1997/11/18ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA- CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
NOVEMBER 18, 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
ASSISTANT CITY CLERK: Ann M. Sauvageau
EXEC. DIRECTOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Lisa Stipkovich
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Joel Fick
TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION MANAGER: John Lower
CIVIL ENGINEER - DEVELOPMENT SERVICES: Natalie Armas
PUBLIC UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER: Ed Aghjayan
ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER ELECTRICAL SERVICES: Dale Tarkington
POLICE INVESTIGATOR: Tom Engle
ZONING DIVISION MANAGER: Greg Hastings
DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR: Mary McCIoskey
REDEVELOPMENT & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MANAGER: Richard Bruckner
A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was posted at 3:25 p.m. on
November 14, 1997 at the City Hall Kiosk, containing all items as shown herein.
Mayor Daly called the workshop portion of the meeting of November 18, 1997 to order and welcomed
those in attendance.
City Manager, James Ruth. There has been an ongoing cooperative effort with staff for approximately a
year to put together strategies for improving the West portion of Anaheim. Lisa Stipkovich, Executive
Director of Community Development will make the first part of the presentation today followed by Joel
Fick, Planning Director on Community Planning.
179: WEST ANAHEIM STRATEGIES - COMMUNITY PLANNING: Lisa Stipkovich, Executive
Director of Community Development gave a narrated slide presentation first covering the various
strategies used in West Anaheim (Primary Components of City Strategy for West Anaheim). She will be
focusing on the Redevelopment Project Area process. The displayed Survey Area map is the area that
was originally approved and staff has been studying that area extensively. She then gave the
background relaying what has been accomplished to this point and subsequently gave the current status
of the proposed project. There is an action item on the agenda tonight (see Item 1. under the Anaheim
Redevelopment Agency Meeting) which if approved will let the other taxing entities know they are
starting the process. They have also done a Feasibility Analysis and Blight Analysis, the results of which
were transmitted to the Council under memorandum of November 12, 1997. ( See Feasibility Study for
the West Anaheim Redevelopment Project - September 8, 1997 - made a part of the record) Another
action item before the Council tonight is the Public Hearing (Item A32.) to consider the Project Area
Committee (PAC) for the West Anaheim Redevelopment Project Area which is required by law if there
is any possibility of a significant number of residents being displaced by a Redevelopment Project.
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 1997
An important issue that was broached in the November 12, 1997 memorandum was that staff is going to
be recommending that the proposed West Anaheim Redevelopment Area be combined with the
Brookhurst Redevelopment Area for the reasons enumerated -- both areas face similar issues, West
Anaheim Community Groups generally define "West Anaheim" to include the Brookhurst Area, and,
because both project areas are relatively small, the merger of the two projects greatly increases their
ability to issue bonds strengthening the financial status of both projects. It would be an amendment to
the Brookhurst Project Area.
Mrs. Stipkovich, in the balance of the presentation, highlighted some of the statistics contained in the
Feasibility Study regarding physical and economic blight existing with corresponding slides showing
examples of the physical blight, incompatible uses, etc. She also relayed the crime statistics for the area
noting that 15% of the crimes committed in the City occur in the area which represents only 2.3% of the
total City acreage. (See, West Anaheim Redevelopment Study - Feasibility Study Summary - previously
submitted under memorandum of 11/12/97). There are rules the Council will be establishing tonight in
terms of the makeup of the PAC which are contained in the law. After approval, staff would follow up
with community meetings, elect the PAC, begin preparation of the EIR, and bring the item back to the
Council in approximately June for the final Redevelopment Plan and approval of the EIR.
Questions were then posed to Mrs. Stipkovich by Council Members revolving around the makeup of the
nine-member PAC (businesses - 3 members, residential owner-occupants - 1, residential tenants - 2,
community organizations - 3) and how the representatives are elected. Mayor Daly also asked if the
Council ratified the election of the representatives or was it completely up to the neighborhood and
business groups.
John Woodhead, Assistant City Attorney, confirmed it is simply a ratification of the process that the City
Council undergoes.
Council Member Lopez. He wants to be sure that in the makeup of the PAC, there is representation
throughout the whole western part of the City; Mrs. Stipkovich. It is not required that the groups
represent a specific geographical area. Where the issue might come up is with the community
organizations. There has to be three individual separate organizations represented. She confirmed that
in this case, the PAC will not consist of persons from the Brookhurst Redevelopment Project Area but
only the new areas (Magnolia to the west City limits).
After additional discussion on the issue and a reiteration by Council Member Lopez that there be proper
representation and input throughout the area, it was determined that staff would prepare language
relative to the Project Area Committee formation to insure that it be composed of members
geographically representative of the entire area. Mrs. Stipkovich stated that she would have the
language prepared and submitted to the Council since it would have to be incorporated in their action this
evening.
Jeff Kirsch, 2661 W. Palais, Anaheim. He asked if membership from all these groups were restricted to
people living within the boundaries of the Project Area. He noted that a lot of the groups who have
worked hard on this project live in other residential areas.
Lisa Stipkovich. The actual residents and business people have to be within the PAC; however, the
three organizations must serve the area, for instance the WAND group. It could be that some members
of those groups do not live in the area but the organization serves the area.
Mayor Daly asked if this was the last opportunity to adopt the map of the Project Area or would they have
one more opportunity.
Lisa Stipkovich. As far as eliminating areas, that can be done; John Woodhead. When the Council
adopts the plan in June, they will have the ability up to that moment to delete territory, but can only
include area that is now in the survey.
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 1997
COMMUNITY PLANNING: Joel Fick, Planning Director. His presentation covered the enhancements
and strategies that have thus far been put in place (see report dated 11/18/97 - Subject: Community
Planning Program - Status of East Anaheim Action Plan - made a part of the record) noting that 39 of 54
action items have either been completed or are in the process of being implemented. Further, an
economic study of commercial areas west of the Santa Ana River is very close to being completed
through the Community Development Department's Economic Development Program. The information
would be applicable to the East Anaheim Planning Area, future Planning Areas, and Redevelopment
Project Areas. Mr. Fick's presentation was supplemented by slides which showed the physical
improvements (positive effects) of the work that has been completed in conjunction with various action
items, hard copies of which were included in the East Anaheim Action Plan Progress Report. After
briefing other portions of the report, Mr. Fick stated they are pleased with the accomplishments to date in
the East Anaheim Planning Area and appreciative of the support given through the City Manager's Office
and the Council.
At the conclusion of this portion of Mr. Fick's presentation, questions were posed by the Mayor relative to
the progress being made with regard to the East Anaheim Shopping Center at State College and Lincoln
and when some improvements were expected to be made, specifically the status of the long vacant
Capri Coffee Shop.
Mr. Fick noted that there are some individual property ownerships which have complicated things but
there has been an interest in consolidating some of the parcels with the shopping center. He then briefed
the progress that has been made relative to the other corners at the intersection noting that a Walgreen
Express Drug Store will soon be constructed in place of the vacant service station.
Mr. Fick then updated the progress being made in the far western portion of the City, the second
Community Planning Area, consisting of Areas 1 and 3. During the past several months, staff has been
conducting a focused examination of the land uses within that area west of Gilbert to the far western
limits of the City. A great number of residents and neighborhood associations have been very helpful in
the process and they have also been working closely with the Redevelopment process. To date, staff
has completed and conducted exhaustive research within each and every parcel in the entire area. Many
hours have been spent in the field examining the condition of every street, alley, property, etc. He then
explained all of the things that have occurred and the meetings that have taken place. Staff also
received back over 900 surveys that were sent out and are in the process of comparing the responses
much like the process they went through with the East Anaheim Action Plan. They anticipate a Draft
Action Plan will be prepared and shared with the community and the Planning Commission sometime
early next month with review and a presentation to the Council in the Spring. They have been working
very closely with all City departments to be sure their effort is complementary to those efforts
Council Member Lopez. He is encouraged with what he has seen especially the cleanup of some of the
things that have been problems for the many years that he has been a Police Officer. He thanked staff
for a job well done. He noted, however, when Home Depot moves from Lincoln Avenue to its new
location, he wants to make sure that they just don't abandon the site but hopefully something will be done
to beautify the area.
Lisa Stipkovich. They are talking to the property owner and have been in discussion relative to other
uses.
Mayor Daly. One of the things that always comes up in discussions with West Anaheim residents is a
means of identity for some of the neighborhoods. For instance, what is the heart of West Anaheim, the
cross roads -- some community identity or a sense of place -- what is distinctive. He would like to
generate as many ideas as possible and let residents tell them what they like and do not like.
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 1997
Joel Fick. Staff has asked for their assistance on an historical basis. Actually, there are still a large
number of original Anaheim residents living in the West Anaheim area and they can recall what their
original tract was called. He also clarified for the Mayor that the next major milestone in the process with
the community will be sometime after the first of the year. They will be keeping the City Council
apprised of the program and what the preliminary concepts are.
Mayor Daly thanked staff for the informative and detailed presentation. The Council is pleased with the
progress that has been made.
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.
1. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR
Agency negotiator: Dave Hill
Employee organization: Anaheim Fire Association, AMEA, and IBEW.
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: Varle v. City of Anaheim, et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 77-25-
99.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
54956.9(a) - Existing Litigation:
Name of case: Tran v. City of Anaheim, et al., U. S. District Court Case No. SA CV 96-684LHM
(Eex).
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
54956.9(a) - Existing Litigation:
Name of case: Pepper v. City of Anaheim, et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 78-
22-21.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
54956.9(a) - Existing Litigation:
Name of case: People of the State of California v. Sheldon, et. al., Orange County Municipal
Court Case no. AN97NM06799.
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 1997
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9: one potential case.
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION:
Title(s): City Manager, City Attorney, City Treasurer, and City Clerk.
LIABILITY CLAIMS
Name of Claimant: Robin Fuhrman
Agency claimed against: City of Anaheim.
RECESS CLOSED SESSION:
Mayor Daly moved to recess into Closed Session. Council Member Zemel seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED. ( 3:53 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. (5:30 p.m.)
INVOCATION:
Pastor Rick Danna, The Cornerstone Foursquare Church, gave the invocation.
FLAG SALUTE:
Mayor Pro Tem Lou Lopez led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
119: PRESENTATION - 1997 PLANNING PROJECT AWARD: Presentation of the 1997 Planning
Project Award from the California Chapter of the American Planning Association for the Paseo Village
Revitalization Program.
Lisa Stipkovich, Executive Director of Community Development. She explained that it took a great deal
of effort on the part of City staff and the developer to turn around one of the City's most blighted
neighborhoods. She is pleased to present the award to the City, the Mayor and City Council and to Bill
Witte, Partner, Related Companies of California.
Mayor Daly. Paseo Village is an apartment rehabilitation project on what used to be Citron between
LaPalma and Romneya. Lisa Stipkovich and her staff with the cooperation of Related Companies of
California have accomplished an award-winning project. He invited Mr. Witte to come forward to receive
the award from Mrs. Stipkovich.
Bill Witte, Related Companies of California. He accepted the award and added his thanks to all in the
City. Since August, 10 or 11 appointed and elected officials (in other cities) requested and have been
taken on tours of the project which makes a strong statement. They would like to see more of these
types of projects done in other cities as well but he feels in Anaheim, there is unprecedented cooperation
from all the elected and appointed officials as well as from City departments which permitted not only the
implementation of the project, but also its successful completion. The 176 units should be completely
rehabilitated and fully leased and occupied by mid December.
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 1997
119: DECLARATION OF RECOGNITION: A Declaration of Recognition was unanimously adopted by
the City Council recognizing The Republic Group, LLC on being named "one of the 500 fastest growing
private companies in America in 1997 by Inc. Magazine due to their exceptional growth in sales from
1995 to 1996."
James Raeder, President and Mark McQuitty, Chairman, The Republic Group, LLC accepted the
Declaration. Mr. Raeder explained that the company started five years ago on Broadway and has since
purchased not only the Luskey Building, but also the Kraemer Building thanks to the Redevelopment
Agency for their inspiration and help and also Council Member Zemel. At this time, they have
approximately 150 employees which is expected to increase to 300-400 in the next 24 months.
RECOGNITIONS AUTHORIZED BY COUNCIL THIS DATE TO BE MAILED OR PRESENTED AT
ANOTHER TIME:
2.
