1999/09/14ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
SEPTEMBER 14,1999
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: CITY MANAGER : Jim Ruth
CITY ATTORNEY : Jack White
CITY CLERK : Sheryll Schroeder
ASST. CITY CLERK : Ann Sauvageau
POLICE CHIEF : Roger Baker
COMM. SERVICES DIRECTOR : Chris Jarvi
PLANNIN G DIRECTOR : Joel Fick
ZONING DIVISION MANAGER : Greg Hastings
TRAFFIC/TRANSPORTATION MANAGER : John Lower
SENIOR PLANNER : Linda Johnson
A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was posted at 3:15 p.m. on
September 10, 1999 at the City Hall Bulletin Board, (both inside and outside the entrance to City Hall)
containing all items as shown herein.
Mayor Daly called the workshop portion of the meeting of September 14, 1999 to order and welcomed
those in attendance (3:17 P.M.).
City Manager, James Ruth. This is the time scheduled for a workshop on the Orangethorpe Railroad
Corridor Suppression (i.e., Orange County Gateway Railroad Lowering Project). Mr. Christopher Becker,
Director of Public Works from the City of Placentia is present to make the presentation accompanied by
Bob D’Amato, Placentia’s City Manager.
ORANGE COUNTY GATEWAY RAILROAD LOWERING PROJECT :
Mr. Christopher Becker, Director
of Public Works, City of Placentia. The goal today is to present an over view of the project, what has
been done, where they are at currently and where the project is going. It is important to understand the
project is not just one of local interest but is a regional transportation issue. Mr. Becker’s presentation
was supplemented by Power Pointe slides, hard copies of which were provided in the booklet entitled –
Orange County Gateway (made a part of the record along with the Project Information Package –
Orange County Gateway-Railroad Lowering Project). The presentation covered the following : What the
rail lines in Placentia are used for (mainly cargo containers entering the ports of Los Angeles and Long
Beach heading east), expansion of ports will double the trains through Orange County (presently approx.
50 trains/day projected to be 100/day by 2010), map of train corridor through Placentia (which he
briefed), Gateway map giving overview of train route from ports and LAX to destinations in the east, what
has been done thus far, benefits of lowered railways (traffic circulation, emergency services access,
safety, time saved, better air quality, less noise and vibration, good land planning, economic stimulation,
aesthetics, historic preservation), studies/activities completed, findings of comparison studies, i.e.
overpasses and underpasses vs. lowered railroad plus cost comparisons (cost of right-of-way is zero with
lowered railway alternative in comparison to millions of dollars in costs with the overpass/underpass
alternative), cost to construct four recommended standard grade separations at Kraemer Blvd.,
Orangethorpe/Chapman Avenues, Rose Drive, Lakeview Ave., $233 million - cost for lowered railroad
for the five-mile distance from Placentia Ave. to Kellogg Ave., approximately $250 million (10 crossings).
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
SEPTEMBER 14, 1999
Mr. Becker concluded his presentation giving a project time line with the construction phase in 2004-
2005. He noted that Placentia has been pursuing the project as a local project but it is now time to
regionalize the project and consolidate efforts best done by a corridor approach through the formation of
a joint powers authority ( JPA ) which will give a stronger voice to secure funding and enhance project
support.
Mayor Daly asked to hear from staff on the status of the Imperial crossing (at Imperial and
Orangethorpe) ; Gary Johnson, Public Works Director. The lead agency for the grade separation at
Imperial and Orangethorpe is Yorba Linda. Construction is starting in 2003 and it will follow three
Anaheim projects which he briefed. This project would not affect the grade separation Yorba Linda is
working on but would begin west of that location.
Council Member Tait . He feels it would make sense to do the same thing at the Imperial location that
Placentia is doing (i.e., rail suppression) ; Gary Johnson. Because the project is so far along and is part
of the Imperial Smart Street Project, there would be a considerable amount of disruption east along the
residential area. The projects have been viewed as separate projects. The funding is in place for the
Imperial separation and the sound wall.
Chris Becker. The money in Yorba Linda very available. They worked hard to get it and their project is
far along into the process. The other issue was cost effectiveness – to go out another couple of miles at
$60 million a mile vs. the $50 million cost for the grade separation project may not pencil out. The two
cities (Placentia and Yorba Linda) have been working closely together. There was a lot of concern from
some Yorba Linda residents as to why they could not bring the rail suppression out a little farther. For
now, they have to move forward. There is a funding application due at OCTA October 1, 1999 and they
have to have some limits on the project that make sense.
Mr. Becker then answered a series of questions posed relative to the railroad suppression and related
issues (i.e., funding, formation of JPA , etc.); Mr. John Lower, Traffic and Transportation Manager also
reported that staff will be coming forth with an item on the Council Agenda of September 21 supporting
Placentia’s railroad lowering project.
Mayor Daly. Placentia’s proposal has come up at the Orange County Transportation Association ( OCTA)
quite a few times. As an OCTA Board Member, there seems to be solid support thus far. The Board
feels the project makes sense for a variety of reasons including the aesthetics issue. He knows that
Supervisor Coad and Spitzer like the project as well.
Mayor Daly thanked Mr. Becker and D’Amato for being present today and for the informative
presentation relative to Placentia’s plan for rail suppression. He also thanked staff; Council will look
forward to further input on this issue.
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 related cases and cross actions)
Orange County Superior Court Case No. 70-80-71.
2
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
SEPTEMBER 14, 1999
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
2.
54956.9(a) – Existing Litigation:
Name of case
: Vista Royale Homeowners Assoc. vs. 396 Investment Co. fka The Fieldstone
Company, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 77-30-74,
( and related cases).
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
3.
54956.9(a) – Existing Litigation:
Name of case :
Commons Apartments LLC v. Victory Baptist Church of Orange County, et al.
Orange County Superior Court Case No. 80-53-54.
CONFERENCE WITH LEAGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
4.
54956.9 (a) – Existing Litigation:
Name of case :
Glickman v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, et al., Orange County Superior
Court Case No. 80-56-68.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
5.
54956.9(a) – Existing Litigation:
Na me of case
: Jojo’s California Family Restaurants, Inc. v. People of the State of California, et
al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 79-51-01.
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS:
6.
Agency designated representatives :
David Hill, Jim Ruth
Employee organization
: Anaheim Fire Association
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT:
7.
Title:
City Council Assistants
PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION:
8.
Title:
City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk, City Treasurer (annual performance reviews)
Mayor Daly moved to recess into Closed Session. Council Member McCracken seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED. (3:52 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS:
Mayor Daly called the regular Council meeting of September 14, 1999 to order at 4:50 p.m. and
welcomed those in attendance.
OATH OF OFFICE – CHIEF OF POLICE, ROGER BAKER :
Mayor Daly. This is an important point on
the Council agenda as well as a milestone in the City’s history. He noted first that emotions are mixed
today because of the tragedy that occurred at the West Anaheim Medical Center. (Three people were
shot and killed at the Center earlier today). That incident will diminish their wanting to celebrate but
underscores the importance of having a great Police Department -- steady, capable, experienced
leadership in the City’s law enforcement area. The City is privileged and honored to have those
attributes in their new Police Chief, Roger Baker, a 25-year “veteran” in Anaheim’s fine Police
Department. He invited Chief Baker to come forward to take the Oath of Office. City Clerk, Sheryll
Schroeder thereupon administered the Oath of Office to Chief Baker.
Police Chief, Roger Baker. He thanked staff of the Anaheim Police Department and other City
Departments and the community for their support and assistance during the prior six months he has been
Acting Chief of Police. He appreciates their compassion and concern more than he will ever be able to
express. He also thanked the Mayor and Council Members, and especially City Manager Ruth for
allowing him to continue his years of service to the community of Anaheim. It will be an honor to serve
3
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
SEPTEMBER 14, 1999
the City of Anaheim as Chief of Police. He would also like to give special thanks to his wife, Shirley, his
son, Sean, and his daughter, Allison. His appointment today would not be possible without their love and
support.
Mayor Daly. The City is very fortunate to have a man of Roger Baker’s caliber willing and able to be
Chief. They look forward to great things in the future. The Mayor then invited everyone to an informal
reception in the lobby area, after which the Council meeting will resume (4:57 P.M.).
AFTER RECESS : Mayor Daly called the Council Meeting of September 14, 1999 to order, all Council
Members being present (5:40 P.M.).
INVOCATION: Rev. Adam McCoy from St. Michael’s Episcopal Church gave the invocation.
FLAG SALUTE:
Council Member Frank Feldhaus led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
PROCLAMATION :
119: The following Proclamation was authorized by the Mayor and City Council:
Constitution Week in Anaheim, September 17 – 23, 1999
The Proclamation was accepted by Marilyn Skinner, Mojave Chapter, Daughters of the American
Revolution who elaborated on the importance of the document in the lives of Americans.
DECLARATION OF RECOGNITION :
A Declaration of Recognition was presented to Mr. Jim Goodwin,
Chief Executive Officer and Milt Sneller, Chief Operations Officer, Taylor- Dunn Manufacturing Company
th
recognizing the 50 Anniversary of the company and its location in Anaheim for all those years.
