1999/05/18ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
MAY 18, 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,
PRESENT: CITY MANAGER : Jim Ruth
CITY ATTORNEY : Jack White
CITY CLERK : Leonora N. Sohl
ASST. CITY CLERK : Ann Sauvageau
PUBLIC UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER : Ed Aghjayan
PLANNING DIRECTOR : Joel Fick
ZONING DIVISION MANAGER : Greg Hastings
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT : Lisa Stipkovich
CIVIL ENGINEER : Natalie Meeks
TRAFFIC/TRANSPORTATION MANAGER : John Lower
VICE DETAIL : Russ Sutter
CODE ENFORCEMENT MANAGER : John Poole
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELO PMENT : Richard Bruckner
REDEVELOPMENT AND PROPERTY SERVICES MANAGER : Robert Zur Schmiede
A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was posted at 3:30 p.m. on
May 14, 1999 at the City Hall Bulletin Board, (both inside and outside the entrance to City Hall)
containing all items as shown herein.
Mayor Daly opened the Workshop portion of the Council Meeting of May 18, 1999 and welcomed those
in attendance (3:16 P.M.).
City Manager, James Ruth noted this is the appointed time for a Workshop on the Groundwater
Replenishment Program. Ed Aghjayan, Public Utilities General Manager, will introduce the
representatives present from the Orange County Water District ( OCWD) who will make the presentation.
The Mayor first asked if Council Member McCracken would like to say a few words as the City’s
Representative on the Orange County Sanitation District; Council Member McCracken. The
Groundwater Replenishment Program is a program to solve some of the long-range water problems due
to the additional demand with which the City and County will be faced in the future for both water and
sanitation. This is an important meeting to give the Council information on this issue which will then
need to be disseminated to the City’s citizens.
GROUNDWATER REPLENISHMENT PROGRAM :
175: Mr. Ed Aghjayan, Public Utilities General
Manager first introduced the City’s Representative on the Orange County Water District Board and its
current Chairman, Irv Pickler (former Anaheim Council Member).
Irv Pickler , Board Member/Chairman, OCWD Board and also Chair of the Groundwater Replenishment
Committee. The subject program is one they have been working on since 1995. Representatives from
both entities are present today. He emphasized the importance of the program especially since by 2010-
2015, the Orange County/Southern California area is expected to increase by about eight million people.
What will be needed more than anything else is water. He explained the outreach work that has been
done thus far to inform people of the program noting that they have already made over 150
presentations to legislators, business groups and community groups and have held scoping meetings and
workshops. To date, the reaction from community leaders and groups has been very supportive and
positive. They are also going to embark on a further outreach program in the local areas more than has
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
MAY 18, 1999
been the case in the past. He then introduced Bob Mills , General Manager of the OCWD who will brief
the project and also noted that another member of the OCWD Board was present, Phil Anthony and also
Ron Wildemuth, Public Relations.
Mr. Bill Mills, General Manager, OCWD. He is going to give a brief overview of the project itself which
some Council Members are already familiar with and then turn to the concerns the City has expressed
and subsequently where the program is going from here. Mr. Mills then gave a presentation
(supplemented by Power Point slides) which briefed the data submitted (see – Groundwater
Replenishment System ( GWRS ) – A Safe, Reliable Water Supply for Orange County – Anaheim City
Council – May 18, 1999 – which contained hard copies of the slides and also a brochure – Groundwater
Replenishment System -- outlining/summarizing the program – both made a part of the record). The
presentation revolved around an explanation of the GWRS and how it will work (purification system,
treatment technologies – microfiltration, reverse osmosis, ultraviolet disinfection) including a briefing of
the treatment technologies. “The System would take highly treated wastewater that is currently
discharged into the ocean, purify it in an advanced treatment plant and then allow it to percolate into the
groundwater basin, taking the same natural filtering path that rainwater takes through the ground.” In
concluding his presentation, Mr. Mills briefed the steps needed to be done ultimately leading to the final
“Go-No-Go” decision to be made in January 2001.
The presentation was followed by questions and comments by the Mayor and Council Members which
were answered by both Mr. Mills and Mr. Aghjayan revolving around water conservation issues,
treatment facilities, possibility of using holding basins, additional community outreach, that the project is
going to answer a need for the Sanitation District as well, how the project will be paid for (see Cost and
Funding in brochure submitted) and the next milestones in terms of the City’s involvement.
Mayor Daly. They will do their best to identify any additional questions. He will be looking for
opportunities to enhance the recreational opportunities in the Anaheim Lakes area and the other holding
facilities and basins and the aesthetics as well; Mr. Mills stated they are looking at those issues right now.
Mayor Daly thanked all those involved for the informative presentation and also thanked the
representatives of the OCWD for taking the time to be present today.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION:
City Attorney Jack White requested a Closed Session noting first that there were no additions to
Closed Session items.
PUBLIC COMMENTS - CLOSED SESSION ITEMS:
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).
2
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
MAY 18, 1999
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
3.
54956.9(a) – Existing Litigation:
Name of case :
J.G.D. Company, Inc., v. City of Anaheim, Orange County Superior Court Case
No. 79-78-04.
PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION:
4.
Title:
City Management.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
5.
54956.9(a) – Existing Litigation:
Name of case :
South Coast Cab co. v. City of Anaheim, et al. Orange County Superior Court
Case No. 80-03-59; United States District Court Case No.
SA CV99- 416GLT ( Aax).
RECESS:
Mayor Daly moved to recess into Closed Session. Council Member McCracken seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED. (4:05 p.m.).
AFTER RECESS:
Mayor Daly called the regular Council meeting of May 18, 1999 to order at 5:30 p.m. and
welcomed those in attendance.
INVOCATION: A moment of Silence was observed in lieu of an invocation.
FLAG SALUTE:
Mayor Pro Tem Shirley McCracken led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
PROCLAMATION – CLEAN AIR MONTH :
119: A Proclamation was authorized by the City Council in
support of the American Lung Association of Orange County Clean Air Month and also Clean Air Week
Events and to announce grand prize winners of the Anaheim Kids for Parks Children’s Poster and Essay
Contests. Terry Lowe, Community Services, and Robyn Sherry, Board Member of the American Lung
Association were present.
Mr. Terry Lowe, Recreation Superintendent/Community Services explained that this year’s students
volunteered over 2,500 hours painting out graffiti, planting flowers, etc. He also explained that The
Anaheim Kids for Parks Children’s Poster and Essay Contest is sponsored by the Community Service
Department and Commuter Services. He then introduced this year’s winners who were each presented
with a Certificate of Recognition (1999 Earth Day & Clean Air Week) by the Mayor and greeted
personally by the Council Members : Poster Contest Grand Prize Winners – Amanda Buonaugurio,
Albert Schweitzer School; Ngoc Hoang, Mel Gauer School; Donald Hsu, St. Catherine’s Military School;
Nicole Kezos, John Marshall School; Carmen Tapia, Jonas Salk School. Essay Contest Grand Prize
Winners - Evan Ferreira, Horrace Mann; Patience K. Williams, Roosevelt School (unable to be
present).
Robyn Sherry, Board Member, American Lung Association then accepted the Proclamation presented by
Mayor Daly.
DECLARATIONS OF RECOGNITION :
119: Declarations of Recognition were authorized by the City
Council recognizing the sponsors of the Paint Your Heart Out program in Anaheim.
Mayor Daly introduced Carolyn Griebe, Project Coordinator for the Paint Your Heart Out ( PYHO)
program since it started in the City. He cannot think of a better run program so beneficial to the Anaheim
community.
3
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
MAY 18, 1999
th
Carolyn Griebe , Project Coordinator PYHO . This is the program’s 9 year. A total of 354 homes in
Anaheim have been painted/improved during that time thanks to the hundreds of volunteers who
participate each year preparing, repairing and painting the homes of qualified elderly and/or disabled
people. The program is also possible because of major sponsors who either contribute monetarily or by
supplying all the necessary paint , equipment, etc. needed to get the job done. She then acknowledged
John Poole, the City’s Code Enforcement Manager who stepped in to be Chairman this year when Tom
Hollywood, the Chairman for many years, retired. She noted that John is considered to be the
“grandfather” of Paint Your Heart Out since he brought the idea to Anaheim after learning of such a
program at a seminar in an eastern city. She then read a letter from one of the people whose home was
painted, noting that the heartfelt statements of appreciation make the program very worthwhile year after
year.
Mrs. Griebe then introduced the Platinum Plus Sponsors (and their representatives) of the program
(sponsors who donate $10,000 or more either monetarily or in goods and services) as well as Platinum
Sponsors ($5,000) who were subsequently presented with a Declaration (some unable to be present) by
Mayor Daly and personally commended by Council Members : Platinum Plus Sponsors ($10,000) –
Anima Christi Foundation, The Orange County Register, Thee White House (Bruno Serato). Platinum
Sponsors ($5,000) – Anaheim Disposal, Anaheim Public Utilities, Anaheim Real Estate Community,
Broadway Construction, Disneyland Resort, Orange County Paints, The Related Companies, Rubberset
(Tom Hollywood), Turner Construction.
PROCLAMATION – NATIONAL EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES WEEK :
119: Recognizing the
week of May 16 – 22, 1999 as National EMS Week – “Meeting the Challenge”.
Mayor Daly presented the Proclamation to Robyn Butler, Public Information and Education Officer from
the City’s Fire Department.
Robyn Butler, Public Information and Education Officer accepted the Proclamation. She then explained
it is due to the great effort from a team that gets together to provide EMS services both in Anaheim,
California and literally, throughout the world. She also shared a letter from a recipient of the life-saving
services of the Emergency Medical Services Team. She subsequently presented certificates from the
Fire Department to EMS team representatives: Gary Gionet, Shift Supervisor, Metro Net Dispatch,
Paramedics from Anaheim Fire Station No. 1, Rick Biggs, Captain Paramedic, Ernie Badosa, Engineer
Paramedic, Scott Semonell, Firegithter, Roger Domen, Firefighter. Representing CARE Ambulance
Service, EMT’S Bryan Walker Rob Fronneberger and Dan Richardson, President, CARE Ambulance
also, Mary Massey, Paramedic Liaison, Anaheim Memorial Medical Center, Celia Watte, Program
Director, Orange County Medical Services Agency.
RECOGNITIONS AUTHORIZED BY COUNCIL THIS DATE TO BE MAILED OR PRESENTED AT
ANOTHER TIME:
1. PROCLAMATION recognizing May 18, 1999, as Meals on Wheels Day in Anaheim.
2. DECLARATION recognizing the Federation of Philippine American Chambers of Commerce.
3. PROCLAMATION recognizing June 13 – 18, 1999, as Microwave Week in Anaheim.
4. PROCLAMATION designating June 6, 1999, as Heritage Day at Oak Canyon Nature Center.
5. PROCLAMATION announcing Drug Court Week in Anaheim.
6. PROCLAMATION recognizing Coach Tom Danley on his retirement from Katella High School.
4
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
MAY 18, 1999
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY
in the amount of $2,348,365.95 for the period ending May
18, 1999, in accordance with the 1998-99 Budget, were approved.
Mayor Daly recessed the City Council Meeting until after the Redevelopment Agency and Housing
Authority Meeting. (6:04 p.m.)
Mayor Daly reconvened the City Council Meeting. (6:06 p.m.)
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
There were no addition s to agenda items.
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST:
David Brault, Attorney, 625 The City Drive South, Suite 346, Orange, CA 92868, representing Steve
Casada Construction, the apparent second low bidder on the Service and Meter Replacement Project.
He referred to the letter he had sent to the Council (see letter dated May 11, 1999 addressed to Contract
Administration, Caster Williams – made a part of the record) regarding the mistake contained in the
apparent low bidder’s bid, B. R. Day. Their bid contained a mathematical error regarding a lump sum vs.
the total price for bid item No. 1. As a result of the error, B. R. Day gained an economic advantage over
the remainder of the bidders of the project and as a result has gained an economic advantage over the
other bidders and he has exercised this unique advantage. The unit price is lower than the Casada bid
but using the lump sum price, it is in excess of the Casada bid. By virtue of State law, the City has to
reject the B. R. Day bid because of the unique advantage. Steve Casada Construction is urging the
Council to reject the B. R. Day bid as being non-responsive and proceed to award the contract to the
second low bid of Steve Casada Construction.
After a brief discussion, it was determined that this item was not before the Council tonight. City Attorney
White also asked that Mr. Brault submit a copy of any further correspondence on the matter to his office.
He (White) was not copied on the correspondence that went to the Council and he has not seen the letter
sent. He reiterated, as a matter of courtesy, he would appreciate receiving a copy of any legal
documents or correspondence sent to his client (City/Council).
Mayor Daly. Since the item is not on the agenda tonight, Mr. Brault should communicate with City staff
regarding the outcome.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Pedro Vasquez (Anaheim Street Vendor). He is facing problems that will force him to go out of business
because of the new City rules and City ordinances against the vendors. He is trying to work with the City
offices and the Police Department. He explained an incident that occurred in the past two weeks when
he was working on Covenant Street by State College Blvd. and Center Street. Police patrol cars and
motorcycles came up to his truck and made him move out of the street. He cannot make a living under
those conditions. Yesterday, he had a real hard day with Officer Robinson. He does not feel what they
are doing to him his right. The vendors are just trying to make a living and trying to stay in one, two, or
three spots. They are not there all day long. He is asking the City Council to help him and allow him to
conduct his business in a proper way.
Mayor Daly asked if someone from Code Enforcement has been in recent communication with Mr.
Vasquez; Mr. Vasquez stated he has no problem with Code Enforcement, but with the Police
Department. He feels they do not listen and they just say they have to leave or they will call the tow
trucks. They are using their power against the hard-working people. He explained for the Mayor that he
tries to comply with the City ordinance and with the Orange County rules. If he is not allowed to work,
how can he survive or comply with the rules and laws.
Mayor Daly asked Mr. Vasquez what he expected the Council to do; Mr. Vasquez answered he is not
expecting the Council to do anything but expects them to make things straight. Everybody has rules and
5
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
MAY 18, 1999
laws to follow. He is asking for reasonable treatment. He confirmed for the Mayor that he believes the
rules in place that regulate street vendors are not reasonable.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
George Hallock, President of Hallock Fine Jewelry, 2060 W. Lincoln, Anaheim (25 Years). He had
addressed a letter to each of the Council Members (see letter dated May 13, 1999) on the matter of their
CUP and recognizes now that it was premature. At the time he sent the letter, he was unaware of the
appeal process. He has now been apprised of the process and will be coming to the Council at some
future date.
City Clerk Sohl noted that Mr. Hallock’s item is B8. on today’s agenda (under the Planning Commission
Consent Calendar) and he is going to appeal it so it will be set for a Public Hearing and be heard at a
future date; Mayor Daly asked if there were comments on agenda items, that those be addressed at the
time Council considers them.
