1997/08/05ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
AUGUST 5, 1997
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/CITY ENGINEER: Gary Johnson
COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR: Chris Jarvi
CIVIL ENGINEER - DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: Natalie Meeks
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: Annika Santalahti
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Joel Fick
ZONING DIVISION MANAGER: Greg Hastings
A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was posted at 2:15 p.m. on
August 1, 1997 at the City Hall Kiosk, 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 LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
54956.9(a) - Existing Litigation:
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
54956.9(a) - Existing Litigation:
Name of case: In re Baldwin Building Contractors, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Central District Case
No. ND 95-013057RR.
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 5, 1997
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR
Property: Southwest corner of Center Street Promenade and South Anaheim Boulevard
Negotiating parties: Anaheim Redevelopment Agency and Kell Company
Under negotiation: Price and terms.
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR:
Agency negotiator: Dave Hill
Employee organizations: All unions
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
54956.9(a) - Existing Litigation:
Name of case: City of Anaheim v. Sony et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 74-40-
99.
By general consent, the Council recessed into Closed Session. (3:01 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. (5:25 p.m.)
INVOCATION:
Pastor Stan Managbanag, Free Methodist Church, gave the invocation.
FLAG SALUTE:
Council Member Shirley McCracken led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
119: PRESENTATION OF STUDENT DELEGATION FROM MITO, JAPAN - ANAHEIM'S SISTER
CITY: June Lowry, Sister City Association, introduced the delegation of 20 Student Ambassadors from
Mite, Japan accompanied by Ms. Nerike Otake, an English Teacher at Migawa Jr. High School. Their
visit is made possible because of the generosity/hospitality of host families and some City staff
members. Representatives of the 15 host families were present in the Chamber audience. She
introduced Ms. Otake.
Noriko Otake. The first Student Ambassadors came to Anaheim starting 10 years ago. They are proud
to be taking part in this activity on its 10th anniversary. Anaheim is a very cultural, beautiful, clean and
energetic city and the people are very kind. The delegation is a bridge between Anaheim and Mite.
They would like to thank the City and the host families. She also invited the City Council and all the
citizens of Anaheim to visit Mite next Spring for the opening of the Mite International Center. She then
presented a message and a gift from Mayor Okada of Mite to Mayor Daly.
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 5, 1997
Mayor Daly. He thanked Ms. Otake and asked that she extend their best wishes to Mayor Okada. He, in
turn, presented her with a gift to give to the Mayor and also one for herself. Along with his Council
colleagues, he presented symbols of the Sister City relationship between Anaheim and Mite to all the
students. The Sister City relationship has been ongoing for 25 years and every year, Mite sends its best
crop of students to Anaheim to learn about the City, the United States and the culture of the country.
They look forward to being able to visit Mite in future years. Anaheim students have been visiting Mite
as well. It is a great partnership and, on behalf of the City, he hopes it lasts a very long time.
Mayor Daly and the Council Members individually greeted the members of the delegation. The Mayor
also expressed thanks to the volunteers in Anaheim who run the Sister City program.
119: DECLARATION OF RECOGNITION: A Declaration of Recognition was unanimously adopted by
the City Council and presented to Carol Latham recognizing her achievement in receiving the prestigious
Sarah Fay Pearson Award from the Women's Division of the Chamber of Commerce.
Mayor Daly and Council Members personally congratulated and commended Ms. Latham on receiving
this singular honor. The Mayor stated they are happy to join with the Chamber in recognizing Ms.
Latham's contributions to the City.
119: PRESENTATIONS - ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF AWARDS RECEIVED BY CITY STAFF
MEMBERS - KRISTINE RIDGE AND NANCY LERNER: Presentation of Flying "A" Certificates to
Kristine Ridge, Audit Manager for receiving the Auditor of the Year Award from the Institute of Internal
Auditors and recognizing Nancy Lerner, Recreation Services Manager for receiving the Lifetime
Achievement Award from the California Park and Recreation Society.
Dave Morgan, Assistant City Manager. It is a pleasure to introduce Kristine Ridge, Audit Manager. He
explained the Institute of Internal Auditors world wide number over 50,000 dedicated to the profession of
internal auditing. The local Orange County Chapter has a membership in excess of 200 and once a
year, the Chapter recognizes one individual as Auditor of the Year, this year -- Kristine Ridge. Kristine
was previously presented with the award at the 1996-97 banquet held in May.
Ms. Kristine Ridge. She thanked the Council for recognizing her award. The two factors that enabled
her to receive the award was the strong City management support for the Audit function as well as the
dedicated professionalism of the City's Audit staff.
Chris Jarvi, Community Services Director. It is an honor to introduce Nancy Lerner, Recreation Services
Supervisor who received an award from a 2,500-member State-wide association. She was recognized at
their March meeting in Sacramento having received the very prestigious Lifetime Achievement Award.
Even though Ms. Lerner is a young woman, she have given many years of quality service to the
profession as evidenced by her work and the award.
Ms. Nancy Lerner. She thanked Mr. Jarvi and the City for allowing her to be involved in such a
rewarding profession. It is a reflection on the department and the profession recognizes that Anaheim is
one of the top leaders in the field.
Mayor Daly presented the Certificates to both Ms. Ridge and Lerner and congratulated and commended
them on behalf of the Council and the City. He thanked Mr. Morgan and Jarvi for bringing the honors to
their attention enabling them to recognize the outstanding achievement of members of City staff.
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 5, 1997
119: PROCLAMATION - WELCOMING THE ANAHEIM BALLET TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM:
Welcoming the Anaheim Ballet, formerly Coast Ballet Theatre, to the City of Anaheim.
Chris Jarvi, Community Services Director, prefacing his introduction of the Artistic Directors of the
Anaheim Ballet, Lawrence and Sarma Rosenberg, stated, with this announcement, the City will have its
first professional Ballet Company. Coast Ballet, in existence since 1981, will officially become the
Anaheim Ballet. The Ballet Company has received acknowledgements and congratulations from State
and County officials in recognition of the occurrence, and a reception was held immediately before the
Council Meeting this evening hosted by the Anaheim Arts Council.
Charlotte Brady, Anaheim Arts Council. The Arts Council is pleased to be a part of this gigantic step
forward in enhancing the cultural vision of Anaheim.
Mr. Jarvi then introduced Lawrence and Sarma Rosenberg, the Artistic Directors, who were accompanied
by several of the Company's dancers.
Mr. Lawrence Rosenberg first thanked the City of Anaheim, the Anaheim Arts Council, Friends of
Anaheim Ballet, Sharon Lesk of the Freedman Foundation, Council for the Anaheim Ballet and Tom
Sipple, President of the Anaheim Board. Representatives were present in the Chamber audience. He
asked them to stand and be acknoweldged as well as some of the dancers and apprentices. He and his
wife are happy to be present for a number of reasons such as shared beliefs and shared visions on what
the arts can do for the community. They are very excited and pleased to be part of the Anaheim
community.
Mayor Daly. On behalf of the Council and the City welcomed and congratulated the Rosenbergs and the
now, Anaheim Ballet. This additional cultural "acquisition" rounds out the many amenities Anaheim has
to offer in a variety of fields. They are looking forward to many years of association with the Anaheim
Ballet. He noted that Council Member McCracken had put a great deal of effort into making this happen
and asked if she would like to comment.
Council Member Shirley McCracken. It is a wonderful opportunity not only for the citizens of Anaheim,
but also for visitors from near or far. It will give that additional entertainment venue which will be coming
to the Freedman Forum. Concessionaires, tourists and citizens will be enjoying the Ballet for many years
to come.
Mayor Daly asked if Sharon Lesk was still present. Mr. Rosenberg had mentioned her support. They
appreciate the ongoing support the Freedman Foundation provides. Many good things that happen are
due to the patronage of the Foundation.
Sharon Lesk. The Foundation has already committed to give Freedman Forum to Anaheim Ballet for
three performances. In addition, the Nutcracker Holiday Suite will be held on December 5, 1997. She is
delighted they will dance at the Freedman Forum and also at Pearson Park. It will be wonderful way for
starting a great new year.