Mr. Goodwin thanked the Mayor and Council Members on behalf of Taylor- Dunn and also thanked the
City’s business-friendly policies. They appreciate the services provided by the City. The company plans
to expand and will do so in the City of Anaheim.
PRESENTATION - ANAHEIM HILLS WEST LITTLE LEAGUE:
Recognizing the Anaheim Hills West
Little League team for being the 1999 Little League Southern California State Champions.
Mayor Daly. It is an honor and pleasure on behalf of the Council and citizens to recognize the Anaheim
Hills West 1999 Little League team on winning the Southern California State Championship. He then
presented Flying “A” certificates first to the coaches and team “Mom” – Coaches Jim Snelling and Fred
Sliemers and Cathy Nickles , Team Mom (Manager Bert Aponte unable to be present) and subsequently
to the team members – Brandon Aponte , Lance Aponte , Daniel Bridgman , Joseph Dickerson , Jon
Grimm , Evan Nickles , David Ritchie , Matt Sliemers , Andrew Smith and Jason Snelling (Anthony Basadre
and Josh Bolton unable to be present).
RECOGNITIONS AUTHORIZED BY COUNCIL THIS DATE TO BE MAILED OR PRESENTED AT
ANOTHER TIME:
PROCLAMATION proclaiming October 1999, as Independent Living Month.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY
in the amount of $2,663,384.25 for the period ending
August 30, 1999, $4,608,978.59 for the period ending September 7, 1999, and $1,995,344.70 for the
period ending September 13, 1999 in accordance with the 1999-2000 Budget, were approved.
4
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
SEPTEMBER 14, 1999
Mayor Daly recessed the City Council meeting until after the Redevelopment Agency and the Public
Finance Authority meeting. (6:03 p.m.).
Mayor Daly reconvened the City Council meeting. (6:10 p.m.).
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
There were no additions to agenda items.
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST:
Ava Berg, LaPalma Woods Apartments, 2520 W. LaPalma , Anaheim. She referred to a notice received
from the South Coast Air Quality Management District ( AQMD) (previously submitted) regarding an
application they have received “for a permit to construct and operate a new underground soil vapor
extraction and treatment system” at 2604 West LaPalma, in close proximity to the apartment complex.
She briefed the history of the issue when two years ago gasoline tanks were removed and the soil found
to be contaminated. The City is requesting that the soil be cleaned up. The concern is with the proposed
method of cleanup which, according to her research, will release organic and carcinogenic gasoline
compounds into the air. They are asking for alternative methods to be used (which she briefed). The
residents are very concerned about their area. She thereupon submitted a petition containing
approximately 442 signatures – Petition to Stop the Issued Permit to Master Auto Repair from South
Coast Air Quality Management District (made a part of the record) opposing the “construction and
operation of a soil evacuation and treatment system . . . “ as outlined.
Mayor Daly. The Council will ask the City Manager to accept the paperwork and subsequently report
back on the situation.
William Nussbaum , 2520 W. LaPalma , Anaheim. He is in support of Ms. Berg’s request. They all
recognize the contamination needs to be cleaned up, but there are at least three ways to do it. He hopes
the Council cares enough about the quality of their air and health to do what’s best and would like them
to look at the matter carefully.
Lou Reimer , Project Manager, Tait Engineering. They are working for the former owner of the site and
are working under all the requirements of the City, State and AQMD. They are using the best available
technology including, as Ms. Berg mentioned, a thermal oxidizer to take care of the vapors. He believes
there is a great deal of misinformation. He would like to pledge to Mr. Ruth and his investigation their full
cooperation and assistance, and to Ms. Berg and Mr. Nussbaum their assistance in creating a greater
understanding.
Mayor Daly. They appreciate Mr. Reimer’s willingness to share as much information as he has.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There was pub lic input under items A20, A21 and A38. See discussion under those items.
MOTION:
Mayor Daly moved to waive reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions to be acted upon for
the Council meeting of September 14, 1999. Council Member McCracken seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR A1 – A39 :
On motion by Mayor Daly,
seconded by Council Member McCracken 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-186, 99R-188, 99R-189 and 99R-192 , for
adoption. Refer to Resolution. Items A13, A20, A21, A22, A33, A37 and A38 were acted upon separately
and follow the Consent Calendar.
5
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
SEPTEMBER 14, 1999
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 recomm ended:
1. Claim submitted by Miguel & Maria Alarcon for property damage sustained purportedly due to
actions of the City on or about July 22, 1999.
2. Claim submitted by Patrick Alps for bodily injury sustained purportedly d ue to actions of the
City on or about June 24, 1999.
3. Claim submitted by AMDC Corporation for property damage sustained purportedly due to
actions of the City on or about June 21-22, 1999.
4. Claim submitted by Jose Avalos, c/o Parsekian & Grider pending Superior Court jurisdiction
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about September 22, 1999.
5. Claim submitted by Jason De Shane Burgess, c/o Stephen E. Olear, Esq. pending Superior
Court jurisdiction sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about May 16, 1999.
6. Claim submitted by Joe E. Collins for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions
of the City on or about April 9, 1999.
7. Claim submitted by Betty J. Gasaway for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions of
the City on or about March 23, 1999.
8. Claim submitted by Nathaniel William Gray for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to
actions of the City on or about May 16, 1999.
9. Claim submitted by Vi ctoria L. Jaramillo for property damage sustained purportedly due to
actions of the City on or about April 9, 1999.
10. Claim submitted by Laurie Lindsey for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions
of the City on or about April 26, 1999.
11. Claim submitted by Gerrie McGhehey for bodily injury sustained purportedly due to actions
of the City on or about May 3, 1999.
12. Claim submitted by Hoang Kim Nguyen, c/o Law Offices of Nguyen Hong Nhuan for
property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about October 28, 1998.
13. Claim submitted by Anna Palmer for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions
of the City on or about June 27, 1999.
14. Claim submitted by Laurence Robertson , Jr. for property damage sustained purportedly due
to actions of the City on or about June 3, 1999.
15. Claim submitted by Sempra Engery, Southern California Gas Co., for property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about June 4, 1999.
16. Claim submitted by Jeffry Lynn Wilson for property damage sustained purportedly due to
actions of the City on or about June 20, 1999.
17. Claim submitted by Abdol Fannyan, c/o Law Offices of Lloyd Charton & Assoc. for property
damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 22, 1998.
6
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
SEPTEMBER 14, 1999
18. Claim submitted by Chet McNamara, c/o Law Offices of Lloyd Charton & Assoc. for property
damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 22, 1998.
19. Claim submitted by Mary McNamara, c/o Law Offices of Lloyd Charton & Assoc. for property
damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 22, 1998.
20. Claim submitted by Jorge Sanciango, c/o Law Offices of Lloyd Charton & Assoc. for
property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 22,
1998.
21. Claim submitted by Marilyn Sanciango, c/o Law Offices of Lloyd Charton & Assoc. for
property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 22,
1998.
22. Claim submitted by William G. Hamilton, c/o Law Offices of Lloyd Charton & Assoc. for
property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 22,
1998.
23. Claim submitted by Lillian Newton, c/o Law Offices of Lloyd Charton & Assoc. for property
damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 22, 1998.
24. Cl aim submitted by Scott Gregory Newton, c/o Law Offices of Lloyd Charton & Assoc. for
property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 22,
1998.
25. Claim submitted by Raphael Rahamin, c/o Law Offices of Lloyd Charton & Assoc. for
property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 22,
1998.
26. Claim submitted by Bonnie Van Holt, c/o Law Offices of Lloyd Charton & Assoc. for property
damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 22, 1998.
27. Claim submitted by Mark Van Holt, c/o Law Offices of Lloyd Charton & Assoc. for property
damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 22, 1998.
28. Claim submitted by Vista Royale Homeowners Assoc., c/o Stephen D. McNamara, Esq. for
property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 22,
1998.
29. Claim submitted by Miguel Naranjo dba Southern Pacific Grading, c/o Keith G. Bremer,
Esq. for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December
22, 1998.
30. Claim submitted by James P. Hall, Ph.D., c/o Law Offices of Lloyd Charton & Assoc. for
property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about December 22,
1998.
A2. 105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Public Utilities Board meeting held June 3, 1999, July
1, 1999, and July 12, 1999.
105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Anaheim Redevelopment and Housing Commission
meeting held on July 21, 1999, and August 4, 1999.
7
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
SEPTEMBER 14, 1999
175: Receiving and filing minutes of the El Toro Airport Citizens Advisory Commission meeting
held August 26, 1999.
156: Receiving and filing the Anaheim Police Department Crime and Clearance Analysis for the
month of July, 1999.
175: Receiving and filing an application to provide shuttle-type passenger stage service by
PCSTC, Inc., doing business as Pacific Coast Sightseeing Tours and Charters.
175: Re ceiving and filing Docket Nos. ER98-997-000, ER98-1309-000 of the United States of
America Federal Energy Regulatory Commission filed on August 5, 1999, Order of Chief Judge
appointing settlement Judge and scheduling settlement conference.
