1999/01/12ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 12, 1999
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:MAYOR: Tom Daly
PRESENT:COUNCIL MEMBERS: Frank Feldhaus, Lucille Kring, Tom Tait, Shirley McCracken,
ABSENT:COUNCIL MEMBERS:
PRESENT:ASST. CITY MANAGER: Dave Morgan
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Joel Fick
ZONING DIVISION MANAGER: Greg Hasings
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Lisa Stipkovich
CIVIL ENGINEER: Natalie Meeks
POLICE INVESTIGATOR: Tom Engle
A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was posted at 3:30 p.m. on
January 8, 1999 at the City Hall Bulletin Board, (both inside and outside the entrance to City Hall)
containing all items as shown herein.
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:
Linda Lee Grau, 24 Morning Dove, Irvine. She asked to speak at this time regarding Anaheim’s
Redevelopment program. (She thereupon submitted a newspaper article from the December 11, 1998
Orange County Register); Mayor Pro Tem McCracken indicated that only comments relating to Closed
Session Agenda items are in order at this time; however, her remarks would be welcome at the 5:00
P.M. public portion of the meeting under the Redevelopment Agency.
The following items are to be considered at the Closed Session.
By general consent, the Council recessed into Closed Session. (3:12 p.m.)
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 related cases and cross actions)
Orange County Superior Court Case No. 70-80-71.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
2.
54956.9(a) - Existing Litigation:
Name of case:
Anaheim Redevelopment Agency v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, Orange
County Superior Court Case No. 71-70-49
th
(4 Civil No. G020990).
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 12, 1999
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
3.
54956.9(a) - Existing Litigation:
Name of case:
State of California v. Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, Orange County
Superior Court Case No. 79-42-08.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
4.
54956.9(a) - Existing Litigation:
Name of case:
Cities of Anaheim and Riverside v. Deseret Generation and Transmission
Cooperative, FERC Docket No. EL97-57-000, and City of Anaheim v. Deseret Generation and
Transmission Cooperative, USDC Case No. ED CV98-99-RT (VARx).
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
5.
54956.9(a) - Existing Litigation:
Name of case:
Edmiston v. City of Anaheim, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 78-60-
00.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL ANTICIPATED LITIGATION:
6.
Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision C of Section 54956.9 of the Government Code: two
cases.
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS:
7.
Property:
Approx. 1.78 acres south of Roosevelt Road, sw of Monte Vista Road and north of
Bauer Road.
Agency negotiator:
James Ruth, Lisa Stipkovich
Negotiating parties:
City of Anaheim/RFP proposers
Under negotiation:
price and terms.
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
8.:
Property:
Approx. 1.25 acre site at the northwest corner of Nohl Ranch Road and Serrano.
Agency negotiator:
James Ruth, Lisa Stipkovich
Negotiating parties:
City of Anaheim/.RFP proposers
price and terms.
Under negotiation:
AFTER RECESS:
Mayor Daly called the regular Council meeting of January 12, 1998 to order at 5:22 p.m. and
welcomed those in attendance.
INVOCATION: Pastor Jimmy Gaston, from the Church of Christ gave the invocation.
FLAG SALUTE:
Mayor Pro Tem Shirley McCracken led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
Mayor Daly, noting a group of Boy Scouts present in the Council Chamber, welcomed them to the
Council Meeting. From the audience, the Scouts stated they were Troop 526 from the Walt Disney
School.
2
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 12, 1999
RECOGNITIONS AUTHORIZED BY COUNCIL THIS DATE TO BE MAILED OR PRESENTED AT
ANOTHER TIME:
PROCLAMATION recognizing January 16, 1999, as Amelia Earhart Day in Anaheim.
PROCLAMATION recognizing January 24, 1999, as Women in Science Day.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY
in the amount of $4,284,234.38 for the period ending
January 12, 1999, in accordance with the 1998-99 Budget, were approved.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
There were no additions to agenda items.
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST:
George Woods, Executive Director, Teacher’s United/Anaheim. He is present acting as a representative
of the California Teacher’s Association. He invited the Council to join with Police Officers, Fire Fighters,
Librarians and Public School Teachers in the area to take part in “Read Across America” an event that
will take place on March 2 (the Birthday of Dr. Seuss), 1999. After donning a Dr. Seuss hat, Mr. Woods
read a poem emphasizing the benefits of reading with a child. He also submitted a packet(s) of
information (Organizing Kit) on Read Across America.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Shane Smith, 2381 West Mall, Anaheim. He is present again (see minutes of 1/5/99) to re-address
adding to the agenda the issue of Savis Roditis and South Coast Cab requesting that he be given a
license not only to be able to drop off people in the City but also to pick up patrons. He reiterated some
statistics he shared at the last meeting relative to the ratio of cab service to people in New York City
noting that there are 164 cabs in Anaheim which he estimates to be one cab for every 2,400 people. He
also requested that Mr. Roditis not only be allowed 40 cabs but also be able to expand that up to 100 if
he wished. The Council should not be restricting free enterprise. He asked that they let the free market
place dictate whether the City needs 40 or more cabs.
PUBLIC COMMENTS - AGENDA ITEMS:
Several people spoke under Item C2. at the time the issue was considered/discussed by the Council.
MOTION:
Council Member Daly moved to waive reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions to be
acted upon for the Council meeting of January 12, 1998. Council Member Feldhaus seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR A1 - A12:
On motion by Mayor Daly,
seconded by Council Member Tait, the following items were approved in accordance with the reports,
certifications and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent
Calendar; Mayor Daly offered Resolutions Nos. 99R-5 through 99R-9, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer
to Resolution 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:
3
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 12, 1999
a. Claim submitted by Sharon and James W. Payne II for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about August 30, 1998.
b. Claim submitted by Josephine and Roel Deles for property damage sustained purportedly due
to actions of the City on or about May 16, 1998.
c. Claim submitted by Hoa N. Pham for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of
the City on or about June 15, 1998.
d. Claim submitted by Alexander Rafael Iusan c/o Law Offices of Gaber Szabo for property
damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 3, 1997.
e. Claim submitted by Mike Brookman for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions
of the City on or about July 4, 1998.
f. Claim submitted by Andrea H. Heizer for property damage sustained purportedly due to
actions of the City on or about September 3, 1998.
g. Claim submitted by Bany Teo for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the
City on or about July 18, 1997.
h. Claim submitted by Nguyet Le for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of
the City on or about August 28, 1998.
i. Claim submitted by Peter Giovannoni for property damage sustained purportedly due to
actions of the City on or about September 1, 1998.
j. Claim submitted by William Choivez Morales for property damage sustained purportedly due
to actions of the City on or about August 25, 1998.
k. Claim submitted by Diana V. Nguyen for property damage sustained purportedly due to
actions of the City on or about June 17, 1998.
l. Claim submitted by Ernesto Santos for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions
of the City on or about Ausgust 27, 1998.
A2.156: Receiving and filing the Anaheim Police Department Crime and Clearance Analysis for the
month of November, 1998.
Council Member Kring abstained on this item.
140: Receiving and filing minutes of the Anaheim Public Library Board meeting held November
4, 1998.
