1992/02/04City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 4, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Simpson, Ehrle, Pickler, Daly and Hunter
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
PRESENT: CITY MANAGER: James Ruth
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR: Dave Morgan
CODE ENFORCEMENT MANAGER: John Poole
SERGEANT VICE: Harold Mittmann
FINANCE DIRECTOR: George Ferrone
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Annika Santalahti
A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was
posted at 3:10 p.m. on January 31, 1992 at the Civic Center kiosk, containing
all items as shown herein.
Mayor Hunter called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION: City Attorney Jack White requested a Closed
Session to consider the following items:
a. To confer with its attorney regarding pending litigation pursuant
to Government Code Section 54956.9(a), to wit:
Golden West Baseball Co. vs. City of Anaheim, Orange County Superior
Court Case No. 40-92-46; Anaheim Stadium Associates vs. City of
Anaheim, et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 44-81-74.
b. Liptrap vs. Ford Motor Co., et al, Orange County Superior Court
Case No. 49-26-35.
c. To meet with and give directions to its authorized representative
regarding labor relations matters - Government Code Section 54957.6.
d. To consider and take possible action upon personnel matters
pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.
e. To confer with its attorney regarding potential litigation
pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b) (1).
f. To consider and take possible action upon such other matters as
are orally announced by the City Attorney, City Manager or City
Council prior to such recess unless the motion to recess indicates any
of the matters will not be considered in closed session.
By general Consent, the Council recessed into Closed Session. (3:00 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS: The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being
present, and welcomed those in attendance to the Council meeting. (5:22 p.m.)
73
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 4, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
INVOCATION: Captain Richard House, Salvation Army, gave the invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Irv Pickler led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
119: DECLARATIONS OF CONGRATULATIONS: Declarations of Congratulations were
unanimously adopted by the City Council and presented to the following 1991
Employees of the Year for Anaheim Stadium, Golf and the Convention Center who
have shown outstanding dedication and commitment to their positions in the
City' s Enterprise Facilities:
Opal Kissinger, A1 Doornbos and Kathie Walton
Mayor Hunter and Council Members congratulated the employees and commended them
on being recognized for the exemplary way in which they treat the City's
citizens, patrons and fellow employees in their respective positions.
119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Hunter
and authorized by the City Council:
Vocational Education Week in Anaheim,
February 9-15, 1992
American History month in Anaheim,
February, 1992
Mr. Richard Lutz, President, Board of Trustees, R.O.P. of North Orange County
accepted the Vocational Education Week proclamation and Pearl Ann Kulcgynski,
Chapter Officer DAR accepted the American History Month proclamation.
MINUTES: Approval of the minutes was deferred to the next regular meeting.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $4,074,721.54 for the
period ending January 31, 1992, in accordance with the 1991-92 Budget, were
approved.
Mayor Hunter recessed the City Council meeting until after the Redevelopment
Agency, Housing Authority and Anaheim Public Finance Authority meetings.
(5:39 p.m.)
Mayor Hunter reconvened the City Council meeting. (5:59 p.m. )
PUBLIC COMMENTS - AGENDA ITEMS: Mr. Jeff Kirsch spoke to item A9 and Mr. Lloyd
Lowry, Amin David and Curtis Stricker spoke to Item Al0 (see discussion under
those items).
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: No one addressed any items of public interest at
this time but there were two requests to speak just before the meeting was
adjourned which the Council heard at that time. (See public input at the
conclusion of public hearings and agenda Items B and C. )
74
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 4, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Council Member
Pickler, seconded by Council Member Simpson, the following items were approved
in accordance with the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished
each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Council Member
Pickler offered Resolution Nos. 92R-14 through 92R-22, both inclusive, for
adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTIONS: The titles of the following resolutions were
read by the City Clerk. (Resolution Nos. 92R-14 through 92R-22, both
inclusive, for adoption. )
Council Member Pickler moved to waive the reading in full of the resolutions.
Council Member Simpson seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Al. 140: Receiving and filing the Anaheim Library Monthly Statistical Report
for the months of October and November, 1991.
105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Mother Colony House Advisory Board
meeting held November 18, 1991.
105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Anaheim Park and Recreation
Commission joint meeting of November/December held December 4, 1991.
105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Public Utilities Board meeting held
December 5, 1991.
105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Anaheim Public Library Board meeting
held December 18, 1991.
105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Community Redevelopment Commission
meeting held December 30, 1991.
A2. 169: RESOLUTION NO. 92R-14: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS-CITY ENGINEER TO EXECUTE
APPLICATIONS FOR FUNDING OF HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS UNDER THE STATE/LOCAL
TRANSPORTATION PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM (FOURTH CYCLE) .
A3. 123: Approving an Agreement with PBR, at a cost not-to-exceed $31,770 for
preparation of the required EIR for the extension of Auto Center Drive.
A4. 175: Awarding the contract to the lowest and best responsible bidder, Mel
Smith Electric, Inc., in the amount of $206,215 for Fairmont and Sharp
Substation; and in the event said low bidder fails to comply with the terms of
the award, awarding the contract to the second low bidder, as well as waiving
any irregularities in the bids of both the low and second low bidders.
A5. 167: Declaring Intersection Maintenance Service in default of their
contract; terminating the contract with Intersection Maintenance Service; and
authorizing the Mayor to sign a new contract with Safeco Insurance Companies of
America (Safeco), to complete the illuminated street name sign upgrade project.
75
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 4, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
A6. 123: Approving an Interruptible Load Agreement with Anaheim Foundry, as
recommended by the Public Utilities Board at their meeting of January 16, 1992;
and authorizing the Public Utilities General Manager to sign said Agreement and
any necessary enabling documents required to implement said Agreement.
A7. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 92R-15: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS CONVEYING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CERTAIN
REAL PROPERTIES OR INTERESTS THEREIN.
A8. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 92R-16: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM EXTENDING THE PERIOD OF ELIGIBILITY FOR SEVERANCE PAY.
(Extending the provisions of Resolution No. 91R-112 through December 31, 1992. )
A9. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 92R-17: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM ADOPTING PERSONNEL RULES APPLICABLE TO EMPLOYEES IN MANAGEMENT,
CONFIDENTIAL AND NON-REPRESENTED PART-TIME CLASSIFICATIONS.
Mr. Jeff Kirsch, 2661 W. Palais. He referred to the proposed personnel rules,
Items 1 through 33, some of which were of concern to him. In the area of
benefits, he feels City employees are extremely well compensated compared to
members of the private sector. He then addressed certain of the rules relating
to holidays, vacations, sick time, premium pay, etc., which he did not feel had
any comparison in the private sector. He asked that the Council give serious
consideration to these items and take initiative in dealing carefully with
public funds in these difficult times.
Al0. 153A: RESOLUTION NO. 92R-18: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ADJUSTING RATES OF COMPENSATION AND ESTABLISHING PAY POLICIES
FOR CLASSIFICATIONS DESIGNATED AS PROFESSIONAL AND SUPERSEDING
RESOLUTION NO. 91R-80 AND AMENDMENTS THERETO.
Lloyd Lowry, 1425 E. Lincoln, Anaheim. This is a poor time to think about any
pay adjustments for anyone. He feels adjustments will eventually become
increases in the future. Considering the financial condition of the City and
the economic picture generally, he does not see how they could make pay
adjustments or even have the item on the agenda. He is president of the Local
Chapter of AARP. On behalf of the retired people of the City, his
organization, and all citizens, this item should be removed from the agenda or
defeated completely.
Mayor Hunter asked the Human Resources Director to explain the issue.
Dave Morgan, Human Resources Director. Relative to Item A9, it has nothing to
do with pay increases. The clauses Mr. Kirsch was referring to are not being
recommended for change. It is taking some rules that used to exist in salary
resolutions and consolidating them and making them more administratively
efficient. It is a housekeeping function. The items he discussed have been
met and conferred on. He specifically clarified the clauses referring to meals
which only involve confidential employees and not management. These are
clerical workers and people in the same job classes as in the unions.
Relative to Item Al0, the purpose for recommending the salary structure change
at this time is to make the statement that they are going to try and continue
76
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 4, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
to maintain salary relationships internally with the bargaining units. In
1991, the average bargaining unit increase including AMEA, IBEW and Police and
Fire was 4.9%. The labor market as surveyed ranged anywhere from 0 to 9.5%.
They are recommending an average increase of 4.5% on the structure to make the
statement they are going to maintain the system and their positions and
relationships. They have recognized the economic situation which is why staff
is recommending that there be no actual increases at this time. It absolutely
does not bind the Council to do that. Before any increases can be given, staff
will need to return to the Council for approval.
Mayor Hunter. The recommendation basically says it is giving consideration to
Anaheim's current and projected financial status. "Actual salary increases for
management employees are not recommended at this time." If that time comes, it
will be at a Council meeting like this. There is no money at this time being
allocated for this structure change.
Council Member Ehrle. He is going to oppose Item Al0. He does feel that
management and staff of the City is doing an outstanding job and he would be
willing to evaluate a merit increase if there were funds available. He feels
this is the wrong time and by approving this they would be sending out the
wrong message. Six months from now when there is a balanced budget, he would
consider this but not at this time.
