1997/08/12ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA- CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
AUGUST 12, 1997
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
PRESENT:
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
MAYOR: Tom Daly
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Shirley McCracken, Tom Tait, Bob Zemel, Lou Lopez
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: James Ruth
CITY ATTORNEY: Jack White
CITY CLERK: Leonora N. Sohl
ASSISTANT CITY CLERK: Ann M. Sauvageau
TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION MANAGER: John Lower
FINANCE DIRECTOR: Bill Sweeney
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Joel Fick
COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD:
CHAIRMAN: Bruce Solari
BOARD MEMBERS: Eliza B. Cason
Esther Wallace
FIo Tarlton
Jacquelyn Terrell
John Machiaverna
June Lowry
Marjorie Rothrock
Mary L. Hibbard
Michael Edmiston
Vivian Engelbrecht
BOARD MEMBERS: Frank Ramirez
James Vanderbilt
Martha A. Miser
Patricia E. Tafolla
Ross Romero
A complete copy of the agenda for the meeting of the Anaheim City Council was posted at 2:55 p.m. on
August 8, 1997 at the City Hall Kiosk, containing all items as shown herein.
Mayor Daly called the workshop portion of the meeting of August 12, 1997 to order and welcomed those
members of the Community Services Board (CSB) who were present (3:07 P.M.).
The meeting of the Community Services Board was called to order (3:07 P.M.).
City Manager, James Ruth. This is the appointed time for the workshop between the City Council and
the Community Services Board.
June Lowry, Member, Community Services Board (Subcommittee on Funding) introduced Bruce Solari,
the newly elected Chairman of the CSB.
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 12, 1997
105: COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD UPDATE: Bruce Solari, Chairman, Community Services
Board. The biggest ongoing concern for the Board is dialogue with the City Council. Their role, as
stated in the Charter, is to advise the Council of the community services needs in Anaheim. They want
to be sure they do so effectively especially at a time when the City is going through a rapid transition
which probably means more regular communication than at an annual workshop. Mike Edmiston has
prepared a handout to show the magnitude of some of the changes that are taking place. (See 5-page
document entitled: Community Services Board - Serving Anaheim - which contained the following
data/charts - Charitable Donations, Trend Analysis ESA (Ecumenical Service Alliance) Data, 1994-2000;
Demographic Analysis - ACSD Data; AFDC/Lunch Trend Analysis - Magnolia School District; additional
comments of CSB including the positive effects that adequate community services provide.)
Mike Edmiston, CSB Member, then briefed the data provided in the handout emphasizing the fact that
the information points out that charitable donations have "nose-dived" indicative of the problem they are
trying to deal with; June Lowry noted for the Mayor that ESA is one of the non-profits the City funds and
that private donations County wide went from $170,000 to less than $40,000. This is very typical of the
charities they are serving in Anaheim.
In concluding his presentation, Mr. Edmiston stated their goal is to avoid the pitfalls of other cities who
have operated in an information vacuum. To a large degree, the Board serves as a spokesperson for a
lot of people in the City that desperately need help and a communication channel. That is what they are
looking for, an ongoing dialogue. The charts submitted speak for themselves.
Mayor Daly. What would be helpful is a reminder to the Council of (1) how all the non-profits they deal
with are faring, (2) to put it all in context, what are some other cities of similar or larger or smaller size
doing with non-profits in their communities and, (3) it will be helpful for him to think about this in
conjunction with the non-profit piece of the CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) process in
order to keep it all in mind. He then asked the Council if there is any other data that might be helpful.
Council Member Lopez. Santa Ana is a City of about the same size and perhaps Anaheim can learn
something from what they do.
Liz Cason, Board Member. The City of Santa Ana and several other cities have large companies that
sponsor programs and are contributing monthly or yearly. It would be helpful if they could get the
assistance of the City to capture the revenues from some of the larger companies to help support the
various organizations.
Council Members Tait and Zemel entered the Council Chamber (3:20 P.M.).
Council Member, Shirley McCracken. With the new things that are happening in the welfare field and as
the numbers are reduced, she is concerned that they are still going to end up with working poor. Although
they may have jobs, she questioned if they will be jobs that will enable them to support their families.
June Lowry, Board Member. The State Legislature is looking at that problem right now. What they have
been told by non-profits in Orange County, the need will be larger than ever. She then spoke to a
comment made relative to reports on the non-profits. Every one of the non-profits that the City gives
money to either through the CDAB (Community Development Advisory Board) or the General Fund, is
monitored by a member of the CSB. The individual organization must report to the Board in an orderly
manner on a quarterly basis and there is also on-site inspection. They need to know if the Council wants
a report once a year, twice a year, or whatever.
Mike Edmiston. He interprets the Council question to be more global -- how the charities are doing
across the board in Anaheim.
Mayor Daly. He is not certain there is an easy format to use. They are offering taxpayer's money to
local Anaheim charities and they don't always know how the charities are doing relative to one another in
their competition for private dollars.
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 12, 1997
June Lowry. There are non-profits in Anaheim that do not apply for funding and one reason is because
they do not want to be audited. They do not give money to any non-profit who does not give the City
certain information including a complete audit. They are starting that process right now for next year's
funding. They have never given that information to the Council along with the budget because it is too
long but it is available in their reports.
Bruce Solari. The Board receives a great deal of information now from all the groups that receive
funding. He will have some of the Board Members get together and put that information in a format that
the Council will find helpful.
Council Member Tait noted the dramatic decrease in charitable donations and asked the cause; Mike
Edmiston. He answered, discretionary income among the general population is less, corporate
downsizing, lack of trust in some of the more visible, high-profile charities. He pointed out that the AFDC
numbers are relatively Iow but at the same time families that qualify for the reduced lunch program are
higher, etc.
Board Members Jackie Terrell and Mary Hibbard spoke to the fact that they are no longer getting items
that they used to count on to meet some of the needs of the community. Items not selling in Disneyland
stores are now being disposed of which will cause a loss during holiday time; because of a new policy in
grocery stores, they are now throwing a lot of food away, i.e., day-old bread, etc., instead of giving it
away so it is no longer available for distribution.
Marjorie Rothrock, Board Member. She feels they have to know the community better. Starting at Ball
Road and going west, there is not much being done with CDBG funds for that area. They cannot depend
on CDBG funds for everything. She went on a tour of west Anaheim and it was a "shocker". The woman
from the Community Development Council (CDC) who works with poverty level people recently attended
a meeting of the Public Utilities Board and casually mentioned that Anaheim has a strong poverty belt.
They are aware of four such areas, but it hit hard to think they have the reputation of having a poverty
belt (in west Anaheim). It is important for the Council/City Manager's Office to get out and know how big
the community is and what is going on.
June Lowry then spoke to the information the Council would like from other communities. They can
address that but the question also has to be, what priorities does the Council set for the City. There is a
very diversified group of people in the City and they have to meet many different needs. She spoke to
the lack of manpower resources when they do get results relative to where the needs lie, i.e., only two
actual people are working in the neighborhoods from Neighborhood Services. It is only possible to
assign so much work to so many people. Code Enforcement is doing great things as well as Community
Policing and they are pleased to see now more than ever different departments in the City working closer
together. It takes personnel and they need more people to take care of some of the needs. As far as
human services needs being met, only the tip-of-the-iceberg needs are being met but not the full needs.
Mayor Daly. When he talks about what other cities are doing, he is not just referring to funding levels,
but also strategies and techniques. They have done some things in Anaheim over the years that other
cities have learned from. Other communities are smaller and only have one or two "bad" neighborhoods.
Anaheim has many neighborhoods with high-density, multi-family projects. He noted they are paying an
extraordinary price for bad land use decisions of 15 to 40 years ago. It is costing the City a lot
monetarily, socially, aesthetically and in terms of the fabric of the community.
Council Member McCracken. She feels that Anaheim does not get its fair share of contributions from the
business community and explained why she believes that is true. Perhaps they need to work with
Community Services and with the charities to assure that Anaheim receives its fair share of contributions
from the large companies.
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 12, 1997
Mayor Daly. The Community Services Board has suggested a couple of things -- (1) improve the
ongoing communication between the Council and the Board and, (2) having a Council liaison to the CSB.
The Board consists of volunteers and the Council is part time. He will ask the Council today as well as in
future weeks their reaction to a liaison to the CSB -- a formal Liaison Committee on the subject of
enhancing communication.
Council Member Zemel. Over the years, he has heard in the structure and makeup of the CDBG Board -
and the Mayor mentioned two organizations, the Boys and Girls Club and the YMCA competing for funds
- he asked if there has been any issue of Board Members being advised if they sit on the Board of these
organizations, should they be voting on funding. As he stated, over the years, he has heard complaints.
Bruce Solari. Fairly recently, they got a determination from the City Attorney on that issue. If anyone
either works for an applicant (a non-profit organization) or is a volunteer member of a board, they have
to declare that affiliation and then are not allowed to participate in the discussions or to vote on those
issues. This year as Chairman of the CSB, he will see to it that policy is strictly enforced.
Liz Cason, Board Member. That is something that has been enforced since she has been on the Board.
Many excuse themselves from the hearing so that there is no participation whatsoever.
John Machiaverna, Board Member. People that sit on the Board are very concerned with the City. It is
very hard to find a person on the CSB that is not affiliated with another group. He is with the Boys and
Girls Club. The way he understands this issue, when they talk about the Club, he abstains but is allowed
to vote on the total package.
City Attorney, Jack White. There is not a legal conflict of interest simply by being a member of a board
of a non-profit organization. The only legal problem is if they are a salaried employee or officer who
obtains income from the non-profit. The other problem is that of perception, which may be equally
important, but it is not a legal issue. He does not disagree with what has been stated by the board
members as far as legal requirements, but they should keep in mind there may not be a technical legal
problem. It is more one of perception. To say they are voting on an entire package and looking at that
as somehow being a way around a legal violation, he does not believe there is a legal violation.
