2001/02/13
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MEETING
FEBRUARY 13, 2001
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in special session.
PRESENT: Mayor Tom Daly, Council Members Shirley McCracken. Frank Feldhaus, Tom Tait
and Lucille Kring.
STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Jim Ruth, City Attorney Jack White, City Clerk Sheryll
Schroeder, Planning Director Joel Fick, Executive Director Community Development, Elisa
Stipkovich.
A copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was posted on February 9,
2001, at the north entrance and east entrance to City Hall and on the window outside of the
Council Chambers.
Mayor Daly called the special meeting to order at 2:41 P. M. in the Council Chambers of the
Anaheim City Hall, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard for the purpose of Closed Session.
ADDITIONSIDELETIONS TO CLOSED SESSION:
There were no additions to the Closed Session agenda:
PUBLIC COMMENTS - CLOSED SESSION ITEMS:
There were no public comments relative to Closes Session items.
Mayor Daly moved to recess to Closed Session, seconded by Council Member McCracken.
Motion carried unanimously. The Council recessed to Closed Session at 2:42 P.M.
1. ANNUAL EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS
Titles: City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk, City Treasurer
2. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT
CODE SECTION 54957.6
Agency designated representative: David Hill
Employee organization: International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 47
3. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT
CODE SECTION 54957.6
Agency designated representative: David Hill
Employee organization: Anaheim Municipal Employees Association
4. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
(Subdivision (a) of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code) Name of case: South
Coast Cab Co. v. City of Anaheim, et aI., 4th District Court of Appeal Case No. G026197.
5. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 54956.9 of the
Government Code: one potential case.
AFTER RECESS:
-------..-
CITY OF ANAHEIM
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
FEBRUARY 13, 2001
PAGE 2
Mayor Daly called the regular Council meeting of February 13, 2001 to order at 5:49 P.M. and
welcomed those In attendance.
INVOCATION: Moment of Silence
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Lucille Kring
119 PROCLAMATIONS AND DECLARATIONS:
Mayor Daly read a presentation recognizing David Hill, the City's Human Resource
Director, on receiving the 2000 Professional Excellence Award from the League of
California Cities Personnel and Employee Relations Department.
A Declaration that had been presented earlier in the day was a special recognition
recognizing Benny Hernandez for his contributions to the community.
At 5:55 P.M., Mayor Daly recessed the City Council meeting until after the Redevelopment
Agency meeting.
Mayor Daly reconvened the City Council meeting at 6:00 P.M.
ADDITIONSIDELETIONS TO THE AGENDA:
There were no additions or deletions to the agenda.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Nativo Lopez, 804 S. Anaheim Blvd., National Co-Director of Hermandad Mexicana Nacional,
read from a prepared statement regarding the City's I.N.S. screening project in the Anaheim
Temporary Detention Facility. His request was that the City "put an end to the present policy
which permits local police department cooperation with the INS at the Anaheim Detention
Facility". His statement continued, "We will return within the thirty days." He added that they
formally requested the subject be placed on the agenda of March 20, 2001.
James Read, 100 W. Midway Drive, Space 124. read from a list citing what the Golden Skies
Mobile Home Park considered to be police issues regarding what they considered to be
harassment of residents by the management of the Mobile Home Park. Issue one, previous
manager of the park was arrested and pleaded guilty and convicted of battery of a tenant in the
park while in capacity of manager. Two, previous manager terrorized the park for three years
by blocking the thoroughfare to their homes and harassment. Three, the current manager drove
his personal vehicle and the parks maintenance cart on the wrong side of the roadway up to the
resident's feet as a show of intimidation and verb harassment. Four, speeding out of a parking
space, shouting at residents. Five, park maintenance employees knocking on resident's doors
early in the morning, employee intoxicated. Six, making public threats to slash resident's tires
and making derogatory statements about residents. Seven, Anaheim police conducted two
illegal searches of his neighbor's home based on false accusations from management. He said
they expected the Police to protect their property and persons and to serve them with immediate
intervention and question the management of Golden Skies Mobile Home Park.
.-....- ..--,-----.
CITY OF ANAHEIM
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
FEBRUARY 13, 2001
PAGE 3
Dr. Howard Garber, Anaheim resident, said he felt compelled to respond to incidents occurring
two weeks ago regarding the immigration issue. He said some of the people who appeared two
weeks ago were subjected to abuse, intimidation and defamation, which he said, was uncalled
for. He referred to a newspaper quote that he felt was inappropriate regarding police officers
stopping citizens to inquire about their citizenship. He said he had never suggested that
approach. He clarified that he favored local municipalities and state governments assisting in
the area of law enforcement as per the congressional act, Section 133. He clarified that he did
not propose that officers stop people on the street. He said the congressional act authorized
the assistance of municipalities in dealing with illegal immigration, illegal aliens. He said that he
wished to be placed on the agenda with the opposing side so that not just one side was being
heard.
Glen Spencer, 13457 Ventura Blvd., Sherman Oaks, gave the history of Proposition 187, which
created California Penal Code 834(b) and he read sections from the statute, which pertained to
immigration issues. He finalized by saying immigration laws must be enforced.
David Kendrick, Buena Park, gave the history of his residency in Anaheim and ultimate move to
Buena Park. He said he felt that having an INS officer in Anaheim jails was a success.
Michael Hitchens, 1255 Euclid Street, Garden Grove, read a newspaper article from the Orange
County Register regarding citizenship.
MOTION: Mayor Daly moved to waive reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions,
seconded by Council Member McCracken. Motion carried unanimously.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR A1 - A19: 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. Item A 18 was continued for two weeks.
Motion carried unanimously.
Council Member Feldhaus explained he would abstain on Item A10, Walnut Grove Medical
Center, as he was a board member of the hospital.
City Manager Jim Ruth noted that staff had requested Item A28 be continued for two weeks,
adoption of Ordinance No. 5755, definition of "motel" and "hotel".
105
A1.
Receive and file minutes from the Anaheim Public Library Board meeting held
January 4, 2001.
166
A2.
Award and authorize the Finance Director to execute a contract to the lowest
responsible bidder, A&M Construction, in the amount of $89,395.02 for the installation
of decorative signs at main entrances to the Palm Village area and approve the escrow
agreement pertaining to contract retentions.
175
A3.
Award and authorize the Finance Director to execute a contract to the lowest
responSible bidder, Phelps Southwest, Inc., in the amount of $107,700 for the repair and
replacement of system components to the Via Arboles pump station damaged in a
vehicle accident and for the restoration of the pump station to normal operation.
-"'--'-'-'-" - ---"--'-''''-'-'''---''''''-
158
121
121
158
161
161
156
156
156
--- '--r--
CITY OF ANAHEIM
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
FEBRUARY 13, 2001
PAGE 4
A4.
A5.
A6.
A7.
160
A8.
A9.
A10.
A11.
A12.
A13.
Approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the acquisition agreement
for the purchase of real property at 5600 East La Palma Avenue and authorize the
acquisition payment of $60,000 to Frome Development Omega, LLC.
RESOLUTION NO. 2001R-35 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM amending Resolution No. 2000R-265 nunc pro tunc (acquiring and
authorizing the condemnation of 2099 State College Boulevard).
RESOLUTION NO. 2001 R-336 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM amending Resolution No. 2000R-266 nunc pro tunc (acquiring and
authorizing the condemnation of 2004 East Lincoln Avenue).
Accept the low bid of Advantage Fitness Products in the amount of $39,997.01 (tax
inclusive) for the purchase and installation of physical fitness equipment for the East Sub
Station Fitness Center, Police Department, in accordance with Bid #6118.
Finding that the transfer of City property to the Agency is in the best interest of the City,
approve and authorize the Executive Director to execute the quitclaim transfer of City
property located at the northeast corner of Lemon and Stueckle Streets to the Anaheim
Redevelopment Agency and authorize the Executive Director to execute all documents
necessary to complete the transaction.
RESOLUTION NO. 2001R-37 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM making certain findings in connection with the City's submittal of a
grant application to the U.S. EPA for supplemental assistance for Brownfields
Assessment Demonstration Pilots for funding of site assessment of certain potentially
contaminated property located in North Central Anaheim at the northeast corner of La
Palma Avenue and North Anaheim Boulevard, City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State
of California.
RESOLUTION NO. 2001 R-38 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM consenting to Anaheim Redevelopment Agency's development of
the building site at 953 South Anaheim Boulevard (Walnut Grove Medical Center).
RESOLUTION NO. 2001R-39 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM authorizing the Chief of Police to submit a grant proposal on behalf
of the City of Anaheim to the Office of Criminal Justice Planning for second year funding
for the Positive Alternatives Program (PAP) component of the Delinquency Prevention
Program.
RESOLUTION NO. 2001 R-40 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM authorizing the Chief of Police to submit a grant proposal on behalf
of the City of Anaheim to the Office of Criminal Justice Planning for third year funding for
the Suppression of Drug Abuse in Schools Program.
RESOLUTION NO. 2001R-41 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM authorizing the Chief of Police to submit a grant proposal on behalf
of the City of Anaheim from the State of California Department of Alcoholic Beverage
Control for the Grant Assistance to Law Enforcement (GALE) Program.
156
179
153
153
179
114
102
CITY OF ANAHEIM
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
FEBRUARY 13, 2001
PAGE 5
A14. RESOLUTION NO. 2001R-42 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM authorizing the Chief of Police to submit a grant proposal on behalf
of the City of Anaheim to the Office of Criminal Justice Planning for the 2000-2001
Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant (JAIBG) Program.
A15. ORDINANCE NO. 5756 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM amending Subsection .015 of Section 18.12.080 of Chapter 18.12 of Title 18
of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to Zoning (waiver of fence height in front yard
setback).
A16. Approve a rate reduction for the Aetna U.S. Healthcare Temporary Disability Income
Plan to be effective March 1, 2001.