Council Member Pickler. This has nothing to do with the budget. They are not
approving any dollars or cents but just keeping pace with labor unions and
telling management they are trying to keep them on the same level as they have
with others where they have given money. Before any increases can be given,
they have to come back to the Council for approval. If there is no money,
there can be no increases. This is just keeping pace with the other groups in
the City.
Amin David, ACT, 419 S. Colt. He agrees with Council Member Ehrle that it is
ill-timed to be thinking of any restructuring. It appears the quote given in
the Anaheim Bulletin attributed to Mr. Morgan is not correct - "Pay raises
outlined in the proposal could be implemented anytime by City Manager James
Ruth."
Dave Morgan, Human Resources Director. This is nob the ~£rsb b£me he has been
misquoted by the Anaheim Bulletin. That statement is not correct.
Amin David. The issue of comparable pay with other cities keeps surfacing.
What is needed to clearly establish a salary structure for managers and
mid-managers is the rate of turnover in the City. That will determine if the
City is attracting qualified people. He suggested that they wait until the
budget committee brings forth suggestions and ideas.
Curtis Stricker, President of Anaheim HOME, 1117 Wakefield Place, Anaheim.
HOME recommends that this item be pulled and moved to a public hearing at a
later date. Any action at all is ill-timed. He believes City people are well
paid. There is merit in looking at turnover. They do not want to have layoffs
because other people want raises. The lower wage scale worker needs to be
maintained at a decent income.
77
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 4, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
153B: RESOLUTION NO. 92R-19: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ADJUSTING RATES OF COMPENSATION AND ESTABLISHING PAY POLICIES FOR
CLASSIFICATIONS DESIGNATED AS EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT AND SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION
NO. 9 iR-77 AND AMENDMENTS THERETO.
153C: RESOLUTION NO. 92R-20: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ADJUSTING RATES OF COMPENSATION AND ESTABLISHING PAY POLICIES FOR
CLASSIFICATIONS DESIGNATED AS SUPERVISORY AND SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION NO. 91R-79
AND AMENDMENTS THERETO.
153D: RESOLUTION NO. 92R-21: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ADJUSTING RATES OF COMPENSATION AND ESTABLISHING PAY POLICIES FOR
CLASSIFICATIONS DESIGNATED AS MIDDLE MANAGEMENT AND SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION
NO. 91R-81 AND AMENDMENTS THERETO.
153E: RESOLUTION NO. 92R-22: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ADJUSTING RATES OF COMPENSATION AND ESTABLISHING PAY POLICIES FOR
CLASSIFICATIONS DESIGNATED AS ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT AND SUPERSEDING
RESOLUTION NO. 91R-78 AND AMENDMENTS THERETO.
All. 116: Receiving and filing the City Manager's Gang and Drug Task Force
Update Report.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 92R-14 through 92R-17, both inclusive, for
adoption:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Simpson, Ehrle, Pickler, Daly and Hunter
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 92R-14 through 92R-17 duly passed and
adopted.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 92R-18 through 92R-22, both inclusive, for
adoption:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Simpson, Pickler and Hunter
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle and Daly
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 92R-18 through 92R-22 duly passed and
adopted.
End of Consent Calendar. MOTIONS CARRIED.
Al2. 105: ACCEPTING A RESIGNATION FROM THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION: Submitted was letter dated January 27, 1992 from Frank Feldhaus
resigning from the Community Redevelopment Commission.
MOTION: Council Member Daly moved to accept the resignation of Frank E.
Feldhaus, Redevelopment Commission, for the term expiring June 30, 1995, and
authorizing the City Clerk to post a notice of unscheduled vacancy. Council
Member Pickler seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
78
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 4, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
Mayor Hunter asked that a letter of thanks be prepared for Mr. Feldhaus for his
service.
112: SWEAR-IN OF WITNESSES TESTIFYING AT PUBLIC HEARINGS:
City Attorney White. He advised the City Council because one of the hearings
tonight involves the potential revocation of an existing permit, it would be
his recommendation based upon existing case law that on at least that hearing,
the Council swear the witnesses who will testify in connection with that item.
Further, it would be his suggestion that the City Council implement, on a trial
basis, the procedure of swearing in witnesses for all public hearings. It is a
practice engaged in in some cities while others do not. He clarified that it
does not require a Council policy to officially adopt the practice. If Council
does not object, the City Clerk would indicate on the agenda swear-in will take
place at the time of public hearings. He will work with the Clerk in modifying
the agenda appropriately. The practice can always be abandoned if found to be
of no value. Many cities routinely do this specifically when considering
revoking property interest already vested. To provide due process, it is
necessary to swear all those testifying in front of the administrative agency.
Mayor Hunter asked those who were present to testify on public hearing items
under D1, D2 and D3 to stand.
City Clerk Sohl asked that they raise their right hand. Those testifying were
then sworn in.
Cl. 107: APPLICATION FOR A POOL ROOM PERMIT:
REQUESTED BY: JOHN HILDING JOHNSON, 21081 Red Jacket Cir., Huntington
Beach, CA 92646.
LOCATION: 3478 E. Orangethorpe Avenue (LUCKY JOHN'S OF ANAHEIM).
Petitioner requests a pool room permit to operate 15 billiard tables
in conjunction with on-premise sale and consumption of alcoholic
beverages in conjunction with food services.
Continued from the meetings of 1/7/92, (Item Cl) and 1/28/92 (Item
C5). To be heard in conjunction with the request for arcade permit.
See Item D1 on today's public hearings.
D1. 179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - ARCADE PERMIT NO. 1011 (LUCKY JOHN'S
ANAHEIM):
REQUESTED BY: J.H. Johnson, 21081 Red Jacket Circle, Huntington
Beach, CA 92646.
LOCATION/REQUEST: The facility is located at 3478 E. Orangethorpe
Avenue in the Lake Center Shopping Center.
The request is to permit 15 amusement devices.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
Arcade permit No. 1011 was approved (ZA91-55).
HEARING SET ON:
A review of the Zoning Administrator's decision was requested by Council
Members Daly and Pickler at the meeting of December 10, 1991 and continued from
the meetings of January 7 and January 28, 1992 to be held in conjunction with
the request for pool room permit (Lucky John's) and public hearing scheduled
this date.
79
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 4, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin - December 26, 1991
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - December 23, 1991
Posting of property- December 27, 1991
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See decision of the Zoning Administrator dated December 5, 1991 - Z.A.91-55.
See Item C5 on January 7, 1992 agenda.
APPLICATION FOR POOL ROOM PERMIT - LUCKY JOHN'S ANAHEIM: Requested by: Same
as above. Location: Same as above.
The petitioner requests the pool room permit to operate 15 billiard tables in
conjunction with on-premise sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages in
conjunction with food services. (See Item Cl on January 7, 1992 agenda wherein
the Council determined that both the pool room permit and the arcade permit
would be combined into one hearing).
After discussion and input on both the arcade permit and pool room permit on
January 7, 1992 (see minutes that date) the Council continued the public
hearing to January 28, 1992.
At that time, staff recommended that there be an additional one week
continuance to February 4, 1992 which was granted.
ADDITIONAL
STAFF INPUT:
See updated staff report of January 24, 1992, from the Code
Enforcement Manager, John Poole recommending approval of the
pool room permit and arcade permit unless additional or
contrary testimony is received during the February 4, 1992
public hearing.
See report dated January 30, 1992, from Police Chief Joseph
Molloy recommending that the City Council deny the pool room
permit and arcade permit applications, because of the concerns
of the Police Department as listed in the report.
City Attorney White. Relative to the pool room permit, technically it is not a
public hearing but Council may consider testimony for Item D1 and comments
relating to Item Cl at the same time, but at the conclusion of the hearing take
separate action on both permits.
APPLI CANT · S
STATEMENT:
John Johnson, 21081 Red Jacket Circle, Huntington Beach and
Leonard Johnson of Fountain Valley were both present at the
podium. John Johnson first stated in answer to the Mayor that he
had not seen staff's recommendation that was suppose to have been
faxed to him but never was. He had talked to Don Yourstone, Code
80
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 4, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
Enforcement Officer yesterday and he said the staff
recommendation was for approval. Without reviewing the text of
the staff recommendation, he does not know what to say. He
believes they are putting forth something that would be an asset
to any community.
John Poole, Code Enforcement Manager. Council will recall at the
last meeting staff changed their recommendation from approval to
denial because they understood the applicant was no longer going
to serve food in conjunction with the sale of alcoholic
beverages. They have since met with him and ABC (Alcoholic
Beverage Control) who has a staff member present tonight if
Council has any questions. When staff made the recommendation
after talking to Mr. Johnson, that was the Planning Department
staff's recommendation. Council has an addendum to the staff
report where the Police Department is recommending denial and
they give the basis for their recommendation.
Sergeant Harold Mittmann is also present to answer questions. He
would suggest that the person from ABC speak to the issue of what
type of license is being applied for. One of staff's main
concerns when it first went to the Planning Commission it was
well understood food was going to be served and there is a
problem with getting that type of license. He now understands
the applicant will have to go forward with a general premises
on-sale license which would restrict patrons to those 21 years of
age or over.
Mayor Hunter asked what type of license is being applied for.
Mike Spencer, Investigator, Alcoholic Beverage Control, Santa Ana
district office. The application is for a Type 47 license which
is an on-sale general license for a public eating place commonly
referred to as a restaurant that sells hard liquor and beer and
wine.