3.
4.
5.
DECLARATION recognizing the goodwill delegation from Mito, Japan.
DECLARATION recognizing KOCE-TV on their 25th anniversary.
DECLARATION recognizing the Ebell Club of Anaheim on their 90th anniversary.
PROCLAMATION proclaiming December 1, 1997 as World AIDS Day in Orange County.
PROCLAMATION proclaiming November 2-8, 1997 as Key Club Week at Canyon High
School.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $7,631,568.42 for the period ending
November 10, 1997 and $2,689,368.10 for the period ending November 17, 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. (5:43 p.m.)
Mayor Daly reconvened the City Council Meeting ( 5:44 p.m.)
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
There were no additions to agenda items.
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST:
No items of public interest were addressed.
PUBLIC COMMENTS - AGENDA ITEMS:
Public input was received on Items A11, A23, A28, A30 and C1 (see discussion under those items).
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 1997
MOTION:
Mayor Daly moved to waive reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions to be acted upon for
the Council meeting of November 18, 1997. Council Member Tait seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR A1 - A31: On motion by Mayor Daly,
seconded by Council Member Tait, 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-205 through 97R-217, both inclusive, for adoption.
Mayor Daly offered Ordinance No. 5624 for adoption. Refer to Resolution/Ordinance Book.
Al.
A2.
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 Ronald David Turner c/o Charles R. Weldon, Esq. for bodily injury
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about June 3, 1997.
b. Claim submitted by Janice Wilson for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions
of the City on or about August 29, 1997.
c. Claim submitted by Mrs. Ann Smith for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions
of the City on or about September 2, 1997.
d. Claim submitted by Hazel Holley c/o Ned P. Reilly, Esq. for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about May 30, 1997.
e. Claim submitted by Jahan Motakef for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions
of the City on or about September 7, 1997.
105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Golf Advisory Commission meeting held September 25,
1997.
105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Anaheim Redevelopment and Housing Commission
meeting held October 23, 1997.
112: Receiving and filing the Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Funds (SLESF) Report
for the month of October, 1997, as submitted by the City Treasurer.
117: Receiving and filing the Investment Portfolio Report Executive Summary for the month of
October, 1997, as submitted by the City Treasurer.
105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Anaheim Public Library Board meeting held October 1,
1997.
140: Receiving and filing the Anaheim Public Library Monthly Statistical Report for the month of
September, 1997.
105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Mother Colony House Advisory Board meeting held
September 5, 1997.
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 1997
A3.
167: Awarding a contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Computer Service Company, in the
amount of $276,982.65 for Ball Road Signal Coordination and CCTV Installation; 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.
A4.
164: Awarding a contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Gillespie Construction, Inc., in the
amount of $624,312 for I-5 Freeway Relocation Improvements-Segment B (Vermont
Avenue/Bellvue Drive/Santa Ana Street Sewer B6 - Phase 2); 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.
A5.
158: Approving the Acquisition Agreement for real property at 1057 West Ball Road (R/W 5090
A&B) Ball Road/West Street Intersection Improvement and Beautification Project; authorizing
the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said Agreement; and authorizing the acquisition payment of
$7,088 to Pacific Islandia California, Inc.
A6.
158: Approving the Acquisition Agreements (Escrow Instructions) for real property at 115 West
Katella Avenue (R/W 5180-37) Katella Avenue Smart Street Improvement Project; approving the
Acquisition Agreement of Tenant-Sellers interest in Real Property; approving the Right-of-Entry
Agreement; authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said Agreements; authorizing the
acquisition payment of $280,875 to Kenneth Y. Su and Sumi Wen Yu Su; and authorizing the
acquisition payment of $107,670 to Wayne C. Su, George C. Su, and Judy C. Lin.
A7.
158: Approving the Acquisition Agreement for real property at 1844 South Haster Street for six
mobile home units (R/W 5180-43 A&B) - Katella Avenue Smart Street Improvement Project;
authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said Agreement; and authorizing the acquisition
payment to the mobile home owners.
A8.
158: Approving the Acquisition Agreement for real property at 200 West Katella Avenue (R/W
5180-49) Katella Avenue Smart Street Improvement Project; authorizing the Mayor and City
Clerk to execute said Agreement; and authorizing the acquisition payment of $16,650 to
Raymond E. Berg.
A9.
176: RESOLUTION NO. 97R-208: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS,
HIGHWAYS AND SERVICE EASEMENTS; AND SETTING A DATE AND TIME TO CONSIDER
ABANDONING A PORTION OF THAT CERTAIN PUBLIC ALLEY LOCATED NORTH OF
CYPRESS STREET AND EXTENDING EASTERLY APPROXIMATELY FIFTY-SIX FEET FROM
PAULINE STREET (ABANDONMENT NO. 97-8A). (Suggested public hearing date: December
9, 1997 at 6:00 p.m.)
Al0.
169: RESOLUTION NO. 97R-209: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM REQUESTING THE ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY TO
ALLOCATE COMBINED TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM FUNDS, IN THE AMOUNT OF
$124,200 FOR ORANGEWOOD AVENUE UNDERCROSSING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AT
THE I-5 FREEWAY.
All.
167: Approving the City's comments to the Orange County Grand
recommendations on the Grand Jury Report on Traffic Signal Preemption.
meetings of October 7, 1997, Item A7, and October 21, 1997.)
Jury findings and
(Continued from the
Council Member Zemel. He wanted to know what the update was and if everyone was comfortable going
forward.
John Lower, Traffic and Transportation Manager. Staff talked today with the Orange County Grand Jury.
The County Board of Supervisors concurred with the four recommendations made by the Grand Jury.
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 1997
A12.
A13.
A14.
A15.
A16.
A17.
A18.
A19.
A20.
A21.
A22.
158: RESOLUTION NO. 97R-210: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS CONVEYING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTIES
OR INTERESTS THEREIN TO THE CITY. (R/W 5090-A.)
158: RESOLUTION NO. 97R-211: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS CONVEYING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTIES
OR INTERESTS THEREIN TO THE CITY. (R/W 5180-49 ETC.)
158: RESOLUTION NO. 97R-212: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS CONVEYING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTIES
OR INTERESTS THEREIN TO THE CITY. (R/W 5180-37.)
113: RESOLUTION NO. 97R-213: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE RECORDS RETENTION SCHEDULE, LABELED "GENERIC"
FOR USE BY ALL CITY DEPARTMENTS.
112: Authorizing the City Attorney's Office to apply for a grant from the Office of Criminal
Justice Planning to fund a Domestic Violence Prosecutor; and authorizing the City Attorney to
sign all applications, agreements and other required documents relating to the grant.
117: RESOLUTION NO. 97R-214: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 83R-233 WHICH ESTABLISHED A DEFERRED
COMPENSATION PLAN FOR FULL TIME EMPLOYEES TO INCORPORATE RECENTLY
ENACTED FEDERAL LAWS.
117: RESOLUTION NO. 97R-215: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 91R-173 WHICH ESTABLISHED A DEFERRED
COMPENSATION PLAN FOR PART TIME, TEMPORARY, AND SEASONAL EMPLOYEES TO
INCORPORATE RECENTLY ENACTED FEDERAL LAWS.
142: ORDINANCE NO. 5624: (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
adding SECTIONS 1.14.010, 1.14.020 AND 1.14.030 TO CHAPTER 1.14 OF TITLE 1 OF THE
ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE ACCEPTING THE PENAL CODE REQUIREMENTS RELATING
TO THE SELECTION AND TRAINING STANDARDS OF PUBLIC SAFETY DISPATCHERS.
(introduced at the meeting of november 4, 1997, item al0.)
160: Accepting the Iow bid of The Okonite Company, in an amount not to exceed $47,617.50 for
50,000 feet of 15KY underground distribution cable, in accordance with Bid #5720.
123: Accepting the Iow bid, and authorizing the execution of an Agreement with Southern
California Coach, in an amount not to exceed $75,000 for temporary shuttle service at the
Anaheim Convention Center for a period of eight months, commencing November, 1997, in
accordance with Bid #5717.
160: Waiving Council Policy 306, and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a Purchase
Order to Utility Translation Systems, Inc., in the amount of $86,700 for a Multi-Vendor 90
Translation System, including one year of software support, installation and training.
160: Waiving Council Policy 306, and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a purchase
order to Wildfire Halprin, in the amount of $32,975 for Holmatro Rescue Equipment to be
installed on the new Quint Ladder Truck for the Fire Department.
123: Approving the federally funded FY 1997-98 Emergency Shelter Grant Agreement, in the
amount of $5,000, with the Thomas House Temporary Shelter.
123: Approving the federally funded FY 1997-98 Emergency Shelter Grant Agreement, in the
amount of $10,000, with the Dayle Mclntosh Center for the Disabled.
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 1997
A23.
123: Approving an Agreement between the City of Anaheim and the Nutcracker Holiday
Committee for the cosponsorship of the Nutcracker Holiday on December 5, 6, and 7, 1997.
Sarah Alevizon. She is present on behalf of the Nutcracker Holiday Committee representing the Co-
Chairs, Sally Feldhaus and Bob Hernandez to invite the Council to the event on December 5, 6 and 7,
1997. She is asking them once again this year to co-sponsor the event. She urged participation by all.
It is a wonderful weekend which encourages traditional family holiday kinds of activities. The events are
free and offered to families City wide.
A24.
150: Accepting the park improvements, subject to the Community Services Department
approval of the landscape maintenance for the park, from NM Homes One, Inc., for the second
phase development of Toyon Park.
158: RESOLUTION NO. 97R-216: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN OFFERS OF DEDICATION TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTIES OR INTERESTS THEREIN (TOYON PARK, PHASE II) -
FROM TRACT MAP NOS. 12992 AND 14071.
A25.
123: Approving a First Amendment to the contract with Robert Johns for the provision of golf
professional services to include the scheduling of tee time reservations.
A26.
153: RESOLUTION NO. 97R-217: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM APPROVING A LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE ANAHEIM
MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, GENERAL EMPLOYEES, & CLERICAL
EMPLOYEES, AND THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REGARDING THE EFFECTS OF A
DETERMINATION BY THE CITY TO CONTRACT WITH A VENDOR TO PROVIDE
INFORMATION SERVICES.
A27.
153: Receiving and filing a report of settlement of claims resulting from employee grievances in
FY 96/97, as submitted by the Human Resources Department.
A28.
175: Adopting the Strategic Options Guiding Principles; receiving and filing the Phase One
Strategic Options Study Report; approving the RFP, and authorizing and directing the Public
Utilities General Manager to issue the RFP and to take any and all actions, including executing
related documents, necessary to complete Phase Two of the Strategic Options Study consistent
with the Report and the RFP.
Council Member Tait. This is in response to deregulation of the utilities industry and how the City is
going to respond. He thanked staff for all their efforts in putting this together. It has been a very selfless
effort and the Council is appreciative of the work they have done. What they are looking for is a two-
pronged approach -- one for the respondents to come back with a private partnership and the other the
best price for the utility to determine from those two responses what would be in the best interest of the
community and then to go forward. He would also like to thank the Mayor for his efforts on the Liaison
Committee. He looks forward to responses on the proposal.
Mayor Daly. Council Member Tait and he have served as Liaison to the process with staff. A request for
proposal has emerged and they are inviting proposals from interested parties. It is an open ended
request to the private sector to propose partnerships or a variety of other alternatives to benefit the
ratepayers who are the ultimate owners of the City's electric utility system. He also thanked staff for
bringing them to the point where it is this evening. The largest part of City government operations is the
utilities in terms of dollars spent. The system is 101 years old and it is perhaps the most important asset
the City has had for most of its history. It is important to look at all options and to protect the asset as
well as trying to keep it as strong as possible into the future. He thanked Council Member Tait for the
time spent on the issue as well and also to Mr. Aghjayan, his staff, and the members of the Public
Utilities Board.
10
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 1997
Council Member McCracken. She wants to assure the citizens since they own the utility, that no major
changes or a sale can occur without going to a vote of the citizens. They need to be assured that they
are looking for a partnership but any outright sale or total giving up of responsibilities with regard to the
utility would have to go to the citizens for them to make the decision.
A29.
