2000/06/13ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA- CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 13, 2000
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
Present: Mayor Tom Daly, Council Members: Frank Feldhaus, Lucille Kring, Tom Tait and
Shirley McCracken
Staff Present: City Manager Jim Ruth, City Attorney Jack White, City Clerk Sheryll Schroeder,
Assistant City Clerk Cindy DanieI-Garcia, Community Services Director Chris Jarvi, Planning
Director Joel Fick, Public Works Director Gary Johnson, Community Development Director Elisa
Stipkovich, Police Chief Roger Baker, Fire Chief Jeff Bowman and Public Utilities General
Manager Ed Aghjayan
A copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was posted on June 9, 2000
at the City Hall inside and outside bulletin boards.
Mayor Daly called the regular meeting to order at 4:10 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the
Anaheim City Hall, 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. The first portion of the meeting was the continuation
of the departmental budget presentations on the proposed Fiscal Year 2000/2001 budget.
FISCAL YEAR 2000/2001 DEPARTMENTAL BUDGET WORKSHOP (continuation):
City Manager, Jim Ruth, asked Public Works Director, Gary Johnson, to present the Public
Works Department proposed budget, located on pages 76 to 77, which is made a pad of the
record. He also reviewed the Capital Improvement Program budget.
Mayor Daly, referring to the sidewalk repair fund, asked how much total funding was allocated
for sidewalk, curb and gutter repairs and it was responded that it was over $1 million.
Council Member McCracken asked how much of a catch up did the projected sidewalk, curb
and gutter repair allocation provide. Mr. Johnson said a funding level of over $1 million was
significant, which left a $12 to $14 million deficit in the sidewalk program.
Council Member Kring asked how the repairs were prioritized. He said all sidewalks were
inventcried, the worst were done first, and the scheduling was done two years out.
Council Member Kring asked if the trolley purchase would be similar to the one pictured, with
blue coloring and Mr. Johnson answered no, it would be customized with the resort logo. She
asked if lights on the major thoroughfares would be synchronized. Mr. Johnson explained the
City's program, which had been in place since 1986, adding that with all the construction, some
of the communications were out. When the resort area was complete, the communication
should be returned, he felt.
Council Member Tait asked if the purchase of the trolleys was coming from the Public Works
Department budget and Diana Kotler, Transportation Programs Planner, answered that the
funding was still with the Public Utilities Department, drawing from the Public Benefits Program
based on the allocations made towards the electric tram and trolley project. She noted that the
funding coming from the federal government, the air quality management district and the state
funding was within the Public Works budget.
CITY OF ANAHEIM
COUNCIL MINUTES
JUNE 13, 2000
PAGE 2
Council Member Tait asked how much was coming from the Public Benefits Program and she
responded for the tram project, it was $540,000 from the Public Benefits Program and about
$200,000 from the air quality management district. For the electric buses, it was $500,000 per
fiscal year, the City was in the third year of the program, so the total would be about $2 million;
the City was receiving about $500,000 from AQMD, an equal amount from the federal
government and $200,000 from the state.
Council Member Tait asked if the City would always have a deficit in the arterial rehabilitation
and Mr. Johnson said he thought the City would always have somewhat of a deficit but it should
be a small one. He noted he was optimistic that the City would get there because federal and
state funds were fairly plentiful for transportation. He said if the City could continue funding at
$6 to $8 million a year, within 8 to 10 years the deficit would be at a very low level.
Council Member Tait noted he felt the Public Works Director had handled the various projects
very effectively and he congratulated him.
Council Member McCracken asked when the arterial signage outside the resort area would
occur and Mr. Johnson said the contract had been awarded to do a number of the streets, the
goal was to replace all faded signs. He said he thought within the next few months but he would
follow up with a response.
City Manager Ruth asked Community Development Executive Director, Elisa Stipkovich, to
present her departmental budget, which was located on pages 40 to 45, made a part of the
record.
Council Member Feldhaus asked if the Lemon Street pedestrian link was between Center Street
Promenade and Watt Center and she said yes, they had been working and negotiating with
them. A proposal would be brought to Council within the next 30 to 45 days to do some
matching funds, she added.
Council Member Tait asked if the City had any leverage with Savi Ranch that could effect the
half dozen signs installed on the Yorba Linda side that he felt was a violation of the scenic
corridor. She said she did not think there was any leverage but she would look at it and discuss
it with the City Attorney.
Council Member McCracken said it seemed to be a violation of the scenic corridor, which did
not allow billboards. She asked if the City was participating in a new housing project, some of
which was affordable housing. Ms. Stipkovich answered yes, there was a project called The
Fountains, a 259 unit senior project. She added that June 20th' a tax exempt bond request would
be coming to the Council.
The next budget presentation City Manager Ruth called for was the 2000/2001 Police
Department budget, presented by Chief Roger Baker, located on pages 68 to 71 of the budget
document, which is made a part of the record.
Council Members commented on their gratification regarding the decrease in crime rates and
thanked the Chief and department for their participation in the decrease.
Fire Department budget presentation was next; Jim Ruth introduced Fire Chief Jeff Bowman,
information located on pages 60 to 61, made a part of this record.
City Council Minutes
2 June 13, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM
COUNCIL MINUTES
JUNE 13, 2000
PAGE 3
Council Member McCracken asked if Chief Bowman felt paramedic fees would stabilize and the
Chief answered that he felt they were stabilized, but they would continue with their outreach.
Council Member McCracken asked if there were any plans for rehabilitation of other fire
stations. Chief Bowman said he was working with the City Manager trying to identify a funding
source and priorities.
Council Member Tait asked if the fleet funding included fire trucks and Chief Bowman said no,
fire trucks were not included, it was in the operations budget.
Council Member Feldhaus asked if the safety issues had been address on the traffic light
controllers and how many and what intersections would they be placed. Chief Bowman
informed only one had been installed, as a test. He stated they were very effective, allowing
emergency units to arrive safety and on time and a number of accidents were prevented. He
informed they cost about $7,000 per intersection.
Mayor Daly asked if there would be a staff recommendation on that item and Chief Bowman
said they plan to install 15, which would come to Council in the future. He added they were
hoping for grant funding.
Mayor Daly, referring to the Urban Search and Rescue Program, asked what the cost of the
program was. Operations Chief Smith responded the overall cost was about $80,000 out of
resort funds, purchasing an urban search and rescue vehicle that was housed in the resort
station, the remaining funds were earmarked to purchase heavy rescue equipment as the
program was phased in. He added the start up cost was about $300,000, all resort funded.
Mayor Daly wondered if there was any on going labor costs and Chief Smith responded just
training and maintenance of personnel, 36 persons identified within the program and they would
need a yearly training to maintain cedain levels.
The last department to present their 2000/2001 budget presentation was given by Ed Aghjayan,
Public Works General Manager. His budget was contained in pages 72 to 75 in the budget
document, which is made a part of the record.
Council Members Kring and McCracken discussed various water and electrical issues.
Council Member Tait asked what the rates would be reduced to after the 2002 stranded costs
and Mr. Aghjayan said he was not sure, his best guess would be between 10% and 15%.
City Manger Jim Ruth announced that completed the departmenrs presentations of the
proposed 2000/2001 budget. The continued public hearing would be held at 5:00 P.M. this
date.
At the conclusion of the budget workshop, at 4:56 P.M., Mayor Daly moved to recess to Closed
Session, seconded by Council Member McCracken. Motion carried unanimously.
ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO CLOSED SESSION: None.
PUBLIC COMMENTS - CLOSED SESSION ITEMS:
There were no public comments relative to Closed Session items.
City Council Minutes 3 June 13, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM
COUNCIL MINUTES
JUNE 13, 2000
PAGE 4
The following items were considered at the Closed Session.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 54956.9(a) - Existing Litigation:
Name of Case: Vista Royale Homeowners Assn. v. 396 Investment Co. fka The
Fieldstone Company, et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 77-30-74 (and
related cases).
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 54956.9(a) - Existing Litigation:
Name of Case: Department of Toxic Substances Control v. Interstate Non-Ferrous, et
al., United States District Court Case no. CV-F-97-5016 OWW/LJO.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 54956.9(a) - Existing Litigation:
Name of Case: Kord Group v. The Fieldstone Company, et al., Orange County
Superior Court Case No. 76-32-58,
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 54957.6:
Agency designated representative: David Hill
Name of employee organization: Anaheim Firefighters' Association.
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 54957.6:
Agency designated representative: David Hill
Name of employee organizations: Anaheim Police Association, Anaheim Municipal
Employees' Association, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 47,
Service Employees International Union Local 1877 and Teamsters Local 952.
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 54957.6:
Agency designated representative: David Hill
Name of employee organizations: unrepresented management employees.
AFTER RECESS:
Mayor Daly called the regular Council meeting of June 13, 2000 to order at 5:32 P.M. and
welcomed those in attendance.
INVOCATION: Pastor Stan Sewell, Church of Grace, gave the invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Frank Feldhaus led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
PROCLAMATIONS AND DECLARATIONS:
Carol Latham, President of Anaheim Arts Council, presented representatives of the 19 arts and
cultural organizations that would be receiving grants from the Anaheim Arts Council and
introduced and congratulated the new Anaheim Arts Council Board.
City Council Minutes
4 June 13, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM
COUNCIL MINUTES
JUNE 13, 2000
PAGE 5
Mayor Daly expressed his appreciation for all their hard work in raising and allocating money
and congratulated the recipients of the grants.