John Johnson. Mike Spencer can verify anything he has to say
because he attended the meeting that was held with the Planning
Department, Police Department and Code Enforcement people. He is
aware of exactly what their plans are and why. They are dealing
with what is a misconception in his mind and the law's mind on
what constitutes a bonafide eating establishment. They did not
apply for a bonafide eating establishment. They never did that.
ABC has a different qualification requirement for a bonafide
eating establishment which does not adhere to the State Business
and Professions Code. The Police Department through ABC has
tried to establish a 50% food requirement. They want to offer
and promote food but he does not know who can guarantee 30%
food. They are operating on a 3,000 square foot game area which
was in their CUP. They have been forced into a situation where,
in order to avoid a hearing process through the ABC, they are
going to convert the license from a
81
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 4, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
bonafide eating place to a general public premise license, Type
48, which does not require any food at all. They are not going
to change their operation at all. They have discussed the
situation with ABC and as soon as they get all approvals are
going to reapply for an ABC bonafide eating establishment. They
are going to take the matter to court. The only difference
between the operation they proposed to the City under their CUP,
they will not be able to have anyone under 21 in the
establishment. Personally, he wants people under 21 with parent
or guardian supervision. The matter is very clear.
Mike Spencer. They have applied for a Type 47 License - a
restaurant - and mentioned they would withdraw that and file a
supplemental to that in order to go to a Type 48, a public
premise, but they have not yet.~done so. Mr. Johnson has made a
request that ABC cannot comply with until they come forward with
other documents.
John Johnson. They have done their best. If it was not for the
Council's recommendation, they would not have sat down with the
people as they did. They know exactly where they are coming from
and vice versa. They are not trying to bypass the CUP
requirements. They want to operate a bonafide eating
establishment which he feels eventually will be heard in court.
Sergeant Harold Mittmann. What Mr. Johnson originally
represented before the Commission, the City and those people who
are neighbors, is different from what he needs to apply for now
as a result of knowing from ABC and the Police Department the
license he intended to put in.
It is a different license and different type of business. As a
result of knowing what kind of modifications or changes that have
been made in the applicant's process to place the business within
the complex, another survey was done including the businesses in
the complex which showed out of fifteen, three are closed, six
objected to the bar, three had no objection and three no
opinion. It was different at the time the original plans went
before the Commission. In the interim, the plans have changed
because of the requirements of ABC. Now it is understood the
business will have a different license, different age
requirement, etc., and as a result the survey did show that the
neighboring businesses do not agree on the type of business they
want in their complex. The statistics compiled by the Police
Department through the assistance of the other businesses show
that there is an above average number of calls for police
services at a number of Mr. Johnson's businesses in other cities
in the County. It is the Police Department's position in view of
these statistics that this is not the type of business the City
wants to adopt and if this is the way business is being operated
in the other towns and type of police response the other cities
are experiencing, it would seem to reason unless there is a
82
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 4, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
radical change, the City of Anaheim could expect the same type of
calls for service. Mr. Johnson at the earlier meeting stated he
was unaware Fullerton had that many calls for services at his
place of business.
John Johnson. He does not know how (Mittmann) surveyed the other
people in the center - how he posed the question or was it just a
general question. There has been no opposition to the proposal.
There has been no change. They have never misrepresented the
operation to anybody. ABC and the Police Department have opposed
the bonafide eating establishment because of the 50% food
requirement. They have been forced into a corner. He does not
know of anybody who could guarantee 50%. They have already met
with the City of Fullerton's Police Department and intend to have
more meetings. They are not a business that causes anybody
trouble. He believes that if they feel there is a problem in
Fullerton, it will be resolved. There have been two calls per
month over the past year which is not abnormal.
Leonard Johnson. They work with the Police Department in most
cases if there is a problem. They have undercover agents working
with them to take care of some of the drug problems that
everybody knows about. They would work with any police officer
that came to the establishment.
Mayor Hunter asked to hear from anybody who wished to speak either in favor or
in opposit ion.
Mr. Leo Hana, Property Manager of the shopping center. He has a letter from
the church in the shopping center, Mr. Bob Kopeny, the pastor. He could not
attend the meeting. Basically he states that he is not going to oppose the
request. After having been contacted by the Zoning Department, he does not
oppose the establishment of the new business. The landlord has been holding
the space for over a year. It has gone vacant for that entire period. They
would appreciate a quick resolution of the situation.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION -
IN OPPOSITION:
Diane Lustig, 1067 Grand Canyon, Brea. She is employed at
Calvary Chapel as Director of Children's and Women's Ministry at
3~56 and 3~80
proposed application. They are a church with meetings on Sunday
morning and Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday evening. One of the
two buildings they occupy is directly adjacent to the proposed
sports bar. The faCility is used primarily for the Children's
Ministry and only on Thursday evening used by the high school
youth group. She believes there would be conflicts. They use
the entire parking lot for two-thirds of Sunday so parking will
be an issue. They have children walking from the main sanctuary
to the Children's Ministry building taking them directly in front
of the sports bar. People leaving the bar intoxicated would be a
83
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 4, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
concern. They have approximately 70 children and it would not be
a good influence on them. Pastor Kopeny had made a commitment
very early on he would not oppose. He was under the
understanding it was to be a restaurant. He is not present and
cannot speak to the matter. He knows that she is present. She
was hired by the church to take care of the Children's and
Women's Ministry and this is a part of her obligation. It is
imperative that a business of this type not be allowed directly
next door to children. If it is approved, she intends to
formally protest to the ABC.
Adams Lustig, 1067 Grand Canyon, Brea. He is part of the
leadership board and an elder of Calvary Chapel Placentia. His
wife expressed the concerns. Church elders have the same
concerns. There are two issues - traffic and children and what
they would be exposed to on Sunday morning. Congestion in and
out of the sports complex and also the police activity would be
very detrimental. He hopes that the Council members will
reconsider the matter.
City Attorney White. Mr. Johnson has now received a copy of the
staff report and recommendation during the time testimony was
being taken. It is now in his possession.
John Johnson. He is sorry this has developed into what it has.
They were led to believe from day one the church was not in
opposition or would oppose. They operated in good faith in
proceeding. They have done everything in the City of Anaheim to
operate by the City's requirements and recommendations and to
work with everybody in the jurisdiction to discuss the matter
openly and honestly. It is disconcerting to get down to over a
year and lots of money spent to find out they are a "bad guy~
which they are not. There are good and bad bars. This
particular operation will be a flag ship operation -
cook-your-own-steak, etc., they wanted a higher class clientele,
a family environment and still do their efforts in that area were
thwarted by the Police Department and through the Police
Department to the ABC. There is no intent to change the
operation except they would not be able to have anyone under 21
years of age at the business.
Leonard Johnson. He thanked the Council for any consideration
they can give in this matter.
COUNCIL ACTION: Mayor Hunter closed the public hearing.
City Attorney White. Prior to Council deliberation, he would like to refocus
on the issues. This particular business currently has a CUP to operate as a
bar to sell alcoholic beverages in conjunction with a bar and grill. That CUP
by its own terms will expire on August 26, 1992 unless it is extended by the
Planning Commission or City Council. Tonight's hearing is not a decision on
the sale of alcoholic beverages. That permit has been given by the City
84
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 4, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
already. Tonight the decisions relate to two ancillary uses proposed to be
conducted in conjunction with the bar and grill. The first is the pool room
permit and the second is the arcade permit. The only thing the Council is
considering is whether under the terms in the Anaheim Municipal Code facts
exist to grant either a pool room or an arcade permit. The Council's decision
tonight will have no effect on whether or not the Alcoholic Beverage sales
portion of this business does or does not continue under the existing CUP which
will expire later this year unless it is extended.
Council Member Daly. The police recommendation which recommends against
granting the permit summarizes a total of 177 police calls to the four other
locations that are owned by the business - Westminster, Stanton, Huntington
Beach and Fullerton, the majority of those in the past year. That tells the
major part of the story. Based on experience in other cities, this will be a
burden on community safety and law enforcement staff. He is going to oppose
both applications.
Council Member Ehrle. He would tend to agree. They do not have a good track
record in other cities. The Council is in favor of the small business person,
but not those that are going to be a drain on the City's resources. To approve
this would be contrary to what the Council is trying to do in the City.
Council Member Simpson. He understands their CUP expires on August 26, 1992.
He asked what happens if it is not extended and the Council votes favorably on
the permits tonight.
City Attorney White. If the Council grants one or both of the permits and the
CUP is not extended, the ABC on-sale portion of the business would be required
to be terminated. It would not have an effect directly upon the pool room or
the arcade. The CUP only relates to alcoholic beverage sales. The pool room
and arcade could continue to operate irrespective of the termination of the
sale of alcoholic beverages. That would be in theory.
Council Member Simpson. It would be a good test for the Council and Police
Department to find out what the response experience is at that location and
probably a good incentive for the owner.
MOTION: Council Member Hunter moved that the application of John Hilding
Johnson to operate 15 billiard tables at 3478 E. Orangethorpe Avenue be denied
on the grounds that by reason of the location where the pool room is sought to
be located, the carrying on of the pool room would be detrimental to the public
health, public order or public morals for the following reason..
1. That the proposed location is within a shopping center
located at 3478 E. Orangethorpe Avenue.
