1998/11/17ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
NOVEMBER 17, 1998
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:MAYOR: Tom Daly
PRESENT:COUNCIL MEMBERS: Shirley McCracken, Tom Tait, Lou Lopez
ABSENT:COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bob Zemel
PRESENT:CITY MANAGER: James Ruth
DEPUTY CITY MANAGER: Tom Wood
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
INTEGRATED RESOURCES MANAGER: Lon Topaz
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Joel Fick
ZONING DIVISION MANAGER: Greg Hastings
CODE ENFORCEMENT MANAGER: John Poole
SENIOR CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER: Donald Yourstone
GOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS MANAGER: Kristine E. Thalman
POLICE INVESTIGATOR: Randy West
A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was posted at 2:50 p.m.
November 13, 1998 at the City Hall Bulletin Board, (both inside and outside the entrance to City Hall)
containing all items as shown herein.
The meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m.
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION:
City Attorney Jack White requested a Closed Session noting first that there were no additions to
Closed Session items.
PUBLIC COMMENTS - CLOSED SESSION ITEMS:
There were no public comments relative to Closed Session items.
The following items are to be considered at the Closed Session.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
1.
54956.9(a) - Existing Litigation:
Name of case:
Delmonico, et al. v. City of Anaheim, et al. (and 18 related cases) Orange
County Superior Cout Case No. 70-80-71.
ANNUAL PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS:
2.
Title: City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk, and City Treasurer.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
3.
54956.9(a) - Existing Litigation:
Name of case:
In The Matter Of The City Of Anaheim, Et Al., SEC Admin. Proc. File No. 3-
9739 (LA-772).
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR
4.
Employee organization:
AMEA to meet with Labor Negotiator.
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
NOVEMBER 17, 1998
RECESS:
Mayor Daly moved to recess into Closed Session. Council Member Lopez seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED. (3:07 p.m.)
By general consent, the Council recessed into Closed Session.
AFTER RECESS:
Mayor Daly called the regular Council meeting of November 17, 1998 to order at 5:40 p.m. and
welcomed those in attendance.
INVOCATION: A Moment of Silence was observed in lieu of an invocation.
FLAG SALUTE:
Council Member Tom Tait led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
119: PRESENTATION - RECOGNIZING THE 1998 GRADUATES OF LEADERSHIP ANAHEIM:
Andrea Manes, Executive Director, Leadership Anaheim stated this is the second graduating class of
Leadership Anaheim. The program provides a great deal of valuable information to those who are
anxious to do more for and learn more about the City. The recipients are committed to the City. She
thanked the City Manager and staff who assisted in making the class and the program a success. She
then introduced the following graduates who were presented with a Flying “A” certificate by Mayor Daly:
Debra Culver, John Karczynski, Judy Kwok, Stan Madrid, Peter Pham and Frieda Wolden. (Those
graduates unable to attend - Tom Beitler, Vincent Fraumeni, Janis Heckel, Ray Iskander, Carol
Knowlton, Allison Lane, Chris Lee, Joan Oakley, Dave Severson and Tom Vogt.)
The Mayor and Council Members personally congratulated each of the recipients on completing the
Leadership Anaheim course successfully.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
119: DECLARATIONS OF RECOGNITION - RETIRING CITY EMPLOYEES WITH MORE THAN 20
YEARS OF SERVICE:
Declarations of Recognition were unanimously adopted by the City Council for
the following employees with more than 20 years of service minimum (30+ years maximum):
Public Utilities Department: Bruce Bowman, John Bushman, Ronald Cramer, Victor Dorado, Herbert
Hillard, Meredith Lanz and Darlene Lonsdale.
Police Department: Lyman Duckwitz, Dennis Fair, James Flammini, Paul Grugel, Thomas O’Donnell,
Lou Lopez and Brian Stack.
Public Works: Glen Bagley. Fire Department: Robert Greathead and J.W. Wayne Chamberlain.
Community Services Department: Donald Lewis. City Attorney’s Office: Anthony Stashik.
Mayor Daly and Council Members personally commended those employees who were able to attend and
expressed their appreciation for their long-time commitment and dedication to the citizens and City of
Anaheim.
RECOGNITIONS AUTHORIZED BY COUNCIL THIS DATE TO BE MAILED OR PRESENTED AT
ANOTHER TIME:
1.DECLARATION recognizing the goodwill delegation from Mito, Japan.
2
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
NOVEMBER 17, 1998
2.DECLARATION recognizing James Beisner on his retirement from the Orange County Sheriff-
Coroner Department.
3.DECLARATION recognizing Don May for his accomplishments as an artist.
119: PRESENTATION - COUNCIL MEMBER/MAYOR PRO TEM LOU LOPEZ:
City Clerk, Lee Sohl,
on behalf of the Mayor, Council and the City, presented Council Member/Mayor Pro Tem, Lou Lopez
with a token parting gift since this is his last Council Meeting.
Council Member/Mayor Pro Tem Lou Lopez. He subsequently accepted the gift and made some parting
comments noting that his four years of service on the City Council was a continuation of his almost 30
years as a Police Officer for the Police Department. He expressed his appreciation for the support of
his wife and family and many friends. (He thereupon introduced his wife, Pam, who was present in the
Chamber audience along with one of his daughters, Kimberly. He is thankful for the opportunity to have
served the City, not only in his capacity as Police Officer, but also as a member of the City Council and
also to have worked with City Manager Ruth, staff, and his fellow Council Members. Each Council
Member has his or her opinion and own point of view and many times they “did battle” over some issues
but it is all part of the position. He wishes it was like the old days when “putting on the boxing gloves”
would work. It has been a real honor for him to have worked for the City as well as the opportunity of
previously serving on the School Board. He also recalled the times he was challenged by younger staff
in the annual 10K runs, events he really enjoyed, and how he won the event each time. He is now
retiring and feels he has to start another “career”. He again thanked everyone. It has been a great time
for him.
Mayor Daly. On behalf of the City Council, he does not think any of them ever forgot that Lou was a
boxer on the few occasions they have disagreed. In his tenure on the Council the past four years, Lou
has participated in some of the largest decisions the City has made in a long time regarding Public
Utilities, the Stadium, the Anaheim Resort Area, etc. There were also many other important decisions
made that will affect the City for years to come and he was an important part of those decisions. It was a
pleasure serving with him, a “straight shooter” and hard worker.
Council Member Tait. It was an honor to serve with Lou. He did what he did from the heart. He will be
missed and he wishes him the very best.
Council Member McCracken. It has been a pleasure working with Lou. She ran against him in a
campaign and found him to be a formidable opponent and two years later he (Lopez) was there to
support her. He is a supportive individual and she was pleased to have worked with him on City issues.
He will be missed.
Before concluding, Mayor Daly stated any who have dealt with Lou understands he has a big heart under
that Police Officer exterior and it is illustrated with the Anaheim Boxing Club which Lou has single-
handedly help to carry along for years. It is now in the best shape it has ever been in, in a major way,
because of Lou Lopez and especially beneficial for kids who do not have a lot of choices in life. He
hopes he will stay active in such projects.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY
in the amount of $1,930,452.23 for the period ending
November 9, 1998 and $4,433,439.54 for the period ending November 16, 1998 in accordance with the
1998-99 Budget, were approved.
Mayor Daly recessed the City Counci meeting until after the Redevelopment Agency meeeting. (6:00
p.m.).
Mayor Daly reconvened the City Council Meeting (6:02 p.m.).
3
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
NOVEMBER 17, 1998
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
There were no additions to agenda items.
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST:
Linda Grau, 24 Morning Dove, Irvine 92604. She is a visitor and conventioneer that comes to Anaheim.
She first made some suggestions relative to the siting of the podium in the Council Chamber. Her
reason for speaking is relative to South Coast Cab Company and Mr. Savis Roditis who is applying for a
license for 40 cabs in Anaheim. With all the activities in Anaheim, there is a need for efficient
transportation, and competition will bring better transportation to the City. She urged that they let Mr.
Roditis and his 40 South Coast Cabs do their work and business in Anaheim.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
John Karcynski, 2432 W. Gramercy, Anaheim. He was a candidate in the November 3, 1998 General
Municipal Election. He thanked the City for allowing him the opportunity to participate in the debate(s)
this election period. He also gave an update on the health of his grandfather since many people had
asked.
PUBLIC COMMENTS - AGENDA ITEMS:
Public input was received on item B4 (see discussion under that item).
MOTION:
Mayor Daly moved to waive reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions to be acted upon for
the Council meeting of November 17, 1998. Council Member Lopez seconded the motion.
Council Member Zemel was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR A1 - A22:
On motion by Mayor Daly,
seconded by Council Member Lopez, the following items were approved in accordance with the reports,
certifications and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent
Calendar; Mayor Daly offered Resolutions Nos. 98R-245 , for adoption. Mayor Daly offered Ordinance
No. 5658 for first reading and Ordinance No. 5657 for adoption. Refer to Resolution/Ordinance Book.
A1.118: 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 Robin L. Shepard for property damage sustained purportedly due to
actions of the City on or about August 29, 1998.
b. Claim submitted by Eric D. Morrison, c/o Steven W. Herbert, Esq., for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 26, 1997.
c. Claim submitted by Laura Ann Dauk, c/o James P. Karmy, Esq. for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about March 18, 1998.
d. Claim submitted by Frank DeLoera, as Guardian for his minor son, Frankie DeLoera, c/o
Robert B. Reeves, Esq. for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or
about April 16, 1998.
e. Claim submitted by Michael J. Powers, c/o Leo F. Roche, Jr., Esq.
for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about February 5, 1998.
f. Claim submitted by General Switchgear, Inc., c/o Michael J. Buley, Esq. for property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about June 16, 1998.
4
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
NOVEMBER 17, 1998
g. Claim submitted by Ginger Wilbert for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions
of the City on or about August 13, 1996.
h. Claim submitted by Lois Kammerer, c/o Law Office of Steven F. Carlson for property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about January 10, 1998.
i. Claim submitted by State Farm Insurance Co., Insured: John and Teresa Naughton for
property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about September 10,
1998.
A2.173: Receiving and filing a Notice of Application, filed before the Public Utilities Commission, in
accordance with Rule 21(k) of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the California Public
Utilities Commission, that Nabil Barsoum Fahmy and Therese Fahmy, dba Prince Airport
Shuttle, intend to operate their passenger stage authority, PSC-10863, to transport passengers
on-call, door-to-door, between points in Los Angeles County, Orange County, Riverside County,
San Bernardino County, and San Diego County.
173: Receiving and filing the United States of America before the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Docket Nos. ER98-899-000 and ER98-1923-000), Comments of the Commission
Trial Staff in Support of Offer of Settlement.
105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Mother Colony House Advisory Board meeting held
September 4, 1998.
