1995/08/15CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES
AUGUST 15, 1995
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT
PRE SENT
ABSENT =
PRE SENT
MAYOR= Daly
COUNCIL MEMBERS= Tait, Lopez, Zemel, Feldhaus, Daly
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: James Ruth
CITY ATTORNEY= Jack White
CITY CLERK= Leonora N. Sohl
ASSISTANT CITY CLERK= Ann M. Sauvageau
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER= Gary Johnson
PUBLIC WORKS-DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MANAGER= Natalie Meeks
DEPUTY CITY MANAGER= Tom Wood
FINANCE/ADMINISTRATION MANAGER= Bill Sweeney
CODE ENFORCEMENT MANAGER= John Poole
PLANNING DIRECTOR= Joel Fick
ZONING DIVISION MANAGER= Greg Hastings
FIRE CHIEF= Jeff Bowman
SR. CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICE= Don Yourstone
A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was
posted at 1=20 p.m. on August 11, 1995 at the Civic Center kiosk, containing
all items as shown herein.
Mayor Daly called the workshop portion of the meeting of August 15, 1995 to
order at 3:08 p.m. and welcomed those in attendance. He explained that the
Council has a Closed Session scheduled for 3=30 p.m. and to the extent
possible, the Council would like to keep to that schedule. While they do not
prohibit public input at Council workshops, it is not necessarily encouraged
since workshops are for previewing new subject matter to the Council in an
informal setting. Regarding today's agenda, he has heard personally from some
of the affected parties and staff has indicated that a few people may wish to
speak. If so, he suggests that they focus on the high points and if they want
to elaborate or discuss legal issues, that those cor~nents be submitted at a
later.date.
City Manager, James Ruth. This is the appointed time for the workshop on the
Street Deterioration Fee. The presentation today will be made by the Public
Works Department, Gary Johnson, Public Works Director and City Engineer, and
his staff.
000= STREET DETERIORATION FEE= Gary Johnson, Director of Public Works and
City Engineer. In recent years, there have been significant studies analyzing
the effects of excavations in streets relative to the useful life of the
street. This, coupled with multiple telecommunications' companies planning
C~TY OF ANAHEim, CAL~FOI~A - COUNCIL H~NUTE8 - AUGUST 15~ 1995
extensive trenching in the City's local and arterial streets, has necessitated
an analysis by the department of current City practices and ~olicies related
to excavations in City streets. Currently, there are two companies trenching
in Anaheim's streets, MFS Network Technologies and Linkotel for a total of
24,000 feet of trenching. Current submittals for these two companies alone
are for another 125,000 feet of trenching. Permits are also pending from
various telecommunication companies including PacBell. There is an urgency in
implementing a plan to make sure the condition of streets are safeguarded from
this unprecedented cutting of streets. He then introduced Natalie Meeks to
provide a summary of the analysis to date.
Natalie Meeks, Public Works, Development Services Manager briefed the document
submitted by the Public Works. Department dated August 15, 1995 - Street
Deterioration Fee - City Council Workshop, which gave the background leading
to the staff's proposal and ultimate recommendation to revise the City's
right-of-way permit ordinance and fee structure. Approximately a year ago, it
became apparent that Public Works must address the issue of how to protect the
City's streets and rights of way while still allowing the City's businesses
and residents access to the most up-to-date technology available. While
deregulation and competition will provide citizens advanced services at the
lowest possible cost, the impact to the City's streets could be devastating.
Studies have shown that utility cuts significantly reduce the life of the
pavement which propogates beyond the area of the cut costing the City millions
of dollars in reduced pavement life. (Ms. Meeks presentation was supplemented
by slides, hard copies of some of which were included in the material
submitted.) Also submitted were studies conducted for the Department of Public
Works, City and County of San Francisco (May, 1995) and one for the City of
Phoenix, Arizona (July, 1990), both relating to the adverse effects of utility
cuts on city streets. (Also see report dated December 8, 1994 prepared by IMS,
Infrastructure Management Services, Inc. -- Estimated Pavement Cut Surcharge
Fees for the City of Anaheim, California Arterial Highway and Local Streets,
portions of which were also briefed in the presentation). Slides were also
shown of deteriorated City streets due to pavement cuts as well as streets in
San Diego, a City which is now living through the immediate impacts of
disruption and degradation and the realization of what the long-term impacts
could mean to their street system.
In concluding, Ms. Meeks noted that adoption of the proposed ordinance and fee
schedule would ensure that contractors and utility companies take
responsibility for the impacts of their facilities and also ensure available
funding for the repairs necessary due to the accelerated deterioration of the
City's streets. Public Works staff is requesting input from the Council
before moving forward with the proposal and are available to meet with Council
Members individually to answer questions or provide additional information.
Staff will also be extending another invitation to the local utility companies
to meet with them to discuss the proposal. The finalized ordinance will then
be agendized and recommended to the Council for approval.
Following the presentation, questions were posed by Council Members which were
answered by Ms. Meeks, Mr. Johnson and City Attorney, Jack White. Mr. Johnson
explained for Council Member Zemel that the bulk of street rehabilitation in
the City is done by contractors. He believes that the magnitude of costs
relating to the trenching is multiple times greater than any efficiency in
savings, if there are any.
City Attorney White explained for Council Member Tait that franchise fees
currently paid by utility companies are for the right to be in the public
right of way and not meant to be an all-encompassing charge.
2
CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 15, 1995
council Member Zemel asked that before the next workshop on this matter, he
would like to know what the franchise fee covers if not the deterioration of
the Btreet~ City Manager Ruth. The franchise fee is minimal but he will
submit a report on how the money is used.
Council Member Feldhaus. He would like at some point in time to hear rebuttal
arguments from those who have a need to cut into the streets -- the ability to
hear both sides of the story at some point before the Council has to make a
decision.
