1999/09/21ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
SEPTEMBER 21, 1999
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT: MAYOR : Tom Daly
PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS : Frank Feldhaus, Lucille Kring, Tom Tait, Shirley McCracken,
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS : None
PRESENT: CITY MANAGER : Jim Ruth
CITY ATTORNEY : Jack White
CITY CLERK : Sheryll Schroeder
ASST. CITY CLERK : Ann Sauvageau
PUBLIC UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER : Ed Aghjayan
PUBLIC UTILITIES ASST. GENERAL MGR. ELECTRIC SERVICES : Dale Tarkington
PLANNING DIRECTOR : Joel Fick
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR : Annika Santalahti
A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was posted at 11:30 a.m. on
September 17, 1999 at the City Hall Bulletin Board, (both inside and outside the entrance to City Hall)
containing all items as shown herein.
(Special Meeting portion because of earlier than regularly scheduled starting time of 2:30 P.M.; Regular
Meeting portion, starting time, 3:00 P.M.)
City Manager, James Ruth. This is the time scheduled for a Workshop regarding Direct Access which
will be presented by the Public Utilities Department.
DIRECT ACCESS – COMPETITIVE TRANSITION CHARGE ( CTC) :
175: Dale Tarkington, Public
Utilities Assistant General Manager, Electric Services. His presentation was supplemented by Power
Pointe slides, hard copies of which were submitted in booklet entitled, “Direct Access – Competitive
Transition Charge” – City Council Workshop, September 21, 1999 – made a part of the record. The
presentation covered the following: the historical background and provisions of AB1890 which ultimately
provided for recovery of above-market generation costs ( CTC), an explanation of Direct Access
(customer choice of power supplier, local utility – Anaheim- distributes electricity to customers),
economics of Direct Access , municipal utilities not required to offer service under AB1890 (Utilities
Department has a plan for the City to be able to make this decision which will take several months – first
step is to establish a CTC), explanation of the CTC (“a nonbypassable generation-related severance fee
or transition charge”) – must be established by September 30, 1999 but does not obligate Anaheim to
offer Direct Access, final decision on Direct Access will be March, 2000, an explanation of how the CTC
would be calculated (establish Rule 27). The conclusion of the presentation covered the next steps
necessary to be taken before the final decision is to be made by the Council on Direct Access by March
31, 2000.
Mr. Tarkington’s presentation was followed by a line of questions posed by Council Members relative to
the specifics involved in offering of Direct Access during which Mr. Tarkington confirmed that no decision
is being made at this point but what is necessary is the establishment of a Competitive Transition Charge
( CTC ) delineating a rule if and when Council allows Direct Access in the future. That step must be taken
th
by September 30 . (Council consideration for approval of Rule 27 will be on the Council Agenda of
September 28, 1999.) It is a formality that needs to be established at this point in time.
Mayor Daly called the regular meeting to order at 3:02 pm.
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
SEPTEMBER 21, 1999
Mr. Ed Aghjayan, Public Utilities General Manager also answered questions posed by Council Member
Tait relative to, when the CTC is no longer needed , would it automatically end if the Council so
stipulated. A discussion followed on the issue wherein City Attorney White clarified that the Council
cannot do anything that would bind a Council at a future date. Even if the decision were made at this
time, a future Council could overturn it ; Council Member Tait. He does not want to restrict a future
Council, but provide for an automatic end to the charge and then a future Council could resinstitute it if
they wished.
City Attorney White. It would take some research and thinking through the process before he could give
an answer on whether or how that could be structured.
Mr. Aghjayan then gave a brief presentation, supplemented by Power Pointe slides hard copies of which
were submitted and made a part of the record (see data, “Terminology”), the purpose of which was to
show the transmission grids - ISO (Independent System Operator) Grid (State-wide transmission grid);
WSCC (Western Systems Coordinating Council) Grid (Western Regional Reliability Grid); City of
Anaheim, Firm Resources/Firm Transmission Map showing the system Substations. He also briefed
information relative to Annual Transmission Costs (Private/Public), and the same costs for Anaheim as
well as Import Capability into California for ISO’s (48%) and Public Power (52%) and data on City
“Owned” Transmission.
Mayor Daly thanked staff for the informative presentation. The Council will look forward to submittal of
the agenda item next week regarding the CTC and future progress reports regarding the subject.
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
: Vista Royale Homeowners Assoc. vs. 396 Investment Co. fka The Fieldstone
Company, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 77-30-74,
and related cases.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT
2.
CODE SECTION 54956.9(a) – Existing Litigation:
Name of case :
Grewal v. City of Anaheim, et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 73-
23-08.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
3.
54956.9(c) – Anticipated Litigation:
Number of potential cases :
one.
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS:
4.
Agency designated representatives
: David Hill, Jim Ruth
Employee organization
: Anaheim Fire Association
2
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
SEPTEMBER 21, 1999
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT
5.
CODE SECTION 54956.8:
Property:
land within the vicinity of Jeffrey Drive and Lynne Avenue
Agency negotiator :
Tom Wood, Acting Housing Authority Executive Director
Negotiating parties :
Anaheim Housing Authority and 35 property owners
Under negotiations :
Price and terms of land acquisitions
PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION:
6.
Title:
City Manager, City Attorney, City Treasurer
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT
7.
CODE SECTION 54956.9(a) – Existing Litigation:
Name of case :
Guillermo Islas v. City of Anaheim, et al., Orange County Superior Court Case
No. 80-18-77.
Mayor Daly moved to recess into Closed Session. Council Member McCracken seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED. (3:15 pm ).
AFTER RECESS:
Mayor Daly called the r egular Council meeting of September 21, 1999 to order at 5:48 p.m. and
welcomed those in attendance.
INVOCATION: A Moment of Silence was observed in lieu of an invocation.
FLAG SALUTE:
Council Member Lucille Kring led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY
in the amount of $2,963,011.69 for the period ending
September 21, 1999, in accordance with the 1999-2000 Budget, were approved.
Mayor Daly recessed the City Council meeting until after the Redevelopment Agency meeting. (5:48
p.m ).
Mayor Daly reconvened the City Council meeting. (5:50 p.m.).
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
There were no additions to agenda items.
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST:
Mr. Charlie Morgan. He reported that on January 15, 1998, he “died” and is before the Council today on
his own behalf and that of his family to express his heartfelt thanks for the wonderful job the City’s
Paramedics had done to save him and the reason he is able to be present today. He personally
acknowledged the eight Anaheim Firemen and woman involved in saving his life and also Fire Chief,
Jeff Bowman. Mr. Morgan then presented the Chief with a plaque (compliments of UCLA and UCI
Medical Centers) memorializing the efforts of the Firefighters and asked him to thank those involved.
