1999/04/06ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
APRIL 6, 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:
PRESENT: CITY MANAGER : Dave Morgan
CITY ATTORNEY : Jack White
CITY CLERK : Lee Sohl
ASST. CITY CLERK : Ann Sauvageau
PLANNING DIRECTOR : Joel Fick
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT : Lisa Stipkovich
CIVIL ENGINEER : Natalie Meeks
CONVENTION CENTER GENERAL MANAGER : Greg Smith
TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION MANAGER : John Lower
A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was posted at 3:05 p.m. on
April 2, 1999 at the City Hall Bulletin Board, (both inside and outside the entrance to City Hall) containing
all items as shown herein.
Mayor Daly called the Workshop portion of the Council Meeting of April 6, 1999 to order and welcomed
those in attendance (3:15 P.M.).
City Manager, James Ruth. This is the scheduled time for a workshop on the (long-term) Master Plan for
the Convention Center. He introduced Greg Smith, Executive Director, Convention Center who will, in
turn, introduce Steve Brubaker, Principal Design Architect, HOK ( Helmuth, Obata & Kassabaum, Inc.).
CONVENTION CENTER - MASTER PLAN:
Mr. Greg Smith, Executive Director, Convention Center.
The purpose of the workshop is to present the latest ideas relative to the Convention Center Master Plan.
He feels today they have two options for a Master Plan that will even add more space than what they
have previously been able to suggest. Present today is Steve Brubaker, the Design Architect on the
current expansion of the Convention Center, the first phase of which is scheduled to open this December
(1999) with completion in December of 2000. He is working not only on the current renovation, but has
also been the designer/developer of the Convention Center Master Plan. He turned the presentation
over to Mr. Brubaker.
Steve Brubaker , Principal Design Architect, HOK . Prefacing his presentation which was supplemented
by slides, he gave an historic overview of the initiation and implementation of the current Convention
Center expansion going back approximately four years for the benefit of the newer Council Members.
(The firm of Coopers & Lybrand was commissioned to do a study and present a report which was
submitted to the Council on August 22, 1995 – “Feasibility Analysis Related to the Potential Expansion of
the Anaheim Convention Center.”) The initial slides showed the facility before expansion and what it
looks like today. (He basically gave a recap summary of the presentations previously made to the
Council – see minutes of 2/6, 4/23 and 7/16/96, 4/1 and 6/17/97 and 10/27/98.)
Concluding the historic background of his presentation, Mr. Brubaker then continued explaining that he
was asked to do an article for one of the trade publications on trends in the industry – one trend being
stacking vertically. He ( HOK) thought it made sense to intensify the land value the Convention Center
now sits on and use the current roof as new land and build new exhibit halls on top of the existing ones.
The slides showed long-range Plan A (left screen) and long-range Plan B (right screen). He then briefed
the schemes envisioned in both plans – one that retains the existing arena (Plan A) extending Hall A as
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
APRIL 6, 1999
far north as it can go towards the arena and builds Hall F (a new hall) to the site where the garage is and
puts parking below-grade, 340 cars per level. The other scheme, Plan B, expands exhibit Hall A all the
way to Katella as well as using (new) Hall F and to create more parking below that hall providing an
additional 400 spaces. On both plans, to the left of the exhibit halls, there is other development going on
– there is a ramp immediately to the left of Hall A prime that begins to take ascend to a new loading dock
above the existing loading dock to serve the halls above the existing halls (which he explained in greater
detail). Denver does the same thing and it is considered one of the best loading and unloading facilities
in the country and HOK is planning that facility. Los Angeles and New York are doing the same. Where
land is tight, this is starting to be done. He then explained what would eventually happen to Hall A which
would basically “go away” as a hall. They expect by the time that needs to occur, it could be 30, 40 or 50
years from now or even 20 years (worst case) from now and by that time, that hall will be 50 years old.
He then elaborated on the strategy and with that strategy in mind, stated this is the largest built exhibit
hall area they have provided in the Master Plan now up to 1,700,000 sq. ft. which will put the City into a
McCormick Place, Atlanta Congress Hall, Georgia Congress Hall “arena” which is a fairly major area.
They are now offering schemes on the current sites in excess of the initial proposal in terms of square
footage for the exhibit hall, meeting rooms and on-site parking in all cases by going up and not out. He
believes they are viable schemes and allow the Council to make the decision about the arena at a later
date.
At the conclusion of Mr. Brubaker’s presentation, Council Members posed questions which were
answered by both Mr. Brubaker and Greg Smith. Council Member Tait was especially interested in
knowing when the decision had to be made regarding the current arena, an issue he had broached in
previous workshops. Mr. Brubaker explained if they follow the phasing notion, building at the pace they
have been building, current construction will be completed in 2001, start building (expansion) again in
2009 and in 2017, more or less, build out again. In 2020, they will have to make a decision about the
arena.
Council Member Tait . He is glad to see from the plans that they will be keeping the arena and in twenty
years it will even be more historical; Mr. Brubaker stated that will depend a great deal on what people
think at that time (relative to historical icons).
Council Member Tait . He believes the prior long-range planning was to do away with the arena. He feels
they should keep it and is glad to see that option is being left open ; Greg Smith. If they asked today
which plan to go with, they would want to stay with the plan that retains the arena; however, if for some
reason in the future they do need to demolish the arena, there is a way they can build around it and that
is why they chose to show a theater being built almost to substitute for the arena. There is still a need to
have a room that will seat about 6,000 to 7,000 people. The arena will continue to serve in that function
now and if at some time in the future it is decided not to keep it, they are acknowledging they will still
need to build something to seat that number of people.
Council Member Tait . He is assuming before the next 20 years, they might want to invest in the arena ;
Greg Smith. He has plans he is preparing to present regarding general restoration of the arena. There
are a number of issues that need to be dealt with such as carpeting, seat refurbishment, sound system,
lighting system, etc., which can all be funded out of the operating revenue. They are not anticipating the
need to float bonds or borrow to do that upgrade. They are also looking at ideas on the exterior of the
arena, particularly the lighting effects that might help the image.
Council Member McCracken . She stated that possibly the time frame might be a little too long for
keeping the Katella parking structure; Greg Smith. That is why they show Hall F. The next phase should
be looking at that parking garage and future expansion and combining the rebuilding of that parking with
future space. They presently have engineers reviewing the structure every 60 days to be sure it is
structurally sound. It is not in any imminent danger and is not a safety concern.
Mayor Daly. He asked what happens next in the master planning process in terms of paperwork and
approvals by the City Council ; Greg Smith. He is not sure if that requires approval by the City Council.
2
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
APRIL 6, 1999
What they would be interested in is hearing from Council Members individually if there are any specific
concerns they have regarding the Master Plan. He does not believe a Master Plan is actually formalized
and approved by the Council. It is a living (dynamic) document and the Council’s role is to approve each
phase as they move along in the expansion of the facility.
Steve Brubaker . They submitted with the first master planning a document that was fairly thick. They
knew it would be a living document so for each one they have shown, they have the drawings and the
accompanying text and square footages and those would be added as an appendix to everyone of the
reports. It makes it a document that can be modified and when the time comes, the Council can take the
route they want to take.
Mayor Daly asked if there was any economic analysis ; Greg Smith. This is strictly space planning and it
does not consider what the economics are of the expansion.
Mayor Daly asked for confirmation that no cost-benefit comparison was done but it was simply design
and space planning; Mr. Smith confirmed that was correct.
Mr. Brubaker stated they were never asked to make an economic analysis of the schemes offered as a
guide for long-term decision making. It depends a lot on the Council’s own vision for some of the
surrounding properties. HOK would provide a text as a visual description for each one of the options. It
is difficult for them to give guidance on dynamic land value changes occurring around the facility; Mayor
Daly stated he was looking for “right-hand/left-hand coordination.” (Discussion/questioning followed on
the cost-benefit issues which were addressed by Greg Smith).
Council Member Tait . Relative to a cost-benefit analysis, he feels his questions were answered. He was
wondering if the schemes were of more benefit than buying the adjoining property today noting Mr. Smith
stated, depending on the price of land 20 years from now, if it has skyrocketed, they have some options
and they can do a cost-benefit analysis at that time.
Mr. Brubaker stated that the Council can control that in the sense, if their vision in 20 years is to have a
very intensely developed City, they can make decisions about surrounding parcels which take them to
their maximum intensity of development, or not.
Council Member Tait . Relative to the Coopers & Lybrand Study that was done at the outset, he asked if
it talked about 20 or 30 years from now ; Greg Smith. The Coopers & Lybrand Study only addressed the
current expansion and did not project future needs and future growth or future expansions.
Council Member Tait then reiterated and emphasized his desire to keep the arena and thus his tendency
to lean towards long-range Plan A.
Mayor Daly surmised then that the Council won’t see Master Plan documents or a presentation for many
years to come or, under normal circumstances, he asked when will the Council get another “crack” at it.
Mr. Smith answered that staff will be providing the Council with text that accompanies the Master Plan
and there will be a document referred to from time to time. The next visit of the Master Plan will be the
next time they are looking towards an expansion and at that point in time, can make decisions on where
they will go. He also answered the Mayor relative to timing on the parking structure (as questioned by
Council Member McCracken). He would be happy to put together his expected time line on the future
expansion of the Convention Center.
Mayor Daly. For his own purposes, he agrees with Council Member McCracken’s point on the Katella
parking structure and would like to know the short-term and medium-term plan specifically on the
structure; Mr. Smith stated he would be happy to provide that.
3
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
APRIL 6, 1999
ADDITIONS TO CLOSED SESSION AGENDA : City Attorney White stated he is requesting the addition
of two items to the Closed Session Agenda which will require a motion and approval by a 4/5’s vote of
the Council. There is a need to act on the two items at this time and before the next City Council
Meeting. The need to do so was not known at the time the agenda was prepared and posted. He
thereupon recommended that Items 6. and 7. ( below) be added.
MOTION. Mayor Daly moved to waive the 72-hour posting provision of the Brown Act thus adding Items
6. and 7. to the Closed Session Agenda since there is a need to act on the issues before the next Council
Meeting which was not known at the time the agenda was prepared/posted. Council Member McCracken
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
PUBLIC COMMENTS - CLOSED SESSION ITEMS:
There were no public comments relative to Closed Session items.