A17. RESOLUTION NO. 2001R-43 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM amending Resolution No. 00R-124 which established rates of
compensation for job classifications designated as Middle Management.
A18. ORDINANCE NO. 5755 (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM amending the definitions of "hotel" and "motel" as set forth in Sections
18.01.090 and 18.01.140 of Title 1 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. (Introduced at the
meeting of February 6, 2001, Item A 10.)
A 19. Approve minutes from the meeting held February 6, 2001, and approve minutes of the
adjourned regular meeting of January 23, 2001, held January 27, 2001.
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR
OFF-CONSENT CALENDAR:
A20. Nominate and appoint a member to the Orange County Vector Control District Board of
Trustees to fill the unexpired term of George Edwards, term to expire December 2001.
Council Member Feldhaus nominated John Baird, seconded by Council Member McCracken.
Mayor Daly called for other nominations. Hearing none, Council Member Tait moved to close
nominations, seconded by Council Member McCracken. Motion carried.
Vote for John Baird for Orange County Vector Control District Board of Trustees, motion carried
unanimously.
150 A21. Discussion of John Marshall parking lot.
Chris Jarvi, Director Community Services, informed Council that he had two meetings with
homeowners and seniors and he believed there had been a resolution agreed to where the
parking lot did not need to be expanded and the project would be not done. He said the street
sweeping program in that neighborhood could be moved to sometime after 1 :00 PM. He
finalized that staff would be proposing that at a future meeting.
-.
CITY OF ANAHEIM
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
FEBRUARY 13, 2001
PAGE 6
Council Member Feldhaus mentioned that new lighting had just been installed and he wondered
if Mr. Jarvi was confident that higher and more intense use of the park would not require more
parking.
Mr. Jarvi said the way the park was used now, primarily by youth groups; there was not a need
for the extra parking that was required when adults were using the fields.
Regarding Items A22, A23, A24, Mayor Daly moved for a one-week continuance in the interest
of time, seconded by Council Member Kring. Motion carried unanimously.
114
A22. Nominate and appoint one Council Member to serve as Mayor Pro Tem for one year.
(Continued from meetings of December 12, 2000, Item A32, December 19, 2000, Item
A36, January 9, 2001, Item A27, January 23, 2001, Item A44, and February 6, 2001.)
105 A23.
Review current assignments and make appointments to various Regional and State
Organizations. (Continued from meetings of December 12, 2000, Item A38, January 9,
2001, Item A28, and January 23, 2001, Item A45 and February 6, 2001.)
105
A24. Nominate and appoint a member to the Anaheim Housing and Redevelopment
Commission to fill the unexpired term of Thomas Holguin, term to expire June 30, 2004.
(Continued from the meeting of January 23, 2001, Item A42 and February 6, 2001.)
173'
A25. Discussion of Centerline light rail project Discussion of Centerline light rail project and
request for vote on City's position whether to support staff's recommendation to consider
the No-Build Alternative. (Continued from the meeting of February 6,2001, Item A22.)
Mayor Daly opened the floor for public comments on the Centerline project.
Anthony Trujillo, 2001 Kingsboro Circle, Tustin, addressed a portion of the EIR, Page S27,
which indicated that adverse environmental impacts would only be reduced not eliminated. He
spoke in opposition to the proposal.
Chris Ema, 1502 La Loma Drive, Santa Ana, referred to a study done for OCT A four years ago
which showed that rail was the least desirable of all alternatives. He indicated that private
buses were very successful. He said the modern method of solving transportation problems
was called rapid transit, rubber tired buses, indicating that was the preferable method.
Robert Sechler, 4494 Larwin Avenue, Cypress, proposed that OCTA start a new service similar
to the rapid bus found on two routes in Los Angeles County. He explained that the Federal
Transit Administration had endorsed the approach to upgrading mass transportation by
establishing a bus rapid transit program with projects in 17 cities. He urged Orange County to
consider it.
Mike Buis, 625 N. Clementine, said he was opposed to the Centerline project being placed
through the historical district.
A lady from the audience noted that if the train were built as planned, it would run right in front of
her home. She said it would not help traffic problems and would lower property values.
_.'"'._"__,."~,..__. _.__,____"._._~__ ',.n
CITY OF ANAHEIM
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
FEBRUARY 13, 2001
PAGE 7
Brent Hardwick, Fullerton, said he served on the Fullerton Transportation Commission and he
urged Council's support of the Centerline project. He noted that Fullerton wanted to preserve
its historic buildings and when they worked with OCTA, they discovered that OCTA listened to
their concerns, they were very cooperative and knowledgeable and happy to respond to their
concerns. He said no one was trying to force the rail system, it was a discussion on the best
way to move people around. He felt there was not one system to do it, it would take a number
of systems. He asked the City to join Fullerton in supporting Centerline.
Christie Romero, 521 N. Zeyn Street, said she and her husband were committed to staying in
their historic home and said they did not want light rail in either their front or back yards. She
said the City's elected representatives had to carry the word to OCTA that the residents in the
historic district did not want a light rail in their back yard.
Mike Tucker, 503 N. Zeyn, said the light rail, as currently proposed, would be a black eye in the
historic district, which would bring noise and crime, indicating that the residents and City had
worked hard to turn the area around. He indicated that the City of Long Beach was considering
installing flashing signs where the light rail intersections are to keep people off the tracks and he
did not think the City of Anaheim would want unsightly signage. He said Anaheim Blvd. and
Harbor Blvd., where the light rail was proposed, was hardly wide enough for two lanes of traffic
and adding a middle lane for tracks was hard to think about what it would do to the traffic. He
asked Council to vote no on the project.
Wayne King, 12592 Loretta Drive, Orange, presented a graph, which he referred to, which
contained two bars, one being volume and one being capacity. He also presented another
chart, which he said he retrieved from the internet from OCT A. It consisted of two columns,
Benefit and Impact, he said traffic was on the impact said and should be on the benefit side.
Under the benefit column was air quality and energy and OCTA said both would be slightly
improved, never a number. He was not sure what slightly meant. The next page he referred to
was a pie graph that showed 50% of the funding for the railroad would come from the federal
government, it was an "iffy" proposition, if Anaheim Council voted no, maybe they would not get
the funding. Also the 25% STIP could run about $800,000 million or so and it came from all the
cities and all road improvements. He said, taking all those things in consideration, the money
spent for centerline would not get very far in the year 2020.
Bob Geiss, Tama Drive, Lake Forest, said he was on the Grand Jury in 1998 to 1999 that wrote
the report about OCTA and light rail. He said he had ten reason to think about twice about
centerline, essentially, he said it was broken into three parts: (1) what will light rail do, what is
it's performance; (2) money, how much will it cost and continue to cost and (3) history, what
does history tell about recent light rail.
He said under performance, (1), unfortunately, OCTA's own documents say centerline would
make local street traffic worse. Under it's own documentation, he noted, OCTA says centerline
does nothing for freeway congestion, talking about spending over $2.5 billion for less than 1 % of
the problem and it may not fix the 1%, he added. Centerline does nothing for reducing pollution,
Mr. Geiss said, and centerline was permanent. Once it is put in and the cities realize they made
a mistake, they were stuck with it. Centerline ridership was overstated, he noted, probably by a
factor of 2 or maybe more.
-~ --,.---.--...-....-
CITY OF ANAHEIM
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
FEBRUARY 13, 2001
PAGE 8
He said under money, (2), centerline would require large and continuing subsidies, all mass
transit required subsidies but he said he thought centerline would "break the mold". Centerline
was expensive to build; he explained, about $64 million per mile, up to $89 million a mile, about
27% times more than highways and roads with the same capacity. Centerline would eat up all
the funding for transportation for the foreseeable future and centerline costs were understated,
he explained. The numbers people were hearing were the numbers to build it, not to run it or
maintain it, Mr. Geiss said. He said operations to run it would run at about a 70% deficit. For
every dollar taken in, $2.50 would have to come from somewhere else. Centerline's own
documentation said that road and bus improvements would provide greater transportation
payoffs, that was from their major investment study of alternatives, he informed.
History (3), he said, notes that over the last 12 light rail projects that were built in the United
States, only one made it on budget. The rest, he quoted, over estimated ridership by factors of
2 and 3, under estimated cost by factors of 2 and 3 and over estimated benefits, like enhancing
the environment and investments, until the project was sold.
David Helland, 515 N. Zeyn Street, stated his opposition to building through the historic district
and referred to the Grand Jury Report. He said he might not be completely opposed to the
project if it could be done in half the time, with a quarter of the costs. He said there were other
considerations like the negligible impacts on traffic congestion because it drew few drivers from
their cars. He noted that very few tourists would take public transportation, they would rent
cars. Shoppers would not use public transportation either, he said. He noted that light rail was
inflexible, once it was in place, where bus systems were adjusted three times a year to adjust
for the needs of the community. He said light rail would not improve commuter travel times as
speculated. He felt that there was a promotion of light rail by OCTA rather than a process of
study and analysis adding that light rail was obsolete with respect to the needs of most
American commuters.
Marcia Garten, 521 N. Lemon Street, said she had forwarded the Grand Jury Report and she
urged Council to look at the bigger picture and the overall commitment to the project and vote
for the no build alternative.
Council Member Tait asked the Public Works Director, Gary Johnston, to summarize the staff
recommendation and the reasons behind the finding of the no build recommendation.
Gary Johnson, Director of Public Works, said his recommendation was similar to the one made
in December of 1999, restating the Council policy at the time to support more regional mobility
options, the question being how to provide the best mobility in Orange County. He said staff
had done an extensive review of the Centerline project and not so much opposed Centerline,
but supported other options that had greater benefits to mobility, especially regional mobility,
and their finding was that Anaheim, in particular, needed to provide solutions to regional mobility
issues that could be addressed, and may not be addressed if money was not available for them.
