2000/01/25ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA- CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 25, 2000
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
MAYOR: Tom Daly
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Frank Feldhaus, Lucille Kring, Tom Tait, Shirley McCracken
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
CITY MANAGER: Jim Ruth
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CLERK: Sheryll Schroeder
ASST. CITY CLERK: Ann Sauvageau
ZONING DIVISION MANAGER: Greg Hastings
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Joel Fick
TRAFFIC/TRANSPORTATION MANAGER: John Lower
EXEC. DIRECTOR COMM. DEVELOPMENT: Lisa Stipkovich
CIVIL ENGINEER: Natalie Meeks
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR: Gary Johnson
ANAHEIM POLICE DEPT. Sgt. Russ Sutter
ANAHEIM POLICE DEPT. Officer Medina
A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was posted at 3:10 p.m. on
January 21, 2000 at the City Hall Bulletin Board, (both inside and outside the entrance to City Hall)
containing all items as shown herein.
Mayor Daly called the workshop portion of the Council meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance (3:17 P.M.).
City Manager, James Ruth. This is the scheduled time for the workshop on the Corridor Beautification
Program Update to be given by the Public Works Department. He deferred to Gary Johnson, Public
Works Director/City Engineer who will make the presentation along with other members of his staff.
CORRIDOR BEAUTIFICATION PROGRAM UPDATE: Gary Johnson, Public Works Director/City
Engineer. The presentation is to provide an update of some of the progress made, describe the
accomplishments, and to ask for guidance on the future of the Street Beautification Program. He then
narrated a Power Pointe presentation, a hard copy of which was submitted to the Council and made a
part of the record. (See booklet entitled, Corridor Beautification Program Update - City Council
Workshop - January 25, 2000.) Today, he is representing a Multi-Departmental Task Force consisting of
the City Manager's Office, Public Works Department, Community Services Department, Community
Development, Public Utilities Department and the Planning Department. His presentation covered the
following, which he briefed in detail:
I. Status Review of Major Corridors - major streets, landscape/streetscape conditions, street miles
requiring improvements (48.6 miles); II. Corridor Beautification Program - Progress Updates -location
map of entry signs and monuments, entry sign program, entryway monument program, sign cleanup
program, bus benches/street furniture, street lights, existing venue directional signs (slides showed
examples), venue directional signs and new multi-venue signs, Anaheim Resort streetscape themes,
beautification projects completed (showed slides of improvements at Brookhurst and Crescent, South
Anaheim Boulevard n/o Ball to Broadway, Beach Boulevard s/o Lincoln Avenue, Corridor Master Plans -
State College Blvd. and Lincoln Ave. Corridor Beautifiction Master Plans completed, July, 1998 and July,
1999 respectively); III. Future Street Beautification Options/Costs - showed examples of Major Corridor
Beautification Program(s) and costs dependent on degree of improvements (Parkways - both sides of
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 25, 2000
street - $1-$2 M/mile - Median Islands (rehab) - $900 K/mile - Median Islands (new) - $1 - $2 M/mile),
estimated costs/mile to improve corridors (showed two scenarios -"A" - parkways only, $1-$2 M, and "B"
- parkways and medians, $2-$4 M).
During and after the presentation, questions were posed and input given by Council Members on certain
aspects of the presentation which were addressed by either Mr. Johnson or John Lower, Traffic and
Transportation Manager specifically relating to the following: Bus Shelters - staff is working on a bus
shelter unique to Anaheim and will be bringing that to the Council in the Summer. Bus shelters are
placed in high-ridership locations. The existing agreement provides for 135 (maximum) shelter locations;
the provider wants the ability to have 150 locations. There are five locations where the City can specify
no advertising; however, staff could ask for additional locations in their negotiations if the Council wishes.
Mr. Lower also confirmed for Council Member McCracken, relative to including an art element in the
shelters, they do have the ability in the agreement where any space not used for advertising is made
available, there have been few occasions when people have stepped forward to do so; Council Member
McCracken suggested that there be communication with groups in the community on this issue,
especially the Arts Council and/or other organizations. (Later in the workshop Council Member
McCracken also suggested relative to any historic street signs that may be replaced to possibly make
them available for sale to the public since some would be considered collectibles.) Council Member
Feldhaus addressed some signage issues asking that there be a directional sign coming off the I-5
saying, Anaheim Boulevard, and Civic Center.
Relative to signage, Mayor Daly asked the status of the Anaheim Boulevard signage on the I-5 and 91
freeway; Mr. Johnson. Staff will provide information to the Council on that issue.
After Mr. Johnson broached the issue of landscaping in the medians, Mayor Daly referred to Council
Member Tait's previous request for grass in the medians asked that staff bring back an analysis of three
or four potential locations where grass could be planted in the medians. He knows there are probably
maintenance issues with grass as well as pedestrian related issues to give a basis for making a decision.
He would like to see it tried where appropriate.
Council Member Tait. His concern with the medians is that the drought-resistant material after a while
really looks like there has been a drought. He is "passionate" about the issue and even one median
landscaped with grass would make him happy.
After additional discussion and questions, Mr. Johnson, briefing Scenario A (Parkways only at $1 - $2
million), and Scenario B (Parkways and Medians at $2 - $4 million) stated that the Task Force generally
feels the latter program (Scenario B) would be a key stimulus to new investment, reinvestment, cleanup
of corridors, enhance the community and further distinguish Anaheim as a quality city. He then deferred
to the City Manager.
City Manager Ruth then briefed the three recommendations by staff: (1) that staff continue to
implement the new standards Citywide, (2) identify opportunity funding for priority segments through
various fund sources, i.e., gas tax, County funding, Redevelopment, General Fund, CDBG,
Neighborhood Improvement Fund, grants, ISTEA funding and special legislation, (3) staff to prepare
long-term financing alternatives as part of the FY 2000/01 budget.
Mayor Daly. He feels that staff has done a "fabulous" job in bringing so many ideas and solutions
together. Enormous progress has been made in the last few years with sign removal, beautification,
improvements, etc., on streets like Anaheim Boulevard, Beach Boulevard and Brookhurst; Council
Member Tait. He echoes those sentiments as well. The program goes a long way to improving quality
of life for the City's residents. Relative to funding, he would like to see Redevelopment funds on this
type of program and believes such improvements would be a good use of Redevelopment funds. If
improvements are made, the investment will follow.
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 25, 2000
Mayor Daly. Along the lines of identifying long-term funding strategies, he asked if staff planned to bring
the Council some alternatives and a menu of choices relative to funding; City Manager Ruth· That is the
proposal and they will be doing so in the budget process this year·
Council Member McCracken. It is important to upgrade those neighborhoods without street lights and
without trees. The City is going to be 150 years old in 2007 and this improvement/beautification process
is a step in the right direction in revitalizing and rejuvenating the oldest City in the County.
Before concluding, Mayor Daly stated he was going to bring up an issue under Council Comments today
but this is perhaps the opportune time to do so. There are Neighborhood Watch signs in the City that are
"beat up" and in need of repair and replacement. Those locations need to be assessed. He knows the
Police Department coordinates that program. He would like staff to take a look at the Neighborhood
Watch signs which are not on the corridors.
Mayor Daly again thanked staff for the extensive and detailed presentation and the progress that has
been made under the program·
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
54956.9(a) - Existincl Liticlation:
Name of Case: Vista Royale Homeowners Assn. v. 396 Investment Co. fka The Fieldstone
Company, et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 77-30-74 (and related cases)·
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
54956.9(a) - Existincl Liticlation:
Name of Case: In the Matter of Rod Boyle vs. City of Anaheim (grievances numbers 98-127,
98-128, 98-129-99-014).
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL ANTICIPATED LITIGATION:
Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code:
One potential case·
CONFERECE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
54957.6:
Agency designated representative: David Hill
Name of employee organization: Anaheim Firefighters' Association and Anaheim Police
Association·
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT
SECTION 54957.6:
Agency designated representative: David Hill
Unrepresented employees: City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk, City Treasurer·
CODE
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 25, 2000
Mayor Daly moved to recess into Closed Session. Council Member McCracken seconded the motion.
(4:00 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS:
Mayor Daly called the regular Council meeting of January 25,200 to order at 5:52 p.m. and
welcomed those in attendance.
INVOCATION: A Moment of Silence was observed in lieu of an invocation.
FLAG SALUTE:
Council Member Frank Feldhaus led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $3,688,268.54 for the period ending
January 14, 2000 and $2,756,385.31 for the period ending January 24, 2000 in accordance with the
1999-2000 Budget, were approved.
Mayor Daly recessed the City Council meeting until after the Redevelopment Agency. (5:53 p.m.).
Mayor Daly reconvened the City Council Meeting. (5:57 p.m.).
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
There were no additions to agenda items.
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST:
Mark Ames, 136 W. Wilken Way, Anaheim. He first submitted and then read his statement entitled,
Wilken Way Closure (made a part of the record) which expressed concerns regarding the excess traffic
on W. Wilken Way, an issue the neighborhood has been trying to deal with for the last 15-20 years. The
submittal explained the situation in detail, the bottom line being, a request for closure of W. Wilken Way
to through traffic.
Mayor Daly. He asked Mr. Ames exactly the type of closure he and the residents would like to see
happen; Mr. Ames referred to the map attached to his submittal. If the City installed a sidewalk barrier at
the corner of Wilken Way and Oertley, it would still allow traffic to pass down Oertley through the
neighborhood to the south. This was the proposal they addressed with Mr. Lower (City's Traffic and
Transportation Manager). However, after various meetings with him (Lower), they are concerned nothing
is going to be done because staff does not want it closed. He is asking the Council to look into the issue
and after doing so, they will be glad to come back and discuss the matter further.
PUBLIC COMMENTS - AGENDA ITEMS:
Public input was received on Item A17 (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 January 25, 2000. Council Member McCracken seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR A1 - A20: 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 Resolution No. 2000R-9, for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
AI.
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 25, 2000
118: Rejecting and denying certain claims filed against the City. Referred to Risk Management.