Gary Johnson. Staff is going to ask all the utility companies to meet with
them to discuss some of the issues and hopefully resolve them before bringing
this back to the Council. This is to occur shortly.
Mayor Daly. He thanked staff for the presentation. Relative to the request
of Council Member Feldhaus, perhaps after meeting with the utility companies,
staff can provide the Council answers to some of the questions raised today,
schedule another workshop and put all the facts on the table perhaps in 30 to
45 days. He does not want to exclude any participation by the public that is
desired but there will be other opportunities and they look forward to hearing
from them. Adoption of the ordinance will be a scheduled agenda item.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION:
City Attorney Jack White requested a Closed Session noting first that
there are no additions to Closed Session items.
PUBLIC COMMENTS - CLOSED SESSION ITEMS:
There were no public comments relative to Closed Session items.
The following items are to be considered at the Closed Session:
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
54956.9(a) - EXISTING LITIGATION:
Name of case: In re: County of Orange, Debtor, U.S. Bankruptcy
Court, Central District Case No. SA 94-22272~ and In re: Orange
County Investment Pools, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Central District No.
SA 94-22273.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
54956.9(a) - EXISTING LITIGATION:
Name of case: Anaheim Stadium Associates v.. City of Anaheim, Orange
County Superior Court Case No. 44-81-74.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
54956.9(a) - EXISTING LITIGATION:
(a) Name of case: Wayne A. Parkola v. A AAA Yellow Cab, Inc., et
al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 72-71-63.
(b) Name of case: Delmonico, et al. v. City of Anaheim, Orange
County Superior Court Case No. 70-80-71 (and 16 related actions).l.
RECESS: Mayor DalY moved to recess into Closed Session. Council Member Tait
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (3:46 p.m.)
CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA.- COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 15, 1995
AFTER RECESS:
The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present, and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting.
(5:44 p.m.).
INVOCATION:
A moment of silence was observed in lieu of the invocation.
FLAG SALUTE:
Council Member Bob Zemel led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
119: PRESENTATION - ED GARDA - SERVICE ON HOUSING COMMISSION:
Mayor Daly and Council Members presented a plaque to Mr. Ed Garda recognizing
and commending him for his 12 years of dedicated service on the City's Housing
Commission.
119: PRESENTATION - MAGGIE CARRILLO-MEJIA --SERVICE ON PUBLIC
UTILITIES BOARD= Mayor Daly and Council Members presented a plaque to Mrs.
Maggie Carillo-Mejia recognizing and commending her for almost four years of
dedicated service on the City's Public Utilities Board.
119: THE FOLLOWING WERE RECOGNITIONS AUTHORIZED BY THE CITY
COUNCIL THIS DATE TO BE MAILED OR PRESENTED AT ANOTHER TIME:
PRESENTATION - Honoring Mitch Caldwell for his service on the
Planning Commission.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $5,603,711.40 for
the period ending August 11, 1995, in accordance with the 1995-96 Budget, were
approved.
Mayor Daly recessed the City Council meeting until after the Redevelopment
Agency and Housing Authority meetings. (5:50 p.m.)
Mayor Daly reconvened the City Council meeting. (5:57 p.m.)
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
There were no additions to agenda items.
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST:
No items of public interest were addressed.
PUBLIC COMMENTS - AGENDA ITEMS:
There were no public comments on City Council Agenda items.
MOTION:
Council Member Daly moved to waive reading in full of all ordinances
and resolutions to be acted upon for the Council meeting of August
15, 1995 Council Member Feldhaus seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
CITY OF AN~HEIMv CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 15v 1995
CITY MANAGER/DEPaRTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR:
On motion by Mayor Daly, seconded by Council Member Feldhaus, the following
items were approved in accordance with the reports, certifications and
recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent
Calendar~ Mayor Daly offered Resolution Nos. 95R-149 and 95R-150, for
adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
Al.
118= The following claims were filed against the City and action
taken as recommended=
Claims rejected and referred to Risk Management:
A2.
A3.
A4.
AS.
a. Claim submitted by Maria Cristina A. Dela Cruz for property
damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about
March 1, 1995.
b. Claim submitted by Sandy Flood c/o Anthony I. Lopez, Esq. for
bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or
about November 1, 1994.
c. Claim submitted by Michael Anthony Blanco for property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January
18 through July 18, 1995.
117: Receiving and filing a Summary of Investment Transactions as
submitted by the City Treasurer for the month of June 1995.
173= Receiving and filing an Application before the Public Utilities
Commission of the State of California in the matter of Screamline
Investments, Inc., dba Tour Coach Transportation for a certificate of
public convenience and necessity to operate as a passenger stage
corporation between points in Los Angeles County and Los Angeles
International Airport.
105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Anaheim Park and Recreation
Commission meeting held May 24, 1995.
158: RESOLUTION NO. 95R-149= A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF TITLE TO THREE
PARCELS AT THE NORTH END OF ANAHEIM BOULEVARD FROM THE CITY TO THE
ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY.
Authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the Grant Deed.
123= Approving Agreements with Anaheim Transportation Network (ATN)
to (1) authorize a transfer of $75,000 of state grant funds from the
City to the ATN~ (2) to develop, market and implement a direct
commuter rail incentive program, Anaheim Commuter Connection~ and (3)
to develop and implement a Fixed-Fare Taxi Pool Service between the
existing Anaheim rail station and Anaheim Resort Area and Stadium
Business Center.
123: Approving an Agreement with Waldron & Associates, Inc., in an
amount not to exceed $100,000 annually to provide appraisal services
to the Public Works Department.
C~TY OF ANAHE~ CALiFORNiA - COUNCIL ~NUTE8 - AUGUST ~5, ~995
A6.