RECOGNITIONS AUTHORIZED BY COUNCIL TO BE MAILED OR PRESENTED AT
ANOTHER TIME:
Proclamation recognizing June 4 - 10, 2000, as Management Week in Anaheim.
At 5:43 P.M. Mayor Daly recessed the City Council meeting until after the Redevelopmerit
Agency and Anaheim Housing Authority meetings.
Mayor Daly reconvened the Anaheim City Council meeting at 5:48 P.M.
ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA: None.
PUBLIC COMMENTS/AGENDA ITEMS:
Linda Seymour requested another year of support from the Council for the July Fourth
Community Council celebration. (Item All.)
Elsie ? said she felt Anaheim golf courses were well taken care of and she did not wish to see
things changed.
Stephanie Perry, 5949 East Avenida Arbole, Anaheim, regarding the golf course club house
proposal, asked Council to consider spending the proposed $6 million towards parks and not a
new clubhouse.
Robert Stewart, 252 Camino de Narajas, Anaheim, asked Council to consider allocating funds in
west Anaheim to better equip and build a station that would house the additional manpower and
apparatus.
Gene Seacrest, 121 South Canyon Crest, Anaheim, stated it was his belief that the Eli Home
did not fit any listed categorically permitted or conditionally permitted uses within the Anaheim
Municipal Code and he noted there were 12 other businesses on the agenda asking for
conditional use permits or variations from those permits and he asked Council not to make one
organization exempt from the law.
MOTION: Mayor Daly moved to waive reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions,
seconded by Council Member McCracken. Motion carried unanimously.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR A1 - A19: On Motion by Mayor
Daly, seconded by Council Member Kring, the following items were approved in accordance
With the reports, certifications and recommendations furnished each Council Member as listed
on the Consent Calendar;
A1. Reject certain claims filed against the City.
Due to an omission from the Council packet, Item A1 was continued to the June 20,
2000 Council meeting to include list of claims.
City Council Minutes
5 June 13, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM
COUNCIL MINUTES
JUNE 13, 2000
PAGE 6
A2.
Approve a Negative Declaration, in accordance with CEQA guidelines, in connection
with the destruction of an existing water production well and the construction of a new
water production well in the Anaheim Stadium Business Center area. (Well No. 45.)
Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Layne Christensen Company, in the
amount of $442,550 for construction and development of Well No. 45 (Sportstown) and
approve and authorize the Finance Director to sign the Escrow Agreement pertaining to
contract retentions. (Continued from the meeting of June 6, 2000, Item A2.)
City Attorney Jack White, indicated to Council that just before the meeting, staff received
a joint letter from the Public Works Directors of Fountain Valley and Huntington Beach,
questioning the negative declaration and the initial study that formed the basis for the
negative declaration. He stated that the deadline for comments was June 1, 2000 and
their comments were not received until 4:00 P.M. June 13, 2000. He informed that in the
short time staff had to review the letter, it appeared that the comments were primarily
directed at existing litigation that the two cities had with the Orange County Water
District and their concerns were primarily the subject of that litigation. Staff
recommended Council proceed with this item.
Council Member Feldhaus said he would like to have colored, adistic renderings on the
well house and the landscaping plan because it would be sitting between the Sun
Theatre and Gotcha Glacier. He said it looked like a sparsely landscaped building and
he asked what color it would be and how much landscaping was proposed. City
Manager Jim Ruth agreed to provide colored, artistic renderings for Council.
Mayor Daly asked if this was to replace an existing well on the property and if staff was
comfortable with the aesthetics of the design for the new well house.
Public Utilities Assistant General Manager, Water, Bob Carr stated that they had worked
with the architects for Gotcha Glacier and the current design that showed the proposed
color of the pumping station to be something between the Sun Theatre and Gotcha
Glacier. He said the City was prohibited from doing any extensive landscaping because
of the tight area. Since parking spaces were at a premium, they were asked by the
Sportstown area complex and Stadium area to minimize the impact on parking and that
was what they had tried to do. They were ready to cooperate and coordinate with both
the Sun Theatre and Gotcha Glacier facility in terms of architectural look and color. The
proposed contract would award the engineering services for design of the well and it
would be at least a year before there was construction of the building itself and staff
would have time to adjust whatever is necessary, he finalized, adding that architectural
changes to the building were a relatively minor portion of the cost in relation to the total
cost of the well.
Council Member Feldhaus expressed his desire to see some kind of a blend and he said
he was more concerned about the landscaping in front of the building. Mr. Carr
responded that the location was relatively unseen by the public and Katella Avenue
dipped down to go underneath the rail road overcrossing. He offered to share with
Council more information and as it developed, it could be adjusted to coordinate and
cooperate with architects for Gotcha Glacier. Mr. Carr addressed another question
asked by Council Member Feldhaus about being a new or replacement well and he
answered it was both. It was a newer well, he explained and there was an existing well
that wasin the middle of parking lot of the Stadium on the south side. Mr. Carr noted it
City Council Minutes 6 June l 3, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM
COUNCIL MINUTES
JUNE 13, 2000
PAGE 7
was a more shallow well with less capacity and this proposed well will be deeper, higher
capacity and the well in the parking lot would be abandoned so that could be converted
to parking area which was all part of the design of the facility.
A3.
Amend the FY 1999/2000 Public Works Department Capital Improvement budget to
incorporate $250,000 from sewer maintenance reserves to cover construction and
contingency costs for the Wilken Way Street, sewer and water improvement project, and
award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Hillcrest Contracting, Inc., in the
amount of $622,912 for Wilken Way street, sewer and water improvements from Oedley
Drive to Harbor Boulevard and its vicinity and approve and authorize the Finance
Director to sign the Escrow Agreement pertaining to contract retentions. (Continued from
the meeting of June 6, 2000, Item A4.)
Mayor Daly confirmed with Lisa Stipkovich, Community Development Director, that the
neighborhood on Wilken Way was in suppod of the project, noting there had been talk of speed
bumps or street closure.
John Spaulding explained that they did an extensive survey of the community and sent out 700
opinion ballots to residents, about 30% responded, 158 ballots were returned. The
overwhelming majority, 1050, favored the installation of speed humps in the area and blocking
off the street or diverting the street had much lower ballot numbers.
Mayor Daly asked if this project included the speed humps and Mr. Spaulding responded that it
did include speed humps and constructing missing sidewalks segments into part of the
neighborhood and also increasing the size of the existing sewer in the area.
A4.
ORDINANCE NO. 5731 (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM amending Chapter 14.57 of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to the
directing of traffic. (introduced at the meeting of June 6, 2000, Item AS.)
A5.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000R-92 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM approving the submittal to the Orange County Transportation Authority of
an application for funding of twenty-eight improvement projects under the Combined
Transportation Funding Program.
Mayor Daly asked if the Growth Management Area list, Brookhurst Street Widening, La Palma
Avenue to the 91 Freeway was listed under Area I and Area 2. John Lower, Traffic and
Transportation Manager, responded that this was a border project and both contributed funding.
Mayor Daly said that at the last Growth Management Area meeting he attended there was a last
minute switch in funding, a request by the City from the segment on Brookhurst Street between
Katella and Ball to La Palma to 91 Freeway. There was a disagreement about funding shares
and how it would be resolved, he explained.
Russell MaGuire, Deputy City Engineer, said based on the GMA action, the number four item
under GMA was no longer there. He explained there was funding in 2002/2003 for preliminary
design and concept work that was previously approved for GMA and was indicated in the City
Manager's letter to the County. Staff was continuing to work with the County to address joint
and equal funding participation in that project with the intent in the next call for OCTA projects,
which occurred every two years, staff would have that worked out and be able to return for
another project at that time. Mayor Daly asked if the Katella to Ball project was no longer on the
list and Mr. MaGuire said that this was the one that the Growth Management Area public
City Council Minutes 7 June 13, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM
COUNCIL MINUTES
JUNE 13, 2000
PAGE 8
officials deleted and moved the money into the other part of Brookhurst. Mayor Daly asked if
there was an opportunity to keep that project on schedule, even though it had fallen off this list,
per staff recommendation. In the original schedule, it was supposed to be designed two or
three years from now and Mr. MaGuire responded that the funds were already previously
approved and this was for 2004/2005 and 2006. There was money in 2002 and 2003 already
previously approved for the preliminary design that remained and the next call for projects will fit
into that schedule, he explained.
Mayor Daly asked the following questions: Was the design of Katella to Ball funded for
year 2002/2003, when the design of La Palma to 91 Freeway would take place and if
this was a request for construction funds or design first. Mr. MaGuire responded that
the design of Katella to Ball was funded for year 2002/2003, and the design of La Palma
to 91 Freeway would approximately at the same time. For the northerly section there is
a combination design, right-of-way, and construction funds and other grant applications
in order to completely fund all facets of the project. The Mayor clarified that this request
of OCTA was for design, construction and right-of-way. Mr. MaGuire explained that in
combination there were other projects that were submitted. The MPAH project for
Brookhurst/La Palma to 91 Freeway is a combination application and he needed to take
all the applications together. Mayor Daly had just wanted to clarify some of the aspects
and to make sure that we were continuing to work with the County and find a way to
jointly fund that stretch of Brookhurst which really needs help (Brookhurst/Orange and
BrookhurstJCerritos).
