1998/03/24ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA- CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
March 24, 1998
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
MAYOR: Tom Daly
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Shirley McCracken, Tom Tait, Bob Zemel, Lou Lopez
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: James Ruth
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR: Gary Johnson
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Joel Fick
ZONING DIVISION MANAGER: Greg Hastings
CIVIL ENGINEER: Natalie Armas
A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was posted at 2:00 p.m. on
March 20, 1998 at the City Hall Bulletin Board, (both inside and outside the entrance to City Hall)
containing all items as shown herein.
Mayor Daly called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION:
City Attorney Jack White requested a Closed Session noting first that there were no additions to
Closed Session items.
PUBLIC COMMENTS - CLOSED SESSION ITEMS:
There were no public comments relative to Closed Session items.
The following items are to be considered at the Closed Session.
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR
Agency negotiator: Dave Hill
Employee organization: Anaheim Fire Association, and
IBEW Local 47.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
$4956.9(a) - Existincl Liftclarion:
Name of case: Delmonico, et al. v. City of Anaheim, et al. (and 18 related cases) Orange
County Superior Court Case No. 70-80-71.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
$4956.9(a) - Existincl Liftclarion:
Name of case: People v. Daly, et al., North Orange County Municipal Court Case No.
AN98NM00874.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
$4956.9(a) - Existincl Liftclarion:
Name of case: Sadeghi v. City of Anaheim, et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 76-
38-68.
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, March 24,1998
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
54956.9(a) - Existincl Liftclarion:
Name of case: Dubberly v. City of Anaheim, et al., United States District Court Case No.
SACV97-473AHS(ANx).
RECESS:
Mayor Daly moved to recess into Closed Session. Council Member Lopez seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED. (3:05 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. (5:10 p.m.)
INVOCATION:
Mary L. Hibbard, Anaheim United Methodist Church, gave the invocation.
FLAG SALUTE:
Mayor Pro Tem Lou Lopez led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
119: PRESENTATION - RECOGNIZING RECIPIENTS OF THE GREATER ANAHEIM CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE GENE AUTRY HUMANITARIAN AWARDS AND SPONSORS:
Cathy Dutton, Chamber of Commerce, along with Co-Chair, Bob Cook were present to introduce the
recipients of the subject award and also sponsors of the awards. Ms. Dutton first gave the background
relating to the Humanitarian Awards intended to recognize professional players and high-school athletes
whose efforts are reflected not only on the playing field but in their community work as well. She then
introduced the following recipients who were presented with City of Anaheim Flying "A" Certificates
commending them as recipients of the Gene Autry Humanitarian Award for their "outstanding community
service efforts": Mark Espiritu, JFK High School (HS); Meera Manek, Fairmont HS; Isi Nau, Savanna
HS; Oswaldo Ochoa, Loara HS; Darlene Tu'ua, Anaheim HS; Molly Wittman, Magnolia HS, Laura
Woiemberghe, Cypress HS; (unable to attend - Kristi Gardner, Katella HS and Kresslet Nguyen, Western
HS).
Certificates were also given to the following sponsors: Bob Cook, Islands Golf Center; Pennie Contos,
Century Communications accepted by Bridget Kelly; Tom Danley, Anaheim Prep Sports/Activities
Foundation; Jason Schmid, J.T. Schmid's Brewhouse & Eatery, Kelly Pritchard accepting; Ash
Uddowfah, California Vacations. The following were unable to attend: Mark Donaldson, Rookies
Restaurant; Patrick Hynes, Anaheim Hilton & Towers; Betty Thurston, Doubletree Hotel.
Mayor Daly and Council Members personally congratulated and commended each of the recipients.
119: PRESENTATION/INTRODUCTION - MISS ANAHEIM - 1998: Mayor Daly welcomed the new
Miss Anaheim for 1998, Miss Nanette Sanchez, a graduate of Anaheim High School (1991) and also a
graduate of Fullerton College.
Nanette Sanchez. She is happy to be present tonight and proud to be representing the City. She
announced she will be having abon voyage party for her competition at the State level, May 14, 1998 at
6:00 P.M. and everyone is invited ($15 donation at the door). She also announced other events that will
be taking place, portions of the proceeds of which will be going to worthy causes.
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, March 24,1998
Mayor Daly and Council Members congratulated Miss Sanchez on having won the Miss Anaheim title.
She was thereupon presented with a bouquet of roses. The Mayor also noted that Miss Sanchez will be
competing in the State competition in June and will need community support to help pay expenses.
They appreciate the efforts of the Anaheim Fire Association in helping to make sure the beauty pageant
is a success and helping Anaheim's pageant winner in her future steps.
RECOGNITIONS AUTHORIZED BY COUNCIL THIS DATE TO BE MAILED OR PRESENTED AT
ANOTHER TIME:
DECLARATION recognizing CSSS, Inc., on their 20th Anniversary.
PROCLAMATION recognizing March 24, 1998, as Home Building Day in Anaheim.
PROCLAMATION recognizing the Anaheim Angels on their upcoming 1998 Baseball Season.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $6,205,080.54, in accordance with the
1997-98 Budget, were approved.
Mayor Daly recessed the City Council meeting until after the Redevelopment Agency and Housing
Authority meetings. (5:28 p.m.)
Mayor Daly reconvened the City Council Meeting ( 5:30 p.m.)
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
There were no additions to agenda items.
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST:
Susan Klaren, Anaheim Chamber of Commerce. She wanted to officially invite the Council to the
Chamber's Second Annual Award Gala, Friday, April 24, 1998, Disneyland Pacific Hotel. The Chamber
will be honoring Life-Time Achievement Award Winners -- Man of the Year - James Ruth, Woman of the
Year - Linda Newby, Large and Small Business of the Year - Boeing and (a tie) Visser's Florist and
Torres Trucking, respectively, and also honoring Carl Karcher and Jack Lindquist. She explained how the
selections were made. (Call the Chamber of Commerce for additional information).
(Judy Serafini and Seferino Garcia had previously requested to speak under Items of Public Interest but
were not present at this time. They were given the opportunity to speak later in the meeting after the
Public Hearing portion of the agenda. See comments given after the Public Hearing portion of the
agenda.)
PUBLIC COMMENTS - AGENDA ITEMS:
There were no public comments on City Council Agenda items.
MOTION:
Mayor Daly moved to waive reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions to be acted upon for
the Council meeting of March 24, 1998. Council Member Tait seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR A1 - A13: On motion by Mayor Daly,
seconded by Council Member Lopez, the following items were approved in accordance with the reports,
certifications and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent
Calendar; Mayor Daly offered Resolutions Nos. 98R-52 through 98R-54, both inclusive, for adoption.