During the course of further discussion, Council Member Zemel interjected and stated what has been
said to him is that there are also opportunities that are not funded because the City is using CDBG funds
to fund City programs and that the City should instead fund those out of the General Fund. He would like
some advice from the Board if not today, later, on how the Board feels about that.
Bruce Solari, Chairman. That is an issue that has been on their agenda more than once in the last
couple of years with varied opinions. He cannot give the Council a unified voice on that today. There
have been a couple of requests for some other information and they can take this back as one of the
issues and get a "white paper" back to the Council.
June Lowry. As Chairman of the CDAB Committee at this time and working with the CSB, they are
starting the funding process which she would like to be initiated as soon as possible so they can have
some feedback from the Council. If the Council feels that City Departments should continue getting part
of the Block Grant funding or they should not, they need to know that before they start allocating funding.
Hearings will be held in October and November with final recommendations to the CDAB Committee in
December.
John Machiaverna. The CSB is saying, there is a decrease in dollars with an increase in need, but also
an increase in organizations that provide the programs. It is going to get worse and there is not enough
money to go around. They have to find a solution -- not necessarily dollars, but also manpower.
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 12, 1997
Mary Hibbard. Anaheim Human Services are provided through a partnership. Part of her frustration has
been, they have their priorities but they have not heard the Council's priorities -- are the priorities in
synch with one another. Tonight was the first time she heard a City official give a "gut level" feeling
relative to the fact that land uses approved in the past (many multi-family projects) resulted in many of
the social problems they are now facing. She would like to hear what the Council's priorities are --
children, families of children, seniors -- are those the human issues they perceive.
Council Member Zemel. Every year, the Council sets priorities semi-annually, in June during the budget
sessions, and also in January. There is a clear message and that information is available any time they
want it; Mary Hibbard. She would like a compilation of that.
Mayor Daly. It is remarkable on the allocation side that the Board's recommendations are approved
unanimously with little controversy. The priorities in terms of how to spend the money fits his priorities --
youth, families and some of the special "niches". It is sensible and their strategies coincide with the
City's strategies.
Council Member Tait. He asked what kind of grade would the Board give the City government in meeting
community needs -- average, above average, or below average.
June Lowry. Some things they are doing very well on as a City, and others not very well. She asked that
he be more specific if he wants an answer.
Council Member Tait. The Council is looking to the Board to tell them what the needs are. He knows
one is going to be more money. Other than that, he is looking for more advice. He is thinking of an
annual report or semi-annual report and how they could get to an "A". He would also like to know first
what they need to do to just hold their ground and beyond that start improving.
Bruce Solari. Although there are a lot of components to that question, they would be happy to take it on.
They have talked about communication and a liaison and whether or not that is an effective method. In
their deliberations, if they could at least consider a single point of contact so there is a channel for
information to follow through between the Board and the Council, that would be helpful.
Council Member Tait. They are trying to cut down on liaison committees. He is not a big fan of them
because it isolates Council Members. However, he is a fan of workshops, perhaps semi-annually with
the entire Board rather than liaison committees.
June Lowry. She believes the people on the Board would prefer workshops as well. City staff gives a
report on a monthly basis, but they do not know where the Council is going and where their priorities are.
FIo Tarlton, Board Member. She has a hard time believing people don't put into their City what they get
out of it or that they do not do things for their neighbors. She is not a "welfare person". She has worked
through the Red Cross for 50 years as well as with United Way. She then read a quote dealing with
people giving of themselves for their community.
Mayor Daly asked if there were other questions or comments before concluding.
Jackie Terrell. She would like the Council to know how much the Board has worked on their behalf.
What Mr. Zemel was saying about the Police and the different groups, that takes a lot of money away. In
due time, the Council has to think about that money coming out of the City budget instead of CDBG
funds. She believes the time has come. If they can communicate and relate to one another, the City
could be very proud of its accomplishments.
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 12, 1997
Mayor Daly. The CSB has been enormously helpful to the City. They are generally on the same page.
They need to talk frequently as they see how the community is changing and watch to see how big the
"elephant" gets as Mr. Edmiston mentioned.
Marge Rothrock, Board Member. She would like to compliment the City on its staff. The staff they have
worked with all the years she has been a volunteer with the Board has been remarkable. She does not
know where they get these talented people, but whatever they have been doing, they should keep on
doing it.
Mayor Daly. The workshop has been very helpful and they look forward to another in about six months
unless there is a reason not to meet.
The meeting of the Community Services Board was adjourned (4:13 P.M.).
City Attorney, Jack White. It will be necessary to add an item to the Closed Session Agenda regarding
potential litigation on personnel actions concerning complaints relating to the Jeffrey-Lynne Community
Center. The need to act today arose due to completion of the investigation and availability of the
investigator which was not known at the time the agenda was prepared.
MOTION: Mayor Daly moved to waive the 72-hr. posting provision of the Brown Act finding that there is
a need to take immediate action and adding Item 5. (below) to the Closed Session items on today's
agenda and that the need for action arose subsequent to the agenda being posted. Council Member
McCracken seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
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
54956.9(a) - Existing Litigation:
Name of case: Delmonico, et al. v. City of Anaheim, et al. (and 18 related cases) Orange
County Superior Court Case No. 70-80-71.
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR:
Agency negotiator: Jim Ruth
Employee organizations: All unions
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
54956.9(a) - Existing Litigation:
Name of case: TRAN v. City of Anaheim, et al., U.S. District Court Case SACV-96-684LHM
(Eex).
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 12, 1997
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9: one potential
case.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - POTENTIAL LITIGATION:
Personnel actions regarding complaints relating to the Jeffrey-Lynne Community Center.
RECESS CLOSED SESSION:
Mayor Daly moved to recess into Closed Session. Council Member McCracken seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED. (4:15 p.m.)
AFTER RECESS:
The Mayor called the meeting to order, all Council Members being present, and welcomed those
in attendance to the Council meeting. (5:40 p.m.)
INVOCATION:
Pastor Bob Kuest, Anaheim First Christian Church, gave the invocation.
FLAG SALUTE:
Council Member Tom Tait led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
119: PRESENTATION - AWARDS OF MERIT: Presentation of Awards of Merit to four "firefighters" for
saving a woman from a fire in her home on June 12, 1997: Mike Vega, Joe Pesqueira, John Storm and
Mike White.
Fire Chief, Jeff Bowman. It is with great pleasure to introduce and recognize four "firefighters" for the
actions they took on June 12, 1997. Mike Vega, Joe Pesqueira, John Storm and Mike White at the risk
of their own health and safety entered a burning home several times and saved a woman by rescuing her
from that fire. In appreciation for their efforts and their heroism, the Fire Department would like to
present them with a small token in rememberance and thanks for their assistance. (Each of the young
men were presented with a sculptured acrylic plaque with their names noting the date of their heroic
deed).
Mayor Daly and Council Members personally greeted and commended the four young men. The City
and citizens are proud and indebted to them for putting their lives on the line to save that of another.
The Mayor also asked their families to come forward and be recognized.
Chief Bowman also recognized a Mr. Jim Abott who came forward after reading the story and donated
$500 to one of the men and his family in appreciation for what he had done.
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 12, 1997
119: DECLARATIONS OF RECOGNITION: Declarations of Recognition were unanimously adopted by
the City Council to be presented to employees who have retired with more than 20 years of service to the
City: Ann Horton, Human Resources; Donald Mumford, Public Utilities; Lawrence Nolan, Fire
Department; Ralph Sarver, Fire Department; Richard Schmitz, Fire Department; Stanley Woodson,
Police Department, and Leonard Chapman, Community Services/Park Maintenance.
Mr. Leonard Chapman was able to be present to accept his Declaration; Mayor Daly and Council
Members congratulated and thanked him for his 30 years of service to the City and citizens of Anaheim.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $3,832,020.01 for the period ending
August 8, 1997, in accordance with the 1997-98 Budget, were approved.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
There were no additions to agenda items.
ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST:
Josie Montoya, United Neighborhoods, 221 Coffman Street, Anaheim. She is taking this opportunity to
express her appreciation to City staff and the Council for the attention given to the matters brought
before them in regards to the Jeffrey-Lynne Community Center and the CDBG (election) allegations.
They had a very productive meeting with City Manager Ruth who listened with an open mind. They went
away feeling they had been heard. Hopefully, this opens the door to further communication with the
community, City staff and City departments. Even though the procedures they have been told are going
to be changed with regard to the operations at the Jeffrey-Lynne Center have not been announced
publicly yet, just the fact that Mr. Ruth indicated to them that there would be changes, has brought a lot
of hope to the community. After meeting with Mr. Ruth, she talked today to approximately 30 families in
a two-hour period. She came back to City Hall to leave a note for Mr. Ruth to let him know what their
responses were so the Council could be further informed during their meeting this afternoon. All they
have been saying all along is that they want to have an opportunity to be able to go through the identified
processes, talk to the identified people at City Hall and be able to walk away with the feeling that they
have been heard and will be working mutually to improve the community. One of the things she has
often said when she has been called upon to give presentations to students classes or community
organizations and has learned from her many years working in the community is that very often (we) the
people in leadership in their eagerness to solve problems tend to overlook the people affected by the
problems and issues. She has learned a long time ago that those are the real experts --the people
affected by the issue. It bears listening to them and taking their input into consideration. She thanked
the Council on behalf of the Jeffrey-Lynne neighbors and United Neighborhoods for doing that.
Mayor Daly. He is glad they had a productive meeting with the City Manager and hopefully the
communication challenges and some of the misunderstandings have been corrected.
PUBLIC COMMENTS - AGENDA ITEMS:
There were no public comments on City Council Agenda items.