When Council decided their policy in December of 1999, it endorsed the regional mobility
options that were restated in the report to Council. Two things that Council indicated, he said,
they wanted a deferral of future engineering of light rail for the City until further evaluation and
clarification of technology and funding options were considered. In the report, he said, staff
indicated that the Measure M plan indicates that high technology advanced rail transit, staff
wasn't sure yet if the current proposal met that task. He said more importantly on the funding
CITY OF ANAHEIM
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
FEBRUARY 13, 2001
PAGE 9
issue, the September 1999 document indicated that state funding would be absorbed, the
majority of state funding up to fiscal year 2015. He said the current document that had been
released, increased the state funding by over 25% for an additional $180 million. The document
did not say what that meant, if it was still 15 years, or 18, but it was significant. The staff's
recommendation to the Council was to endorse regional mobility options, the 91 corridor he said
came to mind as the most demanding in Orange County. He said the centerline project was a
competing project because it took funds that could go to another project. He said the staff was
endorsing a regional menu and unfortunately, based on that, cannot endorse the centerline
project.
Council Member Tait asked Mr. Johnson if, in his personal opinion, traffic congestion in
Anaheim would get worse or better if the centerline was built.
Mr. Johnson said his opinion would be based on the Harvard University study, The Richman
Report, in analyzing the new transit starts indicated that they could find no finding of improved
mobility or improved air quality from the systems that had been implemented and as staff looked
at the various documents, some of which the Grand Jury looked at, found it difficult to endorse
the project on the basis of economics or environmental impact.
Council Member Tait asked if the money were spent else where, would it do more to relieve
congestion and traffic than the centerline would. Mr. Johnson said that was staff's opinion.
Council Member McCracken asked Mr. Johnson that in his regional planning for traffic, did he
see anyplace for high technology advanced rail transportation system.
Gary Johnson said that he thought an increase in transit was important, but he felt it could be
served by the express bus by better utilizing the HOV system that really served the same
activity centers that the rail was proposing to serve. He said the short answer was no.
Council Member McCracken said she read the Harvard Report and she felt they left out the
BART System, 325,000 passengers a day. She said she did not know where the newspapers
got the information that she was pro centerline, adding she had questioned it from the
beginning. She asked if there wasn't a place in the future for a high technology system.
Mr. Johnson said that some studies indicate that it does work in certain locations, New York,
Chicago, large activity centers.
Council Member McCracken said she agreed that a city needed to do all of the transportation
options but she questioned if there was a place in the plan for high technology options. She
noted that the high tech element was one of the reasons Measure M passed.
Mr. Johnson said more of the issue was what was the most economical way to move people
and he felt the research and studies indicated, from an economists point of view, the most cost
effective way to move people was by bus and rapid bus or express bus.
Mayor Daly clarified that he was suggesting that the investment of funds over the coming
decades in Orange County should be directed at more bus service on local streets and also on
the freeway system.
-,--~- --r
CITY OF ANAHEIM
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
FEBRUARY 13, 2001
PAGE 10
Mr. Johnson agreed that those would be two options.
Mayor Daly asked for some examples of improvements to the 91 corridor that were a priority.
Mr. Johnson pointed to the work of the Riverside Transportation Commission, which was
looking at how to move people to Orange County where the jobs were. He said they were
looking at various corridors to do that. He said the forecast traffic indicated that the 91 freeway
would have to be doubled in size and that would not happen, 12 lanes to 24 lanes. The impacts
from not having a solution to the Riverside to Orange County commute was that Anaheim bared
the brunt of that, air quality issues, spillover traffic and there was no plan. Whatever plan was
arrived at, he said it would take considerable resources and the policy issue for policy makers
was would there be enough money to address some of the needs and how do you prioritize
them.
Mayor Daly asked him which improvements should be pursued and he answered, the express
bus using the HOV lanes serving the activity centers that Centerline was proposing to serve,
the rapid bus, Los Angles MTA, he explained, would deploy 22 more next year, an indication of
its success in Los Angeles. The high-speed rail alternatives, three in progress, do help north
Orange County and Anaheim.
Mayor Daly asked Mr. Johnson what routes the high-speed rail, which Mr. Johnson had
identified as a priority for Anaheim, should be followed.
Mr. Johnson said the most likely route would be from Los Angeles to Anaheim with either high-
speed service, using the Metrolink, Amtrak line. Mayor Daly asked him what other specific
improvements did Mr. Johnson believe OCTA should be pursuing.
Mr. Johnson said most of the plans were in the OCT A fast forward document, he said he felt the
issue was what was the financing plan. If one project was to take the bulk of discretionary funds
for 15 or more years, what was the plan, how were other alternatives financed that may be more
beneficial to Anaheim.
Mayor Daly asked if Mr. Johnson was suggesting that If the OCT A continued to plan and
ultimately build a light rail system anywhere in Orange County that would use up funds that
would otherwise be used for projects Mr. Johnson had identified.
Mr. Johnson responded that was a possibility but he thought, in addition to that, staff had looked
at the Centerline project and tried to give Council an evaluation of the project as a project. If a
decision was made to move ahead with the project, that would be a policy decision, but the
question then became how are the other projects financed, what is the plan. He said
documents that staff had did not clarify that.
Mayor Daly clarified that Mr. Johnson was saying that there was not enough money available to
do all the improvements so the policy makers needed to prioritize and if Centerline was built,
there may not be enough money for the other improvements.
'.--or--"-~--" ---.----~-----_.--- -
CITY OF ANAHEIM
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
FEBRUARY 13, 2001
PAGE 11
Mr. Johnson responded, and secondly, as a stand-alone project, based on the history of light
rail, is it a sound investment for Orange County. He said 19 Grand Jurors looked at the same
set of questions and came up with the conclusion that it was not fully consistent with the OCTA
direction. He said it was a policy issue that needed evaluation and discussion. Staff had done
an evaluation and had given the Council a recommendation, he said, and it would be Council's
decision what was best for the City.
Mayor Daly asked, if the City could make the decision without OCT A and CalTrans and had the
money, which projects would the City sponsor to better move people around.
Public Works Director Johnson answered that his response was that OCTA was a regional
planning authority, they controlled the state and federal money that came to the County, and no
single City dictates what happens. He said the menus of regional improvements to improve
mobility are the ones that staff suggested, rapid buses, express buses.
Mayor Daly asked if that included high-speed rail down the Amtrak line, coming from Los
Angeles and terminating where. He also how fast the high-speed rail should be.
John Lower, Traffic and Transportation Manager said 180 to 200 miles per hour would be the
classification of high-speed rail.
Mayor Daly wondered where it would terminate.
Mr. Lower replied that for over 10 years there had been discussion of a regional transportation
center tying together the various modes of transportation in the vicinity of the stadium. He said
no site had been selected.
Mayor Daly said he appreciated the professional evaluation and part of the staff's
recommendation was that the City should focus on regional movement, moving people from
county to county, and less focused on helping people move from city to city.
Mr. Lower said with the widening improvements to all the freeways throughout the City, the City
gained more lanes, including car pool lanes and staff's recommendation for cost effective, near
term mobility improvements was to fill up the car pool lanes with express buses. Not just putting
more buses on streets, but express buses going from activity center to activity center and not
stopping at every block along the way, he explained. Another near term cost effective mobility
improving project was expanded service on the Metrolink. connecting the Inland Empire to
Orange County and onto Los Angeles County. He felt the real issue was regional mobility
because the region continued to build out and the majority of affordable housing stock was in
the Inland Empire. He said one side of the Centerline project that had not been discussed was
the land use planning side. He informed that Centerline could be used as a regional land use
planning tool as well, with the stationary being the transit villages, which under staff analysis
could just as easily be served with express bus.
Council Member Feldhaus said the cost per mile to expand the freeways was about $15 million
and the cost to build the Centerline was $80 million per mile.
."~.".~_. ,_.,~<._--",--..- -'-~.
CITY OF ANAHEIM
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
FEBRUARY 13, 2001
PAGE 12
Mr. Johnson clarified that the freeway construction cost was based on a per lane mile. He
explained the cost was based on the length of the segment times the number of lanes added,
which included the auxiliary and the HOV lanes, $10 to $15 million per lane mile.
Council Member Feldhaus added that even light rail required two systems; the light rail itself and
each of the stops had to have a companion feeder line coming in. He said he heard OCT A had
arrived at a different minimum operating segment for Anaheim and even though he still believed
in a no build, he wanted to hear and have staff hear their newest proposal. He requested the
discussion be continued to the next meeting.
Council Member Kring asked if the new proposal was to have it stop at the stadium. Council
Member Feldhaus said yes.
Council Member Kring said she had heard OCTA's newest plan, she reported that they would
only go to the stadium. She said to her thinking, that was the "nose under the tent", once they
got to the stadium, they would say it did not work because it did not go far enough and they
would want to continue building it and putting more money in. She said she did not hear people
saying they would leave their cars home and use the Centerline all week. She noted she was
pleased to hear the historic district saying they did not want it in any neighborhood. Regarding
the cost of the project, she said it was prohibitive and the Grand Jury said it would not do what it
said it would do. Council Member Kring said she was told that people in Orange County would
walk a half-mile from the Centerline stop to their jobs or homes, which she did not agree with.
She indicated that putting up wires and sound walls would not be attractive and she said she
was not supportive of the Centerline project. She suggested that a measure be placed on the
ballot to return the $343 million that Measure M provided.
Mayor Daly seconded Council Member Feldhaus' motion to continue the discussion for two
weeks and tell OCTA that Anaheim did not support extending the Centerline through the heart
of the City, down Anaheim Blvd. or Harbor Blvd., but would rather OCTA study the potential of
having the Centerline arrive in the stadium area near where City staff suggested a regional
transportation center, near the Amtrak station. He said if there was a chance that Centerline
would be built, he felt the City should keep the door open and consider service to the City and
he felt the stadium area was a worthwhile candidate for that service. He said it was reasonable
to have staff talk to OCT A about the potential of a station in the stadium area that would extend
no further north, beyond the stadium area, and to bring the Council details of location and rider
ship.