Later in the meeting, the issue was again discussed. (See Item B8 for Council discussion and action.)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Linda Lee Grau , Morning Dove, Irvine. She is going to cede her three minutes to Douglas Scribner.
Douglas Scribner , 321 Avodaco , Costa Mesa. Since he will not be able to stay until the taxi cab issue
(Item C1.) is discussed, he would like to make his comments now.
City Attorney White interjected and advised that, because item C1. is a hearing, any comments on that
subject ought to occur at the time the item is discussed to be incorporated as part of the record.
Mr. Scribner thereupon stated he would make general comments. He explained that he would be
attending a convention in the City in the year 2000 along with many others and they will be needing
services such as those provided by hotels, restaurants and taxi cabs. It would be beneficial to let the
market decide the number of accommodations to service the citizens. The greater the number of
providers of those services, the less expensive and better for everyone. They should reward those who
give the best service.
Linda Lee Grau , 24 Morning Dove, Irvine. She first referred to an article in the Register relating to a City
retreat of department officials to discuss long-term strategies to deal with projected retirements of key
people and the cost involved. She then urged that the Council get out of the way of the businesses that
are providing services and products for the people of Anaheim.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Ray Torres, 5987 E. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim. He approved a part of his tax dollars for the retreat
mentioned by the former speaker and knows the City is accruing great benefits from the insight gained.
He believes the City Manager is doing a great job.
PUBLIC COMMENTS – AGENDA ITEMS;
There were no public comments on City Council Agenda items.
MOTION:
Mayor Daly moved to waive reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions to be acted upon for
the Council meeting of May 18, 1999. Council Member McCracken seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
6
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
MAY 18, 1999
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR A1 – A28:
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-95 through 99R-99 , both inclusive, for
adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
A1. 118: Rejecting and denying certain claims filed against the City. Referred to Risk Management.
The follo wing claims were filed against the City and actions taken as recommended:
a. Claim submitted by Lourdes Sanchez for property damage sustained purportedly due to
actions of the City on or about February 5, 1999.
b. Claim sub mitted by Michael Patrick Sainz for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to
actions of the City on or about September 19, 1998.
A2. 175: Receiving and filing correspondence before the Public Utilities Commission of the State of
California, in the matter of the application of Southern California Gas Company ( U904G ), for
authority to increase its gas revenue requirements to reflect its accomplishments for demand-
side management program years 1994, 1997 and 1998; and to address policy and procedural
issues for future program years 1999 through 2001 in the 1999 Annual Earnings Assessment
Proceeding.
128: Receiving and filing the Monthly Financial Analysis for nine months ended March 31, 1999,
as presented by the Finance Director.
117: Receiving and filing the Investment Portfolio Report for the month of April, 1999, as
submitted by the City Treasurer.
A3. 123: Approving and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an Agreement with Willdan
Associates, in an amount not to exceed $229,000 for design services for the Ball Road Corridor
Improvement Project.
A4. 123: Approving the Second Amendment to Agreement with Dewan, Lundin & Associates, in an
amount not to exceed $99,000 for professional engineering design services for Public Works
Improvements Project specifically on State College Boulevard and Katella Avenue; and
authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said Amendment.
A5. 169: Awarding a contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Sequel Contractors, in the amount of
$16,622,937.90 for Phase 2 Katella Avenue Improvement and Beautification 400’ west of Harbor
Boulevard to 650’ west of Ninth Street; and in the event said low bidder fails to comply with the
terms of the award, awarding the contract to the second low bidder, as well as waiving any
irregularities in the bids of both the low and second low bidders.
A6. 123: Approving the Sole and Joint Trench Agreement with Pacific Bell for Katella Avenue Phase
I and Underground District No. 18 Segment I project from Anaheim Boulevard/ Haster Avenue to
660 feet west of Harbor Boulevard.
A7. 123: Approving an Agreement with Southern California Association of Governments for $55,000
to continue development of the Anaheim Resort Transportation Smart System ; and amending
the Department of Public Works budget by $55,000.
A8. 106: Amending the Public Works Department fiscal year 1998/99 budget by $178,000 in order to
bring the General Fund expenditures into conformance.
7
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
MAY 18, 1999
A9. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 99R- 95 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM accepting certain deeds conveying certain real property or interests therein to the
City. (R/W 5260-15, et al.)
A10. 160: Accepting the low bid of Rose Environmental Service, in an amount not to exceed $26,345
and a ten percent contingency, for the removal of one underground fuel tank, and the installation
of one above-ground fuel tank, in accordance with Bid #5928.
A11. 160: Accepting the low bid of Brooks Jensen Precast , in an amount not to exceed $48,048 for
concrete hole liner parts, as required for the period of July 1, 1999, through June 30, 2000, with
three one-year optional renewals, and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to exercise the renewal
options, in accordance with Bid #5922.
A12. 160: Accepting the low bid of L. D. McFarland Company, in an amount not to exceed
$136,041.26 for wood utility poles and cross arms, as required for the period July 1, 1999,
through June 30, 2000, with three one-year optional renewals, and authorizing the Purchasing
Agent to exercise the renewal option, in accordance with Bid #5924.
A13. 160: Accepting the low bid of A.L.S., in an amount not to exceed $153,237 for the lighting
enhancement project at the Hilton Hotel parking structure, in accordance with Bid #5923.
A14. 160: Ac cepting the low bid of Artistic Maintenance, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $320,000
for a tree planting project, as required, for a period of two years beginning May 19, 1999, through
May 19, 2001, in accordance with Bid #5910.
A15. 160: Waiving Coun cil Policy 306, and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase
order to Nationwide Papers, in an amount not to exceed $120,000 for stock paper, for a period of
two years, beginning July 1, 1999, through June 30, 2001.
A16. 160: Waiving Council Policy 306, and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase
order to Motorola, Inc., in the amount of $162,469.34 for supplying the City with thirty-six 800-
MHz digital portable radios and associated equipment, for the Fire Department.
A17. 123 : Approving the Banking Services Agreement between the City of Anaheim and Bank of
America N.T. & S.A. for the term of July 1, 1999, through June 30, 2004.
A18. 117: RESOLUTION NO. 99R- 96 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM (I) designating depositories for certain City funds; (ii) authorizing the City
Treasurer to establish accounts with said depositories and deposit public funds of the City
therein; (iii) authorizing warrants, demands, drafts and checks to be drawn against any accounts
established with said depositories on behalf of the City; and (iv) authorizing the City Treasurer to
open accounts with financial institutions and corporations for the purchase and sale of various
securities and money market instruments.
A19. 140: Authorizing the Community Services Department to accept a grant for California State
Library’s Literacy Initiatives program monies, in the amount of $1,000 from the State Library; and
increasing the Community Services Department’s Library Services Division budget for both
revenue and expenditure in Fund 217 in the amount of $1,000 for FY 1999/2000.
A20. 140: Authorizing the Community Services Department to accept an augmentation to the Public
Library fund grant in the amount of $185,168 from the California State Library for the Fiscal Year
8
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
MAY 18, 1999
1998/99; and increasing the Community Services Department’s Library Services Division budget
for both revenue and expenditure in Fund 217 in the amount of $185,168 for FY1998 /99.
A21. 161: To consider approving the Disposition and Development Agreement by and among the
City, Agency and Summit Commercial Properties, Inc.; authorizing the City Manager and the
Executive Director of the Redevelopment Agency to execute said document and all other
necessary implementing documents, including a Parking License Agreement; and (2) approving
the concept drawings and materials for the Summit Commercial Properties, Inc., building,
excepting monument signage and public art. (Continued from the meeting of May 11, 1999,
Item A11.)
City Manager Ruth. This item will be continued to the next regular Council meeting, June 8, 1999,
consistent with the action taken under Redevelopment Agency item 1.
A22. 181: Approving the Anaheim Colony Historic District Preservation Plan.
Mayor Daly. He knows many citizens of the Anaheim Colony Historic District spent a lot of time and
effort compiling the research which is the backdrop of the creation of the Historic District. On behalf of
the Council, he thanked all the citizens who spent time on the Plan and also thanked City staff for
compiling/packaging all the information and presenting it to the Council. This is an exciting occasion for
the City to recognize Anaheim’s genuine roots going back to the 1850’s by designating the Anaheim
Colony Historic District and adopting a preservation plan for that district. He acknowledged Mickey
and Mitch Caldwell, long-time residents of the Anaheim Historic District (who were present in the
Chamber audience) who spent hundreds of hours making this all happen.
A23. 182: Approving the Private Industry Council Welfare-to-Work 1999 Plan modification as
required by the State of California to incorporate new funding for 1999; and authorized the City
Manager to execute the modification in accordance with Resolution No. 98R-69.
A24. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 99R-97 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM amending Resolutions No. 92R-18, 92R-20, and 92R-21 which established
rates of compensation for classifications designated as Professional, Supervisory and Middle
Management. (Planning Department and Building Division.)
A25. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 99R- 98 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM approving a Letter of Understanding between the Anaheim Municipal Employees
Association, General Employees, and the City of Anaheim. (Planning Department – Amending
Article 17 and Appendix “A” Wages, covering the period of October 4, 1996 through September
28, 2000.)
153: RESOLUTION NO. 99R- 99 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM approving a Letter of Understanding between the Anaheim Municial Employee
Association, Clerical Employees, and the City of Anaheim. (Planning Department – Amending
Article 17 and Appendix “A” Wages, covering the period of October 4, 1996, through September
28, 2000.)
A26. 153: Authorizing the Human Resources Director to execute the Hold Harmless Agreement which
will enable CIGNA to close the bank account for the self funded medical plans (through the
Connecticut General Life Insurance Company.)
A27. 123: Approving an Agreement with Money Control, Inc., a California Corporation, for services to
collect delinquent closing bills for the Public Utilities Department; and authorizing the Public
Utilities General Manager to implement said Agreement.
9
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
MAY 18, 1999
A28. 114: Approving minutes of the Anaheim City Council meeting held April 27, 1999.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 99R-95 through 99R-99, 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-95 through 99R-99, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted.
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR. MOTIONS CARRIED.
AMENDMENT TO SECTION 1.04.997 OF CHAPTER 1.04, TITLE 1 OF THE ANAHEIM
A29. 105:
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE BUDGET ADVISORY COMMISSION
:
To consider the adoption of an ordinance of the City of Anaheim amending Section 1.04.997 of
Chapter 1.04 of Title 1 of the Anaheim Municipal Code reducing the number of Budget Advisory
Commissioners to five and reducing the number of meetings held yearly to a minimum of four.
Mayor Daly. He surmises with the offering of the proposed ordinance for first reading, the appointment
to the Budget Advisory Commission becomes moot ; City Attorney White. The appointment should be
continued to the next meeting and at that time, if the ordinance is adopted it would become moot and
can be removed from the agenda.
Mayor Daly offered Ordinance No. 5686 for First Reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 5686 : (INTRODUTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION 1.04.997 OF CHAPTER 1.04 OF TITLE 1 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE BUDGET ADVISORY
COMMISSION.
APPOINTMENT TO THE BUDGET ADVISORY COMMISSION:
Appointment to the Budget Advisory Commission to fill the unexpected vacancy of Cindy Floriani
(term expires 6/30/2000). (Continued from the meetings of February 9, 1999, Item A12,
February 23, 1999, Item A25,
March 16, 1999, Item A25, April 27, 1999, Item A47, May 4, 1999, Item A16, and May 11, 1999,
Item A15.)
MOTION. Mayor Daly moved to continue the appointment to the Budget Advisory Commission to June
8, 1999. Council Member Kring seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
APPOINTMENT TO THE COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD:
A30. 105:
Appointment to the Community Services Commission to fill the unexpected vacancy of Romero
(term expires 6/30/2002). (Continued from the meetings of April 27, 1999, Item A48, May 4,
1999, Item A17, and May 11, 1999, Item A16.
Mayor Daly. There was a tie vote on those nominated at the last meeting and it was determined, after
two votes, to continue the matter to this meeting. He again opened nominations.
Council Member Kring nominated Jack Holmes; Council Member McCracken nominated Larry Hirschel.
10
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
MAY 18, 1999
MOTION. On motion by Mayor Daly seconded by Council Member Kring, nominations were closed.
MOTION CARRIED.
A vote was then taken on the nominees in the order in which they were nominated.
Jack Holmes - Ayes: Kring, Tait. Noes: McCracken . Abstained: Feldhaus, Daly.
Larry Hirschel - Ayes: Tait, McCracken, Daly. Noes: Kring . Abstained: Feldhaus
Both Council Members Kring and Feldhaus changed their votes to yes votes. Mr. Hirschel was
thereupon unanimously appointed to the Community Services Board for the term ending June 30, 2002.
ALTERNATE REPRESENTATIVES FOR SCAG/ OCCOG
A31. 148: :
Designating a member or members of the City Council to serve as alternate representative for
Southern California Association of Governments ( SCAG) and the Orange County Council of
Governments ( OCCOG).
Mayor Daly. The Council appointed Council Member McCracken to represent Anaheim on both of the
organizations and now it is necessary to appoint alternate representatives. He is interested in serving as
alternate to SCAG particularly because of the El Toro Airport issue and he is going to suggest that they
ask Council Member Kring if she would like to be the alternate to OCCOG. When the matter was
discussed, Council Member Kring had expressed interest in becoming involved.
Council Member Kring . Her interest was in SCAG and it was determined the Council would look at the
issue again in 12 months; however, she is willing to be the alternate on OCCOG.
MOTION. Council Member Feldhaus moved to appoint Mayor Daly as the alternate representative on
SCAG and Council Member Kring the alternate representative on OCCOG. Council Member McCracken
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
APPOINTMENT TO BOARD OF DIRECTORS – SANTIAGO GEOLOGIC HAZARD
A32.
ABATEMENT DISTRICT :
Amending Resolution No. 99R-50 to appoint a Board Member to the Board
of Directors for the Santiago Geologic Hazard Abatement District.
Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 99R-100 for adoption amending Resolution No. 99R-50 and
appointing Jeff Turner as a Board Member to the Board of Directors for the Santiago Geologic Hazard
Abatement District. Refer to Resolution Book.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 99R-100, for adoption:
AYES: MAYOR/CO UNCIL MEMBERS : Feldhaus, Kring, Tait, McCracken, Daly
NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : None
ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 99R-100, duly passed and adopted.
ITEMS B1 – B6 FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF
11
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
MAY 18, 1999
APRIL 26, 1999 - INFORMATION ONLY
APPEAL PERIOD ENDS MAY 18, 1999:
CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
B1. 134:
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 362 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 98-99-10
WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4096
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 98-234 SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 99-01
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF 2a, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f and 2g
OWNER:
City of Anaheim (Redevelopment Agency), 201 South Anaheim Boulevard, 10th floor,
Anaheim, CA 92805
County of Orange, Attn: Real Property Manager, PFRD Real Property, 300 North Flower Street ,
CA 92703
AGENT:
Culbertson, Adams & Associates, Attn: Kevin Canning, 85 Argonaut, Suite 220, Aliso
Viejo, CA 92656
LOCATION: 8200 East La Palma Avenue.