City Engineer Gary Johnson, stated that they had considerable detail on all the projects
and offered the City Council a memorandum breaking down the years and the amount
that they were applying for and what it would consist of, so that Council could see the
entire program.
A6.
Approve an Agreement with the Walt Disney World Company concerning reversible lane
operations on public right-of-way.
A7.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000R- 93 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM accepting certain deeds conveying certain real properties or interests
therein to the City. (City Deeds 10280, 10284, 10288, 10289, and 10292.)
A8.
Accept the bid and authorize the execution of an Agreement with Phoenix Group
Information Systems, in an amount not to exceed $109,000 for a period of one year with
four one-year renewal options, and authorize the Purchasing Agent to exercise those
options for parking citation processing, in accordance with Bid ~6022.
A9.
Accept the low bid and authorize the execution of an Agreement with Mariposa
Hodicultural Enterprises, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $172, 973 for a two-year
period beginning August 1, 2000 with three one-year optional renewals, and authorize
the Purchasing Agent to exercise the renewals for landscape maintenance at all
Anaheim Electric and Water Utility Properties, in accordance with Bid #6038.
A10.
Approve and authorize the Public Utilities General Manager to execute the First
Amendment to the Seconded Amended San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station
Operating Agreement among Southern California Edison Company, the City of Anaheim,
the City of Riverside and San Diego Gas & Electric Company.
City Council Minutes 8 June 13, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM
COUNCIL MINUTES
JUNE 13, 2000
PAGE 9
A11. Approve an Agreement between the City of Anaheim and the Canyon Hills Community
Council for the 12t" Annual July Foudh Festival at Peralta Canyon Park on July 4, 2000.
A12.
Increase the revenue and expenditure appropriations in accounts 550-213-4773-5797
and 550-213-4778-7825 and approve an Agreement with Melzer Deckert and Ruder,
Architects, inc., in an amount not to exceed $447,000 for consultant services to prepare
construction drawings and provide construction observation for the Anaheim Hills Golf
Course Clubhouse project.
Council Member Tait stated that essentially the cost would be more than the $450,000.
This item is basically to go forward with the $6.2 million to build a brand new clubhouse,
which is a restaurant, bar and banquet facility at the Ariahelm Hills course. Irs not that
he wouldn't like a new clubhouse, but we already have one. Although not perfect, it
works and this job is one of setting priorities. He would prefer to spend $6.2 million on a
new park or land for a new park rather than a golf club house of which 70 percent is
used by non Anaheim residents and he would like to see a down payment on the Maag
Ranch property for a sports complex. Refurbish the old clubhouse rather than spend the
$6.2 million for the demolition and rebuild of a brand new one. He urged the other
Council Members to vote no on this item. Council Member Tait made a motion to vote
no on item A12 and direct staff to come back with a refurbishment plan rather that a
raise and rebuild $6.2 million plan and Mayor Daly seconded the motion.
Mayor Daly requested comments from staff on renovation alternatives and asked if there
was a ball part figure on renovation as opposed to replacement.
Community Services Director Chris Jarvi, stated that in the analysis on this project, they
looked at a variety of alternatives including renovation. The renovation and the addition
of a banquet facility was in the neighborhood of $3.6 million. We are still dealing with a
building that does not have a layout that takes advantage of the views. We went through
an extensive citizen participation process and the residents that they worked with, not
just golfers, wanted additional banquet and meeting space felt that the solution being
proposed by staff, was the most appropriate for their needs.
Council Member Tait stated that he doesn't think there is a need for a banquet facility
and what would the cost be if we just refurbish the clubhouse and existing banquet
facility.
Parks Superintendent Jack Kudron stated that the analysis to fix the infrastructure in the
building, new air conditioning, plumbing, electrical, and roof without changing any of the
configuration was estimated at $2 million about a year and a half ago and maybe a bit
more ROW.
Council Member Tait said that is $4.2 million less and that could be $4.2 million towards
a park in Anaheim which would be used a lot more by Anaheim residents than a $6.2
million bar and restaurant and to be run by a private operator.
Council Member Kring asked if the $6.2 will come from the golf revenue, golfing fees and
Chris Jarvi responded that it not only comes from the golfing fees but it also comes from
those that are non residents and it will definitely will improve the service to the golfers
out there. Right now we can't have a decent tournament because we don't have
banquet facilities and all tournaments want a banquet at the end of their game. The
City Council Minutes 9 June 13, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM
COUNCIL MINUTES
JUNE 13, 2000
PAGE 10
community really wants a focal point for Anaheim Hills in terms of a nice looking facility
that they can be proud of in terms of being able to put on civic events.
Council Member Kring mentioned that the golf course has been around for 20 some
years and it's literally disintegrating before our eyes. If we just wanted to put a new roof,
and air conditioning, just the renovation, could we take that money from the golf fees and
put it into another project or does golf fees have to stay with golf projects and City
Manager Jim Ruth stated that it is at the discretion of the City Council. Council Member
Kring stated that people get very disgusted because the facility is in disrepair and needs
to be upgraded substantially and we have lost may banquets because they will not stay
there after a tournament because of the lack of facilities.
Council Member Feldhaus said that this project has been in the making for a least a
couple of years and they were wondering where they were going to get the money, and
Council Member Tait said that this would be for the approval of the design of the project
and it is an appropriate time to say no instead of after they had already designed it.
Council Member Feldhaus said that they are going to use the golfer fees which was
allocated for the refurbishment and/or the new clubhouse, and doesn't think they should
turn back now.
Council Member Tait wants to know that by spending the $6.2 million what kind of
increased revenue would we see and he said that Jack Kudron had responded about
$100,000 more in banquet fees. That is not a decent investment on the $6.2 million and
he believes that there are greater priorities in recreation particularly those that focus on
kids, play fields, soccer fields, little league fields and skate parks and called on Council
Member Feldhaus to comment and he agreed that park projects are in the works too
with some budgeting money
Mayor Daly asked the golf staff what the cost of the Dad Miller course was when it was
completely rebuilt a few years ago and Jack Kudron, Parks Superintendent responded
that the Dad Miller clubhouse is almost ten years old and was built for $2.4 million and is
approximately two thirds of the size of the proposed Anaheim Hills Golf course
clubhouse.
Council Member Kring asked Community Services Director Chris Jarvi if the community
discussion was focused on the clubhouse or was there thought of anything else that
could be done with the increasing golf fees in the community, and was there any
discussion about parks? Chris Jarvi responded that there was no discussion about
parks at that time and there was no discussion about funding. It was basically about
what were the community needs for meeting space out in the area both with the golfing
public and the citizens at large. They had a very extensive input from a wide variety of
different people out there. The feeling was very strong that they needed a community
center at which they could have many of their community events.
Council Member Tait said that since then, we have a new police station and community
center that was purchased which meets many of those community needs and stands
firm on his position. He stated that staff tells us that it will only pay $100,000 a year.
Council Member Feldhaus said he had always contended that the clubhouse would pay
for itself once irs built with wedding parties and banquets.
City Council Minutes 10 June 13, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM
COUNCIL MINUTES
JUNE 13, 2000
PAGE 11
Jack Kudron, Park Superintendent, explained that our conservative estimate is that we
could do a million dollars more a year in gross food and beverage income. We would
anticipate from a food and beverage operator, concessionaire, about a ten percent
return on that gross, and that was where the $100,000 figure came from and this is a
conservative figure.
Council Member Kring wanted to know how long ago it was that the Community Services
Director spoke to the community to get their input about what they felt should happen to
the property and if the sense of the community was still the same or had it changed.
Chris Jarvi responded that it was about four years ago and he believed that the sense of
the community was still the same and that there was a need for community space out
there. The type that was provided by the existing community center did satisfy part of
the need but the type of need he was referring to specifically in the design was the need
for banquet space for putting on high school banquets and coming out parties, high class
community parties and you cant do that in the existing community center and not in the
way they wanted it and the community is supportive of paying full price for the rental of
the facility.
Jack Kudron, Parks Superintendent added that there was more to this project than just
being a restaurant, bar and banquet. They have a level of service that they provide with
the existing clubhouse that has restrooms, pro shop and a new cart barn that is very
needed since we don't have enough cart barn space to run full blown shot gun
tournaments. We have gotten a lot of complaints about the lack of merchandise in our
pro shop because we don't have the storage capabilities and the cart barn is full of
termites. We need a larger cart barn so we can do more golf business.
Council Member McCracken has lived in the area for 25 years and the last meeting was
four years ago, but we have had repeated meetings over the last 25 years. There was a
group that came to the City and said that you need to do something about this golf
course clubhouse. Now there are termites, and the electrical and plumbing are failing in
this facility. The golf course should be operated like a business and compete with golf
courses in other communities. The only way to do this is to provide the kind of amenities
that would be there for that golf course to compete and the community has been
supportive of it. Council Member McCracken has spoken to a number of organizations
that feel that they cannot do fundraising, so they go over to the Yorba Linda golf course
because we don't have a facility that has functioned well for 25 years. She believes that
now we have a plan, and we found a financing plan so we can implement this and
provide opportunities for the community. This is not something new and just like Council
member Feldhaus said, it has taken all these years to find, and be able to determine
how we are going to fund this without taking money out of the general fund and not
taking money that would ordinarily be designated for other things. The Golf
Commission and City Staff have come up with a way to move forward with this facility
and Council Member McCracken thinks it's time to move forward.
Council Member Tait agreed that we should operate this as a business, but he doesn't
believe that there is any business that would invest $6.2 million for a $100,000 annual
return.