105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Anaheim Public Library Board meeting held October 7,
1998.
117: Receiving and filing the Investment Portfolio Report for the month of October, 1998, as
submitted by the City Treasurer.
A3.175: Approving Contract Change Order No. 1, in the not-to-exceed amount of $70,000 in favor
of Steve Casada Construction Company, and authorizing the Director of public Works to execute
Contract Change Order No. 1 and any related documents for the I-5 Segment “A3” Water
System Relocation.
A4.158: Approving the Acquisition Agreement for real property located at 1212 West Street (R/W
5240-1) - for the Ball Road and West Street and the Anaheim Resort Area Improvement Project;
authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said Agreement; and authorizing the acquisition
payment of $21,400 to Mark Lam.
A5.106: Approving the adjustments to the Department of Public Works 1998/99 Capital
Improvement Program budget, in the amount of $407,700 as follows:
1) Including $102,700 of Measure M Growth Management Area 3 funds and $25,000 of Citywide
Transportation Impact and Improvement fees to advance construction of the Big Sky
Lane/Imperial Highway traffic signal;
2) Reallocating $150,000 of gas tax funds to mitigate year 2000 hardware and software
problems with the City’s traffic signal system, waiving City Council policy 401, and approving an
Agreement with Eagle Traffic Control Systems for this work;
3) Allocating $75,000 of Citywide Transportation Improvement fees to design State College
Boulevard eastside improvements needed with Sportstown development; and
4) Allocating $80,000 of Citywide Transportation Improvement fees to design Katella Avenue
southside improvements needed with Sportstown development.
5
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
NOVEMBER 17, 1998
Council Member Tait. He is declaring a conflict on sub section 3) and 4) of this item and will, therefore,
be abstaining from any discussion or decision on these portions.
A6.160: Accepting the low bid of Antique Street Lamps, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $495,130
for a period of two years for Ornamental Street Lights, in accordance with Bid #5850.
A7.123: Authorizing the execution of an Assignment and Assumption Agreement with Western
Maintenance Services, Inc., to reflect the corporate name of Merchants Building Maintenance
Company, who will be assuming all duties as set forth in the Agreement.
A8.108: ORDINANCE NO. __5657 . (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SUBSECTION .020 OF SECTION 7.16.060 OF CHAPTER
7.16 OF TITLE 7 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PUBLIC NUDITY.
(Introduced at the meeting of November 3, 1998, Item A11.)
A9.140: ORDINANCE NO. 5658 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING CHAPTER 10.04 OF TITLE 10 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE
BY ADDING SECTION 10.04.020 DESIGNATING ALL PUBLIC LIBRARIES WITHIN
ANAHEIM AS DRUG FREE ZONES, AND AMENDING SECTION 13.08.110 OF CHAPTER
13.08 OF TITLE 13 OF THE ANHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE DESIGNATING ALL PUBLIC PARKS
WITHIN ANAHEIM AS DRUG FREE ZONES.
A10.123: Exercising the City’s option to extend the Agreement with Managed Restaurant Services,
dated May 13, 1997, at Anaheim Hills Golf Course, for six months, and authorizing the Director
of Community Services to exercise the remaining six-month option period if needed.
A11.123: Approving a License Agreement for a term of five years with the Anaheim Family YMCA to
utilize the gymnasium at the Downtown Youth Center located at 225 South Philadelphia Street
on a shared basis to provide youth recreation programs.
City Manager Ruth. Staff is asking for a continuance of this item until December 1, 1998. Some wording
needs to be refined in the contract. It should not be a major issue.
A12.123: Approving a Renewal Agreement with the Anaheim Family YMCA extending an existing
Sublease Agreement for a term of five years, for use of the property at 100 South Atchison
Street; and approving a Renewal Agreement and Amendment between the City, the Anaheim
Redevelopment Agency, and the Anaheim Family YMCA extending an existing operating
agreement to operate a child care center for a term of five years, for up to 75 children, infant to
five years of age, at 100 South Atchison Street.
A13.106: Increasing revenues and expenditures by $127,681 in the Neighborhood Services Division,
Neighborhood Improvement Fund.
A14.114: Providing $5,000 to support the Anaheim Sister Cities Association.
Council Member Tait. This involves a small amount but he still has a problem with it. The Anaheim
Sister Cities Association is a private organization which does great things for the City through a group of
very dedicated people. His concern is with spending City money on what has been a great private
venture. He suggested in the alternative that the Council can help the organization raise the money
privately and keep that spirit of being a private organization. He reiterated, he does not think it is one of
the things the City should be spending money on and will be casting a no vote.
A15.123: Approving the Services Enhancement Request, authorizing Systems and Computer
Technology (SCT) to provide information services support to the Anaheim Housing Authority
6
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
NOVEMBER 17, 1998
during the rewrite of the Anaheim Housing System, and authorizing the Finance Director to
execute this Services Enhancement Request.
A16.123: Approving an Eighth Amendment to Agreement between PRC/Public Sector, Inc., and the
City of Anaheim, in an amount not to exceed $75,000 for consulting services for FY 1998/99, in
connection with the Police Automated Systems Development.
A17.123: Approving an Agreement between the Whittier Police Department and the Anaheim Police
Department for pre-motorcycle academy training.
A18.156: Accepting a grant award, in the amount of $422,026 from the U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, for the “COPS MORE ‘98” Grant Program, and
authorizing the City Manager to execute all documents pertaining to the grant; and increasing
revenue and expenditures in Account #219-309-2251 by $422,026.
Council Member McCracken. Accepting this grant award will do great things for the Police Department.
It will enable 157 Patrol Officers who are using marked vehicles to be able to have computers in those
vehicles and be able to do their reports from the vehicle. She believes this is the last phase of this grant
process. It will give the kind of support to Police Officers to make it “high-tech” and greatly add to the
Officers’ service to the community.
Mayor Daly. He agrees and the Police Department deserves commendation for continuing to pursue this
particular grant and to improve their technological capabilities in the department.
A19.153: RESOLUTION NO. 98R-245 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM approving two Letters of Understanding between the City of Anaheim and the
Anaheim Municipal Employees Association, General Employees and Clerical Employees.
(Establishing a Pilot Compensory Time Program for employees at the Police Department.)
A20.123: Approving a Nondisclosure and Confidentiality Agreement among Public Service Company
of New Mexico, Tucson Electric Power Company, San Juan Coal Company (SJCC), and the City
of Anaheim, and authorizing the Public Utilities General Manager on behalf of the City to
execute the Nondisclosure Agreement, confidentiality agreements in substantial conformance
with the Nondisclosure Agreement related to any subsequent negotiations with SJCC, and any
other related documents.
Council Member McCracken. She asked that staff clarify for the public what this item involves since it
seems to have been made a controversial issue.
Lionel Topaz, Integrated Resources Manager. Public Utilities is a participant in the San Juan #4 Power
Plant. They do not have a right under the current operating agreement to sit in on negotiations between
the plant operator and the coal mine on coal prices. Last year, they allowed the City (Public Utilities) to
do that but asked for a confidentiality agreement as to the discussions between the private power
company and the coal company. The bottom line is, they have to be able to enter into a confidentiality
agreement so they can “sit at the table” and be present at the discussions between those two private
parties.
Council Member McCracken. She surmises that the confidentiality is about the agreements between the
coal company and the plant and Public Utilities is just sitting in. Because they have no right to sit in, they
are being asked for the confidentiality agreement to assure the City will not give information to other
sources for their negotiations.
A21.123: Approving an Agreement with Disneyland, a division of Walt Disney World Co., for the
purpose of conducting the Disneyland employee adult softball programs.
7
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
NOVEMBER 17, 1998
A22.114: Approving minutes of the Anaheim City Council meetings held October 20, 1998, and
October 27, 1998.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 98R-245 for adoption:
AYES:MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: McCracken, Tait, Lopez, Daly
NOES:MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT:MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Zemel
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 98R-245 duly passed and adopted.
Roll Call Vote on Ordinance No. 5657 for adoption:
AYES:MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: McCracken, Tait, Lopez, Daly
NOES:MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT:MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Zemel
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 5657 duly passed and adopted.
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR. MOTIONS CARRIED. Council Member Tait voted no on item A14
and abstained on A5 Sub Sec’s 3 & 4. (Council Member Zemel absent.)
ITEMS B1 - B8 FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF
OCTOBER 26, 1998:
INFORMATION ONLY - APPEAL PERIOD ENDS NOVEMBER 17, 1998:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3939, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
B1.179:
OWNER:
Changiz Zomordian and Rebecca Zomordian, 25105 Mustang Drive, Laguna Hills, CA
92653
LOCATION: 301 South Anaheim Boulevard - Arco Service Station.
Property is 0.93 acre
located at the southwest corner of Broadway and Anaheim Boulevard.
To consider amendment or deletion of conditions of approval pertaining to retail sales of beer
and wine for off-premises consumption in conjunction with a previously-approved service station
including a convenience market and a drive-through car wash and two fast food restaurants.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3939 APPROVED, IN PART, with the sales of beer and wine permitted only between
the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. (PC98-166)
(4 yes votes, 1 no vote, 1 abstained, and 1absent).
Negative Declaration previously approved.
WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4050
B2.179:
DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO.-98-07
AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER:
Pietro Trozzi and Maria Trozzi, 9471 Gateshead Dr., Huntington Beach, CA 92646
AGENT:
David E. Harper, AIA, 1321 W. Cerritos Ave. #15, Anaheim, CA 92802
LOCATION: 3240-3268 West Lincoln Avenue - Centralia Center.Property is 1.49 acres located
east and south of the southeast corner of Westchester Drive and Lincoln Avenue.
Conditional Permit No. 4050
- to establish conformity with existing zoning code land use
requirements for an existing commercial center, a 2,200 square foot meat and produce market, a
2,340 square foot convenience market with sales of alcoholic beverages for off-premises
consumption and to permit the sales of beer and wine for on-premises consumption within an
existing 5,005 square foot billiard hall with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
8
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
NOVEMBER 17, 1998
Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 98-07
- to determine public
convenience or necessity to allow the sales of beer and wine for on-premises consumption within
an existing billiard hall.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 4050 GRANTED, IN PART, denying beer and wine sales
(PC98-167) (6 yes votes, 1 absent).
Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 98-07 WITHDRAWN.
Approved waiver of code requirement.
Approved Negative Declaration.
An appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision was filed by the applicant and, therefore, a
public hearing will be scheduled before the Council at a later date.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 310, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
B3.179:
OWNER:
Ron Pressman, 1804 Angelo Dr., Beverly Hills, CA 90210
AGENT:
March & Associates, 2 Strawberry Ln., San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
LOCATION: 1025 East Orangethorpe Avenue - Wells Fargo Bank.