Property is 16.27 acres located at the northwest
corner of La Palma Avenue and Yorba Linda Boulevard.
General Plan Amendment No. 362
- to amend the Land Use Element of the City of Anaheim
General Plan to redesignate this property from the Hillside Low-Medium Density Residential and
General Commercial land use designations to the Commercial Professional land use
designation.
Reclassification No. 98-99-10
- to reclassify this property from the RS-A-43 ,000(SC)
(Residential/Agricultural; Scenic Corridor Overlay) and the CL(SC) (Commercial, Limited; Scenic
Corridor Overlay) Zones to the CO(SC) (Commercial, Office and Professional; Scenic Corridor
Overlay) Zone.
Conditional Use Permit No. 4096
- to permit a planned commercial office/light industrial center,
including a semi-enclosed restaurant with sales of alcoholic beverages for on-premises
consumption, with roof-mounted equipment and building heights in excess of 35 feet with
waivers of (a) minimum parking lot landscaping – APPROVED, (b) permitted type of commercial
identification sign – DENIED, (c) maximum area of commercial identification signs – DENIED,
(d) minimum site area per lot – APPROVED, and (e) maximum structural height adjacent to a
single-family residential zone - DENIED.
Tentative Parcel Map No. 98-234
- to permit an 11-lot (including one lot for landscaping)
subdivision for the development of a commercial office/light industrial complex.
Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 99-01
- to remove specimen Eucalyptus trees from this
property with replacement at a ratio of two trees for every one tree removed.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Recommended adoption of GPA NO. 362 (Exhibit A) to City Council
( PC99-67) (5 yes votes, 1 abstained, and 1 vacancy).
Reclassification No. 98-99-10 GRANTED ( PC99-68).
CUP NO. 4096 GRANTED, IN PART, approving waivers (a) and (d), and denying waivers (b),
(c), and (e) ( PC99-69).
Waiver of code requirement APPROVED, IN PART.
Tentative Parcel Map No. 98-234 APPROVED.
Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 99-01 APPROVED.
Approved request for City Council review of this project.
Approved Mitigated Negative Declaration.
A Public Hearing was previously set on this matter and is taking place today – see Item D5.
WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
B2. 179:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4111, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER:
Paul Phipps and Vicki Phipps, 8049 Canna Circle, Buena Park, CA 90620
12
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
MAY 18, 1999
AGENT:
Kay Lez - Pacific Rim Architect, 5871 Beach Boulevard, Buena Park, CA 90621
LOCATION: 2780 West Lincoln Avenue.
Property is 0.51 acre located on the south side of
Lincoln Avenue.
To permit a Buddhist Temple and caretaker’s residence within two existing structures formerly
used for residential and commercial use with waiver of a) minimum number of parking spaces
and b) minimum setback of institutional uses adjacent to a residential zone.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 4111 GRANTED, IN PART, for five years, to expire 4/26/2004
( PC99-70) (6 yes votes, 1 vacancy).
Approved Negative Declaration.
VARIANCE NO. 4357 CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT-CLASS 11:
B3. 179: ,
OWNER:
Bob Pickard, 451 Brad Road, Oakland, Oregon 97462
AGENT:
Paul Bostwick, 200 West Midway Drive, Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION: 200 West Midway Drive - Anaheim Resort R.V. Park. Property is 6.65 acres
located on the south side of Midway Drive, 400 feet west of the centerline of Anaheim
Boulevard.
Waiver of maximum number and size of wall signs to permit two 64-square foot each wall signs
in conjunction with an existing recreational vehicle park.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
VARIANCE NO. 4357 GRANTED ( PC99-71) (5 yes votes, 1 abstained, and
1 vacancy).
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ITEMS:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4095 - REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF
B4. 179:
FINAL PLANS, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION :
Form Guild Inc., 34102 Violet Lantern, Dana
Point, CA 92629, requests review of final landscaping and signage plans. Property is located at
2144 South Harbor Boulevard.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved final plans for CUP NO. 4095.
Negative Declaration previously appro ved.
REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION INITIATION OF GENERAL PLAN
B5. 134:
AMENDMENT NO. 364 AND AMENDMENT
NO. 3 TO THE ANAHEIM RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 92-2:
City-initiated (Planning Department), 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805,
request initiation of applications for General Plan Amendment No. 364 and Amendment No. 3 to
the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 to reclassify approximately 0.73 acres (4 parcels)
from the RM-1200 Zone to the SP92-2 Zone. Property is located at 1175-1193 Casa Grande
Avenue.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Initiated GPA 364 and Amendment 3 to Specific Plan No. 92-2 ( PC99-66).
CEQA EXEMPTION SECTION 15268(b)(1)
B6. 155:
REQUEST FOR SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE SYCAMORE CANYON
SPECIFIC PLAN ( SP88-1) DESIGN GUIDELINES :
Mark Frank, 701 Lakme Avenue,
Wilmington, CA 90744, requests review and approval of vinyl awnings within the Sycamore
13
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
MAY 18, 1999
Canyon Plaza. Property is located at 701 South Weir Canyon Road (Blockbuster Video) and
further located with the Sycamore Canyon Specific Plan ( SP88-1), Development Area 2
(Commercial).
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Determined to be in conformance with the Sycamore Canyon Specific Plan Design Guidelines.
END OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS FROM APRIL 26, 1999.
ITEMS B7 – B13 FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF
MAY 10, 1999 - INFORMATION ONLY
APPEAL PERIOD ENDS JUNE 1, 1999 - ITEM B12 HAS A 10-DAY APPEAL PERIOD WHICH
EXPIRES MAY 20, 1999:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2231,
B7. 179:
CATEGORICALLY EXEMPTION-CLASS 21:
INITIATED:
City-initiated (Code Enforcement Division and Police Department), 200 South
Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805
OWNER:
American SK Trading Company, Inc., 831 South Beach Boulevard, Anaheim, CA
92804
LOCATION: 831 South Beach Boulevard - Rainbow Inn. Property is 0.65 acre located on the
west side of Beach Boulevard, 830 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road.
City-initiated (Code Enforcement Division and Police Department) request to consider revocation
or modification of Conditional Use Permit No. 2231 which permits a 41-unit, 2-story motel.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Modified CUP NO. 2231 for six months – 11/8/99 ( PC99-72)
(6 yes votes, 1 vacancy).
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4117, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
B8. 179:
OWNER:
Clausen Enterprises, 2795 West Lincoln Avenue #F, Anaheim, CA 92801
AGENT:
George Hallock/ Hallock Coin Jewelry, 2060 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA
92805
.
LOCATION: 2060 West Lincoln Avenue - Hallock Coin Jewelry Property is 0.91 acre located at
the southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Empire Street.
To establish a pawn shop in conjunction with an existing jewelry/coin shop.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 4117 DENIED ( PC99-73) (6 yes votes, 1 vacancy).
Approved Negative Declaration.
(See discussion under Items of Public Interest where Mr. George Hallock broached this issue.)
City Clerk Sohl explained for Council Member Feldhaus that Mr. Hallock, the principal, intends to appeal
the decision of the Planning Commission on this item and subsequently to have a Public Hearing for the
Council to consider his appeal.
Council Member Tait requested a review of the Planning Commission’s decision and that the matter be
set for a Public Hearing.
Discussion followed wherein the City Attorney explained at the time the Council heard the Brookhurst
Overlay Zone matter (see minutes of April 6, 1999) , a CUP by Mr. Hallock was pending. He had filed an
application and asked that the overlay zone ordinance not be adopted until after his hearing before the
Planning Commission on May 10; however, the Council adopted the ordinance as presented without
exempting his use ( pawn shop) from the ordinance. At the Planning Commission Hearing of May 10,
14
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
MAY 18, 1999
1999, the Commission denied the CUP and made no recommendation that the Council change the
ordinance. That is what Mr. Hallock is seeking to appeal in bringing it back to the Council (1) to get a
CUP and (2) have the Council adopt an exemption.
Council Member Tait reiterated his request that the matter be set for a Public Hearing before the Council;
Council Member Kring concurred and, therefore, a Public Hearing will be set at a later date.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 15 AND 172 , AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
B9. 179:
OWNER:
George A. Cade and Rancho La Paz, Inc., Attn: Richter Farms, 777 Campus
Commons Rd. #200, Sacramento, CA 95825
AGENT:
Robert Edwards, 501 East Orangethorpe Ave., Anaheim, CA 92801
LOCATION: 501 East Orangethorpe Avenue – Rancho La Paz Mobile Home Park.
Property
is 24.77 acres located on the north side or Orangethorpe Avenue, 1,440 feet west of the
centerline of Raymond Avenue.
To amend conditions of approval pertaining to the relocation of the main entrance.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved amendment to conditions of approval for CUP NOS. 15 AND 172
( PC99-74) (6 yes votes, 1 vacancy).
Approved Negative Declaration.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4112, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
B10. 179:
OWNER:
Living Stream dba Anaheim Palms Corporate Center, 2431 West La Palma Avenue,
CA 92801
AGENT:
Larry A. Wilde, 1900 West Ball Road, Anaheim, CA 92804
LOCATION: 2411 West La Palma Avenue. Property is 27.9 acres located at the northwest
corner of La Palma Avenue and Gilbert Street.
To permit a private school within an existing industrial/office complex.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 4112 GRANTED ( PC99-75) (6 yes votes, 1 vacancy).
Approved Negative Declaration.
Review of the Planning Commission decision was requested by Council Member McCracken and Mayor
Daly and, therefore, a Public Hearing will be scheduled at a later date.
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 98-99- 12 , AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
B11. 179:
INITIATED BY:
City-initiated (Planning Department), 200 South Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA
92805
Parcel A
OWNER: - 220 North Beach Boulevard
Boas Family Partnership, 1800 Avenue of the Stars, Los Angeles, CA 90067
Parcel B
- 200 North Beach Boulevard
Metropolitan Insurance Company, 9950 Mayland Drive, #405, Richmond, VA 23233
Insurance Company, 2501 Pullman Street, Santa Ana, CA 92705
Parcel C
- 100 North Beach Boulevard
Tosco Corporation, P.O. Box 52085, Phoenix, AZ 85072
LOCATION: 100, 200, and 220 North Beach Boulevard. Property is 4.46 acres located at the
northeast corner of Beach Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue.
To reclassify subject property from the CH (Commercial, Heavy) Zone to the CL (Commercial,
Limited) Zone.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Reclassification No. 98-99-12 GRANTED, UNCONDITIONALLY, ( PC99-76)
(6 yes votes, 1 vacancy).
Approved Negative Declaration.
15
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
MAY 18, 1999
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 96-132 - REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME, AND
B12. 179:
CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 15:
Vista Del Sol L.L.C., Attn: Reza Dadashi, 856 North Commerce Street, Orange, CA 92667,
requests an extension of time to comply with conditions of approval to establish a 3-lot single-
family subdivision for custom homes. This petition was originally approved on July 22, 1996.
Property is located at Vista Del Sol, east of Country Hills Road.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved extension of time for Tentative Parcel Map No. 96-132, to expire July 22, 1999.
NOTE: APPEAL PERIOD EXPIRES MAY 20, 1999.
CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 3
B13. 179:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 15 AND 172 - REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF
SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE :
Robert Edwards, 501 East Orangethorpe Avenue, Anaheim,
CA 92801, requests a determination of substantial conformance to locate a new office trailer in
an existing mobile home park. Property is located at 501 East Orangethorpe Avenue (Rancho
La Paz Mobilehome Park).
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NOS. 15 and 172 determined to be in substantial conformance.
ITEMS B14 – B16 FROM THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MEETING OF
MAY 6, 1999 - DECISION DATE: MAY 13, 1999
INFORMATION ONLY - APPEAL PERIOD ENDS MAY 28, 1999:
ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 161
B14. 179:
CEQA EXEMPT {SECTION 15061 (b) (3)}:
OWNER: George and Carole Geronsin, 321 S. Old Bridge Road, Anaheim, CA 92808
LOCATION: 321 South Old Bridge Road. Property is .055 acre having a frontage of
approximately 116 feet on the west side of Old Bridge Road, and a maximum depth of 246 feet,
and is located 920 feet north of the centerline of Stone Creek Lane.
Waiver of minimum side yard setback to permit and retain an existing patio cover on an RS-HS-
22 ,000(SC) zone property.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
Administrative Adjustment No. 161 APPROVED ( ZA DECISION NO. 99-15).
ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 162 CEQA EXEMPT {115063 (b)(3)}:
B15. 179:
OWNER: Rancho La Paz, Inc., Attn : Richter Farms, 777 Campus Commons Road, #200,
Sacramento, CA 95825
AGENT: Robert Edwards, 501 e. Orangethorpe Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801
LOCATION: 501 East Orangethorpe Avenue. Property is 24.77 acres having a frontage of
approximately 595 feet on the north side of Orangethorpe Avenue and a maximum depth of
1,270 feet located 1,440 feet west of the centerline of Raymond Avenue.
Waiver of maximum fence height to install an 8 foot high chain link fence with slats within 10
feet of the front property line adjacent to a major arterial in conjunction with an existing mobile
home park.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
Administrative Adjustment No. 162 APPROVED ( ZA DECISION NO. 99-16).
ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 163
B16. 179:
CEQA EXEMPT {SECTION 15061 (b) (3)}:
OWNER: 1610 E. Ball Road Partnership, 1610 E. Ball Road, Anaheim, CA 92805
AGENT: Jakel Contracting Company, Attn : Terry Jakel, 750 North Batavia, Suite B, Orange,
CA 92868
16
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
MAY 18, 1999
LOCATION: 1610 East Ball Road. Property is 0.69 acre located at the southwest corner of Ball
Road and Sherman Street.
Waiver of maximum fence height to construct 6’8” high wrought iron fence with block wall
columns within 5 feet of a front property line adjacent to a local street in conjunction with an
existing manufacturing and warehouse facility.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
Administrative Adjustment No. 163 APPROVED ( ZA DECISION NO. 99-17).
END OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ITEMS.
ORDINANCE FOR ADOPTION:
B17. ORDINANCE NO. 5682 (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM adding
Subsection .030 Section 18.03.070 of Chapter 18.03 of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code
relating to zoning – Report and Recommendation Items. (Introduced at the meeting of May 4,
1999, Item B9. Reintroduced at the meeting of May 11, 1999, Item B6.)
City Attorney White, in answer to the Mayor, gave an overview of the provisions of the proposed
ordinance at the conclusion of which, Mayor Daly offered the ordinance for adoption.
ORDINANCE NO. 5682 (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ADDING SUBSECTION .030 TO SECTION 18.03.070 OF CHAPTER
18.03 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
ZONING – REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ITEMS.