A3.164: Approving Contract Change Order No. 1, in the amount of $55,000 in favor of Matthew and
Stewart Company, Inc., for the Orange Avenue & La Palma Avenue Sewer Improvements.
A4.158: Approving an Acquisition Agreement for real property located at 2145 West Katella Avenue
(R/W 5220-12) – Katella Avenue Smart Street Improvement Project; authorizing the Mayor and
City Clerk to execute said Agreement; and authorizing the acquisition payment of $165,000 to
Grover Escrow.
A5.158: Approving the Acquisition Agreement for real property located at 952 Walnut Street (R/W
5221-1) – Ball Road and Walnut Street for the Ball Road/Walnut Street Improvement Project (in
4
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 12, 1999
conjunction with the Anaheim Resort Area Beautification Program); authorizing the Mayor and
City Clerk to execute said Agreement; and authorizing the acquisition payment of $17,628.
A6.158: Approving the Acquisition Agreement for real property located at 1030 West Ball Road
(R/W 5240-4) - Ball Road and Walnut Street for the Ball Road/Walnut Street Improvement
Project (in conjunction with the Anaheim Resort Area Improvement Project); authorizing the
Mayor and City Clerk to execute said Agreement; and authorizing the acquisition payment of
$600,000 to Grover Escrow.
A7.158: RESOLUTION NO. 99R-5 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM accepting certain deeds conveying certain real properties, or interests to the City.
(R/W 5220-12, etc.)
RESOLUTION NO. 99R-6 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM accepting certain deeds conveying certain real properties, or interests to the City.
(R/W 5395-1)
A8.160: Accepting the low bid of Shallbetter, c/o Matzinger-Keegan, Inc., in the amount of $93,248
for ten manual operated deadfront pad-mounted switches with holders, in accordance with Bid
#5878.
A9.161: RESOLUTION NO. 99R-7 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM approving the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency’s participation in the 1999
Mortgage Credit Certificate Program of the County of Orange, authorizing the County of Orange
to apply, on behalf of the Agency, to the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee for an
allocation of authority to issue Mortgage Credit Certificates, authorizing the transfer of such
allocation to the County of Orange and authorizing and taking certain other actions in connection
therewith.
A10.150: RESOLUTION NO. 99R-8 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM approving the application for grant funds (through the State Department of Parks
and Recreation under the Various Special Appropriations Assistance Programs) for the
Downtown Community Center.
Authorizing the City Manager as the Grant Application Representative.
A11.153: RESOLUTION NO. 99R-9 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM amending Resolution No. 98R-214 nunc pro tunc (amending Resolution No. 98R-
214 in connection with the Letter of Understanding between IBEW, Local 47, and the City, dated
October 13, 1998.)
A12.114: Approving minutes of the Anaheim City Council meeting held December 15, 1998.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 99R-5 through 99R-9, both inclusive, for adoption:
AYES:MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Feldhaus, Kring, Tait, McCracken, Daly
NOES:MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT:MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 99R-5 through 98R-9, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted.
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR. MOTIONS CARRIED.
5
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 12, 1999
RESIGNATION FROM THE COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD:
A13. 105: Accepting the resignation
of Ross Romeros from the Community Services Board and authorizing the City Clerk to post an
unscheduled vacancy.
MOTION. Mayor Daly moved to accept the resignation of Ross Romeros from the Community Services
Board with regret and authorizing the City Clerk to post an unscheduled vacancy. Council Member
McCracken seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Daly asked the City Clerk to prepare an expression of the Council’s appreciation for Mr. Romeros’
years of service on the Board. He also noted they are anticipating filling the vacancy in coming weeks.
City Clerk Sohl. She will be forwarding to the Council applications for this position and also for the
Mother Colony House Board vacancy.
ITEMS B1 – B12 FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING OF DECEMBER 21, 1998 INFORMATION ONLY
APPEAL PERIOD ENDS JANUARY 12, 1999:
CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATIONWAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
B1.179:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4076
OWNER:
ELVEE, Inc., 200 W. Midway Drive, Anaheim, CA 92805
AGENT:
Jim Marquez (Nextel), P.O. Box 1598, Redondo Beach, CA 90277
LOCATION: 200 West Midway Drive - Anaheim Resort R.V. Park. Property is 6.65 acres
located on the south side of Midway Drive, 400 feet west of the centerline of Anaheim
Boulevard.
To permit a 52-foot high telecommunications monopole “palm” tree and accessory ground-
mounted equipment with waiver of permitted encroachment into setback area.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 4076 GRANTED, IN PART, (PC98-198) (5 yes votes, 1 absent, and 1 abstained).
Denied waiver of code requirement.
Approved Negative Declaration.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3269, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
B2.179:
OWNER:
Kyu-Ho Yun and Young S., 9982 Bixby Circle, Villa Park, CA 92861-4107
LOCATION: 501-509 South Brookhurst Street - The Ritz. Property is 1.92 acres located on the
west side of Brookhurst Street.
To amend or delete a condition of approval pertaining to hours of operation at an existing public
dance hall with sales of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption located within an
existing commercial center.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3269 DENIED (PC98-199) (6 yes votes, 1 absent).
Denied Negative Declaration.
An appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision was submitted by the applicant in letter dated January
11, 1999, Darren C. N. Nguyen, Vice President, Ritz Dancing and, therefore, a Public Hearing will be
scheduled before the Council at a later date.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3812, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
B3.179:
OWNER:
TW Investment and IW Investment Corp., c/o Kape Properties, P.O. Box 6474,
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
6
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 12, 1999
AGENT:
Kape Property Management, Attn: Allen Weinstock, 9440 Santa Monica Blvd. #305,
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
LOCATION: 1315-D, 1321, 1325, 1331 and 1341 North Blue Gum Street - Transtar Van
Conversion. Property is 9.7 acres located at the northwest corner of Miraloma Avenue and Blue
Gum Street.
To consider reinstatement of this permit which currently has a time limitation (originally approved
on March 4, 1996 to expire on October 13, 1998) to retain a previously-approved automotive van
conversion and modification plant in an existing industrial business park.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Reinstatement of CUP NO. 3812 APPROVED, to expire 10/13/99
(PC98-200) (6 yes votes, 1 absent).
Negative Declaration previously approved.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4083, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
B4.179:
OWNER:
Gilbert –La Palma Properties, 4221 Wilshire Blvd. Ste. 410, Los Angeles, CA 90010
AGENT:
School Ten, Inc.,William (Scott) Wise ll, 9928 Flower Street, Ste. 101,
Bellflower, CA 90010
LOCATION: 1136 North Gilbert Street. Property is 6.9 acres located at the northeast corner
of La Palma Avenue and Gilbert Street.
To Permit a court-mandated traffic school in the ML (Limited Industrial) zone.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 4083 GRANTED (PC98-201) (6 yes votes, 1 absent).
Negative Declaration previously approved.
CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 3570:
B5.179:
OWNER:
Jay Richard Cades and Elan J. Cades, 829 Jade Way, Anaheim, CA 92805
AGENT:
Diversified Chemical Sales, Inc., Attn: Elan Cades, 847 S. East Street, Anaheim, CA
92805
LOCATION: 847 South East Street – DIXCO, Property is 3.7 acres located on the west side of
East Street, 591 feet south of the centerline of South Street. To consider reinstatement of this
permit which currently contains a time limitation (originally approved on December 14, 1992 to
expire on December 14, 1998) to retain the outdoor storage of chemicals.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved reinstatement of CUP NO. 3570, to expire 12/14/01 (PC98-202)
(6 yes votes, 1 absent).
Negative Declaration previously approved.
WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4082
B6.179:
AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 319:
OWNER:
The Home Depot, Attn: Dan Campbell, 3800 W. Chapman Ave., Orange, CA 92868
LOCATION: 800 North Brookhurst Street - Home Depot.Property is 9.45 acres located at the
northeast corner of Gramercy Avenue and Brookhurst Street.
To construct a 60-foot high freestanding pylon sign with waivers of (a) maximum area of signs,
(b) permitted location of freestanding signs, (c) maximum height of freestanding signs and (d)
maximum sign width.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 4082 DENIED (PC98-203) (6 yes votes, 1 absent).
7
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 12, 1999
Waiver of code requirement DENIED.
Approved previously certified EIR NO. 319.
WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3902, AND
B7.179:
NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER:
Victor Koshkerian, 1200 South Harbor Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION: 520 West Ball Road - Chevron Service Station.Property is 0.98 acre located at the
southeast corner of Ball Road and Harbor Boulevard
Request for review and approval of revised plans for a previously-approved drive-through
restaurant in conjunction with an existing service station and convenience market with sales of
beer and wine for off-premises consumption with waivers of (a) maximum number of
freestanding signs-DENIED,
(b) minimum distance between freestanding signs-DENIED, (c) permitted types of signs-
DENIED, (d) minimum drive-through lane requirements-APPROVED and (e) minimum number
of parking spaces-APPROVED.
Mayor Daly posed questions to Planning staff for purposes of clarification at the conclusion of which he
asked if they were comfortable that the project as approved by the Planning Commission fits the
character of the Resort Area as well as all the planning details; both Joel Fick, Planning Director and
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager answered, yes, with the conditions imposed.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3639, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION
B8.179: :
OWNER:
Aetna Life Insurance Company, c/o Lincoln Property Company, 30 Executive Park,
Suite #100, Irvine, CA 92714
AGENT:
Dennis Ingram, Grubb & Ellis Company, 19191 S. Vermont Ave., Suite #600,
Torrance, CA 90502
LOCATION: 385 North Muller Street - Praise Mission Church.Property is 1.66 acres located on
the west side of Muller Street, 1,310 feet north of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue.
To consider reinstatement of this permit which currently contains a time limitation (originally
approved on October 18, 1993 to expire on October 18, 1998) to retain a church in the ML
(Limited Industrial) zone.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved reinstatement of CUP NO. 3639, to expire April 30, 1999
(PC98-205) (6 yes votes, 1 absent).
Negative Declaration previously approved.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3183, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION
B9.179: :
OWNER:
Raymond Associates, 811 W. 7th Street, Suite 310, Los Angeles, CA 90017
AGENT:
Orange County Council, Boy Scouts of America, Attn: Craig Reide, 3590 Harbor
Gateway North, Costa Mesa, CA 92626
LOCATION: 1501 North Raymond Avenue, Suite O - Boy Scouts of America.Property is 3.52
acres located at the northwest corner of Orangefair Lane and Raymond Avenue.
To amend or delete a condition of approval pertaining to the previously-approved sales
businesses and office uses in an existing industrial complex to permit and retain a commercial
Boy Scout supply shop.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved amendment to conditions of approval of CUP NO. 3183
(PC98-206) (6 yes votes, 1 absent).
Negative Declaration previously approved.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4085 CEQA EXEMPTION 15061 NO. (b) (3):
B10.179:
8
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 12, 1999
OWNER:
Donahue Schriber Realty Group, 2781 W. MacArthur Blvd. #G3, Santa Ana, CA
92704
AGENT:
Stan Sewell, 2350 W. Lincoln Ave., Anaheim, CA 92801
LOCATION: 2350 West Lincoln Avenue - Lamppost Pizza.Property is 4.77 acres located at the
southeast corner of Gilbert Street and Lincoln Avenue.
To permit an amusement device arcade for up to 10 amusement devices within an existing
restaurant with previously-approved sales of beer and wine for on-premises consumption.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 4085 GRANTED (PC98-207) (6 yes votes, 1 absent).
REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE
B11.179:
ANAHEIM GENERAL PLAN:
John D. Pavlik, Chief PFRD Right-of-Way Processing, County of
Orange, Public Facilities & Resources Department, 300 N. Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA 92702,
requests determination of conformance with the Anaheim General Plan for the proposed sale of
County surplus property. Property is located at the southerly terminus of Douglass Road and is
generally located south of the A.T. & S.F. Railroad, east of the Orange Freeway (SR-57), and
west of the Santa Ana River.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Determined that the sale of property to the City of Anaheim is substantial conformance with the
General Plan.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4042, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION – REQUEST
B12.179:
FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF FINAL PLANS:
William Lyon Homes, Inc., Attn: Tom Grable, 4490 Von Karman Avenue, Newport Beach, CA
92660, requests review and approval of final building elevation, signage, fencing, and
landscaping plans for a previously-approved, 40-unit, 2-story detached RM-3000 zoned
residential condominium development. Property is located 1203-1245 South Knott Street.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved final plans for CUP NO. 4042.
Negative Declaration previously approved.
END OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS.
ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION:
B13. – B14. – B15. 179:
ORDINANCE NO. 5660 (ADOPTION)
Amending Title 18 to rezone property under
Reclassification No. 97-98-19 located at 1777-A West Lincoln Avenue from the CG
Zone to the CL zone. (Introduced at the meeting of January 5, 1999, Item B1.)
ORDINANCE NO. 5661 (ADOPTION)
Amending Title 18 to rezone property under
Reclassification No. 98-99-02 located at 3038 West Orange Avenue from the
RS-A-43,000 zone to the RS-5000 zone. (Introduced at the meeting of January 5, 1999,
Item B2.)
ORDINANCE NO. 5662 (ADOPTION)
Amending Title 18 to rezone property under
Reclassification No. 98-99-03 located at 1915 West Ball Road from the RS-A-43,000
Zone to the RS-7200 zone. (Introduced at the meeting of January 5, 1999, Item B3.)
Mayor Daly offered Ordinance No. 5660 through 5662, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer to Ordinance
Book.
Roll call vote on Ordinance No. 5660 through 5662, both inclusive, for adoption.
9
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 12, 1999
AYES:MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Feldhaus, Kring, Tait, McCracken, Daly
NOES:MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT:MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 5660 through 5662, both inclusive, duly passed and adopted.