Property is 1.67 acres located on the north side of Orangethorpe Avenue, 193 feet west of the
centerline of Raymond Avenue.
Request review and approval of revised exhibits to allow automated teller machines to remain in
a former bank building.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
APPROVED revised plans for CUP NO. 310 (PC98-168)
(6 yes votes, 1 absent).
Approved Negative Declaration.
WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4069
B4.179:
DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 98-08
CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER:
Byron A. Dahl, Luetta F. Dahl, Basil F. Dahl, P.O. Box 1546, Lake Havasu, AZ 96405
AGENT:
Khoda Ostowari, 6263 E. Twin Peak Circle, Anaheim, CA 92807
LOCATION: 801 South Harbor Boulevard and 510 West South Street. Property is 0.8 acre
located at the southwest corner of South Street and Harbor Boulevard.
Conditional Use Permit No. 4069
- to demolish an existing liquor store to construct a service
station with a 1,998 square foot convenience market with retail sales of beer and wine for off-
premises consumption and a 920 square foot drive-through self-service car wash with waiver of
maximum structural height.
Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 98-08
- to determine public
convenience or necessity to allow retail sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption in
conjunction with a new service station, convenience market and car wash
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 4069 GRANTED - that the sales of beer and wine shall be permitted only between the
hours of 8 a.m. and 12 a.m. (PC98-169) (6 yes votes, 1 absent).
Approved Determination of public Convenience or Necessity No. 98-08
(PC98-170) .
Approved waiver of code requirement.
Approved Negative Declaration.
Susan Delao, 628 S. Resh, Anaheim, CA 92805. She has lived there for 31 years. She entered an
appeal on this project and has a whole list of signatures of the residents who are opposed. They were
happy with the closure of the South Street entrance to the 5 Freeway which cut down the traffic.
However, the proposed project will bring a lot of traffic and there are many children who walk through
that area daily. Their community does not want this project.
9
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
NOVEMBER 17, 1998
City Clerk Sohl noted that the decision of the Planning Commission has been appealed by Mrs. Delao
and the residents. She believes that the date of the Public Hearing will be December 15, 1998 and they
will be sure to send a notice to Mrs. Delao.
Mayor Daly. He reiterated the date of the Public Hearing on the issue will be December 15, 1998 but if
Mrs. Delao needs information prior to that time, staff reports or any other information, she can contact
the City Clerk.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3802, CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
B5.179:
OWNER:
Elva M. West and Nadine C. West, 5201 E. Crescent Drive, Anaheim, CA 92807
AGENT:
Carolyn M. Staehling, 1500 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION: 1500 East Lincoln Avenue - Eastside Jewelry and Loan. Property is 0.79 acre
located on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, 1,480 feet west of the centerline of Cliffrose Street.
To consider reinstatement of this permit which currently contains a time limitation (approved on
October 30, 1995 until October 30, 1998) to retain a pawn shop within an existing commercial
shopping center and to amend or delete a condition of approval pertaining to permitted hours of
operation.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved reinstatement of CUP NO. 3802 for three years, to expire 10/30/01
(PC98-171) (6 yes votes, 1 absent).
Negative Declaration previously approved.
Mayor Daly. This has to do with a permit for a pawn shop. He would like to schedule a Public Hearing to
pin down the details and to make sure this is an appropriate use in the neighborhood; Council Member
McCracken concurred. A Public Hearing will, therefore, be scheduled before the Council at a later date.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3995, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
B6.179:
OWNER:
Taormina Industries LLC, Attn: John McNamara, P.O. Box 307, Anaheim, CA 92815-
0309
AGENT:
County of Orange IWMD, Attn: Jeri Muth, 320 N. Flower St., #400, Santa Ana, CA
92703
LOCATION: 1071 North Blue Gum Street - County of Orange Household Hazardous Wastes
Collection Center.Property is 1.42 acres located at the southwest corner of La Palma Avenue
and Blue Gum Street
To amend or delete conditions of approval pertaining to permitted operations to allow a materials
exchange program in conjunction with the previously-approved household hazardous wastes
collection facility.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved amendment to CUP NO. 3995 (PC98-172) (5 yes votes, 1 abent, and 1 abstained).
Negative Declaration previously approved.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4070, CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
B7.179:
OWNER:
Joseph T. Kung and Emma W. Kung, 20866 Quail Run Drive, Diamond Bar, CA
91789
AGENT:
Steve Sheldon, 100 S. Anaheim, Blvd., #350, Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION: 5573 East Santa Ana Canyon Road - Giatano’s Salon.Property is 5.03 acres
located at the northwest corner of Imperial Highway and Santa Ana Canyon Road.
To establish conformity with existing zoning code land use requirements for an existing 55,557
square foot 45-unit commercial center and to permit massage services in an existing 5,565
square foot full-service beauty and skin care spa located within the same commercial center
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
10
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
NOVEMBER 17, 1998
CUP NO. 4070 GRANTED, for one year, to expire 10/26/99, (PC98-173)
(5 yes votes, 1 absent, and 1 abstained).
Approved Negative Declaration.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ITEM:
CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED)
B8.179:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4035 - REVIEW FOR LANDSCAPE PLAN REVIEW:
Alireza
Bahrami, 329-331 North State College Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92806, requests review and
approval of final landscape plans (to permit an automobile sales lot with a maximum of five (5)
vehicles on display). Property is located at 329-331 North State College Boulevard.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved review of landscape plan for CUP NO. 4035, with the replacement of the bushes
proposed on the south property line with trees.
Negative Declaration previously approved.
END OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS.
ITEMS B9 - B10 FROM THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MEETING OF
NOVEMBER 5, 1998 DECISION DATE: NOVEMBER 12, 1998
INFORMATION ONLY - APPEAL PERIOD ENDS NOVEMBER 27, 1998:
ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 147 CEQA EXEMPTION SECTION
B9.179:
{15061(B)(3)}:
OWNER: Steven and Lorraine Lazerson, 541 South Grand Avenue, West Covina, CA 91791
LOCATION: 302 S. East Street (also known as 300 South East Street and 1200 East Broadway)
- Anaheim Service Station. Property is approximately 0.49 acre, having a frontage of 211 feet
on the south side of Broadway and 102 feet on the eastside of East Street and is located at the
southeast corner of Broadway and East Street.
To construct eight (8) foot high block wall fencing at the south and east property boundaries with
waiver of maximum fence height in side and rear yards.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
APPROVED Administrative Adjustment No. 147 (ZA DECISION NO. 98-31).
ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 148 CEQA EXEMPTION SECTION
B10.179:
{15061(B)(3)}:
OWNER: Kaufman and Broad, Attn: David Huthcins, 36 Technology, #150, Irvine, CA 92618
LOCATION: 112 - 218 South Brookhurst Street. Property is approximately 6.25 acres having a
frontage of approximately 450 feet on the east side of Brookhurst Street, having a maximum
depth of approximately 605 feet and being located approximately 216 feet south of the centerline
of Lincoln Avenue.
To construct a six to eight foot high block wall and wrought iron perimeter fencing with waiver of
maximum fence height
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
APPROVED Administrative Adjustment No. 148 (ZA DECISION NO. 98-32).
END OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ITEMS.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3830
D1.179:
AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER:
Dennis and Edith Berger, 1120 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805
AGENT:
Phillip Schwartze, 31682 El Camino Real, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
11
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
NOVEMBER 17, 1998
LOCATION: 1130 West Lincoln Avenue and 1203 West Center Street- Ace Fixtures Company.
Property is 0.22 acre, located on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, 505 feet east of the centerline
of Villa Place.
To consider reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval
pertaining to a time limitation to retain outdoor storage of materials for an existing retail
restaurant supply store.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Denied reinstatement of CUP NO. 3830(PC98-109) (6 yes votes,
1 vacancy).
Negative Declaration previously approved.
Informational item at the meeting of August 11, 1998, Item B1.
Letter of appeal submitted by the owner, Dennis Berger.
Public hearing continued from the meeting of September 22, 1998, Item D2.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in North County News: September 10, 1998
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet: September 8, 1998
Posting of property: September 11, 1998
City Clerk Sohl noted that as the agenda states, a second request for continuance has been received.
Council may also recall the last time this matter was before them on September 22, 1998, there were a
group of citizens from the adjacent neighborhood who had come forward to make comments. When the
additional request for continuance was received, her office notified the spokespersons of that request so
interested citizens may or may not be in the audience. She advised them that whether or not a
continuance would be granted was up to the Council. Mr. Schwartze, agent for the applicant, has further
advised if December 8 is not a good date, he could accept a different date.
Mayor Daly, after noting that there were several people in the Chamber audience on this item, asked
Council thoughts on the request.
Council Member Tait. They generally accommodate requests for continuance; Mayor Daly. The City
Council is also in transition and at the next meeting, two new Council Members and he will be sworn in.
It is an awkward period for all because of that and he knows it figures in as part of the rationale for the
continuance request. He asked if there were any legal restrictions in terms of time frames on this item.
City Attorney White answered no. It is discretionary with the Council. The project is not up against the
permit streamlining act.
Council Member Tait asked if they could then take testimony tonight; City Attorney White noted that on
occasion the Council has done that and then continued the item.
Mayor Daly opened the continued Public Hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak at this time.
Crystal Atry, 1122 W. Center Street, Anaheim. She sent some correspondence to each of the Council
Members delivered last Thursday. (See letter of November 8, 1998 from Mrs. Atry attached to which
were letters previously sent to the Planning Commission outlining a number of concerns regarding the
operation and its impact on their community - previously made a part of the record). She has lived at
1122 W. Center since 1977. They have been battling with Ace Fixtures 15 out of those 22 years. Mr.
Berger (owner of Ace Fixtures) needs to think of the peace, health and safety of the children in the area.
They have made their homes there and all they are asking is for him to give them respect. From 9:00
a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Mr. Berger considers that section of Center Street his. The parcel in question is used
for open storage which she believes is for only temporary storage. She then outlined some of the
concerns which were previously documented. She noted that he (Berger) used the public sidewalks and
streets to stack, assemble and repair his merchandise and also use the front of their homes to park
12
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
NOVEMBER 17, 1998
employee vehicles. He does not have 18 parking spaces; those spaces are jointly used with the liquor
store and that lot is posted “Customer Parking Only.” They park in front of her house which is right
across the street. She questioned why they can’t do all of their work on the lot -- it is simple to her. They
have been asking for 15 years that the activities of Ace Fixtures be moved inside the fenced-in area and
not in front of their homes which will also make it safer for their children who have to use the street. She
has pictures dating back 15 years. This is the same old operation. It has been going on too long. They
are asking the Council’s help to resolve the situation.