Mayor Daly suggested that staff explained what type of renovation or rebuilding could be
achieved for less money. If we could do this for $4 or $5 million that would bring us a
savings. The Mayor spoke once again about the cost of the new Dad Miller golf course
City Council Minutes l I June 13, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM
COUNCIL MINUTES
JUNE 13, 2000
PAGE 12
ten years ago at $2.4 million, and factor in the cost of inflation and factor in that it is a
smaller clubhouse, so say maybe $4 million. He is still troubled that there is a disparity
there. What would the cost benefits of renovation be and what would a first class
renovation versus a complete rebuilding be. If we can save $1 to $2 million on this
project, he thinks that it would be worthwhile, and we should move forward on the golf
course clubhouse. We do need to make some improvements on the air conditioning and
plumbing and other basics that are not up to standard. Until we have all the cost benefit
numbers in front of us, we should not spend $6.2 million and have an architect because
it would not be prudent. He asked staff if the budget for this project were $4 million
instead of $6 million, could they do a serviceable new golf course clubhouse facility.
Jack Kudron, Parks Superintendent, stated that they had looked into those types of
variations and that the Dad Miller clubhouse has one banquet room that services about
100 people. The Anaheim Hills project is proposed to have two banquet rooms at 130
people and the rooms could be combined for a banquet of 250 people. That's where the
basic difference in cost was. The $6.2 million is the entire project where the $2.4 that
Mr. Kudron quoted on the Dad Miller project was just the construction cost. They are
including the recommendation for architectural fees in the $6.2 million, plus project
management and fees and studies, so the entire project is $6.2 million. They are
guessing that the actual construction cost will come in at $4.5 million.
Mayor Daly asked if the actual construction cost is $4.5 million then is the rest for
architectural fees and Jack Kudron responded that the recommendation will be to have
project management, geotechnical studies, fees and permits included in the cost. Mayor
Daly asked why they would hire outside people to do project management instead of it
being a traditional City Public Works project. Jack Kudron explained about their
experience with the Downtown Community Center. He said that we did the project
management on the Center in~house with Dick Mayer, Park Planner, and it took up 80
percent of his time. Since he has other responsibilities, it had a tremendous impact on
the entire capital project program. It was recommend by the Parks Superintendent to
use outside project management or hire another staff person so that there are available
resources to actively manage the project. Mayor Daly inquired about the use of Public
Works people to help manage the project and Jack Kudron stated that they do the
contract administration and they do the building inspection. There is a coordination
effort required between the architect and the contractor and the various regulatory
agencies.
Mayor Daly suggested a one week continuance on this item, due to the adoption of the
budget the need to understand the status of all the other projects that we've done and
the cost. He questioned as to whether or not this rebuild will be on the exact same site
as the current clubhouse because at one point in the past, there was a discretion of
building it to the west and facing the clubhouse to the west side of the golf course. He
asked if that is that no longer the recommendation. Jack Kudron responded that the
new clubhouse would go approximately where the existing clubhouse and cart barn is
currently located. The cad barn location is at the westernmost section of that area and
would be used for clubhouse purposes and the cart barn would actually be in the
parking lot on the western edge. Some of the best views on the whole golf course are
from the cart barn and we tried to take advantage of those views in the conceptual plan,
and we would like to maximize the views in the clubhouse and move the whole complex
west. There is substantially more footage in the new building than in the existing
building which is 12,000 square feet.
City Council Minutes 12 June 13, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM
COUNCIL MINUTES
JUNE 13, 2000
PAGE 13
A13.
A14.
A15.
A16.
Council Member Kring asked the Parks Superintendent what the projected time period
would be for the completion of the project if Council approved it and Jack Kudron
responded that if Council approved the architectural tonight or next week, it would take
about 27 months to open the doors. Council Member Kring asked if it was still $6.2
million with the way things have gone up. Jack Kudron said we are using that estimate
and we would value engineer to that number or less.
Council Member Tait would support the Mayor's suggestion for a one-week continuance.
Mayor Daly requested that staff bring the conceptual design that exists and floor plan.
Council Member Feldhaus asked for some comparables on some recently built
clubhouses that have taken place up in Brea.
Mayor Daly made a motion to continue this item for one week seconded by Council
Member Tait. All ayes to continue this item to June 20, 2000.
Approve a Second Amendment to Agreement with the Orange County Visitor &
Convention Bureau, (1) delaying the Bureau's financial contribution to assist with the
costs of the Convention Center expansion, (2) granting a $1 million loan to the Bureau to
facilitate the bureau's promotion of the Convention Center and the Anaheim Resort
Area, and (3) modifying the formula used to calculate the portion of TOT collections
available to reimburse the Bureau for its expenses incurred in fulfilling its obligations
under the agreement. (Continued from the meeting of June 6, 2000, Item A15.)
ORDINANCE NO. 5732 (ADOPTION) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM adding Section 1.01.385 to Chapter 1.01 of Title I of the Anaheim Municipal
Code relating to reimbursement for vandalism. (Introduced at the meeting of June 6,
2000, Item A18.)
Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute Amendment No. I to the Amended
and Restated Lease by and between the City and Glacier of Anaheim, LLC., to revise
the scope of development, schedule of performance, and rent schedules in connection
with the Glacier project.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000R-94 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM amending Resolution No. 97R-101 which established rates of
compensation for unrepresented part-time job classifications.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000R- 95 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM amending Resolution No. 98R-13 which established rates of
compensation for classifications designated as confidential. (Claims Assistant.)
RESOLUTION NO. 2000R-96 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM establishing rates of compensation for classifications assigned to the
General Unit represented by the Anaheim Municipal Employees Association.
A17. Approve a contract for a parking lease agreement with Anaheim Surgical Center, LLC for
temporary library parking at 1314 and 1324 South Euclid.
City Council Minutes 13 June 13, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM
COUNCIL MINUTES
JUNE 13, 2000
PAGE 14
A18.
Approve FY 1999/00 net write-off of uncorrectable accounts totaling $403,609 (utility
accounts). The recommended write-off amount represents 0.136% of the current year's
revenue of $296,393,208.
A19. Approve minutes of the Anaheim City Council meeting held May 23, 2000.
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR. MOTION CARRIED.
Roll Call vote on Resolution Nos. 2000R-92 through 2000R-96, both inclusive, for
adoption:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Feldhaus, Kring, Tait, McCracken, Daly
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 2000R-92 through 2000R-96, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
Roll Call vote on Ordinance Nos. 5731 through 5732 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 Nos. 5731 and 5732 duly passed and adopted.
A20. Continued 5:00 p.m. public hearing on the 2000/01 Budget.
Mayor Daly asked City Manager Jim Ruth if there were any comments to make at this time and
the City Manager Ruth responded that each of the departments had made their presentations to
the City Council and we are proud of the accomplishments of the year. This is a budget that is
very representative of the Council's policy direction to staff and the community and it is a
conservative budget and will serve the citizens of Anaheim well in 2000/2001. There was some
question about how we had handled the Firefighters' budget this year. There were twelve
positions in the budget for the Firefighters this year for the Resort Area, and the
recommendation was to take those out of the budget. The City Manager will revisit the issue as
there will be more study and analysis on this in a few months. We would come back to the City
Council prior to the first of the year with the recommendation relative to the potential
implementation of those Firefighters or other alternatives that Council may want to consider at
that time. That was the only budget adjustment. In the Workshop today, the Council did
indicate that they would like to see some additional funding for Code Enforcement,
approximately $35,000. The City Manager suggested that if Council would like to do that, that
instead of reducing the budget by $595,000 for the twelve firefighters, reduce it by $560,000 and
leave $35,000 in there for Code Enforcement.
Mayor Daly had a question regarding the recommendation to reduce the Fire budget by
$595,000. Would the overall budget be reduced by $595,000 and if we have the revenue
available, where does that money go. Finance Director Bill Sweeney explained that the money
City Council Minutes 14 June 13, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM
COUNCIL MINUTES
JUNE 13, 2000
PAGE 15
will go right to fund balance, they will have an unappropriated surplus in that amount of money.
Mayor Daly asked that when they talk about the budget, would they be talking about the fund
balance and Mr. Sweeney stated this would have the practical affect of increasing the fund
balance by that amount and decreasing the expenditure budget.
Council Member McCracken asked that if we decided later in the year that the twelve timfighters
were needed, could we then amend the budget and take that out of the designated reserve and
Mr. Sweeney agreed that they could do that. City Manager Jim Ruth stated that they amend the
budget throughout the year and there would be no problem if that was the Council's policy
direction.
Mayor Daly asked that where in the fund balance would Mr. Sweeney suggest that the money
be and Mr. Sweeney responded that it would go to the undesignated, unrestricted fund balance
in the general fund unless Council directs otherwise.
Mayor Daly opened the continued public hearing and asked to hear comments from the public
on the budget (see also minutes of the previous depadmental workshops/public hearing on the
Budget held June 6, 2000, special meeting and regular meeting). There were no public
comments and therefore the public hearing on the Budget was closed.
Receive public comments on the budget appropriation limits (Items A - D) and changes in fees
scheduled (Items E - M).
MOTION: by Council Member McCracken, seconded by Council Member Kring, that the City
Council did receive and file the recommendation of the Budget Advisory Commission. MOTION
CARRIED.