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, March 24,1998
A1.
A2.
A3.
A4.
A5.
A6.
A7.
A8.
118: Rejecting and denying certain claims filed against the City. Referred to Risk Management.
The following claims were filed against the City and actions taken as recommended:
a. Claim submitted by Francisco P. Arteaga for property damage sustained purportedly due to
actions of the City on or about January 31, 1998.
b. Claim submitted by Erik Nathan Bas, by and through his mother and guardian ad litem,
Pauline Bas (c/a Hugh W. Gregg Esq.) for bodily injury sustained purpartedly due to actions of
the City on or about August 26, 1997.
c. Claim submitted by Reid Nicholas Jennings (c/o Hugh W. Gregg Esq.) for bodily injury
sustained purpartedly due to actions of the City on or about August 26, 1997.
156: Receiving and filing the Anaheim Police Department Crime and Clearance
Analysis for the month of February, 1998.
163: Receiving and filing correspondence from Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified School
District regarding the transmittal of Resolution No. 89 of the Board of Education of the
Placentia-Yorba Linda School District to increase statutory school fees imposed on new
residential and commercial/industrial development projects pursuant to Education Code
Section 17620 (Fee Increase Resolution).
117: Receiving and filing the Investment Portfolio Report for the month of February,
1998, as submitted by the City Treasurer.
170: Approving the Final Map of Tract No. 14080, and Subdivision Agreement with
Kaufman and Broad Coastal, Inc.; and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute
said Agreement. Tract No. 14080 is located at Windsong Drive (The Summit of
Anaheim Hills), and is filed in conjunction with Specific Plan No. 88-2.
158: Approving the Acquisition Agreement of real property at 415 West Katella Avenue
(R/W 5180-28) - Katella Avenue Smart Street Improvement Project; approving the
Right-of-Entry Agreements; authorizing the mayor and City Clerk to execute said
Agreements; and authorizing the acquisition payment of $14,000 to Westward Ha Seven
Seas Motel dba Super 8 Motel.
158: Approving the Acquisition Agreement of real property at 1772 South Caroleen Lane
(R/W 5220-15) - Katella Avenue Smart Street Improvement Project; authorizing the
Mayor and City Clerk to execute said Agreement; and authorizing the acquisition
payment of $152,000 Graver Escrow.
123: Approving and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute Street Lighting
Utility Agreement No. 12-UT-504 with Caltrans on behalf of the City of Anaheim for the I-
5 Freeway Widening Project - Segment C (from Broadway to 0.1 miles south of Crescent
Avenue).
169: Approving an Escrow Agreement for Security Deposits in Lieu of Retention,
accepting security deposits offered by Sequel Contractors, Inc., to be held by Union
Bank throughout the construction of Phase I, Katella Avenue Improvement and
Beautificatian; and authorizing the City Engineer to execute said Agreement on behalf of
the City.
158: RESOLUTION NO. 98R-52 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS CONVEYING CERTAIN REAL
A9.
A10.
All.
A12.
A13.
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, March 24,1998
PROPERTIES OR INTERESTS THEREIN TO THE CITY (R/W 5220-15 & R/W 5180-
28.)
113: RESOLUTION NO. 98R-53 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN CITY
RECORDS MORE THAN TWO YEARS OLD. (City Attorney's Office.)
113: RESOLUTION NO. 98R- 54 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN CITY
RECORDS MORE THAN TWO YEARS OLD. (Housing and Neighborhood Preservation
Division of the Community Development Department.)
116: Approving an application for funding, in the amount of $250,000 to the State
Employment Development Department to enhance services to unemployed individuals
and local employers seeking assistance through the Anaheim One-Stop Career Center.
(JTP - Community Development).
106: Amending the Fiscal Year 97/98 budget by increasing appropriations in Fund 204
(Asset Forfeiture Fund) to Police Department (Agency 309), by $300, 000 and increasing
expenditures for the undercover operations in the Special Operations Division.
114: Approving minutes of the Anaheim City Council meeting held March 3, 1998.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 98R- 52 throuclh 98R-54, both inclusive, for adoption:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: McCracken, Tait, Zemel, Lopez, Daly
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 98R-52 through 98R-54, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted.
END OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR. MOTIONS CARRIED.
A14.
124: HEARING ON THE REQUEST OF HENSEL PHELPS CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA TO SUBSTITUTE FLOOR COVERING
SUBCONTRACTOR IN PLACE OF METRO FLOOR COVERING:
To consider the request of Hensel Phelps Construction Company, the prime contractor
for the Anaheim Convention Center Enhancement Project, to substitute a subcontractor
in place of Metro Floor Covering.
Mayor Daly asked the City Attorney's guidance on the hearing.
City Attorney White. This is different from the normal hearing procedure. The statute provides that there
are several grounds upon which a prime contractor is awarded a Public Works Contract to seek to
substitute a list of subcontractors and only the reasons set forth in the staff report are reasons authorized
by law. One of the reasons which he understands is the reason in this case is, "When the prime
contractor demonstrates to the awarding authority that the name of the subcontractor was listed as the
result of an inadvertent clerical error." The law provides that the Council shall hold a hearing and take
evidence under oath. Prior to opening the hearing, it will be necessary for the City Clerk to swear in any
persons who wish to testify before testimony is given. Sec. 4107.5 of the Public Contracts Code
provides that the awarding authority shall, following the hearing and in the absence of compelling
reasons to the contrary, consent to the substitution. The Council will listen to the evidence, the prime
contractor should set forth the reason why the inadvertent error was made, how it occurred, and the
Council can also hear from the listed subcontractor as well as the proposed contractor to be substituted if
that contractor desires to speak. He recommended opening the hearing and to first have the Clerk swear
in the witnesses.
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, March 24,1998
Mayor Daly opened the hearing.
The City Clerk thereupon swore in those in the Chamber audience who indicated they were going to
testify at the hearing.
Ken Ketchum, Senior Estimator, Hensel Phelps. He was in charge of the bid for the Convention Center,
Step II construction. He has documents with him that show what actually happened. He thereupon
submitted the documents which consisted of a Proposal Summary on Flooring, Telephone Proposal
sheet, Proposal (on the flooring) from Dupont Flooring Systems, Bid Confirmation from Metro Floor
Covering, and Attachment D to Bid Proposal - made a part of the record. They are copies of documents
utilized at bid time. He then summarized/briefed the Council on what took place on the bid date
ultimately leading to the error. After the bid results were read, they found Metro Flooring was listed
(instead of Dupont) and they decided to make a change. They made the change per the Public
Contracts Code indicating an inadvertent clerical error. The parties were notified and Metro objected.