3
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
SEPTEMBER 21, 1999
Fire Chief, Jeff Bowman. He accepted the plaque on behalf of the members of the department involved
(seven men and one women). He will present the plaque to them to hang on the wall at Station 2. He
will pass on Mr. Morgan’s best wishes for the fine job the Firefighters do day in and day out.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Ben Bay, (former Mayor/Council Member). He is present to speak relative to the proposed CenterLine
Rail project and to give his opinion relative to what he considers a 1 ½ billion dollar “boondoggle” for
Orange County which rivals the Los Angeles Subway boondoggle. It is an unjustified subsidy and will
probably cost more than 1 ½ billion followed by a continuing subsidy to operate it in the future which is
an unknown amount. He believes it is an inflexible, irreversible mistake. It is bad for the County and
Anaheim. The potential loss of sales tax is a reality by offering a very convenient way for the City’s
tourists to go to other cities and shopping centers to spend their money instead of trying to retain tourist
spending in the City where it belongs. Convention participants also may choose to stay elsewhere. He
believes there are better uses for Proposition M money. He feels strongly if Anaheim says no to this
project, it will stop. It is a bad idea.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Linda Lee Grau , 24 Morning Dove, Irvine. Reduce the size and cost of government; give Savas Roditis
his 100 cabs; just say no to the Urban Rail Project.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Judy Silber , Los Angeles Times/Orange County. She is speaking for Ramon Patel who just now asked
her to speak on his behalf (since he was unable to do so). She then read the note he gave her stating, “I
cannot speak to you. I came to deliver a letter from Dr. Desai, a copy of which has been given to you.
Please acknowledge and respond to it in a reasonable time.”
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Dean Rasmussen , 304 E. Sycamore, Anaheim. He stated, his subject is gardening. He thereupon
submitted some data in letter dated September 21, 1999 attached to which was additional material on
the subject which was given to the Council (letter made a part of the record).
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There was public input unde r item A9. See discussion under that item.
MOTION:
Mayor Daly moved to waive reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions to be acted upon for
the Council meeting of September 21, 1999. Council Member McCracken seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR A1 – A16:
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-196 through 99R-198 , both inclusive, for
adoption. Mayor Daly offered Ordinance No. 5702 for adoption. Refer to Resolution/Ordinance Book.
A1. 118: Rejecting and denying certain claims filed against the City. Referred to Risk Management.
The following claims were filed against the City and actions taken as recommended:
4
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
SEPTEMBER 21, 1999
a. Claim submitted by Jose & Elena Cano for property damage sustained purportedly due to
actions of the City on or about February 15, 1999.
b. Claim submitted by Carolyn S. Dales for property damage sustained purportedly due to
actions of the City on or about May 26, 1999.
c. Claim submitted by Dennis & Sandy Fisher for property damage sustained purportedly due to
actions of the City on or about March 30, 1999.
c. Claim submitted by Pham Hoang for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of
the City on or about July 15, 1999.
d. Claim submitted by Western General Insurance Co., Insured: Syliva Juarez for property
damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about May 12, 1999.
e. Claim submitted by Brian K. Kim for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of
the City on or about May 27, 1999.
f. Claim submitted by Janet Kirtley for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of
the City on or about July 27, 1999.
g. Claim submitted by Lonnie E. Laster for property damage sustained purportedly due to
actions of the City on or about March 1, 1999.
h. Claim submitted by Joyce D. Raphael for property damage sustained purportedly due to
actions of the City on or about August 12, 1999.
i. Claim submitted by Rex R. Rubio for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of
the City on or about May 8, 1999.
j. Claim submitted by Ler oy N. Silva for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions
of the City on or about June 4, 1999.
k. Claim submitted by Gary Sean Simonian for property damage sustained purportedly due to
actions of the City on or about July 1, 1999.
l. Claim submitted by Southwest Controls for property damage sustained purportedly due to
actions of the City on or about June 8, 1999.
m. Claim submitted by Elena Vigil for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of
the City on or about March 7, 1999.
A2. 105: Receive and file minutes of the Anaheim Redevelopment and Housing Commission
meetings held August 18, 1999.
105: Receive and file minutes of the Mother Colony House Advisory Board meeting held July 2,
1999.
105: Approving minutes of the Anaheim Public Library Board meeting held August 4, 1999.
Council Member Feldhaus noted in the Library Board minutes of the Meeting of August 4, 1999 there
was a statement that the Haskett Library restrooms were not handicap accessible and that needed to be
done. He asked the City Manager to help facilitate that as soon as possible. They were waiting for
CDBG money; he believes there should be something the City can do.
5
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
SEPTEMBER 21, 1999
105: Receiving and filing the Anaheim Public Library Monthly Circulation by Residency Report
for the month of July, 1999.
105: Receiving and filing the Anaheim Public Library Fiscal Year 1998/1999 Circulation by
Residency Report.
105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Golf Advisory Commission hel d July 22, 1999.
175: Receive and file correspondence before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for
the protest of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, in regards to Docket Nos.
ER99-4039-000 and EC99-105-000.
A3. 167: Award a contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Computer Service Co., in the amount of
$177,092.15 for the Santa Ana Canyon Road Traffic Signal Interconnect Coordination and in the
event said low bidder fails to comply with the terms of the award, award the contract to the
second low bidder, as well as waive any irregularities in the bids of both the low and second low
bidders.
A4. 159: RESOLUTION NO. 99R- 195 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM supporting a preferred alternate designation for the Placentia Lowered
Railroad Project.
Mayor Daly. He thanked staff for the timely preparation of the resolution consistent with the presentation
last week. This would put Anaheim on record as supporting the lowering of the railroad tracks traversing
east to west across Orange County also known as the Orangethorpe Corridor.
A5. 123: Waive Council Policy 401 and approve an Agreement with Infrastructure Management
Services ( IMS) to provide the FY 1999/2001 Pavement Management System services on the
City’s Arterial Highway System for a fee amount not to exceed $93,175 and authorize the Mayor
to execute the Agreement.
A6. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 99R- 196 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM accepting certain deeds conveying to the City of Anaheim certain real
properties or interests therein.
A7. 160: Accept the low bid of General Switchgear, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $195,580 for
the fabrication wiring and installation of twelve each 19-inch relay racks, including the removal of
seven racks, in accordance with Bid #5971.
A8. 160: Waive Council Policy 306 and authorize the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase order to
Computer Service Company, in the amount of $65,100 for fourteen police panel boxes.
A9. 142: ORDINANCE NO. 5701 (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
repealing Chapter 1.09 of Title 1 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to the Anaheim
Campaign Reform Law. (Introduced at the meeting of September 14, 1999, Item A20.)
Shirley Grindle . The Council has a second chance tonight to do the right thing relative to a campaign
contribution limit ordinance. They all worked hard along with the City Attorney to come up with a revised
ordinance to correct the problems with the existing ordinance. The Council was very close to instructing
Mr. White to bring before the Council the final revised ordinance for adoption or revision. She is
“begging” the Council to not repeal the existing ordinance without bringing forth a revised ordinance.
The voters (in 1992) voted in support of establishing a contribution limit. All the (State) measures that
have been before the voters pertaining to contribution limits have been overwhelmingly passed. There is
nothing different in Anaheim. She feels it would be a terrible political mistake to do away with the
6
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
SEPTEMBER 21, 1999
existing ($1,000) limit. She reiterated , the existing ordinance needs to be revised and it is ready to bring
forward. She urged that they instead move in that direction.
George Adams, on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce PAC (Political Action Committee), reported that
on a unanimous vote, the Board asked him to come before the Council to recommend that the $1,000
campaign contribution limit remain in place. Everyone agrees the existing ordinance needs to be
changed. They would like to see the limit stay in place but eliminate the penalty provisions. The Council
also received a letter from the President of the Chamber stating the Board’s opposition to repealing the
limit. The Chamber Board was unanimous in its request to retain the $1,000 limit. He personally feels
such a limit will keep everybody on a level playing field.