The following items are to be considered at the Closed Session.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
1.
54956.9(a) - 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
2.
54956.9(a) – Existing Litigation:
Name of case : Vista Royale Homeowners Assoc. vs. 396 Investment Co. fka The Fieldstone
Company, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 77-30-74,
( and related cases).
.
3 CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR
Dave Hill
Agency Designated Representative :
Anaheim Fire Association, AMEA, and General Truck Driver’s
Employee organization :
Union, Local 952.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION:
4.
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9 of the
Government Code:
(one potential case).
Existing facts and circumstances :
Claims by or against Reza, Inc./Dennis J. Amoroso
Construction Co., Inc., relating to construction of the Downtown Community Center.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION:
5.
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9 of the
Government Code:
(one potential case).
Existing facts and circumstances :
Claims by or against Tiffy’s Family Restaurant, Inc.,
1060 West Katella Avenue, relating to widening of Katella Avenue.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
6.
5456.9(a) – EXISTING LITIGATION
Name of case : City of Anaheim v. city of Garden Grove, et al., Orange County Superior
Court Case No. 80-06-13.
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT
7.
Title: Chief of Police
4
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
APRIL 6, 1999
RECESS:
Mayor Daly moved to recess into Closed Session. Council Member McCracken seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED. (3:55 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS:
Mayor Daly called the regular Council meeting of April 6, 1999 to order at 5:35 p.m. and
welcomed those in attendance.
INVOCATION: Pastor Bryan Crow, from the Garden Church gave the invocation.
FLAG SALUTE:
Mayor Pro Tem Shirley McCracken led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
PROCLAMATIONS
119: : The following Proclamations were issued and authorized by the City Council:
National Telecommunicators Week in Anaheim – April 11 – 17, 1999
National Record-A- Thon Week in Anaheim, April 11 – 17, 1999
Tree Planting Month in Anaheim – Month of April, 1999
National Boys and Girls Club Week in Anaheim - April 11 - 18, 1999
Shelley McKerren, Police Communications Manager and Lee Ann Cameron, Police Dispatcher II
accepted the National Telecommunicators Week Proclamation; Terry Brick, Director of Development,
Orange County Recording for the Blind and Dyslexic accepted the National Record-A- Thon Week
Proclamation. (She also briefed the program and noted that volunteers are always welcome); Linda
Romera , California Department of Forestry and Chris Jarvi , Director, Community Services were present
relative to the Tree Planting Month Proclamation; John Machiaverna , President, Boys and Girls Clubs of
Anaheim, accompanied by Nick Alivojvodic , Co-Chairman and Shana Epstein , Co-Chairman accepted
the National Boys and Girls Club Week Proclamation.
Mayor Daly presented the Proclamations and the recipients were welcomed and commended by Council
Members. Linda Romera of the California Department of Forestry also presented the Tree City USA
th
Award to the City. It is the 15 consecutive year the City has received the award. She also presented the
Growth Award to the City (and to Chris Jarvi, Director, Community Services) which is the seventh year
the City has received the award, this year in the area of Education and Public Relations. (During the
presentation, the Mayor alsow acknowledged Mrs. Sally White who was in the Chamber audience,
Chairman of Releaf Anaheim, the organization instrumental in the planting of thousands of trees in the
City).
RECOGNITIONS AUTHORIZED BY COUNCIL THIS DATE TO BE MAILED OR PRESENTED AT
ANOTHER TIME:
PROCLAMATION recognizing April 28 – May 1, 1999, as Phi Theta Kappa Days in Anaheim.
PROCLAMATION recognizing April 11 – 17, 1999, as National Library Week in Anaheim.
DECLARATION recognizing the first visit of the Anaheim Sister Cities delegation to Vitoria-Gasteiz,
Spain.
5
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
APRIL 6, 1999
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY
in the amount of $5,196,984.69 for the period ending
March 29, 1999 and $3,046,356.38 for period ending April 5, 1999, in accordance with the 1998-99
Budget, were approved.
Mayor Daly recessed the City Council meeting until after the Redevelopment Agency and the Housing
Authority meetings. (5:58 p.m.)
Mayor Daly reconvened the City Council meeting. (6 :07 p.m.)
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
There were no additions to agenda items.
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST:
John Karczynski . He referred to Item C1 on tonight’s agenda appointing members to the 1999 Charter
Review Committee. He is deeply interested in serving on that Committee. He believes there are vital
issues that need to be examined in the Charter. He has taken the time to read and review the document
and feels he would be an asset to serve on that Committee.
Another issue is the proposed ordinance(s) regarding Campaign Finance Reform. A lot of work has gone
into trying to find another solution to the current ordinance. The proposed ordinance, Option C, basically
amends the current ordinance while also retaining the $1,000 contribution limit. That, to him, seems to
be the best choice.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Rema Jones, City of Fullerton. She is present to request the Anaheim Police Department work with the
Police Departments in other districts. There is a sex offender and he is not local. Her coming to the
Anaheim area is very slim because of wage earning and management problems. This is all she can tell
the Council. For any further information, they would need to contact the Police Department and speak
with Sgt. Sutter.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
PUBLIC COMMENTS – AGENDA ITEMS:
Public input was received on items A13 ., B14., and B22. ( see discussion under those items).
MOTION:
Mayor Daly moved to waive reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions to be acted upon for
the Council meeting of April 6, 1999. Council Member McCracken seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR A1 – A26:
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-62 through 99R-67 , both inclusive, for
adoption. 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 take n as recommended:
1. Claim submitted by Inas Hanna, c/o Lloyd Charton, Esq. for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 22, 1998.
6
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
APRIL 6, 1999
2. Claim submitted by Shahin Ghazanshahi, c/o Lloyd Charton, Esq. for property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 22, 1998.
3. Claim submitted by Lori Glasgow, c/o Lloyd Charton, Esq. for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 22, 1998.
4. Claim submitted by Mark W. Glasgow, c/o Lloyd Charton, Esq. for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 22, 1998.
5. Claim submitted by Isam Hanna, c/o Lloyd Charton, Esq. for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 22, 1998 .
6. Claim submitted by Hassan Sarkarati, c/o Lloyd Charton, Esq. for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 22, 1998.
7. Claim submitted by Mohammad Bakhriari, c/o Lloyd Charton, Esq. for property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 22, 1998.
8. Claim submitted by Bruce Bereiter, c/o Lloyd Charton, Esq. for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 22, 1998.
9. Claim submitted by Gretchen Bereiter, c/o Lloyd Charton, Esq. for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 22, 1998.
10. Claim submitted by Matthew Biazevich, c/o Lloyd Charton, Esq. for property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 22, 1998 .
11. Claim submitted by Farahnaz Bouscehri, c/o Lloyd Charton, Esq. for property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 22, 1998.
12. Claim submitted by Karen Chisum, c/o Lloyd Charton, Esq. for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 22, 1998.
13. Claim submitted by Brad Davidson, c/o Lloyd Charton, Esq. for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 22, 1998.
14. Claim submitted by Frederick Glasser, c/o Lloyd Charton, Esq. for property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 22, 1998.
15. Claim submitted by Mary Glasser, c/o Lloyd Charton, Esq. for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 22, 1998 .
16. Claim submitted by Bruce Gustafson, c/o Lloyd Charton, Esq. for property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 22, 1998.
17. Claim submitted by Ralph Herrera, c/o Lloyd Charton, Esq. for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 22, 1998 .
18. Claim submitted by Josephine Hung, c/o Lloyd Charton, Esq. for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 22, 1998.
19. Claim submitted by Lawrence Hung, c/o Lloyd Charton, Esq. for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 22, 1998.
7
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
APRIL 6, 1999
20. Claim submitted by Flora Licuanan, c/o Lloyd Charton, Esq. for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 22, 1998.
21. Claim submitted by Jesus Licuanan, c/o Lloyd Charton, Esq. for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 22, 1998.
22. Claim submitted by Al Ling, c/o Lloyd Charton, Esq. for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 22, 1998 .
23. Claim submitted by Michael Marion, c/o Lloyd Charton, Esq. for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 22, 1998.
24. Claim submitted by Michael Mar kus, c/o Lloyd Charton, Esq. for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 22, 1998 .
25. Claim submitted by Robert Mattheson, c/o Lloyd Charton, Esq. for property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 22, 1998.
26. Claim submitted by David Moyer, c/o Lloyd Charton, Esq. for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 22, 1998.
27. Claim submitted by Garry Pecoy, c/o Lloyd Charton, Esq. for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 22, 1998.
28. Claim submitted by Jeffrey Pogue, c/o Lloyd Charton, Esq. for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 22, 1998.
29. Claim submitted by Michele Pogue, c/o Lloyd Charton, Esq. for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 22, 1998 .
30. Claim submitted by Patricia Robinson, c/o Lloyd Charton, Esq. for property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 22, 1998.
31. Claim submitted by Delores Smith, c/o Lloyd Charton, Esq. for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 22, 1998 .
32. Claim submitted by William E. Smith, c/o Lloyd Charton, Esq. for property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 22, 1998.
33. Claim submitted by Alexis Wei, c/o Lloyd Charton, Esq. for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 22, 1998.
34. Claim submitted by Bruce Winstead, c/o Lloyd Charton, Esq. for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 22, 1998.
35. Claim submitted by Samuel Yang, c/o Lloyd Charton, Esq. for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 22, 1998.
36. Claim submitted by Hea Sun Yi, c/o Lloyd Charton, Esq. for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 22, 1998 .
37. Claim submitted by Hyon Sil Yi, c/o Lloyd Charton, Esq. for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 22, 1998.
8
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
APRIL 6, 1999
38. Claim submitted by Larry & Sherrie Friedman, Jack & Christine Salyer, Jason & Clara
Stevens, Robert & May Wong, Peralta Pointe Homeowners Assoc., c/o Walter J. Lack, Esq. for
property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about November 15,
1998.
39. Claim submitted by Glenn Kessler, c/o AMICA Mutual Insurance Co. ,. for property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 7, 1998.
40. Claim submitted by H. Clifton Jordon for property damage sustained purportedly due to
actions of the City on or about February 9, 1999.