2. That the owner and proposed operator of the proposed
pool room has other similar businesses already existing
in Orange County.
3. That a review of such other similar businesses
indicates that such businesses have been the site of an
excessive number of police contacts for alleged
criminal activities, including activities involving
drunkenness, drugs and/or weapons.
85
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 4, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
4. That such activities would be detrimental to the
surrounding properties and the character of the area in
which the proposed use would be located.
5. That such activities would adversely affect the safety
of the patrons and operators of other businesses in the
shopping center and adversely effect the public order
by requiring an inordinate amount of police responses
to the site.
Council Member Daly seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
..MOTION: Council Member Hunter moved that Arcade Permit Application No. 1011 to
permit up to 15 amusement devices at 3478 E. Orangethorpe Avenue be denied on
the grounds that such activity would be contrary to the public interest,
health, safety, morals or general welfare for the following reasons:
1. That the proposed location is within a shopping center
located at 3478 E. Orangethorpe Avenue.
2. That the owner and proposed operator of the proposed
pool room has other similar businesses already existing
in Orange County.
3. That a review of such other similar businesses
indicates that such businesses have been the site of an
excessive number of police contacts for alleged
criminal activities, including activities involving
drunkenness, drugs and/or weapons.
4. That such activities would be detrimental to the
surrounding properties and the character of the area in
which the proposed use would be located.
5. That such activities would adversely affect the safety
of the patrons and operators of other businesses in the
shopping center and adversely affect the public order
by requiring an inordinate amount of police responses
to the site.
Council Member Daly seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
D2. 179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2876 AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION~
OWNER: DAVID CHAVEZ, 4420 E. La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92807.
AGENT: JIM A. MARQUEZ, PLANNING DESIGN, 1860 S. Elena Ave., Ste. A,
Redondo Beach, CA 90277.
LOCATION/REQUEST: The property is located at 4420 East La Palma
Avenue and is approximately 1.8 acres located on the south side of La
Palma Avenue and approximately 300 feet west of the centerline of
Lakeview Avenue.
The request is for an amendment to conditions of approval pertaining
to time limitation to retain a recreational vehicle storage yard and
caretaker's residence.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
86
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 4, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
CUP NO. 2876 APPROVED, 10-year time extension, (PC91-207) (6 yes
votes, 1 absent).
Approved Negative Declaration.
HEARING SET ON:
A letter of appeal was submitted by the agent, Jim Marquez and public hearing
scheduled this date.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin - January 23, 1992
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - January 23, 1992
Posting of property- January 24, 1992
PLANNING STAFF INPUT:
See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated December 16, 1991.
APPLICANT ' S
STATEMENT:
Jim Marquez representing recreational vehicles storage at 4420 E.
La Palma, Anaheim, 92807.
The owners of the subject property have appeared the past
twenty-two years before City agencies six different times. There
have been four meetings granting extensions with the Orange
County Planning Commission and two actions by the Anaheim
Planning Commission. The business has operated since 1970 with
no violations or code enforcement problems. The owner has
maintained in each Agency business licenses and accurate accrual
of receipts. The need is to demonstrate to the Council that the
use is hardly temporary. He thereupon relayed the history of the
business (see letter dated November 6, 1991 from Mr. Marquez
previously submitted). The property was annexed to the City in
1986 and granted a five-year extension of use by the City
Planning Commission at that time. Everything the owner has been
asked to do by the City has been done relative to improvements.
He wishes to continue the operation of recreational storage on
the property and not be required to appear before City offices in
the future. It is a burden on Government to have him come in and
as the applicant grows older, it will be a personal burden on him
as well.
Mayor Hunter noted that the Plannin~ Commission ~ranted a ten-year extension of
the use to expire December 1, 2001 and the applicant is requesting twenty-five
years. He asked to hear from staff.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator. He did originally asked for
substantially more than 25 years and it was reduced. The original concern
staff had was with some of the Redevelopment types of efforts in the northeast
industrial area. This property is somewhat different because it is
agriculturally zoned. In practical terms what will happen to the property if
the Council goes along with further time or deletes the limitation, they will
stay as long as they wish and at some time when the economy improves, they will
be prepared to sell or do something else.
87
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 4, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
Jim Marquez. Answering Council Member Pickler who suggested fifteen years, at
that time his client will be 70 years of age and it would be easier if he did
not have to come back to the City again for an additional extension. Mr.
Chavez is looking for longevity. His business has proven to be a long-term
use. A period less than 25 years in his mind seems to be a burden.
Mr. David Chavez, owner. The main reason he would like to have an unlimited
amount of time is because the business has proven to be a need and the reason
he started the business. It has proven to be beneficial for that area.
Mayor Hunter. That is not the issue. Ten years from now, what Mr. Chavez is
doing on that property may not be the best and highest use for the property or
for him (Chavez). There may be a 20-story building there. The Council will
perhaps give another 10 years, but probably not 25 years.
David Chavez. If there is another use, whoever buys the business/property will
have to get a Conditional Use Permit. He wants to eliminate the time of coming
back and going through the process. He originally requested that there be no
time limit at all. He confirmed for Council Member Daly his dealings with the
County have now ceased.
COUNCIL ACTION: Mayor Hunter closed the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Council
Member Ehrle, seconded by Council Member Hunter, the City Council approved the
negative declaration upon finding that it has considered the negative
declaration together with any comments received during the public review
process, and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments
received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a
significant effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was read
by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 92R-23)
Council Member Ehrle moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Council Member Hunter seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Council Member Ehrle offered Resolution No. 92R-23 for adoption, amending
conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2876 and extending the
operative term of the permit for 10 years. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 92R-23: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IN CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 2876 AND AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. PC87-17.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Simpson, Ehrle, Pickler, Daly and Hunter
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 92R-23 duly passed and adopted.
88
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 4, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
Council Member Daly. He explained he has to catch a plane and, therefore, must
leave the meeting at this time. If he has to break a tie on the forthcoming
public hearing, if it comes to that, he will do so at the next meeting.
Council Member Daly left the Council Chamber. (7:11 p.m. )
D3. 179.- PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 1323, CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 21:
INITIATED BY: CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION, 200 S. Anaheim
Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805.
PROPERTY OWNER: JOSEPH AND EMANUELA DI RUGGIERO, 33010 S. Wilmington
Avenue, Ste. 200, Carson, CA 90745
BUSINESS OWNERS: CARL AND FRANCESKA HONIGMANN, P.O. BOX 2352, ANAHEIM,
CA 92814.
LOCATION: 2230 West Colchester Drive. Property is aPproximately 0.85
acre located at the southeast corner of Colchester Drive and Colony
Street.
To consider the termination, or modification of Variance No. 1323 to
permit the sale of beer in conjunction with a restaurant, under
authority of Section 18.03.091 of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Variance No. 1323 - The Planning Commission denied modification.
Variance terminated (PC91-195) (7 yes votes).
HEARING SET ON:
A letter of appeal of the Planning Commission's decision was submitted by
Farano & Kieviet, Attorneys on behalf of Carl and Francesca Honigmann, owners
of the Barbary Coast.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Anaheim Bulletin - January 24, 1992
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - January 23, 1992
Posting of property- January 24, 1992
City Attorney White. He is recommending a slight deviation from the normal
procedure - that the Council first hear from the appellant who is the operator
of the facility or his representative and then hear from all of those who are
in favor of continuing the operation, i.e., those opposed to the action taken
by the Planning Commission and then hear from those opposed to continuing the
operation and finally giving the appellant an opportunity to offer any rebuttal
and summation before closing the public hearing.
Jeff Farano, Attorney, Farano & Kieviet, 100 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 340,
Anaheim, representing the owners of the Barbary Coast, Carl and Franceska
Honigmann. He submitted to the Council on January 29, 1992, a letter setting
forth the basis of the appeal. He would like to refer to that letter and
attachments and have the document entered as a matter of record (see letter
dated January 29, 1992 with attachments/exhibits).
City Attorney White. He again announced for all those who intend to testify
and were not previously sworn, that they stand to be sworn in at this time by
the City Clerk; City Clerk Sohl swore in those who were standing asking them
first to raise their right hand.
89
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 4, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
Jeff Farano. (1) The issue is not the question of granting a Conditional Use
Permit or any type of operating authority for this location, but rather a
consideration of revoking an existing permit. (2) The standard of review for
revocation should be stronger than the standard deciding whether or not to
grant a CUP. (3) Are the charges and allegations which will be heard tonight
specific to the Barbary Coast or generic to the type of use which is before the
Council tonight. If the City is not satisfied with the type of use in this
area, a bar, it will then be a legislative action, a zone change or a general
plan amendment as opposed to revocation. (4) If the City considers the
business to be a problem, the City has an obligation to consider alternative
means to correcting the problem that might be generating from the business.
(5) Has the Barbary Coast changed its use from its original use permit approved
in 1961 or has the zoning code changed creating a non-conforming use. His
clients, although sensitive to the problems in the area, are not the cause of
the problems but it appears they are becoming a victim of the problems. They
are willing to take whatever steps necessary to correct whatever problems
generate from the business. He then turned the presentation over to the owner
of the business, Karl Honigmann.
Karl Honigmann. He and his wife have owned the business since May of 1985.