Mayor Daly said that this afternoon, there were a variety of reports requested to come back to
Council on budget matters. Mayor Daly suggested that Council not vote on the Budget at this
time; however, the Mayor suggested that Council work through the resolutions and he
requested feedback from the other Council Members pertaining to items A - M. The Mayor
asked the City Attorney if they can take all of the resolutions in one motion and City Attorney
Jack White said it would require the City Clerk to read all of the titles at some point and that
Council could do them all in one offering.
Mayor Daly offered all Resolutions A - M and the City Clerk then read all of the resolution titles.
Council Member Tait did not want to vote on the following items: G, I, K, L and M.
Consequently he made a motion for a one week continuance seconded by Council Member
Kring. Motion carried.
B=
RESOLUTION NO. 2000R-97 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM adopting the annual appropriations limit of $508,707,670 for the
fiscal year 2000/01.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000R-98 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM adopting the Community Facilities District No. 1989-1 (Sycamore
Canyon) annual appropriations limit of $186,280,204 for the fiscal year 2000/01.
City Council Minutes 15 June 13, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM
COUNCIL MINUTES
JUNE 13, 2000
PAGE 16
RESOLUTION NO. 2000R-99 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM adopting the Community Facilities District No. 1989-2 (The
Highlands) annual appropriations limit of $186,280,204 for the fiscal year 2000/01.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000R-100 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM adopting the Community Facilities District No. 1989-3 (The Summit)
annual appropriations limit of $186,280,204 for the fiscal year 2000/01.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000R- 101 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM establishing fees to be charged for Community Services
Department programs and services commencing on September 1, 2000.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000R- 102 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM adjusting the amount of the fee for the Public Libraries Facility Plan
for the East Santa Ana Canyon area.
RESOLUTION NO. - ..... RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM establishing the amount of the park in-lieu fee and rescinding Resolution
No. 99R-116. CONTINUED TO JUNE 20, 2000.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000R-103 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM approving and adopting the recommendation of the Library Board of
the Anaheim Public Library to establish, increase and/or decrease certain fines and fees.
RESOLUTION NO. - ..... RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM establishing fees to be charged by the Public Works Department of the
City of Anaheim. CONTINUED TO JUNE 20, 2000.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000R-104 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM establishing a schedule of rates to be charged for rental of space
and for certain labor, equipment and services at the Anaheim Convention Center
commencing January 1, 2001.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000R- 105 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM establishing rates to be charged for licensing and for certain labor,
equipment and services at City parking lot events at Edison International Field of
Anaheim commencing January 1, 2001.
RESOLUTION NO. - ..... RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM adopting new fee schedules for building and construction. CONTINUED
TO JUNE 20, 2000.
RESOLUTION NO. - ..... RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM adopting new fee schedules for Planning, Zoning and land use petitions,
permits, approvals, appeals, and inspections. CONTINUED TO JUNE 20, 2000
RESOLUTION NO. - ..... RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM revising fees for services rendered by the Fire Department and
establishing the effective date of fees. CONTINUED TO JUNE 20, 2000.
City Council Minutes 16 June 13, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM
COUNCIL MINUTES
JUNE 13, 2000
PAGE 17
RESOLUTION NO. - ..... RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM adopting a new schedule of sanitation charges. CONTINUED TO JUNE
20, 2000.
MOTION:
· To adopt the 2000/01 Budget. CONTINUED TO JUNE 20, 2000
Roll Call vote on Resolution Nos. 2000R-97 through 2000R-105, both inclusive, for
adoption:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Feldhaus, Kring, Tait, McCracken, Daly
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 2000R-97 through 2000R-105, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
Items G, I, K, L and M continued to June 20, 2000.
A21. CHARTER SECTION 503.5 - TERM LIMITS:
Discussion requested by Council Member Kring regarding the recommendation of the Charter
Review Committee for a ballot measure to repeal the existing term limits for Mayor and City
Council set forth in Charter Section 503.5 or, in the alternative, to amend said section to provide
separate eight-year term limits for the Office of the Mayor and the Office of City Council
Member. This item was discussed and continued from the meeting of April 18, 2000, Item A19.
Mayor Daly noted there were a series of Charter Amendments to be considered, but the term
limit amendment was the only amendment for discussion this agenda.
Council Member Kring said she wished to discuss the proposal, noting that there were a number
of residents who said they wished to keep the term limits as 82% of the voters approved in 1992
and it was her desire to keep the current language. She informed that the current provision
allowed for eight consecutive years whether it was Mayor or Council Member, the office holder
could sit out for two years and then return for another eight years. The Charter Review
Committee, Council Member Kring informed, wished to remove term limits noting that a number
of citizens came out during the public hearings and stated they were opposed to the removal of
the term limit provision. She said the Charter Review Committee then came back with a
recommendation to increase the eight years to 16 years. She said she felt that was still over
turning term limits
Mayor Daly discussed the length of ballot issues proposed by the State for the November
election and moved to continue discussion of the City's term limits and Council compensation to
a July 11, 2000 workshop.
Council Member Kring said she wished to discuss the term limit provision at this meeting and
Council Member Feldhaus said he had not heard from anyone regarding the Charter Review
Committee's proposal to change the term limit provision. He said he was not against term
limits, but was against the way the current Charter provision is configured, adding that some
amendment had to clarify the provision.
City Council Minutes
17 June 13, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM
COUNCIL MINUTES
JUNE 13, 2000
PAGE 18
Council Member Kring noted 82% of the voters passed the term limit provision in 1992. She
explained a possible solution with elections every two years; the Mayor and Council could be re-
elected every four years and not have staggered terms every two. She also said the
amendment could be to change term limits but not have it apply to the current office holders.
Council Member Tait noted the current Council was elected with current rules in place and were
well aware of what they were. He said to change it now would be changing the rules in the
middle of the game.
Mayor Daly reminded everyone that the Blue Ribbon Committee, the Charter Review
Committee, was appointed by Council and their recommendations should be considered. He
said there were two proposals that came forward regarding term limits, one to toss them out and
one to redefine them. He felt the issue of fairness and a level playing field should be applied.
City Attorney White informed that on June 16 of 1999, the Charter Review Committee voted
their first recommendation to repeal term limits outright. Then after the three public hearings in
January, they reaffirmed their position that they recommended repealing term limits outright, but
went on to say that in the event that that was not agreeable with Council to place that measure
on the ballot, they offered an alternative which was to go to the eight year separate term limit for
Mayor and Council Members.
Mayor Daly asked City Attorney White how long he would need to prepare ballot language and
he responded he could have it ready anytime the Council was ready for it.
Council Member Tait moved to retain existing term limits as they are and not put it to the voters,
seconded by Council Member Kring.
Mayor Daly moved to continue the discussion to a one hour workshop on July 11, 2000 for all
proposed amendments and ask the City Attorney to make sure all the staff reports are available,
Seconded by Council Member McCracken. Motion carried with a three ayes, Council Member
McCracken, Council Member Feldhaus and Mayor Daly, two noes, Council Member Kring,
Council Member Tait.
Mayor Daly moved to cancel the workshop for Charter Amendments originally scheduled for
June 20th and seconded by Council Member Kring. Motion carried unanimously.
Items 81 through 814 From Planning Commission Meeting of May 22, 2000: (No action
necessary unless Council desires to set a particular item for public hearing) APPEAL
PERIOD ENDS JUNE 13, 2000:
81. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1043, CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT-CLASS 21:
INITIATED BY: City of Anaheim, (Planning Department), 200 South Anaheim Boulevard,
Anaheim, CA 92805
OWNER: Ben Karmelich, 30 Harbor Sight Drive, Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274
LOCATION: 2748 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is 1.7 acres located on the south side of
Lincoln Avenue, 670 feet east of the centerline of Dale Avenue (Lincoln Inn).
City-initiated request to determine compliance with conditions of approval and to consider
modification to conditions of approval including the length of stay limitation and to consider
reinstatement of this permit (originally modified and approved on November 22, 1999, to expire
on July 25, 2000) (to permit a 129-unit, 3-story motel with waiver of maximum structural height).
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
City Council Minutes 18 June 13, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM
COUNCIL MINUTES
JUNE 13, 2000
PAGE 19
Modified conditions of approval and approved reinstatement of CUP NO. 1043 to expire January
15, 2001 (PC2000-58) (5 yes votes, Commissioners Arnold and Bristol voted no).
B2. VARIANCE NO. 1229, CATEGORICALLY EXMEPT-CLASS 21:
INITIATED BY: City of Anaheim (Planning Depadment), 200 South Anaheim Boulevard,
Anaheim, CA 92805
OWNER: Gregory Parkin, 2500 West Orangethorpe Avenue, Suite V, Fulledon, CA 92833
LOCATION: 823 South Beach Boulevard. Property is 1.3 acres located on the west side of
Beach Boulevard, 975 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road (Covered Wagon Motel).
City-initiated request to determine compliance with conditions of approval and to consider
modification to conditions of approval including the length of stay limitation and a request for
reinstatement of this permit (originally approved on November 22, 1999, to expire on February
1, 2001) (to construct and operate a 70-unit motel and coffee shop).
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Modified conditions of approval and approved reinstatement of Variance No. 1229 for one year
to expire May 22, 2001 (PC2000-59)
(7 yes votes).
Variance No.1229 was appealed by the applicant and set for public hearing July 25, 2000.