Before further action was taken, Council Member Tait posed questions relative to the provisions of the
ordinance answered by City Attorney White. He explained now they can only enforce violations of
conditions of Conditional Use Permits by setting a Public Hearing, bringing the applicant back, and
subsequently modifying or revoking the CUP. This would avoid having a Public Hearing before the
Planning Commission or City Council to revoke or modify the permit but simply give the ability to file
either a misdemeanor or infraction violation similar to if that condition were actually an ordinance. The
reason staff recommended this, staff was desirous of using it in some of the motel problem areas where,
currently, they go through a lengthy process of bringing in the owners which then takes several months to
bring them in compliance. This would be a more expeditious procedure to get their compliance and bring
the motels up to code in accordance with the conditions of the current CUPs; Council Member Tait then
asked that a vote be continued to the next meeting.
City Attorney White emphasized he wanted to make it clear that the language he just explained was
taken out of the ordinance and is not included. It was deleted last week because the Council asked for a
continuance; Council Member Kring noted that the Chamber had a problem with the provision(s)
proposed.
Mayor Daly. He is concerned that just because the Chamber sends a letter that language drops out of a
proposed ordinance. He would like to see the stronger, tougher language so they can regulate roadside
motels on Beach Boulevard and Brookhurst which was the original staff recommendation. He has not
seen the Chamber letter.
17
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
MAY 18, 1999
City Attorney White again briefed what occurred at the previous meeting (see minutes of May 11, 1999 )
wherein he indicated the Council would be better off to take that provision out of the ordinance until they
decided whether they wanted to adopt the first ordinance at which time staff would insert that provision
again. He did not want to have a reference in the code to a non-existent code section.
Mayor Daly asked if the ordinance is adopted, what happens to the original staff proposal; Mr. White
answered it will be coming back on June 8, 1999 and if adopted at that time, the language will go back
in; Council Member Tait withdrew his request for a continuance.
A vote was then taken on adoption of Ordinance 5682.
Roll Call Vote on Ordinance No. 5682 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. 5682 duly passed and adopted.
B18. ORDINANCE NO. 5685 __ (ADOPTION ) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
Approving Specific Plan Adjustment No. 1 to Anaheim Resort Specific Plan 92-2, Amending
Ordinance No. 5453, and amending subsection 18.48.070.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
(Introduced at the meeting of May 11, 1999, Item B9.)
Mayor Daly offered Ordinance No. 5685 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 5685 (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING SPECIFIC PLAN ADJUSTMENT NO. 1 TO ANAHEIM
RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN 92-2, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 5453, AND
AMENDING SUBSECTION 18.48.070.090 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE.
Roll Call Vote on Ordinance No. 5685 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. 5685 duly passed and adopted.
A-TAXICAB COMPANY’S REQUEST TO ADD ADDITIONAL TAXICABS AND SOUTH COAST
C1.
CAB COMPANY’S REQUEST FOR A PERMIT TO OPERATE A TAXI SERVICE:
Submitted was report dated May 12, 1999 from the Planning Department/Code Enforcement Division
relative to the subject requests recommending the following :
18
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
MAY 18, 1999
(1) Denying A-Taxicab Company’s request to add additional taxicabs and denying South Coast
Cab Company’s request for a permit to operate taxi service.
(2) Directing staff to prepare an ordinance to impose a moratorium on the issuance of taxi
permits until such time as the recommendations of the ad hoc committee are received and
considered by the City Council.
(3) Directing staff to solicit interest from the community related to the establishment and
formation of a five to seven member ad hoc committee with representatives from stakeholders in
the community such as the Greater Anaheim Chamber of Commerce, the Anaheim/Orange
County Visitor and Convention Bureau, Orange County Taxi Administration, hotel/motel
operators, restaurants, hospitals, and/or residents. The committee would review the City’s
current and future taxi service needs, determine a recommended method to establish priority for
choosing the next company( ies) to receive permits as needed, and report findings and
recommendations to the City Council prior to granting any additional permits beyond those being
considered at this meeting.
Mayor Daly, the City Code requires a hearing on such issues and the proceedings tonight will be
conducted as a hearing; City Attorney White then clarified for the Mayor that the applicants or their
representatives be allowed to present their case but that any other speakers be limited to the established
three-minute time limit. The hearings on each should also be conducted separately.
(The proceedings are summarized – see verbatim transcript of the entire hearing – made a part of the
record. Also see extensive data submitted for the hearing including reports, letters, surveys, etc.
included as part of the record.)
A-TAXICAB COMPANY:
Mayor Daly asked to hear from the applicant or representative for A-Taxicab Company.
Rick Schorling , General Manager – A-Taxicab Company. His company is one of the two providers of
taxi service in the City. Although he has been thrown into the controversy of how many cabs does
Anaheim need and who should be providing them, his request is not about that but about the connection
between John Wayne Airport and the City. They are the only operator at John Wayne Airport who can
bring passengers out of John Wayne Airport to anywhere. His request does not have anything to do with
bringing more cabs to Anaheim on a daily basis. It has to do with conventions and John Wayne Airport.
When their cabs from John Wayne come to Anaheim and drop passengers off, they cannot take a car-
load of passengers back (or anywhere) because they do not have a sticker. The airport contract that
they have now will not last forever. He emphasized, the connection between Anaheim and John Wayne
Airport is what he is talking about. Whoever has the contract, Anaheim needs to investigate how deep
that connection is and how much of a benefit it is to the hotels, Disneyland, and all the people in
Anaheim to be able to have airport cabs pick up Anaheim passengers to take them wherever they want
to go, especially John Wayne Airport. That is his request.
Mr. Schorling subsequently answered a line of questions posed by Mayor Daly.
Mayor Daly then asked to hear from any others who wished to speak on the application of A-Taxi Cab to
operate an additional 58 cabs in Anaheim.
The following people spoke either in favor or in opposition and gave their reasons why; some gave
comments relative to staff’s recommendations:
Sirus Matazzati ( sp), General Manager , AM/PM Taxi, 1220 E. Firestone, Norwalk. Approving additional
permits or new cab companies without first studying the situation is inappropriate.
Chad Morgan, 1458 LaRiata Drive, LaHabra . He is speaking in favor of both requests – that of A-
Taxicab and South Coast Cab Company.
19
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
MAY 18, 1999
James Benson, 905 S. Lemon, Apt. A, Anaheim – Taxi cab driver/independent contractor. Favors free
competition. Look at the screening process set up by the County. The proposed committee may be a
good approach. He would be willing to serve on that committee.
Todd Ament , President, Anaheim Chamber of Commerce – supports the process set forth by staff that
no additional permits for taxi service be awarded in the City until a study has been conducted on the
current and future need for additional permits and an equitable procedure has been developed for
determining who will receive these permits and a formula devised to insure appropriate, adequate levels
of service for citizens and visitors alike. The Chamber not only supports that approach but would also be
happy to allocate resources from the Chamber as well as volunteers from the community and members
of the Chamber to assist in this matter.
Larry Slagle, President, Yellow Cab Company of North Orange County, 1619 E. Lincoln, Anaheim (one
of the two providers of cab service in Anaheim). Yellow Cab supports the staff recommendation at this
time.
At the conclusion of public input, there was additional discussion and additional questions posed to Mr.
Schorling by Mayor Daly and Council Members. Mayor Daly then closed the hearing on the application
of A-Taxicab Company to operate additional taxicabs in Anaheim.
SOUTH COAST CAB COMPANY:
Mayor Daly then opened the hearing on the request of South Coast Cab Company for a taxicab
operating permit for 117 vehicles, with twenty-nine vehicles to commence service immediately.
Jack Armstrong, Jack Armstrong & Associates, 8468 Neptune Drive, Buena Park, CA. The Council has
three decisions to make: (1) does Anaheim need additional cabs, (2) if so, how many, (3) if it needs
more cabs and if the Council can decide how many, who would get the stickers. He then gave an
overview of the situation since staff began looking at the problem 2 ½ years ago (Code Enforcement
activities, surveys done, OCTAP survey, etc.) He emphasized that Anaheim needs a lot more cabs on
the street today – trained, courteous drivers in nice vehicles. South Coast Cab wants to provide that
service and has proven need for at least 117 new licenses, or 71% of the 165 cabs that now exist. There
are not enough licensed cabs in Anaheim.
City Attorney White. He announced if there are speakers, who have spoken on the previous application,
it is not necessary for them to reiterate all their comments. Their prior comments will be incorporated
and will be reflected in the record.
Savaas Roditis , Owner, South Coast Cab Company, 10700 W. Katella Ave., Anaheim. He is present to
support his application. His presentation covered his background during which he explained he came to
the United States to pursue the American Dream and he did so by starting his taxi cab business. He
noted the many cities that have more than two or three cab companies and many cabs. He questioned
why not the same for Anaheim, a City which has many tourists. He urged them to do the right thing and
let the American Dream come true.
The following people then spoke either in favor, in opposition, gave comments or additional input:
Linda Lee Grau , 24 Morning Dove, Irvine CA 92604. She urged that they give Mr. Roditis his 100 cabs.
She submitted a petition signed by people supporting the request of South Coast Cab Company – made
a part of the record.
Ray Torres, 5987 E. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim. (He first rebutted statements made by Ms. Grau in her
presentation.) The City has to look at an efficient way to let cabs into the City. The staff
recommendation is a good one. They need to consider five to seven individuals, stakeholders of the
Anaheim community to look at what the real need is going to be, not today, but in the future. It should be
done systematically.
20
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
MAY 18, 1999
Chad Morgan, 1458 LaRiata Drive, LaHabra . ( O.C . Director of Americans for Freedom). Do not waste
taxpayers money on another study. Use the free market.
Todd Ament , President, Chamber of Commerce. He offers his previous comments but also that over the
past year, they surveyed their members as to their needs. A large majority of the members come from
the hotel and restaurant industry. The issue (taxi service) has not been addressed as a large need;
however, the Chamber would like to have an opportunity to go back and survey the members again and
come back and make a recommendation to Council based on their findings.
Larry Slagle , President, Yellow Cab Company of Orange County. He addressed the issue of a cab
company having to respond not only to calls in the Resort Area but also the requirement to operate
seven days a week, 24 hrs. a day and respond to calls at Imperial Highway and Santa Ana Canyon Road
or wherever they might be in the City. He is speaking against the subject request because South Coast
has had a history of violating the City ordinance which is another reason why he feels they should go
through a process, perhaps an RFP process in providing additional service for the residents of Anaheim.
Robert McQueen, Coast Yellow Cab, 11611 Westminster Avenue, Garden Grove. Favored staff’s
position. It is time for a good study and survey to determine the best way to apply licensing for new taxi
cabs in Anaheim. They are currently licensed to operate in every City in the County except Anaheim.
Mary Ann Cazell, Attorney, South Coast Cab Company, 4341 E. Chapman, Orange, CA 92869. The
issue is South Coast Cabs request for a permit to operate in Anaheim. There have been at least two
informal surveys done by staff and one good survey done by South Coast Cab. The result shows there is
a need for 71% more cabs. She then recounted what occurred at the previous hearings on the subject,
surveys that had been done, etc. They do not need any more work done. Setting up an ad hoc
committee per staff’s recommendation would choke in its own red tape. They do not need any more
committees, studies or surveys but more cabs in Anaheim right now.
Mayor Daly. He announced that the public input is now concluded on South Coast Cab Company.
An extensive line of questioning by Mayor Daly and Council Members followed during which the Code
Enforcement Manager and the City Attorney clarified a number of issues revolving around the phasing
plan submitted by South Coast Cab Company, taxi cab drivers being independent contractors and how
that process works, OCTAP requirements, criteria/basis for recommending denial in both cases, number
of complaints (Code Enforcement reported receiving only two complaints relating to lack of or
inadequacy in taxi cab service in the last six months), where burden of proof of need and necessity lies
(on cab companies) and how it is possible for the companies to do so, time frame for ad hoc committee
to be in place (possibly 90 days), experience in other cities (how many companies/cabs), findings that
need to be made in order to grant requests for new permits/additional service, etc.
Relative to the findings needed to be made, City Attorney White explained, the provisions in the AMC for
the findings that must be made based upon evidence in the record for the approval of new taxi cab
permits are three fold: (1) All drivers have to have valid OCTAP (Orange County Taxi Administration
Program) permits. (2) Color of the vehicles – name, monogram or insignia must not be in conflict with
any other name currently being operated by a taxi service in the City. (3) Council must find that the
public convenience and necessity require the operation of applicant’s taxi cab business in the City and
applicant has sufficient number of vehicles to adequately service the entire City. Those apply to the
South Coast Cab application -- a new company that doesn’t currently have a permit.
For a company that has an existing permit, in this case, A-Taxicab Company, in order to grant an
increase taxi permits, the Council must make two findings: (1) That the permit holder have an OCTAP
permit for each vehicle. (2) Additional vehicles are necessary in order for the permit holder to
adequately service the entire City. It requires the City to determine if adequate.
Council Member Tait asked if the burden was met and there is a need, does the code state how they
determine which applicant gets those permits; City Attorney White answered, no since the code does not
currently have such a mechanism.
21
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
MAY 18, 1999
Council Member Tait then asked, in order to reach a fair and equitable solution on how to give out these
additional permits, would it be accurate to say that they need to change the ordinance and that is what
staff is looking for in the recommendation; John Poole , Code Enforcement Manager answered, that is
accurate. For years, they did not have a second gate at the resort. As they look at the Code, they could
say that changes need to be made.
Mayor Daly asked if the Council were to authorize more permits soon, either this evening or soon, is
there anything in that process that would prevent the Council concurrently after awarding more permits to
operate from setting certain standards for operation, i.e., age of the vehicles , training of drivers, etc.,
any standard staff could dream up that would improve the quality and accountability of taxi service in
Anaheim (awarding more permits and then having the new standards in effect); City Attorney White
answered the Council could do it either way.
Mayor Daly. It is that approach he recommends they take. He feels the two companies have shown
good faith and a reasonable approach to Anaheim’s system – where the burden is entirely on the
applicant to prove the need. The two firms applying to serve Anaheim should be given their permits to
serve and at the same time they should take steps quickly to raise the standards of service in Anaheim.
He is in favor of more permits, more competition and higher standards. He is not suggesting they adopt
new standards this evening, but that they grant more permits and work toward a system of higher
standards.
Council Member McCracken . Two separate issues are involved. One company is asking for additional
permits but not to service the entire City (A-Taxicab). That is not the City’s policy or ordinance.
Additional cabs or new cabs have to commit to servicing the whole City. A-Taxicab wants to bring
passengers to the Resort Area and then be able to take passengers anywhere from there and that will
have to be dealt with. She then expressed her concerns if the City is opened up to more companies; she
feels there are concerns and issues that haven’t been addressed. She is also not convinced there is a
need. The Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) is down by one million dollars as is Convention Center
business. They need to develop a plan on how they deal with both issues. She clarified for the Mayor
that she does not believe the applications fit the City’s ordinance.