Hensel Phelps met with them but they were unable to resolve anything and that is why they are present
before the Council today. They are using this procedure as an avenue to correct the deficiency. The
facts are as he has stated. He asked that they reinstate Dupont as the carpet subcontractor who is the
rightful low bidder.
George Salmas, Salmas & Braun, 1901 Avenue of the Stars, 18th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90067,
Attorneys representing Metro Floor Covering. The City Attorney cited a statute that says there has to be
a compelling reason to not grant the request to switch subcontractors. He is correct, if all the subs agree,
and then there has to be a compelling reason. This is the unusual situation where Metro does not agree,
The burden falls to the Council to see if Hensel Phelps has demonstrated that a change ought to be
made. Mr. Salmas then submitted a document -- Before the Anaheim City Council - IN RE: Anaheim
Convention Center - Metro Floor Covering and Hensel Phelps Construction - Statement of Subcontractor
Metro Floor Covering. The Public Contract Code on this issue is intended to protect the public interest.
He asked first that the Council read the statement, which they did, as did the City Attorney. (Nine items
were outlined in the two-page document with closing statements as follows: ... "The general contractor
has submitted none of the proof required by statute and has utterly failed to demonstrate anything. It
simply hasn't made its case for being permitted to switch subcontractors".... "The City Council should
not grant the general contractor's request to switch carpeting subcontractors."
City Attorney White asked if the documents submitted on behalf of Hensel Phelps and on behalf of Metro
have been exchanged each with the other; Mr. Salmas stated he has received nothing.
City Attorney White. It would be helpful if the parties would exchange documents. He believes that
there is a conflict in what he has heard on behalf of Hensel Phelps and what he is reading now (in the
submittal by Mr. Salmas). What he believes was said by Hensel Phelps was that the subcontract amount
was lowered based upon the new sub that had submitted the lowest bid and that was the number they
used to submit the bid. The information that Mr. Salmas is presenting indicates that there is enough profit
in the job to overcome that.
Mr. Salmas stated he understood they were taking that position. The purpose of the statute was to
prevent something called "bid shopping". The bottom line is, unless there is some kind of corroborating
evidence, then the message that gets sent to the trades, you can make money any time you want on a
City of Anaheim public job simply by saying you made a mistake. They (Hensel Phelps) submitted no
sworn affidavits or declarations which the statute calls for. The person who signed the bid is not present
to tell the story.
Mayor Daly interjected and, as a point of information, clarified a comment made by the City Attorney
which Mr. Salmas said he misunderstood. He (Salmas) stated, however, that the point he is making is
that Hensel Phelps is telling the Council what happened, but without corroborating proof. The bottom
line is, the contract can be performed by Metro. For a valid contractor, there is no reason to allow a
switch and, sending a message to the trades that this game is available, is a bad message for the City.
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, March 24,1998
William Quo, Counsel for Dupont Flooring, 435 Forbes Boulevard, San Francisco, CA 94080. He is
present to answer any questions the Council might have.
Mayor Daly closed the hearing.
City Attorney White then clarified for the Mayor that the Council is the finder of fact on this matter. The
test is whether the prime contractor has demonstrated to the Council that the name of the subcontractor
was listed as a result of inadvertent clerical error. The Council has heard the testimony of Mr. Ketchum
plus seen the written material. They have also heard the opposition from Mr. Salmas. The decision is
up to the Council whether or not they find that the decision was made as a result of an inadvertent
clerical error. If so, they should permit the substitution. If not, they should not permit it. He clarified for
Council Member Tait that the burden of proof is on the prime contractor (Hensel Phelps) to present
evidence it was a mistake. There has to be substantial evidence in the record to support the decision
and the decision would be a balancing of the evidence received and how it is judged.
Discussion and questioning of Mr. Ketchum by Council Member Tait followed wherein Mr. Ketchum
briefed the figures on the summary sheet he previously submitted. Council Member Zemel also posed a
line of questions indicating he is having trouble understanding if, in fact, a mistake was made or exactly
where the problem occurred.
Mr. Ketchum stated the mistake that was made was in the communication from the bid room to the
individual writing on the bid form that was turned into the City at bid time and the individual did not
change the subcontractor from Metro to Dupont.
Public Works Director/City Engineer, Gary Johnson explained the bid submitted by Hensel Phelps listed
Metro as the flooring subcontractor which they indicate was done inadvertently and that is the reason
they are here today.
Additional discussion and questioning followed wherein Mr. Ketchum confirmed that a Doreen Corby at
their office (Hensel Phelps) did the costing out (in Attachment D); Gary Johnson. Attachment D is
submitted with the bid. The copy back in their bid room was not the one submitted to the City.
Mayor Daly. The form submitted to the City listed Metro; Mr. Ketchum. It did not have the last change
made (which would have reflected Dupont).
Mr. Johnson explained that they rarely have substitution requests but it does occur and there is a
procedure in the Public Contracts Code that allows for a hearing to be held. It is the first instance he can
recall in his 14 years with the City.
Council Member Tait. He has trouble allowing the substitution. He is not questioning his (Mr.
Ketchum's/Hensel Phelps) honesty but he does not think there is enough proof to overturn what has been
done. If it were a line item bid and the number consistent with that of Dupont's, that would do it for him
but having only one total number with "scratchings" on a form letter is not enough. He does not feel
there is sufficient proof to allow the substitution; Mr. Ketchum stated that is all the evidence there is.
Council Member Tait stated he would like to have heard from Doreen Corby directly since she was the
person who filled out the bid sheet or who signed it. Declarations would have helped.
Council Member McCracken posed questions which were answered by the Public Works Director during
which he (Mr. Johnson) confirmed it is typical that changes are made before final submittal of a bid
including crossouts and replacements.
City Attorney White then explained for Council Member Zemel relative to a time frame on this issue, he
does not believe time is of the essence because the work comes later. The statute does provide an
alternate provision that says the awarding authority, the City Council or its duly authorized officer, has
the right to hold this type of hearing and make the determination. The Council has started the process
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, March 24,1998
but perhaps feels there is information they do not have. The matter could be continued and they could
ask for that additional information or refer it to a hearing officer to conduct the rest of the hearing.
Mayor Daly. He does not see in the statement submitted by Metro Floor Covering that they are accusing
Hensel Phelps of any dishonest practice but it could be interpreted as "bid shopping." Metro is
suggesting Hensel Phelps should submit more paper work. He asked if the Council would like to see
additional documentation before making a decision. Council Member Zemel is suggesting that the
persons at Hensel Phelps who made the mistake might consider filing a statement or something of that
nature; Council Member Zemel. It will help him in his decision if there is such evidence. He would feel
more comfortable in voting.