DISCUSSION - FORMATION OF CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE:
C1. 142: Request by Mayor
Daly at the meeting of December 15, 1998, Item C4, to discuss the subject of forming a Charter Review
Committee for purposes of reviewing the City Charter. (Continued from the meeting of January 5, 1999,
Item C2, to this date. See minutes that date where initial discussion took place.)
City Clerk, Leonora Sohl. This matter was continued from the prior meeting. Submitted in the Council
packets is the information requested at that meeting.
Mayor Daly. He is going to suggest that the Council not take final action this evening on every detail;
however, they have an interim step to take before approving the final schedule and before finalizing
direction to the committee and that is simply to look at the appointment process suggested by the City
Clerk. There is no bottom-line recommendation on the size of the committee although the draft contains
a seven-member committee. The Council now needs to focus on any additional questions they want to
ask applicants. Three broad areas of questions are laid out in the material they received (see, Procedure
for Selection/Appointment of Members to the 1999 Charter Review Committee with accompanying
Application for the 1999 Charter Review Committee).
Council Member McCracken. She believes the three questions would give her some idea of those
citizens who are interested in serving. Anaheim is a large City and when people apply, the Council does
not necessarily know every applicant. The procedure will also give them an opportunity to phone
applicants to speak with them personally.
Mayor Daly. He notes that the summary paragraph mentions that the committee will meet for 10 months
to one year. He asked if it is realistic to think it might be a shorter schedule than that.
City Clerk Sohl. The figure was based on experience with the last committee. In her experience dealing
with people who wish to volunteer, one of the first questions is relative to the time commitment involved.
She made it “worst case.”
Mayor Daly. He is going to suggest seven months to one year. He does not want to scare people away;
Council Member Kring. The last time, the committee met 18 times in an 11-month period. It could be bi-
monthly.
City Clerk Sohl. The schedule for meetings was left up to the group itself.
Mayor Daly suggested they take one more week to review all of the materials and at the next meeting
make their final decisions. However, relative to the size of the committee, last week, the Council talked
about seven to nine members. He asked if there was any change in terms of size.
Council Member Tait. His general feeling is, the smaller, the better. He is favorable to the idea of each
Council Member appointing one member and then to have two at-large members.
Mayor Daly. For “launching” purposes, he recommended that it be a seven-member committee and if
there are stronger feelings for a larger committee they can expand it.
Council Member Feldhaus. He had indicated a preference for nine members but seven is acceptable.
10
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 12, 1999
Mayor Daly. The continuation will give the City Clerk the opportunity to finalize the form to begin inviting
applications. He would suggest in future actions they discuss the actual direction to the committee and
suggest topics for discussion. They have already discussed a few but for the time being they should
simply launch the application process.
MOTION. Mayor Daly moved to approve the application procedure submitted by the City Clerk but
amending the time frame to indicate six months to a one-year period. MOTION CARRIED.
PROPOSED MORATORIUM ON NEW GAS STATIONS:
C2. 179: Discussion requested by Council
Member Feldhaus at the meeting of January 5, 1999 (see minutes that date) regarding a proposed
moratorium on new gas stations. Proposed ordinances prepared by the City Attorney’s Office as
requested (see below).
A.ORDINANCE NO. (URGENCY) Adopting an interim measure prohibiting gasoline
service station uses of property which uses may be in conflict with a zoning proposal the City is
studying or intending to study and declaring that this ordinance is an emergency measure which
shall take immediate effect.
B.ORDINANCE NO. (URGENCY) Adopting an interim measure prohibiting gasoline
service station uses of property which uses may be in conflict with a zoning proposal the City is
studying or intending to study and declaring that this ordinance is an emergency measure which
shall take immediate effect.
C.ORDINANCE NO. (INTRODUCTION) Adopting an interim measure prohibiting
gasoline service station uses of property which uses may be in conflict with a zoning proposal the
City is studying or intending to study.
D.ORDINANCE NO. (INTRODUCTION) Adopting an interim measure prohibiting
gasoline service station uses of property which uses may be in conflict with a zoning proposal the
City is studying or intending to study.
Council Member Tait. His engineering firm does work for a number of Mobil Oil Companies both
environmental and cleanup work. Since he may be materially affected by any decision, the City Attorney
has advised he should declare a conflict and abstain from any discussion and voting. The same holds
for Item D2., a Public Hearing on tonight’s agenda.
Council Member Tait temporarily left the Council Chamber (5:49 P.M.).
Mayor Daly. The City Attorney has laid out four versions of a proposed moratorium ordinance with
various legal language for each. Planning staff has also supplied basic data summarizing the number of
stations now operating as well as those applications for future service stations. He asked first to hear
from Council Member Feldhaus relative to his request for the moratorium (also see initial comments
made at the meeting of January 5, 1999).
Council Member Feldhaus. Recently after being elected, he saw a proliferation of service stations going
up on the City’s street corners/arterial highways. It reminded him of the 1970’s and 1980’s when there
was virtually a service station on every intersection corner. Subsequently, with new regulations for tanks,
some of the stations closed because of the cost involved and the corners became blighted. In his
opinion, the City needs to take a look when there is a trend taking place. There is a need for better
planning with respect to cleanup and aesthetics. He does not want a station on every corner. Currently
there are 79 service stations operating in the City and of that number, six are in Anaheim Hills. The
population of the hills area from the 55 Freeway east (92807 and 92808 zip codes) is 53,866. He
emphasized, there are only six stations in that area and the rest are in the central and western portion of
the City. There are also six pending applications for service stations and 14 other possible sites, i.e., lots
and vacant buildings that were former stations that could come in at any time asking for another service
11
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 12, 1999
station. He does not believe there is that much of a need for service stations. Competition is healthy but
it is time to step back and ask for an interim moratorium on service stations to give an opportunity to
evaluate the situation. He would like to open the disussion to get public input. His opinion is that the
current situation is an overkill and the City does not need that many stations. That is what his research
developed.
Mayor Daly asked if he was suggesting that one of the ordinances be pursued and, if so, which one
would he prefer; Council Member Feldhaus answered, yes, and he would start with proposed Ordinance
A (as listed above). That would be an immediate moratorium and inhibit any further applications. If they
adopt another version, they could not do anything for about 30 days and everybody would be coming
forward with applications. He clarified for the Mayor, Ordinance A would be in effect for at least three
months with an alternate period of perhaps another three months. He also stated he would like to see
some graphics as to where the stations are presently located. The data is in the report but he would like
to see a pin chart or map depicting the physical locations.
City Attorney White. With regard to the period the ordinance would be in effect, all four versions of the
ordinance were drafted to conform to provisions currently in State statute. The argument could be made,
because Anaheim is a Charter City it would not have to conform to the statutory limitations. However,
under State law, a moratorium is good initially for 45 days, then, following a Public Hearing, can be
extended for an additional period of time. That can be as long as up to 10 ½ additional months. He
reiterated, the ordinances were drafted to conform to State statute which would provide 45 days and if
the Council held a hearing, could be extended for an additional period.
Mayor Daly. According to the City Attorney, the most that is on the table this evening would be a 45-day
moratorium. He then invited any interested members of the public to speak at this time if they wished to
do so.