41. Claim submitted by Terrance Randall Knapman for property damage sustained purportedly
due to actions of the City on or about September 8, 1998.
42. Claim submitted by Jonathon Manley, a minor by Cherry Wiedle, c/o Landis & Assoc., for
bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about November 2, 1998 .
43. Claim submitted by Valley Rock and Sand, Inc., c/o VRS – Dan McDonald, CFD for property
damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about February 7, 1998.
44. Claim submitted by Fred Finkenrath, for property damage sustained purportedly due to
actions of the City on or about December 8, 1998.
45. Claim submitted by Ravi Mehta for fees earned and demanded for Special Prosecution
services but rejected by the City of Anaheim on or between April 11, 1998 and May 28, 1998.
A2. 105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Anaheim Redevelopment and Housing Commission
meeting held March 3, 1999.
105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Budget Advisory Commission meeting held February
17, 1999.
105: Receiving and filing the Anaheim Police Department Crime and Clearance Analysis for the
month of February, 1999.
105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Golf Advisory Commission meeting held February 25,
1999.
105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Anaheim Private Industry Council meeting held
February 25, 1999.
A3. 150: Awarding a contract to the lowest responsible bidder, L & M Diversified Services, in the
amount of $48,379.53 for George Washington Park Site Improvements; and in the event said
low bidder fails to comply with the terms of the award, awarding the contract to the second low
bidder, as well as waiving any irregularities in the bids of both the low and second low bidders.
Mayor Daly. He would like to ask staff, instead of installing interim park improvements, to return to the
Council with a financial plan and a schedule for building the permanent park at this site. It is a relatively
small site and all of the planning has assumed the installation of a permanent park at the site. He would
like to suggest consideration by the Council of doing that at this time and to ask the City Manager to
report back on the feasibility of doing so. In terms of the interim improvements, he questioned if it is
cost-effective to do those if a permanent park is looming in the future.
9
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
APRIL 6, 1999
City Manager James Ruth. The improvements would be able to be tied into the future development of
the park. Irrigation and turf is involved in this proposed contract; Mayor Daly surmised then that the
$48,000 expenditure will not be impacted by the installation of a permanent park.
The City Manager stated that was correct ; Mayor Daly. That changes his thinking; however, he would
like to see a funding plan and schedule for the permanent improvements.
City Manager Ruth stated that staff will provide that data.
A4. 167: Awarding a contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Transtech Engineers, Inc., in the
amount of $59,000 for Orangewood Avenue and Rampart Street Traffic Signal Installation; 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.
A5. 167: Awarding a contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Transtech Engineers, Inc., in the
amount of $99,000 for Mountainview Avenue and Orangewood Avenue Traffic Signal
Installation; and in the event said low bidder fails to comply with the terms of the award,
awarding the contract to the second low bidder, as well as waiving any irregularities in the bids of
both the low and second low bidders.
A6. 175: To consider awarding a contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Pouk and Steinle, Inc., in
the amount of $1,846,521.50 for Direct Buried Cable Replacement – 5 Locations; and waiving
any irregularities in the low bid.
City Manager Ruth. Staff is recommending on this item that the bid be rejected and that they go out to
bid again. They only received one bid and it was substantially over their estimate.
A7. 123: Approving the Fourth Amendment to Agreement with Charles King Company, in the
amount of $300,000 for dewatering services, and authorizing the City Manager to execute said
amendment and all related documents.
A8. 158: Appr oving a Right-of-Entry Agreement for properties located at 1544 South Harbor
Boulevard (R/W 5210-2), and 1630 South Harbor Boulevard (R/W 5210-7); and authorizing the
Mayor and City Clerk to execute said Agreement in connection with the Harbor
Boulevard/Freedman Way project.
A9. 160: Ratifying the issuance of a Purchase Order, in the amount of $25,281.76 to Williams
Communication Solutions, for Call Accounting Hardware and Software for the Meridian Mail
System. (Voicemail)
A10. 160: Accepting the low bid of Ameron Pole Products Division, c/o Pacific Lighting Sales, Inc., in
the amount of $243,900 for street lights, in accordance with bid #5897.
A11. 123: Approving an Agreement with Ernst & Young LLP, in an amount not to exceed $216,300
for FY ended June 30, 1999, $227,100 for FY 2000, and $238,400 for FY 2001, to perform the
annual audit of the City’s financial records.
A12. 123: Approving an Agreement with Public Financial Management to provide consulting services
to the City Attorney, as needed, in connection with the Anaheim Firefighters’ Association binding
arbitration and potential litigation.
10
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
APRIL 6, 1999
A13. 168: RESOLUTION NO. 99R- 62 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM changing the name of a portion of Lemon Street to North Anaheim Boulevard, and
a portion of North Anaheim Boulevard fronting La Palma Park to North La Palma Park Way.
Todd Coy, Kinsbursky Brothers, northeastern corner of Lemon and Commercial. Relative to this item,
with respect to changing the name of Lemon to North Anaheim Boulevard, the City is offering some sort
of rebate in terms of costs as a result of any burdens companies may be faced with in having to change
all the necessary paper work. They have been at that location for about 20 years. There is a lot of
documentation involved, not only from their facility, but also permits the company is operating under. To
make a change of this nature creates a significant burden. He then posed the following questions : what
is the time line for the change, will mail still be delivered to the facility for “X” number of months, is there
a benefit to the City for changing the name, what address will they be operating under. He also
explained for the Mayor that he has not spoken to City staff on the issue.
Dave Coleman, Allied Building Products, 1244 N. Lemon, Anaheim. His business is located across the
street from Kinsbursky. He has the same questions specifically, what is the purpose of changing the
name of a street so named for many years. Their customers know them by the address they are at now.
They will have to undergo a costly change to repaint all of their trucks, signs and advertising as well as
all of their pre-printed material. They would be interested as a company understanding the benefit to the
City as well as their company.
Lisa Stipkovich , Executive Director of Community Development. Staff has been in contact with the
owners. They estimate $400 per business but if other extraordinary costs are involved, they are willing to
look at those and reimburse for any reasonable cost. The reason for changing the street name is
primarily to have Anaheim Boulevard go from the I-5 Freeway all the way north. It is much more of a
direct link to the City of Anaheim and to the two freeways. It is confusing because the “other” Anaheim
Boulevard where it is currently located is a street that was changed in terms of its character when the
Harbor improvements were made. It would give a clear identity on both freeways and would be one
major corridor to connect the two.
John Lower, Traffic and Transportation Manager. The timing is associated with Caltrans’ ongoing
construction of the interchange improvements. The one-way frontage roads are expected to be
constructed over the next three to four months and the signage will be installed as part of that.
Mayor Daly. He noted the issue has been around for quite a few years. The Chamber asked the City to
think about the issue that Anaheim Boulevard becomes Lemon on the north end and the south becomes
Haster. It was considered at that time it would be a good move to elevate the stature and the visibility of
Anaheim Boulevard by having it at least connect on the north side. The second issue is, Lemon is no
longer a through street. That was part of the rationale, to create greater visibility for Anaheim Boulevard.
John Lower. The segment of Lemon to be changed is from the 91 Freeway to LaPalma and then
advance for southbound traffic on what would be Anaheim Boulevard. There would be a guide sign
noting the continuation of Anaheim Boulevard would require that southbound, left-hand turn.
Mayor Daly. The language in the resolution uses North Anaheim Boulevard. He asked if the freeway
sign will say North Anaheim Boulevard or Anaheim Boulevard; Mr. Lower confirmed it will say Anaheim
Boulevard.
Lisa Stipkovich . The street signs would indicate Anaheim Boulevard and the mailing address would
indicate north or south; Council Member McCracken asked if the numbering would change.
John Lower. Numbering would be coordinated through the Building Department but par with other street
name changes. The addresses would remain the same.
11
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
APRIL 6, 1999
A14. 123: Approving the Purchase and Sale Agreement for the purchase of Agency property at the
southwest corner of South Anaheim Boulevard and Vermont Avenue (Vermont Park site) at a
cost of $1,700,000, and authorizing the Executive Director of Community Development to
execute all documents necessary to complete the transaction.
A15. 123: Approving the Settlement and Release Agreement among the Magnolia Elementary School
District, the St. Louis Rams Football Partnership, the Rams Football Company, Inc., and the City
of Anaheim relating to the obligations of the Rams and the City to restore the Juliette Low School
site to school use following termination of the practice facility lease and sublease.
A16. 123: Approving an Agreement between the City of Anaheim and the Anaheim Cinco de Mayo
th
Fiesta Committee for the 28 Annual Cinco de Mayo Fiesta at La Palma Park on May 1 and 2,
1999.
A17. 123: Approving an Agreement with the Rancho Santiago Community College District for
reimbursement of fire department training activities.
A18. 123: Authorizing the Fire Chief to sign a letter to the California Department of Forestry ( CDF )
acknowledging and approving continuance of the current rate charged by CDF for wildland fire
protection for the City of Anaheim for fiscal year 1999/2000, and notifying CDF that the amount
of acreage covered by the Agreement for Protection of Wildlands (Agreement) has not changed.
A19. 144: RESOLUTION NO. 99R- 63 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM waiving notice of Rent-Free Sublease Agreement by the County of Orange of
certain property located in the City of Anaheim (to provide assistance with the CalWORKS
Welfare-to-Work Program at 50 South Anaheim Boulevard).
A20. 144: RESOLUTION NO. 99R- 64 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM waiving notice of Rent-Free Sublease Agreement by the County of Orange of
certain property located in the City of Anaheim (to provide assistance with the CalWORKS
Welfare-to-Work Program at 3320 East La Palma Avenue).
A21. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 99R- 65 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM amending Resolution No. 92R-18 which established rates of compensation
for classifications designated as Professional (Public Utilities Communications Officer).
(Continued from the meeting of March 23, 1999, Item A19.
Mayor Daly. He had asked for a continuation of this item to this date. He respects the rationale laid out
in the memorandum from Ed Aghjayan, Public Utilities Director dated March 29, 1999 as to the need and
he tends to agree in this particular case. A larger concern he has had, there seems to be a proliferation
of persons who are designated to be media spokes people and he is not comfortable with that growing
expansion of persons from various departments whose job is to deal with the media. He will respectfully
be voting no on this item because of that larger issue. He would rather see it centralized and handled
that way.