Leonard Lahtinen , 2731 W. Savoy Place, Anaheim. If the intent of eliminating campaign contribution
limits is to reduce the number of prospective candidates, it would be the proper move. However, he
hopes that is not the intent because that would be the outcome. Eliminating the limit will encourage and
result in only very wealthy individuals or wealthy friends running for office in the City. In the 1992
General Municipal Election, 80.1% of the voters who voted on the advisory measure to establish a
campaign contribution limit voted in favor of the measure representing over 50,000 citizens. He urged
retention of the existing ordinance and limit.
Jim Benson, 905 S. Lemon, Apartment A, Anaheim. Doing away with the contribution limit is just going
to increase the perception that, as politicians, the Council has strings attached to them whether or not
that is true. If the intent is to make the people feel like they are being represented in the City and to keep
their confidence, then they should vote no on the proposed ordinance to repeal the limit.
Irv Pickler , 2377 Mall, Anaheim (former Council Member). An advisory vote was taken on November 3,
1992 (Anaheim’s General Municipal Election). At that election, several measures were placed before the
voters including one on term limits and another, the advisory vote on campaign contribution limits. As a
Council Member, he voted against both going on the ballot. However, once they were on the ballot and
approved, he abided by the rules. The Council should remember the people have spoken. Any change
to term limits would have to go on the ballot, but the contribution limit was only an advisory vote. If they
feel they need another voice, the issue should again be placed on the ballot.
Ben Bay, (former Mayor and Council Member). He is present to support the repeal of the entire
Campaign Reform Law ordinance. He then outlined in detail his reasons why some of which are as
follows : involuntary limits put on free speech are basically unconstitutional and the main reason why it
should be repealed, the existing ordinance creates a conflict of interest for the City Attorney which
resulted in the hiring of a Special Prosecutor “witch hunt” resulting in an approximate $400,000 cost to
the City as well as fines to Council Members for “typographical” errors, it accomplished nothing to limit
campaign funding since there are too many ways around the ordinance such as unlimited spending by
Independent Committees, etc. He concluded by stating the key is disclosure, and the Fair Political
Practices Commission ( FPPC) has provided the laws to give all the disclosure necessary since anything
from $100 up must be reported to the City Clerk by every candidate involved in an election. (Candidates
are required to file semi-annual campaign statements as well as additional statements during an election
year.) He then suggested a method of keeping the citizens informed of any contributions above $500
from a single source prior to every election in the City. In concluding, he stated the voters in the City
have already indicated clearly that money alone does not win an election, a perfect example being what
occurred in the November, 1998 General Municipal Election.
Mayor Daly. He intends to abstain on this item as he has consistently done in recent months on the
advice of his attorney because of the Special Prosecutor debacle and continuation of legal
entanglements. He will not be voting on this issue.
Council Member Kring . The Council has been working on this issue since January. She has been
listening to the input people have given both this week and last. She cannot ignore the fact that there
was an advisory vote in 1992 asking if the Council should adopt an ordinance limiting the amount of
7
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
SEPTEMBER 21, 1999
campaign contributions a candidate may receive from a single source to $1,000 which was subsequently
adopted by the Council by ordinance. She feels that eliminating the campaign finance ordinance does
make it an uneven playing field. The reason she made the motion on August 24, 1999 to repeal the
ordinance was due to the fact that after five or six workshops on the subject, there was never any
resolution or consensus, the vote being 2-2 every time. There was also not a lot of input from the
citizenry. She felt something was needed to break the tie. Since that time, there has been input from
the Chamber and the citizens asking the Council to retain the campaign limit. She is, therefore, inclined
to listen and feels that a limit is appropriate. She would also like to eliminate the “criminal” language and
is willing to go back and look at the ordinance once again to clean up the language. Financing and fund
raising is the most difficult thing a candidate has to do. For those reasons, she is going to vote to
maintain the limit. She respects everybody who spoke to repeal the ordinance and hopes they respect
her position to retain the limit.
Council Member, Frank Feldhaus . He is surprised that the Chamber is taking a position since in reading
their by-laws and their purpose, he does not understand where they are coming from. Mr. Adams was
one who invested $21,000 of his own money to support a candidate in the last election as an
independent expenditure. There are people who will always find a way to get beyond the $1,000
limitation. Mr. Bay talked about disclosure which is and has been mandated under State law in any case
and all campaign statements are a matter of public record. Anybody can see the statements at any time
and make a decision as to whether a Council person is being overly financed. As Council Member Kring
stated, they went through a number of workshops trying to come to a consensus and they got nowhere.
He spoke to an advisor who told him they ought to “throw the whole thing out” and go by the FPPC rules.
The last election was an example of what can happen. Hopefully the Charter Review Committee ( CRC)
will come up with a recommendation that will obviate the situation that occurred so that the City Attorney
will not be put in the same position again. He does not have a problem with the $1,000 limitation. Eight
phone calls were received, most from people in a fixed-income bracket. He has not seen any outcry as
reported by Council Member Kring. He believes the thing to do is to repeal the ordinance and start over
with the regulations set forth by the Fair Political Practices Commission.
Mayor Daly. Because there is an ordinance on the agenda, he asked what Council’s options are City
Attorney White. The only other option is not to vote and instruct his office to come back with something
different ;otherwise, the only item on the agenda on this issue is adoption of the ordinance repealing the
existing ordinance.
Council Member McCracken . She has expressed her opinion repeatedly. She is an incumbent and
knows that raising funds is much easier for incumbents than a grass roots campaign. There is a Federal
limit of $ 1,000;she does not know what makes Anaheim better. She will continue to hold her position
that it is good for the community, especially the business community, so businesses are not repeatedly
asked for contributions. She has heard from a number of people in the community and, along with
Council Member Kring, believes the community wants a campaign contribution limit.
Council Member Kring asked the City Attorney if it was possible to have the Charter Review Committee
look at the issue to have it put on the ballot. If Proposition 208 does eventually become law, the limit will
be $250 or $500 if a total contribution amount is agreed to. If approved by the voters, however, a $1,000
limit would take precedence.
City Attorney White. The first order of business would be to act on the ordinance and subsequently if she
( Kring) wants to offer a separate motion tonight, that could be done because it relates to the agenda item
now being considered.
Council Member Tait . He has long felt the current ordinance should be repealed. He knows that position
is not popular and that 80% of those who voted in 1992 on an advisory vote stated that they favored
campaign limits. He strongly believes that the First Amendment of the Constitution protects political
dissent and also that the City ordinance should not put any form of limits or restrictions on political
dissent. By limiting the amount of money that a candidate can raise does have the practical effect of
8
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
SEPTEMBER 21, 1999
restricting political speech and dissent. The Founding Fathers believed strongly in unrestricted political
speech. For this reason, he will vote to repeal the ordinance.
Council Member Tait thereupon offered Ordinance No. 5701 for adoption.
ORDINANCE NO. 5701 (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING CHAPTER 1.09 OF TITLE 1 OF THE
ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE ANAHEIM CAMPAIGN
REFORM LAW. (INTRODUCED AT THE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 14,
1999, ITEM A20.)