MOTION:
Mayor Daly moved to waive reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions to be acted upon for
the Council meeting of August 12, 1997. Council Member Lopez seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 12, 1997
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Mayor Daly, seconded by
Council Member Lopez, the following items were approved in accordance with the reports, certifications
and recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent Calendar; Mayor
Daly offered Resolutions Nos. 97R-151-a through 97R-153, both inclusive, for adoption. Refer to
Resolution Book.
Al.
A2.
A3.
A4.
A5.
118: Rejecting and denying certain claims filed against the City. Referred to Risk Management.
The following claims were filed against the City and actions taken as recommended:
a. Claim submitted by Christine Farris for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions
of the City on or about June 13, 1997.
b. Claim submitted by Dale Fritz for property damage sustained purportedly due to actions of
the City on or about June 9, 1997.
c. Claim submitted by Brimhall Company c/o David P. Christianson, Esq. for property damage
sustained purportedly due to actions of the City on or about February 26, 1997.
d. Claim submitted by Roberta A. Guice for Property damage sustained purportedly due to
actions of the City on or about May 31, 1997.
e. Claim submitted by Chris Chung, Harbor Pacific Plaza for property damage sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about May 3, 1997.
f. Claim submitted by Marie Kassabian for Property damage sustained purportedly due to
actions of the City on or about April 15, 1997.
g. Claim submitted by George Gonzales c/o Michael Machat, Esq. for bodily injury sustained
purportedly due to actions of the City on or about June 24, 1996.
h. Claim submitted by Bernice E. Parque for property damage sustained purportedly due to
actions of the City on or about September 3, 1996.
105: Receiving and filing minutes of the Golf Advisory Commission meeting held June 26, 1997.
169: Awarding a contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Sully Miller Contracting Company, in
the amount of $141,564.09 for Harbor Boulevard Street Improvement (west side); and in the
event said Iow bidder fails to comply with the terms of the award, awarding the contract to the
second Iow bidder, as well as waiving any irregularities in the bids of both the Iow and second
Iow bidders.
175: Awarding a contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Valverde Construction, Inc., in the
amount of $185,390 for SR-91 watermain relocations at Patt Street and the Lemon Street
Bridge; and in the event said Iow bidder fails to comply with the terms of the award, awarding the
contract to the second Iow bidder, as well as waiving any irregularities in the bids of both the Iow
and second Iow bidders.
167: Awarding a contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Pro Tech Engineering Corporation, in
the amount of $198,175 for Lincoln Avenue Traffic Signal Coordination Harbor Boulevard to SR-
57 Freeway; and in the event said Iow bidder fails to comply with the terms of the award,
awarding the contract to the second Iow bidder, as well as waiving any irregularities in the bids of
both the Iow and second Iow bidders.
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 12, 1997
A6.
164: Releasing the Iow bidder Valverde Construction, from its bid; and awarding the contract to
the second lowest responsible bidder, Paulus Engineering, Inc., in the amount of $379,136.75;
and in the event said Iow bidder fails to comply with the terms of the award, awarding the
contract to the second Iow bidder, as well as waiving any irregularities in the bids of both the Iow
and second Iow bidders.
A7.
123: RESOLUTION NO. 97R-151: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM APPROVING THE MASTER AGREEMENT NO. 12-5055 ADMINISTERING
AGENCY-STATE AGREEMENT FOR FEDERAL AID PROJECTS WITH THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, ACTING BY AND THROUGH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION.
A8.
123: Approving the Subordination Agreement for the relocation of Edison power lines across
West Street, in connection with the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan.
A9.
160: Accepting the Iow bid of Canada Power Products Corp., c/o Matzinger-Keegan, in the
amount of $101,500 for fourteen 600 Amp SF-6 subsurface switches, in accordance with Bid
#5690.
Al0.
123: Waiving Council Policy 306, and authorizing the execution of an Agreement with PRC
Public Sector, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $64,358 for the interfacing of the Police
Department's booking system (CAD/RMS) with the new automatic fingerprint identification
system (AFIS).
All.
160: Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to issue purchase orders, in an amount not to exceed
$2,941,105 for the purchase of 97 various vehicles for City departments for Fiscal Year 1997/98.
A12.
123: Approving an Agreement between the City of Anaheim and Dolphin's Cove Resort Ltd.,
establishing the amount of transient occupancy taxes to be paid by time-share owners pursuant
to Chapter 2.12 of the Anaheim Municipal Code and Conditional Use Permit No. 3917 for the
right to occupy time-share units converted from existing apartment units within the Anaheim
Resort Specific Plan (SP92-2) - 465 West Orangewood Avenue - Emerald Springs Apartments.
Submitted was staff report dated July 28, 1997 from the City Attorney's Office.
Council Member Zemel. Relative to this proposal, he recalls a situation about 1 1/2 - 2 years ago where
the Council adopted a staff-sponsored plan relative to time shares (see minutes of 8/1 and 8/15/95). As
a Council, they adopted a formula to arrive at a number. He cannot figure out if the same taxation
formula was used for this particular property. He believes the one they approved previously was a
$35/week Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) fee on a time share. This one is $12 based on $60 a room.
That would make the other one somewhere near $180/night. The proposal also calls for another study by
a firm called PKF. He is curious as to why another study since they have already done it before. He also
questioned why in the Dolphin Cove revenue analysis, sales tax is figured in the analysis when they were
told last time it should not be figured in. It appears to him they are developing different taxation modes
for different property owners.
City Manager, James Ruth. There was a report prepared as recently as today regarding the subject (see
report dated August 12, 1997 to the Mayor/City Council from the Finance Director, Bill Sweeney -
Subject: Dolphin Cove Resort Time Share). He deferred to Mr. Sweeney.
Bill Sweeney, Finance Director, briefed the proposal going back to January, 1997. The project involves
a 135 apartment unit complex desirous of converting to time share with rooms to be sold by the week.
They sat down with the company and looked over their proforma and their estimates in terms of room
revenue and arrived at $12 after lengthy discussions. He also explained what they did with Peacock
Suites two years ago where the goal at that time was to make sure the conversion was revenue-neutral
to the City. A rate of $35 was appropriate at that time. With this proposal, it is an apartment complex
10
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 12, 1997
not generating any TOT to the City nor a lot of property taxes. It created a unique problem not faced two
years ago with the Peacock Suites which was the first time share development implemented in the City
of Anaheim. Before the Council today is a hypothetical analysis of what a hotel on Orangewood between
Haster and Harbor might generate in TOT compared against the Dolphin Cove time share proposal in
terms of the owner's units and the "pool" units and the additional property taxes. Running those figures,
it was determined a $12 fee was fair to keep the City revenue-neutral against a hypothetical hotel. Staff
is asking for concurrence to hire a consultant to come in and take a look at the entire issue. They are
trying to make sure the City does not lose any tax revenue while at the same time allowing development
that is clearly going to improve a certain area of the City. Staff believes it is in the best interest of the
City to proceed. It will be a net increase of revenue to the City in terms of finances.
Questions were posed to Mr. Sweeney by Council Member Tait regarding the proposal during which Mr.
Sweeney clarified that pool units are those units not occupied by the owners, but put into a pool and
rented out on a daily basis and the people who rent them pay the 15% TOT like a regular hotel. After the
discussion, Council Member Tait stated he agrees that this is not an exact science but he has a problem
with this proposal as Council Member Zemel does. The first group of time shares that equated a number
to $35 a week, week in and week out, and this is $12. The fairness does not seem to be there and he is
also concerned about the precedential value. It is a question of fairness and creating an even playing
field.
Additional questions were posed to Mr. Sweeney and the City Attorney by Council Member Zemel
revolving around fairness in taxation at the conclusion of which, Council Member Tait commented that
he believes he understands staff's reasoning behind their recommendation and that it was done with
good intention; however, he feels they are treading on dangerous grounds when they start creating
incentives with their taxing authority. For no other reason, he cannot support the proposal.
Council Member Zemel. He is not going to support the proposal for those reasons as well as the fact that
they are creating one fee for one property and one for another. He takes personal exception because he
made the motion, above the applicant's objections, in the previous case. To come back a couple of
years later with 1/3 the amount, he has a real hard time with that. To say additionally they are going to
go out and pay for a study, he cannot support that either. He then directed a question to the City
Attorney noting that he was told by a Planning Commissioner at the Planning Commission hearing on
this issue that a member of his staff (Deputy City Attorney, Selma Mann) was quoting the Council's intent
two years ago regarding the issue at that time. He questioned how she knew what the Council's intent
was. To him, the intent was to make it $35 for the particular proposal and the formula would then go
backwards. She was saying that was not their intent and he would like to know how she knows that.
City Attorney White. He does not have any knowledge of the matter. He asked what she said the intent
was; Council Member Zemel. Apparently the intent of what the Council did the last time was not to have
the formua figured that way. That is what he got out of it, but he could be wrong.
Mayor Daly. When it comes to bed tax revenues and the overall revenues from tourism, they have to be
very careful that tourism is paying its fair share. He believes that is the intent of the recommendation.
They always need to maximize the revenues from tourism dollars. If there is a concern over different
formulas for different time shares, perhaps they should revisit the subject of time shares. In fairness to
staff, there is no easy way to pin down one particular formula because there are so many factors to
consider. He believes more analysis is needed. He would like to know how much the consulting firm will
be paid to do that further analysis and also what other communities are doing in similar cases where
dramatically different types of time share properties are developed and agreements made between the
City and the owners.
11
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 12, 1997
Bill Sweeney. He would like to have an opportunity to do a more comprehensive survey. He does not
feel there is any one right way being used in the time-share community. Two years ago what they were
doing was certainly in line with what cities were trying to do in keeping it revenue neutral or added it to
their base. Relative to the proposed study, they want PKF to give an idea of not only what other cities
are doing, which is primarily the focus of their work, but also to let the City know if this is going to have
any adverse effect or impact on the projects they have in the Anaheim Resort financing. That is key for
the City.