113: RESOLUTION NO. 95R-150: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN CITY
RECORDS MORE THAN TWO YEARS OLD. (PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.)
A7.
160: Accepting the low bid of Parisi Tower Rebuild, Inc., in the
amount of $27,016.66 for repair/refurbishment of two Baltimore
aircore cooling towers, in accordance with Bid #5421.
AS.
160: Accepting the low bid of Norco Mail Delivery Service, in the
amount of $33,924 with two one-year options to renew, for delivery
service as required for the period of September 1, 1995, through
August 31, 1996, in accordance with Bid $5424.
Ag.
160: Accepting the bid of Nationwide Papers, in an amount not to
exceed $41,561 and accepting the bid of Spicers Paper, Inc., in an
amount not to exceed $18,439 for stock paper as required for the
period September 1, 1995 through August 31, 1996, in accordance with
Bid $5419.
Al0.
160: Waiving Council Policy 306, and authorizing the Purchasing
Agent to issue a Purchase Order to Southwest Power, Inc., in the
amount of $36,800 for 20 KPF switches for warehouse inventory stock
to be used for the City's electrical distribution system.
All.
160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a Change Order to
Cameron Webster Construction, for an additional amount not to exceed
$15,400 for additional boring time and material as required to
complete the job at La Palma Avenue and Baxter Street bringing the
revised total to an amount not to exceed $61,108.
A12.
150: Allowing the Assistance League of Anaheim, per City Code, to
serve wine and beer at a private preconcert reception at Pearson Park
Amphitheater on Saturday, August 26, 1995.
A13.
123: Approving an Agreement with the Digital Equipment corporation
for service on computer equipment, in the amount of $816 per month
for the period of August 1, 1995 through July 31, 1996; and
authorizing the Library Director to execute said Agreement on behalf
of the City.
A14.
123: Approving an Agreement with Anaheim Disposal, Inc., to allow
the implementation of the Neighborhood Clean-up Campaign and Tool
Rental Programs for trash bin rental and hauling services in
designated neighborhood areas.
City Manager Ruth. There are a couple of minor changes included in the
agreement which the City Attorney has approved. One was a name change to
Taormina Industries and the second is the fee schedule percentage increase.
copy of the minor changes was included in the agenda packet.
A
A15.
123: Approving an Agreement with Psychologist Eric W. Gruver, Ph.D.
to conduct psychological evaluations for Police Officer, Police
Reserve Officer and Detention Officer Applicants.
A16 ·
114: Approving minutes of the City Council meeting held August 1,
1995.
CITY OF ~NAHEIMt CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 15, 1995
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 95R-149 and 95R-150, for adoption:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS:
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS:
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Tait, Lopez, Zemel, Feldhaus, Daly
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 95R-149 and 95R-150, duly passed and
adopted.
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR. MOTIONS CARRIED.
A17.
108: Request by Frank Elfend, Elfend and Associates to discuss time
share requirements and related Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT)
provisions. (Continued from the meeting of August 1, 1995, Item
A15.)
After extensive discussion and input, this item was continued from the meeting
of August 1, 1995 (see minutes that date) to the meeting of August 15, 1995.
Since the meeting of August 1, 1995, additional reports/memorandums were
submitted as follows and made a part of the record:
Letter dated August 11, 1995 from Elfend and Associates - re: TOT Collection
Procedures~ Memorandum dated August 14, 1995 from Tom Wood, Deputy City
Manager to the City Manager/City Council - Subject: Time Share Survey
Tabulation~ Staff Report dated August 15, 1995 from the Deputy City Manager
and Finance Director to the City Manager/City Council -- Further Information
and Recommendations Regarding the Request to Discuss Timeshare Requirements
and Related TOT Provisions. (Letter dated August 15, 1995 was also received
at 3:30 P.M. today after the start of the Council Meeting from Ross & Scott,
Attorneys representing Tarsadia, Inc., regarding the applicability of TOT to
an owner of a time share estate in a time share project.
Tom Wood, Deputy City Manager. A comprehensive staff report was prepared
responsive to the questions posed at the meeting of August 1, 1995 along with
additional information derived during the interim. Staff is seeking policy
guidance on whether or not staff should be pursuing a program that guarantees
the existing program or adopting a flat fee. Staff has provided a report from
the City's consultants as to what the flat fee amount would be if.the Council
chose that direction. He then summarized the staff recommendation (see joint
6-page staff report with attachments dated August 15, 1995). In concluding
his presentation, he stated there are risks in adopting a new program because
it iS an unknown. That is part of the concern staff felt obliged to point out,
that there are potential problems. Notwithstanding that fact, however, the
flat fee amount calculated in the EPS report says that at $35 per week per
timeshare with appropriate adjustment factors for CPI, changes in State law
and changes in the TOT rent, it would substantially make the City whole if
that program was adopted.
Mayor Daly. Staff's recommendation is in two parts -- the first would be
guaranteeing the City's collection of the bed tax (TOT) for all timeshare
units as if they were hotel rooms or providing a per timeshare unit fee
calculated based upon a formula that recovered the bed tax. In either case,
the City's traditional bed tax revenues would be protected. The City has also
received letters from the Anaheim Area Hotel-Motel Association and the
Anaheim/Orange County Visitor and Convention Bureau wherein they do not take a
CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 15, 1995
formal ~osition on the question except to say that the City should be careful
to consider the effect of not capturing the equivalent of a bed tax revenue.
Frank Elfend, Elfend and Associates, 610 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach.