Roll Call Vote on Ordinance No. 5701 for adoption:
AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : Feldhaus, Tait
NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : Kring, McCracken
ABSENT/ABSTAINED: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : Daly
The ORDINANCE FAILED to carry on a tie vote - three affirmative votes needed to adopt an ordinance
or resolution.
MOTION. Council Member Kring moved that the City Attorney be directed to bring back a new
ordinance but similar to the last ordinance submitted to see if something can be worked out. Council
Member Feldhaus seconded the motion. Council Member Tait voted no. Mayor Daly abstained.
MOTION CARRIED.
Council Member Kring asked that the Charter Review Committee look at the issue of placing on the
ballot a measure establishing a $1,000 campaign contribution limit which will take precedence if
sometime in the future the provisions of Proposition 208 (now pending in court) are reinstituted.
A10. 123: Approve a Cooperative Agreement with the State of California Department of Education
( SDE ) in the amount of $40,000 for the period of July 1, 1999 through June 30, 2000 to provide
funds for eligible youth participating in work-based training activities and authorize the JTP
Manager to execute any necessary subcontract agreements and modifications thereto.
A11. 123: Approve a Cooperative Agreement with the State of California Department of Education in
the amount of $86,295 for the period of July 1, 1999 through June 30, 2000 to provide funds for
persons participating in welfare-to-work activities and authorize the JTP Manager to execute any
necessary subcontract agreements and modifications thereto.
A12. 123: Approve an Agreement with Governor’s Office of Emergency Services for the assessment
of the Y2K readiness of hazardous materials facilities and authorize the Fire Chief to execute
said Agreement. (Continued from the September 14, 1999 meeting, Item A27.)
A13. 153: Approve the 2000 Health and Welfare plan rates listed on Attachment “A” and authorize
the Human Resources Director to sign all required renewal documents on behalf of the City.
A14. 142: ORDINANCE NO. 5702 (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
amending Section 1.05.030 of Chapter 1.05 of Title 1 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to
City Council Assistants. (Introduced at the meeting of September 14, 1999, Item A21.)
A15. 116: RESOLUTION NO. 99R- 197 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM relating to the exempt service positions of City Council Assistants.
9
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
SEPTEMBER 21, 1999
153: RESOLUTION NO. 99R- 198 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM amending Resolution No. 99R-125 which established rates of compensation
for unrepresented part-time job classifications.
Council Member Kring asked the City Attorney to explain some of the pertinent information relating to
establishing the positions of City Council Assistants.
City Attorney White. He first briefed the applicable section(s) of the AMC which categorizes all City
employees into two categories. Before the Council tonight are two resolutions and one ordinance. The
ordinance would add as a part-time position the position of City Council Assistant to the exempt service
of the City, meaning the employees would be exempt from the normal personnel rules that apply to most
full-time employees. Secondly, there would be a resolution that would establish the terms of employment
for the Assistants that would provide that these would be “at will” employees, part-time, not-to-exceed
1,000 hours per year, employed through the City Manager’s Office but be assigned to individual Council
Members to help with their official duties as Council Members and that the Council could request one or
more assistants but that each Council Member would have a designated budget within which the Council
Assistants would have to be employed and, therefore, the total number spent by each Council Member in
any year could not exceed the budgeted amount for each member of the Council. Finally, the third
resolution is to establish rates of pay and create two classifications for City Council Assistant. The first
would be a City Council Assistant I position to provide clerical support. The pay rate would be as
described in the resolution starting at $13.76 an hour with a top step of $17.56. For a City Council
Assistant II to provide Administrative support, the starting salary is $16.98 with a top step of $20.53 an
hour. It is further proposed that each Council Member would be budgeted for the remainder of this fiscal
year the amount of $15,000 with which the City would hire Assistants as requested by the Council
Member. Council may not request any Assistants or may request one or more within each Member’s
budget.
Council Member McCracken . The Charter allows the Council to appoint four individuals – the City
Manager, City Attorney, City Treasurer and City Clerk. To her it seems they are walking a fine line. The
resolution says the City Manager hires these people but the Council Member selects them, supervises
them and can fire them. She asked to hear from the City Attorney.
City Attorney White. In drafting the resolution, it was important to be cognizant of the Charter limitations
and the resolution was drafted making sure not to cross the line between the Administrative service and
the Council discretion. While Council Members individually can request service, have input and make
recommendations in the hiring process, the actual hiring and termination would be by the City Manager.
The Council Member would not do the hiring, or firing. It would be based upon satisfactory performance,
a large extent of which would be the satisfaction of the Council Member for which the service was being
performed. He reiterated , the City Manager is the one who would make the appointments.
Mayor Daly. While he respects Council Member McCracken’s concerns regarding the Charter, he
believes the City Attorney’s recommendations adequately address the Charter. The existence of
Assistants for those Council Members who would like to use them will be good for the City of Anaheim
government and help make the Council Member more efficient in performing their public duties and
ultimately accrue other benefits for the citizens.
Mayor Daly offered Ordinance No. 5702 and Resolution Nos. 99R-197 and 99R-198 for adoption. Refer
to Ordinance and Resolution Book.
Roll Call Vote on Ordinance No. 5702 for adoption:
AYES: MA YOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : Feldhaus, Kring, Tait, Daly
NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : McCracken
10
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
SEPTEMBER 21, 1999
ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 5702 duly passed and adopted.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 99R-197 and 99R-198, both inclusive, for adoption:
AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : Feldhaus, Kring, Tait, Daly
NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : McCracken
ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 99R-197 and 99R-198 both inclusive, duly passed and adopted.
A16. 114: Approve minutes of the Anaheim City Council meeting held August 17, 1999.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 99R-195 for adoption:
AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : Feldhaus, Kring, Tait, McCracken, Daly
NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : None
ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 99R-195 duly passed and adopted.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 99R-196 for adoption:
AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : Feldhaus, Kring, Tait, McCracken, Daly
NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : None
ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 99R-196 duly passed and adopted.
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR. MOTIONS CARRIED
APPOINTMENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
A17. 105:
Appointment to the City Planning Commission to fill the unscheduled vacancy of Alden E.
Esping, for the term ending June 30, 2002.
Mayor Daly. He asked for a two-week continuance on this item. Due to press of business, he has not
had an adequate opportunity to talk to anyone relative to the position.
MOTION. On motion by Mayor Daly seconded by Council Member McCracken, the subject appointment
was continued two weeks to October 5, 1999. MOTION CARRIED.
ITEMS B1 – B4 FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF
AUGUST 30, 1999 - INFORMATION ONLY APPEAL PERIOD ENDS SEPTEMBER 21, 1999:
NEGATIVE DECLARATION GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 368
B1. 155:
11
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
SEPTEMBER 21, 1999
INITIATED BY :
City of Anaheim (Planning Department), 200 South Anaheim Boulevard,
Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION: 3175 West Ball Road.