123: Approving the Nondisclosure and Confidentiality Agreement among Public Service
Company of New Mexico, Tucson Electric Power Company, San Juan Coal Company, and the
City of Anaheim; and authorizing the Public Utilities General Manager to execute the
Nondisclosure Agreement, with any revisions that are in substantial conformance with said
Agreement, and any other related documents on behalf of the City.
A30.
123: To consider approving an Agreement with Ravinder Mehta as Special Prosecutor
concerning possible campaign finance laws relating to prior City elections.
The following members of the public spoke to this item at the beginning of the meeting under Public
Comments on Agenda Items:
Paul McCracken, Attorney, 8136 Auto Drive, Riverside, California 92504. (Husband of Shirley
McCracken). He has written a letter which he asked be distributed to each of the Council Members. He
is speaking on this issue now rather than later (Item A30.) to give the Council an opportunity to read and
digest it. The letter deals with the proposed agreement between the City and Ravinder Mehta as Special
Prosecutor. Mr. McCracken then read the letter into the record (see letter dated November 18, 1997
from Paul A. McCracken, Attorney at Law to the City Council - Re: Anaheim Service Agreement-
Ravinder Mehta - made a part of the record. The letter included attachments of Government Code
Sections.) The main point of the letter was the belief that the execution of the proposed contract by the
City of Anaheim "violates the laws of the State of California." The remainder of the letter outlined the
reasons and justification for this contention.
Mayor Daly interjected and stated he will be abstaining on Item A30. at the direction of the City Attorney;
Council Members Tait and McCracken also stated they will be abstaining.
Miriam Kaywood, Anaheim resident (former Council Member). She was shocked to see this item on the
agenda. She wonders how somebody is waiting to have an agreement approved and before that is done,
being very active in legal matters. She does not want any of her tax dollars spent for this purpose. She
asked what was going on. This is something new and different for the City. There was no information
given to the public on the issue. If there is anything that needs to be investigated, if the City Attorney has
a conflict because he represents everyone, it would go to the District Attorney. She would like to know
how much money is involved in the proposed agreement, the specific time frame, if it is just a "witch
hunt", etc. It is something she does not want to see in the City.
Al Stokke, Attorney representing Frank Feldhaus. He concurs with the statements made by Mr.
McCracken in reading his letter of November 18, 1997. He feels there are other issues as well and one
is whether or not the City Council can authorize the hiring of a Special Prosecutor. There are several
Government Code Sections that deal with the subject which he referenced. In his quick research of the
matter, if the Attorney General has that power, and he could not find anywhere in any code allowing a
Council to appoint a Special Prosecutor, then there is a major question whether that power exists. In the
People vs. Municipal Court, it says that misdemeanor criminal complaints filed in the Municipal Court by
a private citizen without the District Attorney's authorization were nullities and the court lacked
jurisdiction to act except to dismiss the charges. He also pointed out other issues that the case
addressed. There are major questions that need to be resolved before the proceeding is concluded.
There is a question whether Ravi Mehta can go ahead and has any power at all to proceed.
11
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 1997
Shirley Grindle. She has been monitoring campaigns for all candidates in the City for the last four or five
years, even on those candidates who did not win. She has seen the agreement proposed by Mr. Mehta
(not to be confused with the agreement that is the subject of A30.). It appears to her there is a political
game going on. With the exception of Council Member Lopez, there is not a single Council Member she
could not file charges on for omissions in their campaign statements. She has either talked to them
personally or their Treasurer and handled those by making corrections. Some of the things that are in
the agreement that Mr. Mehta has convinced some of the Council Members to sign, they are agreeing to
things the Political Reform Act (PRA) would never have charged them $10,000 for. To the best of her
knowledge, the FPPC (Fair Political Practices Commission) has never filed charges on omission of
occupation and employers unless it is satellite to charges on other issues. It never has stood on its own.
It is something that is easily corrected. She noticed some of the charges are confusing independent
expenditures with contributions. She urged if they are not guilty of the charges, do not sign them. She
believes they are being bluffed into doing so. She reiterated, it is a political football and there is not one
that could stand a close examination and have the same thing happen. She believes this should have
gone to the District Attorney and she would not have hired an outside Prosecutor.
Mayor Daly, when the Council arrived at the item later in the meeting, asked the City Attorney to explain
the background on this item.
City Attorney White. The issues that have been raised appear to fall into two different categories -- first,
the authority of the City Council to contract with Mr. Mehta as a Special Prosecutor and secondly, what
jurisdiction or authority he (White) would have. He does not believe, unless directed otherwise, that it
would be appropriate for him to address the second issue but better addressed by Mr. Mehta himself as
to his view of the jurisdiction on prosecuting State law as opposed to Municipal Code violations. As to
the first, Anaheim, as a Charter City, is subject to and empowered under the authority of the State
Constitution subject to the limitations as set forth in the City Charter, has the power to make and enforce
all laws, rules and regulations that are municipal affairs. Section 703, last paragraph provides
specifically "The City Council shall have control of all legal business and proceedings and may employ
other attorneys to take charge of or may contract for any prosecutions, litigation or other legal matters or
business." In his view, that provision authorizes the Council by contract to hire independent contractors
to serve as prosecutors. The contract itself under A30., as was pointed out, does contain a provision that
says that Mr. Mehta's authority is only co-extensive with the jurisdiction Anaheim has to prosecute
matters relating to campaign reform laws. The contract is not intended nor does it give Mr. Mehta any
power or authority he does not have under the law. If it is determined he does not have a particular
power, then the contract does not confer that on him. The contract is meant to be in conformance with
the limitations that may be set forth in any laws. The second issue is one more properly addressed by
Mr. Mehta.
Mr. White then explained, since three Council Members have declared a conflict on this item and are
going to abstain, it is necessary for those three members to cast lots or draw straws to determine which
member will be the third to make a quorum. Two votes will be sufficient to approve the contract, but it
would be necessary for the Council in some manner to determine who the third member is for purposes
of providing a quorum. In the past, they have employed the casting of lots. He has with him a pair of
dice. Each of the three members will roll and the member with the highest number will constitute the
third Council Member for purposes of a quorum. In case of a tie, the dice will be rolled again. (Mayor
Daly won the roll and was, therefore, the third Council Member). Mr. White continued that, under the
law, it is necessary to indicate the nature of the conflict. As he understands, for all three, it is the
potentiality there could be a material financial interest in making a decision on the contract in that if Mr.
Mehta is retained as Special Prosecutor, he may determine to file charges which could materially affect
their financial interests.
Mayor Daly. The City Attorney is advising that he (Daly) become the third member for purposes of a
quorum but he may not discuss it or may not vote. When they arrive at that point, he asked if the other
two members have to leave the room or simply not vote; City Attorney White explained that it is not
necessary for the other members to leave.
12
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 1997
Council Member Lopez. The City Attorney is saying that Mr. Mehta should really speak to the issue; City
Attorney White. He is not suggesting anything but is simply indicating because he (Mehta) was hired as
Independent Counsel (Special Prosecutor), to keep that independence, it is not appropriate for him
(White) to comment on the issue Mr. Mehta was hired to determine -- what charges to file and what
issues to look at. If the Council has a concern, he would strongly suggest the Council have Mr. Mehta
discuss that with them.
Council Member Lopez. He does have a concern and he would like the matter continued in order to
have Mr. Mehta speak to the issue.
MOTION. Council Member Lopez moved to continue Item A30. until Mr. Mehta can make a presentation
relative to the legality of the second part of A30. Council Member Zemel seconded the motion for
purposes of discussion.
Council Member Zemel. He believes there might be some confusion. Relative to the proposed contract
with Mr. Mehta, they are not telling him what to do. He is authorized to be a Special Prosecutor on
behalf of the City Attorney's Office. If he is going to prosecute anything, he better do so within the laws
set forth in the State or the City.
City Attorney White. He is limited to the authority that the City and the City Attorney's Office has. The
authority by law that he has cannot exceed the authority that he (White) has; Council Member Zemel.
The same authority Mr. White has, Mr. Mehta has.
City Attorney White confirmed that was correct under the proposed contract.
After additional discussion between the City Attorney and Council Member Zemel, Council Member
Zemel stated they are merely authorizing Mr. Mehta to take Mr. White's place as a prosecutor within the
authority the City Attorney has; City Attorney White answered that was correct.
Council Member Lopez stated he would still like to talk to Mr. Mehta. He asked if the City has any
liability regarding the presentation made by Mr. McCracken. He would like clarification from Mr. Mehta.
City Attorney White. He does not see a problem. Mr. Mehta has been performing services prior to
having a contract but it is not unusual in the City. He has not submitted any billings and the City has not
paid him any money. He does not think there would be any problem in continuing this.
MOTION. Council Member Lopez moved that Item A30. be continued two weeks. Council Member
Zemel seconded the motion. Mayor Daly and Council Members McCracken and Tait abstained.
MOTION CARRIED.
A31.
114: Approving minutes of the Anaheim City Council meetings held October 28, 1997, and
November 4, 1997.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 97R-208 throuqh 97R-217, 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. 97R-208 through 97R-217, both inclusive, duly passed and
adopted.
13
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 1997
Roll Call Vote on Ordinance No. 5624 for adoption:
AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: McCracken, Tait, 7emel, Lopez, Daly
NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 5624 duly passed and adopted.
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR. MOTIONS CARRIED.
A32. 161:5:00 P.M. - PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED WEST ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT - PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE: To consider the Project Area Committee
Formation Procedures for the proposed West Anaheim Redevelopment Project Area.
Submitted was report dated November 18, 1997 from the Community Development Department
recommending that, by resolution, the Council call for the formation of a Project Area Committee (PAC)
for the West Anaheim Redevelopment Project Area and adopting procedures for the formation of said
committee.
Lisa Stipkovich, Executive Director of Community Development. Staff is recommending adoption of the
proposed resolution approving the formation of a PAC in conformance with California Redevelopment
law. A briefing was given today at the afternoon workshop session. At the request of Council Member
Lopez and with concurrence of the Council, additional language has been drafted to be incorporated into
Section 4.0 entitled, "COMPOSITION OF THE PAC" as follows which will satisfy the concern expressed
and assuring area-wide representation:
"In addition to satisfying the membership criteria set forth in the Community
Redevelopment Law, it is intended that the PAC be composed of members
geographically representative of the proposed Amendment Area."
It was determined that the language as proposed was acceptable.
Mayor Daly opened the Public Hearing and asked to hear from anyone who wished to speak; there being
no response, he closed the Public Hearing.
Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 97R-218 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 97R-218: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM CALLING FOR THE FORMATION OF A PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE FOR THE
WEST ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AMENDMENT AREA, AND ADOPTING
PROCEDURES FOR THE FORMATION OF SAID COMMITTEE.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 97R-218 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-218 duly passed and adopted.
14
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 1997
A33.
121: CONDEMNATION HEARING - 100 W. KATELLA AVENUE: To consider adoption of the
following 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,
and authorizing the law firm of Rutan and Tucker, special counsel to the City, to proceed with
said condemnation action. This matter was continued from the meeting of November 4, 1997 to
this date for full Council action.
Council Member Tait. He declared a conflict on this item as he did at the meeting of November 4, 1997
and, therefore, will be abstaining from discussion and voting. He left the Council Chamber temporarily
(6:45 p.m.).
Submitted was staff report dated October 20, 1997 with attachment (Exhibit "A") recommending adoption
of the proposed resolution following a Public Hearing.
Mayor Daly. This is the time and place for the hearing on proposed acquisition of property by eminent
domain in connection with the Katella Avenue Smart Street and the Anaheim Resort Area Improvement
and Beautification Program. The property involved is identified as 100 West Katella Avenue under
Agenda Item A33. The property interest proposed to be acquired for the property is legally described in
the resolution attached to the staff report dated October 20, 1997. He asked for a staff presentation on
the proposed acquisition.
Natalie Armas, Public Works/Development Services Manager. The resolution on tonight's agenda is for
acquisition of right of way for the Katella Smart Street Project. This particular site is a partial taking of
the southwest corner of Katella and Haster which is currently an empty lot, previously a Texaco station.
Council Member Zemel. He asked if staff had the property owner's concurrence; Natalie Armas. The
City has made an offer in negotiations with the property owner. They have not come to an agreement
regarding the terms and, therefore, staff has filed a resolution of necessity. She confirmed that the
owner is not objecting to the proceeding but with the offer.