He first submitted a sheet entitled, $27 Per Unit Fee + an Annual CPI Increase
with 4% Maximum Cap in Any Year. Within approximately 7 years, is when the
timeshare would be fully occupied. It showed figures calculated over a 30-
year period at a 2%, 3% and 4% CPI. Mr. Elfend's extensive presentation
covered the advantages and benefits of timeBhares to the City, comments
relating to some of the material provided in the staff report which he felt
were inaccuracies, things he felt were omitted, remarks relating to the survey
done by staff, concern that staff's formula would result in the payment of $84
per timeshare unit as opposed to the $35 fee suggested by the City's
consultant, EPS, the study prepared by CGMS which he felt had nothing to. do
with the Hotel Circle Project and their proposal, etc.
In concluding his presentation, he reported that today he spoke to Cox, Castle
& Nicholson, experts in both municipal finance matters and structuring
timeshare and vacation ownership projects. He will have Mr. Spaulding of the
firm qualify what he considers misstatements by CGMS.
Mayor Daly. One of the conditions of approval in the Hotel Circle Specific
Plan approved by the City in 1994 stated that no vacation ownership resort
shall be established as a timeshare either as a permitted or conditional use
unless the developer establishes and implements a method of ownership
acceptable to the City which guarantees the City's collection of TOT for all
vacation ownership units as if they were hotel rooms. Having agreed to that
language and the City approving the project predicated on that language,
regardless which consultant supports or disagrees with which number, that
issue has to be dealt with. If commitments and the Council's time is worth
anything at all, when a developer commits to an agreement with the City
including conditions and nine months later asks for something that is in
conflict with that, it is a problem for the City. If that is not a "bait and
switch" approach, he does not know what is. He questioned the value of the
language.
Mr. Elfend stated that when that condition was initiated, there was some
confusion in terms of dealing with the issue. He does not believe it was
their intent to create a situation whereby the City would gain a windfall
profit of additional revenue created by applying this as if it were a hotel
room. He feels they are consistent with the intent of the condition.
Mayor Daly. City staff needs to confirm its recommendation on the matter that
the City will be left whole and not lose revenue or potential income.
City manager Ruth. The developer is proposing $27 with an escalator, 4% cap
and ramping up over 7 years, staff is recommending a flat $35 with the CPI
and no ramp up.
Bill Sweeney, Finance Director. The difference between the $27 and $35 is
something in excess of $50,000 per year. He later confirmed that what the
City is looking for is for the proposal to remain revenue neutral so there is
no economic basis to ramp anything up. The $35 number is based on a certain
amount of rentals, property tax, sales tax, all of those things in
combination. The shortfall equals a certain amount of money and $35 will solve
that problem. Utilizing a ramping concept, they would have to look at
guaranteeing the base of $450,000. He confirmed for Council Member Zemel that
$35 without the ramp makes it revenue neutral but with the CPI.
CITY OF AN/~HEIM, CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 15, 1995
Mr. Art Spaulding, Partner, Cox, Castle & Nicholson, Lawyers, 19800 Macarthur
Blvd., Irvine. After opening remarks relating to the experience of his firm,
Mr. Spaulding stated they do not believe the approach which is proposed on a
flat fee basis constitutes a significant different risk from those associated
with TOT revenues as an income stream to support the repayment of bonded
indebtedness. The memorandum prepared by City staff insofar as it embraces.
comments from the consultant, CGMS, is overstated. He then explained why.
(See his letter submitted dated and received August 15, 1995 which he
briefed).
Phil Knypstra, 2520 Gelid, Anaheim. He reiterated his concern expressed at
the meeting of August 1, 1995 that the Council do what is best for the
taxpayers of Anaheim. He has done his own calculations and assumes 50%, 60%
and 70% occupancy and other assumptions. The numbers he "crunched', in his
opinion, with 50% occupancy, the City would net $28 a week, at 60%, $35/week
and at 70%, $42/week. The Council now has three alternatives to choose from.
If they want a timeshare in the City, he suggested that they take the best
estimate that benefits the taxpayers.
Miriam Kaywood, Anaheim resident/former Council Member. There are 140 suites
in the Peacock Suites Hotel. With timeshares, there must be at least one
parking space assigned to every owner. These are large suites and some can
accommodate a lot of people~ therefore, not just one vehicle will be involved.
She questioned if that situation had been looked into. She is also concerned
that a new hotel was built and then turned around quickly asking for a
conversion. She would be interested in knowing the reason why.
Mr. Elfend explained the reason is, the market place has created a need.
Anaheim is a destination resort area and it is very desirable.
Council Member Zemel. Staff has indicated in order to make the proposal
revenue neutral, it takes $35 without a ramp up to do so. He feels that is
the direction they should take in order to move the matter forward. He
recommended that they approve staff's recommendation of $35 per unit without
the ramp up but with the CPI.
Council Member Lopez suggested that considering all the information that has
been submitted, it should go back to staff to have them figure out something
between $27 and $35.
Frank Elfend. The one thing that is important to them is to have the matter
resolved tonight. Their presentation tonight was for the $27. If Council
decided to impose a $35 fee with the CPI as suggested by staff, they would
have to accept it mainly because their time schedule on this effort is
extremely limited. The only thing they would ask is to come back with an
agreement which they have already discussed and submitted to the City Attorney
-- the $35 with the CPI, and come back next week.
City Attorney White. He has looked at the draft of the document submitted to
his office but has not spent a lot of time on it without knowing there would
be some reason to finalize an agreement. He can say, having looked at it, he
has a considerable amount of concern with the language. He does not know if
he can bring back a document where everyone will be in agreement on the
language.
MOTION. Council Member Zemel moved to approve staff's recommendation of $35
per unit per week with the CPI and no ramp up in an effort to make the City
CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 15, 1995
whole with a revenue neutral position. Council Member Lopez seconded the
motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Daly asked if this would meet with staff's
criteria for keeping the City whole on this property.
City Manager Ruth. There is always some risk but staff feels the $35 will
probably keep the City revenue neutral.