Council Member Tait . He will support the Mayor in his vote. It seems there should be a fresh look at the
public media officers. Perhaps if there is some overlap, they could ask staff to look at coordinating some
operations in the different departments to bring about a savings.
City Manager Ruth. They have, to a large degree, centralized any comments or inquiries from the press
are directed to the PIO office. This position will not be dealing with the press. It is basically a public
service oriented person who will be working on the various public sector programs and doing a marketing
analysis for their department and a whole variety and array of programs that they offer the public. Mr.
Aghjayan is present and could address the matter in more detail. On a City-wide basis, they have been
12
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
APRIL 6, 1999
responsive to the Council’s concern about limiting people speaking to the press. He sent a memo some
time back to the Department Heads confining and limiting that to the PIO Office.
Mayor Daly. While it may not, the position will be involved in coordinating relations with the media and
that is his concern.
A22. 152 & 123 : Authorizing the Human Resources Director to execute a contract with Wellness
Solutions, in the amount of $58,862 for administration of the 1999 Health Improvement Program.
A23. 156: RESOLUTION NO. 99R- 66 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM authorizing the Chief of Police to submit a grant proposal on behalf of the
City of Anaheim to the Office of Criminal Justice Planning for the first year funding for the
Supression of Drug Abuse in Schools Program, and authorizing the Chief of Police to execute
required grant documents.
123: Approving an Operational Agreement between the City of Anaheim Police Department and
the Anaheim Union High School District, and authorizing the Chief of Police to execute said
Agreement.
A24. 106: Authorizing the increase in the FY 98/99 Police Cash Discovery Revenue Account, 101-
309-2252-5139, by $64,168 to $91,168 for the FY 98/99 Police Department budget, and
increasing the Field and Plant Equipment, Expenditure Account, 101-309-2252-9705, by $64,168
for the purpose of funding the remodel of the Property Evidence booking area and the addition of
needed shelving and furniture for the Property Evidence Detail and the Robbery Homicide Detail
(for the primary Police facility, Stephenson Station).
A25. 114: Approving minutes of the Anaheim City Council meeting s held March 2, 1999, and March
16, 1999.
A26. 184: RESOLUTION NO. 99R- 67 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM amending Resolution No. 99R-50 to appoint a Board Member to the Santiago
Geologic Hazard Abatement District.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 99R-62 through 99R-64, 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-62 through 99R-64, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 99R-65, for adoption:
AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : Feldhaus, Kring, McCracken,
NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : Tait, Daly
ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEM BERS : None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 99R-65, duly passed and adopted.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 99R-66 and 99R-67, for adoption:
AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : Feldhaus, Kring, Tait, McCracken, Daly
NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : None
13
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
APRIL 6, 1999
ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 99R-66 and 99R-67, duly passed and adopted.
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR. MOTIONS CARRIED.
CONDEMNATION HEARINGS - KATELLA SMART STREET IMPROVEMENTS TO
A27. 121:
IMPLEMENT THE ANAHEIM RESORT AREA IMPROVEMENT PLAN:
To consider the adoption of
resolutions finding and determining the public interest and necessity for acquiring and authorizing the
condemnation of a portion of certain real property located in the Anaheim Resort Area and authorizing
the law firms of Rutan and Tucker and Oliver, Vose, Sandifer, Murphy & Lee to proceed with said
condemnation actions.
Submitted was report dated March 25, 1999 from the Public Works Department recommending adoption
of the proposed resolutions finding and determining the public interest and necessity for acquiring and
authorizing condemnation of a portion of certain real properties at various loctions as listed in the report.
Mayor Daly. This is the time for the hearing on four separate proposed acquisitions of property by
eminent domain in connection with the Katella Avenue Smart Street Project and the Anaheim Resort
Area Improvement and Beautification Program. The properties involved are identified in paragraphs “a”
through “d” of Agenda Item A27 on page 9 of the agenda and the property interests proposed to be
acquired for each property are legally described in the resolution attached to the staff report for each
proposed acquisition. He asked to hear from staff.
David Cosgrove, Rutan & Tucker, Special Counsel explained that he cannot participate and therefore will
be abstaining on Item “a” due to a conflict of interest.
Natalie Meeks , Project Manager, Public Works. The resolutions on tonight’s agenda are for acquisition
of right of way necessary for construction of the Katella Smart Street Improvements, west of Harbor to
west of West Street, including supplemental right of way to implement the Anaheim Resort Area
Improvement Plan. Funding for the project is from OCTA and the sale of the Resort Area bond
proceeds. The project has been designed to retain the approximate existing centerline of the street and
minimize the overall impact of the acquisitions. Acquisition offers have been made and the City’s
acquisition consultant has been in negotiations with property owners but, to date, have been unable to
obtain executed acquisition agreements for these parcels. Staff will, however, continue to work with
each of the property owners to reach a settlement and address all of their concerns. Adoption of the
Resolutions of Necessity will allow construction to begin this summer as scheduled. A significant delay
of the project could jeopardize OCTA funding for the Katella Smart Street and impede the City’s ability to
complete the Resort Area improvements as scheduled and required in the Infrastructure and Parking
Finance Agreement.
Mayor Daly. In conducting the Public Hearing(s), testimony will be taken separately on each of the four
acquisitions listed on the Agenda and will hear from the owner of record, or a designated representative
for each property. 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. (5) Whether the
City has met all other prerequisites to the exercise of eminent domain in connection with the property.
(a ) Public Hearing - Property located at 1100 West Katella Avenue – Coco’s Restaurant –
R/W5180-71 and 5180-72 A&B:
The Mayor opened the hearing and invited the owner or
representative for the property described to address the Council. There being no one present to speak,
the Public Hearing was closed.
14
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
APRIL 6, 1999
(b) Public Hearing - Property located at 1126 West Katella Avenue – Skyview Motel - RW5180-73:
The Mayor opened the hearing and invited the owner or representative for the property described to
address the Council. There being no one present to speak, the Public Hearing was closed.
(c ) Public Hearing - Property located at 1140 West Katella Avenue - Alamo Inn & Suites -
RW5180-74:
The Mayor opened the hearing and invited the owner or representative for the property
described to address the Council. There being no one present to speak, the Public Hearing was closed.
(d) Public Hearing - Property located at 1168 and 1176 West Katella Avenue - Denny’s and Best
Western - R/W5180-76 and 5180-77:
The Mayor opened the hearing and invited the owner or
representative for the property described to address the Council. There being no one present to speak,
the Public Hearing was closed.
Mayor Daly. He is going to offer the proposed resolutions under Item A27, a, b, c and d for adoption.
City Attorney White clarified that a 4/5’s vote is required to adopt the resolutions.
Mayor Daly offered Resolution Nos. 99R-68 through 99R-71, both inclusive, for adoption (Item A27, a, b,
c and d). Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 99R-68 : 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 1100 WEST
KATELLA AVENUE FOR THE PURPOSES OF CONDUCTING ROADWAY
IMPROVEMENT (R/W 5180-71 & 5180-72 A & B – COCO’S RESTAURANT).
RESOLUTION NO. 99R-69 : A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM DETERMINING THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY
FOR ACQUISITION OF PORTIONS OF OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1126
WEST KATELLA AVENUE FOR THE PURPOSES OF CONDUCTING
ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT (R/W 5180-73 – SKYVIEW MOTEL).
RESOLUTION NO. 99R-70 : 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 1140 WEST
KATELLA AVENUE FOR THE PURPOSES OF CONDUCTING ROADWAY
IMPROVEMENT (R/W 5180-74 – ALAMO INN & SUITES).
RESOLUTION NO. 99R-71 : 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 1168 AND
1176 WEST KATELLA AVENUE FOR THE PURPOSES OF CONDUCTING
ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT (R/W 5180-76 & 5180-77 – DENNY’S & BEST
WESTERN).
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 99R-68 through 99R-71, both inclusive, for adoption:
AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : Feldhaus, Kring, Tait, McCracken, Daly
NOES: MAYO R/COUNCIL MEMBERS : None
15
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
APRIL 6, 1999
ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 99R-68 through 99R-71, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted.
CONDEMNATION HEARING (CONTINUED) – RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY – 1060
A28. 121:
KATELLA AVENUE – TIFFY’S RESTAURANT :
To consider a resolution finding and determining the
public interest and necessity for acquiring and authorizing the condemnation of a portion of certain real
property locsted in the Anaheim Resort Area and authorizing the law firm of Rutan and Tucker to
proceed with said condemnation action. This matter was continued from the meeting of March 16, 1999
(Item A24d) to this date (see minutes that date). A Public Hearing was held and subsequently closed. At
the conclusion of discussion, the matter was continued to this date for a decision by the Council.
Submitted was supplemental report dated March 30, 1999 from the Direct of Public Works, Gary
Johnson which further addressed relocating the bus stop to the east as requested by the property owner.
An assessment of such a relocation was made and the impacts listed on page one of the report, the
conclusion being that staff is still recommending adoption of the proposed Resolution of Necessity
finding that the current design is most campatible with the greatest public good and least private injury.
City Clerk, Leonora Sohl . This item is the continued consideration of a Resolution of Necessity for the
proposed acquisition of certain property interests by eminent domain in connection with the Katella
Avenue Smart Street Project and the Anaheim Resort Area Improvement and Beautification Program.
The property involved is located at 1060 West Katella Avenue (known as Tiffy’s Family Restaurant) and
the property interests proposed to be acquired are legally described in the resolution attached to the staff
report for Agenda Item 28 of today’s Council agenda.
th
Mayor Daly. This item was continued from the March 16 meeting for staff to review and respond to
communications received from the property owner. The public hearing has been closed and the Council
is taking this matter up now solely for receiving staff responses to the points raised by the property owner
and for deliberation by the Council on the resolution and the proposed findings. He asked to hear from
staff.
Natalie Meeks , Project Manager, Public Works. The property owner raised several issues at the last
Public Hearing, one being the request to consider relocation of the bus stop to the east. Staff has
assessed relocating the bus stop and finds major impacts to that. She referred to the posted diagrams –
on the left is the proposed right of way and on the right is the relocated bus stop to the east. As the
Council can see, it involves a considerable amount of additional right of way, approximately 1,320 sq. ft.