175: Receiving and filing Docket No. EC99-105-000 of the United States of America Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission filed on August 10, 1999, for an application for authority to sell
jurisdictional transmission facilities to the City of Anaheim.
175: Receiving and filing Docket No. ER99-4039-000 of the United States of America Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission filed on August 10, 1999, amendment to the Edison-Anaheim
Interconnection Agreement.
175: Receiving and filing Docket No. ER98-441-000 of the United States of America Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission filed August 25, 1999, Order of Chief Judge shortening time for
answers and temporarily suspending procedural schedule to September 2, 1999.
175: Receiving and filing Docket No. ER99-4039-000 of the United States of America Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission filed August 23, 1999, requesting an extension of time until
September 9, 1999.
175: Receiving and filing Docket No. ER99-4241-000 of the United States of America Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission filed August 25, 1999, canceling FERC Rate Schedule Nos.
367.1 and 367.2.
A3. 176: RESOLUTION NO. 99R- 186 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM declaring its intention to vacate certain public streets, highways and service
easements and setting a date and time to approve the abandonment of a portion of a City alley
located north of Lincoln Avenue and east of State College Boulevard (Abandonment No. 99-15A)
(Suggested public hearing date: October 5, 1999).
A4. 158: Approvin g an Acquisition Agreement for real property located at 1016 West Katella Avenue
(R/W 5180-66); authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said Agreement; and authorizing
the acquisition payment of $22,000 to FJS, Inc., a Texas Corporation.
A5. 158: Approving an Acquisition Agreement for real property located at 1630 South Harbor
Boulevard (R/W 5210-7); authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said Agreement; and
authorizing the acquisition payment of $25,800 to Anaheim Inn, General Partnership.
A6. 158: Approving an Acquisition Agreement for real property located at 1030 West Katella Avenue
(R/W 5180-67); authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said Agreement; and authorizing
the acquisition payment of $34,500 to FJS, Inc., a Texas Corporation.
A7. 158: Approving an Acquisition Agreement for real property located at 1140 West Katella Avenue
(R/W 5180-74); authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said Agreement; and authorizing
the acquisition payment of $37,063 to Chao Hung Lin, Chiu Hsiu Chu Lin, Ming Wen Chiou and
Hung Chun Lin.
8
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
SEPTEMBER 14, 1999
A8. 158: Approving an Acquisition Agreement for real property located at 1040 and 1050 West
Katella Avenue (R/W 5180-68); authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said Agreement;
and authorizing the acquisition payment of $65,000 to Crown Adventure, Inc., a California
Corporation.
A9. 158: Approving an Acquisition Agreement for real property located at 1820 and 1830 South
West Street (R/W 5180-70A, B & C); authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said
Agreement; and authorizing the acquisition payment of $342,935 to Connie L. Fong, Trustee.
A10. 158: Approving an Agreement for right-of-entry for property located at 1168 and 1176 West
Katella Avenue (R/W 5180-76 & 77), Phase 2 Katella Avenue Improvement and Beautification
Project and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said Agreement.
A11. 123: Approving an Agreement with KFM Engineering, Inc. for design services for the Harbor
Boulevard North Gateway Project and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said
Agreement.
A12. 123: Approving an Agreement with JHK & Associates, for On-Call Support Services and
authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute said Agreement.
A13. 114: To appoint/reappoint Council Me mber Representatives and Alternates for Growth
Management Areas ( GMA’s) 1,2,3 and 4, identified as part of Measure M.
See item below. Separate action taken.
A14. 158: RESOLUTION NO. 99R-187 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM accepting certain deeds conveying to the City of Anaheim certain real properties or
interests therein.
A15. 123: Approving the Agreement with Sun-Belt Landscape and Maintenance Inc., in the amount of
$155,496 for landscape maintenance, in accordance with Bid #5968.
A16. 160: Waiving Council Policy 306 and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a Purchase
Order to McMahan Business Interiors, in an amount not-to-exceed $31,772 (excluding tax) for
McDowell-Craig furniture.
A17. 160: Waiving Council Policy 306 and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a Purchase
Order to Ledstar, Inc., in an amount not-to-exceed $137,350 (plus applicable taxes) for
refurbishing two changeable message signs.
A18. 123: Approving an Agreement with SunGard Recovery Services, Inc., for business continuity
services for the purpose of disaster recovery and to increase the Finance Department’s FY
budget by $48,000 and authorizing the Finance Director to execute said Agreement.
A19. 160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to exercise the renewal option for landscape
maintenance with Soto Company, Inc. for one year, in an amount not-to-exceed $35,309, in
accordance with Bid #5772.
A20. 112: ORDINANCE NO. 5701: (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM repealing Chapter 1.09 of Title 1 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to the
Anaheim Campaign Reform Law.
See item below. Separate action taken.
9
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
SEPTEMBER 14, 1999
A21. 114: ORDINANCE NO. 5702 (INTRODUTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
amending Section 1.05.030 of Chapter 1.05 of Title 1 of the Anaheim Muncipal Code relating to
City Council Assistants.
See item below. Separate action taken.
A22. 123: Approving an extension of Agreement with Managed Restaurant Services and authorizing
the Director of Community Services or his designee to renew the Agreement for tow additional
six month periods.
See item below. Separate action taken.
A23. 123: Approving an Assignment Agreement with Proshot Golf to Orix USA Corp. to provide a
global positioning system and maintenance for golf carts at the Anaheim Hills Golf Course.
A24. 177: Approving a revised Citizen Participation Plan for federal entitlement programs funded by
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
A25. 123: Approving an agreement with the City of In glewood to serve JTPA dislocated workers and
authorizing the City Manager to execute said Agreement.
A26. 123: RESOLUTION NO. 99R- 188 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM approving the Welfare-To-Work Subgrant Agreement between the City of Anaheim
and the State of California for the period of July 16, 1999 through July 15, 2002.
A27. 123: Approving an Agreement with Governor’s Office of Emergency Services for the
assessment of the Y2K readiness of hazardous materials facilities and authorizing the Fire Chief
to execute said Agreement.
City Manager Ruth. Staff is requesting this item be continued one week. The contract has not been
received back from the State.
A28. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 99R- 189 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM setting rates of compensation for classifications assigned to the Services
Employees’ International Union, Local 1877.
A29. 123: Approving a new Master Agreement with Orange County Conservation Corps ., to provide
“at risk youth” services to the City, not-to-exceed $300,000.
A30. 123: Approving an Agreement with Group 4 Architectural Research and Planning, Inc., for an
amount not to exceed $144,228 for space planning and consulting services at the Central
Library.
A31. 160: Waiving Council Policy 306, and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a Purchase
Order to Fisher Pierce c/o Matzinger-Keegan, Inc., in the amount not to exceed $269,308.38
(plus applicable taxes) for fault indicators for a one year period beginning September 15, 1999
through September 14, 2000.
A32. 123: Approval to ratify and exercise the renewal option Agreement to Millar Elevator Service
Company and to authorize a first amendment to the Agreement increasing the not-to-exceed
amount to $61,000 per year and authorizing the City Manager to exercise future renewal options.
A33. 137: RESOLUTION NO. 99R-190 : A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM approving the issuance of not to exceed $45,000,000 aggregate principal amount
10
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
SEPTEMBER 14, 1999
of revenue bonds of the Anaheim public financing authority; ( ll) approving the forms of and
authorizing the execution an installment purchase agreement, an indenture of trust, various
escrow agreements, a standby bond purchase agreement, a remarketing agreement, a purchase
contract, a continuing disclosure agreement and other related documents; ( lll) approving the
delivery of a preliminary official statement and an official statement and an official statement;
and ( lV) approving certain action in connection therewith.
See item below. Separate action taken.
A34. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 99R-191 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM approving a Letter of Understanding with I.B.E.W., Local 47, representing the
Anaheim Part-time Customer Service Employees bargaining unit.
A35. 153: RESOLUTION NO. 99R-192 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM approving a Letter of Understanding with I.B.E.W., Local 47, amending Article 17,
Salary Relationships, and Appendix “A” Wages for the job classifications of Utilities Service
Representative and Senior Utilities Service Representative.
A36. 160: Waiving Council Policy 306 and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue a Purchase
Order in an amount not to exceed $3,785,428 for the purchase of various vehicles and
equipment for City departments for fiscal year 1999/2000.
A37. 123: Approving an Agreement to Determine Access Rights to appoint a hearing officer to
determine the value of access rights to Imperial Highway.
See item below. Separate action taken.
A38. 159: RESOLUTION NO. 99R-193 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM adopting the City of Anaheim CenterLine Action Plan.
See item below. Separate action taken.
A39. 114: Approving minutes of the Anaheim City Council meeting held on July 27, 1999 and August
10, 1999.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 99R-186, 188, 189,191 and 192, for adoption:
AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : Feldhaus, Kring, Tait, McCracken, Daly
NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : None
ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL ME MBERS : None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 99R-186, 188, 189,191 and 192, duly passed and adopted.
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR. (Items A13, A20, A21, A22, A33, A37, A38 acted upon separately –
see below). MOTIONS CARRIED.
A13. 114: To appoint/r eappoint Council Member Representatives and Alternates for Growth
Management Areas ( GMA’s) 1,2,3 and 4, identified as part of Measure M.