Mayor Daly asked if the owners of the time share have agreed to the proposed formula; Mr. Sweeney
answered, yes.
Council Member Tait. It seems to him they need to go back and revisit this and come up with a more
equitable number.
Jim Watkins, General Partner for the subject property, 1262 Rancho Santa Fe. In reference to the
property itself, there is one problem. They have already hired staff and staff is on line. They did not
want this to hold up the permit process. The reasonable justification is, Peacock Suites was an operating
hotel producing room revenue at $75/day and even at 50% occupancy, that would have been $500 a
week, 15% on that, so the $35/week. Dolphin Cove (or Emerald Springs Apartments) is a 135-unit, 25-
year old apartment producing no revenue with minimal property tax. This will not only produce
significantly increased property tax, but also will produce room tax. All other fees stay the same. The
only thing is from the reasonable justification standpoint, the City is gaining $140,000 a year instead of
losing thousands a year which makes it a reasonable justification.
Discussion between Mr. Watkins and Council Member Zemel then took place at the conclusion of which
Mr. Watkins requested, if nothing else, that this issue not hold up their permits so they are allowed to go
ahead and make the conversion.
Mayor Daly. He asked the City Attorney if the Council wishes to allow time for further study of this
proposed formula and meanwhile this gentleman is under time constraints to open, what he would
recommend.
City Attorney White. He is not in a position to answer that tonight because it depends upon what
conditions were imposed on the project. It may well be that conditions were imposed providing that
permits would not be issued until this issue was resolved. He would have to research that and get the
information.
Mayor Daly. One fair way would be to select a formula for the time being so that the project can proceed
subject to adjustment down the road pending further studies. If they are going to open, the City has a
right to collect some type of tax revenue. He is suggesting Council may want to select one of the
formulas, either the proposed or the other formula applied to Peacock Suites.
City Attorney White. That could be done. The problem would be if a formula is selected that is the Iow
number, there would be an agreement entered into on that formula and there would probably be no
incentive to renegotiate that to a higher number.
Mayor Daly. This is a unique circumstance accommodating the developer's need to open absent
consensus on the formula. He is just trying to find a way the City and the property owner can move
forward together.
12
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 12, 1997
Council Member Zemel asked if he is suggesting that the applicant agree to the higher number and they
would look into it later so he can move forward; Mayor Daly answered, yes and then the Council upon
further analysis by staff and the consultant, if it is decided at a later date that the formula is considered to
be too high, it would be adjusted at that time -- a date selected, and the formula changed.
James Watkins. They went forward on the understanding that this was approved. On that basis, they
bought the property. If there is some way the City could help them get the project off the ground, it
would be greatly appreciated.
After extensive discussion on establishing the amount of transient occupancy taxes to be paid (Dolphin's
Cove Resort Ltd.) Mayor Daly offered the following motion:
MOTION. Mayor Daly moved that the Council adopt the staff recommendation and that staff come up
with some language that allows, at a future date, for the formula to be adjusted - just on this property -
based upon future analysis and a future policy decision by the City Council.
Before a vote, Co. Zemel stated he believed what the Mayor just stated, was to take the staff's
recommendation, which is the lower number and try to raise it later. He would not be in favor of
supporting that. He would just as soon vote against staff's recommendation and get on with other
negotiations to try to get staff to work out a number consistent with the prior vote that the Council took
two years ago on time shares. Knowing they are studying the issue, there may be some relief down the
road as opposed to giving the lower number. As the City Attorney mentioned, there would be no
incentive to agree to raising it.
Mayor Daly agreed and adjusted his motion to reflect that point so that the greater of the two revenue
formulas would be collected for the time being subject to more analysis for a future decision.
City Attorney White then stated as he understands, the Council is approving the agreement subject to
changing the number from the current $12 per week to $35 per week. In addition, it is understood that
the City is going to continue to look at and study what the appropriate numbers should be across the
board but there is no guarantee of any adjustment of this number and the applicant has the option at his
right to go forward with his project. If he signs an agreement at the $35 number, there is no guarantee of
future relief although we (staff) will continue to look at the numbers.
Mayor Daly agreed.
Council Member Zemel seconded the motion as clarified by the City Attorney. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
Council Member Tait encouraged staff to get on this immediately.
A13.
A14.
156: RESOLUTION NO. 97R-152: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM AUTHORIZING THE CHIEF OF POLICE TO SUBMIT A GRANT PROPOSAL ON
BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM IN CONNECTION WITH THE SECOND YEAR FUNDING
FOR THE OFFICE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE PLANNING PARTNERSHIP FOR SUPPRESSION
OF DRUG ABUSE IN SCHOOLS PROGRAM.
123: Approving an Agreement with Confidential Management Services, Inc., to provide
investigative services in respect to personnel matters.
13
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 12, 1997
A15.
A16.
158: RESOLUTION NO. 97R-153: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS CONVEYING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTIES
OR INTERESTS THEREIN TO THE CITY. (R/W 5222)
114: Approving minutes of the July 15, 1997, Anaheim City Council meeting.
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 97R-151-a throuqh 97R-153, both inclusive, for adoption:
AYES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: McCracken, Tait, Zemel, Lopez, Daly
NOES: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 97R-151-a through 97R-153, both inclusive, duly passed and
adopted.
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR. MOTIONS CARRIED.
ITEMS B1 - B22 FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 21, 1997:
INFORMATION ONLY -APPEAL PERIOD ENDS AUGUST 12, 1997:
B1.
179: VARIANCE NO. 1229, CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 21:
OWNER: City-Initiated, City of Anaheim (Code Enforcement Division/Police Department), 200
South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION: 823 South Beach Boulevard - Covered Waqon Motel. Property is 1.3 acres, with
190 feet on the west side of Beach Boulevard and is located 975 feet north of the centerline of
Ball Road.
City-initiated (Code Enforcement Division and Police Department) request to consider revocation
or modification of Variance No. 1229 (to construct and operate a 70-unit motel and coffee shop).
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
MODIFIED Variance No. 1229, to expire 7/21/98 (PC97-89)
(6 yes votes, 1 abstained).
B2. 179: WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENTS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3938, EIR NO.
316 (PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED):
OWNER: CALIFORNIA STATE TEACHER'S RETIREMENT SYSTEM, 7667 Folsom Boulevard,
Sacramento, CA 95826
AGENT: DONAHUE SCHRIBER, Attn: Mark Whitefield, 3501 Jamboree Road, #300, Newport
Beach, CA 92660
LOCATION: 590 North Euclid Street - Anaheim Plaza. Property is 38.25 acres located at the
southeast corner of Crescent Avenue and Euclid Street.
To construct a 3,156 square foot drive-through restaurant with waivers of minimum drive-through
lane requirements and minimum structural setback and yard requirements adjacent to an arterial
highway.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
WITHDRAWN BY THE APPLICANT.
14
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 12, 1997
B3. 179: WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENTS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3932 AND
NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY, Attn: Paul Loubet, P.O. Box 2485, Los Angeles,
CA 90051-0485
AGENT: RHL DESIGN GROUP, Attn: Monica Maa or Tom Riggle, 1201 South Beach
Boulevard, #207, La Habra, CA 90631-6366
LOCATION: 1201 South Brookhurst Street - Arco Service Station. Property is 0.60 acre located
on the southwest corner of Brookhurst Street and Ball Road.
To permit a service station (the existing service station to be demolished) to include a
convenience market with retail sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption with waivers
of minimum structural setback adjacent to residential zone boundaries and minimum retail sales
floor area.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3932 GRANTED, IN PART, without the alcohol sales (PC97-91)
(7 yes votes)
Denied waiver of code requirements.
Approved Negative Declaration.
An appeal of the Planning Commission's decision was submitted by the applicant Thomas Riggle, RHL
Design Group Inc., 1201 S. Beach Blvd., Suite 207, La Habra, Ca. 90631-6366, in letter dated July 28,
1997 and public hearing is scheduled before the Council on September 9, 1997.
B4. 179: WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3935 AND
NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: M/M INVESCO INC., 6732 Westminster Boulevard, Westminster, CA 92683
AGENT: VICTOR PATEL, 24351 Rede Gauguin, Laguna Niguel, CA 92677
LOCATION: 1125 North Maqnolia Avenue. Property is 1.5 acres located 280 feet north of the
centerline of La Palma Avenue.
To permit a 2,876 square foot restaurant and 5,760 square foot banquet facility with sales of
alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption with waiver of minimum number of parking
spaces.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3935 GRANTED (PC97-92) (5 yes votes, 1 abstained, and
1 absent).
Approved waiver of code requirement.
Approved Negative Declaration.
B5.
179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3598 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: BRADMORE REALTY INVESTMENT COMPANY, LTD., Attn: John Bohn, 721 Santa
Monica Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 90401-2685
AGENT: MARK BOVE, CALVARY CHAPEL, 270 East Palais Road, Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION: 270 East Palais Road - Calvary Chapel. Property is 4.69 acres located on the
south side of Palais Road, 710 feet east of Anaheim Boulevard.
To amend or delete a condition of approval to increase the maximum enrollment from 123 to a
total of 220 total pre-school and elementary school students, and to permit the 10,000 square
foot expansion of an existing pre-school and elementary school within an existing industrial
building in conjunction with an existing church.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3598 APPROVED, to expire 7/21/02 (PC97-93) (5 yes votes,
1 abstained, and 1 absent).
Approved Negative Declaration.
15
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 12, 1997
B6. 179: WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3947 AND
NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: CRESCENT SOUTHERN BAPTIST CHURCH, 622 North Gilbert Street, Anaheim, CA
92801
AGENT: DONALD L. SPANGLER, 622 North Gilbert Street, Anaheim, CA 92801
LOCATION: 622 North Gilbert Street (Crescent Southern Baptist Church). Property is 1.89
acres located on the east side of Gilbert Street, 329 feet north of the centerline of Crescent
Avenue.