Before making their final purchase, they checked with the Planning Department
to clarify the status of the business and to ascertain if all permits were set
up properly and were notified that all permits were up-to-date. They thereupon
purchased the business. They took their life savings, $60,000 and put it into
the business. It was an ideal location for them. It is a very low profile
business. They run a clean operation. When they purchased it, it was called
"The Alibi" and consisted of on-sale beer and wine and some food was sold,
i.e., hot dogs, packaged foods, etc. There were three pool tables and three
amusement machines. There were no kitchen facilities. From 1968 to 1992,
there has never been a restaurant operation at that location and there has
never been a kitchen. In 1968, the business applied for and received an
entertainment license which allowed one dancer on a stage to entertain the
clientele. Their operation today consists of two pool tables, they still serve
beer and wine, hot dogs, pizzas and other packaged foods.
The Barbary Coast employs fifteen people. Their employees are married people
and people with children, single parents and a few who are not tied down. They
~o no% run an a~sen%ee owner~h£p. H£~ wife i~ at the bu~ine~ seven days a
week. They try to do a thorough check on all their employees. If any
employees break the rules, ABC rules, City codes and additional rules imposed
upon them, those employees are terminated. They have monthly meetings where
they reinforce company rules. They constantly stress anti-drugs and no serving
to minors. Their employees are instructed to notify him, his wife or the
bouncers if anyone offers drugs or asked if they know where drugs are being
sold. Those persons are kicked out of the bar permanently. They will not
serve "bikers". Some gang members have tried to come into the bar and through
diplomatic means they have been able to get that activity out of the bar. They
have closed circuit TV both inside and outside the bar monitoring all
activities. Bouncers are instructed not only to take care of what is going on
inside but also outside. Bouncers are instructed to check IDs. They do not
have any special events like other bars. They live up to the letter of the
·
permit they received. On a good night, there are about ten to fifteen
customers and a really good night there are about twenty-five. Most of their
90
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 4, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
customers are regulars, a mixture of blue collar and white collar patrons and a
lot of people from the neighborhood. He also briefed the Council on law
enforcement people who are regular customers.
There is no loitering going on outside of the Barbary Coast. They share the
center with another organization. There are sixteen suites but one other major
tenant, Serenity Hall Drug and Alcohol Rehabilitation Center. That facility
has meetings at all hours of the day and evening and parties on the weekends.
When they do, the doors are open both front and back. There is a lot of ruckus
going on which flows out into the parking lot. At the Barbary Coast when a
patron comes into the bar, the door closes behind them. Last year, Serenity
Hall was selling sleeping space inside the business for $96 which went on for a
good six months. If there are disturbances that occur in the parking lot
directly related to the Barbary Coast, they take care of the situation. He
then explained a Police Department sting operation. The only financial
interest they have at the location is the business. They do not own the center
or the building. They do what they can to run an honest business. He is
asking the Council to weigh their decision on this business and this business
only. He has no control over other businesses.
Mayor Hunter opened the public hearing and asked first to hear from those in
favor of retaining the Barbary Coast to speak.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION -
IN FAVOR:
Steven Tortamella, 13463 Banning, Alta Loma. He is Chief
Manufacturing Officer of a manufacturing firm located in the area
of the Barbary Coast. His business employs approximately 200
people. Some frequent the Barbary Coast. The bar is clean and
friendly. He became a patron over the past year to find out what
the interest was there. He is very pleased with the actions of
the owners who take an active part in monitoring their business.
He has attended the bar different hours of the day and not once
has he seen an altercation at the bar. It is unjust and unfair
that the Council should try to revoke the variance.
Roy Craven, 9781 Omar Place, Garden Grove, a few blocks from the
Barbary Coast. It makes it convenient to have a pool game or a
couple of beers after work. He just moved from Montana and is
happy to find a place he can frequent that makes him feel at home
and comfortable. He has seen no violence or trouble whatsoever.
It would be unjust for the business to have to close not only for
the owners but also for the families who make a living there.
Albert J. Masingo, long time property owner in the City but now a
resident of 53 Los Coyotes Drive, Mission Hill Estates, Phillips
Ranch. He was raised in Anaheim. He frequents the Barbary Coast
because he feels safe there. He enjoys pool and a beer. People
his age frequent the bar and are in the same type of economic
level as he is. He is a businessman. He has never seen anything
91
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 4, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
wrong at the different times and different days he has been at
the business. People he is acquainted with in the bar are
retired people. He has no idea why the City wants to revoke the
license.
Chon Alarcon, 723 S. Philadelphia, Anaheim. He works near the
Barbary Coast. He used to go there when it was the Alibi. There
was bad business going on at that time so he stopped going.
Since the Honigmanns have taken over, it is a clean run
operation.
Bunny Monteferara, 1540 W. Ball Road, Anaheim. He is the bouncer
at Barbary Coast. A few weeks ago, police officers through a
sting operation, brought minors into the bar. He carded them and
when they said they had no ID, they left the bar. He followed
them outside and then expressed his concern over the sting
operation which he feels is wrong. He tries to keep things safe
inside and outside the bar.
Jeffrey Howerton, 624 E. Domino, Anaheim. His wife works at
Barbary Coast. They have two children and he needs her to work
there. He is in construction work and it is very slow right
now. If the business is closed down, they will be on welfare.
It is a pretty nice bar.
Gus Lopez, Fullerton. He visits other places like this
establishment but does not go back to them because they are
violent and they over serve their customers. At Barbary Coast he
has seen them refuse beer to people. People are friendly and he
never feels threatened. They asked him to come tonight because
they are being closed down. He could not see this happening in
Orange County. It is not the prettiest, but it is a decent
place.
Mr. Gary Schnabel, 11231 Gilbert, Garden Grove. He owns Serenity
Hall which is in the same center. He is not in opposition to the
business (Barbary Coast) and has no interest whatsoever. He was
informed by some of his patrons that the finger has been pointed
to Serenity Hall. Never at anytime have they rented out space
for sleeping. He and his wife have owned the hall for the last
thr~ ¥~ar~. It ia a community ~rvie~ business. They provid~ a
clean and sober place. He does not have a problem with the bar,
but with being accused of causing problems which they do not
cause. Serenity Hall is doing a fine job at that location.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION -
IN OPPOSITION:
PG Schroyer, 835 Brookhurst. There is considerable noise and
traffic. There is loud language, cars revving and cars "gunning#
down the alley. They drive out real fast. The Alpha Beta store
locks its doors and the only reason he feels they do so is to
keep out the undesirables. He would appreciate the Council
giving them relief from this nuisance situation.
92
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 4, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
John Moses, 9881 Marian, Anaheim. He is an Anaheim businessman
and has a wife and two children. He is concerned about crime and
violence in Anaheim, especially on and off south Brookhurst. He
is not going to attack the credibility of the business but will
let the records of the Police Department do that. He has lived
in the area nearly 30 years. Three days before he moved into the
subject area in 1990, there was a newspaper article about
Brookhurst Street between Broadway and Ball Road as being the
highest concentration of bars in Orange County. They are right
over his back yard fence. From the day they moved in, there have
been sirens, motorcycles, cars revving, screaming, and police
helicopters every night. If the Council works with the
residents, they can clean up the City before it is too late.
There is a concentration of liquor licenses in this short range -
approximately 32 within a mile. It is the Council's
responsibility to take care of people's safety before their
entertainment.
Gary Honeycutt, 418 S. Gain, Anaheim, representing the Orange
Avenue Homeowner's Association. He has been before the Council
many times. They want to preserve their quality of life. It is
not necessarily this City Council's problem for what happened in
the past but he feels there is an opportunity to listen to people
of the community. They want to live there, shop there and walk
there. He relayed an incident which took place personally
involving him. He appreciates what was said as far as the bar
trying to clean up their act. The problem arises not from what
is in the bar but what they send out of the bar and into the
community. The only way the problem can be solved in the City is
to take the appropriate action and revoke licenses when
appropriate to do so.
Patricia Daniel, 9882 Marian Avenue, Anaheim. She has a $285,000
investment in her home. Her property values are going down and
it is germane to this case. The bar wants to stay in business
because of financial profit and she wants to protect her home for
the same reason. She is concerned with patrons leaving this bar
and other bars in the area, being noisy, running ~hrough yar~s
and walking home from the bar. Hers is one of the yards. She
has small children in her home that she is responsible for. The
bar owner said that they have fifteen or twenty customers a night
and on weekends possibly thirty-five. They have fifteen
employees and at the last hearing wanted to hire fifteen more.
She feels their small number of customers must be drinking a lot
to support the business and that is what the neighbors are
concerned about. This is a high crime area and any further bars,
additions or enlargements are only going to exacerbate the
problems. After the last hearing when she and her friend were
leaving the Council meeting, they were threatened with bodily
injury by two of the young women who testified on behalf of the
bar and told them they will get their bar gang after them. The
neighborhood is being run down. The citizens of Anaheim have
93
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 4, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
every right to expect the Council to support them. The
entertainment of ten, fifteen, twenty-five or thirty-five people
have nothing to do with safety, security, piece of mind and
protection of the assets of several hundred Anaheim citizens.
Attorney, Jeff Farano. He emphasized this is not a decision
whether to grant a CUP or any type of permit, but a decision
whether to revoke an existing permit which has been in existence
since 1961. A revocation of that use permit requires specific
evidence as to whether the business is creating a nuisance or an
endangerment to the health, safety and welfare of the local
residence. It must be specific to the Barbary Coast and not to a
generic or overall problem.