RECOGNITIONS AUTHORIZED BY COUNCIL THIS DATE TO BE MAILED OR PRESENTED AT
ANOTHER TIME:
1. PROCLAMATION recognizing August 16, 1997, as National Airborne Day.
2. DECLARATION recognizing Rainer Dickman on his retirement from the Disneyland Hotel.
3. DECLARATION recognizing the Orange YMCA on the occasion of their 75th Anniversary.
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 5, 1997
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $3,196,019.34 for the period ending July
28, 1997, and $2,192,266.16 for the period ending August 4, 1997, 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. (6:00 p.m.)
Mayor Daly reconvened the City Council Meeting ( 6:01 p.m.)
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
There were no additions to agenda items.
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST:
Richard Castillo. He has lived in Anaheim all his life and is a retired businessman. He is present today
to represent United Neighborhoods. They want to be recognized and acknowledged just as others in the
community. Everything appears to be nice on the surface but something is happening underneath. That
is what they want exposed.
Francisco Ceja, 1303 W. Lynne, Anaheim. They were at the Council Meeting of July 22, 1997 (see
minutes that date) and requested an investigation of the South Anaheim Neighborhood Council CDBG
elections which were held July 14, 1997. They asked for a response within seven days but no response
has been received. They are going to stay tonight to get an answer.
Mayor Daly. He will ask the City Manager to comment on his investigation of the allegations made after
the public comment portion is completed.
Jessica Castro, United Neighborhoods, 221 N. Coffman, Anaheim. She is present today to address the
Council on what she considers was the very cowardly way the Mayor addressed them at the last Council
meeting. She elaborated on her concerns. She has provided a handout for the audience which she then
read having to do with the ability of the community to distinguish between personnel and criminal
misconduct which the Mayor questioned last week. She then gave examples of what they know to be
personnel issues and those that are criminal. The handout was provided so that it is crystal clear the
community knows what they (United Neighborhoods) are talking about.
Andrea Del Pozo, United Neighborhoods. The issue at the Jeffrey-Lynne Community Center may seem
insignificant or not important but if these kinds of things go unchecked, they escalate, contaminate and
perpetuate. She urged the Council to look into the matter and give them an answer on what has been
done or what can be done. If the allegations are not true, it is one thing, but if they are, she would like to
see a remedy before it contaminates other areas of City service.
Josie Montoya, United Neighborhoods. They have come to the Council over the last six or seven
months with issues but have made no impact or impression and there has been no response. The issues
they bring forth do not seem to concern the Council. They have observed Cadets posted at the doors (of
the Chamber) which they believe are to keep them out of a public meeting. They should not make the
mistake of ignoring the community. They have come forward with issues that are important to them.
They have followed the processes that have been identified to them. They know the difference between
personnel and criminal matters. She urged that they not lump everything into personnel matters to be
discussed behind closed doors -- the community has a right to know. She hopes that they will take the
comments seriously and take steps to put forth a report for the Press and the community outlining the
specific solutions or remedies regarding the issues brought forth.
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 5, 1997
Mayor Daly. He asked the City Manager to comment on the allegations that have been made during the
past few weeks regarding criminal activity as well as personnel improprieties. To the extent that the
inquiry is complete, he may comment, and to the extent there is ongoing investigation, he should also
explain if that is the case.
City Manager, James Ruth. He addressed the issues brought forth. First was the allegation of sexual
assault taking place off City property by a volunteer working in one of the City's programs. The Anaheim
Police Department did a thorough investigation and met with the mother and subject of the allegation.
After meeting with both mother and child, it was concluded that no sexual assault had taken place. The
parent and child concurred and said it never happened. The Police Department concluded the
investigation and sent a letter to the parent to confirm same.
The second issue was the South Anaheim Neighborhood Council (SANC) elections. Staff did an
evaluation and went back and redirected their efforts and looked at the whole process, what took place
that night (July 14, 1997), and all the issues surrounding that election. Also, City Audit staff looked at the
process and the ballotting. The Consultant, Norm Traub, hired by the City who initiated an investigation
of all the Jeffrey-Lynne issues, looked at this as a separate issue. All three groups came to the
conclusion that the process, procedure and guidelines were followed in the election. The guidelines
adjusted some time back were adopted on the basis that there had been misuses or misunderstandings
in the past. The people themselves within the Neighborhood Council adopted the policies to protect
against future abuses. Staff, the Consultant, and independent auditors looked at the process and came
to the same conclusions -- that the violations did not occur.
The third issue was the Jeffrey-Lynne Community Center investigation. They have concluded that
investigation and although they have always said if any citizens have actual information not brought
forth, they would be happy to consider those or any allegations or concerns. Mr. Traub, who conducted
the investigation, interviewed 19 people. Some of the residents either failed to appear or refused to be
interviewed or just did not respond. That investigation has been concluded. There are several personnel
issues involved which, consistent with State law, are not available to the general public. Mr. Traub was
unable to meet with the City Council tonight. It was his study. His (Ruth's) preference was that he make
that presentation directly to the Council. He feels they should hear the analysis directly from the person
who conducted the study/investigation. Mr. Traub is a former Police Chief and has a lot of credibility.
He will make the presentation to the Council next week. The issues relating to personnel will not be
made public but he will assure the public, in the event there are procedures and practices taking place
that need to be modified, he will be addressing those aggressively. To the best of his knowledge, there
have been no improprieties found in terms of fraud or relative to the allegations that have been brought
forth. He will leave that to Mr. Traub to present that to the City Council in Closed Session next Tuesday.
Mayor Daly. His understanding is that the investigation was conducted by the former Police Chief, Norm
Traub, who will be available next week to summarize his findings and respond to (Council) questions. To
the members of the community that have been concerned, he hopes this is a step toward responding and
there will be additional details available.
Jessica Castro, United Neighborhoods. She thanked the Council for taking the allegations seriously and
moving forward expeditiously with an investigation which is all they asked for. They asked to be heard
and listened to and treated respectfully. She thanked the Mayor for responding while they
(representatives of United Neighborhoods) are still in the room.
Larry Condon, EVEC Systems, 2642 W. Greenbrier Ave., Anaheim. This is with regard to the Exhaust
Removal System for Anaheim Fire Station No. 3. He referred to the brochure of information he
submitted containing extensive data and information relative to the issue - made a part of the record.
(EVEC's submittals with specifications, cross-reference to specifications, quotes, submittal rejection,
response, correspondence, letters of reference, etc.). He bid the work on May 8, 1997 and at the time
notified all the contractors and gave the firm number to his competition so they would have it and for a
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 5, 1997
quote from his competition on the bid so the contractor is protected. DKS Contracting got the job and
awarded EVEC the job and asked for his submittals which he gave them on May 26, 1997. On June 10,
1997, he received the package back that it was rejected. When they asked why, the architect sent over
to DKS a seven-page letter (Sec. 3 in the brochure), from his competition why his (EVEC) system does
not measure up to theirs. He has been in the business for nine years, has received rejected submittals
before, but has never been rejected by his competition. False statements were made.
EVEC Systems is a small company specializing in just the exhaust systems for fire apparatus. He is a
local Anaheim resident. It is what he does for a living. He feels he is the victim of unfair business
practices. He confirmed for the Mayor that his concern is with the City of Anaheim. He does not feel he
was given a fair shot from start to finish. Relative to the rejection, he received it on June 10 but the
contractor, DKS, never got a quote out of ACS, the supplier, until June 12.
Upon additional questioning by the Mayor, Mr. Condon referred to the packet of material submitted which
laid out all of the facts of the matter in great detail including all the correspondence back and forth and
the people involved in the Fire Department and Public Works Department. He would be happy to meet
with anybody and discuss what happened. He did not want to bring this situation forward to the Council
but wanted them to know as an Anaheim resident he was not going to install a system in the City's Fire
Station that is not a good one. Fire Departments talk a lot to one another and if a company does not do
a good job, they are out of business. They worked hard on a system. It is Iow cost, Iow maintenance
and a very energy efficient system. He emphasized they do not feel they were treated fairly.
Mayor Daly. They will ask the City Manager to review the materials submitted and to look at all the
procedures that have taken place and get a report back to the Council on the matter.