Property is 0.36 acres located at the northeast corner of
Western Avenue and Ball Road. City-initiated amendment to the Land Use Element of the
General Plan redesignating this property from the Medium Density Residential land use
designation to the General Commercial land use designation.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
WITHDRAWN
NEGATIVE DECLARATION RECLASSIFICATION NO. 99-00-06
B2. 179:
OWNER:
Robert and Beverly Hollis, 310 South Gilbert Street, Anaheim, CA 92804
AGENT:
Mark Handler (architect), 1211 West Imperial Highway, Brea, CA 92821
LOCATION: 310 South Gilbert Street.
Property is 0.27 acres located on the east side of
Gilbert Street, 130 feet south of the centerline of Broadway.
To reclassify subject property from the RS-A-43 ,000 (Residential/Agricultural) Zone to the RS-
7200 (Residential, Single-Family) Zone.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
WITHDRAWN
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ITEMS:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4097 – REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF
B3. 179:
FINAL LANDSCAPE PLANS AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION :
Charles Perez, 420 South State
College Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92806, requests review and approval of final landscape plans
for a previously-approved automotive repair facility. Property is located at 420 South State
College Boulevard - C&M Automotive.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 4097 APPROVED FINAL LANDSCAPE PLANS with modifications as discussed.
Negative Declaration previously approved.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3239 – REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF
B4. 179:
FINAL LANDSCAPE PLANS AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION :
Novak and Associates, Attn:
Nick Frasca, 132 North Maryland Avenue, Glendale, CA 91206-4235, requests review and
approval of final landscape plans for the outdoor display of boats. Property is located at 3475
East La Palma Avenue – Angler’s Marine.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3239 APPROVED FINAL LANDSCAPE PLANS.
Negative Declaration previously approved.
ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION:
B5. 155: ORDINANCE NO. 5703 (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM approving Specific Plan Adjustment No. 2 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No.
92-2, Amending Ordinance No. 5453, and Amending Subsection 18.48.070.090 of the Anaheim
Municipal Code. (Introduced at the meeting of September 14, 1999, Item B8.)
B6. 179: ORDINANCE NO. 5699 (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM Amending Chapter 17.20 of Title 17 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to
12
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
SEPTEMBER 21, 1999
excavation and recovery of non-fuel minerals and reclamation of mined lands. (Originally
introduced at the meeting of August 24, 1999). (Re-introduced with revisions at the meeting of
September 14, 1999, Item B9.)
Roll Call Vote on Ordinance Nos. 5699 and 5703 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 Nos. 5699 and 5703 duly passed and adopted.
ITEMS B7 FROM THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MEETING OF
SEPTEMBER 9, 1999 - DECISION DATE: SEPTEMBER 16, 1999
INFORMATION ONLY - APPEAL PERIOD ENDS SEPTEMBER 27, 1999:
TENTAIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 99-128
B7. 170:
CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION – CLASS 3
OWNER:
James Warren Schmidt 6200 Tobruk Court, Long Beach , Ca 90803
AGENT:
Doug Boynton/Bob Dupuy, 729 East Willow Street , Signal Hill, CA 90806
LOCATION: 117 South Western Avenue ( Q.S.5) :
property is 0.87-acres, having a frontage of
129 feet on the west side of Western Avenue, centerline of Lincoln Avenue.
To establish a 2-lot commercial subdivision for an existing self-serve car wash facility and drive-
through restaurant in the CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
Tentative Parcel Map No. 99-128 APPROVED
( ZA DECISION NO. 99-37)
PUBLIC HEARING - ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 166
D1. 179:
CEQA EXEMPT {SECTION 15061 (b)(3)}:
OWNER: Gregory and Virginia Speth, 2566 W. Runyon Place, Anaheim, CA 92804
LOCATION: 2566 West Runyon Place. Property is 0.2 acres having a frontage of
approximately 73 feet on the south side of Runyon Place, and a maximum depth of 136 feet and
located 250 feet east of the centerline of Magnolia Avenue. Waiver of minimum front yard
setback (20 feet-8-inches proposed ; 25 feet required) to construct a 225 square foot garage
addition to an existing single-family home.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
Administrative Adjustment No. 166 APPROVED ( ZA DECISION NO. 99-29).
(Informational item at the meeting of August 17, 1999, Item B5.) Review of the Zoning
Administrator’s decision requested by Council Member Feldhaus and Mayor Daly.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in North County News : September 9, 1999
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet : September 9, 1999
Posting of property : September 10, 1999
Mayor Daly first asked how many were present on this Public Hearing. (Only one gentleman was present
presumed to be the applicant.)
13
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
SEPTEMBER 21, 1999
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator clarified for Council Member Feldhaus that there was additional
(legal) advertising/mailing relative to the subject Public Hearing being held before the Council today.
She also briefed the posted exhibits which included an aerial photo and other photos showing the
property from different directions also showing the area in which the addition is proposed.
Mayor Daly noted the minutes of the Zoning Administrator hearing stated that there were five persons
who spoke against the proposal and also that three letters were received. Planning staff recommended
approval of the request to allow the garage addition to protrude closer to the street. He asked to hear
from staff relative to their rationale.
Joel Fick , Planning Director. Staff believes that the proposal would be compatible with the other homes
along the street. If there was a front-on garage involved, the variance would not even be required. It is
only applicable because it is a side-on garage.
Mayor Daly opened the Public Hearing and asked to hear from the applicant.
Applicant’s Statement : Greg Speth, 2566 Runyon, Anaheim. He is asking for a variance of 4’ on the
front corner of the proposed garage addition. The setback is 25’ for a side-on garage and 20’ for front-
on. The footprint of the property will be the same. The side-on garage will look better and it will be
easier to complete. There are three homes on his street currently enjoying a side-on garage with a
setback less than 25’. He also has a petition signed by a number of his neighbors in support of his
proposal. He brought with him the plan previously submitted, the same as the one posted, along with
photographs of the three properties on his street with setbacks of 20’, 18’ and 22’ (plan and photographs
made a part of the record). He will be happy to answer any questions.
Questions were then posed by the Mayor and Council Member Feldhaus for purposes of clarification
relative to the specifics of the addition during which Mr. Speth confirmed that his design will be
consistent with the existing garage (which is a condition of approval); Council Member Feldhaus stated
he wanted to clarify that there was no longer any opposition and that Mr. Speth had obviously satisfied
his neighbors.
Council Member Kring noted that the petition contained 20 signatures of support.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the Public Hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION :
On motion by Council Member
Feldhaus, seconded by Council Member Kring, the City Council finds that the proposed activity falls
within the definition of sections 3.01 Class 21 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. MOTION CARRIED.
Council Member Feldhaus offered Resolution No. 99R-199 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 99R-199 : A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE
ADJUSTMENT NO. 166.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 99R-199 for adoption:
AYES: MAYOR/COUN CIL MEMBERS : Feldhaus, Kring, Tait, McCracken, Daly
NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : None
ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : None
14
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
SEPTEMBER 21, 1999
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 99R-199 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 4366
D2. 179:
CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION – CLASS 3
OWNER
: Karl G. Kreutziger Jr., Lori A. Kreutziger, 6263 East Trail Drive, Anaheim, CA 92807
LOCATION
: 6271 East Trail Drive. Property is 0.51 acres having a frontage of 85 feet on the
north side of Trail Drive, a maximum depth of 134 feet and is located 162 feet west of the
centerline of Whitestone Drive. Waiver of maximum structural height (25 feet high permitted ; 36
feet proposed) to construct a new single-family residence in the RS-HS 22,000 (SC) Zone.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
Variance No. 4366 APPROVED ( ZA DECISION NO. 99-31). (Informational item at the meeting
of August 17, 1999, Item B6.) Decision of the Zoning Administrator appealed by J.G.D.