City Attorney White. The purpose for tonight’s hearing is to make the findings and determination as to
whether or not 29 cabs initially is adequate to serve the City. It is a finding of fact for the Council to
make; Mr. Poole clarified that at past hearings there was quite a bit of discussion that a start-up company
could adequately service the entire City beginning with 30 cabs. Thirty should be dedicated just to the
City. There are currently 165 cabs in the City.
Council Member Kring . She agrees with Council Member McCracken. She is very much for open
competition but in this case it is a concern. Conventions are down and many roads are under
construction. She favors the staff recommendation of an ad hoc committee and feels that an economist
should be included in the committee as well to assist in determining how many cabs will be needed in the
future. Too many cabs in the marketplace that cannot be supported will result in activity that would not
be positive for the City. There are also other issues – are the cabs just going to stay in the Resort Area
and not in the west end or east end of the City. In 2000 and 2001 she believes there will be more need
but she does not want to see everybody coming into the City knowing of the major problems experienced
in other cities such as San Francisco and Seattle. She agrees with the Mayor that they need to bring up
the standard of the cabs for both tourists and residents alike.
Council Member Feldhaus . He is going to make a motion to approve the request of South Coast Cab
Company to operate in the City starting with at least 30 cabs with the knowledge and understanding Mr.
Roditis will have to show his capability to comply with whatever rules and regulations the ad hoc
committee sets up in about 90 days. Perhaps in another year the City may be in a better position to
have more cabs. At some point, the ad hoc committee will be coming back to the Council with the
recommended number of cabs.
22
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
MAY 18, 1999
MOTION. Council Member Feldhaus moved to approve South Coast Cab Company’s request for a
permit to operate a taxi service in the City of Anaheim and authorizing 30 cabs at this time. Mayor Daly
seconded the motion.
Before further action was taken, Council Member Tait stated he respectfully disagrees with the motion.
He is for competition and higher standards but to him it doesn’t make any sense to grant the permit and
then ask for higher standards. Staff’s recommendation has a chance to get the City to a fair and
equitable process. That is the reason they heard Coast Cab agree with staff’s recommendation and that
is a company that is not in Anaheim. AM/PM would also like to see a fair and equitable process. He
believes staff’s recommendation is an attempt to get them there, to change the ordinance and come up
with a franchise system or an RFP system. Staff says there is no need for additional service at the
present time.
City Attorney White. He assumes the motion incorporates the three required findings as previously
outlined. (See the foregoing three findings necessary for new taxi cab service previously articulated by
the City Attorney.); Council Member Feldhaus incorporated those findings in his motion.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion which failed to carry by the following vote : Ayes:
Feldhaus, Daly. Noes: Kring, Tait, McCracken .
City Attorney White. There should now be a motion to deny the application with the findings that one or
more of the findings required have not been met and to state which one.
MOTION. Council Member Tait moved to deny South Coast Cab Company’s request for a permit to
operate a taxi service in the City of Anaheim with the finding that there is no need and necessity for such
additional service at this time. Council Member McCracken seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Daly stated he is speaking against the motion. South Coast Cab
Company has submitted materials to City government for three years, they have been allowed to operate
in other communities and have earned the right to have an opportunity to operate in Anaheim.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion of denial which carried by the following vote : Ayes:
Kring, Tait, McCracken. Noes: Feldhaus , Daly.
Mayor Daly. Relative to A-Taxicab Company’s request to operate additional cabs in the City, he feels it
is a sad situation when a company picks up at John Wayne Airport and drops passengers off in Anaheim
but cannot take passengers from Anaheim back to the airport for the return trip. The same holds true for
Yellow Cab who can deliver but not pick up. They have a chance this evening to rectify that situation.
He thinks the right thing to do is to allow A-Taxicab the ability to add more permits in Anaheim. It is time
to “beef up” the overall level of service in Anaheim.
MOTION: Mayor Daly moved to approve the request from A-Taxicab to operate an additional 58 cabs in
Anaheim. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF SECOND.
MOTION. Council Member Kring moved to deny the request of A-Taxicab to operate an additional 58
cabs in Anaheim finding a failure of the permit holder to adequately service the entire City. Council
Member McCracken seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED by the following vote : Ayes: Kring, Tait,
McCracken. Noes: Feldhaus , Daly.
MOTION. Council Member Tait moved to approve staff’s recommendations, Items (1) and (2) above.
Council Member Kring seconded the motion and asked that an economist be added as a member of the
ad hoc committee.
23
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
MAY 18, 1999
Before a vote was taken, Council Member Kring explained at the request of the Mayor that she believes
an economist would bring in a different perspective. One was used a few years ago relative to the
expansion of the Convention Center. It will round out the committee; Mayor Daly questioned if she
wanted to use public funds to hire an economist.
Council Member Kring . Depending on the cost, perhaps they could ask for contributions from other
members of the ad hoc committee; City Attorney White stated they may run into conflict of interest
issues.
Council Member Kring asked that he check out the possibility.
Mayor Daly. He is speaking against the motion because he is not in favor of a moratorium. He also
strongly disagrees with the idea that they should put a limit on the amount of taxi service in Anaheim.
There are already plenty of standards in place. This is a convenient way of deferring a decision and he
believes it is wrong.
After additional Council discussion and questions posed to Mr. Poole, Council Member Tait stated he
sensed there is a problem with a moratorium, but he does not think it makes sense for a cab company to
apply during this process. If he (the Mayor) does not like a moratorium, he will take it out ; Mayor Daly.
He does not like the whole idea.
City Attorney White. Relative to the moratorium, the most that could be done tonight is to direct him to
prepare an ordinance to bring back for Council consideration at the next meeting. It would be a motion
to direct staff to prepare an ordinance that would propose a moratorium.
A vote was taken on the foregoing motion by Council Member Tait to approve staff recommendations (2)
and (3) and carried by the following vote : Ayes: Feldhaus, Kring, Tait, McCracken. Noes: Daly.
Later in the meeting (after a short recess), Mayor Daly asked for clarification if the ad hoc committee was
going to be appointed by Council or staff; Council Member Tait answered, staff.
Mayor Daly. That is one more reason why he disagrees.
RECESS: By general Council consent, the Council Meeting was recessed for five minutes (9:05).
AFTER RECESS : The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present (9:10).
PUBLIC HEARING - WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
D1.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4099, AND 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.
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).
24
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
MAY 18, 1999
Waiver of code requirement APPROVED, IN PART, approving waiver (a) in-part, and approving
waiver (b).
Approved Negative Declaration.
Informational item at the meeting of April 6, 1999, Item B13. Review of the Planning
Commission’s decision requested by Mayor Daly and Council Member McCracken.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in North County News : May 6, 1999
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet : May 6, 1999
Posting of property : May 7, 1999
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager briefed the staff report to the Planning Commission dated
March 29, 1999 which described the proposal.
Mayor Daly asked Mr. Hastings to summarize the Planning and Redevelopment staff’s rationale for
recommending against the project ; Greg Hastings. Staff felt strongly first it would be an intrusion of a
non-residential use into a residential neighborhood. In addition, there is a very high crime rate in the
area which they feel, along with the Police Department, will be a detriment. Thirdly, there will be the
introduction of new traffic into the neighborhood. He also clarified for Council Member Tait that their
concern is relative to the entire complex including the convenience store, liquor sales and the
laundromat.
Council Member Kring noted that there is already an existing liquor store. She asked the crime rate in
the area.
Sgt. Russ Sutter /Police Department. The current 1998 stats show the crime rate for the subject location
is 200% above; to the south, 179% above ; to the east, 2% above; to the west, 1,340% above and to the
north, 142% above.
Council Member Tait noted the Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposal. He asked
if they stated why ; Greg Hastings. The Commission felt because of the present condition of the property,
this project would improve the condition.
Mayor Daly opened the Public Hearing and first asked to hear from the Applicant or Applicant’s Agent.
Daniel Kang, Manager of the LaPaloma Market, on behalf of his father. This is a permit that has been
twice approved by the Planning Commission, January 9, 1995 and March 29, 1999. The current store is
over 50 years old and it needs a complete remodeling. They have owned and operated it for over 10
years. It is financially impossible for them to remodel and redo the whole business without having
additional income to meet the payments. When it was approved in 1995, the bank denied the loan but
this time the bank is approving the loan. They want to improve the site. He has pictures of what the
store looks like (which he submitted). It is an eyesore – run down, beat up, in need of improvement,
more parking spaces and landscaping. There was a lot of concern about the crime rate. They have
never been held up and have not had any problems except with people bouncing checks. The crime rate
is after their business hours late at night. Right behind the store is a commercial gasoline station and
adjoining the other side of the district is commercial. It is not introducing a commercial zone because it
is already existing. He reiterated, in order for them to improve the property, they need an additional
business which is the laundromat. He clarified that he is going to demolish the building – the existing
building will be gone completely (and a new one built).
Mayor Daly asked to hear from anyone else in favor of the project.
Linda Lee Grau , 24 Morning Dove, Irvine. She spoke in favor.
Mayor Daly then asked to hear from those in opposition.
25
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
MAY 18, 1999
Angelina Vena , 601 S. Olive, Anaheim right across the street. The store was started by her father in the
1940’s. She has already delivered a three-page letter to the Planning Commission advising of her
concerns about the traffic, vandalism and many other issues. A copy was also delivered to the Council
(made a part of the record). The residents are not against the demolition of the store and the
reconstruction of a brand new store. The reason it is an eyesore, there have not been any improvements
made over the years. What they are fighting against is the construction of the laundromat. They feel the
crime rate will continue. She then relayed some of the problems they experience every day – drug
dealing starting at 7:00 a.m., public urination, etc. The residents living in the neighborhood, most for
over 45 years, face the problems all the time. The owners are great owners and are good to the
community but it is the other pressing issues that are of concern. She then read a letter written by one of
her neighbors, Enrique Chavez, 601 S. Emily Street, who had to leave early which outlined many of the
problems/concerns in the area - - safety of the residents, especially children and seniors, non-stop
speeding by nearby businesses, vandalism, combining a liquor and laundromat use will result in littering
and loitering, etc. In closing, the letter urged the Council not to contribute to taking safety away from
their community. (She thereupon submitted the letter for the record.)
Mayor Daly asked if she ( Vena) was opposed to the sale of liquor ; Angelina Vena. She would like to say
that she is but feels it is too late. It was her father who originally applied to sell alcohol but they do not
want people drinking on the premises or loitering. She confirmed that she is against the proposal.
Connie Mendoza, 308 E. Elsworth , Anaheim for 50 years, across the alley from the project. It appears
that the applicant has no intention to mend his ways and run his store in accordance with code
enforcement laws. She relayed an incident involving the fence in the back of the property. She also
reported incidents of people drinking in front of the store without any interference from the owner.
Presently there are four convenience liquor stores in the area and one laundromat. The proposal will not
serve the neighborhood needs and, without security guards, it will contribute to the further deterioration
of the area.
Javier (last name ?) 301 E. Water, Anaheim. His wife works at Kwikset (around the corner). He relayed
an incident that happened three years ago where his wife was approached by one of the (male)
customers. It is not right to serve alcohol there because there is no concern for the residents.
Rebuttal by Applicant: Daniel Kang. When they acquired the property 10 years ago, it was in a worse
state than it is now. They did put up a chainlink fence. They made certain improvements, but it isn’t
enough. It takes a lot of money. Relative to traffic, the street exists inside a residential district. It is not
located on any major street. The only customers they have are on a first-name basis. The only other
customers are those working in the neighboring manufacturing area. Theirs is is already an existing
liquor store and market. It closes at 8:00 P.M. They don’t sell six-packs or 12-packs, but one can at a
time. They need the laundromat to get the loan for the whole project. They came up with that idea. The
crime rate has gone up in the area but he does not know why. They want to beautify the place and make
it better.
Council Member Kring asked what would happen if the CUP is denied; Joel Fick, Planning Director. The
staff report mentions existing conditions that are not in compliance with code. There are things even in
its non-conforming state that need to be cleaned up to comply with the non-conforming status.
Council Member Kring surmised the reason they were not fixing anything was because they are going to
demolish the building.
Mayor Daly. Staff mentioned this is a non-conforming use and that is a fundamental issue they need to
deal with. This is in the City’s General Plan for residential and he feels that is the underlying question
they need to address – should this use which has been there for decades be institutionalized now for
many more decades. It is surrounded on two sides by residential and the Redevelopment Area is to the
immediate north of the site.
26
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
MAY 18, 1999
Mayor Daly closed the Public Hearing.
Council Member Tait . If the project is denied, the existing liquor store remains in operation; however, the
City could require a new paint job, replanting of the existing planters and other things, but as far as
limiting liquor sales or requiring security guards, he believes they would be limited to what could be
required.
Joel Fick . He confirmed that was correct. The City could require cosmetic improvements, but the
existing non-conforming status is allowed to remain.
Council Member Feldhaus asked, should the project be approved with the conditions imposed, i.e.,
demolition of the existing building, on-site security guard, a minimum of three employees, etc., would the
Police Department feel that would abate some of the criminal activities.
Sgt. Sutter answered , their experience is where security guards and employees are in place, that it has
improved the locations. The Police concur with staff’s recommendation. He also confirmed for the
Mayor that the Police Department recommendation is that the use not continue.
Council Member McCracken asked if the site was in a Redevelopment Area; Greg Hastings. The
easterly parcel is; the westerly portion is zoned residential.
Council Member McCracken asked if there was anything in the Redevelopment Plan for this area.
Richard Bruckner , Deputy Director of Community Development. Redevelopment has not focused on this
site other than the application before the Council at this time. If the project is denied, they would work
with the applicant or the surrounding community to improve the neighborhood. Answering the Mayor
relative to a conceptual recommended alternative use for the site, he stated potentially it could all be
used for residential.
Mayor Daly. This is a prime community for Redevelopment and one of the reasons why there is a
Redevelopment Area in the heart of the City. He does not think it is a matter of leaving it as is or
tearing it down and building a new business with liquor sales and a laundromat. They should not allow
the non-conforming use to continue. The applicant has not shown good faith to the neighborhood. The
business could have been cleaned up but it has not been done. He was also struck by the comment that
a lot of business people buy one or two cans of beer, which is not conducive to the quality of a residential
neighborhood. It is an awkward land use situation inherited from 50, 60 or 70 years ago and now the
applicant is asking for a long-term continuation of a use that does not fit the neighborhood. He would
respectfully suggest they should deny the application and ask the Planning and Redevelopment staff to
come back as part of the whole Redevelopment process with another vision for the property. There is a
clear recommendation from Planning and Redevelopment staff and the Police to not allow the use to
continue. He strongly supports the staff recommendation.
Additional discussion, comments and questioning of staff by Council Members followed during which, a
Mr. Jae Chung, 10042 Lampson, Garden Grove 92840 , Agent for the property owner, explained that the
area adjoining the property is only 5,000 square feet and is not a good size for residential. At the
conclusion of further discussion, Mayor Daly stated any time they have a chance to close down a liquor
store in a residential area, they should do it. It needs to go away. Redevelopment is a legitimate means
to do that and it is a legitimate expense. It would be a good place to spend some Housing set-aside
dollars.