Council Member Tait said he would support the motion to continue the discussion. He said
OCT A deserved to have clear input from the City. He referred to the speaker from the Grand
Jury (Mr. Geiss), reciting the number 10 item; "Road and bus improvements would provide
greater transportation payoffs. OCTA's major investment study of alternatives shows that
Orange County would benefit more by using a given amount of money for bus, road and
freeway improvements rather than build a Centerline as measured by travel time savings,
freeway decongestion, pollution reduction and lower energy consumption." He said if the
proposal went to the stadium, he did not think it would stop there. He said he was prepared to
vote no but would support the continuance.
-~,.. ---_.._---_...._-.~
CITY OF ANAHEIM
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
FEBRUARY 13, 2001
PAGE 13
Council Member Kring mentioned that the problem with continuing the discussion for two weeks
was that OCTA would meet on the 22nd of February, Council would meet again on February
27th, after OCTA meeting.
Council Member Feldhaus said he and Council Member Kring had a meeting with OCTA on
Friday and he wanted to wait to vote until he heard their input on Friday.
Council Member Kring said if OCTA said they would stop the project at the stadium, in a few
years they would say the project was not successful because it did not go far enough.
Council Member Feldhaus noted that the resort area was experiencing some traffic congestion
and the solution may be beneficial to the area, a way to move people around in the area. Those
were the questions he wished to address with the OCTA.
Council Member Kring asked if the Anaheim Resort Transportation was going to solve the
problem in the resort area.
John Lower, Traffic and Transportation Manager, said the Anaheim Resort Transit was going to
provide 10 buses connecting the area hotels to Disney and the Convention Center. Later plans
would go to the Pond and Stadium.
Public Works Director Johnson responded to Council Member Tail's question about OCTA's
meeting, which Director Johnson said was on the 26th of February. He said he was not sure if
OCTA staff would recommend an action at the meeting or hold off if cities were still evaluating.
Council Member Tait suggested that Council Member Feldhaus add to his continuance that
OCT A respectfully delay their vote for another meeting until they hear from the City of Anaheim.
Art Leahy, OCTA CEO, said they looked forward to being partners with Anaheim with this and
many other projects. He said the input was valuable and if Anaheim requested a deferral on the
part of OCTA Board, he would discuss it with the Board. He added that he could not commit
that it would be deferred, but it was viewed as valuable input.
Council Members Kring and Feldhaus reflected that the City had no way of guaranteeing that
the Board would defer the decision.
At this point in the meeting, the Council decided to take a short recess. A recess was called for
at 8:04 P.M.
At 8:25 P.M. all members of the Council returned to the meeting.
Mayor Daly noted that the motion on the floor was to continue the item for two weeks and to ask
OCTA to work with the City of Anaheim to provide additional information on a potential project
that would serve the stadium area and it would go no further north than the stadium area and
that Council Member Feldhaus had asked Mr. Leahy for a delay in the scheduled vote by the
OCTA Board.
~.~_....,......- ---- -----...
179
179
--- '-'-
CITY OF ANAHEIM
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
FEBRUARY 13, 2001
PAGE 14
Mr. Leahy responded that OCTA looked to be partners with the City of Anaheim on this project
and any other project that the have in the City, looking for partners all along this right of way.
He said they were not in the business of trying to force projects on cities which did not want the
projects. He said he believed the Centerline had great merit and regarding the request for the
delay, he noted the input from the City was very important to OCTA and he would confer with
the Chair of OCTA Board as soon as possible and would recommend that they consider the
delay as requested by Council.
Mayor Daly wished to clarify Mr. Leahy's statement and asked him if he planned to recommend
a delay in the OCTA's Board vote so that more details could be shared.
Mr. Leahy responded yes.
Council Member Tait clarified the motion to continue the discussion of the Centerline project
and for the recommendation to endorse staff's recommendation of a no build alternative with the
request that OCTA continue their vote on the matter.
Vote on the motion to continue: Ayes - 5. Motion carried unanimously.
Items B1-B7 From Plannina Commission Meetina of January 29. 2001: (No action
necessary unless Council desires to set a particular item for public hearing.) APPEAL PERIOD
ENDS February 20,2001:
B1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2231 - AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS
1 :
OWNER: American SK Trading Company, 831 South Beach Boulevard, Anaheim, CA
92804
AGENT: Tom and Wen Yi Zhang, 831 South Beach Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92804
LOCATION: 831 South Beach Boulevard. Property is 0.65 acre located on the west
side of Beach Boulevard, 830 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road (Rainbow Inn).
Request reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of
approval pertaining to a time limitation (reinstated on January 11, 2000, to expire on
January 11, 2001) to retain an existing 41-unit, 2-story motel.
ACTION TAKEN BY PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 2231 for five years, to expire
January 29, 2006 (PC2001-15) (6 yes votes, Commissioner Vanderbilt absent).
B2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4086 - AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: Armando C. and Mirta L. Hernandez, 18751 Patrician, Villa Park, CA 92861
Carlos A. and Sylvia Scott, 3201 Boone Street, Fort Collins, CO 80526
AGENT: Marc Corradini, 707 North Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION: 710-714 North Anaheim Boulevard. Property is 1.34 acres located on the
east side of Anaheim Boulevard 134 feet north of the centerline of Wilhelmina Street
(Hope House).
Request reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of
approval pertaining to a time limitation (originally approved on January 4, 1999, to expire
on January 4, 2001) to retain an existing alcohol and drug rehabilitation center.
ACTION TAKEN BY PLANNING COMMISSION:
1.79
~79
CITY OF ANAHEIM
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
FEBRUARY 13, 2001
PAGE 15
Approved reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 4086, deleting condition of
approval pertaining to time limitation (PC2001-17) (5 yes votes, Commissioner Boydstun
abstained and Commissioner Vanderbilt absent).
Negative Declaration previously approved.
Mayor Daly noted the drug and alcohol rehabilitation operation on North Anaheim Blvd.
previously had a time limit, which Planning action deleted, and he asked if staff was comfortable
with that action.
Greg Hastings, Planning Department, said they were, it was for expansion of the whole house
and the reason why the original time limit was placed on was to make sure the use could
successfully fit into the structure, which it had proven over the last two years.
B3. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04318
AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: Trinet Essential Facilities XXIII, Inc., c/o i Star Financial, Attn: Eric Stiger,
Vice President, One Embarcadero Center, 33rd Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111
AGENT: Phillip SChwartze, 31682 EI Camino Real, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
LOCATION: 5605 East La Palma Avenue. Property is 2.8 acres located 280 feet north
of La Palma Avenue and accessed by a 40 foot wide private access easement which is
located 1,110 feet east of the centerline of Brasher Street.
To permit a church with accessory school activities within an existing building with
waiver of minimum number of parking spaces (deleted).
ACTION TAKEN BY PLANNING COMMISSION:
Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04318 granted in part (PC2001-18) (6 yes votes,
Commissioner Vanderbilt absent).
Waiver of Code Requirement denied.
Negative Declaration approved.
B4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3875 - AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: County of Orange (Harbors, Beaches, Parks), Attn: Robert Hamilton, 300
North Flower, 4th Floor, Santa Ana, CA 92702
AGENT: LCC International Inc., Attn: James Lee, 27401 Los Altos, Suite 225, Mission
Viejo, CA 92691
LOCATION: 7600 East La Palma Avenue. Property is 113 acres located at the
southwest corner of Weir Canyon Road and La Palma Avenue (Yorba Regional Park).
To allow two (2) additional antennas and accessory ground-mounted equipment on a
previously-approved telecommunications monopole.
ACTION TAKEN BY PLANNING COMMISSION:
Modification to Conditional Use Permit No. 3875 approved for five years, to expire on
October 14, 2006 (PC2001-19) (6 yes votes, Commissioner Vanderbilt absent).
Negative Declaration previously approved.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ITEMS:
179
179
155
179
CITY OF ANAHEIM
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
FEBRUARY 13, 2001
PAGE 16
B5. SPECIFIC PLAN ADJUSTMENT NO. SPN 2001-00002 AND CATEGORICAL
EXEMPTION - SECTION 15061(b)(3):
Dan Copp Crushing, Attn: Karen Ayres, 1300 North Hancock Street, Unit B, Anaheim,
CA 92807. Specific Plan Adjustment NO.6 to amend Section 18.110.110 of the
Northeast Area Specific Plan (SP94-1, DA6) to permit asphalt and concrete processing
facilities subject to the approval of a conditional use permit.
ACTION TAKEN BY PLANNING COMMISSION:
City Attorney's office to prepare an ordinance for City Council consideration of Specific
Plan Adjustment No. SPN 2001-00002 (6 yes votes, Commissioner Vanderbilt absent).
B6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4054 -
REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL
OF FINAL LANDSCAPE PLANS
AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1:
Michael R. A. Bagguley, 701 Concord Street, Glendale, CA 91202, requests review and
approval of final landscape plans. Property is located 3000-3020 West Lincoln Avenue.
ACTION TAKEN BY PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved final landscape plans for Conditional Use Permit No. 4045 (6 yes votes,
Commissioner Vanderbilt absent).
B7. REQUEST PLANNING COMMISSION INITIATION
OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PROCEEDINGS:
City-initiated (Planning Department), 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA
92805, request for Planning Commission initiation of an amendment to the Housing
Element of the General Plan in compliance with State law.
ACTION TAKEN BY PLANNING COMMISSION:
Initiated proceedings for General Plan Amendment (6 yes votes, Commissioner
Vanderbilt absent).