Company, Inc. Daniel Topalian.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in North County News : September 9, 1999
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet : September 9, 1999
Posting of property : September 10, 1999
Annika Santalahti , Zoning Administrator. She briefed the proposal as outlined in Staff Report to the
Zoning Administrator dated July 29, 1999. The property has a higher frontage on the north facing wall of
the property since it is on a hillside. The effect of the over 25’ is to the nothr. She noted that the overall
tract does have a height variance and a number of homes that have fairly substantial heights because
the houses actually step down the hill. She has with her photographs showing what the adjacent
properties look like and this proposal would not be dissimilar. (She submitted those to the Council).
Joel Fick , Planning Director. When staff was analyzing the request, it was found that 61 lots within one-
quarter of a mile radius had height waivers.
Mayor Daly opened the Public Hearing and, upon the advice of the City Attorney, asked first to hear from
the applicant to be followed by the appellant.
Applicant’s Statement : Karl Kreutziger, 6263 East Trail Drive, Anaheim. He first submitted a booklet
entitled , Variance No. 4366 – Waiver of Maximum Structural Height – Owner/Builder Karl & Lori
Kreutziger. He explained that his neighbor was trying to delay his project and that his attempt to create
the hardship is directly attributed to the current litigation they are in relating to the common property wall
at the bottom of his slope. He briefed the contents of the booklet submitted – Tab One – Summary of
Staff Report dated 7-29-99 – Summary of Decision No. ZA 99-31 - Tab Two – Elevations and Floor
Plans of House – Tab Three – Photographs of Adjacent Property – Tab Four – Letters of Approval from
Neighbors. In concluding, he stated the issue is not the size of his house, its location, or “footprint” on
the building pad, or any privacy issues since he falls within the guidelines of the zoning. It is about his
rights and privileges to raise the height of his house in order to build under the special circumstances just
as his 61 neighbors have done.
There being no further persons to speak in favor, he asked to hear from those opposed.
Jennifer Friend, Law Firm of Wellman and Warren and is present on behalf of the appellant, JGD. Her
extensive presentation covered why the variance should not be granted during which she cited certain
sections of the AMC relating to the establishment of height limits as well as citing certain sections of the
California Government Code revolving around the issue of special circumstances applicable to property.
The applicant created a self-induced hardship since he was at all times in control of the site. The
placement of the structure on the site could have been anticipated and the site lot could have been
drawn differently. However, this was not done and it is their contention that it was probably done
because of a personal desire to have a specific type of view. This type of request for a variance is not
15
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
SEPTEMBER 21, 1999
what the law allows. The law states there must be special circumstances dealing with the topography,
shape and size of the property which creates such a hardship. This was created by the property owner
and, therefore, does not fall beneath the caveat of the exception. She reiterated, the hardhsip is not due
to the land; the only reason it is being requested is because the applicant likes the view. The other
property owners did not have the control to create a plot which would allow them to build outside of a
steep slope. They were restricted by the topography of the pad. Because 61 other variances were
granted does not necessitate the granting of a variance in this case. The granting of the variance has
been made erroneously and has created a privacy invasion on the part of JGD and creates substantial
damage as far as the worth and enjoyment of the property. Therefore, they are requesting that the
Council continue the hearing in order for an acceptable method of mitigating impact be created. If they
come together, they can mitigate the invasion of privacy. Before concluding she also questioned why on
August 19, 1999 a building permit No. 80252 was granted knowing that an appeal had been filed with the
City and that they were going to request that the Council review the decision of the Zoning Administrator.
City Attorney White. It is his understanding a permit was issued for foundations only. They are not
aware a permit was issued but if it was, a building permit does not authorize violation of the zoning laws
of the City. That is the reason for the hearing, to determine what the height of the building will be and if
the variance is not granted, then the building, regardless of the permits issued, is going to have to
comply with the height limits in the Zoning Code. There is nothing that has been issued that is somehow
affecting the hearing tonight or the Council’s decision. It is not relevant to what the Council is required to
look at.
There was then additional input by Ms. Friend following which were questions posed by Council Members
on the issues involved answered by both Ms. Friend and staff, notably the issue of privacy for the
appellant’s property.
Annika Santalahti , Zoning Administrator. She then explained for Council Member Kring the specific
issues she takes into account in such cases upon which she bases her decision. She further explained,
in this instance, the lower elevation shows two stories of windows and it is the roof structure that takes
the home above 25’. What is above 25’ is not windows.
Council Member Kring asked if in staff’s estimation, if the other property were to be developed into a
home, there would be no privacy problem with the variance ;Annika Santalahti. If the applicant built a
flatter type of roof, there would not even be a need for a height variance. It does meet all the
requirements.
Summation by Applicant : Karl Kreutziger. He will only rebut the items that have any validity. This is an
attempt to ask for a continuance to delay the project and structure which is all wrapped around litigation
currently pending. If the construction of his house does not improve the cost of that property ( JGD), he
does not know what would. The invasion of privacy issue has already been discussed. If he were to
lower his roof 5’, it would still be the same. The windows are in the exact same spot. They have no
intention of looking down on a “junk yard”. As far as any minor modifications that Mr. Brown and he
could sit down and discuss, it is not going to happen. He asked that they take the advice of staff and the
Zoning Administrator and approve his variance so he can complete his home.
Mayor Daly noted that there is a very clear staff report on the proposal.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION :
On motion by Mayor Daly,
seconded by Council Member Kring, the City Council finds that the proposed activity fall within the
definition of sections 3.01 Class 3 of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for an
Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements to file an
EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
16
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
SEPTEMBER 21, 1999
Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 99R-200 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 99R-200 : A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 4366.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 99R-200 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-200 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4141 AND NEGATIVE
D3. 179:
DECLARATION
OWNER:
CH Anaheim, LTD. 20101 SW Birch Street #260, Newport Beach, CA 92660
AGENT:
Crown Realty & Development, 20101 SW Birch St. #260 Newport Beach, CA 92660
LOCATION: 2005 East Katella Avenue – Stadium Crossings
(Pad E).
Property is 1.10 acres located at the northeast corner of State College Boulevard and
Katella Avenue. To construct a full service restaurant (Denny’s Classic Diner) with sales of
alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption and an outdoor dining area within a mixed-use
commercial center.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 4141 GRANTED ( PC99-145) (6 yes votes, 1 absent)
Negative Declaration previously approved. (Informational item at the meeting of August 24,
1999, Item B4). Review of the Planning Commission decision requested by Mayor Daly and
Council Member McCracken.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in North County News : September 9 , 1999
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet : September 9, 1999
Posting of property : September 10, 1999
Council Member Tait . His engineering firm has done some work for Denny’s which he just realized this
evening. The City Attorney has advised there may be a potential conflict but after checking with the Fair
Political Practices Commission ( FPPC), it is inconclusive. He would like additional time to determine
whether or not there is a conflict. If the applicant agrees to a one-week continuance, otherwise, he
would have to abstain.