Mayor Hunter. He interjected and stated before Mr. Farano
completes his summation, the Council should hear from Sergeant
Mittmann or someone from the Police Department as to why they are
recommending revocation of the variance.
Sergeant Harold Mittmann. Based upon statistics they have
accumulated and the experience the Police Department has had with
Barbary Coast in the past couple of years, he cannot represent
the Police Department and say this business warrants full
revocation as it does not measure in percentage and intensity a
degree of problem compared to other problem locations in town.
The business owners and attorney have pointed that out. The
Police Department never represented calls for service to
represent anything that may be interpreted as out of control or
not being manageable. There have been a number of problems, but
not an out-of-control problem. To address anything else he does
not think would create an accurate picture other than for
Council's clarification and information as it relates to the ABC
incident and the sting operation as referred to by the business
owner and the bouncer. It is an operation the Police
Department's Vice Unit conducts on a routine basis. On that
particular evening, they visited fifteen establishments - from
the Barbary Coast, to liquor stores, to other places and just
conducting routine inspections. The Barbary Coast did a fine
job, they turned away the decoy as they should have. Challenging
anyone out in the parking lot would be questionable as to whether
or not that is the bouncer's business or if he is asking for
trouble. The Police Department has shown the statistics and as
they relate to other businesses, Barbary Coast is not the worst
place in town and does not represent an out-of-control problem
for the City.
John Poole, Code Enforcement Manager. Reviewing the report that
Mr. Farano submitted to the Council, one of the things it said,
of the thirty complaints, only one could be traced to the Barbary
Coast. That is one address. In their original report, they said
the thirty complaints were on 22301 Colchester. The whole little
center is somewhat of a problem. Many of the complaints are the
94
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 4, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
Barbary Coast. They are saying they are not the Barbary Coast
but their sign was up there with the others. He wanted to make
the point to make certain it is clear. Staff, when they brought
the matter before the Planning Commission, gave the Planning
Commission two decisions that they could make with a hearing of
this type. The variance can be modified or it can be
terminated. Their original staff report made recommendations for
the modification of the use permit if the Council or the Planning
Commission chose to do so. He does feel the permit is being
exercised beyond what it originally was. If the Council does not
choose to terminate it, it should be modified and the
recommendations made previously at the Planning Commission would
address a lot of the problems.
City Attorney White then explained for the Mayor how the issue is
before the Council tonight.
Mr. White also explained that the Council needed to allow
Mr. Farano not only to complete his summation, but also to the
extent that Sergeant Mittmann or Mr. Poole introduced new
evidence that Mr. Farano feels needs additional testimony to
rebut, he should also have that opportunity. New evidence has
been introduced relating to the case, Mr. Farano should be
afforded the opportunity if he needs to present additional
testimony.
Council Member Ehrle. Referring to the December 16, 1991, staff
report stated he needed to know if it is true and accurate
because it is important and germane. He then read the incidents
that had occurred which were listed in the report on page 4, at
the conclusion of which he stated the report shows that over a
two-year period or 104 weeks there were 84 police calls; Council
Member Simpson asked that he read the sentence following the
listing.
council Member Ehrle. Fourteen percent (14%) were taken from the
Barbary Coast. His question to the Police Department, this is a
eomDl~t~ ~h0DDin~ e~nt~r and th~ C0uneil iL b~in~ a~k~d to tak~ a
license to operate away from a business owner in that center.
Should they be looking at the entire shopping center in terms of
a Conditional Use Permit and what is happening in the entire
block.
Sergeant Mittmann. He agrees it is an accurate report but for
clarification, the bulk of the calls for service and what is
represented as Police responses can be broken into two sections -
the actual reports taken and those reports that require police
attention that do not result in a formal report being taken.
When they do the statistical background for this type of report,
they can query the computer by asking the address.
Unfortunately, in this complex it is hard to break those down.
The bulk of the calls for police service did not result in a
formal report and did carry the police computer address of
95
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 4, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
2230 W. Colchester. Whether or not directly related to the
Barbary Coast or any of the other businesses that did not result
in a formal report they cannot say. As a matter of
consideration, it has been their experience many times people in
the neighborhood fatigue of calling the police every time there
is a problem. Possibly there is a difference between actual
calls for service and calls that they do not make. Statistics
can be misleading.
Council Member Ehrle. The owner of the facility testified he is
not responsible for all of the crime and police calls in
Anaheim. He agrees with him on that. There are a number of
cases that can be directly attributed to the facility; however,
according to the police as he understands, they cannot pin point
those arrests or disturbances attributed to the Barbary Coast.
Sergeant Mittmann stated that is correct.
SUMMATION BY ATTORNEY
FOR THE APPLICANT:
Jeff Farano. Mr. Farano's summation briefed much of the material
contained in his letter/report of January 29, 1992 to the City
Council, pages 1-7 with supporting documentation attached as
exhibits (see report previously made a part of the record). He
also elaborated further on some of the issues brought forth in
the testimony given, emphasizing specific areas. Relative to the
summary of calls listed in the December 16, 1991 staff report, it
does not refer to 2230 West Colchester but to the 2200 block of
Colchester. Relative to the thirty-two ABC Licenses issued along
the subject strip of Brookhurst, those involve liquor stores,
Alpha Beta, mini-markets, restaurants and others and not just
bars. Picking out one bar and closing it down is not the way to
solve the problem. That section of the City is not becoming more
run down than some other sections of the City. Mention was made
that home values are going down because of the bar. The question
is, was the bar in existence before the neighbors purchased their
homes. In revoking licenses of these type of businesses,
revocation must be done fairly across the City. There can be no
discrimination. The last exhibit in the packet of material
refers to the Wounded Knee and that business was granted an
~nt~rtainm~nt p~rmit to do ~xaetl¥ what th~ Barbary C0a~t is
doing and it is located within 100 yards of the Barbary Coast.
Referring to the Planning Commission staff report, it recommends
besides revocation an alternative of modification. There are
some alternatives available.
Mr. Farano then read the recommendations on page 6 of the staff
report to the Planning Commission dated December 16, 1991 if the
establishment is allowed to remain in operation. Relative to
alternative (A), the business does not wish to expand at this
time. There is not enough room for a kitchen area if it is to
occupy no less than 25% of the existing floor area. They do
96
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 4, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
serve foods - packaged foods, pizzas, hot dogs, potato chips and
other packaged foods they are able to sell. They had attempted
to sell something more in the past, but the ABC said they could
not serve the hamburgers they attempted to sell. Relative to
alternative (B) providing a uniform security guard from 6:00 p.m.
to one-half hour after closing, it is more extreme than what they
would be able to handle. If absolutely necessary, they would
agree to an additional bouncer. They believe Serenity Hall is
where the loitering is coming from. He also clarified that they
are not accusing the present owner of Serenity Hall of people
sleeping at the facility. It was his understanding it was the
previous owner. Relative to alternative (C) reducing the noise
level, they already have governors on the CD players and nobody
is allowed to turn those up. Standing outside the premises,
there is no noise level which is unreasonable. If the City wants
to check this, he invited them to do so. Relative to a condition
that is not listed which he is willing to suggest, a probationary
period of one year to come back in one year to review the Code
Enforcement and Police calls for the premises and to see whether
this business is causing the problems alleged. These are the
types of alternatives that have been used in the past with other
businesses such as Angelos. Rather than closing them down, they
would like to try to create solutions.
COUNCIL ACTION: Mayor Hunter closed the public hearing.
City Attorney White. For purposes of the record, he stated the following are
the documents currently in the record: Two letters received from Mr. Farano
dated January 6, 1992 and January 29, 1992 together with all attachments to the
January 29, 1992 letter, Planning Commission Resolution PC91-195, staff report
to the Planning Commission dated December 16, 1991, two exhibits posted on the
west wall of the Council Chamber, and the original application, Police
Department file and a record of the proceedings approving Variance No. 1323
conducted back in 1961.
council Men%her Pickler. After listening to all the testimony, he feels it is
up to the Council to clean up the area. This business is detrimental to health
and ~af~ty and eon~titut~ a nuisance. Mo~ p~opl~ who ~~£~£~ ~ n~ l£v~
in the area. This can be a starting point to clean up the area. He does not
live far from the location. Problems are caused by people who come to the area
whether to the Barbary Coast or whichever establishment. The only way to
eliminate the problems is by closing something that is a nuisance and a
detriment to the area. His motion is going to be to terminate the variance.
Council Member Simpson. He shares the concern about the area. While he is in
complete sympathy with the people living in the neighborhood, he has driven it
more than one time and has also met with the Orange Avenue Homeowner's
Association to share their concerns. He agrees thirty-two liquor permits in
1 mile is too much. There is also a plethora of bars in the area as well. He
has not heard enough tonight in compelling evidence that the Council can
legally close the business down and make it stand. There is not enough
evidence pointing directly to the Barbary Coast and he would have a difficult
time voting against the variance.