Items B8-B9 From Zonina Administrator Meetina of January 25. 2001: (No action
necessary unless Council desires to set a particular item for public hearing.) APPEAL PERIOD
ENDS February 16, 2001:
B8. VARIANCE NO. 2001-04421
AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 26:
OWNER: City of Anaheim, Attn: Elisa Stipkovich
Housing Authority, 201 S. Anaheim Blvd., #1003, Anaheim, CA 92805
AGENT: Anaheim Revitalization Partners LP, Attn: Frank Cardone, 18201 Von Karmen
Blvd., #400, Irvine, CA 92612
LOCATION: 1545 -1633 South Michelle Drive. 1528-1634 South Michelle Drive, 1529
-1633 South Jeffrev Drive. 1528 -1634 South Jeffrev Drive, and 1603, 1607. And 1633
South Walnut Drive (excludinQ 1607 and 1613 South Michelle and 1618 -1630 South
Jeffrev Drive. Property is 14.8 acres, generally bounded by Lynne Avenue to the north,
Walnut Street to the east, Audre Drive to the south, and Hampstead Street to the west,
with frontages of 700 feet along the south side of Lynne Avenue, 765 feet along the west
side of Walnut Street, 830 feet along the north side of Audre Drive, and 570 feet along
the public alley immediately east of Hampstead Street.
Waiver of minimum number, type, and design oi parking spaces (2 covered spaces per
unit required; 0.69 covered spaces per unit proposed) to permit the demolition of existing
CITY OF ANAHEIM
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
FEBRUARY 13, 2001
PAGE 17
garages and increase the proportion of open parking spaces within a City of Anaheim
Housing Authority-initiated multiple family residential rehabilitation project which is
currently under construction.
ACTION TAKEN BY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
Variance No. 2001-04421 approved (ZA2001-2).
Council Member Feldhaus noted that the Code required two covered spaces per unit and this
amendment provided one and a half spaces less than what the City wanted. He asked where
the overflow of cars would park and was there a provision for guest parking.
Annika Santalahti, Planning Department, answered that this was a Redevelopment assisted
project and she explained that the project had taken down some dwelling units and they were
eliminating some parking garages to put in some covered parking only. In fact, she explained,
the overall ratio of parking to unit was going up compared to what it was before. She indicated
that the parking would improve.
Council Member Feldhaus asked if there was a Plan B and wondered if Cerritos was redlined
for parking there.
Elisa Stipkovich, Executive Director Community Services, said she did not think so because
Cerritos would not be impacted, this was only the core part of the Jeffrey-Lynn neighborhood.
He asked if the units had two car or one car garages and she responded that each unit only had
one space, garages of 8 per building, 8 units and 8 spaces. She said all the garages were torn
down and would be replaced with carports and because of the ability to make a more efficient
parking lot, there would be about 100 spaces added, plus guest parking. She noted that the
area would be gated so it would be restricted to the people who lived there and their guests
only.
1.79
B9. VARIANCE NO. 2001-04419
AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1:
OWNER: Jose and Beverly Colon, 1540 W. Tedmar, Anaheim, CA 92802
AGENT: Newland Construction, Inc., 428 S. Montgomery Way, Orange, CA 92868
LOCATION: 1540 West Tedmar Avenue. Property is 0.13 acre, having a frontage of 59
feet on the south side of Tedmar Avenue and located 140 feet east of the centerline of
Wilde Street.
Waiver of maximum lot coverage (35% permitted; 46% proposed) and minimum open
space (1,650 square feet required; 0 square feet proposed) to construct a 781 square
foot one-story addition to the rear of an existing two-story single family residence in the
RS-5000 (Residential, Single-Family) Zone.
ACTION TAKEN BY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
Variance No. 2001-04419 approved in part (ZA2001-3).
6:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Mayor Daly noted that public hearings C2 and C3 were routine and requested that they
be handled first.
CITY OF ANAHEIM
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
FEBRUARY 13, 2001
PAGE 18
176
C2. PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 00-9A:
To consider abandoning a 22.25 foot wide portion of Water Street and quitclaim of said
portion of Water Street together with an 8 foot wide portion of Water Alley, both located
east of Olive Street and west of Atchison Street.
At its meeting, January 9, 2001, Item A 10, the Anaheim City Council adopted
Resolution No. 2001 R-4 declaring its intention to vacate certain public streets, highways
and service easements and setting a date and time to consider the abandonment of a
portion of Water Street and quitclaim of said portion of Water Street together with a
portion of Water Alley, both located east of Olive Street and west of Atchison Street.
REQUESTED BY: Jones, Bell, Abbott, Fleming & Fitzgerald, LLP, on behalf of
KWIKSET CORPORATION, 601 South Figueroa Street, Twenty-Seventh Floor, Los
Angeles, CA 90017-5759.
Mayor Daly indicated that he needed additional time to review the property with staff and he
moved for a two-week continuance, seconded by Council Member Kring. Motion carried
unanimously.
176
C3. PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 00-3A:
To consider abandoning certain portions of the public utility easement located at 701-
741 E. Ball Road.
At its meeting, January 23, 2001, ItemA11 , the Anaheim City Council adopte
Resolution No. 2000R-17 declaring its intention to vacate certain public streel
and service easements (commonly known as 701-741 East Ball Road).
REQUESTED BY: SM Brellll, L.P., a California limited partnership, c/o KBS
Advisors, Inc., 4053 Von Karman Avenue, Newport Beach, CA 92660.
Natalie Meeks, Public Works Department, presented the staff report indicating that the
abandonment had been requested by the property owner for public utilities that were not in use
and not required for the future and that staff recommended approval.
Mayor Daly opened the public hearing and hearing no testimony, he closed the hearing.
Mayor Daly moved to approve the CEQA Finding, Categorically Exempt, Class 5, seconded by
Council Member McCracken and motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Daly moved to approve the quitclaim of the City's rights, title, and interest in certain
portions of the public utility easement located at 701-741 E. Ball Road, and offered the
Resolution in support of the abandonment, seconded by Council Member McCracken.
RESOLUTION NO. 2001 R-44 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM vacating certain public streets, highways and service easements.
Motion carried unanimously.
"-' -'..~~"-'.~
179
CITY OF ANAHEIM
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
FEBRUARY 13, 2001
PAGE 19
C1. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04217
DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2000-00003
DETERMINATION OF SUBTANTIAL CONFORMANCE
AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: Michael and Lucy Kurkjian, 2331 East Katella Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806
AGENT: Western States Engineering, 1150 North Richfield Road, Anaheim, CA 92807
LOCATION: 3085 East La Palma Avenue. Property is 0.52 acre located at the
northwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Kraemer Boulevard.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04217 - To permit the sale of beer and wine for off-
premises consumption in conjunction with a previously-approved gasoline service station
with accessory convenience market.
Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2000-00003 - To allow the retail
sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption in conjunction with a previously-
approved convenience market.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
APPROVED Determination of Substantial Conformance for revised plans.
DENIED amendment pertaining to beer and wine for CUP NO. 2000-04217 IPr.?nnn-
123) (7 yes votes).
DENIED Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2000-0000:
124)
Negative Declaration previously approved.
Informational item at meeting of November 14, 2000, Item B10. Continued from
public hearing at meeting of January 9, 2001, Item C3.
Letter of appeal submitted by Matthew Gorman on behalf of the owner.
City Clerk Schroeder reported that correspondence had been clocked in that afternoon at 4:00
from Solomon, Saltzman and Jamieson, who were the attorneys for the owner, and it was a
letter in support of the project.
Zoning Division Manager Greg Hastings presented a brief staff report. He said that the
property was being developed with a service station and a convenience market, which
was approved by the Planning Commission in June of 2000 and that approval did not
include the beer and wine sales. The applicant was requesting an amendment to the
conditional use permit to allow the sale of beer and wine. That also required
consideration of a public convenience or necessity determination because there was an
over concentration of off sale licenses in that particular census tract, he informed. He
said the tract allowed for one off sale license and there were currently three licenses in
the tract and one license pending. At this particular intersection, he noted, the Texaco
station to the south sold beer and wine and the Arco station to the east had a license
pending. The Planning Commission denied the beer and wine sales to this particular
property because of the over concentration of licenses and because of the two other
licenses that had already been approved at this particular intersection, he finalized.
Mayor Daly opened the public hearing.
_..-,-" '-"-"- .,-"~--~._-~--~..- ..---.--
CITY OF ANAHEIM
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
FEBRUARY 13, 2001
PAGE 20
Steven Jamieson, attorney for Solomon, Saltzman and Jamieson, spoke on behalf of the
applicant and said that there were about six or seven other people that would be
speaking in support. There were also members of the community present to support the
application, another twenty or thirty, and would be asked to stand in support of the
project, he said. He commented that staff had approved the project in terms of the
developmental aspects, setbacks and construction of a new service station. Mr.
Jamieson said that the application for beer and wine was not approved and that he was
present for that aspect of the project. He believed that there were two requirements
necessary for the particular application, one being the conditional use permit under the
code and the other was a letter for public convenience or necessity. He noted that they
met all of the necessary findings and that he could present the facts that would provide
the basis for those findings. He also indicated that the letter of correspondence provided
to Council this date was a confirmation of what he would be presenting orally.
Mr. Jamieson said that Michael and Lucy Kurkjian were owners and operators in the community
for many years. They operated the Stadium Shell for about 22 years, he said, and they had
operated a Shell station at the Kraemer and La Palma location for about the last 16 years. He
said that this was a small business that was thriving in the City and they wanted the opportunity
to continue to thrive here. Mr. and Mrs. Kurkjian had been active in the city and community and
had been responsible retailers, he said, and there was no reason to believe that they were
going to cease to be responsible retailers in the community once they were given approval to
sell a very small amount of beer and wine. He commented that it was a very small amount of
beer and wine in a market that was a little over 2000 square feet on a corner where the
competition on the other corners demanded that they be able to sell a full complement of all
food and beverage items. This was not a liquor store, he assured, it was not a business that
would focus on selling alcohol or a business that would sell irresponsibly. He mentioned that
Council would be hearing from various people present to talk about the issues, one being the
security system which would provide video surveillance that that was recorded, and provided
certain items that would help check the ID of people who had attempted to purchase beer and
wine and to deter any sales to minors. He said he had almost 300 signatures of people, mostly
in Anaheim, although there were some people outside of the City that indicated their support for
this application. The public convenience or necessity was indicated by the signatures and by
the people that were present to speak on behalf of Mr. Kurkjian. He indicated to the Council
that some speakers had been present 6:00 P.M. and about five or eight people had to leave and
he asked Council to consider their support as well.