To permit a private school (grades 6 through 8, with up to 200 students) within two existing
church buildings with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3947 GRANTED, to expire 7/21/02 (PC97-94) (6 yes votes,
1 absent).
Waiver of code requirement Approved.
Approved Negative Declaration.
B7.
179: VARIANCE NO. 4309, CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT, CLASS 11:
OWNER: WINSTON COLLEGE LLC, 2030 Main Street, Suite 1630, Irvine, CA 92614
AGENT: BICKEL UNDERWOOD, Attn: Matt Cormia, 3600 Birch Street, Suite 220, Newport
Beach, CA 92660.
LOCATION: 1340-1400 South State Colle.qe Boulevard and 2000-2050 East Winston Road.
Property is 9.07 acres located at the southeast corner of Winston Road and State College
Boulevard.
With waivers of maximum number of freestanding signs and minimum distance between
freestanding signs to construct monument and tenant identification signs.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Variance No. 4309 GRANTED (PC97-95).
Joel Fick, Planning Director, answering Mayor Daly relative to signage, explained the signs called
freestanding signs are architectural elements right in front of the building facade and will look like wall
signs. Planning staff and the Planning Commission liked the signs and staff recommended approval.
Since the signs are not attached to the building, technically under the ordinance, they are considered
freestanding.
Mayor Daly. This is a retail CUP, but industrial zoning. He was thinking about the precedent of having a
retail operation in an industrial zone.
No action was taken by the Council on this item.
B8.
179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3648 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: THEODORE TODOROFF, 909 North Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805
AGENT: BRUCE WEINER, 333 City Boulevard West, Orange, CA 92668
LOCATION: 909 North Anaheim Boulevard. Property is 0.24 acre located at the northwest
corner of La Verne Street and Anaheim Boulevard.
To amend or delete a condition of approval to permit an automotive stereo sales and installation
facility (previously an automotive tire sales and installation facility).
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3648 APPROVED, to expire 7/21/98 (PC97-96) (6 yes votes, and 1 no vote).
Negative Declaration previously approved.
16
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 12, 1997
B9.
179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3951 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: RONALD L. McAMIS, RONALD G. SMITH AND CANDACE J. SMITH, 205 West
Bristol Lane, Orange, CA 92665
AGENT: A-1 FENCE ENTERPRISES, INC. 2898 East Miraloma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806
LOCATION: 2831 East La Cresta Avenue. Property is 0.76 acre located on the south side of La
Cresta Avenue, 398 feet east of the centerline of Blue Gum Street.
To construct a 1,800 square foot office building in conjunction with a 35,325 square- foot
contractor's storage yard.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3951 GRANTED (PC97-97) (7 yes votes).
Approved Negative Declaration.
B10. 179: WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3941 AND
NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: HKJ GOLD INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, 4000 East Union Pacific Avenue,
Commerce, CA 90023
AGENT: HOWARD SPUNT ASSOCIATES, INC., 14407 Gilmore Street, Suite 203, Van Nuys,
CA 91401
LOCATION: 3400-3456 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is 6.0 acres located on the south side
of Lincoln Avenue, 198 feet east of the centerline of Knott Street.
To permit one additional tenant space within an existing commercial retail center with waiver of
minimum number of parking spaces.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3941 GRANTED (PC97-98) (7 yes votes).
Approved waiver of code requirement.
Approved Negative Declaration.
Bll.
179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3953 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: CALCOMP, INC., 2411 West La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801
AGENT: LINCOLN PROPERTY COMPANY, N.C. INC. 30 Executive Park, Suite 100, Irvine,
CA 92614
LOCATION: 2411 West La Palma Avenue - Cai Comp. Property is 27.94 acres located at the
northwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Gilbert Street.
To permit industrially-related office uses within an existing 394,629 square foot former corporate
complex.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3953 GRANTED (PC97-99) (7 yes votes).
Approved Negative Declaration.
B12.
179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3950 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: DAVID L. RUDAT, P.O. Box 1841, Orange, CA 92856
AGENT: L.A. CELLULAR, Attn: Linda Paul and Holly Sandier, 17785 Center Court Drive North,
Cerritos CA 90703
LOCATION: 1110 East Oranqefair Lane. Property is 0.25 acre located on the south side of
Orangefair Lane, 196 feet west of the centerline of Raymond Avenue.
To retain and modify a legal non-conforming cellular telecommunications monopole antenna.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3950 GRANTED (PC97-100) (7 yes votes).
Approved Negative Declaration.
17
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 12, 1997
B13.
179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3691 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: ISLAMIC INSTITUTE OF ORANGE COUNTY, Attn: Dr. Jamal Nour, 1221 North
Placentia Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806
LOCATION: 1221 North Placentia Avenue. Property is 1.69 acres located on the north and east
of the northeast corner of Placentia Avenue and State College Boulevard.
To amend or delete conditions of approval pertaining to the required minimum landscaping
adjacent to the north property line adjacent to an existing apartment complex for a previously-
approved religious institution.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3691 APPROVED (PC97-101) (7 yes votes).
Negative Declaration previously approved.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ITEMS:
B14. 179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3916 - REVIEW OF FINAL SIGN PLANS AND
NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
Yousef Ibrahim, 1200 Quail Street, #220 Newport Beach, CA 92660, requests review and
approval of final sign plans for a previously-approved convenience market. Property is located
at 1200 South Brookhurst Street.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
APPROVED final sign plan indicating a maximum sign panel area of 40-square feet for the
convenience market for CUP NO. 3916.
Negative Declaration previously approved.
B15. 179: CODE AMENDMENT NO. 97-08 - PERTAINING TO VEHICULAR PARKING AND
LOADING REQUIREMENTS, CEQA EXEMPTION SECTION 15061(b)(3):
Staff-initiated request to amend Chapter 18.06 pertaining to minimum parking requirements for
motor vehicle repair facilities.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Recommended adoption of the ordinance to City Council.
ORDINANCE NO. 5609: (INTRODUCTION) Amending Subsection .022 of Section 18.06.050
of Chapter 18.06 of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code relating to parking requirements.
Mayor Daly offered Ordinance No. 5609 for first reading.
ORDINANCE NO. 5609: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING
SUBSECTION .022 OF SECTION 18.06.050 OF CHAPTER 18.06 OF TITLE 18 OF THE
ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
18
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 12, 1997
B16. 179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3870 - REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO
COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
Audrey Welton (Service Station Services), 4 Hutton Center Drive, Suite 711, Santa Ana, CA
92707, requests extension of time to comply with conditions of approval (to construct a 1,126
square foot service station including a 1,000 square foot convenience market). This petition was
originally approved on September 16, 1996. Property is located at 956 South Brookhurst Street -
Arco "AM\PM service station.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved extension of time to comply with conditions of approval for CUP NO. 3870, to expire
9/16/98.
Negative Declaration previously approved.
B17. 179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3345 - REQUEST REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF
LANDSCAPE PLANS AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
John Oviyach, (L. A. Freightliner), 700 East Katella Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805, requests
review and approval of a final landscape plan. Property is located at 700 East Katella Avenue.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Review of final landscape plans for CUP NO. 3345 APPROVED.
Negative Declaration previously approved.
Mayor Daly asked the status of the sign application and if any pole signs were proposed. There was
mention of signage in the staff report; Joel Fick, Planning Director. Staff will check, but he confirmed it
was not part of this proposal.
B18. 179: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3914 - REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF
FINAL ELEVATION PLANS AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
Connie Carter, P.O. Box 146, Silverado, CA 92676, requests review and approval of final
elevation plans. Property is located at 5701 East La Palma Avenue - Carl's Jr. Restaurant.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Approved the final elevation plans as submitted for CUP NO. 3914.
Negative Declaration previously approved.
B19. 155: REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION INITIATION OF A SPECIFIC PLAN
ADJUSTMENT TO AMEND THE HOTEL CIRCLE SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 93-1 ZONING AND
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: Staff requests Planning Commission to initiate a Specific Plan
Adjustment to consider amendments to the Hotel Circle Specific Plan No. 93-1 Zoning and
Development Standards relating to, but not limited to, standards addressing the final site plan
review process, definitions, driveway widths, conditional uses, permitted encroachments,
parking, signage and vacation ownership provisions.
The 6.8-acre Hotel Circle Specific Plan site is irregularly-shaped with frontages of approximately
246 feet on the east side of Clementine Street, 576 feet on the west side of Zeyn Street, 100 feet
on the east side of Zeyn Street, 285 feet on the west side of Anaheim Boulevard, and 254 feet
on the north side of Katella Avenue and further described as 1742 and 1754 S. Clementine
Street; 1730, 1733, 1743 and 1755 S. Zeyn Street; 1733 and 1745 S. Anaheim Boulevard; and,
201 W. Katella Avenue.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Initiated a Specific Plan Adjustment to amend the Hotel Circle Specific Plan No. 93-1 Zoning
and Development Standards.
19
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 12, 1997
B20. 155: REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION INITIATION OF A SPECIFIC PLAN
ADJUSTMENT TO AMEND THE DISNEYLAND RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 92-1 ZONING
AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: Staff requests Planning Commission to initiate a Specific
Plan Adjustment to consider amendments to The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92-1
Zoning and Development Standards relating to, but not limited to, standards addressing height
limitations, permitted encroachments and screening requirements. The Disneyland Resort
Specific Plan area encompasses approximately 490 acres located within the Anaheim Resort
area of the City of Anaheim and is generally located adjacent to and southwest of the Santa Aha
Freeway (I-5) between Ball Road and Katella Avenue (with approximately 24.7 acres located
south of Katella Avenue) and east of Walnut Street.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Initiated a Specific Plan Adjustment to amend the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92-1
Zoning and Development Standards.