97
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 4, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
Mayor Hunter. They do want to clean up the area along Brookhurst from Broadway
to Ball on both sides. The issue is tonight, from the evidence by the Police
Department, whether there is compelling evidence to revoke and terminate a
business. He believes a wiser thing to do at this time is to put some strict
new conditions on the establishment - uniformed security guard, a semi-annual
(every six months) review on the whole establishment. As Sergeant Mittmann
stated, it is difficult to pin point and say that all of the incidents are
occurring at the Barbary Coast or the 2200 block of Colchester. If the owner
does not comply with the new restrictions, he would be the first to completely
revoke the license, but at this time he does not know if there is enough
evidence present for him to revoke the man's business; there is not enough
proof. He reiterated he would recommend strict conditions, the first being
uniformed security. At the Planning Commission there was a recommendation that
the establishment be subject to some type of annual review. He feels because
of the volatility of the situation, that it ought to be on a six-months review
and that the matter be brought back to the Council in six months. He also
feels it is incumbent upon the owner of the Barbary Coast to go to the owner of
the property and let him know if he is not cleaning up his parcel, he is
putting the Barbary Coast out of business. If the future report is that they
do not know where the calls are coming from, that is not going to be good
enough for him. That is where he is at - imposing strict conditions and
bringing the matter back in six months and if they have not cleaned up the
situation and there is more compelling evidence, terminate the license.
Council Member Ehrle. He asked if in the past two years there has been a
record of any arrest in the establishment for drugs or if arrests have taken
place because of drugs. His decision is going to weigh on are there crimes of
drugs or prostitution - reasons the business should be shut down legally.
Other disturbances that are taking place could probably be found in other such
establishments.
Sergeant Mittmann. Results of recent undercover work, as recent as the major
portion of 1991, reveal that undercover investigators did not purchase
narcotics inside the business, did not purchase narcotics from patrons or
employees and did not even see a narcotics transaction inside the bar. What
investigators did see were those violations filed with ABC having to do with
lewd conduct and those accusations were filed. Council Member Ehrle is correct
in referring to the calls for service as very consistent with bars. Answering
the question, there were no drug sales at the time they were conducting their
operation.
Council Member Ehrle. The Council can impose stricter conditions such as
reviewing the variance every six months, added security, etc. If there are not
specific criminal acts taking place in the facility, he has a difficult time
revoking the business even though he supports the homeowners, residence and
businesses in the area.
Council Member Hunter stated he was going to offer the resolution finding that
Variance No. 1323 is being exercised contrary to the terms of its approval and
in a manner detrimental to the public health or safety in constituting a
nuisance and,, therefore, modifying Variance No. 1323 by the addition of new
98
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 4, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
conditions of operations set forth in paragraph 17 on page 6 of the staff
report dated December 16, 1991, including the following conditions:
That the variance shall be limited to a period of six
months to terminate on a date six months from today,
that the business owner shall provide a uniformed
security guard every business day from 6:00 p.m. to
one-half hour after closing (6:00 p.m. to 2:30 a.m.),
that the business owner shall incorporate measures to
reduce noise levels emanating from the subject
establishment.
Sergeant Mittmann. Answering Council Member Ehrle, from his experience knowing
what kind of activities take place at the bars, things do not start until later
in the evening. At 6:00 o'clock, people are coming home and having meals
starting to go out to their establishments around 8:00 o'clock.
Council Member Ehrle. He recommended limiting hours of operation to 12:00
midnight; Mayor Hunter. The business is going to be reviewed in six months.
He feels it is better to leave it as staff recommended. If the situation is
going to fall apart, it will do so in six months whether a 12:00 midnight or
2:00 a.m. closing time.
City Attorney White. He has tried to iterate for the Council the possible
conditions that would be added to the variance based upon what he has heard and
that would be a starting place for further Council discussions. What he would
suggest is that the following four conditions be added to Variance No. 1323:
1. Substantial food items would at all times be served on
premises for consumption on the premises except that
nothing in this condition shall require the violation
of any applicable law or administrative rule or order.
(That would cover the issue of the ABC not allowing
certain types of food to be sold.)
2. That the business owner shall provide a uniformed
security guard on the exterior of the premises every
bu~in~ day ~m 6..00 p.m. ~ ~n~-hal~ hou~ a~e~
closing.
3. The business owner shall incorporate measures to reduce
noise levels emanating from the subject establishment
to comply with all applicable code requirements. There
are noise limitations existing in the code that should
be complied with.
That this variance would expire six months from this date subject to being
extended for additional periods of time following additional public hearings by
the City Council.
Before acting on the resolution, the Council may want to ask Mr. Farano whether
he would stipulate to those conditions.
99
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 4, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
Mr. White continued that relative to hours of operation, he feels there is
merit in not attempting today to regulate hours and during the six month period
to see whether there is a continued problem with noise after midnight. Me
questioned if a 12:00 o'clock closing time on a bar is reasonable.
Mr. Farano asked clarification on several points - re: substantial food
items. Are they required to serve more than what they are serving now.
City Attorney White. He believes packaged sandwiches and pizza heated in a
microwave constitutes substantial food items. He did not attempt to list
everything. He would agree if they continue to serve sandwiches and pizza, in
his view, that should be considered substantial food items and would not
violate this condition.
Jeff Farano. Relative to reducing noise, they have not heard any evidence of
what the noise problem is. He does not know to what extent they need to reduce
noise and is not sure what they are suppose to do.
City Attorney White. They will need to comply with the existing code relative
to decibels emanating from the property. This is not adding anything new. As
long as they are complying with the existing ordinance, there should not be a
problem.
Jeff Farano. Relative to the uniformed security guard, he asked if that meant
an armed guard or just a person out on the premises with a uniform to create a
situation of control over the parking lot; City Attorney White answered the
latter was correct.
Jeff Farano. The owner will than stipulate to those conditions for the six
months.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Council
Member Hunter, seconded by Council Member Simpson, 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. Council Member Daly was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
WAIVER OF READING - RESOLUTION: The title of the following resolution was read
by the City Clerk. (Resolution No. 92R-24)
Council Member Hunter moved to waive the reading in full of the resolution.
Council Member Simpson seconded the motion. Council Member Daly was absent.
MOTION CARRIED.
Council Member Hunter offered Resolution No. 92R-24 for adoption, modifying
Variance No. 1323 incorporating the four conditions articulated by the City
Attorney and stipulated to by Mr. Farano. Refer to Resolution Book.
Before a vote was taken, Council Member Pickler stated he is going to vote
against the variance. What they are doing takes police time and he does not
think six months is going to fix the situation.
100
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 4, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
Before concluding, Jeff Farano asked if they needed to start with a security
officer tonight or do they have seven days; City Attorney White answered seven
days.
Council Member Ehrle. He is going to reluctantly support the resolution; the
reason being because he does not feel there has been compelling evidence to
warrant full termination of the business. However, at the end of six months he
will be the first to change his vote if he feels the establishment has
continued to be a detriment to the health and safety of the community in the
immediate area. He would hope that City staff will look at other
establishments as well - not just in the Brookhurst area, but any other area in
Anaheim and bring those to the Council's attention on a regular basis. The
only way to solve the problem is by being pro-active
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution:
AYES: Simpson, Ehrle and Hunter
NOES: Pickler
ABSENT: Daly
RESOLUTION NO. 92R-24: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
MODIFYING VARIANCE NO. 1323, AND REVERSING PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION
NO. PC91-195.
ADDITIONAL ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST:
Robert Rodriguez. He owns a business at 328 Orangewood. There are vending
trucks all over Wakefield, Leatrice and Wilken Way which are a problem and
concern.
Mayor Hunter interjected that the Council was informed of the situation at the
meeting of January 28, 1992 (see minutes that date). A report is being
prepared as requested by the Council relative to vending trucks. He asked that
Mr. Rodriguez give his name to staff and he will receive whatever information
comes forth from staff.
Ed Cassidy, 1250 N. State College Boulevard. He would like to speak about the
freeway, ~he ~1 Freeway a~ ~ta~e ¢011e~e ~0 ~he 57 Freeway and about how they
are widening it. He talked with Caltrans and they told him that they are not
going to build the freeway sound wall along the area between Placentia and
State College on the 91 Freeway.
Council Member Ehrle reported that had been approved.
Mr. Cassidy. He was told that the City of Anaheim stopped them from building
the wall. They built the wall up to Placentia and stopped it. On top of that,
101
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 4, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
they remarked the lines on the freeway and moved everything 10 to 12 feet
closer to their homes.
Council Member Pickler. He recommended that in order to get the best answer,
Mr. Cassidy contact the City Traffic Engineer.
Council Member Ehrle. He suggested if subsequently necessary that he could
also attend next week's meeting when staff is present to address them
directly. It is difficult to give any information without staff input on the
matter.
ITEMS BI - B5 FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 13, 1992,
INFORMATION ONLY - APPEAL PERIOD ENDS FEBRUARY 4, 1992:
BI. 179: WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3476 AND
NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: THOMAS J. TALBOT AND YOLANDA M. TALBOT, 5 Cypress Tree,
Irvine, CA 92715.
AGENT: F~%F~4ERICA, INC., 616 E. Ball Road, Anaheim, CA 92805.
LOCATION: 616 East Ball Road. Property is approximately 0.92 acre
located on the south side of Ball Road and approximately 220 feet east
of the centerline of Allec Street.
To permit motorcycle sales in conjunction with an existing motorcycle
repair facility with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces and
permitted encroachments into required yards.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3476 GRANTED (PC92-01) (6 yes votes, 1 abstained).