Mayor Daly. In conducting the Public Hearing, testimony will be taken from the owner of record or a
designated representative for the property. Testimony should be 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 compaitble 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. (5)
Whether the City has met all other prerequisites to the exercise of eminent domain in connection with the
property.
The Mayor then opened the hearing and invited the owner or representative for the property at 100 W.
Katella Avenue (R/W 5150-47) to address the City Council. Since no one was present to speak, the
Mayor closed the Public Hearing.
Council Member Zemel. He asked if staff is certain the owner was notified and how notification was
made.
Natalie Armas. A letter notification was sent and they have also been in discussion with the property
owner. She confirmed that the property owner has not objected to the take but they have not come to
terms.
15
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 1997
Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 97R-219 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
(b) RESOLUTION NO. 97R-219: 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 100 WEST KATELLA AVENUE, FOR THE
PURPOSES OF CONSTRUCTING ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT (R/W 5180-47).
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 97R-219 for adoption:
AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: McCracken, Zemel, Lopez, Daly
NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
TEMP. ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Tait (abstained)
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 97R-219 duly passed and adopted.
Council Member Tait entered the Council Chamber (6:48 p.m.).
A34. 112:5:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - SUPPLEMENTAL LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES
FUND (SLESF) PROPOSED ALLOCATION OF FUNDS RECEIVED FOR MISDEMEANOR
PROSECUTION SERVICES:
To consider the Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund (SLESF) proposed allocation of
funds received for misdemeanor prosecution services by increasing Revenues Account no. 101-
103-1125-3259 by the amount of $22,391 for FY 1997-98; and approving the City Attorney's
expenditure plan for SLESF monies received by the City Attorney's Office for FY 1997-98.
Submitted was report dated November 4, 1997 from the City Attorney recommending, after a Public
Hearing, that the Council approve the City Attorney's Expenditure Plan for SLESF monies received by
his office.
City Attorney White. This is the second year they have received grant funds from the SLESF through
the District Attorney's Office. These are allocated funds under State law and appropriations made this
year by the Legislature. This is the same amount that was received last year used to fund one of his
department's prosecution positions.
Mayor Daly opened the Public Hearing and asked to hear from anyone who wished to speak; there being
no response, he closed the Public Hearing.
MOTION. Mayor Daly moved to approved the Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Funds (SLESF)
proposed allocation of funds received for misdemeanor prosecution services. Council Member seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
A35. 105: APPOINTMENT OF TENANT COMMISSIONERS TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AND
HOUSING COMMISSION: Submitted was report dated October 29, 1997 from the Executive
Director of Community Development attached to which were two applications received by the
Anaheim Housing Authority staff from Section 8 housing assistance tenants interested in
volunteering to serve on the Anaheim Redevelopment and Housing Commission.
16
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 1997
Mayor Daly nominated Mr. Constantin Proussalis and Mrs. Araceli Garcia to serve on the Anaheim
Redevelopment and Housing Commission.
MOTION. On motion by Council Member Zemel seconded by Mayor Daly, nominations were closed.
MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION. Mayor Daly moved to appoint Constantin Proussalis to the Anaheim Redevelopment and
Housing Commission for the term ending June 30, 1999 and Araceli Garcia for the term ending June 30,
1998. Council Member Zemel seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
ITEMS B1 - B6 FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 27, 1997:
INFORMATION ONLY- APPEAL PERIOD ENDS NOVEMBER 18, 1997:
B1. 179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3967 CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT-CLASS 3:
OWNER: Marilyn M. Seals, 2544 East Pearson Avenue, Fullerton, CA 92831
AGENT: William H. Seals, 215 19th Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663
LOCATION: 1181 South Belhaven Street. Property is 0.20 acre located on the west side of
Belhaven Street, 250 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road.
To retain a board and care (boardinghouse) facility for up to 15 residents.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3967 GRANTED for one year, to expire 10/27/98 (PC97-151)
(5 yes votes, 2 absent).
B2.
179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3972, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: John Lim Jr. and Hun Han Lim, 2504 Oshkosh Ave., Anaheim, CA 92806
LOCATION: 2133 East Almont Avenue. Property is 0.20 acre located on the north side of
Almont Avenue, 144 feet west of the centerline of Belhaven Street.
To retain a board and care (boardinghouse) facility for up to 15 residents.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3972 GRANTED for one year, to expire 10/27/98 (PC97-152)
(5 yes votes, 2 absent).
Approved Negative Declaration.
B3.
179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3973, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: John Lim Jr. and Hun Han Lim, 2504 Oshkosh Ave., Anaheim, Ca 92806
LOCATION: 2009 East Almont Avenue. Property is 0.20 acre located on the north side of
Almont Avenue, 133 feet east of the centerline of State College Boulevard.
To retain a board and care (boardinghouse) facility for up to 15 residents.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3973 GRANTED for one year, to expire 10/27/98 (PC97-153)
(5 yes votes, 2 absent).
Approved Negative Declaration.
17
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 1997
B4.
179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3516, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: Hyrail Partners 11, L.P., 990 Hyland Drive, #300, Solana Beach, CA 92705
AGENT: All Aboard Mini Storage, 990 Highland Drive, #300, Solana Beach, CA 92705
LOCATION: 1703-1709 South State Colleqe Boulevard - All Aboard Mini Storage. Property is
5.66 acres located on the west side of State College Boulevard, 750 feet north of the centerline
of Katella Avenue.
To amend or delete a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation to retain a self-storage
and recreational vehicle storage facility.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3516 APPROVED (time limitation was deleted) (PC97-154)
(5 yes votes, 2 absent).
Negative Declaration previously approved.
B5.
179: VARIANCE NO. 4322, CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT-CLASS 5:
OWNER: Tien Seng International, 800 S. Beach Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92804
AGENT: TDI Inc., Attn: Adan Madrid, 3150 Bristol St., Suite 250, Costa Mesa, CA 92626
LOCATION: 800 South Beach Boulevard - Ramada Inn. Property is 0.93 acre located on the
east side of Beach Boulevard, 150 feet north of the centerline of Rome Avenue.
To construct accessory ground-mounted 6-foot high equipment and chain link fencing for a
telecommunications facility with waiver of minimum structural setback adjacent to a residential
zone.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Variance No. 4322 GRANTED (PC97-155) (5 yes votes, 2 absent).
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ITEM:
B6.
179: CEQA EXEMPTION SECTION 15061(b)(3) CODE AMENDMENT NO. 97-13 - REQUEST
TO AMEND CHAPTER 18.05 (OUTDOOR ADVERTISING) OF TITLE 18 (ZONING)
PERTAINING TO MARQUEE AND ELECTRONIC READERBOARD SIGNING:
Staff-initiated (Planning Department), request to amend Chapter 18.05 (outdoor advertising) of
Title 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to marquee and electronic
readerboard signage.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Recommend adoption of the draft ordinance to the City Council.
ORDINANCE NO. - .... (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING SUBSECTION .010 OF SECTION 18.05.046 OF CHAPTER 18.05 OF THE
ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO MARQUEE AND ELECTRONIC
READERBOARD SIGN PROVISIONS.
Staff recommended a continuance of this item to December 2, 1997.
END OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS FROM 10/27/97.
18
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 1997
B7.
155 ORDINANCE NO. 5625: (ADOPTION) Amending Ordinance No. 5444 relating to Specific
Plan Adjustment No. 1 to the Hotel Circle Specific Plan No. 93-1 (chapter 18.79 of the Anaheim
Municipal Code.) (Introduced at the meeting of November 4, 1997, Item B10.)
Mayor Daly. He will be voting against this ordinance since he had previously opposed the amendments
to the Specific Plan.
City Attorney White. To clarify, these amendments were supported by City staff.
Mayor Daly. In reading the ordinance, it looked OK. If these are staff proposed amendments as
opposed to the developer, he will be supporting the ordinance.
Mayor Daly offered Ordinance for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 5625: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING
ORDINANCE NO. 5444 RELATING TO SPECIFIC PLAN ADJUSTMENT NO. 1 TO THE HOTEL
CIRCLE SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 93-1 (CHAPTER 18.79 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE.)
Roll Call Vote on Ordinance No. 5625 for adoption:
AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: McCracken, Tait, Zemel, Lopez, Daly
NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 5625 duly passed and adopted.
ITEMS B8 - B10 FROM THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 6, 1997
DECISION DATE: NOVEMBER 13, 1997
INFORMATION ONLY -APPEAL PERIOD ENDS NOVEMBER 26, 1997:
B8. 179: ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 128 CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 3:
OWNER: BOEING NORTH AMERICAN, INC., Attn: Steve Emmi, 2201 Seal Beach Boulevard,
Seal Beach, CA 90740-8250
LOCATION: 3371 E. La Palma Avenue. Property is 10 acres located at the northwest corner of
La Palma Avenue and Miller Street.
Waiver of maximum fence height in the required front setback to construct an 8-foot high
wrought iron and block wall fence.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
Administrative Adjustment No. 128 APPROVED (ZA DECISION NO. 97-22).
19
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 1997
B9. 179: ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 129 CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 5:
OWNER: LA PALMA FAMILY LTD. PARTNERSHIP, P.O. Box 1266, Anaheim, CA 92805
AGENT: COORG CORPORATION, P.O. Box 1266, Attn: C.B. Nanda, Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION: 740 E. La Palma Avenue. Property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land
consisting of 1.14 acres, having a frontage of 120 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue,
and located 155 feet east of the centerline of Pauline Street.
Waiver of maximum fence height in the required front setback to retain an existing 8-foot high
block wall and wrought iron fence.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
Administrative Adjustment No. 129 APPROVED (ZA DECISION NO. 97-23).
B10. 179: ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 130 CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 1:
OWNER: CARL EUGENE WILSON AND CAROL JEAN WILSON, 751 Langtree Lane,
Anaheim, CA 92807
LOCATION: 6411 Via Arboles. Property is an irregularly shaped parcel of land consisting of
0.17 acres, having a frontage of 58 feet on the north side of Via Arboles, and located 320 feet
east of the centerline of Ramsgate.
Waiver of maximum lot coverage to construct a 3,747 square-foot two-story residence.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
Administrative Adjustment No. 130 APPROVED (ZA DECISION NO. 97-24).
D1. 175: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING CREATING UNDERGROUND DISTRICT NO. 32:
To consider approval of the creation of Underground District No. 32 (Peralta Hills Drive #1) in
accordance with the requirements of Chapter 17.24 of Title 17 of the Anaheim Municipal Code
relating to Underground Utilities. (Continued from the meeting of October 28, 1997, Item D3.)
LOCATION: The proposed Underground District No. 32 is created to provide for the
undergrounding of overhead utilities on Lakeview Avenue and Peralta Hills Drive, south of Santa
Ana Canyon Road as shown on the Underground District No. 32 - Peralta Hills Drive #1 map.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in North County News - October 16, 1997.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - October 13, 1997.
Posting of property - Octobert 17, 1997.
Submitted was report dated October 28, 1997 from the Public Utilities General Manager recommending
approval of the proposed resolution creating Underground District No. 32. An additional report dated
November 18, 1997, was submitted as a supplement to item D3 of the October 28, 1997 City Council
agenda. The Council at that meeting, continued the Public Hearing to this date.
Council Member Zemel. He has been meeting mainly via telephone with PacBell regarding their
objection. For the last six months, PacBell has been involved with the City trying to work out their
concern. He does not believe there is anyone who does not want the undergrounding to take place
including PacBell. Their concern is how they can pay for the costs since it does not involve one of the
City's thoroughfares. Staff and PacBell can continue to work together and he is trying to make that
happen but would like to get public input tonight. He will be leaning toward a continuance on the actual
vote only to allow staff and PacBell the opportunity to work out the money issue.
Mayor Daly. Before opening the Public Hearing, he asked staff to present the background details. This
is simply the creation of the legal district so that the undergrounding can move forward some time in the
future.
20
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 1997
Dale Tarkington, Assistant General Manager, Electric Utility. The district being proposed, Underground
District No. 32, is being created in accordance with the Public Utilities Department Underground
Conversion Program Five-Year Plan. Slides were then presented showing the area involved in the
proposed district -- the area as it is now with utilities above ground and then computer-enhanced slides
showing the area after improvements. He clarified for the Mayor that, in fact, 31 previous districts had
been formed, most of which are complete or in process. He also gave the highlights of the conversion
program under the Five-Year Plan noting that, in total, approximately 24 miles of undergrounding has
been accomplished thus far.