B21. 155: REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION INITIATION OF A SPECIFIC PLAN
ADJUSTMENT TO AMEND THE ANAHEIM RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 92-2 ZONING
AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: Staff requests Planning Commission to initiate a Specific
Plan Adjustment to consider amendments to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 Zoning
and Development Standards relating to, but not limited to, standards addressing the final site
plan review process, definitions, permitted encroachments, screening requirements, permitted
uses and conditional use permit provisions, driveway widths, sign regulations, and special event
permits. The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area encompasses approximately 554 acres within
the Anaheim Resort area of the City of Anaheim and is generally located adjacent to and
southwest of the Santa Aha Freeway (I-5) between the West Street/Ball Road interchange and
Orangewood Avenue, with a portion located north of the I-5/Harbor Boulevard interchange.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Initiated a Specific Plan Adjustment to amend the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2
Zoning and Development Standards.
ITEM B22 FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 4, 1997:
INFORMATION ONLY- APPEAL PERIOD ENDS AUGUST 14, 1997:
B22. 179: RECLASSIFICATION NO. 97-98-01 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3955 TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP NO. 15418 (REVISION NO. 1) AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: CITY-INITIATED (ANAHEIM REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY), Attn: Brent Schultz and
Richard Bruckner, 201 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 1003, Anaheim, CA 92805
AGENT: KAUFMAN & BROAD OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA,
Attn: Linda Chandler, 180 North Riverview Drive, Anaheim, CA 92808
LOCATION: Property is 4.6 acres known as the "Cypress Infill" area, located as follows:
Parcel A On the east side of Olive Street 100 feet north of the centerline of Cypress Street with
a frontage of 164 feet on Olive Street (304, 304%, 308, 308%, 312, 312%, 314, 314%, and 320
North Olive Street) and;
Parcel B (1) at the northeast corner of Cypress Street and Olive Street with a frontage of 66
feet on the east side of Olive Street and 842 feet on the north side of Cypress Street, and (2) at
the northeast corner of Pauline Street and Adele Street with a frontage of 171 feet on the east
2O
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 12, 1997
side of Pauline Street and 74 feet on the north side of Adele Street, and (3) at the southeast
corner of Pauline Street and Adele Street with a frontage of 265 feet on the east side of Pauline
Street and 55 feet on the south side of Adele Street, and (4) at the southwest corner of Adele
Street and Sabina Street with a frontage of 43 feet on ,&dele Street and 134 feet on Sabina
Street. (424, 605, and 605% East Adele Street; 300 North Olive Street; 300, 301, 306, 306%,
308, 309, 310, 311,312, 312%, 315 and 317 North Sabina Street; 300, 305, 307, 312, 318, 322,
and 412 North Pauline Street; and 411,415,419,421,517, 521 and 527 East Cypress Street).
Parcel A Petitioner requests approval of a conditional use permit and a tentative tract map to
construct a 2-lot, 6 unit RM-2400 attached "affordable" "airspace" condominium subdivision with
waivers of maximum structural height, minimum structural setback adjacent to single family
developments, minimum number of parking spaces, maximum site coverage and minimum
required recreation-leisure areas.
Parcel B Petitioner requests approval of a conditional use permit under authority of Code
Section 18.31.050.090 and a tentative tract map (TTM No. 15418, Revision No.1) and a
reclassification from the RS-5000 and RM-2400 Zones to the RM-3000 Zone to construct a 43-
lot, 41-unit RM-3000 detached "affordable" one-family dwelling subdivision with waivers of
minimum building site area, maximum structural height, minimum structural setback adjacent to
a public street, minimum structural setback for building walls with front entrances, minimum
structural setback adjacent to single family developments, minimum required recreation-leisure
area, minimum distance between building walls and minimum off-street vehicle access
requirements.
Parcel B Petitioner requests approval of a conditional use permit, a tentative tract map and a
reclassification from the RS-5000 and RM-2400 Zones to the RM-3000 Zone to construct a 43-
lot, 41-unit RM-3000 detached "affordable" one-family dwelling subdivision with waivers of
minimum building site area, maximum structural height, minimum structural setback adjacent to
a public street, minimum structural setback for building walls with front entrances, minimum
structural setback adjacent to single family developments, minimum required recreation-leisure
area, minimum distance between building walls and minimum off-street vehicle access
requirements.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Reclassification No. 97-98-01 GRANTED (PC97-106) (7 yes votes).
Waiver of code requirement approved.
CUP NO. 3955 GRANTED (PC97-107).
Tentative Tract Map No. 15418 (Revision No. 1) APPROVED.
NOTE: RECLASSIFICATION NO. 97-98-01 AND CUP NO. 3955
HAVE A 22-DAY APPEAL PERIOD.
D1.
DI. AND D2.
179: CONTINUED REHEARING - VARIANCE NO. 4302, CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT,
CLASS 11:
OWNER: JAS PARTNERSHIP, Attn: Jim Shab, 1990 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA
92805
AGENT: LEON ALEXANDER, 558 South Harbor Boulevard, #100, Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION: 1985 South Santa Cruz Street. Property is 2.44 acres located at the northwest
corner of Santa Cruz Street and Stanford Court.
Waiver of permitted type of sign and permitted size of freestanding sign to construct a 50-foot
high double-faced, 299 square foot freestanding pole sign including a 70 square foot electronic
readerboard.
21
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 12, 1997
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
GRANTED, IN PART, VARIANCE NO. 4302 for a 50-foot high double faced, 215 square foot
freestanding pole sign (PC97-40) (6 yes votes, 1 no vote).
HEARING SET ON: A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Council Members
McCracken and Lopez at the meeting of May 6, 1997, Item B5. Public hearing before the City Council
held May 20, 1997 (Item D7). Variance No. 4302 was denied.
City Council granted the request for rehearing submitted by the owner Mr. James A. Shab, JAS
Partnership and Global Cellular, at the meeting of June 10, 1997, Item B3.
Rehearing on Variance No. 4302 was continued from the meeting of July 8 and July 15, 1997, Item D3
and July 22, 1997, Item D3, and August 5, 1997, Item D1, at the request of the applicant and continued
to this date.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in Orange County Register- May 10, 1997 and June 26, 1997.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - May 9, 1997 and June 19, 1997.
Posting of property - May 9, 1997 and June 20, 1997.
STAFF INPUT:
See staff report to the Planning Commission dated April 14, 1997.
D2. 179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENTS CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT NO. 3855 REQUEST COUNCIL REVIEW OF THE ABOVE ITEMS IN
CONNECTION WITH VARIANCE NO. 4302 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: JAS PARTNERSHIP, 1985 South Santa Cruz Street, Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim,
CA. 92805
AGENT: LEON ALEXANDER, 558 South Harbor Boulevard, #100, Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION: 1985 South Santa Cruz Street - Global Cellular. Property is 2.44 acres located at
the northwest corner of Santa Cruz Street and Stanford Court.
To permit a total of two industrially-related sales and office uses within an existing 35,000 square
foot industrial building with waivers of prohibited type of sign and minimum number of parking
spaces.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3855 APPROVED (PC97-90) (6 yes votes, 1 abstained).
Waiver of code requirement APPROVED.
Negative Declaration previously approved.
Request Council review of the above items in connection with Variance No. 4302. Item No. 5 from the
Planning Commission meeting of July 21, 1997. Public hearing before the City Council continued from
the meeting of August 5, 1997, Item D2.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in the Orange County Register - July 24, 1997.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - July 24, 1997.
Posting of property - July 25, 1997
22
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 12, 1997
STAFF INPUT:
See staff report to the Planning Department dated July 21, 1997.
These items were heard together in a combined Public Hearing on August 5, 1997 (see minutes that
date) also (see minutes of 7/8, 7/15 and 7/22, where extensive input was received on Variance No. 4302.
It was not heard in conjunction with CUP 3855 at those meetings and subsequently continued to this
date).
See Staff Report dated July 31, 1997 which addressed both items recommending that Variance No. 4302
be denied and Conditional Use Permit 3855 be granted in part.
Mayor Daly. He referred to the letter submitted on the subject hearings from the applicant requesting an
additional one-week continuance. He asked if staff was comfortable with a one-week continuance.
Joel Fick, Planning Director. He answered that they are comfortable and since the meeting last week,
they have had a number of meetings with the applicant.
MOTION. Council Member Zemel moved to continue the Public Hearings under Item D1. and D2. for
one week as requested. Mayor Daly seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
D3. 179: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT NO. 3945 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
OWNER: SANDERSON J. RAY DEVELOPMENT, 2699 White Road, Irvine, CA 92714
AGENT: ROBERT ENGEN, 701 South Parker Street, Suite 1000, Orange, CA 92868
LOCATION: 1320 East Sanderson Avenue. Property is 1.56 acres located at the southwest
corner of Sanderson Avenue and Phoenix Club Drive.
To establish a church and elementary school for up to 49 children within an existing 12,400
square foot office building with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
CUP NO. 3945 GRANTED (PC97-86) (6 yes votes, 1 absent).
Approved waiver of code requirement.
Approved Negative Declaration.
HEARING SET ON: A review of the Planning Commission's decision was requested by Council
Members McCracken and Lopez at the meeting of July 15, 1997, item Bll. Public hearing before the
City Council continued from August 5, 1997 (Item D4) to this date.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in North County News - July 24, 1997.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - July 24, 1997.
Posting of property - July 25, 1997.
STAFF INPUT:
See staff report to the Planning Commission dated June 23, 1997.
23
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 12, 1997
Mayor Daly. He stated he will be abstaining on this item. He turned the meeting over to Mayor Pro Tem
Lopez and then temporarily left the Council Chamber (6:40 P.M.).
City Clerk Sohl announced that a gentleman from the Phoenix Club was present earlier but had to leave.