B3. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2000-00376
CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2000-00002
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2000-00023
AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW:
REQUESTED BY: City of Anaheim (Redevelopment Agency), 201 South Anaheim Boulevard,
Suite 1003, Ariahelm, CA 92805
LOCATION: Subject area consists of approximately 430 acres located along, and surrounding,
Anaheim Boulevard between Broadway to the north and the Santa Ana (I-5) Freeway to the
south.
General Plan Amendment No. 2000-00376 - A proposed amendment to the Land Use
Element of the General Plan to: a) redesignate properties from the General Industrial, General
Commercial, Medium Density Residential and Low Density Residential designations to the Low-
Medium Density Residential designation; b) redesignate properties from the General Industrial,
Business Office/Mixed Use/Industrial, Commercial Professional, Medium Density Residential
and Low-Medium Density Residential designations to the General Commercial designation; c)
redesignate properties from the General Commercial, Medium Density Residential, and Low
Density Residential designations to the Commercial Professional designation; and, d)
redesignate properties from the General Commercial and Medium Density Residential
designations to the Special Park Site designation.
Code Amendment No. 2000-00002 - To amend Title 18 by establishing the South Anaheim
Boulevard Commercial Corridor (SABC) Overlay Zone which would serve to: a) permit new land
uses in the Overlay Zone area in addition to those allowed under existing zoning; b) establish a
design review process for future development projects within the Overlay Zone area; c) adopt,
by reference, a Master Plan for public and private landscaped areas; d) restrict establishment of
additional locations for off-premises sales of alcoholic beverages, and; e) adopt a sign
amortization program which would require the removal of freestanding signs not in conformance
with the sign regulations contained within the Anaheim Municipal Code after a 15-year
amortization period.
Reclassification No. 2000-00023 - To reclassify subject area by combining the South Anaheim
Boulevard Commercial Corridor (SABC) Overlay Zone with each parcel's existing underlying
City Council Minutes 19 June 13, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM
COUNCIL MINUTES
JUNE 13, 2000
PAGE 20
zoning designation while removing certain properties located north of Katella Avenue, east of
the Santa Ana (I-5) Freeway, south of the Southern California Edison Easement and west of the
Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way from the Sports Entertainment (SE) Overlay Zone.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Recommended adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 2000-00376, Exhibit A, to City
Council (PC2000-60) (5 yes votes, Commissioners Bosh, rick and Boydstun abstained).
Recommended adoption of Code Amendment No. 2000-00002 to City Council.
Reclassification No. 2000-00023 Granted (PC2000-61).
Approved Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Set for public hearing on June 20, 2000, due to GPA No. 2000-00376.
General Plan Amendment No. 2000-00376 was set for Public Hearing June 20, 2000 and re-set
for August 8, 2000 which will be readvertised.
B4. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04202
CEQA CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT-CLASS 1:
OWNER: Hanshaw Enterprises, Attn: F.J. Hanshaw, 10921 Westminster Avenue, Garden
Grove, CA 92643
AGENT: Lovay Yacoub, 1280 North Euclid Street, Anaheim, CA 92801
LOCATION: 1280 North Euclid Street. Property is 2.89 acres located nodh and east of the
northeast corner of Euclid Street and Romneya Drive.
To expand an existing tire sales and installation facility to include automotive repair.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 2000-04202 GRANTED (PC2000-62) (5 yes votes, Commissioners Arnold and Koos
voted no).
B5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04204
(MASTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4023)
AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: Handkook Property Management Company Inc., Attn: Kec Whan Ha, 3240 Wilshire
Boulevard, Suite 570, Los Angeles, CA 90010
AGENT: Santiago Cervantes, 837 East Orangethorpe Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801
LOCATION: 837 East Oran~3ethorpe Avenue - S. Cervantes Tire Service. Property is 0.80 acre
located at the northwest corner of Orangethorpe Avenue and Orangethorpe Park (a private
street) (S. Cervantes Tire Service).
To reinstate this permit which currently contains a time limitation (originally approved on August
2, 1999, to expire May 27, 2000) to retain a tire sales, repair and installation facility and to
amend conditions of approval pedaining to the types of automobile repair/service permitted in
conjunction with this business.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved reinstatement of MASTER CUP NO. 4023 for five years to expire May 22, 2005 (PC
2000-63) (7 yes votes).
Negative Declaration previously approved.
B6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04206
(MASTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2750)
AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: Hanford Hotels, LLC, 4 Corporate Plaza Drive, Suite 102, Newport Beach, CA 92660
AGENT: Compass Telecom, Attn: Mike Blackwell, 17870 Skypark Circle, Suite 102, Irvine, CA
92614
City Council Minutes 20 June 13, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM
COUNCIL MINUTES
JUNE 13, 2000
PAGE 21
LOCATION: 201 Nodh Via Cortez.
Property is 2.8 acres located on the west side of Via Cortez, 930 feet north of the centerline of
Santa Ana Canyon Road (formerly Hanford Hotel).
To modify previously-approved exhibits to construct a parapet roof extension and to permit a
roof-mounted telecommunication facility (antennas and equipment).
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
GRANTED MASTER CUP NO. 2750, approved modification of exhibits (PC2000-64) (7 yes
votes).
Approved Negative Declaration.
B7. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04208
AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: The AIber Family Trust, Attn: Shirlea Alber, 4178 Hayvenhurst Drive, Encino, CA
91436
AGENT: Psomas & Associates, Attn: Jennifer Kudak, 3187 Red Hill Avenue #250, Costa Mesa,
CA 92626
LOCATION: 1200 North MaClnolia Avenue. Property is 1.6 acres located at the northeast
corner of Magnolia Avenue and Woodland Drive.
To establish a non-industrial medical/health care training school with waiver of minimum number
of parking spaces.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 2000-04208 GRANTED (PC2000-65) (7 yes votes).
Approved waiver of code requirement.
Approved Negative Declaration.
B8. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04209
(MASTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4114)
OWNER: James Tsai, 7002 Moody Street #105, La Palma, Ca 90623
AGENT: Jose R. Villafior, 6127 Sunfield Avenue, Lakewood, CA 90712
LOCATION: 3150 West Lincoln Avenue, Suite 128. Property is 1.21 acres located south and
east of the southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Western Avenue (EZ Dancing Company).
To reinstate this permit which currently contains a time limitation (originally approved on June 7,
1999, to expire on May 10, 2000) to retain an existing dance studio and public dance hall within
a commercial retail center.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved reinstatement of MASTER CUP NO. 4114 for two years to expire May 22, 2002
(PC2000-G6) (7 yes votes).
Negative Declaration previously approved.
Bg. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04212
(MASTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3115)
CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT - CLASS 14:
OWNER: Zion Evangelical Lutheran Church, Attn: Pastor Tom Meyer, 222 North East Street,
Anaheim, CA 92805
AGENT: Juergen Milezewsky, 3040 Saturn Street, Suite 201, Brea, CA 92821
LOCATION: 222 North East Street. Property is 8.2 acres located at the southeast corner of
Cypress Street and East Street (Zion Evangelical Lutheran Church).
City Council Minutes 21 June 13, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM
COUNCIL MINUTES
JUNE 13, 2000
PAGE 22
To construct a 14,475 square foot classroom building and 576 square foot maintenance building
in conjunction with an existing chumh and accessory private school (preschool and elementary)
with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
MASTER CUP NO. 3115 GRANTED (PC2000-67) (6 yes votes, Commissioner Bristol
abstained).
B10. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2000-00020 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: O.C.T.A., Attn: Rick Grabnet, 550 South Main Street, Orange, CA 92863
AGENT: Chuck Hance, 828 West Vermont Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION: 867 South Cottonwood Circle. Property is 0.195 acres located on the west side of
Cottonwood Circle, 280 feet west of the centerline of Citron Street.
To reclassify subject property from the RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural) and the RS-7200
(Residential, Single-Family) Zones to CL (Commemial, Limited) Zone to construct a parking lot
for the abutting automotive dealership facility.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Reclassification No. 2000-00020 GRANTED (PC2000-70) (7 yes votes).
Appreved Negative Declaration.
Mayor Daly requested Reclassification No. 2000-00020 be set for Public Hearing, seconded by
Council Member McCracken.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ITEMS:
Bll. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4157 - REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL
OF FINAL PLANS AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
Vietnam Ministries, 1100 North Paradise Street, Anaheim, CA 92803, requests review and
approval of final building elevation plans (to permit a church and private recreational facility with
accessory living quarters with waivers). Property is located at 1100 North Paradise Street.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved final plans for CUP 4157 (6 yes votes, Commissioner Vanderbilt voted no).
Negative Declaration previously appreved.
B12. VARIANCE NO. 4383 - REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF FINAL
COVENANT AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION: Tim O'Neil, Evergreen Devco Inc., 2920 East
Camelback Road #100, Phoenix, AZ 85016, requests review and approval of final covenant to
hold properties as a single parcel. Property is located at 940-956 South Brookhurst Street -
Proposed Walgreens.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved final covenant for Variance No. 4383 (7 yes votes),
Negative Declaration previously approved.
B13. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04205
(MASTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3952)
AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION - REQUEST FOR RETROACTIVE EXTENSION OF TIME:
Thomas G. Kieviet, 2300 East Katella Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806, request for a retroactive
extension of time (until September 29, 2000) to comply with conditions of approval. Property is
located at 1440 South Anaheim Boulevard - Anaheim Indoor Marketplace.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
City Council Minutes 22 June 13, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM
COUNCIL MINUTES
JUNE 13, 2000
PAGE 23
Approved a retroactive extension of time for Master CUP NO. 3952 to expire September 29,
2000 (6 yes votes, Commissioner Bostwick abstained).