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 August 5, 1997. Council Member Zemel seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Mayor Daly, seconded by
Council Member Zemel, 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. 97R-147 and 97R-148, for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
Al.
105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Budget Advisory Commission meeting held June 18,
1997.
156: Receiving and filing the Anaheim Police Department Crime Statistical Report for the month
of June, 1997.
105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Anaheim Public Library Board meeting held June 4,
1997.
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 5, 1997
140: Receiving and filing the Anaheim Public Library Monthly Statistical Report for the month of
May, 1997.
105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Anaheim Senior Citizens Commission meeting held
June 12, 1997.
105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Community Services Board meeting held June 12,
1997.
A2.
169: Awarding a contract to the lowest responsible bidder, All American Asphalt, in the amount
of $370,564.29 for Tustin Avenue Street Improvements Project from La Palma Avenue to Santa
Ana River; and in the event said Iow bidder fails to comply with the terms of the award, awarding
the contract to the second Iow bidder, as well as waiving any irregularities in the bids of both the
Iow and second Iow bidders.
A3.
170: Approving the Final Map and Subdivision Agreement of Tract No. 15345, and authorizing
the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said Agreement. Tract No. 15345 is located at the
northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Mueller Street, and is filed in conjunction with
Reclassification No. 95-96-05 and Conditional Use Permit No. 3868.
A4.
123: Approving an Amendment to Agreement between the City of Anaheim and Western Transit
System for $41,000 to provide Metrolink rail feeder service from the Anaheim Stadium
Amtrak/Metrolink Station to the Anaheim Resort and Downtown areas. (Continued from the
meeting of July 22, 1997, Item A4.)
Council Member Tait. There are about 60 people who use the shuttle service and it costs taxpayers
about $41,000 a year or approximately $800 a person. He does not believe this is the type of business
the City should be involved in but is a function of OCTA. For that reason, he is going to oppose.
At the conclusion of the Consent Calendar, Council Members Tait and Zemel voted no on this item.
A5.
106: Approving the adoption of a seven-year Capital Improvement Program as part of eligibility
requirements for Measure M funding.
A6.
160: Accepting the Iow bid of Zumar Industries, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $50,000 for a
period of one year; and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to exercise the option to renew for
three additional one year periods, for special resort area signage, in accordance with Bid #5694.
Council Member Lopez. He asked exactly what they get for $50,000.
Gary Johnson, Public Works Director and City Engineer. They have special signs already installed in the
Anaheim Resort Area. They contemplate a need for additional signs over and above the amount
currently budgeted for signs. They are asking to have the contract put in place so if they need the
specialized signs, they will be able to purchase them. He does not expect they will expend that amount
of money. Most of the signs will be installed and be there for a number of months and in some cases
years dependent on the phasing and scheduling of the projects. These are special signs they will be
using throughout the duration of the project, temporary in nature. When the project is completed, the
signs will be eliminated and removed.
A7.
160: Accepting the Iow bid of Thomas & Betts Corporation, in the amount of $139,088 for eight
tubular steel poles and attachments, in accordance with Bid #5680.
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 5, 1997
A8.
160: Accepting the Iow bid of Tri Span, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $249,480 for asbestos
abatement for two separate areas of Hall A in the Anaheim Convention Center, in accordance
with Bid #5696,
A9.
160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to exercise the first renewal of the Purchase Order to
R.J. Noble Company, in an amount not to exceed $204,000 for the rental of asphalt equipment,
including operator, for a period of one year commencing September 1, 1997, and authorizing the
Purchasing Agent to exercise renewal for an additional two years, in accordance with Bid #5563.
Al0.
Authorizing an application for $250,000 under the Safe Neighborhood Grants Program, and
authorizing the Mayor or Community Development Department Executive Director and/or Chief
of Police to execute the required certifications and application documents.
All.
123: Approving the Lease Agreement by and between the City of Anaheim Job Training
Program Division and 20 S. Anaheim L.L.C., a California Limited Liability Company, for a period
of three years, to continue the One Stop Center operations and to relocate the JTPA
Administration offices to the WoodBridge Bldg., and authorizing the Community Development
Director to execute said lease.
A12.
123: Approving an Agreement with the Orange County Transportation Authority, in an amount
not to exceed $30,800 to provide transportation services to senior citizens participating in the
Project TLC lunch programs.
Council Member Zemel. He asked why this is not a function of OCTA and/or why this does not come
through Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) for funding.
Chris Jarvi, Community Services Director, This is not a typical service provided by OCTA. They act as
the contractor. The service enables the City's seniors to get to the luncheon sites. It could be funded
through CDBG but for the last 10 or 15 years, it has come through the General Fund. It is a public
service request.
Council Member Zemel. It is a good program and provides a good service. He is not suggesting it be
eliminated but they are going above and beyond the money set aside for public service programs and
going straight to the General Fund on something that needs to go through the CDBG. He is going to
have trouble supporting this out of the General Fund.
Mayor Daly. He has followed the funding of transporting seniors for years and he is comfortable with this
amount of money. There is a lot of benefit to the senior population from this program. In future years it
would be worth trying to identify other sources of funding such as CDBG but for the time being, he wants
to be sure the service is provided. They should move forward with a proper source of funding but he is
concerned that they not lose momentum.
Council Member Zemel. He wants to see the program continued but would like to see another funding
source.
Council Member Lopez. He agrees but is going to vote for the funding at this time and then have staff
look into other ways of funding for next year.
Council Member Tait. He does not feel they should wait a year. Rather than risk cutting off funding
immediately, they should start to look at other sources of funding now. He asked how many individuals
use the program.
Chris Jarvi. On a daily basis, they serve about 150 people a day, five days a week.
At the conclusion of the Consent Calendar, Council Member Zemel voted no on this item.
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 5, 1997
A13.
123: Approving a Lease Agreement with Disney GOALS for the use of two vacant City buildings
at 1170 North Anaheim Boulevard.
Council Member Zemel posed questions to staff for purposes of clarification; City Manager Ruth
explained these are properties acquired from the County Social Services Agency. This is a transitional
use. The GOALS program is looking for an opportunity to use these for some period. There is an
escape clause in the agreement for the City.
Mayor Daly. He talked to City staff about this and is encouraging Redevelopment staff to look at the
potential redevelopment of the entire block. It is in the North Anaheim Boulevard Redevelopment Area.
The two long-term uses could include expansion of LaPalma Park for some type of retail development,
or commercial development. This is an interim use as long as the Disney GOALS program understands
that in three or four years when they put forth another plan for this property, they have to find another
home.
A14.
A15.
A16.
A17.
A18.
A19.
123: Approving the option to extend an Agreement with the Orange County Conservation Corps
for one year, in an amount not to exceed $300,000.
129: RESOLUTION NO. 97R-147: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM CERTIFYING THAT COST ASSESSMENTS FOR WEED ABATEMENT
IMPOSED PURSUANT TO TITLE 6, CHAPTER 6.16 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE
REGULATING WEED AND REFUSE ABATEMENT HAVE BEEN DULY ASSESSED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AND ARE LEGAL AND VALID. (Continued from the meeting of
July 15, 1997, Item A11 .)
129: RESOLUTION NO. 97R-148: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM CONFIRMING THE WRITTEN REPORT OF THE FIRE CHIEF REGARDING
THE COST OF WEED ABATEMENT AND DIRECTING THE FILING THEREOF WITH THE
COUNTY OF ORANGE. (Continued from the meeting of July 15, 1997, Item A12.)
123: Approving an Agreement with the Orange County Health Services Agency for animal
control services for the period of July 1, 1997, through June 30, 1998, in an amount estimated by
the County of Orange to be $511,658 for fiscal year 97/98 (precise cost to be based on field,
shelter and licensing actions), and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said
agreement on behalf of the City.
123: Approving the West Group Order Form, the Subscriber Agreement, and the Addendum;
authorizing the Police Department to utilize the CD-Rom law library from the date of execution
of these documents through June 30, 2002.