Council Member Zemel. The difference between this and all the other districts mentioned is that they
have all involved public thoroughfares and this is the first neighborhood being done; Dale Tarkington.
He believes that Romneya Drive and Olive Street where undergrounding has taken place were
residential areas as well.
Council Member Zemel. As he understands, PacBell is indicating they support the undergrounding and
want it done but because it is a residential area, they are afraid they cannot support having to pay for the
undergrounding portion because of State jurisdiction over tariffs.
City Attorney White. This issue is a rule that PacBell operates under through the Public Utilities
Commission (P.U.C.) which provides that the utility can pay for the cost and the City has the right to
require them to underground at their cost if it passes through an area of unusual scenic beauty. That is
one of the reasons the matter was continued -- for staff to present greater evidence because PacBell
raised the issue. What staff came forward with tonight is additional evidence as to the scenic beauty of
the area in an attempt to give the Council and PacBell the comfort this is in an area of unusual scenic
beauty that would satisfy the rule which would require and permit them to use those funds to pay for the
cost of undergrounding.
Council Member Zemel asked if he was saying it does not have to have the public thoroughfare
component; City Attorney White clarified that the only requirement they needed to meet was that this
was in an area of unusual scenic beauty. He understood it to meet the other part of the test. If they
need to examine that issue, he would be happy to do so but he does not have that information tonight.
Staff told him the only issue is the one of unusual beauty.
Mayor Daly. Staff is recommending that they act to form the district and nothing can happen until the
district is formed; City Attorney White. It requires the utilities to be in a position to underground.
Ed Aghjayan, Public Utilities General Manager. The Public Utilities Commission rule simply requires
after holding a Public Hearing on the subject that undergrounding is in the general public interest in a
specified area for one or more of three reasons. The third reason is a street, road or right of way that
adjoins or passes through a civic area or public recreation area or an area of unusual scenic interest to
the general public. They would argue, therefore, it fulfills the requirement. Once the district is
established, they are going to proceed with the plans to underground. It would be beneficial for PacBell
to join with them in common trenching. He clarified for Council Member Zemel that it was not worked
out and settled before this because PacBell does not want to do it. They cannot use ratepayer funds to
compensate PacBell for work they have to do. If they decline to participate, one of the options is to go
ahead with the construction phase of the project. What happens, Utilities will remove all of the wires and
truncate the pole with telephone lines on a pole that is about less than half the size of a normal pole and
although it is smaller, it does not look very good. They would hope to convince PacBell not to do that.
They would also save some money by going along with the joint trenching; otherwise PacBell will have to
pay for a separate trench to be installed.
Council Member Zemel. He feels this is a minor issue involving about $25,000 for PacBell and wants
the district to go forward tonight. He asked to hear from the City Manager.
21
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 1997
City Manager, James Ruth.
with PacBell down the road.
obligation to do so.
They can proceed with the district and hopefully negotiate the settlement
PacBell does not care to participate and the City feels they have a legal
Mayor Daly. It might be helpful to have a PacBell spokesperson explain their point of view. He first
opened the Public Hearing and asked to hear from those who wished to speak.
The following people spoke in favor of Underground District No. 32 and their comments summarized:
Sonja Jenkins, President, Peralta Hills Homeowners Association. Some of the neighbors have looked
into the situation and will be speaking as follows:
Pat Mahoney, 191 Cobblestone Lane, Peralta Hills, Anaheim. There are over 3,000 mature trees in the
area and over 1,000 are affected by overhead utility lines. Hundreds of mature palm trees will have to
be relocated if the wires are not removed. They are part of a scenic corridor set up in 1972 to protect the
eucalyptus trees. The area is one of unusual scenic interest and agricultural importance to the Santa
Ana Canyon area.. They urge support of the resolution.
Dr. Howard Knohl, Cobblestone Lane, Peralta Hills, Anaheim. If the City gives PacBell a strong sense of
direction that the City wants it done, he does not believe there will be a problem. He is asking the
Council to do that. The undergrounding is not just for cosmetic purposes, but it is also a public safety
issue. The area should have been No. 1 for undergrounding.
Niles Duchay, 100 Estrada, Anaheim. He is speaking on behalf of all because of the scenic beauty of
the area. The 91 freeway created a lot of noise in their community and because of that, a tremendous
wall was constructed on the Yorba Linda side of the 91. This blocked the sound from going into the
Yorba Linda side but that same wall reflected the sound back into the Peralta Hills area doubling the
sound and decreasing property values. There should be some balance where some funds could be
utilized to restore their property values.
Roland Krueger, 561 Peralta Hills Drive, Anaheim. This is just the first phase of a long-term project. He
also feels it would be a step in the right direction if PacBell would improve their service in the Peralta
Hills area because the residents have difficulties with static in their telephones every time it rains. Also,
the Canary Island Palms in the area are a very precious and unusual resource and they are getting
closer and closer to the overhead wires. The trees cannot be topped. The situation will have a serious
impact on their section of the scenic corridor.
Kim Carpenter, 795 Peralta Hills Drive, Peralta Hills, Anaheim. She agrees with all the previous
speakers and would like to add that with transformers above ground, forming the Underground District is
also a matter of fire safety.
Dr. Howard Garber, 523 Peralta Hills Drive, Peralta Hills, Anaheim. This is a very unique area that
should be maintained. Anything the City can do to maintain the beauty of the area helps the City as a
whole.
Bill Reed (?), 120 S. Lakeview, Anaheim. This is also a public transportation corridor. Quite a bit of
traffic comes through the area especially during commuter hours and is used as an alternate. He has an
oak tree that is fully encompassing the power lines and there is nothing he can do to cut the tree. There
are also quite a few others like that.
Sonja Jenkins, President, Peralta Hills HOA. That concludes the speakers. It is not just the aesthetics
but the traffic and the public safety aspects including fire safety.
22
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 1997
John Mitchell, Director of External Affairs, PacBell. PacBell is not opposed to the undergrounding district
but is opposed to the process. Under the State Tariff which covers them they are obligated to abide by
rate of return and rate regulator criteria that states they are not allowed to fully fund a project such as this
if it does not meet specific criteria. He referred to a handout previously submitted which listed some of
the Category 1 types of projects they have funded across the State at 100%. He briefed some of those
projects. Most were large projects of obvious scenic beauty with general public interest. Mr. Aghjayan
did not read all the aspects of the criteria -- the State will not allow them to fund the subject project at
100% and if they did so, they would be in violation of State law.
Mayor Daly asked if they are able to make a partial contribution.
Mr. Mitchell. The City could declare this a Category 2 which means they will be obligated to pay their
portion, i.e., the cost to underground their wires. They have been negotiating with the City, have
cooperated with the departments, attended meetings, etc. They started working on this in early June
informing the City that this would not meet State criteria. It does meet Category 2 and they have no
problem paying their portion. They would probably be doing a joint trenching and at that point work with
the City. They want to work with the City to pay for their portion of the cost but will not and cannot pay
100% of the cost. If they cannot come to any form of agreement, it is likely they will have to go to court
to see what aspects they are obligated to pay and what portion the City is obligated to pay. He referred
to P.U.C. Tariffs A221.32, Rule 32, upon which they are basing their decision. They have done at least
31 other projects with the City, some Category 1 and some Category 2. They refuse to violate
ratepayers and State laws.
Ed Aghjayan. He does not agree. He did read the entire code section and it is up to the City Council to
decide wheter it meets that criteria. If they allow PacBell to start to negotiate how much to contribute
and when, it is going to jeopardize other parts of the program particularly in residential areas. PacBell
can pay as little as $52,500 if they share a common trench, otherwise it could be $90,000.
After additional discussion and debate, Mr. Mitchell asked if the City ordinance dictates that they pay
100% of the cost; Mr. Aghjayan answered he believes it does.
John Mitchell. Based on that information, they will not comply because they are pre-empted by State
law.
Mayor Daly closed the Public Hearing.
Mayor Daly. His suggestion is to move forward with the Underground District and ask staff to report back
on the progress they are making on how to fund the district.
Dale Tarkington. The design for the Underground District is in progress and construction will be
beginning in March and completed by June.
Mayor Daly asked what staff proposed to do in the event the PacBell viewpoint stands and they refuse to
fund at the 100% level; Dale Tarkington. The Electric Utility is prepared to move forward.
Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 97R-220 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 97R-220 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM CREATING UNDERGROUND DISTRICT NO. 32 (PERALTA HILLS DRIVE #1).
Before a vote was taken, Council Member Zemel stated he was concerned about setting up a district that
he knows is going to result in litigation. He was trying to eliminate the problem with PacBell so there
would not be a cloud over the issue but is joining the Council in setting up a district.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution and carried by the following vote:
23
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 1997
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 97R-220 for adoption:
AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: McCracken, Tait, 7emel, Lopez, Daly
NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 97R-220 duly passed and adopted.
D2. 179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 4307 CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT,
CLASS 11:
OWNER: WATT COMMERCIAL COMPANIES, INC., 2716 Ocean Park Boulevard, Suite 3040,
Santa Monica, CA 90405-5218
AGENT: SIGN METHODS, 1749 East 28th Street, Signal Hill, CA 90806
LOCATION: 5711-5799 East La Palma Avenue - Canyon Village Plaza. Property is 9.91 acres
located north and east of the northeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Imperial Highway.
Waiver of permitted freestanding signs and permitted type of sign (deleted) to construct two (2)
freestanding pole signs.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Variance No. 4307 DENIED (PC97-117) (5 yes votes, 1 no vote, and 1 abstained).lnformational
Item at the meeting of Sept. 9, 1997, Item B4.
HEARING SET ON: A letter of appeal of the Planning Commission decision was submitted by the
Agent, Sign Methods 1749 E. 28th Street, Signal Hill, Ca. 90806. The Public Hearing was continued
from the meetings of September 23, 1997, Item D2. and October 21, 1997, Item D1. at the request of the
Agent. Extensive input was received and the issue discussed at the conclusion of which, the Public
Hearing was continued to this date.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in North County News - September 11, 1997.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - September 12, 1997.
Posting of property - September 12, 1997.
STAFF INPUT:
See staff report to the Planning Commission dated September 17, 1997.
The City Clerk announced that an additional request for continuance was received from Dan Cardone of
Sign Methods, Agent for the applicant, to Tuesday, December 9, 1997.
MOTION. Mayor Daly moved to continue the subject Public Hearing to December 9, 1997 at the request
of the applicant. Council Member Zemel seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
C1. 108: FORMATION OF LIAISON COMMITTEE AND TASK FORCE TO COMBAT SEX-
ORIENTED BUSINESSES (SOB's) IN ANAHEIM: To consider the formation of a Liaison
Committee and Task Force regarding combatting of Sex-Oriented Businesses in Anaheim.
24
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 1997
The following people spoke to this issue at the beginning of the Council Meeting under Public Comments
on Agenda Items. Their summarized comments follow:
Tim Murphy. He is supportive of the formation of a Task Force concerning Sex Oriented Businesses
(SOB's) in Anaheim. He thanked the City Council for their concern and the City Attorney for diligently
working on writing laws that are strict and limiting on these businesses. A Task Force is important to the
City in strengthening these laws. It is necessary to do everything possible to keep these businesses to a
minimum and insure enforcement of the permits that have been issued. Businesses like this tend to run
the City down and in West Anaheim, they are trying to build it up and clean it up.
John Karczynski. He is a resident in the Gilbert-Crescent (West Anaheim) area. The reason why this
came about was the opending of the Imperial Theater (Magnolia/LaPalma). He agrees with the Mayor on
the idea that the City should not be spending money on fights it cannot win, but has strong agreement
with Council Members Lopez and Zemel that it is necessary to do everything possible to keep these
businesses out of the City. He has spoken directly to residents in his area and they are all very excited
about the formation of a Task Force to assist in this regard. It is going to take creative thinking and ideas
t help resolve the problems and make the City a better place to live.