Mr. Jamieson asked the people in the gallery that were present in support of Mr. and Mrs.
Kurkjian to stand up so the Council could take note of that. He commented that there were a
good number of people present in support of the Kurkjian's project because they were good
responsible retailers and he thanked the people in support for attending. He presented to the
Council, a package of five groups of petitions. He said each one stated that the undersigned
was aware that the application was pending and that they supported the application for the beer
and wine and that it would serve the convenience and necessity for the residents of Anaheim.
There were a number of people that signed the petition from right around the location and he
believed that that was important because it was a commercial and industrial area and they could
not understand why there was the over concentration issue. Mr. Jamieson commented that this
was not located in west Anaheim and it was not an area of over saturation.
CITY OF ANAHEIM
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
FEBRUARY 13, 2001
PAGE 21
Mayor Daly asked Mr. Jamieson if he had said that the signatures were from Anaheim
residents on the petitions since they were just given to the Council and they had not had
time to review them.
Mr. Jamieson said that many were residents of Anaheim and there were some that were not
and that was indicated by the addresses on the petition.
Mayor Daly asked Mr. Jamieson if he knew how many of the addresses were residential versus
business addresses and Mr. Jamieson responded that he did not have a number and his
understanding was that many were residential. He was sure that there were probably some that
was business addresses but he didn't know that to be the case.
After looking at the addresses on the petition, Mayor said that every address that he saw
on every page was either outside the City of Anaheim or was an industrial or commercial
area of Anaheim. He noted that he found one address on the petition that was a
residential address. There were hundreds of signatures on the petition that were either
from outside Anaheim or from commercial neighborhoods, he said, and he wanted to
clarify that it appeared that most of those were not residents of Anaheim.
Mr. Jamieson responded that the people on the petition signed either because the petitions
were circulated in the area or came to the business location so they were able to get this done.
He said that for the most part, they were circulated in the area and they may also be a resident
of Anaheim.
Mayor Daly said that there was no way of knowing if the address used was a commercial
address or if that person lived in Anaheim and that the petitions didn't have much value unless
the Council knew if the people on the petitions were residents of Anaheim or not.
Mr. Jamieson responded that he was not able to clarify line by line but he said that the
Kurkjian's did go to all the locations, residences, and businesses around there because
it was the issue of the census tract and adjoining census tracts.
Mayor Daly noted that some of the addresses on the petition were from Wildomar, Corona,
Norwalk, Laguna Niguel , Corona, Fontana, Corona, Buena Park, Orange, and Fullerton, all in a
row on one page and Mr. Jamieson responded that there were also a number of pages in the
petition and a number of signatures having to do with Anaheim. Many of the people work in that
area, he said.
Mayor Daly commented that they were industrial neighborhoods in Anaheim.
Mr. Jamieson noted that the Council should keep in mind that in this particular census tract and
neighborhood, if there were actually residents in it, it would not be over concentrated. He said
that the only reason there was a statistical problem was because there were only 236 residents
in that census tract and it was a commercial area.
Mayor Daly noted that the petition had the word residents on it and he said that Mr. Jamieson
had mentioned the word residents several times implying that the people resided in Anaheim
and a cursory reading by him found that there was no way to tell that and that most of these
people did not live in Anaheim.
.---- ...~. -_.~"-_.,_.-
CITY OF ANAHEIM
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
FEBRUARY 13, 2001
PAGE 22
Mr. Jamieson clarified that the petition did not say that all of the undersigned were
residents but it said that it served the public convenience or necessity of the residents
and that was their opinion. He said that they were certainly able to state their opinion.
Mayor Daly asked that how many of the signatures on the petition were from people who live in
Anaheim and Mr. Jamieson said that he could tell the Council that the people directly affected
by the license within the census tract were signatories. He said that the people went to the area
that would be directly affected by the license and that this would be one of the most appropriate
ways to take a look at it. He wanted to show that the license would serve the public
convenience or necessity and said that there would be people present at the hearing in support.
With regard to the concentration issue, Mr. Jamieson said that there were 236 people in the
census tract and that was why the suggested number, according to the statistics, would roughly
provide for about one license for every 1,400 people. The numbers that the state utilized to
determine what should be authorized had to do with the population for the general county, which
again was roughly 1 to 1,400, he informed. He said that would work fine in a residential
neighborhood but they were not talking about a residential neighborhood, they were talking
about a commercial light industrial area, he said and if it were a residential neighborhood with
the size of this particular census tract, he expected to see probably about 5,000 to 6,000 people
in the area. He said looking at the census tract, the entire census tract would show that if there
were a residential area then it would not be over concentrated and the Kurkjian's would not
have to show public convenience or necessity. He said another issue was that crime rates were
43% below the city average. The surrounding census tracts and reporting districts were also
low, he said, with the exception of one that was slightly high although it was not what was
normally considered to be a high crime rate area and it was slightly to the east. He believed
that every thing else surrounding the area was low and that for the most part, it had an even
number of licenses that were authorized or existing or they were below the amount that were
authorized or existing. He said that this meant that there were fewer existing licenses that were
actually authorized, and if Council looked at the census tracts, they would find that to be true.
Unlike some other applications that had been made recently before the Council, in this particular
area there were no schools, no churches, and no parks or playgrounds, said Mr. Jamieson.
This was generally not a problem area, he said, and this was an area that did not have a
problem with blight. Mr. and Mrs. Kurkjian were spending almost $2 million to renovate this
corner, he said, and as a small business person they were asking for help and support from the
City to make sure that this would be an economically viable investment for them. He said the
City could do that by allowing the additional profit margin that a very small amount of beer and
wine would provide to them. He said that there were five groups of product lists and he
provided Council with the Chevron product list, which he expected to be put in the store. He
said that the list contained everything from chips to cheese, diapers to milk and orange juice to
soft drinks. He noted that out of all of the pages of products, only a few, about eight to ten
pages, were of beer and wine, which was a very small amount in comparison to the balance of
the items they would sell. The ability to provide a full complement of food and beverage items,
he said, included the small amount of beer and wine and would allow this small business owner
to be competitive with the other businesses that were close by, without being a detriment to the
public health, safety, welfare or morals of the community and the area around the location and
adjacent and abutting census tracts that were residential.
Mr. Jamieson proposed to the Council that if there was a concentration, a pocket of places
where one could get small amount of beer and wine, that that be located in a commercial
industrial area, out of what was considered to be a residential area. That would serve the publiC
convenience or necessity of the residents that were close by not in the census tract. It gave
,", '-..,.... -"- "-----., _...
CITY OF ANAHEIM
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
FEBRUARY 13, 2001
PAGE 23
them the ability to go to one place to get the food and beverage items they wanted, including the
beer and wine. The location, he explained, would be unique from the Texaco across the street
in that Texaco had a great deal of congestion because it had the Subway and the Taco Bell and
some other fast food items and would make it difficult for someone to go in and just purchase
the grocery items that they wanted. The only other location was the Arco and Mr. Hastings had
said it had a pending license, said Mr. Jamieson, which had been pending for a long, long time.
He said there was no indication of when that was ever going to be used, so to use that to deny
this application would not foster competition and would not serve that public convenience or
necessity and would potentially be detrimental to the public health, welfare, safety and morals of
the City. He explained that this was a location that would be run by responsible retailers,
responsible people and there was nothing about the location that would be detrimental. He said
Mr. George Azure would explain the security and he thought Council would see that this would
be a place where it would be safe and provide a safe location for people to buy their food and
beverages. He noted that Mr. Kurkjian would talk about the training that he had been provided
by Chevron and that he would provide to his employees.
He referred to the letter he provided to Council, mentioning statistical information about the
sales of a small amount of beer and wine at a gas station and market like this one and how it did
not lead to increased drunk driving, it did not lead to blight in the area, and in fact, he reported,
had a lower incident of problems in other locations that sold beer and wine.
Mr. Azure, Systems Engineering and Automation, Inc., Northridge, gave Council copies of the
design of the system they were installing in Mr. Kurkjian's facility. He said the design was
usually installed in gas stations and liquor stores and other markets. He indicated that the
design was to provide security for the gas station and small mini market as well as a deterrent
for minors taking beer and also to control and force the employee of the facility to enforce the ID
check. The system had 13 cameras, 7 indoor and 6 outdoors. One of the indoor cameras was
mounted at the entrance, providing a tight shot of all individuals walking in. He explained there
were 2 cameras mounted right in front of the beer and wine cooler doors providing a clear view
of every individual approaching the door of the cooler. There were other cameras mounted on
the cash register, the front area where the employees served the customers and checked them
out. There was another system unit mounted in the front of every cashier that they have to scan
every ID. He explained if the cashier suspected a minor, they ask for an ID and they verify it by
scanning it, which was stored automatically on a digital recording system. There was also a
cash register interface that recorded every transaction typed on the register by the employee.
They planned 5 cameras mounted on the outside, one on the side door that prevented anyone
walking in without identifying them and 5 other cameras on the canopy to provide full view of the
pumps. The cameras were connected to a digital system recorder that recorded all images on a
hard drive and provides easy access and review and monitoring from a distance. This will
provide Mr. Kurkjian with full control of his facility and observation of his employees, he
explained.
Kip Vernagly, 7143 Drake Drive, explained that his company had a fleet of cars that he sent to
Mr. Kurkjian's garage at the corner of Katella and Sinclair. He said that with his association with
Mr. Kurkjian over the years, he found him to be a man of integrity. He said he had witnessed
them asking for identification from potential minors attempting to buy tobacco products. I am
very impressed how his people handle themselves and their operations. He added that Mr.
Kurkjian was putting $2 million into his facility and he should be able to compete on the same
level playing field as the guy across the street.