129: Approving the Waiver of Rights Agreement between the City and Nuclear Mutual Limited;
Approving the Restricted, Annual, and Evergreen Powers of Attorney designating certain agents
and attorneys to act on behalf of the City, including, without limitation, execution of the Waiver of
Rights Agreement; and approving the City's Certificate and authorizing the Risk Manager, on
behalf of the City, to execute the City's Certificate, and taking other actions as may be necessary
to implement, and are in conformance with the Waiver of Rights Agreement and the Powers of
Attorney.
A20.
A21.
123: Approving the California Department of Transportation Utility Agreement No. 12-UT-424 to
relocate, reconstruct and/or abandon water facilities for the 91 Freeway High Occupancy Vehicle
(HOV) Project from 0.5 mile west of Harbor Boulevard to 0.2 mile west of State College
Boulevard.
114: Approving minutes of the Anaheim City Council meeting held July 8, 1997.
10
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 5, 1997
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 97R-147 and 97R-148 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. 97R-147 and 97R-148 duly passed and adopted.
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR. MOTIONS CARRIED. Council Members Zemel and Tait voted NO
on item A4. Council Member Zemel voted NO on Item A12.
A22.
CONDEMNATION HEARING -1779 S. HARBOR BOULEVARD (611 WEST KATELLA WAY):
To consider adoption of a resolution finding and determining the public interest and necessity to
require condemnation of certain real property for the purposes of making public roadway
improvements as part of the Anaheim Resort Area Specific Plan and the Katella Avenue Smart
Street Project. Authorizing the law firm of Rutan and Tucker, special counsel to the City, to
proceed with said condemnation action. (R/W 5180-17) This matter was continued from the
meeting of July 15, 1997 to this date.
Mayor Daly. This is the time and place for the subject hearing. In conducting the hearing, testimony will
be taken from the owner of record or a designated representative and limited to the following issues only:
(1) whether the public interest and necessity require the project, (2) whether the project is planned and
located in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury,
(3) whether the property sought to be acquired is necessary for the project, (4) whether the offer required
by Government Code Section 7267.2 has been made to the owner or owners of record and the City has
met all other procedural requirements for exercising eminent domain.
Mayor Daly opened the hearing.
Emil Wool, 800 S. Figueroa, 12th Floor, Los Angeles 90017. He is present on behalf of Steven Gumpert
who owns the property. There are driveways on Harbor and Katella and the main driveway is on Katella.
He is here to discuss what is going to happen to that driveway. The taking will not affect the building or
the parking. As part of the widening, the bus stop on Katella is going to be moved closer to the property
and the driveway on Katella. The main driveway will be moved on to the property presently owned by
the adjoining property owner. An easement will be acquired from the adjoining property owner and
granted to the owner of the subject property, the Gumperts. The owners do not oppose the project, but
the plan of acquisition on two points. The first concerns the replacement driveway. Access to the new
driveway should be granted in fee rather than by easement. If fee interest is taken, fee interest should
be given in return. The owner simply wants to receive the same rights and protections as presently
enjoyed by his ownership of the driveway.
The second point concerns the bus stop. As a matter of safety, the bus stop presently in front of the
property is going to be moved closer to the property in the after condition. As a matter of safety, cars
exiting the driveway cannot see oncoming traffic on Katella because the bus blocks their view. The
driveway in the after condition is going to be angled in such a way that buses will block the view even
more. It will be advantageous to everyone involved if the bus stop could be moved 100' west on Katella.
Natalie Meeks, Civil Engineer, Project Manager. She clarified for the Mayor that the staff
recommendation remains the same. The property provides for a bus turnout that does not exist now.
11
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 5, 1997
The driveway is being moved over and there may be some obstruction when a bus is parked there but
staff will look at all those issues in the design and provide safe access to the property.
David Cosgrove, Special Counsel (for the City). Relative to the easement, what they are involved with is
not a property trade so much as an attempt to secure alternate access to maintain the functional
equivalency of the property to maintain the access. The easement has been granted so the property will
still have vehicular and pedestrian access. The terms of the easement, indicates that access will remain
until the property affected or served by the easement secures alternate access to the public roadway
system. The claim may be there is an infringement on the abutters rights or access to the public
streetway system. That is easement implied in law. It is not a fee and, therefore, to the extent they have
to talk about property trades, they are talking about easement for easement as opposed to easement vs.
fee. They have attempted to reduce the impact to the affected property by securing alternate access
that is functionally equivalent.
Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 97R-149 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 97R-149: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DETERMINING THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY FOR ACQUISITION OF
PORTIONS OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1779 SOUTH HARBOR BOULEVARD (611 WEST
KATELLA AVENUE), FOR THE PURPOSES OF CONDUCTING ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT
(R/W 5180-17). (Continued from the meeting of July 15, 1997, Item A21s.)
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 97R-149 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. 97R-149 duly passed and adopted.
A23.
121: CONDEMNATION HEARING - 700 WEST CONVENTION WAY:
To consider adoption of a resolution finding and determining the public interest and necessity to
require condemnation of certain real property for the purposes of making public roadway
improvements at 700 West Convention Way, as part of the Convention Center and Anaheim
Resort Area Specific Pland. Authorizing the law firm of Rutan and Tucker, special counsel to the
City, to proceed with said condemnation action. (R/W 5200-2).
Mayor Daly. This is the time and place for the subject hearing. In conducting the hearing, testimony will
be taken from the owner of record or a designated representative and limited to the following issues only:
(1) whether the public interest and necessity require the project, (2) whether the project is planned and
located in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury,
(3) whether the property sought to be acquired is necessary for the project, (4) whether the offer required
by Government Code Section 7267.2 has been made to the owner or owners of record and the City has
met all other procedural requirements for exercising eminent domain.
Mayor Daly opened the hearing.
Natalie Meeks, Civil Engineer, Project Manager. The acquisition is on the Marriott property adjacent to
the Convention Center. It is required as part of the Convention Center expansion as shown in the exhibit
12
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 5, 1997
posted on the chamber wall. The project has been under discussion for quite some time with the
Marriott. They understand the City's needs and have not objected to the acquisition but they have failed
to come to terms with the property owner, Equitable. They are continuing negotiations with them. They
have made an offer on the property and tried to coordinate all construction plans and timelines to
minimize any impacts to the Marriott and provide access during construction and access to the
Convention Center afterwards. They will continue to work with both and to complete the construction.
Mayor Daly opened the hearing and asked to hear from the property owner or a designated
representative; no one was present to speak.
Mayor Daly closed the hearing.
Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 97R-150 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 97R-150: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DETERMINING THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND NECESSITY FOR ACQUISITION OF
PORTIONS OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 700 WEST CONVENTION WAY, FOR PURPOSES
OF CONDUCTING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT (AS PART OF THE CONVENTION CENTER AND
ANAHEIM RESORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN R/W 5200-2).
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 97R-150 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. 97R-150 duly passed and adopted.
A24. 105: APPOINTMENT/REAPPOINTMENTS - BUDGET ADVISORY COMMISSION FOR NEW
TERMS EXPIRING JUNE 30, 2001 (Brewer, Kennedy): Continued from the meetings of July 8,
July 15 and July 22, 1997 to this date.
Council Member McCracken nominated David Stoll; Council Member Tait nominated Jeff Roberts.
MOTION. Council Member Zemel moved to close nominations.
Before further action was taken, Mayor Daly asked if there were additional nominations. (There were
none.) He would briefly like to review the background information on the nominees before nominations
are closed.
Council Member Tait then gave background information on Mr. Roberts and Council Member McCracken
did the same on Mr. Stoll; City Clerk Sohl clarified for the Mayor that one woman is presently serving on
the Budget Advisory Commission (Floriani).
Mayor Daly seconded the motion to close nominations. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION. On motion by Mayor Daly seconded by Council Member Lopez, David Stoll and Jeff Roberts
were appointed to serve on the Budget Advisory Commission for the terms ending June 30, 2001.
MOTION CARRIED.
13
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 5, 1997
A25.
153: To consider the following four Resolutions pertaining to classification and compensation
changes to implement the FY 1997/98 budget, effective June 27, 1997:
RESOLUTION NO. - .... A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 92R-19, WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF
COMPENSATION FOR CLASSIFICATIONS DESIGNATED AS EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT.