Richard Bruckner . It is within the Project Area so they could use Redevelopment funds. He was talking
about the vacant lot; the primary site is the liquor store ; Mayor Daly. They could continue the item so
that staff could meet with the property owner. If that is a thought, he is supportive. However, if faced
27
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
MAY 18, 1999
with allowing the liquor store to continue another 50 or 75 years with the neighbors being opposed, he
asked the Council if they would rather continue the item or vote tonight.
Council Member Feldhaus favored a continuance to give staff an opportunity to talk to the property
owner.
MOTION. Mayor Daly moved to continue the Public Hearing for three weeks so that Redevelopment
staff can meet with the property owner and discuss alternatives for the site. Council Member Feldhaus
seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, City Attorney White stated that a three-week continuance should not be a legal
problem ; Richard Bruckner. He would like four weeks if possible.
Mayor Daly amended his motion to continue the Public Hearing for four weeks. Council Member
Feldhaus was amenable. MOTION CARRIED.
PUBLIC HEARING - WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
D2.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4108, AND 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. Property 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.
Informational item at the meeting of April 6, 1999, Item B14. Review of the Planning
Commission’s decision requested by Mayor Daly and Council Member Feldhaus.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in North County News : May 6, 1999
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet : May 6, 1999
Posting of property : May 7, 1999
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager briefed the staff report to the Planning Commission which
summarized the proposal. He noted that Redevelopment staff recommended denial and Planning staff,
while they feel it is very well designed, it may not comply with Council Policy developed last September
pertaining to storage facilities.
Richard Bruckner, Deputy Director of Community Development, then answered questions posed by the
Mayor and Council Members relative to the site, that Redevelopment staff felt there were other
alternatives to the site, that subsidy money is available in the Redevelopment Project Area for other
potential uses, etc. He also explained that although it is a difficult site, it would be suitable for some
smaller car dealerships and one of the car dealers nearby expressed the need for additional space for a
used car operation. Although the property has been vacant for some time, the market has changed and
it could be viable for other uses.
Mayor Daly opened the Public Hearing and asked to hear from the Applicant or Applicant’s Agent.
28
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
MAY 18, 1999
Mr. Phil Schwartze , Planner, The PRS Group, 31682 El Camino Real, San Juan Capistrano . They are
present following unanimous approval of the project by the Planning Commission. Instead of a slide
show and graphics, he will simply hit the key points of the project. The site meets and exceeds all of the
Council guidelines regarding self-storage. The property has a unique shape and the project is also very
unique – it is a high-security self-storage facility and there is a strong demand for such storage since it is
a place to store antiques, art works and computer equipment. That is the market they are going for. This
use will create a minimal amount of traffic and noise. There are unique circumstances of the property.
He then presented a sample of cable that is underneath the property, which carries 66,000 volts of
electricity. In order to move it, Edison is charging $605,287 just to put a “kink” in it. He also briefed his
discussions with Mr. Bruckner wherein other alternatives were discussed but which he felt were not
viable. Relative to the waivers relating to residential zoning, the substation and the pump station next
door are zoned residential. They have been able to accommodate the equestrian trail in their design and
also are retaining the existing trees on the site as noted in the computer renderings submitted (made a
part of the record). The facility looks like an office building. It is a $6 million investment in the area.
The building has no roof-mounted equipment. It will have a very slick and clean appearance. The site is
practically invisible from the residential areas. It offers additional screening for the electric substations
and the water pump station. The front elevations have been screened with additional berming and
landscaping. Some of the trees they are retaining are already 50’ high. They are adding 33 additional
trees. All the surrounding zoning is commercial and is developed. The building is set back over 100’
from the freeway. There are no signs facing the freeway on either of the three sides of the building.
Mayor Daly asked to hear from those who would like to speak to the proposal.
Linda Lee Grau, 24 Morning Dove, Irvine spoke in favor.
Stefanie Perry, 5949 Avenida Arbol , Anaheim – Concerned Citizens of the Canyon. She usually asks
that storage facilities be denied rather than approved. This is not the ordinary facility. She has taken the
time to review the project and also talked to the developers and feels it warrants approval. She then
gave her reasons why.
Dade Haldeman , 18500 Von Karman , Irvine. He represents the land owners, Savi Ranch. He has been
involved in the marketing of this property for the last 16 years (the entire 200 acres). There are three
remaining sites and this is one of them. This parcel has proven to be very difficult to develop. They
have explored a number of different uses over the past 16 years. The owners of the property strongly
support the proposed development. Aesthetically, it is very appealing. It is as attractive as any office
building or R & D (Research & Development) building presently in the 200-acre park. He respectfully
disagrees with Mr. Bruckner relative to the possibility of alternative uses. He then relayed the efforts he
has made in trying to sell the property in the last 16 years.
Joanne Gieler, President of Polo Properties. Her company owns and operates 11 self-storage facilities
in the Southern California area. She is present to speak in favor of the facility. Her company prepared
the feasibility study for the subject site. She was impressed by the tremendous under supply of storage
that exists in the area. The design of the facility is aesthetically pleasing, technologically advanced, and
would only serve to enhance the surrounding area.
There being no further persons who wished to speak in favor, Mayor Daly asked to hear from those in
opposition.
Gary Murray, 8149 E. Kennedy Road, Anaheim, close to the proposed project. He is President of the
East Hills Homeowners Association (306 homeowners). He is present to gather information for them.
They have voiced their concerns about projects that have been built in the past and some proposed in
the area. He wants to make it clear he is not representing the association. He is a concerned citizen and
long-time resident and feels this project is inappropriate and incompatible with the surrounding land use.
The developer is asking for too many waivers and particularly the one that raises the height to 40’. The
proposed location is too close to the freeway. He feels the artist’s renderings are deceiving and
29
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
MAY 18, 1999
deceptive. He then submitted colored photographs numbered 1 through 5 (made a part of the record)
which showed the subject property and the view areas in each direction. The proposed building will be
too tall, too close to the freeway, and visible from the opposite side of the freeway. Aesthetically, it is not
going to fit the area. Distractions driving down the canyon are the big buildings, walls and signage. The
building is going to be 100’ from the on-ramp and visible from all directions. Other interest in the
property is the Post Office and the City (for a library). He then read the reasons why staff recommended
denial of the project. He concluded it is not the right proposal for the property and the homeowners are
not pleased with what is going on in that area.
Jim Saunders, 8461 E. Saratoga , Anaheim, Member of East Hills. He is new to the area (six months).
He is concerned the project will lead to a precedence of larger scale buildings being built in the valley.
He likes the community the way it is. The height (of the building) is too high. He does not feel it is
important to develop that little piece of property. He does not want a wall along the 9l Freeway.
Council Member Tait asked if he was concerned about the view from his home or neighborhood; Mr.
Saunders answered, no. He can’t see it. He is concerned about the huge growth invading the valley.
Rebuttal by Applicant : Phil Schwartze. The project is one of the lowest traffic generators of any land use
that could be put on that intersection. He respectfully requests approval of the project.
Questions were then posed to the Agent and staff by Council Members wherein Mr. Schwartze reported
that they have tried to suppress the building as far down as possible and there is no equipment on the
roof at all. To get to a height of 35’, they had to request a CUP. Planning staff clarified that the building
is located close to a residentially-zoned piece of property which is the Edison substation. It is only a
technicality.
Council Member Tait . He surmises if it were not for that residential “mislabeling” there would be no
requirement for a height waiver ; Greg Hastings. He clarified that was correct. Three of the waivers fall
into that category.
Mayor Daly asked if the project is consistent with the scenic corridor; Mr. Hastings answered, yes. It
allows for over 35’ with a CUP. He also clarified he believes this will be the tallest building in the Savi
Ranch.
Mayor Daly closed the Public Hearing.
After additional questions posed to staff, Mayor Daly stated he thinks this is about as good a public
storage project as they are going to see and the developer has made an excellent project proposal. His
concern is that the whole Savi Ranch is in the Redevelopment area and there is a history of competing
with Yorba Linda for the choicest uses. The City has worked long and hard to get the car dealerships to
locate there and also fought long and hard with Yorba Linda to have the property in Anaheim. He would
not want to miss an opportunity on this site for any potential expansion of car dealers and does not think
they are going to know that for another six months or a year. Although it is a tough call for him, he is
tending to lean with staff to hold off because of the “hot” market in the area. He is also sympathetic with
the people who live across the freeway. He does not think either City (Anaheim or Yorba Linda) has
achieved their aesthetic objectives.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – NEGATIVE DECLARATION :
On motion by Council
Member McCracken seconded by Council Member Kring the City Council approved the Negative
Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any
comments received during the public review process, and further finding on the basis of the
initial study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will
have a significant effect on the environment. Mayor Daly voted no. MOTION CARRIED.
Council Member McCracken offered Resolution No. 99R-101 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
30
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
MAY 18, 1999
RESOLUTION NO. 99R-101 : A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. 4108.
Before a vote was taken, Council Member Tait stated he was going to vote for the project particularly
since the waiver was clarified – that it is adjacent to residentially-zoned property – which is actually not
residential; Council Member Kring. She is also voting for the project because after 16 years of trying to
find a developer, she does not know how much longer they would have to wait for a viable project.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 99R-101, for adoption:
AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : Feldhaus, Kring, Tait, McCracken
NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : Daly
ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 99R-101, duly passed and adopted.
. PUBLIC HEARING - WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
D3 179:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4109, AND NEGATIVE 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.
Informational item at the meeting of April 6, 1999, Item B15. Review of the Planning
Commission’s decision requested by Council Members Feldhaus and McCracken.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in North County News : May 6, 1999
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet : May 6, 1999
Posting of property : May 7, 1999
Joel Fick , Planning Director. He briefed the proposal as outlined in the Staff Report to the Planning
Commission dated March 29, 1999. The only reason the project is before the Council is to convert an
existing meat market to a convenience market which does require a CUP. There was no opposition at
the Planning Commission hearing. Of significance is the fact that two existing billboards will be removed
and enhanced landscaping is to be provided with the planting of five trees along each street frontage,
refurbishing the planters and also some additional conditions such as removal of exterior phones and
other enhancements to the property. Staff recommended approval. He also explained for the Mayor
that relative to the billboards, the waiver for non-conformity was denied which means, for the CUP to be
effected the billboards would have to be removed and the applicant was agreeable. Further, the CUP
request includes the existing retail center and existing liquor store established prior to CUP’s being
required.
Council Member McCracken . The meat market is a separate store from the liquor store and they are
only asking to change to a convenience store but they are not adding beer and wine or liquor; Mr. Fick
clarified that was correct. However, there are additional conditions which apply to the existing liquor
store.
31
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
MAY 18, 1999
City Attorney White. In order to change the use from a meat market to a convenience market, because
there are existing non-conforming uses which includes the liquor store elsewhere in the center, the
Council, in order to allow that conversion of uses, would have to find the liquor store as being a
conforming use.
After additional questions to staff for purposes of clarification, Mayor Daly opened the Public Hearing and
asked first to hear from the applicant or applicant’s agent.
Applicant’s Statement : Jean Gross, 3454 W. Orange, Anaheim, the on-site Manager. She wants the
CUP approved but feels the Planning Department is making some unreasonable requests such as
limiting the liquor store hours which is not the case for other stores on major streets. They would like to
be open Sunday through Thursday from 7:00 P.M. to 11:00 P.M. and on Friday and Saturday until 1:00
A.M. Relative to the trees, they are being requested to plant 10 trees, 5 on each street. That would
mean tearing out existing bushes that have been there for years. If it is mandatory to do so, summer
time is not a good time. There is only one planter in the shopping center that has irrigation. Relative to
the telephones, she has contracts for those signed in December of 1996 due to expire in five years
(2001). She questioned who will buy out the contract. She has no problem taking out the billboards. In
fact, she contacted the City about five years ago to see if she could have the billboards taken out and
she was told how difficult it would be to do so. Regarding Item 10 (parking lot), this involves regular
maintenance which was done last year. She has maintenance done every other year and it is not slated
to be done this year. If it is mandated, she will do it this year instead of next.
Joel Fick . The hours were established because those were requested in the written request. Staff has
no objection to the hours just requested by Ms. Gross ; Greg Hastings. Relative to the trees staff had
recommended the trees be planted and the Commission also looked at that issue noting that it could
possibly involve removal of a shrub or two. There are locations in the planter where there is just dirt
where trees could be planted. It is possible it could be one, two or three shrubs that would be removed.
At the suggestion of Council Member Kring, he (Hastings) stated it is something they could work with the
applicant on. There are no trees at all and staff would like to see some shade as well as some relief in
the hardscape. They are asking the trees to go into existing planters without new planters being
constructed.
Linda Lee Grau , 24 Morning Dove, Irvine. She spoke in favor of the request.
Mayor Daly closed the Public Hearing.
Council Member Kring . Not only does the applicant have a contract with the provider of the phones, but
also the area is surrounded by apartments and not everybody has a phone. The phones provide a
service in case of emergency. She is concerned with taking public phones off the street. They could
make them outgoing only but she would like that condition removed.
Mayor Daly. He believes it is good land use planning not to have phones outside of the buildings. They
are long overdue in requesting everyone to do that. If the Police Department were present, they would
talk about some of the detrimental aspects of the phones.
Jean Gross. Answering Council Member Feldhaus, she explained that the phones are attached to the
building. Code Enforcement called her a year or two ago and said they did not want them on the
sidewalk.
Mayor Daly. Staff will be recommending against exterior public phones and he feels they have to try to
stay as modern as possible. They may not be revisiting this site for 10, 15 or 20 years in the future.
Staff has recommended common sense improvements to the site as a way of accommodating the
convenience market that will be installed. There is a proliferation of convenience markets all over the
City and they have been asked by residents to limit convenience markets although this one is not
32
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
MAY 18, 1999
proposing to have beer and wine. The improvements staff is recommending is a reasonable trade for the
other items that are being introduced.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – NEGATIVE DECLARATION :
On motion by Council
Member Tait, seconded by Council Member Kring, the City Council approved the Negative
Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any
comments received during the public review process, and further finding on the basis of the
initial study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will
have a significant effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED.
Council Member Tait offered a resolution granting CUP 4109 with the change in the hours as requested
by the applicant and eliminating the condition relative to removal of the telephones.
MOTION. Before further action was taken on the resolution, Council Member Tait moved that the
condition relative to the ten trees remain.
MOTION (amended) : Council Member Kring offered an amended motion that Planning staff work with
the applicant relative to planting of the trees as previously discussed.
City Attorney White. The amendment requires a second and then a vote on the amendment. Council
Member Feldhaus seconded the amended motion.
Mayor Daly. It is reasonable for the City to ask the owner to plant trees on the property especially since
there are no shade trees on the property at this time.