Sharon Becker, 1129 W. Center St., Anaheim. She lives right in the middle of Ace Fixtures. Her house
is completely surrounded by the business on all sides. Their quality of life is less than desirable. She
works nights and sleeps days. She is unable to sleep in her bedroom. She has lived there for 19 years
and would like to see some resolution. There was a home to the west of her and one to the north before
Ace Fixtures took over the property and demolished the homes. She deserves quality of life as well.
She does not like what is going on with Ace Fixtures and wants it stopped. She then clarified for the
Mayor that her house (on the same side of the street as Ace Fixtures) is right in the middle of the
operation.
Council Member Tait asked, on the residential parcels that were purchased, was the zoning changed on
those.
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager. The entire block is zoned commercial-general and it has been
that way since at least 1951 even with the residential.
Jim Atry, 1122 W. Center Street, Anaheim. As his wife stated, they have been fighting Mr. Berger for 15
years. He bought the property behind Mrs. Becker’s house, tore the adjacent houses down illegally and
then came to the City to apply for the CUP. That is the game he (Berger) has been playing. He (Atry)
has been to the City (hearings, etc.) eight or nine times to get a resolution. Their area is in transition with
residential on one side and commercial on another. They took a lot of older houses behind them and put
in 8 to 16 units and now there is also a lot of traffic coming to the liquor store. Ace Fixtures has outgrown
their location. He is off-loading in the street, double parking, using fork lifts in the street. It is unsafe for
the children. Planning and Code Enforcement have a thick packet of documents involving this property.
Granting him a CUP is not the answer. The situation needs to stop.
Mayor Daly first asked if there were any other persons to speak or if a representative of the applicant was
present. There was no response. He believes it will be acceptable to allow a continuance for one final
time but he would not support continuing the matter beyond December 8, 1998. They owe a decision to
the neighbors as well as the applicant.
MOTION. Mayor Daly moved to continue the subject Public Hearing to Tuesday, December 8, 1998.
Council Member Tait seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Mayor Daly wanted assurance that appropriate staff would be available on
December 8, 1998 which he was assured by staff would be the case. He also asked for confirmation if
the entire operation is under review or if it simply involves the narrow issue of the outdoor storage yard.
Greg Hastings. The issue revolves around the CUP, the latter of the two portions, i.e., the westerly
portion. The easterly portion is grandfathered in.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Council Member Zemel was absent. MOTION
CARRIED.
Mayor Daly stated that the date, December 8, 1998, is “set in concrete” and there will be a decision made
that night.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
13
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
NOVEMBER 17, 1998
At this point, Mayor Daly asked those who were present on the remainder of the Public Hearings. Since
no one was present regarding Item D5. except the applicant, he suggested that D5. be considered before
the remainder of the Public Hearings since some of the other hearings may take some time. Council
Members concurred; item D5. was thereupon taken out of order.
CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 358
D5.134:
AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO THE SUMMIT OF ANAHEIM HILLS
SPECIFIC PLAN (SP88-2)
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 14124 AND FINAL SITE PLAN
DENSITY TRANSFER NO. 98-01
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF 12a, 12c, 12d, and 12e
OWNER:
New Millennium Homes, Attn: Dave Redillion, 2823 McGaw, Irvine, CA 92614
AGENT:
Douglas Bender & Associates, Attn: Alan Oveisi, 22936 Mill Creek Drive, #A, Laguna
Hills, CA 92653
LOCATION:
Property is 4.8 acres located at the northwest corner of Oak Canyon Road and
Weir Canyon Road (Development Area 208 of The Summit of Anaheim Hills Specific Plan No.
88-2).
General Plan Amendment No. 358
- to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan to
redesignate this property from the General Commercial land use designation to the Hillside
Medium Density Residential land use designation.
Amendment No. 3 to the Summit of Anaheim Hills Specific Plan (SP88-2)
- to amend Exhibit
No. 10 to redesignate Development Area 208 from commercial land uses to single-family
attached residential land uses and to amend the Development Area 208 Zoning and
Development Standards to permit attached single-family dwelling units.
Tentative Tract Map No. 14124 and Final Site Plan
- to establish a 27-lot (including 5 lettered
lots)* 22-unit single-family attached residential subdivision.
Density Transfer No. 98-01
- in order to transfer a total of 22 units from Development Area 205
to Development Area 208 to justify the proposed 22-unit attached single-family residential
development.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Recommended adoption of Exhibit “A” to City Council for GPA No. 358 (PC98-161) (6 yes
votes, 1 absent).
Approved Amendment No. 3 to the Summit of Anaheim Hills Specific Plan (SP88-2) (PC98-162).
Tentative Tract Map No. 14124 and Final Site Plan Approved.
Density Transfer No. 98-01 Approved (PC98-163).
Approved negative Declaration.
Approved request for City Council review of this project. City Council to hold a public hearing.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in North County News: November 5, 1998
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet: November 4, 1998
Posting of property: November 6, 1998
Mayor Daly asked for a brief summary of the project by staff.
STAFF INPUT:
Joel Fick, Planning Director, briefed the Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated October 12,
1998 outlining the specifics of the proposal. Subsequently, he noted that the applicant’s plans are
compatible with other developments in the area and staff supports the request.
14
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
NOVEMBER 17, 1998
Mayor Daly. The bottom line is, this is a proposal to change the zoning on a 4.8-acre site from
commercial to residential and to allow 22 single-family homes to be built; Mr. Fick stated that was
correct.
Applicant’s Statement: Jean Fallowfield, Senior Planner, FORMA. She is present with Dave Redillion of
New Millenium Homes, the master developer as well as builder of the project. She described the project
and location. It is basically the only remaining vacant area within the Summit of Anaheim Hills Specific
Plan area. The proposal is consistent with the approved Specific Plan. It is a density transfer from a
hillside medium area to the proposed area. The total number is still within the Specific Plan and within
the previously Certified EIR. The compatibility of residential with surrounding land uses is considered
better than commercial. It is paired homes with a density of 4.6 DU per acre and average square
footage of 2,200 with an average price ranging in the low $300,000’s. She then briefed the graphics
which were displayed showing elevations, design, etc.
Council Member Tait. He believes this is the third or fourth small commercial parcel being rezoned to
residential. He asked if staff feels there is no longer a need for small commercial.
Joel Fick, Planning Director. Staff does feel that way. A Fiscal Impact Analysis was done for each of the
changes and this is the last one that would be altered within the Specific Plan Areas. It is positive to the
surrounding Anaheim Hills related communities and will also help other commercial centers which need
the additional traffic.
Council Member Tait. His other concern is the impact these changes have on schools; Mr. Fick stated
the number is less than and still within the overall amount originally approved for the ranch in terms of
dwelling units.
Mayor Daly closed the Public Hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Mayor Daly,
seconded by Council Member Lopez, 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.Council
Member Zemel was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Daly offered Resolution Nos. 98R-246 through 98R-248 for adoption Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 98R-246: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE
ANAHEIM GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATED AS AMENDMENT NO. 358.
RESOLUTION NO. 98R-247: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING AMENDMENT NO 3 TO THE
SUMMIT OF ANAHEIM HILLS SPECIFIC PLAN (SP88-2).
RESOLUTION NO. 98R-248: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM TO APPROVE DENSITY TRANSFER NO.
98-01.
15
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
NOVEMBER 17, 1998
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 98R-246 through 98R-248, both inclusive, for adoption:
AYES:MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: McCracken, Tait, Lopez, Daly
NOES:MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT:MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Zemel
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 98R-246 through 98R-248, both inclusive, duly passed and
adopted.
MOTION: Mayor Daly Moved To Approve Tentative Tract Map No. 14124 and the final site plan.
Council Member McCracken seconded the motion. Council Member Zemel was absent. MOTION
CARRIED.
Mayor Daly offered Ordinance No. 5659 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 5659: (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO THE SUMMIT OF ANAHEIM HILLS SPECIFIC PLAN (SP88-2).
Mayor Daly. He believes this is the first project in Anaheim for Millenium Homes. He wished them well
with their project of 22 new single-family homes.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING VARIANCE NO. 1229, AND NEGATIVE
D2.179:
DECLARATION:
OWNER:
Gregory Parkin, 2500 W. Orangethorpe #V, Fullerton, CA 92633
AGENT:
Mohsen Abdolsalehi, 7830 Crescent Ave., Buena Park, CA 92680
LOCATION: 823 South Beach Boulevard - Covered Wagon Motel. Property is 1.3 acre located
on the west side of Beach Boulevard, 975 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road.
To consider reinstatement of Variance No. 1229 by the modification or deletion of a condition of
approval pertaining to a time limitation to retain an existing 70-unit motel.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Denied reinstatement of Variance No. 1229 (PC98-117) (5 yes votes, 1 absent, and 1 vacancy).
Denied Negative Declaration.
Informational item at the meeting of August 18, 1998, Item B6.
Letter of appeal submitted by the owner, Gregory Lee Parkin.
Public Hearing continued from the meeting of October 13, 1998, Item D3.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in North County News: October 1, 1998
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet: October 1, 1998
Posting of property: October 2, 1998
Mayor Daly asked for a brief staff report.
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager. He briefed the history of the property as outlined in the Staff
Report to the Planning Commission dated August 3, 1998. He also explained that since the Planning
Commission meeting (August 3, 1998), staff has observed some improvement on the property. Code
Enforcement and Police Department staff are present to discuss any activities on the property.
Don Yourstone, Code Enforcement Officer. Since the Commission hearing, he conducted an inspection
of the property on October 8, 1998 along with one of the owners, Jim Parkin. He (Parkin) has shown him
that they have made great progress in abating the existing code violations and rehabbing the rooms. At
that time he (Yourstone) suggested that they contact the residents who live to the west and mention they
are putting up some kind of barrier wall from the second floor balcony to prevent people from looking
16
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
NOVEMBER 17, 1998
over into their residential area or throwing things over the wall. He inspected the property again today
and noticed that a wall has been installed. A great improvement has been made to the property. Jim
Parkin told him they have changed management. He and his brother are the main proprietors. They are
also re-landscaping in front. Not everything is finished yet but they have come into compliance with
code.
Council Member Lopez asked what remains to be completed.
Don Yourstone. A few minor violations but they are on an ongoing maintenance process of rehabbing all
the rooms as they become vacant. He also confirmed that the Covered Wagon has installed a wall on
the second-story balcony which will mitigate the concerns expressed by residents at the previous
meeting.
City Attorney White. This matter was continued from a previous meeting to give staff the opportunity to
respond to a Public Records Act request that Mr. Parkin made to the City. The records requested have
been copied and were provided and a copy of those records made available for the Council to review.
They will be deemed a part of the record of this proceeding.