Mr. Robert Flaxman, representative for the applicant , CH Anaheim, Ltd. was present, having just arrived
in the Council Chamber and asked to be apprised of what had occurred thus far; City Attorney White
explained the situation relative to Council Member Tait’s potential conflict stating that more information is
needed relating to the Denny’s Corporation in order to make the determination. After
discussion/questioning between the City Attorney and Mr. Flaxman, (i.e., discussion of gross sales, if
stock traded on Nasdaq, threshold amounts, etc.), Council Member Tait stated he believed that prudence
would dictate that he abstain on this item.
Council Member Tait left the Council Chamber temporarily (7:42 P.M.).
Mayor Daly asked to hear from staff to provide some background on the proposal.
17
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
SEPTEMBER 21, 1999
Annika Santalahti , Zoning Administrator. Staff has had two concerns about this proposal – operational
characteristics of the restaurant, and architectural design in the context of surrounding development. It
was Planning’s understanding through meetings with staff and testimony given during the Public Hearing
before the Planning Commission that the site (corner of Katella and State College – Pad E of Stadium
Crossings) was designated for a full-service, sit-down dinner restaurant with the applicant’s verbal
examples being Outback Steak House and Black Angus. Relative to the architectural design, Stadium
Crossings was intended to be an integrated, mixed-use project in terms of circulation, parking, signs, and
architectural compatibility. While some architectural variation was anticipated, it was not intended to
take on the quality or character of a fast service or fast food type restaurant. With the objective of
obtaining a suitable tenant and building design for this corner, Condition 57 of the resolution approving
CUP 3957 specifies that Pad E be developed with a full service, sit down restaurant of not less than
5,000 sq. ft.
The applicant submitted revised exterior plans and a material and color board (posted on the Chamber
wall). Some modifications have been made since then. Signs were modified so that none project above
the roof line; the applicant can address any other changes. She then elaborated on some of the reasons
why staff objected to the Denny’s Classic Diner design approved by the Planning Commission explaining
also that staff still has concerns – that the design of the building be more of a quality dinner restaurant,
the design of the outdoor patio on the south side be integrated with the building and enclosed with more
than a low fence. A perspective drawing of the revised proposal, with landscaping, as it would look to
passing traffic would better illustrate the building and adjacent improvements. If Council chooses to
approve the revised proposal, staff recommends that the conditions in the Planning resolution be
retained except that the revised exhibits replace previous exhibits are referenced in the resolution.
Mayor Daly then posed a line of questions relative to the proposal which were answered by both Ms.
Santalahti and Mr. Fick at the conclusion of which, he opened the Public Hearing and asked to hear from
the applicant or applicant’s agent.
Applicant’s Statement : Robert Flaxman, President of Crown Realty and Development, CH Anaheim Ltd.,
owner of Stadium Crossings. He first gave the history of the project and the status up to the present. As
part of the original approval, the City approved Pad “E”, the subject of the hearing, as a full-service, sit-
down restaurant with the sale of alcohol beverages for on-premises consumption and an outdoor seating
area. Ms. Santalhti inserted in the language of the approval the word dinner. The word dinner was never
in the original approval. In addition to the language, there was a list attached to the CUP of 48 pre-
approved restaurants (see list, Attachment “A” of Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated August
2, 1999). He also read additional language that was part of the approval. Unless a comparable tenant is
approved by staff, staff has taken the position that the Denny’s they have brought forward is of concern
on the two issues previously addressed by Ms. Santalahti. Relative to operations, the proposal is a full-
service, sit-down restaurant with table seating serving three meals with waiter/waitress service and the
sale of alcoholic beverages. Relative to the issue of design, their first application, the diner concept,
received a “cool” reception from staff. Three design alternatives were also submitted and they have had
subsequent meetings with Council Members and staff to discuss those. He explained in detail what took
place at those meetings and what they would be willing to do. They encouraged staff to let them know
what specific design issues were going to be important and they would be glad to incorporate those into
the final design. They suggested they would be glad to move the outdoor seating area. The design they
have now submitted retains the outdoor seating area in the exact location that was shown on the exhibits
that were approved with the original CUP which is out on the corner.
In concluding his presentation, Mr. Flaxman stated what is important to them tonight is to get a definitive
direction and move forward with the project. They have gone out to the market place and turned over
every rock and stone to find the restaurant staff had articulated they wanted to see. They believe that
Denny’s is the right use for this project. It serves three meals a day, it is affordable, it is open 24 hours a
day which is important because they have an all-suites hotel on the project without a restaurant. The
breakfast service in particular is important. Many of the people who work in the area need a convenient
and affordable place to eat. One of the primary things they did in designing this mixed-use project,
18
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
SEPTEMBER 21, 1999
which he believes is an important part of land planning, is to bring into a project like this all the things
that are necessary for people to meet their lifestyle demands so that they do not have to get into their
car. He feels they have accomplished something unique in their proposal. He urged Council approval
tonight and to ask staff to work with them to come up with a design package that meets their approval
and come back to the Planning Commission as a Report and Recommendation ( R&R ) item in two to
three weeks, build the project and get it open.
Mayor Daly asked if anyone else wished to speak.
Rich Skinner, Anaheim resident and employee of Campbell Motel Properties who are building the
Marriott Town House Suites which is extended stay. They have been excited about having Denny’s as
part of the project especially since they do not have food and beverages at their facility. The company
was looking for locations where there was a full-service restaurant with three meals a day, at affordable
prices. They feel this is going to be an excellent fit for their business and it will be within walking
distance. He has seen the list of 48 restaurants which includes IHOP as being one of the acceptable
restaurants. Denny’s is every bit as good a product as IHOP. He reiterated, the Denny’s proposal will be
a good fit and an affordable restaurant for their guests.
Summation by Applicant : Robert Flaxman. When the issue came up about the outdoor patio area, they
submitted the perspective drawing to staff giving a three-dimensional view of the outdoor patio seating,
the location of the furniture, etc., that is all part of the project. In terms of the shape, characteristics and
operations, it is all there. If there are color and material distinctions they need to talk about, they are
ready to sit down and do that with staff as part of bringing this to conclusion.
A line of questions was posed to Mr. Flaxman by Council Members relative to the hours of operation
(stipulated in Condition 17 of the Commission resolution), the entrance, fencing, etc., answered by the
Planning Director. Council Member McCracken noted that staff was concerned about the corrugated
metal fencing. She asked Mr. Flaxman if he would be willing to work with staff on that issue.
Mr. Flaxman answered, absolutely. He also stated there is no corrugated fencing on the project. There
is a solid masonry wall and applied to that is a metal finish. They can take that wall and put stucco on it,
paint it, add any number of different materials to satisfy staff’s concerns.
Mayor Daly. There have been discussions on this project and he has talked to Mr. Flaxman relative to
his questions and issues. He feels two years ago when the entitlements were sought for this corner,
representations were made. He believes there was some leeway built into the representations.