RESOLUTION NO. - .... A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NOS. 92R-22 AND 92R-21, WHICH ESTABLISHED
RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR CLASSIFICATIONS DESIGNATED AS ADMINISTRATIVE
MANAGEMENT AND MIDDLE MANAGEMENT.
RESOLUTION NO. - .... A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NOS. 92R-20 AND 92R-18 WHICH ESTABLISHED
RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR CLASSIFICATIONS DESIGNATED AS SUPERVISORY
AND PROFESSIONAL.
RESOLUTION NO. - .... A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ESTABLISHING RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR CLASSIFICATIONS
ASSIGNED TO THE GENERAL UNIT REPRESENTED BY THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION.
City Manager Ruth requested this item be removed from the agenda at this time to be rescheduled at a
later date.
ITEMS B1 - B3 FROM THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MEETING OF JULY 17, 1997
DECISION DATE: JULY 24, 1997
INFORMATION ONLY -APPEAL PERIOD ENDS AUGUST 8, 1997:
B1. 179: ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 121 - CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 1:
OWNER: VERN MONROE, 5209 Seashore Drive, #100, Newport Beach, CA 92663
AGENT: DAVID JACKSON, 1557 W. Mable Street, Anaheim, CA 92802
LOCATION: 2212 W. Sequoia Avenue. Property is approximately 0.89 acre located on the
south side of Sequoia Avenue and approximately 165 feet east of the centerline of Siesta Street.
Waiver of maximum wall height to construct an 8-foot high wall along a portion of the west
property line to screen a previously-approved high school gymnasium.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
Administrative Adjustment No. 121 APPROVED (ZA DECISION NO. 97-11).
B2. 179: ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 122 - CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 1:
OWNER: ViC PELOQUIN, 4740 Bryson Street, Anaheim, CA 92807
AGENT: TED KAMINSKI, 6431 North Cornet Circle, Anaheim, CA 92807
LOCATION: 124 South Fairmont Boulevard. Property is approximately 2.42 acres located on
the southeast corner of Fairmont Boulevard and Santa Ana Canyon Road.
Waiver of minimum number of parking spaces to establish a 1,223 square-foot fast food (coffee
house) restaurant within an existing commercial shopping center.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
Administrative Adjustment No. 122 DENIED (ZA DECISION NO. 97-12).
14
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 5, 1997
B3. 179: ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 123 - CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 1:
OWNER: PEPPERTREE WALK, L.L.C. 3010 Old Ranch Parkway, Ste. #400, Seal Beach, CA
90740
AGENT: ALEX HERNANDEZ, 3010 Old Ranch Parkway, Ste. #400, Seal Beach, CA 90740
LOCATION: 1925 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is approximately 4.89 acres located at the
northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Mueller Street.
Waiver of maximum wall height to construct an 8-foot high wall along the north property line to
screen a previously-approved condominium complex.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
Administrative Adjustment No. 123 APPROVED (ZA DECISION NO. 97-13).
END OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ITEMS.
ITEM B4 FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 21, 1997:
INFORMATION ONLY:
B4. 179: VARIANCE NO. 4292 - REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF SUBSTANTIAL
CONFORMANCE FOR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED OFFICE BUILDING, AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION:
REQUESTED BY: DENNIE DANNAHY, 2062 Business Center Drive, Suite 40, Irvine, CA
92612
LOCATION: Property is located at the northwest corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Maude
Lane.
Petitioner requests determination of substantial conformance for a previously approved office
building.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Determined not to be in Substantial Conformance.
Negative Declaration previously approved.
City Clerk Sohl. The applicant has appealed the determination that the project as revised is not now in
substantial conformance and is requesting the Council to review the Planning Commission's decision.
This is the reason it is before the Council tonight. It is not a public hearing per se but there is a
procedure now in place where these items will be coming forwad in this manner. If they are denied by
the Planning Commission, the applicant may appeal to the Council. This is the time for Council to
consider the request and make a decision on substantial conformance.
Staff Input: See Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated July 21, 1997.
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager. The variance was approved by the Council in December,
1996. The applicant has since sold the property to a new developer and has modified the plans which
have been reviewed and are not in substantial conformance. The Commission was basically concerned
about parking overflow into the residential neighborhood. He then briefed the changes in the revised
plans as outlined in the staff report as well as in letter dated June 18, 1997 from Dennie Dannahy,
Architect.
15
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 5, 1997
Mayor Daly asked Mr. Hastings to briefly summarize why the Planning Commission determined that the
plans are not in substantial conformance.
Greg Hastings. Their concern was the type of use in the building which would now be a real estate office
and that there be adequate parking. The Commission wanted a public hearing to see if there were any
concerns from the neighbors. The applicant indicated the neighbors are in agreement.
Council Member Zemel. He noted that the applicant was in the audience and perhaps he could address
the issue. The Planning Commission was concerned that the neighbors that spoke at previous public
hearings may object. He senses that staff is agreeable to the revisions.
Joel Fick, Planning Director. Staff does recommend approval.
Dennie Dannahy, Architect, 2062 Business Center Drive, Suite 40, Irvine, CA 92612. He has met with
the neighbors. He read their objections prior to being hired for the project and tried to do as much as he
could. They then met with the neighbors and have signed statements from them approving the project.
The overall conclusion from all the neighbors was they are happy with what they have done.
Mayor Daly asked staff if all concerns have been addressed and if they are comfortable with the project
as it now stands.
Joel Fick. He reiterated that they are satisfied and are recommending approval. There are site
development enhancements not included in the original project. There is additional landscaping and
elimination of one of the parking waivers.
Council Member McCracken. The previous variance for an office building was for medical offices but
nothing prevented it from being a real estate office. It does not seem to be an issue of what kind of
office it is as long as it satisfies code.
Joel Fick. The charge of staff on this item was a determination as to whether the plan is in conformance
with the original plan approved by the Council. The Planning Commission did think it would be beneficial
to have a hearing for neighborhood consideration, but staff feels it is in substantial conformance.
MOTION. Council Member Zemel moved that, under Variance 4292, the Council finds that there is
substantial conformance with the original plans submitted. Council Member McCracken seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
END OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS.
16
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 5, 1997
179: Dl.andD2.
D1.
179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (REHEARING) VARIANCE NO. 4302,
CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 11:
OWNER: JAS PARTNERSHIP, Attn: Jim Shab, 1990 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA
92805
AGENT: LEON ALEXANDER, 558 South Harbor Boulevard, #100, Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION: 1985 South Santa Cruz Street. Property is 2.44 acres located at the northwest
corner of Santa Cruz Street and Stanford Court.
Waiver of permitted type of sign and permitted size of freestanding sign to construct a 50-foot
high double-faced, 299 square foot freestanding pole sign including a 70 square foot electronic
readerboard.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
GRANTED, IN PART, VARIANCE NO. 4302 for a 50-foot high double faced, 215 square foot
freestanding pole sign (PC97-40) (6 yes votes, 1 no vote).
HEARING SET ON: A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Council Members
McCracken and Lopez at the meeting of May 6, 1997, Item B5. Public hearing before the City Council
held May 20, 1997 (Item D7). Variance No. 4302 was denied.
City Council granted the request for rehearing submitted by the owner Mr. James A. Shab, JAS
Partnership and Global Cellular, at the meeting of June 10, 1997, Item B3.
Rehearing on Variance No. 4302 was continued from the meeting of July 8 and July 15, 1997, Item D3
and July 22, 1997, Item D3, at the request of the applicant and continued to this date.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Orange County Register- May 10, 1997
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - May 9, 1997
Posting of property - May 9, 1997
STAFF INPUT:
See staff report to the Planning Commission dated April 14, 1997.
D2. 179: PUBLIC HEARING - WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENTS - CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 3855, REQUEST COUNCIL REVIEW OF THE ABOVE ITEMS IN CONNECTION
WITH VARIANCE NO. 4302 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: JAS PARTNERSHIP, Attn: Jim Shab, 1990 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA
92805
AGENT: LEON ALEXANDER, 558 South Harbor Boulevard, #100, Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION: 1985 South Santa Cruz Street. Property is 2.44 acres located at the northwest
corner of Santa Cruz Street and Stanford Court.