Mayor Daly asked if staff’s recommendation stands or if it has been modified; Joel Fick, Planning
Director. Staff’s original recommendation was that this Variance not be reinstated. That is what the
Commission upheld and recommended to the City Council. Much of the information they have received
is brand new. They are encouraged by the inspection today where there has been movement and
substantial progress. There is some additional testimony the Council should hear from the Police
Department. In terms of potential modification, if the testimony of the residents indicates that there have
been substantial improvements made, staff would not be opposed to a one-year extension if borne out by
tonight’s hearing.
Mayor Daly noted that the paper work reflects staff’s recommendation is to deny; Joel Fick. That is
correct. The only change that he is making to that recommendation is the updated information they
received in part today prior to the hearing.
Investigator Randy West, Police Department. He reported since the hearing in August, the Police
Department has logged an additional 40 calls for service at 823 S. Beach Boulevard, the Covered
Wagon Motel. Seventeen were specific to a room number. The calls also generated an additional 12
Police reports ranging from collisions to suspicious persons, etc. The Police Department has also
noticed that since the August 3, 1998 hearing, there have been people in pseudo-security type uniforms
at the location. It was their understanding part of the conditions were that the security guards were to be
licensed by the City as well as the State of California Department of Consumer Affairs. The Police
Department has identified a number of people in the last couple of weeks who are working at the location
as “security guards” none of which has a license to be a security guard. They are supposedly employed
by Mr. Parkin as well as another individual, Mohsen Abdolsalehi, who identified himself as part owner of
the business. He clarified for the Mayor, since August 3, 1998 to November 15, 1998 at the 823 S.
Beach Boulevard address, 40 specific calls matched to that location. Answering Council Member Lopez
relative to a comparison with other motels along Beach, he reported they made a comparison to four
other properties for one year (8/1/97 - 8/1/98). The only other property that had more calls was the
Rainbow at 831 S. Beach Blvd. Mr. Parkin’s property had 177.
Mayor Daly opened the continued Public Hearing.
Applicant’s Statement: Gregory Parkin, owner of the real property at 823 S. Beach Blvd. (Covered
Wagon Motel). He had asked for a number of records from the Police Department through the City
Attorney’s Office and was appreciative of getting them in an expeditious manner. One of the documents
he did not have at the time of the Commission Hearing was the memorandum dated July 3, 1998 which
states there were 177 recorded references to the Covered Wagon and 134 serious ones. If he had that,
he would have looked at the four illegally parked vehicles and wondered why that was such a serious
17
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
NOVEMBER 17, 1998
violation. He gave a copy of the breakdown in the second portion of the packet he submitted showing 32
of 134 are such stops, i.e., people not involved with the Covered Wagon but stopping in the area of the
motel. There were six car stops having nothing to do with the motel, seven traffic accidents not
connected with the motel, and some he could not find any information on whatsoever. He did get a copy
of all of the Police reports associated with that particular location. There were about 38 total and 15 did
not involve the Covered Wagon which leaves about 22 Police reports that in some fashion involved
somebody at the motel. Mr. Parkin then keyed in on and briefed specific reports/incidents of call for
service to show that they were not related to the Covered Wagon. He also addressed the complaints
that had been issued which he obtained from North Court noting that there were 17 for the entire year,
briefed those, and in the final analysis, concluded that four were complaints involving somebody at the
motel and of those four, none were serious enough that anyone was granted formal probation. All were
informal probation with little or no jail time. They have the only open parking lot along that area and the
Police park their vehicles in the lot to go to the Rainbow Motel or the Sahara. He referred to other
documents in his submittal and briefed the information submitted.
In concluding, Mr. Parkin stated they are trying to do the best they can. They also call the Police when
they see some problem off their property. It is important to keep in mind if they are comparing calls, that
theirs is the largest motel in the area and occupies two lots with 70 rooms. They keep a “don’t rent to” list
and when they ask people to leave they do not let them back in. There were no prostitution arrests and
no drug-dealing arrests on their property. He believes if the records reflected Rome and Beach Blvd.,
unless an incident involved the Covered Wagon Motel specifically, they would see a tremendous
difference because so many of the calls have no relation to the Covered Wagon Motel.
Council Member Lopez asked the bottom line. How many calls does he believe were attributed to this
property; Mr. Parkin answered of the 177 incidents, counting their calls which are 24 and the document
from the City Attorney involving calls for any room to be 65, the worst-case scenario is 89 over a full
year. With 89 in a 70-room hotel, he does not feel they are doing so bad.
Mayor Daly asked to hear from those who would like to speak in favor.
Steven Wozny, 818 S. Hayward Street, Anaheim. At the last meeting, he was quite adamant in
expressing his opposition (see minutes of October 13, 1998) as well as several of his neighbors. After
the meeting was over, they spent another 45 minutes with the applicant and told him what they wanted.
Two days later, the construction hammers started and they got the wall they wanted so now the
neighbors can use their back yards in privacy once again. He went to the motel again today and looked
at everything and he feels they are progressing. He is sure there is a lot more to do, but they did get the
wall up and in 10 days from the time they walked out of the previous meeting which he believes was a
rewarding experience to the residents. He clarified his house is not directly behind the motel but about
100 yards to the south. He’s directly behind the Rainbow Inn and undoubtedly he will be here again
because he does not feel Code Enforcement is doing what they were supposed to be doing with regard to
that business.
Suzuko Allen, , 3123 W. Acme Place, Anaheim. She is representing her grandmother who lives at 814 S.
Hayward directly behind the Covered Wagon and was present at the last meeting (see minutes of
October 13, 1998) in opposition. After leaving the meeting, within just over a week, a wall was put up on
the second floor balcony so now people can no longer look into the back yard or throw things. Her
grandmother is very pleased. They feel this is a good first step and the motel has done a lot. They have
met the neighbor’s needs. They believe they will have a good relationship with the motel after 20 years
of struggling.
Mayor Daly asked to hear from those in opposition.
Judith Ann Gollette, 649 S. Roanne St., Anaheim, Member of WAND and Chairman of the Land Use and
Business Development Committee of WAND. The Covered Wagon Motel has come up at their meetings
several times. The new owners came to one of their meetings and spoke about their plans for the future
18
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
NOVEMBER 17, 1998
and what happened in the past. Several of the things she heard this evening do not exactly “jive”. There
are 70 units and 80% are for long-term residents or low-income with children. There were 44 children
when they took over in August and they stated 10 or 15 are still remaining. How many children reside
there at the present time is still unknown. Regarding prostitution, she understands it is going on all over
and that is what they are trying to combat. Relative to the ownership, there was a foreign man who
according to Erik and James Parkin was no longer in ownership with the motel but the (Parkins) father
and two boys had taken over and this man had continued to manage the Covered Wagon in Buena Park.
Things were going to be changing because he was no longer going to be involved in the Anaheim
Covered Wagon. They owned the business for several years before the CUP was pulled. The
improvements have gone on since then. What they are concerned with is if there is actually a change in
ownership and whether or not they are looking to the future with the residents in West Anaheim. What
WAND is suggesting and the Business Development Committe (of WAND) is that the Council develop a
tier system permit for one year with conditions, for example, where in three or four months so many
improvements are to be made and if they are not done that the permit be pulled. She is concerned if the
permit is pulled at this point, the motel would be run as is with no control by the City ending in a legal
battle. They do not want a court battle or a “dark” motel but are looking for a partnership with the motel
owners and the Council for a better tomorrow.
Loretta Finch. She currently resides at the other Covered Wagon Motel in Buena Park. She was a
former resident of 823 S. Beach Blvd from May 3, 1998 until November 7, 1998 when she was evicted.
Her concern is mostly for the occupants of the motel. He (Parkin) characterized some of the tenants as
unsavory and they were ejected from the motel. She was also ejected but is not “unsavory.” She lived
in the motel as many other families because there is no other place to live whether they like the
conditions or not. She feels Anaheim in a way promotes the activities because the motel owner uses the
City’s regulations to remove these people without any opportunity for them to have a place to go.
Mayor Daly interjected and asked Ms. Finch to focus on the issue -- why the motel should not be allowed
to stay open.
Ms. Finch stated that the tenants are going to be homeless if it is closed down. In that case, she will
have to speak in favor of it remaining open. She suggests that it be approved on the condition that he
(Parkin) work with the people who are occupants at the motel, treat them as human beings, and allow
them sufficient time to move out and find other places to live when they are asked to leave. They pay
high rent to live in a place that is substandard and do so because it is better than having no place to live.
She reiterated, there should be a contingency where the owner works with the people who are there.
Robert Haskell, 1405 E. Romneya, Anaheim. He moved in (assumed to be 1405 E. Romneya) in January
and in that time, he has had zero calls from the Police Department. He feels 177 calls or 89 calls is a lot.
He did not hear anything about what they did with the 30 calls. Since August, there were 40. It is the
same pace as last year. He would not recommend letting this go on for another year.
Summation by Applicant: Gregory Parkin. Relative to Mrs. Gollette, when his sons met with her, they
indicated to her that the management had changed and that Mr. Abdolsalehi no longer had a
management function at the motel and he (Gregory Parkin) does not either. Relative to Ms. Finch, after
he explained what occurred in her situation, stated that she makes a point that it is difficult on the tenants
with the 28-day checkout which is a City regulation. They don’t like it but have no choice. Tenants are
told they have to leave in 28 days; Mayor Daly noted that the sign out front says it is a motel.
Council Member McCracken. She asked Mr. Parkin’s response to Mrs. Gollette’s suggestion that the
Council grant the permit for a year with some conditions that over that period, Code Enforcement check
every three months and assure the Council he is making progress towards making the Covered Wagon a
better class motel.
Mr. Parkin stated that is the obvious direction they should go and that is the way it will be. If they are
given an extension, Code Enforcement will be vigilant and that is fine.
19
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
NOVEMBER 17, 1998
Mayor Daly closed the Public Hearing.
Mayor Daly. He noted that Council Member McCracken might be suggesting an approach. His feeling is
that it is completely unfair to the community and has been for decades to approve something like a motel
and over time it is operated as an apartment. It is a fraudulent approach to planning. If they want to add
more apartments, they should be labelled apartments. This building was approved in 1960 and 38 years
later Anaheim spends a fortune policing the property. The Planning Commission acted unanimously to
deny. He believes as a land-use matter it is wrong to allow a motel to be built and then have it
disintegrate into something it was not meant to be. He will be supporting the Planning Commission’s
action to deny.
Council Member McCracken. The suggestion from WAND was the possibility rather than denying the
reinstatement, to grant the variance for another year with some supervision or regular evaluation by
Code Enforcement. She asked if that was a possibility otherwise they are going to end up with a 70-unit
facility that will probably be operating illegally, end up in court, and with no improvements made. If they
want to operate as an apartment, they need to make the plans to do so. She asked staff about the
possibility of the motel continuing to operate as a motel with conditions strict enough so that inspections
could be made on a regular basis during the renewal year.