Esther Wallace, Chairperson of WAND (West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council). Their
membership is very unhappy with having the Imperial Theater in their neighborhood. They all know the
secondary effects in West Anaheim perpetrated over a period of time by the prostitution on Beach
Boulevard. They feel this will also happen with SOB's. They appreciate the Council addressing this
issue and hope that a Task Force will be set up to further address the matter.
Dr. Howard Garber. He referred to other issues which were a problem for Anaheim and other cities
specifically the appearance of 2-Live Crew at the Freedman Forum a number of years ago which he
crusaded against at the time. In concluding, he stated he is adding his voice in support of formation of a
Task Force to battle SOB's in any way possible.
Council Member Zemel. The issue has come up with regard to the potential opportunities the Council
might take in fighting and combatting SOB's in Anaheim. To that end, Council had discussed the matter
of setting a discussion to form a task force (see Council Comments, Council Meeting of 10/28/97).
MOTION. Council Member Zemel proposed forming a Task Force to combat Sex-Oriented Businesses
with the makeup consisting of one City Prosecutor (or the City Attorney), representative(s) of the Code
Enforcement Department, Police Department, Intergovernmental Relations Officer (s), two members of
the Council, and he is recommending Council Member Lopez and himself, and that the Task Force
explore the issue with staff and make recommendations. Subsequently the Task Force is to
communicate back to the Council with opportunities they may explore and, depending on the advice they
get from the City Attorney and recommendations from staff, that the Task Force hold a couple of Town
Hall type meetings to get public input. Council Member Lopez seconded the motion.
Before action was taken, Mayor Daly asked if he had an opportunity to discuss the composition of the
Task Force with the City Manager and other affected persons.
Council Member Zemel. He did so briefly. Everyone considers it a good idea.
Mayor Daly. Relative to the Town Hall forums, he asked for additional information.
Council Member Zemel. He will be looking for staff input on how best to do that and then make an
announcement. The Council will be invited to the meetings if there is a legal way for all to attend.
25
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 1997
Mayor Daly. He is requesting any details on that aspect and for it to come back to the Council for review
and discussion. He is not comfortable with Liaison Committees setting policy or making decisions on
their own especially because it would involve him. He would like the courtesy of having that come back
to the Council.
Council Member Zemel. He will include that in his motion.
Council Member Lopez. There is a tremendous amount of feedback from the community every time one
of these businesses opens up. In the past, they have been successful in closing some down. They need
to review the situation again and to tighten up the rules and regulations. He brought it up several months
ago. The number of phone calls and the feedback is the reason for forming the Task Force.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. MOTION CARRIED.
C2.
127: INDEPENDENT COUNSEL TO REVIEW CAMPAIGN REFORM LAW:
To consider the appointment of an independent counsel to provide advice on Anaheim's
Campaign Reform Law. The discussion was requested at the City Council Meeting of
September 23, 1997, Item C2. (see minutes that date) and subsequently continued from the
meetings of October 7 and October 21, 1997 to this date.
Mayor Daly. For the record, he has expressed opposition to the idea of hiring an outside attorney to
advise the Council on the City's Campaign Reform Law at this time. He has a number of reasons, one of
which is the ongoing litigation in the courts of Proposition 208. He also believes the City Attorney should
be advising them legally on these matters.
Council Member Zemel. If the Mayor is willing to put that in the form of a motion for a four-week
continuance, he is willing to support that; Mayor Daly. He does not support a continuance at this time.
MOTION. Council Member Zemel moved to continue this matter for four weeks. Council Member Lopez
seconded the motion.
Before action was taken, Mayor Daly stated that members of the public have requested to speak on this
item and this would be the appropriate time.
Shirley Grindle. She has monitored campaigns in Orange County for over 20 years and has been
responsible to a large degree for the Orange County Campaign Reform Ordinance (Tin Cup) and for
ordinances in other cities. Anaheim's ordinance is very similar to the County Ordinance. If they are
considering starting an effort now to find out whether or which portions of the Anaheim ordinance are not
appropriate or perhaps unconstitutional, she feels they are "jumping the gun." The court case on
Proposition 208 is over but a decision has not yet been rendered by the Judge. She has been very
involved with the issue spending time in Sacramento and expects that Judge Carlton will be issuing a
decision before the first of the year. That is the prediction. Once the decision is rendered, no matter
what it is, it is going to be appealed at least to the 9th District Court, perhaps even the U.S. Supreme
Court. As far as she is concerned, there may be one major issue in the Anaheim ordinance of concern
and it is the issue on which she filed a complaint against the Business and Taxpayers Good Government
Committee (Sheldon-Brady). She talked extensively to City Attorney White and is aware that the
provision in the Anaheim ordinance on which she filed the complaint has never been tested in court.
Fortunately, it is one of the same issues being heard in Proposition 208. If the Judge rules that provision
is unconstitutional, the charges are dropped. If he rules otherwise, then she suggested they proceed.
The case was filed when it was to put a place holder on it so as not to lose out on the statute of
limitations. She does not advise the City to spend any taxpayer money on any outside counsel until the
Judge comes back with his decision on Proposition 208. Then, everyone in Orange County is going to
be rewriting their ordinances based on the outcome. Anaheim's City Attorney is perfectly capable of
handling the situation. She has dealt with a number of City Attorney's on campaign law and he (White) is
26
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 1997
the only one that even begins to know about campaign law. She has little regard for most City Attorney's
relative to campaign law because it is a very special field but Mr. White has brought himself up to speed
on this and there is no reason he cannot handle the matter. She feels they are wasting money to have
any work done on the issue at this point. It is too early. She urged them to wait.
Council Member Zemel. He stated that a four-week continuance might answer their questions; Ms.
Grindle. She would just "kill it" if it were her.
Frank Feldhaus. He heard a rumor to the effect that Ravi Mehta would now be taking the case and the
City Attorney would be abrogating the case on the Business and Taxpayer's/Sheldon case. He asked if
the Council has made a decision to turn the case over to Mr. Mehta.
City Attorney White. This would normally come up under Closed Session actions but in Closed Session
today, the City Council voted to transfer that case to Mr. Ravi Mehta in his capacity of handling all of the
cases on finance campaign law. The vote was 3-2 with Mayor Daly and Council Member McCracken
voting No. It was his (White's) recommendation to have one person handling all of the cases. (This
action also noted under Item C3.)
Mayor Daly. The recommendation is for a four-week continuance. He will be opposing that motion for
previously stated reasons.
Council Member Tait. He suggested that they continue the matter until at least after the first of the year
if that is when the ruling is expected. He suggested an amendment to the motion.
Council Member Zemel. He does not have a problem with that but would like to remind the Council there
are other questions and concerns besides the one Ms. Grindle brought up, one being the issue of
taxpayer liability in pursuing a matter that may be unconstitutional. There are other concerns besides the
outcome of Proposition 208. He will, however, amend his motion.
A vote was then taken on the motion offered by Council Member Zemel amended to include that the
matter be continued until the first meeting in January, January 6, 1998. Council Member Lopez agreed
in his second. Mayor Daly and Council Member McCracken voted No. MOTION CARRIED.
D3.
179: PUBLIC HEARING -VARIANCE NO. 4315, CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 11:
OWNER: G & A PARTNERSHIP/JOSEPH T. KUNG AND EMMA W. KUNG, 20866 Quail Run
Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91789
AGENT: QUALITY PROJECT COORDINATOR/JOYCE SEHI,
P.O. Box 2653, Costa Mesa, CA 92628
LOCATION: 5625 East Santa Ana Canyon Road - Wells Farqo Bank. Property is 5.03 acres
located at the northwest corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Imperial Highway.
Waiver of maximum number of wall signs to construct three signs.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Variance No. 4315 GRANTED (PC97-133) (7 yes votes).
HEARING SET ON: A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Council
Members McCracken and Lopez at the meeting of October 7, 1997 and Public Hearing scheduled this
date.
27
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 1997
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in North County News - November 6, 1997.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - November 6, 1997.
Posting of property - November 7, 1997.
STAFF INPUT:
See staff report to the Planning Commission dated September 15, 1997.
Council Member McCracken. The requested waiver triggered a concern because this is located in the
scenic corridor. The property involved is a free-standing building and historically has had a waiver of at
least three or four signs, one on each side. This is a financial institution and over the years, waivers
have been granted. Since the signs proposed are not obtrusive and in reviewing the staff report, she
feels the request answers the needs in that community and she has no problem with it.
Council Member Lopez. He also has no problem with the request as well.
Mayor Daly opened the public hearing and asked to hear from anyone who wished to speak.
Carmen Galvan, Assistant to the Senior Project Manager. She is present to answer any concerns but
notes that at this time there are no concerns.
Mayor Daly closed the Public Hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion By Mayor Daly,
seconded by Council Member Lopez, the City Council determined that the proposed activity fall within
the definition of Section 3.01 Class 11, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for an
Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, Categorically Exempt from the requirement to file an
EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Daly offered Resolution for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 97R-221: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 4315 SUBJECT TO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 97R-221 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-221 duly passed and adopted.
D4.
176: PUBLIC HEARING -ABANDONMENT NO. 97-5A:
In accordance with application filed by Harbor Service Center (Victor Koshkerian) 1200 S.
Harbor Blvd., Anaheim, Ca. 92505, a public hearing was held on proposed abandonment of a
certain easement for Public Utility purposes located generally on property at the Southwest
corner and Palm Street pursuant to Resolution No. 97R-198 duly published in the North Orange
County News and notices thereof posted in accordance with law.
28
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 1997
Report of the City Engineer dated September 19, 1997 was submitted recommending approval of said
abandonment.
Natalie Armas, Civil Engineer, Public Works. This involves utility easements no longer required. New
utility easements have been dedicated and staff recommends approval of the abandonment.
Mayor Daly opened the Public Hearing and asked to hear from anyone who wished to speak; there being
no response, he closed the Public Hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Mayor Daly,
seconded by Council Member Lopez the City Council finds that the proposed activity falls within the
definition of Section 3.01 Class 5, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for an
Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from requirements to file an EIR.
MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 97R-222 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 97R-222: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM VACATING A CERTAIN EASEMENTS FOR PUBLIC UTILITY LOCATED
GENERALLY AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF PALM STREET AND BALL ROAD
(ABANDONMENT NO. 97-5A ).
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 97R-222 for adoption:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBER: McCracken, Tait, Zemel, Lopez, Daly
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBER: None
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBER: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 97R-222 duly passed and adopted.
D5. 179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3949 CATEGORICALLY
EXEMPT, CLASS 21:
OWNER: SUMANBHAI N. PATEL AND NIRMALABEN S. PATEL, 426 South Beach Boulevard,
Anaheim, CA 92804
LOCATION: 426 South Beach Boulevard - Pacific Inn Motel. Property is 0.36 acre located on
the east side of Beach Boulevard, 408 feet north of the centerline of Orange Avenue.
To retain a 23-unit motel.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3949 DENIED (PC97-137) (6 yes votes, 1 absent).
Informational item at the meeting of October 21, 1997, Item B2.
HEARING SET ON: A letter of appeal of the Planning Commission's decision was submitted by
Sumanbhai N. Patel and Nirmalaben S. Patel, dba Pacific Inn Motel. The Owners have requested a
hearing before a Hearing Officer.
29
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 1997
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in North County News - November 6, 1997.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - November 6, 1997.
Posting of property - November 7, 1997.
STAFF INPUT:
See staff report to the Planning Commission dated September 29, 1997
City Clerk, Leonora Sohl. Subsequent to the appeal, the attorney for the owners requested that this
matter be set before a Hearing Officer. The City Attorney's office has been in touch with the applicant's
attorney and they are in agreement to pay for the cost of the Hearing Officer. If the Council determines
to set the matter before a Hearing Officer, she recommends that it be readvertised and that the
individuals within 300' be renotified as to the specific date and time.
Mayor Daly. The Planning Commission acted to deny and subsequently the owner has asked that the
Council appoint a Hearing Officer. He has not asked that the Council overturn the decision of the
Planning Commission; City Attorney White confirmed that was correct. He further explained that the
appellant has agreed to pay the cost of the Hearing Officer up to $2,000. The costs should be well within
that. He (White) recommends that it be referred to a Hearing Officer. He also does not believe that staff
has any opposition to such a referral. If the Council determines not to refer the matter, the applicant has
requested a continuance rather than the Public Hearing taking place this evening. He also clarified that
if the matter is referred to a Hearing Officer, the Council is under no obligation to accept the Hearing
Officer's final recommendation.