11
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
SEPTEMBER 14, 1999
Mayor Daly. He referred to the Staff Report submitted dated August 23, 1999 from the Public Works
Department relative to the need to appoint a Representative for Growth Management Area ( GMA )1 and
Alternates for GMA 2, 3 and 4.
Council Member Kring stated she would like to be the Representative for Area 1.
MOTION. Mayor Daly moved to appoint Council Member Kring as the Representative on Growth
Management Area 1. Council Member Tait seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION. After a brief discussion regarding alternates, Mayor Daly moved that Council Member Kring
be the Alternate for GMA 2 and that Council Member Tait be the Alternate for GMA 3 and 4. Council
Member McCracken seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
A20. 112: ORDINANCE NO. 5701: (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM repealing Chapter 1.09 of Title 1 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to the
anaheim Campaign Reform Law.
Shirley Grindle . She first asked the procedure in adopting or rescinding an ordinance in Anaheim, if it
was at a noticed Public Hearing or if this was it.
City Attorney, Jack White. The agenda tonight has the introduction of an ordinance rescinding the
Anaheim Campaign Reform Law. If one of the Council Members introduces the ordinance for first
reading, it will be on the agenda next week for consideration for adoption. There will be no additional
public notices. The public has two opportunities to address the issue, tonight and next week.
Shirley Grindle . She is disappointed with those who have indicated they are going to remove Anaheim’s
Campaign Contribution Limit Ordinance and not replace it with another which would be an improvement
to the existing ordinance. It is not always a good idea to trust the Council to keep a campaign
contribution limit in effect. It is better to do it by initiative. She hopes the Council Members will change
their minds. She and City Attorney White have worked hard to come up with an ordinance that meets all
of the Council’s concerns while still keeping the ($1,000) contribution limit, such as cleaning up the
penalty phase. Several years ago, the citizens indicated they wanted a limit and that is why it was
enacted by the Council. She does not know where they got the idea that the citizens have changed their
mind. By removing a campaign ordinance, they will now be in a campaign game that has no rules.
Even though (in the future) she will not be monitoring the City’s elections, she will come before them to
show the results of what they have done. When there are no limits, a lot more money will be needed for
campaigns. Incumbents will have an advantage because they get most of the money. They were
elected to represent all the citizens and not just protect their political futures. She urged them to
reconsider and hopes they have changed their minds relative to rescinding the ordinance.
Mayor Daly. It is his intention to abstain on this particular item (as he has done in the past) due to the
fact that he is still on the receiving end of a prosecution launched by the City by the “infamous Special
Prosecutor”. On the advice of his attorneys, he will be abstaining again to protect his own legal rights.
Miriam Kaywood , Anaheim resident (former Council Member). She agrees with a lot of what Ms. Grindle
said. Most of the people on the Council now are very concerned with costs to businesses in Anaheim,
but rescinding the campaign reform ordinance will make it impossible for people to conduct business in
the City because they will be “hit up” constantly by requests for money. She feels it is a disgrace.
Irv Pickler , 2377 Mall Avenue, Anaheim (former Council Member). He realizes the vote (in November,
1992) was an advisory vote only asking if the Council should adopt an ordinance limiting campaign
contributions to $1,000 per election. He was on the Council at the time and believes he was opposed to
12
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
SEPTEMBER 14, 1999
the limit, but the people had spoken. He feels it is premature since many people have not seen the
ordinance so they can give more input.
Paul Kott , 1225 W. Lincoln, Anaheim. His concerns are with Item A20 (the subject item) and A21. He
just recently found out about them and was surprised and disappointed. He knows the Council’s job
entails representing the voice of the people but questioned how they can do so if the public does not
know about the proposed ordinances. He recommends that they provide ample time for some of the
citizens that might care about this issue. They should allow time for some of the people in the
community to read the ordinance repealing this law as well as maybe even making it a ballot measure.
He is asking that they consider a continuance on this item. (He did not give any comments relative to
Item A21.)
Ray Torres, Board Member , Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber has already registered a letter with
the Council on the campaign reform issue. He would like a copy of the ordinance in order to give the
Chamber a more thorough review; Mayor Daly noted that copies of ordinances are available at the City
Clerk’s Office.
Larry Slagle, 1619 E. Lincoln, Anaheim (Yellow Cab). He shares the sentiments echoed by Mr. Kott
regarding this item. He feels it is a step backward if the ordinance is rescinded. It will allow somebody
with a lot of money to come in and influence decisions. The current limit sets a backstop for the amount
businesses can be asked to contribute. There should be more review. The language could be modified
and changed. He understands there are some inequities but does not believe a total repeal is justified at
this time.
Mayor Daly. He will be abstaining on this item for the reasons previously mentioned which are
completely upon the advice of his attorney due to the ongoing “saga” of the Special Prosecutor matter.
Council Member Kring . In deference to the various speakers, she asked if it was possible to pull Item
A20 and A21 off the Consent Calendar so that the public has a chance to look at the items ; City Attorney
White. Whatever the Council wishes can be done.
Mayor Daly. He feels compelled to speak. It is consistent with the City’s procedures to place an
ordinance on the agenda for first reading. Subsequently, the ordinance comes back for the second and
final reading (adoption) at the next meeting. Whether for first or second reading, the ordinance is
available at the City Clerk’s Office. When people say they don’t know what the Council is voting on, the
agenda is posted for public review and these items come to the Council the same way every agenda
items comes to them. If they are unfamiliar with an ordinance the first time, they know it will be on the
agenda a second time. There is not a lot of mystery involved. The Council has had five public
workshops on the Campaign Reform Law Ordinance in the last twelve months. He is uncomfortable
when it is said information is not being disclosed.
Council Member Tait . This item is to repeal the existing ordinance. In doing so, it would make Anaheim
consistent with State law just as 85% of the other cities in the State. Anaheim would then follow State
Campaign Finance Laws. One of the reasons he is in favor of rescinding the current ordinance, it takes
the authority for enforcement away from the City Attorney’s Office. The Fair Political Practices
Commission ( FPPC) is the proper place for enforcement. However, that is not the most important
reason. He believes the most important issue is, when government dictates how much a person can
raise, ultimately dictating how much a person can spend, it is putting a limit on political speech and the
philosophical reason why he is opposed to campaign limits and why he is going to vote to rescind the
ordinance.
Council Member McCracken . She is not even in support of this being on the agenda for first reading.
She realizes the ordinance has its weaknesses and she asked that it be looked at. In 1992 on an
advisory measure, the citizens said they were in favor of campaign limits. Proposition 208 which was
approved by the voters ( State wide) in 1996 (but now pending in the Courts) set a $250 limit or $500 if a
13
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
SEPTEMBER 14, 1999
candidate agreed to a total campaign limit. There could possibly be limits much less than $1,000. As an
incumbent, she should be supporting rescinding the current ordinance. She has met many business
people and entities and when she runs for re-election next year, she can find all of those people to
support her financially. She was a grass roots candidate in 1994 and 1996. It is only fair that those
candidates do not have to face bankrolls of up to $200,000. She also believes it is anti-business. The
Chamber has written a letter stating that requests for repeated funds would be an expensive process and
one that can place an undue burden on the business community and the citizens. The League of
Women Voters has also submitted a statement which in part stated, if there are parts of the ordinance
which need to be changed or to provide a fairer playing field, then the should be changed but do not
simply jettison the entire measure. However, that is what is being proposed. The ordinance merely says
the current ordinance is being totally withdrawn and there will be no campaign limits. She will vote not
even for the first reading. She reiterated, she will vote no even for first reading.
City Attorney White. The only thing needed is for one member of the Council to introduce the ordinance
and it will appear on the Council Agenda next week (September 21, 1999).
Council Member Tait offered Ordinance No. 5701 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO :. 5701 (INTRODUCTION ) AN ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM REPEALING CHAPTER 1.09 OF TITLE 1 OF THE
ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE ANAHEIM CAMPAIGN
REFORM LAW.
A21. 114: ORDINANCE NO. 5702 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM amending Section 1.05.030 of Chapter 1.05 of Title 1 of the Anaheim Muncipal Code
relating to City Council Assistants.
Miriam Kaywood , Anaheim resident (former Council Member). She does not understand the need for
Council Assistants. The Council already has an Administrative Assistant who has an Assistant. She is
concerned that there was no prior information or discussion on the matter and next week is the final
reading of the proposed ordinance.
Council Member McCracken . This is one of the items some members of the public spoke to under Items
of Public Interest. In the packet of materials, there is no support materials. She does not believe it was
fully explained as the Mayor alluded to; Mayor Daly clarified what he stated was that materials were
available in the City Clerk’s Office.
Council Member McCracken stated she did not get any backup materials; none were in her packet; City
Clerk Schroeder stated that only a staff report was submitted.