To permit a total of two industrially-related sales and office uses within an existing 35,000 square
foot industrial building with waivers of prohibited type of sign and minimum number of parking
spaces.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3855 APPROVED (PC97-90) (6 yes votes, 1 abstained).
Waiver of code requirement APPROVED.
Negative Declaration previously approved.
17
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 5, 1997
Request Council review of the above items in connection with Variance No. 4302. Item No. 5 from the
Planning Commission meeting of July 21, 1997.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in the Orange County Register - July 24, 1997.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - July 24, 1997.
Posting of property - July 25, 1997
STAFF INPUT:
See staff report to the Planning Department dated July 21, 1997.
City Clerk Sohl. Both items were readvertised for a hearing this evening and the Council will probably
wish to take them together since they are related.
City Attorney White. It would be appropriate to hold one joint Public Hearing to address both
entitlements.
Mayor Daly. He referred to the complete staff report submitted to the Council in their agenda (see report
dated July 31, 1997) focusing on both items, the CUP and Variance request. He asked staff to
summarize the report.
Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, briefed the subject report. (Also see minutes of July 8, 15 and
July 22, 1997 where there was extensive discussion and input on Variance 4302 and the Public Hearing
subsequently continued to this date to be heard with request for CUP 3855 as requested by the Council
in order to make a comprehensive review of the proposal.)
Mayor Daly. At the conclusion of the briefing, he asked Ms. Santalahti to again summarize the signage
being recommended.
Annika Santalahti. That one pole sign be constructed on the property, 38' high, 100 sq. ft. in size which
would include the electronic reader board. That other signage be wall signs only as defined by code, i.e.,
that the signs be below the level of the roof and that those signs can be constructed in accordance with
code which potentially allows up to 20% of each building face to be one or more signs.
Mayor Daly. He surmises that the recommendation is a 38' high pole sign, 100 sq. feet in size with the
electronic reader board and wall signs built to code; Ms. Santalahti answered that is correct and that is
what was approved last August as well.
Mayor Daly. Before opening the Public Hearing, he confirmed that relative to D1. and D2., primarily
signage is involved but there is also an action that needs to be taken on the CUP which permits
industrially related sales and office uses within the 35,000 sq. ft. building.
Mayor Daly opened the Public Hearing and asked to hear from those who wished to speak on items D1.
and D2.
Steve Sheldon, Rex Group. His presentation covered a number of the points raised in his previous
testimony (see minutes of July 8, 15 and 22, 1997). His main points were as follows: The pole sign is
actually 218 (sq. ft.). Looking at the actual borders of the sign they are looking at about 85 to 90 sq. ft. of
additional signage with the variance giving the name. The original CUP was approved in August last
year. Had they taken that sign and put it in a commercial rather than industrial area set back 25 or more
feet from the middle of the road, they could have built it up to 350 sq. ft. In the industrial area, if the sign
is far enough back from the landscaping, commercial signage is allowed. The use is a commercial use.
18
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 5, 1997
They would be open to looking at some time in the future rezoning the area to be General-Commercial if
that would enable the Council to view this not as a variance but simply having the zoning reflect the use
on the land. They agree to a four-year variance on the additional signage from what they have now.
The variance would then extinguish. He then submitted material to the Council which he briefed entitled:
Points of Interest of the Anaheim City Council Regarding CUP 3855 (12 points on two pages) - made a
part of the record. Relative to the roof sign, their concern is whether it should be called a roof sign or
wall sign. He submitted pictures of two businesses in Anaheim (FRY'S and Staples) showing the signs
on those buildings. A roof sign sits on top of the roof. Theirs is a sign attached to the side of the wall. It
does not project over the eaves of the building. They are trying to avoid a straight line across in order to
make it aesthetically pleasing and that is why they believe their sign(s) should be considered a wall sign.
In addition, they have reduced the actual size of the signage. Originally, the staff report shows 1,050.
That is being reduced to 448' and the southerly facing sign of 708' reduced to 224'.
Mayor Daly asked if he had submitted the new design to City Planning staff; Mr. Sheldon answered that
he told them of the dramatic reduction. He does not believe staff has seen the design until now. The
sign will project over Mr. Shab's definition of the parapet line.
Mayor Daly. In the application, these signs would then replace any future requests for wall signage.
Steve Sheldon. There is a potential tenant coming in and they have allocated a space on the wall for the
tenant signage. In concluding, he stated theirs is an attractive looking hybrid wall sign - a quasi roof sign
which will give the applicant the exposure they need for the nexus to their business and they would
appreciate the Council's support.
Jim Shab. They have presented a new plan which he believes is what the Council is looking for. The
name and the presentation is something new. It is a change and departure from what they have had.
They are continuing with their existing name, Global Celullar. The new name, Air Call, will be a future
name for the company. What they are asking for is less than what was originally requested. It is done in
good taste and with as few words as they can put up to describe who they are. Mr. Sheldon indicated
there would be a place for future tenants to have a sign. They did not have time to present the colors.
He can present a rendering of what they are proposing and what the colors would look like. The
Variance is for the pole sign, not for the wall signs. It is for the cap on top of the reader board for the
name recognition. It was mentioned earlier that zoning allows for this. He does not believe they were
apprised of the situation with commercial allowing for a 70' pole sign -- not a reader board -- allowing for
a 350 sq. ft. sign and those conditions fall within the industrial zone as long as they meet certain
conditions, setback being one of them. There is a concern if they are allowing that to exist for others,
why not at their location.
Joel Fick, Planning Director. There are a number of qualifications that have to be made before getting to
that point -- if the property were not zoned industrial, which is all the property in that area, and if there
was not a CUP requested during which time the Planning Commission and City Council have always
historically reviewed and approved signage compatible with those locations, if this was not a reader
board in conjunction with that request with the industrial zoning that requires the CUP, if there were no
other roof signs on the property, if the sign were not located within the setback area -- with all those
qualifications, one could arrive at the point of approval. He confirmed the inference was made or the
query to staff, wouldn't the sign be permitted under commercial zoning. However, the property is zoned
industrially the same as those properties adjacent to it. There is a CUP requested and the Planning
Commission and City Council have always reviewed signs associated with the CUP which permits the
Council and Planning Commission to determine what the appropriate signage would be. This is a reader
board in an industrial zone. The sign as requested is located in the setback area which has a limitation
of 100 sq. ft., not 350 sq. ft. If there were to be commercial zoning, the pole sign is only allowed when
there are no roof signs proposed and three roof signs are being proposed.
Mayor Daly. There is a staff summary on page 2 of the staff report which summarizes what Mr. Shab's
request for signage is. He asked Mr. Shab if he had or has he or his firm submitted on one sheet of
paper and in one place a summary of signage he wants. He heard Mr. Sheldon say a couple of signs
19
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 5, 1997
have been decreased as of this afternoon in submittal to Planning staff. He would like to know the exact
request.
Jim Shab. The higher sign allows for a bigger pole sign along with a taller sign. He wanted to show the
compromise. They are not looking for a 70' tall sign or a 350 sq. ft. sign. They presented what they are
asking for in the way of a modified pole sign from what they were originally granted with the CUP last
year. The sign is defined with dimensions. They have even cleaned it up and taken elements off to give
it a cleaner look. It is their second proposal which they should have received.
Mayor Daly. That is his concern. He does not know what the second proposal is; Mr. Shab. He stated it
is what they asked for originally but cleaned up with hopes that the Council could take this and document
it as their proposed sign plan and make a decision from what they see as far as the pole sign. They are
not pushing the issue of commercial zoning allowig for the industrial zone to have a 70' tall sign with the
350 sq. ft. area. On the wall sign plan, it is substantially less than what was approved 6-0 by the
Planning Commission.
Brad Knypstra, 558 S. Harbor, Anaheim. He spoke in favor of the sign plan proposed. Mr. Shab is trying
to work with the City to get through the rough times. He is trying to get himself by the construction that
will be happening and is asking for an extra 85 sq. ft. on the pole sign, an extra 12' in height of what has
already been allowed. He would also like to have a facade sign. This is a businessman who is trying to
keep his business alive during the I-5 widening.