It was determined by the Council after further discussion and questions posed to the City Attorney that
the Public Hearing should proceed this evening. Mayor Daly asked for a brief staff report.
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager. Previously on this property there was a Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) in 1979 for a 23-unit motel. A Planning Commission Hearing was held in 1995 to revoke
the CUP and the decision of the Planning Commission was appealed to the City Council. The Council
appointed a Hearing Officer and the Hearing Officer modified the CUP which expired in December,
1996. The proposal before the Council tonight is a second CUP, No. 3949, which did go to the Planning
Commission and was denied. Currently, there is no CUP on the property to allow the 23-unit motel to be
retained. Reasons are forthcoming from the Code Enforcement Department and the Police Department.
John Poole, Code Enforcement Manager. Motels on Beach Boulevard for a number of years have
necessitated extra enforcement action. The Pacific Inn has been a problem for several years. The latest
CUP expired and Code Enforcement is recommending denial of this CUP. Since the termination of the
last CUP, there have been a number of improvements in the living conditions and general conditions of
that motel. He inspected the facility recently and there are very few violations ongoing. There has been
a history of correcting them and not correcting them and a continual problem getting the business to
comply with codes. He confirmed for Council Member Lopez that the motel is under the same ownership
and the only reason staff recommended denial is because of the history of non-compliance. Staff rarely
recommends putting someone out of business. They see no improvement that would be maintained.
Tom Engle, Investigator, Police Department. The Police Department is also in total concurrence with the
Code Enforcement and Planning statements. They do not see any change in the operation. The motel
has been owned by the same person since April, 1992. There is nothing that the Police Department sees
as redeemable. The same problems of prostitution, narcotics and alcohol use are occurring. They do
not believe that the citizens can afford to keep sending Police Officers out to the facility. Other motels
on Beach Boulevard have attempted to clean up their act. This facility has not done so in their opinion.
Mayor Daly opened the Public Hearing.
3O
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 1997
Applicant's Statement: Hari Lal, legal representative for the owner, 100 S. Anaheim Boulevard,
Anaheim. The ownership requested a hearing before a Hearing Officer. It has been determined there
will be no Hearing Officer so the next question is continuation of the Public Hearing. The issue is
whether or not a Hearing Officer is to hear the case and make a decision on the merits and subsequently
make a recommendation to the City Council. A Hearing Officer would be in a better position to hear all
the testimony needed to be heard with cross-examination of all the witnesses testifying and an
opportunity to go down to the site and see for themselves if there are abuses or just allegations. That is
why they want a Hearing Officer. He would like the Council to consider that appointment which would
save a lot of legal time and hassle. He would like to address briefly the issues that came up at the
Planning Commission hearing.
Mayor Daly interjected and asked if it was his intent to ask for a continuance.
Hari Lal. The best thing would be to appoint a Hearing Officer. The alternative would be to give due
process to the owners and have the matter come to the Council on a date certain, perhaps a January
meeting so the owners will have an opportunity to prepare and present the case.
Mayor Daly asked what options the Council has; City Attorney White. The Council can either approve or
deny the request. Historically, the Council has granted one request for a continuance to those who paid
for the cost of having the hearing. Time wise it is discretionary. He is not sure a continuance to January
is needed although there will be no Council meetings during the holiday weeks.
Mayor Daly. He asked if a continuance is approved, during the interim, is the motel in operation.
City Attorney White. It is in operation right now. As long as the application is pending, there is history
that the courts are not amenable toward actions to close the motel until the City completes the
administrative hearing process. The motel would likely continue operating until the Council completes
the hearing.
The City Attorney also explained, in answer to Council questions, that the prior CUP has expired. If the
appellant is saying he is going to continue operating in compliance, there is no permit by which there are
conditions to comply. He may operate the motel the same way, but there is nothing to enforce because
there is no permit. Right now, the business is in violation of the zoning code because it has no permit.
Until they go through and complete the hearing process, the courts will not usually entertain actions to
shut the business down.
Additional discussion followed relative to the specifics of having a hearing before a Hearing Officer as
opposed to a hearing directly before the Council, the time frames involved, time of day the hearing is to
be held, etc.
MOTION. At the conclusion of discussion, Mayor Daly moved that instead of a hearing on this issue
tonight, that it be heard before a Hearing Officer with the goal of reaching a conclusion to the process at
the earliest possible time. Council Member McCracken seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, City Attorney White stated this would give him the discretion to select the
Hearing Officer, the date, and the time. It would be his intention to appoint Mr. Victor Kaleta as the
Hearing Officer who heard the previous matter and request him to set the matter as an evening hearing
so that those interested can attend.
Mayor Daly asked when the matter would be back on the agenda for Council action; City Attorney White.
He would think four to six weeks from today.
31
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 1997
John Poole. Looking at the history of this property, the previous CUP has been reviewed by a Hearing
Officer before. What he would ask of the attorney (for the appellant) is to ask his client to conform with
the law. Investigator Engle can attest that currently arrests are being made at the property. Whether
heard by the Council or Hearing Officer, they are going to be back at the same place. The property has
not been properly operated in the past and will continue to be that way until the owner makes changes to
stop the criminal activity. In his opinion, he is asking for a Hearing Officer to operate longer and gain
more time.
City Attorney White. He believes it will take six weeks altogether. It will be approximately three weeks
before the hearing is held with notices to be sent as to the time and date. He also recommended if
anyone present at today's meeting wants to receive notice who feel they may not get one should indicate
that to the City Clerk.
Council Member Lopez expressed concern that the hearing be held at a time when the residents could
attend the meeting; Had Lal. The City Council has the right to request the time. If the City Attorney says
5:30 or 6:30 in the evening, they have volunteered to provide the cost for advertising. They have no
objection to holding the hearing at 5:30 or 6:30 p.m.
Council Member Lopez. If that can be arranged, he will support the motion.
City Attorney White. He recommended that they incorporate into the motion that if the hearing is not
held within the next 30 days, it will automatically come back to the Council; Mr. Lal. In that case, the
hearing probably has to take place before December 17, 1997 and that is fine.
City Attorney White. He is going to be asking for an earlier hearing date than December 17.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion amended to include that a hearing be held before a
Hearing Officer within the next 30 days and, if not, it will automatically come back to the Council directly
for action and also that the City Attorney will have the discretion to select the Hearing Officer and the
date and time of the hearing noting that the appellant had no objection to holding an evening hearing at
5:30 or 6:30 p.m. MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Daly. He wants to make it clear to the residents who are concerned with this item they should
provide their names to the City Clerk before leaving so that they will be notified of the forthcoming
hearing.
D6. 179: PUBLIC HEARING - WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENTS - CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 3948 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: GENERAL BANK, 4128 Temple City Boulevard, Rosemead, CA 91770
AGENT: QUINCY T. DAO, 44 Montelegro Street, Irvine, CA 92714
LOCATION: 3107 - 3115 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is 0.51 acre located on the north side
of Lincoln Avenue, 95 feet west of the centerline of Grand Avenue.
To permit the conversion of an existing 8,684 square foot commercial center to a mortuary with
waivers of (a) minimum number of parking spaces - APPROVED, (b) prohibited signs - DENIED,
(c) maximum number of roof signs - DENIED, (d) maximum area of roof signs - DENIED, (e)
permitted location of roof signs - DENIED, (f) minimum distance between signs - DENIED and
(g) maximum height of illuminated roof signs - DENIED.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3948 GRANTED, IN PART (PC97-138) (6 yes votes, 1 absent).
APPROVED, IN PART, waiver of code requirement - Waiver (a) APPROVED based on the
findings from the parking study; DENIED waivers (d) and (g) on the basis that they were deleted
following public notification; and DENIED waivers (b), (c) (e) and (f) on the basis that the
applicant agreed at the public hearing to remove all roof signs and to comply with the sign Code
requirements.
Approved Negative Declaration.
32
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 1997
HEARING SET ON: A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Mayor Daly and
Council Member Lopez at the meeting of October 21, 1997, Item B3 and Public Hearing scheduled this
date.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in North County News - November 6, 1997.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - November 6, 1997.
Posting of property - November 7, 1997.
STAFF INPUT:
See staff report to the Planning Commission dated September 29, 1997.
Mayor Daly. The hearing was scheduled at his request and that of Council Member Lopez. He asked for
a brief staff report.
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager. He briefed the staff report to the Planning Commission dated
September 29, 1997. He subsequently noted that the applicant agreed to withdrawal of the six waivers
relative to signage and parking. They agreed to provide a maximum of 55 parking spaces, to limit the
assembly room to a maximum of 75 people and to relocate the driveways. This arrangement was
satisfactory to the Traffic Engineer. The Commission also conditioned the hours to be from 8:00 a.m. to
8:00 p.m. and required the planting of additional trees in the front setback.
Mayor Daly opened the Public Hearing. He asked first to hear from the applicant or applicant's agent.
There was no response and no one was present representing Quincy Dao, the property owner or the
applicant.
City Attorney White. No request for a continuance was received on this matter. The Council may
proceed with the Public Hearing or continue it and have staff inquire as to whether the applicant has a
reason why he was not present.
Greg Hastings. He noted that the applicant was present earlier in the meeting but since left.
City Clerk Sohl. Both the owner and the agent were sent copies of the notice of the meeting; City
Attorney White. It is at the Council's discretion. The hearing can be opened and those present be
allowed to speak this evening.
Mayor Daly. He asked to hear from those present who wished to speak.
The following people spoke in opposition and their comments summarized:
Leonard Lahtinen, 2731 W. Savoy, Anaheim. Converting four small stores in a small strip mall to a
mortuary is an unusual request. They are not oposed to mortuaries but one that is properly landscaped
with adequate parking. In his opinion, this particular location is not an appropriate one for a mortuary. It
is only about one-half acre and they do not feel it can be developed in a way they want the City to allow
mortuary developments to occur. He does not think a "mini mortuary" is going to help the development
of West Anaheim.
John Karczynski, 2432 W. Gramercy, Anaheim. By granting this CUP they may be setting up some
guidelines for properties that may have valuable use for other things.
Muriel Lowenberg, 211 S. Loma Linda Dr., Anaheim, Halecrest Heritage, one block south of the
proposed mortuary. As a Captain of their Neighborhood Watch, she has talked to many in the
neighborhood and surrounding area. On behalf of those people, she wants to express their opposition.
33
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 1997
The proposal is not in the best use of the property and will adversely affect the surrounding areas. They
feel the parking traffic study may be in error and that there should be 70 parking spaces on site. She is
encouraging them to use their powers to deny the proposal.
Patricia Kotter, 3145 Westhaven Drive, Anaheim. No one forced the applicant to leave the meeting.
The Council should be able to make a decision and not set another meeting. They would like to make
theirs a beautiful area once again. She urged them to make a decision as if they were living next door to
what is being proposed.
Esther Wallace, Chairperson of WAND (West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council). The
organization has discussed this proposal and are against the proposed mortuary. Next to the property is
a blighted area. This is a nice piece of property in a planning area that could be developed into
something very nice. With Knott's Berry Farm expanding, they are certain there are things that could be
put on that property that would enhance the neighborhood.
Mike Reetz, 2776 Yale Ave., Anaheim (WAND). He urged that they give the newly formed Project Area
Committee a chance to look at new construction proposed in the area as it comes up. Give the
committee an opportunity to determine what will match and what will be good for the area and not plan
piecemeal.
City Clerk Sohl announced that there was one additional letter Fax'd shortly before 5:00 p.m. from The
Star Companies Mobilehome Communities management representing LaBelle Fontaine Mobile Estates.
The letter indicates they are supportive of the application to convert the existing commercial center to a
mortuary with waivers of a minimum number of parking spaces. However, they cannot support any
request to deviate from current zoning standards as they apply to signs.
Mayor Daly. Relative to the design of the project as it is depicted includes roof-top ornamentation. The
Planning Commission denied all the various waivers. He assumes that includes the roof-top
ornamentation.
Greg Hastings. That is correct and in addition a condition that the existing pole sign be removed and
replaced with an 8' high monument sign.