City Attorney White. It might be helpful if the person at Dupont who was contacted or called in with the
last bid submit an affidavit as to when they called it in, the time of day, who they talked to, someone from
Hensel Phelps say they received that call, time, etc., i.e., that the actual people involved submit sworn
affidavits. If continued, Metro would have a right to submit additional information as well; Council
Member Tait stated that would do it for him, sworn declarations from both sides (Hensel Phelps and
Dupont).
Mayor Daly suggested that what the City Attorney articulated be summarized in writing; City Attorney
White. He would be happy to do that although he does not know how much more information they need
relative to what needs to be provided but he will be happy to do so if they contact him.
Mr. Salmas stated they have a right of cross-examination. It is not enough that they submit a bunch of
papers. They have serious problems with the way this has evolved. Their own speaker (Hensel Phelps)
has already said there is no more evidence.
City Attorney White. Mr. Salmas is correct in stating that cross examination needs to be permitted --
under oath and with cross examination. His understanding now is that Mr. Salmas is requesting the right
to cross-examination and that written declarations or affidavits are not going to provide due process.
The Council has the ability to continue the matter and allow the parties to present, in person, any
witnesses. If the Council chooses, they could designate any person including, but not limited to, Mr. Jack
Plake, Engineering Contract Administrator to serve as the authority to hear the evidence and make the
decision but Council can also do so. If the matter is referred to a hearing officer and that person is in-
house staff, there would be no cost. He suggests that Mr. Plake serve in that capacity. If they go
outside, then absence a stipulation of the parties to pay the cost, the City would do so but he is not
recommending that.
Mayor Daly. He is comfortable with the Public Works Director (or his designee) holding the hearing since
his department has the responsibility for administering such contracts. He proceeded to offer a motion.
City Attorney White thereupon suggested the following wording if a motion is to be offered:
That the hearing be continued and referred to the Public Works Director or his designee pursuant to Sec.
4107 of the Public Contracts Code and that the date of the hearing be established and notice given to all
parties by the City. It would not have to be a Council meeting date.
MOTION. Mayor Daly thereupon offered a motion as articulated by the City Attorney (above). Council
Member Zemel seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, City Attorney White explained for the Mayor that the decision of the Public
Works Department, either Mr. Johnson or Mr. Plake, would be final subject to any court review.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Council Member Zemel left the Council Chamber temporarily (6:27 P.M.).
A15. 105: APPOINTMENT TO THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION: Appointment to the City
Planning Commission to fill the vacancy of Julie Mayer for the term ending June 30, 1999.
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, March 24,1998
MOTION. Mayor Daly moved that the subject appointment be continued for two weeks. Council
Member Tait seconded the motion. Council Member Zemel was temporarily absent. MOTION
CARRIED.
Council Member Zemel entered the Council Chamber (6:28 P.M.).
178: APPOINTMENT TO THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT: Appointing a
representative to the Metropolitan Water District to fill the vacancy of Edward G. Alario.
Council Member Lopez nominated Dale Stanton; Council Member Tait nominated Bruce Mathias.
MOTION. On motion by Mayor Daly seconded by Council Member Lopez, nominations were closed.
MOTION CARRIED.
A vote was then taken on the nominees in the order in which they were nominated.
City Attorney White stated that the requirement for three yes votes for appointment, and abstentions do
not count as affirmative votes.
Dale Stanton - Ayes: McCracken, Lopez, Daly. Abstained: Tait, Zemel.
Bruce Mathias- Ayes: Tait, Zemel. No: Lopez, Daly. Abstained: McCracken.
Mr. Stanton was thereupon appointed as the City's representative to the Metropolitan Water District.
Mayor Daly noted that Mr. Stanton was present in the Chamber audience and stated the Council's
appreciation for his interest in serving.
ITEMS B1 - B3 FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF
MARCH 2, 1998:
INFORMATION ONLY- APPEAL PERIOD ENDS MARCH 24, 1998:
B1.
179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3055
DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 98-02
AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: Wayne Morgenthaler, Trust, 21709 Tahoe Lane, Lake Forest, CA 92630-1932
LOCATION: 511 West Chapman Avenue - Near Market. Property is 1.7 acres located on the
north side of Chapman Avenue, 290 feet east of the centerline of Harbor Boulevard.
To permit the retail sales of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption (currently
permitted for retail sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption) in an existing 1,772
square foot convenience market in an existing 10-unit, 19,504 square foot commercial retail
center. To determine public convenience or necessity to allow the retail sales of alcoholic
beverages for off-premises consumption.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3055 DENIED (PC98-27) (5 yes votes, 1 absent, and 1 vacancy).
Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity no. 98-02 DENIED
(PC98-28).
Negative Declaration (previously approved) DENIED.
B2.
179: VARIANCE NO. 4354, CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 5
REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF A FINAL SIGN PLAN
OWNER: Changiz and Rebecca Zomorodian, 100 South Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, CA 92804
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, March 24,1998
LOCATION: 301 South Anaheim Boulevard_. Property is 0.93 acre located at the southwest corner
of Broadway and Anaheim Boulevard.
Waiver of minimum number of trees adjacent to interior property lines and review and approval of
a final monument sign plan.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Variance 4354 GRANTED (PC98-29) (5 yes votes, 1 absent, 1 vacancy).
Approved request for review and approval of a final sign plan.
Mayor Daly asked staff if they were comfortable with all the sign plans they have seen for the project;
Joel Fick, Planning Director. The plans approved in conjunction with the application are consistent with
prior Commission and Council approvals. They were reviewed by Planning staff and the Redevelopment
and Housing Commission approved the plans as well.
B3.
END
179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4006, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: Dutchman Plastering, Inc., 625 N. Main Street, Orange, CA 92626
AGENT: Neff Rental, 1354 North Red Gum Street, Anaheim, CA 92806
LOCATION: 1354 North Red Gum Street. Property is 1.85 acres located on the east side of Red
Gum Street, 390 feet south of the centerline of La Jolla Street.
To permit a large equipment rental yard.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 4006 GRANTED for three years, to expire March 2, 2001
(PC98-30) (5 yes votes, 1 absent and 1 vacancy).
Approved Negative Declaration.
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS.
ITEM B4 FROM THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MEETING OF
MARCH 12, 1998 DECISION DATE: MARCH 19, 1998
INFORMATION ONLY -APPEAL PERIOD ENDS APRIL 3, 1998:
B4.
179: ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 135
CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 1:
OWNER: Independent Development Co., Inc., 1216 North Tustin Avenue, Orange, CA 92867
AGENT: Raymond Sharpe, 615 Mission Avenue, Oceanside, CA 92054
LOCATION: 1701 - 1731 West Katella Avenue. Property is approximately 2.6 acres located at
the northwest corner of Euclid Street and Katella Avenue.
