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion to continue the matter to February 23, 1999. MOTION
CARRIED.
DISCUSSION – IDEAS REGARDING ADDITIONAL OPEN SPACE AND PARKS
C4. 150:
OPPORTUNITIES :
Discussion requested by Mayor Daly at the meeting of January 12, 1999, Item C4,
requesting staff to bring forward to the Council ideas regarding additional open space and parks
opportunities for the City.
27
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 26, 1999
Mayor Daly. Staff has compiled a list of opportunities for future open space and park projects in the City.
He thanked staff for the list bringing forward 28 opportunities to enhance the City’s open space and parks
opportunities. After comments from his colleagues, he would like to ask staff to incorporate the list into
their planning and all of their thinking about whether it is Parks and Recreation or land use planning or
any other administrative actions of the City that they begin to incorporate these into their thinking. That
is the direction. Perhaps they can provide more individual direction and give staff the go-ahead to “run”
with some of these opportunities. He favors the LaPalma Park expansion for one, a small park in the
Jeffrey-Lynne area is another. Other opportunities are open space and green belts. If they can
accomplish all 28, they would have a much more attractive City as well as open space and recreation
areas. He would ask Council to direct staff to proceed along these lines and subsequently to give a
periodic update.
Council Member Tait . It is a great tool and puts the City’s assets into perspective. He would like to ask
staff to add a rough cost on some of the options but not spend a lot of time doing so. As a Council it will
help them to be able to prioritize the options.
Council Member McCracken . Some of these may be opportunities to work on with the school district(s)
to give additional opportunities for the schools to expand, particularly the elementary schools. She also
referred to the young man who spoke under Items of Public Interest and the vacant lots he identified
where he and his friends have skateboarded. Perhaps the youth of the community who want to do things
that are positive rather than negative can also help identify the needs in the community and work
together with Parks and Recreation, Redevelopment, Planning and the School Districts to look for
sources of funding for urban parks.
MOTION: Mayor Daly. He agrees. He thereupon moved that staff pursue all the opportunities and
report back to the Council within 30 or 60 days along with identification of the costs associated with the
projects and any other issues pertinent to the matter. Council Member Tait seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, the Mayor asked if there was anything the City Manager might want to add.
City Manager Ruth. He believes that great opportunities exist right now with all the freeway work being
done. Staff is looking at flood control channels, basins, etc., as identified in the report. As Council
Member McCracken stated, they are working with the schools as well. Staff can provide estimated costs
and review those as either part of the budget process or in a separate workshop. Obviously, the problem
is going to be funding because park-in-lieu fees are not generating a lot of capital at this time. There
might be some opportunities with the settlement of the bankruptcy that might generate additional
revenues in the future. They will come back to the Council in 60 days.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
COUNCIL COMMENTS:
C6. 114:
Council Member Tait - Re : Fire Ants:
He would like placed on the agenda for the next meeting the
issue of fire ants. There was a meeting with the County. He knows that State Senator Lewis and
Assemblyman Campbell are seeking assistance from the State. He would like staff to submit a report on
how many incidents have been reported in Anaheim and what the City’s options are in this regard.
Perhaps the City can do something aside from the State or County to “nip the problem in the bud” even
on an emergency basis. He does not want to see the situation get out of hand, as was the case in Texas.
If there is something the City can do on its own, he would like staff to bring back what those might be.
Council Member Tait - Re : Resort Area – Emergency Equipment:
He knows relative to the bond
proceeds the City is scheduled to purchase fire rescue equipment to be used for cave-ins and the like.
With all the construction in progress, perhaps they ought to accelerate the purchase and buy the
28
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 26, 1999
equipment now rather than at the end of the construction period. He asked staff to bring that back to the
Council so they can vote on it.
City Manager Ruth. The estimated cost is approximately a million dollars in Phase B. There might be
an option where they can do less than that but do something immediately where they could get by until
they get to Phase B. Staff will come back with that information.
Mayor Daly asked Council Member Tait if he would like a report back with the issues involved or to have
it come back on the agenda ; Council Member Tait. He would like it back on the agenda for discussion
and possible action.
Council Member Feldhaus :
He thanked staff and the Planning Department for all the work they did
on the service station issue. It was commendable and he knows it required a great deal of time. He
would hope they would not abandon the thought and keep in mind what they allow on the City’s corners.
He also feels they should continue to look at something that is reasonable so the citizens know they are
not causing the crime rates to escalate when the ability for someone to buy a six-pack of beer is
approved; Mayor Daly stated that all the information generated has been and will be very helpful.
Mayor Daly :
First, he asked staff to take a look at the traffic signal timing at Brookhurst and LaPalma.
Special circumstances exist at that location because of the widening of the I-5. There is constantly a
long line of cars on Brookhurst trying to get up and over the freeway. LaPalma is not a through street at
this time. Because it is not possible to go through the intersection, the timing of the signals could be
revisited. There are thousands of people being inconvenienced every hour of the day and there is a
need to be sensitive to the timing of those signals.
Secondly, he would like staff to take a look, once again , at the freeway signage on the 55 Freeway. This
matter has been discussed previously as a Council to ask Caltrans politely to try to address the problem
but he feels Caltrans has only paid them lip service. The freeway direction signing says Northbound to
Riverside. The 55 does not go to Riverside but to Anaheim. He is also disappointed to learn the new
Eastern Foothill Corridor in the northbound direction also says, to Riverside, whereas the southbound
says Irvine. Once again, the corridor northbound does not go to Riverside but to Anaheim. Since
Anaheim is a tourist destination, he does not know why it is not a higher priority for Caltrans to label the
signs properly. He asked that staff come up with a game plan to encourage Caltrans to do so or if they
will not do so willingly, why it is not a priority for the entire City government.
Council Member Tait . He agrees. Considering that Anaheim has upwards of 25 million visitors a year,
there isn’t a freeway sign in California that says Anaheim ; Mayor Daly. He feels Caltrans “threw a bone”
where the on-ramps to the 55 say Anaheim and Riverside. He directed staff to figure out a way to get
signage that says - to Anaheim - because that is the destination.
ADJOURNMENT: By general Council consent, the City Council adjourned the Council Meeting of
January 26, 1999 (9:30 p.m.).
LEONORA N. SOHL
CITY CLERK
29