Joel Fick, Planning Director. There are two possible approaches. One would be to have monthly Code
Enforcement inspections with any subsequent follow-up to be paid for by the applicant and in the event
there continues to be non-compliance, rather than waiting for the full year, the item could be brought
back. Alternatively or in conjunction with that approach, during the one-year time period an additional
fixed date somewhere within that time period whether 3, 4 or 6 months or 30 days to be in compliance
and then entering the monitoring phase.
Council Member Tait. This is a unique situation where residents spoke against a couple of months ago
and now they are advocates of the property owner and they live immediately adjacent to the property.
He went to the property today and saw substantial and incredible improvement. He also went to one of
the neighbors directly behind who allowed him into her back yard and she was very pleased. He asked
her if the motel should be closed and she said no and that she is happy now. The City brought a motel
owner in because of the problems on the property and there has been great improvement. It sends a
message to other motel owners in trying to encourage them to improve their properties. If they then do
so and the City still closes them down, that will send a negative message. He likes the resolution as
suggested by Council Member McCracken as it gives the owner a “short leash”. If they close it down,
they will see a boarded-up motel.
Mayor Daly asked if the cost of Code Enforcement is to be included in the condition; Council Member
McCracken answered yes if the owner will agree.
Mr. Parkin explained that is the situation that exists at the present time. Each time there is an inspection
they get billed.
Mayor Daly. He believes at some point, too much public money has been expended. He is also
concerned with the continued demand for Police service at the property. They have to think about the
integrity of their planning in the area.
Council Member McCracken. She asked how the resolution could be worded to reinstate it for one year
with monthly Code inspections with the cost paid by the applicant.
City Attorney White. If a resolution is offered, it could be with all of the previous conditions imposed by
the Planning Commission in conjunction with the previous approval when conditions were imposed that
included a one-year period that has expired and this would extend it for another year. He believes the
20
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
NOVEMBER 17, 1998
Code inspection condition was in the previous conditions as well. Council Member Tait also mentioned
possibly setting a milestone, a short period in the future, for total compliance.
Joel Fick. Staff would suggest one modification to Condition #11 which previously required Code
inspection on a monthly basis for the first six months with such additional inspections as necessary. The
suggestion would be on a monthly basis for the entire year and such additional inspections as required by
Code Enforcement with the City to be reimbursed for the cost; City Attorney White stated if the
inspections are done on a monthly basis for the year, there may be no need for the condition to set a
milestone.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Council Member
McCracken, seconded by Council Member Tait, 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.
Mayor Daly voted no and Council Member Zembel was absent. MOTION CARRIED.
Council Member McCracken offered Resolution No. 98R-249 for adoption subject to previous conditions
imposed by the City Planning Commission including a modification to Condition No. 11 as articulated by
the Planning Director. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 98R-249: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING VARIANCE NO. 1229.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 98R-249 for adoption:
AYES:MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: McCracken, Tait, Lopez
NOES:MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Daly
ABSENT:MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Zemel
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 98R-249 duly passed and adopted.
Mayor Daly stated he voted no for the reasons he stated previously.
Council Member Lopez. He respects the Mayor’s views but he feels they are in a dilemma. The motel
has been there since the 60’s. He agrees with Council Member McCracken that at this point they need to
move forward and, with all the conditions, that hopefully there will be compliance.
Mayor Daly. He also hopes they continue to clean up the property, and that it will be successful with no
Police problems in the future.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
D3.179:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3915 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER:
Hussein Berri, 16205 Hemp Circle, Fountain Valley, CA 92708
LOCATION: 1199 South State College Boulevard - Mobil Service Station. Property is 0.5 acre
located at the northwest corner of Ball Road and State College Boulevard.
Review of revised plans pertaining to the retention of an existing non-conforming billboard and
enlargement of the previously-approved car wash facility in conjunction with a previously-
approved service station and convenience market, with waivers of a) prohibition of addition to
non-conforming use - APPROVED, b) maximum area of monument sign - DENIED, c)
maximum monument sign width - DENIED and d) minimum structural setback from an arterial
highway - DENIED.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3915 APPROVED, IN PART (PC98-127) (6 yes votes, 1 vacancy).
21
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
NOVEMBER 17, 1998
Waiver of code requirement, APPROVED, IN PART, Waiver (a) APPROVED, and DENIED
Waivers (b), (c), and (d).
Negative Declaration previously approved.
Informational item at the meeting of September 1, 1998.
Letter of appeal submitted by David A. Rose III on August 19, 1998.
Public hearing continued from the meetings of September 22, 1998, Item D3, October 13, 1998,
and October 27, 1998, Item D1.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in North County News: September 10, 1998
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet: September 10, 1998
Posting of property: September 11, 1998
Council Member Tait. He is declaring a conflict since his firm has done some work for Mobil in the past
year. (Council Member Tait temporarily left the Council Chamber - 7:51 p.m.).
Mayor Daly asked to hear from staff and also to lay out Council’s options.
Joel Fick, Planning Director. The City Council previously had a full Public Hearing on the proposal (see
minutes September 22, October 13 and October 27, 1998) and heard testimony from staff, the applicant,
and surrounding businesses. His presentation will concentrate on the changes that have been made
since the prior hearing and the options. He referred to memo dated October 13, 1998 from the Planning
Department - Supplemental Information for Conditional Use Permit No. 3915, 1199 S. State College
Boulevard, Mobil Service Station. The memo outlined recommendations specifically supporting the
Planning Commission decision as outlined in their Resolution PC97-127 and continues to recommend
denial of the requested waivers with the exception of waiver (a) prohibition of addition to non-conforming
uses and also subject to conditions in the resolution along with amended conditions 32. and 36. as
outlined in detail in the memo. There are two primary items as well as minor modifications listed in the
staff report of October 13 which staff has agreed with. Two of the larger items he would focus on
propose setting back the car wash facility 10’ and, in addition, a sound study was submitted dated
October 20 which analyzes the noise levels for the car wash facility done at the property line and within
the industrial office building to the west. They actually note some high decibels being produced and offer
some alternatives. Code prohibits any sound pressure levels that exceed 65 db’s regardless. In order to
be in compliance, they would have to meet that standard or not operate the equipment.
To recap the options, staff continues to support the Planning Commission in the Commission’s resolution
and the minor modifications in the October 13 memo and continue to recommend denial of the requested
waivers with the exception of (a). What that means is that the car wash facility under this application
would not be allowed to be constructed with the billboards in place. Should the billboards be removed,
the applicant theoretically could conform to the prior approval granted by the Planning Commission and
construct the car wash facility set back and in compliance with code subject to the resolution set forth
some time ago.
Mayor Daly. Staff is recommending against any waivers except for one. He asked Mr. Fick to
summarize the one he is comfortable with, prohibition of addition to non-conforming uses.
Joel Fick. That allows the balance of the facility to continue to be finished and constructed with the
exception of the car wash facility because of the location of the billboards. He clarified it allows it to be
built without the car wash.
Mayor Daly. If the applicant removes the billboard then the car wash will be allowed as long as it is set
back according to code; Joel Fick. That is the condition that exists under the prior CUP. They are
recommending the Planning Commission be upheld on this CUP. It would not allow a car wash with
billboards remaining and, solely at the applicant’s preference, should they remove those then the car
wash facility would be allowed set back and fully in compliance with code. He further confirmed for the
22
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
NOVEMBER 17, 1998
Mayor that the car wash will be set back even with the business next door, Orange Engine, and it also
would be even with the other portion of the service station facility on the site.
Applicant’s Statement: David Rose III, Regents Group, 3870 LaSierra, Riverside, Agent for the
Applicant. With the exception of a few enhancements, this is the exact same item that was approved by
the Planning Commission in July, 1997. The Commission at that time approved a use on the site that
included a gas station, convenience store with sale of beer and wine, food court facility inside, and a car
wash. The car wash at that time was 58’ from the property line as it is today and the Planning
Commission approved that with the existing billboard. At that meeting (July, 1997), Commissioner Bob
Messe asked if the billboard was being taken down and he (Rose) answered in the negative since the
owner was not in a financial position to take it down. The Planning Commission approved the exact same
proposal before the Council this evening, i.e., the car wash 58’ from the property line on Ball Road with a
billboard sign that is existing projecting from the top. The difference from the last time, the car wash has
been moved 10’ as was originally approved in July, 1997. The changes are enhancements from the last
time it was seen by the Council and Commission. Also, because of the complaints of Orange Engine,
they have closed off the westerly driveway and installed a four or five foot landscaped planter with six
specimen trees, added an 18’ long, 4’ wide landscape planter to the east of the car wash to allow for
additional aesthetic improvement as well as a barrier so people would not be crossing over parking stalls.
The key issues addressed the last time were -- the noise impact study. Christopher Jean from Gordon
Bricken & Associates is present tonight and will be providing testimony on that study. Key is the fact that
waivers b, c an d are being withdrawn and they have basically met the requirements. Waiver b has now
been brought into conformance and is no longer required or requested. Waiver c is no longer required or
requested since they are now fully meeting the sign criteria for the City. Waiver d is no longer required
or requested since the car wash has been moved back 10’. What happened at the Planning Commission
hearing in August, the Commission realized and understood they had originally approved the project
with a billboard but no waiver was required by City staff or requested by the developer so it inadvertently
had “fallen through the cracks”. When Mr. Berri came back to the City indicating he wanted to maintain
the billboard and ask what he had to do, he was told by staff he needed to apply for a waiver. They
applied for the waiver which was approved by the Planning Commission with the exception if the waiver
were to be maintained, that the car wash would have to be knocked down. The problem at that time was
that Mr. Berri was already under construction of the car wash, albeit having added the 10’ which Mr. Berri
is admitting and he (Rose) is admitting was not correct. The car wash has now been moved back 10’.
Mayor Daly interjected and stated the Planning Department has laid this out to the Council as a
recommendation that it is either the car wash or the billboard and Mr. Rose is saying that in the mind of
the proposer, it is not that way.
David Rose. The applicant’s position is that the Planning Commission in the original entitlement in 1997
approved a car wash as presented this evening, 58’ from the property line and with full knowledge that
the billboard would be remaining. It is both Mr. Berri’s and his understanding that the billboard was
known to the Planning Commission and they approved it with such knowledge. After that, someone
complained to City staff that something was going on not originally approved. Staff went out and noticed
that he (Berri) had built the car wash 10’ beyond what he was allowed. However, the issue from the
applicant’s perspective is, the billboard and car wash was already approved by the Planning
Commission. The caveat was that when the Commission adopted the billboard waiver in August, they
said he (Berri) could do so but he would have to choose between the car wash and the billboard. Mr.