After additional discussion, Mayor Daly stated he is elected to represent all the property owners,
taxpayers and citizens of Anaheim. What the law allows is about 600 sq. ft. and the request is about
2,500 sq. ft. The applicant is asking for four times the amount of signage that people in the
neighborhood have. Further, the submittal keeps changing. It is only fair to the Council to know what
they are being asked to vote on. This is the first time the Council has seen the hybrid wall/roof sign.
Secondly, what they have is a rough rendering which he is told Mr. Shab intends to bring back to the
Planning Commission. The Council deserves to know what they are being asked to vote on.
Extensive discussion followed wherein Mr. Shab attempted to further explain the proposal. Questions
were posed by Council Members answered by staff and Mr. Shab. At the conclusion, Council Member
Zemel asked Mr. Shab if he would accept another continuance so staff could look at the proposal. There
is no way that he (Zemel) can even begin to understand what they are doing.
Mr. Shab stated, if that is what it is going to take for the Council to understand what they are doing.
MOTION. Council Member Zemel moved to continue the Public Hearing (D1. and D2.) another week
and included in that is the request that staff do everything they can to work with the applicant.
Before action was taken, Annika Santalahti stated that she had met with the applicant three times in two
weeks and she is totally prepared to do so again.
Mayor Daly. He talked with the applicant today. His overall concern is that they are being asked to
approve signs which are higher in the air because of the I-5 widening which is driving the request. The
implications of that for the community is, because the I-5 is being elevated through the heart of the City,
all signage on pole signs must be elevated. If they can picture this type of request being approved and
then multiplying it by 5, 10 or 100 businesses, all asking for the same thing, that is his concern. The
rationale is fundamentally flawed from the perspective of the City. Just because the I-5 will be elevated,
does that mean all signage along the I-5 becomes elevated. If that is the kind of community they want to
see and live in, they need to hear from the community on that subject.
Council Member Lopez seconded the motion of continuance. MOTION CARRIED.
2O
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 5, 1997
D3.
176: PUBLIC HEARING - ABANDONMENT NO. 97-4A: In accordance with application filed
by Taormina Industries, 1131 North Blue Gum Street, Anaheim Ca. 92806, a public Hearing was
held on the proposed abandonment of certain public streets, highways, and service easements;
and to consider abandoning (1) those certain easements in the area of abandoned White Star
Avenue, west of Blue Gum Street, excepting and reserving a 20-foot easement for water line and
fire facilities; (2) those certain easements in the area of abandoned Blue Gum Way extending
from White Star Avenue to Blue Gum Street; and (3) that certain easement for electrical
purposes extending westerly from Blue Gum Street pursuant to Resolution No. 97R-104 duly
published and notices thereof posted in accordance with law.
Report of the City Engineer dated June 27, 1997 was submitted recommending approval of said
abandonment.
Natalie Meeks, Civil Engineer, Public Works. The action tonight is a request for abandonment of public
utility easements. The utilities have been removed from these easements with the expansion of the
water line and fire service lines. A 20' public utility easement is being retained for those facilities.
Mayor Daly opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak; there being none, the
public hearing was closed.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Mayor Daly,
seconded by Council Member Zemel, the City Council finds that the proposed activity falls within the
definition of sections 3.01 Class 5 of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for an
Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements to file an
EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Daly offered Resolution 97R-151 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 96R-151: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM VACATING CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS, HIGHWAYS AND SERVICE EASEMENT
(ABANDONMENT NO. 97-4A ).
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 97R-151 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. 97R-151 duly passed and adopted.
21
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 5, 1997
D4. 179: PUBLIC HEARING - WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. 3945 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: SANDERSON J. RAY DEVELOPMENT, 2699 White Road, Irvine, CA 92714
AGENT: ROBERT ENGEN, 701 South Parker Street, Suite 1000, Orange, CA 92868
LOCATION: 1320 East Sanderson Avenue. Property is 1.56 acres located at the southwest
corner of Sanderson Avenue and Phoenix Club Drive.
To establish a church and elementary school for up to 49 children within an existing 12,400
square foot office building with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3945 GRANTED (PC97-86) (6 yes votes, 1 absent).
Approved waiver of code requirement.
Approved Negative Declaration.
HEARING SET ON: A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Council
Members McCracken and Lopez at the meeting of July 15, 1997, item Bll and a Public Hearing
scheduled this date.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in North County News - July 24, 1997.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - July 24, 1997.
Posting of property - July 25, 1997.
STAFF INPUT:
See staff report to the Planning Commission dated June 23, 1997.
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager. He briefed the staff report to the Planning Commission which
described the project which was approved for a period of five years.
Council Member McCracken. Her question is about the school and the children involved. A school with
49 youngsters with five or six faculty ultimately has to grow or it is not going to exist. If it grows with
additional classrooms, she questioned where the kids are going to play. The long-range plan does not
seem to be considered. The school will be next to the Phoenix Club which is a restaurant and a public
facility. They have activities that go on in the day to late into the night. If the church had been there
first, there ultimately would have been a problem with the Phoenix Club getting a license. She
questioned if the Phoenix Club is going to have problems as they did at the other site. At their last
location, a mobile home park was built next to them and there subsequently were restrictions placed on
the Phoenix Club. It will not be resolved by a statement saying that the church is not going to complain.
She feels there is a conflicting use with the Phoenix Club next door. According to the City's ordinance,
this is a permitted location but she is concerned it will conflict with the Phoenix Club.
Joel Fick, Planning Director. In terms of numbers of students, it limits the number of potential children to
a maximum of 49 and the CUP has a time limitation of five years. The Phoenix Club appeared at the
Planning Commission meeting and expressed concerns and that is what resulted in the condition of
declaration concerning the acknowledgment of the Phoenix Club.
Applicant's Statement: Robert Engen, 36 Seaton Road, Irvine. He is the dual agent for Sanderson and
the tenant. Currently the enrollment of the school as it ended last year was 11. They feel a maximum of
49 is appropriate for the church. There is a lease which is ready to be signed upon Council's approval of
the CUP. Relative to the questions raised by Council Members Lopez and McCracken, he has had an
opportunity to speak with them directly. The fact that the students will be bussed or brought by
automobile is another reason why it is OK to have the school there. There will be no walking to school or
past the Phoenix Club. They talked at length at the Planning Commission meeting about the liquor
served at the Phoenix Club and the noise and that is why he drafted a covenant of awareness that will
accompany the lease and any future lease and it will be a recorded document.
22
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 5, 1997
Council Member Lopez asked if there were plans to purchase more land because the subject property is
very small.
Abel (last name not intelligible), a representative of the church, stated that the goal is not to enlarge the
school. The school is basically to educate the staff's and minister's children of the local church. They do
not even expect to go to 49 students but perhaps 15 or 20 max. Enrollment is not even open to the
congregation or the public. It is a private school. The students will all be from Orange County and from
the same congregation.
Ronald Feenstra, Church Architect, 3629 Lloyd Place, San Diego. Relative to Council Member
McCracken's concerns about the play area, they will address that with play yard arrangements using the
parking lot. For instance, they have previously put a basketball backboard and created a regulation
court. During the week, they chain off or barrier a certain portion of the property for outdoor games.
Relative to the Phoenix Club, there is nothing but a blank wall facing he Club. All the grass is toward the
parking lot opposite the Phoenix Club. The only reason they have to go on to the Phoenix Club property
is if they ever had to use the emergency exit door. There are no noise considerations. The Phoenix
Club is at least a few hundred feet from the church property. This facility is perfect for the church. The
parking is adequate, the offices and classrooms are not used while there are services. It would take a
maximum of 105 cars, they have 107 spaces. The parking is good and the building is good.
Council Member McCracken. Relative to the prospects of growth, she sees parents desparate to have a
Christian education for their children. She sees them as a growing church with this as the first step.
Anaheim is a big city and there is a huge Hispanic population with many looking for support from a
church like this one.
Ronald Feenstra. The church would not want to have more than the number of children indicated. The
limit of 49 is one he set even though they have only 13.