Council Member Tait stated, in order to simplify the matter , he is going to offer a Resolution approving
the project just as the Planning Commission approved it; City Attorney White. The amendment that was
offered does have a second which is to change the condition on the tree planting and it is still before the
Council.
Council Member Kring . She does not have a problem with the resolution as offered but feels that
Planning needs to work with the applicant. Perhaps all ten trees do not have to be planted at one time so
Ms. Gross would have some leeway to work with staff but not force her to plant all ten trees at the outset.
City Attorney White. He recommended that Council Member Kring withdraw her motion on the trees and
that the resolution be offered with an amendment to phase in the trees.
Council Member Tait offered Resolution No. 99R-102 for adoption granting Conditional Use Permit 4109
with phasing in of the 10 trees to be planted, liquor store hours to be as requested by the applicant with
the phones to remain as is. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 99R-102 : A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. 4109.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Daly stated he will be opposing because he believes Planning staff has
done the right thing in asking for the phones to be removed and the limited hours of operation, i.e. the
conditions as stated in the Planning Commission action. These 30-year old centers should be made as
attractive as possible.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 99R-102, for adoption:
AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : Feldhaus, Kring, Tait, McCracken
33
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
MAY 18, 1999
NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : Daly
ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 99R-102, duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING – ABANDONMENT NO. 99-8A :
D4. 176: In accordance with application filed by
the Foodmaker Inc., Travis Engineering, Agent, 12453 Lewis Street, #201, Garden Grove, CA 92840, a
Public Hearing was held on the proposed abandonment of a certain easement of two thirty (30) foot
areas of access rights located at 1101 North Magnolia.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in North County News : May 6,1999 and May 13, 1999
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet : April 30, 1999
Posting of property : May 7, 1999
Council Member Tait . His engineering firm has done work for Food Maker in the past year and they may
be financially benefited by this. He will, therefore , be abstaining from any discussion or decision on this
matter.
Natalie Meeks . The City acquired access rights for the location a number of years ago when a
commercial property developed and this parcel was accessed by interior access from the overall
commercial development. It is now being requested that they obtain driveways along LaPalma and
Magnolia. Since the staff report was prepared and Public Hearing set, the access rights have been
appraised at $76,226. The developer had previously agreed to pay the value for those access rights.
Since the site was accessed via interior access previously, there was no need for any driveways
immediately adjacent. The City did require the access rights to be dedicated. These are safe locations
for these driveways so staff is recommending approval on the abandonment of the access rights.
Mayor Daly opened the Public Hearing.
Mr. Carl Hoy, Travis Engineering, representing Food Maker, stated he has had the pleasure and
opportunity of working with Engineering and Real Property Staff on this issue and concurs with the staff
recommendation and also agrees with the appraisal of $76,000. They respectfully request Council
approval of the abandonment.
Linda Lee Grau , 24 Morning Dove, Irvine. She is very much in favor.
Mayor Daly closed the Public Hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION : On motion by Mayor Daly,
seconded by McCracken, the City Council determined that the proposed activity falls within the definition
of Section 3.01 Class 5, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for an Environmental
Impact Report and is, therefore, Categorically Exempt from the requirements to file an EIR. Council
Member Tait abstained. MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 99R-103 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 99R-103 : A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE
CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS, HIGHWAYS AND SERVICE EASEMENTS
( ABANDONMENT NO. 99-8A).
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 99R-103, for adoption:
34
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
MAY 18, 1999
AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : Feldhaus, Kring, McCracken, Daly
NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : None
ABSENT/ABSTAINED: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : Tait
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 99R-103, duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING - CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
D5.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 362 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 98-99-10
WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4096
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 98-234 SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 99-01
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF 2a, 2c, 2d, 2e, 2f and 2g
OWNER:
City of Anaheim (Redevelopment Agency), 201 South Anaheim Boulevard, 10th floor,
Anaheim, CA 92805
County of Orange, Attn: Real Property Manager, PFRD Real Property, 300 North Flower Street ,
CA 92703
AGENT:
Culbertson, Adams & Associates, Attn: Kevin Canning, 85 Argonaut, Suite 220, Aliso
Viejo, CA 92656
LOCATION: 8200 East La Palma Avenue.
Property is 16.27 acres located at the northwest
corner of La Palma Avenue and Yorba Linda Boulevard.
General Plan Amendment No. 362
- to amend the Land Use Element of the City of Anaheim
General Plan to redesignate this property from the Hillside Low-Medium Density Residential and
General Commercial land use designations to the Commercial Professional land use
designation.
Reclassification No. 98-99-10
- to reclassify this property from the RS-A-43 ,000(SC)
Residential/Agricultural; Scenic Corridor Overlay) and the CL(SC) (Commercial, Limited; Scenic
Corridor Overlay) Zones to the CO(SC) (Commercial, Office and Professional; Scenic Corridor
Overlay) Zone.
Conditional Use Permit No. 4096
- to permit a planned commercial office/light industrial center,
including a semi-enclosed restaurant with sales of alcoholic beverages for on-premises
consumption, with roof-mounted equipment and building heights in excess of 35 feet with
waivers of (a) minimum parking lot landscaping – APPROVED, (b) permitted type of commercial
identification sign – DENIED, (c) maximum area of commercial identification signs – DENIED,
(d) minimum site area per lot – APPROVED, and (e) maximum structural height adjacent to a
single-family residential zone - DENIED.
Tentative Parcel Map No. 98-234
- to permit an 11-lot (including one lot for landscaping)
subdivision for the development of a commercial office/light industrial complex.
Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 99-01
- to remove specimen Eucalyptus trees from this
property with replacement at a ratio of two trees for every one tree removed.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Recommended adoption of GPA NO. 362 (Exhibit A) to City Council
( PC99-67) (5 yes votes, 1 abstained, and 1 vacancy).
Reclassification No. 98-99-10 GRANTED ( PC99-68).
CUP NO. 4096 GRANTED, IN PART, approving waivers (a) and (d), and denying waivers (b),
(c), and (e) ( PC99-69).
Waiver of code requirement APPROVED, IN PART.
Tentative Parcel Map No. 98-234 APPROVED.
Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 99-01 APPROVED.
Approved request for City Council review of this project.
Approved Mitigated Negative Declaration.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in North County News : May 6, 1999
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet : May 6, 1999
35
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
MAY 18, 1999
Posting of property : May 7, 1999
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated April 26, 1999 which described the project in detail.
(Also see Attachment A – Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 107.)
Mayor Daly outlined the Public Hearing process and then asked first to hear from the applicant.
Mr. John Killen , Burnett -Polygon Development, 200 E. Baker, Costa Mesa. They are currently
processing the purchase and development of the 12-acre Shorb Well property and a purchase of the
adjoining four-acre County of Orange parcel to the west. Within the 16-acre site, they have worked with
staff and neighboring property owners to plan a 231,000 square foot multi-tenant and single-tenant office
technology park. They have dealt with a number of issues on the property including density, traffic,
planning and architectural design and marketable uses which are compatible with surrounding property
owners. Representatives of the Anaheim Highlands Homeowners group have made their concerns
known to them in six private design meetings and two public hearings (before the Planning Commission).
Traffic has been an understandable concern as Jenifer is the only access point for their property. (He
was working from posted maps and graphics.) The proximity of their project and access has been
examined and modified as a result of the neighbor’s input over the last eight to ten months. They have
been very attentive to the traffic issue and are satisfied with staff’s recommendations and with their
engineer’s input. They have agreed to a number of conditions : a signalized intersection at the main entry
to the project ( LaPalma and the project entry) and driveway access at that juncture serving the westerly
portion of the site. Just today they spoke with John Lower, the City’s Traffic and Transportation Manager
and agreed to an additional mitigation which would be an approximate 60’ deceleration lane approaching
that access. At the Planning Commission, they agreed to a right-in only access as opposed to a right-in,
right-out. The main concern was the impact at the intersection of Jenifer. They have also provided a
pedestrian access at the project entry at the request of the homeowners from the residential area along
the north side of La Palma and a crossing at the intersection. They have also agreed to a U-Turn pocket
which he briefed. They discussed other mitigation’s but with the Traffic Engineer’s input on both sides,
there were no other clear nexus issues or impacts that were defined as a result of the analysis done on
their project.
The current approved project is a retail center. The number of trips planned for that project and
approved was over 10,000 trips. Their project actually reduces those to approximately 3,900 trips.
Beyond that, there is a cumulative impact potentially at the Weir Canyon and La Palma intersection.
They have agreed to pay for the cost of engineering plans for a complete redesign of that intersection
and have made that a condition of their first phase.
He then spoke to quality issues of the project , the consensus being this is a special place. They are
aware that they have to take into consideration what the residents have to look at on a day-to-day basis.
They did a redesign on the architecture which brought it into a softer style architecture which he
described. Their attempt was to integrate the architecture and bring it into line with something more in
scale. The open public/private process has resulted in a better project. They originally conceived a
project that was very market driven. This bridges the gap – it is a quality project, meets market demand,
and fits better into its place and is an overall better project.
Phil Martin, Culbertson , Adams and Associates, 85 Argonaut, Aliso Viejo, Planning and Environmental
Consultant. The Planning Commission requested that they work with the residents to incorporate some
of their issues and concerns with their previous plan. Some of the issues they addressed – they lowered
the pad elevations, moved three of the buildings further away from some of the residential units (initially
a 40’ setback moved to 70, 90 and 100’) with increased landscaping, and revised some of the on-site
circulation. They also made some traffic improvements – a U-Turn at the main project entrance, a
second ingress/egress access point westerly of the main access, a right-turn in only along with the
deceleration lane that staff asked for today. They have also agreed to ground-mount the air conditioning
unit for those buildings closest to the residents. They came back to the Planning Commission with the
36
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
MAY 18, 1999
revised site plan reflecting some of the changes and there were some additional concerns the residents
had that they tried to address. They tried to incorporate as many of their concerns as possible, but not
all. Based upon their second meeting at the Planning Commission, they did get a unanimous approval
by the Commission. This is another project that Burnett-Polygon is pleased to present. It will be a
developer-owned and operated project. They would like to have the opportunity to come back at the end
of the hearing to answer any questions/concerns. He confirmed for the Mayor that they concur with all
the conditions of the Planning Commission but would like to clarify on the parcel map it is 13 lots instead
of 11.
Mayor Daly. He noted somewhere in the staff report that the CC&R’s for the project will be crafted in
consultation with the adjacent neighbors; Rob Zur Schmiede, Redevelopment and Property Services
Manager. At the Planning Commission hearing, the developer volunteered to have the CC&R’s reviewed
and commented upon by the neighborhood. In addition, the CO zone, which is the proposed zoning
classification, allows for certain R&D uses. One of the conditions of approval was that any chemical
uses and the precise language for those types of uses would come back to the Planning Commission as
a report and recommendation.
Mayor Daly then asked to hear from those in favor of the project; there being none, he asked to hear
from those in opposition or who have questions/comments/concerns regarding the proposal.
The following people spoke; their comments are summarized. Also see Outline of Presentations by
Concerned Anaheim Highlands Homeowners Regarding Proposed Burnett Polygon Project – 8200 E.
LaPalma which was submitted by the first speaker which outlined/summarized each of the presentations
given, all of which were incorporated as part of the presentation and made a part of the record. (For
further reference, also see minutes of the previous Planning Commission hearings March 1, April 12 and
the last hearing on April 26, 1999 where the proposal was approved by the Planning Commission and
where input was given by several of those speaking again today – John Killen , Carol Appelt , Raquel
Premo-Quast , Bob Koch, John VanDell . Numerous letters were also submitted by concerned residents).
Raquel Premo-Quast , 8180 E. Woodsboro , Anaheim. (See submittal – Reduce the Elevation of the
Proposed Project). Although their neighborhood is small, 63 homes, the project will impact the other 805
families that border Yorba Regional Park. (She asked all the residents present in opposition to stand –
approximately 30 people were present at this time). Burnett-Polygon has worked with representatives
from the neighborhood to make changes to the project but they feel that many serious issues still remain.
Their homes are elevated above LaPalma Ave. The buildings will dominate 90% of what they see.
Present plans have not reduced the project to its lowest possible elevation using sound engineering
practices. A team of experts agree the site can be lowered. Reducing the project by 3’ would make a
difference to the residents. Engineering options are – use of slopes or small retaining walls, sheer crib
wall tiered in two walls, use of Portland cement in some areas. They request that the Council require
lowering of the elevation as per Mitigation Monitoring Plan #107, request an independent written third-
party opinion by a Civil Engineer as to the feasibility of reducing the elevation, no allowance for a 1 ½ ‘
deviation in final grading pad elevation. (See Item 40, page 12 of the staff report.) There should be no
reason for a 1 ½’ deviation in the pad elevation on every pad.
Mayor Daly interjected and asked staff to respond relative to the suggestion that the project could be 3’
or more lower than proposed.
Natalie Meeks , Civil Engineer, Public Works. It is possible to lower portions of the site. VanDell &
Associates made a presentation to the Planning Commission. It would require some extraordinary
construction practices – in some areas, it would require concrete paving in the parking areas rather than
asphalt. Also there would be the additional height of retaining walls and crib walls on the site. It is not
technically impossible to lower portions of the site. Relative to the 1.5’ deviation, it would allow that
deviation from the pad elevations shown on the tentative map. Staff would be in agreement to
eliminating the 1.5’ deviation requiring the developer to meet the pad elevations actually shown.
Answering Council Member Tait, she explained that staff review was that the project was designed in the
37
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
MAY 18, 1999
lowest practical method using standard construction with asphalt paving in the parking areas. The pad
elevations are consistent with the adjacent residential properties. The project was appropriately
designed. The entire hydrology for the site has not yet been completed. They are in an area where the
lowering may require pumping water in certain portions of the site.
John VanDell , VanDell & Associates. In order for the site to drain out, they need to have positive
drainage from the rear out to the entry way. They currently have 1% grades which is the minimum
standard for asphalt. Working from the posted graphics/plans, he pointed to where the only opportunity
exists for lowering the current plan while meeting the City standard for asphalt which would then increase
the size of one of the retaining walls (which he also pointed to). After a further explanation of things that
would need to be done, he concluded that it is technically possible.
Stefanie Perry, 5949 Avenida Arbol , Anaheim, representing Concerned Citizens of the Canyon. This
issue will greatly affect the Anaheim Hills area requiring a zoning change to one fourth of the property
and several amendments to the Scenic Corridor. These changes are becoming far too frequent. She
urged that they stop the over development in the hills now and save a lot of time, effort and money years
down the road. Keep Anaheim Hills beautiful instead of making it beautiful again in 20 years. This
project is not appropriate for a residential neighborhood. She respectfully requested denial of the project
in its entirety.