He left a note for her to read on his behalf objecting to CUP 3945. "The church and school is markedly
different in use and, therefore, diametrically opposed and open to objections." He also stated it is the
duty of the church/school to honor their promise to raise no future objections to the Phoenix Club based
on their differences. The letter was signed by Lyle H. Trenler, P. O. Box 9014, Anaheim.
Mayor Pro Tem Lopez. After the last meeting (see minutes of August 5, 1997), staff was going to look
into the possibility, if the church/school is approved, what the impact would be on the Phoenix Club or
future CUP requests for liquor licenses from surrounding properties.
City Attorney White. He has submitted a written memorandum to the Council regarding the issue. (see
memorandum dated August 11, 1997 from the City Attorney). With regard to the existing licenses, the
subsequent location of a church or school does not prohibit nor allow the Alcoholic Beverage Control
(ABC) to deny renewal of a license or the transfer of an existing license because of the proximity to a
church or school, but with regard to any new license for beer, wine or alcohol, off-premise or on-premise
sale, ABC would have the right in the future to consider those on a case-by-case basis and could deny
any of those applications based upon the facts at that time. A covenant by the property owner does not
restrict or tie the hands of the ABC. In summary, there is nothing the City could do to gurantee in the
future what actions ABC might take with regard to future liquor licenses.
Answering additional questions by Mayor Pro Tem Lopez, the City Attorney explained in talking to ABC
staff, their current policy is that they would condition the issuance of a license but would not necessarily
deny it. If the Phoenix Club was sold to another entity, under current law, the license would be
transferred. The approval of the church and/or school would not impact the transfer of that license. ABC
could not deny the transfer of the license. It could deny a future license, but they could not deny the
Phoenix Club license under current law.
Council Member McCracken. She asked what about licenses to adjacent properties to the south where
there might be proposals for hotels, restaurants, night clubs, etc., all of which would be asking for on-site
sale of liquor. Could the ABC deny licenses to those uses because they would then be in the immediate
vicinity.
City Attorney White. If the church is established prior to the issuance of a new license and the proposed
license is in the immediate vicinity of the church, ABC would have the right to deny those requests.
Their current policy is that they do not deny those, but under the statute, they have the right to do so.
Also, the law provides if there is a church in the "immediate vicinity" or if a school within 600' of the
proposed premises, ABC would have the right to deny. Immediate vicinity is not defined.
Joel Fick, Planning Director. From a distance standpoint, the property to the south of the railroad tracks
actually falls just outside the 600'. The property south of the railroad tracks is outside the 600' from the
school but, related to the church, the wording is proximity.
Mayor Pro Tem Lopez. His main concern is how the large parcel is going to be developed. He then
opened the continued Public Hearing and asked to hear from those who wished to speak.
24
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 12, 1997
Mr. Robert Engen, Agent for the Owner and Tenant. Last week (see minutes of 8/5/97) he spent most of
his time answering questions and did not have the opportunity to address who the church was. He then
explained the history of the Apostolic Christian Tabernacle Church which started in Anaheim in 1964, the
church involved in the subject proposal. He then explained the background of the current proposal up to
today's meeting noting that they have made a change relative to the covenant they have offered
regarding occupancy awareness. Following the meeting last week, they had a few friendly words with the
Phoenix Club Members and would like for the Phoenix Club to acknowledge what they are saying in the
Covenant of Awareness. They have added the following paragraph to the covenant -- "That the owners
and tenant declare that they are aware of the probability of future commercial development in the nearby
properties and they do not object to the lawful operation of City of Anaheim approved businesses". They
have made room for the Phoenix Club to acknowledge their comments. Before concluding, he read the
wording of the covenant previously offered which now includes the addition.
Mayor Pro Tem Lopez. He noted that even though Mr. Engen is saying it would be OK, the ABC controls
the matter and anything the City approves can be overridden by the ABC.
City Attorney White. He notes they have been concentrating on the alcoholic beverage sales and
potential future uses; however, this covenant would be broader than that and would apply to any other
type of uses that would be made of the properties so there is benefit to such a covenant. The Phoenix
Club has outdoor activities and the covenant would protect against the property owner objecting because
of those activities including traffic, noise, etc., but does not totally insulate or protect against any ABC
actions.
Randy Chavez. He questioned the 600' limit. The ABC could have no control, but it is still the 600'
which does apply.
City Attorney White. The 600' applies to schools and not churches. The church is "immediate proximity"
the school is 600'.
Mr. Chavez continued that he has lived in Anaheim for 38 years and is also manager of an Anaheim
business. He grew up in a not-so-very-good neighborhood. Now that he is with the church, the church
keeps him where he needs to be, in contact with people. The church is growing and he is sure there are
a lot of people that need the church where it is right now.
Henry Palmer. He is a member of the Anaheim Christian Tabernacle Church. School hours are primarily
during the day, from 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. The Phoenix Club has its activities outside on weekends
with the majority of the activities in the evening. The National Apostolic Assembly holds its annual
convention in Anaheim in November bringing millions of dollars to the City. The capacity of the church
on Homer Street is no longer suitable. The mission of the church is not to cause problems for the
Phoenix Club or to take away from the City. They want to make people more productive citizens. He is
supportive of the school and church.
The following people spoke in opposition:
Frank Feldhaus, 612 S. Harbor, Anaheim. Mostly all churches are very well intentioned and they do
serve a very important role to any community. The covenant cannot be enforced and it is the property
owner's inherent right to come back and petition at a later time. The Council needs to weigh this very
carefully with regard to what the future might bring.
25
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 12, 1997
Richard Roth, President of the Phoenix Club, 833 N. Glen Haven, Fullerton. He had the opportunity to
talk with the Liquor Control Board this morning and the 600' applies to the church and the school. Even
with a covenant, there is nothing the City can do about it. Anybody can sue or do whatever they want to
do. The ABC does not guarantee they will issue a license. He wants to be sure everybody understands
the Phoenix Club was at the present location first. The Phoenix Club is a social-business club whose
income depends heavily on the sale of alcoholic beverages. The majority of their business takes place
on weekends, Friday, all day Saturday, and Sundays from April 1 ending December 31. There are
picnics outside every Saturday and Sunday from 9:00 a.m. to midnight. On average, there are 2,000
people in the park. There will be noise every weekend. The reason they chose the present location was
because it was far away from places that might be bothered by noise. A big problem at their old location,
noise complaints were filed by the adjacent mobile home park and the club had to curtail its outside
activities even though the Phoenix Club was there first. This was a financial loss to the club. The
Phoenix Club has made an investment of nine million dollars and if for any reason they would lose their
liquor license, they would be out of business. Because of previous problems experienced with their
neighbors, they are not in favor of having a church at the corner of Phoenix Club Drive and Sanderson.
Edith Hasse, 2900 N. Oak, Orange. She has been a member of the Phoenix Club for 24 years. The
proximity of a school and church next to the Phoenix Club will be very detrimental not only to the
Phoenix Club, but to the school as well. They are not against churches or schools, but not in this
location.
Manfred Vallen, Corporate Secretary, Phoenix Club. He is a member of the Zion Church and they have
grown over the years. It is natural for a church to want to expand. The church is already asking for a
waiver of parking because they are a little bit tight and they are just beginning. The Council must
carefully weigh all the facts.
Bill Krebs (also see testimony given at the meeting of August 5, 1997). If the Council approves this use,
he suggests what could be added to the covenant is, "Should in the future any litigation against the
Phoenix Club be taken by the church concerning activities of the Phoenix Club now considered legal, the
church should consider that it must pay the legal expenses of the Phoenix Club to defend itself." The
main consideration is that law suit can come from any area. When administrations change, things
change with it. He would like to know if they will accept the addition as part of the covenant. He clarified
he is against the proposal but if approved, the Phoenix Club should be covered against any detrimental
effects.
Summation by Applicant:
Robert Engen. What the Council is voting on tonight is a five-year CUP. If they do not live up to the
terms of the CUP, in five years, they will be gone. Relative to the legal aspects and who could sue the
Phoenix Club, whether a church or a business or whatever, they always have that right. He does not see
the fact that they are a church is any different than if they were, for instance, Coldwell-Banker; everyone
has that opportunity. They are making as firm a statement as they can -- that the church will not object
to their operation.
Council Member Tait. He interjected and stated a real firm statement would be that they would be willing
to indemnify them if they did bring a law suit. He asked if that is something they would be able to do.
Robert Engen. He would have to talk to the church members to make sure they would agree. He is a
commercial real estate broker. It is currently written into all of the contracts he has executed, for lack of
a better word, the "loser" pays the fees and it should be the same here. They are only talking about if
someone operates outside of the law. He will talk to the church. (From the audience, Pastor Ed Lopez
agreed). Regarding parking, the reason there is a waiver requested is because they have a parking
study based on the occupancy of the people coming to their current church -- three or more people per
car. On that basis, there is a surplus and they are not at maximum.
26
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 12, 1997
Mayor Pro Tem Lopez closed the Public Hearing.
Council Member Zemel. Property rights are his main concern. The church has a right to be in that
location as much as anybody else. He has supported churches in industrial areas or near undeveloped
properties which could be zoned certain ways. He has also voted for churches in residential
neighborhoods which have the right to be there by CUP. He believes there will be a good relationship
between the Planning Commission and the church especially with the conditions the church is willing to
agree to. His main concern in approving a church in this area is that it could inhibit an adjacent property
owner from building something he wants to build. Those property rights have to be considered just as
the property rights of the lessee and lessor. He is prepared to make some motions.
Council Member Tait. He sees this as not an incompatible use particularly in light of the fact that it is a
five-year CUP. If it proves to be incompatible, it will not be renewed. The church has taken
extraordinary measures to protect the Phoenix Club in the proposed covenant and is also willing to
indemnify the Phoenix Club if they would complain. As far as ABC, it is true they cannot guarantee that
ABC will approve anything, but that is the case no matter what is there. He believes they can go a long
way towards it with the covenant and with a letter from the City in support of it. He could not see the
ABC denying a liquor licenese in that situation. For those reasons, he would support the proposal and
vote in favor.