Negative Declaration previously approved.
B14. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04223
(MASTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4165)
AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION - REQUEST REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF FINAL PLANS:
Sprint PCS, Attn: Adan Madrid, 18200 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 100, Irvine, CA 92612-1029,
requests review and approval of final fencing and landscaping plans for a previously-approved
talecommunication antenna facility. Property is located at 1200-1400 West Audre Drive, 1650
South Ninth Street and 1651 South Walnut Street (Southern California Edison Easement).
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved final plans for Master CUP NO. 4165 (7 yes votes).
Negative Declaration previously approved.
END OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS FROM MAY 22, 2000.
Item B15 From the Zoning Administrator Meeting of June 1, 2000
Decision Date: June 8, 2000 (No action necessary unless Council desires to set this item for
public hearing) APPEAL PERIOD ENDS JUNE 19, 2000:
B15. SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES WAIVER NO. 2000-03
CEQA EXEMPTION SECTION NO. 15061(b)(31:
OWNER: McPeek Dodge of Anaheim, Frank Busalacchi Jr., V.P., 1200 South Anaheim
Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION: 1200 South Anaheim Boulevard. Property is 2.09 acres located at the southeast
corner of Ball Road and Ariahelm Boulevard, having frontages of 310 feet on the south side of
Ball Road and 293 feet on the east side of Anaheim Boulevard.
Waiver to allow special event permits for an automotive dealership in the ML zone.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR:
Approved Special Circumstances Waiver No. 2000-03.
Mayor Daly asked for clarification of the time period and Council Member Feldhaus informed
that it was from May 31, 2000 to July 4, 2000.
Greg Hastings added that it was just for that period of time.
Item B16 From the Planning Commission Meetinq of June 5, 2000:
(No action necessary unless Council desires to set this item for public hearing) APPEAL
PERIOD ENDS JUNE 15, 2000:
B'16. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 1~;86t (REVISION NO. 1~
SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 99-03 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: Paul S. Murata and Sachiko Murata, 194 South Lakeview Avenue, Ariahelm, CA
92807
AGENT: Muskoka Development, Attn: Brian Kerr, 34 Balboa Coves, Newport Beach, CA 92663
LOCATION: 194 South Lakeview Avenue. Property is 6.16 acres located on the north side of
Lakeview Avenue, 130 feet east of the centerline of Cerro Vista Drive.
Tentative Tract Map No. 15861 (Revision No. 1) - Request for amendment or deletion of
conditions of approval pertaining to building pad heights for a previously-approved 5-lot single-
family residential subdivision.
City Council Minutes 23 June 13, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM
COUNCIL MINUTES
JUNE 13, 2000
PAGE 24
Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 99-03 (Readvertised) - To permit the removal of 2
additional specimen trees in conjunction with a previously-approved specimen tree removal
permit (4 specimen trees total).
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved Tentative Tract Map No. 15861 (Revision No. 1)
(6 yes votes).
Approved Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 99-03.
Negative Declaration previously approved.
6:00 P.M. Public Hearings:
If you challenge CUP NO. 2000-04191 or CUP NO. 2000-04193 or the related environmental
determinations in coud, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else
raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to
the City of Anaheim at, or prior to, the public hearing.
C1. PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04191
CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT-CLASS 32:
OWNER: Sumanbhai N. Patel, 426 South Beach Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92804
AGENT: Chevalier, Allen, and Lichman LLP, Attn: Berne Had, 2603 Main Street #1000, Irvine,
CA 92614
LOCATION: 426 South Beach Boulevard. Property is 0.36 acre located on the east side of
Beach Boulevard, 460 feet north of the centerline of Orange Avenue (Pacific Inn Motel).
To retain an existing non-conforming 23-unit motel.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 2000-04191 DENIED (PC2000-48) (7 yes votes).
Informational item at the City Council meeting of May 16, 2000, Item B2. Letter of appeal
submitted by the Agent, Chevalier, Allen and Lichman LLP.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in North County News: June 1, 2000
Mailing to property owners within 300 foot: May 30, 2000
Posting of property: June 2, 2000
A request for continuance was received from the Agent, Mayor Daly moved to continue the
public hearing for CUP 04191 to July 11, 2000, seconded by Council Member McCracken.
Motion carried unanimously.
C2.
PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04193
(MASTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3928)
CATEGORICALLY EXEM PT-CLASS 1:
OWNER: Prahalad Bkakta, 420 South Beach Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92804
LOCATION: 420 South Beach Boulevard. Property is 0.76 acre located on the east side
of Beach Boulevard, 530 feet north of the centerline of Orange Avenue (Best Budget Inn
Motel).
To consider reinstatement of this permit which currently contains a time limitation
(originally approved on May 12, 1997 to expire on November 12, 1999) to retain an
existing 45-unit motel.
City Council Minutes
24 June 13,2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM
COUNCIL MINUTES
JUNE 13, 2000
PAGE 25
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 2000-04193/MASTER CUP NO. 3928 GRANTED reinstatement for one year to
expire April 24, 2001 (PC2000-49) (7 yes votes).
Informational item at the City Council meeting of May 16, 2000, Item B3. Letter of appeal
submitted by Frank A. Weiser, Attorney, on behalf of the owners.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in North County News: June 1, 2000
Mailing to property owners within 300 foot: June 1, 2000
Posting of property: June 2, 2000
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, Planning Department, presented the staff report.
Mayor Daly asked Mr. Hastings to review the Planning Commission's decision.
Greg Hastings informed that at the last meeting of the Planning Commission, they approved a
request requiring that existing guests that have occupied the unit on the premises for a
continued period over 30 days and were occupants on April 24, 2000, which was the date of the
Planning Commission meeting, would be permitted to remain on the premises until September
1, 2000 and following the vacating of any other units by qualifying long term guests or on
September 1, 2000, whichever occurred first, any occupancy had to be for a period of not more
than 30 days within any 90 day period.
He said staff was recommending a slight change to that recommendation. He clarified that the
occupants that were there currently, as of this date, who had been there for longer than 30
days, would have until January 15, 2001 to be able to relocate.
Planning Director Joel Fick explained that recommendation originally was consistent with all of
the discussion from the Interdepartmental Motel Task Force and since the Planning
Commission meeting, he noted there had been additional discussions from the Task Force
group, hence the modified change in the recommendation to Council.
Council Member Kring asked for clarification that the Planning Director recommended extension
of the time for five years, instead of the Planning Commission's recommendation of one year.
Planning Director Fick said that was correct, the recommendation specifically was the one that
the Task Force had been discussing since the Planning Commission meeting.
Mayor Daly asked Planning Director Fick to elaborate on the change, the distinction between
the one year extension verses five years.
Planning Director Fick said several reasons that led to the conclusion or recommendation of the
Task Force, the property had a history of compliance that led to the original recommendation
that their use permit be continued. He said the applicant, in the interim period, indicated to staff
that they were seeking a franchise for this site and needed a longer term in order to
successfully negotiate that. He said that the Task Force felt the City was protected provided the
stay limitations were a part of that five years so that the objectives the City was trying to achieve
would be realized.
Mayor Daly opened the public hearing.
City Council Minutes
25 June 13, 2000
000~ '~1 ounf 9~
s~lnu~lAI [puno3 AbE)
'/q.ledoJd eq$ uo peaaid eq ol peq uo!l!puoo aql ,~q~x ees
~,ou p!p eq u~ql 's~elqoJd eoHod ou 's~elqoJd lue~eojojue epoo ou eJe~ ejeqi 's~elqoJd ~ue
~l~O ~q$ 6u~N6 lou se~ 1~ '~uole e~oo peq ~edojd s~ql leq] einds~p u~ iou se~ ejeq eouep~e
eq] pus peleleJ Alle~}ueisqns eq oi eAeq plno~ eouep~Ae eql p{es eH ',,lseaelu~ lelue~uJeAo6
ele6~iH ol peiEleJ Alle~uelsqns. eq o~ seq i} 'Je~od lsql sespjexe ~lale~i~6el ~1~0 e4~ ue4~ le41
p~Es asia ssq ~noO eqi lnq easjle~ pue A~e~es 'qilseq ~oj peqs~ Aeqi ss opo] 'sae~od eoHod
Jepun 'uo~ieJos~p ep]~ pBq ~l~O eqi p~es peq ~noO e~eJdn~ eql }qSnoqi eq p~es eH 'esnBIo
s~uMeI eq~ 'siua~pue~s ~ pus q~j~j eql Jepun ~elqojd e aIM unJ Asw A]~0 aq] lqDnoqi aq
'leAel es}qousjj eol dn ]~ 6upq ],usa ~eqi j~ 'eJninj eq] u] iseAu~ ol ~u8~ ~eql ]eq~ pub peiseAu~
peq sjeu~o Apedojd eql ~euo~ jo luno~B eq] UOA~6 p~eS JesSeM 'J~ 'i~H e~g~ eq~ 6ugpJsDe~
· Apedojd eq3 uo uo!l!puoo
]eq] esodcu! ol aAeq plno~ A]!O aql Aq~ ass lou p!p eq '/~3Jedojd s!ql pub slalom Jeq]o eq]
q]!M cuelqojd e eAeq lou p!p Xl!O eq3 J! i! Joj peau &ue sam ajaq] ~u!q] lou p!p eq p!ss Jes!e/V~ '~
'pjooej aq3
jo iJed se pa~l!cuqns aq pinaM Jas]e/V~ 'J~ Aq pali!cuqns UO}]eLUJOJU! eql p!es el!qAA AauJo$iV X]!O
9~ =lOVd
000~ '~ =INRI'
S91FINIItd '113NR03
i~II]HVNV -I0 LLI3
CITY OF ANAHEIM
COUNCIL MINUTES
JUNE 13, 2000
PAGE 27
Mr. Weiser said on a personal note, he knew the property owners and he felt they were a
benefit to the City. Encouraging the owners to do more would only benefit everyone, he
finalized.