The following claims were filed against the City and actions taken as recommended:
a. Claim submitted by Connie Adams for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions
of the City on or about November 25, 1999.
b. Claim submitted by Barbara Brown c/o Law Offices of Paul A. Le Chevalier for property
damage and bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about July 14,
1999.
c. Claim submitted by Merle Edward Carr for property damage sustained purportedly due to
actions of the City on or about December 2, 1999.
d. Claim submitted by Shawnia Daniels c/o Law Offices of Paul A. Chevalier for property
damage injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or July 14, 1999.
e. Claim submitted by Delphia Automotive Systems for property damage sustained purportedly
due to actions of the City on or about November 20, 1999.
f. Claim submitted by Mercedes Duque for property damage sustained purportedly due to
actions of the City on or about December 8, 1999.
g. Claim submitted by Shahab Eghterafi for property damage sustained purportedly due to
actions of the City on or about November 22, 1999.
h. Claim submitted by Theresa Gomez for property damage sustained purportedly due to
actions of the City on or about December 22, 1998.
i. Claim submitted by Ernesto S. Lee for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions
of the City on or September 7, 1999.
j. Claim submitted by Otis Bruce McCoy, Jr. for property damage sustained purportedly due to
actions of the City on or about November 20, 1999.
k. Claim submitted by Denise Sanchez, MJG Partnership for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 19, 1999.
I. Claim submitted by State Farm Insurance Co., Krinstine Ontiveros for property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about November 4, 1999.
m. Claim submitted by Barry & Michael Reiner for property damage sustained purportedly due
to actions of the City on or about October 16, 1999.
n. Claim submitted by Dennis D. Richardson c/o Jacobson & Associates for bodily injury
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or June 6, 1999.
o. Claim submitted by Andrew & Laura Ruiz for property damage sustained purportedly due to
actions of the City on or about December 15, 1999.
p. Claim submitted by Michael Sora for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of
the City on or about November 20, 1999.
q. Claim submitted by State Farm Insurance for property damage sustained purportedly due to
actions of the City on or about November 5, 1999.
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 25, 2000
r. Claim submitted by Jason D. Stentz for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions
of the City on or about September 28, 1999.
s. Claim submitted by Robert A. & Susan E, Stolz for property damage sustained purportedly
due to actions of the City on or November 24, 1999.
A2.
105: Receive and file minutes of the Anaheim Redevelopment and Housing Commission
meeting held December 15, 1999.
105: Receive and file minutes of the Mother Colony House Advisory Board meeting held
November 5, 1999.
105: Receive and file minutes of the Public Utilities Board meetings held November 4, 1999,
and December 2, 1999.
Council Member Feldhaus. In reading the minutes of the Public Utilities Board about the proposed
Partnership Water Program, he would like a presentation on the matter since this is the first he has heard
of the program; Mayor Daly. Staff had been pursuing meeting with Council Members on the issue and
perhaps that can be arranged to apprise the Council of the program.
City Manager Ruth stated that could be done.
174: Receive and file a Notice of Application to change electric rates at the end of the rate
freeze for all rate groups and other proposed changes.
117: Receive and file the Investment Portfolio Report for the month of December 1999, as
submitted by the City Treasurer.
A3.
175: Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Steve Casada Construction Company,
in the amount of $80,000 for Orangewood Avenue/I-5 Freeway 16 inch watermain; and approve
the Escrow Agreement pertaining to contract retentions, with Steve Casada Construction
Company; and authorize the Finance Director to sign said Agreement.
A4.
175: Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder Universal Pipeline, Inc., in the amount
of $245,326, for construction of dead end blow-offs; and approve the Escrow Agreement
pertaining to contract retentions with Universal Pipeline, Inc. and authorize the Finance Director
to sign said Agreement.
A5.
169: Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder R.J. Noble Company, in the amount of
$490,936.61, for Brookhurst Street improvements from Lincoln Avenue to Orange Avenue; and
approve the Escrow Agreement pertaining to contract retentions with R.J. Noble Company and
authorize the Finance Director to sign said Agreement.
A6.
164: Amend the FY 1999/2000 Public Works Department Capital Improvement budget to
incorporate $425,000 from storm drain maintenance reserves, for the project to cover
construction, staff, and contingency costs; award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder,
Ken Thompson, Inc., in the amount of $355,000; and approve the Escrow Agreement pertaining
to contract retentions with Ken Thompson, Inc. and authorize the Finance Director to sign said
Agreement.
A7.
123: Approve Program Supplement No. M062 to Agency-State Agreement for Federal Aid
Projects No. 12-5055 for the Brookhurst Street improvement project from Lincoln Avenue to
Orange Avenue.
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 25, 2000
A8.
123: Approve Program Supplement No. M064 to Agency-State Agreement for Federal Aid
Projects No. 12-5055 for the Magnolia Street improvement project from Lincoln Avenue to
Broadway.
A9.
149: RESOLUTION NO. 2000R-9 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM designating portions of Blossom Lane and Burton Street west of Acacia Street as
"Permit Parking Only" streets.
A10.
150: Approve Contract Change Order No. 1, in the amount of $15,798.46, in favor of American
Electric Company for the Anaheim Hills Golf Course Photovoltaic Lighting Improvement and
authorize the Director of Public Works to execute said change order.
All.
123: Approve the First Amendment to an Agreement with David Volz Design, in the amount of
$60,200 to prepare construction documents for Anaheim Colony Park.
A12.
123: Approve an Agreement with Disneyland for the purpose of conducting the Disneyland
employee adult softball and basketball programs.
A13. 139: Adopt the City of Anaheim's 2000 Legislative Program.
A14.
153: Approve the Health Improvement Program (HIP) incentive of a healthy day off (8 hours/40
hour week or 11.2 hours/56 hour week) on an ongoing basis. (Continued from the meeting of
January 11,2000, Item A22.)
City Manager Ruth. Staff is requesting a two-week continuance on this item and also the following item,
A15.
At the end of the Consent Calendar, items A14 and A15 were both continued for two weeks as requested
by staff.
A15.
RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM approving a Letter of Understanding between the Anaheim Police Association and the
City of Anaheim implementing policies and procedures for a healthy day off (12 hours for sworn
Police) to each full time employee who successfully completes the required elements of the
Police Wellness Incentive Program. (Continued from the meeting of January 11, 2000, Item
A26 .)
A16.
153: Approve the 2000 renewal rates for the Kaiser "Q" Health Plan of $154.01 for single
coverage and $410.31 for family coverage, effective March 1, 2000 and authorize the Human
Resources Manager to sign the renewal agreement on behalf of the City.
A17.
174: Approve the FY2000/2001 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME and
Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) funding requests totaling $6,388,000 and authorize the
Executive Director of the Community Development Department to prepare and execute all
required FY 2000/2001 federal documents and contracts.
Barry Wrenn, President, Episcopal Service Alliance (ESA). The ESA has been present in the City for 20
years and last year served over 5,800 Anaheim residents. Most of the residents are in the very low
income bracket. They made application to receive part of the CDBG funding as they have in the past. It
is their understanding that the CSB has not recommended that they receive funding this year expressing
concern with the program administration. However, they are not sure what the issue is since they have
not been advised in writing. If they do not receive funding as in the past, services will be reduced to
Anaheim residents. He asked for consideration by the Council and deferred to Teri Niebuhr, also of
ESA, who will speak about the programs and services provided.
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 25, 2000
Teri Niebuhr, Program Manager, ESA. She then briefed the many services provided through the ESA,
including assistance with utility bills. CDBG funding provides for her salary, the Food Room Manager's
salary and a man to help deliver food. They could not serve their clients without a variety of private
donations. ESA and its supporters are passionate about the services they provide.
Janet Jones, H.E.R.E., Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union, Local 681, 2100 E. Katella,
Anaheim. She represents workers in the hotel, restaurant, and entertainment industry in Anaheim, Long
Beach and Orange County. She then briefed the ongoing struggle the union has had with Ogden
Entertainment at the Anaheim Pond with whom they have been negotiating for a new contract since June
(1999) with an impasse occurring in July. She stated that Ogden has refused to bargain fairly on the
issue of wages and health benefits. They have taken several actions trying to encourage Ogden to settle
their contract. Ogden is not being a responsible employer in the City and are operating under the banner
of the City of Anaheim. Health benefits and wages should be adequately encouraged. She is asking that
the Council take an active role in helping them to settle the conflict.
The following people, the majority being employees at the Pond, then spoke on the issue emphasizing
the great need for fair wages and health benefits expressing their concern over Ogden's stand on these
important issues:
Pond employees: Gary Johnson, Virginia Gonzales, Ignacio Bocanegre, Francisco Viamendoza (sp),
Celia Viasa (sp), Maria Montez and Rudolfo Uerta (spoke through an interpreter), Linda Reese and two
additional employees (no names given); Marjorie Strike, Business Agent, Local 681, also expressed
concern over the City's permitting any major attraction or employer to operate on City land and under the
banner of Anaheim withhour any concern as to whether the employer(s) will be responsible. Health
benefits and wages on par with the industry should be actively encouraged. As Ms. Jones requested,
they are asking that the Council take an active role in the issue.
A18. 182: Approve the JTPA closeout plan to be submitted to the State by February 1,2000.
A19.
123: Approve the Audit Settlement Agreement with GES Expositions Services, Inc., dba Trade
Show Electric, to provide for resolution to the audit findings identified in the City of Anaheim's
Audit #98430.
A20.
123: Approve and authorize the Public Utilities General Manager to execute an Agreement with
ACCUDOCS LLC and related documents for utility bill printing and mailing services for an initial
term of three years, and take such actions as are necessary to implement said Agreement, and
to approve up to three one-year extensions of the Agreement on the same terms and conditions.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
MAYOR/COUNCIL
MAYOR/COUNCIL
MAYOR/COUNCIL
The Mayor declared Resolution No.
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR.
2000R-9, for adoption:
MEMBERS: Feldhaus, Kring, Tait, McCracken, Daly
MEMBERS: None
MEMBERS: None
2000R-9, duly passed and adopted.
MOTIONS CARRIED.
Items A14. and A15. were continued for two weeks.
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 25, 2000
BOARD AND COMMISSION ITEM:
A21.