City Attorney White. Mr. Elfend alluded to a conversation when he and Mr.
Morinello met with a member of his staff. One of the items he would propose
to bring back would be an amendment to the TOT ordinance which would provide
for the implementation of the tax through an agreement rather than the normal
15% room rate. The Council could move forward with the agreement even though
the ordinance technically would not be in effect. The agreement would be
contingent upon the ordinance taking effect. It would replace the language in
Section 2.12 which he has discussed with Mr. Elfend. The City would have the
discretion to allow future projects to be considered on a similar case-by-case
basis but does not obligate the City to deviate from the standard 15% of some
number.
Tom Wood. They would also encourage the Council to include in the motion an
opener for any changes in State law if the distribution of sales tax or
property tax is changed. Because the project is assuming an increase in
property and sales tax, if those formulas change, it would be appropriate to
reopen/recalculate the flat fee amount even if it decreased.
Bill Sweeney then confirmed for Council Member Feldhaus they do not have that
kind of agreement with any other hoteliers. In the event they lose a portion
of the base that comprises the entire deal and it is no longer $35 to maintain
rent revenue at neutrality, that is the issue. A component of that total iB
based on Bales tax, property tax, etc.
Discussion followed on the recommended addition to the motion by staff wherein
Mr. Wood explained more in depth why the language should be included. At the
conclusion of discussion, Mr. Elfend stated that in his explanation, Mr. Wood
is correct that it could work both ways, that the TOT could also actually go
down from 15% to 13%. What they want to have is a certainty in the market
place. If it went from 15% to 13%, they would still want the $35 fee. The
point is, looking at it both ways, they will take the risk just to have the
certainty in the fee.
Mayor Daly. With the statement from the applicant relative to the amount of
bed tax, he believes that is satisfactory to everybody.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion as offered. MOTION CARRIED.
ITEMS BI - B7 FROM THE PLANNING CO~9~ISSION MEETING OF JULY 24. 1995
INFORMATION ONLY - APPEAL PERIOD ENDS AUGUST 15. 1995
B1.
179: VARIANCE NO. 4269r AND NEOATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: RUDOLPH M. BRACHO, ROSEMARIE BRACHO, STEPHEN C. WILLIAMS, and
MONICA HORMAZA WILLIAMS, 18997 Villa Terrace, Yorba Linda, CA 92686
10
C~TY OF AN/%HE~H, CAL~FORNI~ - COUNCIL ~NUTE8 - AUGUST LS~ ~995
LOCATION= 122 South Walnut. Property is approximately 5,750 square
feet located on the east side of Walnut Street and approximately 300
feet south of the centerline of Center Street.
Waiver of maximum number of bachelor units and minimum structural
setback to retain a 590-square foot bachelor unit above a detached 3-
car garage.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Variance No. 4269 GRANTED with the conditions that parking shall take
place in the designated parking areas, and that the owner/developer
shall pay for the cost of monthly Code Enforcement inspections if
deemed necessary by the Code Enforcement Division (PC95-85) (3 yes
votes, I no vote, 2 absent, and i vacancy).
Negative Declaration previously approved.
B2.
179: VARIANCE NO. 4276 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER= WILLIAM C. and VINCENT C. TAORMINA, P.O. BOX 309, Anaheim, CA
92815-0309
AGENT= RICHARD B. WINN, P.O. Box 309, Anaheim, CA 92815-0309
LOCATION= 2820 E. White Star Avenue. Property is approximately 1.3
acres located at the northeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Blue Gum
Street.
Waiver of required parking lot landscaping and permitted encroachment
into required yards to construct a private employee parking lot for
regional material recovery facility.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION=
Variance No. 4276 GRANTED (PC95-86) (4yes votes, 2 absent, and 1
vacancy).
Approved Negative Declaration.
Mayor Daly. In this case, it appears that the land owner agreed to provide
some additional landscaping in exchange for the small waiver to the landscape
requirement. He asked for an explanation.
Joel Fick. It is a technical waiver in that the landscaping and parking area
cannot be seen where the waiver was requested. As a tradeoff, there is to be
additional landscaping on the perimeter whichis actually an enhancement and
beneficial to the community.
B3.
179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2090 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER= HARVEY S. OWEN, P.O. BOX 1034, TUSTIN, CA 92681
AGENT= BOBBY S. OWEN, 1788 S. Euclid Street, Anaheim, CA 92806
LOCATION: 1160 North Kraemer Boulevard. Property £s approximately
0.9 acre located on the east side of Kraemer Boulevard and
approximately 242 feet south of the centerline of Coronado Street.
Petitioner requests modification of a condition of approval
pertaining to the limitation of time of a previously-approved public
dance hall in conjunction with a restaurant.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION=
CUP NO. 2090 APPROVED to expire 8/26/97 (PC95-87) (4 yes votes, 2
absent, and i vacancy).
Negative Declaration previously approved.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ITEMS:
11
CITY OF AN~tHEIM, CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 15, 1995
B4.
179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1234 - REQUEST FOR SUBSTANTIAL
CONFORMANCE DETERMINATION TO PERMIT A TECHNICAL TRAINING CENTER
(INCLUDING AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR INSTRUCTION}:
LOCATION: 100 S. Claudina Place.
California Career Schools, Attn: Chuck Emanuelle, 392 W. Cerritos
Avenue, Bldg. 7, Anaheim, CA 92805 requests substantial conformance
determination to permit a technical training center (including
automotive repair instruction).
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Determined that the proposed use is not in substantial conformance.
179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 103 - REQUEST FOR INITIATION OF
REVOCATION OR MODIFICATION PROCEEDINGS~
Initiated by the City of Anaheim, Code Enforcement Division, 200 S.
Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION: 500 S. Beach Boulevard.
Request for initiation of revocation or modification proceedings for
Conditional Use Permit No. 103 (to permit an 18-unit motel).
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Initiated revocation and/or modification proceedings on CUP NO. 103.
B6.
179: CONDXTXONAL USE PERMXT NO. 3566 - SUESTANTIAL CONFORMANCE:
REQUESTED BY: Donahue Schriber, Attn: Ernie Weber, 3501 Jamboree
Road, Ste. 300, Newport Beach, CA 92660
LOCATION: 500-600 N. Euclid Avenue.
Petitioner requests substantial conformance review of the design and
layout of the multi-tenant food court sign in conjunction with
Conditional Use Permit No. 3566 (to permit the phased construction of
a regional shopping center).
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3566 determined to be in substantial conformance.
B7.
ITEM B7 FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETXNG OF AUGUST ?f 1995
XNFORMATION ONLY - APPEAL PERXOD ENDS AUGUST 17~ 1995
134: GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY FOR THE EXCHANGE OF COUNTY OWNED LAND
WITHIN THE SANTA ANA RIVER RIGHT-OF-WAY:
REQUESTED BY: ROBERT LIVINGSTON, COUNTY OF ORANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT AGENCY, P.O. BOX 4048, Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048.
LOCATION: Property is generally located on a portion of the Santa
Aha River right-of-way abutting the existing Atchison Topeka and
Santa Fe Railroad (AT&SF) line to the north, Santa Ana River to the
east, and 280 feet southeast of the southerly terminus of South
Douglass Road.
Request to determine conformance with the Anaheim General Plan for
the exchange of county owned land within the Santa Ana River right-
of-way.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved.
END OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS.
12
CITY OF AN]tHEIMv CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 15v 1995
BB.
179: ORDINANCE NO. 5511 (INTRODUCTION): Amending Title 18 to rezone
property under Reclassification No. 90-91-04 located at the southerly
terminus of Londerry Lane from the RS-A-43,000(SC) zone to the RS-HS-
10,O00(SC) zone.
Mayor Pro Tem Feldhaus offered Ordinance No. 5511 for first reading
ORDINANCE NO. 5511: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING
TITLE 18 TO REZONE PROPERTY UNDER RECLASSIFICATION NO. 90-91-04
LOCATED AT THE SOUTHERLY TERMINUS OF LONDERRY LANE FROM THE RS-A-
43,000(SC) ZONE TO THE RS-HS-10,000(SC) ZONE.
D1.
129: CONTIN~D PUBLIC HEARING - DESIGNATION OF VERY-NIGH
FIRE-HAZARD SEVERITY ZONEs
To consider an ordinance designating a very-high fire-hazard severity
zone as recommended by the California Division of Forestry.
At the meeting of April 25, 1995, Item D1, the public hearing was
opened by the City Council, and continued to the meetings of May 16,
1995, Item D1, July 11, 1995, Item D1, and again continued to this
date to consider the following ordinance=
ORDINANCE NO. (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ADDING NEW CHAPTER 16.40, SECTIONS 16.40.010 THROUGH
16.40.020, INCLUSIVE, TO TITLE 16 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE,
RELATING TO DESIGNATION OF VERY HIGH FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONES.
This Item was continued from the Meeting of July 11, 1995 to this date (see
minutes of July 11, 1995)
Fire Chief Bowman. They are currently evaluating options to bring back to the
Council as a result of some changes in legislative counsel analysis in
Sacramento about the impact of the bill and how it is interpreted. He will be
bringing back a couple of options on September 19, 1995 for Council
consideration.
Council Member Tait. He received some calls from people concerned this might
require them to sprinkler their home on new construction.
Chief Bowman. It will have no impact on fire sprinklers in new homes. Ail
the impacts discussed in prior workshops remain the same.
Motion. Council Member Zemel moved to continue the subject Public Hearing to
September 19, 1995 at the request of staff. Council Member Lopez seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
D2.
129~ p~RLIC N~&RING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2685r ~ATEGORICA?3~
EXEMPT CLASS 21:
Initiated by the City of Anaheim, Planning Commission, 200 S. Anaheim
Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION: 1074 N. Tustin Avenue. Property is approximately 1.67
acres located on the east side of Tustin Avenue and approximately 350
feet south of the centerline of La Palma Avenue.
13
CITY OF ANAHE~H~ CAL~FORN~ - COUNCIL ~NUTES - AUGUST ~5~ ~995
Request to consider the termination or modification of Conditional
Use Permit No. 2685 (to permit the expansion of a restaurant and
cocktail lounge with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces)
pursuant to Sections 18.03.091 and 18.03.092 of the Anaheim Municipal
Code~ and review of revised exhibits for substantial conformance
determination.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION=
CUP NO. 2685 Modified by adding seven new conditions of approval - to
expire June 26, 1996 (PC95-71) (6 yes votes, i absent).
Informational item at the Council meeting of July 18, 1995, Item B1.
HEARING SET oN= a letter of appeal of the Planning Commission's decision was
submitted by Mohammad Jobar, Mr. J's Restaurant & Bar and Public Hearing'
scheduled this date.
PUBLIC NOTICE REOUIREMENTS MET BY=
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin - August 3, 1995
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - August ~, 1995
Posting of property - August 4, 1995
STAFF INPUT=
See staff report to the Planning Commission dated June 26, 1995
City Attorney White. Because this involves potential termination or
modification, it is necessary for the City Clerk to swear in those persons who
will be testifying.
Those testifying were requested to stand by the City Clerk and asked to raise
their right hand. The oath was then given.