Berri’s position is that they already approved the billboard in conjunction with the car wash although they
did not approve a waiver at the time because none was indicated.
Christopher Jean, Gordon Bricken & Associates, Acoustical and Energy Engineers, 1621 E. 17th Street,
Santa Ana. (See report submitted dated October 20, 1998 prepared by Mr. Jean, Staff Engineer --
Acoustical Analysis - Car Wash - 1199 State College Boulevard - City of Anaheim - previously made a
part of the record.) Mr. Jean’s presentation covered portions of his report, i.e. applicable noise criteria,
ambient sound level measurements, design noise levels and mitigation. (See pages 1 through 6 of the
23
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
NOVEMBER 17, 1998
report). During his presentation, he also answered a line of questions posed by Council Member Lopez
since his major concern related to noise issues and how the car wash noise would impact the adjacent
businesses.
The following people spoke in opposition and their comments/concerns summarized:
Mr. Larry Freeman, Freeman & Freeman, 16027 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 400, Encino, CA 91436, on behalf
of United Oil who operates the UNOCAL station immediately across the street from the subject, the
southwest corner (Mobil is on the northwest corner). His extensive presentation included the fact that
they (UNOCAL) built a very beautiful gasoline station but were not in a position to request a car wash
which they would have done but knew they could not meet the setback requirements. He then outlined
all the things they were required to do by the City, things which the applicant was not required to do. The
applicant said he was going to enlarge the station when in fact he tore down all but 14.5 sq. ft. of the
existing station. When completed, pumps and islands will be at arms length from the sidewalk probably
within 10’ of the curb line. They complied with the 12’ critical intersection setback but the subject site
does not. The problem is, the UNOCAL station is at a competitive disadvantage; they cannot utilize their
site in the same way as the applicant. After addressing additional concerns/issues, he concluded that he
does not believe the applicant should be approved or subject only to the limitations which have been
suggested. At the very minimum, the issue that has now been put before the Council that Mr. Rose
believes he can still have it both ways (the car wash and the billboard) needs to be dealt with.
Jeff Farano, Attorney, 2300 E. Katella, Anaheim. He represents the owners of the building in which
Orange Engine is located (next to the proposed project). A representative is present tonight. Mr.
Farano’s extensive presentation outlined and elaborated on the reasons for their opposition to the
project, i.e., the noise will directly affect the value of the building, it is overbuilding of the property. It is
not a remodel as has been characterized but a complete tearing down of all but 14 sq. ft. They would not
have been able to build the proposal as a new project. He referred to staff report dated August 11, 1998
which he considered was an excellent chronology on the history of the property. It is not fair that he be
allowed to build a car wash on the expectation that the mitigation measures will work. Orange Engine
should not have to consider what they can do to mitigate the noise. The noise ordinance states what the
sound level should be at the property line and it is over what is allowed. The sound study is not accurate
enough for the Council to make a decision. He does not see in the public record where the Planning
Commission approved the project to allow the billboard and the project at the same time. The
Conditional Use Permit gives the Council the discretion to decide this is not what they want to see in the
City (a billboard coming up through a car wash). The application also gives them the ability to say the
car wash should not be there -- it is too noisy. It is within the Council’s right and obligation to follow the
Planning Commission recommendation as well as staff recommendation and be assured they are
making the right decision.
Frank W. Moreno, 1408 E. Burton St., Anaheim, owner of Orange Engine. (Also see testimony given at
the meeting of October 13, 1998). He commends Mr. Freeman and Farano for what they said. He feels
they built a good case on behalf of his company. He explained what he observed when they were doing
the noise study which is not the same as when the actual car wash is in place and operating. He will be
unhappy when he can’t hear his customers.
Jeff Appel, United Oil, 18515 S. Main Street, Gardena. (Also see testimony given by United Oil at the
meeting of October 13, 1998). Everything has already been said. He went to the City, followed all of the
rules imposed by the Planning Commission, and built a beautiful gas station. He would have preferred
not to have dedicated the 10’ required by the City, moved everything forward 10’ and put a car wash in
the back. He followed City rules. He does not want to be in a situation where his station cannot survive
because someone has a tool he could not have because he (Berri) didn’t follow the rules.
Summation by Applicant: David Rose. He refuted several issues raised by those speaking in opposition.
He also questioned why at the hearings in June and July 1997, no one appeared in opposition or support.
He addressed the issue of the additional 10’ on the car wash which did not conform to what was
24
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
NOVEMBER 17, 1998
approved by the Planning Commission, the issue of the pump canopies, the architectural issue, i.e., the
ranch style of the building, etc. He noted that the old building projected 37 1/2’ whereas the new building
would be 58’ or 20 1/2’ farther from the public right of way. Again, relative to the canopies, he admits
that the plans did not indicate the canopies would be raised; however, there is only a 3’ difference
between what is being proposed and what was there before, but it should have been stated.
In concluding, Mr. Rose stated the key issue is, Mr. Berri has said he made a mistake in that the car
wash is 10’ longer than stated. He started to build something that he did not have discretionary approval
for, but is willing to knock it down, get new equipment to put back inside the car wash and build the car
wash that he was entitled to build 1 1/2 years ago. Also in that entitlement, he would like to maintain the
bilboard not approved or denied, but that was granted status quo status. Orange Engine operates a
machine shop at the rear of the property and according to the applicant’s sound studies, the db rating is
74 which is above the City allowed decibel rating. Mr. Berri’s project is going to be mitigating and
generating less than that. Orange Engine is about 20 db’s above what they are going to be generating.
He reiterated, nobody showed up 1 1/2 years ago in opposition and today they have competition and next
door neighbors complaining about a car wash on what is the exact same approval as was approved
unanimously by the Planning Commission 1 1/2 years ago.
Mayor Daly closed the Public Hearing.
Mayor Daly suggested a brief recess to closed session. A couple of issues have been raised which he
feels deserve some scrutiny.
Recess - Closed Session: Mayor Daly moved to recess into closed session. Council Member
McCracken seconded the motion. Council Member Zemel was absent. Council Member Tait was
temporarily absent/abstained. MOTION CARRIED. (8:40 P.M.)
After Recess: Mayor Daly called the meeting to order all Council Members being present with the
exception of Council Members Tait and Zemel. (9:12 P.M.)
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Council Member
Daly, seconded by Council Member Lopez, 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.
Council Member Tait was temporarily absent/abstained and Council Member Zemel was absent.
MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Daly. He referred to the Supplemental Staff Report of October 27, 1998 containing staff’s
recommendation. There is also a resolution listed on the Council agenda for action on the CUP. He
asked the appropriate action, a resolution or a motion.
City Attorney White. A resolution is necessary amending the conditions of approval of CUP 3915 and
including the addition of one waiver that would be approved for the retention of the non-conforming
billboard advertising structure.
Mayor Daly. He surmises what the City Attorney is suggesting is completely in keeping with the staff
recomendation on the first page of the October 27, 1998 memo; City Attorney White answered yes.
Joel Fick, Planning Director. He noted that the Staff Report of October 13, 1998 to the Council
discusses amended conditions.
City Attorney White. He suggests offering the resolution amending CUP 3915 in accordance with the
action of the Planning Commission as well as the amended conditions set forth in the October 13, 1998
staff report to the City Council and the revised plans submitted October 20, 1998 which is Revision 5 of
25
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
NOVEMBER 17, 1998
Exhibits 1 and 2. It is not necessary to include the October 27, 1998 report because that report refers
back to the October 13th report and the conditions contained therein.
Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 98R-250 for adoption with the additional language as articulated by
the City Attorney above. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 98R-250: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. 3915.
Before a vote was taken, City Attorney White stated, so everyone is clear, this would be granting the
waiver to keep the outdoor advertising structure as requested by the applicant but denying the car wash
portion of the use.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 98R-250 for adoption:
AYES:MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: McCracken, Lopez, Daly
NOES:MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT:MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Zemel
ABSTAINED:MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Tait
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 98R-250 duly passed and adopted.
Council Member Tait entered the Council Chamber (9:15 p.m.).
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CENTURY COMMUNICATIONS CABLE TELEVISION
D4.130:
FRANCHISE - FIVE YEAR EXTENSION:
At their meeting held September 22, 1998, Item A16, the Anaheim City Council adopted
Resolution No. 98R-195 declaring its intention to extend the Cable Television Franchise
Agreement with Century Communications Corporation. (At the meeting of October 13, 1998,
Item D2, the public hearing was opened, input received, and continued; and subsequently
continued again at the meeting of October 27, 1998, Item D2.)
To consider the adoption of an ordinance approving a five year franchise agreement with
Century Valley Cable Corporation and Century Communications Corporation pursuant to
Ordinance No. 4087.
ORDINANCE NO. 5654 (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
approving a five year franchise agreement with Century Valley Cable Corporation and Century
Communications Corporation pursuant to Ordinance No. 4087, as transferred and amended, and
setting forth certain other agreements of the parties. (Introduced at the meeting of October 13,
1998, Item D2.)
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in North County News: October 1, 1998
Mayor Daly. Public comments were heard at the meeting of October 13, 1998 (see minutes that date) as
well as questions of staff from the Council. Staff has prepared detailed responses to the various issues
raised (see Supplemental Staff Report - Century Cable TV Franchise Extension - October 27, 1998) as
well as a letter from an outside attorney retained by the City (see letter dated October 16, 1998 from
William Marticorena, Rutan & Tucker attached to the Supplemental Staff Report) outlining the regulatory
powers the City has regarding cable TV. He asked staff to explain the thinking in terms of five years as
opposed to three years or two years.
26
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
NOVEMBER 17, 1998
Tom Wood, Deputy City Manager. It is the recommendation of outside legal counsel since, in any case,
it would take three to four years to go through the full process. Five years was chosen to give the
flexibility of not having to come back to the Council to ask for an extension.
City Attorney White, elaborating further on the five-year extension request, explained that under the
1984 Cable Act, the existing franchisee is entitled to have processed a renewal application for renewal of
its current franchise that has to be considered and negotiated in good faith between the parties. Because
of the complex nature of these types of franchises and the experience of outside counsel, he suggested
going through and complying with that Federal process which takes approximately three to four years so
five years extension was suggested. During this extension period of five years, the City would be
fulfilling its legal obligation under Federal law and negotiating with the current cable provider for an
extension of the existing franchise. The length of that extension would be one of the items of the
negotiation but normally would greately exceed the five-year period.
Council Member Lopez. Some of the concerns of the citizens was the fact that the rates continue to go
up. He asked that staff explain that the Council does not have the ability to control the rates or
increases.
City Attorney White. Also under the 1984 Cable Act, the City has one type of authority and that relates
to what is called the basic service tier, normal over-the-air broadcast channels. Also, the Public
Education and Government (PEG) channels to determine whether or not those rates comply with the
Federal mandates and formulas established by the FCC. The City does not have the ability to set rates
or approve rates. The City looks at the providers proposed rates and determine if they comply.