Council Member McCracken . She is not ready to support this proposed action since she feels that they
are the best staffed Council the City has had with a full-time Administrative Assistant and two part-time
secretaries. She is trying to find out exactly what is expected of Assistants. She has reservations about
the entire “look” when they already have staff members who answer calls, write letters and represent
them. She is also concerned about the supervision of part-time aids. Those who serve at County levels
have Chiefs of Staff who supervise part-time staff. Not included in the staff report was information as to
cost, and for a Council wanting to make sure they are very conservative in their financial costs to the
City, they have been told it will cost about $15,000 a person which is $75,000 a year as well as having to
provide other things such as phones, equipment, a place to work in City Hall. She has issues that have
not totally been answered as well as if there are options to use current staff more effectively, reducing
current staff, etc. She reiterated , all of her questions have not been answered and they have not
informed the community on how much it is going to cost and what it is going to mean.
Mayor Daly. The proposed ordinance allows potential for the Council to have part-time assistants. Any
decision to fund those assistants would be a separate action of the Council and certainly as with all
budget decisions are a public vote. He believes Anaheim is large enough that the Council should have
14
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
SEPTEMBER 14, 1999
the option to have assistants if they choose to and if a majority of the Council wishes to make the funding
available. Two other cities in Orange County similar in size to Anaheim, Anaheim having the largest
budget and the most employees, Irvine and Santa Ana, have assistants available to the City Council
similar to what is being proposed. He feels this is reasonable given the City’s size and complexity.
Council Member Tait . Having an assistant is at the option of the Council Member. The Mayor and
Council Members are part-time people and they all share one assistant. What they are talking about is
having some part-time assistants help them if the Council Member so chooses. If not, that is fine too.
Council Member Tait offered Ordinance No. 5702 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 5702 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING SECTION 1.05.030 OF CHAPTER 1.05
OF TITLE 1 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNCIPAL CODE RELATING TO CITY
COUNCIL ASSISTANTS.
A22. 123: Approving an extension of Agr eement with Managed Restaurant Services and authorizing
the Director of Community Services or his designee to renew the Agreement for two additional
six month periods.
Council Member Kring posed questions relative to the proposed agreement, specifically relative to why it
should not be for a one-year period rather than two six-month periods; Chris Jarvi, Director of
Community Services answered the questions posed. City Manager Ruth also clarified the reason the
recommendation is to extend the agreement for two six-month periods rather than one 12-month period,
the current contract provides for incremental extensions of six months each and to extend it one year
amounts to two six-months periods because of the terminology in the contract.
MOTION. Council Member Kring moved to approve the subject agreement with Managed Restaurant
Services as recommended in report dated August 30, 1999 from the Community Services Department.
Mayor Daly seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
A33. 137: RESOLUTION NO. 99R-190 : A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM approving the issuance of not to exceed $45,000,000 aggregate principal amount
of revenue bonds of the Anaheim public financing authority; ( ll) approving the forms of and
authorizing the execution an installment purchase agreement, an indenture of trust, various
escrow agreements, a standby bond purchase agreement, a remarketing agreement, a purchase
contract, a continuing disclosure agreement and other related documents; ( lll) approving the
delivery of a preliminary official statement and an official statement and an official statement;
and ( lV) approving certain action in connection therewith.
ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS :
Submitted was report dated September 14, 1999 from the Public
Utilities General Manager recommending issuance of the subject bonds. (Also see Item 1. under the
Anaheim Public Financing Authority meeting today’s date authorizing the same action.)
City Attorney White explained for the Mayor that due to a change in State regulations, on bond matters ,
it is necessary to take separate Council action.
Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 99R-190 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 99R-190 : A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF NOT TO
EXCEED $45,000,000 AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF REVENUE
BONDS OF THE ANAHEIM PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY; ( ll)
APPROVING THE FORMS OF AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AN
15
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
SEPTEMBER 14, 1999
INSTALLMENT PURCHASE AGREEMENT, AN INDENTURE OF TRUST,
VARIOUS ESCROW AGREEMENTS, A STANDBY BOND PURCHASE
AGREEMENT, A REMARKETING AGREEMENT, A PURCHASE
CONTRACT, A CONTINUING DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT AND OTHER
RELATED DOCUMENTS; ( lll) APPROVING THE DELIVERY OF A
PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT AND AN OFFICIAL STATEMENT
AND AN OFFICIAL STATEMENT; AND (IV) APPROVING CERTAIN
ACTION IN CONNECTION THEREWITH.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 99R-190 for adoption:
AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : Feldhaus, Kring, Tait, McCracken, Daly
NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : None
ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCI L MEMBERS : None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 99R-190, duly passed and adopted.
A37. 123: Approving an Agreement to Determine Access Rights to appoint a hearing officer to
determine the value of access rights to Imperial Highway.
Council Member Feldhaus asked who was paying for the Hearing Officer; City Manager Ruth answered,
the City of Anaheim.
Mayor Daly. It was his understanding when he asked the question some weeks ago, it was not to be at
the City’s cost but apparently the subject arrangement has been worked out with the property owner. He
asked the estimated cost of the Hearing Officer.
Gary Johnson, Public Works Director and City Engineer. He can provide that information but does not
have it at this time. As part of the negotiation, the City agreed to pay the cost of the Hearing Officer; City
Attorney White stated that the cost is in the range of $750 to $1,000.
MOTION. On motion by Council Member Kring seconded by Council Member Feldhaus, the subject
agreement was approved. MOTION CARRIED.
A38. 159: RESOLUTION NO. 99R-193 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM adopting the City of Anaheim CenterLine Action Plan.
Miriam Kaywood , Anaheim resident (former Council Member). She does not believe light rail or rail of
some kind will alleviate present traffic problems. She remembers when there were tracks in the street
and the hazards involved especially heels getting caught in the tracks. There is also the fact that
California is earthquake country and it would not be wise to be locked into tracks. There are not enough
lanes to accommodate vehicles on the City’s streets even now and eliminating usable lanes will have a
detrimental impact.
Council Member McCracken asked for a staff summary on the CenterLIne Action Plan. It seems that the
process is working backwards; Joel Fick, Planning Director briefed the issue which had been presented in
previous workshop sessions. He clarified that it was a work plan that identifies the steps staff envisions
are needed if the project moves forward. It is important to note this action does not commit the City in
any way nor commit to any General Fund expenditures.
John Lower, Traffic and Transportation Manager. His understanding of the process is that it is driven by
the Federal Transit Administration. If the project happens, at least 50% of the funding would be sought
from the Federal Government and they allocate funding on a number of criteria, the major one being –
16
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
SEPTEMBER 14, 1999
what is the local commitment to land uses around station areas. That is the reason this is seemingly out
of sequence.
Council Member Kring expressed her concern relative to how much staff time is being expended
especially if the project never goes through. If it is approved, it is going to go through Anaheim’s
neighborhoods, specifically ripping up Anaheim Blvd. once again. They have received calls and letters
from people saying they will not put up with that again. She reiterated her concern with the staff time
already expended on Phase I and II and now III to VI.
Joel Fick . In terms of impacts of the project itself, this strategy does not deal with the merits or the
alignment which would be discussed separately. If the process moves forward, this is the strategy plan
that gives the City the opportunity to do the necessary planning for the project and the Anaheim stations
if there is a project; Council Member Kring surmised then that steps III – VI will not start until January.
Mr. Fick confirmed that was correct, and the reason it is before the Council tonight is that the cooperative
agreement the City entered into with OCTA did talk about the framework with all cities along the corridor.
Mayor Daly. He realizes that there may not be a majority on the Council at this time who are either
strongly or even mildly supportive of the ultimate light-rail project from Fullerton to Irvine. However, this
item simply authorizes staff to continue a reasonable amount of planning effort and to continue to
coordinate for the potential of a project. If they do not do so, they will miss an opportunity to understand
all the potential. Ultimately if they decide not to support the project, there may be some data and
evaluation that is uncovered in terms of planning stations and the impacts on neighborhoods. He feels
that information will be important. As an OCTA Board Member, he believes it is unlikely that OCTA will
continue to plan the project in future months if the cities along the route say they do not want it. Having
said that, Anaheim needs to keep in mind that the OCTA has regional transportation responsibilities.
They might proceed to plan with or without Anaheim although he does not think it is likely. The reality is,
in 2, 3 or 4 years down the road, it is hard to predict what the makeup of the OCTA will be.
Council Member Tait . He is going on record now to say that he is against the light-rail project, most
importantly, he does not think it will have the ridership or that it would work in Orange County. It will also
take up a lane in Anaheim which would be a net negative, a subsidized cost to taxpayers and there will
be less busses. Having said that, he does not want the City to give up its seat at the planning table. If it
does go through, they want to be able to minimize the impact as best possible. The vote today is about
keeping their seat at the planning table. He reiterated , he is against the light rail system in Anaheim or in
the County.
Council Member Kring . She agrees with Tait for the same reasons and many more. She then posed
questions to staff for purposes of clarification which were answered by both Mr. Fick and Lower.
After additional discussion wherein Council Members agreed that Anaheim needs to be involved in order
to be kept apprised relative to the project, Mayor Daly noted that Phyllis Boydstun who is on the City’s
Planning Commission was present (owner of business on the proposed route -Anaheim Blvd.) and is
monitoring the subject. They appreciate her volunteer time spent on this regional project as an Anaheim
Planning Commissioner.
Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 99R-193 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 99R-193 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADOPTING THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
CENTERLINE ACTION PLAN.
17
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
SEPTEMBER 14, 1999
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 99R-193 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-193, duly passed and adopted.
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
SENIOR CITIZEN COMMISSION – RESIGNATION
A40. 105: :
Accepting the resignation of Muriel Nelson from the Senior Citizen Commission and directing the
City Clerk to post the Notice of Unscheduled Vacancy for the term ending June 30, 2002.
MOTION. Council Member McCracken moved to accept the resignation of Muriel Nelson from the
Senior Citizen Commission with regret and directing the City Clerk to post the Notice of Unscheduled
Vacancy for the term ending June 30, 2002. Council Member Kring seconded the motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
ITEMS B 1– B6 FROM THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MEETING OF
AUGUST 26,1999 - DECISION DATE: SEPTEMBER 2, 1999
INFORMATION ONLY - APPEAL PERIOD ENDS SEPTEMBER 17, 1999:
ADMINSTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 174
B1. 179:
CEQA EXEMPT {SECTION 15061 (B)(3)}:
OWNER: Robert Beck, 208 N. Bel Air Street, Anaheim , CA 92801
LOCATION: 208 North Bel Air Street ( Q.S. 12) : Property is 0.17 acre, irregularly-shaped parcel
located at the southeast corner of Bel Air Street and Tyler Avenue having frontages of 65 feet on
the east side of Bel Air Street and 73 feet on the south side of Tyler Avenue. To construct a 6
foot high block wall within the required front setback area of a single-family residence in the RS-
7200 Zone located on a corner lot with a reversed building frontage.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
APPROVED ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 174 ( ZA DECISION NO. 99-33)
ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 167
B2. 179:
CEQA EXEMPT {SECTION 15061 (B) (3)}:
OWNER: Walgreens Company, 128 S. State College Boulevard, Anaheim , CA 92806, Timothy
J. & Daryldine Brunet, 34205 Doheny Park Road, Capistrano, Beach, CA 92624, Greg R. Gerry
& William J. Briggs, 2107 E. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806 AGENT: Tim O’Neil –
Evergreen Development, 1300 E. Missouri, A-200, Phoenix, AZ, 85014
18
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
SEPTEMBER 14, 1999
LOCATION: 128 South State College Boulevard, 2015-2107 East Lincoln Avenue and 2104
Ward Terrace ( Q.S. 112): Property is 1.45 acres having frontages of 394 feet on the north side of
Lincoln Avenue, 145 feet on the east side of State College Boulevard and 129 feet on the south
side of Ward Terrace. To construct a drive- thru pharmacy with waiver of minimum number of
parking spaces (79 required ; 73 provided).
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
APPROVED ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 167 ( ZA DECISION NO. 99-34)
ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 172
B3. 179:
CEQA EXEMPT {SECTION 15061 (B) (3)}:
OWNER: Harmen J. H. Jelsma van Ekert, 2600 E. Miraloma Way, Anaheim, CA 92806
LOCATION: 2600 East Miraloma Way ( Q.S. 121): Property is 0.75 acre having frontages of 305
feet on the north side of Miraloma Avenue, 190 feet on the east side of Sunshine Way and 380
feet on the south side of Miraloma Way. Waiver of maximum fence height (36 inches permitted;
6 foot high proposed) to construct a 6 foot high chain link fence and gate adjacent to street
frontages in conjunction with a manufacturing facility in the ML (Limited Industrial) zone.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
APPROVED ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUSTMENT NO. 172 ( ZA DECISION NO. 99-35)
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 99-169
B4. 170:
CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
OWNER: White Star Partners, 4590 Mac Arthur Boulevard, #610, Newport Beach , CA 92660
AGENT: Koll Cornerstone II – James V. Camp, 4590 Mac Arthur Boulevard, #610, Newport
Beach , CA 92660
LOCATION: 2910 and 2940 East La Palma Avenue, 1011 and 1015 Armando Street and 2961
East White Star Avenue ( Q.S. 132, 140, 141) : Property is 10-acres, irregularly-shaped parcel
scribed as follows: Parcel (1) consisting of 3.8 acres, rectangularly-shaped parcel on the south
side of La Palma Avenue located approximately 375 feet east of the centerline of White Star
Avenue and further described as 2910 and 2940 East La Palma Avenue. Parcel (2) consisting of
1.1 acres, rectangularly -shaped parcel located at the northeast corner of White Star Avenue and
Armando Street and further described as 1011 and 1015 Armando Street. Parcel (3) consisting
of 3.7 acres, irregularly-shaped parcel located at the southeast corner of White Star Avenue and
Armando Street, having a frontage of 266 feet on White Star Avenue and further described as
2961, 2971, 2981, 2991, and 2995 White Star Avenue. Parcel (4) consisting of 1.1 acres,
rectangularly -shaped parcel on the south side of the easterly terminus of Armando Street and
further described as 1040 Armando Street. To establish 4-lot industrial subdivision in the SP94-1
(Specific Plan 94-1, Alpha Northeast Area) Zone in conjunction with an existing office and
industrial complex.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
APPROVED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. ( ZA DECISION NO. 99-36)
VARIANCE NO. 4365
B5. 179:
CEQA CATERGORICAL EXEMPTION – CLASS 3:
OWNER: John Priem, 12012 Knott Street, A-2, Garden Grove , CA 92841
LOCATION: 121 South Montgomery Way ( Q.S. 167/168). Property is 1.0-acre, having a
frontage of 107 feet on the west side of Montgomery Way, a maximum depth of 230 feet and is
located 250 feet west of the centerline of Lakeview Avenue. Waiver of maximum structural
19
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
SEPTEMBER 14, 1999
height (25 feet high permitted; 32 feet proposed) to construct a new single-family residence in
the RS-HS-43 ,000 (SC) (Residential Single-Family Hillside, Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
Withdrawn.
END OF ZONING ADMINSTRATOR ITEMS FROM AUGUST 26, 1999.
ITEMS B6 – B8 FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 30, 1999 -
INFORMATION ONLY APPEAL PERIOD ENDS SEPTEMBER 21, 1999:
CITY OF ANAHEIM CENTERLINE ACTION PLAN:
B6. 179/159 : Request for a recommendation to
the City Council for approval of the City of Anaheim Centerline Action Plan.
ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and
MOTION CARRIED (one vacant seat) , that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend that the City Council approve the City of Anaheim CenterLine Action Plan as set
forth in Attachment A to the August 30, 1999 staff report with the following added bullet p oint to
Step 4, Develop an Outline of Station Area Potential Policies and Design Guidelines and
Determine Type of Plan to Be Prepared: Review and evaluate the Station Area Concept
Plans/Sketch Plans, the outline of potential Station Area policies and the potential urban design
guidelines in light of any on-going City studies to ensure coordinated and compatible planning
efforts.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Recommended to City Council approval of the City of Anaheim Centerline Action Plan.
ANAHEIM RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN MASTER EIR NO. 313 VALIDATION REPORT
B7. 179/155 :
– REQUEST FOR APPROVAL:
City-initiated (Planning Department), 200 S. Anaheim
Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805, request to approve the Validation Report to allow the continued
use of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Master EIR No. 313 and the associated Mitigation
Monitoring Program No. 0085 for environmental compliance for developments in the Anaheim
Resort Specific Plan Area, located generally west of the Interstate 5 (1-5) corridor, south of
Vermont Avenue, east of Walnut Street, and north of Orangewood Avenue. Modified the last
“WHEREAS” paragraph of the Planning Commission resolution attached to the August 30, 1999
staff report to read as follows:
WHEREAS, based upon its review of the Validation Report and consideration of information and
evidence provided, the Planning Commission finds that no substantial changes have occurred
with respect to the circumstances under which the Master EIR was certified, and that there is no
new available material information which was not known and could not have been known at the
time the Master EIR was certified.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Master EIR No. 313 APPROVED
Validation Report Approved ( PC99-158) (6 yes votes, 1 vacant seat)
CEQA EXEMPTION – SECTION 15061(b)(3)
B8. 179/155 :
ADJUSTMENT NO. 2 TO THE ANAHEIM RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 92-2 :
City-initiated
request for a Specific Plan Adjustment to amend the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Zoning and
Development Standards relating to the minimum landscape setback requirement for properties
adjacent to Manchester Avenue between Katella Avenue and the southern boundary of the
Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Area (Section 18.48.070.090.0901 of the Anaheim Municipal
Code).
20
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
SEPTEMBER 14, 1999
ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and
MOTION CARRIED (one vacant seat) , that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
find that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 15061
(b) (3) , as defined in the State CEQA Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the
requirements to prepare an EIR .
Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION
CARRIED (one vacant seat) , that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council the adoption of Adjustment No. 2 to the Anaheim Resort Specific
Plan to reflect a minimum 20-foot wide setback requirement for properties adjacent to the
segment of Manchester Avenue between Katella Avenue and the southern boundary of the
Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Area based upon the following:
A. This segment of Manchester Avenue is designated as a collector street in the General Plan
Circulation Element and, upon completion of the I-5 Freeway improvements, said segment will
be an approximate 52-foot wide, one-way freeway frontage road; and,
B. The proposed 20-foot wide setback area would be more appropriate and proportional for this
street segment. It would also be more consistent with the setback requirement for other local
roads of similar width in the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan Area.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Recommended to City Council approval of the Adjustment No. 2 of the Anaheim Resort Specific
Plan No. 92-2.