Waiver of minimum number of parking spaces to construct an automated teller machine kiosk.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
APPROVED Administrative Adjustment No. 135 (ZA DECISION NO. 98-07).
Council Member McCracken. This is a proposed kiosk ATM machine, stand alone, when so many today
are being put inside buildings. She is surprised to see this in a parking lot. She does not believe there is
a financial institution in that shopping center. She knows there is no ordinance or policy on ATM's. She
is concerned relative to it being a safety issue. It is a high-crime area and it is right at the corner of
Euclid and Katella. She asked if there was any discussion by staff on this particular proposal.
Joel Fick, Planning Director. Staff shares those same concerns. It is the first totally free-standing ATM
being proposed and is not attached to a building. There is nothing in the code presently since they are
under the number of units regulated by a CUP. The applicant was able to submit it under the
Administrative Adjustment category. Even though they had three parking spaces less, since there was
no opposition, the application had to stand approved. He then briefed the items that will be reviewed as
part of the building permit application as well as through Traffic and Transportation. In response to the
request, staff has initiated discussions about a CUP for free-standing ATM's when not otherwise
addressed by a CUP for a center.
10
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, March 24,1998
Mayor Daly. The paperwork does not reflect how large the kiosk will be and the exact location on the
grounds of the center, how tall it is, etc.
Mr. Fick stated it is roughly 37 sq. ft., 11' wide by 7-8' tall located out near Katella. Staff has placement
concerns that could not be addressed. Approval of the Administrative Adjustment is a parking variance
and does not approve the location or the plans.
Council Member McCracken. She is concerned because she believes construction has begun.
Joel Fick. After conferring with the City Attorney, it is within the purview of the Council to set the matter
for a Public Hearing if they wish to do so; Council Member Lopez. He would like to do so. When he was
a Patrol Officer in that area there were a lot of problems. It is right across from the Garden Grove
boundary. He is also familiar with that shopping center and it is very congested as it is now.
Council Member McCracken concurred in setting the matter for a Public Hearing.
Mayor Daly. He shares the concerns raised about the appropriateness of these small, stand-alone
buildings in parking lots. They need to see the exact design and location.
D1. 179: PUBLIC HEARING -WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3999 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: Peter Lawrence Dunkel, Cheryl Jean Dunkel, Larry S. Dunkel, and Sarah P. Dunkel,
2475 West La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801.
AGENT: Caster Group L.P., Attn: Tom Kearney, 4607 Mission Gorge Place, San Diego, CA
92120.
LOCATION: 2475 W. La Palma Avenue. Property is 3.7 acres located on the north side of La
Palma Avenue, 980 feet west of the centerline of Gilbert Street.
To permit a 161,800 square foot, 1 and 2-story self-storage facility including an existing 50,000
square foot warehouse building with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3999 GRANTED (PC98-21) (6 yes votes, 1 absent).
Approved waiver of code requirement.
Approved Negative Declaration.
Informational item at the meeting of February 24, 1998, Item B5.
HEARING SET ON: A letter of appeal of the Planning Commission decision was submitted by Norman
W. Schlitz, in letter dated February 24, 1998 and, Public Hearing scheduled this date.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in North County News- March 12, 1998.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - March 12, 1998.
Posting of property - March 13, 1998.
STAFF INPUT:
See staff report to the Planning Commission dated February 2, 1998.
Mayor Daly outlined the procedure for the Public Hearing and asked first to hear from the Applicant or
Applicant's Agent.
Brian Caster, Caster Group L.P., 3535 W. Ball Road, Anaheim. He first submitted a booklet entitled A-1
Self Storage - Discussion Outline which also contained Exhibits A, B and C (made a part of the record).
They developed and currently own the facility at Knott and Ball and have been operating there
successfully for three years. They are turning away approximately 50 customers a month at that
location. It is currently full and that is why they are looking at additional locations in Anaheim. As to why
they selected the subject location, they hired a consultant to do a feasibility study which confirmed their
11
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, March 24,1998
suspicion that this area of Anaheim was in great need and had high demand for additional storage space.
To get to this point, they met with the Planning Department, attended two City Council Meetings where
self-storage was on the agenda to see what the feeling was of the Council and the leadership of the
community and also met with Council Member Lopez. They then took all input they received and
subsequently selected the site on LaPalma which they felt was consistent with the community plan. The
process took five months. Under the CUP process, the City sends out letters to property owners within
300'. They sent out personal letters to the same people. Only six phone calls were received asking
questions and all were in support of their project. The Planning Commission approved the project
unanimously, and no one was present in opposition. He then briefed the exhibits contained in the
booklet submitted (Ex. A - Self Storage in Orange County - City, Net Rentable Sq. ft., Population = Sq.
Ft. Per Capita; Ex. B - copies of photos showing the site currently; Ex. C - artist's rendering of the
proposed facility).
In concluding, Mr. Caster stated they believe that they have listened to the City leaders, the community
both from a land use issue and design issue to come up with what they feel is the best site for the City of
Anaheim.
There being no further persons who wished to speak in favor, Mayor Daly asked to hear from anyone in
opposition.
Mr. Norman Schlitz, 10941 Rustic Lane, Anaheim. Reading from a prepared statement, Mr. Schlitz
stated that Anaheim's July, 1984 General Plan established four industrial areas for development. These
areas represent a valuable resource and great care should be taken to maximize its use and potential.
He notices on the freeways the amount of industrial parcels the City has lost to the expansion of those
freeways which represent a loss of revenue to the City. He hopes the Council will deny the use of this
land for storage units because he believes that the land is more value for industrially based operations.
Judith Anne Gallet, 649 S. Roanne Street, Anaheim. The applicant talked about a demand for storage
units. They are in the process of compiling a list of the units already in Anaheim and to her knowledge
there are 29. The City Council and Planning Commission allowed the maximum density that exists in
west Anaheim and now the residents are dealing with the consequences. However, the residents are not
using storage units but businesses are putting their supplies in those buildings. They need tax dollars
and revenue in west Anaheim. She is a member of WAND (West Anaheim Neighborhood Development
Council) and is sponsor of the West Gilbert Neighborhood Watch Group. They are opposed to stacking
west Anaheim with buildings that do not provide tax generated dollars or for the family. They need green
belts, open areas, and tax dollars. They need those areas to bring in tax dollars from the entertainment
field, business, for redevelopment in west Anaheim, not a storage unit with five employees on 3.7 acres.