Hundreds of pages are involved and the City is in the process of going through that determination
through an outside consultant in the business of doing just this and determining if the rates comply with
Federal requirements. If they do, they have no other choice but to allow the rates to be charged. If not,
the City can say they do not comply and would have to be brought in compliance. Relative to CPST
(Cable Program Service Tier), the other service tier, (HBO, Show Time, etc.), FCC has exclusive
authority to regulate those rates. That authority will go away next year when deregulation commences.
He reiterated, the City does not have any authority to regulate those rates. He also clarified for Council
Member Lopez that members of the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) are appointed by the
President and Congress. It is a Federal Law and the City is pre-empted from adopting laws relating to
cable. The City’s discretion is very limited.
Mr. Ed Miramoto, Century Communications asked to speak stating he represents the applicant. At the
conclusion of the October 13, 1998 hearing, three questions were posed for Century Communications to
answer (see page 3 of the October 27, 1998 Staff Report) regarding (1) how often does Century conduct
customer service surveys, re: programming, rates and customer service, (2) Century’s future plans to
enhance/upgrade cable service in Anaheim, (3) rate increases -- sources or causes of higher cable
subscription rates. He subsequently answered these questions/concerns at length and in great detail at
the conclusion of which Council Member Lopez asked for additional clarification relative to the rates
especially the possibility of offering only certain channels and not make everyone pay for all channels
when they may not want them.
In concluding his extensive presentation, Mr. Miramoto stated he would like to leave the Council with one
thought, Century has to be responsive to their customers. They do not plan on “going bust” and the best
way of going out of business in this fast progressing industry is by not addressing customer needs and
not assessing the growth of technology.
The following people spoke expressing either concerns relative to service/technology or rates/rate
structure. Their comments are summarized.
Gerald Knipper, 1403 N. Deerhaven, Anaheim (also see minutes of October 13, 1998 where input was
given). He reiterated his concerns relative to the unresponsiveness of Century Communications to his
27
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
NOVEMBER 17, 1998
letter relative to technology/quality of service he felt was not being offered by Century. Other issues
broached -- the City Council of the City of Ventura, after many complaints relative to the rate
charged/increased by Century, reduced the rate for basic cable on July 1 which is contrary to what has
been said that the Council/City has no discretion when it comes to regulating rates, newspaper articles
pertaining to Century regarding their average-to- poor performance in several categories including
customer service, technical quality, overall performance, overbilling in certain cities, settlements made
by Century for charging excessive rates, etc. Century was not able to renew their cable franchise in two
cities in Los Angeles County. City staff should find out which cities those were. He is asking the Council
to do what Ventura did and take all the complaints from subscribers and forward them to the FCC. He is
going to contact his representative, Ed Royce, send him a letter and send copies of the letters he is
sending to the FCC and get the laws changed. He feels there is no reason to have a monopoly they
can’t get out of.
Janet Clark, 2655 Greenbrier, Anaheim (also see minutes of October 13, 1998 where input was given).
In the past five weeks she has contacted several companies and has done a lot of research. She has
also contacted the FCC. Some of the things said at the Council meeting and by the outside attorney
have been misleading and she has been left with more questions than answers. She has researched
what action is available for complaints about rates and to whom they can be given. When contacting
FCC, she found as individuals (subscribers), they have none. As the franchise authority, the City must
be the one to file a complaint. It is hard to believe they have not received more than one complaint
within 90 days. She questioned why the City has never filed a complaint. She then briefed in detail the
information she gained as a result of her research as well as her own data and the chronology relating to
rate increases by Century. In concluding she asked the City Attorney and City Council to explain to the
people why they chose not to file a complaint with the FCC on behalf of the subscribers. She also asked
with a 13.9% increase between January of 1997 and December of 1997, was that not enough to send up
a “red flare”. She blames Century for being greedy but is holding the City responsible for doing nothing
when they had all the power and authority to do something. The City never complained to the FCC or
did anything. She feels the Mayor, Council and City Attorney owe the people an apology.
Jeanne Averill, Anaheim Hills. About a year ago she read a newspaper article reporting that cable
companies were offering lifeline services/rates to certain groups. She called Century and asked about
their lifeline service and was told they had none. She urged the Council and Mayor Daly to require that
Century provide low-income lifeline service to members of the community that would have need for it.
Mayor Daly closed the Public Hearing. He asked again the rationale for a five-year extension.
Kristine Thalman, Government Relations Manager. The reason is the cable franchise expired in January
of this year. With the expiration, it puts the City and the cable company in a non-negotiable status and in
what is actually a four-year extension. The renewal process involves a comprehensive audit and
technical audit of their (Century’s) systems including public input from not only citizens, but also the
educational community, libraries and anyone who is interested in telecommunications. That public input
would occur through a series of public hearings and surveys and outside consultants (engineers) that will
do technical audits. The City’s own internal audit does a review audit of the cable franchise fees and
things of that nature.
Mayor Daly then posed a line of questions relating to any or all costs involved with the renewal process
and who is responsible for those costs; Mrs. Thalman explained that the cable company pays for all costs
and there are no net costs to the City including legal fees. All costs are borne by the cable company.
Once the franchise is adopted by the City Council, a Notice to Bill is processed and the cable company is
given a detailed summary of the legal costs involved in the franchise extension immediately after action
is taken.
Council Member Lopez. Before the Council supports any kind of contract or agreement, they should look
into the statements brought up by citizens such as the lower rates in Ventura instituted by action of the
28
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
NOVEMBER 17, 1998
Council. He feels they should put off voting until some of the questions are answered. If they have the
ability to lower rates, they should look into that.
Tom Wood. Staff can investigate what is being done in other cities but have been advised by legal
counsel that rates are consistent and appropriate. Relative to the term, the Council can make it four
years. Whether it is four or five years gives staff the flexibility not to have to come back and ask for an
adjustment.
Mayor Daly. There are a number of issues on the table; however, he feels they should act on this matter
in some way. They can give staff direction to pursue some of the issues raised. He again posed
additional questions relative to the proposed term which were answered by Mr. Wood and Mrs. Thalman.
City Attorney White also explained if staff had to come back and ask for an additional extension, they
would be going through the same process as they are going through at this time which includes a Public
Hearing.
Council Member McCracken. She noted that Ms. Clark said the City had never filed any complaints.
She was under the impression the City did file a formal resolution opposing Century’s alleged
deregulation of the basic service fee and that the issue is still before the FCC. It is not as though the
City has not made any complaints.
Kristine Thalman. As far as the City filing complaints, the City filed three formal complaints regarding
rates under the Multivision Franchise. The FCC rejected all of those. The issue regarding the City of
Ventura, each City cable franchise is different. In the case of Ventura, she has been told by outside legal
counsel that the cable company is filing with the FCC to revoke the City’s rate reduction request and the
legal fees have run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars thus far. That issue is not resolved.
Mayor Daly. It is important to note that the City has filed complaints with FCC in the past. (Ms. Clark
commented, not with Century but with Multivision.) He then read from the October 16, 1998 letter from
outside legal counsel, “This City Council adopted a formal resolution opposing Century’s alleged
deregulation of the BST (Basic Service Tier) and authorized this office to file a formal opposition with the
Commission several years ago. That matter is still under consideration by the Commission and no
decision has been issued. It is unclear whether the Commission will ever resolve this issue.” Allegations
regarding the Council’s failure to act to regulate cable service is misleading. It is easy to take some sort
of action limiting what cable rates can be charged but if the City loses in court, it could cost hundreds of
thousands of dollars if not millions. They are doing what has been advised. Century is a business and
they have to compete on the market. As one of the citizens mentioned, the key in the negotiation is to
obtain the best service for the least cost.
Council Member Lopez. He would feel more comfortable with a 3-year contract to show their
constituents they are concerned.
Mayor Daly. If they authorize four years tonight, they are almost a year into it so it is essentially a three-
year period; Council Member Lopez sated he could support that but they should again look into the
concerns expressed and also look into lifeline rates.
Mr. Miramoto spoke and stated that they do have lifeline service called the Century Assistance Program
(CAP). Each year they provide all their customers with a notice that they have such a service which
essentially provides the basic service at a low rate generally known as lifeline services. (He also spoke
to some of the concerns expressed by Mr. Knipper.)
City Attorney White noted if there is a change to a four-year agreement, it would require an amended
first reading of the Ordinance since it is a substantive change. The Ordinance would then be adopted at
the next Council meeting (December 1, 1998).
29
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
NOVEMBER 17, 1998
Mayor Daly offered Ordinance 5654 for an amended first reading changing the five-year term of the
franchise agreement to a four-year term.
ORDINANCE NO. 5654: (AMENDED FIRST READING) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM approving a four year franchise agreement with Century Valley Cable Corporation and
Century Communications Corporation pursuant to Ordiance No. 4087, as transferred and amended, and
setting forth certain other agreements of the parties. (Introduced at the meeting pf October 13, 1998,
Item D2.
REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS:
C1. 112: City Attorney White stated there were no
items to report from the regular Closed Session; however, the Council held a Closed Session in
conjunction with Item D3. (CUP 3915) on today’s agenda under Government Code Section 54956.9(b)1 -
to obtain legal advice from the City Attorney relating to potential litigation. No action was taken in
Closed Session on that matter.
Mayor Daly announced that the Council performed the annual performance review of the four Council
appointees - City Manager, City Attorney, City Treasurer and City Clerk - and took action on three of the
appointees. Regarding one of the appointees, the City Attorney, it is necessary to take public action.
MOTION. Mayor Daly moved that the salary for the City Attorney be increased by 2.5% for the FY 97-
98. Council Member McCracken seconded the motion. Council Member Zemel was absent. MOTION
CARRIED.
COUNCIL COMMENTS:
C2. 114:
Council Member Lopez again stated how much he has enjoyed his tenure serving on the City Council
and the people of Anaheim. He thanked everyone again.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Council Member McCracken. She reported that a delegation from Mito, Japan (Anaheim’s Sister City),
will be visiting the City on November 23 and 24, 1998. Anyone interested in the activities of the
delegation should contact the Anaheim Sister Cities Committee.
Mayor Daly noted that the first delegation from Anaheim’s second Sister City, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain will
also be visiting Anaheim some time before Christmas.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Mayor Daly. He has comments on the City’s election cycle which he will give on December 1, 1998
which will be the day of the swearing in of Mayor/Council Members.
ADJOURNMENT: By general Council consent, the Council Meeting of November 17, 1998 was
adjourned. (10:25 P.M.) The next scheduled Council Meeting is December 1, 1998 at 3:00 P.M.
LEONORA N. SOHL
CITY CLERK
30