Mayor Daly offered Ordinance No. 5703 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 5703 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM APPROVING SPECIFIC PLAN ADJUSTMENT NO. 2
TO THE ANAHEIM RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 92-2, AMENDING
ORDINANCE NO. 5453, AND AMENDING SUBSECTION 18.48.070.090
OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE.
ORDINANCE FOR INTRODUCTION:
B9. 179: ORDINANCE NO. 5699 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM Amending Chapter 17.20 of Title 17 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to
excavation and recovery of non-fuel minerals and reclamation of mined lands. (Originally
introduced at the meeting of August 24, 1999).
Mayor Daly offered Ordinance No. 5699 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 5699 (INTRODUCTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING CHAPTER 17.20 OF TITLE 17 OF THE
ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO EXCAVATION AND
RECOVERY OF NON-FUEL MINERALS AND RECLAMATION OF MINED
LANDS. (ORIGINALLY INTRODUCED AT THE MEETING OF AUGUST 24,
1999).
ORDINANCE FOR ADOPTION:
B10. 179: ORDINANCE NO. 5700 (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM Amending the zoning map referred to in Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code
Relating to zoning (Reclassification No. 71-72-4). (Introduced at the meeting of August 24,
1999).
21
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
SEPTEMBER 14, 1999
Mayor Daly offered Ordinance No, 5700 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
ORDINANCE NO. 5700 (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP REFERRED TO IN TITLE 18 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO ZONING (RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-4). (INTRODUCED AT THE
MEETING OF AUGUST 24, 1999).
Roll Call Vote on Ordinance No. 5700 for adoption:
AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : Feldhaus, Kring, Tait, McCracken, Daly
NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : None
ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 5700 duly passed and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4112, AND NEGATIVE
D1. 179:
DECLARATION:
OWNER:
Living Stream dba Anaheim Palms Corporate Center, 2431 West La Palma Avenue,
CA 92801
AGENT:
Larry A. Wilde, 1900 West Ball Road, Anaheim, CA 92804
LOCATION: 2411 West La Palma Avenue. Property is 27.9 acres located at the northwest
corner of La Palma Avenue and Gilbert Street.
To permit a private school within an existing industrial/office complex.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 4112 GRANTED ( PC99-75) (6 yes votes, 1 vacancy).
Approved Negative Declaration.
Informational item at the meeting of May 18, 1999, Item B10.
Set for public hearing by Mayor Daly and Mayor Pro Tem McCracken.
At the meeting of June 15, 1999 item D5, the Anaheim City Council Denied CUP No. 4112 (99R-
132). Request for rehearing submitted by Larry Wilde, Acaciawood School. Request for a
continuance on rehearing submitted by Larry Wilde, Acaciawood School.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in North County News : September 2, 1999
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet : September 2, 1999
Posting of property : September 3, 1999
Submitted was letter dated September 1, 1999 from Larry A. Wilde, Principal, Acaciawood School
requesting a withdrawal of their application for CUP 4112.
City Attorney White. A motion to approve the withdrawal would be in order.
MOTION. Mayor Daly moved to accept the withdrawal of the subject application. Council Member
McCracken seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Council Member Tait asked if the applicant indicated a reason for the withdrawal; Mayor Daly. A letter
was received which mentioned they are going to be looking for other sites in the City.
Mayor Daly announced that the Council would consider the Public Hearing under D3. before D2. since a
continuance is being requested.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE NO. 4363
D3. 179/155 :
22
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
SEPTEMBER 14, 1999
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 321:
OWNER:
Stadium View Anaheim, LP, 145 Commerce Way, Unit B, Walnut, CA 91789
AGENT:
Bruce Ayres, 355 Bristol Street, Suite A, Costa Mesa, CA 92626
LOCATION: 2560 East Katella Avenue.
Property is 2.04 acres located at the southwest
corner of Katella Avenue and Douglass Road.
To increase the permitted Floor Area Ratio for the subject property from 0.45 to 0.91, and waiver
of (a) minimum parking lot landscaping (deleted), (b) minimum landscape setback adjacent to
the SR-57 (Orange) Freeway, and (c) minimum structural and landscaped setback adjacent to
Douglass Road, to construct a 4-story, 140-room hotel with pool, meeting and breakfast areas.
(Re-advertised to September 28, 1999).
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
VARIANCE NO. 4363 GRANTED, IN PART, Denying waiver (a) and granting waiver (b) ( PC99-
113) (6 yes, 1 absent)
APPROVED the increase in Floor Area Ratio from 0.45 to 0.91 for this specific development
proposal on this building site located in the Arrowhead Pond District of the Anaheim Stadium
Area Master Land Use Plan.
EIR NO. 321 Previously-certified. Informational item at the meeting of July 13, 1999, Item B6.
Review of the Planning Commission’s decision requested by Mayor Daly and Council Member
Kring. Continued from the meeting of August 17, 1999, Item D1.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in North County News : August 5, 1999
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet : August 5, 1999
Posting of property : August 6, 1999
Mayor Daly. Staff is requesting a continuance of the Public Hearing to September 28, 1999 in order to
give an opportunity to advertise new waiver (c).
MOTION. Council Member Tait moved to continue the subject Public Hearing to September 28, 1999 as
requested by staff. Council Member Kring seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING – VARIANCE NO. 4361 AND CATEGORICAL
D2. 1 79:
EXEMPTION – CLASS 11
OWNER:
AL Cemetery, Attn: Bruce Lazenby, 3888 S. Workman Mill Road, Whittier, CA 90601
AGENT:
Dennis Stout, 871 N. Maplewood Street, Orange, CA 92867
LOCATION: 2303 South Manchester Avenue – Melrose Abbey.
Property is 18.82 acres
located on the west side of Manchester Avenue, 225 to 450 feet south of the centerline of
Orangewood Avenue. Waiver of permitted signs in residential zones, to construct a 45-foot high
freestanding freeway-oriented double-sided pole sign within the RS-A-43 ,000 Zone.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Variance No. 4361 APPROVED ( PC99-117) (6 yes, 1 absent)
Informational item at the meeting of July 13, 1999, Item B10. Review of the Planning
Commission’s decision requested by Mayor Daly and Council Member McCracken. Continued
from the August 17, 1999 meeting, Item D2, r
equest for continuance by applicant to September 14,
1999.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in North County News : August 5, 1999
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet : August 5, 1999
Posting of property : August 6, 1999
Mayor Daly. This Public Hearing was scheduled at his and Council Member McCracken’s request. They
have a staff report recommending against approving a 45’ high sign. He asked staff to briefly summarize
the reason(s) advising against the sign.
23
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
SEPTEMBER 14, 1999
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager. Staff had recommended the size of the sign be reduced to
something more reasonable both in size and in height. The Planning Commission approved the sign
with a slightly reduced square footage.
Joel Fick, Planning Director added there are also a couple of things associated with this property from
the outset that have made it a difficult issue. There has been an existing sign on the property for many
years. The building was constructed in 1927. Because of the unique architecture of the building and the
fact that it is so old, it is problematic to construct a wall sign on the building. Since they lost one sign
because of the new elevation of the freeway, it has been difficult to address. Mr. Hastings (Zoning
Division Manager) has had many discussions with the property owner to deal with the identification
Melrose Abbey feels they have lost. Staff has continued to work with the Abbey because of the unique of
the situation. Staff continues to believe the sign is too large. It is larger than the sign that has historically
existed on the property. It is higher in height but that is reflective of the elevation of the freeway. If the
sign were not as big as presently proposed , it could be lower in height. If not approved, there are other
alternatives. The Planning Commission did slightly reduce the size of the sign originally proposed but
did approve the project as presently before the Council. He clarified for the Mayor staff is saying there
historically has been a sign, they lost that visibility with the freeway improvements and uniquely because
the architecture does not afford having a wall sign. Staff feels the proposed sign is more advertising
than identification and beyond what is on the existing sign and feel the additional wording could be
removed.
Mr. Fick also clarified that the existing sign is 160 sq. ft., panels are approximately 16 X 10 and 30’ tall.
The proposed sign is about 45’ tall, 275 sq. ft., 20 X 14. Staff’s recommendation is that the square
footage should not exceed the replacement sign. The exact height would have to be determined by
more study. He would be comfortable with something smaller; Mayor Daly surmised that would be
something between 30 and 45’.
Council Member McCracken . The sign proposed is a huge sign high in the air just so it can make it over
the edge of the wall. It seems every one of the properties which have been impacted by the I-5
reconstruction will be looking for the same thing.
Joel Fick . Staff has that same concern. In this particular location, there are site constraints but he does
not think there are other freestanding pole signs where they would need to be replaced or the business
couldn't have wall signs. This is a unique situation.
After additional discussion and questions posed to staff, Mayor Daly opened the Public Hearing and
asked to hear from the applicant or applicant’s agent.