105: APPOINTMENT TO THE COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD:
Appointment to the Community Services Board to fill the current vacancy of Edmiston for the
term ending 6/30/00. (Continued from the meeting of January 11,2000, Item A32.)
Jack Holmes, 2627 E. Whidby, Anaheim (spoke under Items of Public Interest). He is one of the
candidates for the Community Services Board vacancy. He then gave his background (also see his
application previously submitted) noting since he owns his own real estate/insurance business, he can
devote as much time as necessary to the business of the CSB.
Mayor Daly opened nominations for an appointment to the CSB to fill the vacancy for the term expiring
June 30, 2000.
Council Member Kring nominated Jack Holmes; Council Member McCracken nominated Jacinth (Jazz)
Cisneros.
Before nominations were closed, Mayor Daly noted that the CSB is one that is large (15 members) so
there are more opportunities open to become a member of this board than others. There are quite a few
good candidates who have volunteered to serve and he would encourage any not appointed to remain
interested.
MOTION. On motion by Mayor Daly seconded by Council Member McCracken, nominations were
closed. MOTION CARRIED.
A vote was then taken on the nominees in the order in which they were nominated.
Jack Holmes - Ayes: Feldhaus, Kring, Tait, Daly. No: McCracken.
Jacinth Cisneros - Ayes: McCracken, Daly. Noes: Feldhaus, Kring. Abstained: Tait.
Mr. Jack Holmes was thereupon appointed to the Community Services Board for the term ending June
30, 2000.
B1.
ITEMS B1 - B7 FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 2000 -
INFORMATION ONLY, APPEAL PERIOD ENDS
JANUARY 25, 2000:
179: WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4157, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: Vietnam Ministries, P.O. Box 4568, Anaheim, CA 92803
AGENT: Hammill and Associates, 414 Fernhill Lane, Anaheim, CA 92807
LOCATION: 1100 North Paradise Street. Property is 2.22 acres located at the southerly
terminus of Paradise Street, 325 feet south of the centerline of Balsam Avenue (Issac Walton
Recreation Center).
To permit a church and private recreation facility with accessory living quarters with waiver of (a)
minimum setback of institutional uses adjacent to a residential zone boundary and (b) minimum
number of parking spaces.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 4157 GRANTED (PC2000-1) (6 yes votes, Commissioner Vanderbilt abstained.
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 25, 2000
Approved waiver of code requirement.
Approved Negative Declaration.
Council Member McCracken posed questions to staff for purposes of clarification which were answered
by Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager. He confirmed that no religious services are to be held at
the subject location; Joel Fick, Planning Director, answering Mayor Daly, confirmed that the use had
been coordinated with the surrounding residential area and there was no opposition at the Planning
Commission meeting.
B2.
179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4061, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: Dong S. Kim & Myoung Ai Kim, 969 La Paz Road, Placentia, CA 92870
AGENT: Hill & Hill Enterprises, Attn: Timothy Hill, 17831 Morrow Circle, Villa Park, CA 92861
Timothy Hill, 13537 Alondra BIvd., Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
LOCATION: 1652 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is 1.3 acres located on the south side of
Lincoln Avenue, 440 feet east of the centerline of Euclid Street (Chain Reaction).
To consider reinstatement of this permit which currently contains a time limitation (originally
approved on November 23, 1998, to expire on November 23, 1999) to retain a public dance hall.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved reinstatement of CUP NO. 4061, to expire 11/23/2000
(PC2000-2) (7 yes votes).
Negative Declaration previously approved.
B3.
179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4073, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: Harlo-Kinder Limited Partnership, Attn: Paul Elman, 8718 East Imperial Hwy.,
Downey, CA 90242
AGENT: Kyu Nam Bisaillon, 2054 South Euclid Street, #H, Anaheim, CA 92802
LOCATION: 2054 South Euclid Street, Suite H. Property is 2.4 acres located north and
northeast of the northeast corner of Orangewood Avenue and Euclid Street (HCW Health
Company).
To consider reinstatement of this permit which currently contains a time limitation (originally
approved on November 23, 1998, to expire on November 23, 1999) to retain an existing
accupressure (massage) facility within an existing commercial retail center.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved reinstatement of CUP NO. 4073, to expire 1/3/2001
(PC2000-3) (7 yes votes).
Negative Declaration previously approved.
B4.
179: WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4172, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: Southeastern California Association of Seventh-Day Adventists, P.O. Box 8050,
Riverside, CA 92515
AGENT: J.L. Hare Associates, Attn: Holly Sandler, 17581 Irvine BIvd., #216, Tustin, CA 92780
LOCATION: 900 South Sunkist Street. Property is 4.38 acres located on the east side of
Sunkist Street, 130 feet south of the centerline of Ames Avenue (Seventh-Day Adventist
Church).
To permit a telecommunications antenna within a 70 foot high reconstructed church steeple
(including a cross) with waiver of prohibited signs.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 4172 GRANTED, IN PART, (PC2000-4) (7 yes votes).
Denied waiver of code requirement.
Approved Negative Declaration.
10
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 25, 2000
B5.
179: RECLASSIFICATION NO. 99-00-11, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: Goldstone Holdings, LLC, 32685 Caspian Sea Drive, Dana Point, CA 92629
LOCATION: 511 North Brookhurst Street. Property is 1.18 acres (landlocked) located south and
west of the southwest corner of Crescent Avenue and Brookhurst Avenue, adjacent to the
eastern property line of the Dad Miller Golf Course.
To reclassify subject property from the RS-A-43,000 Zone to the CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone
(or less intense zone), to construct a commercial parking lot that would serve an existing
commercial office building to the east.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 99-00-11 GRANTED (PC2000-5) (7 yes votes).
Approved Negative Declaration.
Council Member Feldhaus and Mayor Daly posed questions to staff for purposes of clarification which
were answered by both Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager and Joel Fick, Planning Director. Mr.
Fick confirmed for the Mayor that based on staff analysis, they are recommending approval of the
proposal.
B6.
179: RECLASSIFICATION NO. 99-00-14
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4173, CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: Larry G. Haupert & Carolyn Haupert, 1467 Wanda Road, #165, Orange, CA 92667
AGENT: George Sepulveda, 604 N. Churchill Avenue, San Dimas, CA 91773
LOCATION: 1256 East Lincoln Avenue. Property is 0.33 acre located on the south side of
Lincoln Avenue, 711 feet east of the centerline of East Street.
Reclassification No. 99-00-14 - To reclassify subject property from the CH (Commercial,
Heavy) Zone to the CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone (or less intense zone).
Conditional Use Permit No. 4173 - To permit an automotive vehicle repair facility in an existing
vacant building.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 99-00-14 GRANTED UNCONDITIONALLY
(PC2000-6) (7 yes votes).
CUP NO. 4173 DENIED (PC2000-7) (5 yes votes, Commissioners Bostwick and Boydstun voted
Approved Negative Declaration.
B7.
179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3812 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION - REQUEST
FOR REVIEW OF FINAL SIGN PLANS:
Allen Weinstock, 9440 Santa Monica Boulevard, #305, Beverly Hills, CA 90210 and KAPE
Property management Company, 1180 South Beverly Drive, #511, Los Angeles, CA 90035
Request review of final sign plans for Conditional Use Permit No. 3812 (to permit an
automotive van conversion and modification facility in an existing industrial business park).
Property is located at 1325, 1331 and 1341 North Blue Gum Street.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved final sign plans in part, APPROVED signs A, B and D; and DENIED sign C.
Negative Declaration previously approved.
END OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS FROM JANUARY 3, 2000.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ITEMS B8 - Bll FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING OF JANUARY 19, 2000 - INFORMATION ONLY, APPEAL PERIOD ENDS JANUARY 28,
2000:
11
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 25, 2000
B8.
179: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 313 (PREVIOUSLY-CERTIFIED)
FINAL SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 98-12, REVISION NO. 1: Shirish Patel, 631 West Katella
Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92802, request for review and approval of a revised Final Site Plan to
construct a new 550-room hotel complex. Property is located at 2065-2085 South Harbor
Boulevard.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved Final Site Plan Review No. 98-12, Revision 1.
EIR NO. 313 previously certified.
B9.
179: EIR 313 - FINAL SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 99-03:
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 313 (PREVIOUSLY-CERTIFIED)
FINAL SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 99-03: R.D. Olson Real Estate Group Inc., 2955 Main Street,
3rd floor, Irvine, CA 92614, request for review and approval of a Final Site Plan to construct a
new 407-room hotel complex consisting of a 9-story, 264-room full-service hotel and a 7-story,
143-room extended-stay hotel. Property is located at 1855-1925 South Manchester Avenue.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved Final Site Plan Review No. 99-03.
EIR NO. 313 previously certified.
BIO.
179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4135 - REQUEST FOR EVALUATION OF REVISED
PLANS FOR INPUT TO CITY COUNCIL HEARING: Joseph Kung, 20886 East Quail Run Drive,
Diamond Bar, CA 91789, requests evaluation of revised site, elevation and signage plans for
input to City Council, to construct one retail pad building with roof-mounted equipment, subdivide
one unit into an office and retail unit (for a total of 2 units), and amend conditions of approval
pertaining to permitted monument signs and maximum number of units in an existing
commercial center with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Property is located at
5555-5665 East Santa Aria Canyon Road.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Recommended to the City Council: a) That revised plans indicate improvements to on-site
vehicular circulation; b) that further architectural enhancements should be made to Building "Y"
and shown on detailed elevations and photo simulations; c) approval of the petitioner's request to
withdraw the changes to the monuments signs; d) that the previously-recommended conditions
of approval be retained; and e) reconfirmed their opposition to Building "Y". (6 yes votes,
Commission Arnold absent.)
Note: This item is the subject of a continued Public Hearing to be held before the council on February 8,
2000.
Bll.