Jan Sinamon , 8170 E. Woodsboro , Anaheim. Her presentation covered – Building Heights in Excess of
35 ft. – Decrease Building #7 to One Story (see submittal) which included the following : deny waiver for
building heights in excess of 35 ft. ( bldgs. 4, 7, 10, 12, 13 and 17 which constitute 50% of the total
square footage of the project), the buildings are adjacent to family homes in the scenic corridor and the
residents do not have the luxury of a street to divide them from the project, their present view is of a
park, trees and hills, the starting elevation of building 12 is 20’ above their homes making it even higher
(at 55 ft.) from their vantage, building 7 needs to be decreased from two stories to one story especially
relative to privacy and safety, three issues the buildings present are, legal issues, scenic corridor zoning
issues and human/ethical issues. The legal, ethical and fiscal aspects of this project need to be worked
out. She respectfully requests that the Council address each of those issues before allowing the project
to continue.
Tracy Sinamon (14 years old), 8170 E. Woodsboro , Anaheim. She addressed safety concerns and
mitigation measures – construction of a six-foot noise wall, a 20’ landscape buffer, small berm/hill, build
a sound wall on top of the berm, separate the homes from the project. She respectfully requests
requiring the developer to address their concerns and allow them to feel safe in their community again.
Ben Parikh , 8176 Woodsboro , Anaheim. (See submittal). He spoke on the following issues – the
Original Level of R&D Uses and the Height of One-Story Office Buildings. He addressed the following:
R&D Uses - the new plan incorporates a reduction in R&D use and an increase in office use (see staff
report of 3/1/99, item 17, and report of 4/12/99, item 10), in the new plan, R&D uses have been
increased by 12,385 sq. ft. and office space respectively reduced, R&D uses are in 10 of 18 bldgs .
compared to the orignal plan 5 of 18 bldg. Height of One-Story Office Buildings – one-story buildings are
24’ tall, typical one-story buildings in the area are 18’ tall, most single-story buildings in SAVI Ranch
project are 18’ tall.
The request is that the Council require R&D uses be reduced to the original level of 10% of the project to
maintain a pollutant-free environment and require all one-story office buildings be reduced to 18’ tall to
maintain the scenic-corridor environment.
Carolyn Appelt , 8137 E. Woodsboro , Anaheim. (See submittal). She spoke on Traffic issues, some of
which were as follows: homeowners disagree with the Staff Report that all traffic issues have been
mitigated (project will generate 3,900 additional trips at “D” rated intersections), request for an update to
the traffic study to include Friday counts, Mitigation Monitoring Plan requires developer to design
intersection improvements, new signal at project entrance will create increased congestion, signal
synchronization, etc. In concluding, she respectfully requested the Council to take the following actions:
38
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
MAY 18, 1999
(1 ) Require the construction of street improvements to eastbound LaPalma. (2) Require Burnett-
Polygon to reduce the overall project density of another means to mitigate increased traffic. (3) Require
an independent traffic study based on challenges discussed in an analysis of the traffic study provided by
the developer. (Copy of report submitted to John Lower, Traffic and Transportation Manager and also
submitted for the record – see Report dated 5/18/99 from Joe Kung – Re: Comments to 3/29/99
Supplemental Traffic Analysis Letter Report of LaPalma Business Center by Linscoot, Law &
Greenspan).
Sharon Lazzaro , 8136 Woodsboro , Anaheim. (See submittal). She would like to address the only
access route to their homes which is located at the corner of Jenifer and LaPalma Avenue as shown in
photograph #1 of the four photographs submitted (made a part of the record). Working from the
photographs submitted she addressed/requested the following : Eliminate the Second Ingress – located
250 ft. from Jenifer (4 seconds travel time), affects egress from their homes, would serve only a small
portion of the project and is not needed. Install a Signal at Jenifer – provides safety to ingress/egress
from their homes. The proposal of creating a deceleration lane for the ingress was raised during their
previous discussion with the developer and their own traffic consultant reviewed it as unsafe. They
remain opposed to the second ingress. She further commented on the consultant’s traffic study. Council
decision on this issue will impact their safety.
Robert Koch, 8124 E. Woodsboro , Anaheim. (See submittal). He has four major points and he will then
conclude the presentation of the neighbors. He addressed the following issues, concerns and requests :
All AC (air conditioning) units must be ground mounted (see recommendation in 4/12/99 staff report, item
28). Project remains too dense compared to the surrounding land use – floor-to-area ration of the project
is nearly 30%. Developers have never compromised on the issue of project density and should be
required to do so. Residents request that the City do an economic study of the value of the land being
used and also that an EIR be performed to determine the broad environmental impact of the project.
Previous EIR was done in 1991 , Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 107 does not evaluate mitigation of the
impact of the project. Traffic safety is an unmitigated issue that should be part of a new EIR. In
conclusion : It should be clear they do not oppose the project in general, only in its present form. There
are many valid concerns that have not been mitigated by the current plan. The Council must provide the
impetus for these changes to be made either by denying the project as proposed or, because many
issues remain where compromises can be reached and because they can work well with Burnett -
Polygon, grant a 60-day continuance to require that a new EIR be submitted, to have an updated
independent traffic study done, allow an independent analysis of the elevation issue(s), require Burnett
Polygon to meet with the residents and respond to the many issues they have presented tonight. He
then clarified for the Mayor that they believe the density of the project is too high, there is concern with
building height waivers and the very large size of the building on the corner along with the other
issues/concerns outlined. He emphasized/reiterated they feel it is very important that the Council grant a
continuance and create the impetus for their ( Burnett-Polygon) making further compromises.
Linda Lee Grau , 24 Morning Dove, Anaheim. This government project should be turned down flatly by
the Council.
Mayor Daly asked for a summation by the applicant.
Rebuttal/Summation by Applicant (summarized – major points) : John Killen. Their motivation is to get
the site as low as possible and matches the motivation of the homeowners. Relative to the 7’ elevation
of the restaurant pad, it is 7’ right at the opening of the driveway, but 150’ to the east as the road
continues to ramp up, it is actually 3’ below (grade). Regarding building height, the only variation is to
building 12. No other buildings exceed the height. Regarding traffic, their Traffic Engineer does not
have a vested interest in creating an unsafe condition. Referring to the report submitted, he noted that
Mr. Kung is not a traffic engineer. With regard to density, he would be interested to find out who the
independent consultant was who stated that a 32% coverage on the project was excessive. Typically on
a flat site where they do not have 25% landscaping and loss to slope banks, their densities are far in
excess of 40-45%. Regarding declining property values, there is no loss of property values from this
39
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
MAY 18, 1999
project. Finally, there is no correlation between elevation and grade and density. The elevations have to
do with the vertical height of the project, and the density has to do with the size of the buildings. He does
not know where that comment came from. He then asked Mr. Martin to address the issues of the EIR.
Council Member Kring first posed questions relative to traffic signal synchronization (SCOOT System)
and who is going to pay for the monitoring system ; John Lower, Traffic and Transportation Manager.
The City has an annual budget allocation for traffic signal maintenance and it would be staff
responsibility to maintain the signal timing software. He confirmed the biggest expense would be
installing the system in the first place. He also explained that, relative to the signal at Jenifer, that street
is located about 600’ from the proposed project’s signalized driveway and too close to give consideration
to a traffic signal. Secondly, it would not meet the minimum State warrants for a traffic signal. Another
point he would like to make relative to the intersection of Yorba Linda Boulevard and LaPalma and the
improvement being designed by the project, there is approximately $300,000 in traffic impact fees from
the project which will be put towards that improvement. They have a Measure M Growth Management
allocation of additional funding so the City can proceed with that as a special project.
As a result of additional questioning by Council Member Kring relative to the R&D buildings and possible
hazards to health and safety, Mr. Killen “walked” her through the plan and also briefed distances of the
buildings to the residents homes/property lines as well as addressing other issues.
After further extensive discussion questioning of Mr. Killen wherein he clarified a number of the issues
broached (line-of-sight, traffic, etc.,) he concluded stating, as discussed earlier with the homeowners,
they are going to be at the property grading and building. It is going to be an ongoing process. They
have not shut their doors but continue to have open dialogue. They will continue to work with the
homeowners on a day-to-day basis. He is concerned about the reversal on a couple of positions. He
reiterated the door is open. They have an interest in moving forward with the project in the next couple
of weeks and want to keep an open dialogue. He asked Mr. Martin to address the EIR question.
Phil Martin. There was a subsequent EIR certified on this project in 1999. As encouraged by CEQA, to
reduce and minimize subsequent overlapping environmental documentation, CEQA guidelines
encourage tiering off of subsequent documents that have been certified. That is the reason they did an
expanded initial study and Mitigated Negative Declaration and submitted it to the Planning staff for
review which they reviewed and approved. It was also circulated for the 30-day review period. He then
answered questions posed by Council Member Kring relative to mitigation measures to control
dirt/dust/particles from becoming airborne.
Mr. Koch then approached the podium to answer/rebut some of the questions that arose during the
summation presentations revolving around line-of-sight issues, traffic (ingress/egress issues), building
heights, etc. John Lower and Joel Fick, Planning Director gave input during the questioning. Mr. Fick
noted that relative to building height(s), the applicant tonight, with the exception of Building 12, did
stipulate to all of the buildings being less than 35’ with the exception of the architectural projection of the
stone.
Mayor Daly closed the Public Hearing.
Discussion and questioning followed by Council Members. Council Member McCracken, noting that the
residents have asked for a continuance, asked staff if they felt there was any way any of the issues
broached could be improved with some additional meetings.
Rob Zur Schmiede. Mr. Killen gave an idea of the number of meetings that have been held. He ( Zur
Schmiede) believes both sides have met and talked about the issues in good faith. He does not think
there would be a lot more that would come out in another series of meetings; Council Member
McCracken. Since some of the issues about lowering the elevations depends on the drainage and the
hydrology report, perhaps that kind of information might make a difference and some of the issues could
be dealt with.
40
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
MAY 18, 1999
Rob Zur Schmiede. Whatever the final floor elevations, how low they can go is still a “work-in-progress”.
The developer is trying to go as low as possible. To say something would come out of additional
dialogue, he could not say.
Mayor Daly referred to Mr. Koch’s letter of May 12, 1999, point 7, which indicates there was a failure to
include a threshold starting time for outdoor maintenance. The Planning Commission limited outdoor
maintenance to nothing after 8:00 P.M. The neighbors are also requesting that be the case before 7:00
A.M. as well ; Joel Fick. He believes that would be precluded by the City’s ordinance (no maintenance
before 7:00 A.M.) but Condition No. 39 could be amended to incorporate that as well.
Council Member Kring asked if that would incorporate the restaurant that it is to be built, i.e., closing at
8:00 P.M.; Joel Fick. Condition 39 specifically deal with the office light industrial complex hours of
operation.
Council Member Tait . The overriding issue seems to be the elevation issue. He feels the residents are
being reasonable. Someone suggested a second opinion from an independent Civil Engineer to look at
the practicality (of lowering the site) and he believes that might be a valuable exercise. Possibly a 30-
day continuance to go through the issue (feasibility and costs) with a third party would be in order so that
the residents are comfortable. It would go a long way and also convince him that they cannot go lower.
He would like to see a second opinion although he is aware that Mr. VanDell has a very good reputation.
He confirmed for the Mayor that the primary focus would be on the elevation to have it looked at by a
third party engineer. He would also like to see further meetings on the other issues to see if there is
more movement or compromise.
Mayor Daly. He will not oppose a continuance. He does believe this is a very high quality project. The
developer has an excellent track record. They are using high-quality building materials and the quality
design details have generally been met. The Planning Commission and City staff is comfortable with the
project. He is very close to being able to support the project and does believe it will be of benefit to the
area. It is certainly a far better project than many of the alternatives suggested in the past, which could
bring in more money for the City. The City has an obligation to make the most money off this project
because all the taxpayers own the land. At the same time, they have an obligation to the neighbors to try
to accomplish the best project they can. He reiterated , he is comfortable with the proposed project but if
there is to be any gain in a continuance, he is for that also. The statement that rang out loudly was the
statement by Mr. Koch that the neighbors do not oppose the project in general, but would like the
opportunity to have the elevations evaluated again.
Rob Zur Schmiede. They are currently scheduled to close escrow with the developer in mid-June. With
this continuance and the requirements that they have to obtain construction financing on the project, it
would be likely that the closing would be extended. They would ask for it and staff would recommend
that be approved.
John Killen . With due respect, he does not think they are going to see a dramatic difference on a
conceptual basis to what they presented today and what they are going to see in 30 days. Additionally,
they were asked to do the same thing at the continuance of the first Planning Commission hearing. At
that point, they went back and revisited the grade. They have had a peer review of the grading plan.
They have had a grading contractor look at the grading plan. That is a second peer review. City Staff
has looked at it. Their engineers looked at it. It has been looked at five times.
Natalie Meeks . A suggestion on how they might be able to move this forward, the City has a couple of
engineering consultants under contract that they use for plan checking. If it would be agreeable to the
Council and the residents to use one of those consultants, since they are under contract the process
could be accomplished rather quickly.
41
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
MAY 18, 1999
Mr. Killen . He would respect Council’s wishes on the continuance if he thought it was going to make any
difference. It will just be a delay. At least he would like to see action on the items that they have
presented that they can agree upon. He feels they need to come away tonight with a sense they have
some agreement on the direction of the project. He respectfully asks the Council to reconsider the
request (on the grading.) They will continue to work to refine and bring down the grades.
Natalie Meeks , addressing a question by Council Member Kring as a result of additional input by Mr.
Koch, stated she has spoken to Melanie Adams, Associate Engineer and she did mean that relative to
dropping the elevation further, it is not technically impossible to do so but requires extraordinary
construction methods and impacts to the site.
MOTION. Council Member Tait moved to continue the Public Hearing for 30 days to ascertain the
answer to the questions relative to lowering the elevation(s) further to be evaluated by a third party.
Council Member McCracken seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Daly stated the Council might consider approving the project as
presented and concurrently asking the staff to give the elevations one more evaluation. This is just an
alternative approach because so much time and effort has already been expended on the project. What
it is coming down to is the cost. At some point, his concern is the City will pay the extra cost or the
potential is there for that to happen. He feels this is either a private sector project or it is not.
City Clerk Sohl noted that the date would be June 15, 1999.
A vote was then taken on the motion of continuance to June 15, 1999. MOTION CARRIED.
(Before concluding, the Council reconvened as the Redevelopment Agency to consider Agency Item 2
which was trailed until after consideration of Item D5 above. The Agency, upon motion by Chairman
Daly, seconded by Agency Member Kring, continued the item, also involving the proposed development
on the Shorb Wells property, to June 15, 1999.)
REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS:
C2.
City Attorney Jack White stated that there are no actions to report.
COUNCIL COMMENTS:
C3.
Council Member Feldhaus :
He asked, once again, that a personnel matter be agendized for Closed
Session at the next meeting, re: City Manager.
ADJOURNMENT: By general Council consent, the City Council Meeting of May 18, 1999 was adjourned
(1:53 A.M., May 19, 1999).
LEONORA N. SOHL
CITY CLERK
42