Mayor Daly. He is going to suggest that they deny the proposal because of the strong concern from the
neighborhood representatives and also because they are about to undertake the Redevelopment
program in West Anaheim and this property is in that area. They need to set a higher standard for
development in the future. He feels there is a far better potential for this part of the City and because of
the hardships that presently exist. He will be opposing the mortuary.
Council Member Tait. He does not disagree. It is an unusual situation that the applicant was present but
has left plus the fact that there is a recommendation of approval from staff and the Planning Commission
also approved the project. He is hesitant to deny the proposal at this time without the applicant being
present and would recommend a continuance of the Public Hearing.
Council Member McCracken. Public Hearings are scheduled at 6:00 p.m. The bank is the owner of this
facility. If they were present at a reasonable hour and now it is 9:00 p.m., perhaps there is a reason why
the agent left. She suspects the property owner and the agent may have presumed the Council would
support the Planning Commission decision of approval. She will second the motion to continue to see
what they have to say.
MOTION. Council Member Tait moved to continue the Public Hearing to Tuesday, December 2, 1997.
Council Member McCracken seconded the motion.
34
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 1997
Before a vote was taken, Council Member Zemel noted that reference has been made that this is in a
new Redevelopment area. If the continuance is successful, he would like to get input from Lisa
Stipkovich, Executive Director of Community Development as to her feelings on this type of project. He
feels that input is necessary.
Nancy Hupke, 3141 W. Lindacito, Anaheim. It is late for the residents as well who have been present
since six o'clock. She would hope that just because it is late it does not mean that things just get passed
over. She requested that the list of names to be provided for notification on the prior issue be provided
on both issues (D5. and D6.).
Council Member Tait. He noted this item will be heard again in two weeks; Council Member McCracken.
The testimony given tonight will be made a part of the record and those who testified will not have to
testify again.
Maxine Peterson, 3152 W. Lindacito, Anaheim. She has been waiting 40 years to hear something that is
going to go their way. The Council should finally do something for the residents that will be beneficial to
the area.
Mayor Daly. He has previously stated his opposition to the project and to be consistent, he will be voting
against the motion to continue; Council Member Zemel. He will be supporting the motion so they can get
a firm decision not subject to a challenge.
Mayor Daly. He noted that Richard Bruckner, Redevelopment/Economic Development Manager
was present and asked that Redevelopment staff provide the Council with some perspective on this
proposal; Mr. Bruckner acknowledged the request.
A vote was then taken on the motion to continue the Public Hearing. Mayor Daly voted No. MOTION
CARRIED.
D7. 179: PUBLIC HEARING - WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. 3960 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: BHUPESH PARIKH AND KUMUO B. PARIKH, 427 West Colorado, #201, Glendale,
CA 91204
AGENT: JOHN E. BUTTERS, 27410 Laurel Glen Lane, Valencia, CA 91354
LOCATION: 212 South Beach Boulevard. Property is 1.93 acres located on the east side of
Beach Boulevard, 900 feet south of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue.
To construct an $5,000 square foot, 2-story self-storage facility with one caretaker's unit with
waivers of (a) minimum landscaped setback adjacent to an arterial highway - DENIED, (b)
minimum landscaped setback adjacent to a residential zone boundary - DENIED, and (c)
required site screening - APPROVED.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3960 GRANTED, IN PART, (PC97-139) (5 yes votes, 1 abstained, and 1 absent).
Waiver of code requirement APPROVED, IN PART, waivers (a) and (b) DENIED on the basis
that they were deleted following public notification; and waiver (c) APPROVED only for the rear
property line where the building wall takes the place of the required block wall.
Approved Negative Declaration.
HEARING SET ON: A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Mayor Daly and
Council Member Lopez at the meeting of October 21, 1997 and Public Hearing scheduled this date.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in North County News - November 6, 1997.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - November 6, 1997
Posting of property - November 7, 1997.
35
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 1997
STAFF INPUT:
See staff report to the Planning Commission dated September 29, 1997
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager. He briefed the proposed project as outlined in the staff report
to the Planning Commission dated September 29, 1997. In concluding, he stated if the Council chooses
to approve the project, that they consider imposing a five-year time limit on it to determine if it is
beneficial for the community. He also clarified for Council Member McCracken that he is not aware of
any other proposal the applicant had for use of the facility other than storage units. There was a
previous CUP on the property granted in 1988 which expired in 1993 for a three-story, 196-unit hotel
including an enclosed restaurant and several waivers were associated with that.
Mayor Daly. He noted that the hotel market has come back a little. He asked staff to remind them of the
status of the Silver Moon; Greg Hastings. The Silver Moon is a grandfathered use that does not have a
CUP. It is operating and currently his understanding from Code Enforcement is that there are problems
having to do with the condition of the property.
Mayor Daly opened the Public Hearing.
Applicant's Statement: Bhupesh Parikh, owner of the property. He has met all the conditions of the
Planning Commission and staff. He has operated the motel for 7 - 10 years. He instructed his manager
that no illegal activities will happen. They have turned down a number of clients and lost a lot of revenue
because of that. As far as the condition of the motel, they have done improvements two or three times
before. They have not recently done anything because of the proposed project. It is not to build a big
motel but to use the premises for a better and best use. Storage facilities will eliminate all criminal
elements. It will be open 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. There will be no night traffic. It will be very good for
Beach Boulevard. That property cannot support high rise or restaurants.
Mike Reetz, 2776 Yale Avenue, Anaheim (WAND). As much as the WAND organization would like to
see another run down, dilapidated hotel removed, they do not want to see a stack of boxes replacing
them. They are concerned about the emergency entry on the back side through the apartment
complexes. It is full of kids who have no place to play except in the streets. WAND would like to see
small parks or business offices. Self storage does not produce any long-term jobs. There are already
self-storage units within a two-mile radius of the planned development. Redevelopment is just getting
started through the newly-formed Project Area Committee. He urged that they give the committee an
opportunity to look at all new construction and give time to develop a planned approach to any new
construction.
Bhupesh Parikh. He will be glad to eliminate the back gate but the Fire Department insisted on that.
The facilities are designed in such a way to be very attractive from the street.
Mayor Daly closed the Public Hearing.
Council Member McCracken. She asked Mr. Parikh if this is denied, would he continue to operate the
Silver Moon Hotel; Mr. Parikh answered, yes.
Council Member Lopez. This is a dilemma for the Council. They want to assist the people in West
Anaheim but if this is denied, they will still have the same motel.
Mayor Daly. One of his concerns is hearing about the number of applications for self-storage units.
Traditionally, these have been allowed in industrial zones. With the support of the neighborhood, they
allowed a self-storage business at Dale and Lincoln and a Police facility was built into that and also a
small retail establishment. He asked the thinking of Planning staff regarding the proliferation of self-
storage unit businesses.
36
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 1997
Greg Hastings. Planning staff would agree that they are typically found in industrial areas. Staff feels
this is a step sideways as expressed by the Mayor. They are seeing more coming into the City than they
have in the past.
Mayor Daly. Some cities who will not even allow self-storage within 500' of a residential neighborhood.
He is wondering about the City's General Plan and an overall vision for what they are doing. He asked at
what point is there a merging of a vision between Redevelopment and Planning.
Mary McCIoskey, Deputy Planning Director. Through the Community Planning process, they would be
looking at the land uses and working in concert with Redevelopment staff on alternative land uses within
the project area. They have looked at self-storage as a transitional use while planning efforts are going
on such as in the stadium area. That is why Mr. Hastings reported that Planning staff is recommending a
five-year time frame if approved and at the end of that time revisit the matter. It would give the
opportunity to correct the existing condition on the property and in five years to look at the
Redevelopment efforts.
Richard Bruckner, Redevelopment/Economic Development Manager. No formal planning has been
started in the area. This evening the PAC (Project Area Committee) was established at the 5:00 p.m.
hearing. The timing of this series of land uses is unfortunate because they do not have a master plan for
the area as yet. They will be working on that with the PAC in establishing a Redevelopment plan and
subsequently implementing the plan.
Esther Wallace. She does not see how this is going to enhance the property. There are nine storage
units within a mile and there is another going in next to CalComp which is three times the size of the one
proposed for Beach Boulevard. They are not happy about that structure going up.
Mayor Daly closed the Public Hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Council Member
Zemel, seconded by Mayor Daly, 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.
Council Member Zemel offered Resolution No. 97R-223 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 97R-223: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3960.
Before a vote was taken, Council Member Tait stated the use is a dilemma but he agrees it would be a
step sideways. The time has come where they need to "raise the bar" on Beach Boulevard. He feels
there could be a better use for the property and will support denial. This might be a good example for
Redevelopment to contact the applicant and see if there might be uses that will be good for both sides.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 97R-223 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-223 duly passed and adopted.
37
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 1997
D8. 179: PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3253 AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION:
OWNER: IMPERIAL PROMENADE PARTNERS, Attn: Richard DeBeikes, 5289 Alton Parkway,
Irvine CA 92604
LOCATION: 5645-5675 East La Palma Avenue - Imperial Promenade. Property is 4.4 acres
located north and west of the northwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Imperial Highway.
Request to amend or delete a condition of approval pertaining to a limitation of restaurant uses
with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved amendment to condition of approval for CUP NO. 3253 (PC97-142) (5 yes votes, 2
absent).
Negative Declaration previously approved.
HEARING SET ON: A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Council
Members Zemel and Lopez at the meeting of October 21, 1997, Item B7 and Public Hearing scheduled
this date.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in North County News - November 6, 1997.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - November 6, 1997
Posting of property - November 7, 1997.
STAFF INPUT:
See staff report to the Planning Commission dated September 29, 1997.
Council Member Zemel. He initially set this for two reasons -- he had concerns about parking issues with
regard to fast foods. Those concerns were satisfied by staff completely. Secondly, the existing neighbor
had serious concerns that he needed to address with the applicant. He understands that has happened.
All parties are satisfied and he is now satisfied. He asked if there was a way to easily remove this item,
he would like to do so.
City Attorney White advised that it is necessary that the Public Hearing be held.
Mayor Daly opened the Public Hearing.
Dick Debeikes, one of the owners of the property, 5289 Alton Parkway, Irvine. This is their eighth year in
Anaheim and they have a strong working relationship with their neighbor, Cinemopolis. While they do
provide shops and services to the community, they are transitioning more towards the entertainment
center genre in the subject location. They have very positive ideas that they are working on jointly. He
wants to emphasize that they support the theater.
Mayor Daly closed the Public Hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Council Member
Zemel, seconded by Mayor Daly, 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.
38
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 1997
Council Member Zemel offered Resolution No. 97R-224 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 97R-224: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3253.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 97R-224 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-224 duly passed and adopted.
C3. 112: REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS:
City Attorney White reported earlier that the Council voted to transfer Business and Taxpayers Good
Government Committee case (Violation of City's Campaign Reform Law) to Ravi Mehta in his capacity
as Special Prosecutor. The vote was 3-2. Ayes: Tait, Zemel, Lopez. No: McCracken, Daly.
C4. COUNCIL COMMENTS:
Council Member Zemel. There was extremely good news last week with regard to Anaheim's Criminal
Alien Identification Pilot Program at the Anaheim City Jail. It was very successful and has turned into a
major bill, H.R. 1493 "which mandates the creation of a permanent criminal alien screening program at
the Anaheim City Jail and the Ventura County Jail." The Senate voted to pass it on to the President and
it is believed he will sign it. It will provide the same to 99 other cities. This was a good opportunity for
Anaheim to show its leadership. He thanked the Mayor, Council, City Manager's Office and staff for their
support.
Council Member Tait. Since it is time to do so, he asked that appointment of a Mayor Pro Tern be
agendized for the next meeting, December 2, 1997.
Council Member Tait. He asked for a staff report regarding the sound wall that was constructed at the 91
freeway which has actually made the situation worse for residents of Anaheim instead of better.
Council Member McCracken wished everyone a Happy Thanksgiving on behalf of the Council and
acknowledged those organizations in the community including churches, restaurants, etc., who provide
Thanksgiving meals for those unable to do so for themselves.
39
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 18, 1997
ADJOURNMENT: By general Council consent, the City Council Meeting of November 18, 1997 was
adjourned. (9:37 P.M.) The next scheduled meeting is Tuesday, December 2, 1997.
LEONORA N. SOHL
CITY CLERk
40