179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4158 - REQUEST FOR EVALUATION OF REVISED
PLANS FOR INPUT TO CITY COUNCIL HEARING: Raymond and Joanne Rocks, 5910 East
Marsha Place, Anaheim, CA 92807, requests evaluation of a revised site, elevation and signage
plans for input to City Council, to construct a 2-story senior assisted living and AIzheimer's care
facility with waiver of (a) required setback of institutional uses to residential zones, (b) permitted
freestanding sign, (c) required rear yard setback, (d) minimum number of parking spaces and (e)
maximum building height adjacent to a residential zone. Property is located at 6100 East Santa
Aria Canyon Road.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Recommended to City Council that although the Commission is not in favor of this project, the
revised exhibits demonstrate an improvement to the project and that if Council chooses to
approve this conditional use permit, that conditions be modified. (7 yes votes.)
Public hearing on today's agenda. See item D3.
Note: Public hearing on today's agenda. See item D3.
12
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 25, 2000
END OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS FROM JANUARY 19, 2000.
C1. CLARIFICATION OF ACTION ON CENTERLINE PROJECT: Discussion requested by Council
Member Kring at the meeting of January 11, 2000 to clarify action the Council took at its meeting of
12/7/99.
Gary Johnson, Director of Public Works/City Engineer. Staff provided some information to the Council
on December 13, 1999 at the request of Council Member Tait as to what staff believes were the potential
impacts not only by Council action, but OCTA (Orange County Transportation Authority) action. They
are summarized in that memorandum (see memorandum dated December 13, 1999 to City
Manager/City Council from the Department of Public Works - Centerline Recommendation Impacts -
made a part of the record). In particular the concern he and John Lower (Traffic and Transportation
Manager) have is that Anaheim is the responsible agency for the environmental review; OCTA is the
lead agency. It is normal and customary to have City staff representing the City as the responsible
agency to coordinate their work with the lead agency on projects especially on ones of this significance.
Some of the specific examples they feel appropriate for City staff to review would be mitigation
measures that are going to be proposed by OCTA for the project, siting of maintenance facilities,
removal of on-street parking, acquisition of property, displacement of residents, etc. Technology is one
of the key concerns. They need to address vehicle design, aesthetics, landscaping, impacts of bus
routes, noise, vibration impacts - a whole host of issues. They received a first request from one of the
consultants for OCTA asking staff to identify conflicting utilities. Under current policy, they will not be
able to do that. That is one of the most specific and immediate concerns because the environmental
process continues and currently they are not actively working on the project.
Council Member Kring. By the vote taken, staff is not allowed to participate in any of the discussions. If
there are going to be impacts on Anaheim, the City's Public Works and Traffic Engineering staff need to
have input into the process; Mayor Daly asked if it was OK with her if staff worked on the various items
articulated by Mr. Johnson.
Council Member Kring stated she supported the No Build anywhere in Orange County but if there is
going to be an alignment which impacts Anaheim, it is incumbent upon them to be at the table to have
input and discussion. However, she still believes No Build is the way to go.
Council Member Tait. He also maintains a No Build position anywhere in the County. He agrees with
Council Member Feldhaus that no City money should be spent. He also believes that no taxpayer
money should be spent on the project, especially Anaheim taxpayers. Perhaps they ought to retake the
vote to see what the result would be.
Council Member Feldhaus. The City has already spent about a year on the project, talked about
preferred alignments and have done many other things. They made known to OCTA that they did not
want the CenterLine project on any alignment. He still does not believe they neet to spend any more
money or staff time; Council Member Kring pointed out that would have been fine if they voted for No
Build, but two members voted No Build and three members voted to keep the project alive but without
any Anaheim taxpayer's money or staff time involved. If Anaheim is going to be impacted but not in the
loop, that is a concern.
Council Member McCracken. She does not believe that even a vote of No Build should prevent staff
from being at the table. They have been at the table with a lot of other things that the City did not
support because they want Anaheim's voice to be heard. There is a problem if staff cannot be involved;
13
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 25, 2000
Council Member Kring. That is how the vote came down on December 7. Anaheim taxpayers are
already paying for Measure M.
Mayor Daly. One of the points of contention in some of the cities has been the technology proposed by
OCTA staff - whether on the ground or elevated. There is a workshop scheduled for the end of March for
the elected officials along the entire proposed line. At the OCTA meeting yesterday, John Lower
reminded him that at least in the preliminary discussions regarding that conference, it is to be only
elected officials. At the meeting, he (Daly) suggested that technical staff from all the cities should be
able to participate if their Council's wanted them to proceed. Secondly, as currently planned, the light
rail route won't come anywhere near Anaheim. He is not sure whether the issue of station location and
the other issues mentioned by staff are all that significant. It is an odd situation for him to be in. Staff is
recommending No Build, but if built in Irvine and Costa Mesa, City staff should be at the table. They are
clearly in the discussion because the City Council is in the discussion. If staff wants to be vitally involved
in the planning, he has a hard time squaring that with the reality that, if the project is built, it will be in
Irvine and Costa Mesa, nowhere near Anaheim.
Council Member Tait. His impression is there is a potential it may come into Anaheim in the future; Gary
Johnson. The reason it is important to participate, OCTA Board action was to complete the
environmental document on the entire segment including Anaheim. Since they are going to finalize a
document that includes Anaheim, staff is trying to achieve the best possible plan whether built in
Anaheim or not. If a future Council decides that the project should be implemented, it will be done on
the basis of that final environmental document so some of the issues identified staff feels are significant.
If it was only the Irvine/Costa Mesa segment where the environmental study was taking place and not
Anaheim, staff would have a completely different view; Mayor Daly. He agrees with Mr. Johnson's
comments.
Council Member Tait noted, however, that the official direction from the Council was to not spend a
nickel more of City money on the project. Based on the Council's direction, staff is prohibited from
working on the environmental document.
Additional discussion followed wherein questions were posed to staff by Council Member Feldhaus
relative to the time frame involved to prepare the environmental documentation during which Mr.
Johnson added that staff would like to work with OCTA and the consultants between now and June when
the EIR is supposed to be ready so when they get to the final document, it is something that best serves
the City.
Mayor Daly. It is fair to say the project will be discussed, planned and debated in various communities
for a long time to come and a future Council may take off in a different direction.
MOTION. Council Member Kring moved to amend the motion previously acted upon to allow City staff
to work on the EIR that brings them to the table so the City and citizens will be protected. Mayor Daly
seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Council Member Tait stated, for his vote, the motion would have to include a
recommendation to OCTA that they do not build light rail anywhere in Orange County; Council Member
Kring stated she could support that.
Mayor Daly thereupon withdrew his second.
MOTION. Council Member Kring then moved only that City staff be involved in the EIR. Mayor Daly
seconded the motion for purposes of discussion.
City Attorney White recommended that Council Member Tait amend his motion.
14
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 25, 2000
MOTION. Council Member Tait amended his motion that Anaheim recommends that OCTA not build
light rail anywhere in Orange County but to allow staff to work on the issue. Council Member Kring
seconded the motion. The motion failed to carry by the following vote: Ayes - Kring, Tait. Noes:
Feldhaus, McCracken, Daly.
MOTION. Council Member Kring again moved to allow City staff to work on the environmental issue.
Mayor Daly seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, there was additional discussion and questioning relative to how much staff time
would be necessary; Gary Johnson. He cannot give an exact response. There would be multiple
departments involved - Utilities, Planning, Public Works. Those staff costs are funded. They are not
requesting consulting assistance so there would be no additional costs.
City Manager Ruth, answering the Mayor, stated he discussed the matter with staff who expressed
concern if the City should not be involved in the environmental process and that there could be negative
impacts long term. He believes staff could make contributions in a positive way. It is essential they
become part of the process. If in house, there will be no additional costs. It would be a good safeguard
for the City and its citizens.
Further discussion and debate followed between Council Member Tait and Mayor Daly, each expressing
their opposing views to a light-rail system; Council Member Kring confirmed her stand of No Build;
however she does not want Anaheim to be passed over without any input on issues that may impact the
City.
Council Member Feldhaus suggested adding, "only as it pertains to the City of Anaheim"; Council
Member Kring. Anything that has any impact on Anaheim is where staff should be involved.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion clarified as follows: To allow City staff to work on the
environmental issue (relating to the Centerline project). The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes:
Feldhaus, Kring, McCracken, Daly. No: Tait. MOTION CARRIED.
D1.
107: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - RELOCATION OF TWO HISTORIC RESIDENTIAL
STRUCTURES:
PUBLIC HEARING - RELOCATION OF TWO HISTORIC RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES:
To consider a special permit for the relocation of two residential structures from 329 and 403
South Philadelphia Street to 612 and 616 South Lemon Street, land owned by the Anaheim
Redevelopment Agency in the Anaheim Colony Historic District. (Continued from the meeting of
January 11,2000, Item D5.)
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Los Angeles Times: December 28, 1999
Chairman Daly reconvened the Redevelopment Agency Meeting.
Lisa Stipkovich, Executive Director of Community Development briefed staff report dated January 11,
2000 recommending approval of the special permits to move the subject structures into the Anaheim
Colony Historic District. She noted that the structures will be located "on the proposed site until a detailed
site plan is developed and an agreement is reached with a developer to renovate the structures." The
permanent location for the two houses will be at 600 and 608 S. Lemon Street. When the negotiations
are completed, staff will submit a proposed development agreement for Agency consideration/approval.
15
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 25, 2000
Mayor/Chairman Daly opened the Public Hearing and asked to hear from anyone who wished to speak.
Jim Cullison, Cal Square Neighborhood Association, 601 S. Clementine Street, Anaheim. They are
pleased that the structures are going to be moved into their neighborhood and fully support the proposal.
They would like to be involved in the process and to be able to review preliminary and final plans. They
are asking that the houses be properly secured while in the process of being redeveloped. A further
request is that City staff continue to pursue acquiring the other vacant land in that general vicinity, i.e.,
the land directly behind on Lemon Street between Water and Stueckle.
Tony Micheleski, Anaheim resident. He is also in support of the proposal as well as acquisition of the
referred to vacant land.
Brian Stoddard, 600 S. Helena, Anaheim. He echoes the same comments/request as the previous two
speakers.
Mayor/Chairman Daly closed the Public Hearing.
Lisa Stipkovich. Relative to the acquisition of the vacant property, staff is presently in preliminary
discussion with the property owner; Mayor/Chairman Daly. They will look forward to the final resolution
of that subject.
Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 2000R-10 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book
RESOLUTION NO. 2000R-10: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING SPECIAL PERMITS TO MOVE
TWO RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES FROM 329 AND 403 SOUTH
PHILADELPHIA STREET TO AGENCY-OWNED LAND AT 612 AND 616
SOUTH LEMON STREET IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 2000R-10, 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. 2000R-10, duly passed and adopted.
Chairman Daly reconvened the Redevelopment Agency (7:18 P.M.).
MOTION: Chairman Daly moved to award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, American
Heavy Moving & Rigging to complete the relocation of two historic residential structures from 329 and
403 Soutj Philadelphia Street to Agency owned land at 612 and 616 South Lemon Street (in the Anaheim
Colony Historic District) - Contract Number HM99-1, in the amount of $18,960; 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, Agency Member McCracken
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
16
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 25, 2000
ADJOURNMENT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Chairman Daly moved to adjourn the
Redevelopment Agency Meeting; Agency Member McCracken seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED. (7:20 P.M.).
D2.
176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 98-12A: In accordance with application filed
by Southridge Development, 22421 Gilberto, Suite A, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688, a
Public Hearing was held on the proposed abandonment of a certain easement of unimproved
portion of Imperial Highway extending from the current alignment of Imperial Highway to Via
Escola - North of Via Escola - Imperial Highway excess right-of-way, reserving unto the City of
Anaheim easement for public utility purposes, pursuant to Resolution No. 99R-244 duly
published in the North County News and notices thereof posted in accordance with law
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Orange County Register: January 13, 2000
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet: January 4, 2000
Posting of property: January 7, 2000
Natalie Meeks, Civil Engineer, Public Works. She briefed the subject abandonment request as outlined
in staff report dated December 7, 1999 from the Director of Public Works/City Engineer.
Mayor Daly opened the Public Hearing and asked to hear from anyone who wished to speak.
Bob Mickelson, P.O. Box 932, Orange. He is representing Southridge Development. They have been
working with the Knoll Crest Homeowners Association to develop a subdivision on the site that is
acceptable to them and to Southridge. Certain concessions have been made. They realize the
abandonment procedure only gives the right to make application to and process the subdivision
approval. Southridge is urging approval of the abandonment.
Irv Reisman, 5437 Big Sky Lane, Anaheim, down slope from the property. He has the Power of Attorney
for seven of the nine adjacent property owners and they all agree that they would like to see the property
developed as R-1. They have entered into a contract with Southridge. Of the other two owners he does
not represent, one is in the process of building and the other is just moving. He confirmed for the Mayor
that he is speaking in support.
Bill Finicle, 5381 E. Big Sky Lane, Anaheim. He is present to support the project; Mayor Daly interjected
and stated he wanted to make it clear that they are not considering any project this evening but only the
abandonment.
Mr. Finicle continued noting that he is Past President of of the Master Association. Their only concern is
that there has been no discussion as to whether the piece of property involved will be inherited by the
Master Association. Other than that, they support the proposed abandonment.
Natalie Meeks. At the time of development of the property, the issue of whether they will have their own
homeowner's association and/or be involved in the Master Association will be dealt with. It is not an
issue at this time.
Mayor Daly asked, if the abandonment is approved, who will be responsible; Natalie Meeks. She
answered, Southridge Development. She confirmed, upon further questioning, that they (Southridge)
have not yet filed a plan but the abandonment is something they typically do. Southridge had dedicated
the property many years ago and then acquired the property on the other side. It is reasonable for the
City to dedicate this portion of the right-of-way and since Southridge worked out an agreement with the
downhill neighbors to get the other one half of the street, it makes it a better property to develop.
17
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 25, 2000
Bob Mickelson. They have a separate agreement they entered into with staff that says they must
assemble all the parcels into one developable parcel before they can complete the escrow and actually
acquire the property.
Mayor Daly closed the Public Hearing. They look forward to Southridge submitting plans to build single-
family homes in this neighborhood.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Mayor Daly
seconded by Council Member 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 Repot and is, therefore, Categorically Exempt from the requirements to file an
EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 2000R-11 for adoption, approving Abandonment No. 98-12A. Refer
to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000R-11: 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. 98-12A).
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 2000R-11 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. 2000R-11 duly passed and adopted.
D3.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - NEGATIVE DECLARATION, REVISION TO SANTA ANA CANYON
ROAD ACCESS POINT STUDY - EXHIBIT NO. 7, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4158
LOCATION: 6100 East Santa Aria Canyon Road. Property is 1.21 acres located at the
southeast corner of Santa Aria Canyon Road and Anaheim Hills Road.
To construct a 2-story senior assisted living and Alzheimer's care facility with waiver of (a)
required setback of institutional uses to residential zones, (b) permitted freestanding sign, (c)
minimum number of required parking spaces, (d) required rear yard setback, and (e) maximum
building height adjacent to a residential zone.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO 4158 DENIED (PC99-188), (5 yes votes: Commissioners Bostwick, Bristol, Koos,
Napoles, and Vanderbilt; Commissioner Boydstun voted no, and Commissioner Arnold absent).
DENIED waiver of code requirement.
DENIED Revision to Santa Aria Canyon Road Access Point Study.
Approved Negative Declaration.
PLANNING COMMISSION ITEM OF JANUARY 19, 2000 (SEE ITEM Bll ON TODAY'S
AGENDA) - REQUEST FOR EVALUATION OF REVISED PLANS FOR INPUT TO CITY
COUNCIL HEARING - Planning Commission recommended to City Council that although the
Commission is not in favor of this project, the revised exhibits demonstrate an improvement to
18
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 25, 2000
the project and that if Council chooses to approve this conditional use permit, that conditions be
modified. (7 yes votes.)
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in North County News: January 13, 2000
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet: January 13, 2000
Posting of property: January 14, 2000
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager. He noted that the Planning Commission denied the original
request for CUP 4158 on October 25, 1999 (also see staff report to the Planning Commission dated
October 25, 1999 which outlined the project as originally submitted in detail). Last week, January 19,
2000, the Commission reviewed revised plans submitted by the applicant and indicated, although they
still did not favor the project, there are improvements that had been made which he briefed (see minutes
of the Planning Commission meeting dated January 19, 2000). Staff continues to have concerns about
compatibility of the project with adjacent single-family residences and the placement of this size facility
on a small lot. If the Council approves the project, the Commission has recommended amendment to a
signage condition and adding a condition pertaining to fencing. Council may also wish to know that their
records indicate approximately 92 senior citizen group homes are licensed in the City of Anaheim of
various types and sizes.
Mayor Daly opened the Public Hearing and first asked the applicant to summarize the request noting that
the Council has before it extensive data from the time the proposal was initially presented to the
Planning Commission up to the present.
Applicants Statement: Mr. Raymond Rocks, 5910 E. Marsha Circle, Anaheim. He first presented a
series of slides which showed the site, the surrounding land uses, and views from the site. (Hard copy
photographs of some of the slides were previously made a part of the record in a booklet from Sunrise
Development, Inc., i.e., Photographs for Sunrise Assisted Living at 6100 East Santa Ana Road, Anaheim
- prepared by: Wagner Pacific, Inc.). Mr. Rocks then briefed and elaborated upon the data contained in
his submittal dated January 24, 2000 (Highlights of Applicants Comments for Public Hearing) which had
been submitted to the Council and made a part of the record. The major reason for denial by the
Commission initially was that there were too many waivers. Their goal when they took over from the
previous owner of the property was to eliminate the waivers and build a quality facility. During the
intervening time, they have had three meetings - two with the neighbors and another with the Coalition
group. He has also gone door-to-door. Mr. Rocks' presentation covered -- Problems Addressed and
Resolved (parking increased to 25 from 24, six-foot masonry wall added on the east and south property
line, reduced density of the facility from 48 to 41 units, modified the proposed sign, 25 foot setback
added on the east lot line, etc.) He also addressed the access issue to/from Santa Ana Canyon Road as
well as the remaining two waivers being requested: (1) Parking -- 25 spaces proposed-50 required, (2)
Structural 2:1 Setback (2 foot setback for each foot of building height - see page 4 of his submittal which
addresses this issue in detail including a recommendation to change the Anaheim Municipal Code in the
future for the reasons indicated).
In concluding, Mr. Rocks stated they have made a concerted effort to eliminate waivers, they would be a
good neighbor to the surrounding area, it is the best use for the site and a facility that is needed. As
property owners, they are entitled to a reasonable right to the use of their property and access to that
property and request that the CUP be approved as modified.
The following people then spoke in favor of the project and for approval of CUP 4158:
Larry Galanta, 135 S. Bonnie Gene Lane, Anaheim (adjacent property owner)
Terry Pangborn, 161 Cielito Linda, Anaheim
Ed Resha, 725 Langtree, Anaheim
Alice or Alex Leem, 5991 Washa Circle, Anaheim
19
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 25, 2000
Helen Kuzma, 6003 Butterfield Lane, Anaheim
Reasons in favor of the Alzheimer's facility as expressed by those who spoke: It will not be disruptive to
the area, such facilities are necessary and needed, it would be complementary to the area, it will enable
elderly parents to be cared for in a nearby facility.
The following people spoke in opposition to the project and against approval of CUP 4158 (also see
minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of January 19, 2000 where input was received from some
of the following residents of the area):
Stefanie Perry, 430 S. Anaheim Hills Road, Anaheim (office located next to Nohl Ranch Inn)
Robert Vigneau, 6117 Baja, Anaheim
Sherry Reisma, 5437 Big Sky Lane, Anaheim (Nurse Practitioner)
Charles Rose, 120 Woodrose, Anaheim
Tom Schnieder, 110 S. Woodrose, Anaheim
Melinda Johnson, 101 Summertree Rd., Anaheim
Joe Stetzer, 151 S. Woodrose Ct., Anaheim
Kent Anderson, 140 Woodrose Ct., Anaheim
Pete Tschapinas 136 Calle Diaz, Anaheim
Susan Seigmund, Anaheim Hills Citizens Coalition
Reasons in opposition to the Alzheimer's facility expressed by those who spoke: concern relative to
wandering of residents outside of the facility, the proposed structure will be detrimental to the view along
Santa Ana Canyon Road (SACR), it is a commercial project in an area zoned RSA43,000, there is a 5%
to 7% vacancy rate in senior assisted living within a 10-mile radius, a residentially zoned area is not the
place to put such a facility, there is no buffer between the project and the adjacent residents, the daily
operation of the facility will negatively impact the neighborhood, the parking is not sufficient and will be
especially so during birthdays or special occasions, the property is too small, property values will be
negatively impacted, the facility in Mission Viejo has no residential properties around it, the waiver
relative to the south property line should not be allowed since the code requirements pertaining thereto
are for the protection of the residents, the requested access from Santa Ana Canyon Road will create a
dangerous traffic situation and will be detrimental to joggers and bikers, the Woodrose cul-de-sac might
be used for overflow parking on weekends increasing traffic and decreasing safety. (Letter dated
January 25, 2000 was also submitted from the Anaheim Hills Citizen's Coalition, which also addressed
most of the foregoing concerns.)