The right of way at the proposed property would not change so that take and the impact of right of way
on Tiffy’s property would remain consistent with what staff is proposing. The bus bay, if relocated away
from the intersection, would not be the preferred location which is at the far side of the intersection. The
current proposed location provides safe traffic movement for the bus and also minimizes jaywalking of
people trying to get to the bus stop. The redesign of the bus stop and the additional right of way and
utility impacts could potentially delay the project for six to nine months and greatly impact the City’s
ability to complete these improvements which are prime to the agreement in the Infrastructure and
Parking Finance Agreement.
She continued that one of the other issues they raised was conformance of this right-of-way acquisition
with the 1994 Settlement Agreement with the property owner. Staff has looked at that and believes that
this right-of-way location is in conformance with the agreement. There are some other issues in the
right-of-way agreement regarding obstructions and the bus stop, but staff does not feel that anything they
are requesting tonight is not in conformance with the Settlement Agreement. They will continue to work
with the property owner to address any other concerns.
Mayor Daly. In considering the resolution, the City Council must look at the following issues: (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.
16
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
APRIL 6, 1999
(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. (5)
Whether the City has met all other prerequisites to the exercise of eminent domain in connection with the
property. He also noted that passage of the resolution requires four affirmative votes.
City Attorney White. The City has received letter dated April 6, 1999 from Neil P. Panish, Legal Counsel
for the property owner from the firm of Seltzer Caplan Wilkins & McMahon. The letter will be made a
part of the record of these proceedings.
Mayor Daly. It is his understanding that staff will continue to be available to discuss this matter with the
property owner; City Attorney White answered, absolutely.
Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 99R-72 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 99R-72 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 1060 WEST
KATELLA AVENUE FOR THE PURPOSES OF CONDUCTING ROADWAY
IMPROVEMENT (R/W 5180-69 – TIFFY’S FAMILY RESTAURANT).
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 99R-72, 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. 99R-72, duly passed and adopted.
INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES RELATING TO THE PROPOSED ADOPTION OF THE
A29. 107:
1997 UNIFORM FIRE CODE – THE 1996 ELECTRICAL CODE – AND THE 1997 EDITIONS OF THE
UNIFORM BUILDING AND RELATED CODES :
City Clerk Sohl. She stated the addendum to the
Agenda, Item A29. was added on Friday, April 2, 1999 at 11:00 a.m. It requires the Council to offer the
two ordinances under the item for first reading. This particular procedure for adoption of codes by
reference is set forth in the Government Code. These do not fall under the usual procedure but require
that the Council introduce the ordinances before advertising.
Mayor Daly. He asked if there are any changes proposed to Anaheim’s own local codes as a result of
adoption of the national standards ; Joel Fick, Planning Director. As the Council is aware, the State
adopts Uniform Codes for the Building Code, Mechanical Code and the Uniform Fire Code. In order to
effect this procedure, the Government Code requires the Council to introduce the ordinances and then a
Public Hearing is held. May 11th is the scheduled date for the hearing. In the past, there have been
local amendments adopted by the City both in Fire and in Building. They expect that those will actually
be reduced in the upcoming presentation.
Mayor Daly offered Ordinance 5678 and Ordinance 5679 for first reading
ORDINANCE NO. 5678 (INTRODUCTION ) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM REPEALING EXISTING CHAPTER 15.02 AND ADDING NEW
CHAPTER 15.02 TO TITLE 15 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE
ADOPTING THE 1997 EDITIONS OF THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, THE
UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE, THE UNIFORM CODE FOR THE ABATEMENT
OR DANGEROUS BUILDINGS, THE UNIFORM HOUSING CODE, THE
UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE, THE UNIFORM SOLAR ENERGY CODE, THE
17
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
APRIL 6, 1999
UNIFORM SWIMMING POOL, SPA AND HOT TUB CODE, AND THE 1996
EDITION OF THE NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE, WITH AMENDMENTS.
ORDINANCE NO. 5679 (INTRODUCTION ) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM REPEALING EXISTING CHAPTER 16.08 AND ADDING NEW
CHAPTER 16.08 TO TITLE 16 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE
ADOPTING THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE, 1997 EDITION, WITH AMENDMENTS.
MOTION. Council Member McCracken moved that the City Council determine that the proposed
ordinances constitute projects falling within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Section 15061(b)(3)
as defined in the State CEQA Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to
prepare an EIR. Mayor Daly seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION. Council Member McCracken moved to direct the City Clerk to schedule a Public Hearing for
the adoption of the above Uniform Codes, by reference, with amendments, said Public Hearing to be
held May 11, 1999 at 6:00 P.M. in the Anaheim City Council Chamber, 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard,
Anaheim, CA. Mayor Daly seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
ITEMS B1 – B10 FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF
MARCH 15, 1999 - INFORMATION ONLY
APPEAL PERIOD ENDS APRIL 6, 1999:
WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4101
B1. 179:
DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 99-01
CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER:
Thrifty Oil Company, Attn: Vincent Le Pore, 13539 East Foster Road, Santa Fe Springs,
CA 90670
AGENT:
David Rose, 3870 La Sierra Avenue, #193, Riverside, CA 92505
LOCATION: 300 South Brookhurst Street - Thrifty Oil. Property is 0.51 acre located at the
southeast corner of Brookhurst Street and Broadway.
Conditional Use Permit No. 4101
- to establish conformity with existing zoning code land use
requirements for an existing service station and to convert an existing accessory auto
repair/cashier building into a convenience market with retail sales of beer and wine for off-
premises consumption with waivers of (a) continuation of nonconforming billboards – DENIED,
(b) minimum landscaped setback adjacent to an arterial highway – APPROVED, (c) minimum
retail sales floor area – DENIED, and (d) minimum landscaped setback adjacent to interior
boundary lines – DENIED.
Public Convenience or Necessity No. 99-01
- to determine Public Convenience or Necessity to
allow the retail sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption within the proposed
convenience market.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 4101 DENIED ( PC99-40) (6 yes votes, 1 absent).
Waiver of code requirement APPROVED, IN PART, denying waivers (a), (c) and (d), and
approving waiver (b).
Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 99-01 DENIED
( PC99 -41).
Approved Negative Declaration.
Letter of appeal submitted by the Agent, David Rose.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by David Rose, The Regents Group, Agent for
the applicant in a letter dated March 19, 1999 and, therefore, a Public Hearing was scheduled for May 4,
1999.
18
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
APRIL 6, 1999
WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4102
B2. 179 :
DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 99-02
AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER:
Thrifty Oil Company, Attn: Vincent Le Pore, 13539 East Foster Road, Santa Fe
Springs, CA 90670
AGENT:
David Rose, 3870 La Sierra Avenue, #193, Riverside, CA 92505
LOCATION: 2800 West Ball Road - Thrifty Oil. Property is 0.48 acre located at the southwest
corner of Ball Road and Dale Avenue.
Conditional Use Permit No. 4102
- to establish conformity with existing zoning code land use
requirements for an existing service station and to convert an existing accessory auto
repair/cashier building into a convenience market with retail sales of beer and wine for off-
premises consumption with waivers of (a) continuation of nonconforming billboards, (b) minimum
landscaped setback adjacent to an arterial highway, (c) minimum retail sales floor area, and (d)
minimum landscaped setback adjacent to interior boundary lines.
Public Convenience or Necessity No. 99-02
- to determine Public Convenience or Necessity
to allow the retail sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption within the proposed
convenience market.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 4102 DENIED ( PC99-42) (6 yes votes, 1 absent).
Denied waivers of code requirement.
Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 99-02 DENIED
( PC99 -43).
Approved Negative Declaration.
Letter of appeal submitted by the Agent, David Rose.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by David Rose, The Regents Group, Agent for
the applicant in a letter dated March 19, 1999 and, therefore, a Public Hearing was scheduled for May 4,
1999.
WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4104
B3. 179:
DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 99-04
AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER:
Thrifty Oil Company, Attn: Vincent Le Pore, 13539 East Foster Road, Santa Fe
Springs, CA 90670
AGENT:
David Rose, 3870 La Sierra Ave., #193, Riverside, CA 92505
LOCATION: 3101 East La Palma Avenue - Arco Service Station. Property is 0.51 acre located
at the northeast corner of Kraemer Boulevard and La Palma Avenue.
Conditional Use Permit No. 4104
- to establish conformity with existing Zoning Code land use
requirements for an existing service station and to convert an existing accessory auto
repair/cashier building into a convenience market with retail sales of beer and wine for off-
premises consumption with waiver of (a) continuation of nonconforming billboards, and (b)
minimum landscaped setback adjacent to an arterial highway.
Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 99-04
- to determine Public
Convenience or Necessity to allow the retail sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption
within a proposed convenience market.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 4104 DENIED ( PC99-44) (6 yes votes, 1 absent).
Denied waivers of code requirement.
Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 99-04 DENIED
( PC99-45).
Approved Negative Declaration.
19
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
APRIL 6, 1999
Letter of appeal submitted by the Agent, David Rose.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by David Rose, The Regents Group, Agent for
the applicant in a letter dated March 19, 1999 and, therefore, a Public Hearing was scheduled for May 4,
1999.
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 98-99-01, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
B4. 179:
OWNER:
City-Initiated, 200 South Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION: 1773 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is 0.19 acre located on the north side of
Lincoln Avenue, 662 feet east of the centerline of Crescent Way.
To reclassify subject property from the ML (Limited Industrial) Zone to the CL (Commercial,
Limited) Zone.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Reclassification No. 98-99-01 APPROVED, UNCONDITIONALLY
( PC99-46) (5 yes votes, 2 absent).
Approved Negative Declaration.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3817, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
B5. 179:
OWNER:
Lederer Anaheim Limited, Attn : Les Lederer, 1990 Westwood Blvd., Third floor, Los
Angeles, CA 90025
AGENT:
Ted Holcum and Pam Marcum, 1440 South Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION: 1440 South Anaheim Boulevard - Anaheim Indoor Marketplace. Property is 14.74
acres located at the northeast corner of Cerritos Avenue and Anaheim Boulevard.