Applicant’s Statement : Mr. Dennis Stout, 871 Maplewood Street, Orange, Local Neon, Inc.,
representing Melrose Abbey. He is present to retain a privilege Melrose Abbey has enjoyed. This differs
in identification for some commercial uses. It is more of an identification to find the location. There
have been complaints by relatives and those trying to find the facility. They also have deliveries 24
hours a day not always from local places. It is not just for the obvious use. The chapel is used not only
for public ceremonies and rentals but also public functions. People do need to see it. It is difficult to see
it at this point. They are asking that the sign be raised. They have redesigned it to be more in concert
with the architectural features of the building. The square footage is misleading. Melrose Abbey would
be willing to work with the Council to bring it down to a size more consistent with the original sign of 161
square feet by deleting the bottom couple of lines and making it smaller. The visibility is intended to see
the sign approaching from the north and south. The difficulty in presenting a line of site is the fact that
the new elevation is going to be higher. In terms of square footage, they think they can accomplish that
being more in line with the original. However, he is not sure how far down the sign could go without
losing the visibility.
Mayor Daly. The City is going to be addressing the sign issue(s) relating to the I-5 freeway widening. He
asked Mr. Stout if he would be willing to work with the City on a committee. It might be timely to get
24
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
SEPTEMBER 14, 1999
people to sit down and talk about the goals and objectives relating to this matter; Mr. Stout stated he
would consider something like that.
Joel Fick . In terms of the overall height, it has been a challenge being consistent regarding this sign as
they have been with other signs. Staff does not feel it needs to be at a height that is visible from both
sides of the freeway.
Mr. Rafael Pazo , General Manager, Melrose Abbey, 1802 W. Cerritos, Anaheim. There is not an
existing sign at this time since it came down during a Santa Ana wind; there is only a frame. The
Melrose Abbey property was not a part of Anaheim in the early 1900’s when the Abbey was established
(1927). (He also presented photographs of the facility when it was first built.) Melrose Abbey has always
been a major feature for the families that they serve. With demographic shifts, people have moved out
of town and presently they are serving families who no longer live in Orange County. People have a lot
of difficulty in finding the abbey and they spend hours giving directions to those coming to the facility.
They appreciate the efforts of the Planning Commission and their recommendation. They will take any
recommendations offered. The intent is to work with the City. Two doors down from their property there
is a 45’ sign existing in the City of Orange (Memorial Pools).
Council Member McCracken . Relative to the statement that people cannot find their way to the abbey,
she noted that Melrose Abbey does not have a listing for their cemetery, along with directions, in the
Yellow Pages as do other cemeteries. There are 13 other cemeteries in Orange County that don’t have
freeway signage or freeway access; Mr. Paso stated that many of their patrons do not reside in Anaheim
and using a local telephone book for advertising would not benefit them; however, it is something they
will look into.
Rita Dent, 2150 S. Lewis Street, Sunrise Fountains (apartment community). Her property is separated
by a fence to the cemetery. It is a concern of hers when they (Melrose Abbey) said they did not feel the
sign would have an impact and there are no other signs around. Sunrise Fountains had a large sign up
and have been waiting for I-5 construction to finish to see what they are going to do. Their sign was also
blown down. They are interested in what Melrose Abbey is going to do and how high they go with their
sign. The back yard of Melrose Abbey is the Sunrise Fountains front yard. She clarified for the Mayor
that she manages the property and supervises for County-Wide Property Management as well as living
in the apartments. What they are looking for is to replace the sign for which they already have a permit.
The bottom of the previous sign was about 10’ and probably 16 X 20’. She reiterated , it is of interest to
them to see what will be allowed in terms of signage because the off-ramp is right at Manchester.
Brock Dewey, Dewey Pest Control Company. They are the neighbors of Melrose Abbey at 2307 S.
Manchester. He is present to support the efforts of Melrose Abbey so that their sign is visible from the
freeway in both directions. They have an existing sign and are interested in the outcome of the Melrose
Abbey request.
Mayor Daly closed the Public Hearing. He stated he believes it is premature to approve new signs until
they have more information and a more comprehensive approach to signage on both sides of the I-5 for
the entire freeway corridor. He is not comfortable approving the request for signage tonight and
suggested that they ask staff to do more work with property owners and bring back something more
comprehensive.
Council Member Tait . These sign issues are difficult especially in light of the freeway reconstruction and
any decision affects all of the properties in the corridor. As far as fairness, a variance is usually for a
good reason. In this case, he has not seen the reason to go beyond the Abbey’s existing sign. It is
reasonable to not give anything more than what they have had for years. He would, however, go along
with a more comprehensive approach.
Council Member Feldhaus . He also feels it may be premature to take any action. If it is going to be
another six months before this segment of I-5 is completed , to invest money now for new signage does
25
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
SEPTEMBER 14, 1999
not seem to be the thing to do. He saw the photos of the sign submitted by the applicant which looks like
it was sitting right in the middle of the freeway .He does believe that freeway exposure both north and
south is critical to any business. It is necessary to find out how many people are in the same situation.
He feels the applicant should be willing to wait to see what staff can come up with in a more
comprehensive way which will also help the applicant in making the right financial decision.
Joel Fick . Relative to the photographs, they do not show the sound walls that are going to be
constructed. Right now they are doing an inventory (relative to signage in the area) and expect to have it
completed in a couple of weeks, analyze it and provide some suggestions.
Council Member Kring . She is supportive of following the recommendation of the Planning Commission.
She does think a sign is needed for both north and south freeway traffic. She is in favor of signs since
they do bring people into a business and are directional aids ; Council Member Tait. He is looking at the
fairness of the issue and questioned how could they explain allowing the requested sign to the 99% of
the businesses who follow the code.
Mayor Daly. He is going to offer a resolution denying the variance, and in such cases generally denies
the CEQA finding to be consistent; City Attorney White explained if the environmental finding is denied,
the Council will not be in a position to approve the application. Approving the CEQA finding does not
mean he is in favor of the permit.
Council Member Feldhaus . The Planning Commission and City staff recommended approval of a 45’
freestanding sign. For him to deny that and then to have the applicant go back and start the process all
over again is something he does not want to do. He asked how long the planning process would take ;
Mr. Fick. He estimates 90 to 120 days.
Council Member Feldhaus . He would rather continue the matter than to deny the application ; Joel Fick.
He explained in terms of timing, the application could be continued until November 5, 1999. Under the
Permit Streamlining Act, there is a 90-day provision wherein if the applicant is agreeable, the item could
be continued up to 90 days beyond that time period.
Mayor Daly. He asked if the Council has the authority to waive filing fees in special circumstances where
the goal might be not to penalize someone and not make them start from the beginning because there is
a planning process under way; City Attorney White answered yes, on rare occasions the Council has
done that.
Joel Fick . He explained that staff work has actually been done in terms of the analysis in the area;
therefore, staff could expedite the process and bring it back through the Commission and Council
quickly; Council Member Tait asked that be made a part of the action.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT –CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION :
On motion by Mayor Daly,
seconded by Council Member Kring, the City Council finds that the proposed activity falls within the
definition of Sections 3.01 Class 11 of the City of Anaheim guidelines to the requirements for an
Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements to file an
EIR. MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Daly offered Resolution No. 99R-194 for adoption denying Variance No. 4361 with the condition
that staff be authorized to expedite any future application predicated on the planning effort under way
(relative to a comprehensive sign plan for the I-5 freeway corridor presently undergoing reconstruction)
and without the applicant incurring any financial costs in resubmitting an application. Refer to Resolution
Book.
26
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES,
SEPTEMBER 14, 1999
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 99R-194, for adoption:
AYES: MAYOR/COUN CIL MEMBERS : Feldhaus, Kring, Tait, McCracken, Daly
NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : None
ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS : None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 99R-194 duly passed and adopted.
FLYING OF FLAGS OVER THE DOWNTOWN VETERAN’S MONUMENT:
C1. 114:
Action requested by Council Member McCracken at the meeting of August 17, 1999 relative to
flying the POW-MIA Flag along with the American Flag over the new Downtown Veteran’s
Monument when completed. (Continued from the meeting of August 24, 1999, Item C1.)
Council Member McCracken . The Council received information indicating there are few flags recognized
by the Federal Government besides the historic flags of the United States, the current flag, state flags
and the POW-MIA Flag. As discussed at the meeting of August 24, 1999, (see minutes that date), her
request is that the POW-MIA flag be allowed to fly along with the American Flag over the soon-to-be-
constructed Veteran’s monument.
MOTION. Council Member McCracken moved to approve the flying of the POW-MIA Flag over the
Downtown Veteran’s Monument along with the American Flag. Council Member Kring seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS:
C2. 112:
City Attorney Jack White stated that there are no actions to report.
COUNCIL COMMENTS:
C3. 114:
The Mayor and Council Members extended their sympathies to the families and friends of the victims of
today’s shooting at the West Anaheim Medical Center at 3033 W. Orange Avenue in Anaheim. A
suspect was taken into custody at the scene.
ADJOURNMENT: By general Council consent, the Council Meeting of September 14, 1999 was
adjourned (8:27 P.M.).
SHERYLL SCHROEDER
CITY CLERK
27