However, there were commitments made to the City at that time relative to restaurants and minutes of
the meetings mention restaurants like Black Angus or Outback Steak House. The list of 48 is a wide
range from quite expensive to affordable. For him, if the representation had been made on what was to
be expected and what has been delivered it would have changed his view of the entitlement. He feels
for such a key corner of the City, they should expect more especially if the entitlement was made on that
representation. It makes it difficult to set high planning standards when those representations aren’t
consistent. Staff has illustrated clearly this is not what was imagined when the entitlement was being
processed. He asked the Planning Director and City Manager to summarize what the expectation was
during the entitlement process.
Joel Fick explained what occurred in the early meetings where, from the outset, staff expressed their
concerns relative to that corner. Staff was concerned not knowing what the particular user and design
would be. They were very concerned about the visibility of that corner and the design and the
compatibility of fitting in. That is why specific design related issues were brought back and why they find
themselves at this hearing tonight. They have worked well with Mr. Flaxman but on this issue, they
happen to disagree. There was an amended design that staff received the color boards for yesterday
along with the detail. Staff feels it is moving in the right direction but that does not mean this is the best
design.
19
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
SEPTEMBER 21, 1999
City Manager Ruth. Mr. Fick accurately reflected what occurred at the early meetings where it was
emphasized by staff this is a very critical corner and, with all the quality development taking place, they
had higher expectations. He was not privileged to all the discussions, but staff always felt that this
particular location could command a better quality restaurant.
There was further discussion between Mayor Daly and Mr. Flaxman, wherein the Mayor again reiterated
his concern that he was disappointed that they do not have a better project at this point.
Council Member Kring . She was not a Council Member when the entitlements were first granted. In
looking at the 48 names listed as acceptable restaurants, there are at least eight she would consider of
lesser quality than a Denny’s Diner which is a new concept. There are no breakfast restaurants in that
area and people like to have meetings over breakfast. A particular restaurant is not going to come
because they want them, but only if it is an economic financial benefit. She likes the concept of Denny’s
Diner at this location.
Council Member McCracken . If the project is approved, she asked if it can be conditioned so that the
applicant can work with staff for a Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission regarding
all of the issues discussed. She feels they need more details and also that the Planning Commission
needs to see it again. There was a family restaurant across the street for many years that was
successful because it was a service to the community. In this area, there is no place for a business
lunch. Perhaps their expectations were unrealistic citing what happened with Tinsel Town which is no
longer a dinner theater. The Council has been talking about projects that encompass all services
eliminating the need for using a car.
Council Member Feldhaus . He believes they have to give Mr. Flaxman some direction as to what is
aesthetically acceptable. Once they get to that point, he does not care what restaurant is there as long
as the building is aesthetically acceptable. He does not know what they want to do to get there. He is
also certain that Mr. Flaxman has exhausted the search for as many restaurants as possible.
Mr. Flaxman . What they have suggested tonight is that the Council give staff direction that it is OK to
put the Denny’s Diner in the “box” and then decide what the box will look like. He is willing to work with
staff to go back to the Planning Commission as a Report and Recommendation item. Whether it is that
particular design or another design, he wants to hear someone tell him what it is supposed to look like –
approve the concept, let them go forward and direct staff to work with them to go back to the Planning
Commission as an R & R item.
Mayor Daly closed the Public Hearing.
Council Member Kring . She is going to offer the resolution to approve CUP4141 with the condition that
the applicant work with staff relative to the architectural features of the building and go back to the
Planning Commission as an R & R item.
Joel Fick . There are several conditions in the resolution – Condition 18 talks about specific plans. Staff
suggests that be eliminated and instead Condition 2 that talks about having it going back to the Planning
Commission be changed to say, “that prior to the issuance of a building permit that a precise
architectural design for this building shall be submitted to the Zoning Division for review and approval by
the Planning Commission as an R&R item”. That will leave the door open to work with Mr. Flaxman on
the design issue. The Council by their action tonight adds a Denny’s Diner to the list and gives staff
direction to work with Mr. Flaxman on the design. He then clarified for Mr. Flaxman that Condition 18
talks specifically about the plans on file, meaning the prior plans. He is suggesting that be eliminated
and instead Condition 2 be changed (as indicated above) and all the references to Denny’s Classic Diner
be eliminated, not saying that that may not ultimately be the name of the restaurant; Mr. Flaxman. That
is fine as long as the approval is clear that the Denny’s use is approved operationally and they will work
on the design of the exterior of the building.
20
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
SEPTEMBER 21, 1999
Mr. Fick confirmed for Council Member McCracken that anything that would go to the Planning
Commission on a Report and Recommendation would appear on the Council agenda for review.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – NEGATIVE DECLARATION :
On motion by Council Member
Kring, seconded by Council Member McCracken, 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 sill have a significant effect on the environment.
MOTION CARRIED.
Council Member Kring offered Resolution No. 99R-201 for adoption subject to City Planning Commission
conditions and also incorporating the modifications as articulated by staff, the Planning Director and
Zoning Administrator.
RESOLUTION NO. 99R-201 : A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. 4141.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 99R-201 for adoption:
AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : Feldhaus, Kring, McCracken
NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : Daly
TEMP. ABSENT/ABSTAINED: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : Tait
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 99R-201 duly passed and adopted.
Mayor Daly. While he respects the efforts regarding this particular pad, the expectations have not been
met and if he knew two years ago when he reviewed the entire project what was to be proposed and
agreed to by a future City Council, he would have approached the project differently. His expectations
were higher and he is disappointed in the outcome.
Council Member Tait entered the Council Chamber at 8:52 pm.
C1. REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS:
City Attorney Jack white stated that there are no actions to report.
C2 COUNCIL COMMENTS:
Council Member Kring :
She asked the City Manager to have staff look at some of the street signs in
the City particularly at Euclid and Katella and signs going up Euclid and Brookhurst – the signs around
areas that are important intersections in the City. Some are getting so old , it is difficult for people to read
those signs.
City Manager Ruth. The City has a comprehensive plan for replacing signs which is done on an annual
basis. He will follow up.
21
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
SEPTEMBER 21, 1999
Council Member Feldhaus :
The National Civic League is taking applications for the All-American City
award. Speaking to the City Manager, he would like to have an application submitted for Anaheim.
Mayor Daly. Before any steps are taken, he presumes that is something that would be discussed with
the full Council. His feeling is that considering the public time and expense necessary to receive the
award, it may not be worth pursuing. He is open to looking at all the materials. He noted that about half
the cities in Orange County have received the award leading him to ask what it really means.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Before concluding the meeting, a brief discussion was held regarding next week’s meeting (9/28/99) and
the Joint Workshop scheduled with the Community Services Board. Mayor Daly asked the possibility of
rescheduling the workshop to another date noting that there was going to be an extensive Closed
Session Agenda.
After a brief discussion, it was determined that the meeting of September 28, 1999 would commence at
2:30 P.M. instead of the usual starting time of 3:00 P.M. to accommodate the proposed schedule
(workshop and Closed Session before the start of the 5:00 P.M. portion of the meeting); City Attorney
White stated it would be necessary to adjourn today’s meeting to Tuesday, September 28, 1999 starting
at 2:30 P.M.
ADJOURNMENT: By general Council consent, the City Council Meeting of September 21, 1999 was
adjourned to Tuesday, September 28, 1999 at 2:30 P.M. for the purpose of a Joint Workshop with the
Community Services Board (9:00 P.M.).
SHERYLL SCHROEDER
CITY CLERK
22