Susan Seigmund, in her presentation, indicated that the matter was discussed in Closed Session; City
Attorney White responded emphasizing that the matter was not discussed in Closed Session. It was not
a Closed Session item and there was no discussion of this matter by the Council in Closed Session.
Mayor Daly asked for a summation by the applicant.
Summation/Rebuttal by Applicant: Raymond Rocks thereupon rebutted the comments made by the
residents in opposition followed by Council questions for purposes of clarification. Both Mr. Rocks and
Joanne Rocks answered the questions posed.
Mayor Daly closed the Public Hearing.
Subsequent questions by Council Members relative to parking and traffic issues were answered by John
Lower, Traffic and Transportation Manager; Zoning and setback issues/questions were answered by Joel
Fick, Planning Director.
Council Member Feldhaus. He feels this is a massive project being built on a small piece of property
(1.2 acres). In discussing the project with the applicant, he (Feldhaus) suggested that they reduce the
2O
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 25, 2000
size of the facility. He was told that it has to have 41 units to make it economically feasible. He
reiterated, it is trying to fit too much on too little.
Mayor Daly. This is a very worthwhile and deserving project in the community and while they need
more, he believes this particular location is not the best location for the proposal. Santa Ana Canyon
Road is a difficult traffic situation. There are too many neighbors who are not comfortable with the
proposal. He does not detect in any way that the neighbors are opposed to living near a home for
Alzheimer's patients, but are justifiably concerned with the less-than-adequate proposed parking, the
access issues and site design. The Council has heard from a lot of people in support. Many letters and
phone calls have been received on the issue. There has been an outpouring on the opposition side as
well. Professional Planning staff has reviewed the application and is not comfortable that this fits into the
plan for the area. Their advisors, the Planning Commission, also did not believe it was the right project
at the right location.
Council Member Kring. Someone mentioned these facilities should not be in residential areas but in
industrial and commercial areas which she feels would be a disservice to parents, grandparents, etc.
The project may be massive but she believes the applicants have tried to accommodate and answer
every question put to them. She is in favor of the rezoning and of approving the CUP.
Council Member Tait. The neighbors have an expectation that the City's General Plan will be followed
and the rightful expectation that the property would be residential. The property is only one acre.
Although he agrees that such facilities do not belong in industrial areas, if he were to "break" the General
Plan, this is not where he would do it - right in the heart of a residential area.
Mayor Daly. Before concluding the Public Hearing, he emphasized that no city in Orange County has
done more for senior housing of all types than Anaheim. Further, they have the responsibility of
upholding the General Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - DENIED NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Mayor
Daly, seconded by Council Member McCracken, the City Council denied the Negative Declaration upon
finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the
public review process, and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received
that there is substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
Council Member Kring voted no. MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 2000R-12 and 2000R-13 for adoption denying Conditional Use Permit
No. 4158 and revision to the Santa Ana Canyon Road Access Point Study respectively. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000R-12: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.
4158.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000R-13: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DENYING A REVISION TO THE SANTA ANA
CANYON ROAD ACCESS POINT STUDY.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 2000R-12 and 2000R-13 for adoption:
AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Feldhaus, Kring, Tait, McCracken, Daly
NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
21
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 25, 2000
ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 2000R-12 and 2000R-13 duly passed and adopted.
D4.
179: PUBLIC HEARING - WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4069, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: Khoda B. Ostowari, Parvin Soroushian and Irandokht Djahanian, 6263 E. Twin Peak
Circle, Anaheim, CA 92807
LOCATION: 801 South Harbor Boulevard and 510 West South Street. Property is 0.8 acre
located at the southwest corner of South Street and Harbor Boulevard.
To amend or delete conditions of approval pertaining to the license for the retail sale of beer and
wine for off-premises consumption and to amend plans pertaining to the proposed freestanding
sign and required screening adjacent to a residential zone with waiver of (a) permitted location of
freestanding signs, (b) required site screening abutting a residential zone and (c) timing of
required improvement of right-of-way.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved amendment to conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 4069 (PC99-200)
(7 yes votes).
Approved waiver of code requirement.
Negative Declaration previously approved.
Informational item at the meeting of December 14, 1999, Item B2. 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: January 13, 2000
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet: January 13, 2000
Posting of property: January 14, 2000
Mayor Daly. He reiterated his concerns relative to the proposal as stated when the project was initially
brought to the Council (see minutes of Public Hearing before the Council on December 15, 1998),
specifically its compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. He continues to have the same
concerns. He clarified for the members of the audience that this is the second time the project has come
before the Council, having been approved the first time. Subsequently, the developer has asked to
make some modifications and the request for modifications is what is before the Council tonight.
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager. He briefed the staff report to the Planning Commission dated
November 22, 1999 which outlined the action by the Commission amending conditions of approval of
Resolution 98R-226 (12/15/98) as requested by the applicant pertaining to permitted location of
freestanding signs, required site screening abutting a residential zone and required improvement of
rights-of-way (improvements proposed in 5 years from date of approval). Condition No. 60 was also
amended as follows: "That approval for the off-premises sales of beer and wine shall terminate on
January 30, 2000 if the applicant has not obtained an Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) license prior to
said date and further that the total number of active licenses in the census tract is reduced to ten (10)
licenses. No sale of beer and/or wine for off-premises consumption shall be permitted on the property
unless and until the applicant has obtained an ABC license no later than January 30, 2000."
Subsequently, Natalie Meeks, Civil Engineer, Public Works explained for the Mayor that relative to future
street widening, code requirement is widening just on the frontage of the property. There is an existing
bus stop and although it is not a through-traffic lane, it would provide an area for the bus to stop outside
the travel lanes. This is with reference to Harbor Blvd. only. The code requires dedication before pulling
a building permit and completed prior to the occupancy of the building. Public Works is recommending
denial of the waiver and that code requirements be applied. She also answered additional questions
posed by Council Members relative to the dedication, the timing, possible impact on the business,
remuneration for the dedications, possible impacts if widening is done "piecemeal", etc.
22
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 25, 2000
Before opening the Public Hearing, Mayor Daly clarified that he feels the City's plans for the area should
call for an office building or something similar on the site and wants to make that clear. He has met with
the applicant and explained his point of view. He noted there are related issues, i.e., the beer and wine
license, change of the block wall to a wrought-iron/block-wall combination, the street widening and the
locations of the monument sign.
Mayor Daly opened the Public Hearing and asked first to hear from the applicant to summarize his
request.
Applicant's Statement: Khoda Ostowari. He gave an extensive and detailed presentation, first outlining
his requests for modification/amendments followed by an historical overview of the property, his original
request, previous approvals received, improvements made, etc. During his presentation, he noted that
the total number of ABC licenses in the census tract was reduced to 10 as required including the license
previously existing on this property (501 W. South Street). The Police Department was not opposed to
the approval and on November 22, 1999, the Planning Commission approved the amendment to
conditions of approval of CUP 4069 by seven yes votes. Another major issue relates to the street
widening (required improvement of right-of-way) which they requested be postponed for at least five
years. This will enable him to firmly establish the business. They will post a five-year construction bond
and sign a covenant approved by the City Attorney's Office to be recorded on the title (as required by
Public Works). They also respectfully request a 60-day extension to the January 30, 2000 deadline to
obtain their ABC license since it is already January 25. Construction of the project has started and the
liquor store has been demolished. He also submitted photographs (made a part of the record) showing
the traffic lanes in front of the property (on Harbor). They do not believe a separate bus lane only along
this property front makes a significant difference in improving traffic flow. The question should be if the
extra lane is necessary for public protection and safety, such a concern should have been brought up at
the Public Hearing in 1998; Answering Council Member Tait, Mr. Ostowari stated it was their
understanding from the beginning that this property had nothing to do with the development of the
property at this time but would in five or even ten years. Now that they realize there is an issue and it will
stop the project, they will try to work it out. He reiterated, they are proposing to complete the
improvement in five years at their own expense.
Mayor Pro Tem McCracken opened the Public Hearing (Mayor Daly having left the Council Chamber for
a few moments temporarily) and asked to hear from those in support of the project; there being none,
she asked to hear from those in opposition.
Don Garcia, Family Practitioner, 896 S. Harbor (corner of Vermont and Harbor). He elaborated on the
concerns he has with the area in general and feels it is one of high crime and high risk, further
elaborating on his personal experiences especially relating to vandalism. There is also a high accident
rate at the intersection of Harbor and Vermont. The type of services that will be provided (by the
applicant's business) are the type of services that target populations that are at high risk. They should
look instead to services that are lacking. He is concerned relative to safety and would hope there would
be better development of the area. There is a liquor market across from his practice. They do not need
more of those services to place his patients at high risk for drug and alcohol abuse. He would hope that
they would consider looking at a traffic-pedestrian-accident study, a crime study and community needs
study.
Council Member Tait explained, for purposes of clarification, that the project has already been approved;
Mr. Garcia. That is why he stated he was not properly notified.
Mayor Daly. The Council previously approved the permit. The hearing, while it is fine-tuning the
permit/project, in no way implies the Council has the prerogative of doing whatever it wants; City
Attorney White. The CUP was previously approved and the developer has pulled a building permit.