They are family-owned neighborhoods and need to keep their tax dollars and property values constant or
climbing just like the rest of Anaheim. People need to say that west Anaheim is a great place to have
children grow up in and shop in, but they do not have great shopping centers or restaurants. They do not
want any more apartments or high-density areas. She also addressed other issues with which they are
faced in west Anaheim and the things they need in their area. This proposed project takes away
valuable land that could be used for a benefit to west Anaheim, not another storage unit. She is asking
the City to put out a mandate that no more storage units can be built in west Anaheim. They want places
for families and things that will generate tax dollars not accomplished by this project.
Summation by Applicant: Brian Caster. This is a very high-density market place and there are a lot of
high-density complexes and businesses. They supply such space now and are turning away business
because of the density. This is an industrial piece of property that has been on the market for over two
years. With the previous tenant, there were all kinds of complaints brought to the Council because of the
noise, because it is up against residential across the street. With the proposed use, there will be no
noise. Relative to tax dollars, with their use, the tax base will double on the site and go up to $60,000 -
$70,000 a year. This is a $7 million investment for them. They had to buy the property or were going to
lose it. After the Planning Commission hearing, they felt confident they stayed within the zone and
listened to the community, especially their neighbors, and that is what is being presented to the Council
today.
12
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, March 24,1998
Mayor Daly closed the Public Hearing.
Mayor Daly then posed questions to staff relative to their thinking on public storage facilities. There have
been discussions in recent months and he thought they asked Planning staff to think about how these
projects which are commercial-semi-commercial type uses generally in industrial zones but with
exceptions. There are storage units in commercial zones and in at least one case, a residential zone.
Typically in the past, they were installed on properties such as railroad right of way or adjacent to railroad
right of way. He also mentioned other areas, generally these are located on hardship properties. What
is staff's thinking and what are other communities doing. There seems to be a rash of applications for
self-storage and virtually any site in Anaheim seems to be fair game.
Joel Fick. Staff's thinking does mirror the expressions that the Council and Planning Commission had in
the recent workshop (see minutes of the Workshop portion of the Council Meeting of February 24, 1998).
The Economic Development Manager is working on a formal policy. Staff is going to be taking
something to the Planning Commission in the near future as a fallout to the workshop. Presently, mini-
storage units are permitted in the CL, ML and MH zones by Conditional Use Permit. The Planning
Commission and City Council do have the ultimate review and approval authority, also based upon
parking requirements. Staff's viewpoint is that due to their relatively low intensity land uses, great care
should be given to the locations and in those locations where there might be other viable land uses, first
consideration should be given to alternate land uses. This type of land use is more industrial than
commercial and staff would like to see them in locations the Mayor outlined, in more challenged pieces
of property rather than in an area that has other alternatives.
Council Member McCracken. There are mixed reports on how many storage units there are in the City.
In a letter from the WAND group (see letter dated March 24, 1998 from Esther Wallace, WAND
Chairman) it is reported that there are 13 storage units in the City from data taken from the North Orange
County phone book. Mr. Caster, in his documentation, shows 838,100 net rentable sq. ft. and the
number given by Mrs. Gallet is 29. The City is 50 square miles but she does not believe they are
addressing all the needs of Anaheim in any of the reports. They are seeing storage units concentrated in
the western part of the City. She asked if staff had any numbers they can count on.
Joel Fick. Staff just received the March 24 letter today. It looks like there are five storage units
presently existing west of Euclid. Sometimes a phone book can be deceiving and facilities may not
necessarily be located in Anaheim. In industrial areas, if they meet code, they could have been
grandfathered in. There are eleven he is aware of in the City.
Mayor Daly. Anaheim years ago set aside large parts of the City for industrial development which was
intended to occur in a master planned way and to a large extent the City succeeded very well with its
large-scale industrial master planned properties. Four were designated and this is in one of those areas.
Before they allow a non-industrial use to come in to a master-planned industrial neighborhood that has
shrunk in recent years partly because of the freeway widening, they need to be extra careful. They need
to ask staff to come up with a more comprehensive policy approach before allowing any more. They
have allowed some recently along strip commercial where staff has told them there is an abundance of
commercial zoning with not enough demand. The community appeared or told them they were
comfortable with that transition to well-designed public storage. In this case, the community is telling
them otherwise. This is a neighborhood in transition but some positive things are happening with office
and industrial uses. He is inclined to oppose this use at this time and meanwhile have staff bring a new
comprehensive policy on these storage units. Generally, he feels these should go on hardship
properties, not property that would otherwise be productive.
Council Member Tait. The Mayor stated it well. They are trying to improve west Anaheim and even
though this seems to be well designed and will look nice, it does not help them meet their goal in west
Anaheim. They would be trading prime industrial property for a self-storage unit. If he is going to vote
for self-storage, it would have to be on a much lesser piece of property than this prime industrial space.
He is also going to oppose the project.
13
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, March 24,1998
Council Membe Zemel. He would echo what was stated by both the Mayor and Council Member Tait
and add, for Mrs. Gallet's information, that a self-storage facility was just approved by the Council in the
eastern part of the City in Anaheim Hills. As the Mayor stated, it was an odd-shaped and difficult piece
of property which otherwise would not have been developed. They are not singling out any part of the
City. He agrees they have to have a better plan and take a look at that property to determine the
potential. He will be opposing also.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Mayor Daly,
seconded by Council Member Zemel, 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.
Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 98R-55 for adoption, denying Conditional Use Permit No. 3999.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DENYING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3999.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 98R-55 for adoption:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: McCracken, Tait, Zemel, Lopez, Daly
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 98R-55 duly passed and adopted.
(Initially, Council Member Lopez voted no on the foregoing Resolution but before the item was
concluded asked that his vote be changed to yes, the way he meant to vote in the first place.)
Mayor Daly. To the sponsors of the project, in recent years, they have had an outpouring of activity from
concerned residents in west Anaheim who have asked them to be extra careful about what is approved
in their community. They have supported a lot of new projects but they are trying to revitalize their
community and a lot of Redevelopment activity and beautif/cation is in process in that area. This is not a
decision made without a lot of background and history.
Brian Caster approached the podium and stated he was very disappointed in the vote especially since
they took extreme efforts to come and sit through lengthy meetings, talking to Planning staff and
listening to the Council's comments. They were directed to this area. Their current location at Knott and
Ball is a commercial zone and he would much prefer to be on a commercial street or a strip center. They
were asked to go into an industrial zone where they were permitted. He is taken aback with the decision.
He just paid $3.1 million for the property which had been on the market for two years. He wished he had
known of Planning staff's looking into the issue because if he had known a month or two ago he would
not have closed escrow. This puts him in an awkward position. He reiterated, he listened to Council and
Planning staff.
Mayor Daly. He stated it is not appropriate for Mr. Caster to lecture them on what he thought he heard
the Council say.