To consider reinstatement of this permit which currently has a time limitation (approved on
March 17, 1997, to expire on March 17, 1999) to retain an indoor entertainment center and
outdoor event area.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved reinstatement of CUP NO. 3817 to expire 4/22/01 ( PC99-47)
(5 yes votes, 2 absent).
Negative Declaration previously approved.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1215, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
B6. 179:
OWNER:
Kenney Golf Enterprises, Inc., 3200 East Carpenter Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92807
AGENT:
Fred Kenney, 1893 Taylor Road, Roseville, CA 95661
LOCATION: 3200 East Carpenter Avenue - Camelot Golfland. Property is 5.89 acres located
on the south side of Carpenter Avenue, 80 feet east of the centerline of Shepard Street.
To permit the construction of additional second floor area within an existing clubhouse building
and to permit a Lazertag facility, additional banquet/arcade space and the outdoor relocation of
an existing interior “ Softplay” playground within an existing arcade/amusement center and
miniature golf course.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 1215 APPROVED ( PC99-48) (6 yes votes, 1 absent).
Approved Negative Declaration.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4014 REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF
B7. 179:
FINAL LANDSCAPE PLANS AND A PLAYGROUND AGREEMENT
AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER:
First Southern Baptist Church, 1275 East Broadway, Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION: 1275 East Broadway - Southern Baptist Church/City Harvest Christian Academy.
Property is 2.45 acres located at the northeast corner of Broadway and Fahrion Place.
To permit kindergarten through 12th grade classes in an existing previously-approved private
elementary school within a church facility approved for kindergarten through 2nd grade.
20
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
APRIL 6, 1999
To review and approve final landscape plans and an agreement with the Anaheim City School
District for use of the Lincoln Elementary School playground.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 4014 APPROVED ( PC99-49) (6 yes votes, 1 absent).
Approved Final Landscape Plans, and a Playground Agreement between City Harvest Christian
Academy and the Anaheim City School District for the use of the Lincoln Elementary School
playground.
Negative Declaration previously approved.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4107 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
B8. 179: ,
OWNER:
Euclid Shopping Center, 2293 West Ball Road, Anaheim, CA 92804
AGENT:
Mr. John Hawkings, 1900 South Palm Canyon Dr., #S-36, Palm Springs, CA 92264;
Klaus Barre', 17911 Sky Park Circle, Suite C, Irvine, CA 92614
LOCATION: 1618 West Katella Avenue - Euclid Shopping Center. Property is 18.6 acres
located at the southeast corner of Katella Avenue and Euclid Street.
To construct a walk-up and drive-through fast food restaurant with outdoor seating within an
existing commercial retail center.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 4107 GRANTED, for five years, to expire 3/15/2004 ( PC99-50)
(6 yes votes, 1 absent).
Approved Negative Declaration.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2750, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
B9. 179:
OWNER:
Hanford Hotels, LLC, Attn: Peter Trapolino, 4 Corporate Plaza, Suite 102, Newport
Beach, CA 92660
AGENT:
CRHO Mark Spat 2, 195 South “C” Street #200, Tustin, CA 92780
LOCATION: 201 North Via Cortez - Hanford Hotel . Property is 2.81 acres located on the west
side of Via Cortez, 930 feet north of the centerline of Santa Ana Canyon Road.
To amend or delete conditions of approval to re-design an existing parking lot layout with
reciprocal access and parking with the adjacent commercial retail center.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved amendment to conditions of approval for CUP NO. 2750
( PC99-51) (6 yes votes, 1 absent).
Negative Declaration previously approved.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3900, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION :
B10. 179:
OWNER:
Grimmway Development, Limited, 760 North Euclid Street, #207, Anaheim, CA
92801
AGENT:
Grimmway Management Company, Attn: Jeff Meger, 760 North Euclid St., #207,
Anaheim, CA 92801
LOCATION: 760 North Euclid Street, Suites 211-213 - The Church of the Rose. Property is 1.59
acres located on the east side of Euclid Street, 380 feet south of the centerline of Catalpa Drive.
To consider reinstatement of this permit which currently contains a time limitation (approved on
January 22, 1997, to expire on January 22, 1999) to retain a church in an office building.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved reinstatement of CUP NO. 3900 ( PC99-52) (6 yes votes, 1 absent).
Negative Declaration previously approved.
END OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ITESM FROM MARCH 15, 1999.
ITEM B11 FROM THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MEETING OF
MARCH 25, 1999 - DECISION DATE: APRIL 1, 1999
21
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
APRIL 6, 1999
INFORMATION ONLY - APPEAL PERIOD ENDS APRIL 16, 1999:
ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 154 CEQA EXEMPT {SECTION 15061 (b)(3)}:
B11. 179:
OWNER: ISMAEL SILVA, JR. M.D., 1717 E. Center Street, Anaheim, CA 92805
AGENT: THOMAS A. CATANIA, M.D., 2756 Green Valley Parkway, Henderson, Nevada 89014
LOCATION: 1717 East Center Street. Property is approximately 0.56 acre located at the
northeast corner of Center Street and
Evelyn Drive.
Waiver of minimum number of parking spaces to construct a 580 square foot MRI building
addition to an existing office building with 44 parking spaces proposed.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
GRANTED Administrative Adjustment No. 154 ( ZA DECISION NO. 99-10).
END OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ITEMS FROM MARCH 25, 1999.
ITEMS B12 – B21 FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF
MARCH 29, 1999 - INFORMATION ONLY
APPEAL PERIOD ENDS APRIL 20, 1999:
WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
B12. 179:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4088, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER:
Gilbert Ball Partners LP, 2600 Michelson Drive, Suite 1050, Irvine, CA 92612
AGENT:
Meta Housing Corporation, Attn: Sean Clark, 4100 W. Alameda Ave., #205, Burbank,
CA 91505
LOCATION: 935 South Gilbert Street.
Property is 0.8 acre located on the west side of Gilbert
Street, 203 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road.
To construct a 34-unit affordable senior citizen apartment complex with a density bonus with
waiver of (a) minimum building site area per dwelling unit - APPROVED, (b) maximum structural
height – APPROVED, (c) minimum landscape setback (deleted), (d) minimum structural and
landscaped setback adjacent to a collector street (deleted), (e) minimum side yard setback
(deleted), (f) required elevators (deleted), (g) minimum pedestrian access (deleted), (h) location
of private storage areas (deleted) and ( i ) minimum required affordable units (deleted).
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 4088 GRANTED, IN PART ( PC99 -55) (6 yes votes, 1 absent).
Waiver of code requirement APPROVED, IN PART, approving waivers (a) and (b), and denying
waivers (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h) and (I).
Approved Negative Declaration.
179: WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4099, AND
B13.
NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER:
Dong Hee Kang and Bu Sun Kang, 559 South Olive Street, Anaheim, CA 92805
AGENT:
Mr. Jae J. Chung, 10042 Lampson Avenue, Garden Grove, CA 92840
LOCATION: 559 South Olive Street. Parcel 1 - is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land
consisting of 0.23 acre located at the northwest corner of Water Street and Olive Street, with
frontages of 140 feet on the north side of Water Street and 70 feet on the west side of Olive
Street.
313 East Water Street. Parcel 2
- is a rectangularly -shaped parcel of land consisting of 0.12
acre with a frontage of 48 feet on the north side of Water Street, and a maximum depth of 114
feet, located 175 feet west of the centerline of Olive Street.
22
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
APRIL 6, 1999
To permit a convenience/liquor store with a coin-operated laundry facility with waiver of (a)
minimum setback abutting a collector street, and (b) required site screening adjacent to a
residential zone boundary.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 4099 GRANTED, IN PART ( PC99-56) (5 yes votes, 1 no vote,
and 1 absent).
Waiver of code requirement APPROVED, IN PART, approving waiver (a) in-part, and approving
waiver (b).
Approved Negative Declaration.
Review of the Planning Commission decision was requested by Mayor Daly and Mayor Pro Tem
McCracken and the item will therefore be set for public hearing before the City Council.
179: WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4108, AND
B14.
NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER:
Savi Ranch Associates, a California General Partnership, 2030 Main St., Suite #640,
Irvine, CA 92614
AGENT:
William Hobin, P.O. Box 2034, Santa Monica, CA 90401
LOCATION: South of the terminus of Pullman Street at Old Canal Road
Proerty is 2.14 acres located south of the corner of Pullman Street and Old Canal Road.
To construct a new self storage facility with a building height in excess of 35 feet with waiver of
(a) permitted commercial identification sign, (b) maximum structural height adjacent to a
residential zone, (c) minimum landscape setback adjacent to a residential zone and (d) required
site screening adjacent to a residential zone.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 4108 GRANTED ( PC99-57) (6 yes votes, 1 absent).
Approved waiver of code requirement
Approved Negative Declaration.
Stefanie Perry. Relative to the storage facility proposed in the Savi Ranch Area, the location is
wonderful for a self-storage facility but she is very concerned about the number of such facilities in the
City. She contacted 18 self storage facilities out of the 23 in Anaheim. Of the 18, there are 14,500 self-
storage units which, on average, 15% were vacant leaving almost 2,000 vacant units within the City.
She does not understand the need to be adding more; they should first fill what they have. She knows a
while back the Council looked at imposing a moratorium and limiting storage facilities to oddly-shaped
parcels, but she would like to see something banning self-storage completely. It is not attractive to look
at and there are better uses for those pieces of property. This one is in an industrial area and not near
housing but will increase the number to 24 and Anaheim Hills has five of them. They do not need a
sixth. She is requesting the Council to look into public storage a little bit more before approving this
request.
Mayor Daly. He noted the Planning Department recommended approval but denial of some of the
waivers. He wanted to understand if the Planning Commission acted in a way consistent with staff’s
recommendation.
Joel Fick , Planning Director. Staff recommended that the project not be approved because of the
existing Council policy relating to self-storage facilities but also recommended certain actions in the
event the Planning Commission wanted to approve the project. They had a number of discussions with
Community Development staff since it is in a Redevelopment Project Area. Staff felt there were
alternative uses for the site such as restaurants, certain type of auto dealerships or RV dealerships as
examples. The applicant in his presentation made a convincing presentation that the building to be
constructed would be attractive and looked quite similar to other buildings on the site. Staff
recommended conditions be incorporated into the conditions of approval similar to conditions imposed by
the Council such as the one on Santa Ana Canyon Road presently under construction.