Council at this time is only considering the refinements and amendments to the permit. The Council
23
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 25, 2000
does not have the legal ability to terminate the existing permit. If they turn down the requested
amendments, the applicant can go forward with the permit previously approved.
Mayor Daly asked about the beer and wine aspect; City Attorney White. It is written in such a way it is
going to take some interpretation. The applicant has to acquire a license to reduce the number of
licenses (in the census tract) to 10. The number has been reduced but not by the petitioner acquiring
one. In one sense, he has already complied. It is a matter of interpretation.
Jim Cullison, 601 S. Clementine, Chairman, Cal Square Neighborhood Association. It is unfortunate that
the project was approved especially since they are trying to make their neighborhood a better place.
This seems to be a totally inappropriate use in an area that has residential on South Street and on
Harbor Blvd. across from the site. The former liquor store attracted undesirables. He is concerned about
the new service station and the lighting at night, as well as the additional congestion and traffic. He is
asking that they deny any variances and deny the waiving of permits for the alcohol license.
Council Member McCracken. She first asked if they were a part of the Vermont-Citron Area Association;
Mr. Cullison answered no. She continued that the Vermont-Citron Association has been a part of the
planning process and the Council has received a letter from them renewing their support for the project.
(She read excerpts from the letter.)
Judith Ann Gollette, member of WAND. WAND supports a statement of no variances or waivers. The
area, a historic site community, does not need a gas station/beer and wine mini-mart or car wash. She
also elaborated further on the liquor license issue and the crime rate in the area. She further suggested
that perhaps the 300' limit to legally notify/notice surrounding residents/businesses should be extended.
Summation/Rebuttal by Applicant: Khoda Ostowari deferred to Parvin Soroushian who, in turn,
explained what they had done and the efforts put forth to inform the area of their proposal. They also
contacted all the churches in the neighborhood and addressed all their concerns. She confirmed relative
to the ABC license, this license will be limited to what has been there. The two licenses are gone for
good and it can be confirmed with the Planning Department. The only way a new license can be
obtained is if the City approves a brand new CUP. She then addressed the other issues involved also
noting that it will be a family run and owned business, that they consider themselves as part of the
community and are not just going to be there to make a profit.
Mayor Daly closed the Public Hearing.
Mayor Daly.
wants to go
keeping with
He respects what the applicant laid out in terms of their concern for the community but he
on record as someone who believes this is not the right use for the corner. It is not in
what they are trying to accomplish in the heart of the City.
City Attorney White then clarified for Council Member McCracken that relative to the beer and wine, the
request for the amendment related to the purchasing of existing beer and wine permits so as to reduce
the number in the census tract to not more than 10 licenses by a certain date. That has occurred. He
believes there has been substantial compliance. Relative to their own license, that is pending and based
upon the condition the Planning Commission imposed will occur at the end of the month (January) i.e.,
that it be obtained from ABC not later than January 30, 2000.
Joel Fick, Planning Director. He confirmed it is Condition No. 60. It talks about obtaining an ABC
license no later than January 30, 2000 which the Planning Commission imposed based upon their
approval date. Subsequently, the item was set for a Public Hearing before the Council. From a deadline
standpoint, that would have to be extended; City Attorney White. It is a technical extension because of
the appeal.
Council Member Kring. Relative to the street improvement, she is in favor of the request of the applicant
to post a bond and record a covenant thus postponing the improvements for five years so that the
24
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 25, 2000
applicant will have an opportunity to establish his business. If only one person is obligated to make the
improvements, she feels it would not be safe since other properties are not required to do so at this time.
Council Member Tait. He agrees but rather than five years that they tie it to when Harbor Blvd. is
actually widened. It does not seem it would be safe to make a 15' cut for part of the block and then
revert to the regular street width; Council Member Kring. She can support that.
Natalie Meeks. There is a provision in the AMC if widening is inappropriate at the time, there is an
option for a cash payment. It could be delayed for five years and to then determine at that time whether
or not it is more appropriate to do the widening or take the cash payments and pool the money with City
resources or other cash payments and do a more significant stretch of highway along Harbor.
Khoda Ostowari. They can make the cash payment. They do not have the cash at this time, the
$55,000. If the City accepts an installment, they can make the installment. He confirmed that five years
is OK with him.
Council Member Kring. She would like to give them the extension of beer and wine for three years so
they do not have to come back every year for another CUP; Sgt. Sutter, Police Department, then
confirmed for Council Member Feldhaus that relative to the beer and wine license, if they have a CUP,
they can get a license. They are in the process of doing so. As far as ABC is concerned, both licenses
still exist, the one at 510 W. South Street and the one at 1040 S. Harbor. The gentleman at 1040 S.
Harbor has surrendered his license and so has the gentleman at 510 W. South Street. In surrendering
the license(s), they have a year before it is lost and gone. If before that time they want to re-establish it,
they could do so but they would have to have a new CUP.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING: On motion by Council Member Kring ,
seconded by Council Member Tait the City Council finds that the Negative Declaration previously
approved in connection with this project is adequate to serve as the required environmental
documentation, that it has considered the previously approved Negative Declaration together with any
comments and evidence received during the public review process and that there are no additional
impacts in connection with the subject action. Mayor Daly voted no. MOTION CARRIED.
Council Member Kring offered Resolution No. 2000R - 14 for adoption granting amendments to
conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 4069 including extending the date for obtaining a
beer and wine license for 60 days, extending the beer and wine license for three years, and that there be
no improvements for a five-year period conditioned as articulated by staff and the applicant. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000R-14: A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.
2000R-14.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 2000R-14 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. 2000R-14 duly passed and adopted.
D5.
179: PUBLIC HEARING
EXEMPT - CLASS 21:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1043, CATEGORICALLY
25
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 25, 2000
INITIATED BY: City of Anaheim (Code Enforcement), 200 South Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA
92805
OWNER: Ben Karmelich, Jr., 30 Harbor Sight Drive, Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274
LOCATION: 2748 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is 1.7 acres located on the south side of
Lincoln Avenue 670 feet east of the centerline of Dale Avenue (Seville Inn).
City-initiated request to consider revocation or modification of Conditional Use Permit No. 1043
(permitting a 129-unit, 3-story motel with waiver of maximum structural height).
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Modified CUP NO. 1043 to permit use for another 6 months (PC99-203)
(7 yes votes).
Informational item at the meeting of December 14, 1999, Item B6. Letter of appeal submitted by
the owner, Ben Karmelich, Jr.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in North County News: January 13, 2000
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet: January 13, 2000
Posting of property: January 14, 2000
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager. He briefed the staff report to the Planning Commission dated
November 22, 1999 which explained the reasons for the City-initiated (Code Enforcement) request to
consider revocation or modification of Conditional Use Permit No. 1043 for the Seville Inn, now the
Lincoln Inn. The Commission modified the CUP to permit use for another six months adding additional
conditions 8 through 26 (see Planning Commission Resolution No. PC99-203). An appeal was submitted
by the owner asking that Conditions No. 9 and No. 11, as follows, be deleted:
No. 9 - That a minimum of two (2) licensed uniformed security guards, approved by the Anaheim Police
Department, shall be provided upon the premises at all times specifically to provide security and to
discourage vandalism, trespassing and/or loitering upon or adjacent to the subject property.
No. 11 - That guest rooms shall not be rented, let, or occupied by any individual for periods of less than
twelve (12) consecutive hours, nor shall guest rooms be rented, let, or occupied by any individual for
more than thirty (30) days within any ninety (90) day period excluding one (1) manager's unit. Guests
vacating the premises shall be required to remove all personal belongings from the guest room.
Mayor Daly opened the Public Hearing and asked first to hear from the appellant.
Mr. Ben Karmelisch, Owner, Lincoln Inn (formerly Seville Inn), 2748 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim. (He
first submitted a copy of a five-page prepared statement, attached to which were documents relating
thereto - made a part of the record). His statement outlined all of the things he had done to clean up the
motel since he took over six months ago, both in its physical appearance and in the type of tenants that
were staying at the motel. (Photographs were also submitted which showed the exterior of the motel and
the motel property and two photos of the interior.) He also referred to the document submitted as an
attachment to his statement which outlined the rules and regulations he instituted and which were
presently in place.
Prompted by the Mayor, Mr. Karmelisch then focused on the main issues of the appeal, Condition No. 9
and No. 11 (see above). He maintained that the two security guards are unnecessary giving the reasons
why (see page 2 and 3 of his statement). His main concern and point of contention relates to Condition
No. 11 imposing a 30-day limit for how long guests can stay at the motel. "This requirement is unfair to
my business as other similar motels do not have the same requirement as well as unfair to the guests of
my motel as there is no reason to evict these guests." He continued reading that portion of his statement
relating to the 30-day limit some of the concerns being - most of their guests are no longer travelers but
local community members who are in need of temporary housing, some have lost their jobs and cannot
afford an apartment but need a place to stay until they can "get back on their feet", his units are the size
of many studio apartments and they all have a kitchenette designed for longer term guests than other
26
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 25, 2000
motels, his motel and others provide a necessary service to the citizens, they provide a safety net to
those who have lost jobs and apartments, the bad customers have already been "kicked out" and the
good ones are left, etc. Imposing the 30-day limit would mean that he will lose all of his best customers
and only be able to rent to those that come in off the street. He urged the Council to delete Conditions
No. 9 and No. 11.
Mayor Daly opened the Public Hearing and asked to hear from those who wished to speak.