Council Member Zemel stated he surmises Mr. Caster closed escrow knowing that he did not
necessarily have an approval; Mr. Caster stated, yes he did.
14
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, March 24,1998
D2.
170: PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15565
VARIANCE NO. 4331
SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 97-03
CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: Mary Yaeko Murata, Robed Kenzo Murata, Paul Seichi Murata, Sachiko Murata, 2312
Cliff Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92663
AGENT: Salkin Engineering Corporation, Attn: George E. Kerns, 1215 E. Chapman Avenue,
#2, Orange, CA 92866
LOCATION: 421 South Country Hill Road. Property is 8.0 acres located on the south side of
Country Hill Road, 270 feet east of the centerline of Old Ranch Road.
Waivers of minimum private street width and maximum structural height to establish a 13-1ot 11-
unit single-family detached residential subdivision and approval for the removal of 103 specimen
trees.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15565 APPROVED (6 yes votes,
1 vacancy).
Variance No. 4331 GRANTED (PC98-24).
Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 97-03 was APPROVED the Planning Commission meeting
at their meeting of 3/16/98.
Approved Negative Declaration.
HEARING SET ON:
At the City Council meeting of February 24, 1998, Mayor Pro Tem Lopez and Council Member
McCracken requested review of the Planning Commission's decision on Item B9. Public Hearing
scheduled this date.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in North County News- March 12, 1998.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - March 12, 1998.
Posting of property - March 13, 1998.
STAFF INPUT:
See staff report to the Planning Commission dated February 18, 1998.
Council Member Lopez. For staff's information, he has reviewed the matter and his concerns regarding
drainage and erosion have been satisfied. It is a good project. He appreciates Mr. Kerns explaining the
situation to him. He can now support the project.
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager briefed the staff report to the Planning Commission which
outlined the specifics of the project. He then clarified for Council Member Zemel that relative to the
height variance that 13% of the roof line would exceed the 25% by 2' on six of the eleven houses. The
remainder are single story.
Mayor Daly. His understanding from reading the correspondence and the staff report, the removal of the
existing trees make sense because they are in precarious shape and the new plan includes landscaping
over and above what is provided by those trees; Greg Hastings. That is correct. The applicant has
selectively chosen to salvage many of the trees which will be incorporated into the landscape area.
Mayor Daly asked to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
Mr. George Kerns, Salkin Engineering, 1215 E. Chapman Avenue #2, Orange. The staff report
accurately describes what happened. The project was unanimously approved by the Planning
Commission. He will be happy to answer any questions.
Council Member Zemel asked the justification for the request for a height variance; Mr. Kerns deferred to
the developer.
15
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, March 24,1998
Brian Kerr, 2312 Cliff Drive, Newport Beach. Relative to the height variance, originally when he
discussed the situation with Marketing what to put on the lots, they determined not six but three of the
homes would be two story. Since then, he has determined all homes will be two story (but meaning
single story) so the variance as requested becomes a non-issue. He will be plotting only single-story
homes, but even if he were to go to two story, it would have only been three homes.
Council Member Zemel. He surmises at this point they are then withdrawing the height variance; Mr.
Kerr answered yes.
Council Member Zemel. There is a crib wall going in the back of the property along Fairmont; Mr. Kerr.
He answered that was correct. Originally the City exercised eminent domain on that portion of the
property and developed a slope but for some reason did not give the width required for Fairmont. In
order not to destroy the slope and take out all the trees which he assumes were planted by the City and
the irrigation system, Public Works has looked at it and said a crib wall of approximately 10' high for a
certain determined area would be adequate to give the City the needed right of way.
Mayor Daly asked to hear from anyone else who wished to speak.
Phil Ju Jon Roche, 450 Via Vista, Anaheim, about 1/4 mile from the site. He is a representative of the
Santa Ana Canyon Propert Owners Association which he helped found in 1970 to preserve the rural
atmosphere of Mohler Drive and Eucalyptus Drive. They are not against the project but have some
concerns. The houses, lot size, quality and trees they are adding will be of benefit to the area. Some of
the neighbors nearby agree it is best that the wind-row trees be removed since he understands those
trees should not be too close to any houses. A question not addressed is if any street lights were
required or will the project blend in with the rest of the area with no street lights. He noted that narrow
roads are characteristic of the area. The height is now no longer an issue. Relative to the drainage, Mr.
Uyematsu in his letter (see letter dated 2/5/98 from Norio Uyematsu previously submitted and made a
part of the record) raised the issue and he would like someone to speak to that as well as the crib wall
visibility, i.e. how the landscaping will mitigate the view of the crib wall.
Brian Kerr. The street lights are up to the discretion of Public Works. If required, they will be installed; if
not, he will not. It is a non-issue. Relative to the crib wall, the way it lays out, basically lot 11 is the only
house that is going to be affected. The existing trees will cover it. Relative to the drainage, his engineer
has worked that out with Public Works. It will be a lot better than it is now.
George Kerns. At the present time, there is a fair amount of water that comes down through two small
canyons across the property and down what will be the entrance street. They will pick that water up at
the tract boundary to the south, put it in a pipe and pipe it downstream until they get it into a facility.
Council Member Zemel asked on the street lights, he believes in that area there is a condition there
should be no street lights; Greg Hastings. That is his understanding.
Natalie Armas, Civil Engineer, Public Works. If the Council wanted to prohibit street lights, they have not
proposed that and the City has not required it. She does not believe doing so in the future would require
a Public Hearing since there is no ordinance that regulates the matter.
After additional questions posed to staff, Council Member Zemel asked if the Council was agreeable with
a condition that there be no street lights. The developer stated it is not a problem.
Council Member Lopez noted that Council Member Zemel lived in close proximity to the subject area
and asked if he should not be abstaining in this case; Council Member Zemel stated he lives in the
Mohler annexation area, he is way past 300' of the property, and street lights are a big issue in that area.
Mayor Daly. If the City is not requiring street lights to be installed he questioned what is accomplished by
doing the reverse. Staff has indicated in the future the residents can do that. The developer is not
required to put in street lights and the City is not requiring they be installed either.
16
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, March 24,1998
Council Member Zemel. The hope is that will happen but to insure that the nature of the area is
maintained he would like to see it as a condition so that if the developer decided to install street lights, he
could not do so. He believes with prior approvals, it is a written condition.
City Attorney White. This is a private street and the residents could decide in the future to install
privately-owned and operated street lights. He suggested that there be recordation of a covenant on the
property that there be no privately installed street lights either within the private street or on the private
property. Otherwise it would not be enforceable; Mayor Daly questioned the recommendation since it
was not a part of their discussion.