Wendy Kelly, resident of Cota de Caza. She believes the moratorium is a great idea especially because
of the underground storage tanks which have numerous problems. She has a listing of gas stations in
Anaheim that have a problem with contamination underground and from those tanks leaking, among
other things, MTBE, “methyl-tert-butyl ether” which is a fuel additive. . The largest supply of water for
cities such as Anaheim comes from ground water and aquifers. There are in the State 10,000 areas of
ground water contaminated with MTBE. The ones in Anaheim were anywhere from five parts per billion
up to several hundred parts per billion. She referred to State reports which address the issue. Her
presentation gave an extensive background on the problem and communities that have been impacted
relative to the discovery of MTBE in their drinking water. In concluding, she stated her request is not
only that the Council consider the moratorium, but that they make an effort to notify residents what to
watch for in their water. She has copies of the report from the State she is willing to share, one being,
“California’s Drinking Water: State and Local Agencies Need to Provide Leadership to Address
Contamination of Groundwater by Gasoline Components and Additives” – December 1998 – California
State Auditor/Bureau of State Audits. The Council’s help is needed to help publicize the problem.
David Rose, Regents Group, 3870 La Sierra, Riverside. He represents a number of entities,
approximately 20% of gas stations existing in Anaheim. One of those groups is Thrifty Oil which owns
approximately eight. They are in the process of wanting to renovate all of their stations in Anaheim. He
has four Conditional Use Permit applications in his car as he speaks. He understands the concern of
Council Member Feldhaus. He then addressed some of the things that have occurred in the industry
recently and their impact, what Thrifty is planning to do relative to renovating their properties, the
tradeoffs (what they can get and also give), etc. With regard to the proposed ordinances, he has an
extreme hesitation regarding A and B; he has less of a problem with C and D. He gave his reasons why.
He also noted that the Planning Commission and Council in Anaheim and other cities have discretionary
approval and can approve or deny any station. He is concerned about a moratorium even for 45 days.
His hope is that the Councill will see fit either to allow an amendment to the ordinance that says, “allows
existing owners of gas stations in the City of Anaheim who meet criteria established by the City, the
12
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 12, 1999
Planning Commission, whether it be through the Planning Director/Planning Commission as a Report
and Recommendation, or at the City Council level allow for individuals who own existing gas stations not
to have to wait 45 days up to 10 months renovate their existing stations.
Relative to the vacant lots, he and his partner just took an option on a piece of property which was an
old gas station. It would concern him that they are paying a substantial amount of money for something
they may not be able to do anything with. If the Council does not add an addition to allow for the
exemption of existing stations, that they not necessarily table it but continue it where those interested
have an opportunity to address the matter. He requests that the Council continue the item for a period of
30 days or to vote on Ordinance C or D with the addition of an exemption allowing for the renovation of
sites which, at someone’s discretion, allows for that renovation. Before concluding, he clarified for
Council Member Feldhaus that he represents all of the Thrifty stations (eight). ARCO is in the process of
wanting to renovate every one. He knows that ARCO is in the process of shutting down stations, not just
Thrifty stations but ARCO stations State wide. They hare having severe problems with some of their
PSI, Prestige Stations, Inc. He represents ARCO vis-a-vis Thrifty.
Council Member Feldhaus. Earlier, Mrs. Kelly reminded him there was an article in the paper last week
in the Register reporting there were 49 stations that had not converted their tanks and were quite
arrogant about doing so. That is also of concern to him.
Yuri Rupinski, Anaheim Crossroads, 3879 Culver Center, Culver City 90232. They just acquired the
northeast corner of Anaheim Boulevard and Ball Road. They have been in discussion with the City about
redeveloping the site. It has been empty since 1993 or 1994 and they wanted to rehabilitate and
redevelop the site. It is in a Redevelopment Agency district. They have already applied for a CUP which
included a gas station use among other uses. Their application will be before the Planning Commission
on January 20, 1999. Relative to Page 3, Table B of the memorandum dated January 8, 1999 from the
Planning Director to the City Manager and City Council listing six projects, one of which is his, he asked
if it is the intention of any of the proposed ordinances, or to be added as amended language, to exclude
those six pending stations or at least the ones already in application. There is a staff report already
generated which, with the exception of beer and wine, he believes is supportive of the project. He
wonders if those projects could be excluded from the moratorium so they could finish what they started.
They paid a lot of money for the property and one of the reasons was they thought they could carry on
with redevelopment of that corner. They have had a dialogue with staff since late Summer, 1998 and
asked what they could do to please the City. The first time he heard about the ordinances was about 24
hours ago. It took him by surprise. He was present to pick up the ordinance(s). He is asking for some
sort of postponement in order to review the ordinance and give some feedback or, in the alternative, if
the Council would consider if they are going to approve one of the ordinances to extend an exemption of
the moratorium to the pending service stations on Table B (of the memorandum) so they can go forward
and have their CUP hearing next week. In concluding additional comments, he stated again they are
asking that the Council (1) decline to adopt the ordinances and give time to respond and (2) adopt
Ordinance D or language that would exempt the projects that are now pending that have already
received staff reports and are pending a CUP hearing.
Art Kulian, Station Sales. He represents a lot of clients in the service station business. He would like to
ditto and compliment the two prior gentlemen. He recommends if one of the four ordinances is adopted,
that those whose stations are already in process be exempted. He commends Mr. Rose as well for
recommending that Thrifty stations be improved so they will meet the current requirements of the City.
His (Kulian’s) is one of the six properties on the subject list. They have recently purchased the northwest
corner of Weir Canyon Road and the 91 Freeway (Savi Ranch). They have been working with the City at
least a year and have already processed through pre-file. They have received comments, have already
submitted the CUP, and will have a hearing date very soon. The idea that certain areas of the City have
a proliferation of service stations might be true. He asked the Council to consider that some areas of the
City do need more and maybe some areas need less.
13
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 12, 1999
Irv Pickler, 2377 Mall Avenue (former Council Member). The City is 43 square miles. There is a
concentratrion of stations in certain areas. It is his belief that a moratorium is not needed. A CUP
process is definitely needed to open a service station and, in order to obtain one, the petitioner has to go
to the Planning Commission and then the Council. The Council has the discretion. If a moratorium is put
into effect and there is a good reason, he could understand, but what he sees more than anything else is
that service stations are being remodeled and some of the old ones really need it. However, if any
ordinance is offered, he favors C and D without the urgency measures. He does not see that many new
stations. He reiterated, the Council already has the control they need.
Comments/questions followed by the Council which were addressed by staff:
City Attorney White clarified the differences between the ordinances - Version A is an urgency measure
that would take a unanimous vote of the four members able to vote. It would impose a moratorium on
the issuance of any new permits for new service stations or for any reconstruction or modification or
expansion of any existing service stations for a 45-day period. It would exempt existing service stations
and service stations currently under construction because they are deemed vested.
Version B is also an urgency measure but adds an additional exemption which would exempt out service
stations that have obtained a CUP from the City but have not as yet started construction. According to
what he has read in the report submitted by the Planning Department, there appears to be one and
possibly two service stations that fit that category. The one he is looking at is on Page 3, Table B, No.4
– a service station in plan check(southeast corner of Walnut Street and Ball Road). That would be in the
category of not having a vested right but because they have a CUP, they would be exempt under version
B.