Council Member Kring asked about the term "franchise level". Mr. Weiser said something like a
Holiday Inn Express. She asked if they asked if they looked at the length of term of the CUP
and obviously no violations and unlimited number of nights.
Mayor Daly called for public comments in support of the request of the property owner. None
were heard. He called for public comments of people that opposed the project and none were
heard.
Council Member McCracken said she had read the minutes of the Planning Commission where
Mr. Weiser had asked for five years, which staff had taken into consideration and now he was
asking for 15 years.
Mr. Weiser said his understanding was that the owners did an investigation as to what it takes to
get a franchise and five years is going to be a problem. He said he did not see a problem with
going beyond the five years because if it became a problem, the City could always go back and
modify the CUP or attach a condition that would allow them to work towards the goal of getting a
franchise.
Council Member Tait asked Planning Director Fick to comment on that issue. Mr. Fick
responded that while the City appreciates the improvements that have been made, noting there
was substantial reduction in activity, there were still calls for service from the Police Department,
specifically from January first through May 29th, during the five month period, there were 15 calls
for service, 8 directly related to criminal activity relating to motel property. One option available
to Council, at any point in time this CUP or any other CUP becomes problematic, the City does
have the right to schedule a hearing and the item could be brought back. As long as the
applicant was agreeable to the other conditions and the only item was the length of time the
CUP would be approved for, one option that could be considered was a five year extension and
giving the applicant, during the five years, a performance standard, the oppodunity to secure a
national franchisee and in the event that can be secured during the five year period, an
additional 10 years could be added automatically to the CUP. He said the staff had conferred,
both Code Enforcement and Police Department, and knowing that the CUP could be brought
back and if the owners are agreeable to the conditions that prohibit long term stays and truly
use the property for what it was originally designed, that would be one option.
Property owner Prahalad Bkakta responded that when they originally asked for five years, they
were just trying to up grade the property. Since that time, they had talked about getting to a
franchise level. He said if there was a CUP on the property for five years, no one would give
him financing to upgrade to a franchise level.
Mayor Daly reminded him that if the terms of the permit are not adhered to, the City could pull
the permit and he said he did not understand why that created a hardship for the owner.
Prahalad Bkakta responded to get long term financing, no lender will give you money for the
properly if you only have five years in the CUP.
Mayor Daly said the owner had said he had spent about $20,000 per unit already and he asked
if that was correct. Mr. Bkakta said he did not say that, but there was a record on how much
City Council Minutes 27 June 13, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM
COUNCIL MINUTES
JUNE 13, 2000
PAGE 28
they had spent to date. Mayor Daly said over $800,000 in the last four years and Mr. Bkakta
said that included buying and upgrading the properly.
Mayor Daly, clarifying that this had been raised an issue, asked him how much he needed to
finance. Mr. Bkakta said to get the property up to franchise level, he would have to spend at a
minimum of $400,000 to $500,000.
Council Member Kring asked the minimum number of years a financial institution looked at to
enable him to get a franchise.
Mr. Bkakta said they usually looked at between 25 to 30 years, just like a mortgage. Council
Member Kring said Mr. Weiser asked for 10 to 15, it kept going up. Mr. Bkakta said with 15
years he could get a short term kind of financing to pay off in 15 years, they would not give him
a 25 to 30 year mortgage.
Council Member Feldhaus said the City could not give him five years with a five year option
because this was a land use issue, but he did not think the owner would have any problem, if he
followed the conditions of the CUP, to continue or get a new CUP at the end of five years. Mr.
Bkakta said it would have to be in writing that it would be automatic.
Council Member McCracken said staff had offered to grant a five year CUP and they were
willing to automatically extend it for 10 more years if he had an agreement with a major
franchise.
Planning Director Fick said staff would need assistance from the City Attorney's Office in
drafting the language but it would be along the lines that during the initial five year period, they
would submit evidence to staff that they had secured a major national franchisee to take interest
in that property. Mayor Daly asked if Motel 6 was a national franchise and Mr. Fick said it could
be more narrowly defined.
City Attorney White said then the City would be getting into issues about picking and choosing
franchisees.
Mayor Daly offered that properties do change hands and that was one of the reasons the City
was in the position they were with a lot of the motels was that properties changed hands and
they did not have to ask the City if they could sell the property and then they were dealing with
new people.
Council Member Tait wondered if there was another way the City could condition the extension
based on no code violations or something of that nature, then it could be extended to 10.
Mr. Weiser said that he thought they could agree to that.
Council Member Kring expressed that she did not think the City could say no code violations,
maybe no substantial violations.
Hearing no further comments, Mayor Daly closed the public hearing.
Council Member McCracken asked to have the staff recommendation repeated.
City Council Minutes
28
June 13, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM
COUNCIL MINUTES
JUNE 13, 2000
PAGE 29
Mr. Fick said he spoke with Elisa Stipkovich, Community Development Director, and depending
whichever option Council wished to approve, added any bundle of detail or assurance the City
desires, since this was in a redevelopment project area, while staff couldn't condition the project
to enter into an agreement with the Redevelopment Agency, certainly this item could be
continued to furlher explore it as an option. He noticed that he was unclear as to the applicant's
willingness to adhere to all the other conditions, including the 30 days. He mentioned that the
majority of the problems occurring with motels had been with individual operators, not with
franchises. He said the Mayor's suggestion of absent some type of agreement that provides
protection or some other level of insurance, there would be no way to deal with changes of
ownerships.
Mayor Daly asked Mr. Fick to give the Council an example of an agreement that may be entered
into with the Redevelopment Agency. Mr. Fick said it would be an agreement that would specify
more operating terms, maybe standards for conditions of operation and maintenance of the
motel, perhaps maybe levels of funding. He added it could be at a detail level for whatever
worked for the owner. Mayor Daly said that could happen separately and Mr. Fick agreed.
Mayor Daly suggested the Council work from the Planning Department recommendation dated
June 13, 2000, which recommended the five year, takes the one year approval and extends it to
five and it was specific on the day occupancy limit after January 15, 2001.
Council Member Kring asked the City Attorney about Mr. Weiser's statement about the 14th
amendment. Mr. White said that Mr. Weiser was correct that the City did not have an ordinance
in place that places the 30 day requirement across the board on all hotels and motels. He
noted, as a conditional use permit, conditions which are reasonably related to and necessary to
address problems or issues that arise in conjunction with the operation of this particular piece of
property are appropriate. He disagreed that an argument could be made that the denial of
equal protection as long as there was a reasonable basis for imposing the conditions that were
imposed on this property. He said that was the nexus between the condition and the facts that
give rise to the need for the condition was what the Council should be looking at. He said he
would not recommend a condition that was tied to whether or not there were code violations,
adding that it thought it was difficult to administer. He stated it was up to Council if they wished
to have a straight number of years. He said he would have a concern about automatically
extending the permit if there were no code violations, this would put the City in the position of
proving violations.
Council Member McCracken asked if the Council approved the staff recommendation, could the
owner still work with the Redevelopment Agency. The Planning Director replied yes, whatever
the time period was, they work with the Redevelopment Agency, they could come before
Council to ask for an extension on the time period.
Mayor Daly moved to support the Planning Department's recommendation, he moved approval
of the environmental findings, seconded by Council Member Kring. Motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Daly moved to adopt Resolution No. 2000R-106, approving Conditional Use Permit No.
3928 per Planning Department's recommendations, seconded by Council Member McCracken.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000R-106 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION NO. 2000-04193
REINSTATING MASTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3928 FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE
City Council Minutes
29 June 13, 2000
CITY OF ANAHEIM
COUNCIL MINUTES
JUNE 13, 2000
PAGE 30
YEARS TO EXPIRE JUNE 13, 2005, AND AMENDING CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF
APPROVAL RELATING THERETO AS SET FORTH IN RESOLUTION NO. PC97-56.
Council Member Tait expressed his decision to vote against the Resolution, stating that he felt
the staff recommendation was too restrictive, that if the City wanted to see them have a
franchise, they should give them the time to finance it and he said he did not think with a five
year CUP, the City would get much more than what was there now. He said the 30 day
requirement to move out of the motel, which had been discussed at length at other meetings,
did not move City progress forward, it just created hardships on people trying to get their lives in
order.
Motion carried with a vote of three ayes: Council Members McCracken, Council Member
Feldhaus, Mayor Daly. Noes: Council Member Tait, Council Member Kring.
D. REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS:
City Attorney White stated there were no items to report.
E. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS:
No Council Members offered communications.
ADJOURNMENT:
By general consent of the Council and no further business to come before the Council, Mayor
Daly adjourned the regular meeting of June 13, 2000 at 8:05 P.M.
Respectfully submitted:
Sheryll Schroeder, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
City Council Minutes
30
June 13, 2000