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager. He gave a brief history of the
property starting in 1974 when the Bessie Wall's Restaurant
(restaurant/cocktail lounge serving lunch and dinner) was opened and what has
occurred on the property up to this time. (See staff report to the Planning
Commission dated June 26, 1995). The property is under new ownership since
April, 1994. In May of 1995, the Planning Commission considered the
applicant's request to relocate the bar area from the 'rear of the restaurant
to a location at the building entrance. The Commission requested the item to
be set for a Public Hearing and further directed staff to advertise
consideration of revocation or modification of the existing CUP on the basis
that the business was being conducted as a nightclub and dance hall rather
than as a restaurant and cocktail lounge, the use granted by the CUP although
the applicant subsequently withdrew his request to relocate the bar area. The
Commission modified conditions of approval to insure the facility would
operate under the original intent of the CUP. The applicant has appealed the
seven new conditions and this is the issue before the Council tonight.
Mayor Daly opened the Public Hearing and asked to hear from the appellant to
summarize the request.
Jeff Farano, Attorney, Farano and Kieviet, 2100 S. State College Blvd.,
Anaheim representing the appellant explained the detailed basis of the appeal
is set forth in his letter dated August 14, 1995 (see 8-page letter date
August 14, 1995 - made a part of the record). In his presentation, Mr. Farano
briefed portions of the letter summarizing the issues involved. The basis of
the modification was that the most recent interior modification to the
14
CITY OF ANAHEIMv CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 15v 1995
building appeared to have changed the characteristics of the use from a
restaurant to a cocktail lounge.
In 1994 Mr. J's (Johars) applied for a building permit and got substantial
conformance approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. He then
explained how the business evolved and the changes made since that time
because the business was not "making it." The $20 meals became $8 meals and
bikini dancers hired as entertainment. The kitchen remained in place and
still provided meals. That was still not making it so they decided they
needed to separate the dining from the entertainment portion. They submitted
building plans separating the dining area in the back and providing a cover
charge for entertainment in the front. When they submitted the application,
it was determined the Planning Commission wanted to review the process and
that is when the investigation started and subsequently determined that it was
no longer a restaurant based on the modifications made. He then briefed the
results of the investigation made by Mr. Bruce Freeman, Code Enforcement
Officer on June 12, 1995, another officer on June 17, 1995 (see page 4 of
letter dated 8/14/95) and Sgt. Steve Walker's report documenting activities at
Mr. J's on various dates. (See page 6 of letter dated 8/14/95. Also see Mr.
Freeman'B report dated June 20, 1995 and Sgt. Walker's report of June 21, 1995
previously made a part of the record).
Relative to Sgt. Walker's report, there are several indications of
inappropriate activities in his mind but no charges were brought at the time
and the report did not indicate any conclusive evidence capable of charging
Mr. J's with anything. What Mr. J's is doing now is conducting service of
food with entertainment and the entertainment provided are bikini dancers
pursuant to an entertainment permit. They also obtained a permit for a dance
hall or dinner dancing. He feels it is not a complex situation. Because Mr.
J's is unable to have the adequate dining it wants, the request was to
separate the dining from the dancing and do entertainment and eventually be
able to provide cover charges. He believes those plans have been resubmitted
to the Planning Commission for reconsideration. If the City does not want
topless dancing, the proper thing to do is to restrict the business from
topless dancing. If the City feels the entertainment is illegal, they should
be cited for illegal activities. However, he does not believe, based on the
evidence, revocation of the restaurant is warranted but whether it satisfies
the definition of a restaurant under the CUP.
He then addressed the conditions imposed which they are objecting to primarily
that the permit is to expire in one year based on the definition that it is
not a restaurant (see page 7 of the 8-14-95 letter under Vested Rights). He
also spoke to the six other conditions imposed which he feels are not
supported by adequate evidence and, therefore, is asking the Council not to
adopt the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission.
Sam Jobar, owner, Mr. J's, 18772 Deep Well Road, Santa Aha. He is present on
behalf of his father and himself to seek a change in the recommendation of the
Planning Commission of the business known as Mr. J's acquired in 1994. After
attempts to operate it as an upscale restaurant unsuccessfully along with all
kinds of entertainment, it has become apparent that bikini dancing was the
only type of entertainment that was going to work for them. They had proper
entertainment and dance permits when they approached Planning for a simple
modification to relocate their bar. Ail "hell broke lose" and they were not
allowed to relocate the bar and were told their CUP would be terminated in one
year. He asked that the Council be fair and open minded. Their business has
not caused any problems to anyone and there have been no complaints from their
neighbors. They have a very clean and good operation. At their Public
15
CITY OF ~NAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 15, 1995
Hearing before the Planning Commission, no one spoke in opposition. It is his
opinion that the proposed action is nothing but retaliation by staff based on
their personal agendas. It is biased and they do not intend to sit quietly
and let their life savings go up in smoke. They request that the City Council
delete the recommendations of the ~lanning Commission regarding their CUP.
City Attorney White. Since the City initiated the proceedings, he suggested
that staff be given an opportunity to respond to the evidence presented and
then to allow Mr. Farano or one other representative to have the last word in
rebuttal.
Joel Fick, Planning Director. Some of the testimony received addressed the
on-site observation witnessed by staff. As staff indicated, the business at
this location had been operated for many years as a restaurant. He then
introduced Mr. Don Yourstone, Senior Code Enforcement Officer to provide
first-hand testimony.
Don Yourstone, Senior Code Enforcement Officer. On Friday, March 10, 1995 at
approximately 9=00 P.M., a joint inspection of the premises was conducted with
ABC and the Police Department to check some alcohol control violations. He
then explained what occurred and what they found during the inspection. In
the main dining room, they did not see any type of silverware or table cloths
on any of the tables. There were people in attendance drinking and watching
bikini dancers performing on a raised stage. In a walk-through of the kitchen
area, they observed that no food was being prepared. At no time did they see
any waitresses carrying food in or out of the kitchen area, dirty dishes or a
dishwasher being operated.