Waiver of code requirement APPROVED from 70 parking spaces to 43
spaces, and applicant to stipulate to a maximum of 10 vehicles and/or
jet skis being displayed outside (5 yes votes, 1 no vote, and 1
abstained).
Approved Negative Declaration.
B2. 179: VARIANCE NO. 4155, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 14185, REVISION NO. 3,
SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NOS. 91-10 AND 91-11 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: ROBERT D. and HAROLDENE WIENS, 7536 Vista Del Sol, Anaheim,
CA 92808.
LOCATION: Property is approximately 11.4 acres located on the east
side of Country Hill Road and approximately 830 feet east of the
intersection of Country Hill Road and Vista Del Sol.
Waiver of r~quir~d ~tr~t imDrov~m~nt~ on Country ~ill Road, to
establish a 13-lot, RS-HS-22,000(SC), single-family residential
subdivision.
To remove ninety-five (95) specimen trees (including 56 dead trees).
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Variance No. 4155 GRANTED (PC92-02) (7 yes votes).
Tentative Tract Map No. 14185, Rev. No. 3 APPROVED (no action by
Council at the meeting of January 14, 1992, Item B4).
Specimen Tree Removal Permit Nos. 91-10 and 91-11 APPROVED.
Approved Negative Declaration.
102
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 4, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ITEMS:
B3. 151: PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENT PERTAINING TO PERMITTED ENCROACHMENTS INTO
INTERIOR SETBACK AREAS IN THE 'CR" COMMERCIAL RECREATION ZONE.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved.
Council Member Pickler offered Ordinance No. 5286 for first reading. Refer to
Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 5286 - (INTRODUCTION) : AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING SECTIONS 18.48.084 OF CHAPTER 18.48 OF TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PERMITTED ENCROACHMENTS INTO INTERIOR SETBACK AREAS
IN THE "CR' COMMERCIAL RECREATION ZONE.
B4. 179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3253 - REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF
SPECIFIC PLANS FOR A PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED FREESTANDING SEMI-ENCLOSED RESTAURANT.
Property is located north and west of the northwest corner of La Palma
Avenue and Imperial Highway.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved specific plans for the previously-approved freestanding
semi-enclosed restaurant (CUP NO. 3253).
B5. 179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3258 - REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF CONDITIONS
OF APPROVAL PERTAINING TO A VACATION OWNERSHIP RESORT. Phil Schwartze (PRS
Group) requests Planning Commission review of conditions of approval for a
previously approved vacation ownership resort. Property is located at 1240
South Walnut Street.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved.
B6. 179: ORDINANCE NO. 5285 FOR ADOPTION: Amending Title 18 to rezone
property under Reclassification No. 91-92-06, located at 3253 W. Ball Road,
from the RS-A-43,000 zone to the RM-2400 zone.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCE: The title of the following ordinance was read
by the City Clerk. (Ordinance No. 5285)
Council Member Pickler moved to waive the reading in full of the ordinance.
Council Member Simpson seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Council Member Pickler offered Ordinance No. 5285 for adoption. Refer to
Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 5285: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
103
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 4, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Simpson, Pickler and Hunter
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
TEMPORARILY ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ehrle
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Daly
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 5285 duly passed and adopted.
ITEMS B7 - B8 FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 27, 1992,
INFORMATION ONLY - APPEAL PERIOD ENDS FEBRUARY 6, 1992:
B7. 170: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 12692 - REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF FINAL SITE
PLAN:
Steven Riggs for the Presley Company of Southern California, requests
approval of final site plan for Tentative Tract Map No. 12692.
Property located at The Highlands at Anaheim Hills Development Area 3.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved final site plan Tentative Tract Map No. 12692.
BB. 170: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 12688 - REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF FINAL SITE
PLAN:
Steven Riggs for the Presley Company of Southern California, requests
approval of final site plan for Tentative Tract Map No. 12688.
Property located at The Highlands at Anaheim Hills Development Area 2.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved final site plan Tentative Tract Map No. 12688.
End of the Planning Commission Items.
ITEM B9 FROM THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MEETING OF JANUARY 23, 1992 - DECISION
DATE: JANUARY 30, 1992, INFORMATION ONLY - APPEAL PERIOD ENDS FEBRUARY 9,
1992:
B9. 170: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 90-334, VARIANCE NO. 4167 AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION:
OWNER: MILLER-LA PALMA LIMITED, 5775 Polaris Avenue, Las Vegas,
Nevada 89118.
AGENT: ROBERT MC CLENDON, 3158 Redhill Avenue #100, Costa Mesa, CA
92626.
LOCATION~ ~01 & ~407 East La Palma Avenue. P~p~ty is
approximately 1.58 acres located on the northeast corner of La Palma
Avenue and Miller Street with approximately 222 feet on the north side
of La Palma Avenue approximately 280 feet on the east side of Miller
Street.
Waiver of minimum number of parking spaces to establish a three-lot
subdivision.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
Tentative Parcel Map No. 90-334 APPROVED (ZA92-07).
Approved Negative Declaration.
NOTE: Variance No. 4167 has a 15-day appeal period to expire 2/14/92.
End of the Zoning Administrator Item.
104
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 4, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
BI0. 179: REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2713:
REQUESTED BY.- LOUIS DRAPAC, MUTTON DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, 201 E.
Sandpointe Suite 300, Santa Ana, CA 92707-5750
The property is located at the northwest corner of Orangewood Avenue
and State College Boulevard. The petitioner requests a time extension
to comply with conditions of approval retroactive to December 17,
1991, to expire on December 17, 1993.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2713 is to permit a 6-, 10- and 12-story
commercial office complex with waiver of minimum number of parking
spaces, maximum structural height, and minimum landscaped setback, to
be constructed in three phases.
Submitted was report dated January 24, 1992 from the Zoning Administrator,
Annika Santalahti recommending that the time extension be granted to comply
with conditions of approval retroactive to December 17, 1991, to expire
December 17, 1993 subject to additional conditions.
MOTION: Council Member Simpson moved to approve the requested extension of
time retroactive to December 17, 1991, to expire December 17, 1993 subject to
the following:
That prior to issuance of a building permit, plans shall be submitted
to the Planning Department showing that all required parking spaces
(as permitted by the parking waiver granted under this use permit) are
standard-sized as required by City Codes, and that there shall be no
small or compact parking spaces unless those spaces are (i) in excess
of the minimum number allowed by the waiver and (ii) approved by the
City Traffic and Transportation Manager.
Council Member Hunter seconded the motion. Council Member Daly was absent.
MOTION CARRIED.
Bll. 179: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3217:
REQUESTED BY: NANU C. PATEL, NATIONAL CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT CORP.,
The property is located at 2061 South Harbor Boulevard. The
petitioner requests a time extension retroactive to January 26, 1991,
to expire on January 26, 1993.
Conditional Use Permit No. 3217 is to permit construction of a
750-room, 156-foot high, 17-story, 532,270 sq. ft. hotel facility with
accessory uses and with two waivers: maximum fence height, and
minimum number of parking spaces.
Submitted was report dated January 24, 1992 from the Zoning Administrator,
Annika Santalahti recommending approval of the requested extension of time
retroactive to January 26, 1991, to expire January 26, 1993 subject to six
conditions being satisfied, the first three to be satisfied within one month
from date of approval of the time extension, by March 4, 1992, and the last
three to be satisfied prior to issuance of a building permit.
105
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - FEBRUARY 4, 1992, 5:00 P.M.
MOTION: Council Member Simpson moved to approve the requested extension of
time on Conditional Use Permit No. 3217 retroactive to January 26, 1991, to
expire January 26, 1993 subject to the six conditions listed on pages 1 and 2
of staff reported dated January 24, 1992 from the Zoning Administrator, Annika
Santalahti. Council Member Hunter seconded the motion. Council Member Daly
was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
B12/B13. 179: ORDINANCE NOS. 5283 AND 5284 FOR ADOPTION:
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES: The titles of the following ordinances were
read by the City Clerk. (Ordinance Nos. 5283 and 5284)
Council Member Pickler moved to waive the reading in full of the ordinances.
Council Member Ehrle seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Council Member Pickler offered Ordinance No. 5283 for adoption, amending Title
18 to rezone property under Reclassification No. 89-90-03, located at 1001 No.
West Street from the RS-10,000 zone to the RS-7200 zone; and Ordinance No. 5284
for adoption, amending Title 18 to rezone property under Reclassification No.
91-92-03, located at 3340 E. La Palma Avenue, from the RS-A-43,000 zone to the
ML zone. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 5283: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
(Reclassification No. 89-90-03, located at 1001 No. West Street from the
RS-10,000 zone to the RS-7200 zone.)
ORDINANCE NO. 5284: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING THE ZONING
MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING.
(Reclassification No. 91-92-03, located at 3340 E. La Palma Avenue, from the
RS-A-43,000 zone to the ML zone.)
Roll Call Vote on Ordinance Nos. 5283 and 5284 for adoption:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Simpson, Ehrle, Pickler and Hunter
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Daly
The Mayor declared Ordinance Nos. 5283 and 5284 duly passed and adopted.
ADJOURNMENT: By general Council Consent, the meeting was adjourned.
(9:03 p.m.)
LEONORA N. SOHL, CITY CLERK
106