Council Member McCracken. She has not heard an answer as to the church's long-range plans. They
are talking about a five-year CUP but if the church is planning to purchase the property, she is sure they
will hear in five years that they now have expanded growth. She is also concerned about the property
rights of the adjacent properties, over and above the Phoenix Club, to develop their properties and
possibly with the kinds of development that would be in conflict with the church. An office building that is
either a bank or a real estate building is very different from a church with a school and children. She
favors private schools, favors churches and is supportive, but is concerned about this particular location
and area. She believes that there would be conflict that would develop down the line for the other
property owners.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Council Member
Zemel, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Lopez, the City Council approved the Negative Declaration upon
finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the
public review process, and further finding on the basis of the initial study and any comments received
that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
Mayor Daly was temporally absent (abstained). MOTION CARRIED.
Council Member Zemel offered the Resolution No. 97R-154 to deny CUP 3954. Refer to Resolution
Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 97R-154: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3945
Roll Call Vote on Resolution No. 97R-154 for adoption:
AYES:
NOES:
TEMP. ABSENT:
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: McCracken, Zemel, Lopez
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Tait
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: Daly (abstained)
The Mayor Pro Tem declared Resolution No. 97R-154 duly passed and adopted.
27
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 12, 1997
Mayor Daly entered the Council Chamber (6:50 p.m.)
It was determined by General Council consent, after advice of the City Attorney, that the following three
Public Hearings, D4., D5., and D6. could be considered/discussed together.
D4. 134: PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 346 AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION:
INITIATED BY: CITY OF ANAHEIM, PLANNING DEPARTMENT, 200 South Anaheim
Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION: 2131-2211 East La Palma Avenue. Property is 3.82 acres located 740 feet east of
the centerline of State College Boulevard.
City-initiated amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan to redesignate this
property from the existing General Commercial land use designation to the Medium Density
Residential land use designation.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Recommended approval of GPA NO. 346, Exhibit A, to the City Council (PC97-81)
(6 yes votes, 1 absent).
Approved Negative Declaration.
Informational item at the meeting of July 15, 1997, Item B6.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in North County News - July 31, 1997.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - July 24, 1997.
Posting of property - July 25, 1997.
STAFF INPUT:
See staff report to the Planning Commission dated June 23, 1997.
D5. 134: PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 347 AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION:
INITIATED BY: CITY OF ANAHEIM, PLANNING DEPARTMENT, 200 South Anaheim
Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION: 726-810 South State College Boulevard. Property is 3.73 acres located south and
east of the southeast corner of South Street and State College Boulevard.
City-initiated amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan to redesignate this
property from the existing Low Density Residential land use designation to the General
Commercial land use designation.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Recommended approval of GPA NO. 347, Exhibit A, to the City Council (PC97-82) (6 yes votes,
1 absent).
Approved Negative Declaration.
Informational item at the meeting of July 15, 1997, Item B7.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in North County News - July 31, 1997.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - July 24, 1997.
Posting of property - July 25, 1997.
28
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 12, 1997
STAFF INPUT:
See staff report to the Planning Commission dated June 23, 1997.
D6. 134: PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 348 AND NEGATIVE
DECLARATION:
INITIATED BY: CITY OF ANAHEIM, PLANNING DEPARTMENT, 200 South Anaheim
Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805
LOCATION: 2035-2145 East Ball Road. Property is 5.25 acres located 300 feet east of the
centerline of State College Boulevard.
City-initiated amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan to redesignate this
property from the existing Low-Medium Density Residential land use designation to the General
Commercial land use designation.
ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Recommended approval of GPA NO. 348, Exhibit A to the City Council (PC97-83) (6 yes votes,
1 absent).
Approved Negative Declaration.
Informational item at the meeting of July 15, 1997, Item B8.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS MET BY:
Publication in North County News - July 31, 1997.
Mailing to property owners within 300 feet - July 24, 1997.
Posting of property - July 25, 1997.
STAFF INPUT:
See staff report to the Planning Commission dated June 23, 1997.
Joel Fick, Planning Director. He gave a brief staff report on the three items (General Plan Amendment
No. 346, 347 and 348) noting that they were initiated in concurrence with and through Community
Planning and through the East Anaheim Action Plan. Each brings existing land use into conformity with
the City's General Plan. The Council will recall that they saw a slide presentation on all these plans in
February this year.
Mayor Daly. To clarify relative to Item D4., the proposed designation is medium density which is
RM1200.
Joel Fick, Planning Director. That is correct and it would be compatible with the existing density on the
property. It theoretically permits up to 36 units per acre. Low medium theoretically permits up to 18
units per acre. This project just happens to be developed at that intensity but falls within that medium
density category. The highest density in the City is referred to as medium density residential.
Mayor Daly. Despite what is now on the property, he is uncomfortable designating any property at the
highest existing density in the City. He asked what would be the step below that.
Joel Fick. The next would be the Iow medium density. This is slightly higher than that. The General
Plan designation does not guarantee any designation. It is up to that amount from 0 to 36 units per acre.
It is important to note this is just a small portion of the overall development that had not been changed
years ago when this property was developed.
29
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 12, 1997
Mayor Daly. As long as they are redesignating to residential, he suggests they pick a residential they
would be comfortable with for a long time into the future regardless of what is now on the property but 10,
15, 25 years down the road. He is suggesting they might want to go with a lower density to reflect the
single family that is on the two sides of the property. He asked how long ago did they change the
labelling so that medium density is the highest density allowed in the City's General Plan.
Joel Fick. His recollection is that it was probably done in the early 70's. The suggestion he would have
to deal with what the Mayor said, presently this is the designation that would be compatible with the
existing land use. One of the other recommendations that came out of the East Anaheim Action Plan
was to study the medium density designation City wide and report back. The Council was supportive and
staff has initiated that study. He would like to suggest incorporating this piece of property to be a part of
the study. He then confirmed that the next lower density would be Iow-medium density allowing from 0
to 18 units per acre or RM2400.
After additional discussion wherein Council Member Tait posed questions to Mr. Fick, Mayor Daly stated
he believes it is more appropriate to have medium to Iow density on this property. Down the road, if
someone wants to build, he would hate to send the message encouraging medium density on the site.
Perhaps if it was a larger site, but it is not, and he feels they need to get away from the possibility of
dense apartment complexes; Council Member Tait agreed.
Joel Fick. When it is a more intensive designation, it can be redesignated to Iow-medium designation
and staff would have no objections to that either.
Council Member Zemel. He is wondering if there is any urgency on this. He would like a continuance in
order to meet with Mr. Fick; Joel Fick. A continuance will not cause any problem.
MOTION. Council Member Zemel moved for a three-week continuance on Item D4., the Public Hearing
on General Plan Amendment No. 346. Mayor Daly seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
It was determined that no one was present who wished to speak on Item D4.
Mayor Daly opened the Public Hearings on Items D5. and D6., General Plan Amendment No. 347 and
No. 348 respectively and asked if anyone wished to speak; there being no response, he closed the Public
Hearing(s).
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
NO. 347 AND 348: On motion by Mayor Daly, seconded by Council Member Lopez, the City Council
approved the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together
with any comments received during the public review process, and further finding on the basis of the
initial study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the projects will have a
significant effect on the environment. MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Daly Offered Resolution Nos. 97R-155 and 97R-156 for adoption. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 97R-155: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE ANAHEIM
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATED AS AMENDMENT NO. 347, EXHIBIT "A".
30
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 12, 1997
RESOLUTION NO. 97R-156: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE ANAHEIM
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATED AS AMENDMENT NO. 348, EXHIBIT '%".
Roll Call Vote on Resolution Nos. 97R-155 AND 97R-156 for adoption:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: McCracken, Tait, Zemel, Lopez, Daly
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
MAYOR/COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 97R-155 AND 97R-156 duly passed and adopted.
C1. 112: REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS:
City Attorney White reported the following: That the City Council authorized the filing of a Complaint
under Sec. 206 of the Federal Power Act with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission against
Deseret Generation and Transmission Cooperative. The vote was All Ayes.
C2. 114: COUNCIL COMMENTS:
Council Member Zemel. He requested a report on the money they allocate to organizations such as the
Fall Festival and the July 4th Celebration which they approved in the last budget. He would like to know
what the parameters are.
City Manager Ruth. He believes $5,000 is allocated to each of the groups. He will be glad to submit that
information.
Council Member Zemel. He has been getting phone calls about the political involvement. He would like
to look at the parameters for approval of the expenditures. He also asked if they establish guidelines.
City Manager Ruth. There are definitely guidelines. The information will be submitted.
Mayor Daly asked if Council Member Zemel would like the information back to him or if the issue is to be
placed on the agenda.
Council Member Zemel. After he reviews the situation, he may ask that it be put on the agenda to
change the guidelines.
Mayor Daly. The Anaheim Post of the American Legion asked that the City consider installing a
Veteran's monument at Pearson Park or at another suitable location. The request came in recently and
a copy was given to the City Manager. He would like the City Manager to report back on the feasibility of
designating a site for a Veteran's monument in Pearson Park or other thoughts as to an appropriate
location keeping in mind that the American Legion Hall is located at the corner of Lemon and LaPalma,
just across from LaPalma Park. He is not aware of any Veteran's monuments in any City parks. He
would like staff to share any information on the existence of such monuments and will look forward to an
analysis of the matter.
31
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA - CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 12, 1997
ADJOURNMENT: By general Council consent, the City Council Meeting of August 12, 1997 was
adjourned (7:45 P.M.).
LEONORA N. SOHL
CITY CLERK
32