CITY OF ANAHEIM
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
FEBRUARY 13, 2001
PAGE 24
Brad Coleman, 25026 Laguna Niguel, said he had been a friend and neighbor of the Kurkjian's
for years and Mr. Kurkjian was a man of honor, integrity and ethics. He said he did not think the
city could go wrong making the decision to allow him to serve beer and wine at the gas station.
Chris Christofofsky said he was the President of Southern California Metro Express, Inc., a
courier and messenger service located in Orange Co. He said when he was asked to speak to
Council; he jumped at the opportunity. He noted he felt the convenience industry needed to
keep pace with other industries that Council has supported and developed. He referred to the
hospitality industry, the entertainment industry, the industrial development and high tech
industries, saying that the convenience industry was an important part of that. Encouraging
small convenience business with a full inventory of items was essential for continued economic
growth, he added. He explained he had known Mr. Kurkjian for over 7 years and could not think
of anyone more responsible, caring, and considerate for small business.
Jim McClain, 16 North Vista de Catalina, Laguna Beach, said Mr. Kurkjian was the type of
person that anyone want to have as a friend and a business neighbor.
He said he could not imagine putting $2 million into a property and not be able to compete on a
level playing field and urged the Council to consider the fact that he was putting a lot of money
into the business.
Lou Overholt, 651 N. Dwyer, said the public hearing this date represented about 11 years of
effort of Mr. Kurkjian to build his dream for the corner of Kraemer and La Palma. In 1990 he
attempted to apply for a CUP and at that time Shell, which was his partner, backed out of it. In
1994 he retained Mr. Overholt as an attorney to obtain a CUP and they found out because of
the industrial zoning and because of a protected corridor, he didn't have the legal right to seek a
CUP to have a convenience market at this facility. He explained that eventually Council
amended the order so he could seek a CUP and improve the station. Eventually, Mr. Overholt
said, he did get his CUP and tonight's hearing represented the culmination of that effort in which
he was attempting to obtain the right to have a beer and wine license on the property, such as
Texaco across the street, such as Arco apparently has now included, so that his build out will be
complete. He said he had very close dealings with Mr. Kurkjian and he said that he was straight
up, and a great businessman. He suggested that that being in an industrial area was the
reason he could not get a CUP in the first place
Aaron Kurkjian, Mr. Kurkjian's son. said his father had done a superb job in managing his
businesses yet he had maintained a positive image that his stations had always been in the best
of shape, which ultimately beautified the City. He said customers' safety and health issues were
always given the most attention and were prioritized before anything else. Those who had done
business with him knew how much of an ethical businessman he was, he added. Aaron said
Mr. Kurkjian had experience in the sale of alcoholic beverages, 15 years ago he safely and
respectfully operated a business that served the City of Placentia. He felt that every individual
who had a successful and clean history should be given the opportunity to conduct their desired
business and if that individual violated rules and regulations consequently he or she would have
to deal with the harsh penalty or the misfortune of having a revoked license,
Michael Kurkjian, 38641 Seapoint, Laguna Niguel, said he was present to apply for approval to
obtain a beer and wine license for his Chevron station at La Palma and Kraemer. He noted that
it was in a light industrial area, with few residents, exactly the area in the City that should have
beer and wine license available for the public. He said the location served surrounding
residential areas without causing harm or diverse effect to the areas and that it would serve
CITY OF ANAHEIM
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
FEBRUARY 13, 2001
PAGE 25
public necessity or convenience. He explained that approximately 300 people hat visited his
station were asked to sign a petition and he noted that the neighbors very close around La
Palma and Kraemer supported him. At this point, he reviewed the training he received from
Chevron University and he said would train his staff. Every employee, before they were hired,
would have a background check. The cashiers were trained for 3 days in the technique of
alcohol management, deterring robbery, safety, environmental, and OSHA regulations.
Mr. Kurkjian mentioned that he would be purchasing a special terminal that would not allow the
sale to go forward if something was not correct with the ID. He said he and his staff would be
committed to safety and health of the people, which was very important to him. He said he was
going to make sure the place was in excellent operating condition, something that he had done
for years.
Irv Pickler, 2377 Moll Ave., said he was representing Bryant Industrial Properties. He made the
statement that Bryant Industrial Properties owned over 130,000 square foot of industrial
buildings adjacent to the gas station at Kraemer and La Palma. Bryant Industrial Properties
supported the Planning Commission's decisions for reasons stated in their reports and
concurred with their decision to deny the request for a beer and wine license at this location.
Mayor Daly asked Mr. Pickler if the letter he read was signed by a representative of Bryant or
was it simply a statement?
Mr. Pickler responded that it was a statement and was not signed but was from Bryant Industrial
Properties.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Daly allowed Mr. Jamieson to summarize.
Mr. Jamieson reported that the members of the Council had heard from many people who
support Mr. and Mrs. Kurkjian. He said one gentleman indicated some opposition but agreed
with the Planning Commission. He said the Planning Commission relied solely on statistical
numbers and he tried to point out why those numbers were simply not applicable to the case.
He informed that the census tract had only 236 people and if it was a census tract that had a
residential area with the normal amount of people there probably would be 5,000 or 6,000
people in that area. He indicated that state law and the City's ordinance gave Council the ability
to look past the numbers and not rely solely on the numbers and look at the specific situation.
He said he was talking about responsible retailing; talking about a person who had been in the
community for years as a business constituent business citizen of the City. He noted that he
was also talking about a location that would serve the public convenience and necessity and
that Council had the factual basis before them to make the findings. He said he wanted to
provide the scholarly studies upon which this was based, which indicated there was no
deleterious or deleterious effect in this particular situation. He provided copies of the training
that Mr. Kurkjian referenced.
Mr. Jamieson said all the information should indicate that Mr. and Mrs. Kurkjian were very
serious about this investment and they would like the opportunity to protect that investment. He
said it would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare, and morals to the City, the
community in general or the community specifically around the area. He felt this was a perfect
location to have the license, it would serve the public convenience and necessity and it would
provide the factual finding necessary to provide an approval. He said he was asking for
approval, asking Council to look at the facts of the situation and the people involved, asking
--r-
CITY OF ANAHEIM
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
FEBRUARY 13, 2001
PAGE 26
Council to give the business owner and operator a fighting and competitive chance at that
corner to make it worth while to spend the money he has been spending. He assured that the
owner would continue to be a good corporate citizen, a responsible retailer and there is no
reason to believe otherwise. He stated it would not cause blight, there had been no information
at the meeting from the police to discount that. There had been no information from anyone
else in the community to oppose and he finalized by saying they would sincerely request and
hope that Council would approve the application and reverse the Planning Commission's denial
of the application.
Council Member Feldhaus asked what percentages of the sales were for alcoholic beverages or
projected for alcoholic beverages at the location.
Mr. Jamieson responded that it was about 10%, a little less than 10%. He said it was a small
amount of beer and wine but the benefit was not in the selling of the $6.00 six pack, but that it
would lead to a $15.00 or $20.00 sale because it included other items as well.
Council Member Feldhaus asked if the restriction at the Planning Commission hearing was that
no singles would be sold, only 6 packs or 4 packs.
Mr. Jamieson said he believed it was and if it was not, that was a condition that was acceptable.
He said about 56 conditions were acceptable.
Council Member Feldhaus asked if they were estimating 10% of the gross sales would be beer,
wine and alcohol.
Mr. Jamieson answered something a little less than that, roughly about 6 or 7 and about 10%, in
a store like this.
Council member Feldhaus referred to the Planning Commission minutes where Commissioner
Koos had asked for a definition on what constitutes or guidelines on what constitutes need or
necessity, publiC convenience or necessity. He said he thought it came from the City of Vallejo.
Planning Director Joel Fick responded that there was discussion at the meeting and the
Planning Commission was working very closely with the attorney's office in that regard and he
believed that would be a workshop in the very near upcoming planning commission meeting.
City Attorney, Jack White, said he wished to make it clear that guidelines used by the City of
Vallejo were in no way binding upon the City of Anaheim. He said there was some references
in a piece of correspondence from Mr. Jamieson and Mr. White said he got the impression that
Mr. Jamieson believed the Planning Commission was basing it's decision on the standards of
the City of Vallejo and he wanted to make it clear that those standards in another city are not
standards that Anaheim was bound by or guided by.
Council Member Feldhaus noted there was a lot of testimony that was presented in the
November 6th hearing by Sgt. West from the police department, stating that there are currently
3 license in that census tract and 1 pending. He indicated that maybe the City should look at
their zoning and maybe entitle them as mini-markets with accessory sale of gasoline versus the
other way around because it seemed to be such a tie breaker as far as most gas stations were
concerned. He wondered what constituted a need and necessity if there were 3 in that area,
how much need and necessity was necessary, he asked.
--.. - -'--'''' -------.--.------ . ,----
CITY OF ANAHEIM
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
FEBRUARY 13, 2001
PAGE 27
Council Member Kring said she saw it as a fairness issue, this was an industrial area with less
than 300 residents and as the applicant mentioned, no schools, no churches, nothing in the way
that would necessitate a closer look. She felt since the owner would be surrounded by gas
stations that do have a distinct advantage because they do have a beer and wine license, she
thought it was a fairness issue. He indicated that there were traffic patterns, if a person was
coming south on Kraemer and wanted to stop at the Chevron station to buy gas and maybe a
coke or bottle of wine, he would not have that option. So if even if he wanted to purchase
Chevron gas, she said, he would go to Texaco because he was not going to go to 2 different
places to get his coke, his gas and then get in his car and buy the wine. They were called
convenience markets because people wanted the element of convenience, she noted.
Regarding the statistical background that Mr. Jamieson provided, she said she was intrigued by
the fact that the statistics showed that people buying beer and wine at a gas station were not
the people drinking it while driving. She indicated that operating on a fairness issue, the owner
was spending $2 million to renovate the place and she said she was supportive of his ability to
increase his revenue.