Joel Fick, Planning Director, interjected and reported there is one additional station on the northwest
corner of LaPalma and Magnolia submitted in 1997 submitted for plan check today; City Attorney White
stated that would be exempt under Version B but not A.
Mayor Daly. He noted the project was approved two years ago and they are only now submitting the
paper work. One of the difficulties is that very thing. The Council always needs to know the entitlements
that have been granted; Mr. Fick stated that relative to the aforementioned station, it was submitted in
1998 not 1997 as he indicated.
City Attorney White. Version C is identical to Version A except it is a non-urgency ordinance. It could be
adopted with only three affirmative votes but would require two readings and the normal 30 days before it
became effective. After it became effective, it would also be in effect for 45 days unless extended by
another Public Hearing. Version D is exactly the same as Version B except it is non-urgency requiring
three affirmative votes instead of four for adoption.
Council Member Feldhaus. Relative to Mr. Pickler’s comments, a moratorium is a temporary fix to give
the Council an opportunity to look at the situation whereas if a CUP is denied, that may be in perpetuity.
He feels a CUP is a far more stringent action than a moratorium to allow them to do good planning in the
City certainly as far as aesthetics are concerned.
Council Member Kring. She is concerned that they are “picking on” one particular industry -- service
stations -- which could then possibly extend to other segments such as restaurants. On the other hand,
she is also concerned about the MTBE problem. She understands that was an additive that State
government mandated, but in six years all gasolines must have the additive removed. Six years is a
long time, but the removal is in process.
Council Member McCracken. In the packet of material, she does not see any input from Redevelopment
– either the Redevelopment Commission, Planning staff or the Planning Commission – the people who
work with the whole planning process. She agrees with Council Member Feldhaus that they need to look
at planning across the City for the location of gas stations but the same holds true for mini markets, pizza
14
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 12, 1999
parlors with beer and wine, arcades, pool halls, drive-through drug stores, etc., wherever there is overkill.
Perhaps the whole planning process needs to be looked at. She feels they need to have input from the
Planning Department and Community Development Department so that they have formidable guidelines.
She reiterated, she does not see a report from either the Redevelopment Commission or Planning
Commission/Planning staff. It is a concern for her to approve a moratorium when she does not know
what the Planning or Redevelopment agenda is at this point.
Council Member Feldhaus. They do need to look at all areas in the City. They have been ignoring west
Anaheim and now they are in a reactive position. He agrees they need to look at the City’s General Plan
again. He does not know when it was last done. They need to see what they have done up to this point
and what they need to do in the future. This is just one interim action. If they get reports back and do
their due diligence taking in the entire City, they could have another 50 to 100 stations in by then. That is
his point.
Mayor Daly. He agrees. Unfortunately they spend too much time playing defense against proposals the
community has not asked for and not enough time playing offense pursuing those types of uses like
restaurants and retail stores which the community has told them they want over and over again. No one
is asking them for more service stations to help their property values. Most of the older communities
have more gas stations per square mile and per resident. What concerns him, they have approved
permits for gas stations that have not been built and they are not in a position of knowing whether they
will be built or not. Meanwhile there are applicants asking for new locations. He does not see harm in a
seven-week moratorium to compile more information. Beyond this, they need to have some expert
advice from Planning staff and Redevelopment staff on what model, smart communities are doing on
these types of land uses. He will be supporting Council Member Feldhaus’s proposal for a moratorium
and he will support any of the ordinances proposed. From listening to the discussion, it does not appear
there is unanimous support for the urgency ordinances which will require four affirmative votes but would
have to focus on C and D.
Council Member Feldhaus. In that case, he would favor Version D keeping it the same as B.
It was determined by a straw vote that a majority of the Council was not interested in pursuing the
urgency moratorium.
Council Member Feldhaus thereupon offered Ordinance No. 5664 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 5664 (INTRODUCTION) Adopting an interim measure prohibiting gasoline
service station uses of property which uses may be in conflict with a zoning proposal the City is
studying or intending to study.
Mayor Daly offered Ordinance No. 5663 for first reading. (Version C).
ORDINANCE NO. 5663 (INTRODUCTION) Adopting an interim measure prohibiting gasoline
service station uses of property which uses may be in conflict with a zoning proposal the City is
studying or intending to study.
Mayor Daly. The ordinances will be back before the Council at its next meeting on January 26, 1999.
REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
C3.112: :
City Attorney Jack White stated there were no Closed Session items to report.
D1.176: PUBLIC HEARING – ABANDONMENT NO. 98-16A:
To consider the abandonment of a portion of that certain right-of-way commonly known as
Anaheim Way, located west of Claudina Way; quitclaiming the City’s interest to Mr. Robert
Perry, and waiving the required fees and costs, in connection with the I-5 Freeway widening.
15
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 12, 1999
At their meeting held December 15, 1998, Item A10, the Anaheim City Council adopted
Resolution No. 98R-260 declaring its intention to vacate certain public streets, highways and
service easements, and to consider abandoning a portion of that certain right-of-way commonly
known as Anaheim Way, located west of Claudina Way; quitclaiming the City’s interest to Mr.
Robert Perry, and waiving the required fees and costs, in connection with the I-5 Freeway
widening. (Abandonment No. 98-16A)
REQUESTED BY: California Department of Transportation, District 12, 2501 Pullman Street,
Santa Ana, CA 92705
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in North County News – December 24, 1998
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet – December 21, 1998
Posting of property – December 23, 1998
Natalie Meeks, Civil Engineer/Public Works. This is a part of the coordination between the City and
Caltrans for remnant parcels relating to the I-5 widening. These portions of the road are no longer in use.
Mayor Daly asked if anyone wished to address the council; there being no response, he closed the Public
Hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION: On motion by Mayor Daly,
seconded by Council Member Kring the City Council determined that the proposed activity falls within the
definition of Section 3.01 Class 5, of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for an
Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, Categorically Exempt from the requirement to file an
EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 99R-10 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 99R-10: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE
CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS, HIGHWAYS AND SERVICE EASEMENTS
(ABANDONMENT NO. 98-16A).
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 99R-10 for adoption:
AYES:MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Feldhaus, Kring, Tait, McCracken, Daly
NOES:MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT:MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 99R-10, duly passed and adopted.
Council Member Tait left the Council Chamber temporarily having earlier declared a conflict on Item
D2.(6:50 P.M.).
REHEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3841, AND NEGATIVE
D2.179:
DECLARATION - DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 98-05:
OWNER:
Tarek Berri, 260 S. Euclid Street, Anaheim, CA 92802
Growth Management Company, Attn: Fay Harrison, 3820 E. La Palma Avenue, CA 92807
LOCATION: 2180 West Ball Road - Mobil Service Station. Property is 0.52 acre located at the
southeast corner of Brookhurst Street and Ball Road.
16
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 12, 1999
Conditional Use Permit No. 3841
- to permit retail sales of beer and wine for off-premises
consumption in conjunction with a previously-approved service station with a 2,916 square foot
convenience market.
Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 98-05
- determination of public
convenience or necessity for retail sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption in
conjunction with a previously-approved service station with a 2,916 square foot convenience
market.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Denied the sale of beer and wine for CUP NO. 3841 (PC98-143) (7 yes votes).
Denied Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 98-05 (PC98-144).
Negative Declaration previously approved.
Informational item at the meeting of September 22, 1998, Item B10. Letter of appeal submitted
by the agent, Growth Management Company.
At a public hearing held October 20, 1998, Item D3, the Anaheim City Council denied CUP NO.
3841 (Resolution No. 98R-234), and denied Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity
No. 98-05 (Resolution No. 98R-235).
A Request for Rehearing and Declaration of Merit was submitted by the owner, Growth
Management Company, discussed and continued from the meeting of December 1, 1998, item
B12. At the meeting of December 8, 1998, Item B1, the City Council granted this request for
rehearing.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in North County News – December 31, 1998
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet – December 24, 1998
Posting of property – December 30, 1998
Mayor Daly. He asked the City Attorney and Planning Director to frame the hearing to clarify what this
hearing is and is not about. A close reading of the agenda indicates that the CUP or the overall permit
for the service station was denied the last time on October 20, 1998 as well as that the beer and wine
application was denied. In fact, it is his understanding that the CUP was approved on a previous vote
but that the beer and wine was denied.
City Attorney White clarified that was correct. As he understands the history, the Council approved a
CUP in 1996 for a service station and convenience market but at that time imposed a condition on the
CUP that there would be no alcoholic beverage sales in the convenience market. The service station
and convenience market have been under construction for the past several months and as he
understands were actually completed and in operation as of yesterday. The service station and
convenience market are legally vested and implicit in the discussion is obviously how this would be
affected by any moratorium. This project would not be affected by the adoption of any moratorium
because it is now in operation. What happened most recently, in October of last year, the
applicant/owner applied for an amendment to the conditions and for a declaration of Public Convenience
and Necessity (PC&N) to remove the condition prohibiting alcoholic beverage sales and to have the
Council approve the sale of beer and wine in conjunction with the existing service station and market.
The Council denied the amendment of the conditions, denied the determination of PC&N and, therefore,
denied the ability of the owner to sell beer and wine. The owner asked for a rehearing. The Council
granted the request for a rehearing and it is back before the Council tonight for a rehearing and the issue
again is whether or not to amend conditions of the existing CUP to allow the sale of beer and wine in the
existing service station and convenience market. The Council’s action will not have any effect other than
whether beer and wine can be sold at the business.
Mayor Daly opened the Public Hearing and asked first to hear from the applicant or applicant’s agent.
Applicant’s Statement: Shane Shaw, Growth Management, 3820 E. LaPalma, Anaheim 92807. They
requested the rehearing because they wanted to have the opportunity to talk to the concerned residents
17
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 12, 1999
and inform them about the off sale and on sale of the beer and wine license. They had information that
there were more than 40 licenses in the area of Brookhurst. They contacted ABC and found out there are
only nine off-sale licenses on Brookhurst and 12 on-sale. He would like to present that to the Council for
the record. They had a meeting and supplied that information to the concerned citizens. A couple of
days ago, they received a call from the concerned citizens who received the information but said they
were not interested. (Mr. Shane then digressed and spoke about the failure of Prohibition and comments
made by President Franklin Roosevelt in his inaugural speech.) Relative to the subject is the fact that
the crime rate has dropped another 3% and is now at 20% above average. They have a very good
looking gas station. He then presented a photograph. He asked that the Council not discourage the
business people in the City.
Mayor Daly asked to hear from anyone else who wished to speak.
Esther Wallace, Chairman of WAND (West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council). She spoke
to Mr. Shaw and told him from the very beginning they are not against the sale of beer and wine and
alcohol but the over supply of licenses that exist on Brookhurst. Mr. Shaw submitted a list of the licenses
and she went through the list and found at least 36. She then gave a detailed briefing on her findings
and the area(s) involved during which she stated she would like to have an analysis to see exactly how
many licenses there are. In concluding, she stated the problem they find in giving these licenses and
subsequently the rules are not followed, it takes too long to undo the CUP. They would prefer not to
allow this license at this time. She has talked to WAND members and they say no. She reiterated, they
are asking that no alcoholic licenses be issued at this time.
Judith Ann Gollette, member of WAND. She spoke to Mr. Shaw at the last meeting and tried to tell him
there is an over-abundance of liquor licenses in the area. The subject location is near a main gang area,
the County area. Statistics were not brought to the Council when the CUP was brought up. The Police
Department has given statistics for that neighborhood which she believes is 217% above average. The
Planning Commission is advising against it and the citizens are saying no. She does not think it has
anything to do with this man (Mr. Shaw) or being a gas station – it has to do with the amount of liquor
licensing in the area. She commends Mr. Shaw for the beautiful building he has brought to the
neighborhood. He said the margin of profit will not be as great if he does not have the liquor license. He
bought the property and got the original permit without the liquor license. He could live with it at that
time. Allow him to live up to his standards and not allow him a liquor license.
Mayor Daly. He noted the applicant has one last opportunity to summarize the request; since Mr. Shaw
had no additional input to offer, the Mayor closed the Public Hearing.
Council Member Kring asked Planning staff to clarify the differences in reporting of the number of
licenses in the area; Joel Fick, Planning Director. The confusion arises as to licenses being counted
different ways. The Police Department considers the corridor area Katella to LaPalma and Gilbert to
Nutwood and in that area there are 46 total – 15 off-sale, 30 on-sale and one distributor.
Council Member Kring asked if for that area compared to other areas, is that a more dense number of
licenses or is the number typical; Tom Engle, Investigator, Police Department. The Brookhurst corridor
is the most dense population of licenses in the City. Also, answering Council Member McCracken, he
reported on the types of crime in the area and the fact that for that area (of the total 218 reporting
districts in the City), crime is 20% above average with 113 reported crimes in 1997. The population
determines the amount of licenses. Answering additional questions by Council Members and the Mayor,
he reported that the breakdown for on-sale is one per 864 persons, off-sale, 1,562. The County is
included in the census tract but not the reporting districts. It is included in the licenses allowed. The
population of the census tract is 4,075 allowing for five on sale and three off sale licenses. There is only
one presently in the tract and as previously stated, a total of 46 in the corridor.
Mayor Daly. He has generally supported beer and wine sales at service stations when they have
convenience markets but what decides it for him is a negative recommendation from the Police
18
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 12, 1999
Department and a concern expressed by the community in the area. In this corridor, they have a severe
problem and a huge challenge in terms of cleaning up the Brookhurst corridor and not nearly enough
progress has yet been made. He must agree with the Planning staff and Police Department and not
support this beer and wine application. It is not an easy decision. He appreciates the landscaping and
other design features of the business and the service station is a quality rebuild of what was formerly
there.