23
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
APRIL 6, 1999
Mayor Daly. He noted staff had advised the Planning Commission if they approved the project, they
should deny some or all of the waivers. He asked what happened on that subject.
Joel Fick . The Planning Commission approved the larger monumentation sign which was Waiver A and
the other items frankly probably were more technical in nature based upon the zoning designations on
the site.
Mayor Daly. Based on the Planning staff’s recommendation against the project and for a number of
good reasons, he would like to set the matter for a Public Hearing; Council Member Feldhaus concurred.
Review of the Planning Commission decision was requested by Mayor Daly and Council Member
Feldhaus and the item will therefore be set for public hearing before the City Council.
WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4109, AND NEGATIVE
B15.
DECLARATION:
OWNER:
G. Jack and Yolanda Zanchi, 16601 Naly Circle, Huntington Beach, CA 92649
AGENT:
Antonio Martinez, 941 North Cambria Street, Anaheim, CA 92801
LOCATION: 3440-3464 West Orange Avenue. Property is 1.43 acres located at the southeast
corner or Orange Avenue and Knott.
To establish conformity with existing zoning code land use requirements for an existing
commercial center and existing liquor store, and to permit the conversion of an existing meat
market to a convenience market with waiver of continuation of non-conforming billboards.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 4109 GRANTED, IN PART ( PC99 -58) (6 yes votes, 1 absent).
Denied waiver of code requirement.
Approved Negative Declaration.
Review of the Planning Commission decision was requested by Council Member Feldhaus and Mayor
Pro Tem McCracken and the item will therefore be set for public hearing before the City Council.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2681, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
B16. 179:
OWNER:
Robshan Inc. 3210 Belt Line Road, #140, Dallas, Texas 75234-2324
AGENT:
Press Box Sports Bar & Grill, Attn : Jo Ann Turner, 480 North Glassell Street,
Anaheim, CA 92806
LOCATION: 480 North Glassell Street - Press Box Sports Bar and Grill.
Property is 0.59
acre located at the southeast corner of Glassell Street and Frontera Street.
To consider reinstatement of this permit which contains a time limitation (approved on December
8, 1997, to expire on June 8, 1999) to retain live entertainment with dinner dancing and to retain
three billiard tables (approved on January 24, 1994, to expire on January 24, 1999) in
conjunction with an existing and previously-approved freestanding restaurant with sales of
alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved reinstatement of CUP NO. 2681 to expire March 29, 2001 ( PC99-59) (6 yes votes, 1
absent).
Negative Declaration previously approved.
CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
B17. 179:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4110
OWNER:
Richard L. Muckenthaler and B. Carol Muckenthaler, Trustees Atl., 13431 Eton Place,
Santa Ana, CA 92705
AGENT:
Fred Fiedler and Associates, Attn : Ken R. Barton, 2322 West Third Street, Los
Angeles, CA 90057
24
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
APRIL 6, 1999
LOCATION: 3375 East Miraloma Avenue.
Property is 0.52 acre located at the northeast
corner of Miraloma Avenue and Miller Street.
To permit a membership only, self-service, unmanned gasoline service station with waiver of
minimum number of trees adjacent to interior property lines.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 4110 GRANTED, IN PART ( PC99 -60) (6 yes votes, 1 absent).
Waiver of code requirement DENIED.
Approved Negative Declaration.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3903, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
B18. 179:
OWNER:
Taormina Industries, LLC, 1131 North Blue Gum Street, Anaheim, CA 92806
AGENT:
Michael Frank, 2830 East Gretta Lane, Anaheim, CA 92806
LOCATION: 2830 East Gretta Lane.
Property is 0.57 acre located on the south side of Gretta
Lane, 366 feet east of the centerline of Blue Gum Street.
To consider reinstatement of this permit which contains a time limitation (approved on April 14,
1997, to expire on April 14, 1999) to retain a transmission repair facility in an industrial building.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved reinstatement of CUP NO. 3903, to expire 4/14/2003 ( PC99-61)
(6 yes votes, 1 absent).
Negative Declaration previously approved.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ITEMS:
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 313
B19. 155:
REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAN NO.
99-01
: Lin and Sons Investment Inc., Attn : Paul Lin, 909 South Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, CA
92802, requests review and approval of final landscape/irrigation plans. Property is located at
909 South Harbor Boulevard - Top’s Motel.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved Final Site Plan No. 99-01.
EIR NO. 313 previously certified.
NOTE: THIS ITEM HAS A 10-DAY APPEAL PERIOD WHICH EXPIRES APRIL 8, 1999.
REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN :
B20. 134:
Paul Douglas, Senior Real Property Agent, County of Orange Social Services Agency, 888 North
Main Street, Santa Ana, CA 92701-3518, requests determination of conformance with the
Anaheim General Plan to enter into a rent free sublease agreement for office space. Property is
located at 3320 East La Palma Avenue.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Determined to be in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan.
NOTE: THIS ITEM HAS A 10-DAY APPEAL PERIOD WHICH EXPIRES APRIL 8, 1999.
REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN :
B21. 134:
Paul Douglas, Senior Real Property Agent, County of Orange Social Services Agency, 888 North
Main Street, Santa Ana, CA 92701-3518, requests determination of conformance with the
Anaheim General Plan to enter into a rent free sublease agreement for office space. Property is
located at 50 South Anaheim Boulevard.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Determined to be in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan.
NOTE: THIS ITEM HAS A 10-DAY APPEAL PERIOD WHICH EXPIRES APRIL 8, 1999.
ORDINANCE FOR ADOPTION:
ORDINANCE FOR ADOPTION:
25
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
APRIL 6, 1999
B22. 179: ORDINANCE NO. 5677 (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM adding Chapter 18.55 to Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code to adopt the
Brookhurst commercial corridor overlay zone. (Introduced at the meeting of March 23, 1999,
Item B1.)
A Mr. George Hallock addressed Item B22 under Public Comments on Agenda Items at the beginning of
the meeting.
George Hallock , President, Hallock Coin Jewelry, 2060 W. Lincoln, Anaheim 92801. He has been in
business in the City for 25 years starting as a local coin shop. He has always done a significant amount
of bullion gold business as distinct from being primarily oriented toward collectors. They have slowly
evolved into a jewelry business. Because they are in the manufacture of jewelry using gold, platinum
and silver, they handle a significant amount of recyclable materials, i.e., scrap materials. They have
decided what they can offer the public to come to their establishment, the right to pawn certain items.
They are not about to start a pawn shop and are only interested in the purchase of precious metals and
stones. They now find themselves caught between approval by the Planning Commission which is in
process and the proposed overlay ordinance which is going to be in effect before they complete the
process. They are asking the Council to consider possible delay of the implementation of the ordinance
for a short period in order for the Planning Commission to complete their job or grant them some sort of
variance in that regard. He clarified upon Council questioning that he is asking for a delay of about 20
th th
days. He understands the ordinance will be going into effect on May 6 or 7 and their hearing before
th
the Planning Commission is on May 10 .
Mayor Daly. He is going to suggest asking staff to comment when they arrive at the item (Item B22. on
the agenda).
Later in the meeting the following discussion took place when the council considered Item B22.
Mayor Daly. Mr. Hallock asked that adoption of the ordinance be delayed. He asked staff to comment
as to the advisability of the delay and asked if there were other means of giving him the opportunity to
obtain the permit.
Lisa Stipkovich , Executive Director of Community Development. Staff does not recommend a delay
because that would delay the implementation of the overlay zone which she would like to see
implemented as soon as possible. She does not believe there is any way to handle the situation. If the
Council wanted to permit this use if the overlay zone is in place, it would not be an allowable use. She
deferred to the City Attorney.
City Attorney White. In the past on certain occasions, the Council has actually incorporated into
ordinances that have adopted new zoning restrictions a provision which would in essence grandfather in
a use that had not gotten final approval as yet but was in the process of seeking final approval at the
time the new regulation was adopted. It is entirely discretionary with the Council whether they would have
to incorporate that type of feature in the ordinance. One bit of infomration he does not know tonight is
what other potential applications are out there if any that might also fit within this same exception f such
an exception were adopted. He has been told by Mr. Fick this is the only staff is aware of.
Council Member Feldhaus . He was not clear if Mr. Hallock had already filed an application. He said he
did not want a pawn shop. He asked, however, if that is the usage that is holding him back.
Joel Fick , Planning Director. Mr. Hallock has filed and is scheduled for a Public Hearing before the
Planning Commission on May 10, 1999. He was made aware of the ordinance pending. He clarified for
Council Member Feldhaus it is for a pawn shop.
26
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
APRIL 6, 1999
Council Member Tait stated as he understands, this is for a license so if someone comes in and they do
not want to sell their goods initially they can pawn it.
Mr. Hallock answered yes. They do not contemplate any change in their signage or operation.
Presently , 5% of the people who come in request that (pawn an item). It is a very nominal part of their
business, more of an accommodation to the customer than to themselves. All he is asking is the
opportunity in that one specific area. They are not going to deal with cameras, guns, or anything else
like that but just precious metals, jewelry and precious stones.
Council Member Tait . He asked if Mr. Hallock planned or would he agree to not putting up anything like
a sign that says pawn shop; Mr. Hallock answered that is absolutely not his intent.
Lisa Stipkovich , Executive Director of Community Development. She explained there is a specific
requirement under California State law that defines what a pawn shop is. It is necessary to get a permit
or permission from the State Department of Justice. She asked Mr. Hallock if that was the application he
had requested; Mr. Hallock stated that is in the process now.
Mr. Stipkovich then confirmed that is a pawn shop. If the Council allows it, that is what it is ; Council
Member Tait. Mr. Hallock wants to offer that service as an accommodation so he needs that license.
City Attorney White. The Public Hearing before the Planning Commission is scheduled May 10, 1999.