Council Member McCracken, referring to the police reporting district map and the census tract
map, asked if there was an explanation as to why the crime rate was so low in that area.
Planning Director Fick said he thought the police department emphasis was on the over
concentration aspect rather then crime statistics.
Council Member McCracken, addressing Police Officer West, said the crime rate was extremely
low, 71 % and 79% below average, and she asked what kind of crime was being committed.
Officer West said the Police Department was referring to the over-concentration issue, not the
crime issue. He added that crime was not an issue at this particular location.
Council Member Feldhaus noted the tract allowed for 1 on sale license and there were presently
8 licenses and 1 pending. He asked if they had been activated.
Officer West responded that they were on sale licenses, he did not believe they were off sale
licenses, like restaurant service.
Council Member Feldhaus noted that the Officer also made a statement that the impact of
concentration meant that it contributed to increasing crime rates in a census tract, more licenses
added to a census tract the more likely it is the neighborhood will deteriorate.
Officer West said it increased the availability of alcohol, the more locations that have off sale
licenses definitely increases the availability of alcohol and that included availability of alcohol to
minors.
Council Member Kring noted that if there were only 246 residents in the particular area it
seemed the likelihood of that happening was very slim because people would take their alcohol,
beer and wine and go, that was why they called it off premise because they take it and move on.
She said the owner seemed to have an incredibly tough training policy to make sure that no one
underage was served.
.....- '-,--..' ._--_._,-, ~- .
CITY OF ANAHEIM
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
FEBRUARY 13, 2001
PAGE 28
Officer West said she was correct and that Mr. Jamieson was correct in all the statistical data
that he provided and the area had a very low population because it was all industrial. He added
that the human factor had to be considered also, the employee's of the applicant would be the
ones selling the alcohol and they would be making the determination as to whether they would
or would not sell to someone. Officer West said he could have all the machines and digital
recorders for security purposes, however, if the employee chooses to sell alcohol to someone
they can not bypass that system to do so.
Council Member Kring stated that was illegal and they would be penalized accordingly. She
said that it seemed to her that he was doing his utmost best to train the people.
Mayor Daly mentioned that once a permit was granted, it could change hands.
Council Member Feldhaus recalled that one of the reasons for the Planning Commission's
denial said the petitioner did not demonstrate that this request would serve to benefit the public
in terms of convenience or necessity. That was why he prefaced his question, what do you use
for a benchmark for public need and/or necessity
City Attorney Jack White said that based upon the case law that is developed on the issue of
public convenience or necessity in connection with alcoholic beverage licenses, the cases
indicate clearly that there is no strict court set definition of what public convenience or necessity
is nor does it necessarily need be. He said it was looked at on a case by case basis and based
upon the facts, if there is substantial evidence, the reasons that are given for either finding that
there is public convenience or necessity and granting a permit or withholding a permit because
there is not that need. He added that the courts do not typically disturb that decision. He
referred to a 1980 case that was one of the benchmark cases in the area. He explained that the
criteria the court looked at in the case and while it said that the court was not going to determine
or set what public convenience or necessity meant, the factors considered and upheld as
constituting criteria in that case were whether or not the same products or services are available
in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use, are there other businesses sufficient to serve the
needs of the community in which the proposed use is located, do the products or services differ
from the products or services available in the immediate vicinity already, and do the premises
appeal to segments of the community not adequately being served by other facilities in the
vicinity. He finalized that most jurisdictions in the state, most cities, even the Alcohol Beverage
Control had not determined a set of standards as to what constituted public convenience or
necessity, it was left up to the individual decision-maker.
Council Member McCracken asked, when comparing whether another facility down or
across the street provided the same services, would one have to look at what kinds of
other things they provide besides beer and wine.
City Attorney White answered that he did not think you have to look at that, you have the
ability to look at those kinds of things in making your decision.
Council Member McCracken responded that it was like trying to compare two different
business entities and Mr. White agreed.
Mayor Daly restated that the permit to actually construct the new service station and
convenience market had been approved. The subject before Council now was the issue of beer
and wine. He noted the professional staff, the planning staff, the Police Department and the
...,,- ---,--,.. -----,...,.-,"
CITY OF ANAHEIM
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
FEBRUARY 13, 2001
PAGE 29
redevelopment staff were all recommending against it, each department for it's own reasons,
He said the bottom line for him was that he did not think it was consistent with the overall
direction the Council was trying to achieve in the Anaheim Canyon business center. The
Boeing Corp. was just one block away and there were other high tech industries that the City
was trying to attract, he informed. The City had an economic development strategy to attract a
certain type of high tech industrial area out there and the City had invested millions of dollars in
the area and he said he thought this was inconsistent with that, which was the essence of some
of the staff's recommendations. He noted he had a lot of respect for Mr. Kurkjian and for the
people who had spent time in support of him and he would be able to open his new service
station and compete on the open market as a service station with a convenience market, which
is the way he approached the city from the beginning. He noted that council was forced to
decide beer and wine issues all the time and agreed with Councilman Feldhaus' comment that
more and more of the service station applications seem to be about beer and wine first,
convenience market second and service station last. He stated he would support the Planning
Commission recommendation denying the application.
Council Member Feldhaus wondered if the application was approved, would the
conditions set by the Planning Commission on the amount of sales, percentage of sales
that they could generate for a beer and wine license be upheld.
Planning Director Fick responded that when staff recommended packaged conditions to
the Planning Commission, they believed that the conditions were complete and
adequate to the extent that the business would be operated properly irrespective of the
operator. With respect to his question about the percentage, Mr. Fick said that he
thought it was presently conditioned up to a maximum of 35%, Condition # 41, so the
condition as conceptually established prior to the Planning Commission meeting was a
higher potential percentage then was represented to Council, he said he believed was 7
to 10% in terms of typical operations.
Council Member Feldhaus asked if the owners could live with 10%.
Planning Director Fick said the testimony from the applicant he believed was traditionally
based upon the representative for the applicants experience that it was approximately 7
to 10% from the type of operation,
Council Member Feldhaus asked if they could have 35% if this were approved and
Planning Director Fick answered that was correct.
Council Member Kring said she thought that put an undo hardship on them because if
they said 10%, that may be where they were in a different store, they seem to have a
larger convenience market now and if they get to 10% by the second week, do they just
not have to sell beer and wine, she asked.
Council Member Feldhaus said the 35% was what they were first looking at. He had
asked a question and he said 10% and it was normally 6 to 7%, why couldn't
he get by with 10%, he wondered.
Council Member Tait said he would question putting further restrictions on them then the
Planning Commission, that would be micro-managing his operation.
CITY OF ANAHEIM
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
FEBRUARY 13, 2001
PAGE 30
Council Member Feldhaus said he was trying to override the Planning Commission but
did not have anything to do that except a bargaining chip.
Council Member Tait said the owner was investing $2 million in his facility and he agreed
with the Mayor that the City was doing great things in the Canyon district, he just did not
see any hindrance or problem or effect that the owner selling beer and wine would have
on anything the City was doing in that industrial area.
Mayor Daly responded that he thought there was a property value nexus and added that
he thought anyone could track affluent neighborhoods across Orange County, almost
neighborhood to neighborhood, whether they had liquor stores or beer and wine sales in
their neighborhood. That was his personal feeling, he noted. He reminded that the
Council had heard from the adjacent industrial property owner who said he would not
like to see this happen. He said he thought the adjacent industrial owner said please
don't do this because it was a property value issue.
Mayor Daly said his response to the crime issue was property values, whether it's single
family residential, apartments, commercial, or industrial. He felt the City was out of sync
with high quality communities, that in high quality communities that are trying to preserve
neighborhoods and protect values, he submitted that one generally did not see these
kinds of things.
Council Member Tait said that anyone could probably buy beer and wine at every grocery store
in town,
Mayor Daly said he thought there was a correlation with property values and
deteriorating neighborhoods, the more beer and wine and liquor opportunities in an area,
there was a tendency towards deterioration because of what happens to property
values, he felt.
Council Member Tait noted that probably the biggest seller of beer and wine would
probably be the City property being the Stadium and the Pond and he did not see
property values decreasing in those areas.
Council Member Tait moved to approve the CEQA finding, Negative Declaration,
seconded by Council Member Kring. Vote was 4 ayes: Council Members McCracken,
Kring, Feldhaus and Tait. Noes - 1, Mayor Daly. Motion carried.
Council Member Tait offered Resolution No. 2001 R-45 for approval of Conditional Use
Permit No. 2000-04217 and Resolution No. 2001 R-46, to determine public convenience
and necessity for beer and wine with the conditions as proposed by the planning staff.
Council Member Kring seconded the motion.
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-45 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM approving an amendment to certain conditions of approval in Conditional Use Permit
No. 4217 and amending Resolution PC2000-80; and
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-46 A RESOLLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM finding and determining that the public convenience and necessity would be served
---'-'-"" ---.-..,--
CITY OF ANAHEIM
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
FEBRUARY 13, 2001
PAGE 31
by the issuance of an alcoholic beverage control license for the premise located at 8085 E. La
Palma Ave, Anaheim, Ca. Application 2000-00003.
Vote was 4 ayes: Council Members McCracken, Feldhaus, Tait, and Kring. Noes - 1: Mayor
Daly. Motion carried.
Report on Closed Session Actions:
City Attorney Jack White reported no items required to be reported out of Closed Session.
Council Communications:
Mayor Daly requested a status report on the proposal to host a thank you lunch for
employees involved in the resort area project.
Assistant City Manager Tom Wood said plans were being made for a BBQ at the
Convention Center sometime next month. He said he would provide the details and
date.
Mayor Daly asked to have the item on the next Council agenda for discussion and in the
mean time have a status report provided.
Adjournment:
There being no further business to come before the City Council, Mayor Daly adjourned the
meeting at 10:11 P.M.
Respectfully submitted:
~d~
Sheryll Schroeder, CMC/AAE
City Clerk