Council Member Feldhaus. On the Request for Rehearing and Declaration of Merit filed it stated that the
City Council proceeded without, or in excess of, its jurisdiction. The Statement of Facts stated, “The
Council cannot deny the beer and wine licenses sales simply based on the fact that it is provided at a
Service Station. The Business and Professional Code precludes the City from enacting an ordinance
where beer and wine license would otherwise be appropriate. . . " He asked if that was a correct
statement.
City Attorney White. He believes that is correct but that is not the basis on which the Council made the
decision in October nor would it be the basis upon which they make that decision tonight. It would be
Council's determination as to whether or not beer and wine is appropriate at this particular location.
There are many service stations that do have beer and wine that are not detrimental to the area. While
his statement is generally correct as a statement of law, it does not apply to the hearing in October or
tonight.
Council Member Feldhaus. He was one that voted to give the business the opportunity for a rehearing
hoping there would be some newer evidence. He feels they cannot legislate morality but what they are
charged to do is to plan and zone the community so the residents can live well and work, play and enjoy.
He does not believe that off-sale license breeds crime or brings about blight but that it is a convenience.
If a person drinks the beer on the premises they are violating a law but for those who stop by to get gas
and want to pick up beer, he questions why they should have to make two stops. Just to stop into a
filling station and pick up a six-pack or a quart of milk, he does not see that creates any problem.
City Attorney White then clarified for the Mayor that the Council is considering a resolution to amend the
conditions of CUP 3841 and the resolution on the Public Convenience and Necessity so the language
should say, amending CUP 3841.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - DENIAL OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by
Council Member Kring, seconded by Council Member Feldhaus, the City Council granted 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. Council Tait abstained/temporarily absent MOTION CARRIED.
Council Member Kring offered Resolution 99R-11 for adoption granting Conditional Use Permit No. 3841
and Resolution No. 98R-12 for adoption approving the Determination of Public Convenience or
Necessity No. 98-05; City Attorney White also clarified if the vote is yes, the business will be able to
have the beer and wine. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 99R-11: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING CONDITIONS OF
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3841.
RESOLUTION NO. 99R-12: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE DETERMINATION OF
PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 98-05.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 99R-11 and 99R-12 for adoption:
19
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 12, 1999
AYES:MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Feldhaus, Kring, McCracken
NOES:MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Daly
ABSENT/ABSTAINED:MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Tait
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 99R-11 and 99R-12, duly passed and adopted.
Council Member Tait entered the Council Chamber (7:35 p.m.).
C4.114: Council Comments:
Council Member McCracken:
Last week, she spent several days at the League of California Cities
Mayors and Council Members Institute in Sacramento where there was a discussion of the filing
requirements of the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) with regard to campaign contributions.
She is, therefore, requesting that the Council consider Anaheim’s Campaign Finance Ordinance in order
to rescind it so as not to put an additional burden on Anaheim candidates for public office; Council
Members Tait and Kring expressed that was a good idea.
Council Member McCracken continued that she feels they need to reconsider the ordinance and rescind
it. The FPPC’s regulations impose stringent requirements (under the Political Reform Act). Overlaying
the Anaheim ordinance on the FPPC’s requirements makes reporting very difficult and complicated
particularly for candidates who might not have a professional Treasurer. She would like staff to come
back with the ordinance because it would have to be reconsidered in order to be rescinded. If staff has
any suggestions other than rescinding, she would be willing to consider those.
Mayor Daly. He surmises Council Member McCracken is suggesting getting rid of the ordinance and
follow State law. He asked about contribution limits.
Council Member McCracken confirmed that State law would still bind them. Relative to limits, Anaheim’s
is $1,000 within a four-year period. The time frame is difficult to keep track of and it has been made very
complicated, more than it has to be. If it can’t be simplified, they should just follow State law. If they
want a maximum limit, she believes Buena Park has a contribution limit of $1.00 per resident total
contribution.
Mayor Daly asked if she would like staff to place the ordinance on the agenda for discussion or a specific
change; Council Member McCracken. She would like the ordinance on the agenda for discussion and if
there are recommendations from staff, those can be considered.
Council Member Tait. He asked for clarification, if they want to rescind it, they could just vote to do so.
City Attorney White. If the Council wishes, he can prepare an ordinance to put before the Council as part
of that discussion. Otherwise, without that direction, it would just be shown on the agenda as a
discussion item and the Council would then need to give further direction if they want an ordinance
prepared. It would have to be an ordinance to rescind it.
Council Member McCracken. She would like the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance to that effect;
Council Member Kring concurred.
City Attorney White, answering the Mayor stated it would be a simple ordinance repealing Chapter 1.09
which is the City’s provision relating to the limitations on campaign contributions for local elections.
20
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 12, 1999
Council Member McCracken emphasized they would still be subject to State law; all obligations would
still be there under the Political Reform Act. If any of the Council Members want another ordinance to
set in place additional restrictions, that is another issue.
City Attorney White. He believes what Council Member McCracken was referring to relative to the $1.00
per resident contribution was a provision included in Proposition 208 that had to do with the State
limitation on contributions which is now on appeal from a Federal District Court decision holding those
limits unconstitutional. However, some cities might have come forward and adopted the $1.00 per voter,
but that is not a provision that is in effect at this time.
Mayor Daly. He thinks it is possible to have a simplified local regulation which is not cumbersome to
candidates and yet still retains some type of campaign contribution limitation.
Council Member McCracken. She is not opposing any change. If there is another ordinance proposed,
perhaps they need to have a discussion or workshop on campaign financing. She feels the current
ordinance as written is a burden for candidates who run for public office in Anaheim.
City Attorney White. He suggested bringing back some options for the Council to look at, one of which
might be to repeal the ordinance altogether, another might be changes to the current one, etc. He will
submit a variety of options to consider.
Council Member Kring. She would suggest keeping a $1,000 limit or raise it. She would not like to see
that threshold lowered in any way.
Council Member McCracken. The problem with the $1,000 limit is the time frame especially with
repeated campaigns. If a candidate has an unsuccessful campaign in the middle of a successful
campaign, how to go about reporting is very difficult.
Council Member Feldhaus asked that the City Attorney make sure that the election cycle is defined.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Mayor Daly:
He asked that staff bring suggestions and ideas back regarding additional open space and
parks opportunities for the City of Anaheim. He is asking for these suggestions since he believes there is
a strong demand for more open space, more parks and more athletic fields in the community. There are
two parks currently in design stages in Anaheim. They need to be thinking about the next step. Another
reason he feels it is timely to bring this matter up, he believes State and Federal governments will be
encouraging livable communities planning and there will be grant monies available. If staff could bring
thoughts and suggestions on where those opportunities might be pursued it would be helpful. The
Council can look those over and decide what to do.
Assistant City Manager, Dave Morgan. Staff will provide that information for the next meeting.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Council Member Kring:
She announced that she also attended the League of Cities Mayors and
Council Members Institute last week along with Council Member McCracken and Council Member
Feldhaus and it was a wonderful experience.
ADJOURNMENT: By general Council consent the City Council Meeting of January 12, 1999 was
adjourned (7:45 P.M.). The next scheduled Council Meeting is January 26, 1999.
LEONORA N. SOHL
CITY CLERK
21
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
JANUARY 12, 1999
22