The following people spoke in support of the appellant's request especially with regard to deleting the 30-
day limit imposed under Condition No. 11:
Richard Cohen, 7591 Anita Ln., Huntington Beach
Gloria Ortega, current Manager, Lincoln Inn
Debra Harpole, Lincoln Inn resident
Erica Keplar, Lincoln Inn resident
Brandy Stone, Fullerton resident. (Spoke on behalf of the children living in the motel)
Female (no name given), Lincoln Inn resident
Arturo Garcia, Lincoln Inn resident
Jose, Lincoln Inn resident
Ben Karmelisch (father), 20 Diamonte Lane, Palos Verdes
Tim Mateo, Lincoln Inn resident and Pastor of Calvary Christian (holds services at the motel)
Timothy Healy, Lincoln Inn resident
Katherine Tikker, 307 W. Canoga Place, Anaheim
Following are the reasons for support: People who stay longer than 30 days are more desirable (as
tenants) and responsible, there has been great improvement since Mr. Karmelisch took over as the
owner, testimony by a resident she would be a street person or living in a car if not for the Lincoln Inn,
when tenants have to move every 28 days, it hurts the children, if the tenant "families" move to the other
side of Beach Blvd., they are in a different school district, the law is not going to solve the problem (of
motel families), the owner has spent a lot of effort to get the motel into shape, the property is now
secured, there has been a vast improvement in the motel in every way, the rent is reasonable, if the time
limit is not deleted, the residents will be back out on the street, Lincoln Inn (and motels like it) should not
be called motels but single-resident occupany apartments, unless they change the way they are operated
or funded or unless the motels are torn down, they will always be places for transitional housing for
people in crisis.
During his comments, Mr. Karmelisch's father attested to the fact that the (motel) property had been
greatly improved and whatever money his son would need in the way of funding, he would give it to him.
The following people spoke in opposition to the appellant's request:
Esther Wallace, Chairman of WAND (West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council). If it were up
to the residents in that area, the motel would have been closed a long time ago because it is "the worst
of the worst" with very bad conditions for the residents and the children. The $200,000 the owner said
had been put into improvements would not even start to improve the motel. Mrs. Wallace then spoke to
a number of issues amongst which were -- children are not attending school from that motel, the motel
has taken in everyone "kicked out" of other motels, how is the owner going to enforce the rules and
regulations, some of the rooms that were fixed up and subsequently inspected were of poor quality, the
neighborhood would like to see the motel closed but if the extension is granted, they want to make sure
the business is inspected every month and that improvements continue to be made, it is a high-crime-
rate area, 400% over average, she lives within four blocks of the motel.
Judith Ann Gollette, representing WAND's Land Use and Business Development Committee. What they
are concerned about and what the statistics and Police reports show is that there has been trouble at the
motel. While such places are needed, what has to occur is a change in regulations, guidelines, CUP's
27
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 25, 2000
and the name -- motel. This is a place where people in transition are living. She then referred to a new
motel residency law passed by Buena Park and suggested that perhaps Anaheim also needs to look at
new regulations. The issues involved are social issues. She would like to see Lincoln Inn run as a real
motel and if they need to have a place like this, call it what it is and regulate it as such.
Summation by Applicant: Ben Karmelisch. He is just appealing the two items, Condition 9 and 11 - 24-
hour security is not necessary, and requiring guests to check out every 28 days is not only difficult on the
residents, but it is also unfair.
Mayor Daly closed the Public Hearing.
Joel Fick, Planning Director, answering Council Member Kring reported that there have been a number
of motels that have come before the Planning Commission and Council that have had day limits included
as a condition. The focus is on those motels where there have been problems. Code Enforcement staff
and the Police Department have made the point over and over. They are only here as a last resort
because there has not been compliance in the past. Staff feels there has been improvement at the
Lincoln Inn and it is moving in the right direction.
Council Member Tait asked to hear from the Police Department relative to the two issues (24-hour
security and occupancy limit).
Officer Medina, Anaheim Police Department Community Policing Team (one of two Officers assigned to
the Seville Inn Motel, now the Lincoln Inn). Relative to the 24-hr. security, although the property has
improved in terms of crime reduction, he still does not go onto the property by himself because he does
not feel safe. Community Policing is long-term problem solving. He confirmed for the Mayor that he
does agree with the two conditions (that they be retained). The calls for service have dropped
enormously with 22 calls in December including proactive enforcement. He also stated that he felt the
day limit was helpful, his concern being that he and his partner are not going to be assigned to the motel
forever. When they leave, he feels it is something that will provide some stability to the motel. He
reiterated, they want to effect long-term solutions. He then answered a line of questions posed by
Council Member Kring during which he stated that he has not seen as many children as the number
given tonight (209 as reported by Mrs. Wallace). He has run into quite a few families where the children
are not going to school. He also has not had any problems with the people (from the motel) present
tonight but who will be affected by a limit; however for every one of those present, there are probably two
or more long-term tenants that are severe problems.
Council Member Kring. Each and every unit has a kitchenette. It seems to her they are already set up
as a place where people can live on a long-term basis; Council Member Tait. He feels it is a "gray" area.
The 30-day limit works for a poorly-managed motel, otherwise it is a big hardship forcing people out after
30 days. The extension is only for six months and it seems that the 30 days causes too much hardship
in this instance. As far as security guards, he feels it is doing well because of the security. He is hard
pressed to go against Officer Medina but with the 30-day limit, the cost to the people is too great and
outweighs any benefit.
Council Member McCracken. She believes that Mr. Karmelisch wants to live up to the conditions of the
Conditional Use Permit but the 30-day limitation would be too difficult. The school district says it is
chaotic for them. She also questions the definition of a motel. The units have been built with a
kitchenette as well as a bedroom. She feels the security has to be preserved; relative to the limit, she
has a concern as to how he can keep the "good" people as tenants.
Council Member Kring. As a community, they need to address the issue but she does not think this CUP
is the vehicle to discuss it. It is a much bigger issue. She will support the security guards but not the
time limit.
28
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 25, 2000
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Mayor Daly,
seconded by Council Member McCracken the City Council determined that the proposed activity falls
within the definition of Section 3.01 Class 21, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements to
file an EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 2000R-15 for adoption granting the extension of CUP 1043 for six
months to July 25, 2000 with all the conditions as imposed by the City Planning Commission including
Condition No. 9 and Condition No. 11 requiring the two security guards and retaining the 30-day limit on
guests at the motel. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000R-15: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. 1043.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 2000R-15 for adoption:
AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Feldhaus, McCracken, Daly
NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kring, Tait,
ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 2000R-15 duly passed and adopted.
Council Member Tait noted after the vote that there seemed to be some confusion by those present on
what the Council voted on. Essentially it means the two security guards are required and the City has
retained the 30-day limit; Mayor Daly. He asked the Zoning Division Manager, Greg Hastings to meet
with the owner to clarify/confirm Council's action.
Council Member Feldhaus. He feels they need to go a step further on this issue and ask Planning staff
to think about going to SRO's (Single Room Occupancy facilities). Somehow they have to change
motels from being residential facilities and to call them what they are, transition houses.
Mayor Daly. He asked the City Attorney to suggest what types of steps and remedies are available, if
any, in terms of labeling along with what Council Member Feldhaus is asking.
Council Member Feldhaus. He noted the City is putting a great deal of emphasis on west Anaheim and
part of the problem in trying to upgrade that area of the City are the poorly operated motels. They have
to figure out a way they are going to transition the people involved and still have upgraded properties in
nearby areas. It is going to take a concerted effort.
Council Member McCracken. She feels they need to ask staff - Code Enforcement, Planning and also
the Housing Commission - to look seriously as to how some of these facilities can be transitioned or
changed or what kinds of things can be changed to make them into residential facilities, transition them,
and turn them into better facilities. Perhaps the codes have to be addressed. The problem is not going
to go away.
29
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 25, 2000
D6. 179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4159
DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 99-06
AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: Thrifty Oil Company, 13539 Foster Road, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90650
AGENT: The Regents Group, Attn: David Rose, 3870 La Sierra Avenue, #193, Riverside, CA
92505
LOCATION: 1881 West Ball Road. Property is 0.43 acre located at the northeast corner of Ball
Road and Nutwood Street (Thrifty Oil).
Conditional Use Permit No. 4159 - To permit the conversion of a 1,471 square foot vacant
service station into a convenience market with sales of beer and wine for off-premises
consumption.
Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 99-06 - To determine public
convenience or necessity to allow the retail sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption
within a proposed convenience market.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMSSION:
CUP NO. 4159 GRANTED, IN PART, for five years (PC99-205) (6 yes votes, Commissioner
Boydstun absent).
Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 99-06 DENIED
(PC99-206).
Approved Negative Declaration.
Informational item at the meeting of December 14, 1999, Item B8. Letter of appeal submitted by the
agent, David Rose, The Regents Group.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in North County News: January 13, 2000
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet: January 13, 2000
Posting of property: January 14, 2000
Letter dated January 19, 2000 was received by Thrifty Oil Co., withdrawing the appeal of Conditional Use
Permit No. 4159. MOTION:
Mayor Daly moved to accept the withdrawal of the appeal as requested. Council Member McCracken
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
C2: REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS:
City Attorney Jack White stated that there are no actions to report.
C3: COUNCIL COMMENTS:
Council Member Tait: In their budget workshop on Saturday (see minutes of January 22, 2000), the
Council discussed the Resort Area and the projected profits anticipated. He asked staff to agendize
taking those profits and putting them into a separate account reserved for improving neighborhoods.
The purpose was to spend those funds on neighborhoods. He would like staff to come back with a
proposal on how to segregate those funds into a separate account.
Mayor Daly asked if he wanted to have staff analysis and a report before the item comes back to the
agenda; Council Member Tait clarified that he wanted it on the agenda next week so the Council can
vote on it.
Council Member McCracken stated she would like to know which neighborhoods - those around the
Resort Area or others; Council Member Tait clarified that he meant neighborhoods throughout the City.
30
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 25, 2000
Council Member Kring: She asked that the Closed Session Item she requested be agendized for
today's agenda regarding Council appointees be again scheduled for the next agenda since the Council
did not have an opportunity to discuss the issue today.
Mayor Daly: Earlier today at the workshop, there was discussion about the need to make sure
Anaheim Boulevard is identified as clearly as possible on both the Riverside and Santa Ana Freeways.
They received a memo on the 91 freeway issue. He wants to underscore they all want to make sure
there is adequate signage that advertises Anaheim Boulevard on the 91 an I-5 and also to indicate the
Anaheim Civic Center. If Caltrans is resistant, staff should advise the Council.
Council Members extended their sympathies to the Anaheim families who lost a son and a daughter in
separate tragedies in the City this past week.
ADJOURNMENT: By general Council consent, the Council Meeting of January 25, 2000 was adjourned
at 11:15 P.M.
SHERYLL SCHROEDER
CITY CLERK
31