At that time, the Commission could also consider whether it wished to recommend to the Council some
sort of an exemption to the ordinance if it determines this is an appropriate use. He does not believe the
issue has to be decided by the Council tonight. What he would suggest, let the matter proceed to the
Planning Commission on May 10 and at that time, they can receive the evidence. If the Planning
Commission believes the use is appropriate under the new regulations and wishes to provide an
exemption, they can find a way legally to get there. If the Council agrees with that either on an appeal or
acquiescence when it appears on the Council agenda, they will find a way to get there. This cannot be
done tonight.
Joel Fick . There is at least one other application that staff has been able to identify in the last few
minutes which was appealed by the applicant this evening. (See Item B 1. – the alcohol-related portion of
that request would fall within this item as well ).
Mayor Daly. He recommends that they proceed with this item and Mr. Hallock will still have the
opportunity to make his case to the Planning Commission.
Council Member McCracken . The City Attorney said the Planning Commission could recommend an
exemption (to the ordinance). She asked if that could be true for other issues as well.
City Attorney White. Theoretically, the Council can always amend the ordinance. Mr. Hallock can make
his case to the Commission and the matter ultimately comes back to the Council on their informational
calendar. One way or the other, the Council decides if it is an appropriate use. That could happen with
other uses in the future as well.
Council Member McCracken . She would like it clarified, if an overall plan is put in place that is
supposedly “written in stone”, that they cannot dispense with certain provisions unless they change it
with another ordinance.
City Attorney White clarified that was correct. If the Council wants to allow it, they would have to exempt
it out of the ordinance an adopt another ordinance.
Mayor Daly offered Ordinance No. 5677 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
27
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
APRIL 6, 1999
ORDINANCE NO. 5677 : AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADDING
CHAPTER 18.55 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADOPT THE
BROOKHURST COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR OVERLAY ZONE.
Roll Call Vote on Ordinance No. 5677 for adoption:
AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : Feldhaus, Kring, Tait, McCracken, Daly
NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : None
ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 5677 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. (Continued from the meeting of January 5, 1999,
Item C2, application procedure approved at the meeting of January 12, 1999, Item C1, discussion
continued for the meeting of January 26, 1999, Item C1 ., February 23, 1999, Item C1. and March 23,
1999, Item C1.)
City Clerk Sohl . Appointment of members to the Charter Review Committee ( CRC) was continued from
the last meeting to this date.
Mayor Daly. He suggested each member of the Council have the prerogative to nominate a person to
the CRC which will be subject to a vote/ratification of the Council. Subsequently, to fill the last two spots
of the seven-member committee, he will recommend some names and see if a majority of the Council is
comfortable with them thus rounding out the committee. They should leave the door slightly open to
adding persons depending on the final outcome of the seven for geographic or other important reasons.
The committee to be appointed tonight is a committee of seven. Subsequently they will ask staff to help
the committee to convene their first meeting within a few weeks. The Council can monitor the progress
and at future Council meetings suggest any items the Council would like them to consider. He is also
sure that the Committee Members themselves will have ideas and suggestions and that City staff will
have the same for them to consider.
Mayor Daly opened nominations to the Charter Review Committee.
Council Member Tait nominated Thomas Dunn; Council Member McCracken nominated Miriam
Kaywood; Council Member Kring nominated Bruce Solari; Council Member Feldhaus nominated Ian
Skidmore; Mayor Daly nominated Dr. Barry Escoe.
MOTION. Mayor Daly moved to approve all five nominees to the Charter Review Committee. Council
Member McCracken seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mayor Daly. For the sixth and seventh member of the CRC, he would like to nominate a person who has
submitted paper work, Paul Bostwick, and another person who he spoke with a few weeks ago who has
not submitted an application but who is willing to serve, Paul Kott.
MOTION. Mayor Daly moved to approve Paul Bostwick and Paul Kott as the sixth and seventh
members of the Charter Review Committee. Council Member Tait seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Members of the 1999 Charter Review Committee : Thomas Dunn, Miriam Kaywood, Bruce Solari, Ian
Skidmore, Dr. Barry Escoe, Paul Bostwick, Paul Kott.
28
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
APRIL 6, 1999
Mayor Daly. He asked the City Clerk to let the Council know how they can assist in any other
organizational issues. He feels they are fortunate that City Clerk Sohl and City Attorney White were also
involved in the last Charter Review Committee. He is certain they have other housekeeping items that
will need to be considered as well.
AMENDMENT/REPEAL – CAMPAIGN REFORM ORDINANCE :
C2. 127: To consider adoption of
one of the following ordinances repealing or amending Chapter 1.09 of the Anaheim Municipal Code
relating to campaign contributions. (See minutes of previous meetings where the subject was first
introduced, discussed and considered – January 12, 16 and March 16, 1999).
City Attorney White. The Council has a new alternative to consider labeled Option C which would
change Option B previously considered and rejected by the Council by adding the definition to the term,
“person” , and deleting “intentionally or negligently” as a requirement for liability. The reason is, in
reviewing the ordinance, he believes it would be extremely difficult or impossible to enforce a
requirement needing to prove a violation was intentional. Thirdly, the change would be to the
enforcement provisions which would take enforcement out of the realm of requiring the Council to vote to
enforce the ordinance , would place the enforcement responsibility in the hands of the City Attorney and
provide a mechanism where prior to filing of a civil action, the City Attorney could specify measures to
be taken by the alleged violator of the ordinance that, if corrected, could avoid the filing of a civil action
and if the violations were not corrected or the City Attorney did not file a civil action, would allow a
private party only in those instances to file a civil action and provide for attorney’s fees to the prevailing
party. That is a synopsis of the proposed ordinance, version C.
Mayor Daly. As he stated on previous occasions, on advice of his attorney as well as input from the City
Attorney, he will abstain from any participation on this issue. He thereupon turned the meeting over to
Mayor Pro Tem McCracken.
Mayor Daly temporarily left the Council Chamber (7:15 p.m.).
MOTION. Mayor Pro Tem McCracken . She received the revised (proposed) ordinance on Friday. She
thereupon moved that consideration of the ordinance(s) be postponed for four weeks to allow additional
opportunity to review the details.
Before further action was taken, Mayor Pro Tem McCracken stated she is not sure the proposed
ordinance is one she can recommend to the community or candidates. Three Council Members will be
th
travelling to Anaheim’s new Sister City, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain and the next Council meeting is April 27 .
A majority of the Council could not agree on the previously proposed ordinance(s) and she does not
know how the Council feels about the one before them tonight.
Council Member Kring . She has two suggestions – that the Council have a workshop so they can
discuss the matter together in an open forum. She has no problem postponing the matter for four weeks
if the City Attorney can bring back an ordinance at that time with the least amount of language a financial
limit that could be contributed by a constituent or a business and clean up the language as much as
possible as they had discussed.
Council Member Feldhaus . He has gone through the proposed ordinance and, in his opinion , it is
probably as bad or worse than Option B which was before them at the last meeting. He does have
comments that he feels will be contradictory but will wait until they discuss it in four weeks. Council
Member Kring’s suggestion is a good one – to get it out in the open and discuss it and then they won’t
have to worry about the Brown Act.
Council Member Tait . He seconded the motion of a four-week continuance.
City Attorney White. He asked for clarification if the interest is in scheduling a workshop.
29
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
APRIL 6, 1999
Mayor Pro Tem McCracken . She is willing to amend her motion that they schedule a workshop to
discuss the Campaign Reform Ordinance and spend time looking at something they could recommend
as an ordinance and direct the City Attorney to develop such an ordinance.
Council Member Kring . She agrees in continuing the matter for four weeks to have a workshop.
Perhaps they can work something out so that the Council could act on the matter at the 5:00 P.M. portion
of the meeting or put the matter on the agenda for a decision the following meeting.
City Attorney White. There are two ways of handling the matter – continue it to a date certain where it
will appear as it normally would under section “C” of the agenda and at the same time on that date,
schedule a workshop for 3:00 or 3:30, or, schedule only a workshop that day and then schedule the
matter on the “C” calendar at a subsequent Council meeting.
MOTION. Mayor Pro Tem McCracken amended her motion to schedule a workshop four weeks from
today, on May 4, 1999 at 3:00 p.m. and depending on what happens at the workshop, decide when to
schedule the matter on the “C” calendar. Council Member Kring seconded the amended motion. Mayor
Daly was temporarily absent. MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Daly entered the Council Chamber (7:20 p.m.).
C4. 114: COUNCIL COMMENTS:
Council Member Kring
: She expressed her gratitude to all those involved in the community clean-up
day at the Jeffrey-Lynne neighborhood held on April 3, 1999. More tenants and owners participated than
ever before. Before and after pictures show just how much progress has been made in the community .
It has been a collaborative effort between Len Spivak who heads the Apartment Owner’s Association and
also Jake Felder , John Poole , the City’s Code Enforcement Officer, Community Police Officers Dave
Hermann and Juan Reveles and an “incredible” woman who is dedicated to the community facility and
who assists in many way, Ida Durand , Community Services Specialist.
Council Member McCracken :
She announced, as she did earlier, that three Council Members will be
travelling to Anaheim’s new Sister City of Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain along with a contingent from Anaheim
and the reason that no Council Meetings are scheduled for the next two weeks.
Mayor Daly. Unfortunately, he is not able to join the contingent on the trip to Spain. He annnounced that
Mayor Pro Tem McCracken will be the ceremonial leader of the delegation.
Mayor Daly :
He asked the City Manager to report back to the Council on the opportunities that may be
available to them with all the emphasis in Sacramento on infrastructure whether for water, parks, open
space or transportation projects, to make sure Anaheim gets its fair share if there are going to be new
funds available from Sacramento. He would like the City Manager’s advice or recommendation on the
subject.
ADJOURNMENT IN MEMORY OF MARY ATWELL : Mayor Daly asked that the Council Meeting be
adjourned in memory of Mary Atwell who was a member of the City’s Senior Citizen Commission for
eight years and also active in the West Anaheim Senior Center. Mrs. Atwell passed away on April 5,
1999 and she will be missed.
By general Council consent, the Council Meeting of April 6, 1999 was adjourned in Mrs. Atwell’s memory
(7:25 P.M.).
No Council Meetings are scheduled for April 13 and April 20, 1999. Three Council Members are
travelling to Anaheim’s new Sister City in Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain. The next Council Meeting is April 27,
1999.
30
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
APRIL 6, 1999
LEONORA N. SOHL
CITY CLERK
31