Joel FIck, Planning Director. Officer Tom Engle is present this evening since
he was also involved with the on-site investigation and could provide input as
well.
Mayor Daly asked the City Attorney if there was any additional information he
believes is necessary that has not already been mentioned~ City Attorney
White. Staff has nothing further in the way of testimony at this time.
Questions were then posed to Mr. Yourstone by Council Members Lopez and Tait.
Jeff Farano. There is no dispute that Mr. Yourstone is qualified to do an
investigation, but they do dispute the conclusions that what Mr. Yourstone saw
during his investigation means the establishment is not a restaurant. There
has not been an overall investigation as to how much food was sold in that
time and the food receipts. There is no clear record that the business is not
serving food that would disqualify it under the definition of a restaurant.
There is not a clear understanding of what a restaurant is and what it is not
but a one-year restriction is in a sense a revocation of the permit because
they will be losing their license which is a revocation of a right that has
been in place for over 20 years at that location. Sufficient evidence has not
been presented to justify revocation.
Mayor Daly closed the Public Hearing.
City Attorney White. Relative to the legal points, even though they have
heard from the operator primarily concerning the entertainment that is being
provided, tonight's hearing does not relate to whether they provide
entertainment or the type. If it is entertainment, they are expected to abide
by the applicable requirements of the municipal code and State law. The issue
is whether it is being operated as a restaurant or not. The conditions
16
C~TY OF ~%N~%HE~H~ C~LIFORNI~ - COUNCIL ~INUTES - &U~UST LS~ ~995
recommended and proposed by the Planning Commission relate to assuring the
City that this property will be operated as a restaurant. With regard to pool
tables, the ABC license prohibits pool tables on the premises. If at such
time in the future there is no such ABC restriction, the applicant always has
the right to come to the Council and ask for the condition to be modified.
The only issue before the Council is whether or not the property has been
operated as a restaurant, how to assure it will be operated as a restaurant
and whether to put a time limitation on the permit. He spoke to Mr. Farano
briefly about the time limitation and wants to know if there is any response.
Jeff Farano. He has spoken to his client who would be in agreement with the
suggestion of Mr. White that the other conditions be maintained but that the
one year time limitation be removed.
City Attorney White. Because the City's concern is that this be a legitimate
restaurant and operated as such, he would recommend if Mr. Johar either
personally or through Mr. Farano will stipulate to the other conditions being
imposed, that they delete the condition requiring termination of the permit in
one year.
Jeff Farano. The only thing he would add is that it not be a stipulation
forever. He does not want to restrict his client from the opportunity to come
back in the future.
City Attorney White. The City is not asking that the owner give up the right
to apply for future modifications. The City is giving up the one-year
expiration in exchange for putting this issue to rest and allowing the owner
to move forward with the restaurant. He understands that Mr. Farano is so
stipulating.
Jeff Farano. They will stipulate to the other conditions set forth as approved
by the Planning Commission on the condition they are not restricted from
coming back for possible future modifications under a land use process and
with the understanding that the one year restriction is removed. For the
record, he has spoken to Mr. J's about that, explained the situation, and he
has agreed.
City Attorney White. Based upon that, he recommends that Council proceed by
deleting the condition on the one-year limitation. He also explained for the
Mayor why he believes that condition should be deleted.
Council Member Lopez also posed additional questions and was desirous of
hearing from Officer Engle~ City Attorney White. Although he is present
representing the Police Department, he does not have first-hand knowledge.
Based on the fact that his testimony would constitute hearsay, he made the
decision that it not be a part of the hearing.
John Poole, Code Enforcement Manager. He reported that Bruce Freeman visited
the restaurant several months ago, but at 3200 in the afternoon. He (Pools)
went there a few months ago on a Saturday night. However, there was a private
party going on not open to the public.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Mayor Daly,
seconded by Council Member Zemel, the City Council determined that the
proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01 Class 21, of the
City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for an Environmental Impact
Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file an
EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
17
CITY OF ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - COUNCIL MINUTES - AUGUST 15, 1995
Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 95R-151 for adoption amending conditions of
approval of Conditional Use Permit 2685 originally approved under Planning
Commission Resolution No. PC85-125 and adding new conditions imposed by the
City Planning Commission under Resolution No. PC95-71, conditions 14 through
20, but deleting condition No. 16 relating to expiration of the permit in one
year.
RESOLUTION NO. 95R-151~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2685.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 95R-151 for sdoption:
AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Tait, Zemel, Feldhaus, Daly
NOES= MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS= Lopez
ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 95R-151 duly passed and adopted.
C1. 114~ COUNCIL COMMENTS~
Mayor Daly. He asked the City Manager to report back on a matter relative to
the widening of Harbor Boulevard near LaPalma. A large valve assembly was
installed at that location on the outside perimeter of LaPalma Park which he
hopes eventually will be covered up by landscaping or some other means.
City Manager Ruth. He recently saw the installation and considers it an
eyesore and will be looking at ways to minimize or eliminate the visual
impact.
C2. REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS:
City Attorney Jack White stated that there are no actions to report.
ADJOURNMENTs By General Council consent, the City Council meeting of August
15, 1995 was adjourned to Thursday, August 17, 1995 at 1:30 P.M. for a Closed
Session to continue consideration of the items on the Closed Session agenda of
August 15, 1995. Following the Closed Session, the adjourned meeting will
continue with the public portion of the meeting at 3:00 P.M. in the seventh
floor Conference Room of City Hall to meet with Assemblyman Pringle regarding
legislative matters concerning the Orange County bankruptcy.
ADJOURNED - 7=55 P.M.
LEONORA N. SOHL
CITY CLERK
18