Council Member Zemel. If it was just made a condition of the tract map, he would be satisfied. He does
not feel they need to get into a covenant.
Brian Kerr. He clarified, he would prefer not to have street lights. The other issue, staff has
recommended that no trees be touched until a grading plan is approved. His Arborist has taken a look at
some of the eucalyptus trees and some are dangerous and ready to fall over. He would like permission
to go into the stand of sycamores, the focal point of the turnaround, immediately and do remedial work
on the trees to prevent any further disease or damage.
Greg Hastings. That would be satisfactory to staff. Staff was concerned that the trees not be removed
until such time as there were proper approvals; City Attorney White and Mr. Hastings agreed that no
additional findings would be necessary.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Council Member
Zemel, seconded by Council Member McCracken, the City Council approved the Negative Declaration
upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during
the public review process, and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received
that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15565: Motion was made by Mayor Daly, seconded by
Council Member McCracken to approve Tentative Tract Map No. 15565 as submitted and subject to the
conditions imposed, adding the provision that there be no street lights required. MOTION CARRIED.
Council Member Zemel offered Resolution No. 98R-56 for adoption, approving Variance No. 4331.
Refer to Resolution Book.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING
VARIANCE NO 4331.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 98R-56 for adoption:
AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: McCracken, Tait, Zemel, Lopez, Daly
NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 98R-56 duly passed and adopted.
MOTION: SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 97-03: Motion was made by Council Member
Zemel, seconded by Council Member McCracken, to approve Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 97-
03. MOTION CARRIED.
17
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, March 24,1998
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST:
Mayor Daly noted that there are two individuals who had asked to speak (in writing) but for some reason
were not able to be present at the beginning of the meeting when the Council hears comments from the
public.
Mr. Seferino Garcia, 121 S. Walnut, Anaheim. For the last several years, he has brought before the
Council the idea of having a National Community Development Week in Anaheim, a week that would be
for the community, Neighborhood Councils and Neighborhood Services with the City Manager's Office
being involved. He has been to the last two or three Public Hearings with CDBG (Community
Development Block Grant) and was at the March 12th CDAB (Community Development Advisory Board)
meeting. During the meetings, nothing was brought to their attention regarding National Community
Development Week. At the last meeting, staff brought to their attention they were going to have the
event but without including Neighborhood Councils and other neighborhood members. All cities
throughout the nation have Neighborhood Councils and the community involved with this activity.
Because they have been bringing this matter to the attention of staff and the City Council, they feel they
have been left out.
A second issue, in the CDBG budget that comes before the Council in a couple of weeks, the City
Manager's Office has recommended a cut in the JTPA funds for the youth, $200,000. That project has
proven for the last four years to be a good project especially for the youth. He knows JTPA spent only
about $4,000 from administrative costs to support this project.
The last item, the proposed park and community center on Walnut Street. He met with Mayor Daly
December 24, 1996 along with Chris Jarvi and members of the Neighborhood Council. They talked
about being involved in the design of the park and what the community center was going to involve.
There have been meetings with the School District on how they are designing the community center
without the community being involved. Every time they talk to CDAB and the Council, they never hear
anything in return. They have received one letter from Chris Jarvi in the last four years and the
community made the proposal for the community center and the park in the first place. They would like
to be involved in the design of the community center and the park.
Judith Serafini, 278 N. Wilshire, Anaheim, Executive Secretary and Communications Development
Director for Solevat. She would like to second the things said by Mr. Garcia. She was personally
appalled this year since they are progressively seeing the cutting away of non-profit funding. This year
with City Manager and staff, she does not know who is running the City. The budget put before them cut
critical areas - youth employment, recreation, and the non-profits. Other cities are far and above
Anaheim in these areas. It gives a dual message. On the one hand, funding of Police and Community
Policing is always an issue, but the budget proposed by the City Manager's Office has deep cuts in it.
Statistics show that the issues are education, recreation and youth employment. What they are
concerned about is that the City staff and City Manager seem to have a lot more control over the budget
issue. Speaking to Mayor Pro Tem Lopez, Ms. Serafini stated, relative to the park, she was appalled to
hear him say he believes their elders should go to the Salvation Army. (Mr. Lopez interjected noting that
he had never spoken to Ms. Serafini also refuting some of the comments made.) She continued, they
are not asking for money, and have never asked the City for money. The only thing they want is a
community center open to their citizens, elders and children and they want to be involved in the process.
Mayor Pro Tem Lopez urged Ms. Serafini to call and make an appointment and he will speak to her.
C2. 114: COUNCIL COMMENTS:
Council Member Zemel. Relative to CDBG funds, he met today with Chris Jarvi, Community Services
Director and Lisa Stipkovich, Executive Director of Community Development to discuss the overall
concept. The City receives around $5 million dollars from the Federal government and 15% can be
spent in "soft" services, about $750,000. Consistently around $100,000 has gone to non-profits and
18
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA- CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, March 24,1998
about $650,000 has gone to programs the City administers which he named. His problem is that in the
past Council has not given any policy direction in this regard. He is proposing looking at each and every
item and decide if it is one of the pdmary and pdodty concems of government. He feels as a Council
they need to determine if some of the things are what they do anyway as a City, they may have to find
room in the General Fund and not take away from the non-profits even though the program is an
extremely important one. If the Council doesn't feel it is, then the Council should vote it is not to be one
of the items considered for the 'soft' money or the Council should say, for instance, that they should not
have that Gang Enforcement Officer funded any more, or make the hard decision to say what else they
are going to cut. His belief is that safety is the No. 1 purpose. CDBG members and recipients of the
services are beginning to say, they are paying for City programs when initially those programs came as a
result of their efforts. They need to make some decisions as to what programs are a function of
government and what are outside sewices. He would ask (that the City Manager) talk to the other
Council Members and see if there is some agreement and bdng it back with the opportunity for the
Council to set standards. They can then go into the budget headngs a little more prepared.
Council Member McCracken. Congratulations are in order for Mrs. Liz Cason, a member of the City's
Community Services Board and an active participant in many community activities, who will be honored
tomorrow at a luncheon by the Orange County Gid Scout Council. She will be named a Woman of
Distinction for her volunteer work in the community.
Mayor Daly. The Council had discussed a communications program regarding Sex Odented Businesses
(SOB's) in the City. He has some thoughts on the subject and would like to place the item on the next
agenda - the public communications aspects of the SOB subject that has been under study by the
Council and staff.
ADJOURNMENT: By general Council consent, the City Council Meeting of March 24, 1998 was
adjourned (8:00 P.M.). The next scheduled meeting is Tuesday, Apdl 7, 1998.
LEONORA N. SOHL
CITY CLERK
19