Abel. The school is not the primary issue of the CUP. If they needed to, they would even be willing to
drop the school. They are not going to allow for it to grow. It is only for their ministers. If they had to
resort to not having a school, there are a lot of other churches nearby that offer Christian education.
They are mostly interested in the church. They will not allow more than 49 students.
Mayor Daly asked to hear from anyone who wished to speak, either in favor or in opposition.
Henry Wopkin, member of the Phoenix Club for 35 years. A few years ago, they were asked to relocate
from the Douglass Street property to make room for the Arrowhead Pond (Arena). Most people felt they
had found a good location on Sanderson Avenue (the present location) next to an office building which
would not seem to interfere with their activities. The Phoenix Club is a public facility and many
companies have picnics at the club. The events usually take place on weekends which means there will
be conflict with church operations. Although there will only be 11 children in the school, they do not
know what the size of the congregation is going to be in the next five years or what is going to happen to
the lease after it expires in five years. There are many uncertainties. He feels there will be a conflict
when they have activities on Sunday morning when the Phoenix Club starts their activities. He is not
against religious activities but with the location next to the club.
Bill Krebs, resident of Anaheim and member of the Phoenix Club. The Phoenix Club exists because of
the restaurants and their liquor license. Schools and churches carry laws and codes with them. The
statement offered by the church is general and does not preclude a law suit where the Phoenix Club
would have to spend money to defend itself. The club is a $7 million investment which would be
jeopardized if they lost their liquor license. Also, City property is within 500 or 600 '. He does not know
whether selling liquor means at 600' away or the premises. If premises, the parking lot is right across the
railroad tracks and the City should also consider that. The Pond has many functions during week days.
It is fast traffic travelling to and from the Pond. The City may have to put in traffic signs to curtail the
speed and also take into consideration other such improvements for that road and also for Sanderson
Drive. Relative to the play area, there are no fences between the parking lot and the entrance to the
23
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 5, 1997
Pond. If there is going to be a basketball court, there could be the danger of the ball going across the
road. There are many safety aspects for the City to consider. If this is just going to be a temporary
location, he does not see a problem, but feels there will be problems if it is a permanent location.
Summation by Applicant: Robert Engen. Regarding the sound, since application has been made, there
has been ample opportunity on Saturdays and Sundays to test the noise both outside and inside. Due to
the construction of the building, the sound on its loudest days does not go into the building. It has been
tested. Regarding the congregation, the auditorium has been outfitted with 300 seats. Currently, Sunday
services have had a maximum of 170. Regarding the traffic, they are aware of the situaiton. They do
not feel they add much to that other than Sunday. Regarding the fenced area/play area, the building sits
to the west and north side of the property. On the south side is the area which they have in mind if the
children play outdoors. It has fences on three sides. Regarding the basketball court, from the temporary
fence to the road, it is approximately 60 or 70'. They do not see that will cause a problem. The Pastor is
not present this evening, but he has had an opportunity to visit the people at the Phoenix Club. He
understands what they are there for and has no objection and has reviewed this with his congregation.
Relative to the liquor law, it applies primarily to public schools. They tried to find if there was any code
that the City has pertaining to private schools and liquor.
Council Member McCracken. She does not believe the City has a code, but it is the Alcoholic Beverage
Control Board (ABC) which the City Attorney can confirm. She thought churches were included in that.
Robert Engen. His understanding is that public schools are included in the California Alcohol Board that
gives the licensing. The private school is not involved in that nor would the license be cancelled
because of a private school being where this one is. The school is only K through 8.
Mayor Daly. He suggested the possibility of the City continuing this to address the concern of the conflict
of a church/school operation and the sale of alcohol nearby. If State law changes and schools and
churches are given more clout over an existing alcohol license, or the Phoenix Club has to reapply for its
existing license or a new type of alcohol license, is there any way the City can condition this use will not
interfere with that.
Cristina Talley, Assistant City Attorney. If State law changes, the City will not be in a position to make
factual determinations. The State Alcohol Board is the body that will involved. Any condition the City
would impose, would be under the jurisdiction of the ABC. She assumes the finding would have to be
made by the ABC.
Robert Engen. The document was drafted as a result of some suggestions made by the Planning
Department and that also was sent to the City Attorney. The City Attorney made a number of changes
which they have incorporated. He read the first paragraph regarding occupancy awareness.
Mayor Daly. He noted it is point 14 of the proposed conditions. He asked in concept how would he feel
about including the Pond/Arena and the vacant land to the south on the other side of the railroad tracks
which may have restaurants eventually; Mr. Engen confirmed he would have no problem with that.
From the audience, a member of the Phoenix Club stated that they want to make sure it could be
covered later on.
Council Member Tait. He assumes if there was any objection by the tenant, then the City would have the
right to revoke the CUP if there is a violation of the condition.
Cristina Talley. She is not clear under what circumstance they would be objecting; Council Member Tait.
Filing a complaint with the Police Department for loud noise or something like that, with the condition and
covenant, could the City then revoke the CUP. What kind of teeth does the covenant have.
24
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 5, 1997
Cristina Talley, The way it is written, it is nothing more than an acknowledgment. It is not a covenant
not to do anything, just acknowledging they are aware of and do not object to certain activities. If they
want to make it prospective in nature, they could change the language to say they declare they are
aware of and do not now and will not in the future object. They will then be prohibited from doing so
during the lifetime of the CUP.
Mr. Engen. They do not have a problem with that as long as it is within the law of the CUP.
Cristina Talley. If activities were taking place at the Phoenix Club or adjacent properties that would
constitute a public nuisance or if there was unlawful conduct it would not prevent them from complaining.
Mayor Daly closed the Public Hearing.
Council Member Tait. In the approval, he would like to make sure that the language in the covenant is
as strong as possible to allow broad possible use of the Phoenix Club and surrounding properties. If so,
he would not object.
Mayor Daly. He believes the language should address other properties -- the same language, tougher
language, but including the Pond and other properties.
Mr. Krebs. He wanted to make sure whatever the covenant is, that it be submitted to Mr. Irwin Simmons,
the Manager of the Phoenix Club.
Council Member Lopez. He supports schools and churches but feels this is the wrong location. The
whole area is pretty much open and will be developed with hotels and car dealerships whether this year
or four or five or ten years from now. He cannot support this proposal.
Joel Fick. A hotel could be built but would require a CUP and would be subject to Planning Commission
review.
Robert Engen. Early in his presentation, he made the statement and just got an acknowledgment from a
church member that he has the authority to say, if it is of importance to the Council, they will drop the
school and that can be added to the resolution, that it not include the school.
Council Member Tait. He is not bothered by the school and is ready to support the project. He
thereupon offered a motion to approve the environmental findings.
Mayor Daly. Before any further action was taken, he stated he has a concern should this be approved,
that the language be as "tough" as necessary to protect the Phoenix Club as well as the proposed
development adjacent to the Pond. He asked if there was a way to do so tonight. He would like to know
the implications of allowing a church and a school right in the face of operating liquor licenses and
probably more liquor licenses. He is not saying the operation of the school or church will change four
years from now. If there is a real conflict of operations, they need to be careful on the legal language.
Perhaps continuing it for a week to make sure it is strict enough would be in order.
MOTION.Council Member Tait felt that made sense and withdrew his motion an the environmental
finding and instead moved for a one-week continuance of the Public Hearing. Mayor Daly seconded the
motion.
Before a vote was taken, the Assistant City Attorney stated that in the event a school were operating
there and a use wanted to come in later selling alcohol, with distance requirements, a covenant of this
type will not help. The fact that they do not object does not negate the fact that it is within the distance
requirement.
25
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 5, 1997
Council Member Zemel. He was prepared to support, but that is a question he would like answered for
certain.
Mayor Daly. The City Attorney's Office will do a legal analysis on the issues raised.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion of continuance. MOTION CARRIED.
C1. REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS:
Assistant City Attorney Christina Talley stated that there are no actions to report.
C2. COUNCIL COMMENTS:
There were no comments.
ADJOURNMENT: By general Council consent, the Council Meeting of August 5, 1997 was adjourned
(8:53 p.m.)
LEONORA N. SOHL
CITY CLERK
26